GOP pulls a fast one: unveil 10-year plan with $4.6 trillion in cuts. - Polidicks

[quote]A 10-year, $4.6 trillion balanced budget proposal unveiled by Republicans on Tuesday could either be shelved within weeks or help jump-start negotiations with President Barack Obama toward a major deficit-reduction deal. [...] totaling $931 billion over 10 years, would come from counting savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is money that critics argue would not have been spent anyway, and from changing accounting methods for the cost of domestic emergencies, such as hurricane rebuilding. Ryan's plan leaves savings in place from automatic spending cuts that began on January 1, and shaves another $249 billion from the discretionary spending category that funds the military and programs ranging from education to national parks. [...] [B]Ironically, Ryan's drive to balance the budget in 10 years is aided by new tax revenues on the rich that Democrats won at the beginning of this year - the very ones that Republicans fought to stop.[/B] [...] While the nation's finances would be strengthened through $4.6 trillion in lower deficits over 10 years, not all of the savings would come through spending cuts. The Republican budget foresees $700 billion less in interest payments over the next decade, compared to current policy, because of the slowdown in government borrowing. Debt held by the public would fall from 77.2 percent of GDP next year to 54.8 percent by the end of the 10-year budget window, according to the House Budget Committee. Besides tackling spending, the Ryan budget calls for reforming the nation's outdated tax code and creating just two income tax brackets of 10 percent and 25 percent.[/quote] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-usa-fiscal-ryan-idUSBRE92B02E20130312[/url] Sorry, this might have been already posted. The news is from the 12.

Step 1: Propose crazy-ass budget that turns Medicare into coupons, guts Medicaid, and gives more handouts to the rich. Step 2: Lose badly in the following election. Step 3: Propose same budget! Step 4: ???????? Step 5: Win election? What a joke, it's the same tired, shitty ideas that haven't worked at any time in the last 30 years the Republican party has been pushing them.

They are like a broken clock, except never right about anything

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39923682]Step 1: Propose crazy-ass budget that turns Medicare into coupons, guts Medicaid, and gives more handouts to the rich. Step 2: Lose badly in the following election. Step 3: Propose same budget! Step 4: ???????? Step 5: Win election? What a joke, it's the same tired, shitty ideas that haven't worked at any time in the last 30 years the Republican party has been pushing them.[/QUOTE] is not like they have a choice, its direct result of the southern strategy, if they stop, they lose, if they keep doing it, they lose too, the only ones in force voting for the GOP are white men.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39923874]is not like they have a choice, its direct result of the southern strategy, if they stop, they lose, if they keep doing it, they lose too, the only ones in force voting for the GOP are white men.[/QUOTE] Representatives =/= puppets. Politicians should be progressive, not pandering.

I wonder how low taxes would have to get before they stop wanting to cut them.

[QUOTE=person11;39923722]They are like a broken clock, except never right about anything[/QUOTE] It would actually be biased/impartial to say the GOP has any redeeming factor. Of course people suck at politcal science and go the "b-b-but boh sides!" Argument which is really just an intellctual copout

[QUOTE=The Baconator;39923960]It would actually be biased/impartial to say the GOP has any redeeming factor. Of course people suck at politcal science and go the "b-b-but boh sides!" Argument which is really just an intellctual copout[/QUOTE] Agreed. "Both sides" doesn't work when both sides refuse to collaborate with one another.

[QUOTE=Aetna;39923995]Agreed. "Both sides" doesn't work when both sides refuse to collaborate with one another.[/QUOTE] It's an issue with both sides trying to be complete polar opposites of each other. Instead of "Well hey let's work together" it's "well my solution is better than yours! nananana!!!" In short, fuck bipartisanship.

[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;39923896]Representatives =/= puppets. Politicians should be progressive, not pandering.[/QUOTE] Truth; the only good pandas are either red or giant, and the best ones are both. Also, does that plan include ANY military budget cuts? I suspect not.

[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;39923896]Representatives =/= puppets. Politicians should be progressive, not pandering.[/QUOTE] i didn't said they [B]have[/B] to pander, i merely said, they're looking out of their own interests, which is hosed, but is what almost every politican only cares about, if they stop, they're gonna lose their voter base, and democrats will pretty much run uncontested, there is no way in hell the republicans will get hispanics, asians, arabs, blacks or women(or in other words, non-white men) to vote for them anymore. the tea party, plus the GOP essentially declaring war on every non-white men during the 2012 elections have essentially doomed the republicans, unless they come up with a miracle plan to get minorities to vote for them, which i doubt they will. also, why people rated me dumb, i was just pointing out a fact.

[QUOTE=person11;39923722]They are like a broken clock, except never [U][I][B]right[/B][/I][/U] about anything[/QUOTE] Oh, but they're right about everything if you know what I mean.

They should legalize and tax weed to pay down the debt.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39924253]They should legalize and tax weed to pay down the debt.[/QUOTE] This is the GOP we are talking about here. They want to ban everything. You think they would seriously consider allowing weed?

I thought the thread title would mean they were pulling a fast one and actually changing something up in the party. Turns out they are just committing to the same policies that most American's already disagree with.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39924253]They should legalize and tax weed to pay down the debt.[/QUOTE] Ok we solved a fraction of a percentage of the deficit. What now?

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39924319]This is the GOP we are talking about here. They want to ban everything. You think they would seriously consider allowing weed?[/QUOTE] except guns

Touche.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39924253]They should legalize and tax weed to pay down the debt.[/QUOTE] I'd bet we see the GOP back Prohibition 2.0 before they ever endorse legalizing weed. If they can't keep their base morally outraged then the rest of their bullshit might get exposed.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39924048]It's an issue with both sides trying to be complete polar opposites of each other. Instead of "Well hey let's work together" it's "well my solution is better than yours! nananana!!!" In short, fuck bipartisanship.[/QUOTE] lol have you seriously been watching the past 4 years and think the gridlock is because of anything other than republican obstructionism in the house?

[QUOTE=SamPerson123;39923917]I wonder how low taxes would have to get before they stop wanting to cut them.[/QUOTE] Really, it's not about reducing taxes to a specific amount, they are more concerned with not spending tax dollars on things they don't want to spend money on. In theory, if you cut spending to the bare minimum, you'll have so much 'extra' money that taxes can be cut enough that even Republicans will be happy with what they still pay. That's because the taxes they're still paying are going to things, like the military, that they think should get the money.

Republicrats are the same guys. The same warmonglering, extrajudicial killing, fuckers who cannot stop eating their great grandkid's future. If you aren't voting for a third party then you are part of the problem.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39924406]Ok we solved a fraction of a percentage of the deficit. What now?[/QUOTE] address more fractions? baby steps; there's no one comprehensive solution to the deficit when the scope of the problem is so huge

[QUOTE=Furioso;39925383]address more fractions? baby steps; there's no one comprehensive solution to the deficit when the scope of the problem is so huge[/QUOTE] Yes there is. Military budget is ~750 billion The deficit in the federal budget is ~250 billion Take that away from the military budget I just solved the debt crisis! Maybe I should run for congress.

[QUOTE=Aetna;39923995]Agreed. "Both sides" doesn't work when both sides refuse to collaborate with one another.[/QUOTE] Too bad, fuckers. You're living in a Vetocracy.

At this point it kind of hurts me whenever I see news like this.

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;39925407]Yes there is. Military budget is ~750 billion The deficit in the federal budget is ~250 billion Take that away from the military budget I just solved the debt crisis! Maybe I should run for congress.[/QUOTE] Good luck passing a bill that knocks over a third of the military budget off.

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;39925407]Yes there is. Military budget is ~750 billion The deficit in the federal budget is ~250 billion Take that away from the military budget I just solved the debt crisis! Maybe I should run for congress.[/QUOTE] Uhh, the deficit is $1.4 trillion. Also, the military budget has stayed pretty constant with GDP. It's the entitlements that have taken a bigger and bigger share.

[quote]totaling $931 billion over 10 years, would come from counting savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is money that critics argue would not have been spent anyway, and from changing accounting methods for the cost of domestic emergencies, such as hurricane rebuilding. Ryan's plan leaves savings in place from automatic spending cuts that began on January 1, and shaves another $249 billion from the discretionary spending category that funds the military[/quote] oops I accidentally read the article, sorry guys! won't happen again, next time the GOP is mentioned I'll rate dumb without reading as is standard around here

[QUOTE=cccritical;39929537]oops I accidentally read the article, sorry guys! won't happen again, next time the GOP is mentioned I'll rate dumb without reading as is standard around here[/QUOTE] Did you miss this part, somehow?: [quote]shaves another $249 billion from the discretionary spending category that funds the military[/quote] Doesn't say it cuts the military, says it cuts from the discretionary spending category, of which military spending is one part. Other parts include medicare, medicaid, and many other social programs. [editline]15th March 2013[/editline] Not only that, but he fails to mention [I]how[/I] he changed accounting methods for the cost of domestic emergencies. That's kind of important.