Patterico's Pontifications

This is our last hope for a successful country.

Don’t we still have that revolution thingamabob in our pocket?

deepelemblues (a78b16) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:33 pm

Yeah, deepelemblues, I think it’s reasonable to day that some kind of collapse or revolution is the eventual outcome if we do not take a serious and realistic step towards financial sanity (I’m not being sarcastic).

Ryan and his staff did a hell of a lot of work on this, and Obama dismissed it with the usual bla bla bla about the suffering and the breaks for the rich.

It’s sickening, but Obama says Ryan’s budget fails Obama’s test. I think we can all look and see for ourselves with budget fails our test. Truly, this and Obamacare is what the 2010 election was about.

Ryan could look Obama in the eye and note, “we won, Barry” if Obama had the spine to even meet with Paul Ryan.

Sadly, I can already see the writing on the wall. Ryan’s budget is timed for the government shutdown to establish the GOP’s position as realistic. There is a wide open path for ‘maverick’ moderates to cut this needed reform far down.

Everyone needs to contact their representative and Senator, and I think they need to do so in writing, and urge support for Ryan’s FY 2012 budget.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:40 pm

I left a comment on Hotair that these warning from Democrats that a shutdown will end the Republican majority is more hotair

1st – they are nervous – being out of the spotlight – replaced by news coverages of nissans with machine guns in the 30 min cycles of spews has givn them a repreive from th fires of reform that swept the country just a few months back

2nd – thats about to change

EricPWJohnson (b9728b) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:40 pm

So the Dems are going to be back into the focus after Wisconsins apparent bust and the Libya thing ending in a stalemate.

The out of control spending is going to scare to death Americans faced with rising superinflation (yep thats right double digit increases coming)

And high gas prices – more when the a/c bills hit high 3 figures for more households – look to your local democrats for reasons to raise taxes?

Game OVER

EricPWJohnson (b9728b) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:43 pm

We’ll see EricPWJohnson. I sure won’t vote for anyone who votes in favor of Ryan’s bill.

Jim (ad29d8) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:47 pm

Yeah, EPWJ, I don’t think democrats can compete with bona fide conservative republicans right now. Plenty of Americans are in austerity mode. When they see Ryan’s budget compared against Obama’s, they will see that there is a real difference between parties.

Sadly, the GOP dropped the ball on fiscal conservatism for several years. While their worst is nothing compared to the new status quo, they eliminated the issue for themselves, opening the door to democrats abusing the deficit while claiming to be conservative on spending (as Obama has repeatedly done).

The obvious political move is for the GOP to pass Ryan’s budget and make this a huge political distinction. And then they need to be vigilant against losing this issue again.

But politics aside, this is a solution to a real crisis facing our country. Obama has maxed out the credit cards and taken a second mortgage and now is getting title loans… to pay for things we do not need to survive. Sure, it’s nice to see the dems scramble, but that’s the least of my concerns.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:48 pm

What are some ideas on how to support Ryan’s plan?

Patricia (0131bf) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:52 pm

I love you Mr. Ryan

happyfeet (71628d) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:53 pm

I sure won’t vote for anyone who votes in favor of Ryan’s bill.

Comment by Jim

Do you have an argument? Look at this. I am sure Ryan’s budget is not perfect, but look at the crisis we’re in. It’s time to get over blaming democrats and Republicans for their combination of mistakes that got us here, and simply accept that our nation actually needs us to pass a budget that cuts spending a whole bunch.

Even Obama says that we need to be willing to ‘share sacrifice’ and cut spending, but he says Ryan’s fails his ‘fairness’ test because it’s not hiking taxes up on the ‘rich’.

Let me ask: if we had a tax increase on the middle class + rich (the rich is a tiny group, so if you want to tax seriously you must tax the middle class), would that be an acceptable compromise to get you to agree to Ryan’s budget? Can you name what specific aspects of the budget you think are so horrible that you can never support someone who votes for it?

You sound like someone with a closed mind, stubbornly opposing Ryan because you see him as on the other team.

We’re all on the same team if we love our country, since the debt is a true crisis.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:55 pm

ryan is becoming a rock star by a radical new strategy.

Telling the truth and facing harsh realities.

Crazy, huh?

Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:58 pm

Dustin, it eliminates Obamacare and it costs people more who have been paying into Medicare for decades. The only way you’ll get me to vote for a budget is to cut military spending roughly in half. Otherwise, I’m happy with the status quo.

Jim (ad29d8) — 4/5/2011 @ 6:59 pm

I am still stinging from the Republican fumble of 1996, when the government shutdown bit us in the @$$. Until then, I had no idea how many households rely on government checks and how many people truly don’t want to take responsiblity for their lives. They are just fine taking free money for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, various disability and welfare, 2 years of unemployment, utilty subsidies, mortgage workout assistance, etc.

The tide is going out…the wrong portion of the population is reproducing, and they vote (D). If Ryan’s solution doesn’t work this time, I think you will see quite a few mini-John Galts. I will be one of them.

TimesDisliker (5c28a5) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:00 pm

What are some ideas on how to support Ryan’s plan?

Comment by Patricia

I think you should write or call your Representative and Senators. I noticed that hand written letters got more attention. If they have a town hall, you should try to meet them in person and urge support. Even if you’re in a red state. Ryan’s plan is courageous, and a lot of Republicans are going to have a problem with these spending cuts. This truly does reduce the power in DC, and makes sustainable government realistic. A lot of politicians have enjoyed complaining about our spending while not expecting the problem to be solvable.

I’d also suggest sharing this site with friends and social media.

Frankly, Ryan’s hand is not out. He’s not asking for donations or anything like that, as far as I know. I think he just hopes Tea Partiers can push congress to support his plan. This political issue has to remain alive through the presidential election, too.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:01 pm

• Tax reform: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation’s outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

Paul Ryan’s WSJ op-ed provides a very good overview.

Dana (9f3823) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:01 pm

Dana, he’s really gifted when it comes to explaining his plan, and covering a lot of bases.

That’s the best link in this topic.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:04 pm

Jim:

I’m sure you are all about the old folk and the children and everyone who needs this, that or the other for whatever reason. I’m sure you are sincere.

But, can you understand, somewhere, that we are now talking about Monopoly (the game)? There simply is no more money. It is gone. We’re just playing political games until the full faith of the American people is gone.

As much as you wish, as much as you hope, as much as you care, it doesn’t change the fact that there is no more money. It is gone. It is as non-existent as a Norwegian blue. But you still want to spend it.

Why is this so hard to understand? Every cent we spend as a nation is borrowed. We are essentially bankrupt and all you can do is say spend more.

Ag80 (98fa24) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:11 pm

It’s especially beneficial because as the author of the bill, can break it down more effectively than others. (I really appreciate that he breaks it down into manageable bite-size pieces.)

Dana (9f3823) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:16 pm

I can understand, Ag80. I just disagree where the cuts should be. And I don’t understand how any of you can say you’re in favor of this bill until you know all of the details of the tax law changes Ryan is proposing. Right now, he has provided none of those details.

Jim (ad29d8) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:22 pm

And Ag80, he also has provided nothing about any changes in Social Security. I’m not really sure that his plan entails any changes (most of the articles say it doesn’t) yet his op-ed today says it will….and again, there’s no specifics.

Jim (ad29d8) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:24 pm

And I don’t understand how any of you can say you’re in favor of this bill until you know all of the details of the tax law changes Ryan is proposing

Interestingly, Obama has already specifically said Ryan’s bill is a failure because of its tax law changes.

(From Dana’s link)• Tax reform: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation’s outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

There is a need for more specifics, and yet this is a clear summary.

Jim we need cuts in all kinds of directions. Where do you want cuts? What cuts of Ryan’s do you oppose?

As for social security, Ryan argues for reform, but that’s for a separate bill. That’s not the topic of this one. So we can debate that when that reform is attempted.

You just said you refuse to vote for anyone who supports this bill, and now you’re saying you don’t understand Ryan’s bill well enough? In other words, you are unreasonable and refuse to give a Republican budget a fair and honest chance.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:48 pm

You can’t know what’s in the bill until we pass the bill.

That’s not how it works anymore? Thanks for the update.

But, you are right, no bill should pass without review. But it really doesn’t take away the fact that all we’re talking about is play money.

If nothing is done, my kids are paying for your grandchildren to have nothing.

