paul ryan’s republican budget

paul ryan’s republican budget

Posted in the Jackson-Heights Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Opinion

Kadoka, SD

#1 Apr 16, 2014
ON THIS TAX DAY, YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT PAUL RYAN’S REPUBLICAN BUDGET MEANS .

I'm all for reducing spending and getting back first to a balanced budget and at some point start reducing the national debt.

The issue is how we get there and who pays the price in increased taxes or where we cut.

Paul Ryan's Budget would do this:
690 millionaires would get an $87,000 tax break.
BUT...
Middle class families would pay $2000 more in taxes.

10,858 seniors would pay more for medicine by bringing back the prescription drug donut hole.

2,020 college students wouldn't receive Pell Grants.

388 domestic violence victims would lose access to the STOP Violence Against Women Program.

480 children would lose access to Head Start.

Go here and punch in some numbers based somewhat on your income and decide where the cuts should be made.
You also might want to consider whether you feel the rich should pay less and you pay more.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/2013-taxreceipt...
Blood Bill Anderson

Cadiz, KY

#2 Apr 16, 2014
That's pretty much what the middle class seems to be willing to support.

If you want to see the prototype for Ryan's budget, look at the tax reform and budgets passed in Kansas for the last 4 years. There the rich got a tax cut, the middle class paid slightly more or the same, and the working poor paid more. To pay for the reduced revenue programs that benefit the middle class and working poor were cut. Education took a big part of the hit.

Same thing has been proposed here in Kentucky, but so far it has not passed, at least not in as big a way. But I think it is coming. Next governor is almost sure to be a TEA Party Republican and the grass roots support for "cut taxes, cut spending" is tremendous. Add in the fact that the millionaires who will get the cuts are mostly coal company types, then the working poor in all the coal counties will support it because they will think that by cutting coal executives taxes it will save their own jobs. They don't really think about the fact that if the cuts happen their kid's first grade class will have 30 kids in it instead of 20. Or if they do it does not matter to them.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#3 Apr 16, 2014
The government takes care of the rich, because the rich take care of the politicians.

The middle class gets the shaft every time because they are dumb enough to think that they are represented by one of the two parties that are there to serve the rich.

The middle class falls for the illusion of choice every time. And pay dearly for it.

It's become painfully obvious, however, that they won't get it until there is no longer a middle class.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Cadiz, KY

#4 Apr 17, 2014
nac wrote:
The government takes care of the rich, because the rich take care of the politicians.
The middle class gets the shaft every time because they are dumb enough to think that they are represented by one of the two parties that are there to serve the rich.
The middle class falls for the illusion of choice every time. And pay dearly for it.
It's become painfully obvious, however, that they won't get it until there is no longer a middle class.
True enough. But what are we to do when there is no viable alternative? What other parties are there?

Libertarians? They are rabid "all to the strongest (not fittest as Darwin said in nature)" Social Darwinists.

Socialists/communists? They hate the middle class and are committed to destruction.

Closest thing that there has ever been to a real middle class party was the Republicans during and immediately after the Civil War. Populists in the late 19th century came close too. There is zero chance of them coming back from the dead.
Opinion

Kadoka, SD

#5 Apr 18, 2014
nac wrote:
The government takes care of the rich, because the rich take care of the politicians.
The middle class gets the shaft every time because they are dumb enough to think that they are represented by one of the two parties that are there to serve the rich.
The middle class falls for the illusion of choice every time. And pay dearly for it.
It's become painfully obvious, however, that they won't get it until there is no longer a middle class.
I too can agree with much of what you posted.

But what is your alternative? Ron Paul and Libertinism?
nac

Bellmore, NY

#6 Apr 18, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I too can agree with much of what you posted.
But what is your alternative? Ron Paul and Libertinism?
No, Ron Paul isn't running for office anymore. We should have elected him President in 1988. He was by far the best option in 2008 & 2012 as well.

But as you & Bill will assert, we was "unelectable."

