Paul Ryan?

[Kindra178]

Interested in hearing the viewpoint on this pick. As an outsider, I think it was a bad choice because it doesn't capture the middle/independent voters. Any pro-Romney folks wish to comment? Also as an outsider, I would say it was the best choice for Democrats.

[BabyMine]

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm

These are his votes concerning education and the budget/economy from the website:




Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on $40B for green public schools. (May 2009)
Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Rated 8% by the NEA (http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-NEA.asp), indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)



FactCheck:Stimulus spending created between 1.4M & 3.6M jobs. (Jan 2011)
Stimulus spending spree created debt but few jobs. (Jan 2011)
America is on an unsustainable fiscal path. (Sep 2010)
Automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. (Jan 2010)
Freeze spending now, rather than in future budget. (Jan 2010)
Road Map for America's Future: cut entitlement spending. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on terminating the Home Affordable mortgage Program. (Mar 2011)
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (Mar 2009)
Voted NO on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009)
Voted NO on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Balanced Budget Amendment with 3/5 vote to override. (Jan 2009)
Member of the House Republican Economic Recovery Working Group. (Sep 2010)
Chair of House Budget Committee. (Mar 2011)

[dogmom]

If people are interested I found The New Yorker Piece on him interesting. My personal politics aside I can say positive things that he will stand for what he believes in, sort of like my respect for Ron Paul. However, he does get negative points from me because I can't respect any grown adult that still cites Ayn Rand as an influence. She falls into that category of writers that it is OK to think they are profound when you are 14-19 yo, but after that you need to grow up and become and adult and realize the limitations.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza

[BabyMine]

If people are interested I found The New Yorker Piece on him interesting. My personal politics aside I can say positive things that he will stand for what he believes in, sort of like my respect for Ron Paul. However, he does get negative points from me because I can't respect any grown adult that still cites Ayn Rand as an influence. She falls into that category of writers that it is OK to think they are profound when you are 14-19 yo, but after that you need to grow up and become and adult and realize the limitations.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza


He recanted because he " found out " she was an atheist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/paul-ryan-ayn-rand_n_1459098.html


Ann Rand's influence on him as an urban legend

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa


You know you’ve arrived in politics when you have an urban legend about you, and this one is mine,” chuckles Representative Paul Ryan, the Budget Committee chairman, as we discuss his purported obsession with author and philosopher Ayn Rand.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) tried to send the message this week that, contrary to "urban legend," (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa) he is not obsessed with philosopher and author Ayn Rand.
"I reject her philosophy," Ryan told National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa) on Thursday. "It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand."

[dogmom]

He was an adult in 2005, so my criticism still holds. From the NY article, and I really trust their fact checkers, so unless this was totally false I have trouble categorizing this an urban legend. He can change his mind in the last few months, but still:

"In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” To me he was careful to point out that he rejects Rand’s atheism."

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz23FAb3uCc

So just because he says in May of 2012 its an urban legend doesn't make it so. The whole Ayn Rand thing became a political point in Spring of this year, I think the National Review piece was his first attempt to distance himself from it. If you go to the Atlas Society's web site they have a whole breakdown of quotes from him on Ayn Rand before that and her influence, but I have not had tome to double check them so I won't post them. The quote from 2005 is legit as far as I can tell and has been checked out by other organizations.

[BabyMine]

He was an adult in 2005, so my criticism still holds. From the NY article, and I really trust their fact checkers, so unless this was totally false I have trouble categorizing this an urban legend. He can change his mind in the last few months, but still:

"In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” To me he was careful to point out that he rejects Rand’s atheism."

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz23FAb3uCc

So just because he says in May of 2012 its an urban legend doesn't make it so.

My post was to show how he flipped his opinion and called it an urban legend. I also believe he truly believed in what she wrote but her atheism, and probably other pressures, made him recant. It makes me wonder if it was for a VP spot.

[AngB]

Interested in hearing the viewpoint on this pick. As an outsider, I think it was a bad choice because it doesn't capture the middle/independent voters. Any pro-Romney folks wish to comment? Also as an outsider, I would say it was the best choice for Democrats.

Agreed. (Not as a Republican/ pro-Romney.)

Good luck convincing older folks that you won't be cutting their Medicare. And I'm sure there are plenty of conservative older people who would hate to vote for Obama, but if they feel their Medicare is going to be threatened....they just might.

And I think Wisconsin was already a pretty red state. Not that this guy has ever won anything state-wide, but it isn't going to help Romney win a key state, like picking someone from Florida might have.

It will be an interesting few months.

[BabyMine]

Agreed. (Not as a Republican/ pro-Romney.)

Good luck convincing older folks that you won't be cutting their Medicare. And I'm sure there are plenty of conservative older people who would hate to vote for Obama, but if they feel their Medicare is going to be threatened....they just might.

And I think Wisconsin was already a pretty red state. Not that this guy has ever won anything state-wide, but it isn't going to help Romney win a key state, like picking someone from Florida might have.

It will be an interesting few months.

I can't wait until SNL returns.

[wellyes]

I think this will be good for unifying the bases of both sides. Not sure what folks in the middle will think.


However, he does get negative points from me because I can't respect any grown adult that still cites Ayn Rand as an influence.
:hysterical: Right there with you!

[queenmama]

... I can't respect any grown adult that still cites Ayn Rand as an influence. She falls into that category of writers that it is OK to think they are profound when you are 14-19 yo, but after that you need to grow up and become and adult and realize the limitations.

LOL! I feel the same way about Catcher in the Rye. Only angsty teens should be citing this as a favorite (Of course, I loved it when I, myself, was an angsty teen!).

[marymoo86]

Agreed. (Not as a Republican/ pro-Romney.)

Good luck convincing older folks that you won't be cutting their Medicare. And I'm sure there are plenty of conservative older people who would hate to vote for Obama, but if they feel their Medicare is going to be threatened....they just might.

And I think Wisconsin was already a pretty red state. Not that this guy has ever won anything state-wide, but it isn't going to help Romney win a key state, like picking someone from Florida might have.

It will be an interesting few months.

The $500 billion growth reduction from Medicare as a result of the ACA isn't an issue? Isn't Medicare already "threatened?"

[wellyes]

The other potential issue is that it's not typical to have two candidates focused on the same thing. Here, domestic economy issues, lowering taxes on the wealthy, making the federal government more lean. No military or diplomatic experience between them. Biden was picked by Obama for his international cred. I'd heard a rumor that David Petraus was an option; that would have been interesting, for sure.

[elbenn]

I think it's a brave and good pick. I am an independent and I vote for the candidate, not the party. I am a Romney supporter because I think the guy has good ideas, integrity and would really be good for our country. I like the Ryan pick because I have admired Ryan for years as someone who is willing to take unpopular stances instead of worrying about re-elections. Really, almost no other politician will take on these entitlement issues because they are unpopular with voters. I think Ryan, like Romney, has a lot of integrity, and will do what he thinks is best for our country.

The current entitlement program is absolutely unsustainable and has to be changed. However, because Ryan is on the ticket, we can expect much scare tactics from the democrats about entitlement reform, while not offering any good reform ideas themselves. It will be about a choice to continue on our current trend of unsustainable entitlement programs or try to fix them.

[kaharris83]

DH is very pro-Romney and he is very disappointed in this pick. He was hoping for a Jindal pick and I was convinced it would be Rubio.

[dogmom]

I think it's a brave and good pick. I am an independent and I vote for the candidate, not the party. I am a Romney supporter because I think the guy has good ideas, integrity and would really be good for our country. I like the Ryan pick because I have admired Ryan for years as someone who is willing to take unpopular stances instead of worrying about re-elections. Really, almost no other politician will take on these entitlement issues because they are unpopular with voters. I think Ryan, like Romney, has a lot of integrity, and will do what he thinks is best for our country.

The current entitlement program is absolutely unsustainable and has to be changed. However, because Ryan is on the ticket, we can expect much scare tactics from the democrats about entitlement reform, while not offering any good reform ideas themselves. It will be about a choice to continue on our current trend of unsustainable entitlement programs or try to fix them.

The other thing is Romney is, Umm, a little challenged in the charisma department? He looks good, but can be a little stiff as the guy next door. I view Paul Ryan as a person that has charisma among the true believers and policy wonks, so I understand why Romney is comfortable with him. I can see them having substantial discussions about budget numbers, which is something Romney did at Bain Capital. But I don't see Ryan helping with the everyman image that much. I make no qualms about my liberal political leanings, but at my heart I'm a policy wonk so all these things interest me greatly. I got a lot more respect for Paul Ryan than someone who is just in it for the political win, like many of the operatives.

[elbenn]

DH is very pro-Romney and he is very disappointed in this pick. He was hoping for a Jindal pick and I was convinced it would be Rubio.

I thought it would likely be Portman so I think this is a surprising pick. I like Rubio a lot, but I don't think he has quite enough experience yet.

[gatorsmom]

I'm a Moderate Romney supporter from Wisconsin. And Paul Ryan scares me. I would never want him to be president.

But, as DH just threw out there, Obama hasn't done $hit since he's been in office.

[janine]

I'm a moderate so not a huge fan of this pick, but not unhappy with it either. He's young, charismtic and drives the message home, something Romney is not great at.

I think Rubio was an obvious choice, but something must have been up that they bypassed him.

The others mentioned don't excite me - he could have gone for the short wins and picked a Christie or Bloomberg or someone out of nowhere, but then he'd risk a Palin move which is fun for the media, but a problem for the ticket.

Overall it works and they just need to reintroduce him to the public because most people are not policy wonks and will just remember the headlines. So they (the Republicans) need to get ahead of that and get some good media pros on the team.

As for the pros and cons of Ryan - I think in terms of this board, we know that most will stick with the party line so no point in debating. I am interested to know what independents think though. Ultimately it IS about who will get this country/economy back on the right track before it's too late and we become a Japan or European state.

[secchick]

I think he was a perfect strategic pick. Due to the economy, unemployment, etc., enthusiasm among the young voters is nowhere near what it was in 2008. And he will likely not pull in the same number of independents. I am not saying they will vote for Romney, but there will not be the type of turnout that put him over the top last time. And more will likely stay home on election day relative to 2008. Rather than appealing to the middle, they are going after the Tea Party and the segment of GOP voters that are meh on Romney for his lack of conservatism, Romneycare, flip flopping on abortion and things like that. If they can get the turnout they got in 2010 with the Obamacare backlash, they can win.

[kara97210]

I think he was a perfect strategic pick... Rather than appealing to the middle, they are going after the Tea Party and the segment of GOP voters that are meh on Romney for his lack of conservatism, Romneycare, flip flopping on abortion and things like that. If they can get the turnout they got in 2010 with the Obamacare backlash, they can win.

See I totally disagree. The Tea Party segment would have rallied behind Romney anyway, they did in the later primaries. They can't stand Obama. To me Romney needed to expand his base and there aren't many people who were not already going to support Romney who will move over to him because of this pick.

Also I think it was really dumb to announce on a Saturday, in the middle of the Olympics. I work in communications and think the folks running Romney's PR aren't doing him any favors lately.

[MichelleRC]

I don't have any educated comments to add, however DS1 said he thinks Ryan has "zombie eyes".

[Mermanaid]

On the surface I think it's a great pick. He's young and may help the Rep party appeal to younger voters who may be disillusioned with Obama's hope and change philosophy. He's also charismatic which is a good counterpoint to Romney.

That said, I need to investigate him more (deeper than just a summary record) to make an informed decision.




Also I think it was really dumb to announce on a Saturday, in the middle of the Olympics. I work in communications and think the folks running Romney's PR aren't doing him any favors lately.

I don't know much about PR but I didn't think it was a bad strategy. He gets the Sunday newspaper headline (and isn't this the most traditionally read paper of any day??) plus he gets all the pundits on the Sunday morning news shows. Plus, it gives Ryan a day or so after the annc to breathe since the main focus is on Olympics. Of course, as I said, I don't know anything about PR but that's the only thing that makes sense of the timing for me.

[icunurse]

But, as DH just threw out there, Obama hasn't done $hit since he's been in office.

And if Romney should win, our ineffective congress won't let him get anything done, either. The President can only do so much on his own and with his efforts. When people have their feet dug in to make the other side fail and we have groups actively trying to divide the parties/country rather than unite it, nothing good will ever get done.

As for Ryan, of the little that I know about him, I am not a fan. By picking him, Romney is going for the "big risk, big gain" tactic. It could work or it can go all Palin on him and backfire royally.

[ellies mom]

On the surface I think it's a great pick. He's young and may help the Rep party appeal to younger voters who may be disillusioned with Obama's hope and change philosophy. He's also charismatic which is a good counterpoint to Romney.

I don't know. All my "disillusioned with Obama" friends are Paul supporters. They are still holding out hope that Paul will somehow get the nomination. From what I've seen they are less than thrilled with Romney's pick. They see Romney and Obama as two peas from the same pod. It will be interesting to see what they do in the general election. The Republicans absolutely cannot take it for granted that the "former Obama supporter now Paul supporters" will become Romney supporters. From the ones I know, they will probably pick a third party candidate or just stay home.

[LMPC]

Interested in hearing the viewpoint on this pick. As an outsider, I think it was a bad choice because it doesn't capture the middle/independent voters. Any pro-Romney folks wish to comment? Also as an outsider, I would say it was the best choice for Democrats.

I haven't read thru the other responses, but this is what I was thinking!

[kara97210]

I don't know much about PR but I didn't think it was a bad strategy. He gets the Sunday newspaper headline (and isn't this the most traditionally read paper of any day??) plus he gets all the pundits on the Sunday morning news shows. Plus, it gives Ryan a day or so after the annc to breathe since the main focus is on Olympics. Of course, as I said, I don't know anything about PR but that's the only thing that makes sense of the timing for me.

Sunday papers generally go to press on Friday afternoon. PR has also changed a lot in the past 10 years, it used to be that you'd hold things for the Sunday covers, now you want positive news to hit Monday morning and pick up momentum online all week. If I wanted to get the least press possible I would announce something on a Saturday morning in the middle of the Olympics, or the Friday after Thanksgiving.

I actually thought it was really smart when the speculation was that Romney was going to announce in July. For a lot of reasons that would have been way better for PR.

[elbenn]

I thought the timing was pretty good because it has been the main story on the news channels all day and will be the primary story on all the Sunday political shows tomorrow. I think it really makes the two sides starkly contrasting on the budget and entitlement programs issues. I have seen some democratic commentators talking about how Ryan and Romney want to completely change Medicare and how people won't vote for them because of it, but they don't offer any alternate plans and the budget needs some major overhauling and the entitlement programs are unsustainable as they are now. It bugs me that one side is likely going to use a bunch of scare tactics without offering up any solutions.

[Mermanaid]

Sunday papers generally go to press on Friday afternoon.

Most papers print the feature sections, classifieds, etc. earlier in the week but the front page isn't put to bed and run until Saturday evening (in TX they are getting ready to run it right now). I wish I didn't know this but DH is a newspaper employee. Hate those calls when something goes wrong during a production run!

[janine]

Most papers print the feature sections, classifieds, etc. earlier in the week but the front page isn't put to bed and run until Saturday evening (in TX they are getting ready to run it right now). I wish I didn't know this but DH is a newspaper employee. Hate those calls when something goes wrong during a production run!

I would think Sunday shows are the focus...who reads papers, lol. I'm sure they thought long and hard about the timing...

[larig]

The smartest and most informative piece of analysis I saw said something to the effect of, "Romney just moved further to the RIGHT for the general election than he was primary with this pick." That signals that he has given up the independent votes (which is likely wise as there are FEW undecideds even this early) and knows this is going to be base v. base. Ryan certainly will energize the his far-right base, I'd wager.

ETA: DH and I were driving all last night/early this morning and at about 1am central time he saw this news posted. It was almost a "friday news dump."

[kara97210]

I would think Sunday shows are the focus...who reads papers, lol. I'm sure they thought long and hard about the timing...

Agree, but even less people watch the Sunday shows. This is also the communications team that has let the tax records discussion drag out for almost 2 months. I've been in corporate communications for more than 15 years and honestly I've been shocked at how poorly Romney's PR has been handled recently.

This is not an argument about the merits of this choice. From a purely professional standpoint, I don't think it was the best timing. For big news you want people to remember where they were when they heard the news. You want people to watch your press conference. I think 9 am Eastern (6 am Pacific) on a Saturday, during the Olympics, isn't a great time to make a press announcement. I can't imagine a PR professional who would disagree.

[kara97210]

Most papers print the feature sections, classifieds, etc. earlier in the week but the front page isn't put to bed and run until Saturday evening (in TX they are getting ready to run it right now). I wish I didn't know this but DH is a newspaper employee. Hate those calls when something goes wrong during a production run!

Depends on your market. In most major cities the Friday version, which is available Saturday morning in stores, is the one with the largest circulation. There is a Sunday version that has a little news added on the front pag. It's not like when I started in PR, where the Sunday paper was where you went to get the news. Now most people go online, not to the paper.

[larig]

Agree, but even less people watch the Sunday shows. This is also the communications team that has let the tax records discussion drag out for almost 2 months. I've been in corporate communications for more than 15 years and honestly I've been shocked at how poorly Romney's PR has been handled recently.

This is not an argument about the merits of this choice. From a purely professional standpoint, I don't think it was the best timing. For big news you want people to remember where they were when they heard the news. You want people to watch your press conference. I think 9 am Eastern (6 am Pacific) on a Saturday, during the Olympics, isn't a great time to make a press announcement. I can't imagine a PR professional who would disagree.

Absolutely!! we thought that too! we were driving from seattle to illinois at the time, and I thought, "hm, it will be 8am where we're going to be at the time he announces, but announcing at 9am eastern means NO ONE from the west coast is going to watch live."

That is just a rookie mistake or they didn't actually want people to watch it live.

[AnnieW625]

I'm a moderate so not a huge fan of this pick, but not unhappy with it either. He's young, charismtic and drives the message home, something Romney is not great at.

I think Rubio was an obvious choice, but something must have been up that they bypassed him.

The others mentioned don't excite me - he could have gone for the short wins and picked a Christie or Bloomberg or someone out of nowhere, but then he'd risk a Palin move which is fun for the media, but a problem for the ticket.

Overall it works and they just need to reintroduce him to the public because most people are not policy wonks and will just remember the headlines. So they (the Republicans) need to get ahead of that and get some good media pros on the team.

As for the pros and cons of Ryan - I think in terms of this board, we know that most will stick with the party line so no point in debating. I am interested to know what independents think though. Ultimately it IS about who will get this country/economy back on the right track before it's too late and we become a Japan or European state.

