Rave this if you are not a Paul Ryan fan.
Carol
2012/09/22 18:10:29
|
|
|||||
|
304 votes
|
|
59% | |||
|
177 votes
|
|
34% | |||
|
34 votes
|
|
7% | |||
Take a Look at What Paul Ryan Did to His Own Congressional District, and Be Very Scared for Your Country
Child abuse and suicide is skyrocketing, the number of battered women has tripled, foreclosures have tripled, wages plummeting, and more.
September 19, 2012 | 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Join our email list:
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Before Paul Ryan was anointed as the Republican vice presidential candidate, Ryan reigned as the GOP’s resident economic genius and “leading intellectual.”
However, this praise from major media outlets has long been divorced from the reality 1,000 miles away back in Ryan’s 1st Congressional District in southeastern Wisconsin. Even while Beltway media — and even President Obama — heaped kudos on Ryan for his bold economic proposals and “intellectual audacity,” the productive base and social health of his constituents have been severely deteriorating under the impact of the very policies he has aggressively championed.
Ryan trumpeted the $1.2 trillion in Bush tax cuts showered largely on the richest 1%, pushed for the deregulation of Wall Street financial manipulations, opposed 2007 efforts to rein in the financial industry’s increasingly risky practices but then voted for a virtually unconditional bailout of the big banks after the meltdown in 2008 in order to “save the free enterprise system.” Ryan also voted for the auto bailout without any provisions to prioritize US jobs including those in his district. Further, Ryan has been a consistent supporter of the “free trade” deals with low-wage, repressive regimes that have fueled the offshoring of jobs.
In recent years, Ryan’s home district has lost thousands of family-sustaining jobs. Its economic foundations have been dangerously hollowed out: Delco in Oak Creek shut down at a cost of 3,800 jobs, mostly going to Mexico; Chrysler in Kenosha had 850 jobs sent to Mexico with the help of auto industry “bailout” funds; and General Motors in his hometown of Janesville eliminated 2,800 jobs directly with its pre-Christmas 2008 plant closing, while GM kept open a low-wage plant with parallel capacities in Silao, Mexico. The GM shutdown in Janesville wiped out another 3,000 jobs in nearby supplier plants.
The three major industrial counties in Ryan’s district have endured devastating manufacturing job losses since 2000, with Kenosha County losing 30%, Racine County 33%, and Rock County an astonishing 54%.
PREDICTABLE RESULTS OF JOB LOSS
The results of Ryan’s policies and the resulting economic wreckage havebeen grimly predictable. The persistently high unemployment has been accompanied by rising signs of social disintegration and distress throughout most of the district.
• Foreclosures in Rock County — home to Janesville and Beloit — have quadrupled since 2000. They have nearly tripled throughout the entire district.
• In Janesville, the GM shutdown created such a surplus of workers begging for jobs that the average wage fell from $23.27 in 2007 to $18.82 in 2010.
• Within three months of the GM closing just before Christmas in 2008, the number of battered women seeking shelter at the YWCA’s Janesville family violence center nearly tripled.
• Janesville has been afflicted by a major increase in child abuse and neglect.
• Janesville’s rate of child poverty has nearly doubled to 47.1% since 2000. The percentage of children eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches ranges from 43% to 69% in the major cities of his district.
• Janesville has also experienced a near-doubling in suicides over the first two years since the GM closing.
OBLIVIOUS TO SUFFERING
Yet Ryan has remained oblivious to this massive suffering, seemingly driven by his embrace of Ayn Rand’s ideology of anti-social capitalism (which he recently and unconvincingly renounced in the face of complaints about her atheism). He has advocated and voted for cuts to the government protections and the social safety net desperately needed by families in his district trying to hang on to their cars, their homes, and their dignity.
Top Opinion
-
What a guy
+124Paul Ryan is 10 times smarter than Joe Biden and is 100 times better for the future of our America.
Really sounds to me like your are just selfish. You are entitled to be that way until it invades into my personal liberties.....
So my tax rates going up and the cost of goods and services going up is a great thing? I don't think so and neither would any other smart person.......
A person can't choose to spend nothing.. Why would you even make that argument? Oh right, because it emphasizes your point about somehow being able to get away with not paying taxes that may magically appear because of the fair tax... People have to survive...
If people were smart, they would steer clear of the fair tax.... Smart being the key word.....
So you are trying to BS me into believing that no TAXABLE PROFIT is made by anyone associated in the production chain of bringing that gas to your car's tank? Is that what you are saying?
Or are you claiming that the FairTax abolishes all taxes on profits and income EXCEPT for those thousands of people and businesses that are in the petroleum delivery business?
Which is it?
Are profits and earnings are taxed under the FairTax plan? Is there a special exemption for the petroleum industry? Are they the only ones that will still have to pay taxes on profit and earnings while the rest of America is exempt?
Where exactly does the FairTax bill say that income and profit taxes are abolished… except for the petroleum industry?
== == ==
"A person can't choose to spend nothing... Why would you even make that argument?"
I make that argument because in a dynamic real world, a person isn't likely to spend 100% of their earnings on taxable transactions, which is the basis for most, if not all, of the critics of the FT. Both are extreme claims, either not buying anything or buying only taxabl...&
So you are trying to BS me into believing that no TAXABLE PROFIT is made by anyone associated in the production chain of bringing that gas to your car's tank? Is that what you are saying?
Or are you claiming that the FairTax abolishes all taxes on profits and income EXCEPT for those thousands of people and businesses that are in the petroleum delivery business?
Which is it?
Are profits and earnings are taxed under the FairTax plan? Is there a special exemption for the petroleum industry? Are they the only ones that will still have to pay taxes on profit and earnings while the rest of America is exempt?
Where exactly does the FairTax bill say that income and profit taxes are abolished… except for the petroleum industry?
== == ==
"A person can't choose to spend nothing... Why would you even make that argument?"
I make that argument because in a dynamic real world, a person isn't likely to spend 100% of their earnings on taxable transactions, which is the basis for most, if not all, of the critics of the FT. Both are extreme claims, either not buying anything or buying only taxable goods & services.
The claim that the poor or middle class would be hurt is crazy. I'm middle class and have only bought one "new" car in my life and have never bought a "new" house... used cars and existing homes? Yes! New? NO!
Most "Poor" cannot afford new cars... Someone earning and bringing home $20-$30k can pay $3000-$5000 for a used car. No taxes on the earnings and no taxes on the purchase of the used car. But your President's Committee never accounts for the individual worker's dynamic choices that we all have in life.
As you know, the FT exempts used purchases. Can someone only buy used stuff? No, as you cannot buy 'used' food, used financing, used services from providers, etc. But almost all of YOUR points are based on 100% spending of take home on taxable purchases, so I highlight the opposite and EQUALLY unlikely extreme.
Besides, EVERYONE is refunded all sales tax paid on basic needs, i.e. up to the poverty level for their demographic area. That fact alone makes the extreme of not making any taxable purchases far more plausible than someone spending 100% of their earnings on taxable purchases.
And we haven't even touched on the macro-economic benefits of completely untaxing businesses and corporations, or untaxing the trillions of offshore Romney-esq. Cayman Island accounts that would flood the U.S. with trillions in capital all of which would seek far better investments than Obama's track record has been so far.
Remember, all the 30% increase claims ignore the fact that the FairTax REPLACES existing taxes and does not ADD TO existing taxes.
The assumption that consumer prices would increase by 30% is simply an illusory assumption. At most, it would only occur during the temporary transitional period where the old tax system inventory (which would still contain the higher costs of production embedded within the cost of said inventory) is still on the shelves. But even the linked data states that after the transition... after job changes and union contracts are renegotiated to reflect the paradigm shift, that the NEUTRALITY of that revenue take by the gov't would limit the adverse affects that you so happily embrace.
If you owned an offshore manufacturing corporation and sold your product globally, would you or would you not want to located said factory in a country that no longer imposed taxes upon your profits, or your suppliers' profits? Yes or NO? The FairTax removes all taxes on exports, restoring the international competitiveness of American manufacturers in the global marketplace. Don't you think a foreign manufacturer would want their next plant to be in such a tax advantagous envirionment? Wouldn't that create more demand for labor? American Labor?
Houston, you aren't looking at the big picture. I don't think you are looking at the growth potential for a healthy forest, as you only seem to want to discuss how the termites would chew away on specific piles of wood.
The fair tax people state that your tax rate will go up.. How can someone not read the literature? Tax rates on anyone making less than 200k will go up.
Employee wages will be cut. Employers will have to cut employee wages to implement the fair tax.....
The cost of goods and services will go up. Beacon Hill states that goods will rise as much as 30%, and the government must allow this to happen....
No, everyone is given a pre-bate. Everyone is not refunded the taxes for basic needs. Needless to say, the argument on what classifies as a necessary item ought to be funny....
Let's see though, by the myth of the fair tax according to you. Tax rates will go down, pay will go up, cost of goods will go down.... Let's think about this for less than 30 seconds. Mathematically it can't happen. My guess is we will be left with massive budget short falls......... William G...
The fair tax people state that your tax rate will go up.. How can someone not read the literature? Tax rates on anyone making less than 200k will go up.
Employee wages will be cut. Employers will have to cut employee wages to implement the fair tax.....
The cost of goods and services will go up. Beacon Hill states that goods will rise as much as 30%, and the government must allow this to happen....
No, everyone is given a pre-bate. Everyone is not refunded the taxes for basic needs. Needless to say, the argument on what classifies as a necessary item ought to be funny....
Let's see though, by the myth of the fair tax according to you. Tax rates will go down, pay will go up, cost of goods will go down.... Let's think about this for less than 30 seconds. Mathematically it can't happen. My guess is we will be left with massive budget short falls......... William Gale in his independent study predicted 700 billion dollars a year hole that will need to be filled........
Although the truth is.. prices will go up, employee wages will go down, while their taxes will go up..... that is unless you make over 200k a year....... which 98% of americans don't... the Fair Tax just doesn't sound fair now does it......
SO according to you, if I own shares of Exxon or Marathon or TransOcean or any oil drilling or oil related company that brings that gas to my pump...and I get dividend checks, you say that with the FairTax, I will pay taxes on my gas profits because "HR 25 says that no taxes on gas will be repealed."... according to you.
But if I own shares of ANY OTHER NON-OIL COMPANY like Google, P&G, Pfizer, etc, my profits are not taxed.
Is that what you are claiming?
== == ==
Okay, I pulled up the entire bill (not summary) here,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin...
Then using IE-8 browser, I clicked on "edit" and "Find" and the words "gas", "petrol", or "gasoline" And it says "NOT FOUND"
PLEASE SHOW ME which Title, Section and/or Chapter that states that "No taxes on gasoline will be repealed..."
== == ==
"The fair tax people state that your tax rate will go up.. How can someone not read the literature?"
Provide the Link, chapter, section, paragraph etc. that supports your claim. Where can I find what you are quoting? Show me.
== == ==
"Tax rates will go down, pay will go up, cost of goods will go down.... "
Wrong, tax "rates" on income and are replaced with a FLAT sales tax of 23% (internal scoring) 30% (external ...
&
SO according to you, if I own shares of Exxon or Marathon or TransOcean or any oil drilling or oil related company that brings that gas to my pump...and I get dividend checks, you say that with the FairTax, I will pay taxes on my gas profits because "HR 25 says that no taxes on gas will be repealed."... according to you.
But if I own shares of ANY OTHER NON-OIL COMPANY like Google, P&G, Pfizer, etc, my profits are not taxed.
Is that what you are claiming?
== == ==
Okay, I pulled up the entire bill (not summary) here,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin...
Then using IE-8 browser, I clicked on "edit" and "Find" and the words "gas", "petrol", or "gasoline" And it says "NOT FOUND"
PLEASE SHOW ME which Title, Section and/or Chapter that states that "No taxes on gasoline will be repealed..."
== == ==
"The fair tax people state that your tax rate will go up.. How can someone not read the literature?"
Provide the Link, chapter, section, paragraph etc. that supports your claim. Where can I find what you are quoting? Show me.
== == ==
"Tax rates will go down, pay will go up, cost of goods will go down.... "
Wrong, tax "rates" on income and are replaced with a FLAT sales tax of 23% (internal scoring) 30% (external scoring). (except for gas according to YOU) resulting in a revenue neutral tax collection shift. Yes, when you remove a production cost, the price of the product can come down. That production cost varies with the product. A product that is comprised of numerous subcomponents provided by numerous wholesale vendors, fabricators and suppliers (each making a taxable profit on their sales to the manufacturer), yes, the production cost imposed by taxes on the profits of those various suppliers will go away with the new tax law. What is so difficult about that to understand?
I've already pointed out to you how a Realtor friend said she would list houses for 4% instead of 6% if her income & FICA taxes disappear. That's my point. How many times to you need that point to be made?
"Revenue Neutral" is when the tax collection method generates the same amount of revenue as the previous collection method. That's what the FairTax is calculated to do (I think the base line was total revenue as of fiscal year 2005) Overall, the amount of taxes collected by the Treasury Dept stays the same. You are wrong, tax "rates" don't go down.
Since the amount of tax remains neutral, please explain why prices should change, (other than during the temporary transition period where goods that have the old system's embedded tax costs built into their production cost would be still on shelves for sale)?
