Are you denying that it is intellectually dishonest to present someone else's work as your own?
I cite where I get data. Not just reposting some crazy lunatics content from a blog. You should try to back up your claims with data along with personal analysis, instead of just vomiting bullshit constantly that you took from someone else.
Uh huh. Only problem is all of the stupid fighting hasn't been about the cause of deficits... it's been pointless brinkmanship over discretionary spending while avoiding unsustainable increase in mandatory spending due to rising healthcare costs and you and your generation.
But don't let facts get in your way, you never have.
And when facts do show you are mistaken, you simply change subjects and move on to repost some drivel or a cartoon, instead of admitting your opinion was wrong?
Such as:
Krugman would agree with Paul Ryan that the problem is mandatory spending costs rising, although they obviously don't see eye-to-eye on how to solve it. But instead of the left and right talking constructively to find solutions, the Tea Party seemed to just want to burn everything down.
Ironic phrased used, the road to prosperity, very close to The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise. [Paul Ryan's / GOP's budget proposal for FY2012] Too bad the conversation got hijacked before anything could come of it as far as bipartisan entitlement reform.
But, I guess you were busy stuffing that strawman, playing guilt by association, and generally denying / ignoring facts to get that. You kinda focus on me sharing the facts that Krugman point out but ignore when I quote Paul Ryan?
I cite where I get data. Not just reposting some crazy lunatics content from a blog. You should try to back up your claims with data along with personal analysis, instead of just vomiting bullshit constantly that you took from someone else.
Uh huh. Only problem is all of the stupid fighting hasn't been about the cause of deficits... it's been pointless brinkmanship over discretionary spending while avoiding unsustainable increase in mandatory spending due to rising healthcare costs and you and your generation.
But don't let facts get in your way, you never have.
And when facts do show you are mistaken, you simply change subjects and move on to repost some drivel or a cartoon, instead of admitting your opinion was wrong?
Such as:
Krugman would agree with Paul Ryan that the problem is mandatory spending costs rising, although they obviously don't see eye-to-eye on how to solve it. But instead of the left and right talking constructively to find solutions, the Tea Party seemed to just want to burn everything down.
Ironic phrased used, the road to prosperity, very close to The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise. [Paul Ryan's / GOP's budget proposal for FY2012] Too bad the conversation got hijacked before anything could come of it as far as bipartisan entitlement reform.
Even if his plan was based on bad Excel work and is purposefully vague about his solutions (modernizing retirement age), Paul Ryan is actually talking about what matters.
If Mr. Obama decides to talk, he'll find that we actually agree on some things. For example, most of us agree that gradual, structural reforms are better than sudden, arbitrary cuts. For my Democratic colleagues, the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act are a major concern. And the truth is, there's a better way to cut spending. We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.
These reforms are vital. Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office predicts discretionary spending—that is, everything except entitlement programs and debt payments—will grow by $202 billion, or roughly 17%. Meanwhile, mandatory spending—which mostly consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—will grow by $1.6 trillion, or roughly 79%. The 2011 Budget Control Act largely ignored entitlement spending. But that is the nation's biggest challenge.
The two political parties have worked together on entitlements before. In 1982, Social Security's trustees warned Congress that the program would go bankrupt within a year. If it had, seniors would have seen an immediate cut in their benefits. Instead, Congress passed a package of reforms—the most important of which was an increase in the retirement age. Because Congress phased in this reform over time, there were no budget savings in the first five years. But through 2012, the savings were $100 billion. In the next 75 years, Social Security's actuaries expect that these reforms will save $4.6 trillion.
Just as a good investment gets higher returns through compound interest, structural reforms produce greater savings over time. Most important, they make the programs more secure. They protect them for current seniors and preserve them for the next generation. That's what the president and Congress should talk about.
Here are just a few ideas to get the conversation started. We could ask the better off to pay higher premiums for Medicare. We could reform Medigap plans to encourage efficiency and reduce costs. And we could ask federal employees to contribute more to their own retirement.
The president has embraced these ideas in budget proposals he has submitted to Congress. And in earlier talks with congressional Republicans, he has discussed combining Medicare's Part A and Part B, so the program will be less confusing for seniors. These ideas have the support of nonpartisan groups like the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and they would strengthen these critical programs. And all of them would help pay down the debt.
These reforms are vital. Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office predicts discretionary spending—that is, everything except entitlement programs and debt payments—will grow by $202 billion, or roughly 17%. Meanwhile, mandatory spending—which mostly consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—will grow by $1.6 trillion, or roughly 79%. The 2011 Budget Control Act largely ignored entitlement spending. But that is the nation's biggest challenge.
The two political parties have worked together on entitlements before. In 1982, Social Security's trustees warned Congress that the program would go bankrupt within a year. If it had, seniors would have seen an immediate cut in their benefits. Instead, Congress passed a package of reforms—the most important of which was an increase in the retirement age. Because Congress phased in this reform over time, there were no budget savings in the first five years. But through 2012, the savings were $100 billion. In the next 75 years, Social Security's actuaries expect that these reforms will save $4.6 trillion.
Just as a good investment gets higher returns through compound interest, structural reforms produce greater savings over time. Most important, they make the programs more secure. They protect them for current seniors and preserve them for the next generation. That's what the president and Congress should talk about.
Here are just a few ideas to get the conversation started. We could ask the better off to pay higher premiums for Medicare. We could reform Medigap plans to encourage efficiency and reduce costs. And we could ask federal employees to contribute more to their own retirement.
The president has embraced these ideas in budget proposals he has submitted to Congress. And in earlier talks with congressional Republicans, he has discussed combining Medicare's Part A and Part B, so the program will be less confusing for seniors. These ideas have the support of nonpartisan groups like the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and they would strengthen these critical programs. And all of them would help pay down the debt.
Comment