MikeG9699 wrote:I was talking about Obama's lack of disclosure about important documents in which citizens like me as well as many others would like to analyze. small world huh?you are just a rude azzhole.. calling me a phukking idiot once should have been enough..
This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.
Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace
#181502 by MikeG9699
Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:42 am
Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:42 am
Dane, are you whining? Once is never enough when you are a charitable man like myself.
shameless bump
Jimmy cracked corn and I don't care.. (no reference to the jimmy here posting good posts)
Jimmy cracked corn and I don't care.. (no reference to the jimmy here posting good posts)
#181750 by MikeG9699
Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:30 pm
Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:30 pm
Quit whining Dane. You run your mouth without knowing the facts. You started this thread for no other reason than to provoke because if you had a half a brain you would have researched the subject before spouting off and known that Romney had already provided his birth certificate. So if you want to start a fight at least put your big boy pants on and defend yourself with facts and truth instead of nonsense.
here, read this and weep
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opini ... ef=general
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opini ... ef=general
mikethe -azzhole, you are the one working for peanuts that can most ill-afford taking benefits away from you selling on commission at a music store..
#181763 by MikeG9699
Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:31 pm
Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:31 pm
You simple minded stupid phuck. What the hell does that link have to do with Romney's birth certificate?
are you just thick because of poor education/genetics or is the Fukishama radiation eating your brain away there on the west coast? I WANT YOU TO PROVIDE A LINK or a document proving your asinine assumption that Romney has a U.S. birth certificate.. comprende?
Total cuts in low-income programs (including cuts in both discretionary and entitlement programs) appear likely to account for at least $3.3 trillion — or 62 percent — of Chairman Ryan’s total budget cuts, and probably significantly more than that; as explained below, our assumptions regarding the size of the low-income cuts are conservative. The $3.3 trillion includes the following four categories of cuts:
$2.4 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and other health care for people with low or moderate incomes. The plan shows Medicaid cuts of $810 billion, plus savings of $1.6 trillion from repealing the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion and its subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people purchase health insurance.
$134 billion in cuts to SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. If Chairman Ryan’s proposed SNAP savings were achieved entirely through eligibility cuts, between 8 and 10 million people would be knocked off the program.[1]
At least $463 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid and SNAP). Chairman Ryan’s budget documents indicate that he is proposing $1.2 trillion in cuts in mandatory programs other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs, but the documents do not specify how much specific programs would be cut (with the exception of SNAP[2]). For this analysis, we make the conservative assumption that savings from low-income mandatory programs (other than Medicaid and SNAP) would be proportionate to their share of spending in this category. Thus, we derive the $463 billion figure from the fact that 45 percent of mandatory spending other than for Social Security, health care, and SNAP goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.
This likely substantially understates the cuts that the plan would make in low-income programs. The Ryan documents show that $758 billion in cuts would come from mandatory programs just in the income security portion of the budget (function 600), and the bulk of the mandatory spending in that category goes for low-income programs. The documents also show $166 billion in mandatory cuts in the education, training, employment, and social services portion of the budget (function 500), which, based on the discussion in the Ryan budget documents, would likely come mainly from the mandatory portion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students.
At least $291 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs. Bear in mind that these cuts are on top of the cuts already enacted as a result of the discretionary caps created by the Budget Control Act. The Ryan budget documents released on March 20 show the plan contains $1.2 trillion in cuts in nondefense discretionary programs beyond the cuts needed to comply with the caps, but do not provide details about the cuts to specific programs. (The documents do identify some major low-income programs, including the discretionary part of Pell Grants and job training programs, as prime targets for cuts.) Here, too, we make the conservative assumption that low-income programs in this category would bear only a proportionate share of the cuts. Thus, we derive the $291 billion figure from the fact that about a quarter of nondefense discretionary spending goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.
As noted, our estimates of the size of the cuts in low-income programs — which assume these programs will merely bear a proportionate share of the budget cuts required in each of the relevant budget categories — are conservative. When faced with the choice of which specific programs to cut, policymakers are not likely to cut much from a number of the non-low-income programs in these budget categories that are popular, such as veterans’ disability compensation, veterans’ health, the FBI, and cancer research. That means that other programs — including low-income programs — would have to be cut by more than their proportionate share.
Appendix
In this analysis, we examine entitlement and discretionary programs other than for defense and war — i.e., nondefense funding. (This approach also excludes net interest payments.) The Ryan budget increases defense spending above the caps that the Budget Control Act has established by about $200 billion over the next ten years, reducing its $5.3 trillion total in gross nondefense spending cuts to a net $5.1 trillion in overall program cuts.
We compare Chairman Ryan’s budget proposal to a current policy baseline. We adjust CBO’s March 2012 baseline, which assumes that all provisions of current law take effect as scheduled, to reflect the continuation of current spending policies:
We assume that sequestration, triggered by the failure of the Joint Select Committee to propose a comprehensive deficit reduction plan, does not take effect. While sequestration from 2013-2021 is current law, it is not scheduled to take effect until January 2013 and we do not consider it to be current policy. We remove the effects of the sequestration from the CBO baseline using CBO’s estimate of its effects.
We assume extension of almost all expiring tax cuts. These tax cuts include certain refundable tax credits, whose refundable portions are officially treated as spending rather than as lost revenues. (We do not assume extension of the temporary payroll-tax reduction.)
We assume extension of relief from the scheduled steep reduction in physician reimbursement rates under Medicare’s sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, through a freeze on current rates.
These all are standard assumptions that most budget analysts make in producing a current policy baseline, and CBO provides estimates for each of these alternatives to current law. These assumptions are identical to the non-defense spending assumptions used by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in its current policy baseline and by CBO in its “Alternative Fiscal Scenario.”
$2.4 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and other health care for people with low or moderate incomes. The plan shows Medicaid cuts of $810 billion, plus savings of $1.6 trillion from repealing the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion and its subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people purchase health insurance.
$134 billion in cuts to SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. If Chairman Ryan’s proposed SNAP savings were achieved entirely through eligibility cuts, between 8 and 10 million people would be knocked off the program.[1]
At least $463 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid and SNAP). Chairman Ryan’s budget documents indicate that he is proposing $1.2 trillion in cuts in mandatory programs other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs, but the documents do not specify how much specific programs would be cut (with the exception of SNAP[2]). For this analysis, we make the conservative assumption that savings from low-income mandatory programs (other than Medicaid and SNAP) would be proportionate to their share of spending in this category. Thus, we derive the $463 billion figure from the fact that 45 percent of mandatory spending other than for Social Security, health care, and SNAP goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.
This likely substantially understates the cuts that the plan would make in low-income programs. The Ryan documents show that $758 billion in cuts would come from mandatory programs just in the income security portion of the budget (function 600), and the bulk of the mandatory spending in that category goes for low-income programs. The documents also show $166 billion in mandatory cuts in the education, training, employment, and social services portion of the budget (function 500), which, based on the discussion in the Ryan budget documents, would likely come mainly from the mandatory portion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students.
At least $291 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs. Bear in mind that these cuts are on top of the cuts already enacted as a result of the discretionary caps created by the Budget Control Act. The Ryan budget documents released on March 20 show the plan contains $1.2 trillion in cuts in nondefense discretionary programs beyond the cuts needed to comply with the caps, but do not provide details about the cuts to specific programs. (The documents do identify some major low-income programs, including the discretionary part of Pell Grants and job training programs, as prime targets for cuts.) Here, too, we make the conservative assumption that low-income programs in this category would bear only a proportionate share of the cuts. Thus, we derive the $291 billion figure from the fact that about a quarter of nondefense discretionary spending goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.
As noted, our estimates of the size of the cuts in low-income programs — which assume these programs will merely bear a proportionate share of the budget cuts required in each of the relevant budget categories — are conservative. When faced with the choice of which specific programs to cut, policymakers are not likely to cut much from a number of the non-low-income programs in these budget categories that are popular, such as veterans’ disability compensation, veterans’ health, the FBI, and cancer research. That means that other programs — including low-income programs — would have to be cut by more than their proportionate share.
Appendix
In this analysis, we examine entitlement and discretionary programs other than for defense and war — i.e., nondefense funding. (This approach also excludes net interest payments.) The Ryan budget increases defense spending above the caps that the Budget Control Act has established by about $200 billion over the next ten years, reducing its $5.3 trillion total in gross nondefense spending cuts to a net $5.1 trillion in overall program cuts.
We compare Chairman Ryan’s budget proposal to a current policy baseline. We adjust CBO’s March 2012 baseline, which assumes that all provisions of current law take effect as scheduled, to reflect the continuation of current spending policies:
We assume that sequestration, triggered by the failure of the Joint Select Committee to propose a comprehensive deficit reduction plan, does not take effect. While sequestration from 2013-2021 is current law, it is not scheduled to take effect until January 2013 and we do not consider it to be current policy. We remove the effects of the sequestration from the CBO baseline using CBO’s estimate of its effects.
We assume extension of almost all expiring tax cuts. These tax cuts include certain refundable tax credits, whose refundable portions are officially treated as spending rather than as lost revenues. (We do not assume extension of the temporary payroll-tax reduction.)
We assume extension of relief from the scheduled steep reduction in physician reimbursement rates under Medicare’s sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, through a freeze on current rates.
These all are standard assumptions that most budget analysts make in producing a current policy baseline, and CBO provides estimates for each of these alternatives to current law. These assumptions are identical to the non-defense spending assumptions used by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in its current policy baseline and by CBO in its “Alternative Fiscal Scenario.”
basically Ryan proposes unless you are from a family that can afford to give your son or daughter a college education, then you will be phukked.. in other words only rich kids deserve college education in Ryan's mind..just think, the dupes here brainwashed by the neocons go along with this philosophy
#181791 by MikeG9699
Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:20 pm
Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:20 pm
You can find it for yourself, I did. Google it dumba$$!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests