Ryan’s Latest Budget: Wrong Problem, Wrong Solution

Even though Rep. Paul Ryan's newest 10-year spending plan balances the budget, he still doesn't really care about the deficit.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Win McNamee / Getty Images

Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, joins with other members of the committee as he departs a press conference at the U.S. Capitol where he unveiled his budget plan on March 12, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

If you’re not too interested in budget details, which is to say you’re a normal person, here are the basics of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s latest plan: He wants deep cuts in Medicaid, the health program serving the poor, the near-poor, the disabled, and nursing homes. He wants to transform Medicare from an entitlement for senior citizens into a voucher program, but only starting in 2024, so the changes wouldn’t affect the 55-and-over set that tends to vote Republican. He wants to rein in general spending, except for military spending. And he wants to slash tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations to 25%, while making up the lost revenue with unspecified “reforms.” If this sounds a lot like the plans Ryan unveiled in 2009 and 2011—with a hint of the Romney-Ryan budget plan from 2012—well, it is. Ryan is under no obligation to revise his plans just because a majority of the electorate rejected them, although it is amusing to see him claim (p. 5) that “most Americans” share his dystopic view of the nation’s current path.

My beef with Ryan 3.0–like my critique of the “radical document” that was Ryan 1.0, and my screeds about the media gushfest over Ryan 2.0– is that it gets the problem wrong and the solution wrong. It would hurt people who need help and helps people who don’t. And while Ryan deserves some credit for taking some political risks, his budget is still brimming with the dishonesty and hypocrisy that often characterizes the modern Republican Party. A few specific examples:

“The Current Mess.” (p. 4) In his introduction, Ryan argues that his plan, designed to balance the federal budget in 10 years, is needed because America is going to hell. He identifies the problem as an out-of-control deficit created by out-of-control spending. If we don’t act now, he says, we’ll have a “debt crisis,” followed by “debasement of our currency,” and a parade of horribles: “Our finances will collapse. The economy will stall. The safety net will unravel.” His budget is “an exit ramp from the current mess.”

(MORE: Dueling Budgets and a Window for a Grand Bargain)

But what mess? On page 13, Ryan helpfully provides a graph (posted below) titled “Spending Is The Problem,” which actually shows that spending has declined as a percentage of GDP since the dark days of socialism began in 2009, and is on track to keep declining throughout the Obama presidency. There’s another fun graph (also posted below) on page 72, a reminder that the deficit, estimated at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office, is now down to $850 billion, and is on track to fall to $400 billion by the end of the president’s second term.

In fact, government spending in the Obama administration has increased at the slowest rate since the Eisenhower administration. And the markets that Ryan normally worships clearly don’t think we’re headed for a debt crisis, because interest rates are at historic lows. Ryan says that this is because “investors have retreated to U.S. securities amid global turmoil”—in other words, they have more confidence in the U.S. than any other issuer of debt—but that “our growing obligations may shake their confidence.” Investors are aware of our obligations. They don’t seem shaken. Our crisis is persistent unemployment, and instant austerity would just make it worse.

“Fundamental Tax Reform.” (p. 24) Ryan is so worried about the gap between Uncle Sam’s inflow and outflow that his first big proposal is…you guessed it…to reduce inflow by slashing corporate and individual tax rates and eliminating the alternative minimum tax. His ambitious tax cuts could reduce federal revenues by $5 trillion over a decade. But never fear: Ryan intends to make up that revenue by well, he doesn’t say. Maybe he wants to gut trillions of dollars worth of tax breaks and popular deductions, but doesn’t want to take the political heat. Maybe he just wants to do the fun side of tax reform, which would be fiscally irresponsible, but would at least provide a bit of stimulus. In any case, he’s very specific about deficit-exploding tax cuts, and curiously silent about the deficit-reducing tax increases that would make reform pay for itself.

