Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Romney picks Paul Ryan as his running mate

Good?  Bad?  Pros?  Cons?

What say you?

Advertisements

August 13, 2012 - Posted by | Paul Ryan, Romney

13 Comments »

  1. I’ve always been impressed with Ryan. I didn’t think Romney had the for a to pick him. Ryan is smart and a great communicator, something that’s been missing from the Republican ticket for many cycles.

    Campaign wise, the pick is a sign that the Romney campaign thinks 1) The Independents out there that still not commited yet are not going to vote or break for Romney and/or 2) The Republican Base is not motivated to vote Romney in the numbers needed to overcome Obama’s votes and needs shoring up with a Tea Party fave.

    Comment by Steve | August 13, 2012

  2. I’ve got to stop posting from my phone. It changed guts to for a in the second sentence. How, I don’t know.

    Comment by Steve | August 13, 2012

  3. I really wanted Rubio, but I’m happy with Ryan. Intellectually, he will run circles around Obama/Biden. He’s brilliant and he has a plan to pull us back from the economic cliff. Obama has NO BUDGET and NO PLAN, other than driving the country off the cliff. Obama is moving full steam ahead with implementing the Cloward and Piven plan of collapsing the country by overloading the system with entitlements. If we don’t stop him, we’ll descend into the pits of communism. We have 100 million people on welfare! 100 MILLION! That is INSANE and unsustainable. It’s time to stop the bleeding. Ryan has a plan to do that. The VP debate will be entertaining to say the least! Plugs won’t know what hit him.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | August 13, 2012

  4. I think Ryan is a really good choice. He’s articulate and intelligent. He’s a good compliment to Romney. I hope this election is NOT about Republicans vs Democrats. Rather, it SHOULD be about Conservative vs Progressive. There are Conservatives and Progressives in BOTH parties and this is the time for Americans to choose who we are.

    Comment by Lee | August 13, 2012

  5. Damn, K Girl, just what I was thinking. Now the lefties will begin the attacks on the Romney/Ryan team with vigor. Maybe now the team can get the focus moving to the failed policies of the Ovomit. Which should have been the focus all along. It’s what the left does when they don’t have a successful record to run on, and they don’t. So demonize the opposition and hopefully no one will notice the failed policies and the implementation of the commie agenda.
    Picking Ryan as a running mate will totally throw the lefties into a burning tailspin. Should be real interesting.
    Oh yeah, almost forgot about the VP debates. I can see Plugs stammering through those while Ryan remains calm and focused on the debate issues. How many gaffes will the Plugs utter during the debates, giving us many hours of laughable reruns? Plenty. I guarantee.

    Comment by Jules P. Guidry | August 13, 2012

  6. Good pic.. (and I’m a woman Andrea.. shocker!) . Maybe not the most political pick, so it showed me Romney is serious about turning the Titanic.

    Comment by Donna, Los Osos, CA | August 13, 2012

  7. I wanted Rubio too KG, but I think Tyan will be a good pick also. The democrat controlled debates will begin soon and I can’t wait. I want to see how they will be able to use the Teleprompters there!

    Comment by tnjack | August 13, 2012

  8. I think this is a great choice. Sure, we could pick at little things here and there, but I think selecting Ryan is good for a few reasons. The choice sends the signal that the Romney campaign is serious about economic policy. Paul Ryan is a Congressional leader who has produced two budgets that were passed by the House of Representatives. It shows, I think, that the campaign will focus on the economy and its relation to the dreaded health care law. Further, Ryan is a budget expert who has concrete proposals for reforming the entitlement structure (and he knows a good deal about the Obama health care law). Romney and Ryan will be seen as the campaign with ideas, not sentimental empty slogans like “Hope” and “Change.” He communicates well and he’s well admired, so I don’t think the typical liberal “extremist” attack will stick this time around. Lastly, Obama was supposed to be the symbol for the future in 2008, and a lot of dumb college kids voted for him. That was then. Obama has had three+ years to screw things up. Ryan is a young, smart guy with abounding energy, who might outshine Obama as the political figure during this campaign who speaks to the youth and the future. In spite of the polls right now, I am very encouraged about this year’s election.

