Town Square

Post a New Topic

The way forward, a choice in November

Original post made by jimf01 on Jul 27, 2010

The Democrats controlling the federal budget process have openly stated they will defer action on President Obama's proposed 2011 budget until after the election. With another $1 trillion+ deficit to add to the $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and tax increases for everyone.

Of course, as the WSJ states, he Obama budget is subject to approval by Congress, and it's unlikely to pass without significant changes
Web Link

These tax increases are on top of the tax increases already passed in to law

Web Link#

Sad thing is, I wish I could point to a GOP proposal that conservatives have actually gotten together to line up behind, to fix the problem we are in.

Rep Paul Ryan has proposed his roadmap
Web Link

This LA Times op-ed says it is true to libertarian values, maybe a bit too libertarian for tax and spend Republicans?
Web Link

60% of Americans get more from government than they pay in taxes, and President Obama's policies will move that closer to 70%. It is unsustainable. According to the CBO, our debt-to-GDP ratio will pass Greece 113% in 16 years!

Comments (18)

Posted by Paul, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2010 at 6:02 am

Thank you for this informative post.

Regarding the image of the "vote" button, frankly I've never understood people who simply encourage others to "vote" in general, regardless of the party affiliation. That effort put our fraudulent President in office.

Nevermind Obama's illegal caucuses that Hillary has filed a charge against, Obama's illegal campaign contributions which could not be traced, along with the ACORN efforts at registering a zillion "Mickey Mouses", the gazillion mind-numbed "20-somethings" voted for Obama because of style and charisma...nothing else.

Author Jason Mattera has written a most informative book about this... called "Obama Zombies". Here is info about this book...

"Obama Zombies" by Jason Mattera >>> Web Link

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jul 28, 2010 at 12:03 pm

While I don't agree with all of your statements, the overarching point that not everyone should necessarily be voting is a fair one, I suppose.

Turning folks into educated voters is something I can support, however. That is a big part of the goal of me posting in this forum.

One would think if that a marketing campaign as big as the one behind "hope and change" were mounted for Rep Paul Ryan's roadmap, the GOP would gain votes in November.

The Dems are offering nothing more than expansion of the entitlement programs and bigger, more oppressive government which has so far resulted in higher taxes, higher unemployment, higher budget deficits and a lingering recession.

Posted by radical, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2010 at 8:04 am

obveeously mr jim this is the debate the dems and lefties do not want to have

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jul 30, 2010 at 10:00 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

still waiting . . .

Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Aug 1, 2010 at 1:26 pm

"JimF01" said: "the overarching point that not everyone should necessarily be voting is a fair one." and "Turning folks into educated voters is something I can support, however. That is a big part of the goal of me posting in this forum."
So, "JimF01", who would decide which Americans are qualified to vote and which Americans would be barred? You? Paul? A panel of Republican conservatives hand-picked by the Tea Party Nation? Those in charge of local Tea Party groups?

How would you know that a particular American has been appropriately "educated"? Would there be a test? Would the test be given to everyone before they could vote, or would it be given selectively to prospective voters? If you chose to test selectively, what criteria would you use to identify those Americans that should be tested? Party affiliation if they're already registered to vote? Or could you just look at a particular American and decide that they have not been appropriately "educated"?

Would only those who gave the "right" (pun intended) answers favoring a "constitutional republic and smaller government" then be allowed to vote?

Here's a thought . . . I bet you could get former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) to help you out with the test design. As the opening speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention in Nashville (Feb 2010) he called Pres. Obama a "committed Socialist idealogue" who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote." Sounds like just what you and the Tea Party Nation are looking for!

Of course, as you stated in another thread, you certainly don't want anyone to think of you as a "racist, xenophobe, homophobe, bitterly clinging to [y]our guns and bibles, astroturfing violent neo-nazi", so you would want to make it *very* clear that your voter qualification test in no way resembles a Jim Crow-era voter test.

Hey, you could call your test the Jim Patriot Test and promote it as "the only way to make sure that true American Tea Party patriots are allowed to vote!"

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 2, 2010 at 9:13 am

Rae - I told Paul that I don't agree with everything he said, and I don't agree with changing any laws regarding who can vote.

That said, if you want to discuss the actual topic of this thread, instead of distorting my comments and diverting from the actual issue (as you seem to try do in every comment you make), then I would be happy to hear from you.

Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Aug 2, 2010 at 5:49 pm

LOL!!! This thread, as with all your others, is just another variation on how "Democrats (or really anyone with an opinion left of far right) are the root of all evil". The only thing new were your comments agreeing with poster Paul that his "overarching point that not everyone should necessarily be voting is a fair one" and how hard you were working trying to "educate" voters with your many posts.

Good to know that you don't see the laws changing! Does that mean you don't agree with Mr. Tancredo regarding a voter's litmus test??

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 3, 2010 at 9:56 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

The New York Times has apparently written a story based on my blog post

..."Like many other politicians whose ideas were once considered extreme, only to later be mainstream — like Ronald Reagan - Rep Paul Ryan is seen as on the leading edge of something.

Why? His "Roadmap for America's Future," an elaborate (critics say drastic) plan that aims to erase the federal debt by 2063, simplify the tax code and significantly alter (his critics say eviscerate) Medicare and Social Security.

The article mainly reiterates what I said, the critics will call a real plan drastic and extreme, but the progressive Dems in Congress have NO plan.

Read down the article, it describes in simple terms what Rep Ryan is proposing in his roadmap

Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Aug 4, 2010 at 3:40 pm

About Rep Ryan's (R-WI) "Roadmap for America" - evidently when the CBO rated Rep. Ryan's plan, the "analysis of the Ryan plan was drawn up based upon revenue projections Ryan himself provided. The CBO doesn't analyze the impact of tax policy on revenue, so they were unable to estimate how Ryan's policy prescriptions would actually impact revenues--and just took Ryan's numbers at face value. Turns out, those numbers were pure fantasy."

The tax changes that Rep Ryan proposes include a huge tax cut for the wealthy and a substantial tax increase for 90% of the rest of us. And the country is still left with a "ballooning, unsustainable deficit."

"By contrast to the Ryan Roadmap, President Obama's budget would increase revenues as a share of GDP from 14.5 percent in 2010 to 19.6 percent in 2020. There would still be deficits at that point--but at a much more sustainable level than under the GOP alternative."

Web Link

Web Link

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 4, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Rae says, Republicans aren't taxing the rich, not fair!!

I knew the answer was "it's not about how much you tax, it's about how much you spend"

Rep Paul Ryan can say it better than I
Web Link

The CBO will not score the plan because that is the JCT's job, and the JCT will not score it because they cannot work out anything longer than 10 years.

Further analysis here
Web Link

a fundamental bit of this analysis is the TPC acknowledges its analysis is essentially static -- "by ignoring the stronger economy that would follow from enactment of the Ryan plan"

Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 1:27 pm

LOL!! Wow "jimf01"!! So you want to talk about lowering the deficit but don't want to look at the revenue stream, i.e. taxes???

Simple terms: No one (me, you, the government) can lower their debt if they don't bring in more money than they are obligated to minimally pay out, and then use the difference between revenue and minimal debt payment (if there is any) to pay down their remaining debt. You can't talk about Rep. Ryan's "Roadmap" without talking taxes since he proposes big changes to the tax code that will shift some of the tax burdens of the wealthiest 10% and corporations to the middle class and working poor.

Rep. Ryan would make Pres. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy permanent while eliminating the Child Tax and Earned Income Tax Credits for the middle class and working poor. So, if Rep Ryan's plan were in effect in 2011, the bottom 20% of wage earners, making less than $20,063 would pay 12.3% more in taxes while the top 1% would pay 15% less with an overall revenue loss of $182.9 billion – and that's just in 2011.

Rep. Ryan also proposes to eliminate the "corporate income tax", or taxes paid by entities taxed as a corporation, and replace it with a 8.5% "business consumption tax" more commonly known as a value-added tax (VAT), to be paid by the consumer. Of course, the federal VAT would be imposed on top of a state's sales tax, so here in our little area of the world we'd be paying initially 18.25% on our purchases (8.5% VAT + 9.75% state sales tax). Who's to say how high the VAT would go . . .

Rep. Ryan proposes to eliminate income taxes on capital gains, stock dividends and interest while continuing to tax income that comes from work. He says that part of his plan "promotes work, savings and investment" . . . because, of course, so many of us just throw away all that extra money we have on frivolous stuff after paying our bills.

Web Link

But hey, not to worry! The Republican leadership of Boehner, McConnell, Gregg and Kyl have assured us that cutting taxes for the top 10% of the country will have no impact on the revenue stream and therefore does not require a commensurate spending cut. It's only that pesky middle class and working poor with all their demands on the government that require budget cuts. Web Link Web Link

Rep. Cantor, a small voice of reason (at least until he gets spanked and falls back in line) did say "[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper." Which brings up the other part of paying down the deficit – expenditures.

Our country's biggest expenditures are for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (more than $1 trillion so far), Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Rep. Ryan's plan does not address the cost of war, which not only cost thousands of American lives, but also decimated our budget surplus. He does address the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid with plans to privatize them.

Privatization of the "entitlement" programs has been, and should continue to be an interesting debate. Given what millions of people have experienced over the last 10 years with the loss of their savings and 401Ks due to fraud, stock market tumbles, job loss and bankruptcy (both corporate and individual) I don't think Rep Ryan is going to find a whole lot of support for privatization of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid . . . even from the Tea Party crowd, who, according to the April NYT/CBS poll, are receiving Social Security (49%), covered by Medicare (43%), and say the benefits are worth the cost (62%). Web Link

While it would greatly help to get out of the nation-building business, what we need in the interim are politicians who are first willing to sit down and do the hard work by going over every single line item in the budget and then, having the courage to eliminate those bridges to nowhere, programs that no longer exist, earmarks for campaign contributors and government waste. Then we take a look at where we are with revenues vs. outlay and decide where to go next.

In any case, shifting the tax burdens from the wealthiest 10% and corporations to the middle class and working poor does nothing but increase numbers of those folks struggling to make ends meet and places an even greater burden on our government – unless you're thinking the real solution for anyone under a certain income level, over 55, or receiving unemployment, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid is a Soylent Green one!!

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 5, 2010 at 9:51 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Make no mistake, the source of Rae's info, the CTJ, state here Web Link their mission: public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies ...Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:
* Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
* Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
* Closing corporate tax loopholes

Translation: The rich aren't being taxed enough! Not fair!

That aside, Rae repeatedly tries to demagogue the issue by using phrases like "shifting the tax burdens from the wealthiest 10% and corporations to the middle class and working poor".
This is simply false on its face. The wealthiest 10% pay more than 71% of all income taxes collected, while the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the total amount collected Web Link

So any changes we are discussing do not "shift the burden" from the wealthy. May lighten the load, yes, and ask someone else to carry a few of the bricks.

THAT aside, Rae needs to acknowledge that lowering taxes on the top 10% will stimulate economic activity. This is what creates jobs in this country. The stimulus has already failed to bring us out of recession and President Obama has doubled down on the deficit that Bush left him.

I admit I do not fully understand the proposed 8.5% "business consumption tax" and Rep Paul Ryan doesn't seem to have directly answered the CTJ statement, but this analysis of a VAT Web Link says that "The VAT is like a retail sales tax, but it's collected in pieces along the production chain", and it is not a sales tax added to a retail purchase as CTJ and Rae would portray here by saying "Retail businesses would collect the full VAT from consumers".
The bottom line is that all businesses include taxes in their business model when setting prices, so all taxes are paid by people who pay a business for a product.

This is getting quite long, so if you have read down this far, thank you. Here is some enjoyable video Web Link

Rep Paul Ryan SCHOOLS Chris Matthews.

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 8, 2010 at 4:12 pm

C'mon Rae you gotta have more for me than that?

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 10, 2010 at 10:04 am

Rep Paul Ryan strikes back at his critics.

Web Link

Not ironically, Paul Ryan has the same experience with those that assail his plan as I do with those that assail me here

from the article:
"By dismissing credible proposals as 'flimflam,' critics such as Krugman contribute nothing to the debate. Standing on the sidelines shouting 'boo' amounts to condemning our people to a future of managed decline. Absent serious reform, spending on entitlement programs and interest on government debt will consume more and more of the federal budget, resulting in falling standards of living and higher taxes as we try to sustain an ever larger social welfare state"

This is, in a nutshell, why people must choose between the GOP and the Democrats this November.

Harmer or McNerney
Fiorina or Boxer
Whitman or Brown
and the list goes on...

The GOP doesn't have all the answers. I am not blind to the failures of Bush, signing off on huge entitlements before leaving office. But we simply cannot afford another 2 years of a Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House.

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 10, 2010 at 10:08 am

Oh yeah, Rae, before you reply and post more info from the Tax Policy Center, read this: "In Defense of Congressman Paul Ryan" Web Link

Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Aug 10, 2010 at 11:47 am

Jimf01, Awwwww . . .you missed me!

Did you happen to notice in the reference you provided the TPC points out that:

"Ryan's proposal would lead to federal tax revenue of approximately 16 percent of GDP, which amounts to a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years compared to the alternative fiscal scenario." and "This indeed poses a challenge to Congressman Ryan to make specific changes to his tax reform plan in order to meet his revenue goal."

Neither Rep Ryan, nor the Republican leadership, has stated that said that they are willing to consider or make ANY changes to Rep Ryan's tax reform plan.

Geez, no one's even been able to get them to answer how they expect to pay for the Pres Bush tax cuts expiring in 2011 that were given to the wealthiest Americans via Republican Reconciliation Tax Acts, let alone discuss any changes to the "Roadmap"! They just cut, paste and repeat that you can't raise taxes in a recession . . . of course, completely ignoring that the tax rates the wealthiest would once again fall under are those blessed by Pres Reagan, that iconic, conservative, Republican president!!

As for the choices in November:
Harmer or McNerney – MCNERNEY
Fiorina or Boxer - BOXER
Whitman or Brown – Brown

Obviously, from my postings on this forum, you know that I support Rep McNerney. As for the Fiorina and Whitman races:

Before she was forced to resign, HP's stock under Ms Fiorina's guidance dropped more than 60% in value; stock prices plummeted from $52 per share in 1999 to $21 in 2005. The negative effect to stockholders was on top of the 30,000 employees who lost their jobs during her tenure as CEO. During this same time period, HP competitor Dell's stock price increased from $37 to $40 per share. Web Link

Ms Whitman put what she had learned while serving on the compensation committee of Goldman Sach's board approving multi-million dollar bonus packages to work at EBAY as she amassed her own personal fortune. The collapse of our financial system led by Goldman Sach's, as well as the 40,000 American jobs jost under her tenure at EBAY were just collateral damage to greed. Ms Whitman still has multi-million dollar accounts managed by Goldman; small wonder they donated $100,000 to her campaign. If elected Governor, she should feel right at home since Goldman, as the underwriter of $78.9 billion in bonds issued by the state since 2006, has major investments in California's state finance. Web Link

Although I'm having a hard time jumping on Jerry Brown's candidacy, California certainly cannot afford the Fiorina/Whitman brand of prosperity.

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm

"no one has even been able to get them to answer how they expect to pay for the Pres Bush tax cuts expiring in 2011"

first off, "no one" is paying for them now, we are in deep deep deficits. IF we do not start expanding the economy, we will never pay for any anything, because the government is spending more than they take in.

Under Reagan and Bush, the US government expanded revenues by cutting taxes. I know, take a deep breath, it's hard to read that.

Under Reagan, Bush, and definitely under Obama, the government succeeded in growing federal spending faster than they could grow tax receipts.

As has been stated repeatedly, the federal government has a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. Rep Paul Ryan essentially states that 16% of GDP is more than sufficient to fund all the government we need.

Maybe that is why the Republicans and Democrats don't reallywant to discuss this, they only like to keep the federal government growing and growing.

Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Aug 12, 2010 at 9:35 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

NYT columnist Paul Krugman has given up trying to debate Rep Paul Ryan, and resorted to the typical left-wing whacko attack, here is his latest blog entry
Web Link

The Weekly Standard provides the blow by blow

Web Link

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sentinels of Freedom Newsletter
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 848 views

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 785 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 520 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 499 views