Why the Left is Absolutely Frightened of Paul Ryan

Obama: "But math is hard".

weiner mobile empty chairs and a multi-millionare that has a lower tax rate than the working poor. Not that I want Obama to win but if this is what he's up against it could happen.

Josey: "Grammar, capitalization, and punctuation are hard."

weiner mobile

Definitely a personal shortcoming from a leftie perspective; a guy who actually worked his way through college.

"What America needs is jobs.

Lots of jobs."

From Romney's speech. Makes perfect sense and appeals to those Americans who have common sense, self-respect and a strong work ethic. You know, the type of people who would vote Republican anyway. However a great many voters have never had a job, do not want a job and are more than content to "get free sh*t from the government."

Romney's biggest job is to get these types to give their heads a shake and come to the realization that the gravy train is rapidly leaving the station. This on its own would be a daunting task. When you are competing against the Democrats and their msm cheerleading squad, the going gets twice as hard.

Hopefully for everyone, not just the Americans, the voters come to their senses and elect a true leader.

It is truly humourous to see leftards being very reactive rather than proactive on their approaches to solving economic issues. They are so busy protecting their 'protected constituencies' that they are prepared to see the rest of the country go down in flames. It is only now when some of them are starting to realize that the whole system is likely to collapse that they are getting worried.

Honestly. the image of Paul Ryan, speaking on the health care budget committee haunts me. Not that I expected more but to see Biden and Omabam looking so confused at Ryan's summary was very scary. These guys are actually in control and there is little wonder that spending is out of control.

I love the spin about Romney's tax "rate". First of all the working poor likely pay no income tax. Second of all Romney pays more in tax in one year than many people make in many years. Third of all what does any of this have anything to do with being president? Seriously who cares? What is the point trying to be made here?

They are afraid of losing. So they will attack Romney, Ryan, Eastwood, etc. It is just what they are going to do.

james, exactly right. The fact is that 47% of the electorate pay no federal taxes. It's that 10% of the electorate pay 71% of the federal funds. Now, is that 'paying your fair share'? The OWS ignore this crucial ratio.

Then, the left totally ignores the tax system. The 'working poor' income comes primarily from wages. The income of the wealthy comes very little from wages and primarily from investment.

BUT, these investments have already been heavily taxed, the highest taxes in the world, at the corporate rate not the individual rate. So the government has already taken a huge slice of the results of their hard work.

The left detests success. If you work hard and become wealthy, you are viewed by the left as unfair and greedy; the reality of your work and brains is ignored.

Remember what Obama said: 'everyone is smart and everyone works hard'. He thereby denigrated both and insisted instead that your success depended not on you but on others and specifically, on Government.

As he said, you didn't build not merely your own business but you didn't build the road. WHAT? Where does Obama think the money came from to build that road? It came from those capital and business taxes, it came from those income taxes. It sure didn't come from the 47% who pay zero.

I guess busting tables before class,
and paying for college is not considered 'real' work.

As Dr. Lee pointed out, the traditional US budget fell somewhere in the 19% of GDP range.

Dubya lowered that take to 15% without cutting spending.

Then Obama came in and increased spending to 25% of GDP without raising taxes.

What Paul Ryan proposes is a budget that's 20% of GDP.

That means two things ... tax levels have to be raised 5% and spending has to be lowered 5% to get back to the traditional balance. Yes, Paul Ryan proposes tax increases!

This really is not rocket surgery, folks.

josey,

Socialism is hard.

It takes the life and imagination out of the people.

In your world we are all equal and everyone should get paid the same regardless of what vocation we are in, right?

Liberty is harder!

But it takes creativity to be free.

That is why the socialist tax the free, so they can be free too!!

Since it's inception, communism/marxist/evil, whatever you want to call it, has used man's greed as it's siren call.
Obama's election strategy of rich against poor, black against white and on and on, is nothing new.
Unfortunately, it's inevitable outcome is always tyranny and death.
A democracy is totally dependant on an informed and educated electorate. That's why the communist's always take control of the schools and media first. They're just about done with the take-over of the western world's free societies.
People like LAS and Josey will be one of the first type of useful idiots shown through the barb wire gates.

....and then the mobs came for the successful, Down with the Rich....and in the morning all the creative entrepreneurs were gone and none of the mob knew what to do. Scarey scenario? Listen to what some of the mobs in Canada and the US are saying. Keep your powder dry!

I have heard it said.

"There is no free lunch".

'Set You Free' beat me to it but let me reiterate what Ian Lee said (with some rounded off numbers) :

In a nutshell, this is his summary of what has occurred over the past 15 years or so:

- During the Bill Clinton years, the federal gov't was taking in about 20% of GDP in taxes and spending about 20% of GDP as well. So things were balanced.
- George W. Bush reduced taxes such that only about 15% of GDP was being collected but 20% of GDP was still being spent. Not good.
- Barack Obama then increased spending quite dramatically but didn't increase taxes. As things now stand, about 15% of GDP is being collected but 25% of GDP is being spent. Even worse.

As a rule of thumb, each 1% of GDP works out to about $100 Billion. So right now, each year America is spending about $1,000 Billion more than it's taking in. This is unsustainable.

It seems very clear that Obama has no intention of deviating away from his past history. America WILL BE bankrupt under his leadership. If Romney is elected and Paul Ryan doesn't turn out to be a TRUE fiscal conservative then America will also be bankrupt under their leadership.

syf you suggest a linear relationship between tax rates and overall GDP, but it's more dynamic than that. If tax rates are lowered, this can cause investment and consumption to increase with more tax revenues resulting. IOW it's possible to increase tax revenues by cutting tax rates. Would that be OK? Yes, it's actually possible, and so too are a host of other possibilities, such as raising tax rates and lowering revenues. So, perhaps in your case it is rocket science.

Do you agree that, comparatively speaking, Obama's policies and promises mean greater tax increases than, even if you're right, Ryan's?

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan bring to the 2012 U.S. Election the tenacity to face the serious problems confronting America.

Romney brings the business acumen and experience required to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in America that is needed to create millions of jobs.

Paul Ryan brings the knowledge and understanding on government budgetary issues required to reform medicare and to deliver budgets that no longer depend on massive borrowing.

Together they make an formidable team.

Posted by: Shamrock at September 1, 2012 1:00 PM

Near as I can figure, for Obama's budget to balance would mean taxing at a 25% rate just to pay for the programs. That does not take into account paying off debt, far as I know. So, yes, Obamas promises and policies would mean even greater increases than Ryan's.

From what I've read in the past, Ryan's plan is not just about increasing revenue through the income tax system.

There are plenty of loopholes within the US system that differ from Canada's.

The most glaring is deductibility of interest on primary residence mortgages. I really haven't researched the policy enough to determine whether capital gains taxes have to be paid once a primary residence is sold. Help, anybody?

It's unlikely Ryan will eliminate that feature, but it could be a gradual withdrawal. There are plenty of other places the US treasury could have more revenue without raising income tax rates.

That was part of the Simpson-Bowles conclusions. Ryan voted against that commission struck by Obama because he believed it did not go far enough to solve the long-term problems.

Obama rejected his own commission for a different reason ... because he's a clueless economic illiterate, as are most of the adherents to socialist utopian philosophies.

Doowleb @ 11:51, and so it was in my parent's birthplace, Russia.

Patsplace, the mob wants to take over in Quebec.

http://www.newstalk650.com/content/heres-election-issue-replacing-our-democracy

Warning, a Canadian Press article.

Patsplace at September 1, 2012 11:55 AM

"....and then the mobs came for the successful, Down with the Rich....and in the morning all the creative entrepreneurs were gone and none of the mob knew what to do. Scarey scenario? Listen to what some of the mobs in Canada and the US are saying. Keep your powder dry!"

History does repeat....

When the Allied forces seized Damascus from the Turks....the Brits had a problem...the Arab Legion seized control and set up an ad hoc government.

General Allenby did not over-react...as he said give them a day or 3, there will be no water or electricity in the city and the arabs will just wander away....

It took 2 days.....

They're afraid because of what he says. Not what he does. They have nothing to fear from Ryan. Ryan is committed to big government in every way. He just wants it to be less fiscally unsustainable.

syf, US personal mortgages are deductible up to a limit, and yes, there is capital gains exposure on sale. On balance the Cdn approach is much better, pay your mortgage today with after tax dollars and avoid capital gains taxes from a future sale. Or better still, run a business out of your home and get some mortgage deductibility too (hint: don't claim 4% CCA for the house)

Yes, Obama's policies must inevitably will lead to tax increases, and so may Ryan's. Who can Americans trust to change course on this, to be more willing to use tax and spending cuts to deal with reality. Does anyone think an electorally untethered Obama administration will accept this?

What the Dems will try to argue is that Ryan is like them, ie voted for TARP etc, except he is racist republican reptile who will outlaw abortion and IVF, so why take a chance?

Bubba Clinton's ad about how tax cuts got the US into trouble in the first place, will remain the chief meme of the Dem argument. The second meme will be that Americans would be even worse off without the bailout. It will not bother them that these two arguments are contradictory, if Romney/Ryan won't cut taxes and spending either, then how will the abortion outlawing GOP get us into trouble again?

Anyway, it will be impossible to prove, and the GOP will/should be clear that Obama is Romney on steroids, and thus more unsustainable. The Dems will be stuck on saying only government spending can save the US economy, by trying to convince voters they prefer higher taxes and spending. Romney can ask Americans to take a look at the European entitlement economies and ask "how's that working for you?"

Remember, debt, in real terms, can be inflated away, though that rarely works and always, always, results in higher interest rates which I'm sure debt-addicted Americans won't like one bit.

The fact of the matter is whomever is elected will have to face the reality of unsustainable government spending. Who will be more willing to fact this reality?

Posted by: LAS at September 1, 2012 1:27 PM

So, I'm guessing your solution would be deep cuts to entitlements?

Posted by: Shamrock at September 1, 2012 1:36 PM

I'm also in favour of a more limited government.

Have always voted for the party that promises to spend the least amount of MY money.

Why yes deep cuts to entitlements is part of my solution.

Together they make an formidable team.
Posted by: Jim Horne at September 1, 2012 1:02 PM
---------------------------------------------------

If only there was a formidable electorate.

If u had drive a wiener mobile to pay for your college, I hope you don't graduate.
Or go into politics.
I voted for Harper btw and under 50 self employed and make over 90k/.
go figur - no capittals & no pnctiashon

Josey said: "If u had drive a wiener mobile to pay for your college, I hope you don't graduate.
Or go into politics."

Folks, just another example of The Tolerant Left on display. :-(

So, let's clear the air...
Ryan drove the Weinermobile, which is a cool job for a college kid.

Until this incident.

After which he bussed tables.

But seriously, after viewing this, I can't wait for the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday October 11, 2012 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Ted - go to Dick Morris' website, where he has a long line of posts explaining how the poll are skewed, as they use incorrect proportions of Democrats in them- they are polls of Registered, not Likely voters.

Undoubtedly, this is being done by the various polling outfits to avoid charges of animus against Obama.

Dick Morris, who ran Bill Clinton's second campaign for president, says Romney is way ahead.

Last point - believe the polls if you want, but what does it mean for Obama that he spent $100 million dumping garbage on Romney, and he is at present only holding even among Democrat heavy poll samples?

Romney can now spend his money - he is post primary, now- and he will, to communicate his message to the American people.

The snobbery toward Paul Ryan does nothing to take away from the fact that at least he has an idea how to stave off the inevitable, unlike Obama who has never had to bust his butt doing grunt work. How hard it is to come from affluence!

"What America needs is jobs.

Lots of jobs."

Then what you have to do is to remove legislated impediments to wages finding their free market level.

Real wages rise in proportion to an increase in capital investment per worker. It's not capital versus labour. Or profits versus people either.

I just watched this video again. It's more prescient today, in September 2012, than when it was recorded in 2011. I wish that ALL Americans would watch it!