Quantcast

Paul Ryan wins VP pick

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/08/12 00:33:34
Good choice.
Bad choice.
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Paul Ryan, the one man who has actually written a budget for the country since Barack Obama took office, will run for Vice-President on Mitt Romney's ticket.

This changes the game. Mitt Romney, by picking Ryan, has thrown every canard against him and against capitalism itself, straight into the faces of Barack Obama, the Democrats, and their whole undisciplined machine.

Ryan has two other advantages over many of the other candidates:

He is a Congressman, not a Senator. The Republicans cannot spare any of their Senators just now, especially the true conservatives among them.

He is a natural born citizen. Marco Rubio, sadly, is not. His parents didn't get naturalized until he was five years old. (But any of Senator Rubio's children should be eligible.)

But his biggest advantage is: He doesn't care what others think, so long as they do think. Which most of his detractors clearly do not.

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/11...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/08/12 00:37:48
    Good choice.
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +14
    That budget that he actually got the House to pass earlier this year is the first attempt in a long time to get control of our out-of-control spending. By choosing him, Mitt Romney gives us a choice, and a stark one: Responsibility or irresponsibility. Freedom or slavery. Solvency or insolvency. Wealth or debt.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • William 2012/08/14 16:43:24 (edited)
    Bad choice.
    William
    Depending on how you look at it, ...
  • Hamilton 2012/08/14 06:06:07
    Good choice.
    Hamilton
    +1
    Able to cut through the smoke and get to the heart of the matter.
  • getu 2012/08/14 02:11:54
    Good choice.
    getu
    +2
    Honorable, smart, straight-talking, clear thinking... hmmm. The opposing Party must HATE this choice... Of course, he's one of the few who really has a plan, isn't afraid to write it down and put it out there, so they have an outline to follow with their lies, disinformation and inuendo.

    Scare tactics will probably be the way they go. Let me see... R&R; will end Social Security, I bet Medicare too. Watch for those and all the other hob-goblin lines coming soon on one of the "news" networks in your home.
  • tblackb 2012/08/13 15:48:42
    Bad choice.
    tblackb
    this is like McCain picking Palin all over again. This plays to the conservative base of the republican party, who would have voted for Romney no matter what, and does nothing to move independents; in fact will probably turn them off!. It will also help the President in the courting the elderly and people with disabilities which he was struggling to do....
  • Southern Man 2012/08/13 12:30:53
    Undecided
    Southern Man
    +5
    I could careless just get 0bama and Biden out that is all that matters in this election
  • Aurora 2012/08/13 00:39:52
    Good choice.
    Aurora
    +4
    Romney and Ryan are good people.
  • ★Calliope★ 2012/08/13 00:20:13
  • Temlako... ★Calliope★ 2012/08/13 01:22:47
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    I'm afraid you are quoting only a qualification to vote.

    The phrase "natural born citizen" appears only once in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5. And that phrase takes its meaning from Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations. According to which a natural born citizen is one born in-country to two parents, BOTH OF WHOM ARE CITIZENS AT THE TIME THAT THE SUBJECT PERSON IS BORN.

    That leave Marco out. And that should have knocked BHO out.
  • ★Calliope★ Temlako... 2012/08/13 17:56:56
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    Please take a look at this. I did the research after reading.


    http://www.americanthinker.co...
  • getu ★Calliope★ 2012/08/14 02:17:33
    getu
    +1
    Listening to a professor whose special interest is the US Constitution, I learned that there was initially one written restriction that would have eliminated people like Obama and Rubio. At some point, during a revision or editing step, it was removed because they felt it was unnecessary rhetoric on a subject that needed no explanation. Boy, did they ever misdiagnose that one!!
  • ★Calliope★ getu 2012/08/14 04:22:30
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    Would have simplified things...
  • Hamilton ★Calliope★ 2012/08/14 06:16:41
    Hamilton
    +1
    This is an excellent article. I will be sharing this on facebook.
  • ★Calliope★ Hamilton 2012/08/14 06:41:09
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    I'm glad to have passed it on. :)
  • Technotrucker_exposingthetruth 2012/08/13 00:02:54
    Bad choice.
    Technotrucker_exposingthetruth
    Romney cannot beat BO in a general election. He could nominate anyone he wishes as his running mate, but it doesn't change the fact that Mitt is a criminal and a fraud.
    Ron Paul is looking better and better every day.
  • Murph 65 2012/08/13 00:00:42
    Good choice.
    Murph 65
    +4
    I like the fact that he doesn't "curry favor" and speaks his mind.
  • ConLibFraud 2012/08/12 19:50:26
    Bad choice.
    ConLibFraud
    +1
    Great! Big government big spending war monger NWO thug ORomney picks an jerk who wishes to shackle We The People with a debt we didn't create! Super!