“This budget repeals the President’s onerous health-care law.” (p. 33) This may seem like an odd way to eliminate the deficit, since the Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obamacare will substantially reduce the deficit. And of course repeal could never happen while Obama is in office; it’s just a budget gimmick. But it’s a telling gimmick. While Ryan’s budget repeals Obamacare’s benefits, like its expansion of Medicaid to millions of low-income working families, it doesn’t eliminate the revenues raised by Obamacare’s new taxes, because he needs them to achieve balance on paper. Ryan would also eliminate Obamacare’s fledgling efforts to rein in federal health spending, by far the leading driver of long-term federal deficits. Which is more evidence that the alleged “fiscal conservative” who voted for the deficit-exploding Bush tax cuts, the Bush military and security spending binge, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the bank bailout, and the auto bailout—but against the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan—does not really care about the deficit. No matter how much he talks about it.

(MORE: Does President Obama Really Believe in Deficit Reduction?)

“Safety Net Strengthened.” (p. 27) If by “strengthened,” Ryan means “cut,” then sure, that’s what his budget will do. It trims Pell Grants to low-income students. It achieves two-thirds of its savings by rolling back Medicaid and Obamacare—health care for moderate-to-low-income families. To Ryan’s credit, he endorses Obama’s plan to require higher-income seniors to pay higher Medicare premiums, but in the long term his Medicare reforms will squeeze the benefits of seniors, which is why he didn’t dare propose those reforms for the seniors of today. And if Ryan is serious about keeping tax reform revenue-neutral he’ll have to jack up taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for his tax cuts for corporations and the rich.

“Government spending is no substitute for a true recovery.” (p. 55) The public sector has lost more than half a million jobs in the Obama era, but conservatives like Ryan have to pretend there’s been an unprecedented expansion of Big Government. I get that. And I wasn’t surprised to see Ryan peddling all kinds of bogus information about clean energy and the 2009 stimulus; I’ve called him out his lies on those topics before, but it’s typical from a right-wing Republican lawmaker in the Obama era. What really bugged me was Ryan’s utter failure to go after genuine government excesses and unnecessary programs, which I always thought was the reason God invented right-wing Republicans. But Ryan wants to run for president in 2016, and most Americans who hate “spending” still tend to like the actual stuff government spends money on. So aside from his Medicaid and Medicare reforms, plus a few Tea Party bugaboos like clean energy loans and high-speed rail, Ryan left any specific cuts up to congressional committees. For example, even though there’s broad agreement across the ideological spectrum that U.S. farm subsidies are a national embarrassment, Ryan proposed to cut overall farm spending by a measly $3 billion a year—while allowing the in-the-tank Agriculture Committee to determine where to cut.

If I had to choose the most telling sentence in Ryan’s document, it would probably be this one on page 56: “This budget proposes to reduce the federal auto fleet (excluding the Department of Defense and the U.S. Postal Service) by 20%.” Why on earth would a conservative who cared about the deficit exclude the Pentagon and USPS, which have the largest fleets? Because the defense lobby loves bloated Pentagon spending. Because the rural lobby* loves USPS, which is about as obsolete as the Pony Express. And for the umpteenth time, Paul Ryan doesn’t really care about the deficit.

House Budget

Pg. 13, FY 2014 House Budget Resolution
House Budget
Pg. 72, FY 2014 House Budget Resolution

MORE: Despite Talk of Cuts, Members of Congress Push More Spending

*Correction, 1:30pm.: This post has been changed from “farm lobby” to “rural lobby.” TIME regrets the error.

167 comments
BhujangaraoInaganti
BhujangaraoInaganti

Ryan's budget is of elementary school standard and it looks the Republicans don't have people with better brains. That is the reason they lost the recent election badly. We have to reflect on today's report by senate banking commitee blasting the misdeeds of J P Morgan chase who are real scammers and who is responsible along with the others responsible for the present economic mess,these are the guys who are championed by the Republican party. Their budget is no budget at all because what it does is to make the government look laughable without any saftey net for people who need it and stash the money with the rich who are not feeling responsible to invest and create jobs.

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

The core of GOP economic policy is to enrich the wealthy.  The sales pitch for this snake oil is that by doing so, they will be empowered to create jobs.  We've had 33 years of this pitch and it has never happened.  During that time, the wealth in the United States as a whole controlled by the wealthy went from about 65-66% jn 1980 to over 93% today.

So where the HELL are the jobs today?

Oh, that's right.  The wealthy don't actually create jobs.  They invest.  Okay, so the theory is that investment creates jobs because it gives companies the capital they need to produce cheaper goods and services for people who will then buy it and stimulate economic growth through spending.

So why aren't we spending?

Oh, that's right, the wealthy have all the damn money.

Anyone ELSE seeing a pattern here?

Bottom up spending is what drives a capitalist economy, but it's basically a pyramid scheme  The money doesn't circulate down as fast as it goes up the food chain to the wealthy.  Eventually, it all goes up and stays there because the wealthy don't spend enough money in enough places by themselves to keep the economy going.  It takes time, but in today's money, based on the percentages of wealth controlled by Americans today, there is 40 TRILLION dollars LESS money (in today's value) circulating in the economy today than there was in 1980.  That was the money driving the roaring 90's.  It's not out there now.  Bottom up spending CAN'T happen simply because there's not enough money circulating down to increase spending, creating increased demand and stimulating the economy.

One-time give-aways won't do it.  We need the INVERSE of Ryan's budget plan.  CUT the taxes on the poor and increase them - drastically - on the wealthy.  Shift the burden of the debt back onto those who can most afford it and take if off of the backs of those who can least afford it.  The funny thing about doing that is that by stimulating the economy, increasing the flow of money back DOWN, the rich can get wealthier, albeit slower than in times past.

Money needs to be put into the system on a reliable, consistent basis to generate spending (and improve the attitudes of spenders toward the economy as a whole).  There is only one way to peacefully do that: Taxes to shift the burden almost exclusively onto the backs of the wealthy.

This isn't based on political ideology, by the way.  Shifting taxes away from the poor isn't a "handout" (because the GOP's been shifting taxes away from the wealthy for decades and they don't call it a handout").  People still have to work, to earn an income, in order to benefit from lowered taxes.  Despite the doomsayers saying people won't have an incentive to get "rich", the fact is if someone earns 100 grand on a million dollars of income, they're getting rich, albeit slower than they were in the past.  And taking home 100 grand is a hell of a lot better than only taking home 50 grand or 10 grand.  So it's not a hand-out.  And it's not an increase in the entitlements for the non-working poor, either.  Shifting the tax burden merely changes the sources of tax revenue.  Not the amount.

But, oddly, taxing and spending is a more sound fiscal policy than spending without taxing (which is what the GOP has done in the last fifteen years by not providing long-term tax revenue for their wars to the tune of 10 trillion dollars, and their FDIC increases and JUST BEFORE the S&L fiasco as well as the banking crisis in the late 2000's which has already cost upwards of 32 trillion dollars - both at a time when the average covered account held 5 grand OR LESS.)  From a political point of view, it's high time the wealthy started paying the country back for their continuing prosperity.  It's not like they'll EVER miss any means, be put out of their homes, wonder if they'll be able to clothe themselves or have to take public transportation to work like many of the rest of us have to endure.

Capitalism is still a pyramid scheme as long as more money goes up the food chain than comes back down.  This is hard, economic law. It needs to balance out and keep enough money circulating to keep jobs from closing and to open new ones as population increases (assuming it keeps increasing).  And you have to have ENOUGH jobs for everyone or attitudes will plummet, and so will spending, seizing up the engine of the economy along the way.

