Romney Picks Ryan for Veep...Bye-Bye Socialism....

When you start with the premise that tax cuts are "funded" as if they are a govt expense, you have already lost from my point of view. ALL of the liberal blogs go back to a source that makes that claim.

 

vs. the Obama plan which is no plan and which goes off the cliff. Ryan's Plan creates a framework that can then be adjusted to what we can afford.

"Would not be smart" is what lemmings say. "Follow him cause he won the doofus prize" ... along with Obama, Al Gore ....... get it yet ?

Thank God the better patriots of this Country take it a bit more seriously than you.

What we know is that the current structure cannot sustain. It must be changed. To a format that then enables it to be tweaked ... painfully if necessary, but there is no alternative.

 

We believe that money already belongs to the government, net recepients are entitled to the money of net contributors, to pay for the entitlement spending of medicare and social security.

We also believe that entitlement spending is as or more important than Defense spending.

 

Ok

Nah, it's so far outside the scope of things which could possibly occur it may as well be talking about unicorns.

Dismissing anyone without a counter argument is stupid.

Probably because math wasn't a strong point for them. Like I already said, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than having any impact on the outcome of a presidential election.

It shouldn't be, but there's a strong argument that it could. In either case, choosing between no plan and fantasy land is not choice at all.

 

The assumption that lowering taxes creates a growing economy is based upon "all things being equal" but if the national debt increases then all things are not equal.

Excessive debt, both public and private, suppresses economic growth which results in lower employment. A perfect example has been the last three years under President Obama where he's cut taxes by about $1.5 trillion but the official unemployment rate has remained above 8% (a fact that Republicans like to point out). This only refers to the "official" unemployment rate and that doesn't even reflect the whole problem because the "unofficial" unemployment rate which counts all of the unemployed is much worse.

With the tax cuts under Obama millions of jobs have been added and the economy is expanding, apparently supporting the claim that cutting taxes expands the economy and increases employment, but it hasn't been enough to cover the net increase in workers entering the workforce. It can also be noted that, on the average, these are much lower paying jobs than were lost because of former President Bush's economic policies. For those of us that watched the jobs reports under the Bush adminstration we also saw many reports where jobs were added but they were well under the number of those entering the work force which is identical to what we see under Obama.

Tax cuts where a balanced budget doesn't exist suppresses the economy and while the economy may expand and may create jobs it does so at a suppressed rate.

We also need to address who the tax cuts are aimed at. If these tax cuts are for the wealthy that move that money out of the country into off-shore accounts then that money does not expand the economy. As a corporatist Romney is all about increasing the profits for the wealthy corporate owners because his belief is that if the wealthy are making more money then everything is good. That is, of course, an absurd proposition. "Trickle-down" worked for the wealthy and some Americans under Reagan but it didn't work for most of America as the wealth disparity between the top 1% and everyone else increased dramatically. Except for the Clinton years this disparity has continued to grow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

Once again I will point out that this is not an endorsement of Obama because his economic policies are also disasterous but we're comparing one bad policy with another bad policy neither of which Americans should support. We have the pot and the kettle and both are black. When are Americans going to wake up to this fact? A vote for either Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden in November is not good for America because both are going to destroy the US economy. Voting on whether that happnens in 25 years or 30 years is really moot because it happens either way.

 

If we start with the premise that increasing the national debt, which both Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan advocate, is good for America then it loses from my point of view. The national debt is already over ten times the annual revenues that are used to pay for it. If, just if, interest rates increase to the levels of the early 1980's, then it would require over 100% of all federal government general revenues just to pay for the interest on the national debt.

There is a way for the government to "avoid" bankruptcy under this scenereo of course. It's called "hyper-inflation" which steals the money of the American People by reducing it's purchasing power. The wealthy aren't really hurt by inflation because their assets are predominately in capital investments and not dollars. For the average American though most of their assets are in dollars. Their labor is stored in dollars and they literally lose the value of their labor with inflation.

