Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

whembly wrote:If R/R wins... who will be laid off? But, if there's excess here ( I think there is ), yeah, there will be a drag.

The short version? Everyone not in the department of defense. As well as eliminating EVERYTHING else in the government.

Ryan wants to decrease the Federal budget to 560ish Billion WITHOUT reducing military spending. In 2011, the DoD was budgeted 550 billion. I imagine most of the remaining 10 billion will be paying for the white house, congress, their salaries, and all their benefits (members past and present included). There might just be enough left to pay for the supreme court, but the whole network of federal courts? Forgetaboutit.

So, NASA, the state department, the FBI, the CIA, department of the interior, Homeland Security, the Fed, the mint, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, EVERYTHING ELSE doesn't just get cut down, it gets eliminated ENTIRELY. No more national parks, no OSHA, no federal prisons... in short, any nonmilitary function of the Federal govermnet GOES AWAY under the Ryan plan.

If that doesn't qualify as 'a bad plan' I'd hesitate to hear what DOES!

Whats the Obama plan?

Frazzled wrote:Whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong (they then fail once they hit the publics eyes).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.

Again whats the Obama plan?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.

Again whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.

Again whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.

Again, whats the Obama plan?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.

Again whats the Obama plan?

Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.

Again, whats the Obama plan?

Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public.

Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?

Frazzled: As for which one's better, the Obama plan. Cutting the budget by 75% while leaving programs such as defense-- which will continue to grow-- is a bad idea in general. IT's far too sudden of a cut, and will put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people out of a job while also reducing the social security net for those who don't have a job, resulting in a massive hit to the economy which simply does not have the growth in jobs necessary to sustain continued public cuts. All without any increase in revenue-- in fact, he gladly decreases government revenue by a drastic amount, so the end result will not actually reduce the national debt, but will instead likely increase it.

Obama's plan, meanwhile, provides a smaller cut to the government, and a small increase in taxation to the very rich-- those whose incomes have risen dramatically while everyone else's have stagnated-- and will actually work to reduce the deficit without demolishing necessary government programs. His plan also leaves open cuts to the military, which is not a bad thing. Effectively, Obama's plan is more of a classic conservative plan, while Ryan's plan is a trumped up neocon nightmare that was never intended to be passed.

I'm in the public Frazzled. So are you. All you get to have is ideology and bunk while trying to parse meaning between the lines. It's about all the American electorate deserves, it's fethed itself proper by being idiotic. My generation is reaping what yours has sewn while you try to distance yourself from the monster of a country you made.

Thats pretty hostile. Have a cookie and some milk. There, better now? Now as I was saying, whats the Obama Plan?

Melissia wrote:Frazzled: As for which one's better, the Obama plan. Cutting the budget by 75% while leaving programs such as defense-- which will continue to grow-- is a bad idea in general. IT's far too sudden of a cut, and will put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people out of a job while also reducing the social security net for those who don't have a job, resulting in a massive hit to the economy which simply does not have the growth in jobs necessary to sustain continued public cuts.

Obama doesn't really have a fiscal plan as presented for the next post election cycle. Just talking points. No plan he could present to the American people that actually addresses our nations budgetary issues could play well in the public. Americans by in large don't know or understand the systemic issues in this economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Thats pretty hostile. Have a cookie and some milk. There, better now? Now as I was saying, whats the Obama Plan?

Obama doesn't really have a fiscal plan as presented for the next post election cycle. Just talking points. No plan he could present to the American people that actually addresses our nations budgetary issues could play well in the public. Americans by in large don't know or understand the systemic issues in this economy.

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?

Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.

Exactly, Melissia.

The Ryan Plan, if nothing else, let's us actually talk about one of the core differences between the Democrats and Republicans.

The Republicans believe you can cut your way out of debt, and that the debts themselves won't negatively impact the economy for some reason (Ayn Rand? Von Hayek?).

The Democrats believe that we must grow our way out of debt, but that they are also willing to have some cuts in addition to any items that exist to inspire growth.

Stop moving the goal post, Frazzled. You wanted a serious adult discussion, so have one.

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?

Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.

Technically the ryan budgets missing a lot of the $s too. In its current form its non specific with cuts.

Melissia wrote:Frazzled: As for which one's better, the Obama plan. Cutting the budget by 75% while leaving programs such as defense-- which will continue to grow-- is a bad idea in general. IT's far too sudden of a cut, and will put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people out of a job while also reducing the social security net for those who don't have a job, resulting in a massive hit to the economy which simply does not have the growth in jobs necessary to sustain continued public cuts. All without any increase in revenue-- in fact, he gladly decreases government revenue by a drastic amount, so the end result will not actually reduce the national debt, but will instead likely increase it.

