Ryan's Budget and the debt limit

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Of course, the state of world economics is quite a bit different today than it was 28 years ago when Reagan made that statement.

EDIT - here' a bit more rational view, IMHO

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Is a mortal or venial sin for a Republican to question St. Ronnie The Magnificent's wisdom for the ages?

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

So it is your opinion that budget cuts should be made under coercion rather than have the cuts considered on their own merits? That way we can save money on such budget drains as public broadcasting and planned parenthood, but leave military spending and oil and agribusiness tax credits intact.

Regards,

D-Ray

Is it your opinion that the growth of government spending, and debt, should continue unabated?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Is it your opinion that the growth of government spending, and debt, should continue unabated?

No, but the Republican Congress (2000 - 2006) and President (2000 - 2008) certainly seemed to thinks so. In fact, VP Cheney said specifically that "deficits don't matter" and his party was all too willing to get lockstep behind him and spend like drunken sailors (while cutting taxes). Hence, the suspicion/rejection of the new-found GOP fiscal responsibility. I simply don't believe it. Let an influential Republican (Boehner, McConnell) go on record supporting cancellation of large, unnecessary weapons systems and I may reconsider their veracity.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Is it your opinion that the growth of government spending, and debt, should continue unabated?

In my opinion, the Republicans could not prevail on the merits of their budget priorities without threatening to cause grave economic damage if they don't get their way. If the GOP did not have the leverage of the debt limit, I would imagine that the deficit would be cut even more, but the spending cuts would come in different areas, and the fiscal equation would be more balanced in terms of revenue and expenditures. After all the budget voted on by the GOP included a six trillion dollar deficit and cut revenues. Doesn't sound like fiscal soundness to me.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Is it your opinion that the growth of government spending, and debt, should continue unabated?

the problem is NOT spending


it is not taxing

all we need to do is repeal the tax cuts retroactively, get rid of the ss ceiling, get rid of big business welfare, stop the illegal wars and we are fine

IT IS NOT ABOUT SPENDING, IT IS ABOUT NOT PAYING

a very big differance

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If the GOP did not have the leverage of the debt limit, I would imagine that the deficit would be cut even more, but the spending cuts would come in different areas, and the fiscal equation would be more balanced in terms of revenue and expenditures. After all the budget voted on by the GOP included a six trillion dollar deficit and cut revenues. Doesn't sound like fiscal soundness to me.

You've got a vivid imagination, but let me help you with your memory. The left has been harping so much about the "six trillion dollar deficit" (I think you mean that it adds six trillion in new debt). They forget that the budget proposal from Obama added even more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_837764.html

And the estimates above were based on assumptions about an improving jobs market that have yet to materialize. Therefore, the projections could be overly conservative.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

the problem is NOT spending


it is not taxing

all we need to do is repeal the tax cuts retroactively, get rid of the ss ceiling, get rid of big business welfare, stop the illegal wars and we are fine

IT IS NOT ABOUT SPENDING, IT IS ABOUT NOT PAYING

a very big differance

The problem isn't taxing, but everyone of your proposed solutions calls for a change in tax policy?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

You've got a vivid imagination, but let me help you with your memory. The left has been harping so much about the "six trillion dollar deficit" (I think you mean that it adds six trillion in new debt). They forget that the budget proposal from Obama added even more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_837764.html

And the estimates above were based on assumptions about an improving jobs market that have yet to materialize. Therefore, the projections could be overly conservative.

But you do not deny that the GOP is trying to leverage the situation impose spending priorities.

You have already stated your priority to continue the subsidies for the oil industry, although the industry appears to be faring quite well in this economy. I don't recall you stating whether you favor continuing the agribusiness subsidies.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

But you do not deny that the GOP is trying to leverage the situation impose spending priorities.

You have already stated your priority to continue the subsidies for the oil industry, although the industry appears to be faring quite well in this economy. I don't recall you stating whether you favor continuing the agribusiness subsidies.

Regards,

D-Ray

As far as "subsidies", I would not favor denying the oil industry tax deductions (what the left would characterize as subsidies) that are available to any business/industry. I would vastly prefer a business tax that is at a flat, predictable and internationally competitive rate that contains no special deductions for any industry. You cannot point me to a single one of my posts where I've stated that I am in favor of "subsidies". Quit leading the witness, counselor.

Yes, the Repub's are seeking to leverage the debt limit scenario to their advantage. That's what politics is all about. Just like the donkeys capitalized on single party rule in 2009 - 2010 to push their own agenda to the deteriment of the country.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

But you do not deny that the GOP is trying to leverage the situation impose spending priorities.
.....

Of course

Pete