Paul Ryan on Meet the Press: We Need a Clean Break from the Politics of the Past

[poindexterwitkowsky]

~^~^~Hey Republican PAUL RYAN...Remember the scene in ANIMAL HOUSE where OTTER says to FLOUNDER, "Y ou f____ed up....You trusted us!"Well you are FLOUNDER & OTTER represents your institutionalized GOP buddies. When your plan to DESTROY MEDICARE(class warfare) runs it's course & your REPUBLICAN buddies admit it was always a bad idea, YOU, PAULIE, will be made to take the fall. So take my advise. Stash your CORPORATE DONATIONS. Accept one of those lucrative lobbying jobs & "start drinking heavily

[plynth2]

With the Citizens United decision and the fact that the candidate that spends the most money wins 94% of the time, Republicans figure they can win any election with the help of the Koch brothers alone. They figure they can further help themselves with all the voter requirement laws that Republican run states are passing which will cause hundreds of thousands of voters unable to vote. Republicans care what the people want at all.

[fausto412]

@rororhythm actually, do some fact checking...fannie and freddie didn't get in on the sub prime mess until 2007 when the game was nearing its end. people like to make it seem like they were central to it when reality is they weren't. as publicly traded entities they eventually couldn't resist what everyone else was doing. citibank, b of A, golman, lehman, aig...were all doing what they did before fannie and freddy entered the sub prime market. check it.

[FamWash]

@fausto412 Your mistaken. Read this article by the Washington Post written in 2004/A Gutsy David Takes On a Goliath By Cindy Skrzycki
Tuesday, December 28, 2004; Page E01 and this one in 2009 False Signatures Aided Fannie Mae Bonuses, Falcon Says By Kathleen Day and Terence O’Hara
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page E01 and Scandal to Cost Ex-Fannie Mae Officers Millions By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 19, 2008. It was from 04 to 08. And they were packed with Clinton appointees.

[tbwil11]

If mediscare doesnt get reforms, it will be insolvent. Bureaucratic attempts at price controls will drive many docs to refuse mediscare patients. I want the same plan that the congress has. GO PAUL RYAN!!

[newave123456]

@rororhythm Ryan is NOT interested in saving medicare.... nor is his party interested in saving ANY social safety net programs. Why do you think they label them "entitlements"? Its a word with a negative connotation. Republicans always wanted to destroy it. Newt Gengrich said: "Medicare, medicaid and social security will wither on the vine". So why wont they let it? Cause it won't without their help. If they hate it so much, let it fall under its own demise. Simple....

[Neosaigo]

The current Republican politics ARE the politics of the past.

They choose the proven unworkable solution and sell it as logical. Please Republican party, wind your clock back 30 years and become the Republicans that use to have common sense.

[bnelms22]

It seems the only journalism the left has is to denigrate common sense ideas that make America stronger. Their as anti-American as anyone in this world. They couldn't possibly believe what they ask for

[fausto412]

spending is the root cause of our problem? did the biggest financial crisis since the great depression not happen in 2008? did we not loose millions of jobs, isn't housing depressed?

Damn Gregory you are as useless as tits on a Boar Hog.

[viralk08]

I really like Paul Ryan. He is a mole working for the democrats.. right under the nose of the GOP... viva Chairman Ryan... yay.. !!

[newave123456]

If anyone here thinks that ryans plan would do anything but impoverish people more than they already now, you are fooling yourself. His plan is a joke. He just killed his career.

[cub35guy]

Paul Ryan - Leader of the idiots.

[bnelms22]

I love it how liberals throw crap around without knowing the facts and hope something sticks. Ryan chewed him up and spit him out. These guys aernt interested in fixing America their interested in um well I have no idea.

[fausto412]

@bnelms22 Ryan is a pro at spinning and lying. His latest lie is to blame bill clinton for his plan...Ezra kline debunked that claim today. There is a reason he is doing all sorts of interviews...just none with policy guys. He has turned down Ezra Kline's requests 4 times after his plan came out. The CBO destroyed his plan. the guy is a fraud. a flim flam man. and yes Gregory is a joke.

