Who is Paul Ryan and what does he stand for?

[patches70]

or what we need to do to replenish them.

Oh, that's easy! The government can just have the money printed up or created instantly through digital means. Problem solved!

[Phatscotty]

Krugman's very skilled in rhetoric.

Isn't he the guy who predicted the subprime meltdown?

A lot of people did, but most who were aware of it murmured about it while continuing to play the game until the very end.

This guy Peter Schiff wrote this book Crash Proof on February 26, 2007, which strongly warned of that upcoming meltdown but also showed strategies for mitigating one's losses and/or for profiting.


Here's a list of Krugman predictions from 1998, assessed by Tyler Cowen: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... tions.html

I can't find much else about Krugman though, as far as predictions are concerned, and with someone reviewing them.


Here's Cowen in 2005 talking about overinvestment in housing:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ved_i.html

Don't forget about Bawny Fwank in 2005

[BigBallinStalin]

Krugman's very skilled in rhetoric.

Isn't he the guy who predicted the subprime meltdown?

A lot of people did, but most who were aware of it murmured about it while continuing to play the game until the very end.

This guy Peter Schiff wrote this book Crash Proof on February 26, 2007, which strongly warned of that upcoming meltdown but also showed strategies for mitigating one's losses and/or for profiting.


Here's a list of Krugman predictions from 1998, assessed by Tyler Cowen: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... tions.html

I can't find much else about Krugman though, as far as predictions are concerned, and with someone reviewing them.


Here's Cowen in 2005 talking about overinvestment in housing:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ved_i.html

Don't forget about Bawny Fwank in 2005

Hey, and recall how some people in here have been throwing around CBO predictions to support/refute whatever.

I wonder if past CBO reports predicted the 2008 financial crisis, or at least the upcoming housing bubble?

[patches70]

Hey, and recall how some people in here have been throwing around CBO predictions to support/refute whatever.

I wonder if past CBO reports predicted the 2008 financial crisis, or at least the upcoming housing bubble?

The CBO would have a hard time predicting if the sun will rise tomorrow or not. lmao

[notyou2]

This shocking news just in: CC atheists hate conservatives

Well it's good that you could at least discuss the topic.

There is no "discussing" any topic with the atheists on this site. They are absolutely insane with wealth envy and slavishly devoted to their ideology. Juan's crazy threads are proof of this.

Juan posted a thought provoking thread that he put a lot of work into and you say "This shocking news just in: CC atheists hate conservatives", then you go on to say "There is no "discussing" any topic with the atheists on this site". You never debated, or even contributed, you simply stated you can't debate with "atheists". You sir are an atheist. You have become what you hate Beezer.

You must be the only one in Dallas.


PS: How much oil stock do you own?

PPS: Why do you have Mr Kotter, who was probably as liberal an American as there was in 1976, as your avatar?

[Neato Missile]

Open question to anyone shitting on the CBO report: where should people like me, who are not economic scholars, look to for non-partisan assessment of things like this? I was of the opinion that if the CBO report is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for me; the fact that writeups on both side of the aisle cite it seemed to prove that notion. Is this not the case? If not, where can more "honest" analyses be found?

[rockfist]

Start with the CBO report. Then realize that EVERY government program costs more than the CBO has told us they would at inception.

In other words history tells us that it costs more than anyone estimates.

[BigBallinStalin]

Open question to anyone shitting on the CBO report: where should people like me, who are not economic scholars, look to for non-partisan assessment of things like this? I was of the opinion that if the CBO report is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for me; the fact that writeups on both side of the aisle cite it seemed to prove that notion. Is this not the case? If not, where can more "honest" analyses be found?

(1) Learn about Public Choice.

(2) Correction: The CBO is good enough for Congress, but it isn't good enough for assessing the effects of public policy over 330+ million people.

(3) Advice: take neoclassical economic predictions for an entire country or State with a grain of salt. The future is uncertain, and there are no constants in the social sciences/for human behavior; however, the methods of neoclassical economists neglect that, and then run into trouble when it's applied at the State/national level.

(4) Just remember that when you put economics (any kind) into the hands of the government, then those politicians and bureaucrats tend to have a strong incentive to confirm their own bias, as in manipulate it for their own goals--regardless of the extravagance of the assumptions used in the economic analysis. It's like having the cigarette industry pay for experiments on whether or not tobacco leads to cancer.

(5) More honest analysis? ... What exactly are you looking for?

[Juan_Bottom]

First of all the number of people of any specific type living or not living in poverty does not justify taking from others - it does not matter. If you are in poverty does it justify your taking all my stuff so you are no longer in poverty - no, not if you believe in private property.

Second, I imagine you oppose the parts you don't agree with; you actually said that in response to someone a year or so ago maybe it was sarcasm, but then its the internet who knows. I never said those things. So that would be dishonest.

Third, I reject your premise of "replenishing funds" for those programs. Instead we need to limit spending.

We're not talking about "taking away from others." Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cover everyone because everyone pays into them. Your idea of limiting spending is to cut the three most important domestic programs that this country has, outside of law enforcement, education, and transportation. I wouldn't really count those other three in the same suit as the first three. These programs don't need any limits on spending. Americans pay into them, so they deserve their full benefits.
I mean, look at this, you don't even know why they're in trouble, you just want them gone. These programs directly benefit you, so for some unbelievable reason you're trying to tell me that you're working against yourself. I just cannot believe it.
I reject your irrational rejection. Just by doubling the cap we charge billionaires, Social Security would remain safe for the next 75 years. Bernie Sanders has been railing about this for years.

And to your first point, that's cold, selfish, and wrong. Nelson Mandela said "Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed through the actions of human beings." You're being the problem with your reckless support for apartheid for the poor, that you created. Marie Antoinette didn't care about the problem either, and things didn't work out so well for her. You put all the Gold into the hands of the few and the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich.
Nobody is taking your shit, wtf is up with that? Nobody is talking about taking your shit. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution explains why the Federal government has the power of taxation for the general welfare. So you pay, what, like $400 a year to keep Medicaid funded? It's the only one of the three programs that you may never use. But like insurance, it will be there if you need it. And if you don't like Social Security, you can always opt-out.
My point being that crying about being robbed by your government when you pay your few hundred dollars into the safety net is so stupid. It's your safety net too. I could go on and on about why people are poor in this country, around the world, and on reservations, but I know you don't care. Libertarianism is the politic of selfishness.


&
You're gonna need to actually quote what I said if you're gonna lob an accusation like that. I remember you saying that you hate coloreds but I haven't added it to my sig yet.

[rockfist]

That is a lie. I never said that. Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

The rest of your post makes sense - if you ignore the math of the programs. Young people today will pay in far more than they will ever take out of those programs. Old people today extract far more from entitlements than they ever paid in. Compelling people to pay more into a program than they will get out is morally wrong.

[Juan_Bottom]

Bills Ryan voted for unfunded:

H.R. 1836 - the first Bush Tax cut, & later the second tax cut
Cost: $4.4 trillion

H.R. 114 - invasion of Iraq
Cost: Who the f*ck knows anymore? Just say "all the money"

H.R. 1, Medicare prescription drug bill
Cost - $730 Billion


I found these particularly interesting because of the amount of debt we racked up for later generations. It's like Ryan helped put us in this hole and now wants us to use his economic plan to pull us out of it. I also read the USA Today article about Ryan's lukewarm reception by voters. Should be a pretty easy election.

[Juan_Bottom]

That is a lie. I never said that. Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

The rest of your post makes sense - if you ignore the math of the programs. Young people today will pay in far more than they will ever take out of those programs. Old people today extract far more from entitlements than they ever paid in. Compelling people to pay more into a program than they will get out is morally wrong.

No, you're lying, I never said what you put in your sig. If I had said it you could quote it. Quoth the raven: "the crow is black."

Medicare and Medicaid are safe, that's part of what Obamacare was about. You just aren't keeping up with the literature. They lower the costs for everyone, even the people who aren't using the programs.
Social Security is the one that you're thinking of, and it would be nothing to fix it, as I explained above.

These are not "entitlements." It's your money that you are paying in. It's your money that you are getting back. This is what I was talking about when I said that you're working against yourself. Believing that Medicare is an entitlement program is half the problem.

[Lootifer]

First of all the number of people of any specific type living or not living in poverty does not justify taking from others - it does not matter. If you are in poverty does it justify your taking all my stuff so you are no longer in poverty - no, not if you believe in private property.

What if I say that that "private property ownership" was only partially earned by the owner though? How much of that proverbial paycheck was a direct reflection of the value that individual physically created; compared to what is more common in the wealthy (from the well off to the super rich) that the paycheck is a reflection of how much value that individual leveraged.

