OkieFed - That was funny.

mirror - false hope doesn't go far.

The Dems have a candidate now!

Fool-On-The-Hill:
Yes; after both sides of the isle empowered the banks with TARP, they are set FOR LIFE now. NOTHING will ever fail, and they can be as reckless as they wish; as TARP just cemented the concept of "to big to fail". Banks now have ZERO risk in doing anything, as the government will ALWAYS be there to bail them out of anything. Don't buy this non-sense that TARP was a success because much of the $$$ has been paid back. That was just a ploy; as many of those banks NEVER needed the $$$, and it was just a political ploy to say "the $$$ was paid back". AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and GM will NEVER pay that TARP $$$ back. Goldman, BOA, JP, and the ones who have paid it back, NEVER needed the $$$. All TARP did was open the door for to big to fail. The financial reform bill that was just passed, does NOTHING to stop that, no matter what they say. Big banking has been empowered unlike anything ever seen in the past. As I have have said many times now, it's just simply merged with governmnet, and together has become one huge Oligarchy of power.

"Financial analyst are reccomending converting stocks held in your 401k's to cash. Expecting another market collapse in August."
.
I would agree for the most part. Funny; however, that I was calling that back in April when the dow was over 11,000, and you actually had so called experts saying the it would be a "check shaped" recovery! Possibly one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard in my life, but many (from the Keynesian side of things) were out there touting that non-sense.
.
And if you really believe with conviction, there will be a huge sell off, SCREW CASH. Simply SHORT SELL the market. As I have told readers many times.. You make $$$ FAR quicker when markets go down-via short selling! As they crash far faster then they go up. Years of gains are often wiped out in the matter of weeks; as many saw in Oct of 08.

Ryan sells lies and empty promises.

The only place the Democrats will beat Ryan, is in their dreams.......

I'd like to see Ryan in an unemployment line.

Beat Ryan. Beat him with a dead herring while he sleeps if that is what it takes to get him out of office.

Financial analyst are reccomending converting stocks held in your 401k's to cash. Expecting another market collapse in August.

I cannot see one thing he has done for his district. He's more concerned with making his name in Washington. He has foresaken us.

You'll know as soon as the markets hit the bottom. Hopefully within the next year...

Kiowamohican - We are in complete agreement, especially on the long term outlook. In the nearer term, do you think the banks are hoarding all of that cash in hope of forging ahead once government settles down, or in hope of buying the ashes of a total collapse? I guess they're covered either way, eh?

I also agree that if the Republicans win both houses, you will see a lot more venture capital in the markets. Something that is a very good thing, but unlikly to over come the huge problems (namely debt, unemployment, and trade deficit)which are becoming a massive burden. I also totally agree that one party rule is DISASTROUS. It was bad policy when Bush had huge majorities in the early 00's, and it is bad policy now with Obama and company having total power now. You can also go far back to many other periods of history to site where one party rule was disastrous; both economically, and to individual liberty. As a libertarian, I love split governmnet, because the less that governmnet "gets done" (an oxymoron), the more liberties the individual will keep.

FOTH:
I should have been more clear in my early morning post. There is no doubt that the 90's boom had REAL growth to it. The run up of the markets; however, was WAY over done from what the real economic growth actually was. Keep in mind the NASDAQ actually ran up over 5000. Actually over tripling in about a year and a half span (9-1998 to 3-2000). So yes; there was indeed real growth, and the economy was very good by almost any economic gauge of it. The run up in the market was WAY over done; however. A clear case of "irrational exuberance" as you (and Greenspan, haha) would say. As much as I'd like to blame the Feds on that one, you really can't. It was more just the case of many new-younger investors never seeing a bear market, or a bubble, and blindly throwing $$$ into technology (namely anything that had a .com after the name). The next great bubble (housing-real estate) was a clear Fed policy created bubble. Something that few STILL don't seem to grasp to this day.

NoLeftist, those were to different people. Clueless.

First you were thinking the stock markets do better when Democrats were in charge. Then you thought they did better when power was split and facts don't back you up. Shameless.

I was thinking that same thing, Kiowamohican. Even worse than single party rule is when they also hold a super-majority in the Senate. Ever since the outcome of the 2008 elections looked to be safe bets, risk-takers have been in continuous "waiting for yet another shoe to drop" mode. I would expect to see at least some bump in venture activity in 2011 if November bring us a cleanly divided federal government.

I have a different take on the tech bubble. While the irrational exuberance of dotcoms created an investment bubble, the expansion of the domestic electronics industry in the '80s and '90s was a very real and very positive trend. Then, global expansion quietly shifted to Asia, taking much of our industry along with it, piece by piece. The Motorola complex in Harvard, Illinois stands as the symbolic monument to the rise and fall of American industry. [Cue cricket loop]

The stock market usually fairs best when governmnet is split. The years the market soared in the 90's, Clinton was President, and Republicans controlled both the house and senate (after 94). The boom years of the 80's Reagan was president, and the Democrats controlled both houses of congress.

I personally love grid lock governmnet, and so does wall street. The less that gets put into law, no matter what side it comes from, the better! The precious agenda of either party is usually formula for economic disaster, and hence why the markets have always usually fare very good with split governmnet.

That being said, no matter who is in power, or how split things are in the future, I don't expect the markets to show any sort of long term gains for decades at this point. Things are FAR beyond screwed at this point. Keep in mind that a lot of those big run up's in prior decades were really bogus, and just massive bubbles inflated up by governmnet policies. The Run up under Clinton was largely a a huge tech bubble (the whole dot com era). While the Bush run up after that was another artificial boom from a Fed created housing-real estate bubble. Something which they are trying to do yet again now, but most of the ammo has been used up, and they are out of bullets. Something which today's statement by the FOMC actually acknowledged, in saying they don't expect things back to "normal" for at least another 5 years. An OPTIMISTIC projection, of course, but the 1st time they have actually come out and said we are pretty much screwed for a long time. The only reason the market did not complete tank was because of the very positive earnings news out of Intel, Alcoa, and other big bell weathers.

Anyway; I digress....
Carry on (yawn)

The best way to get rid of someone is to have someone worth a crap run against him. How's that been working for your party over the course of....oh, I don't know many, many years? Obviously not very good.

It appears you are contending that stock market performance under Democrats proves that tax increases and more regulation lead to rising stock markets, economic growth, and more employment. Got it.

Like I keep saying, with the coming massive tax increases on employees, employers, and capital along with increased regulation to ensure 'fairness', as well as massive government growth and spending, the economic turnaround is right around the corner.

You Dems have it all figured out! What's enjoyable for me is to see you having to start to live with the consequences of your anti-reality policies sooner than I expected.

I wonder if the article about Fox host and legal contributor Andrew Napolitano telling Ralph Nader in a C-Span book review program that Bush/Cheney should have been indicted will make it to the Gazette?

RAF, your reading comprehension skills are lacking, and you were wrong. I know it`s hard for you to accept, you`ve shown that numerous times before so I am not surprised. In fact, you just did it again, Bush did NOT cut Payroll taxes, just income taxes. And, yes, by definition Germans who pay a VAT are taxpayers, but not American ones. Just as Americans who would have to pay an 8.5% VAT under Ryan`s tax plan would be taxpayers.

WHO the h*ll can afford democrats! I can't. I don't care if Donald Duck is on the republican ticket, he'll get my vote for sure. I am so done with these money-spenders and economy ruiners. All I have to do is look at my retirement account. Thanks sicko from h*ll, Barney Frank and Obama, who worked for Acorn and taught them how to get these loans. Enough already.

Guess what the overly generic term taxpayer would also apply to those that pay a VAT tax in Germany...

Since the bush tax cuts cut only US federal payroll taxes the Germans were not included either. Your cluelessness is persistent.

Oops, my mistake, you said "EVERY" taxpayer. That includes those that pay payroll taxes by definition.

People who pay payroll taxes are ,by definition, taxpayers, I am not wrong you are, you stated "all taxpayers", did you not?

" over 36 million "taxpayers" did not get a cut."
-
Again Pharm you are WRONG. Income taxes were cut for all who pay income taxes. If they did not pay income taxes there is nothing to cut...

NoLeftist, the big problem with your argument is that history doesn't back it up. The stock market has fared better under dems than republicans. Look it up - http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/21/cx_da_0.... Anecdotal evidence I realize, but your argument about a Democratic economy is naive.

More concepts leftists don't get: tax increases in the future affect job-producing investments now, as job-producing investments are almost all long-term.

Tax increases don't discourage all investment, just marginal investment. As tax rates go up, the projected return on the investments needs to be higher to justify the risk of the investment. In a growing economy, more people take more risks. In a Democrat economy, fewer people take fewer risks because returns are lower and there is less money to invest in any case (since the government has taken more of it from those who invest.)

Simple concepts for rational thinkers, difficult for Dems to understand.

