U.S. Politics, 23

[TrackerNeil]

You guys can bash Ryan all day long, but I don't see the Dems doing anything at all. The Dems had full control of the house and senate for 2 years and they did nothing but pass a terrible healthcare legislation that will probably eventually get repealed. So please do your research first, both parties are pretty much to blame and the only way this country will ever get better is if Ron Paul is elected.

Ah...every six to nine months a new libertarian joins the board, with a Ron Paul button and an ideologically consistent but completely out-of-touch political theory. Like gravity, evolution** and atomic theory, it's always good to know there are some things on which we always rely.

**Ooops...sorry, I know that's a tough one. I assume libertarians accept evolutionary theory, as long as it's not the government dictating exactly how mutations happen and when.

[TerraPrime]

Ah...every six to nine months a new libertarian joins the board, with a Ron Paul button and an ideologically consistent but completely out-of-touch political theory. Like gravity, evolution** and atomic theory, it's always good to know there are some things on which we always rely.

**Ooops...sorry, I know that's a tough one. I assume libertarians accept evolutionary theory, as long as it's not the government dictating exactly how mutations happen and when.

*looks at Tormund*

But our old one hasn't even worn out yet. Is it really time to replace it? In this economy, can we afford the monthly payment for two libertarians?

[Alcibiades]

Haha, I also think that a lot of people have a phase where they flirt with libertarianism. Just because it's so internally consistent. But most grow out of it.

[Kouran]

Only a fool wants a government shutdown. If the shutdown lasts a week the military will only be paid for 1 week on their next pay check. Most of our service members are living check to check. This will put an undo stress on families that are already having to deal with a lot of problems. Plus this will delay my knee surgery so thats not cool.

One a side note, why do so many members here feel the need to denegrate members of the tea party, or republican party for that matter? A closed mind is a waste, you might not agree with someone but it certainly does you no good to call them names. Oh and no I'm not a republican or tea partier so dont even bother going there.

[Shryke]

A long-term Republican budget plan released this week by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin calls for drastic cuts in federal spending on energy research and development and for the outright elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar power and other alternative energy technologies.

The plan “rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration,” Mr. Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee, wrote on Monday in The Wall Street Journal. The details were released on Tuesday.

Under the Republican plan, overall discretionary funding for energy programs would fall to about $1 billion per year. President Obama’s 2012 budget, meanwhile, would provide about $8 billion to support clean energy research and deployment.

The proposal does not include details on which subsidies would be curtailed, but its references to “uncompetitive” energy sources clearly point to wind and solar power, which typically generate electricity at a premium to fossil fuels like coal.

Other energy incentives may go unchallenged, however. Questioned on Fox News on Sunday by Chris Wallace on whether multibillion-dollar subsidies for oil and gas companies would also be eliminated, Mr. Ryan did not give a direct answer.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/clean-energy-is-a-target-of-ryan-budget-plan/?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

What board libertarian has disputed Evolution in the last five years?

[TrackerNeil]

*looks at Tormund*

But our old one hasn't even worn out yet. Is it really time to replace it? In this economy, can we afford the monthly payment for two libertarians?

Hey, I thought we sprayed for libertarians last spring, but I guess you have to do that every year.

[TrackerNeil]

One a side note, why do so many members here feel the need to denegrate members of the tea party, or republican party for that matter? A closed mind is a waste, you might not agree with someone but it certainly does you no good to call them names. Oh and no I'm not a republican or tea partier so dont even bother going there.

I don't denigrate individual teabaggers - well, maybe a few - but their ideas, which are, by and large, foolish and reflect little understanding of the issues. If they want their ideas treated with respect, they should damn well find some respectable ideas. (And, no, respectable ideas are not limited only to those with which I agree.)

[Shryke]

The Economist looks at Ryan's plan:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/americas_budget_deficit'>http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/americas_budget_deficit

So how does he shrink the deficit? Through an eye-watering assault on entitlement spending, in particular health care. Mr Obama’s health care reform would be ditched, Medicaid would be converted to block grants, and traditional Medicare would be replaced with vouchers.

