Romney picks Paul Ryan as VP running mate

[fuji]

you could arguehaving a strong military is not one of the core responsibilities of govt. govt has no business in education, healthcare, commerce, but keeping law and order and protecting its citizens is basically the main role of government. but bc the country is so sick and deranged in 2012 we arnt going to completely abolish medicare, social security, the department of education etc, the only realistic scenario is deep spending cuts to all area of government so the military has to be included as well. america should close its foreign bases and stop trying to police the world and that would cut a big slice off the department of defense's budget

You could argue that education, healthcare, and commerce are core responsibilities of the government, and it has no business in foreign military adventurism. Keeping law and order and protecting its citizens are an important role of government, but bc the country is so sick and deranged in 2012 we aren't going to abolish all the ridiculous overspending on overseas foreign military adventures. The only realistic scenario is deep spending cuts to all the areas of government, and so core functions such as medicare, social security, the department of education, etc., are likely to be cut as well as the exorbitant military spending.

The US military budget has nothing to do with defense or protecting citizens. That could be accomplished with 1/5th of the money, or perhaps even 1/10th of what is currently spent on the military. Defending your own borders is just not all that costly. What racks up the cost is maintaining a military capable of dominating other people's territory on short notice.

 

[msog87]

Perhaps you should visit the real world once in a while.

Firstly, the number of government employees has been going down significantly during the BO regime.

Secondly there are no plans to raise taxes on small business. These appear to be in your imagination.

who do you think is the majority making over 250k a year? the size of government has doubled in the past decade, so obviously there are alot more federal govt employees, washington is a boom town, its real estate market never had a downturn bc of all the govt employees in washington

 

[ogibowt]

Holy Cow! Where do I begin. What made this mess was 30 years of mismanagement, mortgaging the future and two major wars. Even Reagan after initially making and keeping promises to cut taxes, realized he couldn`t keep his promises and raised taxes

Not keeping promises. I guess you missed these facts;

Obama versus Romney/GOP

Obama`s actual record

Romney`s/GOPs actaul record

The Libyan war was small change compared to the Iraq and Afghan war. Bringing troops from Afghanistan is happening, but you just can flick a switch and they leave.

Trump going bankrupt, not what I would call a vote of confidence. He started his work history in his dad`s company and hit the ground running with millions to work with AND he declared bankruptcy, good to know. How do you know he paid millions? He was asked to give his finances over for scrutiny when he was thinking of running for POTUS, he declined and backed out. You haven`t clue how much he paid. He made his money in Real Estate. Having seen first hand how he and his son operated in their acquisition of land for a golf resort on the east coast of Scotland, he`s purely and simply a self absorbed greedy bandit. The Tangerine man actually thinks he`s responsible for Obama turning over his birth certificate.

How many well off seniors get these benefits and don`t need them. Give us a number, ffs. I`ll give you a number, 15%/~46 million of all senior live below the poverty line and that number is increasing annually. add that to the senior who live near the same watermark, ~25% of the senior population live within reach of the line ~150% of the poverty rate, that ~$22,000 a year. If you look at 200% of the poverty line it`s ~35%, that only $30,000. How much do you make? could you live on these salaries?

The majority of millionaire run small business? Really?

thanks Blackie, i couldnt say it better myself.....this guy msog, is as delusional as john Larue...i miss Larue..he was such an easy target...but msog has definetly taken his place..

 

[msog87]

You could argue that education, healthcare, and commerce are core responsibilities of the government, and it has no business in foreign military adventurism. Keeping law and order and protecting its citizens are an important role of government, but bc the country is so sick and deranged in 2012 we aren't going to abolish all the ridiculous overspending on overseas foreign military adventures. The only realistic scenario is deep spending cuts to all the areas of government, and so core functions such as medicare, social security, the department of education, etc., are likely to be cut as well as the exorbitant military spending.

The US military budget has nothing to do with defense or protecting citizens. That could be accomplished with 1/5th of the money, or perhaps even 1/10th of what is currently spent on the military. Defending your own borders is just not all that costly. What racks up the cost is maintaining a military capable of dominating other people's territory on short notice.

Not according to the constitution ! remember that piece of paper that noone cares about anymore? But yeah the military is out of control, but I would say nowhere near as out of control as the rest of government. it wouldnt bother me if I were an american taxpayer and they cut military spending, bc the less money that goes to washington the more money remains in the economy

 

[blackrock13]

who do you think is the majority making over 250k a year? the size of government has doubled in the past decade, so obviously there are alot more federal govt employees, washington is a boom town, its real estate market never had a downturn bc of all the govt employees in washington

The size has doubled? Would you be in a position to show this in an actual factual reports or someone else words. It's still the smallest government in the 30 top industrialized countries so large is not really the truth.

