GOP Nominee 2012 - Pt. 5

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
Ryan is known best for his budget, which is insane. He is a tea party pick. Hopefully whatever moderate Republicans are left will be scared into voting for the President and Vice-President.
 
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?

Like I said, his budget is insane.
 
it does seem like they want to lose Florida. :shrug:

i think they've all seen Romney dropping in the polls and Obama gaining -- a Fox News poll had O up by 9 this week -- and that this is intended to be a bit of a "game change" pick as well as something to get the base fired up.

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."
 
Bill Kristol wanted Ryan.

and Bill Kristol has been shown to have been wrong about everything.

everything.

perhaps Mitt is the sacrifice fly to center field to set Ryan up for 2016?
 
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."

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.
 
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.

His entire plan to cut the deficit if to have the middle and lower classes pay for it.
 
30t1jk7.jpg
 
Paul Ryan has no plan to cut the deficit.

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 love how trying to cut the deficit is "appealing to the dark side".

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.

Taxes are too high and should be cut.
Care to elaborate on this? How high are they now? Why are they too high and to what level should they be cut?

The only thing I disagree with is increasing military spending.
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.)
 
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.)

Ryan wants to increase military spending by about $700 billion from what I read.
 
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.


we probably need to let the dust settle a bit, come back in a week - 10 days and see where the polls are at.

this still is only about 3 to 5 states at most, with the electoral college that is how we get our presidents.
I think many of the Romney voters were lukewarm for Romney, but more voting against Obama. I do believe he can fire up the base and give them something to vote for.
Ryan not only is against Obama care, he has spoken out against Romney Care and and the growing Government entitlements of Medicare and Medicaid.
 
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.

As Deep says, it's far too early to consider impact of Romney's VP choice on the polling, but personally I think anyone who thinks Obama has assumed a 9% lead is fooling themselves.

Looking forward to seeing Ryan debate Biden, I reckon he'll kick his ass.
 
His entire plan to cut the deficit if to have the middle and lower classes pay for it.

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.
 
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.

Rasmussen is not the most accurate.

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.

Low income earners do not pay no income taxes whatsoever, although it is arguable that low income earners probably receive more directly quantifiable benefits from the government than they give to the government.
 
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.

He wants to add massive cuts for the rich to add onto Bush's cuts, which are still inexplicably in place. He wants to finance this, and a large increase in military spending, with cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare and "tax loophole closing." The math has never added up, though. One assessment said that the generic loophole closing he cited (never with any specifics) would need to account for $4.6 TRILLION just to achieve the budget neutrality he claims to be all about it.

He is full of shit in a political climate already built upon bullshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom