Ryan budget plan: new opportunity

by Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ Posted 2012/08/18 01:39:15

Related Topics: Debt, Economy, Budget, Paul Ryan, Ryan, Train, Tim Geithner, Budget Plan, House, Percent, Secretary

44 votes
Read all 57 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	New opportunity	30 votes	68%
	Train wreck!	11 votes	25%
	Undecided	3 votes	7%

That graph is from the Ryan budget plan document. It shows debt as a share of the economy. We're at 100 percent right now!

More to the point, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles both remember Paul Ryan quite fondly. Today they say that he "[speaks] truth [to] fakery."

In sharp contrast, this is what Secretary Tim Geithner said:

We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive
solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like
yours.

Tim Geithner really said that to the House Committee on the Budget, and said it to Paul Ryan. Is this administration serious? Paul Ryan certainly is.

+15

Add a comment above

RG 2012/08/18 02:27:45

New opportunity

+14
RYAN BUDGET vs NO BUDGET. I choose RYAN BUDGET - GIVE AMERICA A CHANCE!

>> See Replies

More polls by Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆

Prairie Wind 2012/08/19 01:27:32

New opportunity

+3
What is obvious is NO votes in either the Senate or the House were placed in favor of Obama's proposed budgets. ALL of our nation's legislators recognized Obama offers nothing in favor toward this nation's wellbeing.

reply
JT For Political Reform 2012/08/19 01:00:49

New opportunity

+4
Ryan is offering a plan. We have seen no plan yet from the Obama camp since he was elected. Talking is not a plan and that is all Obama knows how to do.

reply
WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/18 17:25:34

New opportunity

+4
If Americans are smart enough to take it.

reply
Bouncer 2012/08/18 16:25:42

New opportunity

+4
All these American economics questions popping up on Sodahead lately clearly shows the Majority of the people want the Ryan budget plan. The Majority have spoken.....That's the way it works in America. End of story.

reply
Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/08/18 12:55:31 (edited)

Undecided

+3
New ideas for slowing the growth of debt, deficit and government - His budget was killed but his ideas remain. Romney stated some time ago (before he selected Ryan) that there were indeed good things in that budget proposal; things he liked.

Right now Romney has a good general outline and has not gotten into a great many specifics -- I expect to see some of Ryan's ideas along with Romney's keep coming out.

We, the voters, have a chance to vote in two men whose experience and ideas we desperately need. We need to work hard to get them elected.

reply
DH 2012/08/18 06:15:05
pdt_ski to DH 2012/08/18 09:05:49

+1
Any projection involves a degree of speculation. What do you think is more likely?

reply
DH to pdt_ski 2012/08/18 10:06:32

What's more likely is that it's a waste of time to speculate about things which obviously have no inherent pattern.

If someone were to do some data-mining, identify legitimate correlations among relevant data, work up sets of linear equations, and build reasonable models for our economic future, then we might could talk about projections. My guess is that no one in the CBO has ever bothered with that because it's much easier to use erroneous applications of 7th grade pre-algebra to further one's political ambitions.

reply
Temlako... to DH 2012/08/18 14:17:47

+1
Cop-out alert!

reply
DH to Temlako... 2012/08/18 14:46:12

Cop out? I guess you expected me to have my own budget plan at the ready, complete with easy-to-understand pictures full of misinformation? Preferably that say things you wanted to hear?

Lest you forget, I am not the one positing anything here. The burden of proof is not mine. Feel free to explain how Ryan's graph is legitimate.

reply
Temlako... to DH 2012/08/18 14:48:00

+2
I expect you to take policy into account, and not pretend that debt as a share of the economy is totally random. *That* is your cop-out.

reply
DH to Temlako... 2012/08/18 15:13:17

+1
That, sir, is exactly what I suggested we do. Numerically. We have tons of data, but we do not use it.

You are suggesting "policy" correlates to debt held by the public. If we are to actually proceed with this idea, we'll have to narrow it down. What parts of policy specifically? Keep in mind they should be numerically expandable. Things like average income tax rate as a function of income are what I would guess we'd want to include. We are likely to see correlations with things like unemployment rate, but that does not fall under the policy heading. Give me some ideas and (eventually) I'll show you what I mean. (I have other obligations, so don't expect a quick return.)

reply
Temlako... to DH 2012/08/18 15:31:27

+2
Any policy that encourages dependency, fosters a sense of entitlement, and discourages employment, increases debt and decreases the economy. With the result that Ryan showed in that graph.

reply
DH to Temlako... 2012/08/18 16:03:09

+1
Oh? So you are not the least bit curious to see what an actual analysis of the numbers might look like? You prefer to start with the desired result and work your way backwards at the expense of reality. I feel certain that's what Ryan did also. You aren't even willing to risk seeing what an actual analysis might reveal. And you called my assessment a cop out. Willful ignorance is inexcusable. I will let you go back to living in Glenn Beck's paranoid schizophrenic fantasy world, but I'll leave an open invitation that I am willing to work with anyone to produce a legitimate analysis of the deficit versus economic policy.

