The New Republic

When one is caught in a lie and one simply asserts that the one doing the catching is the one lying, it's not innumeracy to avoid supporting this assertion with facts. It's just good strategy.

- miceelf

May 20, 2011 at 6:36pm

MikeB: Really? I've no interest in polishing Ryan's turd thanks. Just saying you folks are in deep denial, with pie in the sky "just tax the rich" theories. Your comment highlights the exact problem with uncontrolled generational transfers. Did anyone think they'd have to provide for their retirement or future health care needs? Not when mommy government would provide them. Generational denial. We earn what we earn. Under what scenario do you think we can expend an ever increasing amount of our future output on past liabilities? Not harsh, just realistic. Health care and retirement costs going up. We can't afford it, as a society. So limit, in a reasonable way, the percent of GDP we will spend on HC and SS. We will be able to provide the basics, fairly comfortably. Yes, that happens to bear some relation to Ryan's plan. No doubt, the plan has it's limits, which I've suggested are mostly political, and are fair game (discretionary spending at 3% GDP is laughable, but happens to occur when there are substantial surpluses). Will we need for a time to spend more on HC, SS, and debt repayment? Yes, but past commitments should be financed over a long time with a slightly higher % GDP tax collection, leaning in the direction of the better off. This is the exact problem with open-ended commitments, and the same dynamic is beginning to crush state and local governments. We need to deal with it in a logical way. Anything else is head in the sand, courtesy of both the denial dems and the chicken repubs. Do you think this can can be kicked down the road forever? Sorry, Spinks, you really have me stumped. What?

- ds111

May 20, 2011 at 11:49pm

Ds, Where have I or Chait ever said that the only solution is to "tax the rich?" I think this has been pointed out to you, so there is no justification for this strawman from you. No doubt though you'll pull it out again on your ever weaker defenses of fraud boy Ryan. And just admit your 19 to 18 percent thing just falls flat in the face of reality. "generational transfers?" The whole Ryan plan is one big generational transfer. That is what fraud boy is using to sell it to the country. It is royal screwing of the young, while protecting the cranky old GOP base. As Matt Yglesis says: "And on the politics, it’s a mess. Right now we have conservatives simultaneously calling for huge spending cuts and also getting the line’s share of old people’s votes even while the vast majority of non-security spending is on old people. In essence, by first separating the domestic budget into “discretionary” and “entitlement” portions and then dividing the entitlement programs up into “what today’s old people get” versus “what tomorrow’s old people will get” the political class has created a large and vociferously right-wing class of people who are completely immune from the impact of their own calls for fiscal austerity. In my view, that reality is the biggest driver of our current political dysfunction. There’s some need for spending to be lower over the long term than it’s currently projected to go and I think it’s politically and morally vital that the adjustments be made in a balanced way. You frequently hear of the need to exempt everyone over the age of 55 from any possible cuts. That’s nice for them and encourages them to go right on complaining about out of control spending. But the average 55 year-old will still be alive and collecting benefits in 2035 so the long-term budgetary implications of this “let the geezers keep their full benefits while they whine about how Democrats are bankrupting the country” are actually pretty significant. If I were the president, my line would be closer to the reverse: I don’t want to cut Social Security benefits for anyone, but if the Republicans want to tempt me into a compromise they’re going to need to make sure that their own core constituency—people born before 1955 or so—pay a fair share of the price. Progressives don’t need to indulge the premises of this “welfare state for me but not for thee” brand of conservatism that’s taken over the country." On a very large point. Ryan's plan DOES NOT provide for 19% of GDP. What makes you think he could ever get higher than that, when he can't even put what his plan calls for on the table. This is an old trick from Ryan: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/paul-ryan-is-a-fraud/ As far as cuts in spending, I think Chait and I would agree to stop wars, cut the Pentagon, get rid of corporate welfare and much of agriculture subsidies. And we would be in favor of going further on the ACA cost controls on health care, and yes this means some rationing. (So please do me the favor of not talking about "pie in sky" stuff). Ryan's solution is just inane and stupid and yet another bit of corporate welfare. He would add a whole another level of middle men that will have a stream of revenue going to them and they can take a cut. They will then of course hire lobbyists to increase the amount, so the Ryan cuts will never happen. And this sentence is telling: "Did anyone think they'd have to provide for their retirement or future health care needs? Not when mommy government would provide them." I am sorry, but maybe you and Ryan are both Ayn Rand devotees but this is nonsense. I mean here is a 70 year old brick-layer who has worked his whole life. He has cancer and his voucher Ryan gave him won't cover it...Go crawl off and die in the woods old man! You don't want "mommy government" to help you do you?

- MikeB.

May 21, 2011 at 12:15am

Ds, Where have I or Chait ever said that the only solution is to "tax the rich?" I think this has been pointed out to you, so there is no justification for this strawman from you. No doubt though you'll pull it out again on your ever weaker defenses of fraud boy Ryan. And just admit your 19 to 18 percent thing just falls flat in the face of reality. "generational transfers?" The whole Ryan plan is one big generational transfer. That is what fraud boy is using to sell it to the country. It is royal screwing of the young, while protecting the cranky old GOP base. As Matt Yglesis says: "And on the politics, it’s a mess. Right now we have conservatives simultaneously calling for huge spending cuts and also getting the line’s share of old people’s votes even while the vast majority of non-security spending is on old people. In essence, by first separating the domestic budget into “discretionary” and “entitlement” portions and then dividing the entitlement programs up into “what today’s old people get” versus “what tomorrow’s old people will get” the political class has created a large and vociferously right-wing class of people who are completely immune from the impact of their own calls for fiscal austerity. In my view, that reality is the biggest driver of our current political dysfunction. There’s some need for spending to be lower over the long term than it’s currently projected to go and I think it’s politically and morally vital that the adjustments be made in a balanced way. You frequently hear of the need to exempt everyone over the age of 55 from any possible cuts. That’s nice for them and encourages them to go right on complaining about out of control spending. But the average 55 year-old will still be alive and collecting benefits in 2035 so the long-term budgetary implications of this “let the geezers keep their full benefits while they whine about how Democrats are bankrupting the country” are actually pretty significant. If I were the president, my line would be closer to the reverse: I don’t want to cut Social Security benefits for anyone, but if the Republicans want to tempt me into a compromise they’re going to need to make sure that their own core constituency—people born before 1955 or so—pay a fair share of the price. Progressives don’t need to indulge the premises of this “welfare state for me but not for thee” brand of conservatism that’s taken over the country." On a very large point. Ryan's plan DOES NOT provide for 19% of GDP. What makes you think he could ever get higher than that, when he can't even put what his plan calls for on the table. This is an old trick from Ryan: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/paul-ryan-is-a-fraud/ As far as cuts in spending, I think Chait and I would agree to stop wars, cut the Pentagon, get rid of corporate welfare and much of agriculture subsidies. And we would be in favor of going further on the ACA cost controls on health care, and yes this means some rationing. (So please do me the favor of not talking about "pie in sky" stuff). Ryan's solution is just inane and stupid and yet another bit of corporate welfare. He would add a whole another level of middle men that will have a stream of revenue going to them and they can take a cut. They will then of course hire lobbyists to increase the amount, so the Ryan cuts will never happen. And this sentence is telling: "Did anyone think they'd have to provide for their retirement or future health care needs? Not when mommy government would provide them." I am sorry, but maybe you and Ryan are both Ayn Rand devotees but this is nonsense. I mean here is a 70 year old brick-layer who has worked his whole life. He has cancer and his voucher Ryan gave him won't cover it...Go crawl off and die in the woods old man! You don't want "mommy government" to help you do you?

- MikeB.

May 21, 2011 at 12:15am

Sorry double posts.

- MikeB.

May 21, 2011 at 12:16am

Thanks Mike. I posted on the other thread about discussion parameters. I believe Chait had a piece entitled " Tax the Rich" or some such, so it is not exactly a straw man. And in fact our revenue needs to come from where the money is, largely the middle to upper income strata. Mike, the generational transfer has already occurred, and is continuing. Did you see the Urban piece about contributions vs benefits? Made possible by promises made which could only be fulfilled by increasing the fed take on future generations. Thats what I mean by Ponzi. Made possible primarily by well meaning dems, but with a big assist from repubs. I cannot see ACA making it anything but worse, as it is weak on spending control, and means more promises when we can't afford the ones we've already made. We must fix federal HC spending to a Tight % range of GDP, which will necessarily fail to keep pace should medical care costs continue increasing. The "mommy govt" quip was unreasonable. Just mean don't make promises you can't keep.

- ds111

May 21, 2011 at 11:45am

Thanks Mike. I posted on the other thread about discussion parameters. I believe Chait had a piece entitled " Tax the Rich" or some such, so it is not exactly a straw man. And I in fact agree that our revenue needs to come from where the money is, largely the middle to upper income strata. Mike, the generational transfer has already occurred, and is continuing. Did you see the Urban piece about contributions vs benefits? Made possible by promises made which could only be fulfilled by increasing the fed take on future generations. Thats what I mean by Ponzi. Made possible primarily by well meaning dems, but with a big assist from repubs. I cannot see ACA making it anything but worse, as it is weak on spending control, and means more promises when we can't afford the ones we've already made. We must fix federal HC spending to a Tight % range of GDP, which will necessarily fail to keep pace should medical care costs continue increasing. The "mommy govt" quip was unreasonable. Just mean don't make promises you can't keep.

- ds111

May 21, 2011 at 11:49am