DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum GOP budget plan (both short term and long term)

Quote:

---

I understand your frustration with "helping the poor" as you call it, BUT alot of those benefits are for retired folks who paid their dues. What do you say to them? Sorry you're getting screwed... sorry you drank the GOP coolaid and thought all you had to do was work really hard and pay your taxes...

---

What do you mean they "paid their dues"? What dues did they pay? They had a job? Maybe they did a stint in the military? What dues exactly did they pay that now everybody needs to support them? In the "work hard and pay their taxes" did they save anything? Did they save enough to retire?

Quote:

---

Nobody thinks in terms of good for everyone or even the best for eveyone...

---

You have a portion of Americans who work hard to support themselves and their families and don't mind paying a reasonable amount of taxes to be used as responsibly as possible... then you have another group who feels entitled to do little or nothing and live off of the work of others... good luck finding a plan that is "best for everybody"...

Quote:

---

While your lumping everyone into the LAZY bracket please explain the following:

Americans with disabilities? Physical and Mental.
Disabled Vets?
The retired folks who paid thier dues?
Children who can't fend for themselves?

Did you forget about these people? I know they are not you, but come on man, even you gotta agree we can't screw these people.

---

The first line of support for those with mental and physical disabilities should be family, then community, then government.

Disabled Vets should be cared for.. by the same token, this is another system that is broken. I have a friend who gets a check each month for being disabled because he hurt his ankle in a non-combat situation... he drives a truck for a living, that's what he wants to do, his old ankle injury has nothing to do with his ability to do his job, it doesn't even hurt him most days but he just keeps cashing that check...

Again with the retired folks who paid their dues... I'm curious, at what point can I stop worrying about supporting myself and expect to have others pay for me because I paid my dues?

Children should be cared for by family, community, then government.. unfortunately we have put government first in most cases, even ahead of family...

I don't want to see people suffer, and neither does ytown, but government is not the first option in helping others and do you know why? Because they suck at it. They don't "help".. they just give money. They don't help kids grow and learn, they don't help the disabled become more productive citizens, they just write a check and call it helping and God forbid what a heartless piece of crap I am because I don't think every problem on the planet can be solved by giving away enough of other peoples money.

Sorry Old cold, a lot of that isn't even directed at you.. just got on a venting roll..

Really? Which benefits would that be?

The EITC, which give welfare through the tax system based upon how little someone worked during the year?

I don't know of many senior citizens getting that one since only income counts towards it, and savings and other retirement income counts against it.

The Child Tax Credit?

Again, not many senior citizens having babies in their golden years.

How about medicaid spending? Medicaid allows a person who is not working or contributing to society, except by having child after child out of wedlock, to have damn near unlimited care, while our seniors are rationed. Is that fair? How does limiting the Medicaid drain on our resources hurt seniors?



Please tell me which of these "benefits" would hurt older retired people.

I will add this ...... I am disappointed that the Republicans didn't cut MORE out of the overly bloated budget and put forth a proposal to eliminate the vote buying scheme known as the tax system.

I almost don't care anymore. I'll figure out how to take care of myself. I don't have kids, so I don't need to worry about what I leave them ..... so screw your (everyone's) kids! Let them pay the bills! I'll only be around for another 50 - 60 years max .... so give me all I can get ..... and screw 'em. They can figure it out after I'm gone and China, Korea, India, and probably South America by then owns this country lock, stock, and barrel. Screw the next 3 or 4 (and probably more) generations ..... who gives a damn. As long as I get mine, let your sons, daughters, grand children, and great granchildren figure out how to pay our bills. What a great legacy we'll leave to them.

The generation coming out of WWII gave us a far more limited government, (even with the explosion of government programs ..... that didn't work, by the way ... that FDR had shoved into existence) and charities were a responsible method of helping those who needed a hand. The budget wasn't blown all to hell ..... we weren't taxed to death ...... and the country ran fairly well. We didn't have 8 billion governmental agencies ranging from education (and they actually taught kids in those days) to the wiping butts with toilet paper department. Somehow this country got alog just fine in those days. It wasn't perfect. There was racism and other problems ..... but many of those are well on their way to being solved today. Regardless, the legacy of that generation was that hard work makes the American dream possible. Our legacy today is that you can get by pretty well by doing almost nothing ... you deserve free money from the government, and it's someone else's responsibility to pay the bills. We are well on our way to leaving the worst fiscal disaster in this country's history to the next generations. That's OUR legacy. Yea us! I think congratulations are in order. Better print 'em in Chinese though.

You can't keep taking from the middle class and cutting social programs alone. This is what our country is becoming. And I DO have kids and I don't want them to have to support a family at Mcdonalds.


http://www.vanityfair.com/society/featur...;wpisrc=nl_wonk

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.
By Joseph E. Stiglitz•Illustration by Stephen DoyleMay 2011
THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.

As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

This part Ytown: ""Premium support system" for Medicare, so that plans are administered through private companies."

Now they want to give a slice of the pie to middle men. Who's gonna take the cut to give private businessmen their share?????? You guys out think yourselves.

Yeah, I am paying into SS too...and probably MORE in my short 20 years of working than those retirerees did in their LIFETIME. And I doubt I get to see ONE RED CENT of that. not only that...but how much did these people PAY IN...and how much are they TAKING OUT??? It is EXTREMELY disproportionate.

Next you keep complaining about Middle Men....You know what...I would much rather have Middle Men than BUREAUCRATS!!!!! At least the middle men have a vested interest to serve your needs...Because if they don't some OTHER middle man will.....

Quote:

---

They paid into Social Security for years. Who cares what other finances they have, they paid into the fund and were promised benefits. Now because you don't think they deserve them they should be wiped out?

---

Then why didn't you say social security instead of "paid their dues".. I agree with that. I think social security needs to go to those who paid into it, it just needs to be eliminated as a program over time.

Quote:

---

You and a few others could use a dose of life kicking you in the ass to humble you.

---

What makes you think it hasn't already? Life, our government, and our failing economy are about to kick us all in the ass as we pay for the debt run up by the last couple generations...

I do find it ironic that the children of the 60s who were the most anti-government group in the history of this country have since come to run government and created the most government dependent state that our nation has ever seen.

Quote:

---

I do find it ironic that the children of the 60s who were the most anti-government group in the history of this country have since come to run government and created the most government dependent state that our nation has ever seen.

---

I'd agree with that 100%.

Quote:

---

Yet there are some that still don't want to do anything about the country's finances.......just spend spend spend - tax the rich.....

---

Don't lump me into that. I hate all forms of taxation. As for changing the budget I'm also all for that. BUT I think it starts with the BIG spending; Defense, Business and Farm Subsidies, Tax Breaks. THEN once you've widdled 50% of that away, then look at social programs.

Hell I wanted health care reform SIMPLY because my health history makes me uninsurable outside of a true group plan. 5 Heart Attacks will do that. I want the right to buy insurance without being denied... BUT the BS that came out of these negotiations is nothing like the promised reform Obama sold. So as far as I'm concerned it should be repealed.

I think we need a health care program like the ones Canada and Europe. I KNOW that's another hot button on here but I'm for it. That's one tax I'd happily pay.

I'm also against guaranteed student loans and government grants. I think the cost of higher education is out of control and the biggest reason is the government tit.

Don't get me wrong I think everyone should be able to obtain schooling if desired, but far too many start life in huge holes due to education. Many also get degrees who are absolute idiots and know nothing when the graduate.

I think more money should be spent in public schools teaching money management, investment, budgeting and saving. BUT that would go against the grain of big business. The money wise don't buy impulse items.

I think dropouts shold be conscripts in the military too. This would makes kids more serious about their education. Dropout and dig latrines...

You and I agree about an awful lot...

As I'm sure you imagine, I cringe at a European style healthcare system but other than that, we are on the same page. I do understand your logic behind wanting one, I just think there has to be a better way to make sure an older guy with 5 heart attacks can have some coverage than to turn the whole system over to the government... has to be. I'm not smart enough to know what it is, but there has to be.