Both Romney and Obama advocate an economic policy based upon inflation which is the fundamental theft of the labor from the American People.

 

Yet speaks to the process and the credibility on them these days.

Not attacking him, I just don't give him more credibility than he deserves which is none.

Me>> Please elaborate, how so?

No hand holding if you can't sustain your position oh well.

The same way we reached record revenues in 2006 and 2007 and a deficit of a measly $161 billion.

Says the man in the mirror.

Well try again military spending is not non-discretionary spending either, it is entirely discretionary spending and must be fully authorized each year or passed through on a continuance has has happened under the lousy fiscal policies of the Democrats in Congress and Obama.

 

You conflate two issues. Lower tax RATES does create or sustain and support a growing economy. Just look at the money subject to capital gains taxes at lower rates, FOUR times what it was at the higher rates. That is because investors then engage in more business and investment activity and that grows the economy and that creates jobs and that creates more tax payers.

If the national debt increases it is because government is still spending more than it is taking in even if that taking in is at record levels as happened after the Bush tax rate cuts and every other tax rate cut.

Obama's tax cuts have been limited and targeted and not amounting to anything. It is his tax increases and clear threats of HUGE ones to come if he gets reelected that his holding us from a recovery.

What taxes are you going to cut on the middle and lower income groups, they hardly pay anything at all now. And no, if the economy here is growing and the attractive for investment people all over the world will invest HERE.

For ANYONE who invests in the companies. Tell me do you invest your retirement savings in companies that don't make a profit and aren't trying to increase profits?

b

And at the same time the middle class standard of living increased and people moved from middle class to upper class and some upper class move down to lower class. This disparity argument is specious. The bottom is ZERO $0, the top is unlimited, so unless the economy is contracting and not growing OF COURSE the disparity will always be growing.

If you don't vote for Romney/Ryan then welcome in another Obama 4 years.............is that really what you want?

 

To which you've offered no critique other than attacking the source. Par for the course at this point.

I'm just bored with having to scour back through the thread for those that can't be bothered to read it themselves.

Another non-answer. This doesn't have to do with reaching record revenues, it has to do with federal spending plummeting to levels not consistent with the historic trend and frankly far outside the bounds of anything even remotely possible.

Schiff: The Paul Ryan Plan Is Weak And Assumes The Economic Equivalent Of Winning The Lottery Twice

It non-economic, vote pandering clap trap.

 

I wonder what people would say if Paul Ryan suggested that the govt fake a space alien invasion to grow the economy like Krugman did.

This is broken window economics. The same utterly stupid mindset that gave us 'cash for clunkers'. Krugman liked that too.

 

Where pretell do Romney/Ryan advocate we increrase the National debt? Its just the opposite my good man. That's also like saying the Tea Party agenda advocates for the increasing of our National debt. You're talking an oxymoron here.

 

Just can't stop poisoning the well can you? Ryan is much more forward about his desire to increase the size and scope of government. His voting record is proof positive of that fact.

If it'd been up to Krugman alone the stimulus would have been twice the size it was. But this isn't about Krugman, it's about Ryan no matter how desperately you want us to look at the red herring.

TARP, Autobailouts, public health care, medicare part D expansion, continuation of the patriot act.... do I really need to keep going?

The only way to say with a straight face that R/R or B/B are for decreasing the national debt or shrinking the size of government is to be completely ignorant about who they are and what their records indicate.

 

Well, you would need to start at a reasonable and factual beginning point before you think about going anywhere. Where again did Romney and Ryan say they were going to introduce auto bailouts? The Patriot Act is a much needed entity in the prevention of terrorism. Public health savings will start once the team kills obamacare. I wouldn't be surprised to see Romney/Ryan introduce personal medical savings plans once the Republicans take over all branches of government when they'll be no democrap obstruction to doing the right thing. We'll also see some privatizing of social security; something Bush tried to do but was blocked by a stubborn and regressive looking democrap congress.

 

Couldn't agree more, trouble is the Ryan plan is radically far from reality as I've pointed out repeatedly.