Obama's plan, meanwhile, provides a smaller cut to the government, and a small increase in taxation to the very rich-- those whose incomes have risen dramatically while everyone else's have stagnated-- and will actually work to reduce the deficit without demolishing necessary government programs. His plan also leaves open cuts to the military, which is not a bad thing. Effectively, Obama's plan is more of a classic conservative plan, while Ryan's plan is a trumped up neocon nightmare that was never intended to be passed.

Whats the Obama plan? How big of a deficit? When is the budget balanced? Who's axe gets gored under the Obama plan (besides Medicare).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheHammer wrote:Exactly, Melissia.

The Ryan Plan, if nothing else, let's us actually talk about one of the core differences between the Democrats and Republicans.

The Republicans believe you can cut your way out of debt, and that the debts themselves won't negatively impact the economy for some reason (Ayn Rand? Von Hayek?).

The Democrats believe that we must grow our way out of debt, but that they are also willing to have some cuts in addition to any items that exist to inspire growth.

Stop moving the goal post, Frazzled. You wanted a serious adult discussion, so have one.

Who's moving the goal post? I've asked for very few things, things that any candidate should have on tap, immediately.

1. Whats their plan?
2. How big are the deficits? When does the budget balance?
3. Who's axe gets gored?

Frazzled wrote:Whats the Obama plan? How big of a deficit? When is the budget balanced? Who's axe gets gored under the Obama plan (besides Medicare).

You have a really bad memory, don't you?

Obama's budget plan was introduced shortly before Ryan's, both were talked about at the same time, in comparison to each other in fact. I'm not going to babysit you-- edited by Reds8n

Hey Hammer... meet me in the thunderdome!

<cracks knuckles>

TheHammer wrote:Sarcasm is so awesome!

It sure is... I blame it on my mid-western dry sense of humor

It's almost as if you have nothing to contribute to any political discussions besides half truths and trolling!

Same can be said about you... but, let's try debating some.

But, here, I'll give you a serious bit of conversation about debt, deficits, entitlements, and the economy:

Right on! Whacha got?

We face several issues right now. Our economy has shrunk in real terms and in personal terms. Individuals now work harder (productivity is higher than ever) and longer for less. It takes more education, more work, and longer hours just to get by.

I agree! very astute description... that's the nature of the "tough" economy that we faced where we're hovering around 8% unemployment, 15% unemployment+under employed.

There are many programs that have sheltered many groups in this country from literally dying, or otherwise being adversely affected by the economic climate. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, subsidized housing, and lots of other programs have saved millions of lives and helped many million more escape poverty.

True... I agree with you here. These programs FAR exceeded their original intent.

We must also acknowledge that two of these programs, Social Security and Medicare, have been hugely successful and are becoming victims of their own success. One need only look at people living longer, living better in old age, and otherwise having a higher quality of life for many more years into the future to see how these have been successful. Conservatives oftentimes point out that Medicare projections by the government have been off, and they're right: but it's because the government never expected Medicare to be as successful as it was and to result in people living even longer than expected, which in turn makes Medicare more costly.

because a wealthy nation such as ours will ALWAYS choose to fund these entitlement programs. Voters typically will vote for whomever will maintain the status quo. However, Medicare goes backrupt by 2024 (that's 12 yrs away!) in it's current iteration and ObamaCare does NOTHING to address that. These programs are simply unsustainable. So, we need to have an adult conversation in addressing this NOW... because if we don't, it'll be a disaster when the $$$ runs out. An example of this is R/R's goal:

“What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, “We’re going to give you a bigger choice.” In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”

That's having an adult converstation... the next phase is HOW they plan to achieve this?

All the same, medical expenses for the elderly are rising and unless addresses will negatively impact our economy. We must address Medicare spending.

Agreed... lets do the kitchen sink principle....

First of all, Ryan's plan is terrible. Giving vouchers to seniors to pay for private medical insurance is insane. It's literally stupid. How does a health insurance company insure an 80 year old man with diabetes and make a profit? It's impossible. It can't be done. This is a clear cut example of where the marketplace and profit motive is not capable of providing for a very serious public good. Dogmatically saying it can because you read Atlas Shrugged does not change reality.

See frazzle's post above...
I'd say it's a good START... as it'll only impact those younger than 55 years of age. those 55 or older keep the same system. Ironically, the Cons criticized his plan when he wouldn't let those over age 55 have the OPTION of using the voucher system.

One of the fixes, and one of the things the weak Democratic Party never talks about, is in the Affordable Care Act. By providing for medical care to individuals before they go onto Medicare means that they will enter old age more healthy than before. Too many seniors could not afford to get routine check ups, preventative measures, and otherwise essential medical care before entering Medicare and when they do finally enter Medicare they do so costing the system much more than they otherwise should. The Affordable Care Act will help people better take care of themselves and will help offset some of the costs of Medicare because people will literally be healthier.