As a matter of fact I can say, 'liar lair pants on fire'. Oh wait someone else already did. Mind you somehow I doubt you'll actually learn anything. If you are depending on Paul Ryan think again.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...yan-barack-obama-has-doubled-size-government/

President Barack Obama "has doubled the size of government since he took office."


On his congressional website, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., makes a striking claim that President Obama has doubled the size of goverment.

Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is perhaps the leading Republican voice for a fiscally conservative approach to taxing, spending and reducing the federal debt.

So when a reader recently pointed out the doubling-government claim on a web page devoted to Ryan’s views on tax policy, we thought it was worth a look.

Here’s an excerpt from the Web page:

"At a time when Wisconsinites are facing economic uncertainty, a high unemployment rate and a rise in the costs of living, the last thing our country needs are tax increases. President Obama, however, has proposed $1.6 trillion in new taxes on families, small businesses and job creators and tripling the debt since he was elected. At the same time, the president has doubled the size of government since he took office. Instead of chasing higher spending with ever-higher taxes, Congress needs to make our tax code fair, competitive and simple. Unfortunately, our current tax system fails on these three elements."

Further down the page, Ryan adds a bit more detail about his doubling-government claim.

"Strong leadership is needed in the White House, but despite repeated acknowledgments of the gravity of the federal government’s fiscal outlook, the president seems to have ignored the warnings of his own experts and punted on the (fiscal year) 2012 budget. The budget proposal he submitted to Congress last year continues down the same unsustainable path: doubling the size of government since the President took office, imposing $1.6 trillion in new taxes on families, small businesses and job creators and tripling the debt since the President was elected. This crushing burden of debt is holding back economic growth. President Obama’s budget was defeated by a vote of 0 to 97 in the Senate. We have tried to borrow, spend,and tax our way to prosperity, and it hasn’t worked. The President is expected to put forward his budget proposal for (fiscal year) 2013 in the near future. I remain hopeful that he will work with Congress to address these important challenges facing our country."

According to the second passage above, Ryan is referring to Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal -- the one released in early 2011, rather than the current one, which was released in early 2012. So we’ll focus on Obama’s fiscal year 2012 proposal.

We didn’t hear back from Ryan’s office, but we think the most obvious way to interpret his statement is by measuring the size of federal outlays -- that is, the money spent by the federal government. Ryan is, after all, talking about budget figures.

First, let’s look at the amount of federal outlays when Obama "took office." According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal outlays for fiscal year 2009 -- the fiscal year that was underway when Obama was inaugurated -- totaled $3.5 trillion.

To look at federal outlays for subsequent years, we turned to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress. The numbers are broadly similar to OMB’s, but since CBO is an independent agency, rather than part of the Obama administration, budget experts suggested that we use CBO’s numbers instead.

CBO concluded that by fiscal year 2012 -- the current fiscal year -- the president’s budget proposal would increase federal outlays to $3.7 trillion. That’s a 6 percent increase -- a far cry from doubling.

If you take a longer time horizon, the outlays come closer to doubling, but still not close. By fiscal year 2021 -- the final year for which CBO provided its analysis and long after Obama will have left office -- federal outlays would reach $5.8 trillion. That’s an increase of 66 percent, which is still not double.

However, even if that figure truly represented a doubling, using the 2021 figure is misleading. When Ryan said that Obama "has doubled the size of government since he took office," it sounds like he’s saying Obama has already doubled the size of government -- not that his spending blueprint will lead to doubled federal outlays at a point five years after Obama’s theoretical second term in office will have come to an end.

"I think it is pretty clear" that Ryan’s claim "in a straight budget sense is false, because it implies it has already happened," said Steve Ellis, the vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Just to be sure, we also looked at the figures for federal outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product. These numbers actually decline from 25.0 percent in fiscal 2009 to 23.6 percent in fiscal 2012, and then moves within a narrow range, ending up at 24.2 percent in fiscal 2021. No doubling here, either.

Finally, there’s the question of whether Obama would be to blame even if the doubling claim was true. Roy T. Meyers, a political scientist at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County who specializes in budget issues, is skeptical

"Were all the increased outlays because of Obama's actions? Of course not," Meyers said. "Many of them were the result of ‘mandatory’ policies in place before he took office, and those policies responded to unfavorable economic conditions -- deposit insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and so on."

Indeed, discretionary spending -- the line items that Obama had the most control over when he assembled his budget -- represented between 25 and 40 percent of federal outlays during most of the 10 year period that CBO studied. The rest -- a clear majority -- consists of mandatory spending and net interest on the federal debt.
Finally, while we doubted this is what Ryan meant, we also looked at whether the number of federal employees had doubled under Obama. Federal employment has never risen by more than 10 percent above its January 2009 level, excluding temporary Census jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And there is no reliable statistical way to measure changes in the federal government's regulatory burden, said Stan Collender, a former staff member of the House and Senate Budget Committees, who is a partner at Qorvis, a public relations firm.

Our ruling

Even Ryan’s out-of-date budget data offers no support for the notion that Obama "has doubled the size of government since he took office."

As the House's budget leader and a key spokesman for his party’s budgetary proposals, Ryan should have known better. We rate his statement Pants on Fire.
UPDATE: After our story appeared, Ryan’s office got back to us. They said that they had been using fiscal year 2008 as their base year, rather than fiscal year 2009. Using the 2008 figures, federal outlays do roughly double between 2008 and 2021 under Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. However, we think it’s inaccurate to use fiscal 2008 as the base year, since that year ended about four months before Obama took office. In any case, our previous concerns -- using figures for 2021, when Obama will have been out of office for either five or nine years, and ignoring the role of mandatory spending in expanding federal outlays -- still stand, and we’re keeping the rating at Pants on Fire. In addition, Ryan’s office removed the sentence we checked after our story appeared. It has been replaced by a sentence that reads, "At the same time, the president will double the national debt and his plan ensures it will triple in the next eight years."


IF you get this far, I'd like you to explain Ryan's error and I'm being polite.

 

[fuji]

the size of government has doubled in the past decade

Why do you insist on making these things up, when it is so easy for us to check the facts? Plainly the only way that you can get to the ridiculous claims you make, is to take the numbers not adjusted for inflation, and pretend that is growth in the size of government, rather than merely inflation.

The size of the government has not doubled in the past decade. There were 4,443,000 government employees in 2010, and 4,129,000 of them in 2000. That's an increase of 7.6% which is a hell of a lot less than the 100% increase you claimed.

Moreover, from 1962 to 1995 there were more employees than there are today. In 1962 it was 5,354,000 employees--the data I have stops at 1962. I don't know how far back you have to go to find a smaller government than there is today, but presumably it is an awful long way back.

So for a brief period from 1996 the government shrunk to abnormally low levels, and now it has returned part-way to its historic size.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

 

[blackrock13]

Not according to the constitution ! remember that piece of paper that noone cares about anymore? But yeah the military is out of control, but I would say nowhere near as out of control as the rest of government. it wouldnt bother me if I were an american taxpayer and they cut military spending, bc the less money that goes to washington the more money remains in the economy

EXCELLANT!! I almost spilled my coffee.

 

[msog87]

watch this video im tired of typing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlblduvPeCs

 

[blackrock13]

watch this video im tired of typing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlblduvPeCs

Some of us are also tired of you typing lies , half truths and downright false claims. Take a holiday.

 

[msog87]

Why do you insist on making these things up, when it is so easy for us to check the facts?

The size of the government has not doubled in the past decade. There were 4,443,000 government employees in 2010, and 4,129,000 of them in 2000. That's an increase of 7.6% which is a hell of a lot less than the 100% increase you claimed.

Moreover, from 1962 to 1995 there were more employees than there are today. In 1962 it was 5,354,000 employees--the data I have stops at 1962. I don't know how far back you have to go to find a smaller government than there is today, but presumably it is an awful long way back.

So for a brief period from 1996 the government shrunk to abnormally low levels, and now it has returned part-way to its historic size.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

year 2000 u.s. federal budget : 1.8t

2012 budget so far and counting : 3.6 t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget

 

[msog87]

there are more youth 35 and under in poverty than seniors, the median net worth of a senior in america is 170k, while those 35 and under is 5k. do you think its fair the struggling youth have to pay for seniors social security? especially when these entitlement programs won't be there for them. that stat is in the video I posted. If the culture in north america was to save for your own retirement instead of buying consumer goods we'd be alot better off come retirement

 

[msog87]

do you think im going to the money I am forced to pay into CPP? not a chance. retirement age will probably be 70 by the time I retire, and of course id have to live so many years after hitting retirement, and if I die tough shit. instead I could have saved and invested that money myself, left something to my children

