These guys do not know the concept of shared sacrifice. The idea that the Ryan budget is a solution is like saying you want to be refreshed in the summer and getting hit in the face with a bag of ice.

What is real neat is that Ryan has had his behind kissed so lavishly by the "liberal media" that he is intellectually out of control.

As a caller on Ed Schultz's program pointed out yesterday, Ryan has had no experience in the private sector world. And so he is lecturing us about realities?

But if anything, this budget is proving the extent of the Stockholm Syndrome suffered by those voters in the GOP who should be thinking of themselves and the future of their family. This budget is clearly designed to help people like Mr. 1%er Romney and to put the rest of us in serfdom.

The inability to recognize when you are being used and when you being screwed points out a serious problem for most of you in the GOP.

Please Mitt, pick him for VP. Ryan's going to lose in the 1st anyhow. It will put him on the assembly line for consideration in the 2016 GOP presidential race, unless of course we see a rerun of Goldwater 1964. And let me play concern troll here. Your hated President has every bit the political smarts of LBJ, but with a greater comfort level in front of a crowd. Just saying'.

@Keith
You honestly want to point out Ryan's 'no experience in the private sector' to discredit him? Where is Obama's private sector experience? Where is vast health care experience he has had in order to lecture us on the realities of health care? Then you criticize the one guy with actual private sector experience.

I must ask again, is there defect that allows liberals to be blind to hypocrisy?

Wow Keith- Shared sacrifice? You preaching? I've read your posts and it's okay for shared sacrifice as lon as it is everybody else sacrificing.

Paul Ryan has a sweet retirement from Congress waiting for him, so if his Medicare experiment fails the same way "trickle-down" economics has, he'll still be sitting pretty.

I've asked some Republicans what, practically, realistically, will happen to people under this plan when their coverage runs out and their savings are gone. There's never a practical answer. We could be facing a crisis of geriatric poverty in the next generation. Peoples' savings have been decimated because of the recession. Home equity blasted. The high cost of education has ensured decades of debt for parents and the next generation. People will be relying on Medicare and Social Security as perhaps never before and this is the area Ryan proposes to marginalize.

What happens to an elderly, or not-so-elderly person--who has exhausted their financial resources, has poor health, and cannot go to family--under the Ryan plan? Is the government expected to care for them? If so, where is the savings to government? Are they expected to die, survival of the fittest? Who pays for the burial/cremation? The government? Or are they to simply expected to wither away and be carried off in the breeze like dead leaves? That's not going to happen. These are real people, most of whom have paid into the Medicare/Social Security systems for decades, just like current beneficiaries.

Keith, you got hit in the face by a bag of ice? Might explain why you watch Ed Schultz.

Are you f`ing dummycrats SERIOUS! In four years this ghetto president has ruined far more of this Country`s wealth than any other President who has held the office. Stop crying about the wealthy , your argument about what the wealthy pay in taxes compared to what you or I pay in taxes should put that to rest already(if you do not know get a clue)! No one expects you to do anything just sit on your ass and complain some more while we unseat that ghetto president of yours. Cut taxes , raise government spending...what a dumb ass.

@Hoffa
Didn't you hear what the president said about this budget he gave on 4/3? I swear our own Jason P. wrote it for him. Obama is losing his grip with reality.

@Hoffa
It sounds to me like she has a lot of facts to back her up. Are you saying Ryan's budget doesn't slash investment in student loans, in clean energy technology and in medical and scientific research? Are you saying it doesn't replace Medicare with a voucher system that won't keep up with rising medical costs? Perhaps you could explain why Ryan's plan increases the military budget beyond what even the generals asked for? Or why it includes more tax cuts for the wealthy? Better check that mirror to see who is engaging in propaganda.

@St. Swithin
We need to stop hemorrhaging money on the national level or this country is dead. How else do you suggest we do that?

As for the military, Ryan is planning to be able to fight off the Russian when they realize their puppet hasn't been elected again.

JB, 1980 is over. We all know the reason why Ryan isn't slashing defense like he should. That would mean cutting off big equipment projects that would funnel money to his rich defense contractor friends.

If you think this is something that Ryan is doing out of concern for the country, you are horribly naive.

