# It's Official--Romney and Ryan for 2012!!!



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

*Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *

The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today.  And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.

So I would have lost a bet that it would be Marco Rubio.  I did not think it would be Ryan.  In truth, last night I was disappointed mostly because I really wanted Rubio.

But now that I've had some time to think about it, the only conclusion I can come up with is that Mitt Romeny is 100% serious about economic reform and he picked the most logical person to help do that.  And, if they are elected, I am optimistic that they will make a difference.

So we have Mr. Businessman plus Mr. Economics as the official ticket.  What do you think?   A good one?  Or not?


----------



## signelect (Aug 11, 2012)

I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

signelect said:


> I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.



The Ryan plan of course will probably be adjusted to accomodate Romney's point of view but I am not the least bit worried about that either way.  The Ryan Plan did not touch Medicare benefits for anybody over Age 55 but would start phasing younger folks into a different and more sustainable system.

We all know Medicare as it currently exists is not sustainable and will eventually become a huge drag on the economy if it doesnt in fact bankrupt the country.  But I sure want the reform done by those who understand how the economy works so that we won't wind up with good intentions producing a whole bunch of unintended bad consequences.  I trust both Romney and Ryan to do no harm.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

Could I ask a kind Mod to please correct the spelling of Romney's name in the title of the thread?  Pretty please?


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 11, 2012)

The news wasn't really leaked because Romney said he would notify anyone early who signed up.   That's what he did.  He notified people in advance of his announcement.

While I would have preferred Marco Rubio myself, this is not his time.   He knew it when he kept saying that he didn't want the job.  

No one is going to take away anyone's medicare.  Although there might be changes to how medicare is treated to future generations.   What Ryan might do to medicare is not nearly as troubling as the 500 billion dollars obama has already taken from medicare to fund obamacare.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 11, 2012)

the tea party is not the people robmoney needed to win this.


The tea party make it impossible for the republicans to win elections


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2012)

Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.

the Obama campaign must be pleased as punch over this.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.
> 
> the Obama campaign must be pleased as punch over this.



Do you think Romney won't get points for having the strength of his convictions?  For picking the right candidate instead of the safe candidate or the politically expedient candidate?


----------



## Trajan (Aug 11, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> the tea party is not the people robmoney needed to win this.
> 
> 
> The tea party make it impossible for the republicans to win elections



over 60 congressman and 6 senators says different, that was just 20 months ago, hello.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.
> ...



I think he went outside himself, everyone said he would be very cautious becasue well, so far he has been. this is a sea change, picking ryan has really thrown down the gauntlet,.

Ryan is a lightening rod, its the first thing with real spine I have seen Romney do, I am glad he did....I would rather go down fighting if thats what fate holds in store for us,  for what I believe is right, than just play the game and lose like McCain did....


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 11, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.
> 
> the Obama campaign must be pleased as punch over this.



There is no republican that democrats wouldn't already have their talking points created.  It wouldn't matter who it was, they will all be villified by the left.  Not only villified, but easily villified.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 11, 2012)

Despite the uncomfortable truths he had the guts to air when visiting the UK re. the Olympics, I'm warming to Romney. He puts a lot of faith in traditional Saxon values (perhaps that's why he's proved to be such a successful businessman). I've no idea who this Ryan character is, though.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.
> ...



Exactly.  They're going to belittle, trash, ridicule, villify, and otherwise try to marginalize and turn into a negative ANYBODY Romney picked, so that part of it doesn't bother me.

But they will use the "Ryan Plan" to scare seniors as Signelect up there has already indicated so Romney and Ryan really need to hit that hard early on with reassurance that the GOP is not about to gut their medicare benefits.  The Democrats will almost certainly accuse them of that, probably already have ads ready to go, and we already know that neither they nor the President have any conscience whatsoever re putting out manufactured and false information.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> *Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *
> 
> The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today.  And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.
> 
> ...



A terrible ticket politically.  The pair may have made a good Secretary of Commerce and OBM Director but the game here is to get a plurality of voters in each state to pull a lever next to your name.  That wasn't going to happen in the Governor's case before this  and certainly won't happen after this.  

Florida is obviously one of the most important states in every election.  The GOP knew (or at least it should have) that their baggage from AZ and AL immigration policies would hurt them in Florida with the large Hispanic population.  Now the GOP has alienated many (if not most) of the retiree population in the State.  Both in FL and AZ.  

One could contest that Clinton could have done better with Gore but at least Gore ran for President so HE thought he was ready.  

One could contest that GWB could have done better than Cheney but there wasn't a whole lot of people with more West Wing experience than Cheney.  

One could argue that Obama could have done better than Biden but Biden had solid credentials and strong foreign policy experience.  

Ryan didn't run for President after 13 years in the House.  It's hard to find any evidence that HE believes he is ready to be President.  No objective evidence otherwise would make such a suggestion either.  

One could argue that Romney could have done better than Ryan but there are plenty of ways he could have done worse.  The ship sailed on Romney becoming President long ago so it's a matter destined for the trivia bin.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.
> ...



He will get points from people who are already going to vote for him. He won't get new people, undecideds, with this pick and he might even lose some independants with it. Obama and his crew of lying scumbags will have a field day with Ryan.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.
> ...



I disagree. Ryan will be nore easily vilified simply because they've has so much practice doing it already. the key is not keeping conservatives, who won't vote for Obama anyway, but in getting undecideds and independants. This pick will not do that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Because it will be so easy for the Obama campaign and the left wing media to vilify Ryan. The Obama campaign is probably pleased as punch over this pick.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

Swagger said:


> Despite the uncomfortable truths he had the guts to air when visiting the UK re. the Olympics, I'm warming to Romney. He puts a lot of faith in traditional Saxon values (perhaps that's why he's proved to be such a successful businessman). I've no idea who this Ryan character is, though.



An interesting perspective.  Romney has played politics of course but always seems uncomfortable and outside himself when he does.  But his greatest strength to me is in his very obvious discomfort in playing politics and his propensity to tell the truth even when it is politically unpopular or unexpedient.  (Is that a word?)

So yes, picking Ryan I see as a strength of conviction instead of a calculated political choice.  And that is why even though I wanted another candidate, I am impressed with the choice.

As for Ryan, his greatest strength I think is now serving seventh term in a mostly blue state and enjoying approval ratings mostly in the low to mid sixty percentile range.  That suggests he is impressing a lot of folks who aren't necessarily hard core Republicans.

The Fox News bio raised my eyebrows but is kind of fun:



> *Paul Ryan Bio*
> Political
> 
> *        Currently serving seventh term as a member of Congress.
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Ryan self-vilifies.  He's free advertising for the Obama/Biden campaign.


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 11, 2012)

Neither person on that team is anyone I could ever get excited about.  Both are wrong for America.


----------



## BluePhantom (Aug 11, 2012)

I voted "Other, will explain..."  so here's my take.  It's a curious and bold move.  I had been predicting Portman in order to seal Ohio.  My interpretation is that the Romney camp feels that Ohio will go their way without Portman and Ryan will go a long way toward flipping Wisconsin.  It creates more paths to victory that way because with Wisconsin, Romney can lose Virginia (which he probably won't anyhow) and still win by taking Iowa (which is looking good) and either Colorado, Nevada, or New Hampshire.

It's bold because it could have negative impacts in Florida and Virginia.  Florida will probably still go with Romney, but Virginia is really up in the air.  So what I imagine the Romney camp is thinking is that the critical states of Ohio and Florida can be won without help from Rubio or Portman.  Historically the GOP candidate closes as the election nears and the debates get underway.  I imagine that will happen this year as well. So Florida, Ohio, and Virginia which are all pretty much even at this point should swing to Romney by the time it's all said and done. Iowa is looking good as well, but he needs one more state between Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin to seal the deal. Ryan brings Wisconsin further into play and again even without Virginia Romney can still win as I described above.

So it's a curious pick because Portman and Rubio seemed like stronger candidates who were less controversial (especially in Portman's case).  It's a bold pick because it means Romney will have to take Ohio and Florida without help from a VP candidate who will get in-state support and Ryan, being more controversial, could make it a little tougher in a couple states, but it's a pick with very sound strategy as it creates more paths to victory and a "Plan B" if Romney can't take Virginia.

I would have preferred Portman myself, but it's a good pick from a strategical point of view when considering the electoral vote.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 11, 2012)

Let's go down the list...

Portman,  Pawlenty,  and Daniels were snooze-fest central.

Rubio doesn't have enough experience.

Christie wasn't interested & imo,  would have created a far too Northeast-centric ticket.

Ryan is a serious conservative...a "damn the torpedoes" conservative...a politician who isn't afraid to tell you exactly what he believes and why he believes it...

Now he has the platform to explain it to the American electorate!

Regardless of the outcome,  this is a red letter day for the conservative movement.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



How does he do that?  Can you provide an example in which he self villifies?


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



The short answer (if honest) would be, "no."

She just spoke tripe without a care in the world for its lack of truth value.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 11, 2012)

I like Ryan...

good for Romney..now lets take the gloves off and get to work showing the failures of this administration

leave the gutter politics to Obama


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



His plan to convert Medicare to a voucher system.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 11, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > the tea party is not the people robmoney needed to win this.
> ...



and then your tea party got known by its real intentions.

The debt debacle comes to mind.

Your party is done this election


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 11, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



lol, again...Obama is at 43% approval with the American people...
so which party is done? *Edited.*


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

No VP pick is perfect.  I mean, hell,  our *incumbent* VP is Biden, for the love of God.

And I am certain that Ryan has his faults (including some of the things which he voted FOR).

But I predict (with certainty) that the Dims will try to make his budget plan the focus of their attacks on the ground that it would force the elderly to choose between lethal injections or jumping off tall buildings.

That's false, of course, but dishonesty never stops the liberal Democrats from saying whatever nonsense enters their minds.  

And I also predict (with hope) that when they do that, it will bite them.  Hard.  For the truth is:  the Ryan plan *would* impact on Medicare, but the alternative (the Dim plan which is basically doing nothing for several more years) would destroy it altogether.

If the GOP can manage to grunt out the truth -- and say it clearly for a while -- there is a chance they can cram the Dim ploy right up their nose.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yes, that is a controversial concept that the Democrats and Obama will no doubt try to demonize as much as possible.

So it all boils down to whether likely voters understand that if we don't fix that program, it will continue to swallow more and more of the nation's resources and be more and more of a drag on the economy. . . .or. . . .

They will vote for the status quo out of fear.

We are ready for real hope and change and Romney/Ryan's competence in being able to sell it, or we aren't.  It all comes down to that.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

I must disagree with your statement.......

I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.

He has never said anything different regardless of what the Dem smear ads would like you to believe.

There is no question that Medicare as it exists today is simply not sustainable for the future. Changes MUST be made. If those changes are made now, they will be fair less painful than if we wait until we are plunging over that cliff.

Fearing that change only puts off what most of us know must happen one way or the other....or Medicare just won't exist for us.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> No VP pick is perfect.  I mean, hell,  our *incumbent* VP is Biden, for the love of God.
> 
> And I am certain that Ryan has his faults (including some of the things which he voted FOR).
> 
> ...



 I swing thru a lot of the as close to center periodicals as there are,  like the national journal, roll call. etc., the medicare scare ads were coming no matter what, they all saod so.

it was just a matter of time, all the insiders knew this. Romney has picked probably the only man that can make a case or defuse them.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

Ah, but!!!

You forgot the most obvious choice - 

Mitt Romney just won the election!!

Shame, shame on you


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2012)

Good choice.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



That is NOT even remotely an example of self-vilification.

It is merely an example of a legislative choice with which you happen to disagree.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

Au contraire!

He will pick up a load of points from the undecideds who have been sitting back in the weeds wondering whether Mitt had any cajones.

They just found out.

He does.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 11, 2012)

Romney has business experience and accumen.  Ryan has the economic expertise.  It's an ideal partnership to bring the nation out of its malaise.   Of course democrats don't want that.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

His Medicare voucher plan is a CHOICE.............

given to seniors preparing to enter the Medicare system. It would be a system that treats seniors as the adults they are and not as if they were children needing to be led by the hand.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Romney has business experience and accumen.  Ryan has the economic expertise.  It's an ideal partnership to bring the nation out of its malaise.   Of course democrats don't want that.



At least it is safe to say that they mostly don't want people thinking that is the case and thereby costing them the election.

We'll know soon enough how the polling is going re the new ticket.  And I'm hope with all my fingers and toes crossed that the American people will see what a strong ticket this is, and what a gutsy call it was.  It is a ticket for success as an administration rather than a ticket put together for pure political expediency.   Romney doesn't have to win Wisconsin.  He does have to win Ohio and Florida.   Let's hope the folks in Ohio and Florida are wanting competence in government and real solutions to problems as much as everybody else and will vote for ideas again instead of the most popular personality.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



We'll see how it goes.  Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan are asking people to support them.  Usually the conversation about the lending of that support ends when those asking for support start tinkering with the livelihoods of those they are asking.  And that is what the ticket is doing.  

The Governor is either going to be spending the next 3 months reassuring seniors or re-writing the medicare "fixes" in the Ryan budget.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

swizzlee said:


> Ah, but!!!
> 
> You forgot the most obvious choice -
> 
> ...



LOL.  I should have included that as a choice on the poll.  I didn't I think, because I think it is way too early to tell exactly how the ticket will play in Peoria.  I hope it plays well, because it sure makes a lot of sense for those of us who actually want the next administration to start reversing the damage and getting us back on the road to recovery.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I hope all they have to do, assuming both agree to the Ryan plan, is to keep telling the truth about it to correct the Democrats' lies about it.   The likely voters either believe that we do have to repair Medicare or they will run scared and buy into the lies that the Republicans want to take healthcare away from Seniors.

Lordy, I wish there was integrity in campaigns in which both sides told the brutal truth and let the voters' decide.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



They do not have to try to demonize what is seen as a demon by many if not most.  The "we" you speak of  that is important is a small subset of voters in an all important state that is so equally divided that small subsets are important.  The senior citizens in Florida will need equal convincing.  Ryan's only hope is that they break out large-type actuarial tables cross referenced to the changes he wishes to make and have faith that they keep listening after the "no" answer to "Will we still get our checks?"


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



In a state that the margin of victory or the margin of defeat was recently measured in the hundreds of voters; the hand grenade Romney just attached to his ticket may wipe out whatever support may have been there to secure victory.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Well, there was never any doubt that the liberal Democratics would seek to make the Ryan budget plan and its effect on Medicare a central part of their typically dishonest attack.  

But the reality remains:  it is true that his plan WOULD have had some impacts on Medicare -- very real and some big ones.

But, it is also true that the liberal Democrat Parody has NO plan at all.  They are content paying lip service to acknowledging that a problem exists, but have nothing to offer to fix anything.  The upshot of that is that with no effort to fix it, Medicare would STILL have faced enormous problems and it would STILL be impacted to the point of possibly failing completely.

Admitting a problem and offering a proposed solution is much more desirable a thing that whining about the existence of a "problem" but offering no option at all for repair and thereby permitting the problem to destroy the entire system.  

I very much WANT the liberal Dims to MAKE this their campaign centerpiece provided that the GOP gets its stuff together sufficiently to respond honestly and forcefully.

Liberal Democrats are hoping that the electorate is stupid and easily swayed by baseless fear mongering.  I'm banking on the proposition that you guys are completely wrong.

*And by the way:  your contention was "self-vilification."  You have yet to point to any such thing.*


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> swizzlee said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, but!!!
> ...



I believe it to be quite telling that one of the most conservative posters on this board didn't even consider that as an option.  Governor Romney and his campaign for President is circling the drain.  Nothing that happened today is going to change that.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Ryan wants to change Medicare and reduce benefits.  It's that simple.  If you don't see that as self vilification...oh well.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



It's obviously NOT self-vilification. 

Words have meaning.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

> Liberal Democrats are hoping that the electorate is stupid and easily swayed by baseless fear mongering. I'm banking on the proposition that you guys are completely wrong.



You are exactly right. Every time I listen to the O on a campaign stop spewing out the pure garbage he's so good at shoveling, I have to shake my head and wonder just how many people are stupid enough to believe that.

And I believe this - not enough of them for the O to win.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



In a coffee house in Nebraska, no.
In Florida's senior communities, you betcha it is.  

Scientists tell us that Florida is more important in this election than Nebraska.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> *Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *
> 
> The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today.  And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.
> 
> ...



Ryan is a dreadful choice. 

As correctly noted in the other Ryan threads, he brings nothing to the ticket; indeed, Ryan drives away the independents and weak democrats Romney needs to win.


----------



## Eaglewings (Aug 11, 2012)

swizzlee said:


> I must disagree with your statement.......
> 
> I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.
> 
> ...



I really do not believe what any of them say, it has always been a don't read the small print scare tactic political game.
We find out later after the facts.
I am just making the age that you mentioned 55. But I am scared for the future of my children as well as all of the others that planned around this as their retirement. 
*Should we just be concerned for ourselves?  Not after what I have just seen in the chemo rooms... its packed every day every hour with old and young getting chemotherapy I guess we have to see such a awful  thing as well as the children's ward packed full before our eyes are opened*
My son is a Type1 diabetic, myself with breast cancer we already pay out the nose for our own health insurance which is killing us . *And my son and I are pre-existing conditions so we are in major trouble possibly looking at 0 insurance no matter how much we pay. *
*I do not trust either of these guys on the Romney ticket.*


----------



## Conservadude (Aug 11, 2012)

signelect said:


> I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.



Taking it away or fixing it so those of us a bit younger can still get it?

Anyhow.. Today was awesome.. Got to hear from both Romney and Ryan on their plan to restore America and get us on the right track.. November is coming!






^ Pictures taken by me. Got to shake both of their hands and speak with them for a few seconds.. Awesome day.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 11, 2012)

Two questions you can expect to hear  repeated over and over for the next three months:


Where's your plan,  Mr. President?

Where's your budget,  Mr. President?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

Actually I am encouraged because every one of our more leftists friends here are declaring Ryan a terrible choice, a disaster, a final nail in Romney's coffin, etc. etc. etc.

Usually that kind of reaction means that they see him as a real threat.

They were able to pretty well successfully destroy Sarah Palin who simply didn't have enough credentials accumulated to fight them off.

I rather expect Ryan is going to be more difficult to demonize, and will be better at setting the record straight and defending himself.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > *Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *
> ...



Wrong.  Once the people get past the dishonest liberal propaganda and see what Ryan DID propose -- and hear a guy like him who is actually able and willing to defend his position -- the more intelligent non-sheeplike Democrats and the independents will be drawn toward Mitt and Ryan.

This was a very good choice and it's a good day for for the GOP.  

Today was NOT a good day for the Obama Administration, the DNC and most other assorted liberals.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




In Nebraska and in Florida, words still have meaning.  Period.

And Mitt will now WIN Florida.  Because of this choice.  Watch.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

Your situation is a bad one without question......

But Obamacare basically doesn't exist anymore after the USSC ruling. What happens if your insurance tells you you've reached your limit and you're no longer covered? 

At this point there are no contingency plans from either the Dems or the Pubs that I'm aware of that would deal directly with your pre-existing problem.

I assume you trusted Obama but his healthcare plan has failed in major ways. So you need to ask yourself why you don't trust Romney and why you would be willing to stick with the guy who failed. And be honest with yourself.


----------



## Leweman (Aug 11, 2012)

I think he's a good choice but is more useful in the house.  Might make a good Presidential candidate in 8 years.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Actually I am encouraged because every one of our more leftists friends here are declaring Ryan a terrible choice, a disaster, a final nail in Romney's coffin, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Usually that kind of reaction means that they see him as a real threat.
> 
> ...



This is what the right wing said about Bachman, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.  You remember those guys right? The liberals were supposedly so "scared" of those guys and everytime you said that; they would implode.  It was obvious to most it was going to happen.  The sad thing is that the myopic supporters of these candidates couldn't see the innate shortcomings and just how bad they were at campaigning in Perry's case.  

Ryan doesn't give me cause for pause in the least.  I say this for the obvious medicare reform he wants to enact.  The truth is that most seniors are happy with their medicare and happy that the President is closing the Part D "donut hole."  In other ways, the qualification question will come up eventually.  He didn't run for President so obviously he doesn't think he's ready to assume the office; has served 13 innocuous years as a congressman from the Wisconsin 1st district; not exactly Broadway or Sunset.  His resume is thin and it points to the Governor's judgment that this guy is "ready on day one" to take over.  If anyone were to say that they'd feel comfortable with a Ryan Presidency at this stage, you'll get a howling laugh from most of the public. 

This was a terrible pick from the choices that Romney had.  Choices that would have delivered the same demographic without the baggage that will sink the Governor's aspirations for winning Florida.  Arizona may be back on the table.  

The Governor could have done worse, however.  Ryan is a superior pick to Sarah Palin.  

My only regret is that this isn't 2016.  That would ensure a 12th year of the Oval being center-left.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 11, 2012)

Horrible pick, Mitt just lost independents and bored most of his base to death. The only people that like this are the same people that would have been all "FUCK YEAH!!!" even if he picked Hillary Clinton. Seriously, Paul has to work major damage control out the gate, a VP candidate that has to explain himself after way to many people didnt care about his reasoning the first 50 times.


----------



## Eaglewings (Aug 11, 2012)

swizzlee said:


> Your situation is a bad one without question......
> 
> But Obamacare basically doesn't exist anymore after the USSC ruling. What happens if your insurance tells you you've reached your limit and you're no longer covered?
> 
> ...



I have seen the congress fail us with anything that Obama wanted to pass. Their whole focus was on getting Obama out and could cares less for the people who pay them.
Your 71 and have lived through the Vietnam war and Nixon.. I am sorry to say but Romney reminds me of Nixon big time and I do feel if he gets elected  ( not only will pre-existing people be hurt badly )  we are going to have to not only focus on zillionair  corruption but a failed economy as well. I do not trust him at all until he wants to really show us who he is, way way too sneaky like Nixon.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> Horrible pick, Mitt just lost independents and bored most of his base to death. The only people that like this are the same people that would have been all "**** YEAH!!!" even if he picked Hillary Clinton. Seriously, Paul has to work major damage control out the gate, a VP candidate that has to explain himself after way to many people didn&#8217;t care about his reasoning the first 50 times.


 {edited for clean zone compliance.}

Completely wrong.

