Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?
Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?
Most Popular Reply
Mark UpdegraffBusiness Member
Real Estate Broker · Rochester, NY · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 690 votesRon Paul is the clear choice for president. But since we're stuck with Romney, at least give us Paul Ryan!
Give us Liberty, or Death!
Updegraff Group Realty4.746 Reviews
71 Replies
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
So, let's get back to the original topic of this thread -- Paul Ryan.
Again, I'll probably vote for the Romney/Ryan duo -- not because I particularly like their views on anything, but after bitching for years about the soaring deficit/debt, perhaps the Republicans will be forced to do something about it if they take office. And the tiny, tiny chance that will happen is better than the zero chance that the current administration will.
That said, here's the Republican's issue with Ryan -- he's inconsistent. And, that is going to be where the Dems are going to attack him.
At some point, it will probably come out that Ryan himself claimed that when his father died (when Ryan was 16), he used his father's social security benefits to put himself through undergraduate school. It doesn't look good when you admit to getting huge benefits from a government program and then want to take away those benefits for others.
Now, even if that doesn't become an issue, remember that Ryan voted for TARP, he voted for the auto bailouts, he voted for Medicare expansion, he voted for housing subsidies, he voted for unemployment extensions, he voted for a national ID, he voted for making the patriot act permanent, he voted for surveillance without a warrant, he voted fro no child left behind, he voted for keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely, and he voted for the 2008 and 2009 stimulus.
And then he stands up and claims he's for smaller government, fewer handouts and less regulation.
While there may be justifiable reason for it, the fact is, his record doesn't support his stated views...and that's never a good thing for a politician.
- IL · Member since 2012 · 29 posts · 9 votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
Barrack Obama isn't the one to do it. He had both houses for two years, no opposition, and failed.... there's no excuse other than he doesn't know how to do it! Obviously most of you disagree with me...If he had no opposition then why didn't he get single payer healthcare that he wanted, or even a public option? I'm disagreeing with you because saying he had no opposition isn't true.
- IL · Member since 2012 · 29 posts · 9 votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
So, let's get back to the original topic of this thread -- Paul Ryan.Again, I'll probably vote for the Romney/Ryan duo -- not because I particularly like their views on anything, but after bitching for years about the soaring deficit/debt, perhaps the Republicans will be forced to do something about it if they take office. And the tiny, tiny chance that will happen is better than the zero chance that the current administration will.
My head just exploded. The Republicans have a plan to reduce the deficit? I must be watching too much MSNBC because I haven't heard of it. But even if they do, voting for Romney seems like a hail mary for a chance to put a bandaid on a gunshot wound. I thought a better approach would be to look for long term solutions.
- IL · Member since 2012 · 29 posts · 9 votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
I think they got really ticked off with BO being sworn in, that they see the country going toward the "minorities" and it scares them, that now the best thing to do is to strip the country and funnel as much as possible to the 1 or 1/2% upper class, go global and to heck with the country.Of course. People are all for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality when it's their speech, their religion and equality for people of their color and beliefs. People scream this is a Christian nation, completely ignoring the fact that the reason this nation was formed in the first place was because our forefathers were forced to adhere to a particular religion and decided that was wrong. To argue that it's a Christian nation because the founding fathers were Christian would be like arguing this is a white, male and slave-owning nation because our forefathers were white males who owned slaves. I've yet to hear anyone make that claim.
Speaking of Christianity, the funny things is that Christianity was created by an upper class who wanted to keep the lower class in check to avoid uprising and disruption of the class system. Here we are 1500 years later and it's being used the same way again and people don't even realize they are being brainwashed and controlled.
The Republicans have convinced the masses that we need "less government" when it comes to business regulation and then at the same time convince the same people that we need more government when it comes to social regulation. Hmmmm, I wonder why they'd want to do that? The only reason I can think of is to make the rich richer and the poor more oppressed and controlled.
It's hilarious hearing people scream "LESS GOVERNEMENT" and then scream that we need more laws to restrict speech, drugs, sex, marriage, travel, etc. Brainwashing at its best.
Think about it -- the Republicans have convinced those making the least money that those making the most money are the ones who need the tax cuts, the subsidies, the legal loopholes, etc.
It's F****** brilliant how the ultra-rich in this country have gotten the underclass to serve their whims. I wish I was half that brilliant...
It's time to wake up people. There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism (we shouldn't be spending more than we bring in) and there's nothing wrong with less government (including less legislation of morality by one group's standards), but to vote for what's good for a small group of people vs what is good for the nation as a whole is just ridiculous.
For those who honestly believe that this is a land of equal opportunity for all, I have this question: Why aren't you ultra-rich? Is it because you don't work hard enough? Because you're not smart enough? If I have more money than you do, does it mean that I am smarter and harder working than you are? If not, then the equal opportunity argument doesn't hold.
And before anyone starts telling me that I'm just a jealous socialist, keep in mind that I'm probably part of (or close to) the "1%"...socalism would result in me having less than I currently do. But, I'm okay having a little less to ensure that everyone has at least the very basics. That's not socialism...that's humanity.
Wake up people.
