Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Let’s do our own homework on Ryan

Letter by Don Peter, Des Moines on Aug. 16, 2012 at 2:13 pm with 103 Comments »
August 16, 2012 2:13 pm

With Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan for VP have come attacks as well as enthusiastic endorsements. We hear that Ryan wants to gut Medicare and seriously imperil seniors. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has called his proposals “extreme.” Speaker John Boehner says he couldn’t be more pleased with Romney’s choice in that he is the most knowledgeable person on federal budget issues.

Ryan’s selection sets the stage for what is on everyone’s mind – the ailing economy and unsustainable federal spending – rather than distractions like frequent golf vacations or undisclosed tax returns.

Before deciding what to believe from the right or the left, check him out directly via video and in print. Rather than just take the word of Leonard Pitts or Charles Krauthammer, go to original sources free of fog. Start with the YouTube video for his knowledge and passion regarding fiscal issues, in this case the economics of the Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare).

For his budget plan, access the PDF and read it through.

Many criticize Ryan’s work, but at least he has offered a concrete, serious proposal, unlike the U.S. Senate that has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to craft a budget. It has no plan. Maybe it’s safer politically, but in fact constitutes a serious breach of duty to, and trust betrayal of, the American people.

Leave a comment Comments → 103
  1. LeePHill says:


    You missed finding this:

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has been one of the harshest critics of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. But months after Congress approved the nearly $800 billion package, the Wisconsin lawmaker was trying to steer money under the program to companies in his home state.

    Rep. Ryan wrote letters in 2009 to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies. One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., later received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records.

    In a letter to Chu in December 2009, Ryan said the stimulus money would help his state create thousands of new jobs, save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That contrasted with his public statements denigrating the stimulus program as a “wasteful spending spree.” It also conflicts with his larger federal budget proposal, which would slash Energy Department programs aimed at creating green jobs.

    Ryan’s office says his budget plan “calls for getting Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy – and that includes our energy sector.”

    Ryan’s actions in Congress and as chairman of the House Budget Committee have been drawing fresh scrutiny since he was named last weekend as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s running mate.

    Rather than having you, Don, steer me in the direction of your partisan story, I think I’ll do my own research.

  2. lee – for the record Ryan was not the only Republican who opposed the stimulus package, then accepted the federal fuuds.

  3. took14theteam says:


  4. Took – not to worry – we shall over come you with the truth.

  5. Truth? After BHO wasted $800bil with the stimulus he wants us to forget about Ryan wanted his constituents to get a piece of the crap they will have to pay for.

    Stupid, petty, childish argument.

    An then we have Biden. Doesn’t even know what state or century he is in.

    Go for Romney and Ryan if you want solutions. Vote for BHO if you want career pols that only know how to spend borrowed money and kick tough problems down the road.

  6. Notice Larry simply did a copy and paste.

    Afraid to do your own research? Too lazy?

  7. aislander says:

    The main point (and the service that Ryan provides) is that this campaign has suddenly become about ideas rather than personalities. I flatter myself that helps the conservative cause, since the left is bereft of ideas, and therefore constantly seeks to muddy the waters and confuse those whose interest in politics comes and goes with presidential election cycles.

    Ryan seems to have the ability to break through the pettifoggery of the left and to clarify issues…

  8. “pettifoggery of the left”

    Try as you might aislander, you will never be William Buckley….


    Ryan’s budget proposals don’t really “clarify the issues” – they do serve to move the discussion much, much, much further to the Right though so when the “left” Dems negotiate they can pretend they have earned a victory when they settle for a right-of-center austerity package.

  9. philichi says:

    May I remind you all? The election is not Obama against Romney, it is Obama against math. These programs are all going bankrupt. That is not in question. There are simply too many old people that live a long time. There are not enough new young folks to pay the expense. Obama knows this. Romney knows this. Adding 5% taxes to people that make over $250k won’t even start to fix the problem. All of the programs need to be changed.

    Is there anyone left that disagrees with my post?

  10. BigSwingingRichard says:

    Research on Ryan? You mean the type of research no one did (certainly not the press) on Barrack H Obama?