The only OTHER way to shift the wealth (and yes, we'll call a spade a spade; this is wealth redistribution), is through revolution.  The thing about capitalism and the pyramid scheme it's become here in America is that the players of the game will eventually get tired of being sucked dry by the people running it.  And they won't be gentle about expressing their displeasure.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Times,

Thank you for removing posts where I called Kevin 'words that should and cannot be mentioned'. I'm sure that rates higher than outing someones real name. Or contacting peoples employers. Or telling people to contact a person using a dummy account. Or calling reporters 'tinkerbell'.

I apologize for my offense. I know what I did and what I wrote. If there's a consequence outside getting my post removed I will take it without a single protest. But I find it funny that THAT was over the line but that Kevin can continue to grief people here.

I guess as long as we make sure to let people know who they are in real life and to keep our threats veiled we can continue posting. But if we use 'words that should and cannot be mentioned' it'll be removed.

Unlike Forgottenlords excellent inquiry in the MMR thread I will keep this shorter.

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

"And for the umpteenth time, Paul Ryan doesn’t really care about the deficit."

The reason it has to be for the umpteenth time, is because it should have been obvious (to the lucid) since his slavish support of the deficit-exploding Bush policy agenda (circa 2001 - 2006). Sadly, no.

Sue_N
Sue_N

It would hurt people who need help and helps people who don’t.

Thank you for that, Michael. Now if only the rest of your industry could be so honest. It's high time the media got over its adolescent crush on Ryan and started calling him out for what he really is – a GOP hitman whose target is anyone not in the sacred 1 percent.

retiredvet
retiredvet

This member of "the over 55 set" votes for sanity. Not that it matters.

sacredh
sacredh

The Miami Heat have won 19 in a row and will try to tie the 3rd longest winning streak in NBA history tonight in Philadelphia. Just thought I'd mention that. Go Heat.

sacredh
sacredh

"It would hurt people who need help and helps people who don’t."

That's it in a nutshell. Ryan and the rest of the republicans do not care about those that need help the most. They want Creationism taught in the schools and yet want social Darwinism to rule the land. How often do they have to promote policies that only benefit the wealthy before the average American tells them to shove their policies up their @ss? Yes, I know they aren't doing too well on a national level, but they're still doing well on a house level. Ryan's plan is a dream come true for the wealthy, but a nightmare for the lower and middle classes.

bokeh9
bokeh9

Rep. Ryan's budget is not — NOT — about Teh Deficit.  It's about turning the government away from actual people and toward corporation "people".  It's a clear demonstration of those priorities.  Any diiscussion that doesn't start with and focus on that is about something else.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

Is Paul Ryan still relevant? At what point will people realize that this so called "policy wonk" is nothing more than an ego driven liar that has never accomplished anything in all his years in congress.

MrBenGhazi
MrBenGhazi

@TimePolitics Consider making it more obvious initially to the reader that this is an opinion piece. If I'm looking for unbiased reporting I would rather not read two paragraphs before realizing I'm looking in the wrong place.


grape_crush
grape_crush

"The Ryan budget wasn’t the only spending document released Tuesday. The Senate Budget Committee, lead by Patty Murray, released the topline numbers of their budget as well.

It includes 100 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure projects, 975 billion in new tax revenue through cutting expenditures, 493 billion in domestic cuts (including 275 billion in health cuts), and 240 billion in defense cuts (all numbers over 10 years). Together with the 242 billion that it saves in interest payments, it adds up to a 1.85 trillion package, split evenly between taxes and spending cuts.

The Democrats say that together with the 2.5 trillion in deficit reduction Congress has already passed, this means that Senate Democrats would have passed 4.25 trillion in total deficit reduction — enough to put debt-to-GDP on a declining path through the next decade."


MrObvious
MrObvious

It's Paul Ryans and ultimately GOPs fantasy that 2012 never happened. People don't want austerity and they reject the kind of bogus math behind it. Time to move onto real solutions.

Joe9999
Joe9999

@DeweySayenoff - reduce the taxes of the poor? Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax.  The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1]   A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.[2]   (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.) [3] - The thing about a capitlistic coutry is that is that if you work hard you can make your life better. And as an aside please read the cut and paste from another article -

One of the Obama administration's major selling points in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010 was a Congressional Budget Office forecast that the controversial legislation would reduce the deficit by more than $120 billion over the coming decade.The CBO has consistently projected that President Obama's overhaul will reduce the deficit, and the agency estimated that the Republicans’ 2011 effort to repeal the legislation would increase deficits by $210 billion from 2010 to 2021.Related: Problems Found with 2 Million Obamacare SignupsIn April, the agency quietly signaled that it can no longer make that projection; that the law had been changed and delayed so much that there is no longer a credible way to estimate the long-term effects on the deficit of all elements of the program taken together. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/05/CBO-Quietly-Drops-Forecast-Obamacare-Will-Cut-Deficit#sthash.k0qn3BFI.dpuf

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

@sacredh And with the way the Sixers are playing, that shouldn't be a problem. Sigh.

RealThought
RealThought

@sacredh 

 "It would hurt people who need help and helps people who don’t."

This fits perfectly with Ryan's devotion to Ayn Rand's insanity.

jilli.brown
jilli.brown

@mantisdragon91 ryan is a government hater who has never held a job outside of the us government.  He's a complete fraud, a hack and hypocrite.

Sue_N
Sue_N

@mantisdragon91 People will never realize that until our lazy media actually start reporting it. Instead, they continue with this "Paul Ryan – math wonk" nonsense despite the fact that his "math" is no more than smoke and mirrors with the figures never quite adding up.

The media – which constantly begs for politicians to "get more specific" – needs to start throwing out some specifics themselves. Instead of mouthing such tripe as "reforming Medicare," they should start saying, "Those of you under 55 now can kiss any chance at Medicare goodbye and start saving up for your hip and knee replacements now. Also, tell your kids to start building rooms for you onto their homes now, because nursing homes won't be an option."

But, no, "policy wonk" is just so much easier to type.

reallife
reallife

@ZacPetit  do you mean you come here to read the articles? hahaha  you should know better

i come for the entertainment...  you know, some people go to the zoo...  i come here to read the comments


RealThought
RealThought

@ZacPetit  

In my experience many conservatives have a difficult time grasping the difference between editorials and news...perhaps because the conservative media bubble blurs the lines so thoroughly.

Tero
Tero

@ZacPetit

It does say VIEWPOINT at the very top of the page... 

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@MrObvious Austerity has been working SO well for Europe.  Yeah, let's decrease the amount of money circulating in what's essentially still a capitalist economy!  That'll work!  ...not!

I can only see one solution...  Well, one which DOESN'T involve pitchforks and torches.  See my rant above.

NP042
NP042

@KevinGroenhagen Since all you have are insults, I take it you can't actually articulate any arguments against the points presented in the article?

reallife
reallife

@Sue_N @mantisdragon91 that's because the media hates Obama, they're all a bunch of racists.

hey! where is the "throwing grandma off the cliff" bit? tsk tsk...  you're losing your touch

Sparrow55
Sparrow55

@RealThought @ZacPetit Calling conservative opinion pieces editorials is an insult to editorials.  They are more like the nonsensical rants of 14 year old children who think they know what they are talking about.  

NP042
NP042

@Tero @ZacPetit I know right?  It's like he's looking for a handout or something.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@NP042@KevinGroenhagen As with most Grunwald's pieces. this is replete with falsehoods. Consider this one:

“'This budget repeals the President’s onerous health-care law.” (p. 33) This may seem like an odd way to eliminate the deficit, since the Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obamacare will substantially reduce the deficit."

That's a blatant falsehood. GAO report released just last month said that Obamcare will add $6.2 trillion to the long-term deficit.

http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/gao_022613.pdf

Grunwald is not a reporter; he is a "repeater." He merely repeats the lies peddled by Obama the Incompetent.