@Keith
I assume then you want to sell me on that fact that Obama is working for the best interest of the country? That must be why he is throwing billions at bankrupt alternative energy firms or letting his buddies in big business (Emmelt at GE) get away with no corporate taxes.

I find it funny that not a single liberal here has defended Obama's budget as an alternative to Ryan's. You all just continue to point fingers and never propose any serious solution.

The Republicans did a video about the Dem's in the wheel-chair over the cliff ad a few weeks ago and it was so funny. I will have to see if I find in on Youtube or somewhere. I thought great the Republicans are finally getting their act together.

Here are a few facts: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-medicare-0405-jm-20120405,0,3031715.story

and to think our economy is in the crapper by Ryan`s budget proposal to throw grandma off the cliff and leave junior on the street uneducated, clueless as always baldwin keep it up tiger...

This is a short article, LFO, not a speech. And the topic is "Why I voted 'no' on Ryan's Budget," not "Here's My Budget Plan."

It is helpful to immerse oneself in material before issuing a response. Otherwise it might indicate to others that you didn't understand the article and that could lessen your credibility.

@Bren
She also voted against Obama's plan. So questioning exactly were she stands is valid.

At least unions urge people to support their self-interest. I am afraid to ask what your reasoning is because a) there probably is none and b) if there is, the reason will be incredibly scary.

Another example of right-wing projection. I cannot help but advise that it would have been far more effective had you employed proper sentence structure and punctuation to denigrate the intelligence of others.

Amen to that! In the past ten years my elderly mother has been sold a motorized wheelchair and a chairlift, neither of which she has had the occasion to use yet. In both instances, the salesmen's argument was to buy it now before Medicare no longer covers it. Medical equipment is one of the areas we need to look into.

If the government had more involvement there would be more negotiation and better prices, for equipment, meds, and services. Unfortunately in the U.S. health care is a for-profit industry. The more of your premium insurers can keep the more profit they make.

The people who actually believe that the Affordable Care Act is opening the door to "death panels" are naive. The death panels are already here--death by profit margin.

So Obama has had a 'blank check' from Congress? Guess what, dude. It's Congress that passes budgets (which are nothing more than 'frameworks') and Congress that appropriates money. Somehow, even without Congress' budget framework, the Administration has been able to keep the government going. If you really want to see a blank check, look at the two wars our prior idiot in chief got us into. He never even had the courage to put the cost of those wars in what he reported as the government's budget.

And the Iraq War was to "pay for itself," remember Skinny? Instead we continue to pay because of Bush's raids on Social Security, etc. Don't forget all of the no-bid contracts to Halliburton (Dick Cheney's "old" company) and its hastily-assembled subsidiaries. The U.S. doesn't even get tax revenue from Halliburton now because execs moved their HQ to Brunei.

Independent research is good.

@Bren -

Blame Bush for raiding SS but not Clinton? A bit hypocritical, aren't we?

Mr. Hoffa, I was responding to skinny by reinforcing a salient point made by Bert.

Isolating a sentence I wrote to reinforce a point made by another and responding to it out of context does not exactly improve your credibility.

There is. It's called the Congressional Budget Office.

Oh yeah Sandy. That happens all the time.

...and welfare queens all drive Cadillacs...

This is a response. There's a link to more information in the article.

Voting against a budget that effectively kills Medicare, and explaining the rationale for that by noting how important Medicare is to seniors, is certainly a reasonable argument to make.

Aside from the fact that the budget really doesn't kill Medicare...

lu, the cost of living, including healthcare was much lower. It wasn't until after WWII that health insurance coverage became a job perk. Once insurance companies realized that a company had more capacity to pay than individuals (in most cases) that's when costs began to rise.

You apparently have been watching Fox News where the new meme has been the "secret 2nd term agenda" of Barack Obama. What is the "one big surprise?"

I am frankly tiring of all of this smoke and mirrors nonsense. Stop blaming the heart of America for the consequences of a greedy few. Stop expecting the heart of America to keep paying and paying for these consequences.

Unless and until Paul Ryan signs a pledge that he is willing to permanently forgo his Congressional health care plan and live with what he expects the rest of us to I will put as much faith and confidence in his budget and social ideas as he does.