Quote:

---

I think more money should be spent in public schools teaching money management, investment, budgeting and saving. BUT that would go against the grain of big business. The money wise don't buy impulse items.

---

Our church teaches Dave Ramsey's course to our high school youth group every spring.. so by the time most kids graduate from high school they have been through it 3 or 4 times and they are well aware of the dangers of debt and they all should have a plan for living their life on pretty much a total cash basis. I would recommend EVERY KID FROM 14 UP take the course..

The more I see and hear the more I'm loving Paul Ryan's budget. Still haven't gotten all of the details yet but if all of the democrats hate it.. and a lot of the republicans are afraid it goes to far and could hurt their re-election chances, then I believe it has to be on the right track.

Quote:

---

I wish that they would look at the "New Year Celebration" known as the Earned income Tax Credit that puts thousands of dollars into the pockets of people who pay no taxes to start with

---

For the FairTax, or flat taxes, or any tax plan for that matter, the vast majority of these plans have ways of limiting the lowest income bracket's total tax liability because we are an economy based on consumption. If you look at the way our income breaks down, about 80 million "tax units" make less than $50K per year (the group that may be eligible for EITC). That is out of 150 million tax units. More than half of all consumers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/d...amp;DocTypeID=1

This group's consumption is much more sensitive to taxes. For example, a flat tax of 18% (what would be needed to match current tax revenue generated by the progressive system) would absolutely cripple consumption in this country. It may be more "fair," but from an economic standpoint, it would be like an atomic bomb.

It's also incorrect to say that low income earners pay no taxes. Under the current system, everyone has roughly 7% taken out as Soc Security and Medicare taxes (or 15% if they are self-employed). Left unchecked, that is pretty substantial and would also be damaging to consumption for lower income workers. Further, it would disincentivize work, as after taxes some would make less than some types of assistance. I thought that is why this credit exists, to incentivize work over collecting assistance in addition to putting money straight into the economy (people with less money generally have to spend it all to keep their heads above water).

Aside from all this, I agree with you that we should simplify the tax code. Picking on the EITC though is like picking on discretionary spending as a means to reduce spending. It represents such a small fraction. EITC doesn't even make the top 12 of tax expenditures, meaning that at most, it represents only a few percent.

JMO, but like Medicare, Social Security and defense for the federal budget, there are bigger fish to fry with the tax code.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/expenditures/largest.cfm

That's one of the great things I've heard about the new budget, it lowers the highest nominal tax rate but it eliminates deduction loopholes which will save a trillion dollars, therefore lowering the rate is actually budget neutral and gets to what many of us have wanted.. a simpler tax code..

Just talking to myself here I guess.. somebody finally put forth a budget that actually has a chance of digging us out of this hole and nobody wants to talk about it...

So, since I'm just talking to myself I'll talk about some other things that interest me. Heard Walter Williams on the radio yesterday (if you don't know who he is, look it up).. made a funny comment about how he was lucky enough to grow up black before white people liked black people... his point was that for a hundred or so years after the slaves were freed, they lived in a society of overt racism yet their families stayed together, they had a strong moral compass, and a solid work ethic... then once the white people decided it was ok to actually like black people, they began instituting the welfare state.. now the majority of black babies are born out of wedlock, blacks are a disproportionately large percentage of the prison population..

On a different note, I see where the democrats, and Obama in particular are already setting up blame for a government shut down on the republicans, Obama said if it happens it will delay pay to the troops... I wonder if the media will report on the fact that republicans have already offered a bill to make sure the troops get paid and the democrats are playing politics with it and lying about who is responsible if it happens.. probably not. If the troops pay gets delayed by even a single day in a shutdown, it's because the democrats wanted it to happen so they could make a political point, it's that simple.

Oh well, I have to go interview college kids today (engineering and construction management students), looking for 19-20 year old co-ops that we can eventually turn into full time employees and start them at about $48K a year with a great benefits package that includes 100% medical, dental and vision paid, 9 holidays per year including the week between Christmas and New Years, 5 vacation days which grows by 1 day a year to a max of 15 days, 10 sick days, quarterly bonuses.. and they don't even have to join a union to get it. They just have to work hard.

So have a good day y'all.

Quote:

---

Just talking to myself here I guess.. somebody finally put forth a budget that actually has a chance of digging us out of this hole and nobody wants to talk about it...

---

I tried to talk about it in my original post, but somehow we started talking about communism or something like that.

Three points:

The Medicare reform is to privatize the system and offer subsidies for the elderly. I worry a great deal here, b/c Medicare works for the elderly b/c the government can dictate what it pays. If a private insurance company runs this, they will have to include risk into their fees, and an insurance policy for an elderly person will cost several times what it would cost under Medicare. Two possibilities here as I see it, either this ends up costing the government more than Medicare, or the elderly are going to have to pay a lot more of their health expenses. I'll wait for the CBO scoring before completely slamming the plan though.

The second point: I like the idea of tax reform, but I want to see specifics.

Third: freezing certain types of discretionary spending is a horrible idea. Being an academic biomedical researcher, I know that this will hit NIH. It will probably hit NASA as well as many other basic research organizations. Tamping down on research spending is very dangerous in a time when we need to diversify our economy towards high technology, and countries like China, Brazil, and India are pumping tons of money into research, education, and infrastructure. We may help resolve the budget a little bit faster, but in the long run, this would be very damaging to the country. Basic research is where many of the good ideas for products come from.

Just another consideration. We talk about saving ourselves from ourselves, and often appeal to emotions that we do so for the sake of our kids. And it is truly hypocritical that we are so sincere we can't pass last year's budget, never really prepared one to live within, and apparently are using this as an opprtunity to attack a number of programs as targets of opportunity. Many of the kids "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" will be curtailed. But my concern with all the medicare talk is not for the kids; it is for my parents who are in the downside and use it effectively. We talk about cuts and savings; we do not get much about controlling the businesses passing on staggering amounts of premium increases. My folks worked hard; they do not want a free ride. But in their hours of need, they deserve affordable care. They will sacrifice, but so should the providers be capped or contained. Never seems to be part of it. Just current politicians deciding who will be blessed and who will bleed. Some caps, rollbacks, or containment seems in order. JMO

The CBO review is not very good at all.



http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/06/v-fullstory/2154026/cbo-seniors-would-pay-much-more.html

CBO: Seniors would pay much more for Medicare under Ryan plan
.Related Content

Mary Agnes Carey and Laurie McGinley
Kaiser Health News
WASHINGTON — Seniors and people with disabilities would pay much more for Medicare under a new plan by Republicans in the House of Representatives that's aimed at curbing the nation's growing budget deficit, a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows.

For example, by 2030, typical 65-year-olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the cost of their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, according to the CBO. They'd pay 25 percent under current law, the CBO said.

The GOP budget proposal also would raise the eligibility age for the popular program and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law that Congress approved last year.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., unveiled the fiscal 2012 budget proposal Tuesday.

Coming amid growing concern over the federal budget deficit, it's part of an overall GOP effort to reduce federal spending by at least $5 trillion over the coming decade.


"Washington has been making empty promises to Americans from a government that is going broke," Ryan said. Unless something is done, "the red ink is going to destroy our economy."

Besides overhauling Medicare, his 10-year budget proposal would give states more control over Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor, but it would cut the amount that states receive from federal coffers for that program by hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade.

Americans also wouldn't be required to buy health insurance, and employers wouldn't have to offer it. States wouldn't be on the hook to set up new insurance marketplaces as they are under the 2010 health care act, which Ryan would scrap.


The proposed changes drew criticism from Democrats and advocates for the elderly and the poor. Many zeroed in on the changes to Medicare. The Ryan proposal would do away with the traditional Medicare program and shift beneficiaries into private insurance plans in 2022 with federal subsidies under a model called "premium support."

Medicare enrollees would get a set amount from the government to purchase private plans. Those plans would cost considerably more than traditional Medicare, the CBO said, partly because private plans pay hospitals, doctors and other providers more and have higher administrative costs. At the same time, enrollees would pay a higher percentage of the overall cost of their coverage.

"What CBO is saying is beneficiaries would pay much less under traditional Medicare for two reasons: The overall cost of the plan would be much cheaper, and they would pay a lesser share of that less-costly plan," said Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research center.

Ryan's proposal, dubbed "The Path to Prosperity," also would scrap the health care law's Medicaid expansion, repeal a voluntary long-term-care insurance program and cancel an advisory board the law created to recommend changes to Medicare spending.

Ryan appears to retain the health law's Medicare payment cuts to hospitals and Medicare Advantage plans.

Chip Kahn, the president and chief executive officer of the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents for-profit hospital and health care systems, said Ryan's plan to repeal the law's coverage expansions but keep the provider cuts "will severely impact access to essential medical care for seniors, as well as the lowest-income Americans."


In last November's elections, Republicans criticized Democrats for the Medicare provider cuts, saying they'd jeopardize seniors' access to care.

"They've taken those savings — the same ones that they've criticized — in their plan," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top-ranked Democrat on the House Budget Committee, adding that "the health care reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act, which they say they're repealing, they're not repealing at all."

Ryan said Wednesday in an emailed statement, "Those who criticize plans to save Medicare, while offering none of their own, only ensure that the program continues on a path to insolvency. And those who compare plans to save Medicare with the status quo are comparing real solutions with a false reality. In its analysis of 'The Path to Prosperity,' the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that Medicare as currently structured is unsustainable."


The CBO highlighted key features of the proposal, based on information from Ryan's staff and its own analysis, including:

Starting in 2022, the eligibility age for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.


The so-called "doughnut hole" in the Medicare prescription-drug benefit — a period in which beneficiaries pay 100 percent of drug costs — would continue under the Ryan plan. The health law passed last year calls for the coverage gap to end by 2020.



The private plans offered to Medicare enrollees starting in 2022 would have to comply with a standard for benefits set by the Office of Personnel Management, and would have to charge the same premiums for all enrollees of the same age.


The premium-support payments would vary depending on the health status and incomes of the beneficiaries. Enrollees who are sicker than average, for example, would get larger payments. Wealthy enrollees would get less: Those among the top 2 percent of earners would get 30 percent of the premium support, while the next 6 percent would get half.

The CBO report said that the average government payment for a 65-year-old in Medicare in 2022 would be $8,000. In each successive year, it would increase to reflect inflation and the enrollee's age. Patients' share would rise sharply, since health care costs are expected to continue to increase faster than the inflation rate. Higher-income beneficiaries would get lower premium-support payments.

(Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy organization that isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/06/v-...l#ixzz1IrBKLHF7

Ok, so if you take a smaller chunk out of Medicare, then where do you make those cuts?

there are going to be sacrifices and hopefully they will be done so that everyone across the board has to make them.

Quote:

---

Medicare enrollees would get a set amount from the government to purchase private plans. Those plans would cost considerably more than traditional Medicare, the CBO said, partly because private plans pay hospitals, doctors and other providers more and have higher administrative costs. At the same time, enrollees would pay a higher percentage of the overall cost of their coverage.

---

But you know what...Hospitals wouldn't have to take the losses from all of the Medicare/Medicaid cases they have and incorporate those losses into higher overall costs.....Did the CBO take that into consideration???? Working for a hospital system, I can tell you it costs the Hospital sometimes up to 3 times what they receive from Medicare. And those costs have to be made up some how....In fact the Mayo Clinic decided not to see Medicare patients starting last year... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0

I am not saying this plan is the answer...heck I will be heading towards this age in 2030....But I also don't think it is as bad as they are letting on...

Oh man, this is some funny stuff.

Emergency Authorization Bill - HR1363

This is the bill that Republicans are trying to force down America's throat to "fund" the government for another week.

It includes cuts to:

Department of Defense
Rural Development
Corps of Civil Engineers
Corps of Engineers - Flood Control of "Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkan
sas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
and Tennessee"
Department of Energy: Renewable Energy
Department of Energy: Nuclear Energy
Department of Energy: Naval Petroleum and Oil Shell preserves
Department of Energy: Strategic Petroleum Reserve
" : Clean Coal
" : Uranium Enrichment Decontamination & Decommisioning
" : Atomic Energy Defense - Nuclear Reactors
" : National Nuclear Security Administration
Environmental Cleanup
Homeland Security: (the actual programs cut)
Operations
Violent Crime Reduction
Office of Domestic Preparedness
U.S. Customs and Borders Protection
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Federal Air Marshalls
Coast Guard
U.S. Secret Service
Federal Law Enforcement
National Predisaster Mitigation Fund

and more...

You right wingers are so full of manure it is disgusting. All these cuts you are making - including to the Secret Service, Homeland Security, U.S. Customs .. etc... Who are you going to blame if a terrorist attack actually succeeds? Oh, yea, it's Obama's fault - right?!

ok, where should the cuts come from?

As was asked.. Where do you think the cuts should come from?

Yeah Charlie, where should the cuts come from? Real cuts, not some cut a few percent of the budget garbage. Actual cuts.


Someone explained our situation today on the radio and it made a lot of sense. It's as if this country is addicted to government spending the way that people get addicted to OxyCotin.

When it comes time to cut down on the spending, everyone says that they're for it. But when it comes to actually doing it, we don't have the grit to withdraw.


If nothing is done, things will get really bad. Our debt is something that drives me nuts Charlie. I'm 25 years old. My future is in this country. I'm hoping to live here for at least another 60-75 years. Changes have to be made and made soon or this country will go down the tubes.

Nothing pisses me off more than this rising debt. We will either destroy ourselves economically. It really scares me. What future does this country have with a debt like ours? Why work hard and save my money when it will soon be worth nothing?


What is your plan to seriously cut spending? Because this guy is the only one I've seen with a real plan.

Are we going to tax the heck out of everyone? Or push even more companies away from the United States through heavy corporate taxes? If so, please let me know so I can plan my life accordingly

Why didn't the Democrats pass a bill last year? They had control of the Senate, House and White House?

since you won't answer on where the cuts should be made.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Are we going to tax the heck out of everyone?

---

Make the rich pay their fair share.

---

the rich already pay the highest percentage. now, if you are talking about having a simplified tax code to get rid of some of these loopholes, I can get onboard with that

2 very important questions though:
1. What do you consider rich?
2. What do you consider, their fair share?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Or push even more companies away from the United States through heavy corporate taxes? If so, please let me know so I can plan my life accordingly

---

End all benefits to companies that move overseas. Also, do not buy goods from the companies that move overseas. They love China so much, see if the Chinese people buy their goods - they won't.

---

Good luck finding any company larger than a mom&pop establishment that isn't a 'global' company.

So, you do not want to buy an automobile (all global), a cell phone (all global), or nearly any other consumer good. Maybe something could have been done about this 63 years ago, but "the Marshall Plan" sort of ended any chance of that happening. It is also the main reason the USA has been the economic leader in the world the past 63 years as well.

Charlie considers "rich" to be anyone with more than him ...... and "fair" to be not only everything they make, but everything they have. Of course they will then get a pittance back to barely get by on.

Quote:

---

Do you realize the taxes they pay? (I"m speaking more about Canada - as I know much more about their insurance/taxes) It's unreal. It's tough to compare head to head, as our income tax without health care "included" is higher (well, for those that pay it) Combine that with our national debt - they could tax every u.s. citizen in the 70% range and still go further in debt.

---

My gad Arch, we're not that bad off. Out of curiousity one day I did some rough calculations comparing what my net would be in the States vs what my net is here. I included health care insurance in my calculations of what my net would be in the States as I think that's a necessity.

At the end of the year, I think my net in Canada was maybe 1500 less...