Tero
Tero

@NP042 @Tero @ZacPetit 

LOL I think he just wanted to point out that this was an opinion piece that he disagrees with. However, this article is far from being "biased". You can disagree with an opinion, without that opinion being biased.

grape_crush
grape_crush

@KevinGroenhagen@Ohiolib@PaulDirks@mantisdragon91@grape_crush@forgottenlord> Calling an Asian woman a "mail order bride" is a racist stereotype.

Pinkie found an obscure Aussie opinion column that he thinks supports his raving.

It does support what I'm saying:

"The term applies to women who marry foreign men they barely know in order to achieve a better economic future for themselves in their husband's country, generally so they can support families they have had to leave behind at home. [...] Such women these days are just as likely to come from Russia or Eastern Europe."

> She didn't need to marry anyone to get here.

I really don't care. I mean, really don't care. Not about whether your bride actually loves you or sees you as a path to citizenship, not about what you say or think about me, nothing. You're a sorry POS who gets his rocks off trying to intimidate people who disagree with his lunatic views. 

The only thing you're good for is getting trolled and showing yourself as a liar and a loser.


PaulDirks
PaulDirks

@mantisdragon91 Groeny has a reckless disregard for the truth. Particularly when he uses words like "obviously".


mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

Then how do you explain the fact that I have a job and tons of references from satisfied clients and partners. More importantly tell me again how when Right Wingers use Philadelphia and Welfare State in the same sentence they are referring to the unemployed whites.



mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@KevinGroenhagen @mantisdragon91 Really Kevin? Seeing as you stalked my profile you already know what I do for a living. Seeing as I have been gainfully employed for the last 20 plus years, who again were you talking about when you called Philadelphia which is 54% Minority by population a welfare state?

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@mantisdragon91 How so? There are more whites on welfare than any other race. That you would assume that I was referring to non-whites further betrays your racism.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

Funny how you mention the words Welfare state and racist in the same post. You really are this dumb aren't you.



KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@grape_crush @KevinGroenhagen @forgottenlord You're a moron. My wife was a nursing instructor in the Philippines. She came to the U.S. when this country was recruiting nurses due to a nursing shortage. She didn't need to marry anyone to get here.

So you can tell the how old someone is in a low-resolution photo, but you cannot make out someone's race in that same photo? 

Now you've been exposed as a racist and a liar.

grape_crush
grape_crush

@KevinGroenhagen@forgottenlord > So the resolution is so small that you can't tell someone's race, yet you believe you know our ages?

Not the first picture you've posted here, Pinkie, and you've been more than generous about sharing some information about yourself, including that you're an older POS.

As for your bride, I consider that to be a lucky guess. And I am right, aren't I? I mean, you didn't deny there's a noticeable difference in ages, did you? Or that your bride used you as means of getting out of the situation she was in, either...

How does that feel, you POS?

> You and I both know that you would never say anything like that face to face.

Oooh, I must have hurt poor widdle Pinkie's fee-fees to get him angry enough to want to go all blog bully on me.What other veiled threats are you going to make here?

MrObvious
MrObvious

@forgottenlord @KevinGroenhagen 

In Kevin's 'I'll leave' that really meant 'See you in three weeks' we all know that a 'brave' person like Kevin meant that he'd 'discuss it over some tea and biscuits'. You're not inferring that a straight shooter like Kevin would mean anything that anyone would considered a veiled threat? 

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@KevinGroenhagen

When someone uses the words "Meet me some time and I'll give you my X", I take it to mean that X is really a pseudonym for "I will punch your lights out"

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@KevinGroenhagen

I don't claim I can tell ages from a picture.  What I do claim is that the attitude you bring to these forums is not appropriate for the age you proclaim but rather a 15 year old kid.  You show neither intelligence nor maturity beyond that.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@KevinGroenhagen

"Meet me some time and I'll give you my denial."

And sometimes the High School Bully never grows up....

Flagged, threatening

grape_crush
grape_crush

 @KevinGroenhagen@MrObvious@grape_crush@Hollywooddeed@mantisdragon91> Calling an Asian woman a "mail order bride"

She's Asian? From the teeny-tiny thumbnail, I can't tell what nationality she is. I see olive skin, but that could be European, Middle or Far Eastern, Asian, or from the Americas. I can tell about as much about your bride's ethnicity as I can about her education level.

You don't really know what racism is, do you, Pinkie? 

Again; a woman - of any nationality or ethnicity - would have to be in pretty dire straits to think that a POS like you is a better deal. What's funny is that, for all your blow-hardiness, you're not denying anything I wrote. 

What was the matter, Pinkie? Couldn't find a younger American woman docile enough for you?

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@KevinGroenhagen

Honestly, I had no idea that woman was Asian.  The resolution of the picture is so small that I just assumed she was Caucasian.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @grape_crush @Hollywooddeed @mantisdragon91

Calling an Asian woman a "mail order bride" is a comment based on a racist stereotype. So, yes, the coward grapecrush is also a racist.

It's not; anyone would make that connection. If that's really you in the picture and with the personality you show here I can only surmise that you paid well or she had a terrible time where she comes from. It's a pity that a well educated woman like you end up with an oaf like you. That's not racist; that's simply deduction based on what we know of you (which is more then anyone care for) and your behavior.

You REALLY need to learn about some of the stuff you throw around. But what can we expect from someone like you who spend far more time calling people morons, stupid etc then to contribute. It's not like we expect any kind of brainy contributions from you anyways.

If that's truly you and your wife in that picture, I pity her for being stuck with you.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@KevinGroenhagen @mantisdragon91 And yet again you use my full name violating the terms of service of this forum. Stupid is as stupid does, but I'm sure you'll delete it again in a few minutes like you did last time.

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@mantisdragon91 You're incredibly stupid. Again, I have provided a link to where someone posted your actually name. The reason I know you checked out my LinkedIn profile is that I received an email from LinkedIn that said a "Roman Slivinsky" viewed my profile. That is the same name the other poster associated with mantisdragon.

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@DonQuixotic @KevinGroenhagen @forgottenlord @MementoMori Now this is why I consider you an extremely stupid person. LinkedIn profiles do not include information concerning an alias someone uses on Swampland. The only way that I knew mantis viewed my LinkedIn profile is that someone here on Swampland posted mantis' real name several weeks ago.



grape_crush
grape_crush

@KevinGroenhagen@grape_crush@Hollywooddeed@mantisdragon91> As I always said, eventually a liberal will expose his racism.

Saying that you had to send away for a spouse that would put up with a POS like you is racist? What I'm saying is that a woman would have to have been in desperate circumstances to see being with a cretin like you as the better option.

I've always wondered how that feels, Pinkie, knowing your bride didn't necessarily want you...only that she wanted out of whatever situation she was in and you were available.

> To call a college-educated woman who is fluent in three languages a "mail order bride"

Can't really tell what nationality your mail order bride is from the photo, Pinkie, much less what languages you say she speaks.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

You claimed I stalked you on Linkedin and that's how you knew who I was, in a different post you claimed that some one else told you who I was and gave you my Linkedin address. Yet again too dumb to even keep a consistent story in place. So sad.



DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen @DonQuixotic @forgottenlord @MementoMori 

I don't believe you.  It's far too convenient that you start flapping your gums about having access to Mantis' linkedin account and then mysteriously someone makes an account solely for the purpose of linking it and threatening him.  If you didn't do it yourself directly then I'm sure you had a hand in it.  Either way I want TIME to delete the post and ban the account; Cyberharassment is a crime.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@KevinGroenhagen

I have reported the post with specific notes asking the moderators to check whether that account's history correlates with your own.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen @forgottenlord @MementoMori 

How convenient that a new account is made just to expose his identity after you two have a flap up over LinkedIn.

Any mods willing to track the IP address of that account and ban the persons (or person) responsible for posting it?

grape_crush
grape_crush

@KevinGroenhagen@mantisdragon91 > Sure you did. Prove it. 

What, and give you more personal information so you can harass him outside of this forum? Wouldn't be the first time you did something like that, liar. Flagged.

Cut the blog-bully-offline-stalker crap, you freak POS. That's not acceptable in the online community I have been a part of here for the past five years.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@MementoMori

Terms of use

"In addition to any other rules or regulations that we may post in connection with a particular service, you agree that you shall not upload, post, transmit, distribute or otherwise publish through the Web Site or any service or feature made available on or through the Web Site, any materials which (i) restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Web Site or the Web Site's services, (ii) are fraudulent, unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, offensive, pornographic, profane, sexually explicit or indecent,"

Emphasis mine

@KevinGroenhagen 

You better prove it quick because your word means nothing here.  You've lied many, many, many times to our faces and this is far from the first time that you've shown an insane failure of understanding how out of line your actions are

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@KevinGroenhagen @mantisdragon91 What lie is that Troll? I served with the 3rd ACR back in 1991. But by all means keep dodging and throwing insults. Do you really think anyone on this board doesn't see you for the insecure internet troll that you are?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@KevinGroenhagen @mantisdragon91 Do you know what a time stamp is Kevin? If you did you would know that it clearly shows that you actively found my profile. Is there anything that comes out of your mouth that is not an insult or a lie? Plus I love how you keep posting my full name on here thinking that somehow you can intimidate me.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@KevinGroenhagen @mantisdragon91 If I were you I wouldn't be running around shouting "Tinkerbell" while stalking strangers online like you did to me on Linkedin. And before you try and lie about it, consider this Linkedin provides timestamps which I still have which will shred your lie of that I viewed your profile first and that is how you knew who I was.

tom.litton
tom.litton

@KevinGroenhagen@mantisdragon91@NP042 

"You're an extremely stupid person."

In case your wondering, that's the point in which i immediately disbelieve everything you say.  

Seriously do you think when you call people stupid there reaction is "Oh your right.  I should just listen to you and not think for myself anymore..."?

NP042
NP042

@PaulDirks @NP042 @KevinGroenhagen Ahh, hadn't gotten to the appendices.  You are correct in that it basically assumes that everything possible to grow the deficit is done vs what is currently enacted.


Nonetheless, I'd still love to see that $6.2 trillion figure to be substantiated somehow.


PaulDirks
PaulDirks

@NP042 @KevinGroenhagen Page 51 of Groeny's report indicates clearly the false assumptions necessary to drive it's conclusions. Reading is fundamental.


NP042
NP042

@KevinGroenhagen @NP042 "That's a blatant falsehood. GAO report released just last month said that Obamcare will add $6.2 trillion to the long-term deficit"


It does?  Because I just read through that and found nothing that said anything of the sort.  If it's true, then you should be able to quote where in the document it says this.


I won't hold my breath.

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@PaulDirks @KevinGroenhagen @NP042 You're a silly, bald man. The Obama administration dishonestly provided CBO with 10 years of tax receipts and seven years of benefits related to Obamacare. That's the only way they could say that Obamacare reduced the deficit. The fact is that, as the GAO report shows, the deficit will increase dramatically. Common sense (a quality lacking amongst the moonbats here) dictates that you cannot have trillions of dollars in new spending AND cut the deficit. The math doesn't work.

PaulDirks
PaulDirks

@KevinGroenhagen @NP042The second analysis required the GAO to project what might happen to the long-term national debt under the following circumstances; (a) Congress acts to end each and every one of the tax provisions that are a critical part of the financing mechanism for the law, (b) each and every cost cutting measure in the law fails completely, and (c) every dollar of spending under the law remaining completely untouched.

In other words, Senator Sessions constructed the absolute “worst case” scenario for the second part of the study.