[tomder55]

Joe Biden and half the audience snoozed (Biden is auditioning to become an air traffic controller ),while the President made another of his patented 'most important speech of his adminstration' yesterday.

It was typical progressive boiler-plate red meat pablum. The President is in full Allinsky campaign mode now(isolate the enemy) . The President pretends to seduce the middle ;but his heart is still on the fringe. No need to recount the details . You've heard the same economic message from progressives since 1964 (and even earlier if you replay some of the best of FDR) .

Rather than link to the President's address ,I'll post Rep. Paul Ryan's response . He hit it out of the park.

I'm very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the president's invitation to Mr. Camp, Mr. Hensarling and myself was an olive branch. Instead, what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to addressing our countries pressing fiscal challenges.

What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief. What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner-in chief.

I guess it's no coincidence that last week when the president launched his billion dollar re-election campaign was the week we launched our effort to try and get this debt and deficit under control and get our economy growing.

Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the president created a fiscal commission. Then with his budget he disavowed his fiscal commission. He ignored all of its recommendations. Now he wants to delegate leadership yet again to a new commission. How are we to expect different results? And the measurements of results of this new commission are lower than the measurements of success of the last commission that ended a few months ago.

We need leadership. We don't need a doubling down on the failed politics of the past.

This is very sad and very unfortunate. Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells. By failing seriously to confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, the president's policies are committing us and our children to a diminished future.

We're looking for bipartisan solutions not partisan rhetoric. When the president is ready to get serious about it, we're going to be here working.

Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope; it's not change. It's partisanship. We don't need partisanship. We don't need demagoguery. We need solutions. And we don't need to keep punting to other people to make tough decisions. If we don't make those decisions today, our children will have to make much, much tougher decisions tomorrow.

So I am sincerely disappointed that the president had a moment when we were putting ideas on the table, trying to engage in a thoughtful dialog to fix this country's economic and fiscal problems, decides to pour on the campaign rhetoric, launch his re-election, and pass partisan broadsides against us, making it that much harder for the two parties to come together with mutual respect of one another to get things done.

YouTube - Paul Ryan Slams Obama Deficit Plan

[excon]

Hello tom:

Yeah.. He decided to save granny from Ryans death panel... Wassa matter with that? What?? Death panels are GOOD when Republicans propose them??

excon

[tomder55]

Hello tom:

Yeah.. He decided to save granny from Ryans death panel... Wassa matter with that? What??? Death panels are GOOD when Republicans propose them???

excon

How is he saving them ? I heard nothing of meaningful entitlement reform at all. His message is the same replay I've heard forever. Let the rich pay for it.

[excon]

How is he saving them ? Let the rich pay for it.

Hello again, tom:

It works like this... A guy NEEDS a life saving operation. Ryan would tell him to suck it up. Obama would TAKE money from the rich to save his life... Ain't no more difficult than that.

Now, as a rich person, that may offend you... But, as a poor person, I don't care.

excon

[tomder55]

He knows entitlements needs reform and he's delusional if he thinks picking the pockets of the "highest 2% of income earners " (those making $200,000 +... not millionaires and billionaires as he demogoged) will fix the entitlement problem. It is a DEMOGRAPHIC problem and a government theft problem... not a revenue problem.

Even if it were a revenue problem tax increases will not change that... only economic growth will grow the revenue. Drive capital away... no economic growth .

[excon]

he's delusional if he thinks picking the pockets of the "highest 2% of income earners " (those making $200,000 + .....not millionaires and billionaires as he demogoged) will fix the entitlement problem.

Hello again, tom:

What's delusional is the idea that Ryan is going to "fix" medicare..

excon

[speechlesstx]

The president needs a lesson on the rich:

Eat the Rich by Walter Williams

I've often said that I wish there were some humane way to get rid of the rich. If you asked why, I'd answer that getting rid of the rich would save us from distraction by leftist hustlers promoting the politics of envy. Not having the rich to fret over might enable us to better focus our energies on what's in the best interest of the 99.99 percent of the rest of us. Let's look at some facts about the rich laid out by Bill Whittle citing statistics on his RealClearPolitics video "Eat the Rich."

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.

But let's stick with the rich and ask a few questions. Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world. That's just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue. One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.

Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It's not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us -- liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

What's the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP. Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues.

So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University

The rich don't have enough money to pay for everything congress spends and he knows it, he's just looking for that "fair share," whatever that is and then he'll come after everyone else's money (except for Planned Parenthood - Granny may not eat but she can darn sure have an abortion under Democrat budgets).

And by the way, Obama said the rich WANT to pay more. Has Kerry paid Massachusetts taxes on that yacht yet

[excon]

Hello Steve:

What did tom call Obama's speech? Pablum?? That's what your right winger is feeding us... Heard it before. Be scared. Socialist Obama is going to take ALL your money and your guns too. I threw in the part about guns.

Look. This isn't about the budget, because ain't nobody talking about REAL stuff. It's all posturing. Ryan took another shot at hated progressive programs that fundamentally CHANGED this country. He/you wants to change it back.

The FACTS are, we COULD live within our means if we'd cut the stuff that we really CAN'T afford and don't need, instead of the stuff that is the fabric of our nation...

Am I talking about 2, maybe 3 or even 4 wars?? For starters, you betcha I AM. But, as long as the conversation is about seniors and socialism, we ain't going nowhere.

excon

[tomder55]

Defense spending as a percentage of the budget has decreased consistently in the last 30 years . The part of the budget that has gone out of control is entitlements.
But railing against military spending is popular with the base. That is why it became such a big part of the Obama deflection yesterday .
Here are the numbers... $330 billion in cuts 2009 $80 billion in 2010... $400 billion proposed yesterday.. . total ? Gee it's about the same amt of money the Demos spent in 2009-10 filling in pot holes and other bucket list projects to 'stimulate' the economy.

[speechlesstx]

Yeah, we can make NK happy and cut back on defense spending like the UK did to pay for all its nanny state. They're running out of ammo.

[tomder55]

Their navy had a total of 64 Tomahawks ? They are worse off than I thought .Clintoon fired more than that at an asprin factory.

[speechlesstx]

Yes sir, the once finest navy in the world is in bad shape.

[excon]

Hello again:

The reason WHY the budget impasse will continue is exhibited right here. One side says don't balance the budget on the backs of the poor, and the other side says don't cut my wars, even though they're NOT paid for.

And, neither side is going to budge.

excon

[tomder55]

You must've missed the point I've made repeatedly ;that the Defense Budget already is being cut ,trimmed ,sliced with a scaple ,hacked and slashed with a blunt instrument .

[excon]

You must've missed the point I've made repeatedly

Hello again, tom:

Nahhh, I didn't. I'm just not buying it. I'll believe it when we pass a law that says our wars will be PAID for, or we won't fight 'em. When THAT happens, I'll agree to Medicare starting at 66.

What? You want the whole loaf at once?

excon

[tomder55]

Then you won't see us get out of this fiscal mess. Even the European nations ,who have virtually no military , realize it's the entitlement scam that has brought them to insolvency.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Let's recap.. The rich are out of bounds, and we can do all the wars we want, even if we don't pay for them. But we've got to kill Medicare and Social Security. It's THAT or NOTHING.

Ok, I'm willing to have that battle again. The problem you've got with your "my way or the highway" plan, is the country sees that tactic for what it is - an assault on the middle class - NOT an attempt at fiscal responsibility...

When you're actually ready to negotiate a deal, you'll find willing partners.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Ex, as I pointed out earlier, it isn't that the rich are out of bounds, taxing them more just won't solve the problem. As Williams pointed out taking every penny they have would run the government for 141 days. Demanding the rich pay their "fair share" - whatever that is - is just feel-good class envy bullsh*t. It doesn't fix anything, it just assuages the self-imposed guilt of progressives yet that is the Democrats "my way or the highway" plan to solve the problem It's not as you say, "an attempt at fiscal responsibility." I didn't drink the koolaid, you know.

[excon]

Ex, as I pointed out earlier, it isn't that the rich are out of bounds, taxing them more just won't solve the problem.

Hello again, Steve:

That's right wing spin. Nobody believes taxing them "more" will solve it, and nobody is saying it. Taxing them more will HELP solve it. Simple math will confirm that. Simple morals will confirm the need for shared sacrifice.

I could take up left wing talking points too, but that would be boring.. I'm NOT doing that.. I'm actually making OFFERS. I'm putting stuff ON the table. I'm making an ATTEMPT at negotiation to SOLVE the crisis RIGHT HERE...

What do you guys say?? NO! It's MY way or the HIGHWAY! Well, that ain't going to work here, and it ain't going to work in Washington.

excon

[tomder55]

Negotiate ? Bush tried that in 2005 when he tried to reform SS . They don't call entitlements 'the third rail 'for nothing. But which side is intractable ?
Here is my compromise. Begin dismantling the system before our children and grandchildren are overburdended with the costs of keeping us in our retirement communities . They working 2 jobs to make ends meet ;us smoking government provided medical weed and pitching horseshoes by the community pool.

I would never make those close to retirement age bear the burden for this transition. A deal is a deal . But it's time to begin the dismantling of the failed socialist experiments.