Does Paul Ryan want to make the US a tax-free zone for billionaires?

[Spoke]

Inspired by this article:

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan

In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.

(my bolding)

It looks like Roll Call has also taken a look at the effect of Ryan's policies on Romney's taxes: Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Would Slash Mitt Romney's Tax Rate to 1 Percent

The Ryan tax cut, which would shave about 90 percent off of Romney's tax bill, would result from the Wisconsin Republican's "Roadmap for America's Future" proposal to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest. Since about 95 percent of Romney's $21.6 million income came from those sources in 2010, he would pay no taxes on the vast majority of his earnings.

...Ryan also proposes eliminating the estate tax, which would benefit Romney's heirs by tens of millions of dollars.

(my bolding)

To review, Ryan wants to eliminate taxes on interest income, capital gains, dividends, and the estate tax.

But he would keep taxing earned income (i.e., money people actually worked to obtain).

So, if I get this right, some hypothetical person who inherits a billion dollars from daddy, and then never does a lick of work the rest of their lives, but instead subsists on income from investments (capital gains, interest, and dividends), would never pay a single dollar of federal taxes.

To put a number on it, let's say that, like Mitt in 2010, they receive $20 million in income from these sources in a given year. They would pay Uncle Sam nothing.

Meanwhile, if I go out and earn $200,000 by the sweat of my brow in that same year, I would get taxed.

In other words, the nation's entire tax burden would be borne by working people, while the leisure class would be absolved of any financial obligation to their nation.

Did I get that right?

And are there any conservatives who would care to provide a defense of this policy? (I think it is morally indefensible, but please give it a go.)

[Spoke]

And I have not searched all the Ryan threads to see if this issue has been raised, but regardless, I think the subject deserves to be a separate conversation.

[Gangster Octopus]

Nope, you pretty much got it right. But what you are missing is all the jobs Mitt would create.

[Spoke]

I cannot understand why the "liberal media" at ABC and NBC have not pointed this out to the American people. I haven't seen any coverage of this on the evening news on either network, and it seems pretty damn newsworthy to me. Perhaps they have been hypnotized by Ryan's dreamy blue eyes.

[Jas09]

No, according to Google trends they have mainly been hypnotized by his washboard abs.

[Enkel]

The part you're missing is that IF the Republicans gained control of Congress and the White House, they'd get rid of all unions and the minimum wage. That way, the people who are still working for a living would actually be paying less in taxes.

[Jas09]

No, see, they will offset these cuts by eliminating loopholes like the (well, I'm just guessing here because they won't actually list them) home mortgage interest deduction.

So now Mitt won't be able to deduct his mortgage interest payments from his gross income when calculating his tax burden on the <5% of his income that is actually subject to income taxes.

[snowthx]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Nope, you pretty much got it right. But what you are missing is all the jobs Mitt would create.

That sounds about right. Mitt will create so many jobs for working stiffs that will pay taxes, it will offset the lost revenue from the leisure class.

Yeaaaah, about that.

[President T Toilet]

I just assumed that the Romney/Ryan plan to solve the middle class problems is to just eliminate the middle class altogether. No middle class = no more middle class problems. Simple

[Spoke]

So no conservatives have any defense for this policy?

[Darth Panda]

One defense would be that most of the money that is invested into the items that generate the dividends, capital gains, etc. was earned as ordinary income at some point, and taxes were paid on it once already.

The other defense is that the long term economic growth of a society is tied to capital investment (that isn't the idea that if I cut taxes today, I'll get more jobs tomorrow - it's the idea that if I discourage capital investment today, over the next few decades I'll get less capital investment, which will mean less technological development, less factory capacity, etc.).

To me, these aren't reasons to be bring taxes on those items to zero. To the first argument, there's kind of a "so what?" response - lots of money gets taxed twice. We need revenue (as a country, gov't, whatever) and you have to get it from somewhere. Ultimately, you have to get most of it form the wealthy, because poor people just don't have very much.

To the second point, there's diminishing returns. If you taxed those items too heavily, you might hamper long term growth - but if you tax them too lightly you get the same effect because the government won't the funds that it needs to develop public infrastructure (education, roads, good regulatory schemes, whatever). And, as we've seen in the past, you can tax those items and still get good development in the private sector - finding a balance is very difficult, but it's not difficult to see that zero is the wrong answer, imo.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

One defense would be that most of the money that is invested into the items that generate the dividends, capital gains, etc. was earned as ordinary income at some point, and taxes were paid on it once already.

Nonsense. That investment income is new income and the fact that derives from past net income is irrelevant. Example: I make $1000 and pay $200 in tax. I take that $800 and invest it, making $200. I pay $40 tax on that NEW income. Total income for year: $1200. Total tax for year: $240. There is no such thing as "double taxation".

[Princhester]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

One defense would be that most of the money that is invested into the items that generate the dividends, capital gains, etc. was earned as ordinary income at some point, and taxes were paid on it once already.

Except that once you exempt dividends and capital gains you provide a loopholes aplenty for people whose earnings are sufficient to justify more complex financial schemes. It's relatively easy to "convert" what might otherwise be ordinary income into capital gains or dividends. You just ensure that instead of being paid directly for the value you create, the value you create goes into something that can be sold at a profit, or a company that can pay a dividend. This is the big hidden reason wealthy people don't like taxation of capital gains.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Princhester

This is the big hidden reason wealthy people don't like taxation of capital gains.

I'm pretty sure it's not hidden

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Nonsense. That investment income is new income and the fact that derives from past net income is irrelevant. Example: I make $1000 and pay $200 in tax. I take that $800 and invest it, making $200. I pay $40 tax on that NEW income. Total income for year: $1200. Total tax for year: $240. There is no such thing as "double taxation".

That is one interpretation - others would say that the 200 earned just reflects the time value of money, adjusted for risk. Consider the case where you earn 2% on an investment during a time when inflation is running at 8%. It's hard to say that your investment has made you wealthier.

But (I think) ultimately the point is that it doesn't matter if it's double taxation or not - government revenue has to come from somewhere, and it's always by fiat - so it really doesn't matter how someone may or may not want to interpret the 'fairness' of the taxation. The right answer is the one that's agreed to - hence, democracy.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

That is one interpretation - others would say that the 200 earned just reflects the time value of money, adjusted for risk. Consider the case where you earn 2% on an investment during a time when inflation is running at 8%. It's hard to say that your investment has made you wealthier.

But (I think) ultimately the point is that it doesn't matter if it's double taxation or not - government revenue has to come from somewhere, and it's always by fiat - so it really doesn't matter how someone may or may not want to interpret the 'fairness' of the taxation. The right answer is the one that's agreed to - hence, democracy.

One interpretion, perhaps. The correct interpretation, absolutely. There simply is no such thing as double taxation and invoking that phrase leads one not to be taken seriously.

[Jas09]

Hm, so our only defense of a 0% capital gains tax rate is from someone who doesn't think it's actually a good idea (assuming I'm correctly reading it as more of a Devil's Advocate defense). Does anybody seriously believe this is good policy - particularly in the context of a "revenue neutral" tax reform?

[hogarth]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Nonsense. That investment income is new income and the fact that derives from past net income is irrelevant. Example: I make $1000 and pay $200 in tax. I take that $800 and invest it, making $200. I pay $40 tax on that NEW income. Total income for year: $1200. Total tax for year: $240. There is no such thing as "double taxation".

I thought the usual argument was that if you own a business, then that business pays taxes on its income, and then if you passed that income to yourself as a dividend, you'd pay tax on the dividend.

At any rate, it's a dumb argument.

[Debaser]

I'm in favor of a zero percent capital gains in many situations with some caveats.

Most people work to earn their income through some sort of employment. Romney inherited some wealth, but most of his money was made in his career at Bain Capital. Once you've earned that wealth it should be yours and not taxed again.

But, it's true that money tends to grow over time. If Romney earns interest on that money should it be taxed?

I think a good example to look to here is house value appreciation. This is a good example of the tax code getting it right, IMO.

If you buy a house and it appreciates while you live in it you shouldn't have to pay taxes on that increase in value when you sell. It just isn't fair, and it punishes home ownership and is bad policy. However, we want to make sure that someone who's career and income derive from building homes does pay taxes. So a builder who builds ten houses a year should pay a tax on the increase in value on the houses he built vs what he spent on them. That's his income.

The way the government gets around this is with a "two out of the last five" rule. If you've lived in the house for two years you don't pay the tax. There is a dollar limit on it which we could argue about, but the overall concept does a good job separating the people who are professionals vs the ordinary Joe Homeowners. There's also some unintended consequences, but that always happens. For instance every builder now has to move every two years or turn down a large amount of money.

Tax policy for capital gains should be the same. If you are saving for college or retirement we have some plans in place like 529s and 401(k)s and Roths. Romney actually uses a Roth to keep a bunch of his money from being taxed.

I'd like to see the difference between long term and short term capital gains enhanced. If Romney earned the interest on his money by aggressively day trading or being a professional investor like Warren Buffet, then he should be taxed on it at a higher level, as that is his profession. If he simply invested for the long term, didn't sell off any of it, and earned a steady return I don't think he should be taxed on it at all.

[ElvisL1ves]

You don't "earn" interest. You earn wages. Interest and capital gains are unearned income, which is a highly appropriate name, too.

[Jas09]

Debaser - does Romney/Ryan's plan make any of the distinctions you outline?

My understanding is it doesn't. Do you still support it without those caveats, and with the understanding that cutting taxes this way in a revenue-neutral plan means they have to go up on earned income?

ETA: I just did quick search and it looks like Romney's plan only cuts rates to zero for AGI under $200,000. Of course it also repeals the AMT and calls for 20% marginal rate cuts across the board (over current rates) - so I'm not really sure how the math could possibly work to make it revenue neutral.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You don't "earn" interest. You earn wages. Interest and capital gains are unearned income, which is a highly appropriate name, too.

Yeah! To hell with anyone who has a bank account. Let's find the nearest tree and string them up!



But your silly statement actually sort of backs up what I'm saying. I'd argue that Warren Buffet "earns" his returns more than Romney, since Buffet is actively managing his empire and constantly changing it. You would make an argument that he should pay a higher tax. This would give capital gains a sense of fairness that they lack now.

Why should Warren Buffet pay the same rate as a retired worker who has his $500,000 invested in an index fund?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Debaser - does Romney/Ryan's plan make any of the distinctions you outline?

No, it doesn't.

My understanding is it doesn't. Do you still support it without those caveats...

Yes. My first choice would be something more nuanced. But if the choice is current capital gains or zero, I choose zero.

We tax people in different ways all the time. Some states have a sales tax, some states don't. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat.

Another good idea would be to get rid of income and capital gains altogether and do a sales tax nationally. That way, rich or poor, you only pay taxes when you spend and we encourage everyone to save. Of course, you'd need an exception for the first 50K or so to keep the half of people who don't pay income taxes now still not paying taxes.

... and with the understanding that cutting taxes this way in a revenue-neutral plan means they have to go up on earned income?

No. You can cut spending.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I'm in favor of a zero percent capital gains in many situations with some caveats.

Most people work to earn their income through some sort of employment. Romney inherited some wealth, but most of his money was made in his career at Bain Capital. Once you've earned that wealth it should be yours and not taxed again.

Romney is not being taxed on money that he has already earned. This would be the case if there was a wealth tax in place - ie if the government charged him a percentage every year of the money that he has stashed in his mattress. This does not occur.

Taxes are levied on money earned. When Romney has money in investments, he earns new money. This new, earned money is the only money that is taxed. He is not taxed on his capital investment. He is taxed on the money he makes from his capital investment. If he loses money on a capital investment, he can take a tax deduction.

On another note, I'm amused by anyone who posits that one reason not to tax dividends or interest income or capital gains is that if you eliminate these taxes, then people will invest more money, and thus create jobs.

Tell me... Is there anyone out there who has money to invest, but is keeping it under their bed in a box for the sole reason that if they invest it, they will have to pay a small amount of tax on the profits they will make from it? In other words, they are voluntarily forgoing a profit because they'll have to give up 15% of that profit?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Debaser

But your silly statement

:Shrug: Tell the IRS. That's their definition.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Debaser

No. You can cut spending.

Revenue-neutral, not deficit-neutral. Same answer?

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Tell me... Is there anyone out there who has money to invest, but is keeping it under their bed in a box for the sole reason that if they invest it, they will have to pay a small amount of tax on the profits they will make from it? In other words, they are voluntarily forgoing a profit because they'll have to give up 15% of that profit?