Catch up! Ryan voted for them already, so the notion he's "small government" is ludicrous at best.

 

He voted for the bailout at a different time under different circumstances. Again, show me where Ryan or Romney said they'll bailout any company or bank once they take over the White House. Their entire message has to do with downsizing government, decreasing the national debt and stopping all of the senseless spending.

 

Mr. Krugman was merely suggesting that we got out of the great depression through government spending that was spurred from world war 2.

Government spending on the military industrial complex does help the economy, and Paul Ryan does support increased military spending as well as any red blooded republican.

The argument is legitimate, that it would take a space alien invasion or a world war 3 scenario to get out of the reccession quickly. That is because during world war 2 government spending made big investments in all industries, today like cash for clunkers, it only makes small investments that usually fail.

 

Florida is now a lock for Romney. Seniors pay attention and are not as dumb as your bright liberals. Ryan doesn't want to cut Social Security, he wants to save it. But obama's "PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY" is STEALING $90 billion from the Social Security Trust fund. Did you know that? b.o.'s "PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY," is a cut in F.I.C.A. taxes. Do you know what that stands for?

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax is a United States Federal payroll (or employment) tax imposed on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare.

The employee is supposed to pay 6.2% of his wages to fund Social Security. obama, when he extended the tax cuts that he VOWED he would not do, reduced the employee contribution to Social Security to 4.2% Doesn't sound like much but it is a 32.25% reduction in Social Security contributions from employee payroll tax contributions. Multiplied by 134,000,000 million worker incomes. That's a direct, PRESENT DAY, robbery from YOUR future.

And Ryan's cut to Medicare apply only to those under 55. Not one senior now on Medicare will be affected at all. And the reason to make changes to Medicare [and SS] is that those 55 years olds of today will find Medicare BROKE within a year or 2 of them qualifying for it.

Social Security. Here is a little fact about SS that few realize. TODAY, more is paid out in benefits than comes in in taxes [before b.o.'s robbery]. But seniors still get their full benefit because the SS Trust Fund has money in it [on paper]. When the SS Trust fund is exhausted, BY LAW SS can then only pay out benefits equal to what came in in taxes. So if a senior is getting $1400 a month in SS benefits, and the Trust fund runs dry and FICA taxes only bring in 45% of the benefits due, then that senior's Benny drops to $630. His bills don't change. His food and gas will cost the same. But he will have $630.

Read about it.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee11-pr.htm

That is not some blog or the DNC or RNC. That's SS,gov telling us all that it will be broke in 2036 and that report is dated 5/2011 just a few months after b.o. started his pilfering. Some say sooner, some say later. SS says 2036, no more Trust fund. So if you are 41 or younger, you should be all over every Paul Ryan that is trying to help YOU out.

That is the ticking clock.

Fix it now or WAIT????????????????????????????

 

Might as well explain what is the truth about Medicare and obamaTAX. The poorest seniors have chosen Medicare ADVANTAGE plans by the millions. Because MA plans have no monthly premiums and the most competitive ones have a small or no deductible. obama claims he has "strengthened" MA plans by making them more cost effective. That is an outright lie.

Here is how MA plans came to be. Even the govt KNOWS the private sector can do business better than they can. But the govt will not admit that to you. The govt came up with a plan to reduce Medicare costs.

Insurance companies could BID to take Medicare patients OFF the Medicare rolls. [MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS] They HAD to bid a reimbursement cost BELOW what Medicare spent on the average beneficiary in that area. Say that was $11,000. The insurance co. bids that they will do it for $10,000. The govt saves $1000 for every person the insurance company signs up. Once a person signs on to a MA plan, THEY ARE NO LONGER COVERED BY MEDICARE. The govt saves money and the private insurer CAN do it for less money. A wonderful program.

