Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Paul Ryan - Good for the Romney Ticket. Discuss.

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Paul Ryan - Good for the Romney Ticket. Discuss.

    Conventional wisdom is that the good ship Romney was going down, and the Ryan choice is a bold move that can right it. And, less politically, that it will clarify the election as between two sets of very different ideas about how to run this country (saving us from another 85 days of drivel).

    What do you guys think?


    We got our "6-PACK" - time to work on a CASE!

    HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!

  2. #2
    Hall of Famer Djfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,367
    If the media is OK with Biden, they have to worship Ryan.
    Steel City Mafia
    So Cal Boss (Ret)
    http://www.anewsong.com


    My son's first Kansas Turkey!

  3. #3
    Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Inside Your Head
    Posts
    10,368
    Romney is trying to attract the Tea Party types and Obama will get some more seniors as a result, so it may be a wash.

    I saw the Romney/Ryan announcement and realized how annoying politics are. Both sides are about trying to win the election on sound bytes that unfairly characterize the other side. I thought the announcement speech had a couple dishonest points made. And the Obama response had some lies in return.

    I wish Ryan were running for President. It still doesn't solve the problem that Romney's a douche.

    The Republican party has become nearly irrelevant. It's produced McCain and Romney as it's last 2 candidates. How boring is that?

    I kinda liked Ryan's budget plan a few years back. Cut everything - SocialSecurity, Medicare. Reduce taxes. Eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes.

    It doesn't go quite far enough for my liking. I'd like to see military spending cut by 80-90% and lets figure out how to get out of wars and policing the world.

    I still don't think it's fair to tax the rich. Even Ryan's plan is flawed. Why have an income tax that taxes everyone 10% up to $100k and the 25% over $100k.

    Why not just tax everyone a flat $10K? Poor people probably use more gov't services anyway, so they should pay more of the tax burden.

    Under Ryan's tax proposal, a guy that makes $50K would pay $5K in taxes while a guy that makes $1M would pay $235K. That's simply silly to think the millionaire should be taxed like that. Why should he be penalized like that. It doesn't seem fair to me.

    But at the end of the day, politicians will pander to the broke people because there's more of them. There's too many people dependent on gov't because they work for the gov't (Military, Govt Jobs, etc), Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's like gov't programs are legalized crack. And the whole gov't is a ponzi scheme.

    Give me a viable 3rd option for president please.

  4. #4
    Pro Bowler D Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,257
    Tax systems are just a mess no matter how you look at them.

    I understand the reasons for not taxing the poor...they can't afford to give up anymore of their money. And I'm all for that, as long as that money they are not giving up is earned. But giving people hand outs left and right and expecting nothing of them in return is just stupid. And common. Way too common.

    But why should the rich be taxed more? Because they can afford it? That's also stupid. You can't penalize people for doing something right that made them more successful than other people. If you start doing that, then you eliminate some of the country's drive to succeed. Add on to that the handouts you get for being lazy, and then you have the basis of all this country's problems.


    It pays to be a failure. You pay to be successful. The only thing separating people at that point is pride, and there sure isn't enough of that around anymore either.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by D Rock View Post
    Tax systems are just a mess no matter how you look at them.

    I understand the reasons for not taxing the poor...they can't afford to give up anymore of their money. And I'm all for that, as long as that money they are not giving up is earned. But giving people hand outs left and right and expecting nothing of them in return is just stupid. And common. Way too common.

    But why should the rich be taxed more?
    Because they can afford it? That's also stupid. You can't penalize people for doing something right that made them more successful than other people. If you start doing that, then you eliminate some of the country's drive to succeed. Add on to that the handouts you get for being lazy, and then you have the basis of all this country's problems.


    It pays to be a failure. You pay to be successful. The only thing separating people at that point is pride, and there sure isn't enough of that around anymore either.
    "Why should the rich be taxed more"? Well, there are many possibly right, possibly wrong ways to answer that. One is - if their tax rate had been unfairly LOWERED previously, then taxing them more to bring them up to "normal" makes sense.

    Another reason: Everybody needs to spend a certain amount on bread and milk, no matter how rich or poor they are. For a poor person, that can be a very large percentage of their income, unlike for a rich person. So taxing a poor person less is one way to account for that difference (I'm no scholar, but I'd guess it was this kind of thing that led to the graduated income tax rates years ago, here and (?) everywhere in the world).

