The good news is that Congressman Paul Ryan, the Republican chair of the House Budget Committee, has put out a budget plan for the next year and beyond that tries to tackle America's biggest long-term problem –entitlement spending that is careening out of control.
The bad news is that his plan wouldn't work.
But I still applaud him for his courage in taking on the toughest topic and for proposing painful remedies. Any solution to Medicare will involve cuts and they will be unpopular.
So, what's wrong with Ryan's plan?
Well, it's an odd proposal from a man who seems genuinely committed to a solution to the U.S. fiscal crisis.
The plan does not touch social security. It actually increases defense spending over the next 10 years, then it never actually explains what it will cut from discretionary spending. It simply asserts spending will go down massively.
The bulk of the deficit reduction, which allows for $4 trillion of tax cuts, would come from changing America's healthcare.
Now, there, too, Ryan's plan is simply unrealistic. The theory behind it is that if individuals have to pay for their health care, they will shop carefully and drive down costs. It's a good theory, but in health care, a huge part of the expenses relate to a small percentage of sick patients and to the last year of life - and those two categories overlap.
Eighty-five percent of Medicare's costs are generated by just 25 percent of patients. Now, even in the most conservative health alternatives, the health savings account, people get to buy catastrophic insurance. Well, the sick 25 percent of the patient population would have catastrophic insurance, which would still explode the Medicare budget.
So why do I applaud the Ryan plan? Because it is the first serious effort to begin talking about restructuring entitlements, which is a necessity. Democrats can attack the plan but they, too, must face up to the fiscal reality and come up with their own plans.
The Government Accountability Office concludes that America faces a fiscal gap of $99.4 trillion over the next 75 years. Now that would mean we would have to increase taxes on average by 50 percent or reduce spending by 35 percent simply to stop accumulating more debt than we already have.
Medicare, Medicaid and social security will together make up 50 percent of the federal budget by 2021, in 10 years. For liberals, this long-term fiscal crisis should seem devastating. If entitlement programs continue to grow, they will soon crowd out almost all other government spending. This means there will be little money left for programs to address poverty, income inequality, education, infrastructure, science and technology, research and all the other purposes of active energetic government.
The Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein has pointed out that the federal government is turning into an insurance company with an army, and if that insurance company doesn't shrink, soon there wouldn't be much money even to pay for an army.
You can read more of my thoughts on this subject in this week's Time magazine and on Time.com. Time has a great cover on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.
 |
Post by: |
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Fareed analysis is OK, but not great. Ryan's plan is, as expected, silly and mean spirited. We already have a good solution to our debt problem proposed by the bi-partisan commission which responsibly offered a combination of increase taxes and spending cuts including the military and medicare that actually addresses and cures our budget problem. Ryan will not increase taxes even if it means this country goes down the pipe. He and the rest of the Repugs and Teabaggers only care about reducing taxes on wealth. Nothing else matters. Why pursue the poorly designed Ryan plan that will not work instead of the panel's proposal. The answer is that the panel realized that in order to balance the budget, taxes on the rich will have to be raised. Because they will never do this, the Repugs' budget plans are doomed to failure.
One point: Fareed, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Social Security DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEBT!!!! SS is a separate, worker paid for program. We just need to raise the limit on paying into the SS system to $250,000 and Social Security will be solvent forever.
You are correct. Ryan plan is pure fantasy. Why isn't raising the limit for paying into Social Security ever mentioned? It is the best solution, it seems to me, and is very fair.
Linda, and others who think the Social Security is dealt with separately,
Clearly you do not know the facts or make a decision to ignore them. SS is not separate. the revenues from the withholding from my paycheck goes into the general fund and is used. There is no SS fund. It is bankrupt as of last year as it pays out more than it takes in every year. Please educate yourselves or stop trying to spread disinformation.
George Emerson, Findlay, OH
Linda – I think it isn't mentioned because people don't want to be on record as being in favor of raising taxes.
Irving – why do people want to include Social Security in the budget talks, even if the plan is close to solvent ? Two reasons.
First, it may be close to solvent, but as no actual reserve exists – just a nominal reserve. So it will become a huge funding need in real terms. We are going to need to borrow a lot to replace the "reserve" that in currently an IOU.
The second reason is that Social Security is a huge component of the budget ($$). If out-lays (payments) can be reduced it could amount to a large reduction in expenses in real terms.
I believe George is not correct, in that the SSA DOES have separate "Trust Funds" that are not part of the "general fund". The SS funds that are not used to "pay" the recipients, are used to "invest" in US treasury bonds. As Irving indicates, a realistic answer to the diminution of available "capitol" can be addressed by raising the limit or raising the tax. Raising or REMOVING the limit seems the more fair. It seems illogical that those with more to contribute should be the ones required to contribute the least (comparatively).
@sparky – An Oct. 2010 article I read states ... "Social Security is adequately financed in the short term but faces a modest long-term financial shortfall amounting to 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years, the period that the program’s actuaries use in evaluating the program’s long-term finances. [3] Social Security has run a surplus in every year since 1984, as was anticipated when Congress enacted and President Reagan signed the legislation based on the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission in 1983. The authors of the 1983 legislation purposely designed program financing in this manner to help pre-fund some of the costs of the baby boomers’ retirement." That would seem to indicate that the fund IS NOT close to insolvency. The "IOU" you speak of is actually the US government who owes the funds an is backed by US Treasury bonds. as long as the government is solvent the funds will be solvent (for a few more years)
Shinea – Social Security took in tax revenue but it was spent by other areas of the federal budget. They gave the Trust Fund an "IOU" (in the form of Treasury securities) but clearly there is no longer a reserve, except in name. One area took in revenue but another area spent it.
The IOU will get repaid only by raising Federal taxes on income (business or personal) or by the nearly impossible task of cutting other spending such that the Federal Government is generating a surplus.
Eliminating the ceiling for FICA assessment is a good start, but then make ALL income subject to FICA, not just Wages. The truly wealthy often have minuscule wages with their real income coming from dividends, capital gains, etc.. (For example, Steve Jobs famously has a $1 annual salary.) If money comes from ANY source to an individual, it should be subject to FICA and Medicare "payroll taxes." This would not only ensure those programs remain solvent, but would probably allow the percentage assessment to drop for all of us.
The wealthy may scream that they will pay in far more than they will ever get back, but that's a stupid argument. One of the reasons they can make as much as they do is that the government is providing much of the infrastructure supporting the employees that make all their money for them. If not for the government safety net (such as it is), they would have the 19th century choices of supporting their workers themselves, or having a sick, short-lived, demoralized workforce.
George
SS STARTED OUT as a separate account. It was supposed to be in a "lock box" so that there would always be money. The bean counters had it right, but (yes) Republicans just couldn't stand to see that gigantic – and growing – pile of money sit there. They made promises that they apparently had no intention of keeping, and now act like the "lock box" never existed or wasn't "necessary.
Now that the money is gone, they want to act like it never was and that the system, not their actions caused this.
There should be no limit on SS with holding, that $106,800 needs to be removed totally and collected no matter the income.
@George Emerson: please educate YOURSELF before scolding others. You are SO wrong. It is YOU who does "not know the facts or makes a decision to ignore them." It is YOU who should "educate yourself or stop trying to spread disinformation."
Soc. Security money does NOT go directly into the General Fund. It DOES go into THE Soc. Sec. Fund and from there the government sells the Soc. Sec. admin low-interest government bonds to get it's hands on the cash.
You are also wrong that it is bankrupt. The Soc. Sec. has $2.5 TRILLION in government bonds. It will not run dry for over a generation.
Lest phas SS out adn allow me to take the money that was going into SS and put that into my 401K, that way im still contributing to my retirement, but I have control over what funds the money gets invested in. And if the argument is that the stock market isnt reliable, i beg to differ, teh market has historically out performed SS by a wide margin
Sparky – When you cut through the rhetoric the choice is fairly simple – who will make more productive use of the funds, the government or the private sector? Every dollar to the government means one less dollar that is spent on some type of good or service, or invested in a company, or just put in a bank which allows the bank to lend it back out to a business or individual. In theory those uses are pretty efficient. The problem of course is that things like defense, infrastructure, etc (ie public goods) generally need to be financed publically through taxation. And,
To the Mick – you are technically correct but think about what you just said.
Lets use this analogy. I agree to pay for your retirement. You pay in for 50 years and I give you "Dave M'" notes. Meanwhile I spend all the money you gave me on various other things. You come back to me at payout time and give me the notes and ask for the cash. Since I've spent the money I need to get a loan from somewhere else to pay you back right?
@Linda – Raising that cap is anything BUT fair. To do so without raising the maximum payouts does something very wrong – it turns an earned retirement benefit, paid for by the contributor, into a welfare program for seniors. That was never the intent of that program, and beyond that, the program itself is not going broke the way Medicare is. SS has a huge trust fund that is held in treasury notes. One thing that ought to be done is to convert those notes to public securities, as they once were.
Don't turn SS into traditional welfare, though.
Why are the senators, congress and others like teachers unions able to opt out? I would love to opt out like them, but if you are not in a union or government you are screwed.
This is actually a reply to George, who is wrong on two points. 1) The money you pay into SS does not go directly into the General Fund, and 2) There is a surplus. Any money paid into SS in excess of what is needed to be paid out gets turned into Treasury notes (which are redeemable once the payouts exceed the payments in.). And as of the end of calendar year 2010, the accumulated surplus in the SS Trust Fund stood at just over $2.6 trillion. Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2017.
Pat – And in 2017 we will have a new borrowing need – borrowing to pay for Treasury Notes held by the Social Security Fund that are being cashed out to make payments.
So the Treasury will loose a source to borrow FROM (no more excess contributions) and they will have an ADDITIONAL borrowing requirement (borrowing to fund redemptions). The loss of the source to borrow from will add to pressures to raise interest rates, which will increase our debt financing costs.
The SS system may be "healthy", but only in the abstract.
Sparky, I didn't say everything was peachy keen. I just noted that George is on a high horse over "facts" that aren't true. Of course we have to do something about SS! But first we have to do something about the debt – and that is a separate issue.
Again, if social security and medicare just might be around when you pay into it, then as Al Gore said, we should put it into a lock box. Get real, we will be country where have homeless senior sitting out in the streets. Social security and Medicare should be our top priorty in preserving.
Social Security does not have a trust fund full of cash. That is a downright lie. Should it? Yes, but it doesn't because the gov't spent it on wars, teachers, bailouts, cowboy poetry festivals, clunkers, windmills, aircraft carriers, Planned Parenthood, foreign aid, etc–you name it. Where is the gov't going to get the money to fulfill those IOU's? Borrow it? From who? The only politically realistic way the gov't will be able to "fulfill" it's debts is to print the money–to monetize the debt. People will get their SS checks as promised but they won't buy much because the value of the currency will be inflated away–and it's happening now as we speak–we are a bunch of frogs in a pot and the water is slowly but surely heating up. Don't believe the gov'ts inflation measures they don't include energy or food–or sh!t that everyone not only wants but needs. Don't take my word for it ask someone on a fixed income if inflation is here–newsflash it is only going to get much worse as our fiscal situation continues to deteriorate.
Now it's interesting that everyone wants to ignore this FACT but do you know how Social Security passed through the court system? If it was sold as a 'forced' retirement system or 'old-age' insurance it wouldn't have passed–so what FDR's people did was to SEPARATE the tax portion and the benefit portion so that it wouldn't look like an insurance scheme. That's the truth. Look it up for yourself. Social Security is one of the most regressive taxes in the system and is a PONZI scheme. Actually, in a Ponzi scheme they get you to pay into the system b/c they lie to you about where the return will come from–in SS they don't lie to you but will put you in jail if you don't pay into it...wow what a great system.
As far as raising taxes on the rich goes you can only take it so far. The top 10% pay almost 70% of income taxes–the bottom 50% pay only 2% of the income taxes–2%!!! It's not even close. Again, this is the truth–look it up for yourself. You could tax all the Fortune 500 corporations 100% of their earnings and we still would be broke–not to mention all of those companies would accelerate their exit of the USA and we'd have nothing to tax next year.
We need to cut spending. It is the fault of Obama and Bush–Republicans and Democrats. If our leaders do not put a stop to this madness immediately we are going to have a currency crisis on our hands. Even responsible people who have saved their money will be in awe as the purchasing power of their savings evaporates. Do yourself a favor and don't buy into the fallacy that SS and Medicare can be saved–they can't–not in their current form and not even close to their current form. So if the gov't does nothing you heard it here–get out of the US dollar in any way you can. AND when sh!t hits the fan do not say that no one saw it coming b/c there are plenty of us out here that can see it with crystal clarity. Get over your political loyalties and look at reality. I did and I thank God for it.
Dave T -
Well, the major issue is Medicare and Medicaid. Health care costs have risen far more than inflation over the past 20 years.
But we could make a huge dent in our deficit by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Yes they pay most of the taxes – because they have most of the income.
IF that were true then why is SS being paid from the general fund, and reports are it will be dried up by 2028, Ive heard this seveeral times form different sources over the last 2 weeks. Time to phase it out like I posted earliet
We are all trying to find a way to take from ONE GROUP but keep for others...BUT NOBODY IS WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK THATMIGHT BE NEEDED as long as it doesn't hurt ME.
LETS DO SOMETHING THAT HITS EVERYONE FROM TOP to BOTTOM...CONGRESS, JUDICIAL AND EXEC
from President to Janitor, Speaker to whoever delivers the mail, ET AL...CUT SALERIES BY 05-10 % for however long it might take to get things back on track....
I got a better idea. How about bring all our troops home, mothball half the fleet, ground half the Air Force, Eliminate Homeland Security and let the department of defense become the Department of DEFENSE again? Right now it has become the Department of OFFENSE. Anyone who thinks we are safer because we are attacking every pi$$-ant country out there is delusional! The only countries we go into have OIL or other strategic resources.
Good thinking. My concern for those on SS and Medicare is that too many people never earned enough money to have IRA's, savings plans, etc. Some worked at low wage jobs and barely scraped through life. It would be a grave injustice to undercut people who worked hard all their lives at the jobs many would not want to do. I am sick and tired of paying for endless wars while listening to people harp about how there's no money for the elderly, the infirmed, the poor. Either America is a moral country and does right by its own people, or it is not. Some people feel like they shouldn't have to contribute to the seniors, the infirmed, the poor - they have forgotten that we are ALL in this together and should be willing to help those in need. I would wager that their are some very wealthy senior citizens collecting social security and using Medicare without batting an eyelash and yet complain about taxes to pay for these very services that the seniors paid for long ago.
Oh, well. I guess the concept of compassion is becoming old-fashioned.
It is false to say that seniors paid for the social security that they are getting now. That is an old lie and many people just want to keep their head in the sand about it. The average retiree uses up the money they put into social security in 8 years, but they live a lot longer than that.
And the elderly are the most wealthy demographic in the country, so don't say that we ignore the elderly.
Its true that there are too many elderly who just want the money the promised themselves years ago but didn't actually fully pay for. So we will have to let them have their undue largess and start cutting social security for future retirees, mainly be gradually raising the retirement age, and by removing the income limit for SS withholdding. But we better do it soon.
Also, military expenses are way, way out of control. We spend several times more on military than any other country.
I always love the people who say we need more revenue (more taxes) along with cuts at the same time they complain that cuts in proposed budgets, etc. will hurt the economy. Consider that an in crease in taxes (revenue) is nothing more than reducing the revenue of all Americans by taking away money from them. Medicaid provides the poor with better health care than what your average working American can afford to buy on their own so there's a lot of room to cut back there. As for SS and Medicare...those should be the last things touched. The government has forced us to pay into these programs "for our own good" our entire working lives and then they messed up SS by taking the surplus out for other things. Well, it's time to cut ALL of those other things out completely. The Defense budget has plenty of fat in it as well (much of it political) which needs to go. Only after all of that spending has been eliminated should there be any consideration of touching SS or Medicare.
There is lots of evidence that decreasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans does *not* increase jobs or help the economy. There is lots of evidence that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans does *not* cut jobs or help the economy. Tax cuts only help if they target the people who live on their incomes and spend everything they earn. Businesses will not create jobs until or unless they see stable increases in demand for their goods and services. That doesn't come from a tax cut to the rich. It comes from a tax cut to the middle if at all.
As long as Wall Street rewards executives for cutting payroll, as it has done relentlessly for a very long time, senior executives have a built in pressure to keep employment low, at least in publicly traded companies. All the tax cuts to the wealthy will do nothing to change that.
Why do people keep harping on cutting defense. The defense budget has been nearly static since the 1950's. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs which seem to be exploding out of control with rising costs and end of life care.
Here's some perspective, US Military spending in 1960 – 350Billion.
US Defense spending today – 500Billion.
Maybe you can take 200Billion out of defense and spend it on Medicare, but that still won't solve the problem as the costs keep increasing.
The reason Ryan's plan is decent is because by allocating a bulk amount instead of a variable rate of a person's expenses, the costs are being shifted out of the federal budge.
John, the American military is larger than that of the next 13 largest national militaries ... COMBINED! The F-22 cost $350 million apiece, but has yet to fly in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. What are we saving it for??? If it's to valuable to risk, then it shouldn't have ever been built. Our military is swollen because too many congresspeople have defense on the brain.
How about take $200 billion out of the military, eliminate Homeland Security and bring the military back to defend the USA instead of attacking any country that has oil and a mind of their own? Notice that human rights issues are only an issue if the country is not our "friend"?
What plan do we have? Print some more money until it worthless??
I would really like some of the KoolAid your drinking SS won't be be around for me and I'm flipping 45!
What Ryan and everybody else appears to ignore is that SS has been plundered over the years to fund other projects.
Irving, as soon as you typed 'Repugs and Teabaggers' you turned into an a ss hat and removed any possible validation of your views or opinion.
Some good points but no need to shout.
For all you out there who think that taxing the"rich" and the corporations is the way to help America, let me tell you a thing or two. Anybody see the 60 Minutes report a couple weeks ago about all the American corporations pulling out of America because of the American tax structure? These big companies are incorporating in foreign countries because the foreign countries welcome them with tax rates of 8-12%, instead of US rates of 15-38%. Would you rather have some taxes or NO taxes???? I am the owner of a small corporation, and my business pays taxes through the nose. I take care of my employees, paying them well, and providing health insurance and a great 401(k) plan. I then file my personal tax return, and pay the US government another small fortune.
The thing that I notice in these discussions is that most people are ok with changing taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Health care, etc, as long as is doesn't effect them. Fix it on someone else's back, but keep giving me ...Until Americans agree that we are in this together and must work together for the good of our Country, we don't have a chance telling our Congress to get their childish acts together and having them believe us..Everyone must pay a fair share. Everyone. No exceptions!
The sad part about that is it took them 3 years to air this. Most people don't even have a clue that corporations pay no taxes that any taxes they do pay come out of their customers pockets just like fines.
It's ok. Let them move out and we can go back to a small business model. They could care less about the United States and American citizens could care less about them.
If corporations fail to be good citizens and seek Tax Avoidance and choose not to pay their taxes that support the environment that allows to be successfuly through their talents / efforts, I encourage you to leave this country and join your off-shore profit accounts. Good luck and god bless, another company will step in your place, it's called competition. As for the Big Banks, Wall Street firms – try to find another govt. that will bail you out again, feel free to also hit the international road!! Your were bailed out with Main Street funds and yet you have not release your grip on credit or helped restructure loans.
BS! What corporations are moving out of the US? The only thing they are doing is moving jobs out of the US to the lower cost employees. Average exec pay in the US is way up but average worker pay is stagnant.
When ONE company (EXXON) can report PROFITS of $40 BILLION in one quarter, and cry that they didn't make very much, something is very wrong! If these corporations paid the same tax rate as I did on their profits, we wouldn't have a money problem!
Let's deal with numbers before we call everyone mean-spirited. Whatever that even means. The facts are that the extending tax cuts on the rich only cost $700 billion over the next ten years. That is not even half of the deficit this year. Raising taxes will not even approach closing the deficit. In addition, it will crowd out private investment and result in less than the $700 billion.
So spending reductions proposed by Ryan are actually about 10 times higher than the proposed tax increases on the rich. I've heard plenty of people mention tax increases on the rich in exchange for spending cuts. I'm guessing for our president to meet in the middle he will be rallying for this plan so he can tax the mean-spirited "rich". Isn't the liberal philosophy that money can't buy you love. "Rich" must really be in the eye of the beholder.
I'm guessing social security is not mentioned in the road map for two reasons. It is highly political and not worth fighting over because it is so easy to fix. Increase the age and means test. Problem solved. There may be $2.6 trillion in the SS Trust Fund, but let's not kid ourselves that it's a true surplus. It's not sitting in a bank somewhere gaining interest. It's spent and getting access to that money will only result in cuts or tax increases elsewhere.
You know, something missing in all these discussions about cutting spending ignores one small fact. 100% of all that money goes to pay wages! No matter how you cut it, it is wages. Who is in the best position to protct their wages? The richest portion of the population. If their company has to cut back, do you expect the CEO to take the hit? Heck no! it will be the little guys suffering. That is the exact reason that Reagonomics and the trickle down theory didn't work. The rich take their share and there wasn't much left to tinkle down on us!
It was abundantly clear that the latest surge in the deficits has been because of grossly increased spending and not revenue collections. Obama did little to curb his appetite for spending with the overfunded stimulus, bloated health care initiative, and quite expensive trips to India and such. It is quite arrogant to think that this has all been urgent and necessary spending and that there is so little to be cut in today's government. Honestly with the runaway spending seen in the last year, further revenue increases is really not justified. They almost deserve a revenue decrease in order to force some fiscal discipline. The government has rarely if ever shown the tendency to show financial spending discipline with increased revenue available.
If this were a private consumer in debt, they would not solve their problem by demanding a higher salary job to pay it off. They would work on the root of the problem, the lavish spending.
I don't see it helpful criticizing Ryan's plan because it doesn't cut a particular program such as the defense. These wars aren't going magically stop and cost less, especially with Obama starting a new one in Libya. On top of it, throwing out Ryan's plan because it doesn't touch defense enough is absurd. This could always be something that could be amended.
It's more abundantly clear to me that we have been in a recession in 2008. In a recession, tax revenues are down and spending is up. Duh!
We criticize because even with the $38-40 billion in supposed cuts with the current fiasco, Defense spending will still be UP $5 Billion!
Why does everyone ignore the biggest drain on our economy, out of control "defense" spending? We are wasting billions in Iraq and Afghanistan, conveniently forgetting how Viet Nam consumed our wealth and national priorities. America cannot maintain an empire, and we never should have tried to impose our culture and values on people without the social structure and education needed to maintain them. The dream of becoming Messiah to the world can easily become a nightmare.
EXACTLY! Military spending is the biggest form of corporate welfare. We do not nee a military of this size to DEFEND our country. We only need it for OFFENSIVE behavior around the world.
The people responding to the notion that the "rich" should be taxed at confiscatory levels to compensate for irresponsible federal spending are missing one major point; the "wealthy" are mobile. If the Progressives think they are going to compensate for the socialist state by transferring the capital from the producers to the non-producers. The problem with this notion is that the wealthy can move their wealth and base of operations to places where they will not be penalized for success. Whether that means moving to a state with low taxes (i..e. Florida or Texas) or offshore the bottom line is that they have options. When the "rich" have moved to where the Feds can no longer punitively tax them, who do you think is going to make up the difference? Yes, the middle class. So keep on dreaming the Leninist dream, and buy the snake oil from the Anointed One. However, at some point if you want to be successful, low tax, free market options will always prevail over third world, banana republic or marxist/socialist systems.
Ryan is a fourth generation of do nothings. Those that live off of goverment contracts don't understand that they are on welfare.
Fareed suffers from the same ailment plaguing many news "commentators." Namely, all he appears to do is criticize others. It is easy to sit back and find fault when you will never bear the responsibility for anything actually delivered, Fareed. When no one will hold you accountable for the success or failure of your ideas. Whether Paul Ryan's plan is good or bad remains to be seen. But I know that I am sick of pundits who speak as if they were omniscient. If you have great ideas, Fareed, write a book or better yet, run for office. Otherwise, your opinion is just another idea swirling around in the virtual realm of cyberspace while we have real problems to solve in the here and now.
But then you wouldn't have the opportunity to criticize what Fareed has to say! The main thing is, this is a forum. And you are suggesting that people you disagree with shouldn't post their opinion. I disagree.
You are aware that Fareed Zakaria is a renowned author, right...meaning he has written books...?
yeah hes an author of baby books.
"Whether Paul Ryan's plan is good or bad remains to be seen."
Whether Paul Ryan's plan is good or bad is something we discover through looking at the plan and by pointing out its strengths and its weaknesses. The job of a journalist is partly to identify those strengths and weaknesses.
I would suggest that these pundits, instead of just criticizing, actually put forth some ideas on exactly what should be done differently. It IS easy to criticize, it is much harder to provide constructive criticism.
Wow. You need to learn to read. Whether or not you AGREE with Fareed's ideas to reduce the deficit does not change the fact that he has been posting them constantly over the past couple months. In other words, he HAS been giving the constructive criticism and ideas that you challenge him for. How about you analyze those and post your objections, rather than blindly talking out of your third point of contact.
Not laughing Fareed. If the government had kept their hands off SS it wouldn't be part of their debt. Sorry..unless we were duped then the US government needs to pay up. We the people paid into it and the government spent it on wars. No deal there.
You are right on. Thanks
As others have mentioned....Why aren't social security taxes taxed on all income...the same as medicare? Do you think that someone making that kind of money misses that tax if it continues after the current limit?
The Debt Commission's recommendations need to be implimented and a total tax code overhaul is in order. Do away with all exemptions and deductions plus go to a flat rate income tax on all income, with maybe 4 tiers and everyone pays.
pwk82147,
Nice to hear how you think no one will miss money if they make "a lot". Those darn rich people. If only they didn't keep it all to themselves. Oops, they don't. Every dime anyone makes and puts in a bank or other investment is then used by the bank or investee for their purposes. Money in fungible. And it does not rest. Pick up some knowledge. It would do you some good. By the way, do you live on a pound of rice a day for your sustenance? If you consume more and heat you house and have running water and don not give everything you have to the great gov't you support, the entity that buys $600 toilet seats, then you are a hypocrite. You should not miss all that extra cash you are making.
George
Again this reply is actually to George, who should stop assuming that just because he doesn't agree with someone, that someone needs to "get educated" or "pick up some knowledge". George, you are not the omniscient person you think you are and your comments prove it. You might spend some time checking out your facts too.
Though not a flat tax there are fixes to the tax code in Ryan's plan. I do believe a flat tax is better and we should start at the highest level and work down. In the end most higher incomes will pay slightly more while lower will pay the same or less. But everyone should pay. The other is except for those in real need the Federal government need to start getting out of the healthcare and retirement business. Get it back to the states where they have more flexibility to work for what they have needs for in each state. Get out of the one-size-fits-all that we have in DC.
Those who say "tax the rich, they won't miss it" forget that to the vast majority of the world, our "poor" are considered rich, which means if you are on a computer and posting here that you too are considered rich. Why, with all the money you make (let's just assume you are middle class), you wouldn't miss say, 15% of your income. That 15% could greatly improve the lives of probably a couple hundred really poor people in Nigeria or a couple dozen in Appalachia. Whenever you call for soaking the rich, remember that all too easily you could be included in their number.
Agree, they are called entitlements because it means just that...we are entitled to the money the people and employer put away for a person's retirement, not the government's money to do whatever it wants, mainly going into a useless war the people didn't want nor needed to get into. It's fact, the people who work the hardest get paid the least and the people who work the least, get paid the most. Once the wealth starting pulling their weight in this country, will we get our economy back in order. That's why we live...to have programs to help us enjoy life...Social Security and Medicare at the top of the list.