Color me not surprised at all.


----------



## occupied (Aug 11, 2012)

This entire move reeks of bad planning and terrible judgement. Ryan does not help this campaign at all and signals that they have officially abadoned any attempt to gain broad support and instead are trying to get the base energized but announcing it this early leaves plenty of time for the base to cool back down and the media time to correctly paint this guy as the one who leads the charge to shift the tax burden sharply downward while abandoning the poor and elderly.


----------



## courseofhistory (Aug 11, 2012)

signelect said:


> I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.



I just went from sitting out the election to voting for Obama.  I'm 65 and don't care for the youngster's plan.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 11, 2012)

courseofhistory said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.
> ...



oh well


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2012)

swizzlee said:


> Au contraire!
> 
> He will pick up a load of points from the undecideds who have been sitting back in the weeds wondering whether Mitt had any cajones.
> 
> ...



I hope you are right on this. I have my doubts, but I hope to be proven wrong.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Actually I am encouraged because every one of our more leftists friends here are declaring Ryan a terrible choice, a disaster, a final nail in Romney's coffin, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Usually that kind of reaction means that they see him as a real threat.
> 
> ...



I hope you are right.


----------



## Conservadude (Aug 11, 2012)

I've read that the DNC is publicly acting excited, but they're actually scared of the fact of having to face Ryan in the Presidential race.

I can say one thing.. I was called a racist by a moveon.org activist today for asking a black guy if he supported abortion.. Haha, what nerve.. My future wife is half-black.. 

There were also a LOT of black folks at the Romney event.. What an encouraging sign! One of the guys held a Romney sign across from the protestors and you could tell they didn't like it!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I like to think we senior citizens are also capable of rational thought and respond to truth and reason and good information.  Unfortunately only some of us participate on boards like this or dig for our own education on any given issue.   The rest depend on the newspapers and television for their information.

So yes, because the Obama supporters and their surrogate mainstream media will so distort the truth, it is going to take great skill on the part of Romney and Ryan to make the truth understandable.   And they'll probably have to buy the space and time to get it out there as we no longer have an honorable press who can be trusted to tell the truth about much of anything.


----------



## courseofhistory (Aug 11, 2012)

Missourian said:


> Two questions you can expect to hear  repeated over and over for the next three months:
> 
> 
> Where's your plan,  Mr. President?
> ...



Here, here, and here.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

Missourian said:


> Two questions you can expect to hear  repeated over and over for the next three months:
> 
> 
> Where's your plan,  Mr. President?
> ...



Isn't The ONE the FIRST President in HISTORY to have a budget proposed which was not only defeated in both houses of Congress, but which received not even ONE "yes" vote?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

courseofhistory said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.
> ...



He is quoted as saying that those collection Medicare and SS should stay on it, also those close to being on either should remain untouched. Those who are younger is where he wants to start the fix... And the system does need a fix.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

I was actually hoping for Rubio, but I can live with Ryan....


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Two questions you can expect to hear  repeated over and over for the next three months:
> ...



I seem to recall somewhere back in the dim recesses of my memory that Bill Clinton's first budget, also submitted to a Democratically controlled Congress, also was universaly DOA.  But at least he stayed on the job and did it for the next seven years.  It seems our current Fearless Leader just quits or changes the subject if things don't go his way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> the tea party is not the people robmoney needed to win this.
> 
> 
> The tea party make it impossible for the republicans to win elections



Obviously. Which is why the Republicans picked up 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats in 2010.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I was actually hoping for Rubio, but I can live with Ryan....



Same here Ollie.  Rubio was my first choice.  But after reading up on Ryan and intentionally hearing what he had to say this morning, and also thinking through the common sense values of what he can bring to the table, I am encourged.


----------



## Liability (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I don't think Pres. Clinton though received ZERO votes in the House AND *zero* votes in the Senate.

Pres. Obama's budget proposal did suffer that ignominious fate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Yes, Obama's $5.3 trillion addition to the national debt, with unemployment still higher and number of jobs still lower, since he took office truly is a debacle.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I am encouraged because every one of our more leftists friends here are declaring Ryan a terrible choice, a disaster, a final nail in Romney's coffin, etc. etc. etc.
> ...



*His resume is thin *

Compared to Obama's resume, Ryan's looks alot like Michelle from behind.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

Then you need to ask yourself this.............

Why is Obama unable to convince Congress to come his way? A good, capable leader would know how to convince members of Congress in order to get his bills passed. Reagan could do it. Clinton could do it. Obama could not.

That is HIS failure and blaming others is a big part of his problem. Blaming others never got anything accomplished. As a result the past 3 years have been a big fat zero.

So now you're saying if Romney is elected, we would be looking at not only corruption but a "failed economy", too.

Our economy is already failing. Do you really believe it's going to get any better if Obama is reelected? Do you think he's suddenly going to have a Democrat House and Senate so that he can slide his bills through?

I think you know that isn't going to happen. So are you saying you're resigned to 4 more years of failing economy?

If you're really optimistic about Obama, why or how do you see him solving our problems, including your health situation?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You're probably right.  I am probably thinking of Hillarycare that nobody dared vote for.  Maybe it was his first budget that got no Republican votes?  I dunno and am too lazy to look it up this morning.

There are links to budgets on Obama's government website, but none since 2009 that have passed Congress and none since 2009 that are binding on anybody.  And with Harry Reid declaring that the debt ceiling limit is sufficient as a 'budget', it is fairly safe no budget will be forthcoming from this Congress this year either.

You can bet that in a Romney/Ryan administration, a competent budget will be presented from the President's office and the President's office will be competent to argue for everything in it.   And I bet it won't include a trillion dollar deficit.


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

Anyone who refers to Ryan's 14 yrs.......

of service as "innocuous" reveals their own ignorance of the subject they are so clumsily trying to denigrate.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Conservadude said:


> I've read that the DNC is publicly acting excited, but they're actually scared of the fact of having to face Ryan in the Presidential race.
> 
> I can say one thing.. I was called a racist by a moveon.org activist today for asking a black guy if he supported abortion.. Haha, what nerve.. My future wife is half-black..
> 
> There were also a LOT of black folks at the Romney event.. What an encouraging sign! One of the guys held a Romney sign across from the protestors and you could tell they didn't like it!



Congratulations.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



They don't have to distort the truth.  Ryan and the Governor wants to convert Medicare to a voucher system.  Is that not the truth?  Most medicare recipients are happy with their medicare coverage and don't want it tinkered with in a way that will result in lesser benefits.  That IS the truth.  

I wish the Governor and the Congressman luck with their endeavor.  With 87 days to go and a nationwide race to run; it won't work.  

Circling the drain.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

courseofhistory said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Two questions you can expect to hear  repeated over and over for the next three months:
> ...



Too early to rep you for that.  The president has submitted budgets and Congress refuses to act.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



yeah, even his own party rejected it..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

I wouldn't call a 99-0 vote against your budget in the Dem controlled Senate "refuses to act".
I'd call it, "even your liberal buddies know you're radioactive".


----------



## swizzlee (Aug 11, 2012)

These are the O's PLANS?

Didn't bother to read them, did you?

Did you know the first link is nothing but a lengthy page trying to pat himself on the back for PAST PLANS. One might also note, had one bothered to read it, that it's badly out of date and really needs updating......at least to reflect the decision of the USSC on ACA. Don'cha think that might be a good idea? 

The next two links are identical data - the O's budget that went nowhere in the Senate. I guess you forgot to tell us these were failed plans. But that's OK. Some people can't tell the difference between past and present...........


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > courseofhistory said:
> ...



You could call it that from an unsophisticated viewpoint.  The Congress did the same to a Reagan budget once.  It's what happens when you have one house i n Congress that hates the President.  And it's also what has resulted from our turning a blind eye to poltical appointees being able to steer and stop legislation in the Senate.  

But the point is that the President has submitted a budget.  All stories to the contrary are simply lies.


----------



## Amazed (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



*Edited*

Congress.... Dem and Pub have voted his "budgets" down unanimously. You aren't educated, are you.


----------



## Borillar (Aug 11, 2012)

swizzlee said:


> I must disagree with your statement.......
> 
> I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.
> 
> ...



So, what if you're 54 and been putting into the system for close to 40 years? You're just shit out of luck? Your older siblings will be taken care of, but you get some shitty voucher that doesn't come close to paying the bills? No thanks.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Romney had a very slim chance of winning this election, now he had even less. I like Ryan, I think Ryan has the right ideas but he's so easily vilified by the left and the left wing media that it was a poor choice.
> ...



No, they can try with anyone but most are not done so easily.  Essentially, winning relies on being able to CONTROL the conversation.  To steer it toward places your opponent in weak and you are strong.  It is one place that Mitt has been struggling with as well since Obama is actively defining Romney rather than Romney defining himself.  With Ryan as the pick, they are going to lose all control of the conversation as it goes to his budget and their need to defend it.  Even if they do a good job at this you will find one thing missing in that conversation, Obamas stances.  He wont need a stance at all, just keep the focus on the Ryan plan and he can win on that.


----------



## Dissent (Aug 11, 2012)

I find it hilarious because Obama mine as well not even campaign this is going to be the easiest re election win EVER. He had a chance to pick Rubio who is Latino and from a swing state Florida,or Martinez from New Mexico a swing state,Woman and Latino. Or Governor Haley from South Carolina a woman and a minority. But he picks a white guy from Wisconsin...just makes no sense to me but hey I wasn't gonna vote for him in the first place and this hasn't changed my mind and I am not voting for Obama either. November 6th will be a 55% Obama,35% Romney,10% Gary Johnson.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



*You could call it that from an unsophisticated viewpoint. *

Could you give me the sophisticated explanation for this?

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

*The Congress did the same to a Reagan budget once.*

Zero votes? Link?

*It's what happens when you have one house i n Congress that hates the President. *

Obviously, that explains why not a single member of the President's own party voted for his budget. LOL!

Thanks, that was funny!


----------



## BluePhantom (Aug 11, 2012)

courseofhistory said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.
> ...



Somehow I strongly doubt Romney's choice of VP is going to inspire you to come of the bench for Obama.  I call bullshit and suggest that you were firmly in Obama's camp to begin with and are making such an asinine statement in order to stir the political pot.


----------



## Interpol (Aug 11, 2012)

Going into this weekend, President Obama had the edge, and I believe it will stay that way. 

Paul Ryan is an attractive candidate if you're already a true believer, but I think more moderate folks are waiting for substance. It's not enough to say that the President is a failure. You need to say what it is that you will do to help get us back on track. 

On that note, Paul Ryan offers us something real, not just theory. His "Plan For Prosperity" is something you can read. His budget is something real that was passed in the House. In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal. 

His proposal on Medicare is clear: it would eliminate Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher program that cashes Medicare out, gives me a $15,000 subsidy once I'm a senior and says to me that I must go out and shop around in the private market for the best deal. However, before Medicare existed, poverty among seniors was rampant. Big insurers didn't want to cover seniors because as we know, that's the time in your life when you start breaking down. 

So what good does $15,000 do me if it runs out by the middle of May? Who picks up the tab for the rest of the year now that I'm in the free market system like everyone else? 

Medicare works. It is popular. It works because the rates have been negotiated for our seniors on their behalf so that they can have security and peace of mind, and so that we don't end up in a situation that is unregulated, which means insurance companies would haggle with them over everything and charge them through the nose because they'd be regular customers like the rest of us. 

I don't see how Paul Ryan goes more than a week or so without the questions coming in hard and fast about how getting rid of Medicare creates prosperity or jobs for us. He will have to backtrack here on in. 

Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas. Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past, gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work, but the Romney-Ryan plan is to give even more to the top, at my expense and at the expense of other hard-working folks. It makes no sense. 

I remember what it was like for the Republicans who went back home and got yelled at by old white conservatives last year after they passed the Ryan budget. It wasn't a pretty picture. They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not because they wish to see this President fail. 

If I were President Obama, I would use the footage of old white people yelling and booing at Ryan. I would argue that Paul Ryan is certainly a handsome, attractive man with lots of energy, but it's too bad his energy is misdirected since further tax cuts and welfare for Shell Oil and no Medicare for the rest of us is wrong. Just plain wrong. 

The dynamic does not change. The Republican ticket simply does not seem able to be able to articulate a vision that makes any sense to us and time is running out. 

Paul Ryan will do well on the campaign trail. He's a charming guy. But in the debate he will get stuck because he will no longer be able to preach only to the converted. He'll have to account for his budget, and things will get sticky when that time comes because if you're Biden, you just have to hang back and say, "They would get rid of Medicare as we know it", causing Ryan to have to walk it back and over explain it the rest of the way. 

Unless the economy crashes in the next few weeks, the edge is still with President Obama.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 11, 2012)

Swagger said:


> Despite the uncomfortable truths he had the guts to air when visiting the UK re. the Olympics, I'm warming to Romney. He puts a lot of faith in traditional Saxon values (perhaps that's why he's proved to be such a successful businessman). I've no idea who this Ryan character is, though.


Oh, our dear Mr. Swagger, Congressman Ryan just wiped the smile off Obama and his entire staff day before yesterday:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs]Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn&#39;t Reduce Spending - YouTube[/ame]



​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

Interpol said:


> Going into this weekend, President Obama had the edge, and I believe it will stay that way.
> 
> Paul Ryan is an attractive candidate if you're already a true believer, but I think more moderate folks are waiting for substance. It's not enough to say that the President is a failure. You need to say what it is that you will do to help get us back on track.
> 
> ...



* In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal.* 

Show me?

*Medicare works. *

Sure, if you ignore the $60 trillion long-term shortfall.

*It is popular.*

Sure, free money.

*Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas. *

I have an idea, let's spend $800 billion, it'll stop unemployment from rising above 8%.
And by July 2012, it'll take unemployment down to 5.6%. 

*Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past,* 

LOL! Right. 

*gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work,*

You're right, giving more money to government and expecting it to trickle down and cause  a recovery never works. But that's the Dems, not the Republicans.

*They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not *

They've passed several, Reid won't allow a vote in the Senate.

*because they wish to see this President fail.*

He's already failed. Everyone can see it.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 11, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > Going into this weekend, President Obama had the edge, and I believe it will stay that way.
> ...


Outta the park! And this was the best bubble popper of the week:


> "*They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not *
> 
> They've passed several, Reid won't allow a vote in the Senate."


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



House Unanimously Rejects Pres. Obama&#8217;s Budget Proposal



> House Unanimously Rejects
> Pres. Obama's Budget Proposal
> FOX News
> Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.
> ...



When you understand it was a political gimmick; the importance fades unless you don't buy the gimmick nature of it.  In that case, you're just not that sophisticated when it comes to federal politics.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 11, 2012)

Dissent said:


> I find it hilarious because Obama mine as well not even campaign this is going to be the easiest re election win EVER. He had a chance to pick Rubio who is Latino and from a swing state Florida,or Martinez from New Mexico a swing state,Woman and Latino. Or Governor Haley from South Carolina a woman and a minority. But he picks a white guy from Wisconsin...just makes no sense to me but hey I wasn't gonna vote for him in the first place and this hasn't changed my mind and I am not voting for Obama either. November 6th will be a 55% Obama,35% Romney,10% Gary Johnson.



He needed to fire up the base and Ryan will do that.  The middle belongs to the Democrats but I see him working.

He should have selected  someone like Tom Coburn who is, at least, a Senator and infinitely more qualified than Ryan to assume the Presidency.  He would have gotten the same catalyst effect without the baggage.


----------



## Interpol (Aug 11, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > Going into this weekend, President Obama had the edge, and I believe it will stay that way.
> ...



Have you even read Ryan's budget? Have you read the Path to Prosperity? It's all in there. 

Tell me how turning Medicare into a voucher program saves us money. 

The House has passed ZERO jobs bills. Regulating vaginas does not create jobs. 

There is no $60 trillion shortfall. Where did you get a number like that? From Glenn Beck, who told us that the President's Indonesia trip cost $2 billion and that he took a third of the Navy with him? 

The $800 billion was meant to go directly into job creation, but President Obama compromised with conservatives in order to secure 60 votes in the Senate (since 60 is the new 50) and he turned 40% of it into tax cuts, and we all know that tax cuts don't create jobs, just look at the past decade. 

The President's figures were way off because his plan was constructed 3 months before he entered office and he had no idea that Republicans were going to leave him with 750,000 job losses per month. 

It appears that you're just drinking the koolaid instead of debating, and blaming Obama for not cleaning up after Bush fast enough. 

This is what I don't understand. Obama didn't clean up after us fast enough so that means we get to have power back so we can finish our wrecking job of America? 

No thanks. 

Voucherizing Medicare and throwing seniors onto the private market would be a disaster for us all because there's no way they could afford the cost overruns after their vouchers are used up. 

Is that the best you got, making fun of me instead of arguing real and pertinent facts? 

Make a sound argument for Medicare vouchers and I'll be open to it, but making fun of me or calling Obama a failure without offering a solution is just wasting my time.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2012)

> Let me say a word about the man Mitt Romney will replace. No one disputes President Obama inherited a difficult situation.  And, in his first 2 years, with his party in complete control of Washington, he passed nearly every item on his agenda.  But that didnt make things better - in fact, we find ourselves in a nation facing debt, doubt and despair.


Who can disagree?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



414-0 is a gimmick? Why did Obama's Dems go along? 

I guess Obama showed them when he put forward another version of his budget?
Wait, he never did? 
I get it, that's the gimmick, the President never submitted a budget.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2012)

Interpol said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Interpol said:
> ...



*Have you even read Ryan's budget? Have you read the Path to Prosperity? It's all in there. *

Excellent! So you can easily prove your claim.

*The House has passed ZERO jobs bills.*

They've passed several, one very recently.

*There is no $60 trillion shortfall.*

What is the long range shortfall in Medicare?

*and we all know that tax cuts don't create jobs,*

Wasteful, short term targeted cuts just waste money.

*blaming Obama for not cleaning up after Bush fast enough. *

3.5 years and $5.3 trillion deeper in debt and we still have fewer jobs, damn right I blame Obama.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 12, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > the tea party is not the people robmoney needed to win this.
> ...



But will that be sustainable?  Voters are fickle, and they were upset over a lot of things, so they took it out on the incumbents.  The problem is things didn't change or even begin to get better, and now people are asking themselves who is to blame.  If voters decide it is the Republicans who have been obstructionists, then expect a very big backlash.  

Generic congressional polling is only showing Republicans with a very slim lead.  If Obama wins big, many close congressional races could switch back to the Dems.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 12, 2012)

swizzlee said:


> I must disagree with your statement.......
> 
> I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.
> 
> ...



55 or older? Right there is the problem with me. I'm 47, put one kid through college and am putting another through as we speak. for the past decade my wife and I have been living pretty much paycheck to paycheck to make that happen, and we are on fairly solid ground with our finances...it's tight, buy we get our bills paid on time. There are many, MANY people in worse shape than us within the same age demographic. To turn this into a voucher system is one thing. To make the cutoff so late is another. If he would lower that to 35...that would be plenty of time for those people to plan for the fact that they are going to get a "voucher" that won't nearly cover the cost of their medical needs as they get older...because the older you get, the more your needs are and the more it costs.

setting the age at 55 pits a hell of a lot of people behind the 8 ball.


----------



## Bill Angel (Aug 12, 2012)

candycorn said:


> A terrible ticket politically. The pair may have made a good Secretary of Commerce and OBM Director but the game here is to get a plurality of voters in each state to pull a lever next to your name. That wasn't going to happen in the Governor's case before this and certainly won't happen after this.



I think that you meant OMB ( OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET)  rather than OBM.
A similar thought had occurred to me, as Ryan's membership in the House of Representatives and his intense focus on budgetary matters brings to mind David Stockman, who became Director of OMB  in the first Reagan Administration.


----------



## chanel (Aug 12, 2012)

Here's the problem.  Ryan is a numbers guy.  We need that.  But Americans tend to be a bit math challenged and don't like hearing that the sky is falling.  Obama doesn't care about numbers and says that everything is fine.  

I am rooting for Romney and think Ryan is an excellent choice.  But I am anxious that he will come off as a pessimist.  I hope I'm wrong.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded]Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Conservadude (Aug 12, 2012)

Obama had two years of nothing but him and his party.. He has NO excuse for unemployment and the debt being so high. None. He's out of excuses and out of ideas!


----------



## jillian (Aug 12, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> *Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *
> 
> The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today.  And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.
> 
> ...



you left out what would be my chose, FF. 

i don't think ryan changes anything one way or the other. 

an interesting article from nate silver, my numbers guru for all things electoral...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/aug-11-will-ryan-pick-move-the-polls/#more-33069


----------



## jillian (Aug 12, 2012)

Conservadude said:


> Obama had two years of nothing but him and his party.. He has NO excuse for unemployment and the debt being so high. None. He's out of excuses and out of ideas!



i know it's a lot to ask, but maybe you've heard of the filibuster?

just sayin'

and to be fair, dens aren't get in line and do what the boss says, homogeneous types.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 12, 2012)

jillian said:


> Conservadude said:
> 
> 
> > Obama had two years of nothing but him and his party.. He has NO excuse for unemployment and the debt being so high. None. He's out of excuses and out of ideas!
> ...



Which is why they voted for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the Stimulus?

The truth is as stated, Obama could pass any piece of legislation in the first two years he wanted.  He could have had any piece after that by picking off about 2 GOP senators.  With Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins that should have been easy.  But compromise is not in his vocabulary.  It's my way or the highway.

We see the results.  The economy is in terrible shape and likely to get worse.  Tax rates are set to jump more than they ever have.  Foreign policy is in disarray and a total failure. Every measure of the economy shows that this is the worst recovery on record.
That is reason enough to vote Obama out.


----------



## FJO (Aug 12, 2012)

Borillar said:


> swizzlee said:
> 
> 
> > I must disagree with your statement.......
> ...



With an unrealistic and obsolete age of 65 years when the life expectancy is well over 75 years is simply unsustainable, for both Medicare and Social Security.

It MUST be raised, and it must start somewhere. 

55 seems like a good start.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 12, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> swizzlee said:
> 
> 
> > I must disagree with your statement.......
> ...



We cannot continue the program as it is without it becoming such a horrendous drag on the economy that we all suffer the consequences.    We have to be able to reform the system without demonizing those who offer plans to do so.

If the Ryan plan is imperfect or will produce unintended negative consequences, the debates and discussions and close analysis will reveal that and there will almost certainly be fixes and amendments.   Electing Ryan does not make his plan for Medicare reform automatic any more than some of Barack Obama's more radical concepts became automatic when he was elected.

Here is an analysis of various Medicare reform plans that are out there.  It is obvious that Ryan's plan is right there in the mix as 'reasonable'.  The summary analysis is just a little way down into the document - Page 4 I think.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/bg2675.pdf


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 12, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> If the Ryan plan is imperfect or will produce unintended negative consequences, the debates and discussions and close analysis will reveal that and there will almost certainly be fixes and amendments.   Electing Ryan does not make his plan for Medicare reform automatic any more than some of Barack Obama's more radical concepts became automatic when he was elected.



Ryan's plan solves nothing. Its claim to fame is that it aims to hit a per enrollee Medicare spending growth target that _has already been achieved_.

It's ideological drivel--a more expensive alternative designed solely to smash the most popular and most effective federal program in history.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2012)

Obama has had trouble in leading for sure, swizzlee.

However, the far right in Congress today are the most derelict reps and senators since the Democrat segregationists in the fifties and sixties, in my opinion.



swizzlee said:


> Then you need to ask yourself this.............
> 
> Why is Obama unable to convince Congress to come his way? A good, capable leader would know how to convince members of Congress in order to get his bills passed. Reagan could do it. Clinton could do it. Obama could not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Liability (Aug 12, 2012)

Nah.  The singularly most derelict reps and Senators are those who voted for Obamacare waiting to find out what they were voting for until AFTER the thing passed.

Reprehensible.  A liberal Democrat tradition.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 12, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > If the Ryan plan is imperfect or will produce unintended negative consequences, the debates and discussions and close analysis will reveal that and there will almost certainly be fixes and amendments.   Electing Ryan does not make his plan for Medicare reform automatic any more than some of Barack Obama's more radical concepts became automatic when he was elected.
> ...



Maybe it does.  Maybe it doesn't.  But we won't know without honest evaluation by people who want a solution rather than just want to favor or demonize somebody in politics.''

We can talk until we're blue in the face about this guy or that guy or whether something was filibustered--news flash:  the filibuster is available to and is used by both parties--but until we are willing to look at a plan, concept, or idea objectively and leave personalities and politics out of it, there will never be any solutions to anything.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2012)

Ryan will harm the ticket in Fl, VA, MN, and NV; will help it in WI, NC, IA, NH, CO, MO; who knows in PA and OH?

PA and OH will determine the election, and this is where Romney and Ryan are going to have to go to work.


----------



## Liability (Aug 12, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ryan will harm the ticket in Fl, VA, MN, and NV; will help it in WI, NC, IA, NH, CO, MO; who knows in PA and OH?
> 
> PA and OH will determine the election, and this is where Romney and Ryan are going to have to go to work.



Nonense.

The VP choice has almost NO effect on any ticket (with one or two exceptions, at mot, and this aint one of them).

If the VP choice actually mattered, why would the incumbent have chosen Plugs?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 12, 2012)

Liability said:


> The VP choice has almost NO effect on any ticket (with one or two exceptions, at mot, and this aint one of them).



That's because a VP choice usually isn't a statement of or commitment to policy.

Usually it's equivalent to a statement of "I enjoy flags and apple pie and so does this guy!"

This time around it's become a statement that "I'm dedicating to shredding Medicare and the nation's safety net in order to institute millionaires' tax cuts that would reduce my own tax burden to 0.82%."

That makes this a rather unusual pick.


----------



## Liability (Aug 12, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The VP choice has almost NO effect on any ticket (with one or two exceptions, at mot, and this aint one of them).
> ...



Nice spin, but quite flatly wrong.

It's a statement that INCLUDES a commentary ABOUT Medicare.  And that comment is that it is broken and needs to be fixed.

And if there is an HONEST full discussion about the changes that Ryan contemplated, even the liberal bias of the main stream media might not work to prevent the people from SEEING that.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 12, 2012)

Dissent said:


> I find it hilarious because Obama mine as well not even campaign this is going to be the easiest re election win EVER. He had a chance to pick Rubio who is Latino and from a swing state Florida,or Martinez from New Mexico a swing state,Woman and Latino. Or Governor Haley from South Carolina a woman and a minority. But he picks a white guy from Wisconsin...just makes no sense to me but hey I wasn't gonna vote for him in the first place and this hasn't changed my mind and I am not voting for Obama either. November 6th will be a 55% Obama,35% Romney,10% Gary Johnson.



I knew it!   Less than 24 hours and Romney already picked "the white guy".

More than likely the pick was made because Ryan has a degree in economics and has been chairman of the budget committee.  But, color and pussy would trump all that wouldn't it?  Haven't we enough of putting people in charge because they are incompetent but politically correct?


----------



## Borillar (Aug 12, 2012)

FJO said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > swizzlee said:
> ...



Yeah, especially if you are already over 55 and won't be affected. For those of us who are close to the cut-off, not so good. If you are in your late 40's or early 50's, and putting into the system your whole working life, it's too late to start planning for something else.


----------



## Liability (Aug 12, 2012)

Borillar said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > Borillar said:
> ...



I have almost no expectation that SS will "be there" for me when I retire.

My contributions are seen, by me, as paying for those who preceded me.  I figure I came in at the wrong time to collect on this dopey Ponzi-like scheme.

I am making alternative plans.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 12, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well, if that is the case, what was voted down? 

Congress votes down every budget submitted by the President based on principle and constitutionality that Congress creates the budget.  As Reagan said, "I signed every balanced budget you sent me."  

You'd have to ask the members of Congress why they didn't go along.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 12, 2012)

Bill Angel said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > A terrible ticket politically. The pair may have made a good Secretary of Commerce and OBM Director but the game here is to get a plurality of voters in each state to pull a lever next to your name. That wasn't going to happen in the Governor's case before this and certainly won't happen after this.
> ...



You are correct.  In the next Republican administration; the pair would be good fits for those slots.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2012)

I think the thing about Ryan is that the people who are excited about him should have already been firmly in Romney's corner since he cinched the nomination.  

Romney doesn't need the people who are already against Obama.  he needs the people who voted for Obama last time, were disappointed, maybe willing to reconsider. Historically, this is a tall order, usually incumbants improve on their vote totals, and when they don't, it's because a third party saps off their former supporters. (Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992.)


----------



## Sallow (Aug 13, 2012)

From where I sit..this looks like a paniced choice meant to energize the base.

It looks like the Romney campaign is counting on voter suppression and Republicans coming out in droves for a win. He's done with trying to woe independents.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2012)

Sallow said:


> From where I sit..this looks like a paniced choice meant to energize the base.
> 
> It looks like the Romney campaign is counting on voter suppression and Republicans coming out in droves for a win. He's done with trying to woe independents.



And that's kind of the problem.  When your base is saying, "Man, I wish the Veep Pick was at the top of the ticket", it's never a good sign.


----------



## chanel (Aug 13, 2012)

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be.  Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2012)

chanel said:


> And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.
> 
> The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be.  Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?
> 
> From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.



again, I don't see how. 

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience.  And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.  

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down.  He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.  

But... a heartbeat away?  Not so sure about that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.
> ...



*No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience*

All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2008.
All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2012.
Add no budget experience.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

*Edited.*

Obama is far more qualified this time out, and he demonstrated a great foreign policy ability that has improved our safety in the world.

However, Romney is the person we need for the economy.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obama is far more qualified this time out, and he demonstrated a great foreign policy ability that has improved our safety in the world.
> 
> However, Romney is the person we need for the economy.
> 
> ...



*Obama is far more qualified this time out*

Well, having zero qualifications last time, how could he not be?
But when you see his experience has been mostly making things worse........


----------



## Sallow (Aug 13, 2012)

chanel said:


> And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.
> 
> The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be.  Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?
> 
> From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.



You obviously haven't read the myriad of posts I have put out there regarding Romney's choices.

*Edited.*


----------



## Sallow (Aug 13, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False, Toddsterpatriot.
> ...



So..you think that killing Osama Bin Laden and no major foreign attacks on this country has made things worse.

I disagree..of course.

Along with the stock market soaring, a comprehensive health care act, a steady decline in unemployment, tax cuts for the middle class and small business..we are slowing recovering from the devastation (And that is not some conflation, we suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, the worst stock market crash, one unprovoked war, unmitigated spending without applicable revenue growth to cover it and a collapse in almost every sector of the economy) wrought by the Republicans.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 13, 2012)

signelect said:


> I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.


That is the most important myth that needs deflating by the Republicans.

If you are 55 years old already, your Medicare DOES NOT CHANGE!  Harry Reid lies when he says otherwise.

...and, if you haven't read the Reid /Pelosi/Obama health code...the death squads are coming unless we repeal that monstrosity.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 13, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > *Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *
> ...


Obama is not ready to be President.  He is years ahead of his time.

Ryan was a great choice by Romney.  Now Obama has to learn math.  As it stands, the R's have a plan that is mathematically sound...Obama doesn't.  Obama can't even come up with a budget that passes muster.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.
> ...



So I guess You can't be supporting Obama either then.


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 13, 2012)

Sallow said:


> From where I sit..this looks like a paniced choice meant to energize the base.
> 
> It looks like the Romney campaign is counting on voter suppression and Republicans coming out in droves for a win. He's done with trying to woe independents.



Well, you're a far lefty, so you would see it that way.  You spend a lot of your time arguing politics and issues on a message board.  You're more well informed about this stuff than probably 99% of the voting populace.

Most people aren't as tuned in to goings-on with Paul Ryan and his budget.  A lot of people probably say "Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate" and went "who's Paul Ryan?"  If they decide to go into any more detail finding out who he is, maybe they won't like some things about him but one thing will be clear: he appears to be serious about balancing the budget.

The best place to attack Obama is on the economy.  Mitt Romney, successful businessman, claims he knows how to get the economy going.  He's picked an economist as his running mate.  What better way to tell the voting populace at large, not just far lefties or far righties, that his mission is to get the economy going again?  Really, foreign policy, abortion, gay rights: all those issues put together probably don't add up to the importance that the economy and jobs hold for the majority of voters everywhere.  All this pick _really_ means is that Mitt's campaign is all-in on the health of the economy as the foundation of it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 13, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



That's not exactly true.  The senate voted down every budget passed by the house.  Harry Reid as senator promised that the senate would never pass a budget previously passed by the house.  Not even a democrat controlled house.   obama, as president, has never submitted a budget at all.


----------



## Borillar (Aug 13, 2012)

asaratis said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so but as a 70 year old on medicare I am concerned about his remark this morning about taking it away.;  As a congressman he has the typical govt sweetheart deal for he and his family but wants to strip me of the only thing I have for medical care.  I need details.
> ...



And if you're 54 and younger, you're screwed. You talk about myths that need deflating and then bring up "death squads"? Please...


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2012)

Borillar said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



If you have read the plan, you will see that the 54 and younger are phased into the new system.  It isn't an abrupt all of a sudden change.  You get some of the bad with the old system and some of the good with the new system.  It should be embraced, not feared.


