"Many readers insist that the CBO has found that Ryan's plan would make the debt and deficit worse. That's not accurate [quoting the CBO]:
"Under the extended-baseline scenario [meaning the law as currently written], debt held by the public is projected to rise from about 62 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 90 percent of GDP in 2050. Under the alternative fiscal scenario [meaning a scenario the CBO sees as likely], the ratio of debt to GDP is projected to rise to more than 300 percent in 2050 ... Under the proposal, the ratio of debt to GDP would be significantly smaller over the long term--falling to 48 percent in 2040 and 10 percent in 2050."
How would the Democrats bring the ration of debt to GDP to 10 percent in 2050? When I hear that, we can work out a compromise. So far: crickets or demagoguery."
Why on Earth would an advanced industrial power even WANT a debt to GDP ratio of 10 percent? Why is Andrew pointing to that as something to applaud, rather than as an example of a deep confusion about public finance on Paul Ryan's part? Andrew Sullivan used to be the guy that could cut through the bullshit of the Republicans and separate the conservative wheat from the conservative chaff. Where is that guy? Where did the real Andrew Sullivan go?