I gotta find this analysis I saw... while that is one of the good things about the ACA, the folks still NEED to GO to the doctor for preventative care. There's an analsys that basically said, "most people who don't go thru preventative care still won't go even if its cheaper/free"... (but, this is another topic *need to find that link*)

Next, we must acknowledge the successes of Medicare. It's a successful program and successful programs should be paid for and not destroyed because of their success. Raising taxes to pay for this program, and that of Social Security since individuals don't pay into it after a certain point, will go towards better funding the program.

That's one option... you do know that no matter what the tax rate is, it still won't be enough to cover everything promised? These entitlements MUST be re-calibrated and I believe that we need to look at EVERYTHING... things at tax rates (up or down), like current regulation (ie, FDA approvals), like who CMS is ran, like tort reform... EVERYTHING. There is no one silver bullet.

Lastly, and this is the crappy thing no one will ever talk about: at a certain point we reach diminishing returns with Medicare. The majority of healthcare costs come in the last 6 months of a person's life. At a certain point we throw good money after bad and Medicare can be better maintained and funded so that it can have the most benefit for the dollar. I believe that having deductibles come into effect at a certain point for certain treatments at a certain point in a person's life will help lower costs for Medicare.

Ya know... I like this... but, this benefits the haves/haves not.

The rest of our budget can be talked about in 3 other areas: Military spending, welfare, and infrastructure.

Military spending should be cut. We're spending too much for too little and don't need it. Yes, we can destroy the planet a hundred times over. No, we don't need to do it 101 times over. Military spending adds very little back to the economy and there's only so much protection we need.

I agree... we have too many toys.

If anything, the emphasis needs to be on Naval and Infantry.

Welfare is important. We have endemic poverty in many parts of the nation and the solution is not to just throw people off of government entitlements. I find it bizarre that the Republican Party exists as the party that yells at President Obama for high unemployment but yet thinks people on welfare should just go find a job. The amount of cognitive dissonance is dizzying. Until we have a country where low skill / low education work can provide for a stable life I don't think we can blame people for being on welfare.

The problem that the Rep have is their messaging... it pigeon-hole them into the common stereotypes when any attempt to talk about welfare reform.

Look... we do need welfare for those that truly needs it. The problem is that it is taken advantage of...

I remember that there was an analysis in Alabama that you were better off being on Fed/State welfare UNLESS your made more than $32k/year. This is a problem and in encourage these folks not to do better.

Infrastructure is also hugely important. Roads, education, research, and all other areas should be increased dramatically. We can only grow ourselves out of our fiscal hole and that takes investment.

Right... no prob here... see the Tennesse Valley Association... that was pretty cool. Or, the Hover Dam and the Federal Highways.

But... it's gotten stupid lately... Solyndra? Bridge-to-NoWhere? Giving Reseach $$ to Brazil so that THEY can drill for oil? Giving $$ to Egypt? We are pissing away $$$.

Next, trade is never talked about. We are losing our blue collar middle class. We can not be a nation of computer programmers. We must make sure there are middle class jobs for the everyman that graduates highschool and wants to work hard but is otherwise not exceptional. That means bringing back manufacturing from abroad. By opening trade so completely we are trying to compete with what basically amounts to slave labor. We can't do that, nor should we have to. By restricting trade with those that do not value the environment or worker's rights we can bring back many jobs.

Hrmph... no complaints here...

Just hope folks realize that if we start Trade Wars (aka, China, Mexico)... your Walmart goods won't be as cheap anymore.

Lastly, we need to refocus our tax code on labor and not capital investment.

Disagree... both needs to be addressed. We have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world now. THAT is why some jobs are done overseas...

We must raise the taxes on investment income and on incomes above $250,000. No, that will not solve the deficit but it will take some positive steps in doing so. By keeping taxes low on the working class, by giving them better jobs, by investing in infrastructure, and by otherwise bringing up the quality of life of the working class through work and guaranteeing certain economic rights we can provide enough demand to keep the investment class profitable.

I sort of agree... I've been advocating for flat tax rate, but that'll never happen...

What I'd like to see if to FIRST, get read of all deductions. ALL OF IT.

Right now our big problem is consumption, and we must understand that lowering taxes on suppliers and investors will not create additional demand in a marketplace swamped with supply.

Eh... that's part of the problem. One of the biggest problem is that businesses (large and small) are sitting on gak-ton of money. It's because they're so uncertain about the future. When you have this... there's no future planning, no future growth, no future investments. We are in a rut.

The "movement" of that cash is what kicks the economy in gear...

But, yes, we can have a serious conversation about all these issues. It just involves not being awful about it.

I agree. Thanks for taking the time.

Until those on the right want to concede that we can balance the budget on the backs of the weakest in our society while giving tax cuts to the wealthy I will continue calling them what they are: petty bullies waging class war on the working class.

Until those on the left want to concede that we can balance the budget on real reform across all levels of government (ie, reduce govt involvment), we can get something done.

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?

Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.

So you actually think Obama could actually come up with something WORSE than eliminating 90% of Federal govenmental functions, INCLUDING Federal courts and law enforcement?

So much for adult discussions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?

Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.

Technically the ryan budgets missing a lot of the $s too. In its current form its non specific with cuts.

Well actually they do have a published craptacular budget. Here's some summary table. I'm sure the assumptions are probably pretty rosy.
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/summary_tables.pdf

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?

Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.

Technically the ryan budgets missing a lot of the $s too. In its current form its non specific with cuts.

Well actually they do have a published craptacular budget. Here's some summary table. I'm sure the assumptions are probably pretty rosy.
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/summary_tables.pdf

That budgets non specific. It involves heavy cuts but isn't specific in where, when, or how those cuts are made.

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?

Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.

So you actually think Obama could actually come up with something WORSE than eliminating 90% of Federal govenmental functions, INCLUDING Federal courts and law enforcement?

So much for adult discussions.

Sorry, I saw the House's budget. Show me the plan you're talking about that drops government spending to half a trillion.

Vulcan wrote:

whembly wrote:If R/R wins... who will be laid off? But, if there's excess here ( I think there is ), yeah, there will be a drag.

The short version? Everyone not in the department of defense. As well as eliminating EVERYTHING else in the government.

Eh... Defense needs to be cut... it's TOO BIG. We can cut it down while maintaining a 1st rate force in the world... but, it's gonna take realistic plan to do that w/o impacting current operations.

Such as, do we need the JSF? Do we need that many submarines? The big toys... they need to be cut.

Ryan wants to decrease the Federal budget to 560ish Billion WITHOUT reducing military spending. In 2011, the DoD was budgeted 550 billion. I imagine most of the remaining 10 billion will be paying for the white house, congress, their salaries, and all their benefits (members past and present included). There might just be enough left to pay for the supreme court, but the whole network of federal courts? Forgetaboutit.

You need to read the whole plan and the context. You know that automatic cut that's coming to the defense. He wants to DELAY that so that a more effective plan can be actualized. The Generals already testified (and head of DoD) that these cuts would be a disaster in its current iteration.

So, NASA, the state department, the FBI, the CIA, department of the interior, Homeland Security, the Fed, the mint, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, EVERYTHING ELSE doesn't just get cut down, it gets eliminated ENTIRELY. No more national parks, no OSHA, no federal prisons... in short, any nonmilitary function of the Federal govermnet GOES AWAY under the Ryan plan.

I don't see that anywhere in his plans... care to provide a source?
But, here's my take... ALL of these department needs to be reviewed and have fat trimmed. Also... OSHA and EPA. Yeah, dissolve them.

If that doesn't qualify as 'a bad plan' I'd hesitate to hear what DOES!

A bad plan is believing that all we need to do is raise taxes on the wealthy and thinking that'll cover the gap.

And as far as raising taxes... doncha know that'll change peoples habit? The FEDS never get what they've forecasted when taxes are raised.

But, in any event... it's gonna take an overhaul of govt spending across the board and raising taxes on EVERYONE (middleclass and weathy)to balance the budget.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:

So you actually think Obama could actually come up with something WORSE than eliminating 90% of Federal govenmental functions, INCLUDING Federal courts and law enforcement?

So much for adult discussions.

WHERE are you getting this information that Ryan want's to eleminate 90% of Federal Govt functions? Where? Source please.

I apologize, whembly, I was not calling you a troll. I disagree with you, but you've at least try to be constructive and talk about ideas.

HERE'S his last iteration of his budget plan...

Where is he cutting 90% of the Fed gubmit services?
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheHammer wrote:I apologize, whembly, I was not calling you a troll. I disagree with you, but you've at least try to be constructive and talk about ideas.

No problemo.

Hey... I could be bat-gak wrong... but, I'm not afraid of discussing things.

Just me but.
1. Cut all expenditures to 2005 actual expenditure. Start from there.
2. Season to taste.

PROFIT!

Frazzled wrote:Just me but.
1. Cut all expenditures to 2005 actual expenditure. Start from there.
2. Season to taste.

PROFIT!

You on the ballot?

writein candidate. Vote for Frazzled on the Wiener Dog Party ticket. My VP candidate Rodney T'Shanker will take a bite out of his competition in the debates. Literally.

I still can't get over this...
From Slate... (SLATE!!!!!)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/08/wow_do_52_of_voters_favor_paul_ryan_s_budget_.html

Have to start somewhere. Either R&R get into office or have O be in office with a reublican senate.

Jihadin wrote:Have to start somewhere. Either Frazzled, R&R get into office or have O be in office with a reublican senate.

Edited for you