Ryan Has Every Right to Say, "See, I Told You So"

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

S&P: Had "Cut, Cap, & Balance", which passed the House with bi-partisan support, become law, there would have been no downgrade of US debt.

www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_0807rep_ryans_warning/

Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the nation’s credit rating gives House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan every right to say “I told you so.”

Even earlier this week when President Obama was taking his victory lap for the debt-ceiling compromise, Ryan was disclosing the cold, hard truths of the economic troubles that lie ahead — truths that a jittery Wall Street has been more than aware of.

In an oped column in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, the Wisconsin Republican reiterated, of course, that the president really has no budget plan.

“The president’s February budget,” he wrote, “deliberately dodged the tough choices necessary to confront the threat of runaway federal spending. It was rejected unanimously in a Senate controlled by his own party.”

Well, so much for that auspicious beginning.

The president knew then and knows now that his health care and welfare state agenda demand new and higher taxes, that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid will continue to rise at unsustainable levels and that he has no plan for dealing with that.

In fact, when presented with options by his own debt commission appointees, Obama continued to be in denial.

Not so, Ryan. And he has a lot of help in the truth-telling department from the Congressional Budget Office, whose numbers he cites in the Journal oped.

“The CBO’s latest Long Term Outlook in June estimated that total tax revenues would have to double by mid-century in order to finance our current spending path,” Ryan wrote. Yes, DOUBLE.

Health-care costs, which rose 8 percent this year and are projected to rise anther 8.5 percent in 2012, are leading the pack.

Democrats have done a great job of demagoguing the Medicare issue in particular and Ryan’s proposals for putting it a more stable path, but they haven’t come up with a solution. He urged Democrats to “give the American people the debate they deserve.”

And with S&P breathing down the nation’s neck, isn’t it about time!

[SweetVirginia]

S&P: Had "Cut, Cap, & Balance", which passed the House with bi-partisan support, become law, there would have been no downgrade of US debt.

Maybe not, but I think there would be all kinds of other consequences, especially for Americans who are already going through tough times.

[handyman2]

Well sweet Virginia it did not pass and those in tough times are going to be worse off for a longer period than if it had passed. Economic growth has just been set back further.

[SweetVirginia]

Aug 8, 2011 19:59:26 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Well sweet Virginia it did not pass and those in tough times are going to be worse off for a longer period than if it had passed. Economic growth has just been set back further.

Totally disagree. Those who are in tough times and those who are most in need, would have suffered most if Ryan's plan would have passed. And it would have effected (negatively) many people for years to come. Economic growth has been set back, I agree, but not for the reasons you and paul think it has.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 8, 2011 14:15:56 GMT -5 SweetVirginia said:

S&P: Had "Cut, Cap, & Balance", which passed the House with bi-partisan support, become law, there would have been no downgrade of US debt.

Maybe not, but I think there would be all kinds of other consequences, especially for Americans who are already going through tough times.

Well, when we finally hit the wall we're careening towards-- there will be massive, immediate spending cuts. I think the common sense conservatives are more reasonable and rationale than the dead-enders in both parties realize. They know it's just math.

And the sooner we get a majority of politicians to quit playing games and start acting like adults, to quit angling for political advantage, to quit protecting their turf, to quit lying and demogoguing the issue and just face the fact that we are experiencing the end of the dream that we can all have it all and that sensible spending cuts need to be made gradually while the decision is still in our hands in order to avoid the sudden and dramatic cuts that will result from the inevitable bankruptcy we're headed towards.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 8, 2011 22:26:55 GMT -5 SweetVirginia said:

Aug 8, 2011 19:59:26 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Well sweet Virginia it did not pass and those in tough times are going to be worse off for a longer period than if it had passed. Economic growth has just been set back further.

Totally disagree. Those who are in tough times and those who are most in need, would have suffered most if Ryan's plan would have passed. And it would have effected (negatively) many people for years to come. Economic growth has been set back, I agree, but not for the reasons you and paul think it has.