:yeahthat: my thoughts exactly. I am registered Democrat, but over the years have voted more for the candidate and their ideology vs. the party line.

The New Yorker article was very well written and I enjoyed it a lot.

It should be an interesting 3/1/2 months.

eta: If the economy were in a better situation then I think the pick could have easily been Rubio, but he doesn't have the background in economics, which is surely going to be the hot item debated this year.

Oh, and I like the fact that Ryan is Catholic. Like that about Rubio as well.

[wellyes]

Oh, and I like the fact that Ryan is Catholic. Like that about Rubio as well.

My grandma agrees :)

I do suspect we won't hear much about religion in this election, though, since the VPs cancel each other out, Obama's faith does much more to rile up his opponents than rally his supporters, and Romney's faith is, sadly, controversial.

[nfceagles]

As a Ron Paul voter, the Ryan pick makes me slightly more likely to vote for Romney. Still I probably won't vote.

[AnnieW625]

As a Ron Paul voter, the Ryan pick makes me slightly more likely to vote for Romney. Still I probably won't vote.

This is my DH too, although he will write in Ron Paul's name before not voting at all.

[bisous]

I sometimes think I'm a moderate as I have views that don't necessarily fall in line with either party completely but I mostly vote Republican. I was planning to vote for Romney anyway but I do like the Paul Ryan pick. I like that he has IDEAS and is not just a naysayer. He seems exciting to me.

[bcafe]

I just returned back from vacation, but I heard on the radio that Romney wanted to announce the ticket on Friday, but Ryan wanted to wait until the Sikh temple victims had the funerals on Friday. He didn't want to overshadow the funerals that he was attending.

[PearlsMom]

I think he's a smart guy, while still being able to communicate with people who don't spend 24/7 dipped in public policy (or Catholic theology, which he seems a lot more knowledgeable about than most Catholic politicians I've heard speak). I think the country does have some hard economic decisions ahead, and a guy who comes across, at least to me, as educated and sincere, will be an asset to the ticket. But Obama got elected with Biden next to him...so I can't put too much weight on the importance of a VP pick.

[queenmama]

But Obama got elected with Biden next to him...so I can't put too much weight on the importance of a VP pick.

Excellent point!

[janine]

Agree, but even less people watch the Sunday shows. This is also the communications team that has let the tax records discussion drag out for almost 2 months. I've been in corporate communications for more than 15 years and honestly I've been shocked at how poorly Romney's PR has been handled recently.

This is not an argument about the merits of this choice. From a purely professional standpoint, I don't think it was the best timing. For big news you want people to remember where they were when they heard the news. You want people to watch your press conference. I think 9 am Eastern (6 am Pacific) on a Saturday, during the Olympics, isn't a great time to make a press announcement. I can't imagine a PR professional who would disagree.

Not disputing your PR cred, just as a mainstream media observer with zero PR background, I don't see it as being such a massive (or even medium) error. Sure there were some PR gaffes to start, but all candidates have these when first kicking off - this is why I said (in earlier post) that I hope they get some shrewd media pros on the team to package Ryan the right way. But in terms of timing, I have a feeling there was some reasoning to it, and I did watch it at 9am live vs Olympics as it was on every channel. It was also released on Friday that the pick would be announced Saturday morning. My guess is they wanted it out there early for the media to cycle it throughout the weekend. I see it very heavily covered and so far positive reaction, so I do not believe timing (to the hour) is as critical as it once was. I agree that I'm somewhat curious on why they announced it when they did, but it's more a minor curiosity than anything else. I just don't believe people remember where they were when a VP choice was announced.

[wellyes]

Yes, so far there has been lots of media coverage, all interesting and positive. Even liberal outlets who despise his budget speak respectfully of Ryan. Everyone I've talked to about it knows about Ryan and the big bullet points about him. This was a home run for Romney, I think.

What I really like about the coverage is that it is issues -oriented and substantive . People who vote against Romney-Ryan will hopefully do so because of ideas , not for the dumb, shallow reasons of the last election (Palin's gaffes, Obama conspiracy theories).

[indigo99]

I would never want him to be president.


When Romney introduced Ryan as the next American president, I turned to DH and said "WHAT?" We had to rewind to be sure we heard that correctly.

I think that Romney and Ryan probably do both have integrity and will stand up for what they believe and try to do the best thing for our country. Unfortunately, I don't agree with what they think is best. It's a bad thing for someone to have ideas when you don't agree with those ideas.

[gatorsmom]

I think that Romney and Ryan probably do both have integrity and will stand up for what they believe and try to do the best thing for our country. Unfortunately, I don't agree with what they think is best. It's a bad thing for someone to have ideas when you don't agree with those ideas.

I agree totally. He's handsome, young, energetic, Catholic, and a fellow Wisconsinite. I like that about him. But not long ago I read a brief article on him and I really disagree with many of his ideas. Some of them smacked of the Koch brothers, if I remember correctly. If not the Koch brothers ideology they were very conservative.

[Moneypenny]

I agree totally. He's handsome, young, energetic, Catholic, and a fellow Wisconsinite. I like that about him. But not long ago I read a brief article on him and I really disagree with many of his ideas. Some of them smacked of the Koch brothers, if I remember correctly. If not the Koch brothers ideology they were very conservative.

He is VERY conservative on social issues. I live in a very red area of Wisconsin, but I have several friends and neighbors who vote Republican for fiscal issues, not social. A couple of them have already mentioned that they are now torn about voting for Romney because, while they agree with him on economics, they are scared of Ryan's staunch and unwavering viewpoints on choice, gay marriage, etc. Someone who stands up for their ideals is great, unless they aren't your ideals, too.

[kara97210]

Not disputing your PR cred, just as a mainstream media observer with zero PR background, I don't see it as being such a massive (or even medium) error. Sure there were some PR gaffes to start, but all candidates have these when first kicking off - this is why I said (in earlier post) that I hope they get some shrewd media pros on the team to package Ryan the right way. But in terms of timing, I have a feeling there was some reasoning to it, and I did watch it at 9am live vs Olympics as it was on every channel. It was also released on Friday that the pick would be announced Saturday morning. My guess is they wanted it out there early for the media to cycle it throughout the weekend. I see it very heavily covered and so far positive reaction, so I do not believe timing (to the hour) is as critical as it once was. I agree that I'm somewhat curious on why they announced it when they did, but it's more a minor curiosity than anything else. I just don't believe people remember where they were when a VP choice was announced.

I remember watching the Palin announcement live. It was a huge event. Also this isn't a new campaign, Romney has been running for 6 years.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on the timing of this release. This is my industry (I've handled crisis and corporate PR for Fortune 100 companies for more than 15 years and currently manage an amazing communications team) and I definitely consider myself an expert.

I'm also going to say the way the tax records have been handled, from a PR perspective, makes no sense. Some decent messaging, along with 2-3 well placed interviews, should have killed this story. Instead it dragged on and on all summer. Not saying Romney is a bad candidate, or that Ryan is, just that they should tighten up their communications strategy, because it's definitely not as strong as it could be.

[larig]

I am sorry I posted this. My apologies to the BBB and AnnieW.

Please forgive my thoughtless post.

[Ceepa]

It's over the line to dredge up and spotlight a poster's painful experience to make a point about a political figure. Especially when she didn't initiate discussing her own private life.

[AnnieW625]

It's over the line to dredge up and spotlight a poster's painful experience to make a point about a political figure. It is just tacky.

Doesn't bother me at all. I am pretty open about what we had to do in our situation. It took me along time to get to that point, but it is what happened and if it helps someone else out in the future then so be it. More people on this board know about it than IRL (although I am sure some people suspect, but have never actually asked) and it my way of often dealing with the pain.


you realize he wants to decimate abortion rights in ALL cases, right? There would be no choice for mothers facing what you faced. He has very extreme positions. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-s-extreme-abortion-views.html)

FRom link above at Daily Beast bolding mine.

You know what in this case it is one person's opinion and maybe this is me seeing the bright side of just about everything there are enough people on the other side who do not agree and won't let it happen. Roe V. Wade is an amazing decision and I don't see it being overturned or further legislation regarding abortion really taking place. It would have happened years ago IMHO. Also as a pretty devout Catholic the pro life belief was mine too for the longest time and I remember in 1996 when I was working for my moderate to liberal congressman and the legislation regarding late term abortions was being debating I remember thinking why in goodness sake would anyone need one of those, and why would they even be allowed. Little did I know 12 yrs. later I would be less than a month away from being considered late term. I never ever ever thought I would be in that spot and prior to that was pretty much pro life except for cases of rape or incest. I can't really be pro life now because that would be hippocritical on my part, but still firmly believe that unless I was raped (and even then I'd have a really hard time aborting a healthy fetus) or for a medical condition that there is no way in hell I would have another abortion.

What would make me lose all support for Ryan or Ron Paul (who is also pro life due to his witnessing abortions go wrong in medical school) protesting a an abortion center with a dead fetus on a poster. That as well as the Catholic Church's 40 Days to Life campaign bothers me to no end. This year the 40 Days to Life campaign ended on the 3 yr. anniversary of the date we lost the baby. Had I known I would not have gone to church.

[janine]

I remember watching the Palin announcement live. It was a huge event. Also this isn't a new campaign, Romney has been running for 6 years.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on the timing of this release. This is my industry (I've handled crisis and corporate PR for Fortune 100 companies for more than 15 years and currently manage an amazing communications team) and I definitely consider myself an expert.

I'm also going to say the way the tax records have been handled, from a PR perspective, makes no sense. Some decent messaging, along with 2-3 well placed interviews, should have killed this story. Instead it dragged on and on all summer. Not saying Romney is a bad candidate, or that Ryan is, just that they should tighten up their communications strategy, because it's definitely not as strong as it could be.

I'm not sure why you are taking this as a personal questioning of your resume. McCain announced the Palin pick on a Friday. The glitzy Palin unveiling was at the Convention from what I remember. I have no memory of the actual annoucement of the Palin pick.

The tax records is a boring story for a slow summer in my opinion - something certain media outlets are all over, but the general public is not paying that much attention. Not a PR flub in my opinon, just a typical bump in the road. Obama had Reverand Wright issues, Romney's got the usual rich guy running for office issue of not wanting to appear too rich. Yawn. The Ryan pick however has energized things, and it doesn't take any credentials to see that. Maybe things will change--actually I'm sure it will through the ups nd downs until November, but right now it seems to be a good move for the campaign, timing and all. IMO of course.

[janine]

It's over the line to dredge up and spotlight a poster's painful experience to make a point about a political figure. Especially when she didn't initiate discussing her own private life.

I agree, wow.

Annie, thanks for sharing your thoughts though. I'm still figuring out my thoughts on Ryan. This isn't the first time a Republican candidate on the ticket has had a strict pro-life stance though (ie not so shocking to me). It will be interesting to see if he tones it down for the national stage. Still I'd like to think that women are not just one issue voters. This is a big one for some, even bigger for others, and for some it is one of many issues they will consider when voting.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

i can't wait until snl returns.

totally!:rotflmao:

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I don't have any educated comments to add, however DS1 said he thinks Ryan has "zombie eyes".

OMG, I read this just as I was watching him on The Daily Show and they showed him with red eyes, he does have zombie eyes. :icon_twisted::icon_twisted:

[squimp]

My first though was that his hair freaks me out. Now I have to look for his zombie eyes.

And I will have to agree that the timing was terrible. They interrupted the Olympic coverage for this snooze news?

[kara97210]

I'm not sure why you are taking this as a personal questioning of your resume. McCain announced the Palin pick on a Friday. The glitzy Palin unveiling was at the Convention from what I remember. I have no memory of the actual annoucement of the Palin pick.

The tax records is a boring story for a slow summer in my opinion - something certain media outlets are all over, but the general public is not paying that much attention. Not a PR flub in my opinon, just a typical bump in the road. Obama had Reverand Wright issues, Romney's got the usual rich guy running for office issue of not wanting to appear too rich. Yawn. The Ryan pick however has energized things, and it doesn't take any credentials to see that. Maybe things will change--actually I'm sure it will through the ups nd downs until November, but right now it seems to be a good move for the campaign, timing and all. IMO of course.

I know how snotty my response was. I was sensitive after four different people said, “I’m not an expert at all, but you are wrong” about something that is my profession. If there had been a medical question and a nurse responded, I can’t imagine writing “I don’t know anything about this, but my opinion is you’re wrong”. Did I take this personally? Yes, I did. I get that PR/communications isn’t brain surgery, but this is the way I make a living, a career that I’ve dedicated long hours to for years.

We can agree to disagree, but in my professional opinion, the Romney camp missed an opportunity to introduce their VP candidate in a better way. In addition to the timing, I would have gone out much bigger on social media. On Saturday the campaign was competing for coverage with Usain Bolt setting a world record – I can’t imagine a bigger PR juggernaut. Did the announcement get a lot of press? Yes, of course. Could it have been much bigger, with a more positive spin? Absolutely.

I’m sorry if my last message was rude. I’m home with a sick baby this week and am absolutely exhausted. I’m interested to see how this election plays out, I think both campaigns have their work set out for themselves.

[Mermanaid]

I was sensitive after four different people said, “I’m not an expert at all, but you are wrong” about something that is my profession.


It is hard to be questioned about something we are intimately acquainted with. But, keep in mind that these are our opinions and we all have them! And just because we have one doesn't mean that yours is wrong. We just like to share what we are thinking and lend credence to it based on our personal experiences! My guess is that if you poll 10 PR people you would probably get 10 different opinions of how the announcement went. That's the beauty of these kinds of industries ... there is no magic formula to how it's done.

Hang in there ... the responses were not meant personally. Just putting thoughts out there.

[secchick]

I don't know why people are making such a big deal about the timing. If Romney's camp wanted to announce Friday, but respected Ryan's wishes to delay so as to not overshadow the funerals he was attending (as mentioned upthread), that seems like a very good reason for the timing of the announcement, and is in keeping with what I would think of Ryan's character.

While Ryan doesn't have the same pro-life cred as Santorum (who has a beautiful daughter, Bella, who has Trisomy 18) or Palin, he still is a good offset for the pro life crowd who are generally not crazy about Romney. I do think Romney is pro life (a pro choice devout Mormon is a contradiction) but it goes to his reputation for saying what he has to in order to get elected and general lack of conviction. Ryan is also unabashedly for repealing Obamacare, which is another weak point for Romney. In the end thoughm it doesn't really matter as the VP isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade or pass pro-life or budgetary constitutional amendments on his own. He knows his stuff, and will kill Biden, who is a buffoon in the one or two VP debates, but it won't really change anyone's mind on the ticket.

Thank goodness I live in a solidly red state where no one bothers paying for ads so I can avoid the next few months of: "Paul Ryan hates old people! And poor people! And women!" every time I turn on the TV. Already the tone of the media reports makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little. I al all for a safety net, but the Ryan budget is NOT a $200 billion transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The TRANSFER is in the taking of money from those who have earned it. Nothing is done on the backs of those who are a drain on society, but on those who actually contribute.

ETA: The only error I see in the tax records thing is that I think Romney should be happy to throw down his tax returns in exchange for Obama's college records, or the release of the Fast and Furious documents to Congress, or any of the number of other things the Obama administration has fought way harder to keep secret than Romney with his tax records.

[janine]

I know how snotty my response was. I was sensitive after four different people said, “I’m not an expert at all, but you are wrong” about something that is my profession. If there had been a medical question and a nurse responded, I can’t imagine writing “I don’t know anything about this, but my opinion is you’re wrong”. Did I take this personally? Yes, I did. I get that PR/communications isn’t brain surgery, but this is the way I make a living, a career that I’ve dedicated long hours to for years.

We can agree to disagree, but in my professional opinion, the Romney camp missed an opportunity to introduce their VP candidate in a better way. In addition to the timing, I would have gone out much bigger on social media. On Saturday the campaign was competing for coverage with Usain Bolt setting a world record – I can’t imagine a bigger PR juggernaut. Did the announcement get a lot of press? Yes, of course. Could it have been much bigger, with a more positive spin? Absolutely.

I’m sorry if my last message was rude. I’m home with a sick baby this week and am absolutely exhausted. I’m interested to see how this election plays out, I think both campaigns have their work set out for themselves.

Oh no worries, sorry if I offended you. I'm interested in this too (media impact) - and I think you made fair points. I was just trying to say that I don't think it hurt them in the end and is a secondary factor anyway. I'm sure more gaffes will follow though so we'll see,lol! Thanks for sharing your perspective, hope to keep hear more as the election plays out, I'm sure things will get interesting on this board!
PS - hope the baby gets better

[newnana]

I was sensitive after four different people said, “I’m not an expert at all, but you are wrong” about something that is my profession.


I have to agree with you. I read all those comments to you as personal attacks. I think that you are 100% right about the poor way the PR for the Romney campaign has been handled all around.

There have been so many glaring errors that could have so easily been dealt with or planned better that it's really appalling. At first I thought he was trying to not get nominated, but it just keeps happening.

But man, now all I'm ever going to see when I see Ryan is zombie eyes. Dangit! And thank you!!

[Kymberley]

I don't know why people are making such a big deal about the timing. If Romney's camp wanted to announce Friday, but respected Ryan's wishes to delay so as to not overshadow the funerals he was attending (as mentioned upthread), that seems like a very good reason for the timing of the announcement, and is in keeping with what I would think of Ryan's character.

While Ryan doesn't have the same pro-life cred as Santorum (who has a beautiful daughter, Bella, who has Trisomy 18) or Palin, he still is a good offset for the pro life crowd who are generally not crazy about Romney. I do think Romney is pro life (a pro choice devout Mormon is a contradiction) but it goes to his reputation for saying what he has to in order to get elected and general lack of conviction. Ryan is also unabashedly for repealing Obamacare, which is another weak point for Romney. In the end thoughm it doesn't really matter as the VP isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade or pass pro-life or budgetary constitutional amendments on his own. He knows his stuff, and will kill Biden, who is a buffoon in the one or two VP debates, but it won't really change anyone's mind on the ticket.

Thank goodness I live in a solidly red state where no one bothers paying for ads so I can avoid the next few months of: "Paul Ryan hates old people! And poor people! And women!" every time I turn on the TV. Already the tone of the media reports makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little. I al all for a safety net, but the Ryan budget is NOT a $200 billion transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The TRANSFER is in the taking of money from those who have earned it. Nothing is done on the backs of those who are a drain on society, but on those who actually contribute.