    I'm sure there are other reasons, but to me the main is - are we our brother's keepers or aren't we? If we're not, then by all means, the powerful who have the ability to get the laws written to favor them tax-wise (did you guys read that under Paul Ryan's budget plan, Romney's tax rate on his $20+ million income would be 0.82%? ... not a typo, 0.82%) should do so without being hassled about it. But if we feel a responsibility to help those less fortunate, whether religious, morale, or just hedging our bets ("Hey, that could be me next year ...") then maybe taxing them less than the rich makes sense.

    My two cents ...


    We got our "6-PACK" - time to work on a CASE!

    HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!

  6. #6
    Pro Bowler D Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,257
    I'm not against giving breaks to the poor. I am against forcing the wealthy to pay for everyone just because they have extra money.

    There should be a flat rate tax. If you can afford to pay it, you do, and there are no breaks or loopholes by which you can pay less. If you can not afford to pay it, then you pay as much as you can and still live. The idea of tax brackets makes no sense to me. There should be a standard tax rate, and if the government can't function on that rate, then it needs to downsize.

  7. #7
    Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Inside Your Head
    Posts
    10,368
    Rich people should get to decide who they want to help with their money. They're probably better at that then the gov't.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by flippy View Post
    Rich people should get to decide who they want to help with their money. They're probably better at that then the gov't.
    Mr. Money: Boopsie, it's that time of year to pay those horrid taxes again, you know, that 0.82% minimum tax that President Romney is forcing us to pay because he has to. But at least the Flippy Amendment lets us choose who to give it to! Who do you think is deserving? Same people as last year?

    Mrs. Money: Yes. that sounds about right. But don't you think we should maybe give MM Jr. a little less this year, so he learns the real value of hard work? We could give the remainder to that nice man who is running for congress this year, he seems like he really likes us!



    We got our "6-PACK" - time to work on a CASE!

    HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!

  9. #9
    Pro Bowler D Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,257
    Quote Originally Posted by SanAntonioSteelerFan View Post
    Mr. Money: Boopsie, it's that time of year to pay those horrid taxes again, you know, that 0.82% minimum tax that President Romney is forcing us to pay because he has to. But at least the Flippy Amendment lets us choose who to give it to! Who do you think is deserving? Same people as last year?

    Mrs. Money: Yes. that sounds about right. But don't you think we should maybe give MM Jr. a little less this year, so he learns the real value of hard work? We could give the remainder to that nice man who is running for congress this year, he seems like he really likes us!

    a flat rate with no exceptions (except the very poor) would eliminate any bull like that. If you get all the millionaires ACTUALLY pitching in their 20% like everyone else, I bet there would be plenty of tax money coming in.

  10. #10
    Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Inside Your Head
    Posts
    10,368
    Quote Originally Posted by SanAntonioSteelerFan View Post
    you know, that 0.82% minimum tax that President Romney is forcing us to pay
    Rich people's taxes are low because they make most of their money from capital gains. Why should those be taxed? It's a double tax. It's a discouragement from investment.

    None of us may be fortunate to get to pay .82% because we're no rich. But it seems fair and logical. It seems right.

    But we now live in the era of the soundbite. Logic no longer rules.

    At the end of the day, we all have to realize gov't is inefficient. The best minds and leaders don't end up in gov't. It doesn't pay. I'll always believe more in the individual over any institution.

    Individual rich guys from Rockefeller to Carnegie to Gates have and will do more for this world socially from their contributions to business and their individual gifts to charities than the gov't has ever done with the tax dollars they collected from these individuals.

    How much more could these kind of men done if unencumbered by the gov't burden? If their businesses weren't taxed so much. If they weren't individually taxed so much. They could have done so much more.

    It's kinda crazy how we think about gov't. We tell ourselves local gov't should make decisions because they're closer to people. And the states are closer to problems than the Fed.

    It's all failed logic. Individuals are the solution. Personal responsibility is the solution. Not gov't. The whole idea of gov't seems silly. I'm sure the internet will change gov't as it becomes more open and everyone has universal and equally open access to all information.

    Eventually every individual will be able to more easily contribute and participate. And hopefully the need for gov't will go away. It'll take generations and we'll have to all be dead. But it will happen.

    Gov't being necessary = World is flat.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •