Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Paul ryan's new budget proposal

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
March 20, 2012 8:05:06 PM

Providing for the Common Defense
Streamlining Other Government Agencies
Restraining the Growth of Government by Repealing the Health Care Law
Ending Corporate Welfare
Changing Washington’s Culture of Spending
Strengthening the Social Safety Net ......................................................................................................... 38
Repairing a Broken Medicaid System
Stopping the Abuse of Medicaid by Repealing the Health Care Law
Protecting Assistance for Those in Need
Preparing the Workforce for a 21st Century Economy
Fulfilling the Mission of Health and Retirement Security for All Americans .................................... 44
Saving Medicare
Stopping the Raid on Medicare by Repealing the Health Care Law
Advancing Social Security Reforms
Pro-Growth Tax Reform .............................................................................................................................. 50
Simplifying the Tax Code for Individuals
Stopping Job-Destroying Tax Hikes by Repealing the Health Care Law



Whats wrong with this?
March 21, 2012 3:29:00 AM

Paul Ryan is the only person in D.C. approaching the problem like an adult. The rest is political rhetoric from the opposition.
Related resources
March 21, 2012 11:31:33 AM

I dont really see how cutting a 1/3 of education spending would be good for our nation.

No Nasa (Not that its doing great now).

You live in a small town F*ck your roads. Theres no money to pay for it. Because we are cutting transportation and infrastructure by about 25%.

No school lunch aid programs for kids.

What about the CBO estimates that the elderly would be paying double for medicare?

From what Ive been reading it almost looks like a voucher plan thats calculated in advance to force people into private health insurance. And as JDJ so kindly pointed out the other day what about preexisting conditions? Sickle cell anemia, cancer, predisposition to disease. Under Ryans plan the cost of the same plan will go up forcing people into private insurance and I dont know if youve ever had to deal with preexisting conditions but private insurers wont touch you.

This is just putting so much power into large corporations that want nothing more than to make a buck.


March 21, 2012 11:42:40 AM

Yup, its gonna hurt. But, like I said. When you're in a financial crisis you have to make tough decisions just like adults do everyday when running their households.

Unless, you support deficit spending which will eventually lead us down the same path as Greece as debt continues to mount. Unless, you want to keep de-valuing the dollar which will lead it to total collapse and the world dropping it as the reserve currency.

If you want, and are expecting the total collapse of our financial and monetary system so it can be replace by whatever then I can see why you would not support a realistic, adult approach to getting our spending under control.

When I was young and poor, I went months living off Ramen noodles and cans of tuna fish. Yeah, it sucked but you gotta do what you gotta do. Same thing here.
March 21, 2012 12:41:49 PM

Id add, alot of this is of course, OK all of this is negotiable, meaning, strike off much of it in full corrections/changes, so the other side, be it dem or rep, as these proposals wont sit well with either side in its fullness, so they too can go home banging their drum.
But I agree, we have to have some drastic changes til the economy floats us beyond our desires, and hopefully dont approach such a cutting edge in spending ever again
March 21, 2012 2:27:38 PM

Here is the other side of the coin. There are quite a few discrepancies between his budget and the predicted budget.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachm...

His budget is half done, it doesn't even put in place the means by which he hopes to accomplish what he says for half the things mentioned. His budget says he is going to get the corporate tax to an even 25%, yet he doesn't even have a good plan in place to do this. In fact the main opinion people are getting from his budget is that it would actually INCREASE the deficit marginally. He decreases taxes by such an insane amount that it doesn't even match his budget cuts, which are quite substantial as well.

Not to mention that cutting education funding is just wrong, on so many levels. We are are in a rapidly developing global economy and our country's workforce has to be able compete with the all the other advanced countries. We can not be a nation of uneducated, uncompetitive people, we will never be able to compete with China, India, and other countries when it comes to cheap unskilled labor. We need a highly skilled workforce to compete and find our niche within this global economy.

March 21, 2012 3:21:55 PM

The GOP would be happy having a poor uneducated work force. Thats just good business.