  11. averageJose says:

    This should provide much entertainment…

  12. LeePHill says:

    Here’s entertainment:

    CT thinks you can copy and paste without research.


    And the stimulus is a waste, even when you are part of the stimulus.

    More brilliance.

  13. Rational says:

    I’ve done my homework. Romney and Ryan want nothing to do with civil rights, women’s rights, preserving Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid and are only interested in padding their offshore bank accounts, increasing tax breaks for themselves and their wealthy cronies while shafting the middle class of America. Wouldn’t it be a refreshing day if they had to live under the same rules as the people that they fraudulently want us to believe they “represent”. I can’t understand why anyone with a brain would vote for these arrogant, self-serving parasites.

  14. LeePHill says:

    pet·ti·fog   /ˈpɛtiˌfɒg, -ˌfɔg/ Show Spelled[pet-ee-fog, -fawg] Show IPA
    verb (used without object), pet·ti·fogged, pet·ti·fog·ging.
    1. to bicker or quibble over trifles or unimportant matters.
    2. to carry on a petty, shifty, or unethical law business.

    “Ryan seems to have the ability to break through the pettifoggery of the left and to clarify issues…”

    Hmm….so far, what we’ve seen from Ryan, other than a budget proposal that many Republicans are distancing themselves from, is his ability to rename a post office and carry the water for other conservatives to whom he owes his entire career.

    To stipulate that he has the ability to break through “pettyfoggery”, based on the above definition would mean that one must first prove Democrats guilty of such. As to what people did in school, there appears to be a bit of bong hitting that was going on during Logic 101 and Debate, with the multitude of baseless assertions that are cast about from the Right side of the room.

  15. LeePHill says:

    Oh and the same Social Security that Ryan finds less than necessary was exactly what paid for his college education, which to me, seems a lot like “to carry on a petty, shifty, or unethical”.

  16. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Lets not all forget that we currently have an anti-American socialist “OH-Bummer” as POTUS!! We fortunately have two patriotic statesmen who are pro-American seeking to replace “OH-Bummer” and his dullard #2 Biden!! What could possibly be negative with the replacement of the national and international embarrassment “OH-Bummer”!!!

  17. sumyungboi says:

    t3ph: “.. his dullard #2 Biden”

    And it was pretty brilliant for Palin and McCain to suggest he be replaced with Clinton.

  18. Rational, your “research” consists of 100% democrat talking point rubbish.

    Please try being “rational” by following Don’s instructions. I can’t understand why anyone with a brain would put forth such twaddle. It can only result in useless pettyfoggery.

  19. Oh and the same Social Security that Ryan finds less than necessary…

    Linky please.

    lies 3rd person singular present, plural of lie

    1) Tell a lie or lies.
    2) 99% of what comes out of Larry P Hill’s mouth.

  20. Frankenchrist says:

    Biden is no Dan Quayle.

  21. Romney, a mega millionaire, wants to become president to get rich? Real rational.

    Still waiting for that original research Larry, or anything that proves you have poured over Ryan’s proposal. When you are done I will analyze BHOs plan. LOL

  22. LeePHill says:

    “Still waiting for that original research”

    “original research”??????????

    If something is “original” how can you research it?

    Sort of like jumbo shrimp.

  23. LeePHill says:

    Clam….try searching (orginally) “Ryan” and “social security” and see what you get.

    I won’t ruin your opportunity to learn.

  24. LeePHill says:

    I note that Clam, Jose and Took14 all have a facination with my real name.

    ….or is it all just one person that is obsessed with me?

  25. Just you. You going to copy and paste or actually look at Ryan’s plan and Mitt’s ideas?

  26. HF –
    Are you aware that the Ryan Plan adds trillions to the national debt and would not balance the budget for 28 years?

    The shameful reason budgets were not passes was the Republican Minority prevented the budget bills from coming to the Senate Floor for debate and passage.

    In other words Ryan publicly said the stimulus would not work, then privately grabbed funds for his state and district, and then took credit for ‘he’ creating jobs.

    Vote for R&R and get a budget that adds trillions to our national debt, and takes 28 years to balance the budget.

    You are right your arguments are not only stupid, petty, and childish they are flat wrong.

