Ryan explains 'why' of balancing budget

Ryan explains 'why' of balancing budget

There are 19 comments on the clickondetroit.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Ryan explains 'why' of balancing budget. In it, clickondetroit.com reports that:

As Washington continues its haggling over spending cuts and tax increases, Rep. Paul Ryan sought to explain to Americans on Saturday why eliminating the federal deficit was a worthwhile goal.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at clickondetroit.com.

petros

Greeley, CO

#1 Mar 16, 2013
He's wasting his time. The Democrats are convinced that they've found the key to endless wealth: borrowing it from the unborn.

Trying to educate liberals on how ultimately destructive this is will only illicit a response from them similar to the puzzled look of the RCA dog.

Obama and the Dems have got the people fooled into believing they can provide endless free stuff. It seems like a miracle and no amount of rational discussion will dissuade them.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#2 Mar 16, 2013
petros wrote:
He's wasting his time. The Democrats are convinced that they've found the key to endless wealth: borrowing it from the unborn.
Trying to educate liberals on how ultimately destructive this is will only illicit a response from them similar to the puzzled look of the RCA dog.
Obama and the Dems have got the people fooled into believing they can provide endless free stuff. It seems like a miracle and no amount of rational discussion will dissuade them.
So true. I saw Martin Basher talking with this young conservative guy yesterday and the conservative tells Martin "soon enough we will be paying $1 trillion per year just on interest on the debt, and at that point, all of these programs WILL have to be cut." And Basher just ignores it in total. He has NO answer for it and the liberals policy is just keep borrowing money. He did not have one answer for the guy so he just laughed at the guy with another liberal on the show. This is what they do. They have NO real answers so they just make fun of the people who tell them the truth. Martin Basher's argument was so stupid. He said at least we had one percent growth due to borrowing so much money whereas European countries have no growth due to austerity. Well, one percent growth from borrowing $5 trillion is crap. We would be much better off with zero percent growth and not having borrowed one more cent, and the other thing he is ignoring is that we are close to being where the European countries are, close to no longer being able to borrow and having to do austerity. The liberals have NO real answers to anything.
idiots united

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Mar 16, 2013
He got the right idea about balancing thye budget only he wants to take it from the poor and favor the rich that gets richer and richer to the point of total utter senselessness in which his interntion become purely idiotic and too self serving.
conservative crapola

Orefield, PA

#4 Mar 16, 2013
von lyan needs to explain WHY it takes his budget 10 years to balance it, when the redeadlicans are running around pretending the sky is falling right now. He couldn't sell his bullshit when he was tethered to the mor(m)on and and can't sell it now.

hahahahahahahahahaha
B Gates

Hazen, ND

#5 Mar 16, 2013
idiots united wrote:
He got the right idea about balancing thye budget only he wants to take it from the poor and favor the rich that gets richer and richer to the point of total utter senselessness in which his interntion become purely idiotic and too self serving.
I resemble that remark.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#6 Mar 16, 2013
idiots united wrote:
He got the right idea about balancing thye budget only he wants to take it from the poor and favor the rich that gets richer and richer to the point of total utter senselessness in which his interntion become purely idiotic and too self serving.
This is an age old problem though. I saw an old movie the other night where this guy was talking about how the poor are never going to do one thing and how they are useless, it was made in 1935, so people have known for a long time that the "poor" are usually people on the government who have low IQs and bad values who do bad things and they're looking for others to take care of them. It would be better to end welfare in total. That would stop all these young girls from having kids to get free housing and free money, and those are the kids that grow up to kill each other in gangs. It's the welfare that causes the horrible parenting that causes the gangs and the violence. It's a circle that people can't get out of and has been going on for a long, long time. People are made "poor" by purposely having kids to avoid having to ever work, and those kids have no father and a teenage mother who doesn't take care of them, so they join gangs and those are the kids who have a life expectancy of 25 in the ghettos. If you end welfare, same people will stop having kids to get welfare, the gangs will end, the crime will end, the killings will end, and those girls will finish high school and go to college and go to work. The only "poor" we have in this country are young girls opting out of working choosing the welfare programs as a way of life.

And if you look at how people like Al Sharpton ALWAYS support welfare, no cuts to welfare, he knows that almost 80 percent of the black community has been on welfare for the last 40-50 years, so if he sees how bad the black neighborhoods are, in reality, he should be working to end welfare in order to change those neighborhoods. He is the one who thinks black people can't function and he thinks they all need welfare, but look at the crime in those neighborhoods, look how the men all abandon the women. That's because those men are the same kids whose mothers had them just to get welfare and they had no fathers, so they abandon their kids and on and on it goes. If Sharpton asked the black community to step up to the plate and function instead of demanding welfare for them, he would really be helping them. I think they can step up to the plate, all of them, if only the liberals believed in them and would ask them to.
Your Ex

United States

#7 Mar 16, 2013
More BS from the
Film-flam man.
see the light

United States

#8 Mar 16, 2013
idiots united wrote:
He got the right idea about balancing thye budget only he wants to take it from the poor and favor the rich that gets richer and richer to the point of total utter senselessness in which his interntion become purely idiotic and too self serving.
Liar
Lance Winslow

San Jose, CA

#9 Mar 16, 2013
Didn't hunt Nov. 6 and don't hunt now.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Mar 16, 2013
The GOPasaurs support at least 9 years of continued trillion dollar deficits. What gives them any credibility on the issue?

Wanna impress me, then submit a budget that is balanced for THIS year, and NEXT year, and the NEXT year, etc, etc. Not one that may or may not balance in 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years.
see the light

United States

#11 Mar 17, 2013
Dems need everything explained to them, then they cry.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#12 Mar 17, 2013
But Ryan said in the weekly GOP address on Saturday that "the crucial question isn't how we balance the budget. It's why."

"The budget is a means to an end," he continued. "We're not balancing the budget as an accounting exercise. We're not trying to simply make numbers add up."

On Wednesday morning’s edition of “Morning Joe,” the panel sat in stunned silence for a beat after they watched a clip of the uncomfortable encounter between Ryan and Hume. Hume asked Ryan, among other things, how much in savings his plan would produce. Ryan immediately got evasive,“The point is — we, we — I joined the Romney ticket,” he said, but that the savings to Medicare would come “for the next generation.”

Hume then asked when Ryan’s plan would balance the budget, which made the congressman even more uncomfortable. After hemming and hawing about bringing the size of the government down to 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product by 2016, and being asked again by Hume when the budget will be balanced, Ryan finally made a genuinely startling revelation. He doesn’t have any idea.

“Well I don’t know exactly when it balances because — I don’t want to get wonky on you, but we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan,” Ryan said.

Seems Eddie Munster is trying to make the numbers add up and still can't.

Poor teabagger.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#13 Mar 17, 2013
Obama has added $5 trillion in four years. In the 08 campaign, then Sen.Obama said that under President Bush the $4 trillion debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Obama now has said the debt is no longer a pressing issue so why would he care about a budget.
Your Ex

United States

#14 Mar 17, 2013
see the light wrote:
Dems need everything explained to them, then they cry.
You're confused.
Boehner's a Rebuplican(t).
Your Ex

United States

#15 Mar 17, 2013
Grogan wrote:
Obama has added $5 trillion in four years. In the 08 campaign, then Sen.Obama said that under President Bush the $4 trillion debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Obama now has said the debt is no longer a pressing issue so why would he care about a budget.
Obama & every economist in the country that isn't on the Faux News payroll.
Try to keep up.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#16 Mar 17, 2013
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama & every economist in the country that isn't on the Faux News payroll.
Try to keep up.
It is hard to argue when the President does not take any responsibility himself plus you don't make any since.
see the light

United States

#17 Mar 17, 2013
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confused.
Boehner's a Rebuplican(t).
Diane Frankenfeinstein-please don't talk to me like Im a 6th grader-wah wah boo hoo
Your Ex

United States

#18 Mar 17, 2013
see the light wrote:
<quoted text>Diane Frankenfeinstein-please don't talk to me like Im a 6th grader-wah wah boo hoo
Do you need a
Tissue
For your
Issue?
Sorry.
I'll try to remember to use
Smaller words.
see the light

United States

#19 Mar 17, 2013
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you need a
Tissue
For your
Issue?
Sorry.
I'll try to remember to use
Smaller words.
I don't but you freaks do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Carson defends Murdoch over 'real black preside... (Oct '15) 4 hr Capernick daughter 6
News Harry Reid calls mother of Benghazi victim 'cra... 8 hr VN Vet 44
News GOP at war with itself 17 hr Independent Atheist 1,725
News Graham group takes Mormon cult wording off Web (Oct '12) Sun Maggie 8
News Clinton, Trump share a media strategy: avoid it Aug 25 LOL 1
News Think black people aren't voting for Trump? Gue... Aug 25 Woman against Hil... 7
News Ralph Nader shook up the election in 2000. Will... Aug 25 Phyllis Schlafly ... 7
More from around the web