reply
pdt_ski to DH 2012/08/18 16:36:25

+1
I'd love to see the numbers but I'd be more interested in seeing the model.

reply
pdt_ski to DH 2012/08/18 16:35:24

+1
If I were you I wouldn't waste my time. Economists have been arguing this stuff for a very long time. It is a really hard problem and in the end you'll hit a wall because it is a problem of incomplete information. For example, how do you measure unemployment? More people remain unemployed than those who register for unemployment. How do you estimate the real number of unemployed people?

reply
DH to pdt_ski 2012/08/18 17:07:29 (edited)

Unemployment is a result, just as the debt in terms of GDP. We don't need to estimate that. What I am proposing is that we work together to build an acceptable definition of "policy" in terms of numbers and use it to analyze debt as a function of GDP. I am trying to narrow the problem scope as much as reasonably possible without oversimplifying anything. We can ignore who controlled the house or the senate or the presidency at any given time and just look at raw numbers. We just need to come up with an agreeable set of data to include, things that would likely affect debt/GDP and also typify what we are calling "policy". I understand there will be some element of arbitrariness involved, but we can certainly do better than use a minimal set of data points (I'm thinking Ryan used 3) to define an exponential curve, and then just point at who is in the White House and call that policy. (For the record, it's no different than Democrats saying the recession is all Bush's fault.) I'm asking for suggestions so that it doesn't look like I'm leading anyone anywhere. I will make sure to cite all data sources, and probably just follow links from Chris Chantrill's sites (when available) so that there can't be any argument about credible sources (I will not, however, use his "guesstimates")...

Unemployment is a result, just as the debt in terms of GDP. We don't need to estimate that. What I am proposing is that we work together to build an acceptable definition of "policy" in terms of numbers and use it to analyze debt as a function of GDP. I am trying to narrow the problem scope as much as reasonably possible without oversimplifying anything. We can ignore who controlled the house or the senate or the presidency at any given time and just look at raw numbers. We just need to come up with an agreeable set of data to include, things that would likely affect debt/GDP and also typify what we are calling "policy". I understand there will be some element of arbitrariness involved, but we can certainly do better than use a minimal set of data points (I'm thinking Ryan used 3) to define an exponential curve, and then just point at who is in the White House and call that policy. (For the record, it's no different than Democrats saying the recession is all Bush's fault.) I'm asking for suggestions so that it doesn't look like I'm leading anyone anywhere. I will make sure to cite all data sources, and probably just follow links from Chris Chantrill's sites (when available) so that there can't be any argument about credible sources (I will not, however, use his "guesstimates"). I will explain any statistical analysis and provide ample data for verification. Personally, I don't think this is a waste of time. I think it is not politically expedient, and so it is not typically done without a priori bias. I won't be online for a while, but I look forward to seeing if anyone is willing to cooperate. Share it with your friends if you think they'd be interested.
(more)

reply
pdt_ski to DH 2012/08/18 18:16:13 (edited)

+1
Although people have spent their careers (some very prestigious) studying this, I'm in. What would you use to compute this? I'd use R.

O.k. on main variables, you might want to start with GDP, inflation, interest rate, exchange rate, government debt, revenues and expenditure.

reply
DH to pdt_ski 2012/08/20 03:01:28 (edited)

I've never used R, but it looks more than adequate. I've used SAS and SPSS in the past, but I don't have access to either at the moment. This is a really good resource. Thanks!

I honestly don't believe what I have in mind is quite as ambitious as you think. A little research has led me to believe it is unusual, but I don't think I'm going to come up with anything more than a "reasonable analysis" that I am otherwise unable to find.

I'm going to spend some time learning R's interface and I'll send you a private message in the next day or two that should hopefully make things clearer.

reply
pdt_ski to DH 2012/08/20 03:13:01

Sure thing. I ended up using R because it was (roughly) a free version of SAS. I'll help, if you want any.

reply
pdt_ski to DH 2012/08/18 16:30:16

That's a hard problem and the reason macroeconomic models are so fuzzy. The best I could say on any budget plan is whether government revenues would exceed expenses. The biggest difference affecting any budget plan is growth or decline in GDP. Government revenues are a percentage of GDP so if GDP grows the government gets more revenue. Where conservatives and liberals really differ is what happens to growth in GDP when percentage of government revenues is greater (higher taxes) or lesser (lower taxes).