ETA: The only error I see in the tax records thing is that I think Romney should be happy to throw down his tax returns in exchange for Obama's college records, or the release of the Fast and Furious documents to Congress, or any of the number of other things the Obama administration has fought way harder to keep secret than Romney with his tax records.

:bighand:

[janine]

I have to agree with you. I read all those comments to you as personal attacks. I think that you are 100% right about the poor way the PR for the Romney campaign has been handled all around.

There have been so many glaring errors that could have so easily been dealt with or planned better that it's really appalling. At first I thought he was trying to not get nominated, but it just keeps happening.

But man, now all I'm ever going to see when I see Ryan is zombie eyes. Dangit! And thank you!!

Ok, I think we all know who you support and maybe it makes it harder to see things somewhat objectively, but saying things like "zombie eyes" and that those with differing opinions are making personal "attacks" is why threads like this go downhill fast. Oh well it started off well!

[newnana]

Ok, I think we all know who you support and maybe it makes it harder to see things somewhat objectively, but saying things like "zombie eyes" and that those with differing opinions are making personal "attacks" is why threads like this go downhill fast. Oh well it started off well!

Actually, the zombie eyes thing has nothing to do with who I support and who I don't, it's just something a kid said that will now forever be stuck in my head. Just like when DD said that Grandpa looks like the creepy dude in Willy Wonka. Never occured to me and now I can't NOT think it when I see him.

It's not the fact that folks have differing opinions. I love that folks here have differing opinions and typically the way they are expressed. I didn't that friendly "why is it a bad PR move" vibe from these posts.

Actually, Obama had the same misspeak announcing the next president when announcing his VP pick with Biden and there was a pretty big thread about it. Romney went on to interrupt Ryan to try to correct the gaffe and it felt even more uncomfortable with the way it was handled.

Everyone makes mistakes, it's how they are handled in the press that makes them more or less palatable. I love watching the political PR from all sides and Romney's could be handled better, and frankly, I wish it would be for a whole host of reasons. It has nothing to do with Ryan or Romney as candidates and all about the folks handling the messaging.

[AnnieW625]

The Palin announcement was on a Friday. I saw it on my lunch hour in the gym. It was a press conference iirc, and the media was taken aback by the decision and was caught off guard. They knew absolutely nothing about her. It was amazing in an outsider sense to see them scramble so her name would be a household name in less than 48 hrs before it was considered old news. Her big unveiling was at the convention.

This time there seemed to be much less speculation about who the VP was going to be in the media and Romney chose someone who was kind of already out there so there didn't need to be a huge media blitz of "who is----" and he wasn't going to need a huge unveiling at the national convention. Yes the unveiling could have been done on a different day, but I highly doubt that whoever scheduled the press conference (that I did not see) even gave it a second thought that it would have been at the same time as the Usain Bolt run because only the execs. at NBC really knew when that was going to happen since it was not show live, but I am sure knew that doing it during the Olympics would at least gaurantee some viewers on at least one company of networks.

[arivecchi]

"He knows his stuff, and will kill Biden, who is a buffoon in the one or two VP debates, but it won't really change anyone's mind on the ticket."

I think Ryan was a great pick for Romney given what I have read so far. He solidifies the base, brings big donors, knows how to work the Hill and will provide some charisma to a charisma-deficient Romney. Unlike Palin, he is experienced and can hold his own quite well.

"I al all for a safety net, but the Ryan budget is NOT a $200 billion transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The TRANSFER is in the taking of money from those who have earned it. Nothing is done on the backs of those who are a drain on society, but on those who actually contribute."

I think the country's finances are certainly of utmost importance at this point, but this talk of "transfer from those who have earned it" and "drains on society" is so simplistic. It's a massively complex issue - one which is aggravated greatly by the rising number of elderly, the lowering tax base and our rising tab for two wars. I am all for a full blown discussion about how to solve the issue and agree that something drastic must be done, but entitlement programs are there for the destitute and needy - they need to be reformed but not decimated as proposed by Ryan. Ignoring our destitute and needy would come with its own set of financial repercussions - not to mention the moral ones. I certainly wish DH and I did not have to work so hard and pay through the nose in taxes (our last tax bill was almost enough to make me vote Republican!), but I just wish we could have an intelligent discussion about these issues instead of resorting to.....

"ETA: The only error I see in the tax records thing is that I think Romney should be happy to throw down his tax returns in exchange for Obama's college records, or the release of the Fast and Furious documents to Congress, or any of the number of other things the Obama administration has fought way harder to keep secret than Romney with his tax records."

Both issues are totally irrelevant IMO. I already know that Romney is incredibly wealthy and pays a super low tax rate and that Obama attended some great schools. What is the big deal? Why must we as a nation engage in these irrelevant debates which have zero bearing on the true problems facing us as a nation? Sometimes I feel despondent over our national discourse. It's just pathetic at times and it upsets me that public at large gets sidetracked with these red herrings.

I am sure we will have a pretty "lively" campaign. The NYT had an article about how Ryan and Obama have a pretty intense dislike of each other, so hang on for what I am pretty sure will be a fairly ugly ride.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/us/politics/obama-and-paul-ryan-clash-over-ways-to-reduce-deficit.html?ref=politics

[larig]

Apologies to AnnieW and the BBB for my previous post. I was wrong and should not have posted.

Sorry to all. Hope you will all forgive my lapse in judgment, particularly AnnieW. :bag

[AnnieW625]

Apologies to AnnieW and the BBB for my previous post. I was wrong and should not have posted.

Sorry to all. Hope you will all forgive my lapse in judgment, particularly AnnieW. :bag

No problem at all. It is hard to live with those decisions we made in my life and I somedays are harder than others, but it is what we chose to do and what we felt was best. Like I said in my original response if my experience helps someone else then I most likely won't have an issue talking about that choice we made.

[Nicsmom]

I think the country's finances are certainly of utmost importance at this point, [B]but this talk of "transfer from those who have earned it" and "drains on society" is so simplistic. It's a massively complex issue - one which is aggravated greatly by the rising number of elderly, the lowering tax base and our rising tab for two wars. I am all for a full blown discussion about how to solve the issue and agree that something drastic must be done, but entitlement programs are there for the destitute and needy - they need to be reformed but not decimated as proposed by Ryan. Ignoring our destitute and needy would come with its own set of financial repercussions - not to mention the moral ones.

:yeahthat: Everything I wanted to say you said it much better than I ever could.

It makes my heart ache when people refer to the needy as drains on society or as people who contribute nothing to society. I think about the children who are being fed with food stamps and whose education we pay through our taxes. Our future rests on these children, also.

[gatorsmom]

It makes my heart ache when people refer to the needy as drains on society or as people who contribute nothing to society. I think about the children who are being fed with food stamps and whose education we pay through our taxes. Our future rests on these children, also.

And you just summed up my feelings well. There are alot of people in this country who didn't get the breaks I got. The health of our society depends greatly on the wellbeing of all of us. I'm not a fan of Ryan's way of thinking.

[gatorsmom]

It makes my heart ache when people refer to the needy as drains on society or as people who contribute nothing to society. I think about the children who are being fed with food stamps and whose education we pay through our taxes. Our future rests on these children, also.

And you just summed up my feelings well. There are alot of people in this country who didn't get the breaks I got. The health of our society depends greatly on the wellbeing of each of us. I'm not a fan of Ryan's way of thinking.

[secchick]

:yeahthat: Everything I wanted to say you said it much better than I ever could.

It makes my heart ache when people refer to the needy as drains on society or as people who contribute nothing to society. I think about the children who are being fed with food stamps and whose education we pay through our taxes. Our future rests on these children, also.

I am sorry if my point came across wrong (particularly when a couple of sentences were severed from a larger paragraph), but I wasn't trying to say that just because someone is poor, they do not contribute to society, but rather to be honest and factually correct in discussions concerning how wealth flows in our economy. I was trying to convey my distate for the way the Ryan plan is being inaccurately and misleadingly portrayed in the media and by the Obama campaign. Just be honest. Wealth flows (and will continue to flow) from the wealthy to the poor and not the other way around. Ryan is not going to take Social Security or Medicare away from current retirees and throw Grandma out on the street. Don't try to pretend there is a different economic reality.

[wellyes]

I was trying to convey my distate for the way the Ryan plan is being inaccurately and misleadingly portrayed in the media and by the Obama campaign. Just be honest. Wealth flows (and will continue to flow) from the wealthy to the poor and not the other way around.

I don't know of anyone who believes that wealth flows from the poor to the wealthy. There are many positive benefits of a more proportional tax system and social safety net programs, but those benefits do not include making the rich richer. It *does* put money in the hands of more consumers, which is not a bad thing for our overall economy.

I personally don't believe the media has gotten ugly on either side. Yet. But from what I understand, Obama *really* dislikes Ryan, and the feeling is mutual, so we may be in for a bumpy ride.

[Kindra178]

Just be honest. Wealth flows (and will continue to flow) from the wealthy to the poor and not the other way around. Ryan is not going to take Social Security or Medicare away from current retirees and throw Grandma out on the street. Don't try to pretend there is a different economic reality.

Actually, so called trickle down theories have been disproven, as the rich get richer and the poor, well, stay poor. I am actually being quite honest, but I am not sure you are.

[secchick]

Actually, so called trickle down theories have been disproven, as the rich get richer and the poor, well, stay poor. I am actually being quite honest, but I am not sure you are.

Um, where did I mention trickle down theories in any way shape or form?