I dont want to be a nation of button pushers. America should be pumping out high quality college educated workers. Thats the ONLY way to compete with countries like India. FYI India produces more doctors every year than there are people graduating from American colleges every year regardless of the field. Think about that, and now you have a guy who wants to handicap our ability to train the next generation?

Cuts to infrastructure would force people into population centers, welfare will explode because It would be highly unpopular for any administration to have people dieing in the streets. the CBO has stated that seniors would be paying more for healthcare (Almost 50%). And as Johnsonma pointed out there is a very good chance this will increase the deficit.

March 21, 2012 3:49:38 PM

Please tell me where you get the idea that money educates people?

Washington D.C. spends $16,000 per student yet they are some of the most ignorant and uneducated student population in the country.

Contrast that with the $5000 per student the average Catholic school spends per student who are some of the most educated and best students in the country. Contrast the graduation rates, GPA, standards testing. All results across the board are better.

Your argument holds no water. We are spending the most on education than we have in all of history yet our students keep falling behind the global average.

Perhaps it is WHAT we are teaching rather than how much we are spending. You think?
March 21, 2012 5:30:20 PM

I like his budget. We need to cut the budget. That is a must. It will hurt, yes. We will recover. If we do not, we face absolute financial collapse and all suffer.
March 21, 2012 5:34:05 PM

riser said:
I like his budget. We need to cut the budget. That is a must. It will hurt, yes. We will recover. If we do not, we face absolute financial collapse and all suffer.



I'm beginning to think people like john and mingo actually want the collaspe to happen. Then it can all be re-built into the socialist utopia they so long for.
March 21, 2012 7:01:31 PM

I'm really curious to better understand their arguments and what they think and how to prevent this downfall from happening. This would be one of the things I'm very seriously intrigued about. Yet, I never really get an clear answer on their perspective to understand the viewpoint.

Great conversation to have over a beer. Get those comments flowing. :) 

Also, I'm glad to know there are other people out there who share the same thoughts as I.
March 21, 2012 7:13:12 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I'm beginning to think people like john and mingo actually want the collaspe to happen. Then it can all be re-built into the socialist utopia they so long for.


I don't half *** stuff when I set my mind to it OMG, going all the way to a communism utopia, helllllllll yeaaaaaa buddy!
March 21, 2012 7:15:40 PM

riser said:
I like his budget. We need to cut the budget. That is a must. It will hurt, yes. We will recover. If we do not, we face absolute financial collapse and all suffer.


His attempt at a budget isn't even close to what a real budget would look like, its a political ploy. Why would you cut spending by so much just to make another deficit, it makes no sense, must of been high when he thought this up.
March 21, 2012 7:25:12 PM

Can you point me to the pages you are referencing in his budget plan?
March 21, 2012 7:32:45 PM

I've seen up to page 31 also. I stopped after the 10% reduction of government workforce through attrition.
March 21, 2012 7:58:53 PM

Page 50 for the tax reform, the budget cuts and sprinkled throughout the document. He just assumes to much which it comes to the budget, like he can predict how everything will pan out.

As for the lack of seriousness, here is an article from the New York Times, don't dismiss it because it says new york, it makes valid points.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/paul-ryans-...
March 21, 2012 8:31:52 PM

I don't see anything worse in the way they propose their solution than what Obama's budget does though? Everyone assumes their actions creates an increase. The CBO is notoriously horrible in predicting the impact of the changes.

His cuts aren't meant to be graceful and all rainbows and unicorns. It will hurt some. But it is for the better.
March 21, 2012 8:58:10 PM

Ryan is also counting on a rise in revenues after a couple years of deficit from economic growth due to the tax cuts on individuals and businesses. He is an economist and historically tax cuts do stimulate economic growth/activity.

That reality predates ancient Egypt. Even Jack Kennedy did it. OMG!

It truly is hard to take the NY Times, otherwise known as one of the many mouthpieces of the Administration, seriously on anything economic. They are nothing more than White House stenographers.
March 21, 2012 9:01:01 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Ryan is also counting on a rise in revenues after a couple years of deficit from economic growth due to the tax cuts on individuals and businesses. He is an economist and historically tax cuts do stimulate economic growth/activity.

