Is'nt like 90% of Alaska government land? Does that sound sane? I'm all for having protected land, but the western states don't fare much better. The states ought to be able to have more control over their own well being. We can't even drill for needed oil because the feds' dither.

......

The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.

......

Is'nt like 90% of Alaska government land? Does that sound sane? I'm all for having protected land, but the western states don't fare much better. The states ought to be able to have more control over their own well being. We can't even drill for needed oil because the feds' dither.

Thank God!! Now we can make sure to build little Haji's school so he can be an educated little bastid who hates us.

Thank God!! Now we can make sure to build little Haji's school so he can be an educated little bastid who hates us.

+1 The Federal Government has no Constitutional authorization to hold huge tracts of land within the states.

if the citizenry can't tolerate even the modest cuts of the Ryan plan, they doom themselves to far worse when interest begins to freeze out everything else.

Sorry my friend. If we need to make sacrifices, we all need to sacrifice and that includes dubious defense spending. The fact they(GOP) would try to take defense spending off the table just tells me they want the bill to go nowhere because they never intended for it to pass.

I agree that we don't need to "save" every horseshit 3rd world country but I am all for defending this country. Too much waste in government I agree with, but start with the welfare rats and congresscritters. Also chop the dicks and hands off the unscrupulous defense contractors.BUT secure or borders and defend them to the death.

I believe he wants a 2 tier tax bracket. One 25% and one 10%. If my math is correct, that would lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans by almost 30%.


Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe he wants a 2 tier tax bracket. One 25% and one 10%. If my math is correct, that would lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans by almost 30%.


Correct me if I'm wrong.

I know you're aghast at the thought of the government only stealing a quarter of a man's income, but don't you think if you want to create jobs and pull out of a four year tailspin putting money into the private economy rather than funding more left wing schemes and union bailouts is probably a good idea? If you don't, well....Obama is your boy.

needs to be done....cut off the welfare teat....those on welfare can perform some useful task as community service...I am tired of the leaches we support.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The end game is upon us. The Nov. 6 election will either commit us to generations of misery or a chance to crawl back from the cliff.

You are wrong. (but you already knew that)

I'm for paying 0% income taxes.


But if you really want to get into this discussion, it seems lowering corporate taxes(which Ryan wants) would create more jobs than giving a tax break to the upper tier. Wouldn't you agree?

An unaltered Ryan budget plan is a moot point. They won't go with it, as is.




If they did ... Hussein would win by the same margin as in 2008.

I like Ryan as Romney's pick for VP but his budget, at face value, is far too complex for average voter to appreciate. It's a radical change and people don't like change and even more so, radical changes.

Sorry, but that's my two cents.

no....putting more money in people's pockets....or small businesses cash registers, since most are Sub S or LLCs and don't pay corporate tax rates....will get it spent and generate jobs and economic activity far better than hiring more federal bureaucrats and all the other things gov't would do with it.

Romney's income is mostly capital gains, which aren't taxed at the same rates. Your capital gains, if you have any, are taxed at exactly the same rate as Mitt's.


kraky wants the government to micromanage individual businesses even more than they do now, apparently.

What is the 'Ryan plan'? Budget proposal back in spotlight with VP announcement
Published August 11, 2012
FoxNews.com

With Rep. Paul Ryan selected as Mitt Romney's running mate, voters will be hearing a lot about the so-called "Ryan" plan.

So what is it?

Though each party has strong feelings about what Ryan's controversial budget proposal entails, here are a few highlights. Just the facts:

The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.

The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."

The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.

The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.

The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.

The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015

Romneys tax return for one year is 500 pages long...Id say hes got loopholes!
During the debates he said capitol gains should be 10%....
Again Paul Ryan whats fair for Mitt to pay?

for you commies, a loophole is anything that the government doesn't steal

you guys just hate people who make more money than you do, and want the government to steal it from them to even it up, and compensate for your inadequacies. it won't help....and the money won't ever make it down to you anyway.

Its pretty simple...if you are gonna tell the American people you want to run their country and some of you are gonna pay 25%.....you better not be making $21,000,000 and tell them you should be paying 10-15%.
Thats a REAL TOUGH ARGUMENT TO WIN!
Maybe it can be done....but wow Im dieing to see how.

Our forefathers died financing a revolution and a free country to pay much less, and developed the richest country in the worlds history in the process, and the richest poor on the earth.

Yep a bunch of those freedom fighting forefathers were slave owners. Ironic ain't it. Not much difference in principle with the wealthy today.

Must be tough in your world--where everyone and everything with any flaw is valueless.

BMT

What is the 'Ryan plan'? Budget proposal back in spotlight with VP announcement
Published August 11, 2012
FoxNews.com

With Rep. Paul Ryan selected as Mitt Romney's running mate, voters will be hearing a lot about the so-called "Ryan" plan.

So what is it?

Though each party has strong feelings about what Ryan's controversial budget proposal entails, here are a few highlights. Just the facts:

The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.

The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."

The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.

The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.

The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.

The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015

I know GREED is no VIRTUE! Look up the def. for virtue.

Ryan's budget plan doesn't mean chit. As VP, assuming Romney can pull it off, which is a huge assumption, his boss will submit his budget to congress for funding, not Ryan.

Romney has stated from day one that he supports and wants the Ryan plan. Most Republicans do.

The point behind the OP is merely to get the facts out there and clear as there will be lie after lie by the opposition about the Ryan plan.

Most clearly seen by the recent ad showing grandma getting wheeled off of a cliff.

for you commies, a loophole is anything that the government doesn't steal

you guys just hate people who make more money than you do, and want the government to steal it from them to even it up, and compensate for your inadequacies. it won't help....and the money won't ever make it down to you anyway.

Looking at 2008 IRS report of income taxes:

The top 1% of individual tax payers earned roughly 20% of all reported AGI (adjusted gross income). Let�s break that down shall we? The implication is that if you are lucky enough to be in the top 1% of earners of taxable AGI, that means you should be able to afford to pay more taxes to help out the less fortunate right?

There�s one problem� when you take a number like that, you�re hiding behind a percentage.

The top 1% of tax payers is roughly 1.4 million people. To qualify for the �top 1%� group, you�d have to earn roughly $385,000 AGI annually.

What You Should Know is that the top 1% of income earners paid a total of 38% of all individual federal income tax revenue ($410,898,035,220.00 or $411 Billion of 1.1 Trillion collected in individual federal tax revenues for 2008).

Now if you take in the top 50% of income earners (which includes both the top 1%) They paid 97.3% of all individual federal income tax revenues. If you take out the 38% of all revenues from the top 1%, the remaining 49% of top 50% earners� pay 59% of all individual federal tax revenues. And who are these dastardly high earners of the �above average earners�? Why they�re the folks that earn somewhere between $384,000 and $33,000 (that�s not a typo, that�s $33,000). If you earn $33,000 you�re part of the �above average pay� crowd. Maybe we should be taxing you more too right? And what of that bottom 50% that pays only 2.7% of all individual AGI tax revenues? They(about 70 million) contribute to 12.75% of all reported taxable AGI (which is $720Billion of the 5+ Trillion of taxable AGI in 2008)

So� say we ignore the Laffer Curve all together and decide that we should tax the top 1%� at 100% of earned of AGI (adjustable gross income). That would take us (based on 2008 revenues reported) to a total of federal income tax revenues to roughly a WHOPPING $1.85 Trillion. (The hell you say? We gain only a total of $750 Billion? Yeah, that�s what I�m saying).

So here are the real numbers: 20% of all individual taxable income is $1,130,463,019,000.00 according to the 2008 numbers IRS reported income. That�s a large number so I�ll shorten it for you� that�s $1.1 Trillion. Another way to look at it is there is roughly $5+ Trillion in total reported individual adjusted gross income of all individual tax payers, all tax brackets of the which $5+ Trillion is taxable, 20% of that ($1.1 Trillion) is earned by individuals in the top 1%.

Here�s the problem with our hypothetical situation of taxing the top 1% at 100% of total Adjusted Gross Income, we will barely cover our annual spending deficit that bounces between $1.3 to $1.5 Trillion.

Now if we get back to reality and understand the simple concept behind the Laffer Curve� I ask are you willing to see what happens when the top 1% of earners pay 100% of adjusted gross income�?

If so� maybe I should restate the gain of doing such an inane action: That $750 Billion that we would �potentially� gain� will go to paying roughly .051% of the principal of our total debt $14 Trillion (supposing we�d actually attempt to pay down the debt)� But rather� what would likely happen is the politicians would see this new $750 Billion in revenue as an opportunity to �spread the wealth�. They�d trumpet long and loud about a �budget surplus�.

You see� there�s but one way to reduce our debt� which is to do each of the following: cut entitlement spending, cap non-discretionary spending, and increase revenues.

In order to cap deficit spending its going to require some honest folks to pull up their adult pants, and cut entitlement programs that will force people to stop relying on the government when its not necessary {and that doesn�t include social security or medicare}.

In addition� to grow revenues, you should attempt to grow GDP, not bleed a dry turnip (as suggested above by raising the taxes on the rich). To do so, We�ll need some attractive business incentives to do more business in the United States, including reducing tax burdens on corporations and the top 1%. Also enacting policies that reduce the cost to do business in America.

Now I know its not the popular thing to do� well at least not with President Obama, because he�d like to point out that CEO�s with lots of money (presumably members of the top 1%) like to fly around in their private jet planes, and therefore should be able to afford more taxes. May I ask you Mr. President, how many golf games have you played during your administration, and how many of those games required you to fly out of Washington D.C. to the location?

Now if you want to play class warfare with the top 1% of earners� be my guest� but let me just say, I think its really a lame attempt at envy� or a calculated political lie meant to create division among the people, and to galvanize political support.

{Begin sarcasm}Dang those millionaires� how dare they earn so much, they don�t earn enough for us to pay our debts, or even our deficits� but DAMN THEM TO HELL for not giving away all of their income to poor people!!!{End Sarcasm}

Invective is lame� class warfare is lame� and being asinine about facts is lame. However, being a divisive, arrogant, hypocritical President� that�s just reckless self promotion.

Robert Reich and Paul Krugman are preeminent mainstream-media mouthpieces of the redistributionist welfare state. They constantly disseminate the myths that the rich don�t pay their fair share of taxes, and Congress is about to �slash taxes on the very rich�.

Yet they never attack the real source of America�s problems, crony capitalism, the economic foundation of the welfare state in which rich and poor alike are partners in crime with the government to rip off their fellow Americans. Reich and Krugman also propagate the myth that America�s deficit and economic problems could be eliminated simply by raising taxes on �the rich� and spending the new revenue on bigger government.

First, no one (unfortunately) is suggesting �slashing� tax rates for anyone. The question on the table for Congress to consider is whether it will dramatically increase tax rates next year�tax rates that have been on the books for almost a decade now�by permitting automatically scheduled rate hikes to take effect. Unless Congress acts to override this trigger, it willfully will be allowing the largest tax increase in history to go into effect. If Congress acts to maintain current tax rates, it won�t be cutting taxes by a dollar; it will simply be preserving the status quo and preventing a huge tax increase from occurring.

Interestingly, the Reich-Krugman logic on taxes doesn�t seem to apply in Washington on the spending side. The minute the Super Committee failed to come up with the $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction measures required by the debt deal passed earlier this year, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle began talking about switching off and rejiggering the $1.2 trillion in automatic sequester cuts that were triggered by the Super Committee�s failure to complete its task in order to avoid automatic spending cuts they don�t like. Yet, no one in Washington is using Reich-Krugman logic to bewail a �spending increase� produced by switching off or reconfiguring the sequester.

Krugman and Reich similarly torture the English language and distort tax statistics to promote the double-barrel fallacy that we both can solve the deficit problem and increase economic growth by raising taxes on the top one percent of income earners and spending the money on bigger government. Reich puts it this way:

�Put more money into the pockets of average Americans [by] extending unemployment benefits. Don�t stop there. Create a WPA to get the long-term unemployed back to work. And a Civilian Conservation Corp to create jobs for young people. Hire teachers for classrooms now overcrowded, and pay them enough to attract people who are talented as well as dedicated. Rebuild our pot-holed highways. Create a world-class infrastructure. Pay for this by hiking taxes on millionaires.�

Krugman and Reich also ridicule dynamic revenue estimation, which is based on empirical research demonstrating that lower marginal tax rates increase economic growth and in turn produce more revenues over the long run. The professors insist on pretending that people and businesses placidly pay higher tax rates without reducing work effort, saving, investing and entrepreneurial risk taking.

Krugman starts from the premise that, �The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers � roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million � had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars.� Without ever so much as a nod toward evidence or logical rigor, he jumps to the conclusion: �That�s a lot of money, and it wouldn�t be hard to devise taxes that would raise a significant amount of revenue from those super-high-income individuals.�

Oh really? Well, let�s see.

Federal income tax data from 2010 reveals that if the government had confiscated all the remaining income ($1.293 trillion) of the top one percent on top of their 2010 tax payments, it still would not have been enough to eliminate the deficit ($1.294 trillion). And, how much of those people�s income would exist to be confiscated in year two? The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which insists on statically scoring such tax increases, may conclude the top one percent would sit still and allow their income to be confiscated repeatedly into the future, but not many people with any common sense would agree.

The absolute absurdity of static revenue analysis was best illustrated in 1988 when former Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR), then ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, requested the JCT to estimate what would happen if the federal government levied a 100 percent tax on all income over $200,000 annually. The JCT revenue estimators cranked up their static-revenue-estimating machine and concluded that such a confiscatory tax would raise $104 billion the first year, $204 billion the second year, $232 billion the third year, and $263 billion and $299 billion in the fourth and fifth years, respectively. Senator Packwood pointed out the irrationality of the JCT�s assumptions when he observed that its calculation �assumes people will work if they have to pay all their money to the Government. They will work forever and pay all of the money to the Government when clearly anyone in their right mind will not.�

OK, so let�s loosen the absurd assumption. What about doubling the effective (average) tax rate of the top one percent, i.e., raising their overall tax rate to 47 percent? That would raise about $392 billion, leaving a deficit of $900 billion. Not so easy, it turns out, to cut the deficit and spend more money by raising taxes on the one percent.

What about also doubling the tax rate on the top 10 percent, everyone earning more than $113,799? That would raise revenues by about an additional trillion dollars in the first year, leaving a deficit of about $300 billion. But notice, now we are talking about doubling the tax burden of everyone earning slightly more than $100,000, not exactly �the rich.�

That group, however, constitutes the investment core of the economy. Doubling their tax burden to increase government�s revenues by a trillion dollars would have siphoned almost 56 percent of the $1.7 trillion in gross domestic private investment (net of residential structures) that occurred last year. And that is supposed to be the road to economic recovery?

Does anyone seriously believe that kind of tax increase would not drastically lower economic growth in future years? Paul Krugman and Robert Reich must�that or they are deceiving their readers in pursuit of an agenda of envy and class warfare, not prosperity for all.

True, but it is a key element in human nature, even yours. Capitalism harnesses that.

Which ideology do you see as the best for a society?

The wealthy pay more taxes in one year than you have your entire adult years,wingnut. Does stupid actually hurt,Chuckles?

Really? How many of this nation's working class are employed by those 1%ers? While we're at it,can you tell me the name of any 1%ers who you personally know who haven't paid any taxes?

Where do you talking point kids get this crap you spew,aside from OWS cookouts?

Your blather of disinformation is wearing mighty thin.

Really? How many of this nation's working class are employed by those 1%ers? While we're at it,can you tell me the name of any 1%ers who you personally know who haven't paid any taxes?

Where do you talking point kids get this crap you spew,aside from OWS cookouts?

Ryan's budget plan doesn't mean chit. As VP, assuming Romney can pull it off, which is a huge assumption, his boss will submit his budget to congress for funding, not Ryan.

So the way it sounds, everyone needs to make sacrifices except the top 1% who will not need to sacrifice anything and in fact will get to keep more money.



....yeah, that plan will fly.

Rex...please tell me how you think one making 500K a year doesn't pay taxes. I mean,really man...I'm dying to read your evidence behind that HS.

Rex...please tell me how you think one making 500K a year doesn't pay taxes. I mean,really man...I'm dying to read your evidence behind that HS.

.... Why should I contribute my money to the pockets of the 40+% of the country who don't contribute to the Federal tax system?

......

Baby Huey,

How in God's name do you know what Romney really supports? You don't. You do have priors for making stuff up.

How do you what what "the facts" are? You don't. You just make stuff up.

You need to have your neocon v-card yanked. You ought not be allowed to vote.

