Bluegrassrivals

I got this from my Libertarian Party: I thought it would be interesting for others to read!

Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton

WASHINGTON - In response to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's new budget proposal, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

"Americans hoping to get real about our national debt just got sucker-punched by Republican Paul Ryan.

"Republicans want to spend $40 trillion over ten years. That averages a staggering $4 trillion per year. As recently as 2000, federal spending was only about $1.8 trillion.

"They also want to increase the federal debt from $15.0 trillion to $23.1 trillion. I hope our children and grandchildren enjoy paying interest on that extra $8.1 trillion.

"People should not judge the quality of this Republican plan by the standard President Obama has set. Everyone knows Obama is a big spender. Democrats rarely campaign on cutting government. What this budget shows is, Republicans are hypocrites. They have no intention of cutting the federal government down to size. In 2021, Paul Ryan still wants the feds to be spending 19.9% of GDP. That's a higher percentage than during Democrat Bill Clinton's second term. In 1997, federal spending was 19.5% of GDP, and it dropped to 18.2% by 2000. Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton.

"Another unfortunate but predictable thing about Paul Ryan's budget is that it continues to mollycoddle the Pentagon. Paul Ryan is the Military-Industrial Complex's best friend. He apparently can't find one penny to cut from Obama's bloated levels of military spending. Only a big-government Republican could come up with language like 'reinvesting $100 billion in higher military priorities.'

"It's interesting that when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House from 2001-2006, they did nothing to shrink government, or even slow down government growth. On the contrary, back then, Paul Ryan was busy voting for expensive foreign wars, No Child Left Behind, and the huge 2003 Medicare expansion. More recently he's voted for the TARP bailouts and even ethanol subsidies.

"We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."


The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace

This is just more evidence of how out of touch and irrelevant the Libertarian Party is. Ryan is proposing a budget that is $6.2 trillion dollars less than Obama's and what does the Libertarian Party do? They attack Paul Ryan.

The spending levels that Ryan proposes will never be fully adopted by Congress but they offer a rational and defensible alternative the Obama's budget. Democrats in Washington and in the Obamamedia will be comparing Ryan to Hitler to scare senior citizens and young children and to some extent, those scare tactics will work because they have always worked in the past for liberals. I agree that Ryan's spending cuts do not go far enough but the attack on Ryan is just the latest example of how the Libertarian Party would rather grab headlines than make any real changes to the federal government.

Ryan's proposals, if adopted, would be sufficient to avert the collapse of our economic system and allow the private sector economy to begin a long recovery process.

If the Republican Party began to simply parrot the Libertarian Party, there would soon be only one major political party left in this country.

"People should not judge the quality of this Republican plan by the standard President Obama has set. Everyone knows Obama is a big spender"

Pointing out the "talking points" on the right... look at me I have done good. I am spending only 4 trillion a year. That is reasonable, right?

Another unfortunate but predictable thing about Paul Ryan's budget is that it continues to mollycoddle the Pentagon. Paul Ryan is the Military-Industrial Complex's best friend. He apparently can't find one penny to cut from Obama's bloated levels of military spending. Only a big-government Republican could come up with language like 'reinvesting $100 billion in higher military priorities

How do you explain this? Maybe you do agree that we should be in 90 countries around the world. I mean it is logical to have a base in Great Britian, Germany, and Japan, those are some great threats to us...

"I agree that Ryan's spending cuts do not go far enough but the attack on Ryan is just the latest example of how the Libertarian Party would rather grab headlines than make any real changes to the federal government".

When Ryan was going on Fox News Sunday was he not trying to grab headlines by being this great cutter of the Federal Budget?

In other words, I believe that Ryan did this to himself and shows the special interest groups (i.e. military, which means military contracts, which means big bucks to those that get the contracts, Boeing anyone?) have just as much control on the right as they do on the left.

tvtimeout Wrote:"People should not judge the quality of this Republican plan by the standard President Obama has set. Everyone knows Obama is a big spender"

Pointing out the "talking points" on the right... look at me I have done good. I am spending only 4 trillion a year. That is reasonable, right?

Another unfortunate but predictable thing about Paul Ryan's budget is that it continues to mollycoddle the Pentagon. Paul Ryan is the Military-Industrial Complex's best friend. He apparently can't find one penny to cut from Obama's bloated levels of military spending. Only a big-government Republican could come up with language like 'reinvesting $100 billion in higher military priorities

How do you explain this? Maybe you do agree that we should be in 90 countries around the world. I mean it is logical to have a base in Great Britian, Germany, and Japan, those are some great threats to us...

