This is evil, and I love it (aka how to get rid of Paul Ryan...)

[churchmouse]

I'm not the loose cannon some would have you believe. So now can I haz reparations?

OH...........Those reps......I am a bit slow tonight....or not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

OH...........Those reps......I am a bit slow tonight....or not.

Lol, cheeseburger drunk Church?

 

[KLB]

I'm not the loose cannon some would have you believe. So now can I haz reparations?

Well, if you come up to da region I will get you a doughnut

 

[churchmouse]

Lol, cheeseburger drunk Church?

I wish.....

 

[Lil Bob]

Interesting post. Ryan is not the problem with the Republican party. The party is falling a part on its own. Maybe the party splitting in two is the answer. There are very distinct sects within the party that need to be resolved.

 

[Tombs]

Interesting post. Ryan is not the problem with the Republican party. The party is falling a part on its own. Maybe the party splitting in two is the answer. There are very distinct sects within the party that need to be resolved.

It's called RINOs joining the democratic party and stop trying to turn this into a 1 party country.

 

[miguel]

What perfect savior of all do you wish was speaker?

Purity tests are killing the GOP.

Who do you think would be any better???

Not trying to start something, I just think an establishment guy being booted would be replaced by another establishment guy...

My "purity test" would be defending out ****ing border from a ****ing invasion force of unskilled, uneducated, likely unhealthy ****s who don't speak our language and don't support our tradition of a republic.

I have no preference. I prefer chaos at this point compared to the existing order.

You have to create a crisis to not let it go to waste, you know...

p.s. Plus he is probably a douchebag Packers fan, being a cheesehead.

 

[BugI02]

What perfect savior of all do you wish was speaker?

Purity tests are killing the GOP.

Is not NeverTrump at its heart just another purity test? It should be OK for the speaker to cling to his reservations about Trump, but when he deigns to luke warmly endorse him Trump should be grateful for whatever crumbs he receives? Trump should focus on the good of the party but everyone else should be free to do what's best for their personal re-election bid?

If they really can't stand Trump they should have had the stones to do something about it at the convention. But you know what, we would be in exactly the same place if they had done so. The GOP is tinder dry and soaked with kerosine and all the idiots are playing with matches. We are witnessing a true bonfire of the vanities

Bon appétit

 

[KLB]

Is not NeverTrump at its heart just another purity test? It should be OK for the speaker to cling to his reservations about Trump, but when he deigns to luke warmly endorse him Trump should be grateful for whatever crumbs he receives? Trump should focus on the good of the party but everyone else should be free to do what's best for their personal re-election bid?

If they really can't stand Trump they should have had the stones to do something about it at the convention. But you know what, we would be in exactly the same place if they had done so. The GOP is tinder dry and soaked with kerosine and all the idiots are playing with matches. We are witnessing a true bonfire of the vanities

Bon appétit

So your answer to a luke warm endorsement is to go against him in return?

I don't particularly like Ryan, but I would think that Trump should be spending his time campaigning for President against Hillary, not attacking more of those that are supposed to be part of the same party.

I thought it was all out to stop the Ds from getting control. Vote for Trump because he isn't Hillary. He will save our guns. Now you want to lose Republican seats in congress to Democrats.

 

[BugI02]

So your answer to a luke warm endorsement is to go against him in return?

I don't particularly like Ryan, but I would think that Trump should be spending his time campaigning for President against Hillary, not attacking more of those that are supposed to be part of the same party.

I thought it was all out to stop the Ds from getting control. Vote for Trump because he isn't Hillary. He will save our guns. Now you want to lose Republican seats in congress to Democrats.

If those are the goals you endorse, why not encourage the rank and file to get behind Trump when he bacame the presumptive nominee? The Ryans of the world need to stop thinking they can tell Trump how it's going to be and they'll all get along better.

They need to realize that if Trump fails to be elected he just goes back to being a billionaire. But if your career is politics, like Ryan et al, things will not be quite so rosy. And they should not delude themselves that in four years they'll be the ones picking up the pieces, or that anyone who supported Trump will simply forgive and forget

 

[T.Lex]

It's called RINOs joining the democratic party and stop trying to turn this into a 1 party country.

Does RINO even mean anything anymore?

I mean, 10 years ago, Trump's positions would generally have made him a RINO - increased taxes, gay marriage, etc.

If it ever meant anything other than "Republican I Don't Like" it absolutely positively only means that now.

Trump should focus on the good of the party but everyone else should be free to do what's best for their personal re-election bid?

Heck, most of these problems would go away if he focused on his personal election bid.

Frankly, in the states where Trump won the primary, the politically expedient thing to do is to endorse Trump. The Trump voters will be the Rs in the polls.

If they really can't stand Trump they should have had the stones to do something about it at the convention. But you know what, we would be in exactly the same place if they had done so. The GOP is tinder dry and soaked with kerosine and all the idiots are playing with matches. We are witnessing a true bonfire of the vanities

Interesting reference. What does that make Trump?

But going back to your point about the convention - that was too late. The time to do something was in the primaries. I hate that Trump is the Republican nominee, but he got the votes in the primaries. He won fair and square.

If those are the goals you endorse, why not encourage the rank and file to get behind Trump when he bacame the presumptive nominee?

For me, Trump does not reflect the values that I thought the party stood for. People who still think of themselves as Republicans probably should endorse him.

The problem is, there'll be much fewer Republicans.

The Ryans of the world need to stop thinking they can tell Trump how it's going to be and they'll all get along better.

Yeah, the kitchen staff should STFU and keep their opinions to themselves, eh?

They need to realize that if Trump fails to be elected he just goes back to being a billionaire. But if your career is politics, like Ryan et al, things will not be quite so rosy. And they should not delude themselves that in four years they'll be the ones picking up the pieces, or that anyone who supported Trump will simply forgive and forget

Well Trump certainly won't help pick up anything. If history tells us anything, it is that he's more likely to leave a mess in place than try to clean it up.

Someone is going to have to clean it up. I'd rather it be conservatives than Democrats.

 

[Libertarian01]

Just a gentle reminder for all who are against a purity test, which I agree with to a point.

To my understanding one of the foremost guiding principles of the Republican Party is fiscal responsibility. Sure, they have a LOT of other issues but fiscal responsibility is near the top of the heap year after year.

The absolute, closest, near fiscal responsibility we have had over the last 50 F****** years is/(now was) the sequestration. There has been NO OTHER wide ranging law that has cut spending growth across the board as the sequestration did.

It was in place. It was working. It was helping America by reducing our fiscal bleeding. All that had to be done was - nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Just leave it in place.

Who should come along but none other than Paul Ryan to put forth legislation to gut this greatest piece of fiscal responsibility legislation in half a century. Paul Ryan actively and successfully attacked the one law that was staunching the bleed. Paul Ryan removed the gauze and gutted the limits of sequestration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Budget_Act_of_2013

That the Republican Party machine ever put him into power was mind boggling to me.

Any attempt to remove him will have my full support!

Kind Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

...
Who should come along but none other than Paul Ryan to put forth legislation to gut this greatest piece of fiscal responsibility legislation in half a century. Paul Ryan actively and successfully attacked the one law that was staunching the bleed. Paul Ryan removed the gauze and gutted the limits of sequestration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Budget_Act_of_2013

That the Republican Party machine ever put him into power was mind boggling to me.

Any attempt to remove him will have my full support!

Any attempt? So, you would endorse efforts by Dems to hijack a primary to oust him for their own reasons?

Your criticism is valid, although there is room for disagreement. There was a context to sequestration, and a context to increasing the caps. Keeping the caps would've required discipline and sacrifice for many Americans. Which means it would not have worked.

I can disagree with Ryan's compromise while still understanding why he had to do it.

The alternative would've been worse.

Well. At least that's what I thought at the time.

To the extent it has resulted in Trump's nomination (and I doubt very many attendees to Trump's rallies could explain sequestration), then I was probably wrong.

 

[Jludo]

Any attempt? So, you would endorse efforts by Dems to hijack a primary to oust him for their own reasons?

Your criticism is valid, although there is room for disagreement. There was a context to sequestration, and a context to increasing the caps. Keeping the caps would've required discipline and sacrifice for many Americans. Which means it would not have worked.

I can disagree with Ryan's compromise while still understanding why he had to do it.

The alternative would've been worse.

Well. At least that's what I thought at the time.

To the extent it has resulted in Trump's nomination (and I doubt very many attendees to Trump's rallies could explain sequestration), then I was probably wrong.

Do you mean politically it wouldn't have worked? If that's our standard spending Will never come under control.
Isn't this the definition of kicking the can down the road? At some point Americans, whether employed by the government, dependent on an entitlement or however else are going to have to pay up but the longer we avoid this reality the harder it's going to get.

 

[Slapstick]

The way I see it, getting rid of Ryan may just send the message to the GOP elites that they need start paying attention to what is best for the Country and it's people not their own ambitions.

 

[T.Lex]

Do you mean politically it wouldn't have worked?

Well, yes to both questions - the explicit one, and the implicit. I don't think sequestration, the original, would have actually worked. The sacrifices necessary would require commitment by the American people that I don't think we can muster.

If that's our standard spending Will never come under control.

"Never" is a long time. I think the Sequestration 2.0 is better than pre-sequestration. That was even MORE a process of viewing fiscal policy through political myopia. Every deadline was a political crisis. That was worse. IMHO.

Isn't this the definition of kicking the can down the road?

Sorta. The can is smaller and perhaps more manageable. But it is down the road.

At some point Americans, whether employed by the government, dependent on an entitlement or however else are going to have to pay up but the longer we avoid this reality the harder it's going to get.

