Paul Ryan, Enemy of the Middle Class?

[Assuredcw]

Here's an opinion piece from earlier this year that will bring those of you who weren't aware of Rep Paul Ryan's (current House Budget Committee Chairman) "plan."

Paul Ryan's budget blueprint: Pushing the aged into poverty - Los Angeles Times

The hall of mirrors in which our bitterly partisan politics now play themselves out is a curious place. But even by its distorted standards, the reaction to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan's budget blueprint has been odd, particularly the general reluctance to call it what it plainly is: an attempt to abolish Medicare and gut Medicaid, while further lowering the taxes paid by corporations and wealthy individuals.
Economists already are picking over the plan's dubious statistics, but — as The Times reported Friday — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has outlined what adoption of this proposal to supplant Medicare with vouchers and private insurance exchanges would mean. The overall cost of healthcare would go up, and retirees' out-of-pocket medical expenses would double — an increase that would push tens of millions of people living on fixed incomes over the financial brink.

Privatizing Medicare is only the beginning. I am sure that privatizing Social Security will be revisited. I am sure we have the brothers Koch and other wealthy conservative campaign contributors to thank for the continued push to privatize.

 

[Assuredcw]

Paul Ryan’s Influence on the G.O.P. : The New Yorker

To envisage what Republicans would do if they win in November, the person to understand is not necessarily Romney, who has been a policy cipher all his public life. The person to understand is Paul Ryan.

As we have already seen in this thread, that is not good news. The article is 7 pages long, if anyone needs to catch themselves up.

 

[MachZer0]

Paul Ryan is the (Republican) Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the architect of the proposed voucher program to replace our current Medicare program (many people think that Social Security will be next). He also wants to increase taxes on the poor and middle class and to reduce them for the upper brackets. This is all detailed in his Roadmap for America, and you can read it for yourself - just do a Google search.

But Paul Ryan isn't done (actually he hasn't gotten started thanks to his Democratic brethren, who have blocked this nonsense).

I found a bit of truth in your link

Quoting from the link

"We're now getting this class warfare that pits people against each other," Ryan said. "[The President] is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators."

And it's not just Obama

 

[Assuredcw]

I found a bit of truth in your link

Quoting from the link

"We're now getting this class warfare that pits people against each other," Ryan said. "[The President] is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators."

And it's not just Obama

Let's get something straight -- regardless of what Grover Norquist says, going back to Clinton rates doesn't raise taxes -- it simply corrects them. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary and not permanent, but oh how soon we forget!

 

[Thekla]

This:

A new report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tells the tale. One percent of the population accounted for 20.2% of health care spending in 2008 and 21.8% in 2009. The average bill for them was $90,061. Twenty percent of those in the highest spending percentile remained there during both years.

Beyond the top 1%, health care spending was still concentrated. The top 10% accounted for almost 63.6% of spending, and 44.8% of those in this group remained there during both years. The top 30% accounted for almost 89%, with 63.1% remaining in this group from year to year.

At the other end of the spectrum, the cheapest half of the population accounted for only 3.1% of spending in 2008 and 2.9% in 2009. About three-quarters of them remained low cost in both years.



Read more: Another One Percent to Watch: Those Who Use the Most Health Care
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

It's been called "hot-spotting". Focus resources at the core of the problem - the same tactic has been used in law enforcement, to positive effect:

John Jay College - The Center on Crime Prevention and Control

and:

ttp://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/11/29/hot-spotting-big-city-crime-spending-less-and-getting-more/

It's a more efficient use of resources, and though the method may include higher expenses initially, they tend to be lower cost long term.

But wholesale slashing by contrast tends to exacerbate existing problems.

 

[MachZer0]

Let's get something straight -- regardless of what Grover Norquist says, going back to Clinton rates doesn't raise taxes -- it simply corrects them. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary and not permanent, but oh how soon we forget!

Interesting isn't that he only wants to correct taxes on certain people? Interesting indeed

 

[Assuredcw]

Interesting isn't that he only wants to correct taxes on certain people? Interesting indeed

It amazes me how people who know better (GOP members of Congress) continue to spew this garbage!

Mr. Mach, the reason for letting the upper brackets expire first, is that we are still in a recession, and if you let the middle and lower brackets expire at the same time, the economy will slow, because the middle and lower brackets have a higher multiplier (the reduction in their spending if you take disposable income away from them). Economists know this, the GOP in Congress certainly knows this, and pretends they don't, because they know YOU don't know it.

Obama isn't playing class warfare -- he is using fiscal policy the way it is supposed to be used. The GOP, on the other hand, is pandering to politics instead of what is best for our economy, which would be to let the upper brackets expire first. Their spending won't change if you charge them a little more, because they have more disposable income than they know what to do with (a lower multiplier). Hope this helps.

 

[Thekla]

It amazes me how people who know better (GOP members of Congress) continue to spew this garbage!

Mr. Mach, the reason for letting the upper brackets expire first, is that we are still in a recession, and if you let the middle and lower expire at the same time, the economy will slow, because the middle and lower brackets have a higher multiplier (the reduction in their spending if you take disposable income away from them). Economist know this, the GOP in Congress certainly knows this, and pretends they don't, because they know YOU don't know it.

Obama isn't playing class warfare -- he is using fiscal policy the way it is supposed to be used. The GOP, on the other hand, are pandering to politics instead of what is best for our economy, which would be to let the upper brackets expire first. Their spending won't change if you charge them a little more, because they have more disposable income than they know what to do with (a lower multiplier). Hope this helps.

If the Eurozone didn't know it before, they certainly must have guessed it by now ...

 

[MachZer0]

It amazes me how people who know better (GOP members of Congress) continue to spew this garbage!

Mr. Mach, the reason for letting the upper brackets expire first, is that we are still in a recession, and if you let the middle and lower brackets expire at the same time, the economy will slow, because the middle and lower brackets have a higher multiplier (the reduction in their spending if you take disposable income away from them). Economist know this, the GOP in Congress certainly knows this, and pretends they don't, because they know YOU don't know it.

Obama isn't playing class warfare -- he is using fiscal policy the way it is supposed to be used. The GOP, on the other hand, are pandering to politics instead of what is best for our economy, which would be to let the upper brackets expire first. Their spending won't change if you charge them a little more, because they have more disposable income than they know what to do with (a lower multiplier). Hope this helps.

In other words, we should punish success.

 

[Vylo]

In other words, we should punish success.

How are they being punished. If I make more money, I make more money, even if a greater % goes to taxes. Oh noes, I can't buy another island and a yacht. Whatever shall I do.

 

[MachZer0]

How are they being punished. If I make more money, I make more money, even if a greater % goes to taxes. Oh noes, I can't buy another island and a yacht. Whatever shall I do.

That works all the way down the line.

Example:

I make more money than that homeless guy even if a greater % goes to taxes.. Oh noes, I can't buy the latest smartphone.

 

[Thekla]

In other words, we should punish success.

Being able to make a sizeable contribution used to be a matter of civic pride -
at least in the birthplace of democracy.

It's not a matter of punishment, but that our country needs tax revenues.

The problem of wealth disparity in this country is not a "liberal" observation; it's a fact and a problem:

America's Descent into Poverty ~ Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

There are a growing number of people in this country for whom an increase in taxes (and for some for whom a decrease in assistance) would push them over the edge.

 

[Assuredcw]

In other words, we should punish success.

How do you get this statement, from what I was saying about fiscal policy?! I just explained the mechanics -- it has to do with who has the disposable income (to spare), and the state of our economy at the moment. Applying fiscal policy to the situation would mean that when the Bush tax cuts expire (as they are supposed to anyway), you let the upper brackets expire first. Soon all of us will be back to Clinton rates (the Bush rates have to expire - remember?), but for now President Obama wants to phase in the expiration of the upper brackets first.

 

[MachZer0]

How do you get this statement, from what I was saying about fiscal policy?! I just explained the mechanics -- it has to do with who has the disposable income (to spare), and the state of our economy at the moment. Applying fiscal policy to the situation would mean that when the Bush tax cuts expire (as they are supposed to anyway), you let the upper brackets expire first. Soon all of us will be back to Clinton rates (the Bush rates have to expire - remember?), but for now President Obama wants to phase in the expiration of the upper brackets first.

You explained the mechanics as you understand them. It isn't up to the government to judge people based on their disposable income.

Let me once again explain the Obama federal income tax philosophy which apparently he shares with a large number of our liberal friends:

We can't allow those citizens who pay no tax to bear the burden of those who don't pay their fair share

 

[Rion]

OK, folks, let's discuss. Is Paul Ryan (and with him the GOP) declaring war on the middle class? Why or why not?

Of course he is. He sole allegiance is to the wealthy. Why do you think that other GOP lawmakers such as himself all pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist, Koch Brothers, Rove, and so on? Last I remembered, they were employed by the People, which include WAY more than just the 1ers. I hope WI votes that man out of office. See how HE likes unemployment due to his beliefs and policies.

It hurts to see such hate from my fellow believers on the opposite side of the political aisle.

 

[Assuredcw]

It hurts to see such hate from my fellow believers on the opposite side of the political aisle.

You have to admit that what we are saying is true. And we call them by their names, and not "that Bozo" or something. You have to give us that.

 

[MachZer0]

You have to admit that what we are saying is true...

We do?????

 

[Rion]

You have to admit that what we are saying is true. And we call them by their names, and not "that Bozo" or something. You have to give us that.

So you admit to hating them? Interesting.

 

[Assuredcw]

We do?????

Yes, if you have kept up with what the GOP members of Congress have been voting for, or at the very least, reading your daily local newspaper.

But if not, then perhaps you wouldn't want to acknowledge it. Go to Congress.org and look up your US GOP House and Senate representation, and see what they've been voting for. I already know, because I subscribe to their "Megavote" newsletter that tells me whenever my people have voted for or against something. It is very informative and you will finally know exactly who your representation is helping, and who they are not helping.

 

[Assuredcw]

So you admit to hating them? Interesting.

No, I don't admit to it, and I don't think any of the other posters are guilty, either. Proof: we (civilly) refer to them by their actual names, and of course are only describing what they are actually voting for (and against) in Congress.

The proof is always in their voting records.