Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate (Page 4)

Because the term "inherently corrupt" means that looking out for the interests of your group is by definition corrupt. Do you think the owners of the businesses are less interested in seeing their points of view represented than the workers?

I would posit that they are equally corrupt (or not corrupt, depending on one's perspective). That they represent two sides of an issue, and to that degree, cancel one another out. Obviously, in most cases, large industries have more money than the unions, and theoretically therefore a larger voice (if you believe that the elected officials are beholden to their donors). 

Josh, Romney from Obama would be like day to night, night to day... whatever.   What's the alternative to D or R?  Libertarians talk a good game, but they don't offer pragmatic solutions to any issues

Colorado Springs.... the only red County left in Colorado. The city garnered national disgrace when budget shortfalls made us cut off street lights, water to parks, and close parks. The general city has been on a pay freeze for a few years. Last years budget saw no raise for police and fire. They cut some positions they were going to add, but did not cut pay or personell. The Mayor thought it was not right that the first responders did not get a raise but the utilities did, so he cut the raise from the budget. Even though we are revenue generating enterprise and are fully solvent. This year everyone has faired a little better.

Every single tax get's shot down here. Not because people don't think the "thing" is beneficial, but because the people do not think the money that is paid is managed better. This year the mayor has said the public better start ponying up because the only thing left id police and fire.... and after the Waldo Canyon fire... those guys could pretty much get a blank check passed by the way they responded to that event.

Regardless, tax increases do not get pass here. That is the choice of the people... we get to decide what we want to pay for and what we don't. We get to pitch a fit when our officials make bad choices.... but first resonders are not part of that discussion as far as I'm concerned, as a citizen I want a well equiped first respose department and I am willing to pay for it. It would be great if it was a seperate tax item instead of the shell game officials play witth funding, budgets, and revenue streams.

Pretend I'm right. What are you going to do if in 4 years, our national debt is at 20T and growing and we are not in any better shape than we are in now? Are you going to vote for Romney again? Switch to Hillary (my super early pick for 2016)? 

If you look at any serious attempt at analysis of Obama or Ryan's plan (subbing his plan for Romney since we don't know what Romney wants to do) both of them result in a massive increase in the national debt and both will still be running large surplus' after the next 4 years are over. 

Just look at the sheer quantity of money that is being spent in this election. Do you think these people donate money for nothing? They expect to get something in return. I don't know about you but I think the majority of people can't do much compared to Sheldon Anderson or George Soros.

Libertarians offer realistic solutions to our problems. Our problems are so massive in nature that the solutions merely seem drastic by comparison. If every person had to pay for the debt right now, we would all have to pay $51k per person. That means we need serious solutions. We need to raise taxes back to Clinton levels at least and cut spending. I'd support a 20% cut across the board. We really aren't that far from being Greece or Italy.

lol, why did I know you were going to do that.  Obviously there's a lot of ways to measure schools and there are a lot of school districts in every state.  So maybe I should have said something like "some of the best schools in the country".

My kids are in the Millard Public School district which is a suburb of Omaha.  I remember 12 years ago when we moved to omaha they had Terra Nova testing results on the news.  Nebraska scored 1st in the nation and Millard schools was first in Nebraska and our kids elementary school was first in the district (4th grade testing).  I did go around for a while bragging that my kid was in the "best" school in the country but obviously it's a subjective thing.  

http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/10-great-cities-to-raise-kids/11.html#top

I know you are a fervent Ryan supporter so maybe you can actually find this, but have you seen any data from anyone that indicates anything about turning the deficits around under the Ryan plan? Everything I have seen, shows that the deficits will continue.

Oh the Springs.......I'll just stop now )

I appreciate your view of first responders. Unfortunately, not everyone feels the way you do.

I agree both parties are more similar than not.  But people also place an unreasonable amount of reliance on the president.  Presidential candidates will promise the moon but it's Congress that will push through or block real policy change.

There has been some degree of shakeup in Congress but voters are mostly apathetic towards our representatives and senators.  Take a look at the voter turnout numbers for a presidential election year versus any other.