    America - Land of the Sheep and Home of the Slave!
  • Temlako... ConLibF... 2012/08/13 01:25:13
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    What ARE you talking about?

    And what do you propose? To repudiate the national debt? Absolutely to REFUSE TO PAY? What honor would remain to us as a people if we did that?
  • ConLibF... Temlako... 2012/08/13 16:23:26
  • Hamilton ConLibF... 2012/08/14 06:22:41
    Hamilton
    The people who shackled our nation in debt are by in large Democrats, not that there are not plenty of guilty Republicans out there, and we need to get better people in office who will reign in our spending and allow our economy to restart.

    Paul Ryan is the man.
  • ConLibF... Hamilton 2012/08/14 07:44:06
    ConLibFraud
    You are nothing but a programmed slave. There is only 1 party and they have spent like criminals and now you are supporting a confessed republican with a budget plan that shackles We The People with a debt we did not create and lets the criminals who did off the hook.

    You are proof why America is toast.
  • Hamilton ConLibF... 2012/08/14 17:02:58
    Hamilton
    I'll bet you were a Pee-rot supporter 20 years ago, weren't you?

    Everyone should have known he was Bat shirt crazy the instant he said "There is not a dimes worth of difference betwwen the Republicans and the Democrats."

    That has never been true, and it was absolutely untrue when he said it and it is even less true today.
  • ConLibF... Hamilton 2012/08/14 17:11:41
    ConLibFraud
    +1
    You and your type are why America is going down.
  • Lee ConLibF... 2012/08/15 21:07:21
    Lee
    That's exactly correct.

    RWNJ's are America's Enemy Number One.

    But they are just too dumb to know it.
  • ConLibF... Lee 2012/08/15 21:10:12
    ConLibFraud
    Not so fast! Both the Ofraud supporters and the ORomney supporters are the same and both are why America is toast.
  • Lee ConLibF... 2012/08/15 21:49:37
    Lee
    Wrong . . . there is a huge difference between Dems and Repugs.

    And most self-described Libertarians are as demented as the Repugnant Ones.
  • ConLibF... Lee 2012/08/15 22:09:38
  • Lee ConLibF... 2012/08/23 17:23:14
    Lee
    Not only that but . . .

    - We are all bipedal primates


    Wow! The similarities are AMAZING!

    We are practically identical.
  • ConLibF... Lee 2012/08/23 17:37:36
    ConLibFraud
    Yep and the main reason why America is toast.
  • Lee ConLibF... 2012/08/23 23:44:42
    Lee
    I take it then that you are not a bipedal primate?

    What are you then?

    Some species of worm?
  • ConLibF... Lee 2012/08/23 23:47:21
    ConLibFraud
    What do you know about worms?
  • Lee ConLibF... 2012/08/24 12:10:20
    Lee
    They're lower life forms . . . Like Republicans . . . and most Libertarians.

    Republicans and Libertarians are pretty much identical.

    The only real differences are their "victimless crime" stance and their war stance.
  • ConLibF... Lee 2012/08/24 15:21:15
    ConLibFraud
    Takes one to know one.
  • Lee Hamilton 2012/08/15 21:04:26 (edited)
    Lee
    I agree that there is in fact a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    Overall, the Republicans have defined themselves as "Bat Sh*t Crazy" extremists and slaves to an unworkable ideology . . . Nasty, venal, malicious, can't-do extremists who seek to obstruct progress at every opportunity, and subvert the national interest to the perpetuation and strengthening of plutocratic rule.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, have defined themselves as the Party of can-do pragmatists, out to solve problems . . . sensibly and systematically.

    Essentially we have a dichotomy of strong contrasts . . . . The Good Guys (the Dems) vs The Bad Guys (the Repugnant Ones).

    You are right that the differences between the two major Parties has grown much stronger. Modern Repubicans (Latter Day Republicans) have as much in common with the Party of Lincoln as Mitt Romney has in common with a real Saint.

    Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower would not even be accepted in today's Republican Party.

    They would be regarded as RINO's at best. Latter Day Republicans would ostracize them as Socialists, Communists, and Liberals.

    On the other hand, none of those three good men would want to have anything to do with the Republican Party, as infested as it is with unthinking herd animals, simpletons, parasites, and tr...

    I agree that there is in fact a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    Overall, the Republicans have defined themselves as "Bat Sh*t Crazy" extremists and slaves to an unworkable ideology . . . Nasty, venal, malicious, can't-do extremists who seek to obstruct progress at every opportunity, and subvert the national interest to the perpetuation and strengthening of plutocratic rule.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, have defined themselves as the Party of can-do pragmatists, out to solve problems . . . sensibly and systematically.

    Essentially we have a dichotomy of strong contrasts . . . . The Good Guys (the Dems) vs The Bad Guys (the Repugnant Ones).

    You are right that the differences between the two major Parties has grown much stronger. Modern Repubicans (Latter Day Republicans) have as much in common with the Party of Lincoln as Mitt Romney has in common with a real Saint.

    Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower would not even be accepted in today's Republican Party.

    They would be regarded as RINO's at best. Latter Day Republicans would ostracize them as Socialists, Communists, and Liberals.

    On the other hand, none of those three good men would want to have anything to do with the Republican Party, as infested as it is with unthinking herd animals, simpletons, parasites, and traitors.

    Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower, however, would feel right at home in the Democratic Party . . . And they would be welcomed with open arms.
    (more)
  • Hamilton Lee 2012/08/15 21:24:26
    Hamilton
    +1
    What is the point in even arguing with you? Your rant is so devoid of historical content it makes discussion impossible.

    Dittos discussions on economics. What is true is that JFK would have to run as a Republican today because he used the same tax cutting strategies that Reagan and W. used, and with the same effect. Tax rates were cut, the economy fired up, and revenues jumped. The same thing that happened under Reagan, and then W.

    The best example of this happened in the twenties under Harding and Coolidge. We had phenomenal growth rates and had them at a time when we were hit with waves of needy people coming to America from Europe after WW1 looking for work. We had an economy that could welcome them.

    But the first RINO ruined everything. Hoover put policies in place that killed the economy. FDR continued those policies. Make no mistake about it, when it came for economic policy Hoover and FDR were the same guy -- in spite of what your idiotic public school teacher may have told you.
  • Lee Hamilton 2012/08/15 22:17:15 (edited)
    Lee
    Wrong. The Dems are pragmatists.

    We know about the components of Fiscal Policy. LOOK IT UP

    And yes, we are fully aware that Reducing Taxes can stimulate the economy.

    That's why taxes are lower now for 95 percent of Americans under the Obama administration, than they were under the GW Bush Administration. Obama's stimulus reduced taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

    But as pragmatists, we also know there is a trade off involved with reducing taxes. Taxes are this nation's primary source of revenue. And without tax revenue, this nation will NEVER pay down its debt.

    So yes, Kennedy wold be welcomed in the Democratic Party. He, like Obama, reduced taxes for most Americans during an economic slow down.

    The amazingly strong economic rebound during the Reagan administration had very little to do with his tax policy. The credit for that goes to the price of world oil, which plummeted during his time in office to a fraction of what it had been during the Carter administration. And back then , the overall price of energy was much more closely tied to petroleum prices.

    http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

    And cheap energy stimulates the economy like nothing else.

    Reagan, the most over-rated President in the history of the United States, merely took the credit.

    Reagan succeeded in TRIPLING the nat...



















    Wrong. The Dems are pragmatists.

    We know about the components of Fiscal Policy. LOOK IT UP

    And yes, we are fully aware that Reducing Taxes can stimulate the economy.

