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

Raise income taxes on the wealthy and the wealthy will leave and make their income elsewhere leaving you nothing to tax.

raise import tariffs on those country's that don't pay an American living wage. That will even the playing field which is free trade. Not unfair trade like it is now.

 

Chinese already tariff's US imports.
We buy more stuff from China than China buys from the US so equal tariff's will help us more than hurt us. And I don't mind if luxury items like big screen tv's, or microwaves cost a little more because of it.

 

I didn't attack your source, but it is YOUR source. Not mine. I fall somewhere between ideal and realistic. We're crunching numbers 10 years out, and I just don't think we have 10 years. I just don't have the energy to argue this.

 

Gary Johnson can't win therefore he's not a real choice. Choose him and you'll make it easier for Obama to win.

 

Not if their second choice is pbama. You're assuming Johnson steals from pbama more than he steals from Romney.

 

No I assume he steals more from Romney, being a right extremist, than he does Obama.

 

They can leave, but according to new laws we tax a significant portion of their wealth to discourage expatriation. Those laws can be extended, our government has the power to seize their assets by force if it wants to, especially since that money was made in America.

That aside tariffs start trade wars between governments, and the US cannot engage in a trade war with its biggest creditor.

We must limit their discretionary spending with higher tax rates, its the only way to properly discontinue outsourcing, and neither Ryan, Romney, or Gary support this.

 

Can we stop pretending that Paul Ryan is any different than any big government neoconservative? Look at his record for Gods sake.

 

Obama had his chance with his Congress passing Obamacare instead of the taxes they now want to balance the budget.

Simple says in response to that logic, since you cannot raise taxes in a recession, therefore, lower taxes, consequently the Bush tax cuts never hit the "sweet spot."

Maybe the Bush tax cuts only gave us deficits because they did not go far enough, they were like lukewarm, too lukewarm with all the added spending. And maybe any gains were just fueled by too much bubble of irresponsible lending, speculating, and building of a housing bubble.

Certainly if Obama could not do what needed doing with enough Congress to get Obamacare, maybe Romney/Ryan can do it, if they get enough Congress, with lower taxes and cuts.

Either way whether you feel we need more or less of something, the real question is, is four more years of Obama (a second chance) or four years of a change to Romney/Ryan too risky?

Would Romney/Ryan give us another bubble that is built on irresponsiblity, or would Obama's second chance, be the final nail in the coffin?

I would rather give new a shot than old a second chance.

******

Let's be realistic, Gary Johnson steals more from Romney than from Obama.

And Romney/Ryan need to be realistic, if they want to be elected it better be about Jobs and Deficits and not entitlements; most entitlement problems evaporate as an issue in the next four years with enough jobs to fuel revenue. Social Security and Medicare do not need to be the issues right now or for four years; we should be able to see if any tax cuts and other cuts are working. If whining about entitlements other than Obamacare, whether it is Gary Johnson or anyone, they are not offering anything but a trickle down that is NOT expecting jobs or revenue.

Crap Gary Johnson and Ron Pod out of your ass, flush the toilet, and get real.

If you got a decent job you do not need food stamps, welfare, or anything of the sort, and you pay down the debt if you cut stuff that is newer than when we had a better economy that was not built on a bubble, so STOP THE BULL CRAP!

Do not give Obama a second chance to get it wrong again.

 

So what was this:

And worse, the dispersion cast was inaccurate. Oh well, I was fine with disagreement just never got around to what the source of the disagreement was other than where my information came from.

I try to lean towards the latter, not really a head in the clouds sort of dude.

Thirty years out. The TL;DR is entitlements are ~20% of GDP, the Ryan plan in order to work needs them to be below 4.

As soon as someone can tell me how the hell that's going to happen, I'll stop calling it unrealistic.

 

We buy more from China than they buy from us. They would therefore automatically lose any trade war. Raise tariffs on imports from China. Who cares if they raise imports on stuff from America, they don't import all that much from us.

 

Anything American companies sell to China they have made there. Anything American companies sell to Americans they have made in China. Ergo: We don't have a trade deficit with China, but with our own corporations. What we export to China is agriculture, and agriculture is the only thing still protected, as the rich involved with ag lose money if it weren't. The labor used in ag is insourced foreign labor(Mexicans), and they can't outsource their land. "Free trade" is nothing more than a glaring example of how legislation is nothing more than a commodity in America. Our government is a joke.

 

You mean you agree with the Austrian school? I don't understand. If you think my pointing out that Krugman is not Austrian is attacking him, then you are Austrian? I am confused. Seems like Krugman is the antithesis of Austrian.

Will you vote?

Let's just survive the next few years first.

 

Of course a source can be provided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-by-how-much/2012/03/20/gIQAL43vPS_blog.html

This is a comparison to Obama's 2013 budget proposal which was projected to generate about $9.5 trillion in debt over the next ten years. If we deduct the lost $2 trillion in lost tax revenues from the $5.3 trillion in reductions in expendatures that results in a net reduction in debt accumulation of $3.3 trillion that we can then subtract from the $9.5 trillion in debt under Obama's proposed budget. The result is that Paul Ryan's budget would add over $6 trillion of additional debt over the next ten years.

As I noted under the Paul Ryan budget, based upon his assumptions, the US wouldn't have a balance budget until 2040 and by they we'd basically double the national debt to about $30 trillion. My source is a NY Times summary based upon the CBO projections.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/11/us/politics/0812-ryan.html

Remember, this is not an argument for Obama but merely demonstrates that Romney/Ryan are fundamentally the same as Obama/Biden when it comes to the US budget and the economy. Both are disasterous to America.

As I noted the projections for Ryan's budget are based upon assumptions made by Ryan that are "mythical" or unrealistic. For example, Ryan assumes that GDP growth will return to pre-recession levels but that won't happen according to the CBO's 2009 projections. At that time the CBO projected that the increase in the national debt to only $12 trillion would reduce GDP growth by 1% from 3,5% to 2.5%. While I can only speculate I would tend to believe that increasing the national debt to $21+ trillion will further reduce GDP growth to less than 2% so the "projected" revenues under Ryan's plan aren't going to materialize. As usual in all "budget" projections it assumes the most "positive" outcomes when history has proven that they never materialize. Additionally Ryan assumed the $700 billion savings to Medicare under the ACA (which I think were always mythical) and then states his projections are based upon the complete repeal of the ACA which whips out these (mythical) savings.

Yes, I can argue princples, the law, the US Constitution and the truth in support of Gary Johnson over both Obama and Romney.

Johnson doesn't promise to balance the budget in 27 years, Johnson promises to balance the budget his first year in office.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/22/if-elected-gary-johnson-promises-a-balanced-budget-by-2013/

Johnson promises to promote the elimination of embedded taxation which adds between 10% and 25% to the cost of US goods and services which would restore the international dominance of US manufacturing in the global economy creating tens of millions of new high-paying manufacturing jobs while Romney and Obama fight over mythical job creation.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes

 

I thought it'd be clear it was the "witches forest' I was referring to.

I appreciate the Austrian school for what it offers but it's still completely besides the point. it was in Krugman's blog, but wasn't his quote. The quote was from a right leaning writer from Slate, not that his political affiliations are relevant. The critique remains the same, and appears to be the same one that Shiva is pointing out as well, the plan is completely unrealistic, I like the intentions behind it, but his voting record doesn't match his rhetoric and this "plan", in my opinion, is designed to drive media attention and pander to voters who think they're serious about the economy.

Only because I enjoy the activity and I get a day off work. I go in knowing that my decision will have virtually zero impact on the outcome.

C'mon chicken little. The sky isn't falling, America isn't dying and we have future generations to consider. You act as if electing either of these two duets is going to change anything.

 

As I understand it, Republicans like Ryan want to increase the deficit through tax cuts, Democrats increase the deficit through spending.

What Gary Johnson has proposed, is raising taxes and decreasing spending.

That is contradictory to both parties, albeit rational to deficit reduction, but not practical when facing an election. Those who are wealthy want tax cuts, and those who are poor want more welfare spending.

 

Are you trying to read between the lines or something? You appear to be responding to things I have not said. The yellow brick road goes through the witch's forest.

I'm sorry. I have no use for Krugman. IMO, reading his blog would be a waste of time. I'm not saying you can't use it as a source. I am saying it is meaningless to me. The blog shiva used is the same kind of thing. This is the kind of thinking that believes raises taxes raises revenue and vice versa. I don't argue with blogs like this.

A day off work? Srsly?

Then why are we discussing this?

 

Witch makes the comment even more odd. The yellow brick road was the in reference to the idealistic path we'd have to follow for the Ryan plan to work.

Nobel prize winner and one of the most cited persons in his field. To dismiss him outright would not be smart.

Still doesn't matter. He didn't say it, I did and corroborated it with the opinions of two others and you're still talking about the sources and not the content.

A paid day off too =) I also said I enjoyed the activity first, if it wasn't for that I'd be in the office.

Because you're still avoiding the talking about the plan being unrealistic and instead opting to discuss my sources and why I vote.

 

Then why did you call it your yellow brick road?

Please don't imply that I am stupid. The nobel prize has long ceased to impress me.

Because I did not read the blog. Try to understand. I have already given you my source. You want me to accept your source when I have the opinion that it is full of crap. Geez.

No. YOU are discussing your sources. I have stated unequivocally that I do not trust your source and I said why. Stomp your foot all you like.
As I said, "unrealistic" is a poor choice of words if you are advocating voting for someone other than Romney or Pbama.

 

It's all about context, it followed the quote from the preface of the CBO report.

"My" being Ryan.

No implication, just the hopes that you'll address the critique: How is entitlement spending going to plummet from ~20% to 4%? No need for a quote, in your own words how on earth is that possible given the constraints of our aging population?

Shame really, it wasn't the only source I offered and I at least took the time to read your source, it just didn't address my argument.

Nonsense and dishonesty... My point from get start has been clear, his plan is unrealistic for the the reasons I've echoed once again in this thread, a point you're still trying desperately to avoid addressing. I'll try again though;

"How is entitlement spending going to make going to make an ahistorical change from it's current to trend to suddenly plumment 16 percentage points, over a 150% change."

I see no way to characterize that other than unrealistic.

A red herring that'd only be applicable if I thought there was a chance of winning, which I've repeatedly made clear I do not. It's just a blatantly obvious dodge of the now oft repeated criticism.

 

They lead to a growing economy which leads to more employment.

Because of spending and CBO does a lousy job of predicting the future government finances because they use static modeling.

Yes thanks to the Democrat controlled fiscal policy of the last 6 years.

About $3 Trillion over 10 years, far less than the Obama budgets had in them but again, no once can predict that far out and CBO uses static modeling.

Not if we have the right people running the show and he is one of the right people, it gets us on the right path and no one else does.

 

Please elaborate, how so?

And we can do that by cutting entitlement spending and growing GDP.

The military is not entitlement spending, they are two entirely different matters.

 

Krugman that is, well Obama has a Nobel prize too, so did Arafat. He's one of the most routinely discredited. To dismiss would be outright smart.

 

In different fields. Getting a Peace Prize vs. the Prize for economics is very different.

You're sill just engaging in the same childish tactic of attacking the source instead of the critique. Do you need me to repeat it for you or are you capable of reading it from the post you decided to quote?

Have, repeatedly, read through the thread yourself, I'm tired of having to hand hold people through it.

And how on Earth is that going to occur? Platitudes, nothing more.

Non-discretionary spending is the better term and the one I should have used.

 

It wasn't meant to. It was meant to counter shiva's unsourced post. For some reason, you replied to my request for a link from him.

I went to reply to the rest of your post. Then, I realized that I already did.