WSJ: Dueling Deficit Plans Chart

[flpoljunkie]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703841904576257263426340504.html?mod=WSJ_Election_MIDDLETopStories

[flpoljunkie]

1. Can you imagine those who turn 65 in 2022 trying to buy health insurance with an $8,000 voucher?

This is Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher plan and it is beyond ludicrous. Medicare was passed because no insurance company wanted to insure people over 65.

[Blaukraut]

2. Handing each 68+ year old $8000/year has to be costlier than

keeping Medicare as is.
Very informative chart, thank you. I'd pick a mix from all proposals, even Ryan's. (defense cuts in his column seem to go furthest).

[flpoljunkie]

3. What is does do is shift the cost of Medicare to enrollees--from 25% to 66%.

Thereby ending Medicare as we know it with Ryan's stingy and inadequate voucher program.

Of the $178 billion Ryan proposes for defense discretionary spending, $100 billion would be redirected for other defense projects. Don't think that's a cut.

[ProSense]

4. Is the WSJ trying to pull a fast one?

Rep. Ryan’s Plan Fails to Address Defense Spending

Ryan budget would slash international affairs funding, increase defense spending


Ryan's plan is to cut $6.7 trillion and the chart shows $178 billion coming from defense.

[vaberella]

6. It doesn't matter..it's still a shit plan. n/t

[Blaukraut]

8. Judging by your links and the WSJ chart, none of the 4 proposals

really cut defense spending. Obama's and Ryan's are modeled after Gates, which apparently is a bait and switch. Simpson-Bowles attaches its defense spending to non-defense spending, thereby limiting its scope. And the bi-partisan proposal only freezes it for 5 years.

I'm sure we can do better than that.

[ProSense]

9. I agree

Still, the WSJ chart is highly misleading without context.

It's $178 billion in $6.7 trillion in cuts under Ryan vs. $78 billion in about $1 trillion.

So Ryan is proposing nearly seven times as much in cuts, but less than three times as much in defense cuts, which aren't really cuts.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Also, look at the note at the bottom of the chart. Isn't that a lie?? n/t

[flamingdem]

19. Who is advising this idiot Ryan? You know he didn't think it up himself nt

[vaberella]

5. I side with Obama. I'm against everything else-Simpson-Bowles---what's up with that? n/t

[hedgehog]

7. Why is Social Security even on the list?? The only connection Social Security

has to deficit spending is that it's been a convenient source of borrowed money!

BTW - raising the retirement age is a back door method of cutting benefits.

[grahamhgreen]

10. They all suck. Raise revenue, reverse the Reagan tax cuts on the wealthy. It's a no-brainer.

[vaberella]

11. Agreed. But the Obama plan seems the best. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

12. Agreed. I'd love to see the Progressive caucus plan on this chart.

[vaberella]

16. Thanks again for passing on the link. That would be great to see along side the other 4.

It would probably win out. The measures just don't seem realistically possible with the Congress we have in place currently but at least 50% of the measures passed on the Progressive plan would be a step up.

[polichick]

13. Where's the progressive caucus plan? Afraid to compare that one?

[Parker CA]

15. My first thought as well.

[vaberella]

17. Ask the WSJ why they didn't do it.

Like me, maybe the OP didn't even know about it.

[polichick]

18. It's not the op who put the chart together - my comment was directed at the WSJ.