    I, on the other hand, view issues such as taxes, the budget, social security, Medicare / Medicaid, foreign policy, and national security as favoring Obama and the Dems over Romney / Ryan.

    Phichi – and way are the programs going broke – because the GOP would rather see the country go down than vote for any budget that includes tax increase.

    Simple math – Bush started with a surplus and drove us into debt, and the GOP continues to do everything it can do to keep us there.

    Sumy – the true mark of intelligence is to explain things in simple words.
    (of course it also helps to be able to spell).

  27. aislander says:

    beerBoy: Not trying to be Bill Buckley, although I’m thinking this very minute about what he said to Gore Vidal on what’s-his-face’s talk show. Cavett, right?

    I went through a time when I was a kid in which I was reading everything I could get my hands on and learning LOTS of new words (I figured out how to pronounce “bastard” at precisely the wrong time…), and picked up “pettifoggery” from Dickens, I think, and “froward” from either Twain or Tarkington.

    I credit Balzac with opening up my adolescence…

  28. bobcat1a says:

    Oh yeah, and what was Ryan’s answer when he was asked about how his budget would impact the deficit? “Well, we haven’t run the numbers yet.” To paraphrase, what he said was I have a poke over here with a pig in it. I’ll be happy to sell you that pig, but you can’t look in the poke. Just take my word for it, it’s a great pig and worth every penny.

  29. Billy Boy Buckley also said ‘A conservative is someone who stands athwart the tracks of progress, waving his arms, shouting STOP! GO BACK!

  30. aislander says:

    xring: I wish I knew why lefties feel compelled to disparage and diminish (well…try to diminish) everyone with whom you disagree.

    “Billy Boy Buckley?”

    THAT’S adolescent…

  31. ItalianSpring says:

    Why do homework on anyone anymore? Illegals? Voters? Czars? Hussein? We have a new standard America and it is none at all.

  32. philichi says:

    xring, you say that the programs are going bankrupt because the GOP will not allow new taxes.

    I was hoping that you would bring this up. I had a conversation with a local business man yesterday. He made over $500k for 2011. I told him that his investment income taxes will now go up from 15% to 43% for 2013..
    He said the rational thing. “I will work a lot less from now on” “If the law stays the same, I will make under $250k”.

    Can you imagine what that will mean to the GDP of America.

  33. NWflyfisher says:

    LeePHill: A 3rd party account, in this case your citing of an AP article, is a reference. Although it may be a component of research it’s certainly not going to the unfiltered source as Don Peter suggests.

  34. sumyunboi – people who are impressed by big college words (B.C.W.s) are usually not very impressive (to clarify – this criticism is not directed at aislander).

    The point of writing is to communicate clearly and concisely. Sometimes one must opt for B.C.W.s because no other word will do. But, if a simpler word will communicate the same intent, that is always preferable. Unfortunately, there are some who opt for B.C.W.s as a way to impress the impressionable and attempt to create the illusion of superior intellectual capacity. I find this a lot in academic writing – where the writer obfuscates (B.C.W. chosen as it communicates clearly here) with B.C.W.s, and/or the inclusion of long quotations in foreign languages (the worst example I’ve seen of that is when a writer footnoted a Germanic quote with a Greek phrase).

    But….as I have noted and you have proven….it is a simple technique for impressing the simple-minded.

  35. When told what Romney/Ryan’s economic proposals are, voters refuse to believe that a politician would really do that.

  36. For the past year and a half, Mr Ryan has been subjected to the very same criticism leveled at Mr Romney: that he refuses to specify the spending cuts and tax-preference eliminations his budget plan would make in order to meet its deficit targets. In March, the Congressional Budget Office analysis of Mr Ryan’s most recent proposals noted that Mr Ryan had failed to explain how his budget could possibly cut the entire federal budget apart from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from 12.5% of GDP today to 5.75% of GDP by 2030. More recently, Peter Orszag writes that Mr Ryan’s estimates of future Medicaid savings are unrealistic fantasies. David Stockman, the wild-eyed leftist radical who ran Ronald Reagan’s budget, calls Mr Ryan’s plan “devoid of credible math or hard policy choices”.


  37. sumyungboi says:

    xring: “.. the true mark of intelligence is to explain things in simple words”

    Which is why people who have a good vocabulary run computer simulations at their desks, and people who don’t empty the trash cans beneath those desks. Yeah… next interview you go to, just be sure you don’t use any words over four letters in length, show the boss that you have the true mark of intelligence. :)

  38. sumyungboi says:

    bb: “sumyunboi – people who are impressed by big college words (B.C.W.s) are usually not very impressive”

    I know, people like you prefer that people talk down to them, ergo, we have Obama.

  39. bB, I believe the criteria for this thread was “do your own research… Before deciding what to believe from the right or the left.”

    The two quotes/ articles you linked fall under the “deciding what to believe from the left” category.

    Robert Draper describes the results of focus groups done a few months ago by Democratic groups attempting to define Mitt Romney:

    Burton and his colleagues spent the early months of 2012 trying out the pitch that Romney was the most far-right presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. It fell flat. The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.

    Gee… I wonder if the reason they couldn’t get the results they were seeking is because their conclusions simply aren’t true?

    And “Priorities”? That would be Priorities USA – 0bama’s hit squad – the same one that produced the now-infamous “Romney killed my wife” lie.

    Gee, bB, sorry they didn’t get the results you were after. Apparently the American public is a whole lot less gullible than the average 0bama supporter – even in the Caliphonyia.

    As to your other link; who exactly was the author of that opinion blog, and what makes him/ her an expert on the economy – never mind Ryan’s plan?

    And where were all these folks when pelosi was telling the world she had to pass 0bamacare before we would know what was in it?

    I’ll take a plan (currently) short on specifics over the 0bama status quo; no plan at all – “just words, just speeches”.

    Talk about lacking specifics.

  40. LeePHill says:

    “NWflyfisher says:
    Aug. 17, 2012 at 5:56 am LeePHill: A 3rd party account, in this case your citing of an AP article, is a reference. Although it may be a component of research it’s certainly not going to the unfiltered source as Don Peter suggests

    shhhhhhhhhhh….don’t tell CT7 the answers to the quiz.

    As to Don Peters’ suggestion of unfiltered… He goes on to quote the GOP mantra on Ryan. Thanks for your suggestion, but I’ll take the AP. I’m not one of those people running around with my hair on fire claiming “liberal press”….

  41. LeePHill says:

    We know that this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1yTY2MciOk

    Isn’t a GOP production job….right, NWFly?

    Unfiltered indeed!

  42. LeePHill says:

    As I plugged my nose and watched the video…

    6 minutes of Ryan’s well planned speech of baseless assertions, accusations and talking points…..then….

    Obama starts to respond….and…..

    The video is cut off.

    GOP production? Nawwwwwwwwwww…..

  43. averageJose says:

    Gotta love it when we are lectured by bB in his usual hypocritical fashion. Thanks.

  44. aislander says:

    Romney and Ryan are right about one very BIG thing: demand-side (read Keynesian) economics are a fallacy and a sham designed to keep statists in power. No wonder these parasitic lefties are so threatened right now…

  45. LeePHill says:

    “And “Priorities”? That would be Priorities USA – 0bama’s hit squad – the same one that produced the now-infamous “Romney killed my wife” lie.”

    The only people who said “Romney killed my wife” are the Republicans, who are trying to detract from the real message of the video – lack of insurance is the REAL death panel.

    Sorry, Jose, I had to return to the subject of the thread as opposed to your obsession. Carry on….

  46. LeePHill says:

    “No wonder these parasitic lefties are so threatened right now… ”

    WOW!! You left out our welfare checks and our Cadillacs (can’t say that one when Annie owns two of them, can you?).

    “Threatened”? It’s easy to see who is threatened.

  47. aislander says:

    What else would you call people who exist by consuming the resources of others?

  48. aislander says:

    Change “resources” to “substance.”

  49. LeePHill says:

    I’d call them “Paul Ryan”.

    From 16 to 18 he attained money via Social Security, that paid for his education.

    After education, he promptly went to work in Washington DC and has never left.

  50. LeePHill says:

    Next question?

  51. aislander says:

    And yet he is working to reduce the amount of OPM that is being taken away. By some lights, he is therefore working against his own interests for the good of the country.

    I would call that “patriotism.”

  52. LeePHill says:

    not sure whacha call’em but….

    from The Tax Foundation:

    33 states and the District of Columbia get back more Federal tax dollars than they pay in. Ironically, considering the Republican Party champions low taxes and cutting Federal taxes, 21 of the 33 states who get back more than the taxpayers in those states pay in are also states who voted for John McCain in 2008.

  53. LeePHill says:

    Oh..when Paul Ryan takes taxpayer money it’s “patriotism”.

    See first comment for what you call “hypocrisy”. Ryan is good at lining up to make sure “he gets his share”.

    Ryan enjoyed the safety net of Social Security and the paycheck of Washington DC, all the while railing about both.

  54. MrCarleone says:

    Dancing Horses, and Joseph Smith !

    Dodging the draft in France, rather then Russia !

    I Love Ann Rand Too !

  55. aislander says:

    Miss the point much?

  56. Aislander – cry me some more crocodile tears.

    You thin-skinned tide-righties do the same thing to those with whom you disagree. So don’t complain when others do it back to you.

    Phichi – Going to have to throw the BS flag here. How does one influence their investment income by working or not working in a small business?

    beerBoy – whenever I hear someone trying to sound erudite using big works I think of the bumbling balloonist in the Wizard of Oz.

    IMO – most ‘academic’ writing belongs to the ‘I can sling it like a big boy’ school writing.

    Sumy – I have over a dozen published scientific reports to my credit, all written in simple declarative sentences using common (plain) words with a minimum of scientific jargon.

    Clamat0 – since then Romney as build his campaign around him being an ultra conservative.

    Aislander – and supply side economy has worked so much better. Even old HW Bush called supply side economics voodoo economics

  57. Dave98373 says:

    I can’t wait to watch the first debate between stumbling Joe and Paul Ryan. OweBama must cringe ever time he watches Joe open his mouth. You just never know what is going to come out. That is shaping up to be far more interesting than the Presidential debates!

  58. Frankenchrist says:

    I can’t wait until the debate when Romney is forced to explain why he is hiding his tax returns, even though his father released 12 years of his tax returns when he ran for the GOP nomination in 1968.

  59. aislander says:

    xring writes: ” – and supply side economy has worked so much better. Even old HW Bush called supply side economics voodoo economics…”

    Well, yes. According to a statistical analysis done by a pair of Harvard economists, supply side doesn’t merely work better; it works and Keynesian, demand side doesn’t.

    This is not opinion; rather it is an analysis of events that have already happened.

  60. Dave98373 says:

    FC- Romney’s tax returns are sitting right next to OewBama’s birth certificate.

  61. aislander says:

    You were about to ask for a citation, xring?

    “In a 2009 paper, Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna, using simple regression analysis, looked at 107 examples in developed countries more than 30 years from 1970 to 2009 and came to this conclusion:

    “Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments, those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt than those based upon tax increases.

    “Also, spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansion rather than recession.”


  62. I know, people like you prefer that people talk down to them

    sumyungboi – as I tried to explain to you before – you cannot know what I prefer unless I share that with you. Don’t know how I can make that any plainer so that you might understand.

  63. LeePHill says:

    We’ve seen Obama’s birth cerficate. More than once.

    Ryan would be brilliant in a debate on FOX News where they let him give his prepared speech and then turn to Biden and say “you have no chance, traitor”. Only one problem, as Palin learned, no matter how much you ignore the moderator and try to go back to your prepare speech, the viewers know the difference.

  64. aislander found TWO! economists that agree with his faith in supply side.

  65. LeePHill says:

    Why are the Republicans more concerned about Biden’s “gaffes” than the Democrats?

    Probably because we take them in context….

  66. aislander says:

    beerBoy, you CAN be obtuse when it suits you.

    These economists don’t agree with supply-side theory. They have, rather, used statistical analysis to show that it works.

    The NUMBERS agree with supply-side theory…

  67. LeePHill says:

    Aislander – you can obtuse (and change subjects) when it suits you.

    Paul Ryan has lived off taxpayer money all of his adult life.