It's what I do. I know that looking at a state as a whole is not very helpful. Even within a county - my kids went to one of the top schools in the country (consistently ranked in the top 500 - out of 17,000- schools for the country, and top 10 of the state). Literally over the bridge is one of the worst in state, if not country. 

I remember years ago interviewing for a job as director of a program in another state. When I asked about the schools, they bragged about their 70% graduation rate, and nearly 50% higher education rate. I told them the school my kids were currently attending had a 95% graduation rate and 94% higher education rate. So, we stayed put.

I already suggested something above, which I think would go further towards reducing the deficit in the next 4 years than the Ryan plan. I don't think Ryan's plan will be implemented even with a Republican majority. Look at the huge fuss over the sequestration and that's not very much compared to what Ryan is proposing. Too many people with money collect special benefits from our government to allow anyone to truly reform.

If she runs on a platform of "I'll do everything (well, almost everything)my husband did."   ... then Yes, I'll vote for her.

Clinton was the best Republican president of the past 20 years. 

Pragmatic ideas like voting for Medicare Part D? My solutions may not seem pragmatic now, but compared to what they will need to be in the future, they are a much better choice.

Then what's the point? because pragmatic does not solve the problem... the way I see it, the US has had a spending policy based on an ever expanding economy fueled by manufacturing hard goods and an increasing population.... that worked right up until the fall of the Soviet Union... then manufacturing declined, markets made money on money and not hard goods, and the economy went global. We are still a big economy, but we are no longer the only game in town, we have competition... and our manufacturing base got replaced with a consumer based economy and service industry products.

My point is... even as it stands today, we can't afford the spending of the last 100 years today.... so all we do from here is apply band aid, after band aid and never fix the underlying problem. The underlying problem being our out of control spending and no real funding for it... because it was always going to be the "next great" generation to pay for it... but we seem to be all out of those.

I think we should have a SS net, and a medical care safety net... and to be sure those are going to be very expensive, because the most needy will need them... but we should... the problem is they are not funded... so this imaginary deficit of unfunded liabilities continues to balloon.

So then what is the point? No body will ever do the hard thing of cutting some stuff to pay for others, and then passing the huge tax hikes to fund our liabilities that need to be funded. Pragmatic does not do squat for us.

back to the OP.  Just saw this from Rasmussen:

"36% now say they are more likely to vote for Romney with Ryan as his running mate. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say they are less likely to vote for the Republican, while just as many (30%) say the vice presidential selection has no impact on their vote."

quoted from:

50% Now View Paul Ryan Favorably; 43% Say He Was Right Choice

Obviously he's just hitting the street so people don't know everything about him, but at first glance he seems like he's helping more than he's hurting.  Time will tell of course

Oh, and before Gearboy posts it, this was also in the article:  

"Ryan’s numbers are in line with findings in the early going for the vice presidential candidates in 2008. Voters were slightly more critical of Republican John McCain’s choice of then-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. But Palin’s favorables were a bit higher than Ryan’s, and a comparable number of voters said her selection made them more likely to vote for McCain."

The mind set behind cutting taxes is Reaganomics and trickle down theory, which "worked" out in the 80's.  There is still debate today over that as tax cuts (nor anything else for that matter) don't exist in a vacuum.  Trickle down basically says that as you give more money back to the consumer they will spend it on things and a greater number of tax dollars will be collected in the process.  So the assumption is that as you lower tax rates, tax aggregates go up.  The problem with that is that we have some of the lowest tax rates today that we've ever had and more loopholes than we've ever had.  People have A LOT of money today.  According to that theory, we should be collecting more taxes, and I think we are, on an aggregate basis, but with inflation, payroll increases, population growth, etc.... it's hard to pin down an actual comparison.  I'd like to see one if anyone has one.  My expectation is that we won't see as much inflation/growth/increase adjusted tax revenue as we had in the 80s or anytime prior. 

for the 80's argument you have the 50's where it was much higher.  I'm more inclined to look at things like energy costs, labor costs, costs of living, etc to see where economic activity comes from.  not taxes.  Taxes are simply to sustain government program.  Not stimulate economy, IMO.

edit: I agree taxes will kill an economy at 80% but I'm not referring to the extremes, here.

65% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Oh No!!!!!