Lets just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

When in your rush to judgement do you use that gray matter between your ears to do no more than hold them apart?DO YOU NOT CHECK on their voting record or do you leave that for someone else to do?If you vote for a obvious bad canidate then then woe be unto you if the other is trying to save your rights or much less save the esistance of that document that we hold so dear.Would you have us pass every bill that comes down the pike just so we can see what's in it or read it in it's entirety before it becomes something you are unwilling to live under?The choice fall's on you the indivual to do the work of checking these people out before you make that choice.If you chose to vote one party and one only then if I was Democrate you would have to vote for me no matter what I stood for or my voting record.Last I heard a large number of democrates have jumped ship and are voting with the republican side in both houses.But then that means you would have to read the Congressial record to see how their voting.But forgive me for even assuming that would even happen cause then I can blame everything on the other party even though my party has it's collective head stuck up their behinds.There is a certain amount of mistrust in either party but right now the republicans are displaying a far more logical way of doing things and alot of democrates are seeing that.There will not be a business as usual deal in washington any more and the spend thrift way of the past four years will end.The Tea Party had away of waking people up to government ggetting to big for it's boots and inserting itself into every aspect of your life.This time read George Orwell's book [ 1984 ]and read it don't pass it over and y7ou will see how close you are to that happening...

You need to start looking at the facts and the evidence rather than spouting the liberal hate lines. The Ryan budget is the only one out there at the present time, and it is realistically concerned with trying to make sure that the government help for the poor, the sick and the elderly will still be there for future generations. All the Obama nonbudget language that exists is directed at emotional appeals to make the poor think that the pot of money is unlimited and will always be there, while attempting to shift the cost burdens to the states. We are already seeing states facing severe financial problems from federal burdens laid on them because they do not have the ability to print money and thus inflate their income. New state taxes are already being put into place in most states across the nation.
We are already seeing major problems with private pensions, with state and local government pension funding and with the layoff of health care costs to the states, particularly in the provisions requiring the states to pay more and more of Medicaid costs (which covers the truly poor and indigent).
The devaluation of the dollar has already wiped out any gains in income for those who are working, and the government has decided to fool us again by leaving the costs of food and fuel out of inflation statistics while they increase daily. High unemployment and underemployment means that there are fewer of us (in percentage) working to pay for the benefits of the rest. Obama's 2% cut in the payroll tax (social security paid in) has now stressed that program, to the point that, just last week, the government itself reported that the "crunch" of being unable to meet payments to the elderly will hit three years sooner than previously expected.

Hi Susan, I read it and would like to make some comments that are my opinion. Ryans Budget does not specify where the money will come from to fund his proposal which is non apecific. For example, Increasing tax cuts to the richest by 300% on the back of a tax cut that was intended as temporary (made permanent), and never accomplished what it was intended for. He further mentions home mortgage interest deductions and taxes being eliminated which represents the largest single deduction middle class recieves annually and is dependent on particularly in bad times and it also fuels our spending which supports small and large business. I think back to the tax reform act of Reagan when he said he didn't touch the regular income and capital gains tax rates but refused to say that he changed the calculation for capital gains which is designed to radicate the deduction be reclaiming the tax benefit. This amendment reduces your cost basis by the amount of deductions used and then taxes the balance at the same unchanged rate (so called). He also restructured the CPI and inflation index formula by removing gold, real estate and other items in an effort to show inflation was under control. I would mention too that under his administration the banks and the FDIC failed and basically collapsed necessitating a bailout then. I would also point out that under Bush II a Texas senator sponsored and passed legislation that repealed regulations in place since and as a result of the great depression that enabled the Enron failure and gave traction to the formation and execution of dirivitives as an investment vehicle. We know what that did. Food prices are the most significantly effected costs of gas prices following transportation, heating and dry-good supplies and imports as well as domestic production. Gas prices are set by the world speculative oil futures market. Oil currently costs 60-8o dollars per barrel to bring to market. By the way Reagan was the first to restructure the use of pension funds for more risky investments and drop the garantees in place at the time that now are almost all pensions are at risk. I think and aam confident that if you review the SS fund has been similarly raided and borrowed from which was a similar approach to garner the funds.

This is a short list of why I feel the way I do and it is not intended to push these facts as a challenge to what sails your boat. Sorry for the lenght, just wanted to share, regards Ed

I haven't studied the that particular document in its entirety, and I'm sure once the CBO gets its hands on it, there will be substantive changes.
There are a lot of tradeoffs in it, such as eliminating certain deductions across the board in exchange for tax cuts in other places.
I assume that you are talking about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999 as the legislation you mention that repealed regulations on derivatives as an investment vehicle, etc. Bush was not in office at the time it was passed. That particular piece of legislation had been pushed since 1987, after the savings and loan collapse in the mid-1980s, by Citbank and Travelers, who wanted a merger and the right to combine commercial banking with investment banking. Tim Geithner, as head of the Federal Reserve of St. Louis, was one of the major players in pushing that through and getting a Democrat-led Congress to pass it in 1999. Ultimately, that repeal set the stage for the financial crisis in 2008 that is still keeping the US economy in peril, and in fact, is heavily instrumental in the financial crisis in Europe.
Our "too-big-to-fail" banks are not just US banks, but world banks, heavily invested since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in foreign and international companies.
Give Ryan a chance. His budget is based on real facts and an enormous amount of expert study of the current and future state of US financial conditions. If something is not done about entitlement funding and govt spending across the board, we face even worse financial collapses, higher unemployment, smaller pensions and or the collapse of pension funds. Remember that many pension funds, including the big state and federal funds, are invested in stock and bond funds. When the economy fails, those funds are in trouble.

Hi Sue, Thanks for your response. Here are what leads up to my concerns.

To begin with, you refer to “trade offs for tax cuts.” I cannot fathom that during a precarious economic recovery, of the most severe recession since the great depression, that may not have inflicted its full force yet (current likely contagious European Recession/depression), that tax cuts, including the unsuccessful “temporary” tax cuts for the wealthiest, should be made permanent and increased by 300%. This fact clearly demonstrates arrogant, hypocrisy and is ideologically revealing. This fact alone suggests that his (Ryan’s), entire proposal is and should be at question. In my mind, evidenced by the impact and end results of similar proposals, sold to the nation in the past. Why should I or anyone else support a massive budget proposal void of clear details, intent, purpose and policy is ridiculous, and to say the least insulting to the collective interests of the population’s intelligence.

“legislation had been pushed since 1987, after the savings and loan collapse in the mid-1980s, by Citibank and Travelers, who wanted a merger and the right to combine commercial banking with investment banking.” Keep in mind that under Reagan, (Republican ideology), he allowed the largest mergers of the largest banks and investment banking firms in history as well as broke the unions and authorizing the sale of the world’s largest steel industry (Bethlehem Steel), to be sold off shore to foreign concerns. I personally remember at that time, the debate and concern that, creating companies that are to big and could weaken the arm of government, while being reminded of the break-up of AT&T (a monopoly), due to numerous corporate bail-outs by taxpayers in the recent past. I mention this (as a footnote), because of the events that followed.

“Tim Geithner, as head of the Federal Reserve of St. Louis, was one of the major players in pushing that through and getting a Democrat-led Congress to pass it in 1999.” I’m not certain what his political persuation was or is but I’m fairly certain that this effort served three purposes, 1) It was a bailout/distraction serving the GOP ideology, lawmakers, previous actions, and empowered responsibility to the nation as well as the Dems. 2) It put the brakes on a second depression. 3) It served to protect and reinforce the interests and goals of the concerns that caused the problem.

You went on to say, “Your contention here may be correct however, Ultimately, that repeal set the stage for the financial crisis in 2008 that is still keeping the US economy in peril, and in fact, is heavily instrumental in the financial crisis in Europe. “ Need we debate the fact that this was under Geo. Bush? (Republican, same ideology), or that the policies and economic path of Reagan (Republican), and his ideology didn’t continue under Bush? I should mention, but not under Clinton (Democrat and their ideology, 8 years). What am I to conclude?

You went on to say, “Our "too-big-to-fail" banks are not just US banks, but world banks, heavily invested since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in foreign and international companies.” My first response is that apparently you think that banks are to big to fail as I. In fact, I know they are and I feel it presents a critical challenge of our National Security and the very bruised fabric of our Nation including democracy itself. Incidentally, the five largest banks in the US are mounting an offensive against their equivalent competitors in Europe to make a bigger grab, this would potentially put the banks in charge over the free? World!

FACTS:
Medicare part A is a basic hospitalization plan that is provided at no cost to the senior. Medicare Part B covers 80% of the cost of doctors visits and is billed based on income, with the minimum premium for 2012 set at $99.90. Medicare A and B are mandatory for everyone over 65, therefore there is no private coverage available and no competition on the market. THAT IS WHY, as you say, not one exists, at least in the US. Therefore, for these two coverages, with the current $150 deductible, the lowest amount a senior citizen pays would be roughly $1350 per year.

In addition, the senior either has to pay the remaining 20% of medical costs themselves or buy supplemental insurance to cover that amount not covered under Part B. Those insurance costs vary based on coverage, with an average policy in the range of $150 per month, or an additional $1800.00 per year.

If a senior wants to cover his prescription drugs, Part D plans are available at various costs depending on the actual drugs that have been prescribed and the amount of co-pay or lack of co-pays. Relatively good plans that I have found for a moderately healthy person using mostly generic drugs are in the range of $42-$60 per month premium, plus co-pays. That adds a minimum of $500-750 per year before co-pays.

Total current minimum individual senior premium costs: $3,650-$3900 per year. The Obamacare Act has increases in the Part B deductible for Medicare recipients projected to be $247 per month in 2014.

These are individual costs, not family costs, and a couple would have to at least double those rates.

Oh, btw, the average social security recipient receives approximately $1200 per month

Good insurance programs were available covering all of the above coverages for those who were eligible before age 65 in 2009 at an average (including cadillac plans) of about $4800 per year for singles, $13,375 for families, that was up 131% since 1999, and was up 5% 2010, expected to increase 7.8% in 2012. Wages during that period increased only 3%

FICTION: But you're probably right, we don't need to have a Ryan budget with real numbers and cost-benefit analysis, projections of costs and income based on reality. Let's just go ahead and make public policy based on emotional thought, make up spending projections based on what we want them to be, not what they might really turn out to be. Go ahead and spend the taxpayer dollars based on what we want the tax collector to get, without caring about where or how or how much might really be there. The Fed can go ahead and print more, thus driving the prices even higher and forcing more inflation on the consumer and the taxpayer.
That's what a lot of people do, anyway. Spend every dime until payday, even putting things on credit to pay later, then wonder why they never have enough money to pay for the real-world costs as the cost of everything increases and the paycheck buys less and less..