That reality predates ancient Egypt. Even Jack Kennedy did it. OMG!

It truly is hard to take the NY Times, otherwise known as one of the many mouthpieces of the Administration, seriously on anything economic. They are nothing more than White House stenographers.


Why did Bush's tax cuts not start a period of sustained economic growth then?
March 21, 2012 9:14:35 PM

johnsonma said:
Why did Bush's tax cuts not start a period of sustained economic growth then?



It did. Bush inherited a near borderline full blown recession in 2001.

Then a tiny little incident known as 9/11 happened. The objective of that little incident was to cripple our economy and they didn't do a bad job really. The airlines and financial institutions took a huge hit. Morgan Stanley alone lost like 60 floors in that tragedy. But, it didn't really work as intended because the entrepreneurship and resiliency of the American people is constantly underestimated.

Up until 2006 the US enjoyed near full employment. 5% or less unemployment is historically considered by economists on the left and right to be full employment (its not a bad rate in SimCity either). The downturn began in 2006-07 strangely coinciding with the Democrats taking over the House and Senate in the midterms.

The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac housing bubble is THE catalyst of the financial collapse and the strong downturn in the economy that spiraled down in the aftermath. Trillions in wealth were lost; seemingly overnight.
March 21, 2012 9:43:12 PM

2001, 9/11 hurt.
Housing collapse, 2004/2005, continuing on through and still going.

Bush has a series of bad events during his presidency and I think in 30-40-50 years, he'll be regarded as a better president than what people think today. He had hurricanes to deal with to boot and bad tornados.

Most presidents would have failed horribly in those events. He did well considering the amount of pressure on it. Yet, we have Obama.. who had to deal with an oil leak in the Gulf and really has failed miserably at that. Other than that.. he really has been tried on anything.. and I'm grateful because he's really not doing that good of a job with the basics.
March 22, 2012 2:13:59 AM

24954,2,80415 said:
Providing for the Common Defense
Streamlining Other Government Agencies
Restraining the Growth of Government by Repealing the Health Care Law
Ending Corporate Welfare
Changing Washington’s Culture of Spending
Strengthening the Social Safety Net ......................................................................................................... 38
Repairing a Broken Medicaid System
Stopping the Abuse of Medicaid by Repealing the Health Care Law
Protecting Assistance for Those in Need
Preparing the Workforce for a 21st Century Economy
Fulfilling the Mission of Health and Retirement Security for All Americans .................................... 44
Saving Medicare
Stopping the Raid on Medicare by Repealing the Health Care Law
Advancing Social Security Reforms
Pro-Growth Tax Reform .............................................................................................................................. 50
Simplifying the Tax Code for Individuals
Stopping Job-Destroying Tax Hikes by Repealing the Health Care Law



Whats wrong with this?[/quotemsg he is a lot of bullshit like the rest of the Republicans. All talk and no action.
March 22, 2012 11:16:51 AM

Marv, you're a funny guy. :) 
March 22, 2012 2:25:20 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
It did. Bush inherited a near borderline full blown recession in 2001.

Then a tiny little incident known as 9/11 happened. The objective of that little incident was to cripple our economy and they didn't do a bad job really. The airlines and financial institutions took a huge hit. Morgan Stanley alone lost like 60 floors in that tragedy. But, it didn't really work as intended because the entrepreneurship and resiliency of the American people is constantly underestimated.

Up until 2006 the US enjoyed near full employment. 5% or less unemployment is historically considered by economists on the left and right to be full employment (its not a bad rate in SimCity either). The downturn began in 2006-07 strangely coinciding with the Democrats taking over the House and Senate in the midterms.

The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac housing bubble is THE catalyst of the financial collapse and the strong downturn in the economy that spiraled down in the aftermath. Trillions in wealth were lost; seemingly overnight.


Bull**** he did, the actual impact of the destruction of the world trade centers had very LITTLE impact economically. Entrepreneurship? Give me 5 examples of entrepreneurship being the reason that we recovered from the terrorist attacks, talk about rhetoric. The world trade center was important but it was not vital by any means.

The housing bubble created the illusion of economic stability and full employment, in the end it is the biggest reason we are where we are today. I asked you why the tax cuts didn't create SUSTAINED economic growth and you gave me half answers, the answer is because the tax cuts combined with the housing bubble and two wars were the perfect storm for a recession. They weren't the only things, but they were pretty big reasons that help lead us to where we are.
March 22, 2012 2:32:58 PM

riser said:
2001, 9/11 hurt.
Housing collapse, 2004/2005, continuing on through and still going.

Bush has a series of bad events during his presidency and I think in 30-40-50 years, he'll be regarded as a better president than what people think today. He had hurricanes to deal with to boot and bad tornados.

Most presidents would have failed horribly in those events. He did well considering the amount of pressure on it. Yet, we have Obama.. who had to deal with an oil leak in the Gulf and really has failed miserably at that. Other than that.. he really has been tried on anything.. and I'm grateful because he's really not doing that good of a job with the basics.


What the hell did Bush accomplish while he was president? NCLB? That was suppose to be his crowning achievement and it turned out to be hazardous to education throughout the nation.

He inherited the biggest economic downturn since the great depression and you think that he hasn't been tried on anything? How delusional are you? He pushed through healthcare reform that has been in the making for 20 years, yet he hasn't been tried on anything. He has been faced with more prejudice and disrespect than any president since the formation of our Country, and yet, he hasn't been tried on anything. Bush's biggest struggle was with the terrorist attack and he failed miserably at that, just like with hurricane katrina.
March 22, 2012 2:35:48 PM

But a valid question given his position and his remarks on fixing the economy. He has expectations that a huge amount of money will still need to be borrowed to start fixing the things this administration is doing wrong.
March 22, 2012 2:43:48 PM

johnsonma said:
Bull**** he did, the actual impact of the destruction of the world trade centers had very LITTLE impact economically. Entrepreneurship? Give me 5 examples of entrepreneurship being the reason that we recovered from the terrorist attacks, talk about rhetoric. The world trade center was important but it was not vital by any means.

The housing bubble created the illusion of economic stability and full employment, in the end it is the biggest reason we are where we are today. I asked you why the tax cuts didn't create SUSTAINED economic growth and you gave me half answers, the answer is because the tax cuts combined with the housing bubble and two wars were the perfect storm for a recession. They weren't the only things, but they were pretty big reasons that help lead us to where we are.


No, actually it had quite an impact. It very nearly destroyed our airline industry. If you remember there were some very large mergers of the airlines as a result in order for them to simply survive the aftermath. Tens of thousands of jobs were impacted not mention the loss of weatlh. So, your wrong there.

There was very large financial impact as well. Up until 9/11, many companies, financial insitutions, banks, etc. did not have disaster recovery procedures in place, i.e. a backup. Tons of financial transactions were lost when the towers came down. The solution to the lost records was basically a do over of September 10th, a very similar scenario to what happened in Tom Clancy's book Debt of Honor; it was Jack Ryan's idea. So again, your wrong there.

If you need examples of entrepreneurship then you are economically retarded. Just look around john. It's happening all around you. I could give you 5 million examples.

The housing bubble was the catalyst to the financial collapse. The housing bubble was mainly the brainchild of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. If you want to put someone in prison over it, then send them.
March 22, 2012 3:04:08 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, actually it had quite an impact. It very nearly destroyed our airline industry. If you remember there were some very large mergers of the airlines as a result in order for them to simply survive the aftermath. Tens of thousands of jobs were impacted not mention the loss of weatlh. So, your wrong there.

There was very large financial impact as well. Up until 9/11, many companies, financial insitutions, banks, etc. did not have disaster recovery procedures in place, i.e. a backup. Tons of financial transactions were lost when the towers came down. The solution to the lost records was basically a do over of September 10th, a very similar scenario to what happened in Tom Clancy's book Debt of Honor; it was Jack Ryan's idea. So again, your wrong there.

If you need examples of entrepreneurship then you are economically retarded. Just look around john. It's happening all around you. I could give you 5 million examples.

The housing bubble was the catalyst to the financial collapse. The housing bubble was mainly the brainchild of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. If you want to put someone in prison over it, then send them.


Your completely wrong OMG, it's like you haven't even researched it. The airlines were already struggling, and mergers are a natural part of business, they are doing pretty good now. Entrepreneurship had nothing to do with us surviving the terrorist attack economically, no idea where you came up with that. Its a natural part of capitalism, why you are singling it out is beyond me.

www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31617.pdf

The housing bubble just covered up the reality that our economy was not doing very good under Bush, its that simple.
March 22, 2012 3:23:36 PM

Your completely wrong john. The airlines are always struggling, have been for decades. The loss of revenue when the planes were grounded and the drop off in travel for years after 9/11 nearly crippled them. The loss in commerce resonated throughout the economy.

The economy on under Bush was by no means stupendous. But it also wasn't a borderline depression as propigated by the MSM day after day. We had moderate growth, and near full employment for the majority of the Bush administration.
March 22, 2012 4:21:29 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Your completely wrong john. The airlines are always struggling, have been for decades. The loss of revenue when the planes were grounded and the drop off in travel for years after 9/11 nearly crippled them. The loss in commerce resonated throughout the economy.

The economy on under Bush was by no means stupendous. But it also wasn't a borderline depression as propigated by the MSM day after day. We had moderate growth, and near full employment for the majority of the Bush administration.


You are lying to yourself if you thing that the economy was doing well under Bush. It was all a facade created by the housing bubble, it was not real, the truth is we were already in trouble before the housing bubble covered it up and in the end it made it exponentially worse.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/315191-why-the-airlines...

There were other far more important issues involved with the struggles of the airlines. You are overstating the impact of the terrorist attack, out of fear maybe? That was the real crime against us, making us fear them.
March 22, 2012 4:26:41 PM

You're brainwashed dude.

How you can say near full employment, 3-7% growth (moderate growth), gas at under $2.00/gal. was "not good" under Bush is delusional.

Are you off your meds?

"That was the real crime against us, making us fear them."

Oh my god! Are you a truther? Not even the Crazy Beck is a truther. I think you need one of reynod foil lined armadillo hats.
March 22, 2012 5:16:54 PM

Wow John, I can't believe you actually believe what you're saying.

I used to travel heavily on airlines and I can assure you that 9/11 had a significant impact on their business model.
March 22, 2012 5:29:31 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
You're brainwashed dude.

How you can say near full employment, 3-7% growth (moderate growth), gas at under $2.00/gal. was "not good" under Bush is delusional.

Are you off your meds?

"That was the real crime against us, making us fear them."

Oh my god! Are you a truther? Not even the Crazy Beck is a truther. I think you need one of reynod foil lined armadillo hats.


The employment and growth were facades! How can you not understand that it was only temporary and unsustainable, and that it masked the true problems our economy was facing? It only lead to us shooting ourselves in the foot later on, yet you think that it proves that Bush was somehow a great president in regards to the economy? On top of that you think I'm brainwashed? REALLY?!?!?

I'm not a truther, I meant that the fact that we fear Al Qaeda is truly sad, the greatest country on earth and people are shaking in their boots at the sound of their name, that's the real crime, fearing a bunch of backwater terrorists. I will take one of those foil hats though, wouldn't want those pesky psychics reading my mind.
March 22, 2012 5:31:37 PM

riser said:
Wow John, I can't believe you actually believe what you're saying.

I used to travel heavily on airlines and I can assure you that 9/11 had a significant impact on their business model.


I will admit that it hurt them some because of decreased travel, but they were already in an unsustainable situation with their business structure, too much competition, something had to give with or without the terrorist attacks. I can't believe that you do not understand this riser, I thought you were more inclined toward business and would understand the underlying factors within the industry.
March 22, 2012 6:06:30 PM

Airline travel decreased heavily for at least two years after 9/11. I can't remember how many half-full flights I was on. Flights started getting stupid cheap just to fill them. They have to operate an almost full flight to even make a profit.

Business travel is probably 85-90% of all travel. With the additional screening and additional costs of renovating all their airports, reinforcing all their aircraft and all that additional burden hurt them significantly.
March 22, 2012 6:26:59 PM

johnsonma said:
The employment and growth were facades! How can you not understand that it was only temporary and unsustainable, and that it masked the true problems our economy was facing? It only lead to us shooting ourselves in the foot later on, yet you think that it proves that Bush was somehow a great president in regards to the economy? On top of that you think I'm brainwashed? REALLY?!?!?

I'm not a truther, I meant that the fact that we fear Al Qaeda is truly sad, the greatest country on earth and people are shaking in their boots at the sound of their name, that's the real crime, fearing a bunch of backwater terrorists. I will take one of those foil hats though, wouldn't want those pesky psychics reading my mind.


Moderate growth and near full employment are not facades. Their is no such thing as sustainable growth in economics. You always upturns and downturns, it's a cycle. If the free market is left alone, these ups and downs are usually not severe. In the case of the housing bubble situation; it was government meddling in the free market that was the major cause of that. Forcing banks to loan money to people who had no hope of paying it back.

Can you elaborate on the "true problems of our economy" that were masked please?

I am not arguing that Bush was some great President, at all. I have major problems with Bush. No fanboy by any means. But I'm not going to lie either and say that during his administration we were constantly on the verge of a recession or depression like was touted daily in the MSM and The Daily Show.

You are believing the media narrative which is false, as in not true.

The economic collaspe was prefaced by the financial collapse of the housing bubble. Bush warned Congress on at least 12 different occasions to get Fannie & Freddy under control and was told to stuff it by Barney Frank who is chairman of the house banking committee in charge of Fannie & Freddy. In hindsight, I suppose he could have been more forceful in his warnings; perhaps taken the issue to the American people.

I wonder if Jews in France should be afraid of Al-Queda? Well, that doesn't really matter anymore for 1 rabbi and 3 little kids does it?

I wonder if this teacher in Yemen should be afraid of Al-Queda? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/22/al-qaeda-says-i...

Oh wait, it doesn't really matter if he's afraid anymore does it?
March 22, 2012 6:31:12 PM

Wow, bravo. One of the most solid responses I've seen from anyone.
March 22, 2012 8:18:05 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Moderate growth and near full employment are not facades. Their is no such thing as sustainable growth in economics. You always upturns and downturns, it's a cycle. If the free market is left alone, these ups and downs are usually not severe. In the case of the housing bubble situation; it was government meddling in the free market that was the major cause of that. Forcing banks to loan money to people who had no hope of paying it back.

The great depression proves you wrong in that the free market by itself works, it can be taken advantage of, that's why there are regulations to protect it and minimize the damage from natural cycles. Growth may not be sustainable forever but it is sustainable over a period of time during which our economy grows more than it shrinks in the downturns, thus netting us a positive increase in net growth and thus having sustainable growth. The housing bubble covered up a downturn from the recession that was beginning in 2000-2001 (the housing bubble started before that but it really started picking up then), before the terrorist attacks we had 3 straight quarters of the GDP shrinking. The intervention of the housing bubble helped mask the natural cycle.

They did not force banks to loan money to people, you must not understand how the mortgage system works. The mortgages originate at the banks, they however cannot afford to have so much money tied up in long term investments so they sell it to GSE's. These GSE's should never have bought the hopeless loans that the banks had started giving out. However, if it was not for the GSE's no one but the rich would ever be able to buy a house, so if you don't want government meddling, then forget about owning your own house, and the whole American dream.


In the end the GSE's should have been regulated more to prevent them from making such bone headed moves.

Can you elaborate on the "true problems of our economy" that were masked please?