[The Bison King]

(5) More honest analysis? ... What exactly are you looking for?

He's being facetious. duh.

[thegreekdog]

Open question to anyone shitting on the CBO report: where should people like me, who are not economic scholars, look to for non-partisan assessment of things like this? I was of the opinion that if the CBO report is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for me; the fact that writeups on both side of the aisle cite it seemed to prove that notion. Is this not the case? If not, where can more "honest" analyses be found?

I'm not sure there are any non-partisan assessments (other than the CBO). I tend to look at accounting firm studies and the like, but those are hard to get and are partisan to a certain extent. They also tend to deal with just one particular law, rather than covering the entire budget.

Bills Ryan voted for unfunded:

H.R. 1836 - the first Bush Tax cut, & later the second tax cut
Cost: $4.4 trillion

H.R. 114 - invasion of Iraq
Cost: Who the f*ck knows anymore? Just say "all the money"

H.R. 1, Medicare prescription drug bill
Cost - $730 Billion


I found these particularly interesting because of the amount of debt we racked up for later generations. It's like Ryan helped put us in this hole and now wants us to use his economic plan to pull us out of it. I also read the USA Today article about Ryan's lukewarm reception by voters. Should be a pretty easy election.

Yeah, he's the same as most of the rest of the Republicans - cut spending on stuff they don't want to spend on, keep the things they want to spend it on.

[rockfist]

That is a lie. I never said that. Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

The rest of your post makes sense - if you ignore the math of the programs. Young people today will pay in far more than they will ever take out of those programs. Old people today extract far more from entitlements than they ever paid in. Compelling people to pay more into a program than they will get out is morally wrong.

No, you're lying, I never said what you put in your sig. If I had said it you could quote it. Quoth the raven: "the crow is black."

Medicare and Medicaid are safe, that's part of what Obamacare was about. You just aren't keeping up with the literature. They lower the costs for everyone, even the people who aren't using the programs.
Social Security is the one that you're thinking of, and it would be nothing to fix it, as I explained above.

These are not "entitlements." It's your money that you are paying in. It's your money that you are getting back. This is what I was talking about when I said that you're working against yourself. Believing that Medicare is an entitlement program is half the problem.

Its something you said over a year ago. As I said, it may have been sarcasm. I'm not going to hash through old threads from a year or more ago. If you'd like me to remove it I will, just ask me politely.

[Night Strike]

Open question to anyone shitting on the CBO report: where should people like me, who are not economic scholars, look to for non-partisan assessment of things like this? I was of the opinion that if the CBO report is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for me; the fact that writeups on both side of the aisle cite it seemed to prove that notion. Is this not the case? If not, where can more "honest" analyses be found?

The CBO can only score the literature in front of them. They can't analyze how the law will actually apply to revenues and costs once it's actually applied to the real world. Furthermore, legislators can pack it with gimmicks to make it appear balanced (or even gaining revenue), which happened all over the Obamacare law.

We're not talking about "taking away from others." Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cover everyone because everyone pays into them. Your idea of limiting spending is to cut the three most important domestic programs that this country has, outside of law enforcement, education, and transportation. I wouldn't really count those other three in the same suit as the first three. These programs don't need any limits on spending. Americans pay into them, so they deserve their full benefits.
I mean, look at this, you don't even know why they're in trouble, you just want them gone. These programs directly benefit you, so for some unbelievable reason you're trying to tell me that you're working against yourself. I just cannot believe it.

If everyone is paying into those programs, why do some people get more money out then they put in (plus interest)? If everyone is paying into those programs, why did those programs start immediately with retiring workers instead of future workers who had actually paid into the system? Social Security is a ponzi scheme by every other definition, Medicare (and SS) pay out way more than the individual actually paid in, and Medicaid is an unfunded mandate the federal government forces the states to enact.

People want things gone even if they directly benefit from it because they recognize it's not the proper role of government. Those people are actually standing on principles instead of just voting themselves direct access to the treasury. Furthermore, some people recognize that these programs are actually holding people back. There are 3 counties in Texas who were exempted from participating in Social Security when it was formed. Those county and city workers have had the exact same about of individual and employer contributions to a private investment system as what they would have been paying to Social Security. Each of those people are earning something like 2-10 TIMES as much money (depending on how much they put in) in retirement compared to if they had been receiving Social Security. Let's let the free market and private investments work instead of being forced to tie our money into governmental programs that pay current retirees instead of saving money for ourselves.