You don`t read very well do you? I already said I was a hypocrite, as was everybody complaining about the stimulus who keep those tax cuts. I could go back and start with the $300 cut from the 2003 and figure each year from the tax tables to get an exact amount, but this years was $419 as I said, so my estimate of $360 a year is close enough. You made the statement "every taxpayer got a tax cut," which is not true, over 36 million "taxpayers" did not get a cut. You get on your high and mighty horse about a few words with me, but then you do it. I can`t let it pass, can I?

Some very interesting comments here, but thought this connection should also be made. Paul - if by some luck you read this - -> Please do me a favor Mr Ryan - you have shared much about your views on the economy. How about using all that you can muster to bring home all of our military people in Iraq and Afghanistan. If my memory is correct the total number is over 5500 casualties. No need to mention the costs of the war. Bring our heroes home.

lol, not getting a reduction because they did not pay federal income tax...how do you cut below a zero rate? You do know the bush tax cuts were for income tax? The cuts did not include medicare, medicaid, or SS rates...I would suspect you don't want these cut either.

Again making the assumption your increase will only be X amount is just that a guess. Until the new tax tables are put into law with the increased rates and reduction from 6 steps to 5 you have no idea what your increase will be.

On the flip side, you can send back your $360 x the number of years since the rates have been in place and continue your rant over the bush tax cuts. Or you can keep your money, as it is yours and not the governments, and make a choice; be happy you got to keep it or be a hypocrite.

Over 36,000,000 didn`t get an income tax cut because all they paid were payroll taxes.

When the cuts were instituted the 10% bracket only covered the first $6000, at 5% that is $300. In 2010 it is $8375, that is $419. That comes out to around $360 a year.

Citizens For Tax Justice said the cuts for my percentile, one from the bottom, were 1.7%. "The Bush Tax Cuts, The Latest From Citizens For Tax Justice," March, 2007. All I have to do is look at my tax returns, it`s $360.

2%? No then you don't grasp it. Under the bush tax rates there are 6 tax rate levels. When they expire there will only be 5 rates.

The smallest jump is 3%. But, the tax rate tables for what income level will receive what rate are not available yet as far as I know. As anyone can see the people to be hit hardest by this are the lower income who will receive a 5% hit.

I grasp it exactly, I get a 2% tax cut, $360 as I said, and under the stimulus I got $400, like 95% of the population.

Zoom you expel ignorance on this topic on a constant basis.

First, every taxpayer received a tax cut. This tax cut is not the same as the meager tax credit checks sent from the government to you. The tax RATE cuts were adjustments to the tax tables of the IRS.

The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% (these are the nasty bush tax cuts you all have complained about) will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% as soon as the current president and congress let them lapse.

So zoom, in order for a tax payer not to qualify for bush’s tax cuts they had to make no money. As an addition to the rate cuts he also set a higher threshold for income before taxes are required.

The problem the left has with taxes, they want others to pay more while they are happy to keep paying only what they are required to pay. As I have always said, you can pay more than required if you think the rates are to small or you can be a hypocrite and complain they are to small while paying only what is required.

Pharm you fail to grasp the depth of the tax cuts you rail against constantly. It was not the tax credits, as you site in your response. The tax cuts were cuts to RATES set by the IRS. If you dislike the cuts so much you can always pay the higher rate set before the bush cuts…or you can just complain about wanting others to fork over more of their money when you haven’t done so.

RAF wrote: "If the bush tax cuts were/are so bad why have all the complainers not been paying taxes at the old rate?"

1. How do you know they didn't?
2. How do you know they have/had enough income to qualify for the tax cuts in the first place?

What a ridiculous argument.

Now say something about the people who complain about the stimulus taking those tax cuts. I`ll admit to keeping the $360 tax cut from Bush, I`m a hypocrite, but it seems I have a lot of company. I`m waiting for somebody to say, "If taxes go up on the rich they won`t invest their money to create jobs." Try to convince people that savvy investors won`t invest because they only make a 60% profit instead of 65%. Right, they`ll put it in the bank and make 5%!

If the bush tax cuts were/are so bad why have all the complainers not been paying taxes at the old rate?

You would think, if this is their position they would be consistent to their belief and pony up the money, after all leading by example is the best way to show you mean what you say. If the tax cuts are so evil why are they STILL taking the tax cut? If the tax cut is so evil why are they STILL not paying at the old rate voluntarily?

As always, it is never about their own money it is always about what they want others to pay...

foth, less than 5% of earners make more than what the SS cap is, so 95% are already having their employers taxed for it. By the way, the top 400 earners in the USpay 16.6% in Federal taxes, depending on their income source, they pay a miniscule(example, .006%), or no SS tax.

You`re getting screwed by the providers foth, if you have no insurance, private, Medicare/Medicaid, you are paying inflated prices for any health care.

As a small business owner, I'd say your understanding of business income and employee expenses are off the mark, Pharm. Most entrepreneurs pour everything they can back into their businesses and an income of $200k would be very good for many businesses grossing over $2.0M. I know of one local restaurant that had a payroll over $1M back in the mid-1970s. (And, that's with most employees working under minimum wage.) Also, the self-employed pay 15.3% for FICA/Medicare, starting with their very first dollar of income.

"Pity the poor schmuck that has to pay full price from his own pocket."

That would be me and most of my cronies, Pharm.

60% is the only statistic I care about these days. Hopefully it will be 100% the next election time.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts have done nothing this year, they haven`t happened yet.

How many small employers are paying over $108,000 in wages? I don`t think the over 98% of small businesses that claim less than $200-250,000 a year in income are paying $100,000 salaries. Over 90% of the taxpayers in the country pay 6.2% for SS tax, people who earn money from investments, dividends, capital gains don`t. One of the things consumers were hoping for in the health bill was pricing transparency, but I don`t see Ryan`s name on any of the three bills pending in the House. When a hospital bills $150,000 for a stay, and accepts $31,000 from an insurer as payment in full, they are trying to gouge consumers, and can obviously make it on the 20% of the billed charges they collected. I have the insurance statement in my hands. Pity the poor schmuck that has to pay full price from his own pocket.

Leftists never fail to come up with new tin foil hat schemes, concoctions, and various stupid or worthless ideas.

One at a time:

"Subject all income to SS tax, and get rid of the cap on it and SS is solvent for decades to come."

Of course, what this means is you turn Social Security into a welfare program (it is basically a forced retirement savings program now, where the more you contribute the more you get in benefits) and raise already high tax rates on small employers even higher. That should work well: look what the expiration of the evil Bush tax cuts are already doing to the economy this year.

"As for Medicare, they missed their chance recently to go to a cheaper single payer system. Providers complain that they can`t make it on what Medicare pays them, even though Medicare payments are closer to the actual costs of services than insurance or complete patient paid bills."

Providers complain they can't make it on Medicare because... they can't make it on Medicare! It doesn't even pay for all costs let alone a profit! Perhaps certain posters here think they can run a hospital more efficiently than the people currently in place, but you'd have to ask those posters why they aren't doing it already (answer: they are ignorant with no real-world provider experience).

Add to that hospitals have to take Medicaid which doesn't even cover costs, and you have a great recipe for a crumbling health system if all providers got was Medicare and Medicaid. And this doesn't even consider the need for hospital and medical device manufacturers' need for profit: no profit, no investment, no advancement. But hey, we'd all get to suffer together!

"a transparency bill to force providers to show their prices, that would help."

No it wouldn't - there is just such a bill in Illinois and it has no effect, as (almost) no one pays list price for anything - not medicare, not medicaid, not health insurance companies.

Where do you people congregate?

So , get rid of SS and gut Medicare, I hope Ryan comes right out and says those things if that is what his goal is, instead of hiding it in a budget and health bill. Has Ryan signed on to the Transparency bill yet, I really don`t know.

Pharm, ironic you mentioning transparency in medical pricing because Paul Ryan ran TV ads promoting that exact same thing, ad nauseam, during his last campaign. All I've heard since are crickets. Published prices should be a no-brainer but why would consumers care when someone else is picking up their tab? That's the real beauty of vouchers.

As for Social Security, I would gladly trade my promised benefits for the full return of all my payments, even without any compound interest added. Unfortunately, that's not possible because that's not how Ponzi schemes operate. I support any credible plan to unwind the compulsory Ponzi scheme of Social Security for the benefit of future generations and have been saying that for over 30 years. Removing the cap and closing all of the other loopholes could unwind it even faster. :-)

Spark, that would make a great political cartoon!...Paul Ryan as Eddie and John Kerry as Herman Munster. Maybe we'll see that this Halloween before the elections.

futurerichguy - The only politician resembling anyone in the Munster Family is John Kerry. Herman Munster is his twin and I think they share a brain.

211 posts later, this is for those of you still in denial. Paul Ryan isn't going anywhere for a long time regardless of who does or doesn't run against him. Wake up from your dream, except it, and worry about the 60% disapproval rating of the man in charge. That's a bigger concern.

pharm, I'm not in the health care industry, but it seems ridiculous to me that providers continue to complain about Medicare not covering their costs, when physicians are by far the highest paid professionals in our country. It seems like good business sense to me to not pay them as much. Good point RAF, although I find it hard to believe that anybody could do a worse job for the 1st district than Paul Ryan did.

foth, subject all income to SS tax, and get rid of the cap on it and SS is solvent for decades to come. As for Medicare, they missed their chance recently to go to a cheaper single payer system. Providers complain that they can`t make it on what Medicare pays them, even though Medicare payments are closer to the actual costs of services than insurance or complete patient paid bills. Comparison shop and you`ll find that is true. There is a Congressman from around Green Bay, I believe it is, Kagan(?), who is looking for sponsors for a transparency bill to force providers to show their prices, that would help. At least give the people a chance to OK a tax raise for Medicare before you go to vouchers that will lead to increased out of pocket costs anyway.

In order to be voted out, an opponent worth voting for would needs to run.

Typically in a district with fortunes as bad as the 1st, the incumbent in charge during these misfortunes is voted out. Also, has anybody noticed the resemblance of Paul Ryan to Eddie Munster?

Mouse, I like what you said about these co's riding the fence. It's a good point and actually, these companies are already flying south as you say! I've been saying that all along, the job shift is in full force and people laugh when I say the time to "go south" isn't later, it's now! CHANGE.

I think we are confounding two separate issues, Pharm. One issue is, would Ryan's plan perform as he is projecting it would perform? I.e. are his numbers real and credible or is it just more magical thinking? The other issue being, is it even POSSIBLE to provide all of the future entitlements, as expected and promised? I.e. does the current course rely on magical thinking? My response to the first issue is, let's hear more about Ryan's plan; subject it to rigorous mathematical analysis in public. My answer to the second is, "Surely, you jest!"

I believe the Republicans in Washington are just as worried as any entrenched politician about exposing prevailing magical thought because, if his plan indeed does represent economic reality, there will be many angry losers. Reality has a long and unblemished history of disappointing magical thinkers. But, if his plan is flawed, that might mean that future reality is even worse than Ryan believes it to be. Whether or not it was your intention, that's what I'm taking from your comments, Pharm.

I applaud Ryan for being the only sitting politician with enough integrity to risk bringing the inconvenient truth of economic reality into light of day. It's the right thing to do.

"they know when the details about SS and Medicare come out, their support around the country will tank."
-
This is the exact reason increasing entitlement spending (like healthcare) is a bad idea. Everyone cries when they are asked to give something up because they think it is owed to them. Entitlements always GROW they never shrink. SS and Medicare are both over ten times the original estimates on costs to the tax payers since inception, and people think the numbers for the healthcare will save money...

Pharm, you don't vote to stop wars. You (they) can vote to stop funding...but that's it.

Question: Pharm, have you stopped taking your cut from the Bush tax cuts and started sending it in yet? After all, all tax payers received a drop in their tax rate from these bad cuts. I would suspect if you are so against them you have been sending in the higher amount this whole time...

I already told you the things that Obama should do to turn the country around, but I can`t see any Republicans voting to stop the wars, pay for the Medicare drug bill, and cancel the Bush tax cuts. I don`t really see a lot of support for Ryan`s plan among Republicans either, because they know when the details about SS and Medicare come out, their support around the country will tank.

Really?

You mean Cheney "deficits don`t matter?" You`ll have to tell me what I threw out there without backing it up.

andre: you really believe Dick Cheney didn't control the White House?
It's no wonder you are out of touch.

All I have to do is look back two years to disprove that statement. Keep the blinders on, the Bush legacy cropped up magically, he had nothing to do with it. "President Obama, where are the jobs?" "The government can`t create jobs." Which is it, Republicans say both on the same day?

pharm wrote: "If you read what I wrote you`d find out that CBO used data it was given by Ryan, exactly what you are saying."

Touche! lol

andre_linoge
Jul 12, 2010 at 6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Seems like some people think Ryan is correct.
+
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politi......
+
But of course you would know better than them.
+
We should just worry about the current liar in the white house. He is the one in charge now and doing all the damage.

That's right! Previous liars President Cheney!! and Vice President Bush, are nothing to do with the oil, wars, unemployment or downfall of Wall Street.
You can't blame them for taking care of there investments.

There are people on both sides of every issue, but if you read the piece you saw how risky the plan is. And the statement supposedly by CBO that tax revenues would be held to 19% of GDP is patently false after reading their letter to Ryan from CBO. They were told to use the 19% figure as a baseline, even though it is higher than the 40 year average. I`m not a financial expert, but CBO, CBPP, Citizens for Tax Justice, Concord Coalition are. I`ll listen to them before I listen to a conservative columnist like Fred Barnes. Aren`t you the one who likes to consider the source when asking for verification?

"the President always tells the truth...", recent history would prove that false. You`d probably have to go back over 30 years to even come close to making that statement true, before Reagan.

If you read what I wrote you`d find out that CBO used data it was given by Ryan, exactly what you are saying.

See my post below, July 7, at 10:32 P.M. CBO did not attempt to measure revenue losses under Ryan`s plan. It is only a partial analysis.

Go to the CBO website, CBO.gov, and look up the Directors letters to Ryan. The one analyzing his plan does say what you posted, but as I said CBO was forced to use a revenue(19% of GDP) that is .7% larger than the 40 year average. It is cited in the letter. Another letter to Ryan on that site, "Budgetary Effects of an Alternative Policy Scenario Specified by Ranking Member Ryan", February, 24, 2010, talks about extending the Bush tax cuts, making 2009 estate and gift tax law permanent, indexing AMT tax to inflation, and assuming war funding found in the Presidents 2011 budget. In that letter the increased deficits are cited. The Medicare/ Medicaid cuts, where the proposed vouchers are mentioned, are where Ryan gets the bulk of his savings because the vouchers are set to average a 2.7% increase even though health care costs are expected to rise by 5% a year, costing the taxpayer from his own pocket. The privatization of SS was shown to be a money loser long ago, now Ryan wants to guarantee(a bailout) those that lose money investing theirs will still get full SS benefits. The Concord Coalition, not exactly a liberal icon, has said the biggest single detriment to cutting the deficit/debt would be to extend the tax cuts, either by the Republicans, or Obama. If Obama does it, he will deserve the blame for increasing the deficit/debt just as Bush has.

We all Know the rich and bankers alike are sitting on the fence like carrion. If all jobs fly south then what do you expect?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07...

(Corrected link)

It seems we have conflicting information. Bloomberg Business Week, July 7, 2010:

[ Compared with the current fiscal crash-and-burn trajectory, the plan reduces deficits and debt, putting the federal budget on a sustainable path; results in stronger per-capita economic growth; puts Medicare and Social Security on a sound footing; and lowers health-care expenses while reducing the number of uninsured.

And that’s not Congressman Ryan talking. That’s the assessment of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which gave the Roadmap a test drive and found that it performed well.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07... ]/u-s-crash-looms-without-roadmap-directions-caroline-baum.html ]

There's no way out?? I would beg to differ. I'm confident that there's hope just because so many people have at least awoken from their coma's they've been in since the Obama admin. reared it's ugly head.

It does not make sense to add $2 trillion more to the deficit/debt if we do not have to. The "screwed up" stimulus was over 40% tax cuts, but they are short term ones. Unemployment extensions are considered "emergency" spending and have been done without being paid for since the 1950`s. If they really want to pay for it, take it out of the Defense budget instead of sending pallets of money to Iraq to be lost.

Pharm--I don't know whether or not the tax cuts should be rescinded. It's probably better keeping them in place as opposed to the government collecting them and then having to turn around and give the money back through another one of their completely screwed up stimulus packages. As far as the unemployment extension is concerned, I completely agree with Senator Kyl on that. Going further into debt paying people not to work--considering unemployment compensation has been extended to 2 years already in some cases--is completely counterproductive in pulling our economy out of this recession.

On Fox News Sunday, yesterday, Senator Kyl, who is one of those against extending unemployment benefits without paying for them up front, said the Bush tax cuts should be extended without having to be paid for. The Obama administration is looking to extend the cuts to the middle class, and ending the ones to those that make $250,000 or more. Extending all the cuts would add $2.2 trillion to the deficits over 10 years, and extending the ones to those over $250,000 would, alone, add $687 billion. So, a $33 billion unemployment bill has to be paid, but up to $2 trillion does not.

The only way out is bipartisanship, and with an election coming up don`t look for too much of that!

That's interesting, Pharm. Thanks for restoring my confidence it the theory that says we are in a pickle with no way out. :-(

Futurerichguy--You make no sense. How would a flat tax breed apathy? If all tax payers were taxed at the same rate, the harder one worked would translate to more money made that could actually be kept by the person who earned it--rather than have it sent off to the government for "redistribution"

2/24/2010, CBO analysis of Ryan alternate Budget says it would raise the deficit $1 trillion HIGHER than the Obama budget.

Wrong, CBO said it could not fully score the plan because Ryan made them use revenue as 19% of GDP, and the 40 year historical average is 18.3%. They said it was workable if that figure was, but when you cut revenue by $2 trillion, it can`t work, per CBO, CBPP, Concord Coalition, Citizens for Tax Justice. Revenues would fall lower than 17%, without any type of recession that would further lower them.

According to the President's 18-member debt and deficit commission:

[ The commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

"We can't grow our way out of this," Bowles said. "We could have decades of double-digit growth and not grow our way out of this enormous debt problem. We can't tax our way out."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con... ]

Ryan initially proposed his economic plan as a starting point for discussion and debate. The CBO says it is economically credible. I call it a welcome change from the denial, obfuscation and magical thinking practiced by both political parties for more than a decade.

Ryan`s plan , out of his own analysis, says, privatize part of SS, make up lost SS funds from doing that from general revenues, guarantee those that privatize with more general revenue. Hard to slant the analysis of that.

Pharm yes there has been plenty of analysis. Feel free to pick the ones that fit your template of Ryan and his ideas.

916WI, contrary to your belief that those who make less than $250K per year are lazy and weak, I know of many strong hard workers who are making much less than that per year. I would state that a flat tax would breed apathy as those who are working just as hard for less, would find it more difficult to get ahead.

The things he proposes to do come out of his own mouth. The analysis comes from more than one place, including CBO, and if there were different ones I`m sure somebody would have jumped in to defend him. If his ideas were workable, where`s the supporters? Any analysis of Obama`s ideas are free of slant I suppose?

" almost four days of postings on this article, and I`ve only gotten one comment on what Ryan has proposed."
-
Why comment on the slanted analysis?

futurerichguy--Your comment "He also talks about flattening the income tax, which is a complete windfall for high income earners. Do the math. Who stands to gain if we flatten income taxes? Those making more than $250K per year of course, and at the cost of those making less" is a reason to support Ryan, not condemn him. Why should those that work hard and take risks be punished by having what they have EARNED taken from them. If anything it should be a motivator to get people off of their lazy asses and do something with their lives. I realize that as a Obama supporter you fall in line with his "redistribution of wealth" belief, but all that does is breed apathy and dependence. That may be attractive to the lazy and the weak, but it is definitely not good for the country as a whole.....

Good point pharm. Everyone hates politicians, except their own guy.

A picture is worth a thousand words. I think the distance between Ryans thumb and finger represents the amount he believes people in Wisconsin should work for.

Very interesting, almost four days of postings on this article, and I`ve only gotten one comment on what Ryan has proposed. I`ve seen, "He`s a nice guy, family man, I like him," but virtually nothing about his ideas for the country. Says a lot, doesn`t it.

Paul Ryan has been the absolute worst politician in WI. He has not ever represented his district in Washington, he only represents wall st. which is why the people in his district dont give him money and wall st cant give him enough.

His first campaign he took a copy of a GM check and said he would protect them as long as he was in office. How did that work out for him? He has accomplished his objective of getting rid of every single auto job in his district.

Its a shame that anyone in Janesville that isnt direct family would vote for this clown.

Y A W N.... do any of you people have an original thought.... quit watching FOX and MSNBC and maybe we could get our country back.... do you honestly think any of these politicians or pundits give a crap about the average American? They all need to go !! We need to start over...

Comet it sounds like you are having a melt down. Chew some orbit and take in the view.

future and darwin enjoy your socialist time for now because November will send you folks back to you dens of doom. You both simply miss the point. This country and this government will be taken back by the people. obammamma is a socialist who loves the European model. The majority of Americans want nothing to do with all that government waste and control. Grow up people and realize you need to take care of yourself and stop sucking at the trough of government and expecting everyone else to save you from you decisions and misfortunes. What a wonderful Christmas it will be this year!!!

I feel the state of Wisconsin would be in a lot better shape if BILL TRUMAN was in the State Assembly.

andre, if elections were referendums then I guess we already had one. Obama won - duh.

I remember a poll that they did in which they said it would be Hillary vs Guiliani. Good luck with your polls.

In 1940 the average % for males and females combined, of attaining age 65 was 57.25. In 1990 that % was 77.5%. 1940 age 65+ population was 9 million, 1990 the figure was 31.9 million. Todays figures are even higher, so raising the full retirement age is justified. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as SS only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added. This is all per SSA.gov website.

kiowa, under Ryan`s plan, you would pay your SS tax. If you are a younger person, you could invest part of it on your own. The SS system would be short that amount invested and in 2037 thru 2056 would have to take $1.2 trillion out of general tax revenues to pay benefits, even though those benefits will be cut up to 28%. You have paid your SS tax twice. In the event those that invested part of their SS tax were to lose money because of an economic slump, the government would guarantee they get their benefits anyway, from the general tax revenues. You will have paid your SS tax for a third time. Doesn`t sound like good financial practices to me. If the cap on the SS tax was raised,or eliminated, and included all income instead of just wages, it would be solvent for decades to come. The Ryan plan also raises the age for full benefits to 68, which if done as they have before, could be a good idea. Boehner wants to go to 70, which could be a possibility in the second half of this century if life spans, and increases in general health continue. Remember, under Ryan`s plan, Medicare would go to a voucher system, and not enough of a voucher to fully pay for recipients to buy their own health plan, virtually destroying Medicare, and forcing people on SS to have to pay the balance of their plans cost out of pocket.

Kio, I'm in agreement with on that statement! I was talking about the voting public. I was surprised by various study results.

Rusty Rotor:
Most business' are apolitical. Most simply look to see who is likely to win, and they will back the winner, to gain favor with them once in office. I can tell you this is true, because I have been consulted many times to handicap a political race. When Bush's support tanked in 2006, $$$$ just flooded into the DNC. When Obama had a huge breakout in the polls in the fall of 08, again huge $$$ came flooding in. Now that the Democrats are falling like a stone in the public eye, huge $$$ is pouring into the RNC to back the many likely winners in November. It's really just one big game. Fun to play, but most don't realize that both parties are all about huge $$$$, and power.

Personally I always liked Ryan's idea of privatizing SS. I mean, as I recall the plan, it gave the individual control over how they wanted to invest their own $$$. Much like an employer funded IRA (SEP).If you wanted to remain in the current SS system, you could. If you wanted to be in governmnet bonds, you had that option. You wanted to put it in equities (stocks) you could do that. If you were idiotic enough to put your $$$ in the stock market when the massive bubble took the dow up to over 14,000, you would still likely come out ahead in the long run. As we all know that in 20-30 years SS will be bust anyway. I don't know about most, but every time I pay into it, I just consider it one giant farce. Money that I will never see again.

I actually really like paul ryan, but his politics, or that of the current republican party are not my cup of tea... (wait, was that a punny?)

does ryan STILL really want to private SS ??? OMG.. what kinda of a freakin mess would we be in now if SS was in the stockmarket?? AND with most people have no idea how to invest money... WHAT A Great way to remove what little money most people have and give it to the rich(er)

Liberal fascism?

Google this. "Who is richer democrats or republicans?" You might be surprised by the results of surveys and studies. Looks like the "libs" are the richest and the "conserves" are not.

"I don't think the government should be forcing me to pay for a wall in the southwest that will never work or a military that is always somewhere else. So, I'll pay your retirement and healthcare and you pay my military and border walls."
.
Better yet; instead of one paying for the other, just get rid of it all! It's all just one giant waste of tax payer $$$$!

This is my favorite quote of the article:
“Just think, Doc got 38 percent with no help and almost no campaign,” Garin said. “What could he have done if someone helped him?”
.
Ummm, maybe 39%, LOL.
.
Is she really that dense? I mean you could someone who was dead, and if they got there name on the ballot they would get 38% in this district. You will always have a 25-35% vote who simply vote party line.
.
I have put out the odds to any person who thinks Ryan can be defeated. I will gladly give you 50/1 odds no matter who the challenger is.

Well comet why don't we have a national referedum then. Obama ran on national healthcare and an actual majority of Americans voted for him. However, Conservatives have decided once again that only their minority counts right now. If they win, majorities will magically matter. I don't think the government should be forcing me to pay for a wall in the southwest that will never work or a military that is always somewhere else. So, I'll pay your retirement and healthcare and you pay my military and border walls.

comet65, The Netherlands is actually a great place to go. High standard of living, super low crime rates. If you want low taxes, why don't you move to a middle eastern OPEC country where taxes are lowest?

