
If some Republicans are squeamish about Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal to privatize Social Security, there's plenty of tax cuts for the rich included in the plan they might find more to their liking.
TPMDC has been scouring the "Roadmap for America's Future" budget blueprint that Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, proposed a few weeks ago. Among the nuggets that have GOPers running a bit scared are his plans to dramatically slash Social Security and Medicare benefits to cut the deficit.
Under the plan, Ryan (R-WI) also would give taxpayers a choice of a "simpler" system with just two tax brackets and he would repeal the corporate income tax. In its place he creates a "consumption tax" of 8.5 percent that experts tell us would unfairly burden the lower and middle classes. That's a tax on all goods and services that shifts the tax burden from corporations to individual consumers.
Ryan says the consumption tax for businesses will make it easier for the companies to "invest and create more jobs in the U.S."
"By reforming the entire tax code and removing these upward pressures on taxes [such as the AMT], this plan offers greater certainty so taxpayers can better plan for their financial futures," he wrote in the roadmap, which you can read here.
The roadmap has a GOP grab-bag of tax cuts, eliminating capital gains taxes, interest income taxes, the alternative minimum tax and estate tax Republicans dubbed the "death" tax. It also increases the standard deduction for tax filers.
"These are very, very dramatic changes in the tax code ... likely to lose a tremendous amount of revenue," said Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBBP).
Horney noted that the Congressional Budget Office evaluation doesn't take the revenue effects of the tax cuts into account. CBBP will be out soon with their own analysis.
However, the Ryan plan is remarkably similar to what then-presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R-TN) presented in 2007 before the GOP primary. That had the "biggest tax cut in American history," and was a "huge reveune loser," totaling between $5 trillion and $7 trillion, Horney said.
The consumption tax would raise revenues but doesn't come anywhere close to offset the revenue lost from the tax cuts, Horney said.
Under the Ryan proposal, taxpayers could stick with the current tax plan or choose the "simplified" one which has just two brackets.
For example, a couple filing jointly would either fall in the $0-$100k range with a 10 percent tax rate or the $100k and above bracket with a 25 percent rate. The rate is 25 percent for single filers earning $50k or more.
That eliminates the current top three tax brackets for wealthier people.
"Lower rates reduce disincentives to work and increase earnings," the roadmap proclaims.
Ryan writes in the roadmap the changes are to keep the federal tax burden at its current level.
Horney said he doesn't see why many Republicans are backing away from the plan as a political hot potato, saying it's consistent with policies they've supported for years.
masanf
February 10, 2010 10:48 AM
Speaking of novel, even revolutionary ideas, the Democrats' budget spends a whole hell of a lot and raises taxes a lot, especially on the "rich".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 10, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to masanf
It's about fucking time the parasites paid some taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 10, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Good morning from snowland...
No shit about the taxes. Why does the GOP just hate the middle class?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MichaelG1986
February 10, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
More importantly, why does so much of the middle class love Republicans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 10, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to MichaelG1986
Because they have done a great job of dividing us on social issues making us think we have nothing in common with each other. I give them their due - it worked. Pathetic isn't it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
February 10, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
They cant give them as much bang for the buck when it comes to donations.
Suck up to a Billionaire, Get $1-10MM, or pander to 10000+ people to get $1MM... way easier
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 10, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Good morning Marinus?
You have piqued my curiousity with that name so I did some reading about Marinus van der Lubbe so now I am even curiouser. So what is it about Marinus van der Lubbe that you decide to use that name?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 10, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Just a crazy-ass, certifiable Dutchman who burned down the symbol of Nazism...no biggy...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 10, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Yea, and the beheaded him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 10, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Yes. No one had complained about his head before that...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
February 10, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
really? it was the democrats ,under LBJ, that took social security out of the 'lock-box' and put those funds into the 'general fund'. thats right, for 30 years the social security fund was kept seperate and could not be touched by the government. it was also the democrats, this time under jimmy carter, who started to pay illegal immigrants social security. and it was the democrats, with al gore casting the deciding vote in his job as president of the senate, that removed the tax status of social security income. you can look it up. seems to me all we have to do to get social security solvent again is to get it out of the hands of the democrats of today and return it to like it was when it was started under FDR. oh, i forgot one thing, we must die sooner, which the obama health care plan will see to that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
February 10, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Social Security was never in the general fund. It's still in a separate trust fund. What you're saying is just flatly wrong.
Illegal workers aren't eligible for Social Security. That too is just flatly wrong. You can't collect without a real Social Security number, which requires having your documentation in order. They do pay in with the fake numbers they use, but they can't collect. That's part of what bulks up the trust fund.
You want to go back to how it was under FDR? You should be happy then, because we pretty much are.
"You can look it up" sounds nice, but before advising that, it's a good idea to look it up yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
February 12, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to ericf
sorry to tell you this, all that is in the trust fund are IOU'S from the federal government. even the most liberal of liberals knows this. access to the fund was given to LBJ in 1964, you can look it up, or don't. who the hell cares,.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SantaMonica
February 10, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
The theory goes that you have to raise effective tax rates on the middle class to make them feel the pain, so they'll be more receptive to the GOPs antitax agenda (which does benefit the millionaires). It's simple math: there are many more middle-class people than millionaires there, so the GOP couldn't win elections just with its base of haves and have-mores. Although, admittedly they've managed pretty well so far using wedge issues (GWOT, gays, guns, abortion, brown people etc. etc.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 10, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to SantaMonica
Agreed....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
February 10, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to masanf
Really? Whose taxes go up and by how much? Just give us a few brackets and rough percentages.
The vast majority of people who are out there at the tea bag rallies protesting tax increases have most likely paid less in taxes over the past year than previously. But, they can't be bothered with checking the actual numbers because it might defuse their 'righteous' anger. It sucks not having anything to bitch about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
February 10, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to chimpale
They're not really angry over taxes, they're angry because the President is black.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
February 10, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to Darrius
More accurately, they're angry because the President is not white. If he were a Latino, they would be angry as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
February 10, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to Darrius
Shhhhh! We're not supposed to state the obvious in this regard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 10, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to chimpale
Don't worry about an answer from masanf-troll. The comment was only a hit-and-run.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 10, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to masanf
Under well-known librul soshulist Dwight David Eisenhower, the top bracket was taxed at 90% He used that money to pay down the national debt accumulated fighting the Depression, and then the Nazis, and build the evil shoshulist Interstate Highway System which, as all good wingnuts know, has done absolutely nothing to create jobs or create wealth because it was a big gubbamint project.
Under well-known librul soshulist Ronald Reagan, the rate on the top bracket was 50%.
At a time when we're simultaneiously trying to deal with the worst economic downturn since the Depression and with record deficits, both directly attributable to the policies of right-thinker George W. Bush, evil soshulists Obama, Pelosi and Reid are talking about letting the rate on the top bracket go back up from 35% to 39.6%.
Oh the horror. Much better to just keep borrowing money from China. Or, hey, why not raise taxes on the poor. That's a much better idea, because a guy whose taxable income--i.e. income after the 401(k) and IRA contributions, the mortgage interest deduction, state and local taxes, personal exemptions for self and for kids, student loan interest, and all the other juicy cuts he gets-including that long term capital gains break--exceeds a quarter of a million needs that dough a lot more than the guy making fifteen bucks an hour.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
the equipment
February 10, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Fifteen bucks an hour? Where the hell do I get that job?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 10, 2010 9:05 PM in reply to the equipment
In a unionized manufacturing job. Good luck finding one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
February 10, 2010 10:48 AM
So a rate cut of 15 percent for the wealthy, a 2% cut for the poor...get out and sell it Ryan you scumbag!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
February 10, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to madmatt
Sell it Ryan?? No, No, NO, Democrats should be selling it for him. Or rather using it as a not-so-straw strawman to knock down. I can't believe that a politician actually made public a budget that cuts Social Security and eliminates Medicare. Democrats should already be calling it the Republicans' contract with America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
monel9959
February 10, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to Darrius
Farnsworth, it does seem to be another of the rethuglican bait and switch gimmicks.
I recall at the beginning of the W era, right winger pundits lauding W's plans for tax cuts for the rich, ACTUALLY suggested raising taxes on the lowest incomes because they used the most government programs. They dropped that kind of talk and sold the supposed lesser of two evils to the American public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
February 10, 2010 10:59 AM
More tax cuts for the rich. Gee, that's a fresh idea. Why haven't we thought of that before?
Oh wait, we did. That's right. Reagan peddled that sorry ass trickle down theory 30 years ago and we still haven't seen anything trickle down, yet. Give it up, already!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
February 11, 2010 4:03 AM in reply to chimpale
That's right. The only thing that went "up" besides rich people's wealth under Reagan was the national debt. All other presidents ran up the debt to contend with economic depression or war. Reagan transferred $3+ trillion from government to the rich for his trickle down policies - which haven't worked to this day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davewtf
February 10, 2010 11:04 AM
Hell, I can handle that. Right now I am in the 33% tax bracket. Wouldn't mind keeping more of it. Rest assured, poor people, I will spend it wisely. I'm sure trickle-down will eventually get it to you :-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Dan
February 10, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to davewtf
If you are in the 33% tax bracket, you make between $208,850 and $372,950 per year.
Say you make exactly $208,850 after deductions and exemptions;
You pay 10% on the first $16,700, 15% on $51,200, 25% on 69,150, 33% on $71,800.
This equals
$ 1,600.
7,680.
17,287.50
23,694.40
------------
50,251.90
If my math is correct, this is about 25% for income taxes, and this is after gross income is adjusted by standard deduction or itemized deductions (minimum $5,700), and personal exemption ($3,650).
If my math is correct, this is about 25% for income taxes, and this is after gross income is adjusted by standard deduction or itemized deductions (minimum $5,700), and personal exemption ($3,650).
Congratulations, your salary is near the top percentage for American workers.
The teabaggers are either too stupid or ignorant to realize that they are better off than under the Bush presidency! They are only aware of abortion, religion, gays, and immigrants, and have no concept of what is financially good for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 10, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to Captain Dan
And the brown guy in the WHite House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 10, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to Captain Dan
Wow, I am always so impressed when people can do the math!! That would have taken me a long time to figure out with many many mistakes in the process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
February 10, 2010 11:07 AM
I like the "disincentives to work and increase earnings". The reason people work hard and try to get rich is: IT'S BETTER TO BE RICH THAN POOR. Always has been, always will be. Even after taxes the rich have better stuff, bigger houses, fancier cars. There is no disincentive to work and increase earnings, just rich guys whining about not having enough money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
February 10, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to blkblt
Well, that's the way things work in the *real* world. In the bizarro Ayn Rand universe most conservatives live in, people turn down raises because their tax rates might go up (nevermind the additional income). I'm actually shocked Ryan didn't just propose eliminating *all* tax on income over $1M or the equivalent - no millionaire left behind!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tamiasmin
February 10, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to blkblt
Better stuff? Does a guy who takes a million-dollar bonus after doing all he could to wreck the world really have better stuff?
Oh sorry, you meant on the outside.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
peaceweaver
February 10, 2010 11:08 AM
Ahhh, Oldies but goodies. Where have I heard this one before?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
February 10, 2010 11:13 AM
As E.J. Dionne recently pointed out, the Dems need to do a better job of publicly dismantling the (il)logic of the GOP's policy positions which, given their abysmal track record, shouldn't be hard, but they have to do it.
Dionne:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whachawant
February 10, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Rich is absolutely correct. We've been saddled with this guy for 12 years in Wisconsin. He's no conservative superhero: he voted for TARP, the auto bailout and the AIG bonus tax and the teabaggers didn't blink or hold him accountable. He's been touting medicare vouchers for years and the seniors can't get enough of him. When he's questioned he avoids (like he did in Ezra Klein's interview) or becomes so verbosely detailed he puts you in a coma.
This guy and others like him need not be dissected and exposed NATIONALLY. Our local paper won't even allow comments on his articles. Do it before he becomes VP or worse!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
February 10, 2010 11:16 AM
Worth noting.
These tax cuts were not scored by CBO. Ryan's staff insisted that CBO assume constant federal tax revenues even as they proposed eliminating pretty much all tax on capital.
Which is one way to balance the budget and pay off the debt: assume a magic pony and a bushel of magic peas. Feed peas to pony and see balanced budget plop out the other end.
See how easy Republican budget accounting is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cambridgeMR
February 10, 2010 11:17 AM
"Horney said he doesn't see why many Republicans are backing away from the plan as a political hot potato, saying it's consistent with policies they've supported for years."
Shocked, shocked!
Even the Republicans know that if their real beliefs were put on display in a concise format it would be bad for them politically. Why? Because their beliefs are indefensible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seafarer
February 10, 2010 11:22 AM
Let's cut all those corporate taxes, sure.
In return to offset the cuts needed, let's cut ALL military spending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JH Dad
February 10, 2010 11:44 AM
@bikbit: Exactly. I'm so sick of this "disincentive to work" straw man. Neither I nor anyone I've ever met, rich, poor, or in between, has ever said "Gee, I'd try to earn more money, but it's not worth it because of the tax burden."
If there's one constant throughout human history, it's that regardless of the circumstances, the rich have done just fine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
February 10, 2010 11:45 AM
Let's start out by cutting this parasite's wages by say, 25%?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jhc
February 10, 2010 11:45 AM
Best way to play this is point out how those Republican tax cuts will allow those lovable Wall Street bankers to hold onto more of their bonus money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 10, 2010 11:50 AM
Everyone should have some skin in the game.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
margoharris
February 10, 2010 11:54 AM
This is the same old bullshit that got us into the mess we are in now. Social security and medicare is the only safety net the elderly and disabled have. They want to go back to old people eating cat food and dying in their beds due to lack of heat in the winter.
Who do big business expect to buy their products and services?
They want to go back to the era of having us pay rent to the company and buy food at the company store. Serfdom 101.
Where is the Democrats message machine? Why aren't they making hay over this outrageous b/s. The rethugs have alway wanted to do this and maybe it will happen, the American dream will be a nightmare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
February 11, 2010 4:30 AM in reply to margoharris
Dem messaging is pathetic compared to the Madison Ave. tactics of Repubs, unfortunately. They allowed the Repubs to define the health care bills as "government takeover".
They should be hitting back hard on the failure of the fake "free market" economic model we've been subjected to for over 30 years. Of course, they haven't because many Dems, apparently including the president, are actually "free market" proponents. Which sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Morbo
February 10, 2010 11:55 AM
Now that "Money is speech" has literally been written into the Constitution by those useless shitstains on the USSC, expect more bald pandering by the Grand Old Plutocrat Party to their asshole base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericAZ
February 10, 2010 11:56 AM
The best way to play this is to tell the truth: Republicans want to eliminate taxes on the rich, gut Social Security, repeal Medicare and leave the middle class to die in the gutter like dogs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 10, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to ericAZ
Surely they won't let people simply die in the gutters, that brings down property values. Die in for-profit prisons is more likely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
February 10, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to ericAZ
Sounds good to me. Email it to the DNC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotFooledByDistractions
February 10, 2010 12:10 PM
"Horney said he doesn't see why many Republicans are backing away from the plan as a political hot potato, saying it's consistent with policies they've supported for years."
Further proving that what may sound good in theory is a disaster when practiced.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericAZ
February 10, 2010 12:12 PM
How about this for the message:
Rep./Sen. [insert Republican name here] has drunk the poison Kool-Aid of fanatacism against the American government. He/she has signed on to the GOP leadership's plan to repeal taxes on the rich, devastate Social Security and gut Medicare. Now he/she wants you to drink the poison Kool-Aid. Tell Rep./Sen. [insert Republican name here] that you oppose his plan to force the American middle class to die in the gutter like dogs.
Then find someone for Democratic party leadership who can deliver a 25-word talking point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KirkW78
February 10, 2010 12:13 PM
So the Republican Party wants to cut most of the income that the government has and says that by then cutting Social Security and replacing Medicare with a voucher system we could balance our budget. Didn't we already try cutting taxes to the upper class over the past 8 years? Does any of the Republican Party realize that this approach doesn't work? Seriously, are they that out of touch to think that it will work? I would like Rep. Ryan to explain how he intends to have the country make money if he takes away all of the income sources that we currently have?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 10, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to KirkW78
I honestly don't think they care about deficits, in the end. If the US defaults the resulting catastrophe is not going to hurt their true base (zillionaires who have squirreled their funds away offshore).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
February 10, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to KirkW78
Re: the last eight years. You still don't understand - in the present-day Republican narrative, we didn't HAVE deficits before January 20, 2009. Anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously a Socialist sympathizer. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 10, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to KirkW78
GOP logic:
If the economy is good
cut taxes
if the economy is bad
cut taxes
It's so simple, even Sarah Palin can understand it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mountainbiker
February 10, 2010 12:16 PM
As a per cent of the GDP the national debt doubled from 33% to 68% under Reagan and Bush I, fell back to 60% under Clinton, and back up to 70% under Bush II. Mind you, when the economy goes well, the debt should be reduced according to conservative economics. Hmm.
Defense spending is nearly equal to the spending of all other countries combined, most of whom are our allies. With over 700 foreign bases, the dollars spent overseas by the military equals the trade deficit. (Where was "defense" when we needed it on 9/11? Only promotions resulted, no heads rolled. Change the name to the Offense Department).
Haliburton had record setting profits from its no bid cost plus contract with the US government. Dick Cheney arranged the deal since he was formerly the CEO of Haliburton, still receiving a deferred salary and stock options. No conflict of interest here?? He profited handsomely from the war he pushed.
And so it goes. We have large corporations who push for wars to make profits. It's nothing new. The military has always served corporate interests (United Fruit, British Petroleum in Iran, etc.). But it was always hidden and deniable. No more. We need some accounting now to compare the free market approach to the government approach in previous wars. Let's at least check the claims of support for free market economics.
No taxes pay for the Bush wars, so the corporations enrich themselves and no one complains. How about we fix this situation by cutting corporate income tax and raising the consumption tax on the suckers that let this happen to them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eggroll
February 10, 2010 12:20 PM
We are so going to a VAT system. It's not perfect, but, boy is it easy to collect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mk3872
February 10, 2010 12:34 PM
This is bcuz the Republicans are much more savvy than Dems.
They are greasing the palms of those that vote & pay for advocacy ads.
Since the media shields Republicans through CW that says they are populists and Tea Party advocates, they can say one thing and get away with tax cuts for rich in budgets: estate tax, cutting top rates, lowering corporate taxes, etc...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
February 10, 2010 12:36 PM
Fight for the return of the 90% tax rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
February 10, 2010 12:36 PM
Fight for the return of the 90% tax rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
afisher
February 10, 2010 12:38 PM
Simply put, this entire "roadmap" is designed for the rich to keep driving and the low and middle income groups to drive off the cliff!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 10, 2010 12:41 PM
Great. Just what we need, another tax cut for people whose money works for them, not for people who work for their money. Hedge fund managers currently are taxed at 15% capital gains rate. Does Ryan seriously want hedge fund managers to make millions and pay NO taxes at all?
Does anyone wonder why the GOP is bankrupt of new ideas?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miles born
February 10, 2010 12:53 PM
Lost your job? Taxcuts! Can't afford to pay your COBRA insurance? Taxcuts! Can't pay your mortgage and about to be foreclosed and evicted? Taxcuts! No money for food and rent? Taxcuts! Doctor says you have cancer and will die without expensive therapy. Taxcuts!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tjnor
February 10, 2010 12:54 PM
Is Paul Ryan really a "D-WI" as the photo caption says, or has someone been cribbing from Fox News?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 10, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to tjnor
TPM really ought to fix that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
February 10, 2010 12:57 PM
Sadly, this is going to work.
This is a long-standing Republican tactic. Get some twit to propose something extreme and devastating for the country. Then follow behind with something slightly less extreme and devastating.
In comparison, the follow-up proposal seems measured and moderate. Stupid people (most of the country) nod their heads. The extreme and devastating idea becomes the law of the land. The country is screwed.
I cannot think of a better example of the flaws in our current "democracy."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
February 10, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to farnsworth
Oddly, they learned this from the Russians during the Cold War.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ThatDaveGuy
February 10, 2010 12:58 PM
Rep. Paul Ryan (D-WI)? Really? As above this looks like FOX!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 10, 2010 1:22 PM
When do we get this vote to force the Republicans to put up or shut up regarding Ryan's SS proposals?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
February 10, 2010 1:43 PM
The Republican budget is remarkably like Margaret Thatcher's June 1979 budget right after she took power. VAT went up from 8 percent to 15 percent, roughly the same effect as slapping on a federal eight percent VAT on top of state sales taxes; corporate taxes went down (although were not eliminated) and there was a huge income tax cut for the rich.
Recently declassified papers show that her advisers strongly recommended against her budget, saying it would cause inflation and drive the economy into recession.
And that's exactly what happened. Britain has never economically been quite the same since; that recession, entirely caused by her budget, pushed a third of British manufacturing out of business.
She got re-elected, of course, because a bunch of tinpot generals in Buenos Aires decided to start a war with her, and she kicked their asses. It was nothing to do with an economy in which unemployment was STILL GOING UP SIX YEARS AFTER SHE TOOK OFFICE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
February 10, 2010 1:51 PM
In other words, Wall Street types would pay nothing while the guys that hand-wash their Porsche would have their taxes increased. How cute...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 10, 2010 1:58 PM
Hey Josh. Do you read your viewer's posts. This guy is no democrat? Fix the goddamned affiliation please. Or am I at faux news??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
February 10, 2010 2:01 PM
i'm a wall street employee and i pay all my taxes. no big wup. would it kill me to pay a little more? no. do i think our govt (D or R) can come up with a sensible tax code and rational spending policies? no. moving on...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Long Memory
February 10, 2010 2:37 PM
The GOP does a great job of selling the meme of the importance of the middle class. Then they roll out plans that cripple and cull the middle class at every turn. I think the middle class here's the kind words and thinks the GOP wants "us" to beome one of "them." Truth is, the middle class is shrinking, and people aren't, for the most part, moving up. They're moving down. Then, somehow, folks find out that they're on skid row and the GOP talks them into blaming the Democrats. It's mystifying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 10, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Long Memory
So you're saying the middle class gets what it deserves? Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lono65
February 10, 2010 3:06 PM
Just a suggestion: Stop referring to it as a "SHADOW" budget with scare quotes. Just call it what it is...the Republican budget.
The "shadow" thing helps Republicans portray this as a blueprint or a work in progress and provides them a layer of deniability. Let's not help them do that, OK? Let's hang it round their fucking necks with a battleship chain and target a massive advertising blitz so every senior (and aging boomer) in the country identifies Republicans with wanting to eliminate Medicare and Social Security so they can provide more corporate handouts to Wall Street.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?