Contributors

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

They Like Him But...

Nearly all of my conservative friends are overjoyed at the pick of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's VP. I'm still trying to figure out why Mittens picked someone to fire up the base. With all of them foaming at the mouth about making President Obama a one term president, was he really worried that they wouldn't turn out and vote for him?

These same conservative friends of mine cry foul when I point out facts about Congressmen Ryan. They think I'm lying when I say he has never really worked in the private sector. They think I'm lying when I say that he has been a career politician. They really get pissed when I demonstrate how he used Social Security benefits to pull himself up by his bootstraps.

How pissed will they be when they read this? 

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.

That's not some raging liberal writing here. That's David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's OMB guy from 1981-1985. In true propeller head fashion, Stockman breaks down the numbers of the Ryan Budget and shows it for all it is...a plan that won't reduce the debt or the deficit.

Folks, here are the facts about The Great Thinker's plans. His Road Map didn't see a balanced budget until the 2060s and added 60 trillion dollars to the national debt. His revised plan was at least a little better with a balanced budget in the 2030s and 14 trillion dollars to the debt. I challenge anyone to take a hard look at these plans and check the numbers.

So what does his plan actually do? Here's an excellent primer from The Christian Science Monitor.

10 comments:

Larry said...

And yet ... his plan is a vast improvement over the Goldman-Sachs Administration's "no plan."

"Excitement" is relative. Compared to what else is running, he's wonderful. Compared to what many people wish was running -- not so much, That's what it amounts to, really. The lesser of two weevils.

Julie said...

over the Goldman-Sachs Administration's

You are 4 years late on that one. They've abandoned him for Romney.

Larry said...

Obama's no longer a proud team member, then? Riiight...

juris imprudent said...

Ah yes, your "conservative friends".

Ryan's plan isn't great, it's just better than anything the Dems have put on the table.

Mark Ward said...

How can it be better?

First, it wouldn't balance the budget deficit until the 2030s.

Second, it adds 14 trillion dollars to the debt...6 trillion alone in the next decade. A big reason for this is that while he is cutting taxes, he's not cutting defense spending. That's fine by me but this is how we got into this mess in the first place: we cut taxes and increased defense spending due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think we should cut defense spending but we have to raise taxes if we are going to pay for it. Yet, I know you think we should cut defense spending so why is it "better?"

Third, by cutting taxes on the wealthier earners and then adding in a VAT tax, he's essentially strapping poor people with a higher tax even though their effective rate is going down.

Larry, I'll put the contributions link today or tomorrow. You can compare who the financial sector is backing.

juris imprudent said...

How can it be better?

LMAO - because the Dems didn't put anything on the table. They're just going to spend until there is no money. They know they can't stay in power without paying off their constituencies.

Sure the President put a commission into place to make recommendations, and he and the rest of his party promptly ignored it. Super duper leadership there, huh?

Mark Ward said...

because the Dems didn't put anything on the table.

So I imagined all those offers made by the president and the Democrats last summer? The ones that were met with a brick wall?

They're just going to spend until there is no money.

Is this really juris? Sounds more like an hysterical old lady who can't distinguish reality from fiction anymore.

6Kings said...

The ones that were met with a brick wall?

a bipartisan wall no less for him putting out a worthless piece of crap that nobody liked. That is pathetic and...par for the course for this loser administration. SO..

spending goes on autopilot. Your responses look more and more unhinged every day. maybe you ought to do some of your highly touted self-reflection.

juris imprudent said...

So I imagined all those offers made by the president and the Democrats last summer?

Oh, you must mean the one that the Senate rejected. You remember the Senate right - Democrat majority and all.

Larry said...

Rejected unanimously, no less, for the steaming pile that it was.