So, Paul Ryan is proposing expenditures far less than Barrack Obama and the Libertarian Party attacks Paul Ryan for proposing too much spending? As I said, it is actions like this that make so many people laugh and roll their eyes when the Libertarian Party comes up in conversations across this country.

In a few days, the federal government will most likely be shutting down because Barack Obama wants to score political points by demonizing Paul Ryan and his allies in Congress. All libertarians should be united in backing Ryan's calls for deep cuts in federal spending. Once Ryan's cuts are made, then it will be time to demand more - when Barack Obama has been swept into the dust bin of history.

tvtimeout Wrote:"I agree that Ryan's spending cuts do not go far enough but the attack on Ryan is just the latest example of how the Libertarian Party would rather grab headlines than make any real changes to the federal government".

When Ryan was going on Fox News Sunday was he not trying to grab headlines by being this great cutter of the Federal Budget?

In other words, I believe that Ryan did this to himself and shows the special interest groups (i.e. military, which means military contracts, which means big bucks to those that get the contracts, Boeing anyone?) have just as much control on the right as they do on the left.

One of the very few duties that the federal government was given under the US Constitution was providing for the security of our citizens. While you may disagree with spending a relatively small percentage of the federal budget on our military, much bigger expenditures are being made that are nowhere to be found in the words of the Constitution.

The vocal and frequent opposition to spending on the American military is just one more reason that the Libertarian Party has never gained any traction with the American voting public. I agree that there are areas that should be cut and troops that should be brought home from some locations - but the money saved should be invested in developing advanced weaponry that serves both as a deterrent to our enemies and as a life saver on the battlefield.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:One of the very few duties that the federal government was given under the US Constitution was providing for the security of our citizens. While you may disagree with spending a relatively small percentage of the federal budget on our military, much bigger expenditures are being made that are nowhere to be found in the words of the Constitution.

The vocal and frequent opposition to spending on the American military is just one more reason that the Libertarian Party has never gained any traction with the American voting public. I agree that there are areas that should be cut and troops that should be brought home from some locations - but the money saved should be invested in developing advanced weaponry that serves both as a deterrent to our enemies and as a life saver on the battlefield.

I think I will let this man speak for me on this matter! I think he is a good Republican don't you.

If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man's intelligence and his comprehension... would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower



The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.
Dwight D. Eisenhower


We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

You can not tell I am a fan of President Eisenhower can you:biggrin:

Also, just to make a better point about military spending

By titleThe federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is[8]:

Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%
[edit] By serviceService 2010 Budget request[9] Percentage of Total Notes
Army $243.9 billion 31.8%
Navy $149.9 billion 23.4% Department of Navy budget excluding Marine Corps
Marine Corps $29.0 billion 4% Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy
Air Force $170.6 billion 22%
Intelligence $50 billion 7% Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure
Defense Wide $118.7 billion 15.5%
[edit] Programs spending more than $1.5 billionThe Department of Defense's FY 2011 $137.5 billion procurement and $77.2 billion RDT&E budget requests included several programs with more than $1.5 billion.

Program 2011 Budget request[10] Change, 2010 to 2011
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%
Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%
Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%
Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%
DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%
P–8A Poseidon $2.9 billion −1.6%
V-22 Osprey $2.8 billion −6.5%
Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%
F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%
Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%
Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%
CVN Refueling and Complex Overhaul $1.7 billion −6.0%
Chemical Demilitarization $1.6 billion −7.0%
RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%
Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_bu...ted_States

tvtimeout Wrote:Also, just to make a better point about military spending

By titleThe federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is[8]:

Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%
[edit] By serviceService 2010 Budget request[9] Percentage of Total Notes
Army $243.9 billion 31.8%
Navy $149.9 billion 23.4% Department of Navy budget excluding Marine Corps
Marine Corps $29.0 billion 4% Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy
Air Force $170.6 billion 22%
Intelligence $50 billion 7% Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure
Defense Wide $118.7 billion 15.5%
[edit] Programs spending more than $1.5 billionThe Department of Defense's FY 2011 $137.5 billion procurement and $77.2 billion RDT&E budget requests included several programs with more than $1.5 billion.

Program 2011 Budget request[10] Change, 2010 to 2011
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%
Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%
Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%
Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%
DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%
P–8A Poseidon $2.9 billion −1.6%
V-22 Osprey $2.8 billion −6.5%
Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%
F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%
Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%
Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%
CVN Refueling and Complex Overhaul $1.7 billion −6.0%
Chemical Demilitarization $1.6 billion −7.0%
RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%
Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_bu...ted_States

The cost of not maintaining a large technological edge in weaponry over potential enemies is the certainty of a sharp increase in the death of American patriots on the battlefield, in the air, and on the seas.

