Paul Ryan for VP?

truthbetold wrote:Maria
He is a serious policy guy but his policies could be detrimental to poor. He probably would be more effective if he is willing to listen and learn from the other side.

truthbetold wrote:Maria
Out here some people feel if you are sleeping in summer after sun rise you are too lazy.
I am trying to learn more about ryan. He is a serious policy guy but his policies could be detrimental to poor. He probably would be more effective if he is willing to listen and learn from the other side. He is young and he has time. Is his time now? I want to see obama continue for four more.
Romney is a stuffed shirt and paul is somewhat similar except he is not smart enough to be as arrogant as romney.

truthbetold wrote:Impy
You liking ryan or romney has little bearing on facts or my opinion on them.

i like that guy. Also you flippantly call Romney arrogant. i wonder why. because he is rich, successful and makes more money than anyone you or me know?

Tbt: are you suggesting us low lifes who do not know successful rich people do not know how they think and behave? Based on your assessment of our knowledge base you think we the voting public should refrain from judging the candidate romney?
Why is calling romney arrogant considered flippant? What do you know about my knowledge of romney's political history. I am assuming you are aware that romney was in public eye from 80s olympics mass governor 2008 presidential repub nominee and current repub nominee. He has a well publicized public comment history that provides reasonable insight into his class philosophy and thinking. While i am not be as smart as you are i do pay attention the world aroud me.

Ryan is a clever choice. he is young, intelligent and conservative.

Impedimenta wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Maria
He is a serious policy guy but his policies could be detrimental to poor. He probably would be more effective if he is willing to listen and learn from the other side.

what does the above even mean? everyone in politics, esp with presidential office dreams are all serious policy guys and policies are almost always detrimental to "a sector" of the population. I am not sure how and why that plays in his candidacy.

i like that guy. Also you flippantly call Romney arrogant. i wonder why. because he is rich, successful and makes more money than anyone you or me know?

Ryan is a clever choice. he is young, intelligent and conservative.

In picking Ryan, Romney is confirming his commitment to full-flown economic radicalism — something that he had kept well disguised until the Tax Policy Center study unmasked it. The central idea driving the GOP ticket is not just that tax hikes on the rich must be avoided at all costs. It’s that dramatically reducing the tax burden on the wealthy — coupled with deep cuts to social programs and a quasi-voucherizing of Medicare — is the route back to prosperity.

Call it the “Ryan/Romney vision.” Not the “Romney/Ryan vision.” The “Ryan/Romney vision.” The Ryan pick was urged upon Romney by conservatives who wanted him to “go bold,” i.e., to confirm beyond doubt that he will govern from the Ryan blueprint. “We want the Ryan budget,” Grover Norquist said recently, adding that the paramount requirement in the next president is that he have “enough working digits to handle a pen” to sign it. The Ryan pick is a triumph for this wing of the party

Third, we have not examined whether it would be politically realistic to reduce tax expenditures—provisions like the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, the tax benefit for health insurance, the EITC, and the child tax credit, etc,—by 58 percent for those earning less than $200,000, and to eliminate such features entirely for all households earning more than $200,000. These are extremely popular tax breaks, not just for the taxpayers who benefit directly from lower tax bills, but also from other parties who benefit indirectly such as charities and their constituents, or the home building industry. For instance, no recent major reform plan has proposed entirely eliminating the deduction for charitable contributions for higher-income individuals. If certain tax expenditures, say for charitable giving, mortgage interest, or health insurance were scaled back by the same percentage for everyone instead of eliminated, then the requirement of revenue neutrality would require even larger tax increases on middle- and lower-income households.

Fourth, it is unlikely to be technically and practically feasible to design the tax expenditure cuts to occur “starting at the top” as we have assumed. If it is not, then any revenue-neutral plan will be even less progressive than we have estimated and will generate larger tax cuts for high-income households and larger net tax increases for low- and middle-income households. In our analysis we have assumed that tax expenditures could be eliminated exclusively for high-income groups (but not for lower-income groups) to illustrate the most progressive possible distribution of tax burdens possible given the specified tax rates. In practice, such a policy would require that these benefits be phased out over some income range, increasing marginal tax rates in that range. Our analysis implicitly assumes that these benefits would be phased out immediately and in full as a household’s income rises from $200,000 to $200,001—this would create an enormous tax on that particular dollar of income, which is one reason why such a plan is not likely to implemented. More realistically, benefits would probably be phased-out more gradually, which would mean raising less revenue from high-income households and an even larger tax shift to lower- and middle-income households.

Taken together, these qualifications suggest that a reform that cuts income tax rates uniformly, preserves individual income tax expenditures aimed at saving and investment, and makes up the revenue by cutting individual income tax expenditures will wind up shifting the tax burden to middle- and lower-income households and away from high-income households.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

if romney really signs on to the ryan plan in all its glory, it's going to be like the french revolution. the second amendment is going to become really consequential.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

if romney really signs on to the ryan plan in all its glory, it's going to be like the french revolution. the second amendment is going to become really consequential.

If the recent opinion polls are any indication, you have no cause for worry!

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

if romney really signs on to the ryan plan in all its glory, it's going to be like the french revolution. the second amendment is going to become really consequential.

If the recent opinion polls are any indication, you have no cause for worry!

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what galls me is that cutting SS and medicare despite folks paying into it their entire lives is a-ok because they are "entitlement" programs, but continuing a low tax rate for income earned by capital gains and dividends is not entitlement. it's truly shameful that the old man was handcuffed and taken away. shameful.

Impedimenta wrote:what does the above even mean? everyone in politics, esp with presidential office dreams are all serious policy guys and policies are almost always detrimental to "a sector" of the population. I am not sure how and why that plays in his candidacy.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the problem is that for too long the public has let the GoP even define the terms of the argument. i don't understand why a program into which the citizenry has been paying money out of their paychecks, and from which they were promised a benefit is allowed to be called an "entitlement". an entitlement is when you pay nothing, but get a benefit. contrast this with capital gains and dividend income which is taxed at a lower rate. why isn't the difference between the tax rate of ordinary income and dividend and capital gains income called an entitlement?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:surely means testing is coming for people of our generation to get SS and medicare benefits. i think that's inevitable and ready to accept it, but only if the govt has a tax policy for means testing for capital gains and dividend income.

panini press wrote:.... while reducing benefits for the middle class and the poor.