Here are links to the transcipt of President Obama's deficit reduction speech from Wednesday as well as the full text of Congressman Ryan's proposal from last week. Though very different, each proposal has a direct impact on the role that the federal government will play in the economy for years to come. After a careful review of each, please comment on which proposal will have the more positive impact on the economy and why. Please be specific in your responses. Since this can be a heated issue, please avoid the temptation for name-calling in your responses as this does nothing to further the debate.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/remarks-president-fiscal-policy
http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
I wasn't hypnotized by Oboma's cunning eloquence. He sounded great but it was really quite dead, really... what is a goal without a strong action plan. Compared to Ryan's proposal, their was a huge lack in detail, i.e. actual numbers. As a minimalist in a consumer world, my vote is always going to be for the one who preposes sacrifice and responsibility, for we could use a little more, and it is so good for us, these are principles of happiness people. We will never be happy if we are not expected to work for a living and work for an education. We made great sacrifices as a county under Ronald Reagan, that at the time were tough, but ended up being the best thing for the country as a whole in the end. I like Ryan's voucher proposal because it allows people to customize and take more responsibility for their health and will save us a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteIn the battle over the national debt and fiscal responsibility debate, I believe both sides have their strong points. Seeing how the house majority is held by the Republican Party I cannot see Obama’s passing. I like how the republicans call for holding the line on tax increases. Both sides understand the need to cut the size of government. I prefer Senator Ryan’s plan for cutting the federal spending trimming $923 billion in discretionary non security spending and reduce funding for mandatory programs such as Medicare, Medicaid. I also agree on the restructuring for the SNAP programs. I read that “"The cost of this program has exploded in the last decade, from less than $18 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion today," the plan says. The recession is one big reason, but Republicans say it's also that states lack incentives to make sure that able-bodied adults on food stamps are working, looking for work, or enrolled in job training” (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0413/Obama-vs.-Paul-Ryan-five-ways-their-debt-plans-differ/The-federal-safety-net) I could not agree more with the bolded statement!
ReplyDeleteI think I prefer Presidents Obama plan for Medicaid and Medicare and its reductions. Making Medicaid more flexible and efficient would require states to reduce payments to providers. Better bargaining for prescription drugs, and tapping an advisory board for physicians and revising payment systems for doctors and hospitals. Being a 20 something year old and in good health i hate seeing my paycheck go towards Medicaid and Social Security to pay for the old, but I do realize I’ll need it someday and President Obama has a more realistic plan for me, when it comes to retirement
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many points described in both plans, but I agree more with Ryan’s plan, because it is more specific. While Obama’s plans to keep medicaid functioning, and reducing the national debt, at the same time, is very vague, Ryan’s plan does provide more figures. I like Obama’s plan to save medicaid, because it sounds safer, and his promises to invest more in health care research would help create more jobs, but, Ryan’s plan has more specifics on getting the nation out of debt, which in turn will help the economy, and create more jobs, and his plan states more plainly that it would help pay off debts faster. Furthermore, Ryan’s plan is more direct, Obama’s plan, has a lot of statements, and ideas, that sound, very optimistic, and inspiring to hear, but that don’t really mean anything, or inspire any kind of action that would be constructive to the situation.
ReplyDeleteI like that Obama wanted to make Medicaid and Medicare more flexible and I also liked that Ryan wants to lower the corporate tax rate considering ours is the largest in the world. Obama's plan did not have a lot of specifics, only good ideas, whereas Ryan gave a lot of detailed specifics.
ReplyDelete“Man makes plans……and God laughs.” -Michael Chabon
ReplyDeletePresident Obama’s introduction discussed, “there are some things we must do together”, which, to me sounded similar too, “the government must be the coach that rallies the team”. What happened to the “healthy skepticism” of too much government involvement?
“Each one of us DESERVES some basic measure of security and dignity”. He is not telling the truth about the special interest plans that are covered under this budget. Nor is there any mention of all the government waste going on. There seems to be no discussion regarding the cutting of ALL the wasteful programs. I wouldn’t mind seeing tax increase ONLY after the government has made ALL the necessary sacrifices and cuts. Once this is accomplished, then let’s discuss tax increases.
Where was the mentioning of the “benefits” given to people that are able-bodied yet consciously choose not to work?
The tax code is simple? That’s an understatement. On the CBS Sunday Morning News, I viewed Nina Olson, national Taxpayer Advocate, this morning stating that she is even confused by the tax code; noting that there were 579 changes in the last year alone. That doesn’t sound simple to me?