How about endorsing Mark Neuman politican at large? That should scare everyone, oops! That right he's already running for Gov. Dolt's job.

Ryan`s privatization of SS would take $1.2 trillion out of the system that would have to be paid from general tax revenue, which would fall $2 trillion if his plan had passed. If you think these are good ideas I have a bridge(not on Milwaukee St.!) that is for sale.

zoom, you missed the point. There are things that the government should do and things it has no business sticking it's nose into. We do pay taxes for the things they should provide because it is logical and that is the way the government was intended to operate. Roads would be one of those services that the government should provide and most people don't mind paying taxes for good roads. However, the government has no business in healthcare or retirement. We are stuck with Social Security, but I guarantee you that if I had all the money I've put into SS over the years, I would have a nice nest egg. We are all stuck with obammamma care and I'm hoping that people like Paul Ryan will de-fund as much as possible to get the government out of my business. I still say you should move to Europe. We don't want socialism and government control over our lives. The Netherlands is a good place to go.

futurerichguy - I never said they were all necessarily hardworkers. My point was, I guarantee you, all the other things I listed are milked and cost you and I more than a few rich kids. Guarantee it. Is that fair to those that have success? It's not all about the rich every-time the topic of Republican comes up. It's not different than the lefties getting pissy when they are called socialists that want everyone equal.

When Ryan comes out with a budget plan that cuts taxes for the top 10%, raises taxes on the bottom 90%, eliminates corporate, estate, interest, capital gains, dividend taxes, levies an 8.5% VAT(sales tax), privatizes SS, puts the taxpayers on the hook in the event of a stock market meltdown, cuts SS up to 28%, raises retirement age to 68, doesn`t raise the cap on income subject to SS tax, eliminates Medicare in favor of vouchers, and yet cannot claim to stop deficits/debt without claiming a faulty rate of revenue to the government, that tells you where his priorities are. His alternate health reform plan had the same message.

spark, yeah when I think of hard workers, I always think of rich kids. Let me be clear, I don't have a problem with a low threshold on estate tax, it’s just that at some point, and in my mind about $1M, that inheritance should be taxed significantly, otherwise we're on our way to an oligarchy. As far as my name being futurerichguy, it has everything to do with wealth creation, which Paul Ryan's tax policy does not support. Think about the self made millionaires and billionaires up to this point? They made it under tax policies in place well before GW. Paul Ryan’s tax policies are all about maintaining wealth. My name would have to be presentrichguy if I were to support Paul Ryan.

futurerichguy - For a guy with a user name like that, you sure do have an issue with the word "rich". Or is it a syndrome of sorts? So according to you, people that aren't rich don't milk the system? Now that is down right hilarious right there. Welfare, insurance, workman's comp, unemployment, identity theft. I could continue if you would like.
-
I forgot the morals of hard work in this Country have been thrown out the door. Let's just create everyone equal. What's mine is yours and vice versa.

916WI, I'm not reading Paul Ryan's mind, rather I'm reading what his philosophy is on tax policy on his web-ste: http://www.ryanforcongress.com/Taxes.asp...
Note he refers to the estate tax as the death tax. Great way to encourage entrepeneurship by eliminating that tax...not. Just a way to keep more money in the pockets of the Paris Hiltons of the world. You people talk about milking the system, but I know of nobody that milks more than rich kids milking their parents. He also talks about flattening the income tax, which is a complete windfall for high income earners. Do the math. Who stands to gain if we flatten income taxes? Those making more than $250K per year of course, and at the cost of those making less.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/underempl...

All those in favor of expanding unemployment benefits might want to track down the missing 7.1 billion in over-payments already made...http://abcnews.go.com/Business/underemployed-overpaid-states-shell-unemployment/story?id=11118137

spark, another great post. Our political system is in freefall because it's synonymous with the word "rich" which means completely money focused. What we've lost over the past few decades is something called "LEADERSHIP" and it's synonymous with the word "wealth" which isn't about money, fame, status, ego...it's about the people. It's about creating a system of "hand up" and not "hand out".... it's about a system that encourages it's people to work with each other as opposed to "for" each other. Just as you've said , spark, it' all about money these days and not about the entrepreneurial spirit and the educational journey along the way to EARNING that money. Too many people who feel "entitled" and not enough willing to "earn" because our present system of education teaches "me-me" when it should be about "we-we"......and our current generation of politicians were raised in the "me-me" system. We've got some work to do!

futurerichguy - Owned by the ultra rich? Really. Wow, I didn't realize everyone that supports Ryan owns him and is also not only rich, but ultra rich. I happen to know many, many business owners that support him that are the farthest thing from rich. But, then again, it's the automatic assumption by the uneducated that everyone that is republican must be rich. Politics is about money. If you don't have it, you're screwed regardless of which side you're running for. That's common sense.

We will not change this country by changing the "politicians", the only real change will occur when the "people" change.....

Back to topic at hand here. How are the democrats split over how to defeat Ryan?? Maybe they'll take their 1% of reps who have an ounce of character and put them on one side of the room and put the other 99% who lie the first time their lips move and have them scheme on the other side of the room. Who knows?

futurerichguy--It's nice to know that you can read Ryan's mind and expose his true agenda! As far as the "extension of unemployment benefits being small potatoes when compared to lost revenue from tax cuts" You're right--and that a very good thing. I would MUCH rather keep that money in the hands of businesses that make it work for them, than have is sent off to the federal government of blow on another failed stimulus or some entitlement/welfare program.......

Of those of you who are opposed to extending unemployment benefits, I will concede that there may be a % of people who are milking the system. I am also proof that there is a larger % who have been unemployed for a long time that are desperately searching for jobs. The company I worked for (not GM) closed. I knew it was comming and I prepared for it by paying off all bills I could, including my charge card and have not used it since. We have changed our life style drastically. In earlier post I stated I lost out on a job after 2 pohone interviews that went exceptionally well, only to be turned down after an in person interview. I even told the company I was willing to accept a wage that was only 47% of what I previously made doing the same exact job. This is after getting more education and receiving my 2nd degree. You say there must be something wrong with someone if they have not found another job within 6 months. What is wrong with many of us is that we are not under 40 years of age. There are many of us in that situtation. So if you can find a way to magically make us 15 to 20 years younger, because we have done everything else that you have suggested we do to get jobs, stop assuming that people who need extended benefits are free loaders.

916WI, Ryan talks about tax cuts for small business, but what he's really aiming for is making the Bush tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and estates permanent. Those are wealth maintenance tax cuts, not wealth creation tax cuts. Paul Ryan is owned by the ultra rich, and he will fight for their rights to maintain that wealth, while maximizing the burden on we who pay taxes on earned income. Unemployment benefits are small potatos compared to the lost revenue that those tax cuts will create.

916WI, not everyone that will lose their unemployment benefits have had them for 2 years. Many are losing them after the standard 26 weeks.

FootballFan - How would keeping unemployment benefits create jobs?

football fan: wake up! we are not in a "new great depression". You probably don't even know the definition of a depression or recession.

But i digress...if we are in a depression or recession we ABSOLUTELY need to cut the unemployment benefits, we will never "hit bottom" and be able to recover as a nation if we do not allow the economy run its course.

And guess what people did during "The Great Depression" they significantly altered their lifestyles, like families all moving in together to save money and survive. It wasn't this stinky entitlement attitude running around that since a private employer won't pay me what i used to be paid or what i feel like i should be paid then the government better take care of me, because heaven forbid i make a change.

If you want to be taken care of forever by your government than move to North Korea they are still communist, otherwise i as a hard working taxpayer say enough is enough with the handouts! If not now, then when would it ever stop??

But again my main point is you have to allow the economy and recovery to take place by allowing it to hit bottom, otherwise you prevent the economy from ever recovering and it sits in a holding pattern of uncertainty which would be devastating for everyone. Trust me on this one.

Zoom: "Unfortunately there still will be millions of Americans without affordable health insurance."
Wasn't that the point of Obama Care to make sure the 35 million uninsured Americans had health insurance? We went thru all that and still have millions of uninsured Americans?

Footballfan......I totally disagree--Extending unemployment benefits will not create new demand, it hardly supports normal, or minimum demands. New jobs come from increased demand. A tax cut for small business that drive the economy would be MUCH more effective than paying people not to work.......Ryan has it right--I would definitely cast my vote for him.

Except for the fact that cutting unemployment doesn't create jobs, and we are in the middle of a new Great Depression, you might be right. Pay now by extending the unemployment benefits, or pay later on election day. It's really that simple.

FootballFan--No, he shouldn't have voted to extend unemployment benefits. Almost 2 years of benefits is more than enough time to come up with a plan and alter a lifestyle to conform with that plan. Many people seem to have this false sense of entitlement in that it is beneath them to take a job which pays less than they were making--especially when the unemployment payout is more than what they would be making by working at the new job. What do people expect--5 years of unemployment? 10? Seriously--2 years is more than enough.....

Paul Ryan is a slick Republican of the Bush mold, and will be a victim of the ballot box in November. We remember, Paul. You should have voted to extend unemployment benefits, because you will need them.

Ryan did vote for TARP and the auto bailouts. Of course, Ryan justified his vote for TARP as saving us from liberal fascism:

"I'm a limited-government, free-enterprise guy, but TARP... represented a moment where we had no good options and we were about to fall into a deflationary spiral," he said. "I believe Obama would not only have won, but would have been able to sweep through a huge statist agenda very quickly because there would have been no support for the free-market system."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-s...

So, Ryan favors limited government, unless the result benefits his political and idealogical foe. Gotta love that "charisma".

Back to Ryan. What has he done yet, and what will he do?

The USSR was actually communist. There is actually a difference between socialism and communism, of which this country is neither.

if socialism is so great then why weren't people moving to USSR in droves during the cold war? And why did it fail?

These yahoos in washington need to think before they write another bill. Especially the President himself.

Zoom - This will also shed some light on key points the bill doesn't mention, which highlights many of my concerns. There's too many loopholes. Time will tell I guess.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports...

Zoom - Let me rephrase that for you. Right now, your not required by the Government to have it. Eventually you will. That will have to be paid for by everyone at everyones expense. It's a socialist system and that's how it works.

spark wrote: "Where did I say anyone was getting a handout? My point is, insurance to all has to be paid for somehow, somewhere."

How about: "You just can't hand it out to all without it severely hurting others."

spark, hand out what? Who ever said EVERYONE would get health insurance? Unfortunately, there will still be millions of American without affordable health insurance.

His priorities show up in his budget and health care proposals. 50% tax cut for those over $200,000, raise taxes on those between $20 and 200,000, kill Medicare and give vouchers that won`t keep up with medical inflation, privatize SS, and guarantee it even if the stock market dives again, cut SS benefits by up to 28%, raise the age to 68. 8.5% VAT tax to pay for getting rid of corporate,interest/dividend/capital gains taxes. And, best of all, deficits of 100% of GDP as far out as 2080. Priorities we can all enjoy!

No Democrat will beat Ryan. On the other side of the isle, no Republican will beat Feingold. We all must resign ourselves to that fact.

I think Feingold will get the axe in November.

We do have a good leader in Paul Ryan. He has his priorities straight... FAMILY FIRST!!! If you have never had the oppourtunity to hear Paul Speak then you are missing out. Paul is right on when it comes to topics, information, and ideas. I have never known Paul to give an empty promise, or not follow through with something. The way he votes on issues is the best that he can think and we elect him for that duty and position.

many. thanx for the clarification;) i have a way to help pay for health insurance but no one ever wants to listen to the pot guy.

Zoom- Where did I say anyone was getting a handout? My point is, insurance to all has to be paid for somehow, somewhere. It's not magic. Listen to whoever you want. I don't expect you to listen to me. I'm not a democrat, didn't vote for Obama, and don't believe his tactics. So be it.

spark, nobody is getting an insurance "hand out". Where do you get this stuff?

I should have listened to thekid.

Zoom - You realize for some of the larger companies, it will be cheaper for them to take the penalty rather than offer it right? Therefore defeating the purpose.
-
Premiums will be better? Very doubtful. Again, how do you think this is all going to be paid for. There's a pretty picture of this all being painted without a clear light of how it's going to be paid for. Like I said, I believe it will be a nightmare. If I'm wrong, than I'm wrong.

spark, the tax break for small businesses is short term because the insurance exchanges won't be ready until 2014. They have to contend with high insurance costs NOW. If those small businesses CHOOSE to offer health insurance after 2014 (remember, it isn't mandatory for them), they will have a new health insurance exchange from which to pick a plan. When millions of individuals and small businesses can band together in one exchange, their premiums will certainly be better than going it alone like they do now. Do you know how much health insyrance costs NOW for an individual or small business?

spark, how many employers with more than 50 employees (5% of ALL businesses, remember) don't already offer some form of insurance, however crappy it may be?

oh and kid, sorry I didn't mean to ignore your question. The answer is many.

Ah yes, I should have said kool-aid stands, not lemonade. It's all going to come with a severe price. If you think different, just wait and see. You just can't hand it out to all without it severely hurting others. FYI, I know very few business owners that are democrats. Generally doesn't go with the flow so to speak.
-
Back to the subject though because we got off track. Ryan's a smart, logical man that I can't wait to see grow even more of the years.

Zoom - Smaller businesses with less than 50 people will still have to contend with rising premiums because of this bill. Also, the tax break is short term. What do you think is going to happen after that? How do you think all of this new health care is going to be paid for? It's not going to be tax breaks. It's going to be tax and fee increases, thus hurting any small business, or business in general. IRS forms, tax and paperwork nightmares. If you force someone to have something or penalize them for not, it costs them either way.
-
One other thing. Take a look at the businesses with 50 or more employees and see how much they are bringing into the economy. What do you think is going to happen to many of those employees once this takes place? That's right. Bye, bye.

and how many non 'lemonade stand' businesses with over 50 employees have you yourself asked spark?? just curious...

spark, what is your definition of a small business then? The 50-employee definition from the legislation covers 95% of ALL U.S. businesses.

Zoom - Your definition of a small business and mine, are two different things. I'm not talking about a lemonade stand. And what do you suppose is going to happen once 2014 hits? Do you thing businesses will just except the penalties? No. You will see people being let go.

zoom you will never win a debate on this website with your continued logic, especially when you back them up with facts. find some new material ole boy;)

No Democrat will beat Ryan. On the other side of the isle, no Republican will beat Feingold. We all must resign ourselves to that fact.

spark, companies with fewer than 50 employees, which makes up 95% of U.S. businesses, are exempt from the mandate that requires larger enterprises to provide health benefits by 2014 or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee.

Also, Businesses that pay more than 50% of employees' health benefits, have fewer than 26 employees, and pay average annual wages of less than $50,000 can claim a tax credit of up to 35% of the cost of premiums from the 2010 tax year through the 2013 tax year. The credit will go up to 50% in 2014 and can be used for two consecutive years after that.

Finally, individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health care coverage in state-run exchanges starting in 2014. This should be cheaper than the double digit health insurance increases we have had every year.

You were not specific about what tax increases would hurt small businesses.

I think you've been talking to some uninformed small business owners.

The new insurance alone is going to destroy small businesses that don't have nearly the employees or money coming in. It will be cheaper for them to take the penalty than provide insurance. If they opt for the insurance, they will be hiring less to cover costs. Proposed tax increases are going to hurt them also. Many people fail to remember that this country strives on small businesses. They are essential. Trying to help businesses hire workers is rather hard to do when there's no work. Focus on jobs and not penalizing what's already in place. Like I said, ask any small business owner what they think.

im going to assume that macdaddy and comet are both on the team for legal marijuana. thank you both, we need all the support we can get!!

Like what spark? Be specific, please.

Zoom - Please don't take this the wrong way, but people need to wake up. Obama is not helping small businesses at all. Ask anyone that owns one. Everything that has been put in play is going to kill them in the future.

comet65, if you really don't want government in your life, stop driving on public roads, never call the police or fire department for help, give up your Medicare, and stop posting ridiculous Fox news talking points on the internet.

Look around folks. When GM packed it in, a awful lot of union political support did also. This district is a lot less dominated by labor, and it will continue to move that way as it becomes more and more a nice place for professionals working out of Madison and Rockford to live and less and less a manufacturing center.

mirror~ it's important to understand, that there is no quick fix. I understand where you're coming from for sure, but we can't lay this all on our politicians. The citizens elect these people and we need to start taking responsibility for our actions. Those who chose not to vote at all, have no room to complain at all.

Macdaddy, Obama is trying to help small business. Unfortunately, Republicans won't vote for anything with Obama's name attached to it.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...

The economic stimulus included tax breaks for small businesses if they invest in R&D, and for hiring workers.

I would like to see Paul Ryan come down to the Rock County Job Center and explain what EXACTLY he is doing LOCALLY to bring family supporting jobs to Rock County.

comet65! Another person who actually "gets it"!!! Maybe there is hope that everyone isn't asleep at the wheel!

i am for less government, but when i say i see government helping big businesses, its because they give them tax incentives that help them. Again i am saying that IF government is going to get us out of this next recession (its coming folks, so be prepared), it can't be by doing what we just tried, because it didn't work.

Giving interest-free loans to small start-up projects, would not hurt the government that much, again i am talking under $50,000. Not Billions like before. It might help create another industrial revolution, and lessen our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil. Just a thought.

What does Ryan hold between his thumb and index finger when he talks?
Seems to be his trade mark.

zoom you have clearly been drinking the koolaid of obammamma's socialism. Government doesn't create jobs, government doesn't create wealth. Government spends money confiscated from those of us who work for it, and this bunch of socialists wants to take from those of us who have worked hard and been successful and done our best to be independent. We don't want the government in our lives. If you like all the government control and regulation that's going on, you should sell all you have and move to Europe and then you can take advantage of all government handouts from them. Good riddance!

" i never said the recession was caused by spending, i am saying you can't get out of a recession by spending. We have already tried that and we are about to go back in, because it wasn't spent wisely."

Well, you did say: "if you have lots of debt you can't get out of debt and ahead..". Economic growth will eventualy allow us to pay back the debt. Spending (creating debt) is necessary to restart the engine of growth, but yes, spending has to be reduced at some point. Spending (debt) has gotten us out of every recession since the Great Depression.

"Unfortunately i see our government spending too much money on big business and not supporting people with ideas for the "next big thing". Give business owners interest free loans if they complete classes or grants or something."

Big businesses loan to smaller businesses. If the big businesses (banks) aren't functioning, where do the small businesses get loans? Directly from the government? You can't advocate for smaller government, then expect government to help.

zoom: i never said the recession was caused by spending, i am saying you can't get out of a recession by spending. We have already tried that and we are about to go back in, because it wasn't spent wisely.

Call me a cynic but i see way too many people with government jobs milking the system, that is why i am for less government and overall needing less money from taxpayers.

Yes World War 2 got us out of the Great Depression, but it was also in part due to new businesses started by small business owners that were able to thrive in a new marketplace. Unfortunately i see our government spending too much money on big business and not supporting people with ideas for the "next big thing". Give business owners interest free loans if they complete classes or grants or something. Who knows what some people could do with a little start up money, but because banks aren't willing to take any risk right now, we are stuck as a local and national economy.

Just my opinion and heck maybe i should be become a politician.

Zoom, you're right, our problem isn't debt! It's our lack of proper financial education. Our society has a thinking problem.

The "great depression" was bought off by the formation of big government! It was the beginning of the decline of our great economic system because it planted the seed in the American mindset that "big brother" is there to take care of them.

Mac, that's another great point! American's have been spoiled for too long. We're a society that's proven it can get what it wants when we want without having the money to pay for it. Not to mention the people who take advantage of the system and run up massive debt on their credit cards etc. because they know they can turn to bankruptcy and get off the hook after their poor choices put them in that position in the first place. Proper education is killing our society. I'm speaking of wisdom, first and foremost. If people aren't taught responsibilty and accountablity when they're young, they're definately not going to practice it when they're older! Politicians, you're no exception to the rule. We need people of courage in those decision making positions that simply act and do what's right. It's no wonder businesses continue to falter, when our system teaches people how purchase without the funds and put the burden on the honest business people when people aren't accountable enough to themselves to pay their OWN bills that they create.

Macdaddy, A RECESSION IS NOT CAUSED BY TOO MUCH DEBT. How do you think we paid for WW2, which essentially ended the Great Depression?

Stop watching Fox News. Our problem isn't debt, it's lack of economic growth. Again, we got out of the Great Depression, and every recession since, through government spending. Yes, eventually it has to be paid back when the economy recovers, but we aren't there yet.

Macdaddy, the bank bailout was necessary to prevent a total collapse of our banking system. The banks involved weren't your local credit union or savings bank. They were investment banks betting trillions of dollars of other peoples money. Giving people $125K (that number is a myth, by the way) would not have prevented a collapse. Note that the government will get most of it's money back from the bank and auto bailouts. That certainly wouldn't be the case if the government simply gave $125K to everyone.

matt- When you say which contributor can be convinced that their contribution will be most rewarded in the end, that's where the rubber meets the road. That's where the "people" come into play in the overall picture. It's not the politicians as you say, it's the "contributors" that really have the power and that's what's so frustrating about the entire political game. "Contributors" are people! "Contributors" have money which gives them incredible leverage and influence. It's a matter of what they're trying to influence and whether or not that influence is noble or selfish. Like you said, it's the PEOPLE that need to change! The contributors!

zoom, i look at modern history and it is not working for European counties especially Greece. You can't spend your way out of a recession!!

Think about it yourself, if you have lots of debt you can't get out of debt and ahead by continuing to borrow more and more money that you can't possibly ever pay back. IT DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU AND WON'T WORK FOR US AS A COUNTRY!

The 1st distric Democratic Party screwed up. During one of the most anti-incumbant periods in our history, you couldn't find a "credible" candidate? I don't think so.

on the whole bank bailout thing. I agree with most of you that it was taken from taxpayers and should have been given to taxpayers (similar to what George W. Bush did, it was not enough, but better than bailing out banks).

The reason i say that is if you give people a boat-load of money they will do one of 3 things with it either save it (in a bank), spend it (at a store that will deposit it in a bank), or pay down debt (which are owned by banks), in any of those scenarios the banks end up with the money at the end of the day, but taxpayers are given an opportunity to lessen their debt load.

I heard an interesting statistic once, don't know if it is true. But if every American taxpayer was given a check split equally with what we bailed out the car companies and banks, the checks would have been for around $125,000. What could you do with that money? I am guessing a lot.

spark, that's such a great point you make. I think that kind of gives light to my last post when I said, it's not about "repubs" or "democrats" it's about the people's ability to change... In the big picture, both parties ultimate agendas are reliant on the almighty dollar. In order for our system of politics to even exist, it's contingent on big money and which one can do the best job convincing the contributors that their money and efforts will be the most rewarded. Just like you said, it's not about the average folks in the big picture, because they wind up getting lost in the shuffle and suffer the most because money, sadly, but truly, has trumped doing what's right and helping those who need and deserve it the most.

Halting government spending (including unemployment benefits) in a recession is economic suicide. Hoover tried to reduce spending during the Great Depression, and it was a catastrophic failure. Ryan certainly doesn't know his history. Trying to apply tinkle-down economics during a recession is ridiculous.

westorbust - Valid points about the jobs, and thanks for proving the main point. The bailouts were directed and given by the man in charge. He is a democrat. Proving that regardless of party, our Government was and is less concerned about the average folks. Bailouts should have and could have been used to help the American people more wisely. The argument of "he or she voted for the bailout" has nothing to do with what party you favor.

my point about his voting, is that not all of your people you represent will agree with every vote, i for one am glad he voted against extending benefits anymore, and others are disappointed. No matter how he votes some will be glad and others will be outraged. So his voting record means next to nothing.

The more telling sign is that the Democratic party does not see this as an opportunity to gain a vote in the House and therefore has for all intensive purposes conceded the race. That should say that Ryan is doing a great job, because they can't fault much of anything or poke holes in his armor.

I'm more of a Dem than anything else and I respect Ryan. I don't agree with him on a number of issues, not surprisingly.

All you yahoos bellowing about people on unemployment need to get off your high horse. "Plenty of jobs"?? lol, where? There are 5 times as many applicants for the same cruddy jobs, and I don't mind cruddy jobs as long as they pay a few bills.

"Get an education?"" lol, then what? Sorry to say folks that the value of whatever you got a degree in has dropped through the floor, unless of course you are in healthcare.

The stimulus was too small and should have have been given to works projects, small businesses, and regular schmoes like us. All the "bailout" ensured was that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

Now, the Dems have a serious problem because I think they are corporate shills just like the Repubs. As much as I disagree with some of Ryan's positions, I think he's genuine.

heard chrysler is planning a 1/2million sqr foot addition to belvidere plant

stimulus... give money to big banks, they keep it.. give money to unemployed and they spend it. Right here, Right now

spark, net and macdaddy, you guys all bring great points up in your posts. First, I believe Paul Ryan is a solid guy for the most part. But just like you guys seem to be saying, it starts with the "people" like you and me. I heard this from a very wise person some time ago and it's so true-------- "We will not change this country by changing the "politicians", the only real change will occur when the "people" change......."

those are good comments. other than the 'So, Ryan voting against it, shouldn't matter to anyone who is trying to make this a big issue'. how he voted shouldnt matter?? im not saying his vote was right or wrong, but i can certainly see how someone like sarahb, and MOST unemployed, who are actively looking for full time work would be disappointed in his vote. actually i think how a politician votes would be one of the biggest, if not the only factor, in the formulation of what matters to his constituents.

Macdaddy and netwize23 - Very well said.

Macdaddy~ well said. Pay scales are lower now because companies now can pit one low wage up against another because they know people are desperate for jobs. So to add to what you were saying, either get more education, work more than 1 job OR LOWER YOUR STANDARDS. The days of affording 2k/mo mortgage payments along with one or two 500/mo. car loan payments on new cars are GONE! People need to count their blessings for what they have rather than what they can't afford.

last i checked on the unemployment thing, the House passed the bill, so it doesn't matter if Ryan voted against it. It is being stalled in the Senate (where it will hopefully die, anyways). So, Ryan voting against it, shouldn't matter to anyone who is trying to make this a big issue.

