"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
The ACA is not a tax, as the Roberts court stated. It is mandated purchase from privately owned companies. The tax only comes as a penalty if you refuse.
The ACA is not a tax, as the Roberts court stated. It is mandated purchase from privately owned companies. The tax only comes as a penalty if you refuse.
I don't think Roberts stated that the ACA was a tax, just that it was within Congress' purview pursuant to the tax powers of the Constitution to institute the scheme.
I'm not sure how that is something Bush would have proposed, though, so I think it's a bad inclusion in your list of similarities between him and Obama (unless I misunderstood your post, in which case feel free to tell me to STFU).
Additionally, if we simply created a socialized health insurance coverage system it would cut out the private insurance altogether, thereby avoiding "mandated commerce". I'm not really sure if that's the most desirable outcome, just a possibility.
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
Under a Republican president we also probably would not have seen DADT repealed, or the judicial department announcing that DOMA was not defensible, to add two more to the list.
Under a Republican president we also probably would not have seen DADT repealed, or the judicial department announcing that DOMA was not defensible, to add two more to the list.
Now, those are two very fair points. Kudos, and I agree. Even as minor as the results seem, gay rights have taken a major leap forward under this administration.
jmj, I would have rather seen a system that took private insurers out of the mix. Whether it be full-blown single-payer, or the watered down public option. The real problem with the ACA is that cost controls are nearly nonexistent. This is not to say the government wouldn't step in to say enough is enough should it get out of control, or that the government, as sole arbiter of the system, would keep costs under control. But, there are a lot of countries out there that seem to do a pretty good job at it.
As for the similarities, it would be impossible to use the ACA as a device of measure between Obama and Bush. My point was that is was corporate friendly (Republicans wet dream), when it really shouldn't have been. Such is the price of compromise, I suppose.
At least you were able to partially shoot down one of my comparisons.
Last edited by Bourne; August-8th-2012 at 03:29 PM.
If I thought it was possible, I would support single payer, but I don't think that is possible given the nature of the electorate. As such, I begrudgingly support the ACA as better than the status quo. Part of me hoped it would be struck down as unconstitutional and eventually pave the way for a full government health insurance program, but voters being who they are, that hope seems to be misplaced.
At least you were able to partially shoot down one of my comparisons.
I'm working on the rest!
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
If I thought it was possible, I would support single payer, but I don't think that is possible given the nature of the electorate. As such, I begrudgingly support the ACA as better than the status quo. Part of me hoped it would be struck down as unconstitutional and eventually pave the way for a full government health insurance program, but voters being who they are, that hope seems to be misplaced.
Well, I keep telling myself it's a start. And it is. It's not what progressives wanted, but perhaps we're tearing down one wall at a time.
Why Not Paul Ryan? Romney can win a big election over big issues. He'll lose a small one..Article Video Comments (562) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.5EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.smaller Larger
The whispering over Mitt Romney's choice of a running mate is getting louder, and along with it we are being treated to the sotto voce angst of the GOP establishment: Whatever else Mitt does, he wouldn't dare pick Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, would he?
Too risky, goes the Beltway chorus. His selection would make Medicare and the House budget the issue, not the economy. The 42-year-old is too young, too wonky, too, you know, serious. Beneath it all you can hear the murmurs of the ultimate Washington insult—that Mr. Ryan is too dangerous because he thinks politics is about things that matter. That dude really believes in something, and we certainly can't have that.
All of which highly recommend him for the job.
We have nothing against the other men Mr. Romney is said to be still closely considering. Tim Pawlenty twice won the governorship of Minnesota, the second time in the horrible GOP year of 2006. His working-class roots and middle American values would counter the stereotype of Mr. Romney as too rich and disconnected to average concerns. The media would say he's another middle-aged white male, just like Mitt, but he'd certainly be a safe, mature choice.
Editorial board member Joe Rago on why Paul Ryan would make a good VP pick. Photo: Getty Images.
.Ohio Senator Rob Portman is well respected nearly everywhere for his thoughtful, disciplined brand of conservative politics. Like Mr. Pawlenty, he's no orator, but he's quick on his feet and a practiced debater who would carve up Joe Biden. His biggest liability is his association with the Bush Administration. Many voters still blame President Bush for our current economic troubles, and the Obama campaign would use Mr. Portman to reinforce its claim that Mr. Romney is Bush 2.0.
Marco Rubio would be a somewhat riskier choice given that he is new to the national scene and has less Washington experience. But he's a tea party favorite who would energize the GOP base while also signaling Mr. Romney's outreach to Hispanic voters. Mr. Rubio's family history is one of escaping tyranny (Cuba) and poverty, and he speaks movingly about the American Dream.
The case for Mr. Ryan is that he best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election. More than any other politician, the House Budget Chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline.
Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, he has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda—before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp-like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP's new generation of reformers that includes such Governors as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and New Jersey's Chris Christie.
As important, Mr. Ryan can make his case in a reasonable and unthreatening way. He doesn't get mad, or at least he doesn't show it. Like Reagan, he has a basic cheerfulness and Midwestern equanimity.
.As for Medicare, the Democrats would make Mr. Ryan's budget a target, but then they are already doing it anyway. Mr. Romney has already endorsed a modified version of Mr. Ryan's premium-support Medicare reform, and who better to defend it than the author himself?
Republicans are likely to do worse if they merely play defense on Medicare and other entitlements. The way to win on the issue is go on offense and contrast Mr. Romney's patient-centered reform with President Obama's policy of government price controls and rationing medical care via a 15-member panel of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
***
Personalities aside, the larger strategic point is that Mr. Romney's best chance for victory is to make this a big election over big issues. Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to make this a small election over small things—Mitt's taxes, his wealth, Bain Capital. As the last two months have shown, Mr. Romney will lose that kind of election.
To win, Mr. Romney and the Republicans have to rise above those smaller issues and cast the choice as one about the overall direction and future of the country. Americans tell pollsters they are anxious and unhappy precisely because they instinctively know the country is troubled in ways it hasn't been since the 1970s. They know the economy is growing too slowly to raise middle-class incomes, while the government is growing too fast to be affordable.
Above all, Americans are hungry for leadership. They want leaders willing to take on the hard issues, preferably without the rancor and polarization that have defined Mr. Obama's Presidency. But they will reward leaders who succeed despite the rancor, as Wisconsin voters showed by their huge turnout in support of Governor Scott Walker this year.
Whatever doubts Americans may have about Mr. Romney's empathy or background, more of them will turn out for him if they see a leader with a vision and plan worthy of the current difficult moment. This is the kind of candidate and message that voters need to see in the Republican convention this month and into the fall, and it is the message that Mr. Romney's choice of a running mate should reinforce.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16
A version of this article appeared August 9, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Not Paul Ryan?.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com
"The Romney tax returns are a prime example of our increasingly two-tiered bureaucratic system, in which there is one set of rules for poor and middle-class people, and another set of rules for people like Mitt Romney.
The most common method of giving preferential treatment to the rich is through semantics. The old classic was that you called a rich kid blowing coke in his dorm room one thing, and you called a black street kid smoking crack something else, and the two got different penalties for the same crime – cocaine use."
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
At one time I enjoyed reading Taibbi, but over time he has become more and more of a tired blowhard. His recent "exposé" over LIBOR is a joke, and he's more than happy to join the mainstream political machine to work up the masses over a non-issue.
Last edited by S.Eden; August-12th-2012 at 10:57 PM.
"A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." -- Wendy Kaminer
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
Issueless whipping-up of the masses to follow (although not by Taibbi this time):
Matthew O'Brien - Matthew O'Brien is an associate editor at The Atlantic covering business and economics. He has previously written for The New Republic.
Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
Under Paul Ryan's plan, Mitt Romney wouldn't pay any taxes for the next ten years -- or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that's true. Yes, I'm certain.
Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.
Romney, of course, criticized this idea when Newt Gingrich proposed it back in January by pointing out that zeroing out taxes on savings and investment would mean zeroing out his own taxes.
Almost. Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax -- saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.
But what about corporate taxes? Aren't they a double tax on savings and investment, so Romney's "real" rate is higher than his headline rate? No. As Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, Romney has structured his investments as "pass-throughs" that avoid corporate tax. In other words, the 0.82 percent tax rate is really a 0.82 percent tax rate.
It might seem impossible to fund the government when the super-rich pay no taxes. That is accurate. Ryan would actually raise taxes on the bottom 30 percent of earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, but that hardly fills the revenue hole he would create. The solution? All but eliminate all government outside of Social Security and defense -- a point my colleague Derek Thompson has made in incredible chart form.