Very well said. If we believe Republicans, the wealthy would rather have 100% of zero than 85% of something.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Yeah! To hell with anyone who has a bank account. Let's find the nearest tree and string them up!

How about if we have them pay an appropriate tax on the income they EARN from their investment in the bank account? The same way I pay an appropriate tax on the money I EARN from working. How would that be?

And I have to say, this continual equating of "appropriate taxes should be paid on a variety of types of income" with "we hate the rich, string them up" is becoming exceedingly tiresome.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Very well said. If we believe Republicans, the wealthy would rather have 100% of zero than 85% of something.

It's not theoretically impossible that this is sometimes the case. There are risks to investment, and the extra 5-10% one might be taxed in a high versus low tax environment might make the difference between an enterprise that's worth pursuing and one that isn't. The downside is the same: you lose all your cash. The upside is different: you gain 5-10% less profit. That may change the equation for some people.

However, that's in theory. In practice, at least for the past 15 years, taxes on investment profit have decreased while investment has also decreased.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I'd like to see the difference between long term and short term capital gains enhanced.

The most equitable (heh) situation I see is one in which all income is considered equal, but indexed for inflation. So if I held a stock for 10 years and it has doubled, but inflation has only gone up by 50%, then when I sell it, it gets taxed as ordinary income, but the first 50% of the appreciation is ignored.

And of course the hotshot fund managers who get millions per year in short term gains would basically have to pay for it as normal income.

The downside of this is it would increase the incentive to play political games with the measurement of the inflation rate.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Romney is not being taxed on money that he has already earned.

Not sure why you are lecturing me on this since it's clear from my post that I understand this completely.

Taxes are levied on money earned. When Romney has money in investments, he earns new money. This new, earned money is the only money that is taxed. He is not taxed on his capital investment. He is taxed on the money he makes from his capital investment. If he loses money on a capital investment, he can take a tax deduction.

Uh-oh. ElvisL1ves is going to be all over you for saying people earn money on investments!

Tell me... Is there anyone out there who has money to invest, but is keeping it under their bed in a box for the sole reason that if they invest it, they will have to pay a small amount of tax on the profits they will make from it? In other words, they are voluntarily forgoing a profit because they'll have to give up 15% of that profit?

Sure there is. They can do things with it that don't result in the US capital gains tax, like invest it overseas for instance.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Revenue-neutral, not deficit-neutral. Same answer?

There's a thousand ways you could do it in a revenue neutral way. You could implement a wealth tax, a sales tax, a sales tax just on items over 10,000 to just hit the rich, a VAT.

Not sure what the point of this question is.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

And of course the hotshot fund managers who get millions per year in short term gains would basically have to pay for it as normal income.

This is a loophole that should be closed immediately. In fact, it's not even really a loophole, just a bunch of people basically making up a new rule as they go along and the IRS for some reason ignoring them.

Clearly the fund managers who pay cap gains instead of income tax are being compensated for their work. They aren't investors. I have no idea why the IRS allows this but they should stop it tomorrow.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Not sure why you are lecturing me on this since it's clear from my post that I understand this completely.

Not apparent at all from your post 19:

Once you've earned that wealth it should be yours and not taxed again.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Not sure why you are lecturing me on this since it's clear from my post that I understand this completely.

You might understand, by it's apparent that many do not.

Originally Posted by Debaser

Uh-oh. ElvisL1ves is going to be all over you for saying people earn money on investments!

Putting words in other people's mouths, supposing what they might say, is not a worthy form of debate, and lends nothing to the conversation.

Originally Posted by Debaser

Sure there is. They can do things with it that don't result in the US capital gains tax, like invest it overseas for instance.

And I guess if they make overseas income that should have been legally reported to the IRS, they can just take advantage of a tax amnesty later on, right?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Not apparent at all from your post 19:

Originally Posted by Debaser

Once you've earned that wealth it should be yours and not taxed again.

Give me a break.

Here's the full quote of what I actually said:

Originally Posted by Debaser

Once you've earned that wealth it should be yours and not taxed again.

But, it's true that money tends to grow over time. If Romney earns interest on that money should it be taxed?

I then get into answering that question in my post.

What are you two doing? Only reading the first two lines of my post and then responding?

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Debaser

There's a thousand ways you could do it in a revenue neutral way. You could implement a wealth tax, a sales tax, a sales tax just on items over 10,000 to just hit the rich, a VAT.

Not sure what the point of this question is.

The point is that in order to put in place these cuts in a revenue-neutral fashion new revenue has to come from somewhere. And the current proposal is to get them from removing "loopholes and deductions", which basically means middle-class deductions like health insurance and mortgage interest. There just isn't enough money in loopholes to get close to the kind of cuts being proposed.

I fully agree that the carried interest rules should be discarded immediately. And I'd give Romney full credit if he proposed that, since it would affect him directly. As far as I know, he has not proposed that change (Obama, on the other hand, has).

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

You might understand, by it's apparent that many do not.

There's no evidence anyone in this thread doesn't understand this basic concept.

Putting words in other people's mouths, supposing what they might say, is not a worthy form of debate, and lends nothing to the conversation.

You've got me there!

And I guess if they make overseas income that should have been legally reported to the IRS, they can just take advantage of a tax amnesty later on, right?

Taking cheap shots at what might or might not be in Romney tax returns is not a worthy form of debate, and lends nothing to the conversation.

It's true, even if you don't like it, that rich people now are global. They own investments and companies that exist globally and they can and do move themselves and their investments to avoid high taxes. See France.

[XT]

To review, Ryan wants to eliminate taxes on interest income, capital gains, dividends, and the estate tax.

You are working off of his 2010 proposal from what I understand. He's since released newer proposals that don't eliminate things like capital gains taxes. According to a FactCheck article I was reading the other day the Dems are viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals, and deliberately ignoring the fact that they were a work in progress and that he's continued to refine and submit the things with changes. Now, you might not like the new ones either, but they are different than the older ones, and my understanding is that he's modified his earlier hard line stance in the face of reality. Not anywhere I can look it up right now, but I'll see if I can dig up that FactCheck article later if you like. I realize that FactCheck is now on par with Fox News around here, but I still think it's a valid resource for this sort of thing.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by XT

You are working off of his 2010 proposal from what I understand. He's since released newer proposals that don't eliminate things like capital gains taxes. According to a FactCheck article I was reading the other day the Dems are viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals, and deliberately ignoring the fact that they were a work in progress and that he's continued to refine and submit the things with changes. Now, you might not like the new ones either, but they are different than the older ones, and my understanding is that he's modified his earlier hard line stance in the face of reality. Not anywhere I can look it up right now, but I'll see if I can dig up that FactCheck article later if you like. I realize that FactCheck is now on par with Fox News around here, but I still think it's a valid resource for this sort of thing.

They may have been proposals that he has modified or abandoned, but nonetheless provide insight into what his philosophy is. The early proposals are what he wants to do, the later ones are bending to the political realities.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by XT

You are working off of his 2010 proposal from what I understand. He's since released newer proposals that don't eliminate things like capital gains taxes. According to a FactCheck article I was reading the other day the Dems are viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals, and deliberately ignoring the fact that they were a work in progress and that he's continued to refine and submit the things with changes. Now, you might not like the new ones either, but they are different than the older ones, and my understanding is that he's modified his earlier hard line stance in the face of reality. Not anywhere I can look it up right now, but I'll see if I can dig up that FactCheck article later if you like. I realize that FactCheck is now on par with Fox News around here, but I still think it's a valid resource for this sort of thing.

Viciously attacking? Methinks the Doper doth protesteth toeth mucheth.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by XT

You are working off of his 2010 proposal from what I understand. He's since released newer proposals that don't eliminate things like capital gains taxes. According to a FactCheck article I was reading the other day the Dems are viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals, and deliberately ignoring the fact that they were a work in progress and that he's continued to refine and submit the things with changes. Now, you might not like the new ones either, but they are different than the older ones, and my understanding is that he's modified his earlier hard line stance in the face of reality. Not anywhere I can look it up right now, but I'll see if I can dig up that FactCheck article later if you like. I realize that FactCheck is now on par with Fox News around here, but I still think it's a valid resource for this sort of thing.

I feel better knowing that he was only bat shit in sane in 2010.

[XT]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

They may have been proposals that he has modified or abandoned, but nonetheless provide insight into what his philosophy is. The early proposals are what he wants to do, the later ones are bending to the political realities.

I disagree, though it's probably moot, since he's not running for president, and even if Romney wins he's not going to get all that pushed through (even if you assume Romney is in lockstep with Ryan over the budget, which I'm not convinced of). I think that the budget process has been a work in progress for Ryan, as he works through practical attempts to implement a workable budget using conservative philosophy. As people bring up issues or problems, he goes back to the drawing board to address them. Having read a bit about the guy and this process, it's actually quite interesting how he's doing this.

Again, you might not agree with him or his conclusions (even I, nominal 'conservative' on the SDMB don't agree with all or even a lot of what he's concluding), but it's pretty silly to try and use stuff he's already moved on from to score points against him on the budget, especially since I don't see anyone else taking much of a shot or sticking out their necks by putting something out there that can be looked at and criticized.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Viciously attacking? Methinks the Doper doth protesteth toeth mucheth.

Am I supposed to pretend that I haven't seen political advertisements that are doing just that, and using the 2010 data as if it's the latest thing he's come up with?

[black rabbit]

Originally Posted by Debaser

But, it's true that money tends to grow over time.

Tends to grow? How does money, in and of itself, tend to grow? I have a couple of quarters in my pocket. If I leave them there for 10 years, are they going to appreciate in value all on their own?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by XT

You are working off of his 2010 proposal from what I understand. He's since released newer proposals that don't eliminate things like capital gains taxes. According to a FactCheck article I was reading the other day the Dems are viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals, and deliberately ignoring the fact that they were a work in progress and that he's continued to refine and submit the things with changes. Now, you might not like the new ones either, but they are different than the older ones, and my understanding is that he's modified his earlier hard line stance in the face of reality. Not anywhere I can look it up right now, but I'll see if I can dig up that FactCheck article later if you like. I realize that FactCheck is now on par with Fox News around here, but I still think it's a valid resource for this sort of thing.

I agree with BobLibDem on this issue. Has Ryan actually repudiated his earlier stance on eliminating these taxes and said he's had a change of heart on this issue? If not, I think we can accept this proposal as a valid indicator of the direction Ryan wants to go (and by extension, Romney endorses by choosing Ryan as his running mate). Maybe he realizes eliminating taxes on the wealthy is unrealistic, but if that's his dream goal then we can expect he'll do what he can to reduce taxes on the wealthy.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by XT

Am I supposed to pretend that I haven't seen political advertisements that are doing just that, and using the 2010 data as if it's the latest thing he's come up with?

Really unfair when Romney and Ryan have declared a standard that any financial issues that are older than two years are off the record in this election. Why won't the Democrats follow the rules?

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by XT

Am I supposed to pretend that I haven't seen political advertisements that are doing just that, and using the 2010 data as if it's the latest thing he's come up with?

Well to be clear you said " viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals", which...vicious? Maybe we are just working on different definitions.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Well to be clear you said " viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals", which...vicious? Maybe we are just working on different definitions.

Actually, what I said was 'the Dems are viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals' which I think is accurate as far as it goes, though one could argue that some of 'the Dems' are actually not directly associated with the Democratic Party. But 'vicious'? Yeah, I'd say so based on some of the adds talking about throwing grand ma out into the street and some of the other over the top hyperbole I've heard...especially since, to me, it looks like a deliberate use of spin to use his 2010 budget to make all these points and conveniently ignore the fact that there are updates. I mean, at a guess the updated version wouldn't play well with liberal/Dem types either, so it's interesting that they have focused their attacks on stuff that's several revisions back in the cycle. Don't you think?

[XT]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Really unfair when Romney and Ryan have declared a standard that any financial issues that are older than two years are off the record in this election. Why won't the Democrats follow the rules?

Why won't they use his most recent budget proposal and attack THAT, instead of one that's already out of date and thus is irrelevant? Of course, 'the rules' are that you attack your opponent with anything that gets traction, whether it's a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone not paying attention. Which has pretty much been the Republicans modus operandi for years (the Dems too of course). What I find ironic is the howls I hear around here when the Pubs do this, but how passive folks are when it's clear the Dems are doing the same thing. Gores, oxes and all that sort of thingy...