Also, just my opinion, but if you can't find work in 99 weeks of collecting money from my taxes, then you have a problem. There are many jobs out there, but at much lower pay scales than before. Either get more education, get more than 1 job, or move to another country, either way. We (taxpayers) should not have to keep working harder just to see more of our money get taken in taxes to support people who aren't working at all.

Those of you mentioning unemployment. Start from the top and then look down from there. The main cause of the problem is not Paul Ryan. Just like any job, there is a hierarchy and only so much one can do. It's not that simple.

The democrats are about to get booted out of office. I can't wait till November

I'm a Progressive and 2112 is exactly right. The catch is Ryan is waiting for a bigger opportunity, (U.S. Senate). The only way he is going is by his own choice. The First Congressional District isn't as Democratic as it used to be anyway.
Ryan is good at what he does. In conversation, you'd swear he is your guy. In the voting record, he is the Conservative Christian/pro-business. guy. Many Rock County residents smile at him, sigh, and go on with life.

“I think it’s very important for Democrats and people who want to see change that they do rally around a person who is throwing his or her hat into the ring because I think there is a need for change,” Pienkos said

Change huh? Heard that one before

Whether or not Ryan is elected I think that BILL TRUMAN will be great in the State Assembly.

Minan - That excuse has been used so many times it's worn out. Obama voted for them too along with other Democrats. It's not even worth a debate.

It says there are a few days to get in the filing for the seat. What is the deadline for all of the local seats, such as Sheriff, county, and other local government? Is it all the same?

I am against partisan politics because it keeps us spining around nonsensically. However Paul Ryan seems to be more of a 'realist', so I'm glad to see it working well for him.

I'll never forget what Paul Ryan said to me at Palmer Park about 4 or 5 years ago when I asked him a serious question about the future of this country..he said: "I refuse to be a part of any decision or plan for the people I represent, that should go against ANY principle that this land was founded on 200+ years ago...if that's not something that appeals to you, feel free to support whom you want to. I respect your freedom too much to think otherwise" ----- He's done his part to back these words as far as I'm concerned. That's what leaders do!

I am an avid democrat and a neighbor of Paul Ryan's. I have no bad to say about him. He is a nice guy. He has a friendly, polite family. As much as I disagree with some of his political views, he is such a nice guy that it would upset me to see him lose. Very conflicting. LOL

BigRoadie--The New Black Panthers seem to think that Obama was great--to the point of attempting to intimidate voters. That really tells you a lot about Obama.....huh?

www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&i...
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, revised 7/7/10, "The Ryan Budget`s Radical Priorities" His plan would raise SS age to 68, and still cut benefits up to 28%. End Medicare and most of Medicaid and replace with vouchers not tied to inflation. Cut taxes for the rich by almost 50%, but raise them for those making $20-200,000, three fourths of tax payers. Privatize SS, and give a government guarantee to those in the plan that they would get their SS even if the market tanked. Eliminate corporate, estate, interest ,dividend taxes. Slap a VAT of 8.5% to replace the corporate tax on everybody. Would have to take $1.2 trillion from general tax receipts to replace money lost to SS from privatization between 2037 and 2056. Still have a debt of 100% of GDP by 2080. Does this sound like a good plan to you?

Paul Ryan. Get used to the name and the face even more than in the past. You're going to see him go a long, long ways in the future. Whether you care for him or not. He's only going up. Both party's know it.

Janesvillian...If you measure a man's greatness based upon winning a campaign ("If he were so great why didn't he put together a winning campaign...), then historically you indeed support many idiots. And if you measure a man based upon who he dates then the same can be said. I suggest that if you are unaware of all of Doc Thomas' community charity work then you probably have no small minded business judging him.

It's not up to Democrats to figure out. It's up to the voters to vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation.

WORTNIK - I would agree with you, that was clever. I think his hand gesture really should be smaller. Anyone connected to Bush in even the smallest way should not be in office. Also - NVGRF - You are correct when you say to let him talk and that will seal his fate. There are so many good comments here - Yep - Can't forget SARAH - good info that you presented about his NO vote.

Cover photo Caption... "This is how much I think about Rock County"

Where are these false notions of "decidedly blue" and "overwhelming registered with democrats" come from? Outside of Rock County, District 1 is heavily republican. Walworth and Waukesha (especially the southern part of the county) are republican strongholds, and the far southwest suburbs of Milwaukee within the district are heavily republican as well. Kenosha is about 50/50 and Racine has slightly more registered democrats than republicans. The ONLY place in District 1 where there is markedly more registered democrats than republicans is in Rock County.

NVgrf, I maintain that opinion of Thomas the politician based on candidate forums and Q&As over the years (I only met him once, too briefly to be useful in forming an opinion). That toward the end of his life he dated a certain well-known toxic personality did not further endear him to me. If he were so great, why didn't he put together a winning campaign in a decidedly blue Congressional district? Yes, even against Neumann.

Paul Ryan is dedicated to managing the budget. He's made sacrifices, he's hard working and above all honest.How can you campain against that?

jd1965, buy a paper. The lead article on Page 1 was longer than mine and full of glowing descriptions of Ryan. We strive to have something for everyone.
--Gazette reporter Frank Schultz

...and even a "credible" democrat running against Ryan would have little chance of winning. The 1st congressional district is heavily republican, especially in Walworth, southern Waukesha, and southwest Milwaukee counties.

D1 is overwhelming registered with democrats. The dems need a candidate that can articulate a vision not a puppet that regurgitates the DC talking points of govt health care, higher taxes, card check for unions.

Jeff Thomas was not a serious candidate-a good guy, yes - not a serious politician. It takes a lot of money to run a legitimate campaign. There are no homeless nor are there any unemployed running for congress (the exception the guy in South Carolina-a democrat-who has no chance of winning). Incumbents win 90% whether dem or republican. Ryan has amassed a nice war chest but like him or not he has differentiated his political positions well.

Ryan represents a district that should they vote strict party line would never elect a republican. The dems will win when they have a credible candidate who can articulate a credible vision for the D1 constituents- not simplistic washington DC talking points.

janesvillian...Jeff Thomas did more for the people of Janesville during his lifetime than you could do in ten lifetimes. You show your ignorance and stupidity by calling him a "buffoon". What have you ever done for anyone? Think about that before you shoot off your big mouth again.

Ryan continually votes to help small businesses better survive, it's the cronies in Madison that make Wisconsin one of the most inhospitable states in regard to business growth.

And who determines what best interests are? It seems his constituents are quite happy so I am not sure why somebody else should tell them what their best interests are? They do so at the ballot box.

As long as Ryan toes the GOP line, he'll continue to be their "Yes Man rising star" and the money will keep flowing. Sure, he may be a nice guy to your face. Sure he may have the photo-op family. But it's how he continually votes AGAINST the best interests of his constituents that really matters in the end. It's shameful that so many don't pay attention.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

Too little too late, why would anyone waste their time and money running a campaign against a well funded incumbent? Even if you disagree with his miracle plan to privatize social security and balance the budget, no one is going to accomplish a thing at this late a date. A serious campaign would have begun at least two years ago. Save your money and time on this one dems.

Sarah, its not that simple. All he and others who voted against extending benefits yet again wanted was some cuts in spending elsewhere, to actually pay for the benefits. This is the thing, he actually would like the country to not go bankrupt, as would I, so political courage is needed.

“I certainly hope we can get a good candidate in there, and I think Paulette is a good candidate,” said Bob Fizzell, chairman of the Rock County Democratic Party. “It’s very disappointing to see a strong labor district like the 1st supporting the person who is so opposed to what’s good for the people there.”

I find that comment appalling. Mr. Schultz, this is not the first time I have noticed outrageous comments about Rep. Ryan in an article by you with no rebuttal or even a hint of balance, the other was a cheap shot by Ms. Garin regarding a vote he made on unemployment. Go ahead and provide the comments, but please, a little balance would be appreciated.

Jeff Thomas was a buffoon. The point is more how the party failed to exploit an electorate that was willing even to vote for an amateur candidate with shallow positions. But Ryan is popular, likable, and centrist enough (that is, not a social conservative) that challenging him would be an uphill battle. Independents, especially, are probably quite happy to have him represent their interests in Washington. That said, the party shouldn't just throw in the towel on the First.

Actually, the more he talks, the more he's recognized.

Let him keep talking. He will defeat himself.

sannio~ That's good stuff.

STEP 2 - Buy said candidate a lucky rabbits foot. They're going to need it.

How to defeat Paul Ryan
STEP 1 - Get a candidate

Split? That's par for the course for these guys. Their strategy meetings are probably spear headed by some clown who would rival "Pinocchio"........