    Comment by George | August 14, 2012

  9. He’s likeable, but I don’t get his wanting to cut taxes on corporations. Yes, we need a a turn around but why aren’t they included in sacrificing. Plus, any of us who have worked for corporations, know they don’t deserve tax cuts.

    As far as education policy (my big issue) goes, Ryan sucks as much as Obama and Romney do.

    Comment by Alli | August 14, 2012

  10. The tax on corporations should be 0%. Multiple taxation on the same pool of money is already a problem, but we should remember that in reality, “corporations” aren’t taxed–people are. Those taxes are paid either by shareholders, customers, employees, or a combination of the three. (The same goes for “property taxes.” People pay those taxes, not “property.”)

    Comment by George | August 15, 2012

  11. Exactly, George. Corporations don’t pay taxes. They collect them. Example…

    You own a lemonade stand. You sell a cup for $0.50. The government imposes a “corporate tax” on lemons of $1/lemon. What do you do? You raise the price of your lemonade. Your customers who pay the higher price for lemonade are giving you the money that you’re turning around and sending to the government. Thanks to the government, you CUSTOMERS, and NOT you, are paying the “corporate tax”. You didn’t pay it…you collected it, from your customers.

    Additionally, the tax is a cost of doing business. Because you now have to collect this tax, some customers will not buy lemonade from you anymore. The only way around that is to find ways to offset passing the entire cost on to the customers: cheaper and smaller cups, no ice, less sugar, etc. At that point, though, your desire to minimize running off customers by cutting costs elsewhere results in an inferior product…which will run off customers.

    The things you buy in stores today cost an average of 25% more than they otherwise would because the “corporate income tax” is embedded in the price. When you buy a loaf of bread for $1, Wonder sends $0.25 to the taxing authorities. They didn’t pay that quarter…you did. They simply were the passthrough.

    Alli, it is the height of intellectual laziness to mindlessly parrot “corporations need to pay higher taxes”. That’s the same as arguing that consumers need to pay higher taxes for stuff they buy. I can’t disagree more.

    Comment by crushliberalism | August 15, 2012

  12. How about some taxes? Why get a taxpayer funded break and more for merely setting up shop in a particular place? And why not given better breaks to small businesses? I just love how the right (correctly) bitches about administrative bureaucracy, but thinks it’s okay to never tax companies flooded with middle management bs who use any excuse – mainly that the taxes are the problem – to ship jobs overseas, raise prices, or eliminate quality.

    Honey bear, I really want to believe that corporations will do the right thing and trickle down economics will work…but there hasn’t been any evidence of it as much I wish it did.

    Comment by Alli | August 15, 2012

  13. I’m not sure what critics mean by “trickle down economics,” but I’m always tempted to ask if the alternative is “trickle UP economics,” and whether that works. Supply-side tax cuts (the things which usually invoke the “trickle down economics” complaint from the Left) in the 1920s, 60s, and 80s led to a sustained period of economic activity and growth every time. Secondly, free trade–voluntary exchange–is a benefit to everyone. We should study to see if the reason many companies conduct business overseas is because of the artificial barriers–resulting in higher productions costs–imposed by government. As CL said, businesses will try to offset those costs. If you’d like for business to remain in the US, we should eliminate unnecessary regulation which makes it more cost-effective to go overseas. (By the way, I’ll also point out that people from the left support a lot of these regulations and “corporate taxes” to make the big companies pay, thus raising costs of production! The big companies can afford to go overseas, but it’s the smaller businesses, the mom and pop stores, who can’t afford that and who must pay the bill. That’s leftist trickle up economics, I suppose.)

    Lastly, it’s always amused me that people who doubt that “corporations will do the right thing,’ never doubt that people who work in government will do the right thing. The people in government, however, have been “deputized” and they have coercive authority. The damage they cause is much worse because they have the authority of government backing them up, and it’s near impossible to rectify the damage in a timely and efficient manner. The best thing to do is to have a structure in place where property and free exchange are protected with minimal necessary interference from government.

    Comment by George | August 15, 2012


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: