Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

Cliffy6745

I don't even know where to start. Yes, I have openly said here many times that by definition I am sure I come off as a bigot towards intolerance, which is fine to me. Incredibly hypocritical, I am sure.

Yes, I know plenty of rich white kids who didn't have to work for a thing and got into drugs and were never able to get off and have contributed nothing to society. I would love for there to be better programs to help them get clean and contribute to society, it is just much less of an issue than it is in poor communities and much less of a drain on our country.

I get that there are poor and rich in every race, I am just using minorities as an example since it is much more prevalent. We obviously need better schools and opportunities for all poor.

Have a meeting in a few but will look at the specifics after.

Edit: And yes, we know that our increase in applications is due to the economy and also due to a cut back in gov't funding. With the economy in the shitter it is also hurting our ability to donate what we would like so it's a lose, lose.

Edit: And I don't disagree that the government does not handle the money like it should or needs to. That's a fact we obvsiously all know. There needs to be a whole lot more accountability on where it goes, but my point is more that all of us that can, should be held responsible to help this country.

polaris_x

The Fixer wrote:

how so?

I'm far from a political expert. Just trying to better understand the liberal point of view.

I used to lean left. then I turned 30 and started making some money. I don't lean left anymore.

I do find it interesting to hear what causes people to feel/vote the way they do. I could never be a die hard supporter of either party.

because there are social consequences to the system put forth ... it's hard to explain without overly simplifying it but would you rather have less people on social assistance and unemployed or more? ... i'll give you an example ... up until recently (bad summer here in toronto) ... youth crime was down year over year ... the police all said it was because there was a reinvestment in after school programs that were gutted under our former conservative premier (governor to you) ... more police and tougher laws didn't change that situation ... but after school basketball programs and such did ... less crime is a win win for everyone ... unless you make your money profiting from crime (see prisons) ...

you should definitely not be a die hard supporter of either party as it stands now ... they are both screwing you over ...

Prince Of Dorkness

The Fixer wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

while you think handouts to social programs don't benefit you ... they actually do ...

...

how so?

I'm far from a political expert. Just trying to better understand the liberal point of view.

I used to lean left. then I turned 30 and started making some money. I don't lean left anymore.

I do find it interesting to hear what causes people to feel/vote the way they do. I could never be a die hard supporter of either party.

See it was the opposite for me.

When my business started doing well, I realized that if more people had disposable income, I'd make more money.

I don't want another silly tax cut for being rich, I want the potential customers of mine to have money so they buy things from me.

And putting the whole tax burden on them and starving them out hasn't worked. It's just resulted in more lazy billionaires who don't have to work for their money.

Johnny Abruzzo

On a more objective note. I'd say if Romney doesn't get a big bounce from the Ryan pick then his campaign is in real big trouble. I'm struggling to see where that bounce is going to come from, but stranger things have happened.

Jason P

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

On a more objective note. I'd say if Romney doesn't get a big bounce from the Ryan pick then his campaign is in real big trouble. I'm struggling to see where that bounce is going to come from, but stranger things have happened.

I think the strategy is for a long-term buildup of support rather then a quick shot to the arm. Ryan is smart and well respected ... now they need to show that to the country.

By the way, did anyone see the outlandish TV ad when the Ryan lookalike throws a lady in a wheelchair off a cliff? I laughed in disbelief.

polaris_x

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

On a more objective note. I'd say if Romney doesn't get a big bounce from the Ryan pick then his campaign is in real big trouble. I'm struggling to see where that bounce is going to come from, but stranger things have happened.

i think there is a natural bounce assuming the campaign managers run the proper PR ... much like Palin was a bounce ...

i really think mitt is a sacrificial lamb here in this election ... i mean - all the GOP had to do was run some guy out there who said a whole lot of nothing ... someone with a decent record in congress or the senate ... just throw out the cut taxes and create jobs mantra and they would have a reasonable shot at winning this thing ... but instead they pick this ahole and then choose a tea party guy as a running mate ... i really don't think the powers that be that control these things care to have obama replaced at this juncture ...

The Fixer

polaris_x wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

how so?

I'm far from a political expert. Just trying to better understand the liberal point of view.

I used to lean left. then I turned 30 and started making some money. I don't lean left anymore.

I do find it interesting to hear what causes people to feel/vote the way they do. I could never be a die hard supporter of either party.

because there are social consequences to the system put forth ... it's hard to explain without overly simplifying it but would you rather have less people on social assistance and unemployed or more? ... i'll give you an example ... up until recently (bad summer here in toronto) ... youth crime was down year over year ... the police all said it was because there was a reinvestment in after school programs that were gutted under our former conservative premier (governor to you) ... more police and tougher laws didn't change that situation ... but after school basketball programs and such did ... less crime is a win win for everyone ... unless you make your money profiting from crime (see prisons) ...

you should definitely not be a die hard supporter of either party as it stands now ... they are both screwing you over ...

'would you rather have less people on social assistance and unemployed or more?'

um, isn't unemployment a form of social assistance?? I'm against both options (at least the extended unemployment that the govt recently offered).

not sure that I agree that after school programs are helping me. I'd have a difficult time being convinced that I should be paying for that type of stuff...especially if my kids weren't attending.

Johnny Abruzzo

polaris_x wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

On a more objective note. I'd say if Romney doesn't get a big bounce from the Ryan pick then his campaign is in real big trouble. I'm struggling to see where that bounce is going to come from, but stranger things have happened.

i think there is a natural bounce assuming the campaign managers run the proper PR ... much like Palin was a bounce ...

i really think mitt is a sacrificial lamb here in this election ... i mean - all the GOP had to do was run some guy out there who said a whole lot of nothing ... someone with a decent record in congress or the senate ... just throw out the cut taxes and create jobs mantra and they would have a reasonable shot at winning this thing ... but instead they pick this ahole and then choose a tea party guy as a running mate ... i really don't think the powers that be that control these things care to have obama replaced at this juncture ...

Well they seem to get most of what they want even with Obama in office, so you may have a point. :roll:

The Fixer

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

while you think handouts to social programs don't benefit you ... they actually do ...

...

how so?

I'm far from a political expert. Just trying to better understand the liberal point of view.

I used to lean left. then I turned 30 and started making some money. I don't lean left anymore.

I do find it interesting to hear what causes people to feel/vote the way they do. I could never be a die hard supporter of either party.

See it was the opposite for me.

When my business started doing well, I realized that if more people had disposable income, I'd make more money.

I don't want another silly tax cut for being rich, I want the potential customers of mine to have money so they buy things from me.

And putting the whole tax burden on them and starving them out hasn't worked. It's just resulted in more lazy billionaires who don't have to work for their money.

I don't understand why a fixed tax rate for all can't be implemented. why penalize people for being successful?

The Fixer

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

On a more objective note. I'd say if Romney doesn't get a big bounce from the Ryan pick then his campaign is in real big trouble. I'm struggling to see where that bounce is going to come from, but stranger things have happened.

personally I don't think ryan affects this election one bit. romney was never going to win...ryan sure isn't going to change that.

the electoral college is worse than our candidates

The Fixer

Jason P wrote:

did anyone see the outlandish TV ad when the Ryan lookalike throws a lady in a wheelchair off a cliff? I laughed in disbelief.

that was hilarious. reminded me of OJ simpson going down the steps in the Naked Gun

polaris_x

The Fixer wrote:

'would you rather have less people on social assistance and unemployed or more?'

um, isn't unemployment a form of social assistance?? I'm against both options (at least the extended unemployment that the govt recently offered).

not sure that I agree that after school programs are helping me. I'd have a difficult time being convinced that I should be paying for that type of stuff...especially if my kids weren't attending.

i don't mean unemployment benefits ... i mean unemployed ... would you rather see those people working?

less crime helps because you can then pay less money for police and incarceration ... property values increase ... your standard of life improves ... in any metric associated with quality of life ... crime is a variable ...

The Fixer

polaris_x wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

'would you rather have less people on social assistance and unemployed or more?'

um, isn't unemployment a form of social assistance?? I'm against both options (at least the extended unemployment that the govt recently offered).

not sure that I agree that after school programs are helping me. I'd have a difficult time being convinced that I should be paying for that type of stuff...especially if my kids weren't attending.

i don't mean unemployment benefits ... i mean unemployed ... would you rather see those people working?

less crime helps because you can then pay less money for police and incarceration ... property values increase ... your standard of life improves ... in any metric associated with quality of life ... crime is a variable ...

sure. then again, I'm of the belief that the business cycle is self correcting, so the less govt intervention the better. unemployment is naturally cyclical

sure, crime is a variable, but that's why there are local taxes here in the US. Generally speaking, the higher your local taxes, the better the public schools are and the less crime in your neighborhood.

in laymans' terms...you get what you pay for. just like everythign else in life. well, the people who actually pay for things :shock:

polaris_x

The Fixer wrote:

I don't understand why a fixed tax rate for all can't be implemented. why penalize people for being successful?

penalize is subjective ... the thing is - it's much easier for someone with wealth to accumulate more wealth ... if you are poor - you can not put money in stocks or bonds or investments ... the richer people already have more and they have to power to accumulate even more ... it's about allowing for the poor a better chance of improving their lot with the understanding that the societal benefits are collectively beneficial ...

the "socialists" countries like norway and sweden rank high on human development indexes because of this foundational belief ... you can still accumulate significant wealth in those countries ... it's just that as you accumulate more and more - you have to give up more and more but you still net out with more wealth ...

The Fixer

polaris_x wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

I don't understand why a fixed tax rate for all can't be implemented. why penalize people for being successful?

penalize is subjective ... the thing is - it's much easier for someone with wealth to accumulate more wealth ... if you are poor - you can not put money in stocks or bonds or investments ... the richer people already have more and they have to power to accumulate even more ... it's about allowing for the poor a better chance of improving their lot with the understanding that the societal benefits are collectively beneficial ...

the "socialists" countries like norway and sweden rank high on human development indexes because of this foundational belief ... you can still accumulate significant wealth in those countries ... it's just that as you accumulate more and more - you have to give up more and more but you still net out with more wealth ...

I'm not disagreeing with your premise but there is always risk involved with investments.

If someone is taxed a higher rate for having more money, it's definitely a penalty. I shouldn't have to support those who cant support themselves just because I can. that's ridiculous.

I don't think we are going to agree on this one. Hopefully the King and DS will get after each other so I can get back to spectating.

Prince Of Dorkness

The Fixer wrote:

I don't understand why a fixed tax rate for all can't be implemented. why penalize people for being successful?

I'd be fine with that.

At the moment, people who make $12,000 per year are paying a higher rate than Mitt Romney. And with the Paul Ryan plan, Mitt's taxes will go down to nearly nothing.

Which - and we ALL know this or we'd have seen proof otherwise by now - Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years. Probably more.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

penalize is subjective ... the thing is - it's much easier for someone with wealth to accumulate more wealth ... if you are poor - you can not put money in stocks or bonds or investments ... the richer people already have more and they have to power to accumulate even more ... it's about allowing for the poor a better chance of improving their lot with the understanding that the societal benefits are collectively beneficial ...

It's also much easier for someone with wealth to lose more wealth. Stocks, bonds, etc. have not done well recently. The average "rich person" is declining in terms of what they bring in, just like the poor.

Further, not only is there a trade-off (to growth) within the redistribution that you so highly covet. There's deadweight loss, and I'd say a lot of it involved. Government is inherently inefficient and wastes money.

Tie two and two together here. According to you, the rich are bad because they can invest in stocks and bonds, etc and that would make them make more money. I respond - they can also lose that money. Moreover, that money is used for something - what? Business activity including jobs. Poor need jobs. And even if the poor don't take that particular job, maybe a middle class person does. That middle class person's job becomes available - a poor person could get it. This gets at the economic tradeoff aspect.

polaris_x wrote:

the "socialists" countries like norway and sweden rank high on human development indexes because of this foundational belief ... you can still accumulate significant wealth in those countries ... it's just that as you accumulate more and more - you have to give up more and more but you still net out with more wealth ...

Those countries rank high on indices created to make "socialist" countries look good. I'm sure you disagree, but whatever. As has been argued in the past the HDI is heavily bias - "a country of immortals with infinite per-capita GDP would get a score of .666 (lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and never went to school" ..."Scandinavia comes out on top according to the HDI because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your country is."

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

If someone is taxed a higher rate for having more money, it's definitely a penalty. I shouldn't have to support those who cant support themselves just because I can. that's ridiculous.

This whole line of thinking is just depressing as hell to me. I don't understand why people don't want to help others. You shouldn't have to, you should want to. Your standard of living is not going to change, theirs may.

There are so many issues in our society and in my mind it all comes back to education. Nothing is ever going to improve if we at least don't have decent educational opportunities for everyone. People can't help themselves because they don't know better and have never been educated to know better. That is our failing as a country. That is our fault. People are not born with that knowledge and until we end the cycle, it is never going to change.

The free lunch program is a handout, right? Like I said, do we let those kids starve to death or do we help them because we can?

This country offers so much to so many and so little to others. It is just sad that people want everything but don't want to help people who are not as fortunate.

Edit: I think there should be requirements to unemployment and welfare, I don't think it should just be given out to anyone and there are obviously many issues with how money is handled and everything. My problem is just with the line of thinking.

inlet13

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

If someone is taxed a higher rate for having more money, it's definitely a penalty. I shouldn't have to support those who cant support themselves just because I can. that's ridiculous.

This whole line of thinking is just depressing as hell to me. I don't understand why people don't want to help others. You shouldn't have to, you should want to. Your standard of living is not going to change, theirs may.

There are so many issues in our society and in my mind it all comes back to education. Nothing is ever going to improve if we at least don't have decent educational opportunities for everyone. People can't help themselves because they don't know better and have never been educated to know better. That is our failing as a country. That is our fault. People are not born with that knowledge and until we end the cycle, it is never going to change.

The free lunch program is a handout, right? Like I said, do we let those kids starve to death or do we help them because we can?

This country offers so much to so many and so little to others. It is just sad that people want everything but don't want to help people who are not as fortunate.

Tossing money to the government to solve problems rarely solves anything. In fact, many times it creates additional problems.

polaris_x

The Fixer wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with your premise but there is always risk involved with investments.

If someone is taxed a higher rate for having more money, it's definitely a penalty. I shouldn't have to support those who cant support themselves just because I can. that's ridiculous.

I don't think we are going to agree on this one. Hopefully the King and DS will get after each other so I can get back to spectating.

it boils down to whether you believe that if everyone is better off then you are better off ... if you don't - then for sure, your stance makes sense to you ...