BUT

The govt decides that the senior COULD get abused by those plans and get poor care. So to PROTECT the seniors, the govt instituted a bonus program for the MA providers. Govt would inspect services and survey seniors, and if there was a high degree of satisfaction with the MA provider, then that provider got the bid amount PLUS a bonus. And the better the satisfaction, the better the bonus. And thus a money saving program became a money sump, with bonuses in the thousands above the average Medicare cost.

So obamaTAx is doing away with the bonuses and now the private companies have to provide care through MA plans for less than Medicare would spend on that person. Why not, that was the original program? WHY not? there will be much less competition now and the no premiums plans and the no or low deductible plans will be GONE. And the poorest seniors will suffer. b.o.'s plan DOES lower Medicare's costs, doesn't effect the middle class or the rich any at all. But the people that flocked to MA plans, the poor. GET SCREWED.

 

Most money earned from capital gains typically relates to stock trades that are merely exchanges of ownership of existing corporations and that does not expand the economy. Only corporate stock offerings (e.g. IPO's) are used to capitalize enterprise and capitalization can expand the economy but changes in ownership in the corporation does not. Of course there are other investments such as government bonds and treasury notes and while they earn a profit they depress the economy overall because the create debt that does not generate income.

Obviously public debt reflects spending in excess of revenue and debt, both public and private combined, depress the economy. There is a balance between cutting taxes which increases economic activity and debt which suppresses the economy. At over $15 trillion in debt right now the debt outweighs the gains that could be achieved by tax cuts. As noted, under Ryan's 2013 budget projections he would cut $2 trillion in taxes but he would increase the national debt by over $6 trillion. The $6 trillion in increase debt outweighs the $2 trillion in tax cuts.

The economy has not recovered predominately because of debt although it was private debt that was the primary cause. The national average debt to income ratio in 2007 was over 130% while acceptable personal debt should not exceed about 85% for the economy to grow. Some debt is acceptable but excessive debt is not. Debt, whether public or private, suppresses the economy. While personal debt has been reduced to less than 120% our public debt has been soaring.

BTW What Obama tax increases? I know he raised tobacco taxes but what other tax increases have been passed under Obama?

We shouldn't be cutting any taxes until the budget is balanced. We need to dramatically increase taxes and cut expendatures.

First of all most stock tranactions are not "investing" in companies but instead are merely changes in the ownership of the company. The money paid for the stock does not go to the company but instead it goes to the prior owner of the stock. It does virtually nothing for the company. Whether "Joe" owns the company or "Bob" owns the company based upon a stock transaction doesn't typically affect the company at all. Only stock sales by the company itself benefit the enterprise. Do people really have such a poor understanding of the stock market to not know these simple facts?

The US standard of living has been going down over the last three years as inflation has out-paced wages.

I don't support jumping off a cliff regardless of whether it's a 100' cliff or a 120' cliff.

As for the economy a survey of 1700 business executives showed that twice as many of them thought that Obama would be better for the economy than Romney but neither of them polled very well. There is a discussion about it on this thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...onomy-obama-barely-beats-none-above-poll.html

My greatest objection to Romney/Ryan over Obama/Biden would be the attack on civil rights that Romney/Ryan represent based upon religious intolerance as it relates to same-gender marriage. I don't see either Obama/Biden or Romney/Ryan as being good for the nation economically but there is a huge difference when it comes to civil rights.

 

Indolence is failure. The wealthy have an entire world in which to spend and invest. The goal is to have them do so here.

Duh.

 

Without choosing to take on this claim - which I find so wholly bereft of intelligence as to be worthy of eternal derision - do or do not these sorts of transactions net revenue to the US Government, and isn't that the goal of wise tax policy?

Nah - screw it: I'm taking on the claim. What purpose do you suppose each party has to make such a transaction worth engaging in?

Yes - because, of course, Apple is better off being headed by Beavis and Butthead vs. Steve Jobs. Because there is no financial or expansionary gain derived from - let's say - Apple buying a vendor and expanding operations through streamlining top-line costs than paying full boat for parts.

Or...like Government employment in general. Of course, there's a difference between treasuries/bonds and Government employees: only ONE of those two choices give the private citizen free choice to invest & create them.

Then you should be in favor of SHRINKING Government expenditures as a percentage of GDP, but you're not. One thing we know for certain: Government's growth is CLOSELY correlated to its share of total GDP spending.

I reject your numbers. They're based upon a wrong-headed interpretation of the fiscal stimulus derived from supply-side economics. It is completely illegitimate to analyze the numbers of a candidate's plan which operates using a different premise than the establishment. Don't worry: every lefty on the planet made the exact same "mistake" roll when Reagan said that the US would rebound, while the usual suspects were saying that he would bankrupt the US and start WWIII.

Then we would never have a recovery - because a core tenet of Keynesianism is to create debt as a stimulus to recover.

The truth is that we've not recovered because we have a highly volatile and anti-business President, and the US economy does not feel comfortable investing until he's gone.

ObamaCare. In addition, it is his rumblings which are as paralytic as that which he has actually passed. In addition, he's passed more regulations on business than any president before him, and business looks upon those as negatively as taxation.

Yes, we know how lefties 'think'. Except that has NEVER SUCCESSFULLY HAPPENED IN HISTORY. It's like saying "we'll stop feeding the horses until they start pulling the plow better".

STUPID.

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen written on this forum, and utterly ignorant of the value addition of the proper supply/demand curve. You do not think that thinks like Market Capitalization positively affect a company's ability to grow?

Uh oh. You'd better tell the myriad lefties in this forum who think that there is no such thing. Are you posting in those threads, and - if so - why not?



I don't support jumping off a cliff regardless of whether it's a 100' cliff or a 120' cliff.

As for the economy a survey of 1700 business executives showed that twice as many of them thought that Obama would be better for the economy than Romney but neither of them polled very well. There is a discussion about it on this thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...onomy-obama-barely-beats-none-above-poll.html[/QUOTE]

Let me be the first to say that I do not trust a poll operated by an overseas entity. Beyond that, your poll had to cede that the results were different in the US - and that's before I question its methods in any way, other than to say that I do not trust them. Where are the exact demographic numbers?

There aren't any. You offered a Reuters article about a "FT" poll, and I have to believe that there is a reason that article was so thin on substance. That article was nothing more than a puff piece for Obama, and I suspect you know it.

But hey! If you're all about thinly researched and documented polls, let me use my own!

And...another!

Ah. Close with the race card. Brilliant.

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Voted for TARP and the medicare expansion too, got an excuse ready for those too?

Yea... the message, one that is inconsistent with the voting record. Talk is cheap.

...and they do, frequently. Again... still nothing whatsoever to do with tax adjustments and their impact on employment.

 

Frequently. That the best you can do to deflect from the truth of what I explained to you, Anikdote? "Frequently"?

Frequently enough to prevent trillions of dollars from being invested overseas instead?

Yes, I'm sure that the restaurant that wishes to grow and acquire clientele is simply satisfied that their patrons eat their 'frequently'.

 

Statement of objective fact. We have more foreign dollars invested directly in the US than any other country. Whatever point your trying to make is amazingly both wrong and off topic.

Why would we want to prevent it? If those we trade with benefit, so do we. You'd know that if you knew anything at all about trade.

You don't though, just spewing the usual baseless vitriol, no idea if it's an effort to distract from the thread topic or to remind everyone once again that your not worth talking to.

 

Great viewpoint, Anikdote! It's as though there is no problem with outsourcing or US Corporate money sequestered overseas due to our asinine fiscal policy! Thanks for your input!

I own a company that has trading partners in mainland China, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia. But yes, Anikdote: let's just listen to your insults about how I know nothing about international trade. Let's just ignore the fact that trading is increasingly taking place outside of the domestic US because of our confiscatory corporate tax rates and onerous regulations; let's just completely avoid the topic of foreign accounts filled with money that would typically be repatriated with the US and taxed here - but isn't, because of stupid policy that you seem to slobberingly support.

Let's do that instead.