Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

Jason P

Paul Ryan Receives The Worst Initial Reaction To A VP Nomination Since Dan Quayle

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-vp-poll-vice-president-dan-quayle-romney-gallup-2012-8

So he has that going for him ... :think:

Johnny Abruzzo

pandora wrote:

As you know Soc Security covers people of all ages not just our elderly.
I wonder what the stats are on that?

Maybe you could help her...

I know a lot about SS. The disability program has annoying idiosyncrasies; we both seem to know people getting it who really don't deserve it. But in general SS disability is known to have relatively strict criteria. Some pension plans even have provisions giving employees higher benefits if they are considered disabled under the employer plan but NOT under Social Security. That said, I would be interested in hearing suggestions for reforming it.

Obviously I would try to help her if this came to pass (although even Ryan exempts those currently over 55 from his voucher program).

Johnny Abruzzo

Jason P wrote:

Paul Ryan Receives The Worst Initial Reaction To A VP Nomination Since Dan Quayle

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-vp-poll-vice-president-dan-quayle-romney-gallup-2012-8

So he has that going for him ... :think:

Edwards got 64%. Cheney got 55%. Maybe we shouldn't trust our first instincts too much.

Still that is not a good sign for Willard.

Jeanwah

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The word handouts is a joke. There are millions of kids in this country who don't have a chance at a normal life, not a fucking chance. No shot at a normal education, no shot at a normal job, no shot at anything that resembles a normal life. How people don't think we should do anything we can to support these kids and try to give them at least somewhat of a chance, boggles my mind. What's an extra $10 bucks out of my paycheck. One less beer at a concert or sporting event, if that.

My family’s foundation (that I am a board member of) gives money to in need libraries. Libraries that support kids in terrible situations and teach them the importance of reading. Applications in the past year have increased 400% and the situations in these communities is depressing. 95% on the free lunch programs (that’s a handout, right? might as well take that away make these little dark kids starve to death, then there will be less handouts), well over 85% of parents don't speak english or have an high school diploma. These kids don't have a chance.

How anyone can not think that the inequality in this country is a sick thing and not want to fix it, whether it means giving something up or not, absolutely boggles my mind and I honestly think that anyone that can look at the situation in our inner cities and think these kids don't deserve some help is a bigot.

Wealthy white people not wanting to help this country depresses me. We live in the greatest country in the world according to many, yet there are millions of kids who won't eat lunch today while people who are bitching about taxes have filet and scotch at lunch.

Great post. :thumbup:

peacefrompaul

Indifference wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Or just let people plan their own retirement...

But what happens to them when they don't?

Hmm I guess they'ed have to keep working as many seniors are doing right now.

Teach 'em young how to manage money and live within means. Save for retirement.

Jason P

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Paul Ryan Receives The Worst Initial Reaction To A VP Nomination Since Dan Quayle

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-vp-poll-vice-president-dan-quayle-romney-gallup-2012-8

So he has that going for him ... :think:

Edwards got 64%. Cheney got 55%. Maybe we shouldn't trust our first instincts too much.

Still that is not a good sign for Willard.

Team Romney just needs to be sure the avoid any questions asking him to spell.

Jason P

beta F5

RW81233

peacefrompaul wrote:

Indifference wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Or just let people plan their own retirement...

But what happens to them when they don't?

Hmm I guess they'ed have to keep working as many seniors are doing right now.

Teach 'em young how to manage money and live within means. Save for retirement.

how does capitalism work if people spend within their means?

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

it kinda was that simple...and this is what Paul Ryan will fight for just to stay on track.
http://www.econ.tcu.edu/quinn/crisis/De ... Crisis.pdf
Recent Economic Activity
A combination of economic factors over the early to mid-2000s led to Iceland’s
current economic and banking distress. In particular, access to easy credit, a boom in
domestic construction that fueled rapid economic growth, and a broad deregulation of
Iceland’s financial sector spurred the banks to expand rapidly abroad and eventually
played a role in the eventual financial collapse. Iceland benefitted from favorable global
financial conditions that reduced the cost of credit and a sweeping liberalization of its
domestic financial sector that spurred rapid growth and encouraged Iceland’s banks to
spread quickly throughout Europe.
In 2004, Iceland’s commercial banks increased their activity in the country’s
mortgage market by competing directly with the state-run Housing Financing Fund (HFF),
which had been the major provider of mortgage loans. In contrast to the Housing
Financing Fund, the commercial banks began offering loans with lower interest rates,
longer maturities, and a higher loan to value ratio. Also, the banks did not require a real
estate purchase as a precondition for a loan, which made it possible for homeowners to
refinance existing mortgages and to access the equity in their homes for consumption or
investment purposes. These measures spurred an expansion in credit and caused real
estate prices to soar. In addition, the improving economic conditions led to an expansion
in consumer spending which resulted in rising inflation and a larger trade deficit. As a
further stimulus to the economy, the Icelandic government reduced both direct and
indirect taxes, which provided further impetus to consumer spending.

the central bank in Iceland was a joke.

By mid-decade 90 percent of Icelandic households had government loans

so if mortgage debt's were the problem...and the gov't had 90% of them...yep...it must have been all the free market's fault.

stupid deregulation forcing the gov't to give out those loans...

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/27/i ... anks-finds

why blame the free market and not crony capitalism...which is what it was?

norm

Mitt Romney didn't just pick a running mate. He decided to undergo a brand transplant.

By tapping Paul Ryan, the high-profile mastermind of the House GOP's economic agenda, Romney appeared to concede that weeks of punishing attacks by the Obama campaign had done serious damage to his own brand. Far from the image he'd hoped to project to general election voters – of a competent business whiz hungry to work his turnaround magic on the American economy – Romney's been tagged instead by Team Obama as a job-killing outsourcing pioneer and as a tax cheat with who knows what to hide.

The Ryan pick represents a bold effort by Team Romney to hit the reset button, to forge a new impression with the electorate by transforming the endlessly malleable Romney into the pitchman for the Ryan brand. It's a risky move, with five fatal flaws that could cost Romney the election:

1) Who's the Boss?

Romney is the most awkward GOP nominee since George H.W. Bush. Ideally, he ought to have picked a dutiful, competent running-mate who wouldn't risk upstaging him. But Romney – like McCain before him – felt he needed a game changer. So he went with Ryan, a man who electrifies the party base farthan he ever could. At the ceremony where he introduced Ryan, Romney looked less like he was introducing his new side kick, and more like he was passing the torch to the party's replacement nominee – an impression Romney gaffetastically reinforced by lauding Ryan as "the next president of the United States!"

2) All Right, Right Now!?

For all the talk of Etch-a-Sketching a more centrist Romney for the general election, the Ryan pick actually drags Romney farther to the right than he was willing to venture during the primary, when he refused to go the Full Ryan. In winning the nomination, Romney left significant daylight between his own, pragmatic brand of free-market conservatism and the heartless, New-Deal rollback championed his radical future runningmate and the radically unpopular GOP-run House. Over the weekend, that daylight vanished. The Ryan Budget has become Romney's de-facto platform – and possibly his electoral albatross.

3) Don't Tax Me, Bro

Romney has been twisting in the wind over his tax returns. But the Ryan pick doesn't change the subject, it just raises more difficult questions. Like: "Governor Romney, do you really think you deserve to pay nothing in taxes?"

The Ryan plan, unlike the proposals that Romney put forward in the primaries, would zero out taxes on capital gains and dividends, the vast bulk of Romney's earnings. Now, Harry Reid may have been full of shit when he gossiped about Romney not paying taxes for 10 years; but if the Ryan plan were to pass – and top Romney adviser Ed Gillespie insisted Sunday that "of course" it would be law by now had Romney been president – Mitt would pay nothing in taxes going forward.

Don't take my word for it: Check out this exchange between Newt Gingrich and Romney during a GOP debate in Tampa, where Mitt zinged Gingrich's tax plan for its treatment of investment income:

ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, is the tax on capital gains also 15 percent or is it zero?
GINGRICH: Zero.
ROMNEY: Well, under that – under that plan, I'd have paid no taxes in the last two years.

4) It's the Medicare, Stupid

Romney wanted this campaign to be a referendum on President Obama's handling of the economy. The Ryan pick makes this solidly a choice election – about Medicare. And that's not a showdown Romney is going to win if the Ryan plan gets a fair vetting.

Medicare recipients under the Ryan plan "would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program," according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's because Ryan privatizes medical insurance for the elderly, sending future seniors out into the individual market with a voucher that covers what the government now pays for each senior's Medicare.

Ryan hits the elderly two ways. First: The same money buys far less in the individual market than it does with government acting as the single payer. Right off the bat, seniors will be forced to pay more for the same coverage, with insurers reaping the windfall profit. Second: The voucher isn't pegged to healthcare inflation, which rages far above regular inflation. The voucher system would neatly cap the cost to Uncle Sam, but it would shift those spiraling costs onto seniors living on fixed incomes.

Ryan's cost shifting starts out painful – doubling the out-of-pocket costs for a 65-year-old in 2022 – but becomes absurdly draconian in the out years. In 2050, according to an analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an 85-year-old would have to spend more than $50,000 over and above their voucher to afford a policy as decent as present-day Medicare.

5) Even Reagan Republicans Call Ryan's Approach "Class Warfare"

Privatizing Medicare gets all of the attention, but it's far from the craziest thing in the Ryan budget. Just take a look at Ryan's spending cuts. Federal discretionary spending – excluding Social Security and health-care entitlements, but including defense – now stands at 12 percent of GDP. The Ryan plan would cut this spending in half by 2022 and nearly in half again by 2050, until it hits just 3.5 percent.

The CBO notes of the Ryan’s budget that "no proposals were specified that would generate that path." That’s because the Ryan budget is a fantasy document. Discretionary federal spending has exceeded 8 percent of GDP in every year since World War II. To reach the Ryan target, Romney – who has called for a massive increase in defense spending – would have to savage programs like college loans, food stamps, and low-income housing to pay for a new round of tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Take it from David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's former budget director, whom I interviewed last year: "Ryan takes out the ax and goes after the very small part of the budget that’s either discretionary spending or means-tested programs for the poor – which is the last thing you ought to cut, not the first thing," Stockman said. "That just doesn’t make any sense. It can’t work. And it simply exacerbates class warfare within the fiscal debate."

The trouble with rebranding Romney as Ryan isn't that it's a bold step for the campaign. It's that it's out of line with the American electorate.

But at least the Koch brothers appear happy with the choice. Their dark-money group, Americans For Prosperity, announced a $27 million ad buy on Ryan's signature issue, the debt, four days before Romney announced his running mate to the general public.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z23SIJO7V2

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

how does capitalism work if people spend within their means?

fine

Jason P

I think the whole Medicare debate goes out the window now that I've learned Obama has implemented $700B in Medicare cuts over the next ten years.

cincybearcat

Jason P wrote:

I think the whole Medicare debate goes out the window now that I've learned Obama has implemented $700B in Medicare cuts over the next ten years.

To borrow from mikepeg44...

That dude hates old people and autistic kids.

norm

Jason P wrote:

I think the whole Medicare debate goes out the window now that I've learned Obama has implemented $700B in Medicare cuts over the next ten years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-2 ... niors.html

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

I think the whole Medicare debate goes out the window now that I've learned Obama has implemented $700B in Medicare cuts over the next ten years.

i believe these so called cuts are freezes to growth programs in the future ... not out of the current budget ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I think the whole Medicare debate goes out the window now that I've learned Obama has implemented $700B in Medicare cuts over the next ten years.

i believe these so called cuts are freezes to growth programs in the future ... not out of the current budget ...

yeah, I thought it was a shifting of some dollars, but not actual program or benefit cuts.

but that is what all "cuts" are in government. they are promises to not increase spending quite so much in the future.

Johnny Abruzzo

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I think the whole Medicare debate goes out the window now that I've learned Obama has implemented $700B in Medicare cuts over the next ten years.

i believe these so called cuts are freezes to growth programs in the future ... not out of the current budget ...

Medicare is, indeed, headed for financial ruin (unlike SS). Something has to be done about it. But turning it into a voucher program is not a humane way to do it.

The Obamacare Medicare cuts are intended to make the program more efficient. We'll see if it works out.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

yeah, I thought it was a shifting of some dollars, but not actual program or benefit cuts.

but that is what all "cuts" are in government. they are promises to not increase spending quite so much in the future.

so ryan's cuts are all related to future spending and that actual dollars will still stay the same?

Johnny Abruzzo

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

yeah, I thought it was a shifting of some dollars, but not actual program or benefit cuts.

but that is what all "cuts" are in government. they are promises to not increase spending quite so much in the future.

so ryan's cuts are all related to future spending and that actual dollars will still stay the same?

Ryan doesn't change anything for those who are over 55 (within 10 years of Medicare eligibility). No cuts until ten years from now.

Jason P

Whether you agree with Ryan's budget plan or not ... at least he actually put together a budget plan. How many of our 533 elected officials can make such a claim?

The GOP can't attack Obama's specific budget plan because it doesn't exist. Savvy move by Obama.