[Vetwolf13]

Ryan wants to give MORE tax breaks to the rich so they can build more factories overseas. This is a continuation of the Bush years where 8 million jobs were

outsourced. If this nigger has his way none of us will have jobs, health care, or social security! America deserves better!

[mmutz10]

@bleekblock So you're trying to say that taxing those 1 to 2% of Americans who hold 50% of the country's total wealth more wouldn't do much? Because simple mathematics would show you that in doing so, one would at least double the tax revenue the government would get. And you can say Gingrich and the Republicans did this or that, but Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that made most of the necessary reforms that led to his surplus passed w/out a single Republican vote.

[poindexterwitkowsky]

*NEVER*VOTE*FOR A REPUBLICAN AGAIN! The PAUL RYAN BUDGET PLAN will DESTROY MEDICARE for those of us 54 years or younger. IMAGINE being an old man and having to do BATTLE with a PRIVATE insurance company because the voucher you got is too little to afford coverage or you just can't get coverage for your illness! REPUBLICONS slipped this in their budget proposal with no DISCUSSIONS OR DEBATE! TELL YOUR STATE REPUBLICON$ YOU WILL NEVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN!

[bleekblock]

@poindexterwitkowsky • Medicare "cuts." The Mediscare machinery is grinding into gear, and the same people who say Mr. Ryan is imposing too much pain on seniors by requiring them to pay a larger portion of their health costs also claim that he's a coward for exempting everyone in or near retirement. In other words, the soup is terrible and the portions are too small.

[bleekblock]

@poindexterwitkowsky Mr. Ryan's plan, known as premium support, would gradually bring down health costs and spending, but it's a "cut" only in the sense of slowing the rate of growth. The premium support subsidy—for seniors to choose from a list of regulated private health plans—would start at $15,000 a year and increase annually. It is also means-tested to provide more help for lower-income seniors.

[newave123456]

@bleekblock You clearly are NOT informed. Nor are you armed with facts.  The fact is its the cost of medical procedures/drugs that are killing us. Why not allow us to negotiate the price of drugs and take out the middle man called "insurance companies" to drive down cost immediately. It is not advantageous to have insurance without damaging the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship. You say big gov., I say big pharma, big insurance and greed that get between me and my health needs.

[bleekblock]

What he would dismantle isn't Medicare, but its system of one-size-fits-all coverage and price controls. The liberal answer to runaway costs, passed as part of ObamaCare, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board that will decide how much the government will pay for what treatments and was deliberately shielded from Congressional supervision.

[mmutz10]

@bleekblock You're right. I'm an idiot for citing the one moment in recent history when we had a surplus, and you're citing the administration that cause a huge deficit. No big deal.

[mmutz10]

If they're worried about economic growth, as in people spending, why don't they use the method Clinton did? Raise taxes on the upper 1.2-2% of America and cut taxes for the lower denominator. That led to over 90% of small business thriving and spending money, and the government also got that revenue from the super rich. Seemed to work enough back then to get us in the green by 2000.

[bleekblock]

@mmutz10 You're an idiot. Gingrich and the Republicans slashed capital gains and dividends and reduced spending. Bush came in and slashed all federal income rates and it produced record tax revenue.

The deficit under Bush came about from spending. The tax cuts were a huge success.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock And the tax cuts were a huge success.LOL!You have got to be a conservative.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix You're a 26-year-old kid who does not know his ass from a hole in the ground. Someone who lives in three blue cities like New York, Chicago and LA already pays a lot in local taxes. Further, a lot of small business owners are in the top 2 marginal tax rates.