I was merely stating the fairly obvious fact that the money for food stamps and medicaid come from the half of Americans who pay federal income taxes. Yesterday I saw a headline that literally stated the Ryan plan is a multi hundred billion transfer from the poor to the rich. That kind of misleading mischaracterization was all I talking about.

[wellyes]

Yesterday I saw a headline that literally stated the Ryan plan is a multi hundred billion transfer from the poor to the rich. That kind of misleading mischaracterization was all I talking about.

He wants to cut federal programs that primarily benefit the poor to lower middle class in order to pay for a investment income tax cut that will primarily benefit the rich and very rich. That's a long-winded way of saying the exact same thing, right? I don't know the amount, or how specific he's gotten about it.

It doesn't mean money transfers up. It's just paying for cuts by slashing spending. Tax cuts and spending *increases* happened in the previous administration, by increasing the deficit.

[marymoo86]

He wants to cut federal programs that primarily benefit the poor to lower middle class in order to pay for a investment income tax cut that will primarily benefit the rich and very rich. That's a long-winded way of saying the exact same thing, right? I don't know the amount, or how specific he's gotten about it.

It doesn't mean money transfers up. It's just paying for cuts by slashing spending. Tax cuts and spending *increases* happened in the previous administration, by increasing the deficit.

No not when it isn't true - http://factcheck.org/2012/08/outdated-attacks-on-ryan/

[Nicsmom]

No not when it isn't true - http://factcheck.org/2012/08/outdated-attacks-on-ryan/

But the article you link does not say that Ryan will not propose to reduce capital gains taxes, only that it is uncertain that he will (although it suggests he might). The article explains that Ryan's 2010 plan "called for eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest" but in his 2011 and 2012 plans "there’s nothing specific on what would happen to capital gains taxes." Then, the author backpedals when he adds: " He (Ryan) does make clear, however, that he opposes raising capital gains taxes, and may favor reducing them." And then the article closes the argument by reiterating: "It’s true that Ryan’s 2010 plan would have meant that those who get most of their income from capital gains and investments — like Romney — would pay a very low, potentially close to zero, percentage of their income in taxes."

This article is ambiguous at best: The claim that Ryan will reduce capital gains is false because in 2011 and 2012 he did not propose this, although in 2010 he did AND he favors reducing them? I don't get what kind of fact check is this.

[marymoo86]

But the article you link does not say that Ryan will not propose to reduce capital gains taxes, only that it is uncertain that he will (although it suggests he might). The article explains that Ryan's 2010 plan "called for eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest" but in his 2011 and 2012 plans "there’s nothing specific on what would happen to capital gains taxes." Then, the author backpedals when he adds: " He (Ryan) does make clear, however, that he opposes raising capital gains taxes, and may favor reducing them." And then the article closes the argument by reiterating: "It’s true that Ryan’s 2010 plan would have meant that those who get most of their income from capital gains and investments — like Romney — would pay a very low, potentially close to zero, percentage of their income in taxes."

This article is ambiguous at best: The claim that Ryan will reduce capital gains is false because in 2011 and 2012 he did not propose this, although in 2010 he did AND he favors reducing them? I don't get what kind of fact check is this.

The claim is based about cutting social programs to fund an investment tax is based on his proposed 2010 budget so what is ambiguous?

"It’s true that Ryan’s 2010 plan would have meant that those who get most of their income from capital gains and investments — like Romney — would pay a very low, potentially close to zero, percentage of their income in taxes."

[KKsMom]

I don't think it matters who Romney picks as long a the person isn't a target of ridicule like last time or that would hurt him. I don't know anything about P.R. except what I heard over the last few days. He must be youngish - he kids look very young. I think most people already know who they are voting for. Unless something drastically changes votes will stay the same until Nov. I do think less people will be voting in Nov. I think the voters will be voting more against a candidate than for one - both sides.

[arivecchi]

This article is ambiguous at best: The claim that Ryan will reduce capital gains is false because in 2011 and 2012 he did not propose this, although in 2010 he did AND he favors reducing them? I don't get what kind of fact check is this. I agree with you. Factcheck is usually pretty great, but this one is kind of weak IMO. They are just saying that Obama officials are citing facts from his 2010 budget as opposed to the ones presented in 2011 and 2012 when the Republicans had gained control, so he actually needed to propose something more realistic. IMO, the 2010 budget is likely much closer to what he really believes in, since it was more of a statement budget that he proposed when the Repubs were the minority party in Congress and he really wanted to highlight policy differences.

[Nicsmom]

The claim is based about cutting social programs to fund an investment tax is based on his proposed 2010 budget so what is ambiguous?

"It’s true that Ryan’s 2010 plan would have meant that those who get most of their income from capital gains and investments — like Romney — would pay a very low, potentially close to zero, percentage of their income in taxes."

Maybe I'm not understanding this, but I don't see what is false about saying that Ryan will do what he proposed to do in 2010 and what he has publicly said favors. Only because he did not pursue reducing capital gain taxes in 2011 and 2012 (although he is for it) does not mean it is false to predict he will. I do see some ambivalence in the article's argument that says: opponents are wrong in saying that he'll do x, when in fact he did x in 2010, but not in 2011 or 12. However, he still favors x. Uh? I read hesitation here or maybe I'm used to calling "fact checking" when an argument is dismantled and proven false. I do not see this here.

Or maybe we are talking about something different.

[Nicsmom]

Factcheck is usually pretty great, but this one is kind of weak IMO. They are just saying that Obama officials are citing facts from his 2010 budget as opposed to the ones presented in 2011 and 2012 when the Republicans had gained control, so he actually needed to propose something more realistic. IMO, the 2010 budget is likely much closer to what he really believes in, since it was more of a statement budget that he proposed when the Repubs were the minority party in Congress and he really wanted to highlight policy differences.


:yeahthat: That's what I wanted to say but couldn't.

[mommylamb]

And I think Wisconsin was already a pretty red state. Not that this guy has ever won anything state-wide, but it isn't going to help Romney win a key state, like picking someone from Florida might have.

It will be an interesting few months.

Actually Wisconsin isn't a red state at all. All of the resent polling has Obama up in Wisconsin.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html

[Nicsmom]

I am sorry if my point came across wrong (particularly when a couple of sentences were severed from a larger paragraph), but I wasn't trying to say that just because someone is poor, they do not contribute to society, but rather to be honest and factually correct in discussions concerning how wealth flows in our economy. I was trying to convey my distate for the way the Ryan plan is being inaccurately and misleadingly portrayed in the media and by the Obama campaign. Just be honest. Wealth flows (and will continue to flow) from the wealthy to the poor and not the other way around. Ryan is not going to take Social Security or Medicare away from current retirees and throw Grandma out on the street. Don't try to pretend there is a different economic reality.

Historically there are some cases where wealth has flown from the poor to the rich, as in the case of slavery and some could argue that illegal immigration has a somewhat similar effect: some people can get richer on the backs of the destitute. I digress. I understand that you were not saying that the poor do not contribute to society. But I often see that people (not you) do not acknowledge that the poor also pay taxes, just not federal income taxes if they are unemployed. They pay sales, gas, and utility taxes. The poor also buy the goods and services that help our economy move forward. They do not send their money to tax havens, or spend their money overseas, everything they earn is spent here, in the US, helping our economy. More importantly, their children, as I mentioned, are part of America's future. What we spend on them is not necessarily wasted, is an investment.I know this is not what you meant, but I often see that poverty is seen as a moral flaw, as a sign of laziness. Yes, there are some people who abuse the system, and who perhaps are not "deserving" of our help. Can we say that about their children?

Anyway, I think that were the money comes and where it goes is not as simple as saying that it is the rich who support the poor. How did they get rich in the first place? Did they not use the infrastructure provided by all taxpayers (including the taxes paid by the poor) to get rich? To quote Elizabeth Warren, nobody gets rich in isolation:

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

So no, I don't think wealth flows only in one direction, and society cannot be divided into givers and takers.

[dogmom]

Ryan is not going to take Social Security or Medicare away from current retirees and throw Grandma out on the street. Don't try to pretend there is a different economic reality.

No, but I am going to be 47 this week and DH is turning 50. He will take it away from us. And you know what? Because my retirement money I saved since I was in my 20's took a hit with the market collapses I am not as far in my retirement savings as "experts" told me I would be. Yet someone the people who are the wealthy still got plenty out of this phase. For example, I had a rollover IRA that I started in 18 years ago that I put in fair sound mutual funds that was worth 10K, 15 yeasr later it was only worth 11K. I did nothing risky with it, but I am not a full time investor person. Ask me to save your life while you are bleeding out or coding I'm all over that. So if they decide to "do away" with social security my DH and I are screwed, we will not have enough to retire, and I'm trying to do it by 67, not 55. Even with 20 years and putting away 10% of my income it will not be enough.

Let's do the math, figuring my DH and I will get $1500 each a month from SS (I actually would get more according to the SS web site, but let's go with a lower, reasonable amount). Assuming we live an average of 15 years past retirement age I would need 540,000 to make up for that short fall, that's over 1/2 million dollars. No if we put and EXTRA $1000 a month away each month for the next 20 years (BTW WHICH I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE!) and assume 4% growth, which I think is reasonable to up and down turns, that only gets me to around 360,000.

So I'm not really worried about grandma, I'm worried about me and my kids. That is the economic reality I am dealing with. The not including grandma is just pandering to the elderly voter who vote at higher rates.

