Ryan's Plan Worth Looking At...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Representative Paul Ryan has just rolled out his budget plan and it's potential to cut 6.2 trillion dollars in spending over the next ten years. His Path to Prosperity may be the natural continuation of the Regan Revolution.
Some highlets of the plan:
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Representative Paul Ryan has just rolled out his budget plan and it's potential to cut 6.2 trillion dollars in spending over the next ten years. His Path to Prosperity may be the natural continuation of the Regan Revolution.
Some highlets of the plan:
- Embraces free markets to reshape the social welfare state.
- Shrinks government rather than looking for ways to finance the expanding the public sector.
- Prevents Washington D.C. from growing to 45% of the GDP by 2050, as compared to 24% today.
- Ryan's plan would downsize government to just over 15% by 2020.
- Return the size of government to approximately 1950 and prevent the Europeanization of the U.S.A.'s economy.
Some more hard numbers to consider:
- Ryan's plan has debt to GDP peaking at 74.5% in 2013.
- Debt would fall to 67.5% by 2021.
- Debt would continue to decrease until during the 2050's debt would be eliminated.
- Medicaid spending would be directed to the states indexed for inflation and population growth.
- Medicare spending would be transformed to a competitive based market system aided by government subsidies Thus lowering healthcare costs.
Ryan has mapped out a plan that provides the best road map thus far to recover and grow our economy, reinvigorate our industrial base, effectively address the Medicaid and Medicare issues, and over the next 38 years place un stable fiscal footings.
Read James Pethokoukis's full article on Ryan's Plan, "Path to Prosperity. 2"
h/t: Republican Redefined
VIDEO
As rational as you claim to be how can you buy into something that you know is patently false?
ReplyDeleteAmerica may have the highest tax rate, but we know for a fact that corporations do not pay that rate. In fact we know that some corporations, actually two thirds of all corporations according to Forbes pay no taxes at all. Thus by "lowering" the tax rate from 35% to 25% are we not in fact giving corporations a subsidy since they actually pay nothing at 35% that would mean that Ryan is proposing a $0 - 10% tax rate would would mean a 10% subsidy for all corporations.
Then, how does the Heritage think tank determine that all these jobs would be created, that unemployment would be 4% and American families would get annual payraises of thousands of dollars? Considering that corporations pay nothing now in taxes and we are in the midst of a jobless recovery. We have lowered taxes continously since 1980 and wages have stagnated. Outside of pie in the sky, what was their methodology considering they have no idea what loopholes will be closed nor do they have any idea, whatever changes that do occur, exactly how these changes would be implemented? If corporations can take the highest tax rate in the world and not pay any taxes who knows what they can do to a 25% rate.
I always thought that rationality involved some grasp of realilty....
Guess not...oh, and don't tell me to refer to the provided links because that is nothing more than "drinking the kool aid!"
YADA,M YADA, YADA...
ReplyDeleteNow, go drink of your own preferred kool aid.
Like I keep reminding you, I don't give a r*ts a*s!
I still propose that we eliminate corporate income taxes altogether and make up the difference by raising the top individual rates. That way we can 1) stimulate businesses to focus on business and 2) still pacify progressives by at least somewhat soaking the rich.
ReplyDeleteI have provided what I believe would be a reasonable tax code that would eliminate loopholes for business, help the lower income individuals, and not soak the well off.
ReplyDeleteHad it on my sight several times as well as elsewhere. It got little comment because neither the business minded folks, conservatives, or soak the rich progressives much liked it I guess.
Thus my response to TAO as to the R.A.