You're right: arguing over particular budget plans is really arguing over policy.

reply
JT For ... to DH 2012/08/19 01:04:55

You are a waste of time. The math fumbling ideas like yours do nothing but create more BS. It's time to act instead of study, we've been doing studies for 200 years and look where it got us. What we need to do is simple math, subtract the bad apples in politics from our tax dollars. End of fuking story.

reply
Steve 2012/08/18 04:57:37

Train wreck!

The Ryan budget plan has even more tax cuts for the wealthy -- it increases the budget deficit.

reply
Bouncer to Steve 2012/08/18 06:15:26

+3
Just the opposite. You should read it.

reply
Steve to Bouncer 2012/08/18 08:56:41

+1
It's smoke and mirrors. He names a range of specific tax cuts, but doesn't say how they'll be offset by other revenues. Realistically, his plan looks like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

reply
pdt_ski to Steve 2012/08/18 09:10:16

That is a pretty honest graph. Do you think Washington would keep expenditures at or below revenues if Obama continued in office?

reply
jimmy to Steve 2012/08/18 12:37:46

I beg to differ, his tax cuts including closing loop holes in the tax code for the rich. The top 2% of the highest income pay 80% of the taxes. 51% of the american people pay no taxes, do you think thats fair.

reply
Steve to jimmy 2012/08/18 17:23:23

+1
No, 51 percent DO NOT pay "no taxes." That only income taxes. They pay lots of payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, and lots of state and local taxes). Many of these that you claim pay "no taxes" pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than wealthy people like Romney. Less than half of federal revenues come from income taxes. All of the other taxes are regressive--hitting the poor and middle income families harder than the wealthy.

"When all federal and state taxes are included, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, who earn an average of $1.4 million annually, shoulders just 21.6 percent of the burden matching almost exactly their share of the nation's total income 21 percent."

http://www.journal-news.net/p...

reply
jimmy to Steve 2012/08/19 13:40:28

YES 51% do not pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Oh so what your saying is the upper class don't pay state tax, or property tax, or capital gains tax. Every american has that chance to become rich if they put there minds to it. My son started off with a lawmower, edger in the back of his truck cutting grass. He has gone from cutting grass for a living to being a general contractor and is earning 6 figures a year. A dear friend of mind spent 26 years in the navy, and while serving he saved and invested his money when he retired and in the following years that followed his total worth was well over million dollars. He payed capital gains tax not only the fed's but also to the state. So when i read about people like you bitching because the rich don't pay there fair share i think of my son and my friend and think quit your bitching and get out there and out there and work your ass off and just maybe if you try hard enough you also well reach the american dream.

reply
Steve to jimmy 2012/08/19 16:36:13

+1
You were the one who posted false information ("51% pay not taxes") and implied that the rich are over-taxed. I rebutted these with facts, and you descend to insults.

reply
jimmy to Steve 2012/08/20 13:15:38

OH WELL, YOU CAN'T WHEN ALL

reply
☆Hitler was a community org... 2012/08/18 03:29:06

New opportunity

+3
finally, someone who knows what "balance" means

reply
Red Branch 2012/08/18 03:22:12

New opportunity

+3
I wish him luck which is like wishing America luck.

We haven't had a budget accepted since before Pelosi became Speaker. Since Boehner became speaker, the budget made it to the Senate, but Reid pidgeon holed it.

reply
goatman112003 2012/08/18 03:18:50

New opportunity

+3
It will do what he says it will and prevent the train wreck which Obama has us on.

reply
JoeM 2012/08/18 02:57:47

New opportunity

+4
not perfect but better than any alternative.

reply
Don Leuty 2012/08/18 02:55:19

New opportunity

+4
TurboTax Tim has demonstrated his expertise at dodging taxes and mismanaging Treasury and offering any alternative to Ryan's plan. How can we expect anyone who doesn't have the personal discipline to pay his taxes to have the discipline to develop budget.

reply
rightside 2012/08/18 02:51:21

New opportunity

+5
If we keep going in this 'vehicle', we're going to run out of gas out in the middle of nowhere.
I don't care if people think it may cut things, something has to be done and we have to face reality.
Ryan's plan looks like our best bet.

reply
Maria 2012/08/18 02:45:05

New opportunity

+6
seem like good to be true..I'll have to do my homework and Analysis ...knew from the start view he's a good ...concept better than Obama "admit it".

reply
U-Dog 2012/08/18 02:38:22

Train wreck!

+3
It certainly sounds better than anything I have seen his mainstream colleagues offering so far but in reality I think Ryan's plan is too little too late. It will only get watered down and become more of the same old tinkering crony BS that got us here in the first place IMO.

Sorry, but I've seen this rodeo clown show before and I'll believe they are serious when I see it.

reply
pdt_ski to U-Dog 2012/08/18 09:16:15

+1
At least he'll try. I haven't heard any other side show anything that looks close to a balanced budget or even campaign on that. What I'm hearing from the other side is Fairness. Socialism will not balance the budget.

reply