  68. Clamat0 – Not sure how you could categorize The Economist as “the left” or “Obama supporters”.

  69. aislander – you can NAIVE when you want to. Studies are devised to create the desired results. This is done by creating matrixes and rubrics that will give you the numbers you want. This is especially true with the most flaccid of the soft sciences.

  70. aislander says:

    So…which is more important: defending Paul Ryan’s reputation (which he is perfectly capable of doing himself), or impeaching the economic policies of every Democrat administration since FDR?

  71. aislander says:

    So, beerBoy: show me the flaws in THIS study.

    There’s really not much room to fudge (actually none), if you take the trouble to look at the study.

    Taxes were cut or spending occurred. The economy expanded, stayed static, or contracted. All of the preceding occurred at various rates.

    It is or it isn’t. It was or it wasn’t.

    Pretty simple.

  72. Dave98373 says:

    “Probably because we take them in context…”

    Nice reply. Never accountable for anything. Y’all have a good weekend now in your chains…yah here!

  73. sumyungboi says:

    Awesome how many taxers we have here. And I’m glad Romney isn’t going to get suckered into reacting to every bogus little mudsling that comes from the left, which is why the left is in absolute panic mode right now. Look through the above comments from leftists, it’s amazing! Obama’s campaigns have always been about attempted character assassination, nothing more, ever, and look at what the leftists are reduced to when the other side refuses to play that stupid little game. This is truly fun!

  74. took14theteam says:

    “Studies are devised to create the desired results. This is done by creating matrixes and rubrics that will give you the numbers you want.”

    That wouldn’t be how they are presenting Glowball Warming now would it?

  75. took14 – that is why the scientific community doesn’t rely on ONE study by two Harvard economists and requires a many studies to support hypotheses and theories……just like they have done with climate science (which isn’t a soft science like economics).

  76. This took about a minute of research to find:

    The pro-austerity faction has relied heavily on a few recent studies, especially one by Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna claiming to have identified 26 cases in which fiscal contraction led to renewed growth. This conclusion, however, has not stood up to careful scrutiny. Economists Arjun Jayadev and Mike Konczal, after studying the cases that Alesina and Ardagna describe, find that “in virtually none did the country a) reduce the deficit when the economy was in a slump and b) increase growth rates while reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio.”

    In 20 of the 26 cases, Jayadev and Konczal argue, the government did not carry out a fiscal contraction during the low (or “slump”) phase of a business cycle. (Budgets are much easier to balance, and debt easier to pay down, during the “boom” phase of a business cycle. With output and incomes high, total tax revenue is bound to be high as well, while expenditures on things like unemployment insurance are bound to be low.) Out of the six remaining cases, they find, the rate of economic growth actually declined in five. Looking at a broader sample of countries engaging in austerity, Jayadev and Konczal find that, in most cases, deficit cutting during a slump results in lower growth. Even in most of the cases where the growth rate did increase, the ratio of debt to gross domestic product actually increased as well. This suggests that, even if fiscal austerity had some effect in reducing the growth of total debt, it also resulted in such weak overall economic growth that the debt burden (relative to GDP) continued to rise.


  77. I wish the Tacoma News Tribune had a moderator to snip out the constant sniping that goes on at this site. Maybe if the editors eliminated these worthless comments, attacks on integrity, etc, there would be something worth reading.

  78. MrCarleone says:


    Thank You for Another stunningly ignorant post.

  79. slugoxyz says:

    whew! Good fight. It’s like Battle Royal in there. Every blogger, left and right is in there swinging away. Not sure what I’m learning but…

  80. Larry, even BHO wants Biden to go away. Good for the republicans, she said no.


  81. philichi says:

    xring, the new law warks like this. If you work and earn $250k between you and your wife, your dividends will be taxed at 43%. (up from 15%)

    This is a simple solution that liberals never get. Investors and earners simply change their behavior and investments. You see, if someone is going to have almost 50% of their income withheld from them, why would they work as hard? What would you do?

    They will shift things around to Tax free bonds or annuities. When it is all said and done, statists like Obama, Mao, and Castro, never get the amount of tax revenue that they plan on. Why would they?