Does the Libertarian Party and Barack Obama really want to level the playing field when it comes to the quality of the weapons deployed with our young men and women? The development of advanced weapons system is the last place we should be cutting expenditures but it is among the first areas that liberals and the Libertarian Party seek cuts.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:The cost of not maintaining a large technological edge in weaponry over potential enemies is the certainty of a sharp increase in the death of American patriots on the battlefield, in the air, and on the seas.

Does the Libertarian Party and Barrack Obama really want to level the playing field when it comes to the quality of the weapons deployed with our young men and women? The development of advanced weapons system is the last place we should be cutting expenditures but it is among the first areas that liberals and the Libertarian Party seek cuts.

We need sharp cuts across the board...our country is bankrupt...if we don't do something soon US is going to default on its loans...

So what Paul Ryan has suggested is to cut discreationary spending... seriously? If you want cuts be prepared to make cuts...if not get out of the kitchen. No, let us cut NPR they take 20 million (which I am for cutting NPR), instead of taking say 1 Billion away from our military, which still leads them to have 282 BILLION DOLLARS... no, we could never do that.

Now, I am not a brilliant man, but I still can not figure out why the United States of America has a military bases in Great Britian, Germany ( I understood in the cold war era, but now?), Japan? Really? Over 90 Countries Really? Nation Building Really? Wasted Money, Yes!


Libertarians would also like to cut alot of other places too, we just like to point out Republicans are controlled by special interest groups, namely groups like Boeing, who depend on the 40 Billion Contract so they can develop a plane to refuel in mid-air.

You still have not responded to what your great REPUBLICAN GENERAL PRESIDENT gave warning about...

tvtimeout Wrote:We need sharp cuts across the board...our country is bankrupt...if we don't do something soon US is going to default on its loans...

So what Paul Ryan has suggested is to cut discreationary spending... seriously? If you want cuts be prepared to make cuts...if not get out of the kitchen. No, let us cut NPR they take 20 million (which I am for cutting NPR), instead of taking say 1 Billion away from our military, which still leads them to have 282 BILLION DOLLARS... no, we could never do that.

Now, I am not a brilliant man, but I still can not figure out why the United States of America has a military bases in Great Britian, Germany ( I understood in the cold war era, but now?), Japan? Really? Over 90 Countries Really? Nation Building Really? Wasted Money, Yes!


Libertarians would also like to cut alot of other places too, we just like to point out Republicans are controlled by special interest groups, namely groups like Boeing, who depend on the 40 Billion Contract so they can develop a plane to refuel in mid-air.

You still have not responded to what your great REPUBLICAN GENERAL PRESIDENT gave warning about...

Nor do I plan to respond. Eisenhower was not anti-military but that is the way liberals and those in favor of unilateral disarmament like to portray him.

You still have not responded to my question about why the Libertarian Party is attacking Paul Ryan for his plan of reducing spending by $6.2 trillion but not Obama, who is about to shut down the federal government over a proposed cut of only $12 billion.

Which budget comes closer to the stated goals of the Libertarian Party? Ryan's or Obama's? Now assuming that you did your math correctly and the Libertarian Party has not abandoned all of its libertarian roots, which proposed budget should your party be condemning in the harshest possible terms? Finally, if you answered these questions honestly and correctly, why are you and you party not doing the right thing?

$6.2 trillion is not chump change. There is a real difference in Republicans like Ryan and socialists like Obama.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Nor do I plan to respond. Eisenhower was not anti-military but that is the way liberals and those in favor of unilateral disarmament like to portray him.

You still have not responded to my question about why the Libertarian Party is attacking Paul Ryan for his plan of reducing spending by $6.2 trillion but not Obama, who is about to shut down the federal government over a proposed cut of only $12 billion.

Which budget comes closer to the stated goals of the Libertarian Party? Ryan's or Obama's? Now assuming that you did your math correctly and the Libertarian Party has not abandoned all of its libertarian roots, which proposed budget should your party be condemning in the harshest possible terms? Finally, if you answered these questions honestly and correctly, why are you and you party not doing the right thing?

$6.2 trillion is not chump change. There is a real difference in Republicans like Ryan and socialists like Obama.

I agree Ryan's plan is better than Obama's. Ryan's plan just does not go far enough. If you believe that the U.S. can not handle anymore debt, which I do believe we are on the tipping point. Paul Ryan's plan cuts spending back to 1998 levels. That is fine, except for one thing, revenues were higher in 1998. Higher Taxes in other words, now if you still spend more than you make, you still end up in the hole. Therefore, it is not logical.

Now you asked another question why did the Libertarian Party come down so hard on Ryan. It is very simple to me, which party is always talking about deficits, we need to cut this and that. Obviously, it is not Obama, anyone recognizes that, we just like to point out that there is still going to be a deficit under Ryan's plan. But he will be protrayed by some as the great savior of budgets, when in fact, all he did was try to fix the Titanic, with accouple of 2X4's.

I agree with you Eisenhower was not anti-military, but he was not Hitler either. 243.3 Billion Dollars on Defense Spending, not counting CIA, Homeland Security, and bunch of other Fed programs, we spend.

I was glad to hear the Tea Party said that the military should be on the table when we talk about cuts... that is according to Fox News, Neil Cuvoto(sp)

tvtimeout Wrote:I agree Ryan's plan is better than Obama's. Ryan's plan just does not go far enough. If you believe that the U.S. can not handle anymore debt, which I do believe we are on the tipping point. Paul Ryan's plan cuts spending back to 1998 levels. That is fine, except for one thing, revenues were higher in 1998. Higher Taxes in other words, now if you still spend more than you make, you still end up in the hole. Therefore, it is not logical.

Now you asked another question why did the Libertarian Party come down so hard on Ryan. It is very simple to me, which party is always talking about deficits, we need to cut this and that. Obviously, it is not Obama, anyone recognizes that, we just like to point out that there is still going to be a deficit under Ryan's plan. But he will be protrayed by some as the great savior of budgets, when in fact, all he did was try to fix the Titanic, with accouple of 2X4's.

I agree with you Eisenhower was not anti-military, but he was not Hitler either. 243.3 Billion Dollars on Defense Spending, not counting CIA, Homeland Security, and bunch of other Fed programs, we spend.

I was glad to hear the Tea Party said that the military should be on the table when we talk about cuts... that is according to Fox News, Neil Cuvoto(sp)

Maybe you have forgotten or simply did not believe him, but Obama actually criticized the budget deficits of the Bush years during his 2008 campaign and he specifically and repeatedly condemned the spending on the Iraq War. And Obama was not alone in attempting to convince voters that Republicans were fiscally irresponsible during the 2008 campaigns. Democrats depend on the ignorance and gullibility of a vast majority of their constituents.

The point that Libertarians seem to miss is that even Ryan's proposed cuts have no chance to pass Congress. Had Ryan proposed even deeper cuts, then there would have been less pressure on Democrats to compromise.

If the rate of growth of the deficit can be slowed and this country begins electing more people who understand capitalism and fewer left wing lawyers, our economy can expand and end deficit spending. However, like you, I am not optimistic that will happen. For now, Ryan's plan is the best one on the table.

Sorry, every time I read something that has to do with the Libertarian Party, I think slavery to the corporations, which is what would happen in their type of free market.

Beetle01 Wrote:Sorry, every time I read something that has to do with the Libertarian Party, I think slavery to the corporations, which is what would happen in their type of free market.

In some cases you make a valid point, such as they would want a free trade agreement across the world, playing by today's rules. This would not be good for the average American. More jobs would be lost, due to our way of life standards. Right now, Americans believe it is better not to work at all, then to work for pennies on the dollar. Therefore, more and more unemployment, until the point that the standard of living was equal across the board. That is why I am not a fan of the free trade agreement. The hardship that would happen to our people would be to great for them to stomach, the middle class would disappear, (which it already has).

Now, saying all of that, who are the corporations inslaved to... the mighty dollar/yen.

Hoot will disagree with me on this one, but this is why I wish we did not have politcial parties in the first place. I know personally, I fall all over the spectrum depending upon the idea that is proposed.

For a couple of examples, the budget battle, I think everything should be cut across the board. Including military (hoot that was for you), which democrats would agree with, but I would do away with NPR, Planned Parenthood, Department of Education (national level) democrats would hate this.

Under our constitution, I would support what it says about gay marriage. See, I get a tax break because my wife and I are married. I am going to deny someone else a tax break, because I disagree with their morality. That is what marriage is according to our government. If it was a religious ceremony, that I would say the government has no business telling who is married to who, and that is including polygomy(sp).

Taxes: Get Rid of the IRS: Sales Tax accross the board: you pick the number, everybody pays, same rate, on EVERYTHING! ( Now, I just fired a bunch of lawyers and accountants).

Last example, healthcare reform. This is a little complicated but here it goes. People with a pre-condition should be qualified to receive health insurance (I think they might have to pay higher premiums, but they should be able to recieve it, trust me the market will find a place for these people). People should be able to choose their own health insureance even if they bought it in Alaska. Tourt Reform must have a cap on it. 10,000,000 Million Dollars ( I have yet to see the average American life, live up to that). Problem solved (sort of):biggrin:.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Maybe you have forgotten or simply did not believe him, but Obama actually criticized the budget deficits of the Bush years during his 2008 campaign and he specifically and repeatedly condemned the spending on the Iraq War. And Obama was not alone in attempting to convince voters that Republicans were fiscally irresponsible during the 2008 campaigns. Democrats depend on the ignorance and gullibility of a vast majority of their constituents.

The point that Libertarians seem to miss is that even Ryan's proposed cuts have no chance to pass Congress. Had Ryan proposed even deeper cuts, then there would have been less pressure on Democrats to compromise.

If the rate of growth of the deficit can be slowed and this country begins electing more people who understand capitalism and fewer left wing lawyers, our economy can expand and end deficit spending. However, like you, I am not optimistic that will happen. For now, Ryan's plan is the best one on the table.

So, do you concede then that Ryan's plan might slow the deficit down, but it does not solve the deficit, and in facts adds to the deficit?

I agree with the bolded, except for one thing, election cycles are what they are... I suspect Republicans gain more seats in Senate and President, 2012. We are then controlled by Republicans once more, (just like 01-08) they refuse to look at illigeal immigration,(makes average white man community mad). They cut discreationary spending (makes a few more folks mad), do something with education (makes a few more folks mad), do a small change to entitlements (makes a few more folks mad), next election cycle, they are voted out, we still have a deficit growing, because the cuts are not deep enough, in the meantime, we can say we slowed down the rate of water coming in, while we are drowning.

Yet, you will hear them clam, I am a deficit hawk!!!


One word: Brilliant!

tvtimeout Wrote:So, do you concede then that Ryan's plan might slow the deficit down, but it does not solve the deficit, and in facts adds to the deficit?

I agree with the bolded, except for one thing, election cycles are what they are... I suspect Republicans gain more seats in Senate and President, 2012. We are then controlled by Republicans once more, (just like 01-08) they refuse to look at illigeal immigration,(makes average white man community mad). They cut discreationary spending (makes a few more folks mad), do something with education (makes a few more folks mad), do a small change to entitlements (makes a few more folks mad), next election cycle, they are voted out, we still have a deficit growing, because the cuts are not deep enough, in the meantime, we can say we slowed down the rate of water coming in, while we are drowning.

Yet, you will hear them clam, I am a deficit hawk!!!


One word: Brilliant!

No, Ryan's plan does not add to the deficit. It shrinks the deficit but any budget deficit adds to the national debt. It is important to grasp the difference and distinguish between budget deficits and the national debt.

I will post a chart later that shows the projected annual budget deficits under Ryan's plan superimposed on the budget deficits projected by the Obama administration. The difference in the plans is very dramatic.

Even if the Republicans (or Libertarians if they ever managed to become a major party) succeeded in immediately eliminating budget deficits, they would be voted out of office in record numbers at the first opportunity by voters longing for a return of their lost benefits.

You have read enough of my posts in this forum that you should realize that I am not a big proponent of compromise. However, if Democrats regain control of Congress and Obama is reelected, our remaining economic and personal liberty will be numbered.

Politicians who have no power are pretty useless, a fact that you should understand, being a member of the Libertarian Party. If Paul Ryan followed your advice and Republicans followed his lead, the fight over the future of this country would be over and all Americans would be big losers.

It seems that both major parties have their "golden goose" of spending that they cannot let go of. For Democrats, it is entitlement programs. For Republicans, it is the military. In the true best interests of this country, both areas should see their annual budget cut.

Now, will meaningful cuts to either group ever happen? No, because it would be political suicide. Anyone proposing cuts to entitlement programs is portrayed as a heartless SOB who wants to leave grandma, grandpa, and little Jimmy living hungry out on the street. And anyone who wants to cut military spending is portrayed as an un-patriotic coward who doesn't care about the well-being of our troops. It's a shame, because both areas have seen spending spiral wildly out-of-control.

The real problem is that a large portion of the population thinks that money just grows on trees. They don't want any programs cut (unless it's something they don't care about), yet they still want to pay less taxes. Sort of like having your cake and eating it, too.

I do agree that Paul Ryan's budget is better than Obama's plan. It's still not good enough, but sometimes you have to pick between the lesser of two evils. In this case, my vote would go for Ryan's plan.