Paul Ryan

(I expect Paul Ryan to be a front runner as the next Republican nominee for President.)
He has presented a new budget. It includes:
$2.1 trillion in cuts over 10 years in health care subsidies and coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
$732 billion in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs.
(Steep cuts to Medicaid, could drive millions of people from the program, including seniors in nursing homes and children from low-income households.)
almost $1 trillion in cuts to other benefit programs like food stamps, Pell Grants and farm subsidies.
deep cuts to domestic programs like education, health research and grants to local governments that are funded each year through annual appropriations bills.
sharp cuts to a category including refundable income and child tax credits for the working poor and Supplemental Security Income for the elderly, disabled and very poor.


He asserts that these cuts will free up capital investment, and thus the cuts he proposes, in conjunction with the macroeconomic benefits would balance the budget in 10 years.
(edited from http://news.yahoo.com/ryan-unveils-house-gop-budget-claiming-balance-143021404--finance.html )

I wish this was an April Fool’s joke, but it’s not.

All items that widely benefit society. Also, he wants to cut areas that directly benefit the most vulnerable in terms of finances–the elderly, college students and farmers. And health care cuts will effect even a greater portion because people from across all of the demographic spectrum benefit from those programs. Certainly, he could be a little more feasible by looking for programs that truly are unnecessary or wasteful, but I hardly see how punishing college students, for example, is a good plan…imagine society if most middle class (the majority of the US pop) gives up on pursuing a higher education…
When you attack the programs listed, especially those the elderly depend on, you alientate a huge demographic of the voting population. Is this really any different than the original “plan” he presented a couple years back?

He asserts that these cuts will free up capital investment, and thus the cuts he proposes, in conjunction with the macroeconomic benefits would balance the budget in 10 years. (http://news.yahoo.com/ryan-unveils-house-gop-budget-claiming-balance-143021404--finance.html )
Rah rah… Oh yea, free up more capital investment, we sure need that, how else are they going to build the pipeline from the insanity that is called Canadian TarSandsOil… Besides the big money feels stifled, they need more profits. Profits über alles! that's their game. As for the macroeconomic benefits - for high security gated communities and more police Forces ??
He asserts that these cuts will free up capital investment, and thus the cuts he proposes, in conjunction with the macroeconomic benefits would balance the budget in 10 years. (http://news.yahoo.com/ryan-unveils-house-gop-budget-claiming-balance-143021404--finance.html )
... As for the macroeconomic benefits - for high security gated communities and more police Forces ?? Don't forget we must already pay for the largest number of prisoners per national population of any country in the world. (Land of the free?) This is off topic, but the prison pop. has quadrupled since 1980, mostly due to longer sentences for drug offenders. This has done little that I can tell to decrease the availability of illicit drugs.

The wealthy and corporations owe a great deal of their success to the overall US society that has built the economic, political, cultural and technical structures that wealth and privilege in America are founded on, and how do they repay that debt?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States. Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
Corporations have fought for and largely received the same legal status as people, what would happen if a person made $5.1 billion dollars in a year and instead of paying their fair share of taxes, actually got a massive tax credit. This idea of corporations and the rich pulling up the rest of society has it backwards, it's us who prop up the wealthy and the more they take the greater the strain on the rest of us is until the inevitable breakdown will occur. Wall Street and much of corporate America is based on an illusion that the bottom line is all that matters and that as long as that's in the black then everything is wonderful. The reality is that as the social structure that has made America as strong as it was is constantly eroded by a tiny few taking far more than their fair share, the entire system comes closer to falling apart. America isn't alone in this, the wealth gap in Canada is also rapidly growing with the top 86 families here having the same amount of wealth as the lower 11 million Canadians. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-richest-86-have-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-11-million-1.1758778
The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that the country's 86 richest individuals and families -- or 0.002 per cent of the total population -- are getting exponentially richer and now have accumulated as much wealth as the country's poorest 11.4 million. That's more than in 1999, when the richest 86 had as much money as the poorest 10.1 million and enough to buy up everything in New Brunswick and still have about $40 billion left over, according to the report, to be released Thursday.
... Corporations have fought for and largely received the same legal status as people...
The right wing Supreme Court has supported the idea that Mitt Romney summarized by saying "Corporations are people, my friend." Except, if you have an ounce of sense, Corporations are clearly not people. They are legal entities that now have powers beyond that of any mere mortal person. e.g., GM is just the latest publicized example of how corporations can protect actual people (members of the corporation) who commit negligent homicide. Combined with another declaration by our Supreme Court, that money equals free political speech, lucrative Corporations, again, have powers beyond those of most mere mortal people.
... Corporations have fought for and largely received the same legal status as people...
The right wing Supreme Court has supported the idea that Mitt Romney summarized by saying "Corporations are people, my friend." Except, if you have an ounce of sense, Corporations are clearly not people. They are legal entities that now have powers beyond that of any mere mortal person. e.g., GM is just the latest publicized example of how corporations can protect actual people (members of the corporation) who commit negligent homicide. Combined with another declaration by our Supreme Court, that money equals free political speech, lucrative Corporations, again, have powers beyond those of most mere mortal people. And that's the way Republicans like it. LL
... Corporations have fought for and largely received the same legal status as people...
The right wing Supreme Court has supported the idea that Mitt Romney summarized by saying "Corporations are people, my friend." Except, if you have an ounce of sense, Corporations are clearly not people. They are legal entities that now have powers beyond that of any mere mortal person. e.g., GM is just the latest publicized example of how corporations can protect actual people (members of the corporation) who commit negligent homicide. Combined with another declaration by our Supreme Court, that money equals free political speech, lucrative Corporations, again, have powers beyond those of most mere mortal people. If corporations were people Ford Motor Co. would have faced the death sentence in the 1970s over its exploding Pintos. If courts are people Supreme Court is truly insane.

There’s a few justices on that court who better do the right thing and retire soon. Time is running out.
Ginsburg at least.

Just like with religion, don’t fight it, go along with it and take things to their logical conclusions. Corporations are people? Fine, then a corporation who receives government subsidies is a Corporate Welfare Queen. Mr. Ryan, why do you want to give even more money to welfare queens? But I don’t, I want to stimulate growth…no, sir, you want to free up capital to give to the corporate welfare queens. Why do you want to support welfare queens? Reagan didn’t, why you? Over and over and over. Redefine the debate terms.

For that matter, everyone who receives healthcare insurance though their employer, could be termed a welfare queen, since it is a part of their compensation that is untaxed.
But your point about corporations being welfare queens is well supported. Not to mention federal subsidies, billions and billions of dollars worth of state and local subsidies are given to corporations in the name of economic development. While we can be pretty much guaranteed that any subsidies received by poor individuals will be immediately spent (thus going back into and stimulating the economy), we are not guaranteed that the subsidies provided to corporations actually are stimulating the economy (IOW creating new jobs).

For that matter, everyone who receives healthcare insurance though their employer, could be termed a welfare queen, since it is a part of their compensation that is untaxed. But your point about corporations being welfare queens is well supported. Not to mention federal subsidies, billions and billions of dollars worth of state and local subsidies are given to corporations in the name of economic development. While we can be pretty much guaranteed that any subsidies received by poor individuals will be immediately spent (thus going back into and stimulating the economy), we are not guaranteed that the subsidies provided to corporations actually are stimulating the economy (IOW creating new jobs).
Indeed, has there ever a welfare queen who gets as much money and benefits as a corporation on the public teat? People on welfare are limited in how much they can earn before they lose their eligibility for welfare. Does it work that way for corporations? Executives get obscene pay and bonuses and stockholders never take a hit even when they are getting billions in public subsidies. So who are the real welfare queens? And what corporation was ever called into a welfare office, forced to wait on a long line, and asked intrusive personal questions about how much they might be earning and how they are spending their money? Lois

The budget bill proposing
–$2.1 trillion in cuts over 10 years in health care subsidies and coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
–$732 billion in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs that could drive millions of people from the program, including seniors in nursing homes and children from low-income households.
–almost $1 trillion in cuts to other benefit programs like food stamps, Pell Grants and farm subsidies.
–deep cuts to domestic programs like education, health research and grants to local governments that are funded each year through annual appropriations bills.
–sharp cuts to a category including refundable income and child tax credits for the working poor and Supplemental Security Income for the elderly, disabled and very poor.
breezed through the Republican House Budget Committee today despite sharp, but, apparently ineffectual, dissension of the Democrats on the committee.
All on the ideological claim that this is the way to prevent a “looming” fiscal crisis. If such a bill could pass the Senate, and the President were insane enough to sign it, then we wouldn’t have a “looming” crisis, we would have an immediate and real crisis.

...People on welfare are limited in how much they can earn before they lose their eligibility for welfare. Does it work that way for corporations? Executives get obscene pay and bonuses and stockholders never take a hit even when they are getting billions in public subsidies. So who are the real welfare queens? And what corporation was ever called into a welfare office, forced to wait on a long line, and asked intrusive personal questions about how much they might be earning and how they are spending their money? Lois
Good points.