Well, you're wrong. It's just that simple. We will make sensible cuts, gradually over time starting NOW, or we will have no choice about immediate, drastic cuts later.

[WannabeWealthy]

Exactly how much of a cut would this Ryan budget be? Higher than 4T? If not, then it wouldn't have mattered.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 8, 2011 22:50:51 GMT -5 WannabeWealthy said:

Exactly how much of a cut would this Ryan budget be? Higher than 4T? If not, then it wouldn't have mattered.

S&P said explicitly that if "Cut, Cap, & Balance" which passed the House of Representatives with bi-partisan support, had become law, there would have been NO DOWNGRADE of US debt.

[WannabeWealthy]

Aug 8, 2011 22:56:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 8, 2011 22:50:51 GMT -5 WannabeWealthy said:

Exactly how much of a cut would this Ryan budget be? Higher than 4T? If not, then it wouldn't have mattered.

S&P said explicitly that if "Cut, Cap, & Balance" which passed the House of Representatives with bi-partisan support, had become law, there would have been NO DOWNGRADE of US debt.

No. They said if they would have come up with something with cuts as much as 4T that it would not have been downgraded. Furthermore, they also mentioned REVENUES. You just can't cut only and not increase revenue. It doesn't work. Ask Canada.

[cme1201]

Aug 8, 2011 22:50:51 GMT -5 WannabeWealthy said:

Exactly how much of a cut would this Ryan budget be? Higher than 4T? If not, then it wouldn't have mattered.

Can you show me the 4 trillion dollar plan that was offered up by either Obama or any of the Democrats in congress? I am particularly interested in seeing what the CBO said in relation to what was offered.

I thank you in advance as I wait with baited breath.

[WannabeWealthy]

A BIPARTISAN PLAN TO REDUCE OUR NATION’S DEFICITS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This bipartisan, comprehensive, and balanced plan consistent with the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission that will:

* Slash our nation’s deficits by $3.7 trillion/$3.6 trillion over ten years under CBO’s March 2011 baseline, or $4.65 trillion/$4.5 trillion under the original fiscal commission baseline (which used the President’s 2011 budget request as the starting point for discretionary spending).
* Stabilize our publicly-held debt by 2014.
* Reduce our publicly-held debt to roughly 70% of our economy by 2021.
* Impose unprecedented budget enforcement.

A COMPREHENSIVE AND BALANCED PROPOSAL

The plan uses a two-step legislative process: (1) an initial bill that makes immediate cuts; and (2) a process for a second bill to enact comprehensive reform and put our nation on a stable fiscal path. The plan would:

Immediately implement aggressive deficit reduction down payment

* Cut deficits by $500 billion.

Dramatically cut discretionary spending

* Cut nonsecurity and security discretionary spending over 10 years.
* Maintain investments that encourage economic growth, strengthen the safety net for those who truly need it, and preserve a strong national defense.

Carefully strengthen the solvency of our most important entitlement programs

* Spend health care dollars more efficiently in order to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, while maintaining the basic structure of these critical programs.
* Fully pays for SGR (the “doc fix”) over 10 years.

Fundamentally reform our tax code

* Reduce marginal income tax rates and abolish the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax.
* Encourage greater economic growth.
* Enhance the competitiveness of American businesses and workers against global competition.
* Reform spending through the tax code to eliminate investment distortions and tax gaming.
* Change the debate about taxes in America from rate levels and carve outs to competitiveness, fairness and growth.
* If CBO scored this plan, it would find net tax relief of approximately $1.5 trillion.

Strictly tighten the government’s budget processes

* Impose spending caps and security/nonsecurity firewalls.
* Sequester accounts at the end of the year to recoup any excessive spending by Congress.
* Restrict the use of emergency designations that circumvent the spending caps.
* Prevent Congress from exceeding the caps by requiring a stand-alone resolution subject to a 67-vote threshold, in order to isolate that vote to increase the deficit from any other policy items.

Reform Social Security for future generations

* Ensure 75-year solvency of Social Security and provide for a decennial review of the program to ensure it remains solvent.
* Reform Social Security on a separate track, isolated from deficit reduction – any savings from the program must go towards solvency.

blogs.forbes.com/aroy/2011/07/19/a-first-pass-look-at-the-new-gang-of-six-budget-plan/


This plan is in fact, one that was mentioned by S&P as something that would be favorable on the US credit rating. Unfortunately, this is the plan that Beohner walked away from when Obama wanted 400 billion more in tax increases for the wealthy.

[cme1201]

Again I ask where are the CBO numbers, a blog is an opinion piece, nothing more.

I have opened your post 7 times and besides aroy's face and The Apothecary title I get nothing.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 9, 2011 9:12:59 GMT -5 WannabeWealthy said:

A BIPARTISAN PLAN TO REDUCE OUR NATION’S DEFICITS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This bipartisan, comprehensive, and balanced plan consistent with the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission that will:

* Slash our nation’s deficits by $3.7 trillion/$3.6 trillion over ten years under CBO’s March 2011 baseline, or $4.65 trillion/$4.5 trillion under the original fiscal commission baseline (which used the President’s 2011 budget request as the starting point for discretionary spending).
* Stabilize our publicly-held debt by 2014.
* Reduce our publicly-held debt to roughly 70% of our economy by 2021.
* Impose unprecedented budget enforcement.

A COMPREHENSIVE AND BALANCED PROPOSAL

The plan uses a two-step legislative process: (1) an initial bill that makes immediate cuts; and (2) a process for a second bill to enact comprehensive reform and put our nation on a stable fiscal path. The plan would:

Immediately implement aggressive deficit reduction down payment

* Cut deficits by $500 billion.

Dramatically cut discretionary spending

* Cut nonsecurity and security discretionary spending over 10 years.
* Maintain investments that encourage economic growth, strengthen the safety net for those who truly need it, and preserve a strong national defense.

Carefully strengthen the solvency of our most important entitlement programs

* Spend health care dollars more efficiently in order to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, while maintaining the basic structure of these critical programs.
* Fully pays for SGR (the “doc fix”) over 10 years.

Fundamentally reform our tax code

* Reduce marginal income tax rates and abolish the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax.
* Encourage greater economic growth.
* Enhance the competitiveness of American businesses and workers against global competition.
* Reform spending through the tax code to eliminate investment distortions and tax gaming.
* Change the debate about taxes in America from rate levels and carve outs to competitiveness, fairness and growth.
* If CBO scored this plan, it would find net tax relief of approximately $1.5 trillion.

Strictly tighten the government’s budget processes

* Impose spending caps and security/nonsecurity firewalls.
* Sequester accounts at the end of the year to recoup any excessive spending by Congress.
* Restrict the use of emergency designations that circumvent the spending caps.
* Prevent Congress from exceeding the caps by requiring a stand-alone resolution subject to a 67-vote threshold, in order to isolate that vote to increase the deficit from any other policy items.

Reform Social Security for future generations

* Ensure 75-year solvency of Social Security and provide for a decennial review of the program to ensure it remains solvent.
* Reform Social Security on a separate track, isolated from deficit reduction – any savings from the program must go towards solvency.

blogs.forbes.com/aroy/2011/07/19/a-first-pass-look-at-the-new-gang-of-six-budget-plan/


This plan is in fact, one that was mentioned by S&P as something that would be favorable on the US credit rating. Unfortunately, this is the plan that Beohner walked away from when Obama wanted 400 billion more in tax increases for the wealthy.

Now, let's compare that to Obama's detailed written plan. Oh, that's right- he doesn't have one. And Democrats haven't submitted a budget in almost 900 days.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 9, 2011 9:38:08 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Again I ask where are the CBO numbers, a blog is an opinion piece, nothing more.

I have opened your post 7 times and besides aroy's face and The Apothecary title I get nothing.

This thread isn't about the CBO's often flawed scoring. This thread is about the undeniable FACT that S&P has explicitly stated that had CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE- which passed the House with a bi-partisan majority, but wasn't even brought up for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, would have become law, S&P would NOT have DOWNGRADED US Debt.

Therefore, the TEA Party was RIGHT; and everything Paul Ryan has said since he announced his plan was spot on.

Now, either you can continue to deflect with questions that are irrelevant to the stated facts, or you can post something that refutes the facts as I have laid them out. The latter being impossible, I expect you'll keep coming back here with attempts to deflect, or you'll just leave the thread.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 8, 2011 23:15:41 GMT -5 WannabeWealthy said:

Aug 8, 2011 22:56:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

S&P said explicitly that if "Cut, Cap, & Balance" which passed the House of Representatives with bi-partisan support, had become law, there would have been NO DOWNGRADE of US debt.

No. They said if they would have come up with something with cuts as much as 4T that it would not have been downgraded. Furthermore, they also mentioned REVENUES. You just can't cut only and not increase revenue. It doesn't work. Ask Canada.

We need comprehensive tax reform. A drop (or elimination of) the corporate tax rate, elimination of dividend taxes, and elimination of the death tax, and elimination of the AMT-- and that's just the appetizer. We really need to scrap the code and institute either a low flat income tax, or ideally the www.fairtax.org .

The resulting economic explosion would be more revenue than the even this out of control government would know what to do with.

[cme1201]

Aug 9, 2011 10:19:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 9, 2011 9:38:08 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Again I ask where are the CBO numbers, a blog is an opinion piece, nothing more.

I have opened your post 7 times and besides aroy's face and The Apothecary title I get nothing.

This thread isn't about the CBO's often flawed scoring. This thread is about the undeniable FACT that S&P has explicitly stated that had CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE- which passed the House with a bi-partisan majority, but wasn't even brought up for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, would have become law, S&P would NOT have DOWNGRADED US Debt.

Therefore, the TEA Party was RIGHT; and everything Paul Ryan has said since he announced his plan was spot on.

Now, either you can continue to deflect with questions that are irrelevant to the stated facts, or you can post something that refutes the facts as I have laid them out. The latter being impossible, I expect you'll keep coming back here with attempts to deflect, or you'll just leave the thread.

Actually Sir, I am not trying to deflect your "stated facts".

What I asked was from a poster who stated that we had a 4t cut deal, I have yet to see this 4t cut deal, one that was vetted by the CBO (funny you find ther4e numbers questionable until you choose to use them to prove your point, and don't try and deny it paul, you have been doing it from your windy city days.)

The following is what I responded to Paul, which had nothing to do with any post YOU made.

Posted by cme1201 on Today at 6:44am

Yesterday at 10:50pm, Shaderhacker wrote:Exactly how much of a cut would this Ryan budget be? Higher than 4T? If not, then it wouldn't have mattered.


Can you show me the 4 trillion dollar plan that was offered up by either Obama or any of the Democrats in congress? I am particularly interested in seeing what the CBO said in relation to what was offered.

I thank you in advance as I wait with baited breath.

[bean29]

I am from Wisconsin and have always liked Ryan. I am an Independent voter and my DH is pretty much a Staunch Democrat. He tries to tell me how to vote all the time. I firmly believe that entitlements do no one any favors. You must be self sufficient and set yourself up to be self sufficient. If you are depending on entitlements to pay your bills you are eventually going to be in a world of hurt. It is inevitable that we reduce entitlements.

I believe we will always have entitlements and I do believe that we should have them - but if you think having children as a means of economic self sufficiency is your ticket to not working for the rest of your life and then your plan is to let the kids raise themselves on the street, well someone should make you face up to what is wrong with that plan.

If your plan was always self sufficiency and you got sidetracked by illness in your family or a temporary bump in the road such as a divorce, well that is what entitlements should be for.

I do think that the rioting in England speaks to why we need to get our arms around this now - the changes need to be gradual not sudden and drastic. It will be interesting to see where Ryan goes, people have presented him as a Presidential Candidate in the past and he has never really indicated an interest in running.

[ugonow]

Ryan insisted on a revenue neutral deal.Any cuts to loopholes or subsidies had to be offset by tax cuts somewhere else. [ a month earlier he stated we could not afford these loopholes and subsidies,but I digress....] S&P said-----“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

with bi-partisan support

LOL, bi-partisian being FIVE democrats. Wow, the number is countable on one hand! How more bi- partisian can you get?

"Five Blue Dogs join GOP in vote for 'cut, cap and balance' bill"
thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/172441-five-blue-dogs-join-gop-in-vote-for-cut-cap-and-balance-bill

And since there's about 190 Dems in the HoR, that makes it about what, about 3% of Democrats? Oh, and didn't about every Dem Senator say no? So where's all this "bi-partisian support"? Welcome to Mount Molehill!

Nice try on that "even Dems are against Obama" angle or whatever.

How about instead they legislate a "Cut the Crap and Spin" for a change?

[pepper112765]

Aug 9, 2011 10:51:39 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I am from Wisconsin and have always liked Ryan. I am an Independent voter and my DH is pretty much a Staunch Democrat. He tries to tell me how to vote all the time. I firmly believe that entitlements do no one any favors. You must be self sufficient and set yourself up to be self sufficient. If you are depending on entitlements to pay your bills you are eventually going to be in a world of hurt. It is inevitable that we reduce entitlements.

I believe we will always have entitlements and I do believe that we should have them - but if you think having children as a means of economic self sufficiency is your ticket to not working for the rest of your life and then your plan is to let the kids raise themselves on the street, well someone should make you face up to what is wrong with that plan.

If your plan was always self sufficiency and you got sidetracked by illness in your family or a temporary bump in the road such as a divorce, well that is what entitlements should be for.

I do think that the rioting in England speaks to why we need to get our arms around this now - the changes need to be gradual not sudden and drastic. It will be interesting to see where Ryan goes, people have presented him as a Presidential Candidate in the past and he has never really indicated an interest in running.

Although it is difficult to parallel the need of an individual with a business, I do agree with what was written about but I also have to assume that the same is felt about business. Those also should be "self-sustaining." Meaning that businesses, particularly agribusiness among others, should not blanketly enjoy the benefit of entitlements without a "pressing need" and be self-sustaining. If a business cannot exist except from help by way of entitlements from the government, then it is not fulfilling its purpose and not really be deemed a business but another welfare recipient feeding on the other side of the federal trough. If it cannot sustain itself then, like most small business that have shops, restaurants, etc., shutter it's doors because it just couldn't make it.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 8, 2011 13:55:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

S&P: Had "Cut, Cap, & Balance", which passed the House with bi-partisan support, become law, there would have been no downgrade of US debt.

www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_0807rep_ryans_warning/

says who?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2011 10:19:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 9, 2011 9:38:08 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Again I ask where are the CBO numbers, a blog is an opinion piece, nothing more.

I have opened your post 7 times and besides aroy's face and The Apothecary title I get nothing.

This thread isn't about the CBO's often flawed scoring. This thread is about the undeniable FACT that S&P has explicitly stated that had CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE- which passed the House with a bi-partisan majority, but wasn't even brought up for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, would have become law, S&P would NOT have DOWNGRADED US Debt.

where did they say that?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 8, 2011 22:56:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 8, 2011 22:50:51 GMT -5 WannabeWealthy said:

Exactly how much of a cut would this Ryan budget be? Higher than 4T? If not, then it wouldn't have mattered.

S&P said explicitly that if "Cut, Cap, & Balance" which passed the House of Representatives with bi-partisan support, had become law, there would have been NO DOWNGRADE of US debt.

where and when did they say that, Paul?