21 thoughts on “Paul Ryan’s fall from grace begins…

  1. The Democrats definitely came out ahead on this one, in my opinion. I was a little surprised they let the payroll tax cut expire, but only a little.

    Other than that, the bill doesn’t seem to do much other than the tax hike on the 1%.

    The most positive thing I see from an accounting standpoint is the permanent patch on the AMT.

    As far as Ryan goes, I sort of wonder if the R’s are being a bit conciliatory here in order to build a little bit of goodwill for the coming debt ceiling battle which will be here very shortly. I don’t know, it’s just a hypothesis.

    1. Ryan and Ribble just voted to help permanently underfund the federal government and make the Bush, now fully Obama/Biden Tax Cuts for all of their wealthy benefactors, permanent. This is not conciliatory, it is knowing who butters your bread. This isn’t red vs. blue, it is red+blue for the big $green$.

      1. There were no spending cuts. That’s why we’re “underfunded” — not because government isn’t confiscating enough from us.

        1. Kindly elaborate, I don’t think I am catching your drift in your response to my comment. Are you implying that making tax cuts for the wealthy more generous and permanent is a good thing for the US economy? I was just saying that Ryan was merely rewarding the people who financially support him and that should be of no surprise to anyone.

          1. I am saying that we are underfunded because we spend more than we take in, not because we don’t tax people enough. Obama has even said raising taxes on the wealthy is more about some sense of fairness than actually increasing revenue. What bearing does raising taxes on a few people just to say we stuck it to ’em (when half the country doesn’t even pay income taxes). Who said anything about making the tax rate for the wealthy “more generous”?

            I guess my point is that if we are truly looking for a solution it’s going to take painful decisions – probably tax hikes on everybody and spending cuts too. Let’s not pretend you can demonize a few people at the top and call it a day.

            1. I think you and I are close to being on the same page here fmsn. Not trying to be combative. 23 million working class demographic people out of work, true, aren’t paying taxes. Neither are those working and making less than a living wage. I didn’t say anywhere that raising taxes on the 1% was going to solve everything or that I was intent on sticking anything to them. When the top 3% sucked up 95% of the wealth created, they should be obligated to pay a higher rate on their wealth rather than cutting tax cuts made permanent.

              Just as the return to previous FICA withholding rates affects the working class more, one million fewer jobs predicted short term as a result of the return to previous withholding rate, and in a recession those previous “extra,” dollars for the working class WERE creating a much larger multiplying effect on economic stimulus than anything else that was currently out there.

              Thanks for the conversation.

              1. You make reasonable arguments. However, you say they sucked up the majority of the wealth created. That implies wealth is finite. Also, instead of “obligated to pay more” — why? How much more? I would rather maybe determine the % that generates the most revenue and go with that. That’s an idea I would think liberals would go for, but from my philosophy I don’t think it’s a good idea to maximize revenue to the federal government.

                If the return to higher FICA rates means fewer jobs, how will raising income taxes also not contract the economy? If the rich guy doesn’t throw around money on extra goods and services, who do you think suffers?

  2. The well-overdue farm bill is included in this, at least for a year, so that’s a big help ($7 milk would have been really bad), and even the payroll tax cut means Social Security is firmed up with revenues, which’ll make it a lot harder for Purty Paulie to justify cutting it come March.

    I’ll accept it, but I’m not doing backflips, and we need to be on guard for the fight in March, because you know GOPs and sell-out Dems will try to use the looming debt ceiling issue to mess with Medicare benefits, especially on those who don’t have the means to handle a drop in benefits.

  3. It is interesting to note that Ryan was “…one of 67 Republicans who voted against funding flood insurance for Sandy victims,” Ouch!

      1. By the way, Ribble didn’t vote against, but apparently didn’t vote for it, either. If true, that means NOT ONE WISCONSIN GOP CONGRESSMAN voted for Sandy relief. That’s some of that Christian compassion for your fellow man!

        1. Let’s say the bill included stuff like the “bridge to nowhere” (which was so heavily criticized by folks like you not too long ago). Would you care? Do you know what’s in the bill or do you just find it deplorable to hold up a bill because it’s called “Sandy Relief” no matter what the substance is in it? Isn’t it more important to get it right than waste money? Do you find it compassionate to give relief to luxury beachfront estates? I don’t find it Christian or compassionate for the government to confiscate more of our hard-earned money and sell out our kids futures. I won’t hold my breath waiting for your answers.

        2. One more thing -do you view it as government’s place to fulfill a compassionate Christian agenda, as you suggest above? Because I’m fairly certain if a politician were to suggest that, the majority of folks on this blog would be up in arms over separation of church and state.

  4. Republicans refusing greater aid to the victims of Sandy, a majority of which are lower or lower middle class people, makes it decidedly harder for these people to stay or rebuild their communities and opens to door to the well heeled to acquire valuable property assets, think waterfront, at bargain basement prices. Republican vote = assisting more transfer of wealth to the 1%.

    Your theory of worrying about wasting taxpayer money as a reason to delay or limit Sandy relief is not in itself a bad idea, but falls dreadfully short of seeing the larger picture of recognizing vulture capitalism at its most egregious.

    Think NO and Katrina.

    1. Nonquixote, how is aid going to prevent “vulture capitalism”, as you put it? I’m just tired of rebuilding beachfront homes time and time again. Don’t they buy their own insurance? Poor people don’t have those homes.

      Also in the original bill that was so urgent to pass — $150 million for Alaskan fisheries, $2 million for Smithsonian roof repairs, $17 BILLION for liberal activists under the guise of community development funds and social service grants. Who knows what else. Disgraceful!

      Democrats were politically smart on this one. If Republicans pass it, they would be criticized for voting for billions in pork (i.e. bridge to nowhere). If Republicans don’t pass the bill that the Democrats loaded up with pork, they are demonized for not being compassionate.

      1. $27 Trillion to back up and support failed policies of the hedge funders, the TBTF banks and tax incentives to offshore jobs up the whazzoo, and a DOJ (finally getting a prosecution) in an admitted over one million instances of fradulent documents being used to foreclose on average homeowners. And your point is who is it that is getting socialist taxpayer welfare?


        Or check this out and also a few of the pieces labeled related.


        Thanks for the conversation, fmsn, you bring up some of the most important issues.

        1. Yes, not only back up and support, but let those failed policies continue! Unfortunately they had us in bind at the time -bail out or there’s a domino effect and a crash. However, that doesn’t mean we have to let it continue or not hold anyone accountable.

Comments are closed.