Romney Picks Paul Ryan as Vice President

Thoughts?

well I think it was a huge blunder, he just picked the guy who proposed we end medicare while giving the richest a tax break, while raising taxes on the lowest (ilke people making under 10,000).

If you are in your 20's this is important, this guy could fuck up our retirement if elected. He already has the plan.

Doesnt matter...democrats would call whoever he picked a big blunder.

Birdofthad wrote:

well I think it was a huge blunder, he just picked the guy who proposed we end medicare while giving the richest a tax break, while raising taxes on the lowest (ilke people making under 10,000).

If you are in your 20's this is important, this guy could fuck up our retirement if elected. He already has the plan.

if your in your 20s you could plan your own retirement instead of being forced into a system which does not give you back what you put in it.

working people put in to SS from 16-65 then draw from 65-death thats 20 yrs of drawing for around 45 years of putting into it If you put $100 a month into a mutual fund you would be rich upon retiring.

Cu Bu wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

well I think it was a huge blunder, he just picked the guy who proposed we end medicare while giving the richest a tax break, while raising taxes on the lowest (ilke people making under 10,000).

If you are in your 20's this is important, this guy could fuck up our retirement if elected. He already has the plan.

if your in your 20s you could plan your own retirement instead of being forced into a system which does not give you back what you put in it.

working people put in to SS from 16-65 then draw from 65-death thats 20 yrs of drawing for around 45 years of putting into it If you put $100 a month into a mutual fund you would be rich upon retiring.

Cubua tons of people worked hard and rely on medicare and social security, you need to wake up and realize that. People outlive their money now a days, and have been for a while in this country, those programs help keep these people living. If you want to deny future generations that system, while justifying giving the richest people in the country a 15% tax break, then please, Im all ears.

Sorry but Ryans plan is a joke. Especially considering when Ryans father died he cashed in on his dads Medicare.

Birdofthad wrote:

well I think it was a huge blunder, he just picked the guy who proposed we end medicare while giving the richest a tax break, while raising taxes on the lowest (ilke people making under 10,000).

If you are in your 20's this is important, this guy could fuck up our retirement if elected. He already has the plan.

Here's a thought. Work hard and take care of yourself so you don't ave to rely on someone else's money.

This was a home run pick to Mittens. The country would be in the best possible shape if Mittens won and died. Sounds harsh but I;m making the point that Ryan would make a better prez than Obama, Mittens, and Biden hands down.

KingsOwn19 wrote:

Doesnt matter...democrats would call whoever he picked a big blunder.

+1

Birdofthad wrote:

Cu Bu wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

well I think it was a huge blunder, he just picked the guy who proposed we end medicare while giving the richest a tax break, while raising taxes on the lowest (ilke people making under 10,000).

If you are in your 20's this is important, this guy could fuck up our retirement if elected. He already has the plan.

if your in your 20s you could plan your own retirement instead of being forced into a system which does not give you back what you put in it.

working people put in to SS from 16-65 then draw from 65-death thats 20 yrs of drawing for around 45 years of putting into it If you put $100 a month into a mutual fund you would be rich upon retiring.

Cubua tons of people worked hard and rely on medicare and social security, you need to wake up and realize that. People outlive their money now a days, and have been for a while in this country, those programs help keep these people living. If you want to deny future generations that system, while justifying giving the richest people in the country a 15% tax break, then please, Im all ears.

Sorry but Ryans plan is a joke. Especially considering when Ryans father died he cashed in on his dads Medicare.

also why wouldnt Ryan cash his dads medicare?? his dad paid right??

rely- thats what I am sick and tired of. Why cant people forge their own path and retire on the investment plan they set forth??

KingsOwn19 wrote:

Doesnt matter...democrats would call whoever he picked a big blunder.

not at all, Pawhlenty would have been a really good choice.

hahah then Cubua why does he want to end everyone else's medicare and give a tax cut to the richest?

hahaha, you guys are really failing on this argument.

Sorry, Paul Ryans plan want to cut the safety net out for the poorest people in the country and for the elders while giving the richest a 20% tax break. its asinine at best a morally reprehensible at worst. It also won't even work as he has admitted it MAY help balance the budget by 2030

The Catholic Church has even come out against it (and Ryans a catholic)

so you are for raising taxes on 95% of americans??

Interesting.

Birdofthad wrote:

hahah then Cubua why does he want to end everyone else's medicare and give a tax cut to the richest?

hahaha, you guys are really failing on this argument.

Sorry, Paul Ryans plan want to cut the safety net out for the poorest people in the country and for the elders while giving the richest a 20% tax break. its asinine at best a morally reprehensible at worst. It also won't even work as he has admitted it MAY help balance the budget by 2030

The Catholic Church has even come out against it (and Ryans a catholic)

his budget plan is his and can be disputed but get the facts right no one over 55 would be affected under his plan. Also people would have the choice to get a small lump some or continue to pay in as is. The poorest people are unemployed and already a ward of the state, so why would this plan change anything for them? they would continue to get their monthly stipend while presidents take lavish vacations in the sun on taxpayer money.

You know not everyone on unemployment is lazy or taking advantage. A large sector of the former American workforce was laid off in favor of pursuing higher profit margins possible through foreign labor. Hard working people were told their skill or trade will be more profitable for the company when preformed by Asians for a fraction of the cost.

The Romney-Ryan economic plan will likely:
Cut income and corporate taxes
Eliminate at least some tax deductions (neither candidate has mentioned specific ones)
Preserve defense spending
Cut Medicare spending
Trim other government spending
Gradually shrink the budget deficit but not balance the budget for a least a decade


and your joking yourself or flat out lying if you don't think this effects our generation.

hat's because Ryan's long-term plan to move Medicare from a defined-benefit fee-for-service system (where government is your insurance) to a defined-contribution system (where government writes you a check to help you pay somebody else for insurance) is truly a long-term plan. It wouldn't begin to take effect until the early 2020s. The typical family might prepare for a more modest Medicare by putting more money away. They might leave more of their salaries in a savings account. They might invest in the stock market, with the understanding that any gains wouldn't be taxed. They might use their modest income gains to buy a house, with the intention to sell at a tax-free gain later.

Ryan's slashes deeply, but he spares defense and Social Security, which, together, account for 40% of the budget. That means his $4 trillion in cuts come mostly out of health care spending, income security spending, and basic government duties. By 2023, Ryan would spend 16 percent less than Obama on income security programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps. He would spend a quarter less on transportation, and 13 percent less per veteran, according to Brad Plumer. Medicaid spending would be shaved by about a third, and the Urban Institute calculated that a similar proposal would force the states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021


all this while......giving millionaires a tax break. Ya that seems fair.

Remember when Romney said he's "not concerned about the very poor" because there's a safety net for them? Well, there wouldn't be the same safety net after Ryan's plan took root.

Those making $1 million or more would enjoy an average tax cut of $265,000 and see their after-tax income increase by 12.5 percent," TPC found. "By contrast, half of those making between $20,000 and $30,000 would get no tax cut at all."

Birdofthad wrote:

The Romney-Ryan economic plan will likely: likely?
Cut income and corporate taxes- maybe prompting companies to stay in america?
Eliminate at least some tax deductions (neither candidate has mentioned specific ones)-not enough data
Preserve defense spending- preserve it to its already cut levels or what are you saying? Alot of military personnel are looking for other careers because of military cuts this past 4 yrs.
Cut Medicare spending- medicare is running in a negative balance which is growing year over year
Trim other government spending-you don't want to lower our deficit?
Gradually shrink the budget deficit but not balance the budget for a least a decade- I got news for you birdman the deficit is set to be 20 trillion before you hit 30. How could you really state this when the guy your backing raised the deficit higher than Chris tucker watching a cheech and chong movie

come on man bring something to the table

Birdofthad wrote:

hat's because Ryan's long-term plan to move Medicare from a defined-benefit fee-for-service system (where government is your insurance) to a defined-contribution system (where government writes you a check to help you pay somebody else for insurance) is truly a long-term plan. It wouldn't begin to take effect until the early 2020s. The typical family might prepare for a more modest Medicare by putting more money away. They might leave more of their salaries in a savings account. They might invest in the stock market, with the understanding that any gains wouldn't be taxed. They might use their modest income gains to buy a house, with the intention to sell at a tax-free gain later.

Ryan's slashes deeply, but he spares defense and Social Security, which, together, account for 40% of the budget. That means his $4 trillion in cuts come mostly out of health care spending, income security spending, and basic government duties. By 2023, Ryan would spend 16 percent less than Obama on income security programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps. He would spend a quarter less on transportation, and 13 percent less per veteran, according to Brad Plumer. Medicaid spending would be shaved by about a third, and the Urban Institute calculated that a similar proposal would force the states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021


all this while......giving millionaires a tax break. Ya that seems fair.

Remember when Romney said he's "not concerned about the very poor" because there's a safety net for them? Well, there wouldn't be the same safety net after Ryan's plan took root.

Those making $1 million or more would enjoy an average tax cut of $265,000 and see their after-tax income increase by 12.5 percent," TPC found. "By contrast, half of those making between $20,000 and $30,000 would get no tax cut at all."

So many cuts. It makes my heart smile.

Cu Bu wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

The Romney-Ryan economic plan will likely: likely?
Cut income and corporate taxes- maybe prompting companies to stay in america?
Eliminate at least some tax deductions (neither candidate has mentioned specific ones)-not enough data
Preserve defense spending- preserve it to its already cut levels or what are you saying? Alot of military personnel are looking for other careers because of military cuts this past 4 yrs.
Cut Medicare spending- medicare is running in a negative balance which is growing year over year
Trim other government spending-you don't want to lower our deficit?
Gradually shrink the budget deficit but not balance the budget for a least a decade- I got news for you birdman the deficit is set to be 20 trillion before you hit 30. How could you really state this when the guy your backing raised the deficit higher than Chris tucker watching a cheech and chong movie

come on man bring something to the table

lolwut? Bird thinks he's listing negatives.

GDPofDRC wrote:

You know not everyone on unemployment is lazy or taking advantage. A large sector of the former American workforce was laid off in favor of pursuing higher profit margins possible through foreign labor. Hard working people were told their skill or trade will be more profitable for the company when preformed by Asians for a fraction of the cost.

totally agree thats why giving corporations a tax break would help give americans a job

Cu Bu wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

You know not everyone on unemployment is lazy or taking advantage. A large sector of the former American workforce was laid off in favor of pursuing higher profit margins possible through foreign labor. Hard working people were told their skill or trade will be more profitable for the company when preformed by Asians for a fraction of the cost.

totally agree thats why giving corporations a tax break would help give americans a job

Its time for these people to either learn a new trade or start taking a job they deem below them. I know its different here in Houston where we weren't hit near as hard as everyone else, but I see opportunity and people hiring at all levels. There are jobs to be had. I just switched jobs and found tons and tons of options.

Well Reagans ex budget director said this today, "Paul Ryans budget is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices."

Even conservatives are bashing Paul Ryan’s budget.

David Stockman, a former budget director under President Ronald Reagan, derided the budget plan of Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick in an op-ed in The New York Times Tuesday.

“Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to 'job creators' (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse,” Stockman wrote in the op-ed, later adding: “Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/ex-reagan-budget-director_n_1776063.html

you two think cutting peoples medicare is a good thing so that millionaires get a tax break, Im sorry but I have nothing to discuss with you on this issue anymore

Bird, what was the last Republican candidate you agreed with/liked?

Birdofthad wrote:

Well Reagans ex budget director said this today, "Paul Ryans budget is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices."

Even conservatives are bashing Paul Ryan’s budget.

David Stockman, a former budget director under President Ronald Reagan, derided the budget plan of Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick in an op-ed in The New York Times Tuesday.

“Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to 'job creators' (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse,” Stockman wrote in the op-ed, later adding: “Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/ex-reagan-budget-director_n_1776063.html

you two think cutting peoples medicare is a good thing so that millionaires get a tax break, Im sorry but I have nothing to discuss with you on this issue anymore

Bird I don't think most republicans agree with Ryans plan but it was brought to the table and passed by the house.

I do want to cut medicare in a sizable way, its a drain on the economy point blank end of story. You can not refute that point.

Paul Ryan does P90X...........I am sold.

repped ali lol

BIrdman- Is medicare a failing program? meaning do we continue to have to borrow more money to keep providing it while continuously running in the negative(more going out than coming in)