Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That's precisely what people did in the last election and it made the problem worse by forcing out moderates that would actually seek compromise solutions.
The Ryan plan is a joke. Massive tax concessions to the wealthy is not going to magically drive GDP. It's estimated the Ryan plan in conjunction with an extension of the Bush tax cuts adds another 10 Trillion to the debt over the next decade.
Gutting entitlements while you give tax breaks to the rich isn't a solution.
-spence
|
"made the problem worse by forcing out moderates that would actually seek compromise solutions."
Spence, first, I don't think there are any "moderate" solutions to a debt that's more than $50 trillion. Second, what "moderate" entitlement plans were proposed by the "moderate" politicians who were forced out? Please enlighten me? Those career politicians who were thrown out deserve to be thrown out (from both parties), because they were too cowardly to propose what any rational person knows is required.
Again, Spence...please tell me what moderate solutions were proposed by the moderate politicians that would raise $50 trillion in the next 50 years? I must have missed that press conference.
"Massive tax concessions to the wealthy is not going to magically drive GDP"
Similarly, when Obama proposed a healthcare plan that he said would increase coverage but save money (which we now know is bullsh*t), did you question that like you're questioning Ryan's proposal? Because history does show us (for those of us not so blinded by ideology that we can't see factual empirical evidence) that the Clinton and Bush tax rate cuts were followed by big increases in tax revenue collected. I'm not suggesting causality. I'm saying that the liberal notion that tax revenue always changes proportional to tax rates is demonstrably false.
Let's put aside Ryan's tax cuts for a moment. What about his proposed spending cuts? Spence, do you agree that we need deep spending cuts? Because most liberals passionaltyely disagree that we need cuts. But for some reason, they stop there. They don't tell us how we address the financial tsunami without deep spending cuts.
Here's how this play unfolds...
Fact: our debt, when social security and Medicare are included, is not less than $50 trillion.
Paul Ryan: "This is a threat that requires us to cut spending, I don't like it, but it's necessary".
Spence: "the Ryan plan is a joke"
Jim in CT: "Spence, if you reject the Ryan plan, what's the liberal plan to address this problem"
SILENCE.
"Gutting entitlements while you give tax breaks to the rich isn't a solution."
OK. Offer an alternative. Or admit that you don't have one...