  82. like Obama, Mao, and Castro

    SNORT! Glad I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that, otherwise I would be cleaning my screen right now.

    Obamacare is a massive gift to the Insurance Industry – the furthest thing from socialism/marxism – you Birchers are so bizarre.

  83. sumyungboi says:

    “.. you Birchers are so bizarre”

    Ah, the leftists losing control is so fun to watch!

  84. LeePHill says:

    Turning down American Thinker for the Washington Examiner?

    When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, “When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he ‘wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,’ said one former employee.” The Examiner’s conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama). [10]

    The paper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election[11] and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010.[12] On December 14, 2011, it endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election.[13]

  85. LeePHill says:

    CT7 – you’d be interested to know that I endorse Biden retiring and drafting Hillary as VP to springboard her for 2016.

  86. LeePHill says:

    “I told him that his investment income taxes will now go up from 15% to 43% for 2013..
    He said the rational thing. “I will work a lot less from now on” “If the law stays the same, I will make under $250k”.”

    Investment income in the market is “work”???????????

    If the stock market wasn’t paying so well, that individual wouldn’t be making so much money as to worry about his tax level on something that happened with no breakout of sweat. I wonder if the real monied people in the stock market will settle for $250,000 when their earning capacity is $10,000,000

    I wonder how much traction the financial planners are getting with the “43%” fear. I note that one who advertises on Progressive Talk Radio, is damned near owning the air waves with his advertising campaign. There must be some value to spend so much on messaging.

  87. aislander says:

    I suspect the investor was talking about the “work” his money is doing with regard to the risk he is taking with it.

    The risk may make sense with a 15% tax rate on any gains, but not at 43%, which would make it very difficult to offset any losses, particularly with the $3000 limit…

  88. philichi says:

    Yes, one can control their effort and their output. If I want to work 2 days a week instead of 4 isn’t that rational? It would be very easy for many to lower their income. A doctor and dentist can see less patients, a salesmen can work less. A businessman can sell his business and retire. This is going on all day long. Why is this so hard to understand? Under those conditions, why would the economy grow?

    If his dividend on stocks were now being taxed at 43%,(2013 tax rate) wouldn’t he just sell them and buy tax free bonds? Leephil do you and the left understand this? Are you just playing dumb? This is why these silly statist tax schemes never work.

  89. aislander says:

    beerBoy: The two economists you cite are both heavily into the “equality” movement, so I suspect THEY sought out the results they eventually published, but I am not going to make that argument until I do further research. It’s really important to get this right.

  90. took14theteam says:

    “I endorse Biden retiring and drafting Hillary as VP to springboard her for 2016″

    If you think America is going to elect a 69 year old (in 2016) for president, let alone the first female president, I got a bridge to sell ya.

    Oh, what the hell, you’ve seen how well the first black president has done, why would we elect an old woman for the job?

    Have fun….


  91. RegisteringFool says:

    Just so you all know, I’m not reading this stuff. I have better things to do.

  92. LeePHill says:

    Took14 was so much nicer when defending women from the Muslim Brotherhood.

    I guess that valiant defense was short-lived.

  93. truthbusterguy says:

    Was that Ryan that said,”they will put y’all back in chains”?

    If he did he is a racist, babykiller, grandmother killer, hates the poor, hate gays well just hates everybody and wants everybody to die soon.

    If it turns out I am wrong and it was Joe Biden that said that, well…..uh……duh……He must have misspoke, Joe is just a joker, he was talking about Wall Street or he didn’t really mean what he said.

    Wonder if Joe got my check yet?

    I want a front row seat when Joe “dumbass” debates Ryan. Worth the price of admission to see Plug Biden shudder, stutter and stammer.

  94. aislander – so “your” two economists were unbiased but “my” two economists who repudiate their findings are biased?

    You know that you are supporting my original point about economics is a “science” that uses statistics and numbers to support bias, don’t you?

    Have you seen the bit from “Inside Job” showing Harvard economist and Romney advisor Glenn Hubbard (not) responding to questions on how he can possibly be unbiased when writing “scholarly” papers that support the financial institutions that provide him with 80% of his annual income?

  95. LeePHill says:

    Did anyone else notice that no one in the audience was worried about the “chains” comment?

    When will Romney show his tax returns?

  96. LeePHill says:

    “I want a front row seat when Joe “dumbass” debates Ryan. Worth the price of admission to see Plug Biden shudder, stutter and stammer.”

    Someone has already forgot the look on Gwen Ifill’s face when Palin uttered these immortal words:

    IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Sen. McCain’s comments about health care?

    PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases.

    Then there was this monument:

    “My Achilles heel is that my executive experience of a huge energy-producing state counting towards much progress towards getting our nation energy independence. That’s very important.”

    Biden just smiled.

  97. if you think America is going to elect a 69 year old (in 2016) for president

    They already did (Reagan). He was 69 years, & 349 days old when inaugurated.

  98. Biden just smiled.

    Always best for gaffe-a-minute Joe to keep silent.

    Did I miss something… is “Plugs” Biden debating Sarah Palin again? You sleep through the last 4 years, Larry?

    And they nicknamed him rip-van-Biden.


    Soulda’ been rip-van-peehill.

  99. Not sure how you could categorize The Economist as “the left” or “Obama supporters”.


    Just asking why no author was cited in the blog post you linked. What are his/ her credentials? Seems to me his/ her opinion is no better than mine.

    The piece you linked previous to your Economist link – from digbysblog.blogspot.co.uk (uk????), now that would be a pro-democrat site. Still, don’t see anywhere in my post where I said either were “0bama Supporters”. The correct context for that quote was in reference to “Priorities USA”, and their target audience.

    Did find it humorous that David Stockman is writing for 0bama’s print propaganda arm – the New York Times (linked in the Econ blog) now.

    So… suddenly the evil creator of so-called “tricle-down economics” is a new hero of the left, LOL.

    What’s next? Krugman writing an anti-Keynesian piece in the WSJ?

  100. aislander says:

    Stockman long ago went to the fifth column.

    beerBoy writes: “You know that you are supporting my original point about economics is a “science” that uses statistics and numbers to support bias…”

    So your original point supported my long-standing contention that dishonest scientists will distort their findings to support an agenda.

    You mean like climatology…

    We agree. Now we need to find out which economists are honest.

  101. You mean like climatology…

    Ah yes…..the vast conspiracy theory that you contend was hatched almost half a century ago.

    First – climate science is considered a hard science, Economics is a social science.

    Second – I was referring to the study created by TWO Harvard economists – not the bulk of work created by many, many climate scientists over many, many years.

    Third – I put forward a study that refutes the study you put forward. As you should know, this is how science (even the soft ones) works. One group puts out a study and others react to it – either by conducting studies that tend to support the original study’s conclusions or by demonstrating the problems with the original study. Through a number of years and many, many studies the bulk of evidence can be weighed to find what has been derided by supporters of the cheap energy industry as “consensus” within the scientific community.

    Again – in spite of your assertions, one study by two Harvard economists is hardly conclusive

  102. Clamat0 – Will Kristol writes for “0bama’s print propaganda arm” – do you find that humorous too?

    BOTH sides like to put forward the “converted” who now “see the light”. Frankly, I prefer to go back to Poppy Bush who, correctly, identified Stockman’s version of Thatcher Trickle-down as “voodoo economics”. The past thirty years have demonstrated that all boats don’t rise when the luxury liners are given smooth sailing by the government.

  103. aislander says:

    So (to pursue beerBoy’s analogy), some boats float in supply-side waters, but some don’t? That is the nature of the free market–and freedom itself: there are winners and there are losers, which is one reason lefties hate freedom…er…capitalism…er…freedom. Oh well–same thing, I guess.

    Your comparison breaks down when you assert that only the big boats float in those waters. That’s not the case, and you know it. Look at all the small businesses who provide products and services to a Boeing, for example–but only when Boeing is doing well. And it does well only when it can pass profits along to its owners, the stockholders (such as pension funds). GM sank in those same waters, don’t forget.

    At least supply-side raises the water level, while Keynesian stimuli blow air that raises favored boats only as long as the compressors are pumping it out.

    Stimuli stop; boats drop.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0