----------



## Borillar (Aug 13, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



I'll believe it's a great new system to embrace when I see Congress vote these crappy vouchers for themselves instead of their Cadillac plans. I'm supposed to be happy about paying into a system for 40 years and expecting to get some benefit out of it, but now some asshole wants to change things so the Rich folks can have yet another tax break? Instead of being fully covered, I will instead be given some vouchers and told to go try to find some insurance carrier that will cover me when I'm old and have pre-existing conditions? These vouchers will probably pay for healthcare for a few months, and then what? Die quickly, so I don't burden my kids?


----------



## alan1 (Aug 13, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > *Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *
> ...



Mr Ryan brings in the independent conservatives like me.  Mr Romney is "liberal light", just like Mr McCain was/is.  In the last presidential election, I couldn't bite the bullet and cast a vote for Mr McCain so no presidential candidate got my vote.

A Romney/Ryan ticket is strong for domestic issues, but lacking on foreign affairs.  To bad Ms Condoleeza Rice is unwilling to engage as a VP.  After they win, I hope they can appoint a good secretary of state for the international representation of our great country.


----------



## alan1 (Aug 13, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I am encouraged because every one of our more leftists friends here are declaring Ryan a terrible choice, a disaster, a final nail in Romney's coffin, etc. etc. etc.
> ...



Bold blue above is hilarious when you consider Mr Obama's resume and all the liberals that voted for him.


----------



## Borillar (Aug 13, 2012)

alan1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Who were we supposed to vote for? Old man McCain and Caribou Barbie? No thanks!


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



Is it possible to talk about the person who is the subject of the thread without saying "But...but... but... Obama!"?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2012)

Intense said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



NIce try, but not really.  

Obama has been president for four years.  

Only four other living human beings have that experience.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2012)

There is something to say, however, that this thread is intended to be focused on Romney and Ryan.  I have another thread in the CDZ that focuses on Obama's record.   And there are other threads others have started elsewhere to discuss the pros and cons of McCain/Palin or to bash President Bush or any other past President.

The issue before us is whether the Romney/Ryan ticket is our best choice for the next four years, and what those four years might look like.   If they are elected, four years from now, with the next election looming, we will no doubt be looking at the Romney/Ryan record and discussing why we would or would not want four more years of the same.    What do you think their approval ratings will be.

It is of interest looking at the early polling data how few people know who Ryan is, how few could recognize him from a photo, and that suggests the GOP needs to do some major name recognition building in the next few weeks.  It is only eleven weeks until it will be decided.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 16, 2012)

One name that should be included in Ryan's recognition building is William Graham Sumner, the first Sociology Professor at Yale College and leading proponent of social Darwinism.

Robert Reich re: Ryan and Sumner:

*"Ryan&#8217;s views are pure social Darwinism*. 

"As William Graham Sumner, the progenitor of social Darwinism in America, put it in the 1880s: 'Civilization has a simple choice.' *It&#8217;s either 'liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest' or 'not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest*. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.'&#8221;

It's either more for the richest 1% of Americans, and all of those who hope to join them one day, or it's more for those doing 90% of the productive labor in this country.

A vote for Mitt, Paul, Joe, or Obama is a vote for the 1%.

Robert Reich (The Ryan Choice)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> One name that should be included in Ryan's recognition building is William Graham Sumner, the first Sociology Professor at Yale College and leading proponent of social Darwinism.
> 
> Robert Reich re: Ryan and Sumner:
> 
> ...



That Robert Reich is great. I loved him in Austin Powers.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 16, 2012)

Why did you post a photo of Hank Paulson?


----------



## Intense (Aug 16, 2012)

> *Sanction of the victim*
> 
> The concept "sanction of the victim" is defined by Leonard Peikoff as "the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the 'sin' of creating values".[27] This concept may be original in the thinking of Rand: she holds that evil is a parasite on the good and can only exist if the good tolerates it. Atlas Shrugged can be seen as an answer to the question of what would happen if this sanction were revoked. When Atlas shrugs, relieving himself of the burden of carrying the world, he is revoking his sanction.
> 
> ...





> Dr. Floyd Ferris
> 
> Ferris is a biologist who works as "co-ordinator" at the State Science Institute. He uses his position there to deride reason and productive achievement, and publishes a book entitled Why Do You Think You Think? He clashes on several occasions with Hank Rearden, and twice attempts to blackmail Rearden into giving up Rearden Metal. He is also one of the group of looters who tries to get Rearden to agree to the Steel Unification Plan. Ferris hosts the demonstration of the Project X weapon, and is the creator of the Ferris Persuader, a torture machine. When John Galt is captured by the looters, Ferris uses the device on Galt, but it breaks down before extracting the information Ferris wants from Galt. Ferris represents the group which uses brute force on the heroes to achieve the ends of the looters. List of Atlas Shrugged characters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 A.K.A. Robert Reich


----------



## Intense (Aug 16, 2012)

> Ellsworth Toohey
> 
> British socialist Harold Laski was one of Rand's primary inspirations for the character of Ellsworth Toohey.
> 
> ...



Robert Reich reminds me of this guy, too.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ptmGW89LKY]Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead -- Slavery and Spiritual Death - YouTube[/ame]
Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead -- Slavery and Spiritual Death


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 16, 2012)

*Where do you see Mitt or Paul in "The Fountainhead"?*

Personally, Ellsworth Toohey reminds me more of John D. Rockefeller than Harold Lasky.
Let's ask Bob to settle this one:

"Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. 

"It allowed* John D. Rockefeller*, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was 'merely a survival of the fittest&#8230; the working out of a law of nature and of God.'&#8221; 

In terms of the "pyrotechnical display of the fascist mind at its best" is John D. or Mitt R. or Paul R. or RR your "sacrificial victim?"


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 16, 2012)

Robert Reich (The Ryan Choice)


----------



## Intense (Aug 16, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> *Where do you see Mitt or Paul in "The Fountainhead"?*
> 
> Personally, Ellsworth Toohey reminds me more of John D. Rockefeller than Harold Lasky.
> Let's ask Bob to settle this one:
> ...





> Where do you see Mitt or Paul in "The Fountainhead"?


I don't know that I do. Romney could be a Hank Rearden. Ryan could be the main character in Anthem, Equality 7-2521, but that's just projection.



> Personally, Ellsworth Toohey reminds me more of John D. Rockefeller than Harold Lasky.


 No comparison, Rockefeller had everything, Tooley had nothing of his own.



> Let's ask Bob to settle this one:


Let's not.  



> "Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century.
> 
> "It allowed* John D. Rockefeller*, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was 'merely a survival of the fittest the working out of a law of nature and of God.'
> 
> In terms of the "pyrotechnical display of the fascist mind at its best" is John D. or Mitt R. or Paul R. or RR your "sacrificial victim?"



Rather than Social Darwinism, I would Credit Alexander Hamilton's corruption with Big Business and Big Government for the resulted abuses. Starting as far back as the corrupt Whiskey Tax, that brought about the Whiskey Rebellion. Further, the Unholy alliances with the Richest among us, with Big Government, be it unfair Trade Laws, Monopolies, etc. Hamilton's National Bank. His Philosophy was that the end justifies the means, when it came to Government Power and Regulation. I don't view it as Fascist, though Fascism is just one of the many Brands of Totalitarianism. 
Statist Progressivism demands Loyalty to the Hive, Self Sacrifice is Mandates. "2+2=5 for as long as I say it does." No One escapes, once you submit. Fuck up, and you Will be thrown under the bus.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 17, 2012)

Sometimes I think one of our politcal parties has no shame.  To equate Paul Ryan's views on American exceptionalism, original intent of the Constitution, and concept of unalienable rights as 'social Darwinism' is really REALLY digging deep into the mud to manufacture an accusation.  It would be funny if some folks weren't buying into that kind of rhetoric and had no moral qualms about spreading that kind of intentional lie.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 17, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Sometimes I think one of our politcal parties has no shame.  To equate Paul Ryan's views on American exceptionalism, original intent of the Constitution, and concept of unalienable rights as 'social Darwinism' is really REALLY digging deep into the mud to manufacture an accusation.  It would be funny if some folks weren't buying into that kind of rhetoric and had no moral qualms about spreading that kind of intentional lie.


I notice you didn't mention his budget which is another massive cut in benefits to the poor and elderly.
It's another giant tax cut for the 1%
It will effectively eliminate Medicare and Medicaid.
It won't reduce the national debt at all.
And it's offered by a political hack who's getting richer from doing favors for his rich wife's fracking family.
Sounds like exceptionalism most Americans can't afford.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 17, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I think one of our politcal parties has no shame.  To equate Paul Ryan's views on American exceptionalism, original intent of the Constitution, and concept of unalienable rights as 'social Darwinism' is really REALLY digging deep into the mud to manufacture an accusation.  It would be funny if some folks weren't buying into that kind of rhetoric and had no moral qualms about spreading that kind of intentional lie.
> ...



That is defnitely open for honest debate, but the way I read the Ryan budget, it is nowhere near the assault on Medicare and Medicaid as unrestrained spending, impending bankruptcy, and government generated increasing costs as is what Obamacare offers.  I don't know whether the Ryan is the best plan, and if it is not, somebody will no doubt offer a better one, but it at least addressses the real problems and offers a means to begin the difficult process of reform.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with American exceptionalism and unalienable rights which was what I was discussing in my post.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 17, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I think one of our politcal parties has no shame.  To equate Paul Ryan's views on American exceptionalism, original intent of the Constitution, and concept of unalienable rights as 'social Darwinism' is really REALLY digging deep into the mud to manufacture an accusation.  It would be funny if some folks weren't buying into that kind of rhetoric and had no moral qualms about spreading that kind of intentional lie.
> ...



Perhaps you can substantiate your claims?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 17, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


I can try, Ernie.
Here's one I heard about on my local Pacifica radio station last Sunday.
I haven't seen it reported elsewhere, but I try to avoid corporate media.

"Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) recently released by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), when compared to previous years&#8217; SEI show a clear pattern &#8211; the more influence he has on the Congressional Budget process, the more stake he (through his wife Janna (nee Little)) has gained in Oklahoma mining interests. 

"This family interest is led by Ryan&#8217;s father-in-law, Dan Little; and is currently making millions leasing rights to energy giants engaging in extensive natural gas shale fracking.

"The financial conflicts at work here are direct. Ryan&#8217;s budget gives $43 Billion in tax breaks to the companies and processes the Little family (and Ryan) profit from. The policy conflict is the expansion of fracking, which the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is promoting through powerful Legislators like Ryan."

Paul Ryan &#8211; Fracking Baron with clear conflicts of interest | Badger Democracy


----------



## Jackson (Aug 17, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> *Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ *
> 
> The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today.  And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.
> 
> ...



I don't think it was a good choice.  It was a great choice.  It put the focus on the campaign just were it should be...... on the economy.

Obama has been turning cartwheels to avoid the subject and this is what everyone is now talking about....even the liberals.  There will be no doubt that debate issues will be surrounding the economy now just where Obama's head was in the sand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*Ryans budget gives $43 Billion in tax breaks to the companies and processes the Little family (and Ryan) profit from. *

Sounds interesting. What are these special tax breaks?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


You're confused about tax breaks for oil companies?

"That&#8217;s because the tax code is stuffed with a host of subsidies for oil and gas. These subsidies are delivered through the tax code but they are essentially no different from government spending programs that provide money directly."

Big Oil?s Misbegotten Tax Gusher: Why They Don?t Need $70 Billion from Taxpayers Amid Record Profits


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*You're confused about tax breaks for oil companies?*

No, I just know that when liberals whine about "tax breaks", they're usually talking about deducting business expenses, which is what businesses do.

*Percentage depletion ($11.2 billion over 10 years)*

That's awful! An oil company buys a well with $1 billion of oil in it and gets to write off some of the value of the oil they extract every year. 

*Domestic manufacturing deduction for oil production ($18.2 billion over 10 years)*

Aren't liberals all about buying in America and getting rid of the nasty free trade agreements? That's okay, you can get rid of this one.

*Expensing of intangible drilling costs ($12.5 billion over 10 years)*

What's this mean?

*This means they can take immediate deductions for these costs rather than spreading the deductions out over the useful life of the wells, which is the normal tax code rule for other types of investments. *

Well, I think all companies should have 100% expensing, so let's make this one universal.

*Taking deductions immediately means the companies lower their tax bill in the first year, in effect getting an interest-free loan from the government.*

Only if you believe all the money belongs to the government. I believe this will instead cause a big boost in investment in equipment which will boost US GDP and employment.

It's nice that they finally got rid of the ethanol subsidy, now they just need to kill the mandate.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I nominate Toddsterpatriot to the National Treasury Department Chairmanship!


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 18, 2012)

You're pockets probably aren't deep enough.
Here's what Mr. Treasure Secretary left out of his assessment of "Percentage depletion"

"The oil and gas industry maintains that this is not a special tax break because other companies receive similar deductions. But the percentage depletion method permitted for oil and gas is fundamentally different and more favorable. In some cases, *it can eliminate all federal taxes* for these companies."

Saying that all money doesn't belong to the government doesn't change the fact that without government money loses all of its value.

Big Oil?s Misbegotten Tax Gusher: Why They Don?t Need $70 Billion from Taxpayers Amid Record Profits


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> You're pockets probably aren't deep enough.
> Here's what Mr. Treasure Secretary left out of his assessment of "Percentage depletion"
> 
> "The oil and gas industry maintains that this is not a special tax break because other companies receive similar deductions. But the percentage depletion method permitted for oil and gas is fundamentally different and more favorable. In some cases, *it can eliminate all federal taxes* for these companies."
> ...



*In some cases, it can eliminate all federal taxes for these companies."*

That's awful. Exxon still managed to pay $31 billion in income tax in 2011. Chevron $20.6 billion. ConocoPhillips $10.5 billion. Maybe they haven't heard of the percentage depletion method?

*Saying that all money doesn't belong to the government doesn't change the fact that without government money loses all of its value.*

LOL! So what?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 18, 2012)

How much US Federal Income Tax did Exxon pay in 2011?
Maybe it hasn't heard of the US Navy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> How much US Federal Income Tax did Exxon pay in 2011?
> Maybe it hasn't heard of the US Navy?



Why don't you tell me?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How much US Federal Income Tax did Exxon pay in 2011?
> ...


$41.1 billion in profits.
17.6% tax rate.
??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


*
"In some cases, it can eliminate all federal taxes for these companies."*

I guess not in this case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent.*

ThinkProgress should show their work because liberal math is notoriously weak.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Here's what Mr. Treasure Secretary left out of his assessment of "Percentage depletion"
> 
> "The oil and gas industry maintains that this is not a special tax break because other companies receive similar deductions. But the percentage depletion method permitted for oil and gas is fundamentally different and more favorable. In some cases, *it can eliminate all federal taxes* for these companies."
> 
> ...


*You're pockets probably aren't deep enough.*

I could probably find a stamp. I'm a citizen. You think the founders wrote a Constitution for Princes, Lords, Dukes and Earls to make all the nominations? Think again. And think, "They wrote it for the people."


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 18, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what Mr. Treasure Secretary left out of his assessment of "Percentage depletion"
> ...


I don't think many of the founder considered corporations to be people:

"ExxonMobil had the largest profits of the Big Five oil companies in 2011, raking in $41.1 billion  for the year. This 35 percent jump from last year is driven in large part by record-high oil prices. Today, the oil giant announced its fourth quarter profits of $9.4 billion, a 2 percent increase since 2010. Here are a few other facts about ExxonMobil..."

Virtually every gain the corporation has made since the ratification of the US Constitution has come through the Judicial Branch. _Citizens United_ was only the most recent example. The people have never had a chance to vote on whether corporations are people.

And as long as they continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth, they never will.

ExxonMobil Made $41.1 Billion In 2011, But Pays Estimated 17.6 Percent Tax Rate | ThinkProgress


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


I addressed the part of your post that said "You're pockets probably aren't deep enough." When I copied it I must have hit "cut" instead of "copy."

I try not to omit any of people's words. I'm sorry. It was my bad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



According to this.....
XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

They paid 42% average over the last 3 years.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 18, 2012)

As I do not trust ThinkProgress as a reliable source:



> *Exxib Mobil*
> Rank: 2 (Previous rank: 3)
> CEO: Rex W. Tillerson
> Employees: 99,100
> ...



Now then, considering that Exxon Mobil employs 99,100 people, is a major producer of petreoleum that winds up in our automobile and truck fuel tanks and many other products, and they have become a major producer of natural gas that keeps us warm in winter as well as serves us very well in other capacities. . . .

How much should Exxon Mobil be allowed to earn?   What part of their earnings are all the rest of us entitled to?  

And it is instructive that big oil pays more in taxes than any other corporations:
In 2011 the three oil giants . . . .paid more income tax than any other American corporation. ExxonMobil paid $27.3 billion in income tax, Chevron paid $17 billion, and ConocoPhillips paid $10.6 billion. 

These huge sums gave the companies equally huge effective tax rates. ExxonMobils tax rate was 42.9%, Chevrons was 48.3%, and ConocoPhillips was 41.5%. These figures are higher than the US federal statutory rate of 35%, which is the highest tax rate in the developed world.

Income tax does not even represent half of the total taxes paid. Last year Exxon also recorded more than $70 billion in sales taxes and other duties.
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/How-much-Tax-does-Big-Oil-Actually-Pay.​html

So do we go with the President who wants Exxon Mobile and other big oil to pay more in taxes and who wants to cut the tax breaks extended to big oil?

Or do we go with Romney/Ryan who want to eliminate as many barriers as is expedient and realistic in order to encourage energy independence?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


Are you saying they *paid* 42% in income taxes over the past three years?

*"income tax expense*

"The amount of income tax that is associated with (matches) the net income reported on the company's income statement. *This amount will likely be different than the income taxes actually payable*, since some of the revenues and expenses reported on the tax return will be different from the amounts on the income statement. For example, a corporation is likely to use straight-line depreciation on its income statement, but will use accelerated depreciation on its income tax return.

income tax expense definition | AccountingCoach.com


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You do understand what straight-line and accelerated depreciation is?  Why it is deductible.  And why it can affect a bottom line in one year but increase taxes paid in subsequent years? Why this is irrelevent to taxes paid by oil companies as ALL of us running businesses use accelerated depreciation when we can?

Anyhow, I posted the number for taxes paid by the top three big oil companies.

How much do YOU think they should have to pay in taxes?


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 19, 2012)

The amount paid by Exxon in taxes is more than what the average American pays in taxes by several million dollars.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*Are you saying they paid 42% in income taxes over the past three years?*

I'm saying the income statements from Yahoo Finance are more trustworthy that the claims made by ThinkProgress with no backup.
Show me where they pulled their numbers and I'll take a look.
I won't be shocked if you can't find their source.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> As I do not trust ThinkProgress as a reliable source:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"In 2011, Ryan and his wife, Janna, paid an effective tax rate of 20 percent, paying $64,764 in federal taxes on $323,416 of adjusted gross income. That was up from the 15.9 percent effective tax rate they paid in 2010, with $34,233 going to federal taxes after reporting $215,417 in adjusted gross income."

Ryan had a 20 percent effective tax rate in 2011 - Fox News

IMHO, a "choice" between Obama and Ryan amounts to NO choice for 99% of US voters.

"In elevating deficit reduction to his highest priority and setting up the deficit reduction supercommittee in 2011, President Obama made it clear that benefits programs were on the chopping block and that he would negotiate with Republicans on how to curtail them. 

"Now, Representative Paul Ryan&#8217;s budget is in the spotlight, which also threatens services that millions of Americans depend on.

"'Ryan's extreme budget ideas were rejected by Congress, including many of his own Republican colleagues,' said (Dr. Jill) Stein. 'Americans value Medicare and Social Security, and do not want to be the sacrificial lambs for deficit reduction, especially when they see the massive waste in the private health insurance industry, the bloated Pentagon budget, and the backroom Wall Street bailouts.'&#8221;

Obama cleared path for Ryan; Greens offer only alternative to austerity agenda, say Stein, Honkala - Jill Stein for President


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > As I do not trust ThinkProgress as a reliable source:
> ...



*"In elevating deficit reduction to his highest priority and setting up the deficit reduction supercommittee in 2011, President Obama made it clear that benefits programs were on the chopping block and that he would negotiate with Republicans on how to curtail them. *

Unaffordable benefits programs are unaffordable.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > As I do not trust ThinkProgress as a reliable source:
> ...



And this relates to how much you think oil companies should be required to pay in taxes, how?

Romney has not had any salary or wages for some time.  He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts.  He donated all of his salary received from the Olympics.  Other than what was allowed for a personal IRA or 401K--we are all eligible for tax deferment on those--he paid taxes on his investments and he and his family now live off the investments he has made over the years and those are taxed at the same capital gains rate that we all pay on non tax-deferred capital gains.

This is precisely the reason Warren Buffet pays at a lower rate than his secretary.

I won't be surprised if Romney refuses his salary as President if he is elected in 2012.

We ALL have the ability to build a retirment account that will allow us leisure and freedom later on, and we will be taxed on capital gains from those accounts at the exact same rate that Romney and Buffet pay.

So again.  Back to those oil companies since you brought it up.  How much do you think we should be entitled to of what they earn?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



*This is precisely the reason Warren Buffet pays at a lower rate than his secretary.*

I debunked his claim before. I think he said she made $60,000 and paid 30%.

Check it out......

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/172042-tax-the-rich-fix-jobs-and-deficits-32.html#post3810015


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I hope you understand the difference between a small business owner working 70-80 hours/week and ExxonMobile when it comes to Paul Ryan's and Obama's tax policies. Why does someone earning $360,000 a year pay taxes at the same rate as parasites earning $3.6 million/year or $36,000,000/ year or $360,000,000 a year?

I would suggest the rich and the corporations that make them rich pay taxes at the same rate they paid in the 1950s. The rich no longer depend on the US middle class to buy products they produce in China since the emerging middle classes in China, India, and Brazil dwarfs the US. If that's the deal the US rich are offering the country that made them rich, they deserve higher taxes for starters.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Be sure to mention that to the Wall Street parasites and their political enablers who recently got richer from the greatest transfer of private debt into public debt in history.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



American corporations are paying more in taxes now than they were in the 1950's because of drastic change in the tax laws over the years.  As are millionaires.

So how much more than the 42.9% Exxon Mobil is currently paying in taxes or the 48.3% Chevron is paying in taxes should the government be able to take?

And to answer your other question, I am a flat tax person.  I think the person earning $10,000 should pay at the same rate as the person earning $1,000,000.  I do not believe in punishing and thereby discouraging success, and I am strongly in favor of us ALL sharing in the consequences, pro and con, of changes in tax policy.  We all need to have skin in the game so that our fearless leaders are not able to create class envy and social divisions among us and make some believe that the more successful are less deserving of their profits than are the less successful.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


It's my understanding Romney's Olympics relied more on US Government funds than any other Olympics ever. In my opinion he should be paying closer to 90% on his unearned income than the current 15% rate that Republicans AND Democrats have gifted their 1% employers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Please, tell me more about this transfer of debt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Ask your good buddy, Hank.
You two got that Great Chicago Carbon Bubble working yet?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


The money people earn does not belong to politicians with greedy eyeballs on it for their edification in power and prestige. The money people earn belongs to them. The idea that redistribution of wealth is necessary is a Marxist hammer to consolidate power in hands that honestly, didn't earn it.

Politicians give themselves a bad name by hissy-fitting about not having as much money as somebody else. And while no one is watching the budget, there's a Nancy Pelosi sticking in her thumb and pulling out a tax-free 100% guaranteed loan plum for a member of her family. Or two. Or three. And we're talking not plums, we're talking billions of dollars in treasury bilking done by politicians.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


How 'bout we tax 'em into extinction (and prison), JP?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You made the claim, you tell me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Do that to all the rich people and your welfare check will bounce.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Stop "choosing" between political hacks like Pelosi or Paul Ryan if you're tired of your tax dollars fattening the bottom lines of their families.

I think you're also conflating money people earn with money they bribe government for.

The richest Americans have been bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax and trade policies that have turned "the land of opportunity" into an America that has the highest level of economic inequality of any advanced country.

Fully 93% of income growth during the 2009-10 "recovery" has been captured by the richest 1% of income earners. Did they earn it, or did they bribe Pelosi and Ryan for it?

You'll never find out by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in your voting booth.

Joseph E. Stiglitz | The Price of Inequality


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*In the recovery of 2009-2010, the top 1% of US income earners captured 93% of the income growth.*

There is probably a less useful stat out there than this one, it would just take me a while to think of it.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Probably a lot less time than it will take you to earn a Nobel Prize in Economics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

In the recovery of 2009-2010, how much of the income growth was captured by left handed relief pitchers? How much by right handed designated hitters from Latin American countries? How much by red-headed circus performers?


----------



## Listening (Aug 19, 2012)

Win or lose, Romney just put the big issues out front.

Something Obama has been unwilling to do for four years.

Biden does not have a clue as to what an issue is...he probably thinks it's what he uses to blow his nose.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?

"It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:

"'If current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach *$800 billion in fiscal year 2011*. The emerging key fiscal policy need is to address the implications of maintaining surpluses.'

"*The 2011 fiscal year ended with a $1.3-trillion deficit*. How did America go from a state of 'burgeoning federal surpluses' (in Greenspan's words in 2001) to 'extraordinary financial crisis' (the way he put it in 2010) in just one decade? Two words suffice: tax cuts."

Economic Rapture Might Be Around the Corner

Mitt seems to be in favor of fighting two wars with other people's blood and paying for those conflicts with other people's debt and taxes. 

Do we really need another rich, White hypocrite in DC?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?
> 
> "It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:
> 
> ...



*Two words suffice: tax cuts."*

LOL! 

From Wikipedia......

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion.[31]

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*10-year revenue loss....$2.9 trillion.*
Let's see the liberal math that explains how "losing" $290 billion a year causes a swing from a predicted surplus of $800 billion to an actual deficit of $1.3 trillion.


----------



## Listening (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?
> 
> "It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:
> 
> ...



Please bring forth the numbers and the math that show how we got to the deficit and how it was just the result of tax cuts.

The math...not percentages and not just some of the math.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

*"A New York Times article* claims the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]

*"CBO estimated in June 2012* that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest."

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The deficit increase wasn't due to tax cuts alone.
There were also a pair of illegal and unfunded invasions and occupations, at least one of which is ongoing.
And, of course, one giant credit/housing bubble that POPPED and required US taxpayers to socialize the cost of private Wall Street losses.


----------



## Listening (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> *"A New York Times article* claims the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]
> 
> *"CBO estimated in June 2012* that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest."
> 
> ...



First, I asked for the math.  If you are beholden to it, you should be able to share it.

Second, thank you for allowing (without math how will we know) that it might not just be the tax cuts.

There is no getting around the fact that spending should have been cut too.  But, there is also the issue of the projections made in 2001 and how those assumptions used to project the "surplus" might not have panned out given the economics slump of the last four years.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?
> ...


Which ten-year period are you talking about?
2001-2010 or 2011-2020?

"In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs."

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*Which ten-year period are you talking about?
2001-2010 or 2011-2020?*

2011-2020.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 23, 2012)

I simply fail to see how a tax cut adds to the deficit.  The deficit is not caused from taxes.  The deficit is caused by spending.

Most of the projections of how much a tax cut will increase the deficit is a presumption that the tax cut will have no effect on the overall economy but will reduce treasury revenues.  The Kennedy tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  The Reagan tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  the Clinton tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  The G.W. Bush tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  In every one of these cases, treasury revenues increased because the carefully designed reductions in tax rates stimulated economic activity.

The economy does not increase perpetually but the right kind of tax cut will increase economic activity that will eventually top out.  But the new 'normal' is generally at a higher level than the old one.  Of course every tax cut does not generate economic activity--tax cuts for the 'lower income' citizen will definitely have a negative effect on treasury revenues because it will have negligible effect on increased economic activity and is too quickly wiped out by inflation.  And of course there is a limit to how much economic activity can be generated via tax reductions.

But the fact remains.  Taxes do not increase or decrease deficits.  Excess spending over treasury revenues is what causes deficits and adds to the national debt.


----------



## BluePhantom (Aug 23, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> But the fact remains.  Taxes do not increase or decrease deficits.  Excess spending over treasury revenues is what causes deficits and adds to the national debt.



Absolutely correct. Bingo!  On the nose.....unfortunately such logic is completely ignored by those who have an entitlement mentality.  Remember...all money belongs to the government (according to them) and our earnings are merely gifts that we are permitted to have according to Washington's good graces.


----------



## Borillar (Aug 23, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I simply fail to see how a tax cut adds to the deficit.  The deficit is not caused from taxes.  The deficit is caused by spending.
> 
> Most of the projections of how much a tax cut will increase the deficit is a presumption that the tax cut will have no effect on the overall economy but will reduce treasury revenues.  The Kennedy tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  The Reagan tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  the Clinton tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  The G.W. Bush tax cuts did not reduce revenues.  In every one of these cases, treasury revenues increased because the carefully designed reductions in tax rates stimulated economic activity.
> 
> ...



I suppose the question then becomes what spending needs to be cut? The right is eager to throw out the social safety net. The left wants to cut military spending and corporate welfare. Both sides have their sacred cows. There needs to be adequate revenue to pay for these things plus service and pay off the debt. How do you do that by cutting revenue?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 23, 2012)

Borillar said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I simply fail to see how a tax cut adds to the deficit.  The deficit is not caused from taxes.  The deficit is caused by spending.
> ...



Not at all.  The question then becomes what does the Federal government HAVE to do with the revenues it receives and what can the Federal government leave to the states and/or private sector to do?   Obviously, if the Federal government only does what it HAS to do per Constitutional specifications, it doesn't need anywhere near the amount of money it spends and would much more easily balance a budget without draining the economy of precious resources.

Which coincidentally the Ryan economic philosophy addresses.


----------



## BluePhantom (Aug 23, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Someone give me an amen!!  Somebody say "hallelujah"!!!  SOMEBODY RUN!!!!


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 23, 2012)

Why is spending only bad for republicans when it is helping the nation rebuild or helping the needy? When republicans do it it changes into something oddly different.  Hypocrite, thy name is republican. 

'Deficit Hypocrites'

"Before considering what exactly is wrong with the conservative critique of deficits, it is first useful to see just how hypocritical many of them are about this topic. In reality, most conservative politicians dont care nearly as much about deficits as they claim. Consider the evidence: most Republicans in Congress did not become deficit hawks until after President Obama was elected. During the previous administration they were busy helping President Bush turn the budget surpluses of the Clinton era into large deficits. Most conservatives did not see this rapid increase in the national debt as a problem at all. Vice-President Cheney blithely dismissed those issues at the time by saying, Reagan proved deficits dont matter.

So *clearly many Republicans think deficits are just fine when they are spending the publics money on their own political priorities. It didnt bother them to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by massive deficit spending. And they were all too glad to add hundreds of billions to the national debt by passing several enormous tax cuts  money that went largely to the wealthy. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that those wars and tax cuts will eventually contribute a whopping $7 trillion to federal deficits by 2019.*"   Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality


*"Percentage of the current U.S. debt that was accumulated during Republican presidential terms: 71 *
Portion of debt-ceiling elevations since 1960 that have been signed into law by Republican presidents : 2/3 
Percentage of profits American corporations paid in taxes in 1961 : 40.6 Today: 10.5
Portion of the increase in U.S. corporate profit margins since 2001 that come from depressed wages: 3/4 
Percentage of Americans who say they did not have money to buy food at all times last year: 18.2 
Percentage change in the median household wealth of white families since 2005 : -16 Of Hispanic families: -66 "

October 2011, page 15 (Harper's Magazine Index)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> Why is spending only bad for republicans when it is helping the nation rebuild or helping the needy? When republicans do it it changes into something oddly different.  Hypocrite, thy name is republican.
> 
> 'Deficit Hypocrites'
> 
> ...



* most Republicans in Congress did not become deficit hawks until after President Obama was elected.*

That's awful. Can we expect Democrats to be deficit hawks after Romney is elected?
Do Democrats ever become deficit hawks?

*Most conservatives did not see this rapid increase in the national debt as a problem at all. *

I was very upset that Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt in 8 years. 
Less than that, if we consider TARP.
I'm even more upset that Obama added $5.3 trillion to the national debt in 3 years, 7 months.
More than that, if we consider TARP.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 23, 2012)

So to those 18 people who picked Obama just won the Election. Care to explain the gains Romney has made since the Pick?

lol


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is spending only bad for republicans when it is helping the nation rebuild or helping the needy? When republicans do it it changes into something oddly different.  Hypocrite, thy name is republican.
> ...


"A New York Times article claims the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, *reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion* between 2002 and 2009.[26]

"CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) *added about $1.6 trillion to the debt* between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest."

TARP passed on October 3. 2008...Good thing deficits don't matter to Republcans AND Democrats.

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



*"CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest*."

Between 2001 and today, over $10 trillion was added to the debt.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And not one dime of all that debt was due to a tax cut.  Every nickle was due to Congress and the President spending more than the federal treasury took in.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What has been the biggest single contributor to that $10 trillion of new debt in your opinion?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 23, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Again, the ONLY thing that has caused, been a factor in, or has contributed to any of the National Debt is a Congress and President who have spent more than the national treasury took in.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 23, 2012)

What effects on national revenues have the Bush tax cuts produced?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Overspending.


----------

