""Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

Zimmy, I am sure that the red states, as a group, send more federal tax money to blue states than they receive from blue states. That's federal income tax. What about state income tax? Blue states charge way more state income tax than red states, and almost all of that stays within the state. yet, even with all that state tax revenue, blue states have way more debt per capita.

Zimmy, if you want to suggest that blue states spend less money on state programs than red states, due to the fact that blue states send so much money to red states, then that data will be easy to find and post.

"in case you really wondered why Spence may not be convinced"

No, I don't wonder why he's not convinced, I know for sure why he's not convinced...because he's incapable of admitting factual realities that don't support his pre-determined agenda.

If the charts he provided are accurate, don't they disprove what you think?

Perhaps one of the reasons blue states have higher tax rates is to offset the Federal spending they're not getting.

Seriously, perhaps when you deal in some facts you'll be able to speak with any credibility here.

-spence

This pretty much nails it :hihi:

-spence

Obama's leadership thus far has been imaginary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Roll out the race bit, Spence. Nice. One of these days we'll get past that. Pretty sure you're just trolling (Gawd I hope so)

Come on, it's pretty funny.

-spence

Being that this is a thread on convention speakers......Chaffee?Really? Chaffee?If the most brain-dead human being to ever be elected to office is one of your big speakers than the DNC and Obama have problems,really big problems if they think this buffoon is going to garner them votes.

Maybe Romney should have had Palin speak!

This election is the biggest travesty in my lifetime.Nothing like be held hostage by a broken political system and being forced to vote Romney because no one of sound mind can possibly vote for Obama.Lesser of two evils...what a way to go.Sad.

Spence, betta send a new Swifter Duster to Charlotte.

They're gonna need it when they roll out the leaders of the Dems- Frank, Reid,
Brown, Pelosie,Boxer,Biden etc. LOL :grins:

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

Obama has been an abject failure. Romney is un-inspiring. It's disheartening.

But you want gutsy leadership? How can you claim Paul Ryan isn't the epitome of gutsy leadership. He'sthe first politician in god-knows-how-long to say out loud "Medicare is going broke, and here's my plan to fix it".

I don't know enough about healthcare to say if Ryan's plan was a good plan or a bad plan. What I do know is this...instead of offering an alternative solution, the liberal response was to show a commercial showing Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound lady off a cliff. This, despite the fact that Ryan's plan specifically does not touch Medicare for current seniors.

You may not agree with Ryan's plan. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, how do you not give him credit for bold, decisive LEADERSHIP. He's the only policician who has a specific plan to adress what is, BY FAR, our largest economic threat.

I don't usually get excited about vice-presidents. Ryan ain't a rock-star. But he's decent, honest, and clearly not afraid to talk about issues that most cowards in DC don't want to be associated with.

A young politician, a family man who is clearly more concerned with fixing problems than he is with being popular? That's what I call "change I can believe in"

Obama had 4 years to show as all, he failed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gutsy leadership? Then why didn't he come out and say "I was also against Simpson-Bowles; Obama reduced 700 billion from medicare, but I also voted for the same cuts because it will reduce the burden medicare will put on future generations; Under my plan we would balance the budget, but to do it, exemptions would have to go away and the tax rate on people who make less than X amount would pay 10%. Since exemptions are gone, it would actually end up raising their taxes by about $2000. For people who make more, the rate will be 25%. It will result in a substantial tax inrease for those in the bracket who get most of their income from salary, but it necessary to balance the budget. I would get rid of taxes on dividends and interest, because I believe that the result will be a boom in the economy and everyone will benefit from the incredible investment that results from the wealthiest Americans investing in business."

How about that kind of leadership? Then people could vote for the plan they prefer.

Like Obama or not, he said what his policies would be: healthcare payed in part by tax increases on the wealthy; more regulation on wall street; stimulus bills that focus on teachers, firefighters, and job training, etc. He was wrong about the results and the speed of the recovery, but he didn't misrepresent what his policies would be.

"Like Obama or not, he said what his policies would be..."

Like cutting the deficit in half, closing Gitmo, not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250k, transparency, and my favorite, that he would "change" DC and be the one to bring us together...

Did Ryan lie about his stance on Simpson-Bowles?

"everyone will benefit from the incredible investment that results from the wealthiest Americans investing in business."

Nice liberal bumber-sticker mentality, which unfortunately doesn't match the truth...anyone can invest in the stock market who wishes to. And today, many non-wealthy folks have some stocks and bonds, it's not just for the Rockefellers anymore. And if those tax rates on dividends are such an offense, pray tell why Obama didn't do somehting about it when the liberals controlled the executive and legislative branch?

When the liberals responsed to Ryan's medicare plan with that commercial, what liberals are saying is "we know we cannot have an honest debate on this topic with this man. So we have to demonize him."

Obama's plan takes $700 billion out of Medicare, which hurts current seniors. Ryan's plan has absoultely no impact on anyone under 55. Thatgives people more time to sock away more money that they will need. Ryan has never said that his plan doesn't mean people will have to pay more. But unlike Obama's plan, Ryan isn't asking current Medicare patients to pay more. The post baby-boom generations will have to pay a lot more out-of-pocket for our Medicare coverage. I don't like that, as it effects me. But I am honest enough to admit that it's necessary. Ryan says it's necessary. Democrats don't say it's necessary, in fact they attack those who do say it's necessary, just as you have done here.

fdsff

You keep saying this, but the article you linked did not state that this is actually what would happen. It projected that one possible way to make the plan revenue neutral was to do away with all exemptions including those on the middle class who would be in the plan's 10% bracket. And the author says that "admittedly" that would be an "extreme scenario"--the implication being that the middle class exemptions would not be eliminated. Actually, Ryan said his proposed elimination of tax exemptions would be those that are typically used by those in the wealthier higher income brackets. Even Ryan knows that the "extreme scenario" of eliminating all middle class exemptions would not be politically feasible. Nor would his co-author of the plan, the very liberal Wyden, go for such an "extreme scenario."

The author of your article then projects a more realistic "scenario"--reducing federal spending. But he does not talk about the Ryan/Wyden plan's overall mechanics of reducing debt and costs and ulitimately making medicare solvent in the long run.

sounds like what he keeps accusing Ryan of :uhuh:

Originally Posted by zimmy
(...as a result of his policies. As I stated, he was wrong about the results)


how do you admit this but the continue to argue that his policies going forward will absolutely produce the results promised?

I have seen it reported several places. The "admittedly extreme" scenario was the authors opinion, but according to the congressional analysis, it is actually what was proposed.

The following is directly from the Joint Economic Committee (10 rep., 10 dems) report


"After eliminating the deductions for state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions, removing the employer‐provided health insurance exclusion, and taxing 401(k) contributions, the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan’s budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887.


For households making less than $200,000, removing the tax deductions, making 401(k) contributions subject to taxes, and eliminating the exclusion for employer‐provided health insurance outweighs the benefit of the lower tax rates in the Ryan plan. The net effect is that a typical household earning between $50,000 and $100,000 and filing jointly will face a tax increase under the Ryan plan of $1,358, assuming the additional income is taxed at a 10 percent rate. If those households end up in the 25 percent tax bracket, their additional tax burden would more than double to $2,938. For households with incomes between
$100,000 and $200,000, the tax increase is $2,681."

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=...f-9b88695dcb85

actually, according to the cover page of the report and as noted on the bottom of every page after that, it was prepared by Sen. Bob Casey's staff...who are the 10 republicans and 9 other democrats that signed on to this?

The 30-second spot cites two liberal sources for the claims: the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a report prepared by the staff of a Democratic U.S. senator active on budget issues.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said Baldwin’s mixing of the two studies is a problem.

"They are not even apples and oranges," Williams said. "It’s more like apples and toast."

Both Williams and McBride expressed some concerns with the Democratic study because it assumes Ryan would eliminate major tax deductions that greatly benefit the middle class and below.

"We had no basis to decide what Ryan would pick" to eliminate, Williams said. He also criticized the Democratic study as using questionable estimates.

PolitiFact Wisconsin | Baldwin says Thompson wants to give millionaires a tax cut while raising taxes on the middle class

I don't think there's any way you can't look at the Ryan plan and not see that it will disproportionately benefit the wealthy while taking away from the middle class and poor. Even if middle class tax deductions are spared, there would still have to be significant spending cuts for programs the upper-middle class and wealthy don't depend on...and to sustain high defense spending which is part of the Ryan plan.

-spence

that's a mouthful :uhuh:

huh?

As % of federal budget??? You are joking right?

Even better...

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/misle...ense-spending/

-spence

oh, that's right, we don't have a budget....but I did include both % of total budget and % of GDP...not so sure that the Cato opinion makes a lot of sense, I don't think there was any suggestion that defense spending should increase proportionately with entitlement spending, they were juxtaposed to show the acceleration...infact, that'd be awfully difficult...but in terms of record spending and future growth, defense spending will not likely surge...but entitlements certainly will...it's no contest

The fact is, the Ryan/Wyden budget proposal does not specify which tax exemptions would be eliminated nor on whom. The projections you cite are guesses and assumptions that probably won't happen. The tax questions will be fleshed out by the Ways and Means Committee, and political suicide is not normal procedure.

What your report, and other negative projections don't take into account, as well as making worst case assumptions, is the impact of competitive bidding for medicare insurance coverage. Bringing the cost down on the Federal Gvts. most expensive toy, as well as cutting other spending, would have a positive impact on the economy, and on the middle class.

What is more probable than eliminating all the "middle class" deductions, is the degradation of this plan, or any other long-term plan, by future administrations and congresses.

Nor am I, personally, all that ga-ga about the Ryan plan. It is still Big Government. But at least it attempts to reduce the National Debt and "save" medicare. Much of the medicare reform is similar to the Health Care Bill. But the difference, for me, is the trajectory, vector, direction. The HCB goes in the direction of nationalizing a private sector function, the Ryan/Wyden plan goes in the direction of privatizing a national plan. It is a step toward devolution of Federal power.

if I hadnt moved to texas I would have gotten zimmy, debtuch, spence, scott and Jim in CT together for a panel discussion, recorded it and then posted to you tube.

:rotflmao: Oh my gosh, that would be the greatest ever. :hihi:

That might have been the 1st Political show to beat Honey Boo Boo Child in the ratings

Don't you think someone at the DNC should lose their job for scheduling the second day of their convention on the night of the first NFL game featuring a NY team and the Cowboys. Talk about giving you audience a choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting enough though, the most recent experiment along these lines (Medicare Advantage) is reported to have a higher government cost.

Agree this is most likely.

-spence

I watched some of the coverage tonight and have to say the speakers are so much more on message that what I saw from the GOP. For all the liberal media hyping that the DNC couldn't get their act together they're making a bit of a mockery of Tampa.

Tried watching coverage on FOX but they never actually showed any speakers. Just a little live video box of the convention floor while their pundits ripped Obama.

Not a huge Gov. Patrick fan but he gave a good speech. The mayor of San Antonio was excellent.

Don't plan on watching Warren but I'll bet Slick Willy is going to bring the house down :hihi:

-spence

and you are entitled to your opinion. I watched too and disagree with you.

Like who? Hell, even the National Review thought Michelle Obama was good.

-spence

What did he say? Mayor Menino
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't see him, must have been speaking when I was on FOX.

-spence

It has a higher government cost partly due to its disbursments being tied into traditional medicare's administrative payment system. Ryan's plan presumably corrects that. Medicare Advantage also is more expensive because it provides a broader range of benefits than fee for service and enrollees receive higher quality care than those in traditional Medicare. In fact, the majority of Medical Advantage plan bids to provide standard Medicare benefits come in at or below government's benchmark.

The Ryan plan for competition through bidding sets the benchmark at the second lowest bid or current medicare cost, whichever is lower. If the beneficiary chooses a higher cost (higher bid) plan, he pays the difference. If he chooses the lowest cost plan, he would get a rebate for the difference. And those who choose the benchmark plan would get a voucher for the full cost. Also, vouchers would be risk-adjusted--upward for for higher risk beneficiaries, and lower for the lower risk ones. The various competing plans would have to accept anyone who applies. So companies with excess low risk enrollees would pay a fee to make up for the more profitable booking, those with excess high riskers would get a rebate.

There is a lengthy, complicated mechanism for keeping costs down and making competition work. But various critical articles don't get into the details. Various premium support plans, as is the Ryan plan, have been proposed in the past, even bipartisan ones. But they have been a tough sell, especially to seniors who have been mediscared by opponents into fearing losing medicare "as we know it." The Ryan plan solves that scare by not affecting anyone presently over 55, or those who are younger and choose to remain on traditional Medicare.

Other competing plans exist now, such as The Heritage Foundation premium support plan. When you read the actual plans, or, especially, the commentary on the plans by those who write them, or those who support them, you obviously get a far more optimistic view than that given by the critics.

Everybody seems to agree that some reform has to be made or the whole thing goes kapooie. Kinda depends on which "vector" you prefer.

the only review that I saw in NRO of Michelle's speech was by Jonah Goldberg....this is what he said...

"There were many points where I thought what she said was simply untrue or ludicrous, but rarely dishonest. Political wives are almost always immune to the charge of dishonesty because you have to assume their love for their husband is sincere." didn't really get this, I guess if your love for your husband is (assumed)sincere you can go ahead and tell all of the whoppers that you want and not have your honesty challenged?

"Barack Obama is always courageous and does the hard things because they’re right? What movie has she been watching over the last four years?"

" I thought as a political speech it was excellent and did nearly everything she needed it to do."

"Will it convince anyone already leaning against Obama to change their mind, I sincerely doubt it. Will it win back a few waverers? Quite possibly. Will it fire up the Democratic base? Absolutely."



so I guess if your definition of "good" is firing up a room full of bussed-in zombies

chanting... "Forward"..."Backward"....."Forward"....."Backward "

with a well delivered but at many points "ludicrous" or "untrue" presentation... sure it was "good" and maybe excellent...but I imagine most Americans are a little wary of "good" speeches at this point:uhuh::)

just for the record, I don't think much of the conventions and/or speeches on either side...

some interesting points about the "points" from someone else who admits she was "good"

"you missed quite a performance. She has become a pro at public speaking. She reads the teleprompter as smoothly as her husband, with emotion added in all the right places. It went over just fine in the hall, with Democrats mooning over her"
http://www.americanthinker.com/print...s_on_fire.html

Hey, at least Dallas pulled out the win!

Shame you couldn't do a "web-inar" with all parties involved!

We'll have to ask Tom to explain exactly who Martha Luther King is?

That's got to be easy for the insurance companies to say when they know that's not the rate they're going to get paid.

From what I see the Ryan plan has a real potential to divide the system into dramatically different levels of care based on means.

-spence