One first step would be to start taxing the retained income of foundations with assets over half a billion dollars or so....which would be particularly sweet since they are such big supporters of commie causes. Think Ford, Pew, Rockefeller, the Harvard endowment......now there's a tax increase we can all get behind.

I don't think you should but I sure as hell don't want that burden falling on me and if taxes are cut for the top 1%, that revenue is going to be made up somewhere.

I don't think you should but I sure as hell don't want that burden falling on me and if taxes are cut for the top 1%, that revenue is going to be made up somewhere.

Personally, I'd rather see us cut the Dept of Ed., Homeland Security, TSA, all foreign aid and Congressional pensions to get a tax cut rather than finding someone else we can tax.

You're in real estate sales and enjoy extraordinary tax deductions. Assuming you make 150K or less,tell me again how you'd be paying more under Ryan's plan.

Doesn't matter. The way the libs have us going, no one will be getting anything other than the govt. aristocracy behind the financial collapse they have designed for us, aided by well meaning stupid libs who are too dumb to realize that overspending by more than a trillion a year won't last long. When it all comes tumbling down and martial law prevails to reduce the population the dumb [bleep] will still be wondering why we don't just tax the rich and Exxon a little more to pay off the debt and keep the party going.

That isn't a answer to my question,at all. You would benefit far much moreso than I would,depending upon the full extent of loopholes,investment benefits etc. on the chopping block.

I'd like a honest answer to my question,which I know you'll provide if you feel comfortable answering...in general terms.

Your own profession and the benefits you reap belie your own positions asserted here this morning.

The only way the Wealthy class has ever expanded the employment base is by the wars they create and the prisons they build. Been that way since the beginning and I don't see it ending.

I'll engage once you read and understand Ryan's plan,as fully supported by Rand Paul.

....
So that I understand,are you saying if Obama's plan/budget (if ever it happens) saves you 1K a year over Ryan's plan...nevermind,I don't want your answer and get myself all flustered and foaming before the Aerosmith concert.

Rand Paul is nobody to me.

If I don't buy Ryan's fairy tell
==========

What's the Fairy Tale about it,other than he's the only one with the energy,conviction and motivation to put forth one?

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZsH-00hs5g[/video]

I know that.

I just don't understand why someone who has been paying attention as closely as you have get's all starry eyed about the fact that a neocon golden boy has been selected as a running mate for the GOP candidate.

I was particularly impressed with Ryan's plan to exclude anyone over 55 from the SS and other cuts he advocates... convenient since that would protect one of his prime constituencies.

I suppose what constitutes political courage nowadays ain't what it used to be. :p

And don't even get me started on his plan to grant yet another huge tax break for those who make the most. This is the new definition of 'budget hawk'. I've been one practically my whole life and for the life of me don't know how all of these 'cut now figure out how to pay for it later' tax plans are taken seriously.

The devil in in the details.

MOF it is ALL IN THE DETAILS. After election cycle after election cycle with president candidate after presidential candidate selling the same snake oil why can't we understand this? Is America really that unsalvageably stupid? Do we really believe that this time is different? That this time we really can make 2 + 3 = 4? Or in this case X minus Y still equals X?

It is a god damned crying shame that I have to state that in my adult life Bill Clinton (Bill Freakin' Clinton!!!) was the most fiscally sound president. How bad is that?

Gawd.

Will

So the way it sounds, everyone needs to make sacrifices except the top 1% who will not need to sacrifice anything and in fact will get to keep more money.



....yeah, that plan will fly.

If part of that top 1% fails again we will just bail them out again.

Heya Will, I hope you've been getting the goods ready for this years football pools! Really looking forward to reading the banter in that thread again!

I was particularly impressed with Ryan's plan to exclude anyone over 55 from the SS and other cuts he advocates... convenient since that would protect one of his prime constituencies.

You want to do away with SS and Medicare and all of the rest in it's entirety? Fine, that is another stupid decision and I suppose I'll go along with it.

I know that.

I just don't understand why someone who has been paying attention as closely as you have get's all starry eyed about the fact that a neocon golden boy has been selected as a running mate for the GOP candidate.

I believe he wants a 2 tier tax bracket. One 25% and one 10%. If my math is correct, that would lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans by almost 30%.


Correct me if I'm wrong.