And get me started on that whole health care voucher for the elderly crap. My DH remark on that yesterday is "They have to warn the seniors in our town about the paving gypsies (real gypsies that are running seal top of your driveway scam-I can't make this stuff up), how they heck are they supposed to pick a health care plan! That will go well."

[minnie-zb]

:yeahthat:

I'm with Dogmom. I'm in my early 40's and my 401(k) has taken a beating. While I fully expect to work full time the next 25 years, I'm not sure I will be able to get to a point where I feel comfortable saying, sure take away Social Security! And what happens if I can't work the next 25 years? If I get sick or become disabled?

It is not about the current Senior Citizens -- it's about those of us who see what's coming around the corner and we are scared and worried.

[secchick]

No, but I am going to be 47 this week and DH is turning 50. He will take it away from us. And you know what? Because my retirement money I saved since I was in my 20's took a hit with the market collapses I am not as far in my retirement savings as "experts" told me I would be. Yet someone the people who are the wealthy still got plenty out of this phase. For example, I had a rollover IRA that I started in 18 years ago that I put in fair sound mutual funds that was worth 10K, 15 yeasr later it was only worth 11K. I did nothing risky with it, but I am not a full time investor person. Ask me to save your life while you are bleeding out or coding I'm all over that. So if they decide to "do away" with social security my DH and I are screwed, we will not have enough to retire, and I'm trying to do it by 67, not 55. Even with 20 years and putting away 10% of my income it will not be enough.

Let's do the math, figuring my DH and I will get $1500 each a month from SS (I actually would get more according to the SS web site, but let's go with a lower, reasonable amount). Assuming we live an average of 15 years past retirement age I would need 540,000 to make up for that short fall, that's over 1/2 million dollars. No if we put and EXTRA $1000 a month away each month for the next 20 years (BTW WHICH I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE!) and assume 4% growth, which I think is reasonable to up and down turns, that only gets me to around 360,000.

So I'm not really worried about grandma, I'm worried about me and my kids. That is the economic reality I am dealing with. The not including grandma is just pandering to the elderly voter who vote at higher rates.

And get me started on that whole health care voucher for the elderly crap. My DH remark on that yesterday is "They have to warn the seniors in our town about the paving gypsies (real gypsies that are running seal top of your driveway scam-I can't make this stuff up), how they heck are they supposed to pick a health care plan! That will go well."

First, traditional fee for service Medicare is unsustainable. You can tax all the income from the "millionaires and billionaires" and it is not going to fill the hole of unfunded liabilities. Any way you look at it, there will be cuts to Medicare (in addition to the $700B already cut to pay for Obamacare) and there will ultimately have to be tax increases for the middle class (because of the numbers). Ryan's most recent plan would also give you and your husband the option of choosing the subsidy (income scaled) or traditional Medicare.

No one is talking about doing away with SS, except that I believe it will eventually be means tested. So I am not sure what you are concerned about regarding the potential loss of your social security income.

I really struggle. I do not want anyone hungry or homeless or deprived or in need of care, but part of the social contract should be the duty to attempt to care for yourself and your family, and to suffer the consequeneces of your choices (but I struggle there too because of children suffering for their parents poor choices). Personally, I bought in to the full scale Bowles-Simpson plan that means tested social security, but actually enhanced SS benefits for low income workers so that they wouldn't be in poverty in retirement.

[wellyes]

part of the social contract should be the duty to attempt to care for yourself and your family, and to suffer the consequeneces of your choices

Means testing is tough. Many BBBers are underwater in their mortgages with 401k in the tank. In retrospect, many of us would have been better off renting and putting money in our mattresses. Sometimes the consequences of making what we're told are the responsible choices are not fair, at all. And it's not like it is the vagaries of fate. It's choices made by people Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae and Merrill Lynch, not to mention Alan Greenspan...... and consumers, too, sure. But that is just a part of it.

[AnnieW625]

I don't think it matters who Romney picks as long a the person isn't a target of ridicule like last time or that would hurt him. I don't know anything about P.R. except what I heard over the last few days. He must be youngish - he kids look very young. I think most people already know who they are voting for. Unless something drastically changes votes will stay the same until Nov. I do think less people will be voting in Nov. I think the voters will be voting more against a candidate than for one - both sides.

:yeahthat: Ryan is 41 or 42, he has been in congress since he was 28. It sounds like he was a kind of a good old boy (nothing wrong with that IMHO...not being snarky) in his home town and was well liked so he was able to start a congressional career a lot younger than most because he was already well known in his community.


I agree with you. Factcheck is usually pretty great, but this one is kind of weak IMO. They are just saying that Obama officials are citing facts from his 2010 budget as opposed to the ones presented in 2011 and 2012 when the Republicans had gained control, so he actually needed to propose something more realistic. IMO, the 2010 budget is likely much closer to what he really believes in, since it was more of a statement budget that he proposed when the Repubs were the minority party in Congress and he really wanted to highlight policy differences.

I usually like Factcheck and like websites as well, but I wish there was more explaination about why he made the decisions he made. When I was reading the one that was posted in the second post in this thread in regards to why he didn't ax. $84M in grants to hispanic and black colleges that is something I want to more about, and honestly if it were me I probably would have voted no on that as well because I would rather have $84M go to a wider variety of colleges, not just those that serve hispanics or blacks.

[marymoo86]

Means testing is tough. Many BBBers are underwater in their mortgages with 401k in the tank. In retrospect, many of us would have been better off renting and putting money in our mattresses. Sometimes the consequences of making what we're told are the responsible choices are not fair, at all. And it's not like it is the vagaries of fate. It's choices made by people Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae and Merrill Lynch, not to mention Alan Greenspan...... and consumers, too, sure. But that is just a part of it.

As well as choices made by the government to turn a blind eye to all the ills that were plainly there in front of them. So we feel that government can somehow right the wrongs that they help create/foster/encourage?

[janine]

This is kind of off track, but the conversation often seems to focus on the needs of the poor, and how society must consider fulfilling (ie higher taxes) a growing need to take care of those who may've struggled for whatever reasons, including poor decisons. jloss of retirement, home value.

But here's a thought, how about those who have done fine but are now struggilng because they can't afford taxes?
Specifically thinking of my parents (and probably many older people) who do not have an income since they are past their working years, but throughout those years paid all bills including paying off the mortgage. But now they are saddled with high property taxes that make it no longer affordable to stay in the home.
What breakd or benefits are given to them? There were no bad decisions, no economic downturn that impacted the investment choice (the house). In a state like NJ, property taxes often forces people out of homes they outright paid for. Not sure this is the thread for this but just throwing it out there as the flip side, ie it's not always rich vs. poor. Sometimes the people who are being asked to subsidize have just enough to cover themselves but after being taxed, no longer can live the lifestyle they have earned and deserve.

[niccig]

This is kind of off track, but the conversation often seems to focus on the needs of the poor, and how society must consider fulfilling (ie higher taxes) a growing need to take care of those who may've struggled for whatever reasons, including poor decisons. jloss of retirement, home value.

But here's a thought, how about those who have done fine but are now struggilng because they can't afford taxes?
Specifically thinking of my parents (and probably many older people) who do not have an income since they are past their working years, but throughout those years paid all bills including paying off the mortgage. But now they are saddled with high property taxes that make it no longer affordable to stay in the home.
What breakd or benefits are given to them? There were no bad decisions, no economic downturn that impacted the investment choice (the house). In a state like NJ, property taxes often forces people out of homes they outright paid for. Not sure this is the thread for this but just throwing it out there as the flip side, ie it's not always rich vs. poor. Sometimes the people who are being asked to subsidize have just enough to cover themselves but after being taxed, no longer can live the lifestyle they have earned and deserve.

When I talk about raising taxes, I mean the capital gains and other loop holes that let people pay 13% or less on their income from investments. Can you imagine how much money you could save and be better off in terms of retirement/college/savings/pay off house/ if instead of paying 28% in income taxes, you pay 13%? Look at your last tax return and work out how much more money you would have every year.

As Warren Buffet asked, why does his secretary pay a higher percentage than he does. He could pay the 28% and not notice it. His secretary would sure notice the difference if she only paid 13%. I've read arguments that it's to encourage investing, but investment rate was no lower when had to pay more in taxes on investment. But those who benefit from this will fight to keep it, it's a sweet deal and they know it.

[wellyes]

As well as choices made by the government to turn a blind eye to all the ills that were plainly there in front of them. So we feel that government can somehow right the wrongs that they help create/foster/encourage?
Yes, deregulation was obviously a huge factor. Also, like I said: Alan Greenspan.

Yes government can help right the wrongs it helped create. Of course. If our body politic makes mistakes, it should stop and take corrective action. Just like anyone would. That is what Ryan thinks he is doing by cutting entitlement programs, right?

[marymoo86]

When I talk about raising taxes, I mean the capital gains and other loop holes that let people pay 13% or less on their income from investments. Can you imagine how much money you could save and be better off in terms of retirement/college/savings/pay off house/ if instead of paying 28% in income taxes, you pay 13%? Look at your last tax return and work out how much more money you would have every year.

As Warren Buffet asked, why does his secretary pay a higher percentage than he does. He could pay the 28% and not notice it. His secretary would sure notice the difference if she only paid 13%. I've read arguments that it's to encourage investing, but investment rate was no lower when had to pay more in taxes on investment. But those who benefit from this will fight to keep it, it's a sweet deal and they know it.

