Understanding the Ryan plan

 

I really don't get why the media fauns over Ryan as some sort of serious intellectual budget wonk. His "plan" relies on magic numbers, hilarious unemployment rates, massive unspecified spending cuts, massive unspecified tax expenditure cuts and, on top of all of that, expansionary defense spending and elimination of taxes for the .1%.

Understanding the Ryan plan

 

I really don't get why the media fauns over Ryan as some sort of serious intellectual budget wonk. His "plan" relies on magic numbers, hilarious unemployment rates, massive unspecified spending cuts, massive unspecified tax expenditure cuts and, on top of all of that, expansionary defense spending and elimination of taxes for the .1%.

 

Because he's the only one that has come up with any plan, even if it's not a perfect one?

 

Edit: and i'm not saying i agree with the plan as proposed. There are things I don't like (more military spending, less taxing the rich).

Edited August 14, 201213 yr by Jenksismybitch

Because he's the only one that has come up with any plan, even if it's not a perfect one?

 

It's not a real plan. That's the point. The numbers simply don't make any sense at all. How can anyone seriously say that a "deficit reduction plan" that slashes marginal tax rates and completely eliminates capital gains, dividends and inheritance taxes (generational taxless aristocracy!) is a real plan at all? It relies on reaching and sustaining 2.8% unemployment, for christ's sake. The only thing it is is a tool to cut safety net programs they don't like and to eliminate taxes for the wealthiest Americans. It's his childish Randianism in budget-form, not a serious proposal.

 

Additionally, it's simply not true that he's the only one that has come up with a plan. You may not agree with it, but it exists. I make no claims for the coherence of this plan as I haven't read it, but it is another plan. Here is an independent analysis of the plan. I'll note that their plan becomes balanced in 2016, one year after "current law" but much, much sooner than Ryan's proposal (sometime in the 2030's after our magic unemployment rates).

Edited August 14, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Edit: and i'm not saying i agree with the plan as proposed. There are things I don't like (more military spending, less taxing the rich).

 

Not "less taxing the rich," NO taxing the rich. Romney himself said that his tax rate would be less than 1% under Ryan's plan. At the same time, his cuts would overwhelmingly hit the poorest Americans the hardest and wouldn't be kind to the middle class either. Is your vision of government one limited almost solely to Social Security, Medicare and Defense? Because that's all that Ryan's budget leaves down the road in order to finally balance* thanks to his massive tax cuts.

 

*still relies on magic unemployment and trillions in unspecified cuts and tax expenditure eliminations, though

Edited August 14, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

I'd go beyond just Obama and suggest that the main reason our entire political system is in such bad shape is that the set of qualities that get you elected to a position bear little resemblance to the set of qualities that help you successfully execute that position.

 

There are probably people out there who would make fantastic Presidents but don't even consider running because they are utterly unelectable.

 

Thanks Husker...So true. It's a popularity contest pure and simple.

 

Thanks Husker...So true. It's a popularity contest pure and simple.

 

Yeah, an election, even.

Not "less taxing the rich," NO taxing the rich. Romney himself said that his tax rate would be less than 1% under Ryan's plan. At the same time, his cuts would overwhelmingly hit the poorest Americans the hardest and wouldn't be kind to the middle class either. Is your vision of government one limited almost solely to Social Security, Medicare and Defense? Because that's all that Ryan's budget leaves down the road in order to finally balance* thanks to his massive tax cuts.

 

*still relies on magic unemployment and trillions in unspecified cuts and tax expenditure eliminations, though

 

Tax on capital gains and interest is ludicrous to begin with, but I agree at least in today's economy it's a bad move to totally get rid of it. Again, i'm fine upping the capital gains and interest tax for those people that make a certain threshold of money from their investments (i.e., hitting the rich, not your middle class investor). And hopefully that gets ironed out of whatever budget plan eventually gets passed.

 

And yeah, throw in infrastructure and i'm good with limiting the federal government to just a few things like defense. States should be responsible for most of the rest.

None of this is a defense of Ryan's "plan" thus far.

 

Tax on capital gains and interest is ludicrous to begin with, but I agree at least in today's economy it's a bad move to totally get rid of it. Again, i'm fine upping the capital gains and interest tax for those people that make a certain threshold of money from their investments (i.e., hitting the rich, not your middle class investor). And hopefully that gets ironed out of whatever budget plan eventually gets passed.

 

Tax on capital gains and interest is not ludicrous; income is income. But Ryan would like to eliminate them along with the estate tax. Wealthy heirs would be able to live tax-free for generations under such a plan.

 

And yeah, throw in infrastructure and i'm good with limiting the federal government to just a few things like defense. States should be responsible for most of the rest.

What about science funding? Medical research? Technological research and development? Education? Pell grants? FDA? Any of the other social programs that could not realistically be handled at the state level (because many states are net-takers from the wealthy states)? Environmental regulations, especially those that cannot be contained to one-state areas? Etc. etc. etc.

 

A nation of only infrastructure and defense is not a modern, functional state and would be demolished in the world economy. Hell, it didn't work in the 18th century. But I don't want a discussion of the Jenks Path to Prosperity to obscure discussion of Ryan's plan.

Edited August 14, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

None of this is a defense of Ryan's "plan" thus far.

