From What I’ve understood from it he wants to do is effectively take away from government programs while cutting taxes for rich and corporations. In essence redistributing wealth from people who depend on programs (the poor) and giving to the rich. Am i mistaken?
Thoughts?
It’s like Robin Hood in reverse.
A Randian Hood.
I really hope the Dems can capitilize on this, and get the word out to everyone that the Repubs are simply trying to get rid of Medicare, and Social Security.
Somneone said ot over on FARK, I believe…" Republican’s are pure fucking evil…they aren’t even trying to hide it anymore."
Yes, and no. He is asking to re-dsitribute wealth vis-avis the status quo. However, he is not advocating re-distributing wealth relative to what folks wealth is (well he is,just to a much lesser degree).
That is not redistribution. That is stopping current redistribution. Stopping redistribution from rich to the poor, is not the same as redistributing from the poor to the rich unless you believe the money never belonged to the rich in the fist place. However it is redistribution in another sense. Due to deficit it is redistribution from your children and future generations to the current generation. A much more despicable form of redistribution.
This is the “strangle it in a bathtub” stage that they’ve been talking about for so long. I’m surprised that they actually got around to it, given the third rail aspect of SS/Medicare. I’m of the age where you could cancel both immediately and it wouldn’t affect me. Hell, I’m not really expecting either to be around when I retire.
Still, it’s a bit hard to believe that this will go over well. I’m not sure if Ryan is being set up as a sacrificial lamb, or if he’s a true believer, but I think at least a few political careers are going to end over this should it get much traction.
It is no budget. It is a right wing manifesto. It is carved out of a right wing think tank .
No, you aren’t. Also the budget relies on very optimistic views on supply side tax cuts and their ability to grow GDP and create jobs.
I believe he got his info from Heritage, which also made some optimistic predictions about Bush’s tax cuts that never happened.
But meh. I hope all those elderly who voted GOP in 2008 and 2010 enjoy the candidates they elected. In fact in the house there was about a 50/50 split between the Ryan budget and an even more right wing budget that cut even more from medicare with even bigger tax cuts.
The Ryan budget actually tries to placate the elderly by only destroying Medicare for people who turn 65 in or after 2021. People older than that will, unless the rug is pulled out from under them too, continue to be eligible for the single-payer program. I think they’re hoping that enough people younger than 55 have believed the steady diet of “Medicare and Social Security will go bankrupt before you need them” that’s been coming out of the right for a while that they’ll be able to trick them into believing that insurance coupons are a better financial deal.
They must have a really low opinion of seniors. Do they really think seniors are sitting at home saying “well as long as they don’t screw me, I don’t really care what they do to my kids and grandkids”
We don’t need to do what Ryan proposes if we are willing to return to Reagan era tax levels and Clinton era spending levels (adjusted for inflation and growth).
Republicans have long since decided they prefer being Republicans to being Americans.
If you change an existing distribution it is a redistribution. Given that there will be taxes, saying that the rich paying nothing is the correct and natural state is absurd.
Like Ronald Reagan after 1980, and George W. Bush after 2000 Paul Ryan is overestimating his mandate to fulfill a Republican wish list of ancient origins, but for which there has never been any popular support.
According to a McClatchy - Marist Poll released April 18, 80 percent of registered voters are opposed to cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. 64 percent favor tax increases for those making over $250,000 a year.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/19/poll-70-percent-of-tea-party-supporters-oppose-medicare-cuts.aspx
I hope Obama fights Ryan over this issue. Unlike FDR, Obama seems to have little enthusiasm for getting in close with the Republicans and trading punches.
I’m old enough to not be affected, and I’d punch the scumbag’s lights out as soon as look at him. So, you are correct.
It is redistribution when not everyone is paying equally and this plan would skew things even worse.
I do not think seniors care overly much for the next generation. No doubt they would say they do but when any proposal is offered to cut benefits or raise deductibles or so on to keep the system solvent they scream bloody murder. Fuck it if it is not there in 20 years…not their problem.
I think this is more seeing the slippery slope. Like firemen and police were exempted from Walker’s union busting efforts in Wisconsin decided to side with the teachers anyway. They could see if Walker is successful there they can see it is not much more of a reach to put them on the block next and no one will be left to stop it. Seniors here too rightfully worry that a cut “to the other guy” today could make it that much more easy to cut their benefits in the future.
As it happens current estimates have the whole thing going belly up right around the time I would be due to retire.