"It's fact, the people who work the hardest get paid the least and the people who work the least, get paid the most."
Maybe you're not stupid, but that is the stupidest thing I have ever read (and there are lots of stupid things said on this blog). So, why wouldn't that hard working person slack off so that they could make more money? Just because you cannot comprehend the effort that Steve Jobs puts into creating lots of money for Apple does not mean that he doesn't work hard. Physical labor is hard, cleaning toilets is hard, running a multi-national corporation (and probably working 80 hours a week without any "extra" salary attached to those extra hours) is hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it.
Social security isn't a retirement savings plan. The money we have paid in isn't "ours".
Its an income insurance plan. Its there to replace lost income when a person retires. There is a difference.
If you pay into the system for decades and then die at age 60 your heirs don't have a claim on the contributions (though a family member may qualify for benefits to some degree). On the other hand, if a person retires and then lives another 45 years they don't get cut-off at some point in time because they "used up all their benefits".
Also a married person will pay into the system at the same rate as a single person. But the married person will get benefits for themselves and their wife will also get benefits (usually half as much again) even if she never paid into the system.
My point is – SS isn't a claim. It isn't necessarily "fair" either. Our payments aren't for us – our payments are for other people (like our parents or grandparents).
Social securty and medicare were created as entitlements meaning you paid into the system, along with your employer to be entitled to the money when you retire, not you pay into the system to "maybe" receive you money.
So true. And there are two problems with SS: 1) too many people figured it would be a retirement plan and haven't saved anything for retirement and 2) the expected age has gone from 65 to 78, but the age of retirement for full benefits hasn't kept up – it should be at least 70 by now, if not more.
"Social securty and medicare were created as entitlements meaning you paid into the system, along with your employer to be entitled to the money when you retire, not you pay into the system to "maybe" receive you money."
I understand that people pay into SS in the expectation that benefits will be paid back in the future...but there is no such thing as "your money" in Social Security or in Medicare.
PatSJ - Could some of the reasons the average life span has increased is because of social security and medicare. Before, you worked until you died. If you had a high stress, high physical job, you didn't live a long life because your body couldn't take the strain and without health insurance, you didn't get the treatment to heal problems when they were minor and thus they became major health issues that killed you. With social security and medicare, you had an end to a demanding job and you had health care to treat your health issues. Do you really want a 70 year old with cataracts that he can't afford to have removed and high blood pressure/heart disease that he can't afford medication for driving that 18-wheeler down the highway at 70 mph (soon to be 85 mph) sharing the road space with you?
Sparky – You just said one of the most unAmerican things I have yet read here...the money that the government took from our paychecks which we earned through our work in order to ensure that we would have a retirement and health care late in life isn't "ours". Well, just whose money is it if it's not ours? Who exactly was that hauling around those steel parts when I used to work in the factory because it sure felt like me when I went home exhausted at night. Apparently you believe that the money we earn is actually the government's money. If that's so then why aren't you living on a subsistence income and donating the rest of your money to the government?
Are you missing the point? But the government didn't keep their hands off of SS. And since you elected the government then YOU (and we) should be responsible for paying it back, not some future generation, who had no say in the matter.
Ryans proposal is incomplete. However, compared to Obamas budget which is a suuccessful attempt at not doing a thing it is superb.
Take a Civics course.
Fareed thinks he knows more than Ryan? Joke of the year. Seriously, the primary cause of the deficit is NOT the payment of SS benefits. In the enabling legillation, accumulated funds were NOT to be touched but instead, put in a savings account which would earn interest. Instead, Congress, who didn't want to raise taxes, took the money and diverted to other uses. Next, the Democratic president decided to TAX the benefits which was NOT supposed to happen. Double taxation for sure and which is supposed to be illegal in this country. Had the funds been left alone, there should be enough for the aging population who, by the way, paid into the system dearly down through the years.
Remember Al Gore's much-mocked "lock box" for social security? Yeah, pretty funny idea now . . .
My pet gerbal knows more than Mr. Ryan...
Smart pet....probably way smarter than you. At least Ryan has a plan. Where were all the democrats in regards to the current year's budget, including their leader?
Your pet gerbil probably also knows how to spell better than you do, as well.
Congressmans Ryans plan is mean spirited and silly. The real authors of his budget plan the Heritage Foundation is busy revising their the errors and recrunching the numbers as we speak / type. Republicans forget that Reagan & Bush II create the bulk of this deficits with their supply side economics and Reagan had to raise taxes several times to fund his tax cuts.
I am thrilled that fareed loved the plan before he hated it. typical obamist.
Your comments are becoming tiresome….
Was it a joke? Ryan's plan was going to increase defense spending! Right now, America is in the worst ecnomic climate, since the 1930's. The going is tough! It would be tragic for families in need, if certain entitlement spending were to be crossed off the list. Still the Americans are a little better off than those Japanese, who were hit by the threefold catastrophe last month. Grief-stricken, they struggle to make ends meet. A whole generation has to make sacrifces, in order to bring the country back on its feet again.
When Ryan talks about cutting costs, he's only referring to the checks from the Federal Government. His plan does nothing to control the costs of the pharmacies or the Doctors.
It's all well and good to tell the doctor s/he is only going to get $25.00 for an office call, but if his expenses require $50.00, who pays the difference?
You haven't 'cut costs'. You've only pushed the costs on to the backs of those least able to afford it.
In other words, you've created a de facto death panel.
Block Grants to broke states will just get siphoned off into the General Fund and the Seniors will die.
20% of the population will have coverage and the other 80% will be in the ER for indigent care.
Only when the 20% start losing loved ones to delayed emergency care will a change take place.
EXACTLY!
That is the Ryan: PATH TO PROSPERTY plan... for pharmas, Health Insurance Companies, Banks...
Attention Democrats and Republicans...look at what Mr. Zakaria is doing and learn. He is teaching you how to compromise. As any good negotiator, Fareed first praises what he likes in the proposed budget and then critiques (not criticizes) where he finds a failing. People like "Irving" see this as "kool-aid" drinking, but it is actually the first step in the negotiation process. There is too much name calling and ideological bad-mouthing going on in this country. Obama comes out with a reform for the healthcare in this country and all republicans can do is scream at how it's destroying American freedoms. Paul Ryan comes out with a budget and all Democrats can do is scream about how it will punish those who are most vulnerable.
For God's sake, lets try to have a conversation based on common ground rather than differences for once. These petty differences, in-fighting, and home-grown political controversies helped bring down the Roman Empire. It will bring America down as well.
thank you!
Jeremiah – amen to that. Well-written.
nicely written and well said, I wish others would grow up and speak like adults. thank you for being an adult.
Agreed
Your analysis is ok on the point of Ryan,s proposal not working. Any plan that do not adopt some revenue increasing option is unrealistic. Ryan's desire to give another 4trillion in tax cuts to the rich defies logic,since he is trying to cut the deficit. Ryan and his friends need to be honest about the real objectives of their proposal.Before he destroy the less fortunate, he should add up all the options. May be then we may be able to look at these plans better.I am all for cost control,but I would want to see fair taxation to all people and corporations. As much as I want to applaud him,my hands refuse to move when I look at the rosy projections of unemployment and housing( specially prepared by Heritage Foundation)
Curtis, the issue isn't who knows more. The facts are not obscure. The issue is the value of various services performed by the government and the fight will be over what cuts hurt the most. It is pretty easy to come up with a balance budget plan if you don't value the role of government–cut everything! It is a lot harder when you believe in what the government is trying to do, and you realize that there are things you value that have to be axed.
Social Security/Medicare are so easy, just means test them. No sense in giving either to those who don't need them, means testing is essentially harmless. The budget/deficit are easy also, just stop all the defense spending, the wars, the huge military, all those troops in Nations richer than us, and they don't want our help anyway. There is no USSR, why spend so much defending against them? There should be a war bonus, or war dividend, for winning the Cold War, we didn't get one, they just got more wars, and a bigger military, and big tax breaks for the rich. They should also stop those tax breaks for the rich, obviously they don't work, we wouldn't be having the big economic problems, including recession, if they actually worked.
He Fareed, you are a typical flaming liberal, Where is the budget of your man for the past 2 plus years... Answer; there is none. Ryan's budget is a great starting point that you don't like because it starts an accountability process. People like you and this entire Obama administration are stinking the place out. Get a life freeloader.....
Yes, an accountability of crediting the wealthy with debits from the poor.
No more like the debiting the wealthy for not paying their way in life.
Jeremiah,
Yes there needs to be more compromising and civility.My problem is that,no one want to look at where we can increase revenues and then look where we can cut.We can not be 10 year behind on the revenue side and expect to improve the fiscal health. We need the corporations and the filthy rich to pay affair share of the burden. I am willing to suffer alittle more for the sake of our future. But please don,t let them continue to give tax breaks and then try to balance the budget on the back of people like me who get by on a limited income. The principles of fairness must prevail. I hope you will agree.
I remember when I was young. Everyone had a job, taxes were much higher than thay are now.No one complained. Corporations used to put money back into their businesses and improve them. Now they just hang on to the huge profits and ship jobs overseas with tax breaks to do so. Then still complain that their taxes are too high. I wouldn't mind tax breaks for them if they used them to hire people and brought jobs back home instead of being greedy. Pretty soon they will have everything and there will be no one able to buy their products. Then what?
Goodness, taxes are higher now than they have ever been, unless you are on the government payroll. Our Senators and Congressmen pay no SS on their wages yet get full pay when they retire for life with free medical benefits. With our Senators and Congressmen having an average age of around sixty-three the cost of their medical expense is a large burden to the taxpayer. The only ones in the USA that do not pay taxes are the jobless and most of them enjoy being in the welfare state.
Sorry Danny, your facts are wrong. Income tax rates for the bottom 99% of us have stayed about the same over the last several decades. The tax rates for the top 0.1% have declined significantly. And corporate tax revenues have become a much smaller portion of total taxes.
Notice how Ryan’s deal allows seniors to use a voucher to pay for insurance, but they can’t use the voucher to pay their own doctor, that way everybody has to pay insurance companies and insurance companies can pay on the examines and testing and be really slow before they get around to okaying expensive treatments, hoping you die first, so they can keep the rest of the tax money. Slick deal for insurance companies, only the sick take risks. Americans should push to make medical insurance illegal to force down medical costs. If you get rid of that expense you can really save some money and you get to live.
I think this immigrant from India should go back to India to embrace the "untouchables", and help his vasty impoverished
former Country, account for its malnutrition, disease, and government corruption at its worst level. How does someone from India understand a white "good boy" from Wisconsin?
Yes, there has to be serious "bi-partisan" moderate committees from both the Democratic and Republican parties focusing their attention on the deficits and entitlement Programs who make serious changes. But to call Ryan's budget proposals serious and expect America to completely "re-make" itself in the governmental, business and its basic social society is absurd, especially in the next six months.
Where are the tax revenues or increases that must be calculated into Ryans's budget, the Indian needs a vacation back home in India where he can "re-study" Indian Culture. CNN pays him generously (too much with a complete fringe benefit package and a golden parachute clause in his contract).
When the "untouchables" don't have to clean open air toilets everyday, he might have some moral ground to stand on but for now "applauding" the white boy Tea Partier, Ryan, who acts like a "college frat rat" in Congress with the the potential to destroy very "important" programs" at will is just plain sickening. Ryan is a "child" who "commands" the President, Senate, Congress and a Country who just can't say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!. Make the tax rate more fair stop the ultimate "war" of the "classes".
Fareed graduated from Yale and Harvard, I'm pretty sure he's closer to understanding a white privileged "good boy" from Wisconsin than a hillbilly racist commenter on cnn.com would be. What is wrong with you people...I'm not even a fan of this guy, but seriously, keep your hate to yourself. It doesn't look good on you.
AJ Did you go to an Ivy League school... is that what makes this rich Indian so likable? All I said, if he thinks Ryan is even "serious" about America's budget problems, he can return to India and do some real "work" in a very poor and a corrupt Country that needs some real "brains"... the open air toilets are still be cleaned by "the untouchables", he can help, right?
I am glad he is an American but he is no Paul Krugman of the New York Times, read his column sometimes....
Paul Krugman? Did you just criticize Farid and then offer up Krugman? LOL.
Paul Krugman? Did you just criticize Fareed and then offer up Krugman? LOL.
Why are you ranting about 'untouchables'?
Zakaria is right in saying some aspects of Ryan's plan are on track, yet it is still missing some crucial aspects (SS, tax increases, and managing defense spending).
If you're trying to say that Zakaria is out of his element in this discussion you are mistaken. He has the credentials and the experience and he provides an interesting angle to this issue.
It's not all spending cuts and its not all tax increases... we have to do both.
I'm still not quite sure what you are trying to say about Zakaria and 'untouchables', kinda baffled tbh.
Your last name sounds funny too, like Fareed Zarakia's kinda does. It sounds like you're either Asian or from the Firefly/Serenity universe. Please go back to whichever one you came from, since obviously people with funny names don't belong in the US!
John Tam – Fareed is as American as you and me. He's been a U.S. citizen for ten years.
Thinly disguised racism, tragically, is still racism. His ethnicity or his country of origin has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to comment intelligently and effectively and his additional educational credentials further lend support to that view.
You are saying without saying it that we will belong to China.
No,more like we are hostage to the super rich.
Pat – could you or anyone else explain to me, using real-life dollars and cents, the statement that we are "hostage to the super rich" and/or the oft-heard quote that the wealthy get all the tax breaks and are apparently contributing less than the middle & lower classes – and should contribute much more? This is a serious question, not rhetorical and not a trap of any kind. Am interested in this viewpoint and what the facts behind it are. Thanks!