I am not arguing that Bush was some great President, at all. I have major problems with Bush. No fanboy by any means. But I'm not going to lie either and say that during his administration we were constantly on the verge of a recession or depression like was touted daily in the MSM and The Daily Show.

You are believing the media narrative which is false, as in not true.

The media narrative is always false in your opinion.

The economic collaspe was prefaced by the financial collapse of the housing bubble. Bush warned Congress on at least 12 different occasions to get Fannie & Freddy under control and was told to stuff it by Barney Frank who is chairman of the house banking committee in charge of Fannie & Freddy. In hindsight, I suppose he could have been more forceful in his warnings; perhaps taken the issue to the American people.

I wonder if Jews in France should be afraid of Al-Queda? Well, that doesn't really matter anymore for 1 rabbi and 3 little kids does it?

I wonder if this teacher in Yemen should be afraid of Al-Queda? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/22/al-qaeda-says-i...

Oh wait, it doesn't really matter if he's afraid anymore does it?

Way to go! Using the deaths of innocent people to try and prove a point. In the end if we are afraid of them then they won, when people are afraid they do not live happy lives, and that means that they have changed our way of life and our culture.




March 22, 2012 8:18:39 PM

riser said:
Wow, bravo. One of the most solid responses I've seen from anyone.


Your selling yourself short riser!
March 23, 2012 1:50:45 AM

Theres small small kernals of truth in what youre saying, but theyre dwarfed by what OMG is saying, and it was played to the extreme, and still is by the MSM.
Certain new regulations could help, true.
Housing bubble, a huge crisis, something near the level of Obamacare, and if that should go wrong.....
People dying from murderers is important when you bring up 911, as they must be put to justice, or should we just ignore this?
I think you need to turn your focus a little, and allow for a better balance of ideas
March 23, 2012 12:42:52 PM

johnsonma said:
Your selling yourself short riser!


haha Maybe the response of the day then. :) 
March 23, 2012 4:02:28 PM

johnsonma said:
They did not force banks to loan money to people, you must not understand how the mortgage system works.


Really?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-c...

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/...

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulat...

johnsonma said:
Way to go! Using the deaths of innocent people to try and prove a point. In the end if we are afraid of them then they won, when people are afraid they do not live happy lives, and that means that they have changed our way of life and our culture.


I did no such thing. I used those examples to illustrate why the threat should be taken seriously. You can bet your life Al-Queda is serious and are not playing around in the least bit.

Fear can be overcome. The definition of courage is taking action even when you are afraid. A well place headshot takes care of the threat and guess what? The fear magically goes away. ;) 
March 23, 2012 4:35:12 PM
March 23, 2012 8:56:42 PM

johnsonma said:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/dish-ch...

It really was a collection of stupidity all around, quite blaming it on the government alone, although they were partly responsible.



Stupidity all around. right. Not referring to yourself are you?

Can I please see your columns in respected publications john?

Can you elaborate more than just calling "it stupidity all around"? Anything at all?

Calling what really happened "stupid" is not a refutation.
March 26, 2012 3:35:56 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Stupidity all around. right. Not referring to yourself are you?

Can I please see your columns in respected publications john?

Can you elaborate more than just calling "it stupidity all around"? Anything at all?

Calling what really happened "stupid" is not a refutation.


It was a failure of all parties involved to see the ramifications of the process they had initiated. Increasing loans to those who could not afford it, partially because the government wanted them to loosen up a bit to prevent discrimination and partially because the banks would immediately sell it off to a GSE and not have to worry about it. Partially the GSE's fault for not seeing the trend of high risk loans building up to unsustainable levels and also a lack of oversight from congress, at least Bush did try to make it an issue.

Quit attacking me personally OMG and at least express some reasonable point. The comment was more of a broad statement about the link, I'm guessing that you didn't even bother looking at it.
March 27, 2012 2:51:45 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Back on topic. I just heard an interview with Rand Paul on his budget. I vote to immediately scrap Paul Ryan's budget and go with Rand Paul's.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rand-pauls-balanced-budg...
read how the religious leaders like Ryan's budget. They hate it completely. It is for the rich!
!