Except despair.

Ag80 (98fa24) — 4/5/2011 @ 7:52 pm

Dustin, if the bill repeals Obamacare and doesn’t simultaineously replace it with something that guarantees access to health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions (as the GOP promised in January when they said they were going to “repeal and replace”), I will vote against anyone who votes in favor of Ryan’s bill.

Jim (ad29d8) — 4/5/2011 @ 8:00 pm

AG80, I have to wonder why Jim and Politico and Wapo aren’t up in arms about Obama’s budget proposal, with its extreme and aggressive spending hikes, or the way he’s spent to get us to this point.

They want to nitpick Ryan’s bill, and the truth is we should nitpick every bill, but they don’t seem to use that fine tooth comb with a far more dangerous budget.

We’re spending money so fast right now that we will need a decade to get back to the debt level we had last Halloween. That with the ‘extreme’ budget cuts, rather than Obama’s plan for radical spending up to the point of collapse.

If that is the alternative, it’s easy to see that Ryan has the better plan because every nanny state feel-good initiative will fail under Obama’s budget… it will merely fail in the years to come instead of on Obama’s watch.

All those states that promised lush benefits to public workers are going to face default, and their workers are going to lose their pensions without a bailout. The responsible plan that wouldn’t have led to this problem is always condemned by union leadership, even though that’s the only way they actually get their pension.

That’s why conservatives recognize the urgency of Ryan’s budget. The alternative is absurd.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 8:02 pm

Dustin:

The left thinks that somewhere there is a money machine that spouts wealth as water. They don’t understand that wealth only exists by individual toil.

Have I mentioned that the fighting Texas Aggies just won the NCAA women’s title in basketball? Because they did! Whoop!

Sorry. I will stop now.

Ag80 (98fa24) — 4/5/2011 @ 8:10 pm

AG80, that is a great accomplishment for TAMU. Congrats.

I also think a lot of the left believes there is some clever way for the government to deal with the debt. you call it a money machine… some actually believe in that. Or they think we can manipulate our debt to borrow our way to some massive economic event that will fix everything (I’m reminded of South Park’s ‘internet money’).

One thing we need to explain to them is that entitlements are the lion’s share of our debt problem, and entitlements are tied to cost of living.

So if we have massive inflation, and all our houses are worth millions, and the Chinese get screwed out of the value of their T-Bills, we’re still hopelessly screwed.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/5/2011 @ 8:15 pm

Dustin:

As we watch the complete and total failure of government-incentivized lack of recovery, at least we have the hard work of regular people doing their jobs. At least those who still have them, despite the fact that what they earn and create every day means less and less in the giant maw of debt and inflation.

Ag80 (98fa24) — 4/5/2011 @ 8:30 pm

very good article on ryan’s proposal, here. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/ryan-unveils-serious-budget-proposal-serious-time

Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/5/2011 @ 8:31 pm

You can pretty much cue up the personal destruction drumbeat against Ryan starting tomorrow.

From running red lights to sodomizing Teddy Bears, it will begin. No one can challenge the inner loop without paying the price.

Ag80 (98fa24) — 4/5/2011 @ 8:41 pm

The left thinks that somewhere there is a money machine that spouts wealth as water. They don’t understand that wealth only exists by individual toil.

They understand that. But they think that the fruits of that toil don’t stay with those that toil, but end up with the elites, and therefore don’t see any reason why the elites should be allowed to hold on to that money–and that taking away the money from the elites will not result in anything bad to our society. For them, being rich is a form of parasitism, living off the toil of the workers.

And then they misidentify the identity of those elites and those toiling workers, so that, for example, the teachers union is miscategorized as honest workers instead of as parasites.

I think that’s Marx’s ‘labor theory of value’ or whatever it was called lurking in there.

Comment on the general question: I don’t disagree that we are better off with Ryan’s proposal being out in the open now, staking out a position. But some of Ryan’s proposal is smoke and mirrors–the Medicaid cuts are really simply some of the problem onto the states, and not a realistic cut in what’s spent on health care–meaning the battle will need to be fought again at the state level. And there’s nothing I know of that will, for example, force Congress to limit the value of those Medicare vouchers to fiscally responsible levels.

kishnevi (337084) — 4/5/2011 @ 9:11 pm

Jim you will vote against anyone that loves america in other words

No surprise since your a marxist welfare-stater.

