Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
It is Ryan.
Mitt telling the GOP: "You say 'jump,' I say, 'how high?'"
Mitt telling the GOP: "You say 'jump,' I say, 'how high?'"
I have one question: is he one of those fun seeking GOP members who thinks the deficit is the number one issue?
EDIT: The more I read up on him, the more I think he might be my nightmare candidate. He wants to cut health care for the poor and elderly, increase tax cuts on the rich, and increase defense spending, all while making up bullshit lies about everything (accounting for $4.6 trillion in decreased revenue purely by closing tax loopholes???).
What the fuck, Mitt?
it's a better pick than Palin, at least because Ryan's appeal to the dark side of America is economic, as opposed to Palin, who's appeal was more, erm, "cultural."
financeguy said:I love how trying to cut the deficit is "appealing to the dark side". Taxes are too high and should be cut. The only thing I disagree with is increasing military spending.
I love how trying to cut the deficit is "appealing to the dark side". Taxes are too high and should be cut. The only thing I disagree with is increasing military spending.
Paul Ryan has no plan to cut the deficit.
I love how trying to cut the deficit is "appealing to the dark side".
Care to elaborate on this? How high are they now? Why are they too high and to what level should they be cut?Taxes are too high and should be cut.
With whom are you disagreeing? With Romney or with Ryan?The only thing I disagree with is increasing military spending.
Popmartijn said:I disagree here. He has a plan. Whether it's a good plan is another topic.
Romney has been accused of not offering any specifics how he wants to achieve certain goals he mentions. Well, with Paul Ryan he has picked a VP candidate who has stated some very specific suggestions what he wants to do with the budget.
I can't speak for Irvine regarding what exactly is "appealing to the dark side", but I don't think it's just about trying to cut the deficit. That isn't appealing to the dark side, but a good intention. It is about how Ryan wants to cut the deficit.
Instead of going for sound and reasonable measures he basically wants to dismantle the whole welfare state, leaving the old, the sick and the poor to their own without any safety net or a chance to get out of a vicious circly.
Care to elaborate on this? How high are they now? Why are they too high and to what level should they be cut?
With whom are you disagreeing? With Romney or with Ryan?
From what I understand Ryan's plan call for severe cuts in military spending, probably bringing it to the lowest level ever. (Apparently, his budget plan will bring all federal spending outside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050. That means defense, infrastructure, education, food safety, basic research, food stamps, etc. Until now Congress has never permitted defense spending to fall below 3 percent of GDP, and Romney has pledged that he’ll never let defense spending fall beneath 4 percent of GDP.)
But wouldn't the base vote for him no matter what? Will this pick do anything to convince moderate voters that Romney's the guy?
edit: But the base does vote more than the moderates, maybe.
His entire plan to cut the deficit if to have the middle and lower classes pay for it.
From what I understand, Rasmussen polls have been the most accurate in recent presidential elections and they have Team Obama/Biden at a narrow 2% lead.
they're not.
From what I understand, Rasmussen polls have been the most accurate in recent presidential elections and they have Team Obama/Biden at a narrow 2% lead.
If that's really and truly the case, then I totally disagree with him, but it's not acceptable that low income earners pay no income taxes whatever. That is an issue that needs be addressed. It isn't "targetting the poor" to simply ask that low income earners make some level of contribution, it's actually just basic fairness. Not taxing low income earners encourages the wealthy to evade tax (which I totally condemn, but we all know it happens, human nature being what it is).
IMO, ideally, taxes should be low but equitable. Everyone that earns an income, whether through salary, dividends, profits or rent, should have to make some level of contribution.
Glad you recovered your energy!
Whose are, may I ask?
financeguy said:If that's really and truly the case, then I totally disagree with him, but it's not acceptable that low income earners pay no income taxes whatever. That is an issue that needs be addressed. It isn't "targetting the poor" to simply ask that low income earners make some level of contribution, it's actually just basic fairness. Not taxing low income earners encourages the wealthy to evade tax (which I totally condemn, but we all know it happens, human nature being what it is).
IMO, ideally, taxes should be low but equitable. Everyone that earns an income, whether through salary, dividends, profits or rent, should have to make some level of contribution.
Looking forward to seeing Ryan debate Biden, I reckon he'll kick his ass.
If that's really and truly the case, then I totally disagree with him,