Yes, the Bush tax cuts were a success just like the Reagan an JFK tax cuts - all three across the board tax cuts produced record tax revenue - and the " rich" paid more in taxes all three times because they were busy producing.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock And first of all I am a 26 year old independent unlike you probably

a one sided rich creep or a full conservative that thinks he's right all the time

because he's in some party that messed up this country in the first place.And

oh the bush tax cuts were a success????Where were you during the past 8

years.LOL!Dont even get me started into reagan.Like I said LA and new york

has always been expensive.It's not cheap.We all know that.If you dont want

to live there cause of that then move.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix I love the way a dope smoking liberal like you has a pre conceived notion that I am rich. I own a small business and I want the government off of my back so I can move up the economic ladder.

I live in Philadelphia, which is a deep blue union town. My goal is to move from Philadeiphia because it has a 4.5% wage tax. My business is incorporated and now located in Delaware because Philadelphia has a 6.5% business "privilege" tax and a gross receipts tax.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock Ya know the more I rea what you are saying the more sad this

is.The sad part about this is you are believing this guy that has screwed

the country before and now you are defending him because you are in some

party.SAD man!If this guy was in power right now your revenue has you call it

would'nt be doing as great as you what it.First of all your telling me that you

make more than 250,000?Cause if you dont what is the complaint.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix I have a great business model and I am getting my licenses to sell life insurance. So yes, I have the potential to make that kind of money. It will get tougher and tougher for me to write off certain things if I am in a 35% tax bracket along with state and property taxes.

Further, I service business owners who make 250K or more. I want them to spend more time building their businesses rather than spending time avoiding vampire tax men.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock First of all I just told you I was'nt a democrate but because

I agree with somethings the blue side says I'm on there side.Yep sounds

like something a conservative would say.So 4.5% is way to high for you.Well

let's have it go higher and lets see what you say.My thing is if you have a small

revenue then again what is your problem.I'm starting to think you just hate this

president because you happen to be in some party.there is no need to complain.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix Philadelphia had over 2.5 million people in 1970. It now has less than 1. million. However, it has twice the amount of city workers because it is a deep blue union town with powerful public sector unions.

There should not be a wage tax in Philadelphia. There should not be a business "privledge" tax either.

The city is now the 6th largest but the area is the 4t largest market because the city created a better business environment in the suburbs.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock Liberal this and liberal that.During the bush years how

in the world did you survive?The rich was destroying everybody at that

time.Even if you were wealthy does that mean because I'm doing good

people who are not doing good dont matter its not just about you.It's

about the american people.Not the rich!It's crazy how you keep saying

Liberal when Liberals were not in power at that time.HAHA!

[bleekblock]

@58fenix The Democrats controlled the purse strings from 2007-2007. They controlled the house and senate. They still control the executive branch and the senate.

You definition of rich is derived from the liberal media. Google business broker and look at the business listings. Pizza shops and delis make well over 250k a year. that is who gets hosed.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock I hate to say this but I would like the republican party

to take over again and lets just see this people people destroy this

country again.LOL!That's why it does'nt make any sense.And blacks

have been affected more?UHHHH!WHAT!The fact is everybody has

been affected.Not just black people.What are you talking about?

[bleekblock]

@58fenix Blacks have been boondoggled by the Democrats for 60+ years starting with that liberal pinko FDR's New Deal, continuing with LBJ's Great Society and decades of control of the house and senate.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix And I am just going to disregard your chest thumping about "the rich". There is no such thing as tax cuts for the rich. We are talking about tax cuts for wage earners in every tax bracket. INCOME IS NOT WEALTH.

There shouldn't even be an income tax. it should be eliminated.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix Where was I? I blew the whistle on a huge subprime mortgage monster that was clearly created because the government meddled in the private sector by forcing banks to loan money to people who should be renting or living with family. Liberals harp on all of the so called deregulation. However, the market crash came about from one of the most regulated industries - the residential mortgage industry. Further, Bush signed Sarbox into law which was the most aggressive regulation since the ND

[bleekblock]

@58fenix All of the liberal laboratories are a disaster - Philadelphia, Detroit, New Orleans, California, New Jersey ect.

The ultimate liberal do-gooder laboratory is Detroit. Blacks have been the affected the worst and they are now fleeing that disaster area.

[bleekblock]

@mmutz10 Cuts in capital gains and dividends helped fuel revenue under Clinton.

[58fenix]

And what I dont understand is we got these tea party

people defending them.This is'nt a rep or dem thing.

This is about what makes sense here.Even if you dont

like the dems for whatever reason,what are you gonna

do?You gonna put the people back in power that got us

into a mess that has destroyed this country?I mean people

quit voting for parties then.

[58fenix]

I dont believe a word this guy is saying.These people

had the white house for 8 years,yet they now what to

make jobs for this country and now they say they what

to do the right thing.Come on man why did'nt you do

that when you were in power?Here's the thing on whats

going on,we now have a administration that is getting out

all these shady ridiculous people out of the congress and

they dont like it.Well deal with it.You people are the reason

why we are in this mess.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix Obama and the dems got us into this mess you blithering idiot.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock That's the best you can do.HAHA!And I'm the idiot.

Hey conservative does that hurt your feelings.LOL!

[bleekblock]

@58fenix Go suck James Bond's dick - all of them.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock HAHA way to come back again.You know I'm right,talk

trash all you what.You dont have facts buddy.LOL!

[bleekblock]

@58fenix Tax cuts for the rich is a fantasy - federal taxes tax income and not wealth - hence old money. A guy making 250K one year in a cyclical industry might make 100K in another. Either way - he is not rich because 250k or 100K a year in New York, LA or Chicago is far from rich.

GE is a perfect example of using tax loopholes. However, the corporate tax rate should be slashed to 20% so we can compete with other countires.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock Someone making 100k is not rich?If I was making that in

one year,I would be doing wayyyy better than how I'm doing right now.

It is selfish to say something like that.Dude to be honest when people were

rich during the bush years people were doing great and look what happen.

This president is trying to end that.The bush tax cuts destroyed the us and

now you what it back.I lived in LA and it is expensive but thats only because

they are popular states.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix Look what happened - politicians decided to tamper with the housing and credit markets and encouraged lenders to loosen underwriting guidelines for mortgages, This created monsters like Ameriquest and Countrywide. Hence, you had billions of dollars worth of bad loans pooled as securities which made their way around the world as CDO"S. This cause the crash of 2008. The tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock Yes it did,dude were are you from?This is what this is all about.MONEY!

I rather not blame sides but that's why these republicans are pissed because they

what the bush tax cuts back.They also want as this ryan guy said keep it the way it

was.The rich was doing good during those years the rich was getting richer by the

minute my friend.Maybe if they were paying there sher maybe we would'nt be in this

mess.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock It did'nt vreat jobs it destroyed jobs and the economy went into

a tank.now I remember when obama had just stepped into the white house

people were complaining automatically.After two years he got rid of these

bush tax cuts and not unemployment is at 8.8.Which is good news because

it was higher than what it was.If you were right in everything you were saying

everyone would be doing good.But it did'nt turn out that way.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix The subprime meltdown destroyed jobs and lead to the empty suit who we have in the White House now.

[bleekblock]

@58fenix You meant doing well. Liberals try to do good and think that people will do well. However, they ultimately need people to be totally dependent on the government so they have a base of unambitious zombies to vote for the.

The Democratic party is clearly the party of rich do as I say not as I do liberals who are largely right-brained and function entirely on emotion.

[58fenix]

@bleekblock I am not concerned about people making 100k in la,you

should be concerned about people making less than that.And first of

all the president said people who are making more than 250,000 a

year are the ones that pay high taxes.Not someone making 100k.So

whats the problem.I would'nt give the rich a 200,000 tax cut when they

are already making as much as that or a little more.It does'nt makesense.

[Shemshakk]

from 1965 to 1985, 65% of federal government's revenue came from corporate taxes. Today is less than 5%. This government is owned by corporation. 

[elijah5791]

@UBSCARED Can we just agree on this: Presidents DON'T create jobs! Sure, their policies -- or, more accurately, the federal government's policies -- can dramatically affect the economic climate, but it's still left to the innovators, entrepreneurs, business owners, and the like to actually CREATE the jobs. Therefore, you can see how we could conceivably have a situation where there's an excellent climate for growth (in terms of policy), and yet there's limited job creation, and vice versa.

[nnndddnnnddd]

this man is criminally negligent and irresponsible. the republicans are consumed with avarice. they know the country is on the decline so they want to prospect as much wealth and take it over seas later.

i just cant believe how ignorant so many americans are to see this. why cant the wealthy pay higher taxes again? no reason, they just are greedy. (tax cuts dont create jobs, its empirical. look around)

i want the bill to pass and fuck the country up as much as possible. who cares, u deserve it

[MrFoshobro]

@nnndddnnnddd your comment is off the wall man ... matter fact - it is so off the wall that your comment classfies itself under who cares what you say. There is not any part of your comment, not one, that is legitimate enough to debate about in a productive manner. "Wealthy people are greedy? and tax cuts don't create jobs?" these two comments, are very general, and have no merit ... it is mostly a fabrication! Give me an example of how/why tax cuts to not work - let's start from there?

[nnndddnnnddd]

@MrFoshobro I know. its just that fucking simple; there is no substantial evidence that tax break create jobs. If the wealthy had the clout to create jobs they could do it with or without a small percent tax decrease.

this is a moral issue, but americas principles and standards are so far in the gutter nothing will change.

there is no debate when the nations inevitable collapse will hit you like a slug in the fucking stomach. americans deserve every misfortune brought upon them.

youre wrong

[MrFoshobro]

@nnndddnnnddd what is your 'substantial evidence' that increasing taxes on the rich create anymore jobs than providing tax breaks toward the rich? Simple economics will show that increasing taxes provides business owners (i.e.) less incentives to hire more workers and increase their pay (whether hourly/salary or through benefits)

Can I ask where you were born? - There is no way you are American - go back to the country you came from if your so disappointed here - country will be better off!

[rudesskeys]

@UBSCARED your wrong, stop going to your damn wikipedia page and getting the statistical information. federal debt IS PUBLIC DEBT, just ask any citizen of a country whos government debt is above what ours is. portugals debt at 350% of GDP now needs a massive, politically ground shaking bailout! when the federal governments spending ruins a currency it will lead to civil disobedience and violence. paul ryans solution is a sober choice over the assholes continuing to spike the punch bowl in AA/US

[rudesskeys]

UBSCARED -- those are incorrect numbers. public debt to GDP is now approaching 100%, the goal of Ryan's budget plan is - in twenty years - to lower this ratio to GREAT DEPRESSION LEVELS (45%). That is where the title "path" to prosperity comes from. This Budget is a huge long term deal (fat chance politicians agree for that long) The urgency of Paul Ryan's budget is the sheer fact that it had to be proposed at all..

[NowThePeople]

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)

Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)

Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)

-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

[QLEANQLASSY]

@deficithawker ==== yeah this guy is a danger and very unamerican if that plan goes thru the same people who support him now will want to wring his neck ten years later...buying a health plan at 60 is very very high

[pissedoffsol]

Keep pushing Ryan. BE Un-popular, but be right, and you'll have the people's respect.

[biggerturtle]

@UBSCARED Cut medicare; no ELIMINATE it Buncxh of lazy freeloader assholes

[biggerturtle]

@deficithawker Fuck the seniors Let them die . A bunch of lazy whiny scum

[mranthonymcneil85]

Republicans ate NOT gonna cut defense.

[worldnewsbbc1]

Under Clinton tax rates, 22 million private sector jobs created and real per capita GDP grew at an annual rate of 2.32% a year. Under the Bush tax rates, 1 million jobs created and real per capita GDP grew at an annual rate of .58% a year.

Go back to the Clinton tax rates.

[biggerturtle]

@worldnewsbbc1 under moron Obama GREAT DEPRESSION #2

[pissedoffsol]

@worldnewsbbc1

the clinton "era" budget is null and void for the simple fact that it fell during the .com boom. If that didn't happen, things would have been a lot different.