Do you know why he was "unelectable?" Because Democrats & Republicans (and their media lackeys) told you that he was. So no one listened to his actual message because the media put out the meme that he was "crazy." And like good little sheep, most Americans just decided to believe that he was crazy without any substance to the claim and vote democrat/republican like they always have.

But forget about Paul, he's ancient history now anyway.

My alternative to our broken, corrupt 2 party system?

For now, all I can do is try to wake people up. Once people understand how poorly represented they are, they'll take action and alternatives will emerge.

Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same pair of dirty underwear. Americans keep turning the underwear inside-out and expect everything to be fresh & clean each time.

That's insane.

It will be business as usual because it is the same pair of dirty underwear. One side finds little ways to make things worse, we kick them out, the other side makes things a little worse, we kick them out and the cycle continues because most people seem to be in a trance.

Wake up!!! It's our republic's only hope.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Cadiz, KY

#7 Apr 19, 2014
I never met Ron Paul, but I have met his son Rand. He was my wife's eye doctor. If he's a chip off the old block, then his daddy is a crazy, dangerous libertarian lunatic.

Libertarianism is not the answer. Insofar as economics, it is worse than what we have now. A Libertarian society would look like the society in the movie Soylent Green.

What this country needs is a militant Populist movement, something like the Grange and Populists / Progressives of the late 19th century, but led by somebody that is a hell of a lot smarter and realistic than that damned idiot William Jennings Bryan who got hold of the Populists and led them to ruin.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#8 Apr 19, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
I never met Ron Paul, but I have met his son Rand. He was my wife's eye doctor. If he's a chip off the old block, then his daddy is a crazy, dangerous libertarian lunatic.
Libertarianism is not the answer. Insofar as economics, it is worse than what we have now. A Libertarian society would look like the society in the movie Soylent Green.
...
A lot of dishonest, sweeping generalization there, Bill.

To allege that the most extreme minority that is associated with Libertarians is actually the mainstream libertarian is an intellectually dishonest tactic that you should be above.

Obviously, you are not. But you should be. You can do better than that
Opinion

Kadoka, SD

#9 Apr 19, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
I never met Ron Paul, but I have met his son Rand. He was my wife's eye doctor. If he's a chip off the old block, then his daddy is a crazy, dangerous libertarian lunatic.
Libertarianism is not the answer. Insofar as economics, it is worse than what we have now. A Libertarian society would look like the society in the movie Soylent Green.
What this country needs is a militant Populist movement, something like the Grange and Populists / Progressives of the late 19th century, but led by somebody that is a hell of a lot smarter and realistic than that damned idiot William Jennings Bryan who got hold of the Populists and led them to ruin.
I'm likely putting my head on the chopping block.

She is about as close to a "populist" as we have around I would think. Pretty sharp woman that could be a VP candidate or down the road run for President. I don't think she will this time around.

Sen. Warren (D-Mass.)
"Paul Ryan looks around, sees three unemployed workers for every job opening in America, and blames the people who can't find a job," she said. "In 2008, this economy crashed, wiping out millions of jobs."
"Paul Ryan says don't blame Wall Street: the guys who made billions of dollars cheating American families; don't blame decades of deregulation that took the cops off the beat while the big banks looted the American economy. Don't blame the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, and the Republican president who set in motion a no-strings-attached bailout for the biggest banks. Nope. Paul Ryan says keep the monies flowing to the powerful corporations, keep their huge tax breaks, keep the special deals for the too-big-to-fail banks and put the blame on hardworking, play-by-the-rules Americans who lost their jobs."
"That may be Paul Ryan's vision of how America works, but that is not our vision of this great country,"
Bloody Bill Anderson

Greenville, KY

#10 Apr 19, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of dishonest, sweeping generalization there, Bill.
To allege that the most extreme minority that is associated with Libertarians is actually the mainstream libertarian is an intellectually dishonest tactic that you should be above.
Obviously, you are not. But you should be. You can do better than that
Nothing dishonest about it. That's how I see it and that's what I think of the damned Social Darwinist bastards.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Greenville, KY

