Today, August 11, 2011, Mitt Romney Announced his running mate Paul Ryan. is this a good choice for the Republican Party? Do you think their chances of winning is better against Obama-Biden?
sort by best latest
You are absolutely right rfmoran, I wish more Americans would understand this concept.
Have you actually read it. It greatly resembles the Bowles Simpson commission reccomendations which the president put together and then ignored. The commssions recommendations were heralded by economist from all political persuasions.
Squeeze poor people until they pop. Ryan's plan is what Ayn Randians read instead of pornography. Aside from having similar debt reduction tracks they don't seem at all similar.
That's absolutley false. Bowles Simpson called for the same broadening of the tax base with lower marginal rates and less deductions. They both called for debt reductions through entitlement spending cuts in th future. Read the proposals.
Ryan's plan has no tax increases, no military cuts, very small savings from tax changes, and massive cuts to programs which aid the poor. Simpson-Bowles is different on all counts. What exactly isn't different about that?
Not according to Simson and Bowles both on CNBC last month praising most of the Ryan plan. In regard to taxes The Federal govt collects about 17% of Economic activity regarldess of rates for the last century. Raising rates does not raise revenue.
Liking Ryan's plan (if they actually do) doesn't meant they are the same. S-B raises taxes. Ryan's doesn't (along with a variety of very different specifics). Though I have no idea why it matters.
Ryans plan raising taxes by broadening the base with lower marginal rates and less deductions. Your using static tax models instead of dynamic modeling.
I'm using Ryan's own self-admission that his policy will not increase tax revenues.
no he said tax rates not revenue. Lower tax rates have historically lead to higher revenue. Look at the tax policies of JFK and Reagan. Each time rates went down and revenues went up.
"maintain revenue growth at a level consistent with current tax policy and at a share of the economy consistent with historical norms of 18 to 19 percent in the following decades." Sounds revenue-neutral to me.
Revenue neutral still means increasing revenue. Revenus as a percent of GDP Cant go up. never does. As GDP expands your revenue goes up with Growth. The tax rate is irrelvant. In 1952 top tax rates where 92% and we collected about 17-18% of GDP.
I'm sorry, you're right. S-B and the Ryan plan are 100% completely word for word identical to one another. I don't know what I was thinking.
Didn't say that. They are greatlysimilar in numerous ways. And both filled some great ideas. That's why Obama won't sign off on them. Simpson Bowles was never more than a side show by the white house. They haven't even passed a budget yet.