 

[msog87]

you can take all the rich peoples money in america, and medicare and social security would still be in deficit once the boomers are in the system. raise taxes that high and watch how many rich people stop working or leave the u.s. and work in another country lol. even this prominent liberal marc lamont hill agrees there needs to be reforms as in less govt funding, privatization and that taxing the rich won't solve the problem. all you guys can say to me is post proof and ignore reality. the way entitlements stand now were promised decades ago and the american people have to understand these promises cant be kept. the problem with socialism is you run out of other peoples money

 

[fuji]

year 2000 u.s. federal budget : 1.8t

2012 budget so far and counting : 3.6 t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget

Have you heard of something called inflation? I guess not. Inflation ran 33% in that time period. The 2000 budget was $2.4 trillion in 2012 dollars. But yeah, we should roll back the increases in military spending that occurred under Bush.

 

[blackrock13]

year 2000 u.s. federal budget : 1.8t

2012 budget so far and counting : 3.6 t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget

In the same period, 2000-2011, the military budget has increased from ~$300 billion to ~$700 billion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png

Just a note the year 2000 wasn't 10 years ago.

That's 12 freaking years ago. Why not start in 1953 and the Eisenhower administration. I believe it was ~$80 million, shocking.

In that time period, the budget increased under the Republicans from 2002 to 2008, that only 6 years, from ~$2 Trillion to`$3 Trillion and they started out with a surplus of $128 billion, that went poooof!

 

[msog87]

the social security trust fund is bankrupt, its been spent by congress. the largest ponzi scheme in american history madoff comes in at #2. social security for the first year ran a deficit, which means from now on its going to add to the federal deficit

 

[blackrock13]

there are more youth 35 and under in poverty than seniors, the median net worth of a senior in america is 170k, while those 35 and under is 5k. do you think its fair the struggling youth have to pay for seniors social security? especially when these entitlement programs won't be there for them. that stat is in the video I posted. If the culture in north america was to save for your own retirement instead of buying consumer goods we'd be alot better off come retirement

do you think im going to the money I am forced to pay into CPP? not a chance. retirement age will probably be 70 by the time I retire, and of course id have to live so many years after hitting retirement, and if I die tough shit. instead I could have saved and invested that money myself, left something to my children

you can take all the rich peoples money in america, and medicare and social security would still be in deficit once the boomers are in the system. raise taxes that high and watch how many rich people stop working or leave the u.s. and work in another country lol. even this prominent liberal marc lamont hill agrees there needs to be reforms as in less govt funding, privatization and that taxing the rich won't solve the problem. all you guys can say to me is post proof and ignore reality. the way entitlements stand now were promised decades ago and the american people have to understand these promises cant be kept. the problem with socialism is you run out of other peoples money

I thought you were tires d of typing, hmmmm. Apparently not.

If that the median worth then they're in deep shit. Apparently you think they can take on more burden. As for the net worth of the 35 year olds, what the hell do you expect? they've only been in the real world for 15 years. My net worth at 30 was 1/20th what it is now. Get to work you lazy sobs.

What are you worth? No need to answer, you'd probably lie.

 

[blackrock13]

the social security trust fund is bankrupt, its been spent by congress. the largest ponzi scheme in american history madoff comes in at #2. social security for the first year ran a deficit, which means from now on its going to add to the federal deficit

All true, but you think you can deal with it without raising taxes and most of the intelligent informed electorate knows differently.

 

[msog87]

I thought you were tires d of typing, hmmmm. Apparently not.

If that the median worth then they're in deep shit. Apparently you think they can take on more burden. As for the net worth of the 35 year olds, what the hell do you expect? they've only been in the real world for 15 years. My net worth at 30 was 1/20th what it is now. Get to work you lazy sobs.

What are you worth? No need to answer, you'd probably lie.

lol yeah whats youth unemployment 25%, add to that what 50k each in school debt? what jobs are being created in america service sector mcjobs? the future looks bright. for the idiot who said " the federal budget doubled in 12 years", guess what, it took 225 years to get to the first 2 trillion.

 

[fuji]

lol yeah whats youth unemployment 25%, add to that what 50k each in school debt? what jobs are being created in america service sector mcjobs? the future looks bright.

Oh, and don't forget the $800 billion spent on the Iraq war. Though, it did create LOTS of jobs--in Iraq. And the $550 billion spent in Afghanistan.