As the bard wrote, "Tis an ill cook that cannot lick his own fingers."

Bren:

What 'smoke and mirrors' are you using to suggest that Paul Ryan's 'congressional health care plan' is any different than what the rest of us live with?

Cow, I'm talking about a political party that sent the U.S. economy into freefall and then instead of taking responsibility, tries to blame a president that was not in office when the slide began. And also has the gall to put forward a deficit reduction strategy that protects their benefactors' assets and shafts middle- and low-income people.

Congressmen get automatic pay adjustments when insurance costs go up (this isn't an unusual thing, it also happens at some companies in the private sector). An acquaintance in Paul Ryan's district challenged him on this during Medicare voucher concept 1.0. He claimed that "you'll have have the same benefits I have as a Congressman!" When it was pointed out that ordinary citizens wouldn't get those automatic income adjustments, Ryan had no response other than a rapidfire iterative burble of talking points.

As has been written elsewhere, Ryan is a career politician. Between that and his Randian utopia infatuation, he's probably not seeing the real walk-through of what his voucher plan could do to people making 5 figures and recession-ravaged savings.

Bren, what political party?

Bren:

I've asked before for something to back up your 'they get automatic cost of insurance increases' claims. I have looked and could not find anything that indicates that they get automatic pay adjustments to cover insurance cost increases.

Perhaps you should read the link that Justme posted above--it seems to clear up a lot of the false attacks that have been launched against Ryan's proposal...

As Obama recently said, (and I'm paraphrasing), Ronald Reagan would be too moderate for today's Republican Party. Is this a positive change?

Considering that Reagan started the runaway debt accumulation, which was his greatest regret by-the-way, I would say YES!!!

Clinton was able to bring the deficit under control. It was George W. Bush whose policies sent the economy into freefall.

Reagan did regret mistakes--I think that's the change. Today's Republicans rubberstamped America into recession then baldfacedly try to blame it on Barack Obama. What happened to accountability?

Mike, must be some good weed.

What, Democrats have no wealth? Democrats do not have big pockets? Mike, the biggest pockets going today are the unions and their dues going to politicians.

@Bren -

The only way Clinton brought deficit spending under control was by his $1T raid on the SS fund. And our debt still grew under Clinton.

Federal Debt when Clinton started: $4,001B
Federal Debt when Clinton ended: $5,628B (would have been over $1T higher had it not been for fund raids)

How exactly does one continue to accrue debt if they are only spending as much as they take in? Quite perpetuating the LIES about Clinton!

Smoke and mirrors aren't going to fix our problems, just like they didn't before. They merely pushed the problem further down the road for others to deal with. That's not a solution. That's why Rand Paul's budget is the most sensible given the economic reality that we presently face.

In fact, Obama is the first President to increase the size of the debt by double digits in any given year of an administration since Reagan.

Mr. Hoffa, everyone knows that George W. Bush created a record deficit after the Reagan deficit was cleaned up by Clinton. Most of us here are old enough to remember the situation in 2000...

Paul Ryan's budget will never be passed.

@Bren -

You honestly consider a $1T raid on the SS fund as being a sufficient means to clean up a deficit spending problem? The only real way to clean up a deficit spending problem is by making sure you don't spend more than you take in - it's actually quite a simple concept.

The only two Presidents in modern history to actually reduce federal spending from year to year was Reagan in FY1987 (-1.4%) and George H.W. Bush in FY1993 (-.5%). Clinton had all increases from FY1994-FY2001.

How about a budget that is unpopular with people who won't have to do without medicine and necessities of life as a 'shared' sacrifice?

The Bush tax cuts did not produce the job growth promised. In fact, they led to an economic meltdown and our present federal budget woes. How can you argue that further tax cuts for the upper segments of our society will produce a different result this time?

Medical costs rise because of a system the allows unbridled profit and unevenly applied access to the sort of care that would prevent expensive outcomes. Putting preventive medical care beyond the reach of many low to middle income seniors, as will surely happen with the voucher plan, will only exacerbate the problem.

I'm for taxing everyone fairly, but not if it raises the taxes of those who are struggling to live already. People who earn over a million dollars a year are not struggling to live.

1. My understanding is that revenue to the US Treasury did increase after the Bush tax cuts, but the Bush adminsistration and Repuiblican congress managed to outspend the revenue increases by waging 2 wars, opening an additional Medicare benefit, and increasing discretionary spending. With that said, I do not argue for further cuts for upper segments, but rather for removal of loop holes. My understanding is that 2/3 of wealthy people do pay their fair share, but about 1/3 do not. Of course almost 50% of us are no longer paying any federal income tax to fund depts of state, defense, education, labor, commerce. The alternative minimum tax is clearly not working, and half of us have no stake in the federal government except to fund our own retirement benefits. [Further complicating the discussion is something Ryan frequently mentions, small bussinesses create a lot of jobs but the owners are often taxed as individuals - they're perceived to be wealthy people until their bussiness fails.]
2. Not sure why you perceive the medical industry to be less bridled than other industries? I think there's also a legitimate argument to be made that many people use the healthcare system as if all services are free - a disconnect between cost and service. I would think preventitive care would be even more efficient in younger age groups.

Most people who are wealthy do pay their fair share of taxes, but some do not. Almost all of us benefit from some loop holes. Close the loop holes and insure the system is admistered fairly on everyone. Ryan offers healthcare exchanges for seniors, Obama offers them for everyone else. They both advance a free market model to control costs. If you disagree, then make the case for single payer and/or government run healthcare. There was a letter to the editor on the subject in the RJT today.

Tax cuts provided capital for offshoring. People need jobs around the world but profit-based globalization has given birth to companies like FoxConn. This situation is a winner only for the multinational corporations. Americans are out of work, foreign workers are working 24+ hour shifts in factories surrounded by safety nets. Halliburton sucked untold millions from the U.S. economy during the Bush administration with no-bid contracts, then moved its HQ out of the U.S. to avoid U.S. taxes. What is happening now, between ALEC, globalization and Citizens United, is giving unprecedented opportunity to special interests to fundamentally change our government and way of life.

Eric, thanks for some intelligent comments amidst a sea of partisan rhetoric. It seems to me that Ryan is making a concerted effort to deal with the difficult realities we face as a country regarding these enormous deficits. He is willing to face the hard issues, and he does so openly from a conservative (but not radical or "extremist") viewpoint. Instead of vilifying him, realistic and constructive alternative proposals should be provided and compared with his own. We should be keeping our focus on the real problems. They are difficult, and their solution will involve painful changes. Both parties have spent money they didn't have. Quit caricaturing the other side and focus on realistic solutions intelligently stated. Perhaps Ryan won't get reelected, but I respect his willingness to attack the real problems, and Medicare is part of the problem. Emotion-twisting stories about our grandparents get us nowhere.

Except that Medicare cuts would impact the elderly...

Can you spell spell?

There is an even better reason why Tammy did not vote for the Ryan budget. Because she is fighting for people who cannot and will not protect themselves -- you.

PS Sally. Bet you really hated it when the US Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Florida state court and elected George Bush president. What are your thoughts on that?

Don't worry about Granny. Eddie has it set up so that she will be given vouchers to buy something she cannot buy -- health insurance -- because she has something that this companies won't over. Old age.

That'll save us a lot of money.

What happens when or if Granny has something more than just old age -- like cancer or MS? That voucher isn't going to cut it, especially if Granny's Social Security check isn't that big, as is the case with many low-income workers. So Granny loses her house and her retirement savings, and when those are gone it's Medicaid. Except that has been reduced too, so it's going to fall on her family or the hospital will have to eat it and up go prices some more.

What does this do to the economy when those people no longer have the disposable income that they'd have used to buy the consumer goods like cars and iPhones and fixing the roof? We don't have that boost to the economy that Ryan's budget is counting on, that's for sure.

Let's stop this BS about the Democrats not proposing a budget. Just like everything else over the past years, the GOP has ground the wheels of government to a halt.

Us adults recognize that it takes 60 voters to get any thing done in the Senate, and that also means having to herd Democrats who vote like Republicans.

It is more than certain that none of you know where that nonsense came from about the Democrats not proposing a budget, but we have a pretty good idea.

@Randy1949 -

Nah, I'm liking Rand Paul's budget best: http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/senator-rand-paul%E2%80%99s-budget-plan-is-still-the-best

If Tammy doesn't like Ryan's plan, just imagine the fit she'll throw about Paul's budget!

With Paul, Obama, and CPC budget all out there, it kind of makes Ryan's budget appear to be the most moderate choice of those available, doesn't it? And yet, the libs are still howling away - typical.

@JRH -- Only someone who has never tried to support even a small family on less than $20K a year would find a flat tax appealing. It's only an extra 5%, but that 5% represents food, clothing, transportation, and what little fun you can scrape out of that little money. And forget saving for retirement. All so people like Mitt can afford another car elevator for the second house?

Keith, wait, what? Stop the BS about Democrats not proposing a budget? Blame it on the GOP? So a 97-0 and 414-0 is BS? Democrats, not ONE vote. Lame. But, this must be BS from the GOP?

What was the balance of power in the Senate until Al Franken was finally seated? And doesn't a bill in the Senate have to make it through committee?

Bob, unfortunately, Obama believed in his own message of bi-partisanship and working across the aisle, going so far as to snub less expensive liberal health plans and offering the Heritage Foundation plan that Republicans sponsored on the Senate floor in the past. His biggest failing was that he even tried to work with Republicans. He should have knocked heads in the Dem caucus and shoved a more liberal plan through.

@Paul S -- "Medical costs rise because of insurance companies, not in spite of them."

In that case, why would you want to remove the single-payer, non-insurance health plan for seniors and replace it with a variety of private insurance companies? That won't keep costs down, it will just hurt the people who need the care.

"You lefties define wealthy?"

Anybody earning over one million$ per year. I worked at several jobs that the government didn't fund, and I made nowhere near that amount.

We do have the Tea/ALEC/GOP causing unprecedented obstruction in Congress which cannot be appropriately blamed on Obama/Reid. But even if your assertion were true, I'd agree that no budget is a better alternative than the Ryan screed.

@Bren: Obama/Reid/Pelosi has the first 2 years with complete control of Congress to pass a budget and they didn't.

Obama's latest budget in year 3 did not get even 1 vote from either Republicans OR Democrats. So you vote for no budget? Then you and Obama stand alone with NO support from either side of the aisle in Congress.

Col. Sanders, dispense with nonsense right-wing talking points. 1) The President does not pass budgets. The Congress passes budget resolutions. 2) The budget resolutions passed by Congress are not laws, and serve no other purpose than to guide Congress in its appropriations. 3) The Congress has passed appropriations bills every year, which enables any and all spending that a President is allowed to do.

The Ryan budget is a joke. I'll give you all tax cuts, and I'll make it "revenue neutral" by closing deductions. I just won't tell you about which deductions I plan to close, nor provide any specifics on what I will cut to get discretionary spending to the utterly absurd level of 3% of GDP...

Bert:

I think you are incorrect. Yes, the president does not pass budgets, but you should note that Sanders commented that Obama/Reid/Pelosi were the ones responsible for failing to pass a budget, not just Obama. The president is supposed to submit his budget to congress for their approval. Obama's budget was rejected 414-0 recently in the House.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/feb/02/paul-ryan/democrat-controlled-us-senate-has-gone-nearly-thre/

"Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate has gone nearly three years without a budget, GOP Rep. Paul Ryan says"

@Nick
Adam appears to have beaten me to the punch.

My questions revolve around his answer, however. Can you please provide a successful historical example for the society you outline above? Can you explain to me how an economy exists when success (and therefore innovation) are demonized in an effort to make every man his brothers equal?

The altruistic utopia that sends a tingle up your leg is impossible to reach. Your failure to grasp the simple fact that intellectual enlightenment no more brings this world closer to perfect harmony then any other social system, is your downfall. The assumption that knowledge and understanding what is hidden will save this country is the same illogical logic that is about to bring her to her knees. Until the liberals and other wizards of smart realize that the desire for more and better is the engine that drives human development, you will for ever flounder in stagnant socialist thought.

The cut came from Medicare Advantage plans, which have been proving to be more expensive to the program than they're worth. And Ryan wants to privatize all of it. Smart move.

Here's a tip -- don't act all aghast about 'cuts' to Medicare and then expect seniors to be cool with something that's going to affect them even worse.