http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 … 49721.html
Hilarious that Paul Ryan walks back after claiming that tax cuts are a universal a elixir for all things and all people. Tax cuts create opportunity, and this cures everything.
Ryan is quite absurd because he claims economic growth is the key to ending crime, and how does he propose economic growth? Tax cuts, and of course cutting social programs.
At least stand up for your convictions man!
I think you have the wrong link. What you just described and what actually happened are two different things.
Please quote for me the portion of the interview where Ryan said tax cuts are a universal elixir.
You're worse than the reporter. The reporter did try to put words in his mouth. A good reporter asks an untainted question, and doesn't establish the premise of an argument for the person being interviewed. You, on the other hand, simply lied about what Ryan actually said. He said the best thing to do to reduce crime is get people out of poverty, teach them discipline, and character.
I seriously fail to see how Ryan got 'owned'. If anything, the reporter was called out for a very bad question. Nobody is saying that tax cuts are the one thing we have to do to solve all of our problems.
The Ryan/Romney campaign is about cutting taxes for the rich, reducing regulations, and cutting government spending. They say these things eveyrday. I was a little bit over simplisitc with only including tax cuts, as was the reporter. My apologies.
Cutting minimal taxes for the rich only, reducing only specific regulations surrounding the banking system and cutting projected increases in government spending. In other words, not much different from what Obama is doing - big spending, big government, war-mongering tyrants, both of them.
Except that's not what their campaign is about at all.
Romney/Ryan - We'll cut all tax rates by 20%.
Leftist Obamite - THEY ARE ONLY CUTTING TAXES FOR THE RICH BECAUSE THEY ARE RICH AND THE RICH ARE EVIL AND THE SOURCE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS AND THEY ARE ONLY GOING TO HELP THEIR EVIL RICH BUDDIES!!!!
Sorry, but Obama has done much more to scale down wars than Romney would. Obama also supports fair pay for women, women's health reproductive rights, and has provided stimulus relief for home owners. You can lump Obama with Romney, but they are night and day. Romney and Ryan plan on cutting programs that give low income women access to health care, public education, medicare, and social security. No they are not the same, that is a facile comment.
True. Did you know that Obama has already ended the war in Iraq twice?
Did you know that women already get fair pay, and we already had laws enforcing that?
What about the rights of a fetus?
Well a woman's reproductive rights are paramount, so this sounds like gentlemen's club logic to me. It has not been until the last few years women are beginning to make gains in equal pay. I am not enticed by the gents club logic.
...He ended a war he opposed from the beginning started by Republicans.
Actually no women don't get equal pay and our laws do not properly enforce that.
There is no way to justify forcing women to give birth against their will.
He ended the same war twice, and we still have troops there... It's a gag.
Yes, women get 98-99% equivalent pay compared to their counterparts. The slight discrepancy isn't due to discrimination either.
There is no way to justify killing an innocent human life.
Obama's health insurance covers contraception, not abortion. Do you believe contraception is evil? Great, do us a favor and keep your religious opinions out of the secular realm.
You are right, nor is there any way to justify allowing them to unnecessarily starve to death.
Unless you believe in the right to eat, you would be saying otherwise. I'm sorry if i misunderstood you and you are in favor of that right.
I am 100% in favor of taking care of those who truly can't take care of themselves, as I have said before on these forums.
I am *not* in favor of taking care of those who refuse to take care of themselves.
So let them die.
I chose to become a heroin and alcohol addict, and I have just had a heart attack. I am also severely malnourished.
Should an ambulance be called for me?
Are you just going to continue making up hypothetical situations and making me take a stance on them?
If someone can work, and refuses to (do a work program/take a job/etc), then no benefits.
If someone is addicted to drugs or an alcoholic, check into a clinic or go through a program. If they don't, then no benefits.
I have no problem with helping people who can't take care of themselves, or helping people who help themselves get back on their feet. If you're not going to do your part though, I don't support hard-working taxpayers having their money spent on that person.
Jesus, what universe do you live in?
Women get less than 78 cents on the dollar for same job.
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/t … e-gap-2009
No. Not for the same job. That is median pay by gender, regardless of actual hours or position worked.
That's like saying that 18 year-olds are discriminated against because they don't earn as much, on average, as 35 year-olds.
Learn to statistic.
Sorry I meant to say for same hours on the job I don't know how I missed, it maybe accidentally deleted it. But that is actually my point, women are now just as educated as men and pulling ahead so the gender gap raises serious questions and needs to be addressed.
It's ABSOLUTELY nothing like the pay difference between 18 and 35 year olds because there is no experience difference.
Now unless you can think of a good reason why women are earning almost a quarter less than men for full time work it might be time to just maybe start thinking that perhaps women are being discriminated against in the workplace.
Josak, that study doesn't adjust for anything. Hours worked, job experience, type of job. It just averages pay for men vs. women. If I'm wrong, quote and link to where they did the adjustments please.
If more women are employed in low-paying sectors compared to men, then of course there will be a difference, and it doesn't mean there is discrimination.
Do you think all full time work should pay the same rate?
These wars were not started by Republicans. They were started by terrorists and an evil dictator. We were morally justified to act; America is a safer place because of our military actions.
I detest war and find it truly sad to see the devastation and death associated with it. Unfortunately, we had little choice. Make no mistake, most Democrats were for military action at the time.
What should we have done in place of declaring war? Should we allow terrorists to kill Americans without any retaliation? Unfortunately, there is a time for war.
We should not have declared war on Iraq when the real enemy was Al Quida. The Democrats went along based on false and misleading information from the Bush Administration, let's all come clean, now What you call morality to act was brazen war mongering and international meddling. There is nothing positive to show for the Iraq War
LOL. Who decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? You are perfectly within logic to remind us that Obama continued the wars, but as to who invaded, you don't get to make up your own facts. Sorry.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 it's unbelievable that a decade later this nonsense and ignorance is still around.
Agreed. We invaded Iraq based on faulty yet plausible intelligence in the second invasion; in the first invasion, we attacked to free a nation he had brutalized and captured for oil revenue. Either way, what does America stand for? Should we have allowed a brutal dictator to continue to kill his own citizens? He was a terrorist, plain and simple. He may not have been tied to 9-11, but he was still a brutal, murderous terrorist who needed to be stopped from killing both his own people and the people of Kuwait.
He opposed the war from where? Illinois state officials don't get a say in the United States Congress!
If you truely cared about the rights of a fetus than you wouldn't support the reduction of school lunches, reduction of heath care for pregant women and children, reduction of education budgets, unemployment, food stamps and all the other things that fetus might need after it is born. You ought to care about the child.
You are making a lot of assumptions about me.
You also make a huge assumption about what the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is.
Government, government, and more government. What we should be supporting is personal responsibility and a better economy that will result in better jobs. If people have better jobs, then they won't need government assistance. Wouldn't that be a better solution for all children?
Personal responsibility is a GOP buzz word, how does that flesh out in policy besides more and better platitudes? When has there been a time even in boon periods where there was not need for government assistance? This free market capitalistic system incorporates a certain amount of structural employment. Full employment with that perfect solution for all the children is the fantasy of 1950's television.
There will always be a need for some government assistance. That's evident. The problem is that 47 million people are on food stamps. 16 million people are on welfare. We need to promote an economy where fewer people need government assistance.
I'm realistic. I know that there will always be a need for government and some assistance, but do we really need to have this many people getting assistance? Nope.
IF personal responsibility is a GOP buzzword, government assistance is a catchphrase for the democrats. It's all rhetoric.
Why doesn't personal responsibility extend to a women's body?
When Americans are willing to work for $3.00 a day and live in a company dorm and work forced overtime then we can compete with China.
In what way was invading Libya, increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, sanctioning Iran, drone-bombing children and de-stabilising Syria 'scaling down wars'?
Obama supports fair pay for women, reproductive rights and housing stimulus; in other words, he wants more government intervention into our private lives, how exactly does this refute my point? Romney and Ryan are not going to cut significantly. You'll hardly feel the pinch, I promise. Big government is big government no matter how you slice it.
They're also massive Federal Reserve, drug-war and police-state lovers, I forgot to mention that. The difference is all illusion.
Sorry, but you are from the UK and not up to speed on Romney and Ryan. They want to impose legislation that would allow employers not to cover birth control on insurance plans for women, and that is getting involved in women's lives for certain. Ryan wants to gut medicare and social security, and us hard working Americans refuse to let him do htis.
As for the Libya, it was a NATO joint effort, and your country supplied forces as well. I am not excited about some right wing Christian men becoming president of my country, so until you are voting here, you have no clue.
Really? Most people on here want to accuse me of being too up to speed on American issues compared to British issues. The fact that I am British does not disprove what I have said.
Allowing employers to choose whether they want to cover certain things on insurance plans is not government intervention, it is liberty, which I can support. I am not in favour of forcing employers to cover any specific thing by the point of a gun. But in comparison to the great violations of liberty that Romney and Ryan support, I consider it negligible.
It is in fact Obama who is cutting medicare to compensate for the massive cost of Obamacare. It's Romney and Ryan who are criticising him for that - the so called fiscal conservatives criticising a left-winger for cutting something!
As for Libya, I am not in favour of my country being involved either, I don't see how that refutes my point. Obama invaded Libya without congressional approval, which by definition makes him a dictator - an irrefutable fact that you're going to have to deal with if you pledge your support for him. And what about Afghanistan, drone bombing, Iran and Syria? Nothing, because Obama supporters can't stand that he's almost worse than Bush on foreign policy.
Both parties promote the police state, with that I will agree.
The only difference is domestic policy, but I know you are a libertarian, so you wouldn't like Democrats on that front either.
Furthermore, the parties are becoming much more alike on domestic policy. Pretty soon the only big difference will be social issues.
A little over-simplistic?
That's your entire argument, is being over-simplistic. Your last post seems that you are keeping up this idea that the reporter owned Ryan?
Exactly what did I get wrong?
Romney, until recently, said he wanted to cut taxes for the rich, roll back regulations, cut government spending, and repeal Obamacare.
This would then unleash the American economy.
If you think it's over-simplistic, the Romney/Ryan ticket is not for you.
You are still simplifying Romney's plans.
Cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. Although, it's more of an equalizer for each bracket, than an actual reduction in effective tax rates.
Cut taxes for corporations.
Change to territorial tax system.
Yes, reduce unnecessary regulation. Do you think all regulation is necessary?
Aggressively pursue energy independence.
Negotiate better trade deals, and pursue those who cheat, like China.
The list goes on and on... although you did better this time around. You can't just point out one aspect of a candidate's overall plan, and claim that is their entire plan. That's what you did in this thread.
Sooner, I am just waiting for the VP debates where "Smokin Joe" Biden will rip Ryan 'another one"! Joe will corner the weasel (Ryan) and compel him to come clean before a national audience, no smoke and mirrors this time, you can bet on that!.
I expect Biden will be more direct than Obama was.
How could he not be? The bar was set pretty low.
Obama provided studies, and was more hands off, but he still nailed Romney on his tax plan, voucherizing Medicare, and not covering people with pre-existing conditions.
For those who care about style over substance though...I just suggest reading through the actual transcript.
Here is the thing, Ryan and his team cannot even answer simple questions. They do not like being called out on how they will cut after school programs and make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We can pretend Ryan is all about tax cuts for all Americans, but he wants them for the most wealthy. He would propose higher taxes for working class families who rely on after school programs for their kids, and he would probably cut the programs as well. Ryan thinks programs are okay as long as these are church based, but what about people who want a secular based program. Opps, I guess you are out of luck unless you can pay for it.
In what way does birth control become part of healthcare? Is pregnancy a disease?
You sound really out of the times if you do not have a clue about how contraception is a fundamental part of health care for women. Of course, you probably think women should be having lots of babies or something. Do you want young women who are not financially ready to have kids, or do you just not care if they have kids. Your argument lack complete logic, and thankfully you do not get a say on these matters.
You haven't explained how contraception is a fundamental part of health care for women.
You know people in your country have is subsidized under the NHS, and you are definitely part of the gentleman's club declaring birth control is not part of medical health. Doctors disagree with you by the way on this issue. I am going with the medical community on this one. Birth control can regulate women's cycles and prevent unwanted pregnancies. Seriously, you are not a woman, so you do not get it. I am a bit scared you would not be up to speed on these things if you wife or girlfriend were on contraception. Would you tell her that it is not necessary to her medical health. If your wife had a baby and did not want more kids, would you be opposed to her taking birth control. You might want to think this stuff out.
First, I can't have an opinion because I'm British; now I can't have an opinion because I'm male. How about you start judging other people's arguments on their own merits instead of some label you give them?
I am completely aware birth control can help regulation of cycles and prevent pregnancy, but I don't consider it a fundamental part of health, much less something the government needs to hand out to people. I consider it on the same level as Aspirin, if doctors disagree with me, then so be it. Most people disagree with me about most things.
Your opinions are abrasive, and you judge women on standing up for their sexual reproductive health. As a man living in a country that subsidizes birth control you have no clue what women in my country go through when they cannot afford prescriptions. As I told the guy above I think a myriad of issues should be covered on single payer health care in the US. It is really easy for you to proclaim our citizens should not have it, when you have access to it. I shall continue to stick up for women as you are pretty adamant on declaring their health issues irrelevant.
Where have I judged women exactly? I judge those who endorse violence so that their wants are satisfied, as a rule. I believe birth control should be sold, like aspirin, in a free market system, where it would be easily accessible and affordable. I understand that it doesn't happen like that in the US, but it doesn't happen here either. Sure, your citizens should have it, I just don't think the government should provide it.
Our country will never sell aspirin like birth control, but I actually agree with you on that. I know you have many libertarian ideas about how society should work, but most of these are not going to happen over night. In the meantime I see people in my country dealing with the reality of not being able to afford health care. I do not think it is completely evil when the government subsidizes certain things either. It seems there is this obsession with anything government derived as being bad, whereas the private sector is a pristine snowy thing. I find corruption in all sector, and for the most part I am glad there is a government entity to keep the private sector in check. Before the days of government regulation of meat here in the US rats ended up in the food supply, which is what the book the Jungle is about. I do not trust the private sector to fully regulate itself.
Right on, RB. I always wondered about that.
President Obama has done more to scale down the wars? How did he do that? Didn't he pretty much adopt President Nixon's plan in Vietnam, an immediate insurgence with diminished troops after? Democrats didn't like it much when President Nixon did it, but now it's okay that President Obama did it the same way? Interesting.
What has President Obama done to make sure Iran will not have a nuclear bomb? Nothing. Actually, he SAID he would do whatever it takes, but he has done nothing. Instead, we have abdicated leadership to Israel and other countries. Yes, it is easy to scale down wars when you simply do nothing with foreign policy, but is that leadership?
What does it say when a reporter "owns" a candidate? Personally, I feel that it shows media bias. In reality, this reporter certainly did not "own" Mr. Ryan.
Directly question them on their absurd positions and show how shallow the politicians are.
I don't know why you are bringing up all of these other issues. That wasn't even what the video was talking about.
Wow, this thread went all over town, way off topic.
Of course the reporter asked a stupid question and made himself look bad. Dems are so desperate they just cannot help to keep making things up.The reporter asked a specific question on gun control and Ryan gave a good answer that the laws on the books are not being enforced, to which the reporter says "And you can do all that by cutting taxes? By...with a big tax cut?"
"Those are your words, not mine," answers Ryan.
The proper, intelligent follow up question should have been "what laws are not being enforced and what would you do different to change that?"
I only have one comment for those who are so into women having contraception for free, You are happy with it being included in Obamacare, some say they think it is their right to have it covered. So where are you on why men contraception is not being covered? Where are the equal rights on this issue? By the way, I have several friends who take Viagra, the pill woman scream about that insurers cover, Seems none of their policies cover it.
Look, I am not taking a stand one way or the other on whether contraception should be covered or not, but if so, it should be equally done. But I believe there are more important medical issues that need to be dealt with, like getting heart medication covered for seniors because they cannot afford it. certain cancer treatment for kids are not covered, and much more. To me that is more important than covering the pill which you can get at Walmart for $9. The heart medication I was talking about is over $300 even in Walmart. I you had a choice of paying for one and covering one with insurance, ladies which would you choose?
Well in a civilized country like the UK with the NHS, all those things would be covered. Birth control is usually not just nine dollars a month in most states either, that study conservatives keep studying has been debunked on several occasions. It can be expensive as 40 dollars a month, but subsidizing this is cheaper than paying insurance claims for women who give birth to children not capable of caring for. The same group of conservatives who are so anti covering any time of birth control are also very adamant cutting public school lunch programs and public assistance. So they do not want women to have affordable access to birth control, but then belly ache later when a young woman who never had proper sex education has four kids without a father and is on public assitance. Make up your mind fellas.
Look ultimately there are a large of contingent of women's doctors would shake their head at any man who claims birth control and women's sexual reproductive health are not medical issues of importance. You sound like you are from 1955 arguing otherwise. It also comes off a little pervy with men wanting to claim to be the experts on this subject. I will leave this to the informed medical community, which does not agree with those who say "Oh just let a woman buy her birth control at Walmart". Also, under Obama's health care plan birth control is not free, you can get it for a reduced priced. I have yet to meet all these people in the magical land where they are getting all this free stuff from Obama. This place has only existed in the imagination of Obama's detractors.
Also, of course insurance should cover medication for seniors and children with heart problems. No one never said it should not. However in countries like the UK where those things are covered on socialized health care, a lot of Americans cry socialist.
Someone else earlier told you being from the UK you may not be well informed of the actual issue.
First, the $9 quote is from Walmart and is available in any of their tens of thousands of stored nationwide. The same price can be found at Targets and Walgreens, also stores that are nationwide. So much for debunking.
Interesting you say “from a civilized country like the UK” home of jack the ripper, the act uncivilized and call a perfect Stranger you know nothing about a “perv”. You blame men for making decisions but is welcome to let the medical profession make that decision. So the UK has all woman doctors do they? Doubt it.
Have you read the Obamacare bill? I have, twice and it is in there, free contraception for woman.
http://blogs.phillymag.com/bewellphilly … ugust-1st/
You say I am out of touch over legislation for woman’s reproductive health when I agree that it is important, un -1955’ like. But it seems you are having an issue with me making up a statement "Oh just let a woman buy her birth control at Walmart". Please show me where I made that exact statement. In fact what I said but you did not address was I do not believe that contraception should fall solely on the backs of woman. I said why was men’s contraception paid for in Obamacare? Do you not believe in equality?
What I as doing was showing how cheap the pill prescription is as compare to heart medications and others that are very expensive and not covered by health insurance providers. No offense, but I would sooner spend money to save a kid with cancer than but a contraception that is a minimal cost. It’s called priorities. If all else is covered, then of course make contraception for free.
I am very well informed on health care in the US. I do not read through all people who think they know best here either, and people will always try to debunk someone speaking the truth. The NHS covers birth control in the UK, and I happen to know a lady who has worked for it and has talked about how people there are generally happy with it. Just because it goes against your visions of how the world should be does not make it so.
Women's doctors are not all women. If you read text so literally, that is not my issue. Go ahead and keep flailing on this one, denying that birth control is overpriced in many parts of the country is not making you look like a champ for women's rights.
not sure what your problem is. You obviously are not well informed on US policy because you got the contraception issue wrong under Obamacare claiming it was not free when indeed it is. You continue to insist that the price of $9 is not nationwide when it indeed is.
I would strongly suggest researching the subject before commenting. Stick with the UK system you love so well. It works for you, then fine.
You still avoided my question so let me ask you this, does you country pay for men's conceptional? No it does not, is that fair? No it is not. So even the civil UK does not believe in equality.
Your links are not technically allowed on Hubpages forums, which is why I do not post links myself to showcase what I am saying. No, you cannot just buy birth control for nine dollars a pop anywhere in the US. Obamacare is not making birth control free for all women, and even if women on insurance no longer had to pay for the pills, they still pay into their insurance. I am very well informed on health care in the US as an American who pays attention to current events, and I have no problems of any kind. I shall continue to post my thoughts here, and telling me not to do so is nonsensical. As an American who thinks we should have single payer in this country and the so called Obamacare is way too conservative, I will actually keep pushing for that. No, I am not moving to the UK either, I am an American who will keep speaking out about well best help our fellow citizens. I happen to think a myriad of other issues should also be covered under what should be single payer health care not connected to employers. The crux of the issue is employers are balking at having to cover things like birth control, and it would have been so much better to have single payer health care where some employer does not have to weigh on this. Another issue I would like to promote is having the medical industry advocate more exercise, healthy living, and even less dependence on big pharma.
The medical industry can advocate all it wants, but until a person makes the decision to exercise, eat healthier and the rest, nothing will change.
As for HP links, the only links not allowed are those that self promote, lins to hate sites or pornographic sites. Sites that show the truth are allowed despite the fact you choose to not believe them.
Nobody told you to move to the UK, but I do enjoy seeing how you spin everything around. If you are not employed right now, you ned to go to the Democratic headquarters and apply. Repeating Democrat talking points as you do does not make them become true. You can stand on your head all day long but that does not change the fact that Walmart, Target and Wallgreens sell that prescription for $9 dollars nationwide, even in your neck of the woods in California.
The employers that are balking are doing so for religious reasons, not just for the sake of it as yo are suggestion. You are not happy with that thinking the employer is dictating to you on coverage. Yet you seem OK the government dictates coverage to you?
I agree that insurance policies should cover more than they do, Obamacare did not change that, a fact many overlook. Obamacare did nothing than add regulations, fees and taxes which are born by all, those covered and not covered. Those who have coverage will pay more due to rate increases in their insurance coverage. Again, you having not read the bill, you would realize that. I am not saying by the way, that the entire bill is bad, but about 95% of it is bad. People falling for gimmicks like extending the coverage for your kid going to college to 26 when coverage was to 24. There was an option to pay for an extra 2 years if need be and those who needed it did so, now everyone has to pay for it.
Last year I wrote a bill that would change health care coverage to include everything and how to implement such a single payer system that would cover you from 18, after you leave your parents policy, until you death. My system would almost eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid and not lay regulations and taxes on everyone to pay for. I was working with several congressman and senators who are interested. Unfortunately, congress was lame this year so I have to wait until the new congress seats after the election. But I will go back to those interested and see if it can get to the house floor for consideration.
Many people have told me to move because I am in favor of single payer health care. There is nothing wrong with doctors advocated healthy living programs and encouraging that there are more nutritionists in the medical field. What is disconcerting is how many doctors often prescribe a variety of pain killers, and how there is a big black market in these at the moment. A lot of the prescription pain killers people sell on the black market are worse than illicit drugs.
Also, your bill will not be a complete success or what many Americans need unless it promotes single payer health care. The price of insurance also goes up over time like food, but those who have insurance right now will be less impacted than those who cannot afford it at the moment.
The Obama health care plan is pretty much the Dole plan and the Romney plan, and the compromise most Republicans wanted up until the mid-90's. The Republican party can pretend to be so much against what I call insurance reform that helps the private sector far more than the average American, but most of us are very skeptical.
We are holding out for single payer health care, and in the future I probably will vote in more politicians who run on such a platform. They will probably not be Republicans or Democrats though, both parties which are a bit too centrist and corporate backed.
Also, just to share HP discourages all links. A year or so a go a hubber was told not to post links. I think you slipped under the radar, so it is just a warning. On some threads people report the links.
I did not go into detail here on everything in my bill. I wrote a broad stroke hub about it and you are free to go read it. You will find that I address everything from policy price increases to what is covered. This policy would stay with you your entire life after you reach 18 or graduate from college which almost eliminates the need for Medicare.
Again HP link policy is no links that self promotes your hubs or links to outside sources you have a vested interest in. I am sure the person you know violated one of those two rules and that is why they were told no links. Nonvested links used for confirmation and informational purposes are allowed. Feel free to check HP rules page or contact HP customer service for clarification.
To the contrary...I think we Mr. Ryan handed this reporter his ass. Enforcing laws which are on the books relative to reducing crime rates is gateway to discussing across the board tax cuts which is nothing but a cheap shot and the only real intention of the reporter in asking it. How the hell would you answer such a question against a backdrop discussion of street crime and law enforcement. As for any discussion of tax cuts, you might stop and consider that the USA is in economic doldrum with a sitting president who spends his time either trying to think up more ways to spend borrowed money, spin foreign policy, avoid talking about his record, and playing golf. He has done absolutely nothing for the one single entity which could get the economy up and going....the private sector. Don't even bring up the wasted stimulus money...the private sector saw little of it and fully recognized it for what it was...a temporary surge of cash...nothing to bet the future on in terms of investment. Employers are running lean afraid of the downstream impact and hidden surprises of Obama-Care thus they are not investing in business expansion or jobs. At this point, most of them are just simply trying to hang on and keep their business viable. But Obama even works against that angle by issuing executive orders and departmental regulations which up the cost of doing business on a highly frequent basis. Consumer confidence is down, gasoline prices are at an all time high, transportation costs are ;high and continuing to rise which is driving up the cost of goods and services nationwide along with other energy related items. Romney is not pushing tax cuts...he is speaking of adjusting the marginal rate in the lower brackets where much of the small business infracstructure lies with hope that it stimulates investment and growth resulting in an expanding economy. With a larger economy come more jobs and opportunites....people who turn to crime might just decide to work for living thus lowering the crime rate and at the same time expanding the base for taxation of funds into the government coffers giving the government a more positive revenue stream without "RAISING" taxes....a concept Obama cannot comprehend. Romney is looking for ways to shrink the federal government as opposed to Obama growing monster at every opportunity. Big governments = Big Overhead and lots and lots of spending....a lousy solution for anything. America has been lied to before but never on the scale that is seen with this administration....it is merciless. ~WB
". With a larger economy come more jobs and opportunites....people who turn to crime might just decide to work for living thus lowering the crime rate and at the same time expanding the base for taxation of funds into the government coffers giving the government a more positive revenue stream without "RAISING" taxes....a concept Obama cannot comprehend."
Like I said, tax cuts cure all.
Well if you think reporters should not ask questions and Ryan is not able to answer them, he should not be VP. If he were elected I can guarantee there will be more questions, and there will come a day when Ryan messes up big time, and he cannot cry fowl. Seriously, does Ryan think the press is his little buddy he can script. Back in the day of Kennedy and Nixon reporters asked some very testy questions, and presidents and vps had to put up with it. Ryan better grow a thicker skin, if he wants to be the second most powerful man in the world. Like I say if he were elected he will be called out by reporters and citizen bloggers on many issues, and those of us who are not his supporters will not just go along with his version of the facts. If conservatives have been so hard on Obama and Biden, we are not going to give Romney and Ryan a free pass.
by Quilligrapher3 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the...
by Stump Parrish14 months ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they...
by Alex Frias5 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that...
by kerryg6 years ago
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
" ...The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.