I would love to believe Republicans and Democrats when they promise to make necessary changes; however, as we have just read in Chapter 27,
“David A. Stockman, in charge of planning the Reagan spending cuts, reveals in his memoir, The Triumph of Politics (1986), even the most commonsense cuts were strongly resisted by an “iron triangle”:
• the direct beneficiaries of government spending in the private sector
• the government bureaucrats who administered the program
• the members of Congress who were particularly beholden to the beneficiaries
I still believe in upholding our responsibilities to one another as well, I just don’t believe in free rides for anyone, policing the world, a government guilty of waste, and obligations to campaign contributors.
If any corporation operated in the manner of the Federal government, it would be out-of-business.
The Ends Corporate Welfare section captivated my attention on the Republican Budget Proposal because never before in our history did we see the government bailing out businesses or assuming ownership of private corporations.
I believe we are witnessing the embracing of the philosophy in our leaders that believes we can remain “patriotic” Americans that lay claim to a capitalist way of life while our actions prove more socialistic than ever before.
-Sandra Maki
ECON 1740-001
In case anyone is interested, here is the interesting link for the interview with Nina Olson
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7363004n&tag=related;photovideo
-Sandra Maki
When I think of Obama's Speech and Ryan's proposals, I can't help but also think of the dept clock we saw last week in class where China, without large deficit spending is doing well while nations like Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain which do large deficit spending are threatening the economy or a whole continent. Also last week in the news, the IMF called America the biggest deficit spender out of all large industrial nations. All of this together should be a serious warnig to us all.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned, even Ryan's plan is whimpy when it comes to spending cuts on domestic social programs. While both Ryan and Obama have some good ideas, in general I think the Ryan's is the best of the two for reasons stated in the first paragraph.
If we have to have medicare, medicaid, and Social Security, increase the retirement age to at least 75, if not 78. Do not make these mandatory programs for anyone and keep the milllionairs from participating at all in the benefits.
I do agree with a couple of things that Obama said. First I agree with his vague statements about cutting government programs and balancing the budget. But since he spent a lot of time in the speech defending government spending his details don't seem to match his good words. Also he mentioned cutting military at one point. Fine, lets get out of Libya right now. They were never a threat to the USA. Also I do agree that job training and thus higher education could be helpful now with unemployment as high as it is.
I'm not necessarily against a graduated tax scale, but the highest tax bracket should be about 15%, and so we need to cut back a lot more on social programs and let people learn to be responsible for themselves. Get rid of no child left behind and get the Feds out of local matters such as children's education. Then cut all the other government social programs 20% a year for the next five years until there is nothing left. Of course I know that no majority will ever listen to me and so Ryan's plan is probably as good as we can hope for.
Gary
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how Ryan's speech was more on top of the info and detail he was delivering, and how he was supportive on lowering tax rates. But I would agree with Obama (even though his speech was slightly dull and boring and did not have a hugh amount of detail). I like how Obama is really supportive of social security and Medicare. With me having 2 handicapped individuals in my family one being my mom whose a paraplegic, and my older brother being a quadriplegic, who can really complain how he’s dealing with the 2/3rds of the budget going towards that. But I agree with balancing out the budget and trying to make it more flexible.
ReplyDeleteSteven Hanna
I agree with Ryan's plan on cutting government spending. The government should limit their spending to help lessen the budget deficit. The government spending less will increase the revenue for them. When the people see the government spending more than they bring in, the people want change to limit government spending. The corporate tax lowered from 35% to 25% on corporate businesses so they can compete in a competitive market around the world. If people have to have medicare, medicaid, and Social Security that the age should be raised to at least 70, but it could be raised to 78 as the highest age. The government should abolish the programs they funded that are no longer in use and they would save them billions of dollars that were used to fund programs that do not work. The government should create jobs that will be useful now and in the future. The jobs the government create for the people should have on-going train in the jobs so the people are update on the technology and the things happening in those jobs locally and worldwide. The government should not get involved bailing out big companies and trying to take over private-sectors jobs.
ReplyDeleteI did find obama's view on medicaid and to further research in the medical field very appealing though his argument came out nice it was very vague, and I found ryan to know what he was talking about alot more on the issue of the federal debt than obama seemed to and it was very stisfying to hear.
ReplyDeleteI am seeing much more logic towards actually dealing with the problems we face today in Ryan's plan. Obama makes a few decent points in his speech, but I see most of those points that are still relevant in Ryan's proposal.
ReplyDeleteMany of Obama's plans involve using the clout of the government to force treatment to be done particular ways. What happens to the people who legitimately need a drug that is "not a preferred choice"? Both Obama and Ryan propose to reduce waste and inefficiency. However, Obama wants to try to do that with a larger, more complicated government. We don't need a larger government to reduce waste, we need a smaller government.
Both sides recognize that something must be done. Obama thinks that we should have a larger, more efficient government. Ryan thinks the the government should be smaller and more efficient.
Ryan's proposal and Obama's speech were intended for different audiences, so naturally the amount of detail in each will be different. Obama's was a broad overview; Ryan's was an actual proposal (which still featured a surprising amount of rhetoric). I like the basis for the tax increases laid out by Obama: "Those who’ve benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more. Moreover, this belief hasn’t hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale. They continue to do better and better with each passing year." A recent national poll showed that 72% (!) of Americans agree. To pretend otherwise is to adhere to dogmatic "articles of faith" that have little purchase in reality. I also like Obama's not-so-subtle reminder that we were in surplus when W took office. Barack's administration has hardly been admirable, but let's not lay all the blame at his feet. I was surprised to see, as someone else mentioned, how similar the plans really were. The stated objectives seem practically identical. Everyone wants to see Medicare fixed, etc. The differences seem to be subtle ones that mostly run along party lines. (cont'd)
ReplyDeleteSo I'd have to choose Obama's, for the following reasons (and no, I'm not a democrat): 1. Rhetorically: Any changes should be implemented for sound moral reasons, and though morals are extremely variable and ethereal things, I find Obama's rhetoric more moving: "But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations." Whereas Ryan's underlying rhetoric I find questionable: "Decline is antithetical to the American Idea. America is a nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to equality, and deļ¬ned by limitless opportunity. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. This budget’s goal is to keep it exceptional, and to preserve its promise for the next generation." And, later: "America is drawing perilously close to a tipping point that has the potential to curtail free enterprise, transform
ReplyDeleteits government, and weaken its national identity in ways that may not be reversible.
In this we face two dangers: long-term economic decline as the number of makers diminishes and the number of takers grows and, worse, gradual moral-political decline as dependency and passivity weaken the nation’s character and as the power to make decisions is stripped from individuals and their elected representatives and given to non-elected bureaucracies." Our nation's so-called "character" has been built on some pretty ugly things that we choose to ignore, throughout our entire history. Ryan's aargument presumes a moral and cultural superiority/hegemony that I find repugnant. "Limitless opportunity" is an illusion: only a select few benefit from unfettered growth, at a devastating cost to less powerful groups within our country and less powerful countries elsewhere and to the environment. I do not fear losing our cultural iron grip on the rest of the world; our resources are not infinite; there are definite limits. "Decline" is natural and welcome. Unfettered capitalism only equals liberty and equality for the privileged few. We're not as special as we like to think, and that scares people. As we lose our spot at the top there will be weeping and wailing and teeth-gnashing, but I'm confident we'll become a more humble nation when we're not looking down. 2. Accountability/Flexibility: Obama's plan requires greater accountability for plan implementation and greater flexibility if goals are not met (or even if they're superseded). Ryan's plan allows only for rigid adherence to quasi-libertarian dogma. That the plan includes commentary by the Heritage Foundation should make that clear. Both proposals have many strengths and many weaknesses. And it may be that Obama's more compassionate proposal is the weaker. Time will tell.
Here is my take on the two plans. Obama did a great job with his speach I think that his speaking ability is one of the reasons he became president. To me his plan mainly focuses on making the wealthy assume the costs. There is a little budget cutting but compared to the taxing the cutting wont make much diffrence. I see the logic in making people with more money pay the costs. The problem is when you do that you are taking away the fundamental freedom that the country was built on. Or you can say you are cutting the benefits/rewards, so in essence you are removing the drive and ambition to become sucessfull. This is not a long term solution its just a bandaid for temporary gains and it opens up the will to find loop holes or give up. I also found his analogy that 33 people will half to come up with $6000 each to pay for the wealtys tax cuts to be just a twisting of numbers and political hoopla.
ReplyDeleteRyans proposal raised many questions but to me in contrast to Obamas it was an actuall long term plan. His proposal read more like a business plan. Although some of the items may be pain full they were actuall long term changes that could pay out in the long run. Compared to Obamas plan I think Ryans plan has a better chance of a long term pay off. I think Obamas plan just gets him through the next election.
Obama’s speech sounded encouraging but very vague which puts doubt in me and wonder if that’s a sign of lack of knowledge and strategy. Such a conversation I could have with someone on my level of education, I felt like I needed more detail from him. Of course I liked that he paid special attention to Medicare but I don’t really like the idea of making the wealthy pay. I like that it will provide us with the needed money but it isn’t fair. Their dedicated time and efforts (no matter of what kind) pushed them up the success ladder and the Government I feel would interfere too much. Ryan on the other hand was more informative and deep which made me go on his side.
ReplyDeleteVeronika Dimitrova
I am not huge in the political scene, so the better the details the better the speech. I think it's very important to make a plan and outline exactly what needs to be done to get their. Ryan did a great job of pointing out details. Specifics are what make or break a great plan, once again I believe Ryan did a much better job of pointing out specifics. Obama made me feel that he was just telling the nation a list of good ideas. We need action and I think Ryan will deliver that.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ryan has the better pose to the government. Typically in political speeches details make or brake the speech and sometimes the election. Ryan simply had better details and positions. Obama had his regular trying to back it up position on the government. Ryan had a personable view and position. Government spending needs to lessen and I dont believe that Obama would deliver in that area. Also I believe that the economy is still not to where it should be. Unemployment needs to be re-addressed and solved so the major part of the economy could recover.
ReplyDelete-Trevor Smith
"Now, at certain times -– particularly during war or recession -– our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary."
ReplyDeleteAnybody get a little bit nervous when he compares using a credit card to buy groceries to the highest level of national debt that our nation has seen yet?
"Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond."
And he's saying that overspending is 'getting back on track?' Personally I haven't really seen much of anything in the president's speech that relieves the concern that this last quote brings to me.
So, after that I looked at Paul Ryan's article in which he has stated that:
"...our budget advances a vision of America in which government both keeps its promises to seniors and lives within its means. "
I've gotta say, I really like that last part, because it promises that he'll find a way to manage our finances well.
The only problem I had with Paul Ryan is that he said:
"That’s why our budget saves Medicare by using competition to weed out inefficient providers, improve the quality of health care for seniors and drive costs down."
Personally, I don't feel a pressing need to save Medicare. Repaying our national debt ought to be the focus. When he shifts his focus to preserving the nation I'll be more willing to trust his judgement.
Overall, it doesn't sound like Obama plans on actually changing his original game plan, unless he plans on spending more than he originally did, which isn't the most comforting of thoughts. As far as Senator Ryan goes, he has the right idea, but needs to focus more on the nation than on keeping government programs afloat.
Ok I'll try this again,
ReplyDeleteIf I had to pick one I'd go with Ryan's plan.
Either way whatever plan goes through will be earmarked with all sorts of pork barrel projects.
How are we ever to save if we keep spending more then we earn?
We need to cut all extra spending I don't give a rat's behind how some animal migrates or that some building in some city needs repainting.
If the debt ceiling is raised that will give the spenders even more to room to spend. If I want to buy lets say a new home theater system and I don't have the money what do I do , well I do this little thing called saving money until I can buy it, I try not make alot of purchases on credit cards so as to keep my debt down, interesting concept don't you think.
If Washington really wants to stimulate the economy then they need to go to a flat tax, people will not buy if one they don't have the money in which to do so and second prices are to high, case in point gas look at the 2008 numbers and the current numbers people are driving less because they don't want to pay the high prices.
Also don't raise the tax rates on the rich if they do they'll (the rich) will just shelter their money and not pay any tax on it.
Right now the economy is a big crap sandwich and we all have to take a bit, but can't I at least have a little hot sauce to cover the taste?
On a side not I really enjoyed the class, we had some really good discussions. Best of luck to everyone.
-Rick Kilboy
I think the Ryan proposal will be more beneficial for the economy since Ryan proposition has actually a plan which Obama don't. Also Ryan proposal will save 4 trillion dollars in a period of 10 years in which Obama's proposition would save on 2.5 trillion in the same quantity of years. And by just reading the speech of Obama and by reading a little of Ryan's proposal i can definitely tell that Ryan did more research. I like Obama's ideas but with only good intentions nothing will happen
ReplyDeleteConsidering the kind of attitude that we all kind of share about not having a say with our vote as to who actually becomes president, that is an interesting headline for this discussion.
ReplyDeleteBut if I personally had to decide, I'd have to say Ryan although I don't feel that I can criticize Obama for his lack of decision making because he is simply wanting to be accepted by all. And while I do agree that things need to get done, we can't just look up to the president and seek answers but its within ourselves too. I do think that a bit of what seems like paranoia that Obama carries with him about keeping his image is due to the way the public terrorized president Bush's character, not that much of it was unreasonable.