2012 US Presidential Election - Is Paul Ryan a good VP candidate choice for the

1. 62

   alexandriaruthkposted 11 years ago

   2012 US Presidential Election - Is Paul Ryan a good VP candidate choice for the Republican Party?
   
   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?

   replyreport
2. 68

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   It certainly helps sure up his conservative base.  Many conservatives realize Romney has that track record of an excellent business leader. Yet they question how strong he is on conservative principals.  Most ocnservatives would find themselves more aligned with Ryan than Romney.  It certainly will not hurt their chances.  More than likely a VP pick typically won't change the election very much.  Although I am looking foward to the VP debate.  Ryan is a policy wonk who is well spoken.  Meanwhile Biden can't utter a peep without sticking his foot in his mouth.  That should be fun.

   replyreport
3. 72

   rfmoranposted 11 years ago

   Paul Ryan is an excellent choice. He is one of the few people in Washington who realizes that we are heading toward a fiscal calamity unless our entitlement scheme is fixed. You can't be entitled to something that isn't there. He's smart, principled and articulate.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Conservative Ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are absolutely right rfmoran, I wish more Americans would understand this concept.

      replyreport
4. 81

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   Not if the Republicans want to win. Paul Ryan does nothing to capture the votes that are still undecided, but does have the potential of losing many of those votes (seniors and women). To me, this is Palin 2.0. He is meant to be new and exciting, but he is hard right, rather than moderate like the VP choice should have been, he has no foreign, executive, or national campaign experience--he has never really even faced a tough campaign that I know of, and I doubt he has been carefully vetted. The only thing he is known for is his budget, but he has never had to actually defend it. When he actually has to, we will find that it is as full of holes as Swiss Cheese.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   5. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 81

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ryans plan raising taxes by broadening the base with lower marginal rates and less deductions.  Your using static tax models instead of dynamic modeling.

      replyreport
   8. 81

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm using Ryan's own self-admission that his policy will not increase tax revenues.

      replyreport
   9. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   10. 81

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "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.

       replyreport
   11. 68

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   12. 81

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   13. 68

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
5. 0

   Mr Tindleposted 11 years ago

   IMO Ryan is just another empty suit. He doesn't stand for anything besides his own political interests. No different than Romney, Biden, or Obama. Romney doesn't seem to have very good chances of winning at this point due to him being painted as the evil rich guy in the media. Doubt Ryan will be able to help with this, since I think he is pretty wealthy also. Who knows though. I don't think it matters much anyway between Romney or Obama.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   It depends if you want a corporate takeover of our entire system, or just heavy corporate influence.  Ryan is a complete corporate shill. 
   
   It also doesn't balance the budget until 2040!  If we just kept EVERYTHING in place, and the economy eventually recovered, it would balance on it's own faster than his plan.

   replyreport
7. 68

   Nathan Orfposted 11 years ago

   Maybe in the short term, as the choice for Paul Ryan will definitely energize the Conservative base Romney needs. But Liberals detest Ryan just as much as Conservatives love him, and his budget plan is unpopular with most Americans. The Obama Team will tie Romney up in that plan, and Romney risks losing ground with Independent voters (the very few) who have yet to make up their minds about who to vote for.

   replyreport
8. 61

   Perspycaciousposted 11 years ago

   I have cited different aspects of the Ryan selection in discussing whether he is an asset or a liability.  I come down on the side of liability for the reasons I state, and I am not surprised by the Democrat Party's seeming jubilation.  Ryan and Romney will pay for Ryan's overweight baggage.

   replyreport