Fareed. Do some real analyse before commenting. Older folks go to emergency rooms more often and have more and longer hospital stays. They are also billed for consultation ten times a day by all f the doctors golf buddies. You think medicare and othe insurance are paying for the valule of hospital stays with there ridicuous billings. It is smoke and mirrors. Uninsured and illegals get al their emergency room and other hospital stays paid by the grace of the hospital billing system whih can collect from medicare parts and other insurance for al these other folks through inflated billings to those who pay for insursnce and have earned it. There is no accounting of the value of care that the elders get. It is a political game to shft serbies the health costs of the non contributing to another name. Why not account or the true costs of cae for the sectors of our society. Forgive me, that would provide real transparency to the citizens. we wouldn't like that. That might lead to a democratic republic of informed citiens. Better rule by decipt. While we are at it ,would you explain to me how the so called democratic establishment of jihadist non secular death to the west governments are spoken in the same breath as our western democracies. It is like calimg The Vatican a democracy. A joke. Don't demean western democracies and republics with the poitclly correct reference of events in the east as democratic. A another thousand years, Maybe.
Wow! Are you off the chart or what?
Excuse me? Who are you calling a non contributing? I contributed for 40 years and I am still working.
On Meet the Press, Ryan was vague, arrogant and opinionated. He called one of Gregory's (few) criticisms a 'non-sequitur' and blithely asserted the usual Republican mantras to 'cut spending' and 'cut taxes'. He didn't say where and how but that it should be. He asserted that his reform of Medicare would give people more control and insisted that 'competition' would solve all ills – without mentioning that thus far it has not. Since the insurance industry quashed the idea that their antitrust exemption should not be revoked, it's hard to see where this 'competition' will come from. Since the lobbyists have paid off people like Ryan to ensure that they can continue to fix prices, competition sounds good but won't actually happen. Unfortunately Fareed continues to ply the Republican trade by referring to Medicare and SSI as 'entitlements' with the pejorative overtones intended by that term. That people have paid into social security and medicare for years as forms of insurance – health and living, should they not be 'entitled' to services for which they have paid? As long as the vapid Republican Discourse is never challenged , their useless ideas will somehow be given a credibility they do not deserve.
Todge – it seems to me the "vapid Republican discourse" is challenged every minute of every day by the Democrats and by a very large part of the liberal media. And I don't see that as an opinion; I think anyone who objectively cares to analyze it would admit, no matter what their party or views, that the media is largely liberal.
I agree with you that the discourse from Republicans is very charged and deliberate, inflammatory, and sometimes meant to miscontextualize and mislead. Then again....the Dems are just as terrible and intentional, and often times more so – and are just as arrogant and blithe in dismissing and criticizing anything put forth by the "other side."
At least Fareed attempts to be balanced and allow for compromise.
Notice nobody has introduced any legislation that allows for interstate competition for insurance. This new bunch of republicans is just the same as the old bunch. Going to take a few more house cleanings to get the careerists out.
Single payer system. Remember that one?
Fareed Zakaria is nothing but a liberal hack who has never in his life had a thought in his spoiled rich kid life that was anything to the right of extreme liberal
Brian:
Your comment adds nothing of value to this discussion, except that to show you to be immature and rude. Grow up and then come back to discuss...
Ryan is a typical inconsiderate Republican whose creed is "More tax cuts for millionaires. More benefit cuts for the working class." My own Congressman Buchanan has his "town hall meetings" at 11:00 on Mondays — virtually barring anyone who works 8-5 Monday through friday. That reveals who he serves — rich retirees, business owners, salespeople and money rearrangers.
Funny, when the Tea Party/Republicans want to create "fear" into the people, they use words "kids and grand kids" will suffer if we don't do as they say. Our kids and grand kids are suffering right now due to their reckless spending on wars and letting Wall Street run amok. They needs to start paying back from all the tax cuts they got, starting back when Bush gave them the biggest tax breaks in history.
Yes, Pat – but don't the Democrats consistently demonize as well by talking about "cancer patients dying" and "seniors being left to die" and the Republicans only caring about the wealthy and big corporations and "destroying the middle class"?
I think both sides deserve a healthy amount of criticism for their egregious discourse and for intentionally obscuring and clouding the real issues.
George:
It is you who should pick up some knowledge. You are promoting the bogus economic theory of "trickle down". Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand are dead; literally and figuratively. Calling folks names who make comments on this forum is immature and a sign that you have no good logical arguments of your own; other than right wing talking points without substance.
I can see that this liberal-biased so called journalist doesn't like fiscal sanity and he invited his disingenuous relatives to comment on his article. I really wish these tax and spend liberals would find another country to ruin. How about we give you CA with all its warts and you all can live there? Of course, we'll need a big wall on the east side and northern border but we'll be able to use parts from the southern borderl of CA to build it.
A stupid comment, Bill. It displays a lot of pent up anger and hatred. Have you tried an anger management class?
Liberaol biased? Because you don't agree with him, and you're not a liberal? As for California, I guess 1 out of every 8 Americans already figures CA is a better place to live than anywhere else in this country. But we don't need any more people here right now so glad you are happy in your own state.
It is ALL fantasy : One cannot promote prosperity simply by cutting, by shrinking an economy ! . To attempt such is completely insane and DENIES all history ! ! . What is necessary is to implement EXTREMELY high taxes on accumulated wealth - get it OUT to work - and thereby promote investment in growing the economy. . Sufficient GROWTH in the economy will swamp the burdens of entitlements while at the same time REDUCING the need for them on several fronts. .
Yes, the wealthy will benefit, becoming even wealthier - but that is the price which must be paid - It is a pity that so many of them seem brainless ! !
.
The republican congress just gave the wealthy a one trillion dollar tax break and putting additional financial stress on the elderly and the shrinking middle class. Our total national debt is about 14 trillion, so you can see just how much the one trillion dollar tax break for the wealthy really is. Let's be fare, how about everyone paying their fare share.
the interest in what you wrote was "shrinking middle class". You should ask yourself why? You should ask yourself about tax payments called he earned in come credit where you receive money because you didn't make enough money, and the inability to pay for health care for oneself or family? There is a common theme to all of these questions and to the answer why.
SSN: 12.5 % of income; Medicare tax: about 5%; Income tax: variable.
I am over 50 never used my insurance except when I get a physical. SSN I paid so far for 28 years (12% or so of income); Medicare (5% or so of income) the same so I think my contribution has been fair so far. All of you have generally done the same. If you look it at black and white, there is alot reasons for the issues were face. But I would go back to the first few questions to understand the why.
Halfway through the 20th century the effective tax rate of the most wealthy was 90%. The wealthy today number higher and the liquidity of today's wealthy far eclipses any of that day.
While I think 90% is outrageous, I think this helps to put into perspective how good the rich have it today. If you don't want to pay taxes, you just find a way out of it because you can afford it. Only chumps pay taxes, right? It's the way of the wealthy American. If you and your buddies see the goose that lays the golden egg but it's on the other side of a legal obstacle, you just throw some money at a law maker and the obstacle disappears. This is the way of the wealthy American. If you want to make sure you keep all that $$$ you worked so hard for by cutting benefits, lengthening hours without compensation, and offshoring labor... well, you just launch a public campaign so that all the lemmings sing the same song "It's wrong to redistribute wealth!" ... I'm sad for America. What a load of shit. I'm most sad because we should all be smarter than this.
The system is infected with greed. We just sit by and take it. Some of us even support it even though we're getting kicked in the junk... I love this country. But I don't love what greed has done to us.
Bottom line, Ryan took many of his ideas on cutting spending from the debt commission that Obama created, but he left out almost all of their taxing ideas. Kinda like the Democrates only choosing the taxing ideas and leaving off all the spending cuts. We need to do both. And anyone who thinks we can only cut or only tax our way out of this is just plain wrong.
Ryan should resign, he would maybe make a used care salesman but he has no place in Congress as Budget Chairman.
I am glad he's making some type of proposal, but he really avoids specifics in almost every area.
What I am truly perplexed about is Mr.Zakaria projecting himself as an AUTHORITY on every issue under the sun be it the economy, energy, environment, healthcare, terror etc. etc. We see him being interviewed (stage managed) by some INVISIBLE, or his HAND-PICKED people on CNN all the time just to establish himself as an authority, unlike most other respected commentators. What Mr. Zakaria surely excels in is skimming the issues/recommendations from already published studies & reports, and present them as his original ideas, in many cases without ever referring to the source documents/studies. He does that through some CATCHY & SENSATIONAL titles designed to grab reader’s attention and imprint his stamp of authority, literally as a GOSPEL!
On the contrary, with regard to his most passionate issues concerning his Muslim faith, Mr. Zakaria extensively quotes from dubious or biased studies, including several from leading institutions, to buttress his arguments in favor of Islam. In pursuance of this overall agenda of making Islam palatable to gullible Americans, Mr. Zakaria goes about liberally trashing anyone perceived to be even remotely opposed to Islam (NOT just radical Islam!), including the US, Europe, Israel, Russia.
Mr. Zakaria’s style smacks of a much greater ambition of reaching stellar eights in the public service arena to carry on with this overall Islamic agenda. In fact such efforts reached a crescendo when a web site propped up (from nowhere!) during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign, appealing to the future US president to appoint Mr. Zakaria as the “Secretary of State”. Mr. Zakaria himself gave credence to that appeal when he said In an article published in 2003 in the New Yorker magazine when he said: "My friends all say I'm going to be secretary of state. But I don't see how that would be much different from the job I have now."
No wonder a lot of Americans are seeing though Mr. Zakarai’s overall agenda and do NOT buy his, what outwardly appear to be very fair & balanced assertions. Most Americans have come to realize that they need to exercise a lot of caution while ingesting his CHERRY-PICKED facts, while paying MOST ATTENTION to NOT what he says, but what he DOES NOT SAY at all!!!
So with that said, I will leave it to well known economists to tell me what is good or bad about the budget, and what needs to be done to cut spending and reduce our mounting deficits.
Amit-Atlanta-USA
He's not projecting himself as an authority on everything. He's a well-respected person who has a well-thought-out opinion on some things.
You just can't hide your anti-Muslim bias, can you? And you also can't resist USING ALL CAPS. Sad.
I see no projecting of himself. He's just writing an essay on his thoughts; try getting an education, maybe someone will pay as much attention to your thoughts.
Making Islam palatable to gullible Americans? The gullible Americans are the ones that swallow and believe uneducated and hateful crap like your statement. What you said embarrasses me as an American. Please stop spreading this crap.
Mr. Zakaria, thank you for your comments.
You bring up the most important point that no politician will speak about – "Last Illness". The bulk of Medicare is spent on the very sick AND in their last 1 – 2 years of life. The benefit to the patient is minimal and the benefit to society is almost zero.
At the policy level, we should not spend the estimated $300 – $400 billion a year on the last year of life (often in and out of hospitals) on pre-terminal patients that are dying. Politically, no politician is willing to discuss this delicate and emotionally charged issue. But, it remains the most costly and GROWING component of health care expenditures.
What political steps do we need to take to place this issue into the public debate? If, as a society, we want to reduce economic prosperity for the population at large and keep more and more people alive a little longer, as a democracy we can vote in favor of doing this. But we should at least have an informed public debate on the realities of how much it costs to keep a patient with advanced cancer alive another month or a patient with multi-organ system failure alive another week in the medical ICU... We need to open our eyes.
Perhaps giving politicians a tour through an academic medical ICU and reviewing statistics on the 6 month survivor rate for that population would push the debate further along.
Some politicians did try to talk about it – at least about the part where the patient gets a chance to voice their opinion about how their life should end. Death panels, remember? We need to have a serious discussion of the end of life issues, without it being politicized or religious-ized. But good luck with that!
Don't worry, it's already in the health care legislation, although it was actually funded ($1.1 bln) in the stimulus bill, hence the easy denials that it was part of health care reform. It's called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness, and it's not an accident that Ezekiel Emanuel, an end-of-life specialist to say the least, is on its Board. This innocuous sounding board is charged with setting protocols, including death-bed protocols, for use in determining what patient care the govt will be willing to sponsor, under the guise of what is most effective (i.e., cost effective). The AMA has already opined on what will happen in the invevitable conflict between directed protocols are not in agreement with a doctor's Hippocratic Oath (physicians will leave the practice). Whether one agrees or not with the need to deal with the high cost of end-of-life care, or how best to do it, to pretend that the govt has not already legislated a role in this (yes, the Death Panel does exist, sorry) is just denial.
No one in Congress, on either side of the aisle, has the guts to speak truth about serious deficit reduction. It will take significant revenue increases, ie.taxes, and sizeable spending cuts in entitlements and probably defense in order to balance the budget. Anyone in Washington who says otherwise is either lying or a fool. Perhaps all 535 members of Congress should just get out of the way for the next six months and let Alan Simpson and the Deficit Commission fine tune their plan for seriously addressing the deficit. Most Americans would take some kind of painfull hit, but we owe it to our Grandchildren to deal courageously with this issue.
My wife and two children and I live in the state of Illinois. Our current health insurance plan is a Choice Plan that is provided by "Penny Health Insurance" . The plan itself is a consumer driven health care plan.
Of course Paul Ryan's plan won't work out of the simple fact that this bozo wants to increase our military spending which already consumes 3/5 of our national budget. We need to drastically curtail this and reform medicare by removing the corruption and legalizing euthanasia.
I agree with the assessment here. The tax increases will not work though. Lower taxes stimulate spending thus increasing government revenues and by raising taxes the game of perpetual recession will rule the day.
Lower taxes have done a bang up job to stimulate spending, right? I see so much hiring and spending from those that have had BANNER years and profit. It's been wonderful for India. It's been wonderful for China. It's been wonderful for anyone that has been willing to give more for less. But it hasn't been wonderful for America unless you lack the character to treat people fairly.
All of you that have drank the "lower taxes for the rich kool-aid" are either benefiting from it or you're completely snowed by an ideology architected to mask unlimited profit potential.
There are some great companies out there. Private companies are excellent. Public companies are misincentivized to maximize profit at any cost, even if it risks their own destruction or the destruction of a nation. The lower taxes lip service is bullshit if those that benefit from it lack the character to choose the right thing over a pocket full of dollars. There's a middle ground.
Can someone please answer this question for me, please?: After considering all factors, such as inflation, availability of resources, etc... Is per dollar of goods, or services today equal in value, as it was, when that goods or services were first offered? If it is not, then, can we roll back the current cost to equal that of when it was? It seems that we are paying more for goods and services for lesser and lesser value.
If we drilled oil here, processed it here, and used it here....we could get out of the middle east. So the govt becomes a self licking popsicle because we will not do what we need to do. Oh, there is jobs in that method too and most pay above poverty wages. Reduced military costs, but keep putting up the windmills.......that will solve the problem.
Real quick math question, how does a country with 3% of the worlds oil resources that uses 25% of the worlds oil supply going to get out of the middle east? Sounds like the kool aid here is the Big Oil kool aid. You really want to get out of the middle east? Alternative fuel source. If we can go to the moon in ten years, how come it has taken this long to come up with a different fuel source? Anyone ever heard of hydrogen?
How come I, and about 5 million other households, can balance our monthly budgets, but a bunch of multi-millionaires on capiltal hill can't? Give me $175,000 a year and, not will I live reasonable well, I'll be able to take a cruise once a month. Or take a couple of people from skid row on mission trips to wealthy communities in every state.
FIRST OF ALL I USE CAPITALS SO I CAN SEE WHAT I'M WRITTING.I'M NOT YELLING ,BUT I WOULD LIKE TO!!! IV'E NEVER READ SUCH STUPIDITY COMMING FROM A SO CALLED ECONOMIST!!!! ,BUT IT'S WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT FROM A LYING CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICAN WHO'S STRINGS ARE CONTROLED BY THE TEA PARTY THUGS WHO HAVE TAKEN A GOOD THING AND RUINED IT BY ELECTING THESE DING A LINGS WHO COULD NOT FIND THIER BUT'S WITH BOTH HANDS AND A FOOT.PEOPLE WITH NO LIP'S ARE CRIMINALS JUST LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT!!!!!!
With no comment on the merrit or failings of the plan, the real question is what qualifies a a person with degrees in Political Science to study, comment on or critique a financial plan as if he were an analist. Perhaps he should check with his other collegues with their assorted media and communications degrees. This is barely one step up from Ashton Kutcher providng commentary on the US budget.
I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE UP MY SOCIAL SECURITY SO THOSE MORON'S IN THE CONGRESS CAN SQUANDER IT ON THIER PET PROJECTS.I WORKED HARD FOR MY RETIREMENT AND MEDICARE SO KEEP YOU HANDS OFF!!!!!IF YOU REPUBLICANS WOULD STOP "BARROWING"FROM IT AND NEVER PAYING IT BACK THERE BE ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE ,BUT NO YOU HAD TO TRY AND DESTROY IT BECAUSE YOU WHERE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD WORK!!!!!!
With all do respect, Stanton, while both parties have raided, anyone who has done even the most cursory research knows that the vast majority of the raiding was done by Democrats (in case you want to make more than a partizan point)
Fareed , please....Ryan is the only person to put a plan out there...the Dems couldn't even pass a budget with full control of the Gov last yr and the annointed one hasn't offered any plans himself...the poll on CNN is a joke and proves that this is a left wing site...59 to 41 % of ppl here think the Tax and Spend liberals are better on the budget...are you freakin kidding me...man, we deserve to go down in flames if that's true....
Let us not forget it was Bush that destroyed the balanced budget through 2 wars and tax cuts. This is not a Republican or Democrat problem – it is a Republican AND Democrat problem. They both caused it and no one wants to make the tough choices to really slash spending. Over 33% of the current budget goes to the military including retiree benefits, etc. But no one wants to touch it because of fear of political suicide. Something is odd with a populace that will fund a huge killing machine but does not want to see that its own citizens have access to affordable health care. Just saying....
You can't spend more than you have – anyone with a grain of sense understands this. Neither can you run a business without spending money. You can't run a business by cutting back revenue. Ryan, in his simplistic view, wants drastic cuts but shows no plan for increasing income to offset the spending that simply must be done. It's easy to reduce the size of government by laying off employees, but what happens when those employees can't find jobs? It's easy to insist people pay for their own health insurance, but what happens when they can't afford it? It's easy to insist big businesses need tax credits and deregulation to allow them to grow, but who holds them accountable when they grow overseas or grow only their profits?
Painful is as painful does. Let Ryan and others with his simplistic mindset pave the way. Cut their salaries. Eliminate their expense budgets. Make them pay 100% toward their own health care and their own pensions. Have them to personally donate to fund the nonprofits that they believe the government shouldn't have a hand in. And when it comes to abortion – have them each to take in one pregnant mother, pay for all her basic needs – food, clothing, health care – and then adopt the baby.
Maybe if Ryan takes the lead, and gets others of his mindset to agree to do the same, then maybe there's a chance for his drastic budget to work.
"Democrats can attack the plan but they, too, must face up to the fiscal reality and come up with their own plans."
I think democrats do have a plan an it is called tax increases. I do agree with Fareed that the republicans are delusional about defense spending. Even if we cut defense spending in half, we should still outspend every other nation by a wide margin. We can't afford all these wars and a $640 billion per year military. It is bankrupting us and no politician other than Kucenich has the scrotum to actually acknowledge that fact.
I am 72 yrs old and I work 2 jobs to make ends meet. SS has been frozen for the last 3 years but Prescription Ins has increased each year along with the cost of staples such as milk, bread, meat and vegetables. I only buy meat on special occasion and the cheapest vegetables available. Gasoline is now at 3.79 a gallon and the cost to fill my vehicle is $47.00 a week. I can only shop for groceries once a month. My husband passed 4 years ago and I received $108.00 from his check, that is now being reduced by what I pay into SS & Medicare each year. I pay for supplemental insurance but that also goes up each year, but I will try to hold on as long as I can. I am with Stanton "Leave my Social Security alone." As for Medicare, hospitals will some times double bill Medicare using two different Claim #'s, I know because it happened to me. I also have extra taken from my pay to cover Federal taxes for the coming year. I have been working since I was 14 and paying taxes since I was sixteen. I am not rambling, but trying to give a picture of what it is like on SS. If I didn't work on would be on the street with so many others.You young people should remember you will be 72 someday.
I would like to what happens to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid........if Congress eliminates illigals from receiving ANYTHING. They just may look a whole lot better and help AMERICANS who have contributed or AMERICANS who have genuine needs. The USA has never been against helping those who need help, but not freeloaders.
Ron-
Exactly how many "Illegals" are receiving social security? Somehow the 20 million "illegals" are hosing the health care system but some how 50 million americans without insurance are not.....
I can't believe all the good coverage such a retarded plan like Ryans' is getting.
Increasing defense spending and reducing taxes are going to reduce the deficit. Call it a majic-based budget. Don't people see thats why we are in this mess in the first place ?
As an added bonus end Medicaid and send seniors a check and let them get screwed by private health insurers. This system has worked so well everywhere else, right, so why not give it to everyone !
Get serious.
Time after time we are lectured that our "entitlements" are out of control. Our "budgets" are at risk as costs rise and revenues fall. The fixes are always on the revenue side or to reduce the costs through reducing the services. Just ONCE, I'd like to understand why these costs ARE so high? Just ONCE, I'd like to see some of our fiscally responsible elected officials look at this from the people's point of view versus their constituents' viewpoint, (the health care industry.) These folks jam their "costs" literally down our throats and up our anuses without anyone really checking their true costs. It's a great game, the "health care insurance" guys and the "health care givers" collude to get a maximum return on their "customers." It's good ole capitalism at its best. A foul is called with any game changing effort, often prefaced by allegations of socialism. It is at the very least shameful and mostly criminal to treat our sick like we do. However we can't afford to do any better. Funny how Wall Street bonuses are at record levels but the rest of us are fast falling behind in every economic category.
Not to mention the hospitals and doctors themselves. Been to the hospital recently? Itemized the bill? Last time I was there there was at least $2500 dollars on things they did not do. If there are any of the faithful out there, I have a morality question for you- How exactly do you justify profiting off the sick and dying? Of course I have also wondered how it is justifed that are economic policy is based on one of the seven deadly sins.
Mr. Farreed, the only reason you declared Mr. Ryan's budget as unworkable id because Mr. Ryan is a Republican. If President NObama or any his flunkies submitted exactly the exact same budget, you would be singing your/their praises.
You should try and stick to actual news rather than news making.
The word is "is" not "id." And you think the way you spell. The Ryan proposal is to soak the poor to give to the rich. Nothing new there. Also nothing new in your delusion that you are going to somehow make out well if this budget monstrosity goes through. And nothing new in your puerile name-calling. Don't be so quick to show your ignorance and bad manners.
You really need to stop reading from the liberal hand book of lies. It makes you desperate and pathetic.
That is because Fareed is an "in the tank" liberal toating Obama's water in the press for him.
Ok, for all of you dems/libs and armchair economy experts--His plan was simply a blueprint, and not the final product. And, what has the left and the non citizen offered--just wait and see-–ha
Why is it that when republicans disagree with a democrat idea they are labeled "the party of no", but when democrats disagree with a republican by calling his idea things like "retarded", "insane", and "bogus" they are not similarly labeled? No need to reply, I think we all know the answer.
Right on the money!!
I always love to hear the right wingers..."at least he has a plan". Huh? It's like saying that you have no money in your checking account, and the mortgage is due, and instead of calling the mortgage company or taking some time to THINK about what you are going to do, you simply take the first bridge on the way home from work. Then tomorrow when someone asks "hey, why did they do that?", someone else can say "at least he had a plan". The wrong plan, in this context, is WAY, WAY worse than no plan. I don't think Obama has a plan either, but I would rather these gov't pukes do nothing than some of the stuff they want to do. Seems to me that we got in this mess because they were way too active to begin with, that scares me more than gridlock.
Remember Galbraith talked about the spiraling staircase and it is like everyone is on the top flight going no place. We have to use the same parachute to get us all down.
Now Farreed ,if I may, if needed would you take a small cut in pay? I'm just suggesting that the government in ALL BRANCHES cut pay from 05-10%. It should be only from top rpt TOP to BOTTOM so nobody feels left out. REMEMBER PER PERSON THIS IS ONLY A DROP IN THE BUCKET!
mr RYAN,if you're really serious about cutting national debt then spending on defense MUST be included alongwith medicaid/ medicare and, social security programes... and also war-fundings must be accounted as expenditure to fiscal budget and should not be considered as "separate" entity (with no baring on fiscal budget ) thats just ridiculous!
....so mr Ryan, im all for balancing budget and eliminating federal debt but unless & until defense cuts not
included in your plan alongwith overhaul of medicaid/medicare and, social security, you're NOT being realistic enough & very convincing.
The budget was cut 38 billion on a 3.456 Trillion dollar budget. That is 1.114%. The backslapping and congratulations on the part of both parties shows just how out of touch they are when they think that is a substantial sum. If one looked closely, I'm sure you;d find 5% of waste in the government. Then another 5% of money going to project with little bang for the buck. For example, in CT the Governor, a Democrat, wants to not waste 400 million in Federal funds for a busway. The state which is broke would have to anti up 100 million. The busway would only improve traffic less than 5%. Gov Christie, of NJ, a Republican, cancelled a tunnel project mostly financed by the Feds because he felt the state couldn't afford it. So CT will have busway that will relieve traffic a little, while we have bridges and roads ready to collapse. Both parties need to get serious about the budget.
Paying back the IOUs to the trust funds should be first priority until paid in full! Cease spending until that is done regardless of oil worries. I'll walk barefoot if I must and hand-cut my own wood shingles. We survived without oil, electricity and plastic before and were better off for it.
Ryan economics = voodoo economics.
The GOP is walking into a meat chopper and Ryan appears to be guiding them.
But the Democrats have come up with what? Nothing. They think we can keep spending. At least Ryan has started a discussion that is long overdue.
When Ryan proposed "vouchers" to GOP, they ran from him and his voucher Idea like from a sick man (yep, he already tried to pull it some time ago). When he realized that word "vouchers" scares people away, he changed it to "personalized". I just think GOP has to make people to talk about them at least about something, other wise people would have nothing to say about GOP because this is nonsense. Where are the jobs with all of those Tax cats? The amount that we had cut for the reach was enormous, by this time we should swim in jobs. The reach payed 700 million per year to the country (and that's where jobs were).
Zakaria admits the army and the spending for BOcare is unsustainable, but the cuts are sustainable and the market will do what it does best, seek a lower price, the good part of the plan is that the states do what the constitution says, health and welfare
One point on which I do agree with Fareed is that Democracts can complain about Ryan's plan all they want, but they have to come up with a solution on their own (instead of being the party of no.) Obama got a bi-partisan group together to address this issue. The Fiscal Commission came up with many recommendations (some of which are included in Ryan's plan). Unfortunately, since the recommendation wasn't to wave a wand and make our debt disappear, Obama ignored it (gotta get re-elected dontcha know.) Now, with Ryan's plan out there Obama is forced to propose an alternative. Yet another example of Obama being a follower instead of a leader.
The real issue is not medicare, but medicaid. There are too many people using medicaid, for disability, for kids, and for mental deficiency. Many of these are not genuinely in need......they are simply taking advantage, because they CAN. Many of these are young people.
Cutting for seniors, is the wrong thing to do. They paid those taxes all their lives, and they should have their coverage.
The biggest problem with Ryan's plan, is he wants to cut the tax rates for the wealthy, when in fact, all of the tax cuts over the past decade don't make any sense, because we are fighting 2 wars.......even if most of know that has mostly been in vain, because, as has been the case since WW 2, we make no real effort to win wars, anymore.......because we worry too much about public opinion around the world.
Where we are giving away the store........is we give far too much to kids. All kids. We no longer expect parents to assume responsibility for the cost of children. Medical insurance pays the doctor and childbirth bills (or they get free medical care), we give tax breaks for kids, we provide minimal or no cost, education (most kids in public schools in inner cities are minority poor), and we provide credits for child care and other tax benefits, for working mothers.
In other words, we stopped expecting people to pay for their own kids. The cost of that, is staggering. If people actually had to pay for the true cost of having their kids.......they couldn't afford them.
You want to cut entitlements......then stop giving so much to people for having kids. Make them foot the bill, themselves. That will save a tremendous amount of money, the government is now subsidizing, and will not injure senior care, in the waning years. If they can't pay the bill, then let them NOT have the children.
Today, New York Reps. Jerry Nadler, Charlie Rangel, Carolyn Maloney, Eliot Engel and Anthony Weiner will take to the steps of city hall to denounce the Obama-Boehner deal and call for cuts to nonprofit subsidies to be rescinded. Please tell me, for once, where the money is coming from to pay for these "rescinded cuts". Come on, liberal Democraps, how do you propose to pay for all the spending you want to keep? According to you, ANY spending cuts are "draconian" & "extreme". You don't want any cuts. What is this country supposed to do? What are your solutions to the coming financial trainwreck? All you do is whine, complain, criticize & try to scare people. I am so tired of it!!
I have an enormous sword in my pants.
Reagan said, "Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money."
That's what happened in Greece, Portugal, and France. We are heading in the same direction if we don't put a stop to it now. You can see it already in states that are near bankruptcy, the Unions are starting to protest there just like they did in the aforementioned nations. You, and they must realize that wealth is finite... and spending it on handouts, do nothing programs, and socialized retirement programs only compound the problem.
I don't like all of Ryan's plan, but something needs to be done and I'll trust Ryan over the people who spent more in two years than all the other congresses put together. It's not going to be easy, nor will we as citizens be pleased when we stop getting the governmental handouts we're used to... but better I suffer than my children and grandchildren.
Certainly some arm chair economists here. So what you are saying is all the woes are because of socailist policies of "stealing one persons money and giving it to someone else." Care to explain the social democracy of Germany? Best economy in the world and one of the least hit by the global recession started here by a bunch of greedy bankers.
Social Security is not put in the general fund and is not an "entitlement". I am sick and tired of hearing this crap. What the govenment does is loan itself money from the social security funds to put in the general fund. Unfortunately the government (you and I and our idiot representatives) cannot now pay the fund back, much less with interest. Agreed the ceiling should be raised to 250K but that will not solve the problem until a solid wall is put in place to keep the government from raiding the fund. Last time I check it is still coming out of my paycheck as a completely separate line item so to all geniuses who think Medicaid, Welfare and SS are the same you might be enlightened to learn that 2 are social assistence programs and the other is a retirement plan. Perhaps if we reduced the military by about 2/3 and stopped fightling unnecessary wars we might be able to pay back the money that was stolen from SS.
Boy are you right about Soc Sec. The only solution to this problem is a constitutional amendment that isolates Soc Sec from general fund spending. AND THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
As far as educating people about how that system actually works, you are trying to tell a 2 year old how to hit a fast ball. Too many people have been sold a bill of goods and will never accept the truth about how Soc Sec works.
END OF STORY.....
Has anyone ever heard of "PETITIONS". Maybe thats what has to be done to get our constitutional amendment.
Wait, if I remember correctly, the healthcare bill that needed to be passed before it was read was supposed to fix all of our healthcare problems???
Ryan- you mean the one that hasn't taken effect yet? Hmmmm.....I wonder.......
Why is the defense budget untouchable? When will Americans stop engaging in futile wars that accomplish nothing except adding to body counts? We've already spent over a trillion dollars in the black holes called Iraq and Afghanistan and they are no better off because of it. Meanwhile we're trying to slash domestic spending with cuts to every program from health care to infrastructure support. Try to explain how that is improving national security.
Irving: silly and mean spirited !?! Obama's budgets for the next 10 years have an average $1.5 trillion defict attached to them. Those budgets will triple the national debt in those 10 years. That after increasing the national debt by $5 trillion n his first 2 years. What is mean spirited in the extreme socialist agenda aimed at destroying the United States of American.
There is only one solution, and I agree with your premise that the Debt Commission report should have a strong impact on any budget considerations in the next 5-10 years. The problem is very simple: Obama created the debt commission and has since stated that he WILL NOT FOLLOW ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. Now that is what I call leadership.
Obama and his radical, revolutionary, extreme socialist/progressives CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR AGENDA. We ARE at the crossroads of survival as a nation. Anyone that does not recognize that should crawl back into the hole.
Regardless of what the debt is or isn't or who caused it or didn't, there is more one solution. Raise taxes to where they were under Clinton. I don't know why all the Obama-Haters don't see that as a solution. Perhaps they don't like it, but it is a solution. Besides which, I like it.
My suggestion to all is tax at 10% of gross Income, no deductions allowed for personal and for business. Everybody treated the same no tax loop holes. If company;s move their office off shore they get taxed and 100% for trying to dodge their share.
Hooray for YOU!!!! Ross Perot suggested just that when he ran for office. I am tired of hearing Republicans and Democrats, we are a nation and a "nation divied unto itself will perish" and if we keep fighting each other it will surely happan, so lets stop beating each other up and maybe just maybe we as a people can find a solution soon.
Why is the defense budget a sacred cow? This number does not even include retiree benefits – total military spending is over 1 trillion a year. We don't even use our military for defense anymore – but to attack other nations. Why won't anyone politician talk about cutting military spending?
"The Unites States, with costly military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, increased spending by 2.8 percent to $698 billion - about six times as much as China, the second-biggest spender ahead of Britain, France and Russia. In 2009, U.S. spending grew 7.7 percent." Huffington Post
"U.S. military spending in 2011 will exceed $700 billion – the most since World War II. That amounts to more than half of all government discretionary spending. It represents 35% of total military spending on the planet." Time
Agreed. Its outrageous. Eisenhower's dire warnings of the "military industrial complex" have come to full fruition and worse. The war profiteers have done and excellent job of programming Americans. Everyone gets a warm fuzzy patriotic feeling by spending more and more on defense. Never mind that they cant' afford to put food on the table.
The thoery that if people have to pay for their medical care – they will shop around more carefully is seriuosly flawed. How can you shop around when the system is "fixed" in the first place? There is no medical competition. The supply of trained medical persons is tightly controlled by the medical industry. You have to sign a statement of treatment at a hospital that allows them do do whatever they they want. You cannot receive medicine or treatment without "permission" of a certified person. Insurance for everyone can't save us either, it only adds to the overall costs. Until we transform the medical industry, we cannot control the costs, so any of the presently proposed solutions are pointless.
Lets cut the budget by removing the farm subsady bill forever, then the oil tax subsadies, followed by the cia trash money(they gave away oveer 3 tri in Iraq alone), then the foriegn aid, then Mil Complex spending,(New weapons, expermental weapons and such) and finally a 20 % reductiion in Congress pay and expense Accounts.
Is Fareed an economist?? Can I have my own CNN show, please?
When Ryan proposed "vouchers" to GOP, they ran from him and his voucher Idea like from a sick man (yep, he already tried to pull it some time ago). When he realized that word "vouchers" scares people away, he changed it to "personalized". I just think GOP has to make people to talk about them at least about something, other wise people would have nothing to say about GOP because this is nonsense. Where are the jobs with all of those Tax cats? The amount that we had cut for the reach was enormous, by this time we should swim in jobs. The reach payed 700 million per year to the country (and that's where jobs were).
In case anyone cares I am an Independent who is not lead ariund by a nose ring byn either party. And I am a Conservative
I said this years ago. I think I put personal at 15% and business at 25% if you offshore, I didn't say 100% mind you, it was more like 75%.
I am a liberal. Who says we can't come to an agreement.
Why not do this?...Cut Congressional salaries from $174,000 a year to $75,000 a year, make a 2 term limit on congress members, and have them pay for their own insurance. Congress expects to keep their seats as long as they can and then develop an attitude that the people are the peons. Who else do you know that gets to give themselves a raise??? Wish I could do that...this needs to be put to a public vote...what constitutional amendment allowed for this and when??? This thinking must change. They work for us. There are too many congress people who make it a lifelong career. When a bill needs passed for something make it illegal to add "pork barrel" projects in order to get it passed. This is outright bribery and I guess that is "legal" when it comes to this!
, likewise with the Senate. No wonder nothing ever gets done. Most of them are millionaires prior to getting in office, you have to be in order to campaign and run. Dick Cheney last year requested and got an extension for secret service protection...we are paying for this! Why?? The man is a billionaire. If he wants extended Secret Service protection, he should pay for it himself. These are the people who all the time cry about welfare....These are millionaires on welfare.... and they don't see it that way. Tax cuts should never have been extended to people earning over $250,000 a year.....this is a no brainer......get out of the wars and use the troops here at home for homeland security around our borders and all ports of entry....Tax all the corporations who profit from their overseas operations with no taxes incurred.....If congress wants to get real and get the people behind them these things need to be done...it's just common sense, but that is optional equipment in this nation anymore....
Great, now we are on a roll. Constructive thinking. Congrats!
Okay people, stop complaining about the Ryan plan. The plan did more than the suggestions of the Debt Commission President Obama had setup. If you have good suggestions, get the out there and let's find a way to stop this debt. By the way, Ryan's budget is much better than the one Obama just came out. This is from the Huffington Post: "Ryan’s plan has $40 trillion in spending over the next 10 years compared to $34.9 trillion in revenues. Obama would spend $46 trillion in the coming decade while bringing in $38.8 trillion in revenues. So Ryan's plan would still result in the government spending $5.1 trillion more over the next decade than it brings in, but that’s less than the $7.2 trillion in deficit spending that Obama has proposed."
Finally, folks are complaining that Ryan's budget will increase health care costs. Well, folks, Obamacare does that as well. A friend just posted on her facebook page that she is being dropped from coverage for a certain hospital due to the increased costs associated with Obamacare. Good thing she has another hospital to choose from. I had a client in my office last year who oversees medicare payments. Guess what, Obamacare is higher fees...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
What is needed is to eliminate entirely the nearly $1 trillion spent on the military. That should be like 1% of the budget. The problem then is, what do you do with all the surpluses?
Ron Paul and Barney Frank had a plan as to how you do that.
Fareed, Like Cnn's general editoriial opinion and the great majority of your comentators, you are under the ilusion that you are a centrist, when in fact you are a decidedly left wing thinker. Your opinions on things like this are as prejudiced as your CNN surveys, which reflect the dominanat prejudice of your audience – decidedly left. Have Paul Ryan on your show and confront him with your analysis and then rewrite the above to represent your left wing opinions and his. You will find he is not without thoughtful rationale for his program, and that your criticism is the ever so standard left wing defense of a party and a President whose solution to these problems have been to simply increase spending, this size of government, and accordingly, the overhead of USA at a time of impending bankruptcy! The president, the left, and the democratic party's disconnect from the financial reality we face is breathtaking and is truly beyond comprehension!
you must be pretty far right to attack that article as 'decidedly left wing'. the prevailing content was simply stating facts and included praise for ryan for putting forth an effort that included tough choices. i think you should look to europe to see what an ACTUAL left winger looks like, then reread the article.
You said a mouthfull Craig. Problem is no one in Congress is listening to us. To put it bluntly, They don't give a Dam.
I commend anyone that thinks outside the box to develop a plan. Its funny to me how much partisan bickering is going on when the reality is that both parties have been far too fiscally irresponsible for far too long. Maybe this particular plan ins't the answer but it could spur the next great idea. Guys like Paul aren't the problem....its all the others that are.
As long as Paul is intent on revision based on in depth analysis and real facts and not averse to negotiation (which is how things work in the real world), this could be a good first step.
We have to get away from the incorrect notion that a balanced budget can be accomplished without tax increases. We also have to raise the minimum wage. Extracting money from the top earners and pumping it into the rest of America is the only way to have a productive economy. 5% of the people cant hoard all the money and expect the nation to keep running. Its just common sense.
How to grow jobs, energy, the economy, remain competitive, and eliminate the deficit:
1. Legislatively remove the anti-trust exemption for insurance, The McCarran-Ferguson Act. Then Repeal Obamacare as unnecessary.
2.. Legislatively restrict the wetlands definition of "navigable waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act.
3. Fund and begin construction of power generation and water supply projects necessary to meet future population and industrial demands.
4. Remove all geographic restrictions on oil and natural gas drilling, and use the power of federal money transfers to the States to prevent States and local governments from interfering with drilling.
5.. Remove environmental restrictions and environmental and social impact requirements for all infrastructure and utility construction for the next 10 years.
6.Cut Federal budget by 10% excluding defense, starting with those duplicative items identified in the 3/1/11 GAO report and Presidents Debt Commission, however, maintain current spending for infrastructure construction, repair and upgrade for the next 5 years. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.
7. Reduce corporate tax rates by 50%. Reduce Corporate tax rates by 70% on private utilities and transport companies.
8. Reinstitute significant tax and assistance payments for residential and commercial alternative energy instillations, particularly focusing on residential solar. Use Commerce Clause to force all electrical utilities to be reverse metering.
9. Subsidies the further development of electric and hybrid electric cars. Provide significant tax breaks and incentives for the purchase of same, particularly when combined with the purchase of a residential solar instillation within two years of one another. This is no longer a simple market issue, but one of national security as the time to substitution is longer than the economy can withstand when confronted with a supply side shock
10. Eliminate the Ethanol subsidy for any and all processes using foodstuffs. Redirect monies to nuclear and coal. Streamline regulation of new construction of nuclear power plants and provide incentives for same. Open Yucca Mountain as originally agreed.
11. Eliminate any power of the EPA to regulate Carbon.
12. Use the power of the Federal purse to eviscerate Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) and Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002),
13. Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act.
14. Hold congressional investigations into the roll of the Community Reinvestment Act, Freddie and Fannie in inflating demand and thus prices resulting in the collapse of the real estate market.
15. Build a wall embedded with sensors and toped with razor wire along both our borders, beginning with the southern one. In the name of national security remove all environmental restrictions and environmental and social impact requirements for the construction of same.
16 Pass legislation that all jurisdictions receiving federal monies of any sort are required to enforce all of the laws of the land, including enforcement of federal immigration laws.
17. Restrict the collective bargaining power of State civil service unions in line with the 1978 Federal Civil Service Reform Act
18. Scrap the tax code and adopt a flat-tax that will build the size of the pie (and thus tax revenues) for everyone instead of the Obama class warfare of trying to redistribute a shrinking one.
19. Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan and remove the “actual malice” requirement to improve the quality, objectivity and accuracy of media reporting,
reducing corporate taxes and elimininating the EPA would indeed stimulate the economy. for a while. but only the wall street sector would benefit (see warren buffetts thoughts on the issue) and the impact to the environment and climate would render any economic growth largely irrelavent to our grandchildren. haven't we already seen that trick down econ doesn't work and haven't climatologists proven that climate change is a real issue (considering that 97% of them confirm this viewpoint)?
In other words, allow the rich to rape and pillage the land and leave it barren and polluted for future generations. Some of the elimination of restrictions you propose were done on military bases for 50 years. We are now reaping the "benefits" of that when they close!
"entitlement spending that is careening out of control."
What? Why focus on entitlement spending? Why all the focus lately on the only practical benefit to those that want to work their entire lives for a modest living so that others can eat all the pie? We've seen how well trickle down economics works. We've played the "rich deserve to keep their gains" game for so long... We've played the "let's spend $$ on whatever we want, invade whoever we need to at any cost" game for so long... And now... the middle class and lower class needs to pay the price. I don't fucking think so.
The rich are in a historic place with their taxation. Only chumps pay taxes, they say.
Stick it in the little guy for a little longer. Reduce benefits, lengthen hours, and offshore to third world dumps when Americans get tired of being taken advantage of to fatten some jackasses bottom line. Greed is greed. What goes around comes around. That bottom 90% will wake up someday. And woe be you that lacked the character to do the right thing.
Why focus on entitlements?Because it is money generated by those that function well given to those who either can't/won't/don't. Why should the tax payer feed their children at homeand yet have to pay for other's lack of resposibility at school? The list goes on and on for costly programs that make up for someone's lack of responsibility. Be it paid abortion, birth control, welfare – whatever it should be those that excel should prosper while those that fail suffer, all on each ones ability and desire.
I've seen many lump Social Security in as an entitlement program. I've also seen Medicare lumped in as an entitlement program. These are the entitlement programs that I see as an attack on those that are satisfied with their station in life. Unquestionably an attack on the working class.
So you're saying that someone that has worked their entire life, dedicated decades working for someone else dumping blood, sweat, and tears building someone else's empire, should just be shit on in their twilight years? They should just give up what they worked for because "they can't take care of themselves and nobody else should have to?"
Some of these entitlement programs pale in comparison to what we spend every year on defense... But that makes sense, I suppose. Since those that are willing to step on others to fill their own pockets have more to lose.
Shame on you if you're not wealthy. Double shame on you if you are. Of course the wealthy will do everything they can to tell you what someone should and shouldn't have to pay for... The entitlement programs are taking the rap for other equal causes. The tax cuts are a contributing factor to both the deficit and unethical practices in our financial markets.
That would work assuming absolute equality in opportunity, intellect and environment! That also ignores the fact that you would like to benefit from the labors of the low paid employees in the less desireable jobs. Jobs that still need to be done, none-the-less.
I'm tired of the parties blaming each other–I want solutions. I've been listending to the media harp over the Republicans wanting to cut funds to Planned Parenthood and then the Democrats cryiing about women's health. I don't want my tax money paying for Planned Parenthood regardless of their services. If these women need help, sign up for Medicaid, which is already paid for with our tax dollars. I feel like it is double dipping. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, but enough is enough. People need to be more responsible. We pay for everyone else's bad decisions and I'm sick of it.
Planned Parenthood consists of less than a 10th of a percent of the budget, and elminating it would cost far more than keeping it, due to the increase in emergency care write-offs. you are under the mistaken impression that anyone who can't afford proper health care can receive medicaid. my roommate, who is in a wheelchair and receives about 700 a month from social security was told she makes 25 dollars too much and was refused. for the women making enough to feed their children and support themselves, planned parenthood is their only option.
Yes, everyone is born with a bank account that will support a good upbringing and education. This is the America we live in... right? And when you've made all the right choices, chance always shines good fortune on you... right?
It's not always about choices. More and more people are going to find themselves in situations where they can choose either to spend what short time of their lives they have left in misery, or look for other ways to take care of necessities... I'm so tired of these brainwashed peckerbreaths that think others need help because of the choices THEY made.
I know many people that were fine years ago. They are less fine now because of the choices of someone who wanted to line their own bank account. Greed is a bigger problem than what you see as sloth. Get your perspective right... If you are in the club of those that are willing to step on the backs of others to make your fortune, I can only hope those that you stepped on will treat you better than you did them when the tables turn. If you're not in that club, stop listening to the bullshit. There are two sides and a balance. We need to figure out what kind of country we want to be. I guarantee you that it will not end well for the rich if they choose to ignore the less fortunate. Balance damnit.
I used to have a great deal of respect for FZ. Now, it has melted into nothing. If we are looking into the Middle Class "entitlements" (I don't consider anything that I have paid money into to be an entitlelment), then we should also be looking at the wealthy's and corporate's entitlements–no taxation. If the Middle Class is going to be crippled at the whim of the Republicans, then they need to suffer as well.
Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" will definitely work....for around 2% of the US population. The rest of us will be thrown to the curb. Buy our own health insurance? Who among you reading this can afford to shell out 1,300 to 2,000 dollars per month? Real numbers, by the way.
We could go a long way toward reducing the deficit by learning to stop fighting wars over oil...and make no mistake...once all the "stop terrorism" and patriotic BS is stripped away, that's what these wars are all about, my friend.
hmmm, republicans getting their grubby hands on SS? seems to me, if memory serves, that it was bill clinton, w/ al gore casting the deciding vote, that allowed the DIMS to get their collective hands on social security funds... seems georgie has a short memory as do most on this leftist rag called CNN!!!
Maybe you just aren't old enough to remember the Reagan whie house years.
Does no one here understand that the wealthy and poor and the middle class have the exact same tax rates? Everyone has a chance to be rich, and everyone then has marginal tax rates which increase on higher levels of income. If you want to pay lower tax rates, quit your high paying job and go work at Walmart. If you want to cut out medicare, medicaid, and social security, then you better be ready to start paying pensions to ALL workers. Once you eliminate the safety nets, unions will skyrocket. Wages demanded will skyrocket.
this hits the bull's eye and displaces the bull$hit!!!
http://madmike59.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/social-security-lockbox-it-never-existed-but-maybe-it-should/
remember folks, when you ask yourself why GE paid no taxes last year... think about their CEO... he is one of obama's appointees... maybe he just got a little 'chicago style" favor from BO...? same ole thang...typical dims, point the finger at the R's while they do the even more damage... in other words... pot meet kettle... kettle meet pot!!! dumba$$e$, meet the crook you voted into office 3 years ago!!! makes the last one look like a paperboy!!! how about we get somebody in there who can't be bought or sold? VOTE TRUMP 2012!!!
Stop fighting wars and reduce the Department of Defense budget by 50%. That will greatly reduce our debt.
Pam in Oregon
leonid, keynesian economics is trickle down economics... from likely the most sound economic mind in history to date. i suppose you prefer geithner "chicago style' economics? you know, where i only pay my taxes if i want to be appointed to head the FN SEC!!! geez, what a bunch of knitwits!!! obama is playing you like a cheap, chinese made fiddle...
obama has nothing to do with this, as this was something i noticed (and a view that bill gates and warren buffet share) long before i knew who obama was. when i was born an average CEO to average worker pay was 35 to 1. that was 1978. now, it's 240 to 1, while average worker buying power has actually decreased since 1990. with so little regulation and so many jobs shipped overseas, trickle down has failed. i doubt if keynes envisioned a global tech economy where goods AND services could outsourced at a fraction of the cost of keeping them within one's own borders. one experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions and in this case, the experiment failed.
pam, crawl back under that rock of yours...
and yet another the ignorant won't have time to read...
http://madmike59.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/hypocritical-democrats-impeach-obama/
IF OUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS REALLY WANT TO CUT SPENDING THEN THEY SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND CUT THEIR INSURANCE AND RETIREMENT AS WALL AS CONGRESSIONAL PERKS. THEY NEED TO PAY A HIGHER AMOUNT EACH YEAR FOR THEIR MEDICAL INSURANCE AS WE DO. ALSO THEY NEED TO TACKLE THE REAL PROBLEM IN MEDICARE FRAUD. ELIMINATE ELECTRIC MOBILITY CHAIRS PAID FOR BY MEDICARE AND CUT DOWN ON NUMBER OF CATHERS THAT MEDICARE FURNISHES A PATIENT WHICH IS 200 PER MONTH WHICH IS WAY OUT OF LINE. PAY NO SUBSIDY TO WOMEN WHO HAVE OVER 1 BABY OUT OF WEDLOCK. THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT CAUSE THE PREGNACY. HAVE MANDATORY DRUG TEST FOR ALL WELFARE RECIEPENTS(FOOD STAMPS, UNEMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, FAMILIES FIRST, SSI. ALSO WE NEED TO WITHDRAW SOME MILITARY BASES OVERSEAS THAT ARE NOT VITAL TO OUR SAFETY. AND WE SHOULD NOT PAY A LEASE ON EXISTING OVERSEAS BASES AS WE ARE HELPING PROTECT THEIR COUNTRY. WE SELL CARS MADE IN SOUTH KOREA BUT ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL OUR VEHICLES IN THEIR COUNTRY. WHEN WE SEE THAT CONGRESS AND SENATE START CUTTING THEIR PAY AND MANAGE THE WASTE AND FRAUD THEN MAYBE WE CAN SUP-PORT THEM.
TRH, we have been buying our own health insurance since it came into being. Why, my own Parents and now myself do it.
Also, wars over oil? Are you still buying that BS? Oh yes, the millions of barrels of oil we get from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.... oh wait, we don't get any oil from them.
The problem with this country are idiots like yourself and the 80% of the CNN posters would would rather eliminate the military (one of the few portions that is constitutionally mandated that congress pay for, along with VA, post office and roads, and the running of the government), but are willing to spend trillions of dollars on handouts and other programs that we did fine without for 200 years. As long as you people are around we'll continue, every so often, to get congresses like our last one who instead of finding ways to cut spending, find new and interesting ways to increase it.
Idiots? And why does they US need over 700 military bases in 60 foreign countries. They're artifacts left over from the Cold War, WWII or worse. The Pentagon maintains them for no reason but because they can. They serve no purpose.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The system is plagued with endless and useless redundancy, enormous waste and fraud. Its a system that does anything to justify itself but has absolutely no accountability. We spend half of our national budget on this mess and don't ask any questions.
I'd call that complete idiocy.
TAXES
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every
day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about
the other six men – the paying customers?How could they divide the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each
end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 in stead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a
dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10
back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't
get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy,
and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking
overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
WHAT ABOUT GE – ZERO TAXES ON BILLIONS OF PROFIT DOLLARS – I GUESS THEY ARE OVER TAXED
The part of the bartender is played by GE. He owns the play so he can drink for free.
Republicans have played their "starve the beast" strategy for 30 years straight, lowering and lowering taxes on the richest Americans (i.e., taxes were 91% on $400,000+ all through the 1950's), then have the nerve to say "we're broke". If I were Obama, I'd tell them to shove it, and say "go ahead and shut down Government" – with no pay to those Republicans who do it. They caused this, let THEM pay for it – I'll be damned if they are going to take away the Social Security and Medicare I PAID FOR my whole life, just because right-wing criminals wanted to loot my money and give it away to the rich and big oil companies.
The biggest long-term problem is not entitlement spending "careening out of control," it is the ongoing maintenance and expansion of military empire.
We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined- by far. Other countries have much, much more expansive social services and they do just fine. The difference is that they aren't waging 3 wars and they are not maintaining bases in the majority of countries around the world.
Elites need to stop blaming the poor for our economic problems.
Ryan's plan is pure fantasy. There are no specifics of how he will reduce the deficit and even moreso how unemployment is going to magically drop to 2.8% and stay there.
Looks like its a Paul is living in LaLa land. He is ideologically consistent but his fantasy is based on a twisted sense of thinking.
We can pay now, and raise taxes or we can just pile up deficits and pay later. Nobody is immune, everyone needs to pay more. For those who don't pay, and get a refund, their refunds need to be less. If every tax paying American paid $100 more a year... Yes just a mere $8.25 a month... how much can we reduce the deficit?
For me,, that $8.25 is one less starbucks drink for me and my wife a month. I think I can make that sacrifice... tell me why you cant?
Please tell me I'm wrong.. I know I make a lot of sense, so I must be wrong...
An extra $100 from each tax paying citizen, which is 50% of the population, would add an additional $15bn dollars. That isn't enough to pay the interest on the current debt. Plus, the admin is adding more spending for projects that are not feasible when there is no money to spend. Nice try though.
The more tax money you give them the more they will spend....it is not likely they would pay down on the debt....just another handful of money to waste. It is there responsibility to return the loans from Social Security that was paid into the fund that was NOT to be spent on their little pet projects.
Cut, baby, CUT! people need to rely on their local communities and their families more if they need help because the federal and state governments can't afford it anymore. churches and charities need to step up their game. private companies need to find ways to provide social services or expand what they are already providing. the free market has worked before and it can work again...it's the only system that has ever been able to enable it's citizens to exercise their free will, express their individuality and make independent choices about how they want to live their lives. we just need everyone in the congress and senate on board and need to get rid of obama next year!
I haven't watched the video clip due to technical issues but I read the article. It concerncs me when people go to great lengths to explain why another person's proposal to fix a problem won't work without offering a solution of their own. We have a lot of smart people in positions of leadership and influence in this country. I believe we need more people proposing solutions and fewer critics saying why they won't work. Our issues aren't Republican, or Democratic, or even Tea Party. They are American issues!
I have a budget idea. I will concede that it might be very naiive, but here it is. What if we were to hold spending levels across the board for the next three years? Every agency would be forced to make due with what they have. This seems like a fair and balanced plan. At the very least, it would be a way to start to "crack the nut" on a very big problem!
You are suggesting we freeze spending to the current level for the next 3 years, but the current spending levels are over a trillion dollars plus interest. Holding is better than increasing an already out of control gov, but it will not reduce the deficit. Major cuts are needed. Raising taxes would generate instant revenues, then businesses leave or go bankrupt and no more revenues to tax.
We have to make staying in business easier to create more jobs that in turn pay in more revenue. At the same time cut spending so the added revenues can pay down the debt. Simply, you can spend more than you take in and survive.
That should read "can't" spend more than take in.
Cutting spending seems very practical if we are outspending what we take in by such a large sum. I didn't see any specific suggestions on where you would cut spending? Unless I missed it somehow. What if we said every single line item in the budget, every agency, must reduce (cut) their spending by a percentage...say 2% for example? That would be painful but at least no one could claim it favored any specific interest group or party affiliation.
A good analysis. Now I'd like to see it compared to the Progressives Budget Proposal (which, to me, makes much more sense) & which the media seems to be largely ignoring.
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/CPC.Budget.112th.Memo.pdf
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22225
Our government needs to have a committee that is minding the Medicaid Program. The young people in our society have learned that they can live on disability and all that it offers. Housing, medical care, food, and the list goes on. Who is overseeing this program? It is so apparent that the seniors are targeted when in fact it should be the young adults. They need to be working and supporting themselves just as we the "seniors" did in our youth. And, without drugs which they buy with the help of Medicaid!
These comments are some of the best I've seen regarding logical methods for dealing with the budget crisis. If the people commenting can offer well-supported and educated arguments for a reasonable path, why can't our Congress? Removing the cap on Social Security contributions seems to be a natural solution. Why doesn't that suggestion come from our leaders? Raising taxes on the super wealthy and closing corporate loopholes seems unavoidable – unless you're fighting to destroy the middle class. Why does Ryan avoid this hard fact?
Health care costs may be the greatest threat to our way of life and logically, no insurance company can survive by only insuring sick people. Republicans seem to consider mandatory insurance unconstitutional and the right-wing Supreme Court will support that assertion. Given this situation, we must either get the premiums directly from tax coffers, make individuals totally responsible for outrageous medical expenses, legislate limits to the cost of services, or accept the fact that healthcare will be available to only the wealthy. Pandering to insurance companies and trusting the free market cannot work, especially without tort reform. These are tough choices, but the Republican plan of providing a flat cash payment to individuals and ignoring these other factors is foolish. Without regulation, insurance companies and HMO will simply absorb that payment while continuing to spiral costs out of control. They will milk the consumer cow dry – that is the nature of corporate business. Let's find some leaders who will honestly and fairly address these probelms without the political drama.
I'm still trying to get my arms around why Ryan is opposed to the Affordable Care Act? Does he not like the fact that Medicare negotiates some procedure costs on the behalf of millions of members? Does he really imagine that millions of people negotiating on their own with oligopolies on the other side will get better benefits and lower costs?
Why is it that every other civilized country in the world can afford cradle-to-grave heallthcare but the richest nation in the world can't? We're acting like the United States of AMerica is a banana republic. I can only assume that the insurance industry has such a lock on our elected officials that no one in Congress can even speak the words "single-payer system" without fear of a hit man visiting.
It will work...libs are always wrong.
The one thing nobody is asking Ryan about the Medicare section of his plan is how under the current health insurance sales system this will work. Many states have very few health insurance options. For Ryan's plan to really work it will require that health insurance is able to be purchased across state lines, something that Republicans have wanted for years, but hasn't happened. The down side is that the federal gov't will have to take on insurance regulation, something now dealt with at the state level.
Personally, I want to see what the Gang of Six come up with, and how it compares to Ryan's and the Deficit Commission plans.
The US as a country needs to wake up and recognize we have serious economic problems – tax problems, medical costs problems, and deficit problems. Ryans plan, his Path to Prosperity is flawed and mean spirited and slanted rewards to the wealthy segment of our population. The GOP Tea Party does itself no favors by near shutdowns of the govt. and play with peoples lives and military families for the sake of politics. Now it announces it will not vote for raising the debt ceiling limit and recent history shows the debt limit has been raised ten times since 2001 with the GOP providing the majority of passage votes. Not raising the ceiling limit will result in US default in borrowing /default, leading to bond market crash, Stock market crash and global financial crises. Will GOP really allow big political donors Wall Street, Big Banks and Corporations be harmed? No of course not, so why play these games when our nation has serious problems. Both sides need to work together with the Bowles / Simpson Chairmens Report as a starting point. We do not have to have all the answers today, we just need to have a framework agreed to and to build upon.
The wealthy already pay proportionally more than any one else. According to the IRS, the top 5% of income earners pay nearly 25% of their income to taxes while the bottom 50% of income earners (a full half of the country) pay on average 3.6% to taxes. The wealthy are paying 7 times more than the bottom half of income earners. All of this is from the IRS. Why try to make the wealthy proportionally more burdended. They use the entitlement programs less than everyone else, and yet they are being asked to pay more and more for them.
Reading this headline I thought you were referring to Ryan's Restaurant.. haha
the poor want to take money from the rich
Kudos to anyone putting forth a serious stab at fixing the budget problems of this country. Paul Ryan should be commended. Its quickly becoming obvious that health care will potentially bankrupt this country. We can fix Social Security largely by tweaking the retirement age and contributions, but Medicare won't fix as easily. A couple of ideas: 1) everyone should have an HSA – if all health care consumers had to price out their options, we'd save billions and billions annually on health care costs. However, most health care providers don't even let you know what their services cost! Where else do you spend thousands of dollars in one shot and not know what its going to cost ahead of time – and no I'm not talking about emergency stuff – that obviously needs to be taken care of before we know the costs – I'm talking about scheduled appointments and procedures – I bet everyone reading this has no idea what their last doctor visit cost them. Everyone needs to pay their own doctor bills and have major medical to back them up. 2) People who take advantage of Medicare cannot over time expect to have top notch medical care, period. If someone is taking government money to get health care, they should expect it to be a lower tier of care. We do this in every other government subsidized area – if you get subsidized housing, it's usually a cheaper place; Social security does not pay a regular working wage, etc. The government needs to set up medical facilities specifically for Medicare recipients, and they should be cost controlled and be a 'cheaper' version of the regular health system. I realize that the government does pay hospitals and doctors less to see Medicare recipients already, but this is apparently not cutting costs enough. 3) The 25% of Medicare recipients who use 85% of the monies as outlined in the story above should be 'managed' in some way. And yes, managed means they should have specially assigned case managers who will closely follow their needs and limit their expenses. I've heard many seniors encourage other seniors on Medicare or Medicaid to just go have tests done because they are largely free. This 'who cares' attitude cannot be sustained by the taxpayer. Everyone reading this story has had unnecessary medical tests done (whether you knew they were unnecessary at the time or not, you realized it later). We all need to be more careful in how we spend our health dollars.
Those are my thoughts.
Remember folks, the wealthiest Americans' tax BRACKET rarely reflects what they actually pay in taxes!
The 800 pound gorilla is our health care for profit system. Until we dismantle it we will just keep scrambling to keep up with it. It is a travesty that so many are getting rich on the backs of people needing simply health care. Managed care is a conflict of terminology because the primary drive for the managers is profit, not the health of the insured. We need to nationalize health care and snatch it out of the hands of those who are profiting.
If everybody paid their taxes, including corporations, there would be no discussions. If everyone who COULD work had a JOB, then they would be contributing to the tax base AND social security. To whom much is given, much is required; and while the wealthy has worked hard for the most part for theirs, if you have more, you are also consuming more, so you should pay your share of taxes. PERIOD. Everything costs something, so why do you think you can receive goods and services for free? BECAUSE YOU'RE RICH??! Well, if you would pay your share, we wouldn't have deficits. the rich think they are so smart, thereby they are right, because they are rich; meanwhile working every day, you're not even guaranteed a job, yet the responsibility falls on us to CARRY the rich. The rich always want a BREAK or a DISCOUNT. Sounds like corporate welfare and entitlements by the rich to me. We should be payiing a consumer tax. the more you consume, the more you pay. PERIOD!
Zakaria is an idiot – Just sayin
The only way to fix health care is to go to a single payer system. A single payer system is the ONLY system that will allow "we the people" to negotiate better health care prices.
D_umb A__ Ryan says a voucher system (to buy insurance) would keep costs down by encouraging competition. That is utter BS! Insurance is one of the main problems in our health care system today. Here's why:
1. Insurance wastes from 10-25% of our hard earned health care dollars already today. And insurance provides NO VALUE ADDED to your health care. The money is ALL WASTED! Insurance is NOT the answer! If insurance WAS the answer, then we wouldn't have a PROBLEM today!
2. Some say interstate sales of insurance would control health care costs. That is utter BS too! Assume all providers in an area charge $100 for a visit. Then it doesn’t matter how many insurance companies “compete” (yeah right) with each other. Each insurance company will still have to reimburse the provider for the $100 service PLUS the insurance company’s administrative expenses. We need competition at the provider level and get rid of insurance completely.
3. Competition needs to be at a provider level and not at an insurance level in order to work. That being said, then the providers should ALREADY be competing on prices regardless of insurance or not. But the providers are not competing on prices. So since the providers don’t/won’t compete on prices, then “we the people” need a way to negotiate better prices. And a single payer system is the ONLY way to do that.
4. Some say tort reform is the answer. Tort reform will put more money in the Provider’s pockets that’s for sure. But how would you legislate that the “savings” would be passed on to the subscriber? The money will go to the providers and that’s where it will stay. But of course we’d all get the benefit of crappier doctors. If that’s a benefit?
5. Some say HSA’s are the answer. HSA’s are already available. HSA’s have not and will not have any effect on what providers charge. The real problem is what provider’s charge in the first place.
The only reason this wacko Zakaria is still on the air is because he's on CNN. They fit well together. Its like TMZ of news and he's a worthless flap of skin.
GOP plan = Soylent Green. Then feed the Soylent Green to the military.
Fareed Zakaria is not an authority on these issues. His background is in foreign affairs. Being a journalist does not make one an authority on a miriad of subjects. It would be the same to say that playing the role of the president allows an actor authority toward political issues.
Being a journalist, as Mr. Zalaria is, most certainly exposes one to the process, but it does not grant authority to provide credible commentary on whether a particular budget will or will not work. That is opinion and nothing more.
Mr. Zakaria, thank you for your views. But let's assure that this commentary, and others like it, are marked as opinion which is what they are.
I'd like to look at all of the items in the budget including Foreign Aid, etc. Is there a website that displays every item in the current budget and money allocated? Can we look at previous years budgets? Thank you.
No kidding, Fareed Zakaria? This guy should stick to the middle east like most of his CNN and Newsweek articles. Leave the US's economy to I dunno....an american economist, someone whos seen policy come and go and can report the ups and downs for everyone to make theyre decision. I got a great Idea how about Fareed come over Kabul and he can tell us how our leaders are messing up. This guys a turd anyone listening to him is as dumb as the fox cult.
Some people talk about what to do with all those entitlements, others about taxes and where is the best place to start cutting or raising, and of course things we can't touch...SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, ET AL. OH THEY ALSO want to talk about things that deal with things that aren't understood by most people. That's why the easest way is
cutting salaries BY 05-10% of all three branches of government from top to bottom and see how that small risk will play out...
Am I missing something or don't you have to be a complete looney bin to believe that most (not the poor) retired 65 year old men would not be able to afford health insurance? Has Congressman Ryan ever tried to purchase health insurance as an individual, I wonder. I believe he has to know this but thinks that we're all complete idiots.
Cut taxes 35% or increase spending 50% to halt the deficit? If these figures are correct then serious trouble is ahead. It's like the Titanic is taking on water and they are arguing how much of water to bail out.
The tragedy of it is that as we saw from the last financial crisis, a financial crisis affects everyone. America's friends and enemies alike must be worried.
God Bless America!. When God Blesses America He blesses the world as well.
What were the uncontrolled spendings that put us into this much debt? People say different things. Iraq war, Afgan war, medicaid-medicare etc etc. But no clear picture yet.Fareed,please comeout with the genuine list of unnecessary spendings that brought us into this debt crisis. This will help to make a repentance and not to repeat it in future.
The people responding to the notion that the "rich" should be taxed at confiscatory levels to compensate for irresponsible federal spending are missing one major point; the "wealthy" are mobile. If the Progressives think they are going to compensate for the socialist state by transferring the capital from the producers to the non-producers. The problem with this notion is that the wealthy can move their wealth and base of operations to places where they will not be penalized for success. Whether that means moving to a state with low taxes (i..e. Florida or Texas) or offshore the bottom line is that they have options. When the "rich" have moved to where the Feds can no longer punitively tax them, who do you think is going to make up the difference? Yes, the middle class. So keep on dreaming the Leninist dream, and buy the snake oil from the Anointed One. However, at some point if you want to be successful, low tax, free market options will always prevail over third world, banana republic or marxist/socialist systems
I will right away clutch your rss as I can't to find your e-mail subscription link or newsletter service. Do you have any? Kindly let me realize so that I could subscribe. Thanks.
Simply desire to say your article is as astounding. The clarity for your post is just great and that i could think you're knowledgeable on this subject. Fine together with your permission allow me to grasp your RSS feed to keep updated with drawing close post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please keep up the enjoyable work.
You really make it appear so easy together with your presentation however I find this topic to be really something which I feel I might never understand. It kind of feels too complex and extremely huge for me. I'm taking a look ahead on your subsequent put up, I will attempt to get the hang of it!