    That's why taxes are lower now for 95 percent of Americans under the Obama administration, than they were under the GW Bush Administration. Obama's stimulus reduced taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

    But as pragmatists, we also know there is a trade off involved with reducing taxes. Taxes are this nation's primary source of revenue. And without tax revenue, this nation will NEVER pay down its debt.

    So yes, Kennedy wold be welcomed in the Democratic Party. He, like Obama, reduced taxes for most Americans during an economic slow down.

    The amazingly strong economic rebound during the Reagan administration had very little to do with his tax policy. The credit for that goes to the price of world oil, which plummeted during his time in office to a fraction of what it had been during the Carter administration. And back then , the overall price of energy was much more closely tied to petroleum prices.

    http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

    And cheap energy stimulates the economy like nothing else.

    Reagan, the most over-rated President in the history of the United States, merely took the credit.

    Reagan succeeded in TRIPLING the national debt, because the tax revenue generated during that wonderful cheap-energy inspired economic boom was not nearly enough to keep up with the huge expenses he generated . . . like the hundreds of billions that went into little Ronnie Raygun's great big star wars play set.

    Reagan was a horrible President as well because the misattribution of economic success to Reagan inspired the likes of GW to mimic Reagan's policies, which in turn caused GW's Great Recession.

    Like Reagan, GW shamelessly bought votes by promising low taxes, and that of course reduced revenue from what it otherwise would have been. And like Reagan, the consequent increase in the debt (GW more than DOUBLED the dead) was the completely unnecessary and irresponsible act of a RWNJ politico.

    Like Reagan, GW ran an extremely loose ship, advocating a hands off Laissez faire approach to governance, because of the vague idea that a government that tries to govern wisely and adequately "is the problem."

    W's economic success was based on an investment frenzy, totally unjustified in reality, but consistent with unrealistic Right Wing high hopes.

    And your Harding comparison is just ridiculous. Harding was an even worse President than Reagan. Ever heard of Teapot Dome? Your recounting of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover is entirely bogus. You've been duped. And you like it.

    The trouble with you Right Wingers is that you believe your own lies.

    You lie to yourselves, you lie to each other, and when you try to lie to those of us with sense, you had better expect us to call Bull Sh*t.

    You RWNJ's are sooooooo easily manipulated by your Plutocratic handlers.

    Don't you Right Wing Peons ever get tired of licking the boots of the Plutocrats who walk all over you?

    I hope I don't seem too pedantic by providing so much historical content.
    (more)
  • Hamilton Lee 2012/08/16 13:49:18
    Hamilton
    +1
    Simple question then... if Democrats are such great pragmatists, why does nothing they ever do work? This economy is hanging on the edge of a stall and cannot gain altitude enough to clear the trees just ahead. We are one shift in the wind

    Pragmatists, right.

    Lowered taxes on 95%?? Riiiiiiight. Taxes are lowered in one area and raised in other areas does not a good deal make.

    Then if you count the restrictive and short sighted energy policies that have driven up our food and fuel prices even further, what else can you call that but an indirect tax?

    Besides if these vaunted tax cuts were nearly enough and in the right places, why is our economy sagging so badly right now?

    Also if you are such good pragmatists, how come you keep confusing tax rates with revenue? They are very different things and show how you really do not understand the effects of tax rates on revenue.

    Now while the falling price of oil had a great deal to do with the turn around, it was definitely a secondary factor, but even there is yet another example of where you fail to give Reagan credit. Oil prices fell because of increased domestic production and REALLY fell because Reagan convinced the Saudi's to take the lead in convincing other increasing production do drive the price down. That put a huge strain...







    Simple question then... if Democrats are such great pragmatists, why does nothing they ever do work? This economy is hanging on the edge of a stall and cannot gain altitude enough to clear the trees just ahead. We are one shift in the wind

    Pragmatists, right.

    Lowered taxes on 95%?? Riiiiiiight. Taxes are lowered in one area and raised in other areas does not a good deal make.

    Then if you count the restrictive and short sighted energy policies that have driven up our food and fuel prices even further, what else can you call that but an indirect tax?

    Besides if these vaunted tax cuts were nearly enough and in the right places, why is our economy sagging so badly right now?

    Also if you are such good pragmatists, how come you keep confusing tax rates with revenue? They are very different things and show how you really do not understand the effects of tax rates on revenue.

    Now while the falling price of oil had a great deal to do with the turn around, it was definitely a secondary factor, but even there is yet another example of where you fail to give Reagan credit. Oil prices fell because of increased domestic production and REALLY fell because Reagan convinced the Saudi's to take the lead in convincing other increasing production do drive the price down. That put a huge strain on the USSR at a time when their economy was slumping, making it hard for them to wage the cold war against the US or the HOT war in Afghanistan. The Saudi's and most of the Middle East was motivated to hurt Russia any way they could.

    Didja see Charley Wilson's war? Shoulda been at least nominated for an Oscar. Great movie.

    The bottom line here is that Reagan's push here had a profound impact both on domestic and foreign policy.

    Your website on oil prices isn't so much wrong as it is simplistic and horridly incomplete. Not mentioning this aspect of what happened in the eighties is at best a very large oversight.

    (To be continued on the next post.)
    (more)
  • Lee Hamilton 2012/08/16 23:41:40 (edited)
    Lee
    That was as stupid question. Solutions proposed and implemented by the Democrats often do work. The stumbling block is the Tea Party infested Congress that does its best to impede all progress.

    We aren’t in a Great Depression now, are we? You can thank Obama and the Dems for that. If Romney had been President the last 3 ½ years, we would be in the depths of a Depression right now. Both Chrysler and GM would have liquidated all holdings and laid off tens of thousands, and the resultant ripple would have devastated this nation’s economy.

    Yes, Obama did lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Where did Obama raise taxes.? Give an example. But you can’t, can you? It’s hard to support a bald faced lie with facts. Quit lying for a change, OK? Or support your claims. What taxes did Obama increase?

    Tax cuts don’t always work to stimulate the economy. What would work right now is more stimulus money directed toward building infrastructure for the long term and putting people back to work in the short term.

    I definitely do not confuse tax rates with revenue.

    And I’m sure I understand the effects of tax rates on taxes better than some delusional Right Winger. You’re going to start blathering about the Laffer Curve now, aren’t you? . . . Yawn . . . So predictable.

    The Laf...
















    That was as stupid question. Solutions proposed and implemented by the Democrats often do work. The stumbling block is the Tea Party infested Congress that does its best to impede all progress.

    We aren’t in a Great Depression now, are we? You can thank Obama and the Dems for that. If Romney had been President the last 3 ½ years, we would be in the depths of a Depression right now. Both Chrysler and GM would have liquidated all holdings and laid off tens of thousands, and the resultant ripple would have devastated this nation’s economy.

    Yes, Obama did lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Where did Obama raise taxes.? Give an example. But you can’t, can you? It’s hard to support a bald faced lie with facts. Quit lying for a change, OK? Or support your claims. What taxes did Obama increase?

    Tax cuts don’t always work to stimulate the economy. What would work right now is more stimulus money directed toward building infrastructure for the long term and putting people back to work in the short term.

    I definitely do not confuse tax rates with revenue.

    And I’m sure I understand the effects of tax rates on taxes better than some delusional Right Winger. You’re going to start blathering about the Laffer Curve now, aren’t you? . . . Yawn . . . So predictable.

    The Laffer Curve works in reverse too, you know? Reducing taxes can reach a point of diminishing returns where lower taxes do not significantly promote economic growth. GW reduced tax rates twice. This entire recession happened in spite of his famous tax cuts. Why do you suppose that is?

    Domestic production had little to do with the price of world oil.
    The price of world oil fell because the Iran-Iraq war ended, and both of those oil giants started producing massive quantities to make up for lost revenue. At the same time, Russia had been enlarging its drilling and production efforts. Because of those things, there was a world wide oil glut, and prices plummeted.

    Your claims about Reagan and the Saudis is total Bull Sh*t . . . .Part of the Reagan MYTH. Completely bogus.

    As I said, you right wingers freely lie yourselves and you lie to each other, but don’t try lying to intelligent and discriminating people. They won’t buy it.

    Yes, I saw Charlie Wilson’s War. I liked it. But you obviously missed the whole point of the movie. Why does it not surprise that a RWNJ couldn’t get it?

    The point of the movie is that after the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan, the nation was left to fend completely for itself, because the United States under the Reagan Administration completely abandoned its former ally. It’s no surprise that Al Qadah gained such a foot hold there, is it?

    Not only that, but during the war, the United States, led by it’s Commander in Chief Reagan, instructed the Mujahadeen in strategy and tactics. Prominent among them was man by the name of Osama Bin Laden. That’s right, the Reagan administration taught Osama Bin Laden to plan attacks and to kill effectively.

    Not only that, but thousands of weapons were left there, including RPG’s and shoulder fired Stinger Missels, which would eventually be turned against us in Somalia and other places. That’s right. The Reagan administration armed the instigators of a little incident that later became known as Black Hawk Down.

    Gosh, it seems that the only thing American Right Wingers can do well is wreak damage upon this nation, doesn’t it?
    (more)
  • Hamilton Lee 2012/08/17 15:32:44
    Hamilton
    +1
    re: paragraph 1. It is a very valid question. Liberalism never delivers on its stated intent. Why is that if you are all such great pragmatists?

    Now it is NOT true that we would be in a depression without Obama, and with Romney at the helm. Neither would GM and Chrysler have been liquidated. They would have been forced to *reorganize* and renegotiate all contracts. That would have hit the UAW very hard, and that is what the auto bailout was really about, and why the automakers are still in deep trouble.

    "Where did Obama raise taxes? Give an example. But you can’t, can you? It’s hard to support a bald faced lie with facts. Quit lying for a change, OK? Or support your claims. What taxes did Obama increase?"

    OOOh, thank you for walking into that.

    First, almost immediately he jacked up the taxes on Tobacco. Now while that is not something I pay, it was his first breaking of his no new taxes on people making less than $250,000 pledge. If you are a smoker, you got a tax rate increase, and whether it was large enough to erase the little bit that Obama gave, depends on how heavily you smoke.

    But then his "signature" achievement, Obamacare, contains LOTS of taxes, many of which impact the middle class, lower class and most outrageously of all, Non-Profits.

    * Individual Mandate Excis...















    re: paragraph 1. It is a very valid question. Liberalism never delivers on its stated intent. Why is that if you are all such great pragmatists?

    Now it is NOT true that we would be in a depression without Obama, and with Romney at the helm. Neither would GM and Chrysler have been liquidated. They would have been forced to *reorganize* and renegotiate all contracts. That would have hit the UAW very hard, and that is what the auto bailout was really about, and why the automakers are still in deep trouble.

    "Where did Obama raise taxes? Give an example. But you can’t, can you? It’s hard to support a bald faced lie with facts. Quit lying for a change, OK? Or support your claims. What taxes did Obama increase?"

    OOOh, thank you for walking into that.

    First, almost immediately he jacked up the taxes on Tobacco. Now while that is not something I pay, it was his first breaking of his no new taxes on people making less than $250,000 pledge. If you are a smoker, you got a tax rate increase, and whether it was large enough to erase the little bit that Obama gave, depends on how heavily you smoke.

    But then his "signature" achievement, Obamacare, contains LOTS of taxes, many of which impact the middle class, lower class and most outrageously of all, Non-Profits.

    * Individual Mandate Excise Tax --- Yup, it is a tax. SCOTUS sez so.

    * Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage --- guess we are going to get less of that now.

    * Medicine Cabinet Tax -- Now people cannot use their money from medical savings accounts anymore to buy over the counter drugs. No matter how you slice it, this is a tax AND if a person put money into the fund under one set of rules than cannot spend that money under the NEW set of rules, then by year end the IRS gets all the money... that is REAAAAALY a tax.

    * Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals -- the fact that this is here at all is an abomination.

    * Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers -- Here is your new Prosthesis, plus the new tax.

    * Tax on Indoor Tanning Services -- not something that I use, but still it is a new tax.

    * Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax -- anyone who collects a paycheck pays this one.

