Paul Ryan's math doesn't add up
Opinion: While throwing money at the nation's problems won't help, taking from the poor and giving to the rich would surely hurt even more.
Through taxes, Ryan proposes to take from the very poor and give to the extremely wealthy on the theory that the benefits created from that would filter back to most people. The plan's short-sightedness is as remarkable as its Ryan's lack of specificity, according to Paul Krugman.
Here's an idea, let's get more specific. SMALL BUSINESSES could use a bit of tax relief. But WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS who are not small businesses have already had a nice long break of Bush tax cuts.
If you're not creating JOBS and you don't have a business, it's time to pay up like the middle class folks do.
I thought the wealthy were the job creators? Isn't that the reason many Republicans claim the wealthy needed more tax breaks???.... But that money over in Switzerland and the Caribbean isn't creating any US jobs.
Do you really think that AFTER OUR GOVERNMENT AND POLICIES HAVE BEEN DILUTED BY BIG MONEY THROUGH LOBBYISTS, that "we the people" should just lay down and take MORE of this CRAP?!
You're in for a big surprise if you think people will just accept this or take any more of it!
Good article. Ryan was asked recently in a tv interview when his plan would balance the budget--he had no answer at all because his plan will not balance the budget ever. I am an economist and Paul Ryan is not, and his plan does not pass the BS test for economics.
The problem is that a federal budget plan is also an economic plan for the country and that cutting government expenditures reduces GDP and reduces tax revenue. Any of the major business or university macroeconomic models indicate Ryan plan puts the U.S. into a recession and maybe a depression. First the federal government needs to boost domestic spending, and then in 4-5 years taxes can be raised on everybody, but particularly the richest people who largely do not spend what they receive.
The reality is that the federal government spending partly offsets the downside of our current systems that puts trillions of dollars into only the pockets of a few people and large corporations who do not spend or invest those funds.
I expect a lot of thumbs down, since no one likes to hear really bad news.
Neither the cons nor the libs tells it straight.The 40 years after WWII saw the US become dominant since it was the only industrial power not reduced to cinders.
Then came the 1970s, and the only way to maintain standard of living was to nearly double the workforce by getting women to work. Europe and Japan were back in shape.
Enter the 1980s and Reagan brought prosperity in the form of borrowing from the future on a much larger scale. Then in the 1990s, we continued borrowing from the future, but added in globalism and outsourcing with China and India, which has helped accelerate the decline in the American middle class. Factor in the commercial credit and housing borrowing, and the fake "New Economy" which has proven to be a failure.
In the early 2000's, it became obvious to me that the US was circling the drain. Too easy to export an American job. The glib response of "just retrain for a new career" is ridiculous considering how expensive education is in the US. The Bush-era Republicans went on a Democrat-level spending spree. Now you got Obama trying to outdo Bush.
The tab will come due for the US, just like for Europe, and after that, Europe and North America will once again be the backwaters of the world, just like they were in ancient and medieval times, when China and India both ruled the roost.
It is sad to say, but our few generations of Post-WWII prosperity was an anomaly, and things are going back to the old "normal".
Are you ever going to say anything rational? Sober up buddy.
I intensely dislike the arm chair quarterback with no suggestions of his own. The Ryan plan is opposed to Federalism which places too much control with too few people. The reason the US operates as balance between States and Federal government is that centralizing society creates the real risk of authoritarianism. The States have been irresponsible with money (much like the Federal government) and lazy in terms of expecting the Federal government to hand out assistance. This entire process needs to be changed. We have too many government employees and too few private sector jobs (which are the only real sources of new revenue streams) Hand outs to the roughly half of Americans has been a dismal failure (see our balooning debt burden) and generally these people do not start new enterprises because they have limited resources. Coupled to the overwhelming government regulaton of business this leads to a very small pool of business generators. Reducing regulatory paperwork hurdles, creating an environment that fosters business creation (which is more than simply playing with taxes) and reducing the government job engine are good starting points to build a sustainable US for the future.
Evidence of destruction of capitalism?
I suspect you have no evidence of either. Care to prove me wrong?
"will make all of America's problems either"
I don't understand what that means.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Breaking up big banks is an untested solution to the too big to fail problem that attempts to isolate and dismantle large, troubled institutions while protecting the rest of the economy.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks entered the weekend on a mixed note as the S&P 500 shed 0.1% while the Dow ended with a gain of 0.1%.
The major averages began the day on a lower note as nine of ten sectors saw losses of more than 0.5%.
The consumer staples sector was the lone exception as the group spent the entire day in positive territory thanks to the relative strength of Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG 81.89, +3.19). The second-largest staple stock advanced ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|