BTW HR-25 accounts for the transition period too.
Why did Bush ignore the fair tax... Because even he knew it was a bad plan.....
What happens with the "Fair Tax"? Listed below are what happens....
Wages go down...
Price of goods and services go up..
Taxes go up on those earning less than $200K...
Fair Tax get's most of it's money taxing government agencies... That's right, government purchases get taxed, the heal...
Why did Bush ignore the fair tax... Because even he knew it was a bad plan.....
What happens with the "Fair Tax"? Listed below are what happens....
Wages go down...
Price of goods and services go up..
Taxes go up on those earning less than $200K...
Fair Tax get's most of it's money taxing government agencies... That's right, government purchases get taxed, the health care they pay for employees get taxed, and the retirement they pay for employees get taxed... Let's see what that does to the local income tax...
I don't think I have missed anything in my research.
Other points I find amusing is that all of you fair tax proponents keep repeating the same impossible myth...
your taxes go down
your wages go up
price of goods go down..
taxes will be revenue neutral....
What I really find amusing is Dale Jorgenson, the professor who's research the entire "fair tax" is based off of, said it was a fraud........ Here are some quotes of about the fair tax in a letter written by Dr Jorgenson..
"A more reasonable interpretation of my 1996 testimony is that workers would keep that after-tax pay; producers' prices would fall, but retail prices would be increased by the national retail sales tax. Any gains by workers and investors would be the result of increase economic efficiency."
To clarify his "after tax pay" statement, he says,
"I am saying that the worker would continue to receive the after-tax amount of $800. Prices received by producers would decline to cover the cost of after-tax wages to workers and after-tax dividends and interest to investors. However, taxes paid at the retail level would include the Fair Tax"
So what he says is a person who makes $1000 a week now and brings home $800 after taxes would only bring home $800 after the fair tax law passage..... Note how prices increase, and wages fall.......
Really quit beating the dead horse...... Fair Tax is a scam....
What taxes go away with real estate with the Fairtax? AS a landlord, I would stillhave to collect and send in the tax. What are you referring to?
== == ==
"A more reasonable interpretation of my 1996 testimony is that workers would keep that after-tax pay; producers' prices would fall, but retail prices would be increased by the national retail sales tax. Any gains by workers and investors would be the result of increase economic efficiency."
And the problem with increased economic efficiency is What? More Jobs?
== == ==
"Fair Tax is a scam...." yet economic efficiency increases?
Yeah, a real scam. Jobs are created, documentation and filing costs plummet and you get your privacy back. No one needs to know what you earn, what deductions you have or what charities you like. Yup. compared to the current system, the FairTax is far better for all because they have the ability to make their own consumption choices.
So your claim that the FairTax is a 'fraud' is based upon the fact that those that currently don't pay "their fair share" of taxes will suddenly have to do so, and that the HIDDEN impact of embedded taxation on the cost of production will be gone so that prices will adjust according to intrinsic market forces instead of the artificial demands of a central government.
Yup, you are truly in the bag for the Plantation Massah, so as to keep your boot firmly on the throat of the slaves.
Abolish slavery! Pass the FairTax Bill!
Glad to see the real you and how you really feel coming out.....
If you want your wages slashed, the cost of goods and services to go up, and your taxes raised both locally and federally, hop on the fair tax train... Trickle up economics at it's finest.
What you call a "free hand out" is simply getting back an over payment. If you hand the clerk a $10 bill for a $6 purchase, are you telling me that the $4 you get back is a 'handout'?
The anti- FairTax gang complains about the $500-$600Billion prebate as being another entitlement... but they ignore the fact that the IRS refunds almost $900 Billion to taxpayers every April 15th for their OVERPAYMENT of taxes.
There's no difference between the current system's refund and the FT's prebate. Everyone has the same "deduction equivalent" via the prebate feature. It’s the same as take a deduction and getting a refund.
You yourself stated that everyone buys stuff. Everyone eats; everyone is a consumer of taxable items. The prebate is simply the feature that makes THIS sales tax a progressive tax.
Your claim that the FairTax increases costs is also felonious as the FT is revenue neutral. It only removes the same amount of revenue as does the current system.
Yes, an idiot that believes that people would remain doing the same thing that they did before the change in tax law. That's the point. You cling to the static analysis while we live in a dynamic world where a change in tax law motivates a change in behavior. What if that low income person buys used car? or pays tuition for night school? or buys an EXISTING (aka Used) home? No sales tax is imputed in those transactions, yet your analysis assumes 100% of the low and middle income earners, spending their UNTAXED dollars would continue to buy taxable items.
Yes, to make such an assumption does require one to fit the definition of "idiot"...
YOU said: "You wages are probably going to go down by the amount you are taxed as employee......"
== == ==
Your statements contradict each other.
Which is it? Is "what you earn is what you get?" or Is it "You wages are probably going to go down by the amount you are taxed as employee......"
Explain your double-speak.
Please pay more attention. Our discussion is on the FEDERAL tax law where none of the other variables that are not component of federal tax law change. The statement didn't include pension or healthcare costs that are deducted from a worker's paycheck, but as the discussion solely relates to the CHANGES imposed by the tax law shift, what you are stating is are irrelevent to the discussion.
== == ==
"Everything I have put forth shows this, and yet you continue the mantra of a fair tax being good for people and lowering the cost of goods and services which it. when it isn't, and it doesn't............"
Yes, everything you say is true as long as you use a static analysis in your projection of the impact of the paradigm shift to the FairTax.
Sorry, its late, but as I've provided you with what embedded taxes are, if I've 'skirted the issue" please redefine what specific ISSUE you are inferring.
From the lying scumbag "CNN FactCheck" http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30...
"However, while December 2008 saw the end of the vast majority of the plant's work, the Gazette itself has reported that the PLANT DIDN'T CLOSE FULLY UNTIL APRIL 2009 (caps added for emphasis).
(Yup, obviously someone is a lying scumbag, either CNN & Ryan or maybe its Mikey)
Here's a timeline from CNN:
June 2008: GM announces that the Janesville plant will stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban and the GMC Yukon in 2010 or sooner, depending on market demand.
December 23, 2008: SUV production ends, and more than 2,000 GM workers are laid off, according to the Gazette. Medium truck production continues.
April 23, 2009: The plant's medium-duty assembly line, which produced an Isuzu line, closes, ending vehicle production at the plant and resulting in the loss of 57 production jobs, according to the Gazette."
Everything in your post.
TYPICAL LIBERAL DEFINED.
Typical liberal defined.
Do you have,,,,,,TWO DOCTORATES? ONe in law, and one in BUSINESS? Silly comments like this, show YOUR ignorance.
Mr. Romney started out as a security guard, living in a basment apt. with young wife and one child. From that,,,,,,,,,,,,, he is worth millions! Remember? NOt stupid at all, but................ someone is. lol
Gary Johnson's plan reduces spending to match current revenue income.
Yup, 40cents out of every dollar is deficit spending right now... and Johnson proposes to cut descressionary spending by enough to balance the budget in 4 years. Yup, cutting military by 40% would reduce our military strength down to the level it was in 2002.... Oh how unsafe we all felt in 2002! Yes, once the budget is in balance, we can then start paying down PRINCIPAL and the nation will be awash in investment capital as all those treasury bonds debt will be handed back to investors to go find a private sector investment to move their capital into. That means JOBS, that means growth, that means increased wages and TAX REVENUE.
And that's why Gary Johnson doesn't have a prayer of winning the election. The Republicrats will NEVER allow someone to privide an actual CURE for what ails our nation, when it is so profitable for them to hand out FREE bandaids and aspirin that cures NOTHING.
Curing poverty and helping the needy solve their problems is not in the best interest in a Big Government that is needed to service poor, the needy and the helpless!
The Romney camp's big lie is that Obama “raided” $700 billion from Medicare to pay for his healthcare scheme. There are two big problems with this story. The first is that Obama hasn't taken a single red cent out of Medicare benefits, and the second is that the Ryan plan has the exact same $700 billion in cuts . Even the laziest political reporter can grasp the hypocrisy of attacking your opponent for something you've proposed yourself.
Here's the scoop on Obama's (and Ryan's) “cuts.” They're not really cuts so much as reductions in how fast Medicare costs will increase over the next decade, and they come out of the hides of private insurers, hospitals and other service providers, not seniors. As healthcare analyst John McDonough wrote in the Boston Globe :
[But] none of these reductions were financed by cuts to Medicare enrollees' eligibility or benefits; benefits were improved in the ACA. Cuts were focused on hospitals, health insurers, home health, and other providers. Except for insurers, all the affected groups publicly supported the reductions to help finance the ACA's expansion in health insurance to about 32 million uninsured Americans.
The key difference is what Obama and Ryan do with those savings. The Democrats use them to pay for Obamacare, which expands healthcare to millions of uninsured, and, according to the CBO, contains a bunch of provisions that actually make Medicare's long-term finances more sustainable.