Is the Paul Ryan Budget cruel?

One problem with your logic , our troops are back from those 2 locals, the same can't be said for Bushes Follies can they?

Part of a legitimate military action is that we stay behind and at least try to get the country back on it's feet.
We've managed to keep Iraq And Afghanistan out of alqueda's hands. The same can't be said for obama's fiascos.

My thoughts exactly.

In Jan 2007 when Democrats took over Congress the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent by Dec 2007 we were in a recession.

You have to add on the big Prescription Drug Bill many Conservatives push as well. People just want to blame one party; the truth is, both are to blame.

What does that have to do with Democrats taking over Congress in Jan 2007 and going into a recession in Dec 2007?

Apparently, you decided to change the subject. I wonder why?

BTW, Obamacare now will cost 1.75 trillion over 10 years and no Republicans voted for it in the Senate. That is a far cry from Obama's 930 billion. Prescription Drugs was small potatoes compared to Obamacare and Democrats filled in the donut hole.

I didn't change the subject; the subject is on the economy, which were are discussing. The Prescription Drug/Medicaid didn't take into affect until the latter, which plays a role. I don't advocate for either side, so there isn't anything for me to try and diverge from.

"BTW, Obamacare now will cost 1.75 trillion over 10 years and no Republicans voted for it in the Senate."

Now you're just touching on my point; the bill that many Republicans advocated for/passed when they were the majority was in the trillions as well; costly overtime. See you're trying to paint the Republicans as wanting smaller government and less spending, yet when they had the chance they did the opposite.

Medicaid is costing more than 1.2 Trillion and now we can add on the 1.75 Trillion from the Democrats end over time. At the end of the day, what's the difference between the two parties?

Big difference, almost all welfare programs were originated by Democrats many of them under Johnsons great society programs. Medicaid was passed in 1965 and Obamacare in 2009.

You said; “Now you're just touching on my point; the bill that many Republicans advocated for/passed when they were the majority was in the trillions as well; costly overtime.”

Do you have any facts to back up your accusation (quote and a reference)? Come on slam me with it but you can’t! Your not even close to the truth.

“When Medicaid first came into being in mid-1965, the now gigantic government health care program went largely unnoticed.”

“Forty years later, Medicaid has evolved into a policy nightmare whose ever-growing costs overburden the federal treasury and threaten to swamp state budgets. At a February meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington, D.C., it was the dominant issue, sparking much discussion of possible budget cuts and proposed reforms.”

http://www.stateline.org/live...

Exasperated sigh; prescription drugs and what I was talking about completely passed over you. Here are the links; http://www.politifact.com/tru... http://www.cato-at-liberty.or... http://www.politifact.com/vir... and the links goes on.

You got slammed by your own first two references and your third reference doesn’t give a dollar value. Slammed by your own references.

FIRST Reference:

“Through 2010, Medicare Part D had cost $203 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”
http://www.politifact.com/tru...

SECOND reference:

“Bobby Scott says Republicans created $1 trillion prescription drug plan”
"Most people talk about costs in a 10-year period," he said. "When the Congressional Budget Office scores a bill, they often will score the 10-year costs."

OK, so we’ll look at the CBO’s Nov. 20, 2003 cost analysis of the program over its first decade, 2004 through 2013. It’s just shy of $400 billion.

That’s a long way from Scott’s $1 trillion."
http://www.politifact.com/vir...

Ummmm no I didn't; if you haven't notice, I clearly stated the prescription bill put forth will cost us up to 1 trillion dollars. Once again you're not paying attention but putting your own inane spin on things.

Obamacare will eventually go up to 1.75 trillion once implimented; but it will not be in one shot either but over a period of time. Try to pay attention.

Your lying again. You said; "trillions" and your own reference said 400 billion. Apparently, you can't even remember your lies.

You said; "Now you're just touching on my point; the bill that many Republicans advocated for/passed when they were the majority was in the trillions as well;"

http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

Your own reference slammed you:

"OK, so we’ll look at the CBO’s Nov. 20, 2003 cost analysis of the program over its first decade, 2004 through 2013. It’s just shy of $400 billion.

"That’s a long way from Scott’s $1 trillion."

http://www.politifact.com/vir...

In the trillions over a decade genius; like I stated before, over time just like Obamacare. My goodness you people are thick headed on this site.

Read your own reference. It slams you with facts. Four hundred billion for the first decade not trillions like you said.

"OK, so we’ll look at the CBO’s Nov. 20, 2003 cost analysis of the program over its first decade, 2004 through 2013. It’s just shy of $400 billion."

http://www.politifact.com/vir...

Apparently, your game is to lie and then deny.

Must we do this again; "It was certainly not the first time that Congress tried to improve the system of private plans within Medicare. But it’s fair to say with the addition of the drug benefit, it was the biggest expansion of the program since the beginning," said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group.”

“Scott says Republicans created a trillion dollar prescription drug entitlement program without paying for it. The true cost of the program is unknown since it will continue to grow. In fact, the Government Accountability Office shows that the cost could exceed $7 trillion in 75 years. If we use a 10-year cost measure, Scott would be wrong looking over the first decade of the program, which is estimated to cost shy of $500 billion. But if we look at the cost over the next 10 years, Scott is close to correct based on current projections. So we find the claim to be Mostly True. “

All programs go on through the decades unless they are cancelled. Obamacare cost 1.75 trillion the first ten years and naturally is will cost more the second 10 years. Using Scott’s logic, I can say Obamacare will cost at least 50 trillion dollars and that would be mostly true.

“But here’s the other thing Scott leaves out -- Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, had pitched an even more expensive Medicare Part D plan scored by the CBO to cost $800 billion in its first 10 years, double the cost of the Republican plan. (Scott voted against the Republican plan when it came to the House floor.)”

http://www.politifact.com/vir...

Scott wanted a Medicare Part D plan twice as costly. The Republican plan wasn’t big enough.

“But here’s the other thing Scott leaves out -- Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, had pitched an even more expensive Medicare Part D plan scored by the CBO to cost $800 billion in its first 10 years, double the cost of the Republican plan. (Scott voted against the Republican plan when it came to the House floor.)”

I read that as well a long time ago already; after all, this is one my save links.

As for Obamacare;

http://www.politifact.com/tru...

They can rate it whatever they want. CBO rates it at 1.75 trillion. Perhaps, Politifact should use the same logic they did on Medicare Part D.

Politifact has their opinion and it’s a left wing opinion. I will go with the accountants at CBO. Unlike Politifacts they are non partisian.

This isn't about how it makes you feel.
That fact is we're broke. Obama spent it all.
With liberals it's all about how you feel about something.

Has nothing to do about feelings. How does it make financial sense to cut taxes when we are already broke?

Cut spending along with those tax cuts. Allow those that earned the money to keep it for a change.
The 2003 Bush tax cut saw unemployment drop from 6.4% to 4.6%.

Before it ballooned back up to 8% you mean?

Obama extended the Bush tax Cuts.

Thanks to the democrats minimum wage increases.
Would you like to see the chart?

History shows it makes perfect sense.

George Bush cut taxes in 2003 which became effective 1 Jan 2004. His tax cuts increased revenues 700 billion dollars. Of course, the recession started in Dec 2007, so 2008 revenue where down slightly.

When Obama took over, revenues fell through the floor and spending increased dramatically.

Year /Revenues / Outlays / Deficit or Surplus
2003 1,782,314 /2,159,899 /-377,585
2004 1,880,114 /2,292,841 /-412,727
2005 2,153,611 /2,471,957 /-318,346
2006 2,406,869 /2,655,050 /-248,181
2007 2,567,985 /2,728,686 /-160,701
2008 2,523,991 /2,982,544 /-458,553
2009 2,104,989 /3,517,677 /-1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 /3,456,213 /-1,293,489
2011 2,320,700 /3,603,061 /-1,299,595

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb...
Table 1.1

Regan increased revenues 76 percent cutting taxes twice.

What part of ( our Country is broke , Don't you people get ? We will all have to give something up ! , I am 50 and this will affect me , but I would rather pay for it now , than my kids have to give 90 % in taxes out of their pay checks and have a terrible life ....... This rhetoric is stupid , it's Selfish , if you really love this country then you will also have to sacrifice , we are all in this together ? .......... our country needs to return to being ( You are responsible for your own damm life ! , not the goverment! Geez if you dont want to work , then move to britian or greece , they will give you all the free stuff you want .... I am disgusted by all the free loading in this country ............

What part of cutting taxes loses money not saves money don't you people get?

So cutting money taken by the government is somehow a loss but taxes are not a loss to the taxpayers.....yeah, that works.....NOT

Doesn't sound like you actually understand the concept of some people actually NEED that assistance to survive. There are alot of freeloaders, but this proposal doesn't go after the people screwing the system. It takes from everyone. they need to go after the fraudulant claimants first.

I think politicians would be better off pushing for audits of fraud and abuse of the low-income programs by people who don't NEED the funds but receive them anyways. There is a lot of money that could be recovered if they just take the time. I used to think taxes should be slashed for corporations, believing the whole BS about trickle down effects. But I've flip-flopped (technically, I got smarter) and realize that corporations don't care about the people. They care about their pockets, and how much money they have to spend on a new Yacht.

We need to demand accountability from elected officials, force them to reduce their burden on this country and start living like normal human beings again. THAT would give this country alot more money then cutting funds to families that really do NEED those funds.

I agree. I have no problem with that, or with drug testing for those on assistance, or for making necessary cuts. I do have a problem with slashing taxes for the people who already get off too easy.

absolutely. There are PLENTY of areas that could be cut in order to help decrease the deficit we have now because of out of control spending on BOTH parties head. They are being lazy by suggesting tax cuts to the richest first. Start cutting budgeted allowances to the presidency cabinet and all budgets granted to congress and senate for their meetings, and travel expenses, and life time benefits first...

Pork Barrel spending as well, and billions of dollars in earmarks. Cut some of that garbage first. Stop killing the working poor to pay for things like superhighways, and other garbage.

Who's going to be honest enough to stand up and say that Americans are going to die...
How can one live, if one can't eat... How does one live in the elements... Let's be honest here... if we cut spending on things that keep others living, then let's be brave enough to say that Americans will die...

Yes.. That is perhaps the goal. Less people more money.

LOL.. but then there's that contraception debate...

They don't know if they're coming or going...

WELLL SAID

Although not for the Wealthy, it's good for them

I can only imagine one of Satan's minions, if not Satan himself, put Ryan up to this.

Realistic and necessary would be better terms. It should eliminate deficit spending altogether and provide for debt reduction immediately.

The debt reduction relies on generating income. How will we do that by slashing taxes to corporations?