Neither block grants nor vouchers magically cures the root of rising health care costs, namely, medical inflation and rising case loads. What they do is shift the responsibility for bearing those costs to the states and to individuals. Mr Ryan rather disingenuously says his proposal would “strengthen” Medicaid. I guess you could call it that, if your idea of strengthening your son is to throw him out of the house at age 16 to fend for himself. States will no doubt welcome the freedom to shape Medicaid as they see fit; I doubt they will savour the need to raise taxes or slash services to cope with foregone federal funding.

Mr Ryan notes that with the government now paying roughly half of all health care costs, more disciplined federal funding could force efficiency into the system. However, that still leaves rising costs due to technological progress, an aging population, and the shrinking coverage offered by private sector employers. Mr Ryan’s cuts will have real consequences. The proportion of Americans with no insurance, which was set to decline significantly under Mr Obama’s plan, will rise instead. Medicare beneficiaries, who now enjoy benefits on a par with those enrolled in private plans, would instead have to accept a far less generous range of services, or pay out of pocket for more.

On taxes, Mr Ryan proposes chopping the top personal rate to 25%, from its current 35%, and from the 39.6% it is scheduled to reach if George Bush’s tax cuts expire as planned in 2013. He would also cut the top corporate rate to 25% from 35%, bringing America’s rate in line with international norms. Mr Ryan implies that his plan would be revenue neutral by eliminating loopholes and deductions.

Despite the impressive rhetoric, this is still a timid and politicised document by the standards of Mr Ryan’s original roadmap and the health care plan he proposed with Alice Rivlin, a budget director under Bill Clinton. Both contained far more detail about precisely how the entitlement changes would be implemented. Unlike the roadmap, his latest proposal completely ignores social security; apparently, you can only touch so many third rails at once. His tax reform plan is so bare bones that judging its credibility is almost impossible. Of the plan's $6.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, more than a quarter come from "other mandatory" categories, without specifying which: food stamps? Pell grants? Veterans' benefits? If the Congressional Budget Office scores this plan, it may well find the numbers don’t add up.

Its projections of the economic impact are also surreal. To be sure, the plan is not as severe as Britain’s: the deficit is only 1.7 percentage points of GDP smaller in 2015 than under Mr Obama’s 2012 budget. Economic growth would be dented, but not grievously. Yet Mr Ryan, citing analysis by the Heritage Foundation, claims his plan would actually create 1m additional private sector jobs and slash the unemployment rate to 4% by 2015, compared to the Blue Chip private sector consensus of 6.6%. While the Heritage Foundation is probably not the first organisation most people turn to when seeking authoritative, impartial economic analysis, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Yet when I read their report, I find the prediction of a massive investment boom utterly implausible. Corporations today enjoy record or near record profits. If government deficits were crowding out private investment (a key assumption of their analysis), short-term interest rates would not now be near zero and long-term rates near postwar lows. Mr Ryan risks undermining the credibility of his overall plan by casting its economic consequences in such an implausibly optimistic light.

And their followup on the CBO report thereof:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/americas_budget

Since the proposal is most specific and sweeping on health care, that’s what the CBO dwells on. Starting in 2022, Medicare beneficiaries would receive a voucher to pay for private insurance. In the first year of the plan, a beneficiary would pay 61 cents for services that he would have paid 27 cents for under traditional Medicare, while the government contribution is unchanged: 39 cents. Why are they, in combination, paying more for the same services? Because private plans cost more than traditional Medicare. Thereafter, the value of the voucher grows more slowly than health care costs so by 2030 the government is paying just 32 cents while the beneficiary is paying 68 cents for that same set of services.

The federal government, instead of matching the states in paying for Medicaid, would, starting in 2013, switch to block grants that grow in line with population and overall (not health care) inflation. Federal Medicaid spending would be 32% lower in 2022 and 49% lower in 2030 than currently projected.

However, a huge asterisk must be appended to these figures: much of the CBO’s estimates of revenue and spending are not the result of evaluating particular policies.

Mr Ryan’s staff simply instructed the CBO to assume revenues remain at 19% of GDP. “There were no specifications of particular revenue provisions that would generate that path”, it says. This can be risky. When the CBO analysed Mr Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future, it accepted Mr Ryan’s instructions that revenues would rise to 19% of GDP. When the Tax Policy Center analysed the specifics of the Roadmap, it concluded that tax revenue would fall below 17% of GDP. It also concluded that its benefits would accrue overwhelmingly to the most affluent 20% of American families, mostly because Mr Ryan exempted capital gains and dividends from taxation.

The CBO also notes that Mr Ryan’s staff specified that all spending other than health care, Social Security, interest, defence and security decline from 12% of GDP in 2010 to 6% in 2021, then grow with inflation thereafter. That would cover, among other things, federal civilian and military retirement, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, parts of the earned-income and child-tax credits, and most veterans’ programmes. At a press conference today, Republicans did say that food stamps, housing and some other programmes would, like Medicaid, be moved to block grants.

The larger picture, however, is quite clear. The federal government's health care bill would become much more predictable and manageable under Mr Ryan’s budget. For individuals and states, the opposite would be true.

[awesome possum]

One a side note, why do so many members here feel the need to denegrate members of the tea party, or republican party for that matter? A closed mind is a waste, you might not agree with someone but it certainly does you no good to call them names. Oh and no I'm not a republican or tea partier so dont even bother going there.

Maybe some members here feel the need to denigrate members of the tea party and Republican party because they agree that a closed mind is a waste and chances are if you call yourself a member of the tea party you're a closed-minded fool. And if you call yourself a member of the Republican party and are not fighting to distance yourself from those closed-minded fools, then you're an easily placated fool.

I firmly believe that if the tea party ever gets anything close to majority control of this country, shortly after we'll be well on the way to the scary future apocalyptic world you see in cheesy b-movies.

[Shryke]

Trump trying to establish his moron-cred:

Self-proclaimed birther Donald Trump is now so doubtful of President Obama's birthplace that he's sent a team of his own investigators to Hawaii in hopes of getting to the bottom of the issue.

That's according to Trump himself, who, in an interview with NBC, warned his investigators just might uncover "one of the greatest cons in the history of politics and beyond."

"I have people that have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're finding," Trump said an interview that aired Thursday Morning.

Asked if he has assigned people specifically to search in Hawaii, Trump said, "Absolutely."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/07/trump-sends-investigators-to-hawaii-to-look-into-obama/

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Trump is a moron. A very rich moron with a bad hair piece.

[Shryke]

Trump is a moron. A very rich moron with a bad hair piece.

He's a moron that polls well with Republican primary voters though:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/06/wsjnbc-poll-a-donald-trump-surprise/

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney appears to be the early front-runner in the largely unformed race for the Republican nomination for president, but real estate magnate Donald Trump may be a surprise contender, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Among Republican primary voters, Mr. Romney captured the support of 21% in a broad, nine-candidate field. Mr. Trump was tied for second with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with 17%. House Speaker Newt Gingrich got 11%, just ahead of former Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s 10%. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, considered a strong contender by political handicappers, remains largely unknown, with just 6% support. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had 5%, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 3%, and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour with just 1%.

Mr. Trump “may be a punch line but when he talks about the way to solve our problems, he makes a lot of sense to the average guy out there,” said Todd Mauney, a conservative Republican in Weatherford, Texas. “I don’t know if people can get over him being the butt of every joke but for me, he can be serious when it’s time to make real decisions.“

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

*looks at Tormund*

But our old one hasn't even worn out yet. Is it really time to replace it? In this economy, can we afford the monthly payment for two libertarians?

Still here. But if the new guy wants to take a shot I'm game. Shit in this thread is so ridiculous anyway all I have to do is poke my head in once a month or so and say "I'm against whatever the hell you all are talking about" and go back to the aircraft carrier.

[Guest Raids]

Only a fool wants a government shutdown. If the shutdown lasts a week the military will only be paid for 1 week on their next pay check. Most of our service members are living check to check. This will put an undo stress on families that are already having to deal with a lot of problems. Plus this will delay my knee surgery so thats not cool.

Don't think so, if it's with VA - all VHA staff is essential and work without pay through a shutdown.

One a side note, why do so many members here feel the need to denegrate members of the tea party, or republican party for that matter? A closed mind is a waste, you might not agree with someone but it certainly does you no good to call them names. Oh and no I'm not a republican or tea partier so dont even bother going there.

At least as sitting congressmen and congresswomen, they seem to actually have integrity and are really trying to do what they said they were going to do. I respect that, even if they scare the hell out of me. And I do not denigrate the tea party caucus in Congress.

But early on, they were whacked-out birthers carrying Obama-as-Hitler signs with slogans like "keep your government hands off my Medicare" etc., e.g. Glenn Beck. Finding those people contemptible has nothing to do with having a closed mind.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

What board libertarian has disputed Evolution in the last five years?

Forgot to reply to this.

I don't know that any have, honestly. I was just being snarky.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As usual, the Economist doesn't identify who wrote that particular blog. Anyway....

Neither block grants nor vouchers magically cures the root of rising health care costs, namely, medical inflation and rising case loads. What they do is shift the responsibility for bearing those costs to the states and to individuals. Mr Ryan rather disingenuously says his proposal would strengthen Medicaid. I guess you could call it that, if your idea of strengthening your son is to throw him out of the house at age 16 to fend for himself. States will no doubt welcome the freedom to shape Medicaid as they see fit; I doubt they will savour the need to raise taxes or slash services to cope with foregone federal funding.

Mr Ryan notes that with the government now paying roughly half of all health care costs, more disciplined federal funding could force efficiency into the system. However, that still leaves rising costs due to technological progress....

Well, that's where this guy lost me. The idea that the same amount is necessarily going to be spent on medical care, regardless of whether or not the federal government pays for it or not, is simply asinine. The federal governments "reasonable and necessary" standard mandates an open checkbook for new qualifying drugs and devices. But neither individuals nor states have the ability to keep writing checks for which they have no money. The result will likely be much less approval for new drugs and devices, and therefore less cost.

Just to make the point more stark, suppose Medicare simply stopped all approvals for new drugs and for new devices. Within a decade or so, every single drug paid for by Medicare would be generic, and every device outside patent. People would be receiving the exact same level of medical care as was available in 2011, but at much lower cost.

[Kouran]

Don't think so, if it's with VA - all VHA staff is essential and work without pay through a shutdown.

At least as sitting congressmen and congresswomen, they seem to actually have integrity and are really trying to do what they said they were going to do. I respect that, even if they scare the hell out of me. And I do not denigrate the tea party caucus in Congress.

But early on, they were whacked-out birthers carrying Obama-as-Hitler signs with slogans like "keep your government hands off my Medicare" etc., e.g. Glenn Beck. Finding those people contemptible has nothing to do with having a closed mind.

Hey thats nice to know about the VHA, sucks that the doctors and nurses are going without pay though, if there is a shutdown. Hopefuly the morons on capitol hill are just playing chicken.

I can understand your position vis-vis some of the people at rallies, but I wonder what would the hue and cry on the forums look like if someone called the democrats pinko commie bedwetters every time they talked about them? Political discourse needs to be civil on both sides dont you agree?

[Guest Raids]

I can understand your position vis-vis some of the people at rallies, but I wonder what would the hue and cry on the forums look like if someone called the democrats pinko commie bedwetters every time they talked about them? Political discourse needs to be civil on both sides dont you agree?

I don't talk about the politicians that way - they are a serious caucus with historical significance. But if conservatives want to rip on the type of liberals that show up to protest G8 conferences, i.e. these people, would that really be harming our level of political discourse? I don't think so.

Anyway, if you're saying that someone should be able to say "Paul Ryan" without someone calling him a teabagger (which he can't really be since he voted for TARP...), I agree. And Michelle Bachman is not an idiot - she has a JD, a tax LLM, and was an attorney for the IRS commissioner. She's paranoid about people (Barack Obama) being anti-American, but she came of age in the 1970s when many Democrats were pretty anti-American. I can't stand her, but she's not a contemptible idiot. She's just wrong, IMHO. Really wrong. And she hates freedom. :)

Sarah Palin, OTOH, I refuse to take seriously. She resigned. For what reason? Not a good one. Quitters should not be taken seriously, ever.

[Guest Raids]

Boehner proposed an emergency stopgap spending bill that would keep the government open for one more week, but it includes a provision to ban federal and local government funding for abortions in the District of Columbia. WTF?

“It’s not realistic to shut down the government on a debate dealing with abortion,” Reid said. “It’s not fair to the American people.

Wow, for once I agree with Harry Reid.

In addition to the abortion bullshit, the House Republicans also put some kind of change to environmental regulations in there - is it the thing that would keep the

EPA from regulating greenhouse gases? Probably.

So, is anyone going to seriously defend this? This is going to be so bad for Republicans.