Comments on: Reax to Rep. Paul Ryan as Romney’s running mate

By: JohnW

JohnW — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:04:25 +0000

Re: #43

Indeed. As we speak, Ryan is filling Mitt in on the works of Ayn Rand and the virtuous economic theories of Friedrich Hayek, Friedrich von Wieser and Ludwig von Mises.

Mitt is now backing away from the Ryan budget. So, he picked Ryan, whose total political identity is based on his budget ideas. And Mitt did this why?

By: RR, Senile Columnist

RR, Senile Columnist — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:58:43 +0000

Yeah, let’s have a full-blown, high-level dee-bate on economics and finance policies. That ‘ll wake up the voters! I can’t wait to get them supply-siders and Keynesians to grapple in intellectual combat!

By: JohnW

JohnW — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:52:22 +0000

Ryan, like Grover Norquist, is no deficit hawk. He is a “starve the beast” hawk. The “Ryan budget” does not theoretically balance until 2040 (when Ryan would be 70), because the spending cuts are used to pay for more tax cuts rather than to get our fiscal house in order.

It was interesting to see Ryan tap dance with Brit Hume on Fox when pressed over the fact that the “Ryan budget” passed by the House keeps the same Medicare spending cuts that he and Romney are now hammering Obama about. The difference is that Ryan uses the savings to pay for tax cuts. Obamacare reallocates the savings to help fund ObamaCare but also to pay for closing the Medicare prescription drug “doughnut hole” and for Medicare preventive care services.

Ryan did not vote against any of the things under Bush that account for $6 Trillion of additional national debt.

By: ted ford

ted ford — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:40:30 +0000

Ryan doesn’t pass the test of “qualified to be President”. His experience is as former Congressional staffer and Congressman and is insufficient. His ideology derives from the novels of Ayn Rand. This is thin stuff. He is not as derisively weak as Sarah Palin, but not a whole lot better. A much better choice by Romney would have been Jeb Bush

By: JohnW

JohnW — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:01:42 +0000

Ya think?

By: Elwood

Elwood — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:42:45 +0000

I reckon the hedge fund managers must have had a real good lobbyist.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:57:25 +0000

You’re joking, right?

My financial advisor invests for me, and a lot of people who are in a much higher league than I am. He gets paid by his clients and pays ordinary income tax on his earnings. When he invests his own money and has capital gains, he pays the lower capital gains rate. The special treatment of so-called “carried interest” income has no rationale other than D.C. shenanigans. The former CEO of a large company I worked for now owns a successful private equity company in NY and sometimes appears on CNBC. He has been interviewed on the subject and stated that there is no justification for the special treatment of carried interest income.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:35:29 +0000

Why yes, there’s a big problem with that notion.

The United States Congress.

Some people support themselves by picking up the garbage, some by investing other people’s money.

One is more valuable than the other and is treated differently by the tax code.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:56:01 +0000

So, what should we do? Outlaw hedge funds?

Nope. Just tax people who make a living that way the same as somebody who works as an engineer, teacher, or car salesperson. If it’s income from capital gains (meaning you put your own capital at risk), then tax it like capital gains. Otherwise, tax it like ordinary income.

Is there a problem with that notion?

By: Elwood

Elwood — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:08:54 +0000

So, what should we do? Outlaw hedge funds?

Sounds very Ayrabesque to me.

“If you have a hedge fund, you didn’t build that”

“The hedge fund sector is doing just fine.”

“Without my teleprompter I’m a babbling idiot.”