#11 Apr 19, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm likely putting my head on the chopping block.
She is about as close to a "populist" as we have around I would think. Pretty sharp woman that could be a VP candidate or down the road run for President. I don't think she will this time around.
Sen. Warren (D-Mass.)
"Paul Ryan looks around, sees three unemployed workers for every job opening in America, and blames the people who can't find a job," she said. "In 2008, this economy crashed, wiping out millions of jobs."
"Paul Ryan says don't blame Wall Street: the guys who made billions of dollars cheating American families; don't blame decades of deregulation that took the cops off the beat while the big banks looted the American economy. Don't blame the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, and the Republican president who set in motion a no-strings-attached bailout for the biggest banks. Nope. Paul Ryan says keep the monies flowing to the powerful corporations, keep their huge tax breaks, keep the special deals for the too-big-to-fail banks and put the blame on hardworking, play-by-the-rules Americans who lost their jobs."
"That may be Paul Ryan's vision of how America works, but that is not our vision of this great country,"
Elizabeth Warren. Hmmm... Never thought of her.

Only one problem: She's from Massachusetts. You couldn't get anybody south of the Ohio River to vote for her, not unless she can prove she's the great great great grand daughter of Jefferson Davis.

If I was picking a lady war horse to lead a Populist party it would be Susan Eisenhower. She's smart, says the same kind of things Warren said, and, plus, she's got the magic of her grandpa Ike's name. She'd get a lot of disaffected ex-Republicans in Dixie, out on the Plains, and in the "Blue" parts of states like Illinois (which except for Chicago and a little cluster of blacks around Cairo is basically Dixie north of the Ohio).
Bloody Bill Anderson

Greenville, KY

#12 Apr 19, 2014
Another problem, too. Both these gals don't have much "down the road" left.

Warren is a 1949 model. Age 65. If she's going to make a run, its this time or no time.

Susan Eisenhower was born in 1951 (I think) but age will be her problem too. Its this time or no time.
nac

Springfield, NJ

#13 Apr 19, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing dishonest about it. That's how I see it and that's what I think of the damned Social Darwinist bastards.
Fair enough. But you've been mislead. I'd encourage you to be more open-minded in the future.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Hopkinsville, KY

#14 Apr 20, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. But you've been mislead. I'd encourage you to be more open-minded in the future.
I have not been misleading. Asking me to be open minded about Libertarians is the equivalent of asking a Jew (or anyone else with half sense and one eye) to be "open minded" about the Nazis.

All you have to do to see what the Libertarians really are is read their party platform. That will tell anyone what their true colors are. You don't have to go on and read Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty" and his education book "Free and Compulsory" to know that they are an evil bunch of wealthy sons of bitches who want to turn the USA into a shithole Third World country in which they will lord it over everybody else.

All the talk about "freedom" and "liberty" is just as smokescreen to fool the "useful fools."
nac

Bellmore, NY

#15 Apr 20, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not been misleading. Asking me to be open minded about Libertarians is the equivalent of asking a Jew (or anyone else with half sense and one eye) to be "open minded" about the Nazis.
All you have to do to see what the Libertarians really are is read their party platform. That will tell anyone what their true colors are. You don't have to go on and read Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty" and his education book "Free and Compulsory" to know that they are an evil bunch of wealthy sons of bitches who want to turn the USA into a shithole Third World country in which they will lord it over everybody else.
All the talk about "freedom" and "liberty" is just as smokescreen to fool the "useful fools."
Nice double-down, Bill.

Again, to take the most extreme outlier that can be associated with something, and portray it as the mainstream belief of that group is intellectually dishonest and simply a campaign of disinformation.

If I said that Democrats are all radical communists that want the Constitution scrapped in favor of an authoritarian government that controls everything in your life... I'd be dishonest... but I'd be doing what you just did.

If I said that Republicans are all radical right-wing gun nuts that want to impose their religious beliefs on all citizens of this country... I'd be dishonest... but I'd be doing what you just did.

***

I'm not saying that Libertarianism is perfect, but I do know that establishment democrats & republicans have done far more harm than good.

If you like endless wars, Wall Street corruption, and a declining middle class economy... keep supporting republicans.

If you like Obamacare, Wall Street corruption, and a declining middle class economy... keep supporting democrats.

If you are not a complete moron... Open your mind and look elsewhere.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Hopkinsville, KY

#16 Apr 20, 2014
I don't consider the Libertarian Party platform an "extreme outlier." And that platform is totally in sync with Rothbard on every point of policy. It is just not quite as honest as he was in spelling it out. It cloaks the monstrosity that it is in a lot of "freedom" rhetoric, but the end result would be the same monster.

As for your characterization of the Republican Party today, it is pretty accurate. I was an Eisenhower style "Middle Way" Republican, even well to the right of the center line, until the Libertarians and the Christian Reconstructionists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy got together, cut a deal on the Libertarians supporting the Christian Right's "moral" agenda in return for the Christian Right adopting Social Darwinist economics (and wrapping billing it as "Biblical" economics thanks to Gary North and Pat Robertson) and hijacked the GOP. The future that they want would look like a combination of the economy-society portrayed in Soylent Green and a "Christian" version of Iran or the Taliban.

As for the Democrats, they went off the deep end in the other direction. But if there is any room for a new "Middle Way" to develop in the USA it will probably start in the Democrats - or maybe as a split in both parties after which the disaffected old ex-Republicans like me and the disaffected "Blue Dog" Democrats get together.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Hopkinsville, KY

#17 Apr 20, 2014
As for me looking elsewhere, yes, I am looking elsewhere. But the damned Libertarians sure as hell ain't the elsewhere that I will go.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#18 Apr 20, 2014
Bill... slow down. Go back and read what I wrote. Your response had nothing to do with what I said.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have a brain in your head...

So go back, take it from the top, and express yourself in an intelligent manner. Put the establishment propaganda aside and speak for yourself.
Opinion

Kadoka, SD

#19 Apr 23, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
As for me looking elsewhere, yes, I am looking elsewhere. But the damned Libertarians sure as hell ain't the elsewhere that I will go.
Bill, we might disagree over the ACA. I think we even agree that a Single Payer System would still be the best option.

I can agree with most everything you said here.

"nac" claims to be non-political and a neutral fence setter. Yet over time I have seen a lot of extremist rhetoric out of him. He offers little to back up what he says and considers that since he believe what he said to be true then it becomes a fact.

I have went around and around with him in circles and very seldom will he take a solid position.

It seems that he has strong opinions in regards to Libertarians. I also do not see them as an alternative.

To me the best way to correct the current trend in politics is with a constitutional amendment to reel in both Corporate funding in politics and unlimited funding by the wealthy or at least make they revel who they are bank rolling and expect to do their bidding once elected.
Opinion

Kadoka, SD

#20 Apr 23, 2014
nac wrote:
The government takes care of the rich, because the rich take care of the politicians.
The middle class gets the shaft every time because they are dumb enough to think that they are represented by one of the two parties that are there to serve the rich.
The middle class falls for the illusion of choice every time. And pay dearly for it.
It's become painfully obvious, however, that they won't get it until there is no longer a middle class.
Actually I pretty much agree with your posting.

I would welcome your thoughts on another thread I started. But see if you can resist the name calling and put downs if you do not agree. Express your opinions and be willing to accept that someone else might not see it that way.

Citizen's United & McCutcheon Supreme Court Decisions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 40 min jimi-yank 46,160
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 50 min Princess Hey 17,944
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 51 min Princess Hey 19,126
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Bruddah Z 326,075
News Once again, the ACLU takes its place on the fro... (Feb '17) 5 hr C Kersey 11
Dirty Jersey 5 hr dirty jersey 1
News Report: Vornado among bidders in anticipated la... (Feb '16) 5 hr Alank 352

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages