Republicans getting set to Release a Proposed Budget

Post Reply New Topic

Op Ed by Paul Ryan:
Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.

But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

The president's recent budget proposal would accelerate America's descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage's analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main

Now hopefully House Republicans will hold the line and not let Pelosi, Franks, Reid, etc. insert all kinds of earmarks and everything else to turn spending cuts into more deficit spending. Would like more information on the Healthcare situation, because quite frankly I'm not sure if Paul Ryan thought things through on the medicare part, but at least they have a budget unlike the Democrats.

It's still pretty much chump change compared to what really needs to be done. Over 10 years that STILL adds like 10 trillion to the debt. Reducing expected deficits is a joke. There needs to be NO deficit.

Paul Ryan has been pushed pretty hard by the establishment as some sort of fiscal hawk but quite frankly his record says otherwise. He voted for TARP, the auto bailouts, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and not to mention being a neocon warmonger on top of that. He can talk a good talk but he's not a fiscal conservative, period. Beware this man.

Realistically we need to cut $2 trillion from the budget to balance it and stop the growth of the deficit.

quebec foxtrot tango

We need a good conservative like President Clinton.

If you want to stop spending, you should stop increasing the number of people in the country.

You have to start cutting somewhere, and this would be a huge improvement over Obama's deficits.



Actually the individual whom deserves as much if not more of the credit for balancing the budget is Newt Gingrich.

Money matters have to be reckoned per capita. The more people the more buying, selling and thinking. The more people, the more wealth creation. Or at least up to a point.

If the population of the united states were 100,000 we would not be a wealthy nation because we could not exploit our resources properly. Not enough critical mass.

ruveyn

That's working under the assumption that all of those people are productive. To be productive, you need a functional education.

And...are you using 100,000 as an extreme example or a serious one? I don't think the population should be reduced that much...but maybe a goal of ultimately halving the population. It'd bring us back to the population size of around the early 1960s or 1950s.

This whole thing is an utter joke, really. So the plan is to maybe reduce a trillion after 10 years, that 's basically not that different from the smallish % reduction this year.

Obama's 1.5 trillion in taxes project sounds like a great way to cut the deficit.

It is 4-6 trillion in spending cuts over the coming decade, and Obama's tax the rich idea doesn't make sense if you actually look at numbers and facts.

For a given level of technology there is probably an optimum population level. When population goes up but per capita productivity falls, it is passed the point of optimum. As long as per captia productivity keeps rising then the population can go up without net harm.

ruveyn

And that's what I think is happening. A good bit of manufacturing today is automated rather than done by hand so there is less work required on the part of people and, normally, it's a different type of work rather than just the old manual labor; it's more like tech labor is becoming the new manual labor. I mean that in the sense that pretty much anyone can learn it like the old manual labor jobs and is more readily available. Only difference is that there don't really seem to be tech unions to protect IT guys and other problem solvers who end up on the low end of the spectrum.

And most likely 10-20 trillion in tax cuts and "stimulus money" for corporations in the coming years.

If you bothered to read the article it includes eliminating tax loopholes that corporations exploit while lowering the corporate tax rate. So the Government may even get more money coming in from corporations than they do currently.

Anyways, here is Paul Ryan explaining the debt crisis in a short video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE[/youtube]

You give me a video of a politician with their lips moving?

Are you that dense?