    Now we are not even talking about all of the other manufacturers and providers that will get passed on to the consumers one way or another. If it comes out of my pocket but only INDIRECTLY goes into the Government piggy bank, how is that not a tax?

    There is much more to post on this subject, but I think it is fair to say that my point has been made.
    (more)
  • Lee Hamilton 2012/08/17 18:14:26 (edited)
    Lee
    Please expound upon this statement: " Liberalism never delivers on its stated intent." And don't hesitate to cite legitmate sources.

    As a Moderate, I can't speak for Liberals. I referred to the Democratic Party as the Pragmatists. And the Democratic Party is composed of Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.

    As opposed to the Latter Day Republicans, which is composed chiefly of Reactionaries and other Right Wing Extremists with a few real Conservatives sprinkled in.

    GM and Chrysler did reorganize after bankruptcy with the help of the United States governmnent. Because of Federal help, that bankruptcy process only lasted for three months, instead of years. And yes, with a lengthy bankruptcy process, massive layoffs and property liquidation would have ensued. Because of Federal help, both companies are now solvent, employing thousands directly, and employing hundreds of thousands indirectly.

    Tell you what Hamilton. You come up with a whole lot of unsupportable BS, that is accepted as fact in Right Wing Nut Job land, but in the real world, very little of what you say is valid.

    Start trying to cite legitimate sources to support your outrageous claims, and you'll see just how out of touch with reality you really are.

    Tobacco taxes? Yes obama raised Tobacco taxes, which directly ...



























    Please expound upon this statement: " Liberalism never delivers on its stated intent." And don't hesitate to cite legitmate sources.

    As a Moderate, I can't speak for Liberals. I referred to the Democratic Party as the Pragmatists. And the Democratic Party is composed of Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.

    As opposed to the Latter Day Republicans, which is composed chiefly of Reactionaries and other Right Wing Extremists with a few real Conservatives sprinkled in.

    GM and Chrysler did reorganize after bankruptcy with the help of the United States governmnent. Because of Federal help, that bankruptcy process only lasted for three months, instead of years. And yes, with a lengthy bankruptcy process, massive layoffs and property liquidation would have ensued. Because of Federal help, both companies are now solvent, employing thousands directly, and employing hundreds of thousands indirectly.

    Tell you what Hamilton. You come up with a whole lot of unsupportable BS, that is accepted as fact in Right Wing Nut Job land, but in the real world, very little of what you say is valid.

    Start trying to cite legitimate sources to support your outrageous claims, and you'll see just how out of touch with reality you really are.

    Tobacco taxes? Yes obama raised Tobacco taxes, which directly influences a minority of citizens, who should really quit smoking anyway.

    Big Deal . . . Or do you support Big Cancer?

    Do you find the Obama administration's drive to create good health in the nation is somehow immoral? . . . .Or unconstitutional perhaps?

    Please expound on why it's bad to for the government to encourage this nation's citizens to be healthy.


    Still, 95 percent of Americans have benefited from tax breaks instituted by the Obama administration.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com...


    BTW, I find it extremely ironic that Romney would be whining about raising cigarette taxes. In Mormon dominated states, state taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are traditionally higher than what other states impose.

    Yes, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Act does contain more taxes. But have any of them kicked in yet? Maybe the tanning tax, designed also to prevent cancer . . . Otherwise though, I don't think so.


    Payroll taxes are lower than they ever were during the GW Bush Administration. The net effect is that Americans, as a whole, pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes than at any time during the Bush administration.

    What exaclty do you have against Patient Protection anyway? And why do you hate the idea of affordable health care? And why do you think that smoking should not be discouraged?






    Sources please.
    (more)
  • Hamilton Lee 2012/08/17 18:24:37
    Hamilton
    +1
    No. They did not reorganize. They did not renegotiate all of their contracts,at that is the acid test of reorganization. They did not go through actual bankruptcy, and more is the pity. If they had, they might be on a more solid footing.

    Beyond that all you can do is rant and refuse to interact with the data. Yes, I have given you data that can easily be checked out on government websites.

    Or are you going to tell me that all the governmental websites are also part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC)?

    I'm not here to do your homework for you, to hold your hand or wipe your nose.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 20:37:19

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals