Convention speakers

[spence]

This pretty much nails it

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much nails it

-spence

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

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by striperman36

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"

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But you want gutsy leadership? How can you claim Paul Ryan isn't the epitome of gutsy leadership.
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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
Like cutting the deficit in half, (...as a result of his policies. As I stated, he was wrong about the results)

closing Gitmo, (he changed his mind? That is different than putting out a plan, as Ryan did, then distort what the plan actually does. Keeping it open is also another thing that the Republicans agree with . Maybe it was a concession to them??? )

not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250k (details???. Are you talking about tanning beds, cigarettes? ) , transparency (ok, got me there), and my favorite, that he would "change" DC and be the one to bring us together (yeah, go back to the McConnell statement and ask how you bring us together when that is what he has to work with)...

Did Ryan lie about his stance on Simpson-Bowles? (no, but he chastises Obama as if he thinks Obama was wrong, even though he agrees with Obama's stance. That is crazy. )

"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. (~23% of tax filers have dividend income. The average of those is a few hundred dollars. They would save tens of dollars under the plan. Those $10's of dollars would be eaten up by the increase they pay in taxes to balance the budget. On the other hand, someone like Romney would pay less than 1% tax rate on his almost $80 million in investment income. THAT is the truth. If enough Americans like the plan, fine; Romney would win. Why aren't they honest about it?)

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? (Can't answer why it wasn't a priority during those four months when they had the filibuster proof majority; a time when they could have changed it. My guess is that he didn't want to raise those taxes in the very beginning of the recovery, since he said he wouldn't raise taxes on dividends? . In any case, 15% current rate is a bit more than 0% under Ryan.)

fdsff

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Then why didn't he come out and say . . .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.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep saying this, but the article you linked did not state that this is actually what would happen.

sounds like what he keeps accusing Ryan of

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?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep saying this, but the article you linked did not state that this is actually what would happen.

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by striperman36

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

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much nails it

-spence

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)

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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

[basswipe]

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much nails it

-spence

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