Paul Ryan, Enemy of the Middle Class?

[GarfieldJL]

President Obama has presented quite a few things, and I just described some of them, and I was quoting the Atlantic (my link) when I did.

What link?

Roughly, every year will bring in more revenue than the last, thanks to GDP growth. Over the last fifty years, most years have brought in "record revenue" when compared to previous years.

Generally that is true, however the "tax cuts" supposedly caused revenue to plummet, I'm pointing out that wasn't the case.

The main spending issue is the entitlement programs, as has already been pointed out, no amount of tax hikes can fund them. It's basic math, Paul Ryan's pointing this out doesn't mean he hates the middle class or the poor, it means he's acknowledging the problem instead of playing ostrich.

 

[Assuredcw]

What link?



Generally that is true, however the "tax cuts" supposedly caused revenue to plummet, I'm pointing out that wasn't the case.

The main spending issue is the entitlement programs, as has already been pointed out, no amount of tax hikes can fund them. It's basic math, Paul Ryan's pointing this out doesn't mean he hates the middle class or the poor, it means he's acknowledging the problem instead of playing ostrich.

The link is on the previous page, quoted in purple.

"Entitlement programs" as you call them, do not all come out of the General Fund. Notably, Medicare and Social Security are not FREE -- we PAY for them. Social Security has its own fund and administrators, and if Medicare does not, it should, because we PAY for it, too. All you have to do to fund these programs, is change the revenue stream. Cutting them (as in cutting benefits) doesn't create more money for programs that are coming out of the General Fund, because it's NOT their money in the first place.

Medicare's costs are mitigated by the fact that it is a single-payer carrier with negotiated provider reimbursements. Medicare Part D needs to have the same negotiated rates - they need to stop paying retail and start paying the same negotiated reminbursements that are paid for Medicare's other coverages. We need to make the programs more efficient and maybe then we can look a little harder at the benefit side. But looking at cutting benefits while leaving provider reimbursements intact, is Paul Ryan type-stuff again, and nobody likes it. Well, people who can afford higher medical costs don't especially mind, but most of us voters don't like that.

 

[JustABit]

Generally that is true, however the "tax cuts" supposedly caused revenue to plummet, I'm pointing out that wasn't the case.

You said, and I quote, "tax cuts can sometimes actually cause an increase in the revenue that government takes in."

But there's no evidence to suggest the Bush era tax cuts increased revenue. Reality suggests it lowered revenue significantly. One of the reasons for the Bush tax cuts was because the CBO at the time had forecast large surpluses into the indefinite future, which was undesirable. The point of the tax cuts was to reduce surpluses. ( Mission accomplished. )

What you might find interesting is that the 2001-2004 period is the second longest period since 1940 where there wasn't a "record year" in revenue. ( The longest period was immediately after WWII, for obvious reasons. )

In fairness, the year 2000 was the height of the dotcom boom. But even if we clear that away and use 2001 as a base, 2002-2004 still remains the second longest period in US history where there wasn't a "record year" in revenue.

 

[GarfieldJL]

You said, and I quote, "tax cuts can sometimes actually cause an increase in the revenue that government takes in."

But there's no evidence to suggest the Bush era tax cuts increased revenue. Reality suggests it lowered revenue significantly. One of the reasons for the Bush tax cuts was because the CBO at the time had forecast large surpluses into the indefinite future, which was undesirable. The point of the tax cuts was to reduce surpluses. ( Mission accomplished. )

The people at Enron got caught when Bush took office for starters...

What you might find interesting is that the 2001-2004 period is the second longest period since 1940 where there wasn't a "record year" in revenue. ( The longest period was immediately after WWII, for obvious reasons. )

Does 9/11/2001 mean anything to you? The tax cuts were intended to get the economy going after 9/11 happened.

In fairness, the year 2000 was the height of the dotcom boom. But even if we clear that away and use 2001 as a base, 2002-2004 still remains the second longest period in US history where there wasn't a "record year" in revenue.

The economy was starting to go south towards the end of 2000, as the dotcom bubble burst...

However the key thing to remember is 9/11, which caused a major disruption economically...

 

[JustABit]

The people at Enron got caught when Bush took office for starters...

However the key thing to remember is 9/11, which caused a major disruption economically...

You're overstating the impact of these events. These weren't the only drains on the US economy over the last 50 years. Far from it. For example, there was the opec crisis in the mid-70's and the global recession in the late 1950's, among others. The post 2000 period was more like a small bump in comparison to most of the other major events.

Does 9/11/2001 mean anything to you? The tax cuts were intended to get the economy going after 9/11 happened.

The 2001 tax cut was the by far ( by far by a factor of 4 or more ) the largest of the Bush tax cuts and it occurred before 9/11. I'm sorry, but it's historic fact that one of the arguments in favor of the Bush tax cuts was because of projected surpluses. This wasn't the only reason, a part of the reason was the threat of recession from the dotcom boom, and I'm not trying to ignore that. However, it's disingenuous to claim the surpluses didn't play a role. Here's a nice tract on it:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/2001-2003TaxCuts_37.pdf

From Page 2:

"The year 2001 began with a relatively positive economic forecast, but with some concern of a recession, both of which were cited as reasons to cut taxes."

Further in that paper, notice, even the Heritage foundation at the time recognized that the tax cuts would come with a net cost, not "increased revenue".

It's basically a joke to pretend that tax cuts increase revenue. It can happen, but it requires special circumstances.