Maybe Harry Reid's mysterious source that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade was really a time-traveler from the future. If Romney wins, it could very well be true.
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
Political leanings aside, just how fucking stupid do these people think the general population is?
"Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, sold stock in US banks on the same day he attended a confidential meeting where top level officials disclosed the sector was heading for a deep crisis.
The congressman on Monday denied profiting from information gleaned from the meeting on 18 September 2008 when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, then treasury secretary Hank Paulson and others outlined their fears for the banking sector. His office said he had no control over the trades.
Public records show that on the same day as the meeting, Ryan sold stock in troubled banks including Wachovia and Citigroup and bought shares in Goldman Sachs, Paulson's old employer and a bank that had been disclosed to be stronger than many of its rivals. The sale was not illegal at the time."
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
All Congressional members are essentially exempted from prosecution for insider trading, not even the STOCK Act changed that (although it did change it from a direct to an indirect activity).
Last edited by S.Eden; August-14th-2012 at 10:33 PM.
"A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." -- Wendy Kaminer
All Congressional members are essentially exempted from prosecution for insider trading, not even the STOCK Act changed that (although it did change it from a direct to an indirect activity).
I can remember listening to the radio when I first found out about this exemption. As they began to explain the rational for this , given the time and place it kind of made sense. But that was long ago and far away. And from the same report , it was by a wink of the eye portending to be okay , because these were members of congress. Beyond reproach.
All Congressional members are essentially exempted from prosecution for insider trading, not even the STOCK Act changed that (although it did change it from a direct to an indirect activity).
This sounds a lot like "I paid all the taxes I was legally obligated to", neglecting to mention that you lobbied for a tax break.
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
Political leanings aside, just how fucking stupid do these people think the general population is?
Uh, my guess is 'extremely'. It never fails to amaze how the prospect of tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy not only doesn't get the 'common man' up and rioting in the streets, but that it actually gets supported, vociferously so in fact.
Q: 'How do you start free improvising?'
A: 'Well I usually start on D as a matter of fact'
"I wandered alone in the desert and cried "Oh Lord! Oh Lord! What hast thou done, lately?"
"Thought is not a saffron-robed monk pissing in the snow"
"Bitterness slowly crept into the marriage and by the time Lovborg was six years old his parents exchanged gunfire daily"
Public records also show that Ryan made similar trades every 30 days or so throughout 2008 in undisclosed amounts of more than $1000 but less than $15,000. Hard to nail him for doing insider trading after a meeting on Sept 18 when he made nearly identical trades on August 18, July 17, etc. Or maybe I'm extremely dumb.
I guess that proves he had no control over them, then, and that he must have been doing so for perfectly legit reasons unconnected with his government position. As a devotee of Ayn Rand he wouldn't want to stand by while others suffered, after all.
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
"...Consider what Romney has promised. By 2016, he says federal spending will be below 20 percent of GDP, and at least 4 percent of that will be defense spending. At that point, he will cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, meaning it can never rise above that level.
All that’s hard enough. Romney will have to cut federal spending by between $6 and $7 trillion over the next decade to hit those targets. As my colleague Suzy Khimm has detailed, those budget promises already require cuts far in excess of what even Paul Ryan’s budget proposes.
But Ryan’s budget includes more than $700 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade, Romney’s budget won’t. And Romney promises that there will be no other changes to Social Security or Medicare for those over 55, which means neither program can be cut for the next 10 years. But once you add up Medicare, Social Security and defense and you’ve got more than half of the federal budget. So Romney is going to make the largest spending cuts in history while protecting or increasing spending on more than half of the budget.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indulged this idea back in May. If Social Security and Medicare are spared from cuts, then to get federal spending under 20 percent of GDP while holding defense spending at 4 percent of GDP, “all other programs — including Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, education, environmental protection, transportation, and SSI — would have to be cut by an average of 40 percent in 2016 and 57 percent in 2022.”
Consider what the Romney campaign, then, is saying: If Romney is elected, then by his third year in office, every single federal program that is not Medicare, Social Security, or defense, will be cut, on average, by 40 percent. That means Medicaid, infrastructure, education, food safety, road safety, the postal service, basic research, foreign aid, housing subsidies, food stamps, the Census, Pell grants, the Patent and Trademark Office, the FDA — all of it has to be cut by, on average, 40 percent. If Romney tried to protect any particular priority, it would mean all the others have to be cut by more than 40 percent. That’s not even remotely plausible. The consequences would be catastrophic. The outcry would be deafening. And Romney has shown no stomach for selling such severe cuts.
Consider that, even as we speak, Romney is running away from the unpopular bits of the Ryan budget, which delivers far less devastating cuts than what Romney is promising. Does anyone really believe that he will take office and then propose cuts that make the Ryan budget look soft on federal spending? That he will take office and, after running away from specifics during the campaign, propose what would surely be the most unpopular budget in American history?
And does anyone believe that the real Romney is the guy who made these outlandish budget promises in order to win a Republican primary, rather than the guy who is disavowing Ryan’s Medicare cuts mere days after naming him to the ticket?
This is simply not a credible budget plan, and Romney’s fast retreat from Ryan’s most unpopular cuts makes it even less credible. And yet Romney, who has never released the specific cuts that would make his numbers add up, repeatedly touts it on the campaign trail, and the media dutifully reports his promises to cut federal spending by more than $500 billion in 2016, and in fact to balance the budget by the end of his second term, which would require far larger cuts than what I’ve outlined here, despite the fact that everyone basically knows these cuts aren’t credible and will never happen.
I’m not sure what alternative there is, exactly, except to say, as clearly as possible, Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy, and it will never happen."
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
I guess that proves he had no control over them, then, and that he must have been doing so for perfectly legit reasons unconnected with his government position. As a devotee of Ayn Rand he wouldn't want to stand by while others suffered, after all.
No, it doesn't prove he initiated the trades or that he didn't. What it does prove is that it was the regular investing strategy that his broker was doing or being told to do in the disclosed period (2008) and it makes ridiculous the claim that the meeting that the Guardian highlighted was a smoking gun.
Political leanings aside, just how fucking stupid do these people think the general population is?
Probably as fucking stupid as an unfortunately large percentage of the general population actually is. In the U.S. we have an epidemic of voluntary stupidity.
No, it doesn't prove he initiated the trades or that he didn't. What it does prove is that it was the regular investing strategy that his broker was doing or being told to do in the disclosed period (2008) and it makes ridiculous the claim that the meeting that the Guardian highlighted was a smoking gun.
I'll concede that it blunts the smoking gun argument as to that trade (I'm entitled to my own opinion as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, but not my own facts) but it still leaves any thinking person to wonder just how much of his "outsider" schtick is bullshit.
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
"WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's new promise to restore the Medicare cuts made by President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law could backfire if he's elected.
The reason: Obama's cuts also extended the life of Medicare's giant trust fund. By repealing them, Romney would move the program's insolvency eight years closer, toward the end of what would be his first term in office.
Instead of running out of money in 2024, Medicare's trust fund for inpatient care would go broke in 2016 without the cuts, according to estimates by the program's own experts.
That could leave a President Romney little political breathing room to execute his own Medicare plan. Outside experts say it could force deeper cuts, and sooner...
"If you are going to restore (Obama's cuts), then what it's going to do is complicate the financial condition of Medicare," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, a fiscal conservative who says government health care programs are too costly.
"It's going to affect your long-term plan to reform Medicare and reduce the deficit and mounting debt burdens," said Walker, now heading the Comeback America Initiative, which promotes deficit reduction.
"If you are going to put that back, then how are you going to pay for it?" he asked.
Romney would "have to find other ways to get the cost down in the future," said economist Marilyn Moon, a former trustee overseeing Social Security and Medicare finances."
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
jmj - what does reality have to do with promises made during an election campaign? Particularly for the Republican candidate, who doesn't have the face the most strident and aggressive political pundits the world's media has to offer.
Q: 'How do you start free improvising?'
A: 'Well I usually start on D as a matter of fact'
"I wandered alone in the desert and cried "Oh Lord! Oh Lord! What hast thou done, lately?"
"Thought is not a saffron-robed monk pissing in the snow"
"Bitterness slowly crept into the marriage and by the time Lovborg was six years old his parents exchanged gunfire daily"
That's the thing-presidents fail to perform on campaign promises all the time (including the current office holder) so everyone expects a certain amount of "salesmanship", but this guy is a freaking shape shifter.
"Here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition. They put people in a terrible position. I don’t even like to think about it. Well, sometimes I like to think about it." R. Newman
Originally Posted by Bourne
Reply With Quote
