Paul Ryan's position on economic issues

Okay, I'll say up front that I'm a Republican, but I'm a TRUE Republican and I haven't seen my party in decades. Not sure where they've been hiding, but that's another story. I'm not real impressed with Romney, in fact I can go so far as to say I'm tremendously under-impressed. At the same time I feel that Obama's (who I voted for in 2008, so don't go jumping on me as someone who 4 years ago was hell-bent on finding fault with him...I was one of the millions duped by his BS) actions over the past 4 years leave me with no logical conclusion other than he's intent on destroying the country. 4 more years, unfettered with the worries of being re-elected, scare the bejeebers out of me. Like...night terror bejeebers.

Anyway, with Romney now announcing his VP candidate selection, Paul Ryan, I thought I'd just go over his position on key economic issues (because irrespective of what Gay Right activists, Evangelical fundamentalists on marriage or abortion, or any of those other groups that push issues that shouldn't be at the national level have to say about it)...it is ALL about the economy right now, and minimization of restrictions on constitutionally afforded citizens' rights. Those are the two issues I'll be casting my vote on in November.

Health Care

roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov...

The plan ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure affordable health plans that best suit their needs, and shifting the ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.

Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families – to purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs.
Provides transparency in health care price and quality data, making this critical information readily available before someone needs health services.
Creates state-based health care exchanges, so individuals and families have a one-stop marketplace to purchase affordable health insurance without being discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
Equips states with tools like auto-enrollment programs and high-risk pools, so affordable health coverage can be accessed by all.
Addresses health care’s growing strain on small businesses, by allowing them to pool together nationally to offer coverage to their employees.
Encourages the adoption of health information technology and assists states in establishing solutions to medical malpractice litigation.

Okay, my personal view of these positions is that they are sound economic alternatives. The tax credit helps to minimize a family's costs for obtaining health coverage while not putting the entire financial burden on the government. It eliminates the pre-existing condition exclusion (which is good). But ABOVE ALL it addresses TORTE REFORM...fundamental to correcting what is really wrong with our health care system and skyrocketing health costs (to bad it doesn't have anything in there about asking for accountability from pharmaceutical companies though because I think that's another area that needs to be corrected.)

Medicare/Medicaid

The Roadmap secures Medicare for current beneficiaries, while making common-sense reforms to save this critical program.

It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today) - So Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives. For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.
The proposal also fully funds Medical Savings Accounts [MSAs] for low-income beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up tax-free MSAs.
Based on consultation with the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and using Congressional Budget Office [CBO] these reforms will make Medicare permanently solvent
Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.

I don't see anything wrong with any of this.

Social Security

The proposal strengthens this important retirement program and makes it sustainable for the long term.

Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.
Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.
Makes the program permanently solvent – according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] – by combining a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits, with an eventual modernization of the retirement age.

I LOVE this.

Tax Reform

This plan discards a needlessly complex and manipulative tax code, replacing it with a simplified mechanism that promotes work, saving, and investment.

Provides individual income tax payers a choice of how to pay their taxes – through existing law, or through a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions (except the health care tax credit).
Simplifies tax rates to 10 percent on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).
Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].
Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.
Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5 percent. This new rate is roughly half that of the rest of the industrialized world.

Major props on most of this, but I have issues with some of it. There is no need to eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends. There may need to be a decrease to foster people to be more responsible in saving for their retirement (or investment goals - like starting a new business which America needs!), but eliminating is uncalled for. Income is income. And I'd further state that while there needs to be a lower tax rate for these types of income in order to foster savings, PROMOTING savings beyond fiscal responsibility is not what we need right now. We need the majority of the spending population (the working class of this country) to have more EXPENDABLE income in order to foster economic growth.

Also, this is too much of a reduction in corporate income tax in my mind. While we do need to lower the corporate income tax to be competitive, or even slightly less and therefore attractive to companies, than the international average...we don't need to gut it down this far. So I don't agree with the magnitude of reduction in corporate tax he's talking about.

Budget Reform

You can read his treatise on what he believes is wrong in the budget, and specifically entitlement programs, here:

roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov...

I think he makes some very appropriate observations of where the problems lie, and how they can be addressed to bring government spending under control.

And one more thing I'd like to say. Considering that the man is married to a tax attorney and wants to simplify the tax code says a lot for his ability to think of the greater good versus what would line his wife's pockets.

lmao

reply to post by Valhall


"actions over the past 4 years leave me with no logical conclusion other than he's intent on destroy the country. 4 more years, unfettered with the worries of being re-elected, scare the bejeebers out of me. Like...night terror bejeebers. "

im curious to know, if anything obama has done has greatly and directly effected you in a negative way? Also if you think romoney will be much different?

... from what ive seen Paul Ryan doesnt seem to bad at all,, I can only hope he truly has his nations citizens best interests in mind when he establishes his progressive ( anti progressive?) concepts. What would ceasing taxing dividends, and interest do for all parties it would effect? Does he believe budget cuts need to made to the defense as well as for programs that help the old and poor ( or is that a misunderstanding on my part from not being too into politics yet hearing what romney and this guy want to do is mainly further help the rich and further hurt the poor?).,.

When it comes to Medicare, he wants to have the government subsidize private insurance plans. It literally puts for-profit private insurance as a middle-man between care providers and seniors. Yikes.He wants to put seniors into a "regulated marketplace" and set up a health exchange for Medicare. It does the same thing the Obamacare plan does but only keeps the for-profit middle man involved.

Voucher plans and "premium support" (his terminology) plans only fuel profiteering.

The only way off this current path is dedication to 3 things AT THE SAME TIME.

1. Huge reduction in spending by the Govt. At least 60% and that means pain for everyone. Doesn't matter, has to be done. It's #1 for a reason.

2. Moderate reduction in all tax amounts and major reduction in tax types for everyone WHILE making more people eligible to pay taxes. You make $8000 a year, you pay your fair share for the protection and services the fedgov gives you. Tough if you don't like it.

3. Full domestic energy unleashing AT THE SAME TIME revamp EPA from zero-tolerance into levels proven by SCIENCE that there is no harm.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Valhall

 

"actions over the past 4 years leave me with no logical conclusion other than he's intent on destroy the country. 4 more years, unfettered with the worries of being re-elected, scare the bejeebers out of me. Like...night terror bejeebers. "

im curious to know, if anything obama has done has greatly and directly effected you in a negative way? Also if you think romoney will be much different?

... from what ive seen Paul Ryan doesnt seem to bad at all,, I can only hope he truly has his nations citizens best interests in mind when he establishes his progressive ( anti progressive?) concepts. What would ceasing taxing dividends, and interest do for all parties it would effect? Does he believe budget cuts need to made to the defense as well as for programs that help the old and poor ( or is that a misunderstanding on my part from not being too into politics yet hearing what romney and this guy want to do is mainly further help the rich and further hurt the poor?).,.

Yes, it appears that in the past his budget plans have been rejected due to him proposing too deep of cuts in the defense, so it does not appear that he views the defense budget as a sacred cow not to be offered up in broad spending cuts.

Ceasing taxing on dividends, interest and capital gains can be viewed as fostering investment in building companies and creating jobs. And I understand that and believe it to be true. But I do not believe that we should seek CEASING all taxes on this particular areas of income, just reducing it to foster savings for being fiscally responsible (your future) and for fostering new businesses. I don't believe there is any need, nor do I believe you can justify through true figures, completely eliminating some form of tax on these types of income.

There's not much of a way you can "further hurt the poor". The abysmal job losses during the Obama administration is what has "hurt the poor" the most. The prospect of higher and higher taxes on the middle class will result in furthering crippling effects of the economy.

Romney isn't proposing "taxing the poor" so I'm not sure what exactly he's proposing that you view as more threatening to the poor than the swelling of the ranks of those who qualify as being referred to as "the poor" due to unemployment that has occurred under Obama.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
When it comes to Medicare, he wants to have the government subsidize private insurance plans. It literally puts for-profit private insurance as a middle-man between care providers and seniors. Yikes.He wants to put seniors into a "regulated marketplace" and set up a health exchange for Medicare. It does the same thing the Obamacare plan does but only keeps the for-profit middle man involved.

Voucher plans and "premium support" (his terminology) plans only fuel profiteering.

Excuse me...where does Obamacare eliminate the middle man? Can you point me to that part?

Originally posted by tkwasny
The only way off this current path is dedication to 3 things AT THE SAME TIME.

1. Huge reduction in spending by the Govt. At least 60% and that means pain for everyone. Doesn't matter, has to be done. It's #1 for a reason.

2. Moderate reduction in all tax amounts and major reduction in tax types for everyone WHILE making more people eligible to pay taxes. You make $8000 a year, you pay your fair share for the protection and services the fedgov gives you. Tough if you don't like it.

3. Full domestic energy unleashing AT THE SAME TIME revamp EPA from zero-tolerance into levels proven by SCIENCE that there is no harm.

I agree with all 3 points.

Originally posted by tkwasny
The only way off this current path is dedication to 3 things AT THE SAME TIME.

1. Huge reduction in spending by the Govt. At least 60% and that means pain for everyone. Doesn't matter, has to be done. It's #1 for a reason.

2. Moderate reduction in all tax amounts and major reduction in tax types for everyone WHILE making more people eligible to pay taxes. You make $8000 a year, you pay your fair share for the protection and services the fedgov gives you. Tough if you don't like it.

3. Full domestic energy unleashing AT THE SAME TIME revamp EPA from zero-tolerance into levels proven by SCIENCE that there is no harm.

is point 1, mainly in order to pay off the national debt?
if so, how can the national debt be paid off, if we cant and havent been able to pay it off now and in the near past, and we lower taxes?

Sound economic alternatives?

He's leaving medicare/medicaid up to the big insurance companies to decide who gets them based on the voucher system?

Sorry, but I have absolutely no faith in Big Pharma to do the right thing when it comes to health care.

I'm glad I live in Canada.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
When it comes to Medicare, he wants to have the government subsidize private insurance plans. It literally puts for-profit private insurance as a middle-man between care providers and seniors. Yikes.He wants to put seniors into a "regulated marketplace" and set up a health exchange for Medicare. It does the same thing the Obamacare plan does but only keeps the for-profit middle man involved.

Voucher plans and "premium support" (his terminology) plans only fuel profiteering.

Excuse me...where does Obamacare eliminate the middle man? Can you point me to that part?

Is it because under obama care the insurance middle man wouldnt be for profit, but government run?

how does governement subsidizing private insurance companies work? what is the act of subsidizing? government giving private insurance companies tax payer money to run their buisness and exist, and then charge the taxpayers again for profit?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tkwasny
The only way off this current path is dedication to 3 things AT THE SAME TIME.

1. Huge reduction in spending by the Govt. At least 60% and that means pain for everyone. Doesn't matter, has to be done. It's #1 for a reason.

2. Moderate reduction in all tax amounts and major reduction in tax types for everyone WHILE making more people eligible to pay taxes. You make $8000 a year, you pay your fair share for the protection and services the fedgov gives you. Tough if you don't like it.

3. Full domestic energy unleashing AT THE SAME TIME revamp EPA from zero-tolerance into levels proven by SCIENCE that there is no harm.

is point 1, mainly in order to pay off the national debt?
if so, how can the national debt be paid off, if we cant and havent been able to pay it off now and in the near past, and we lower taxes?

Well, if you reduce government spending by a vast number then you go from operating in increasingly higher deficit each year to operating within your means and increasing the money paid toward the national debt instead of increasing the amount each year you're in the hole which just increases the national debt.

So yeah...that's exactly what it's for. If you live within your means you accumulate no debt. If you have prior debt and live under your incoming revenue you get to pay off prior debt. It's about that simple.

Originally posted by babybunnies

I'm glad I live in Canada.

Which makes one wonder why your opinion counts at all on what WE are going to decide in November, right?

???

Originally posted by ImaFungi

is point 1, mainly in order to pay off the national debt?
if so, how can the national debt be paid off, if we cant and havent been able to pay it off now and in the near past, and we lower taxes?

Your right, we have to restore the taxes to at least what they were under Reagan and cut spending to reduce the deficit. What we see now is a scam. The whole purpose of the deficit cutting by the current congress is to eliminate programs they don't like. It has nothing to do with cutting the deficit. Any spending reduced will be offset by tax cuts or increased defense spending.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
When it comes to Medicare, he wants to have the government subsidize private insurance plans. It literally puts for-profit private insurance as a middle-man between care providers and seniors. Yikes.He wants to put seniors into a "regulated marketplace" and set up a health exchange for Medicare. It does the same thing the Obamacare plan does but only keeps the for-profit middle man involved.

Voucher plans and "premium support" (his terminology) plans only fuel profiteering.

Excuse me...where does Obamacare eliminate the middle man? Can you point me to that part?

Is it because under obama care the insurance middle man wouldnt be for profit, but government run?

how does governement subsidizing private insurance companies work? what is the act of subsidizing? government giving private insurance companies tax payer money to run their buisness and exist, and then charge the taxpayers again for profit?

Wait a minute...are you saying you think that the GOVERNMENT runs more cost-effectively than a for-profit company under regulations imposed by the government?

Seriously? For Obamacare you get a fattened bureacracy (DHS) accompanied by a fattened bureacracy (IRS) so that 12000 IRS agents can be revenue generators for the tens of thousands of bureacrats sitting in the OTHER agencies who later we'll find out had a conference in Nevada for $800,000.

Give me a break. I'd rather see a company employing American citizens, adding to the economy of the country and creating jobs make a 15% profit than watch the government continue to swell like a blood tick on a buffalo's butt.

There seems to be one aspect of government-ran healthcare, government-ran car companies, government-ran this and government-ran that people who think just socializing everything and letting the government handle NEVER DO GET...

YOU CAN'T TAX THE GOVERNMENT!

Hello!

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
When it comes to Medicare, he wants to have the government subsidize private insurance plans. It literally puts for-profit private insurance as a middle-man between care providers and seniors. Yikes.He wants to put seniors into a "regulated marketplace" and set up a health exchange for Medicare. It does the same thing the Obamacare plan does but only keeps the for-profit middle man involved.

Voucher plans and "premium support" (his terminology) plans only fuel profiteering.

Excuse me...where does Obamacare eliminate the middle man? Can you point me to that part?

Is it because under obama care the insurance middle man wouldnt be for profit, but government run?

how does governement subsidizing private insurance companies work? what is the act of subsidizing? government giving private insurance companies tax payer money to run their buisness and exist, and then charge the taxpayers again for profit?

Wait a minute...are you saying you think that the GOVERNMENT runs more cost-effectively than a for-profit company under regulations imposed by the government?

Seriously? For Obamacare you get a fattened bureacracy (DHS) accompanied by a fattened bureacracy (IRS) so that 12000 IRS agents can be revenue generators for the tens of thousands of bureacrats sitting in the OTHER agencies who later we'll find out had a conference in Nevada for $800,000.

Give me a break. I'd rather see a company employing American citizens, adding to the economy of the country and creating jobs make a 15% profit than watch the government continue to swell like a blood tick on a buffalo's butt.

Im all for you,,, I agree and I think if man could truly be trusted to not screw over the consumer then there would be no such thing as government and everything would be private,,, I dont trust unregulated for profit corporations to have my best interests,,

reply to post by Valhall


what does government subsidizing of a private company mean and do?

Just take a look at some of his voting history:

May 18, 2012H Amdt 1127Repeals Indefinite Military Detention ProvisionsAmendment Rejected - House
(182 - 23)Nay

May 18, 2012HR 4310National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013Bill Passed - House
(299 - 120)Yea

Dec. 14, 2011HR 1540National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012Conference Report Adopted - House
(283 - 136)Yea

July 29, 2011S 627Increasing the Debt Ceiling (Boehner Bill)Bill Passed - House


Not getting any support from me! Just another puppet, Romney believes the same - they are as bad as Obama.