On Fox News, no less, when asked about his budget, but then is forced to admit that it won't balance for another 25 years. I would add "if then."

[www.washingtonpost.com]

Why do you need a balanced budget ? I thought we can spend ourselves well ? (looks below in threat list).

Now... if your point is that a reduced spending budget with tax breaks higher than the 'reduced spending' won't make things better.. I won't disagree with you on that.

(Dons Kreskin hat)

I predict a few more "walkback" moments for Congressman Ryan in the upcoming weeks.

Here's another.

Quote

Why do you need a balanced budget ? I thought we can spend ourselves well ? (looks below in threat list).

FIrst, nice freudian slip on the keyboard. That right wing bunker mentality eventually gives me a laugh.

Second, please read the linked article before you derail the thread.

I read the linked article. It could simply be replaced with 'neener neener, pants on fire'.

Bunker ? Nah. You may have missed the next sentence. I don't embrace the proven foolishness that reducing spending AND income at the same time is a solution. I believe reducing spending and increasing income are how you get to a balanced budget.

I don't like it, of course. Who does ?

Quote
cbelt3
Why do you need a balanced budget ?

You need to ask Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney that question. THEY are the ones pushing the idea.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
cbelt3
Why do you need a balanced budget ? I thought we can spend ourselves well ? (looks below in threat list).

This has been gone over before in at least one of those threads - deficit spending to get the demand side of supply and demand going during an economic downturn has been SOP for decades (including during Republican administrations). That in no way implies that anyone here is saying that there must always be deficit spending to make ourselves "well".

Well, for reasons that I fail to fully understand, there actually DOES need to always be a certain amount of deficit spending during wartime or during financial crises to maintain a healthy economy. At least that's been the case since the 1800s if not earlier.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2012 09:48AM by $tevie.

If we could only push ourselves away from the buffet when times are good...

Let me see if I can explain this to Belty in a simpler way.
1. Paul Ryan is attacking the president because of the deficit.
2. This implies, even in this day and age, that Ryan has a plan.
3. It also implies that Ryan's plan is better than the president's.
4. But Ryan's plan is not better than the president's plan.
5. Ryan, whose stock in trade is budget, has come up with a budget than cannot possibly balance before the late 2030s, and if we're going to be strictly honest about it, into the 2040s.
6. My point is that Ryan's plan is ideological and impractical.
7. Whereas if Congress would pass a sensible program of tax increases on the very wealthy, close some corporate loopholes, penalize companies that ship their jobs and cash overseas, and make some sensible cuts in defense procurement, the budget would balance fairly quickly--say in three to five years after the recession is over.
8. That would be practical. That would be good for the country.

Add to Gunty's list lifting abolishing the ceiling on SS contributions and attaching those to unearned income as well and you have a budget that balances with a surplus and social security protected into perpetuity to boot.