10 year plan to a balanced budget

[Stangkiller]

Paul Ryan has announced a 10 year plan to a balanced budget...am I the only person that thinks 10 more years of deficit is 10 years too many? WTF is wrong with these people, they have one job, and it seems to me that kicking the can down the road for 10 more years is not doing that job.

It's a pretty simple concept, either you have the money or you don't.

[Chris Fowler]

It's far too long.

But there is zero appetite for drastic cuts in DC.

And given that his proposal starts with repealing Obamacare, no matter how justified it is, it's a non-starter in the current environment.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

It's far too long.

But there is zero appetite for drastic cuts in DC.

And given that his proposal starts with repealing Obamacare, no matter how justified it is, it's a non-starter in the current environment.

It's clearly not a serious plan. There's not a single politician in DC with a serious plan...or any interest in anything but the status quo.

[Doug28450]

Ten years is, indeed, too long. However, it is a start and because it is a start it is, at minimum, a serious plan.

Could more be done? Absolutely.

Could it be more aggressive? Absolutely.

Ryan is trying to wrangle something reasonable through a Socialist President and a Socialist Senate. I'm speculating that he has some things in there that he knows he will get, some things he know are non-starters and some areas that require careful negotiation. He also has to be careful that whatever plan he gets done can't be undone in the event the Democrats re-take the House and maintain the Senate in a year and a half. I also think that he is trying to take small pieces over a longer period of time to make the cuts "seem" less painful.

I have two primary concerns. The first being what does the plan do to address the ever expanding government and shut the expansion down. The second being that getting to a balanced budget over ten years does nothing about reducing the 16 trillion debt.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

Paul Ryan has announced a 10 year plan to a balanced budget...am I the only person that thinks 10 more years of deficit is 10 years too many? WTF is wrong with these people, they have one job, and it seems to me that kicking the can down the road for 10 more years is not doing that job.

It's a pretty simple concept, either you have the money or you don't.

Clearly, you are a batshit crazy, isolationist, anti-semitic loon if you believe that the govt., like regular Americans, should only spend what it takes in.

If you take a look at what .gov does, and then contemplate what it could actually AFFORD to do if there was no more deficit spending/printing money out of thin air, you would probably come to Ryan's conclusion......"We've got a 10 year plan, which, unlike all the other 10 year plans, will really end deficit spending." IOW, Ryan doesn't want to face what living within our means really means. It means welfare recipients don't get their checks. It means military bases overseas get closed down. It means everybody's cheese gets cut, and that isn't a political winner, thus, "I have a 10 year plan."

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

Ten years is, indeed, too long. However, it is a start and because it is a start it is, at minimum, a serious plan.

Could more be done? Absolutely.

Could it be more aggressive? Absolutely.

Ryan is trying to wrangle something reasonable through a Socialist President and a Socialist Senate. I'm speculating that he has some things in there that he knows he will get, some things he know are non-starters and some areas that require careful negotiation. He also has to be careful that whatever plan he gets done can't be undone in the event the Democrats re-take the House and maintain the Senate in a year and a half. I also think that he is trying to take small pieces over a longer period of time to make the cuts "seem" less painful.

I have two primary concerns. The first being what does the plan do to address the ever expanding government and shut the expansion down. The second being that getting to a balanced budget over ten years does nothing about reducing the 16 trillion debt.

In 10 years, it won't be $ 16T.....try around $ 25T. That's a lot of debt service, even at todays low, low rates.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

In 10 years, it won't be $ 16T.....try around $ 25T. That's a lot of debt service, even at todays low, low rates.

So in 10 years we stop increasing the debt..that means we still have to make all of the above draconian cuts in order to decrease our debt does it not? Maybe it's time we stop giving hand outs both nationally and internationally until we can pay our own damn bills.

I know if my companies CEO said he was going to run a deficit for 10 years, he'd be fired before the meeting was over.

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

In 10 years, it won't be $ 16T.....try around $ 25T. That's a lot of debt service, even at todays low, low rates.

As I said, the debt is a primary concern.

Ethan Pope estimates the debt at between 37 and 45 Trillion in 2024 based on current budgets.

[69camfrk]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

So in 10 years we stop increasing the debt..that means we still have to make all of the above draconian cuts in order to decrease our debt does it not? Maybe it's time we stop giving hand outs both nationally and internationally until we can pay our own damn bills.

I know if my companies CEO said he was going to run a deficit for 10 years, he'd be fired before the meeting was over.

You are absolutely right, but in our lifetime, I have the distinct feeling that the budget will never be balanced. I'm betting on the dollar being reduced to nothing, economic collapse of which it's anyone's guess what kind of hell we will have to endure, then a reset. Not trying to be doom and gloom, but that is the reality we are looking at. When we let people that vote with their hand out, you get what you get. It should go back to how it was once upon a time where only land owners could vote. Too many freeloaders out there that don't have a stake in one damn thing except to pop out babies from numerous baby daddies and collect a check. Good thing I'm not in charge because I would tell them to get to work or F'n starve. I guess maybe I'm an angry white man at this point since I have to roll out of bed everyday and carry my ass to work just to get the living hell taxed out of me so others can sit around smoking dope and drinking 40's all damn day.

[Broken Wind]

There is no faster way to shut down discussion with the left than to use the phrase "repeal obamacare". It's a non-starter. Obamacare is here and it will be tweaked over time. That's how our process works. But to offer a plan that starts out as "repeal" is just stupid. And if you don't believe me, just ask that dumbass that opposed obama in November.

[VITE1]

We need to reduce spending levels by 20%. Not spending GROWTH level. Actual spending.

The American People pay 30% of GDP in Taxes. The Government spends 40% of GDP.

Balancing the budget in 10 years means we will add Trillions more to the national debt AND even more to State and local government.