[Woodruff]

Most statists have a good idea on how to keep those programs going - tax people more. I'm just saying, it's not like statists don't have ideas in mind; it's just that politicians don't like saying "let's raise taxes" because then their chances of reelection dwindle.

Then it would be dishonest and deceptive to not run on that plank. So most statists politicians (presuming they aren't Walter Mondale) are deceptive and dishonest.

You misspelled "politicians" there.

[thegreekdog]

Most statists have a good idea on how to keep those programs going - tax people more. I'm just saying, it's not like statists don't have ideas in mind; it's just that politicians don't like saying "let's raise taxes" because then their chances of reelection dwindle.

Then it would be dishonest and deceptive to not run on that plank. So most statists politicians (presuming they aren't Walter Mondale) are deceptive and dishonest.

You misspelled "politicians" there.

Since most politicans, Republican and Democrat (including all major party presidential and vice presidential candidates) are statists, I agree with Woodruff's spelling correction.

[Phatscotty]

Most statists have a good idea on how to keep those programs going - tax people more. I'm just saying, it's not like statists don't have ideas in mind; it's just that politicians don't like saying "let's raise taxes" because then their chances of reelection dwindle.

Then it would be dishonest and deceptive to not run on that plank. So most statists politicians (presuming they aren't Walter Mondale) are deceptive and dishonest.

You misspelled "politicians" there.

Since most politicans, Republican and Democrat (including all major party presidential and vice presidential candidates) are statists, I agree with Woodruff's spelling correction.

Not anymore! All the freshman from 2010 are different. Just imagine the majority of the House of Representatives whose majority of seats who have only been in place for 2 years or less.....

I think that is the best thing we can hope for. I think that absolutely qualifies as "throwing the bums out"

[Woodruff]

Most statists have a good idea on how to keep those programs going - tax people more. I'm just saying, it's not like statists don't have ideas in mind; it's just that politicians don't like saying "let's raise taxes" because then their chances of reelection dwindle.

Then it would be dishonest and deceptive to not run on that plank. So most statists politicians (presuming they aren't Walter Mondale) are deceptive and dishonest.

You misspelled "politicians" there.

Since most politicans, Republican and Democrat (including all major party presidential and vice presidential candidates) are statists, I agree with Woodruff's spelling correction.

Not anymore! All the freshman from 2010 are different. Just imagine the majority of the House of Representatives whose majority of seats who have only been in place for 2 years or less.....

I think that is the best thing we can hope for. I think that absolutely qualifies as "throwing the bums out"

I think that absolutely qualifies as "hopey changey crap like Obama put out".

[Juan_Bottom]

If everyone is paying into those programs, why do some people get more money out then they put in (plus interest)? If everyone is paying into those programs, why did those programs start immediately with retiring workers instead of future workers who had actually paid into the system? Social Security is a ponzi scheme by every other definition, Medicare (and SS) pay out way more than the individual actually paid in, and Medicaid is an unfunded mandate the federal government forces the states to enact.

People want things gone even if they directly benefit from it because they recognize it's not the proper role of government. Those people are actually standing on principles instead of just voting themselves direct access to the treasury. Furthermore, some people recognize that these programs are actually holding people back. There are 3 counties in Texas who were exempted from participating in Social Security when it was formed. Those county and city workers have had the exact same about of individual and employer contributions to a private investment system as what they would have been paying to Social Security. Each of those people are earning something like 2-10 TIMES as much money (depending on how much they put in) in retirement compared to if they had been receiving Social Security. Let's let the free market and private investments work instead of being forced to tie our money into governmental programs that pay current retirees instead of saving money for ourselves.

Some people get more money than they pay in because this works like public welfare insurance. Medicare is actually called Social Insurance.
Social Security does not contribute to the national debt, and actually earns a surplus. It's something like 2.7 trillion dollars. There's currently more than 55 million Americans receiving Social Security. Paul Ryan used his SS to pay for his college education. And as I already said, you can opt out of participation. So go do that.
The end of slavery was also an unfunded mandate that the Federal Government forced on the states. So what? In both cases the welfare of the people are improved.

There's no rule that says that government should not care for the welfare of their people.

Social Security and Medicare do not hold people back. Social Security has lowered the Poverty rate among the elderly from 50% to 10%. Medicare pays for medical bills, so people don't die and sh*t. You might say Medicaid holds people back, but it pays to help people with disabilities live independent lives. And so poverty doesn't necessarily qualify someone to receive Medicaid. There's an old Greek proverb "A Society grows great when old men plan trees whose shade they know they will never sit in." You're uprooting trees. You think that you see a problem, and your solution is to end the program, as if it can never be improved.
And also, Medicaid impacts Conservatives at a larger rate than Liberals. Just need to throw that out there.

I don't understand why 3 countys in Texas are a good test patch for the rest of the continent. Somalia has unfettered markets and we don't consider it a good test patch. Lithuania is successfully Libertarian, and we don't consider it a good test patch either. This country is simply too diverse, with a great deal of cultural independence amongst the states. I might as well point to Norway as the example for the kind of government that I'm talking about. The people there are rich, happy as f*ck, and there is more equality.

[Phatscotty]

Paul Ryan stands for MATH!

[Juan_Bottom]

^Yeah but the kind that favors the rich.^

Fox News weighs in on the Ryan plan:


Republicans should be careful what they wish for with Paul Ryan on the ticket

Rush Limbaugh said, “We now have somebody on the ticket who’s us,” alluding to Ryan’s right wing authenticity.

And yet, with this choice, Mitt Romney has fully wrapped his campaign’s arms around Paul Ryan’s budget, which Romney previously praised and called on the Senate to adopt. And while the conservative base may be thrilled at the prospect of gutting government to fund more tax breaks for billionaires and oil companies, ordinary Americans are not.

Here are the facts about Paul Ryan and the Romney-Ryan budget:

• The Romney-Ryan budget would turn Medicare into a private voucher system, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase the cost to seniors by at least $5,900 by 2050.

• Ryan has long sought to privatize Social Security, handing the money over to the same Wall Street firms that crashed our economy in the first place. Incidentally, even George W. Bush thought Ryan’s plan was too radical…

• The Romney-Ryan plan would actually kill over 4 million jobs in the next two years, including vital roles like police officers, firefighters and teachers who help our communities and whose spending helps private industry.

• The Romney-Ryan plan would also gut Pell Grants for students, food stamps for hungry families and Medicaid — in fact, 62% of the cuts in Ryan’s budget come from programs that mostly help poor families in America.

• And the Romney-Ryan plan would raise taxes on 95% of Americans but give extra tax breaks to the already-rich.

• Oh yeah, and the Romney-Ryan actually INCREASES the deficit.

Over two-thirds of Americans think the current tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to ordinary workers and 60% favor the so-called “Buffett Rule” to make the wealthy pay the same actual tax rate as middle class families. Fully 76% of Americans think government has a responsibility to provide health coverage for the elderly and most think Medicare is worth its current costs. In fact, by large majorities, Americans oppose the privatization of Medicare — and 45% of voters would cut defense spending before Medicare. And while Americans in general are uncomfortable with privatizing Social Security, seniors oppose the measure by large margins.

In other words, while Romney’s pick may inspire Tea Party fanatics to get off my Twitter feed and into the voting booth, embracing Paul Ryan and making his “right-wing social engineering” central themes of this election will only hurt Republicans with key swing voting blocs — including seniors, college students and working-class families. The Romney camp is clearly gambling that, by picking Ryan, they will turn out more voters from their base than they will turn off from the mainstream. That’s a big gamble. Maybe Romney should put real money on that bet and then, if it pays off, prevent some of the intensely painful cuts to the poor and middle class that Paul Ryan has championed.

[Juan_Bottom]

Unholy Cuts: The Bishops Decry Ryan Budget

On Tuesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a series of stern letters to Republican committee chairman in the House. The subject was proposed cuts to programs like food stamps and housing assistance, consistent with the overall spending blueprint that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan has put forward. The message: Don’t slash the safety net, particularly if you’re doing so to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.

Major reductions at this time of economic turmoil and rising poverty will hurt hungry, poor and vulnerable people in our nation and around the world … The bishops’ conference acknowledges the difficult challenges that Congress, the Administration and government at all levels face to match scarce resources with growing needs. A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all. ...

With other Christian leaders, we urge the committee to draw a “circle of protection” around resources that serve those in greatest need and put their needs first even though they do not have powerful advocates or great influence.”

You guys probably saw Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, where the discussion was about the Catholic Conference and their position on Ryan. While Ryan claims that his faith shaped his budget, these Bishops don't seem to believe him. He's getting some seriously lukewarm reception from Catholics with his stance issues like gay rights, the poor, and birth control. What's your view?