Admit it, WTF is latent homo and TEA Partier. C'mon we all know it's true.
Originally Posted by gnadfly
The only person(s) that would know it to be true would be a cocksucker who has sucked my dick. Have you sucked my dick gnad?
BTW, speaking of putting all "your toys on the table if you want the Democrats to," I think that's been done. Paul Ryan put a budget on the table that touched Social Security. You remember Paul Ryan, he's one of your TEA boys! I believe Obama and the Democratic Party laughed at him and tried to portray his budget as killing old people even though it was stated it didn't affect anyone currently on SS. Please point me to were you backed your TEA boy Paul Ryan's proposal then?
?
Originally Posted by gnadfly
He did not put up a plan about SS, he proposed a plan effecting Medicare and Medicaid. And there was a reason I did not support it....He
did not say which tax breaks he would do away with among other slight of hands...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity
Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times says there's no reason to believe that Ryan's proposals will do anything to reduce healthcare costs in the U.S., and reason to believe they would do the opposite.
[41]
Henry Aaron, one of two economists who coined the term "premium support" in response to criticisms of health care vouchers,
[42] states that the Republican plan for Medicare uses vouchers, not "premium support".
[43] The defining attribute of the plans that Aaron christened "premium support" was that governmental financial support would rise with average health care costs. The Republican plan instead has this support rising with the
consumer price index (general inflation). This difference is crucial to understanding the Republican proposal, as the cost of health care is rising much faster than the consumer price index.
[43]
The vouchers would rise in value with the consumer price index (general inflation), but as medical expenses have been rising much faster than the consumer price index, the value of the government subsidy would erode over time. When the program begins in 2022, the typical 65-year old would be responsible for about 25% of the cost of their healthcare, which is consistent with Medicare as it exists today. However, the share paid out-of-pocket by this typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under the Republican plan, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.
[23]
Ryan claimed that his new Medicare plan was modeled after the health care plans that Congressmen themselves currently receive.
[39] Others point out that Members of Congress have what is called a "fair-share deal" as they do not bear the entire risk of increased costs because of health care inflation. The health care plan that Members of Congress use indexes benefits to health care inflation, not the consumer price index.
[44] As health care becomes more expensive due to inflation, the government, not Members of Congress, are responsible for most of the extra costs.
Chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad, a Democrat from
North Dakota, told NPR's
Morning Edition that the reductions in Medicare spending would be "draconian". He also faulted the effort for not including cuts to defense spending and tax increases, which Hoyer argued must be part of any serious budgetary reform.
[34]
James Fallows, a Democrat, former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, and national correspondent for
The Atlantic, panned the proposal. He wrote:
A plan that proposes to eliminate tax loopholes and deductions, but doesn't say what any of those are, is neither brave nor serious. It is, instead canny—or cynical, take your pick. The reality is that many of these deductions, notably for home-mortgage interest payments, are popular and therefore risky to talk about eliminating. [Bold in original][47]
Effects on States and Localities[edit]
On August 8, 2012 the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a non-partisan think tank, released a comprehensive study detailing how Paul Ryan's budget plan would affect state and local government. The study concluded that the plan would force states and localities to cut services drastically, due to the substantial cuts in federal funding they would receive. The largest cut in funding from the federal government would be Medicaid funding. The plan cuts federal funding for the federal-state Medicaid program by 34% by 2022, and by steadily larger amounts in years after that. For services such as education, law enforcement, water treatment, and disaster response, states would lose over $247 billion in federal funding from 2013-2021. The plan also would cut federal funding for state and local transportation and infrastructure projects by $194 billion through 2021. By 2021, the plan would reduce discretionary state and local grants to an estimate 0.6% of GDP, which is less than half the average of the last 35 years. The study also concluded that the plan would hurt economic recovery and job growth by forcing layoffs at the state and local levels of government. The plan may also result in higher taxes at the state and local levels, to help offset the cuts in federal aid.[52]