WB's secretary is not paying 28% - that is the tax bracket where only a portion of her income is taxed at that rate.

Are you aware of what your effective tax rate is after all of your deductions? IIRC it was somewhere around 14% for me and my DH and I still paid in additional tax.

Millionaires and billionaires aren't the only folks who pay capital gains taxes. There are plenty of senior citizens and regular folks that save in mutual funds that receive dividends/gains from investments that contribute to their income. I think you might be talking about the carried interest loophole that is treated at the capital gains rate. That primarily affects private equity.

[marymoo86]

Yes, deregulation was obviously a huge factor. Also, like I said: Alan Greenspan.

Yes government can help right the wrongs it helped create. Of course. If our body politic makes mistakes, it should stop and take corrective action. Just like anyone would. That is what Ryan thinks he is doing by cutting entitlement programs, right?

No that was not deregulation - that was the government failing to do its job with regulations already in place - they couldn't even policed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! What's the point of new laws when the old ones were never enforced?

Correcting mistakes is one thing - not doing its job is another.

[Kindra178]

This is kind of off track, but the conversation often seems to focus on the needs of the poor, and how society must consider fulfilling (ie higher taxes) a growing need to take care of those who may've struggled for whatever reasons, including poor decisons. jloss of retirement, home value.

But here's a thought, how about those who have done fine but are now struggilng because they can't afford taxes?
Specifically thinking of my parents (and probably many older people) who do not have an income since they are past their working years, but throughout those years paid all bills including paying off the mortgage. But now they are saddled with high property taxes that make it no longer affordable to stay in the home.
What breakd or benefits are given to them? There were no bad decisions, no economic downturn that impacted the investment choice (the house). In a state like NJ, property taxes often forces people out of homes they outright paid for. Not sure this is the thread for this but just throwing it out there as the flip side, ie it's not always rich vs. poor. Sometimes the people who are being asked to subsidize have just enough to cover themselves but after being taxed, no longer can live the lifestyle they have earned and deserve.

In NJ, the super high property taxes fund a generally excellent public education system as the state government fails to provide the individual districts with enough money. Is there waste? Absolutely. NJ has so many different school districts with so many different schools. Teacher pay is really competitive and pensions were generous. So by keeping your parents' property tax high, they are preserving their home values which is directly tied to the school system.

Further to that end, your parents' property tax are funding the local schools (obviously not all, but most likely well more than half and probabaly more like 2/3 of their total tax bill goes to local schools) while the rest goes to local services and a small portion to the state. NJ property taxes really do not subsidize anyone but themselves/local area.

[niccig]

Bold is mine.



Second, do you know what your effective tax rate is after all of your deductions? IIRC it was somewhere around 14% for me and my DH and I still paid in additional tax.

Yes and it's more than 13 or 14% - not many deductions we can take.

Millionaires and billionaires aren't the only folks who pay capital gains taxes. There are plenty of senior citizens and regular folks that save in mutual funds that receive dividends/gains from investments that contribute to their income.
Which is why the talk about changing capital gains to make it based on income. Over a certain income, pay more %. Below a certain amount, and you don't pay more.

[wellyes]

No that was not deregulation - that was the government failing to do its job with regulations already in place - they couldn't even policed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! What's the point of new laws when the old ones were never enforced?

Correcting mistakes is one thing - not doing its job is another.
Not sure what you're talking about. I've heard the argument that the crisis was caused by the government giving lenders too many incentives to lend to people with bad credit (Wall Street would LOVE you to believe that's the whole truth). But I've never heard it was due to not enforcing regulations. It is a global economic and housing crisis, not the fault of any one government -- or company.

[marymoo86]

Bold is mine. Yes and it's more than 13 or 14% - not many deductions we can take.


Interesting - we only get mortgage interest, 1 DC and our exemption,some charity and with writing a check back to the government every year it has never been higher than 14%. Must be a tax bracket issue? :shrug:

[marymoo86]

Not sure what you're talking about. I've heard the argument that the crisis was caused by the government giving lenders too many incentives to lend to people with bad credit (Wall Street would LOVE you to believe that's the whole truth). But I've never heard it was due to not enforcing regulations. It is a global economic and housing crisis, not the fault of any one government -- or company.

No one the one fault but Chris Dodd played a large part in it with his failure as Senate Chair of the Banking Committee to investigate the massive problems and fraud at Fannie and Freddie. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the campaign contributions he received.

[dogmom]

First, traditional fee for service Medicare is unsustainable. You can tax all the income from the "millionaires and billionaires" and it is not going to fill the hole of unfunded liabilities. Any way you look at it, there will be cuts to Medicare (in addition to the $700B already cut to pay for Obamacare) and there will ultimately have to be tax increases for the middle class (because of the numbers). Ryan's most recent plan would also give you and your husband the option of choosing the subsidy (income scaled) or traditional Medicare.

No one is talking about doing away with SS, except that I believe it will eventually be means tested. So I am not sure what you are concerned about regarding the potential loss of your social security income.

I really struggle. I do not want anyone hungry or homeless or deprived or in need of care, but part of the social contract should be the duty to attempt to care for yourself and your family, and to suffer the consequeneces of your choices (but I struggle there too because of children suffering for their parents poor choices). Personally, I bought in to the full scale Bowles-Simpson plan that means tested social security, but actually enhanced SS benefits for low income workers so that they wouldn't be in poverty in retirement.

I'm in health care, I know it unsustainable. But that is because we need a rational health care plan. Unfortunately, every time any makes a move in that direction or talks about it there are accusations of rationing health care, that we are going to kill granny, the government is going to come between and you and your doctor, and nothing happens. Heck, we couldn't even get payment for a PCP to spend an extra 10 minutes every other year talking to people about making decisions about advanced directives without it being called a "death panel". We can not afford to try everything to save everyone no matter water, period. I hear people here always complaining about how they want there health care provider to do exactly what they want when they want it. The answer of "yes" to the would you let this person die that got cheers at the Republican debates only is cheered if it's someone else. I've been with these families at the bedside that want me to do everything to save Nana, even though Nana is never going to recover. I hate flogging the 87 year old to a tune of a million dollars. You know why health care cost so freaking much? Because we can DO so freaking much. The advances in care and how I can keep people alive that have changed in the last 20 years I've become a nurse astounds me. And it's not like it's a computer and it just get cheaper people! You know why health care was cheap in the 60's? Because we couldn't do much and people just died. We haven't moved away from fee for service because people would not like the results, but it is the only way.

Paul Ryan has repeated talked about privatizing social security, so taking the tax money and investing it in the market like I've done with my IRA and somehow that is make up the difference. As far as I am concerned that is taking away social security because I don't see the secure part of it.

[secchick]

Paul Ryan has repeated talked about privatizing social security, so taking the tax money and investing it in the market like I've done with my IRA and somehow that is make up the difference. As far as I am concerned that is taking away social security because I don't see the secure part of it.


Ryan's SS plan never contemplated anyone ever having the option of investing more than 40% of their contributions in private accounts, because they still needed the income stream to pay benefits. And to my recollection, doing so was always optional, not required. To the extent SS is solvent, you would have always had the option of choosing your scheduled benefits under the Ryan plan.

[maestramommy]

There was a very interesting panel discussion this morning on the Diane Rehm show on Paul Ryan. Most of it focused on his "Ryan Budget" and how that affected Medicare, but there was also discussion on taxes. I believe there will be another discussion next week on taxes specifically. I found myself agreeing with one of the panelists that if nothing else, the Ryan pick has gotten Americans into a substantive discussion on what exactly it is that they want from the govt.

[janine]

In NJ, the super high property taxes fund a generally excellent public education system as the state government fails to provide the individual districts with enough money. Is there waste? Absolutely. NJ has so many different school districts with so many different schools. Teacher pay is really competitive and pensions were generous. So by keeping your parents' property tax high, they are preserving their home values which is directly tied to the school system.

Further to that end, your parents' property tax are funding the local schools (obviously not all, but most likely well more than half and probabaly more like 2/3 of their total tax bill goes to local schools) while the rest goes to local services and a small portion to the state. NJ property taxes really do not subsidize anyone but themselves/local area.

Unfortunately that would make *some* sense except it is not a good school district. Not to mention many are not using the school system. Clearly there is waste and while I hear that NJ has such great schools, it really is relative and I find there are signficant cutbacks going on there just like everywhere else in the country, yet our property taxes are disproptionately high. Doesn't add up and it does subsidize local eduction and other local efforts, and no surprise, keep going up and up. Obviously this is a localized example but my point is, you can't make it so black and white, rich vs poor. The point an earlier PP made about capital gains not being a tax just for the rich, but for most working Americans is another good point.
In terms of the Obamacare plan, this again has hit the middle class working individual the hardest. Benefits have shot up again for 2013, less coverge, higher deductibles. But yet we must cover kids up till age 27, things like gender reassignment are also now covered, while prescription coverage is being scaled back. This is just one example at a large global corporation - so it's not the Bank CEO who is getting hit, but the average person taking home a modest salary who is now essentially taking a pay cut. And public transportation cuts...also are getting passed to the consumer/commuter. HSA accounts are being scaled back (5 to 2.5K), this is the side of Obamacare that many don't focus on. It is not just a shifting of contributions from rich to poor - the rich won't feel it. It's the hitting the same sweet spot as usual, the honest working person who is flat in the middle.