IF only we could get more Paul Ryans...

[Maximus]

You didn't find the hotair piece just a tad "demagoguerish"? I guess the need to refer to the President as "The One" was just too much temptation to forego.

Adult discussion indeed. Sigh.

I posted that because it is where I first saw the link and then realized I needed a real news source as well. HotAir is over the top a lot of the time.

[RobinFinderson]

..."The numbers get so large it breaks the program." Really? I find that hard to believe.

I got a chuckle out of that one too. Stuff like that demonstrates that the speaker is either stupid (the computer just couldn't comprehend such big numbers!), or he thinks he is addressing stupid people.

[Borderline Divine]

I got a chuckle out of that one too. Stuff like that demonstrates that the speaker is either stupid (the computer just couldn't comprehend such big numbers!), or he thinks he is addressing stupid people.

That part. Sadly, he is right to a frightening extent.

But golly, he has his sleeves rolled up so thats gotta count for something, right?

[RobinFinderson]

[/B]

That part. Sadly, he is right to a frightening extent.

But golly, he has his sleeves rolled up so thats gotta count for something, right?

The irony of pointing out his model's failing is that he undermines the reliability of the model.

[Jacob]

I admit to only having watched the video, but I will go ahead and reject what I sense his assumptions to be.

"The numbers get so large it breaks the program." Really? I find that hard to believe.

My guess (since he never really states where his numbers are coming from) is that his projections are based upon two basic and faulty assumptions:
1. The Federal budget will continue to climb at recent rates
2. The economy will stagnate or grow at recent rates

His charts are all whacked out b/c he chooses to project out to 2070 while starting somewhere in the 70's. Of course his charts are going to look scary if he is going to populate it with a majority of "data" that he has made up.

It's this sort of politicking that upsets me. I have no clue what district the Congressman represents, but I would never vote for him. He traffics in fear-mongering and plays partisan ball to the detriment of the "Real Americans" that I'm sure he claims to support.

"Economists say" is a classic appeal to authority that he uses here to support an utter b.s. line that is easily refuted by looking at the data. "Economists say that when a nation's debt rises above 90% of its GDP things start to slow down and that's when things get really bad" or some such nonsense. If he would move his charts back a couple of decades he will note that American debt was well over 100% of the GDP coming out of WWII. I wonder how bad he thinks things must have been in the 50's. If I were to guess, my bet is that he would think of that time period as the zenith of American society. He's gotta be wrong somewhere.

You have no idea where his numbers come from, yet you are able to declare that he has fixed or invented them to fear monger? Nice. He actually said he got his numbers from the CBO.
And neither republicans nor democrats seem to be arguing with his numbers, except maybe that dolt, Harry Reid, who says we don't need to address SS for 20 years. But then again, Ryan hasn't addressed SS here.

Are you suggesting that the debt load during WWII is a sustainable model? If not, what is your point that we carried more than 90% det:GEDP during those few wars, before dropping it right back to normal after the war ended?

He stated that 68 cents of every dollar of federal spending goes to interest, health and retirement benefits starting next year? Do you dispute that? If not, do you think that is a good deal for most of us? None of that money is going to benefit you or me. I agree with Ryan that that is unsustainable.

[Jacob]

While I enjoyed the video, it is obvious which party that guy belongs to. He managed to lay out how dire our situation is while directing all the attention to health and retirement benefits and not mentioning the 3 wars. Sigh. All of it needs to be cut, but I fear that because both parties are so entrenched there will be no compromise on "defense" spending or on entitlements.

I agree with you re: wars. Neither party wants to eliminate that spending. But democrats won't even address all the other stuff. I was just thinking to myself yesterday that I wish there were an anti-war republican candidate. Rand and Ron Paul don't count. But maybe Rand Paul will be viable down the road.

[RobinFinderson]

He stated that 68 cents of every dollar of federal spending goes to interest, health and retirement benefits starting next year? Do you dispute that? If not, do you think that is a good deal for most of us? None of that money is going to benefit you or me. I agree with Ryan that that is unsustainable.

Why is he lumping 'interest' with 'health and retirement benefits?' Other than sharing the characteristic of 'costing money,' they seem fundamentally unrelated.

A huge part of Ryan's model of 'debt as a share of economy' is based on projected increases in the cost of health care. Ryan's model assumes that no one will do anything to control the cost of health care. Of course the GOP opposes government initiatives to reduce the cost of health care, so the debt explosion that Ryan projects doesn't actually go away -- it is simply transferred to the taxpayers as private debt, for those with the credit to pay for health care, and death/poor health for those who do not have the credit to privately finance their own (and their children's) health care.

[Jacob]

Why is he lumping 'interest' with 'health and retirement benefits?' Other than sharing the characteristic of 'costing money,' they seem fundamentally unrelated.

I think he linked them to show that they are the biggest part of the budget, so they are where we need to make changes. Reducing spending on the other 2, reduces the payments to interest.

A huge part of Ryan's model of 'debt as a share of economy' is based on projected increases in the cost of health care. Ryan's model assumes that no one will do anything to control the cost of health care. Of course the GOP opposes government initiatives to reduce the cost of health care, so the debt explosion that Ryan projects doesn't actually go away -- it is simply transferred to the taxpayers as private debt, for those with the credit to pay for health care, and death/poor health for those who do not have the credit to privately finance their own (and their children's) health care.

I think you are mistaken. He does attempt to reduce the cots of health care. His assumptions on the one hand are the projected spending on health care under Obama Care.

Also, your claim that the GOP opposes government initiatives to reduce the cots of health care is true only if it is also true that Democrats oppose government initiatives to reduce the cost of health care. The 2 sides just have a different idea of what those government initiatives should be, and how effective the government can be in reducing costs.

[Borderline Divine]

I think you are mistaken. He does attempt to reduce the cots of health care. His assumptions on the one hand are the projected spending on health care under Obama Care.


Its called the Affordable Health Care Act. I just thought I'd point that out. The over-use of perjoratives on both sides adds nothing to the discussion.

[Jacob]

I think you are mistaken. He does attempt to reduce the cots of health care. His assumptions on the one hand are the projected spending on health care under Obama Care.


Its called the Affordable Health Care Act. I just thought I'd point that out. The over-use of perjoratives on both sides adds nothing to the discussion.

Obama Care is a pejorative? You must have a lowly opinion of the guy.

I'm not surprised more people don't refer to it as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act " that's quite a mouthful.
I'm equally unsurprised more people (including Mormons) don't refer to Mormons as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[RobinFinderson]

I think he linked them to show that they are the biggest part of the budget, so they are where we need to make changes. Reducing spending on the other 2, reduces the payments to interest.

The problem here is that valuable information disappears when he combines the otherwise unrelated expenditures. What part of the 68% is health care/retirement (which get fed back into the economy) and what part is debt finance (which gets fed into China's economy)?

For that matter, I could combine military spending obligations with just about anything to come up with a scarier number than 68%

I think you are mistaken. He does attempt to reduce the cots of health care. His assumptions on the one hand are the projected spending on health care under Obama Care.

Also, your claim that the GOP opposes government initiatives to reduce the cots of health care is true only if it is also true that Democrats oppose government initiatives to reduce the cost of health care. The 2 sides just have a different idea of what those government initiatives should be, and how effective the government can be in reducing costs.

Nothing about 'Obamacare' prevents republicans from pursuing tort reform and other cost-controlling tactics. Whatever cost-controlling measures are assumed under Ryan's extreme projections should also be assumed for the GOP budget plan. And that goes to my other point -- the debt represented by the extreme projection doesn't go away by taking the government out of the game. It simply gets heaped onto the private consumer. Since we are talking about an essential service, that debt will either be taken on as private debt, or people will simply be left to die and get sick without care. Either way, the debt is still there.

[Jacob]

The problem here is that valuable information disappears when he combines the otherwise unrelated expenditures. What part of the 68% is health care/retirement (which get fed back into the economy) and what part is debt finance (which gets fed into China's economy)?

I don't think that's a problem. The purpose of the video was not to give a dissertation on the subject. It was to provide a brief and accurate summary of the problem and his proposal to the masses. I think it accomplished that.

[Jacob]

And that goes to my other point -- the debt represented by the extreme projection doesn't go away by taking the government out of the game. It simply gets heaped onto the private consumer. Since we are talking about an essential service, that debt will either be taken on as private debt, or people will simply be left to die and get sick without care. Either way, the debt is still there.

I disagree with your analysis.

[Borderline Divine]

Obama Care is a pejorative? You must have a lowly opinion of the guy.

I'm not surprised more people don't refer to it as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act " that's quite a mouthful.
I'm equally unsurprised more people (including Mormons) don't refer to Mormons as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I cannot pretend to know your thoughts when you use the term Obama Care. But I daresay when Limbaugh, Beck and Bachmann use it they consider it the cleverest of perjoratives.

PPACA doesn't seem that hard to get into the public lexicon, any more than NASA or TARP or even NAACP. But it just doesn't have that "snap" that Obama Care has, does it?

[Jacob]

I cannot pretend to know your thoughts when you use the term Obama Care. But I daresay when Limbaugh, Beck and Bachmann use it they consider it the cleverest of perjoratives.

PPACA doesn't seem that hard to get into the public lexicon, any more than NASA or TARP or even NAACP. But it just doesn't have that "snap" that Obama Care has, does it?

I don't think it's intended as a pejorative as much as it is an easy way to describe it that everyone can understand. Of course there is the attempt to irrevocably tie it to Obama so that he can be blamed for it. Still, that's not one to be troubled about, IMO. I don't have a problem with "Romneycare" or "Hillarycare" either. Nor "Bush's Wars" Nor "The Marshall Plan" nor "LBJ's Great Society" etc.