Yes.

I would vote for a candidate who talked in terms of reality. And math.

Alas, I think we can't get enough like-minded people to get a nominee.

 

[BugI02]

Lex, the only path forward for my concerns (structural debt) I can see would be something like 5% across the board cut of all federal expenditures and 5% increase in all taxation and balance the budget. Everybody feels the pain and must make do with less.

5% + 5% of 3.3 trillion is 330 billion, but even at that rate and every penny devoted to debt reduction, the quick and dirty is around 44yrs, depending on assumptions about rate of interest expense reduction.

We're dead, no one could maintain that level of discipline for that long

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Lex, the only path forward for my concerns (structural debt) I can see would be something like 5% across the board cut of all federal expenditures and 5% increase in all taxation and balance the budget. Everybody feels the pain and must make do with less.

5% + 5% of 3.3 trillion is 330 billion, but even at that rate and every penny devoted to debt reduction, the quick and dirty is around 44yrs, depending on assumptions about rate of interest expense reduction.

We're dead, no one could maintain that level of discipline for that long

I don't think your math checks out. Or, at least, you aren't measuring the right thing.

An "across the board" tax increase would be of GDP. We're at roughly 16.7 trillion annual GDP. If every good and service was taxed an additional 5%, that's 835 billion.

The Federal budget is 3.8 trillion. That's 190 billion if you cut 5%.

Together, roughly 1 trillion dollars, so roughly 19 years to pay off the total debt. If you could actually pay off the entire debt, which you can't do if you're still going to issue Savings Bonds and the like.

Even that's a great oversimplification. As GDP grows, so would the taxes collected if we actually taxed things across the board. GDP has went up roughly 45% in the last 20 years. Tax collection has more or less kept pace.

And that ignores that a large amount of the debt is owed to ourselves. About 1/3 IIRC, is owed to things like Social Security that are within the gov't as the gov't borrowed from one bucket (SSI trust fund) to put in another bucket (general fund).

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Maybe, just maybe, it is not possible right now to "do the job" that supposed-Republicans want to be done.

Seriously. What is expected of the speaker? Push doomed bills to the Senate? Give votes for doomed bills from the Senate?

I think there's a serious breakdown as to what is possible in that position.

Actually, what is "expected" of the Speaker is that he'll do what the Party SAID it would do - use the power of the purse to gut ObamaCare and rein in Executive Overreach. Boehner wasn't willing to keep that promise and neither has Ryan been willing to keep it. It's too bad Mitch McConnell just got re-elected in '14. Usually I'm not a fan of the "if the horse cant jump the fence, shoot it and find another one" school of electoral politics, but in the case of Party Leadership, I'm willing to see a bunch of them thrown out on their collective ears until they learn to keep their campaign promises. If they'd kept their damned promises, we probably wouldn't have Trump as our candidate.

 

[BugI02]

I don't think your math checks out. Or, at least, you aren't measuring the right thing.

An "across the board" tax increase would be of GDP. We're at roughly 16.7 trillion annual GDP. If every good and service was taxed an additional 5%, that's 835 billion.

The Federal budget is 3.8 trillion. That's 190 billion if you cut 5%.

Together, roughly 1 trillion dollars, so roughly 19 years to pay off the total debt. If you could actually pay off the entire debt, which you can't do if you're still going to issue Savings Bonds and the like.

Even that's a great oversimplification. As GDP grows, so would the taxes collected if we actually taxed things across the board. GDP has went up roughly 45% in the last 20 years. Tax collection has more or less kept pace.

And that ignores that a large amount of the debt is owed to ourselves. About 1/3 IIRC, is owed to things like Social Security that are within the gov't as the gov't borrowed from one bucket (SSI trust fund) to put in another bucket (general fund).

Quick and dirty like all my approximations. Since I specified balanced budget also I had used fiscal 2015 revenues, not expenditures. And I used the same figure to approximate the 5% tax increase although I know that gov't revenues include more than taxes. I wasn't willing to do much work to make the point. So save 5% OF 3.3 trillion and add 5% more to 3.3 trillion I took to be 165 billion plus 165 billion or 330 billion. But you reminded me of something I did forget. T-bills aren't callable so fall in interest payments as share of debt would be slower than I thought


2015 Budget of the United States federal government
Submitted March 4, 2014 [1]
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 113th Congress
Total revenue $3.34 trillion (requested)[2]
$3.249 trillion (actual)[3]
18.2% of GDP[4]
Total expenditures $3.90 trillion (requested)
$3.688 trillion (actual)[3]
20.7% of GDP[4]
Deficit $564 billion (requested)
$438.9 billion (actual)[3]
2.5% of GDP[4]
Debt $18.69 trillion (requested)
$18.15 trillion (preliminary actual)[5]
GDP $17.8 trillion (preliminary actual)[4]
Website Office of Management and Budget