Yea, its pretty difficult to imagine that younger people will keep agreeing to have a “medicare payroll tax” deducted from their payroll under a scheme where they will no longer expect to actually get medicare someday. So under the Ryan plan, I think even present day seniors would end up seeing their benefits cut pretty quickly.
Thats true of a lot of these extreme plans to cut entitlements to fix the deficit. They assume that if you get rid of the program, you’ll keep revenues so you ca patch the budget hole. But in reality, voters are pretty unlikely to agree to keep paying regressive Social Security or Medicare taxes in a world with no Social Security or Medicare.
From what little I understand about Ryan’s budget are these highlights (mostly from Time magazine):
- Reduce spending by $6.6T and the deficit by $4.4T in the next 10 years;
Deficit can’t be right, it must be debt; this is a great start imo, I realize that we can’t just turn off spending overnight.
- Cuts top tax rate from 35% to 25%;
That seems patently ridiculous with $15T in debt. While this would do me a world of help, I don’t see how the government is going to be able to get the required revenue. I did notice some relief to taking more money home from the Bush tax cuts. I would probably spend a good chunk of the new money, but mostly save and invest it and try to retire early, and concentrate more on my side businesses. Either way, I went through great lengths to be comfortable under pre-Bush tax cuts. In all likelihood, people like me would probably buy more goods and sell the stuff being replaced on ebay or donate it to good will. E.g. I would buy cars probably every 4 years instead of 7, and get new tvs more often. I would also probably save up and buy a Porsche or make a Porsche-killer in a quicker time frame. I would buy video games more often instead of used (but, time is more of an issue than anything). It’s nice to think about what to do with the extra cash, but if we want to be serious about debt reduction, then this is a terrible move.
- In the next 10 years, cut $389 billion from Medicare and $735B from Medicaid, and reduce domestic spending by $923B (what this cuts, I don’t know); and, he wants to keep Medicare roughly the same for seniors now;
The problem with rising medical care costs is how we deliver medical aid now. I believe more centralization is key as we would see savings from efficiencies. However, I don’t believe in single payer as I don’t want to screw doctor’s salaries and put millions of insurance workers out on the street.
I’m not seeing the math on how the same level of service can be had at 5% of GDP as of 14% of GDP, unless we somehow grow the GDP that much in 10 years. I don’t like these fuzzy math games. I also don’t like how private insurers are given in essence a subsidy. But, I’ll be ok with it if it can be shown to be competitive.
I think the CBO is right about this. I don’t plan on using medicare or medicaid if I can opt out of it. I also don’t plan on using Social Security, and don’t count on it in my retirement planning. I also think that the top earners shouldn’t be using as much Medicare/Medicaid as the lower earners, but I recognize that as unfair.
Well, that’s most of the details that I could find. I think, politically, Ryan and the GOP are trying to control the discussion for the presidential election. They know this budget is unsustainable. What is Obama’s/Democrat’s response? Have they put forth their budget proposal?
redistributing wealth from the poor? 
Possibly interesting poll on this matter. Note especially the breakdown of those what age groups prefer which plan. Hmmm.
Paul Krugman did a bang-up job of explaining the Ryan budget and exposing the bullshit numbers by right wing bullshit artists the Heritage Foundation that the budget is based on :
The real points are:
- Savage cuts in programs that help the needy, amounting to about $3 trillion over the next decade.
- Huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, also amounting to about $3 trillion over the next decade.
The fake points are: - “Base broadening” that makes those tax cuts revenue neutral. Ryan has refused to name a single tax preference that he would, in fact, be willing to get rid of; all he and his party do is keep repeating “revenue-neutral” in the hope that people believe them.
- Unspecified cuts in spending outside Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that would shrink the government — including defense! — back to 1920s levels.
- Replacing Medicare with vouchers that would leave most seniors unable to afford insurance. Right.
So if we focus only on the real stuff, this is a plan to leave the deficit pretty much where it is, but to sharply cut aid to the poor while sharply cutting taxes on the rich. That’s serious!
Ryan's Five-Point Plan - The New York Times
and
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/3-trillion-here-3-trillion-there/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/paul-ryans-multiple-unicorns/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/
and lots more. Worth going and reading through all the posts around these dates to get the full picture.
No, it really is deficit. Reducing the debt by $4.4T over the next ten years would mean we would have to go from a $1.5T deficit this year to an average surplus of almost $0.5T over the next ten years.