 

 

 

Tax on capital gains and interest is not ludicrous; income is income. But Ryan would like to eliminate them along with the estate tax. Wealthy heirs would be able to live tax-free for generations under such a plan.

 

 

What about science funding? Medical research? Technological research and development? Education? Pell grants? FDA? Any of the other social programs that could not realistically be handled at the state level (because many states are net-takers from the wealthy states)? Environmental regulations, especially those that cannot be contained to one-state areas? Etc. etc. etc.

 

A nation of only infrastructure and defense is not a modern, functional state and would be demolished in the world economy. Hell, it didn't work in the 18th century. But I don't want a discussion of the Jenks Path to Prosperity to obscure discussion of Ryan's plan.

 

Here is the problem. We have created a state where the private sector is completely dependent on the private sector to "create" activity. If said activity isn't created, the economy collapses. Even if activity is created, there is no guarantee that the private sector will be able to respond. Just look at the "recovery" we are in now. It has been completely dependent on the government spending. This mantra has been repeated over and over by the left, as the recovery stalls at various points. When you have a system were trillions of dollars of infusion, in addition to the trillions that are already spent annually by the various governments, there is a massive systemic problem with the structure of the modern US economy. In the fight to make everything "fair" we have destroyed the private sector. They have no ability to function on their own. Look no further than how the "recoveries" of the last two recessions were constructed. They took massive artificial means to get going, if they did at all. That is a huge red flag to me.

Markets don't really exist absent states. The first markets sprouted up as a result of taxation: soldiers are paid in coin, taxes must be paid in coin, ergo citizens must trade goods and services with soldiers to acquire the necessary coinage to pay their head tax. That doesn't imply state-control over the economy or central planning or any of that, but the notion of a "free market" independent of government is ahistorical.

 

Anyway, that's not relevant to Ryan's hilarious "plan."

Markets don't really exist absent states. The first markets sprouted up as a result of taxation: soldiers are paid in coin, taxes must be paid in coin, ergo citizens must trade goods and services with soldiers to acquire the necessary coinage to pay their head tax. That doesn't imply state-control over the economy or central planning or any of that, but the notion of a "free market" independent of government is ahistorical.

 

Anyway, that's not relevant to Ryan's hilarious "plan."

 

It is absolutely relevant. We need to divorce government from economy before we end up in collapse.

I'm interested in supposed "budget wonk" Paul Ryan's plan and the numbers and analysis contained therein, not your philosophical preference for a propertarian minarchy.

 

eta: you can't "divorce government from economy." That's an incoherent statement.

Edited August 14, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

I'm interested in supposed "budget wonk" Paul Ryan's plan and the numbers and analysis contained therein, not your philosophical preference for a propertarian minarchy.

 

eta: you can't "divorce government from economy." That's an incoherent statement.

 

the fact you believe that proves exactly what I am saying here.

I'm interested in supposed "budget wonk" Paul Ryan's plan and the numbers and analysis contained therein, not your philosophical preference for a propertarian minarchy.

 

Do you want to talk about the numbers in Ryan's budget? You don't have to talk about policy preferences one way or the other to dispassionately exam in the math.

Markets don't really exist absent states. The first markets sprouted up as a result of taxation: soldiers are paid in coin, taxes must be paid in coin, ergo citizens must trade goods and services with soldiers to acquire the necessary coinage to pay their head tax. That doesn't imply state-control over the economy or central planning or any of that, but the notion of a "free market" independent of government is ahistorical.

You have apparently never heard of bartering.

You have apparently never heard of bartering.

I continue to think that the GOP proposal of me paying for my healthcare with a couple of chickens seems impractical...

I'm interested in supposed "budget wonk" Paul Ryan's plan and the numbers and analysis contained therein, not your philosophical preference for a propertarian minarchy.

 

Do you want to talk about the numbers in Ryan's budget? You don't have to talk about policy preferences one way or the other to dispassionately exam in the math.

 

oops, pardon me. Back to the regularly scheduled talking points.

You have apparently never heard of bartering.

That was a story constructed by Adam Smith to explain the origin of money but it doesn't stand up to historical data. Barter economies only form from failed or restricted economies that are already numerate and understand money (e.g. prisoners).

 

http://archive.mises.org/18301/david-graeb...-to-my-article/

You have apparently never heard of bartering.

 

If you've successfully bartered, you didn't do it on your own.

oops, pardon me. Back to the regularly scheduled talking points.

I'd like to discuss Ryan's budget proposal in this thread. I'd be happy to discuss this other topic in another thread, but it would obscure discussion relevant to the presidential campaign.

So Romney is already running from the Ryan Budget that he previously endorsed and now the House is up for grabs as the spotlight gets shone brightly on this morally reprehensible "budget". GOP incumbents who voted for it now have to defend their votes to an electorate that, thanks to Mitt's pick, are becoming increasingly aware of just how horrible the "budget" is. Well done, Mitt...well done.

Ew...ew....ewwwwww.....

Ew...ew....ewwwwww.....

 

I bet $10 that was just a coincidence of some demented kid who happened to do it by an election sign.

I bet $10 that was just a coincidence of some demented kid who happened to do it by an election sign.

Yeah, Longfellow Park isn't exactly in the nicest neighborhood around here, either.

I bet $10 that was just a coincidence of some demented kid who happened to do it by an election sign.

 

Considering they don't really advertise the President is going to be somewhere like they used to do, I would tend to agree.