DohBiden (984d23) — 4/5/2011 @ 9:33 pm

Dustin, I read the roadmap.

I object to the following:

(a) allowing people a choice between two tax systems. This means that people with the means to figure out which one helps them more will pick that one; it creates an overall more complicated system with an illusion of simplicity.

(b) eliminating the capital gains tax in its entirety. We should not be favoring investment income over labor income, and in practice this shifts the tax burden from the rentier class onto the working class.

(c) abolishing the employer health care deduction and replacing it with a refundable credit for individuals. The change in tax treatment will encourage employers to drop health care programs. The tax credit isn’t enough to pay for most people’s health insurance. The cost to the consumer will rise dramatically.

(d) changing the law to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. this renders state regulation of insurance companies meaningless. it’s actually an astonishing proposal from a so-called conservative; it removes effective regulatory power from state government and transfers it to the state with the most relaxed regulatory environment. so much for federalism.

I very much like the guarantee of a certain level of benefits for those buy into social security private accounts, although I suspect that means the cost savings will be lower than expected. I like eliminating the AMT. On the other hand, I think the unemployment-will-drop-to-2.6% projection is absurd. And a rule which imposes mandatory spending reductions unless we’re involved in a war or an economic downturn just isn’t going to work; in the 66 years since WW2, we’ve been at war (depending on how you define it) for 37 years. (Korea, Vietnam, GW1, Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya).

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:39 am

Dana: the tough thing is, Ryan’s plan offers people their choice between the existing tax system or the new tax system. Anyone who isn’t paying much under the current system will stick with it unless, under the new system, they’d pay less than they are paying their accountants now.

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:40 am

state regulation of insurance companies is gay cause of the more mobile a society is the more prosperous it can be cause of it can more better allocate human capital

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:42 am

feets, that doesn’t sound very gay to me. it sounds positively morose.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:49 am

Happyfeet: one of my recurring irritations with Republicans is that their adherence to the states-rights position seems inconsistent. Stuff like this reinforces my impression that modern adherents to “states rights” really only support the rights of states to do what the people advocating states-rights want them to.

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:56 am

aphrael, (c) is precisely the right move. Yes, it will cause employers to stop providing insurance; that’s the whole point. The most f—ed up part of the USA health system is the artificial connection between health insurance and employment, which is directly caused by the fact that the tax laws make insurance much cheaper if your boss buys it for you than if you buy it yourself. That has to change. Employers shouldn’t be providing insurance; the money they spend on insurance should be paid as wages, and the employees should be buying their own insurance, or choosing to keep the money and take the risk of going uninsured. Yes, if your boss was subsidising your insurance, then your premiums will go up; but it should be by no more than the amount of the subsidy, which your boss can simply pass on to you in the form of a pay increase.

The one thing I don’t like about this is the “refundable tax credit”. A “refundable tax credit” is newspeak for a government subsidy. On the other hand, if it’s necessary to make this work, it’s a small price to pay. Once the system is in place and we see how it works, it can be fiddled with.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:57 am

Hey, states remain free to impose whatever restrictions they like; they just shouldn’t be able to stop people from shopping elsewhere. That’s what the interstate commerce clause is about.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:59 am

Milhouse, I actually agree that it would be better to undo the tie between health insurance and employment.

My irritation in this context is that (a) I just don’t believe employers will pass on the amount of the subsidy, in most cases. I think they’ll use it to increase profit margins. and (b) some of the anti-obamacare rhetoric was focused on how it would cause employers to drop insurance for their employees. It seems highly hypocritical to use that as a club against obamacare and then turn around and support a program which does the same thing.

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:06 am

Mr. aphrael if states decide that it
s best for their own citizen-people for to have a single insurance market, then that doesn’t impinge on states rights at all. So. it’s perfectly fine to say a national insurance market is a good thing.

But yes how we get there matters.

It may be that American states will have to go first and create a multi-state compact, and then the dirty socialists anti-American states like California and Illinois will find themselves at an even more enhanced competitive disadvantage.

Then that’s a bridge people can cross on their own.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:19 am

*it’s* I mean … I have no idea what happened there

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:20 am

Thanks for your objections, Aphrael.

In particular, I understand where you’re coming from on d). That could lead to some major problems, and it’s not the federal government’s place.

A and B don’t bother me that much. It probably won’t be that hard, even for poor folks who have a light tax burden. The one size fits all tax system is complicated for wealthy people already. Eliminating the cap gains tax disfavors ‘the rentier class’? That kind of argument for fairness is why such a huge number of Americans don’t pay taxes. That’s the real unfairness, not that Ryan touches it. Indeed, adding a simple choice on top of a complex system does make it simpler for many.

The cap gains tax issue is just a pure difference in opinions.

I think I can sum up the bill as facing a lot of hard chores America has to complete. Some of them require fundamental changes that raise legitimate objections because they aren’t perfect. The larger problem is that as the nation’s debt crisis continues, our entire currency is compromised. You want to talk about complication to renters, or wrenches thrown in health care, then we have to admit Ryan’s plan faces the more severe threat to those and most other financial issues.

Paul Ryan has offered a legitimate solution, and we should hope the democrats offer one as well. That is the practical way for us to move forward.

Some are so unwilling to budge they rejected the GOP’s mere $12 billion cut, and that leads to the only specific set of solutions being Ryan’s budget. You’re reasonable. I know you’re not saying that any of these issues is less important than balancing the budget. What you’re doing is pointing out that Ryan’s budget imposes real costs in a lot of ways, some of which you disagree with (some of which I disagree with too, especially on national defense).

I hope the democrats are willing to offer something similar to Ryan’s bill with their own real costs that the right can disagree with.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:26 am

happyfeet, my understanding is that under these reforms, I can buy insurance that doesn’t meet Texan regulations, even though I’m in Texas.

Am I mistaken about that? Aphrael’s not the only person who has suggested this state’s rights issue.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:31 am

Dustin: I think you misunderstood what I was saying. ‘rentier’ is someone who lives on rent, eg, someone who doesn’t work but makes enough money to live by investing and living off of the income. My complaint is that eliminating capital gains favors investment income over labor income; that is, it discriminates against workers in favor of rentiers. I would these kinds of income equally.

I would also note that under Ryan’s income tax proposal, my income tax liability would have fallen by about 35%. I don’t understand how such a change, writ large can do anything other than reduce revenue … unless it brings in a lot of people who are paying a smaller percentage in tax than I am, but why would they choose to switch to the new system?

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:32 am

Dustin, what the roadmap says is:
Interstate Purchasing. Allows individuals who reside in one State to buy a more affordable health insurance plan in another State. Likewise, health insurance plans would be able to sell their policies to individuals and families in every State, as other companies do in every other sector of the economy.

If I can go online and buy a more affordable plan in South Carolina, then California isn’t going to be able to prevent me from buying one which doesn’t meet California’s regulations. It could, I suppose, prohibit doctors operating in California from accepting out-of-state insurance plans, but I think that Rep. Ryan’s plan implicitly prohibits that.

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:35 am

‘rentier’ is someone who lives on rent, eg, someone who doesn’t work but makes enough money to live by investing and living off of the income.

Ha. Now I feel a little dumber. Thanks! I have a fundamental problem with taxing income. But the changes I want are radical and politically unrealistic. Yes, this cap gains break benefits some more than others, obviously, but doesn’t that rentier pay tax on his property? If he has a large operation, he has to pay employees. The people who live off investment income are probably not the solution to our debt problem, but you have a perfectly valid policy difference to discuss. My larger point is to hope democrats respond to Ryan’s solution with something that solves basically the same problem of extreme debt, but with alternative details. That’s where the political process is breaking down, and has been for a very long time on the debt issue.

And you are right, there are huge income tax decreases for a lot of people under this choice. That’s the obvious implication of a giving people a choice between current taxes and something else. The only people who change will do so for their own benefit.

If unemployment goes down, say because capital gains tax led to great investments and reduced income tax led to more employees, maybe there’s a net gain. I’m a little skeptical, too, just because a lot of low wage earners pay no tax (and sadly, this won’t be fixed).

Personally, I think a combination of fairly limited tax increases that weren’t confined to ‘the rich’, combined with drastic spending cutting, is a very reasonable compromise. Sure, we have a spending problem rather than a tax problem, but I’m not talking about a huge increase, and I sure as hell am not talking about top loading it in a way that would hurt employment.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:50 am

doesn’t that rentier pay tax on his property?

that depends. if he’s living off of the proceeds of real property, sure. if he’s living off of the proceeds of stock market investments, no.

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 10:58 am

Dustin nobody tells me anything I have no idea about buying the out of state insurance I just know America is in big trouble and I’m scared

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:02 am

whaaa? everybody has to pay taxes on dividends and cap gains – if you live in California you have to pay federal cap gains of 15% and state cap gains of 10%, which adds up to…

brb

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:03 am

omg.

25%!!!

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:04 am

I left a comment on Hotair that these warning from Democrats that a shutdown will end the Republican majority is more hotair

The problem is that the Democrats have the TV networks, national news wire services, national daily newspapers, regional daily newspapers, and national weekly newsmagazines to spin the story in their favor. That is what happened in 1995, where those media outfits convinced Americans that the shutdown was a bad thing even though t almost all Americans suffered no ill effects from the shutdown.

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:06 am

happyfeet – under the proposal I’ve linked to, put forward by Mr. Ryan, capital gains tax is eliminated.

aphrael (9802d6) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:08 am

I just know America is in big trouble and I’m scared

Me too. Paul Ryan is doing the right thing. He wasn’t a big cheese a few years ago, and he didn’t get a warm reception from his elders, but he’s tackling a massive problem seriously. The remarkable thing is not that Ryan did this… what sane Congressman wouldn’t propose a budget that gets us on our feet? It’s a crisis! The remarkable thing is that he’s going to be condemned by those who aren’t serious.

—

Aphrael, if he’s living off the proceeds from stock market investments, he’s already paying taxes, since publicly traded companies are paying taxes. I don’t mean to dismiss your point. I bet if we look we will find someone who has managed to live off municipal bonds or something, and really does avoid tax. But paying cap gains off the profits of a company that already has to pay tax seems like double dipping unless they invested in General Electric (joke).

This is a pure difference of opinion about policies, fairness, etc, rather than an objection that compromises Ryan’s project. I do think cutting or eliminating this tax will reduce unemployment. Not directly, and not perfectly, but simply getting out of the way and letting America be.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:09 am

omg.

25%!!!

ROFL

It’s always a relief when I’m reading something stressful and Happyfeet is in the thread.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:11 am

Thirty years from now when whatever is going to happen has actually happened–either way– Mr. Paul Ryan will be able to sleep well at night.

God bless him for forcing the converstion that needs to be had.

elissa (907483) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:20 am

Ryan cleans out Medicaid’s cash and dumps ObamaCare. Most Americans on Medicaid vote democrat.

Also, don’t over emphasize the role of the MSM. They have supported ObamaCare, amnesty, bailouts, TARP and cap & trade; the American public is 60-40 against all of them.

Arch (24f4f2) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:42 am

the American public is 60-40 against all of them.

The trick is that the MSM can focus on other topics when it wants. How many Americans are thinking about the IG firings, Pigford, Darfur, or the Ivory Coast?

They pick what to talk about, which allows democrats to survive unpopular decisions with a population that appears to have some kind of amnesia.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 11:52 am

“eliminating the capital gains tax in its entirety. We should not be favoring investment income over labor income…” -aphrael

Damn straight.

libarbarian (90bd00) — 4/6/2011 @ 3:46 pm

libarbarian, what about capital gains taxes on stock market investments?

That’s not favoring investment income… that’s just being fair by not taxing profits twice.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 3:55 pm

All taxing on income should be eliminated and replaced by consumption taxes IMHO.

That is the best way to incent folks to save money which in turn means producing more than consuming.

Torquemada (fccc6f) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:22 pm

Torq, that is a really good idea. It’s more fair, it’s easier to enforce, it’s encouraging labor and savings and stability.

But our primary problem is spending, rather than tax policy, IMO.

Dustin (c16eca) — 4/6/2011 @ 9:25 pm

4/5/2011

Paul Ryan Proposes to Cut Over $6 Trillion

60 Responses to “Paul Ryan Proposes to Cut Over $6 Trillion”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out