 

[Assuredcw]

Paul Ryan is going to cram those Medicare vouchers down our throats, if it's the last thing he ever does.

I don't get it!

Republicans revisit Medicare reform to cut spending - latimes.com

Quoting from the link:

A budget blueprint being drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan includes a proposal to create a voucher-like system, despite the GOP promise not to change the program.

The election is what prompted the GOP to "promise not to change the program," so I don't get that now that they've LOST the White House, they are going to push ahead with vouchers anyway?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Paul Ryan is going to cram those Medicare vouchers down our throats, if it's the last thing he ever does.

I don't get it!

Republicans revisit Medicare reform to cut spending - latimes.com

Quoting from the link:

A budget blueprint being drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan includes a proposal to create a voucher-like system, despite the GOP promise not to change the program.

The election is what prompted the GOP to "promise not to change the program," so I don't get that now that they've LOST the White House, they are going to push ahead with vouchers anyway?

At least Paul Ryan is proposing a solution, instead of trying to demagogue the issue and pit Americans against each other using jealousy and greed like Obama and the Democrats.

The Democrat solution is just hike taxes until everyone shuts down their businesses so everyone is dependent on government for everything.

 

[Fantine]

At least Paul Ryan is proposing a solution, instead of trying to demagogue the issue and pit Americans against each other using jealousy and greed like Obama and the Democrats.

The Democrat solution is just hike taxes until everyone shuts down their businesses so everyone is dependent on government for everything.

A business needs middle-class customers way more than it needs rock-bottom taxes, because no matter how rich the rich get, there's only a certain amount of baubles and bangles and trinkets they want or need.

It's because of the class warfare against the middle class that businesses are failing. People who don't earn living wages won't have enough to buy what they sell.

 

[GarfieldJL]

A business needs middle-class customers way more than it needs rock-bottom taxes, because no matter how rich the rich get, there's only a certain amount of baubles and bangles and trinkets they want or need.

It's because of the class warfare against the middle class that businesses are failing. People who don't earn living wages won't have enough to buy what they sell.

How is more and more people needing food stamps helping the middle class...

We need more jobs, not more welfare.

 

[Assuredcw]

A business needs middle-class customers way more than it needs rock-bottom taxes, because no matter how rich the rich get, there's only a certain amount of baubles and bangles and trinkets they want or need.

It's because of the class warfare against the middle class that businesses are failing. People who don't earn living wages won't have enough to buy what they sell.

 

[mpok1519]

Fantine, I'm sure you must truly believe Obamacare will grow the Healthcare industry. Personally, I don't see how that's possible though ...

Please don't misunderstand me, I understand that the healthcare system in the USA has been broken for years, but I see that as having been caused largely by government meddling in the first place.

Why do you believe government has the ability to fix it, much less grow it?

.

Before health insurance (something ultimately pioneered by Medicare), if people could not afford healthcare, they simply got sick and died. Which was the vast majority of people. Most people could not afford healthcare.

It was a broken system BEFORE the government stepped in. Since then, the industry has skyrocketed, largely due to the demand surge caused by the sole fact that people now had health insurance invested trough the people by the people, funding the innovation to improve medical discovery and practice.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Before health insurance (something ultimately pioneered by Medicare), if people could not afford healthcare, they simply got sick and died. Which was the vast majority of people. Most people could not afford healthcare.

It was a broken system BEFORE the government stepped in. Since then, the industry has skyrocketed, largely due to the demand surge caused by the sole fact that people now had health insurance invested trough the people by the people, funding the innovation to improve medical discovery and practice.

Actually, many medical procedures, medications, etc. cost significantly less before insurance, medicare, etc. entered the scene.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Paul Ryan is but one of a number of up and coming GOP candidates for President. The bull pen has never been so hot. I almost feel sorry for Hillary. Almost.

 

[Belk]

Actually, many medical procedures, medications, etc. cost significantly less before insurance, medicare, etc. entered the scene.

You mean in 1890? When the height of medicine was the radical idea that microbes caused sickness? Or do you mean 1910 when the first employer covered health insurance was offered and they had discovered that a lack of vitamins causes scurvy?

Somehow not seeing this as a cause effect correlation.

 

[Belk]

Paul Ryan is but one of a number of up and coming GOP candidates for President. The bull pen has never been so hot. I almost feel sorry for Hillary. Almost.

I, and a lot of other moderates, have taken a liking to Chris Christie. Not sure how he plays to the more rightward elements though. Some seemed less then thrilled when he stopped playing partisan politics after his state got hit by a super storm.

 

[mpok1519]

Actually, many medical procedures, medications, etc. cost significantly less before insurance, medicare, etc. entered the scene.

And yet people still couldn't afford it, got sick and died.

 

[GarfieldJL]

And yet people still couldn't afford it, got sick and died.

When people couldn't afford something back in the day, the doctors used to accept work (like putting together a cabinet, painting some walls, etc.) as a means for people to pay the doctor back for treatment...

Additionally, a lot of people actually died because they didn't have the medications that we have today, not due to a lack of medical treatment...

 

[MachZer0]

And yet people still couldn't afford it, got sick and died.

Whatever healthcare system we adopt, the free market, Obamacare or single payer, people will still get sick and die.

 

[SPB1987]

Whatever healthcare system we adopt, the free market, Obamacare or single payer, people will still get sick and die.

He was obviously referring to preventable deaths and treatable sicknesses.

 

[MachZer0]

He was obviously referring to preventable deaths and treatable sicknesses.

He didn't say that