[pkninja47]

@UBSCARED First, I would ask you to mind your manners. Insults only prove to the person you are arguing against that you don't have any real arguments and therefore must resort to name calling. Second, if you look at the tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, the year 2000 was indeed higher than now. But if you look at tax revenue historically, Y2K ±4 were outliers. Don't forget that that was when the economy was doing well. Now, not so much - hence the lower tax revenue.

[QLEANQLASSY]

@pkninja47 === well said name calling shows lack of a real point

[pdegan2814]

@UBSCARED And your lame response which sinks to substance-free namecalling is why Ryan will do so well in the upcoming budget debate, because so far nobody has been able to provide a serious counterargument. They've had to resort to demagoguery. Until that changes, this battle will be fought on GOP terms.

[ancestralyuba]

I sure like the cut of Ryan's jib...

[pdegan2814]

Paul Ryan was his usual brilliant self. There's only one thing I wish he'd hit harder on. When Gregory suggested that this budget plan was unlikely to pass the Senate or get signed by Obama, Ryan should've pressed harder that at least the GOP has brought a serious proposal to the table. If the Democrats want to be taken seriously, they need to provide a concrete alternative, instead of just demagoguing their opponents. If the GOP presses that argument, I think they'd score points with the public

[CLEEVN]

Get 'em Ryan! We need Heros not wimps to get our government spending under control.

Owebummer would make us nothing more than tax slaves so he could party & play on our money,

[mrtomsr]

For the first budget to be offered for 2012, this is a good starting point. Nobody thinks it will become law, but nothing else is out there with specifics to talk about. Is this document perfect? Not by a long shot. The president's non proposal will turn into a new proposal this week, now that Paul Ryan showed some courage to put forth a real budget first. In my opinion, this budget reflects the minimum we should accept, not the maximum. We should balance the budget in 5 years, then the debt.

[JulienStockwell]

It's really sad how much Ryan dances around the questions. I'm so happy that Ryan believes he has a substantiated, effective budget reform, but he's marching to the beat of his own drum. If he does think that he has a good plan in place, maybe it'll catch on. I think we'll need to see a little more compromise before any of this goes anywhere.

[USA4July1776]

Those darn Republicans want to have an economically sustainable government... what is the world coming to!?

Even the CBO doesn't understand how our economy can survive in the long run with the government spending trajectory the Dems have put in place to buy votes.

As long as the Democrats keep ignoring the facts and instead demagogue the issue to death by claiming that old people will eat cat food, that little innocent children will die and use the race card, they should still be a-okay.

[pkninja47]

Paul Ryan was brilliant in this debate. He was clear, didn't mumble around and didn't make dumb arguments. Though, a few things that I would really love to see happen in his budget are some significant cutting in the defense department and a firmer stance on subsidies.

[Beretta1953]

David Gregory forgot ask if Paul Ryan supports the birthers... Gregory is a buffoon when compared to Rep Paul Ryan. Ryan knows the topic insice out... David Gregory how about going after Jon Bonjovi.. his tax loophole is Beekeeping...... Born in THE USA ... But skip my property taxes Bruce Springstein...has a organic farm.. Love liberals and their double standards.... GET EM RYAN...

[markcoldren]

Man, I really do like Paul Ryan, I just don't think his timeline is fast enough. The debt crisis is here in 1-3 years, not 10 years. We need much bigger cuts than he's proposing. We also need to cut defense (really offence) spending.

[waremi51]

@markcoldren Agreed. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. The easy way would be to balance the budget in 2 years. The hard way would be for the budget to "balance" itself in 2 years by the collapse of the dollar and the suffering of millions.

Bring the troops home.

[bulmer13]

@markcoldren have to be realistic...nothing government does is quick. Ever.  At least it's a good start.

[newengland72]

@markcoldren ...By ending our hypocritical, imperialist Foreign Policy. Ron Paul 2012!