It's all here, as clear as can be.
...Mr. Ryan had an instructive colloquy with Tim Geithner on this point in February. The Budget Chairman noted that the Administration doesn't "have a plan to make good" on the promises the political class has made to voters. The Treasury Secretary replied that "As I said, we're not disagreeing in that sense. I made it absolutely clear that what our budget does is get our deficit down to a sustainable path over the budget window."
Mr. Ryan: "And then it takes off." Mr. Geithner: "Let's ask ourselves why they take off again. Why do they do that?" Mr. Ryan: "Because we have 10,000 people retiring every day and health-care costs going up."
Mr. Geithner: "That's right. . . . We're not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is that we don't like yours."
The chart at the link is helpful, even to the willfully ignorant like our frequent commenter, "Jim."
As to the rest of the "anonys", who deride a 2054 target for a balanced budget WITHOUT tax increases, well....
They can refer to the Obozo/Geithner plan outlined above by Mr. Geithner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I've pretty much done trying to explain this because it won't get through the bubble but I've got 2 minutes so what the hell. Let's do this for old time's sake:
Ryan's "budget" reduces government debt because his voucher system is tied to inflation and not rising health care costs. Health care costs go up substantially more than inflation so what Ryan is doing is writing seniors a check and telling them to make it work. But it won't work because he does nothing to control health care cots so what basically happens is that the vouchers become worth less and less in real terms and he transfers the cost burden on to the beneficiary, waves his magic wand and thinks he's fixed the problem. Sounds completely effin' stupid right? Well that's because it is.
Likewise, his "budget" projects that discretionary spending (including military spending) will shink to 4% GDP from today's 12% GDP. We are currently spending more than that on military spending alone which means Ryan is basically saying that he's going to shrink the military and eliminate the government completely. Sound ridculous and impossible at the same time? Yeah well that's because it is impossible and very stupid.
In a nut shell, Ryan isn't smart. Far from it. He just uses the word, "baseline" and hopes you people all think he's smart. He thinks you're uninformed and stupid. Read CBO, read Tax Policy Center analysis, read anyone who knows anything about Ryan's Roadmap and/or budget proposal. Anyone! Stop reading political hacks. Open your minds. Quit believing that these guys are smart. They aren't. They can't even add.
My .02. Back to misinformed, bullshit links to Breitbart.
A lot of people think that 'baseline' is more than the Feds need.
And maybe the cost of medical care rises because the Feds help it to do so?
And maybe the cost of medical care rises because the Feds help it to do so?
How so? Got a source or at least some rationale for that assertion?
"It's all here, as clear as can be."
Exactly. From the source--"These debt projections are highly speculative, and faster economic growth would do a great deal to mitigate them."
Basing an entire argument on this statement is, indeed, willfully ignorant.
Yah, except "faster economic growth" has not yet materialized, has it?
Struppster, your tired, non-functional Keynesian "Debt for All, and the MORE Debt for All" crap has played itself out.
It's a disaster. Piss and moan as you like about Ryan, but he gets the idea: It's the SPENDING, Stupid!!
That means you, Strupp.
You're an idiot, Josh Strupp. Then again, as a mediocre salesman, you make a living lying.
At least he has a job. What do YOU do?
in [Obozo's] budget, spending would be at a quarter of the economy and climbing fast. And that's by the White House's own most optimistic projections.
The problem, dear meatball, is not in our taxes.
It is in ObozoSpending.
Post a Comment