Great post. I'm confused by the bolded, though. It's almost as if you're implying that there's an argument about whether or not to reduce the deficit/debt. I thought the argument was about how to solve the problem, not the problem itself.
A friend of mine told me about a poll he saw a couple years ago that your post reminded me of. The poll said that 16% of Americans believe that they are currently in the top 1% of income earners in the U.S., and 60% of Americans believe that one day they will be in the top 1%. 60%!
- Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes14y
Mike B. The reason he couldn't get anything passed was that his own party doesn't agree with some of his extreme policies, or his budget.
J Scott Uwe S. The facts are, California is broke, and many of the cities are beginning to file bankruptcy. That's not why we have high unemployment, it's just one factor with the business climate. We have high unemployment due to many factors. A very high cost of doing business in California, over regulation, excessive environmental regulations, ridiculous fees for every imagainable thing, the economy of the country, the housing crisis, etc. It's a very complex issue.
As for Paul Ryan not holding a job, who cares? The guy is an economic genius, and actually came up with a plan that he submitted, to help dig us out of the hole we are in. Rather than work with him on it, the Democrats ignored it, and criticize. They don't offer up a budget of their own, or plan. In fact, the Dems haven't offered a budget for years now.
It doesn't have to be one or the other... social programs or no programs. If they get down to business and cut out the waste, fraud and abuse, most of the programs will survive. Doing nothing insures they won't.
Have you ever dealt with a government agency on business? If so, you know it takes 10-20 of them to do what 1 private sector employee can do. They need bigger government with more employees in order to fund the ponzi scheme of benefits, etc. for the the govt. workers retiring. They don't want to shrink govt. or save money, and without real cuts, the entire system is going to crash, and nobody will get their retirement benefits. The Dems think BAIN Capital was bad when some people didn't get their retirement? The governments (city to federal) will be doing the same thing to all the retirees when they file Chapt 9 and renegotiate retirement packages, yet nobody is even talking about that.
I don't think any of these politicians are any great savior, I just think the Republicans are the ones with the best ideology for survival.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Mike B.:
Originally posted by J Scott:
Again, I'll probably vote for the Romney/Ryan duo
....
And the tiny, tiny chance that will happen is better than the zero chance that the current administration will.My head just exploded. The Republicans have a plan to reduce the deficit? I must be watching too much MSNBC because I haven't heard of it. But even if they do, voting for Romney seems like a hail mary for a chance to put a bandaid on a gunshot wound. I thought a better approach would be to look for long term solutions.
You use "hail mary"...I use "tiny tiny chance"...we're in agreement...
I don't believe the Republicans will do anything different that what Obama and Bush have done for the past 12 years (spend too much money)...but given that this is probably the most pressing issue this country faces, I'd rather have the guys who say they'll do something as opposed to the guys who clearly won't.
Though again, I don't believe anything will be different either way...
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
The guy is an economic genius, and actually came up with a plan that he submitted, to help dig us out of the hole we are in. Rather than work with him on it, the Democrats ignored it, and criticize. They don't offer up a budget of their own, or plan. In fact, the Dems haven't offered a budget for years now.The Democrats have offered no proposed solution to the problem and don't even seem to acknowledge there's a problem.
Romney claims he has a solution, but for some reason isn't offering it. That likely means he's full of crap or the proposal is crap.
Ryan has offered a proposal, but his voting record indicates that he either doesn't believe in it or won't follow through with it. And even if he would, he'd be VP, which doesn't give him much power as long as Romney would be alive.
Basically, no-one is going to get us out of this mess in the next four years.
- IL · Member since 2012 · 29 posts · 9 votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
Mike B. The reason he couldn't get anything passed was that his own party doesn't agree with some of his extreme policies, or his budget.It doesn't matter who opposed him, Karen. The fact is he faced opposition, and you said he didn't. It seems disingenuous to say his "extreme" policies have failed when they haven't been implemented due to opposition.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Mike B.:
Originally posted by J Scott:
There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism (we shouldn't be spending more than we bring in)Great post. I'm confused by the bolded, though.
That wasn't bolded in my original post...not sure where it got mangled!
- IL · Member since 2012 · 29 posts · 9 votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Mike B.:
Originally posted by J Scott:
There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism (we shouldn't be spending more than we bring in)Great post. I'm confused by the bolded, though.
That wasn't bolded in my original post...not sure where it got mangled!
I bolded it for easy reference. I wanted to quote your whole post because I liked it so much, so I just bolded the part that confused me so I could ask you about it. Next time I'll be sure to note that the bolding is mine. Sorry about that!
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Mike B.:
Originally posted by J Scott:
There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism (we shouldn't be spending more than we bring in)Great post. I'm confused by the bolded, though.
Okay, now I understand. I thought you meant I bolded it and you were confused why I put that in bold... :)
Anyway, yes, I think (hope!) we're all in agreement that reducing the deficit/debt should be one of the biggest -- if not the biggest -- goal for the future of this country.
But, clearly the left and the right don't approach the problem the same way, and the solutions are often wildly divergent. My point above -- had I been more clear -- would have been:
I wholeheartedly believe that the correct government spending can fuel an economic boom that can increase GDP and revenue far past the spending itself. Most economists agree -- and it's been proven time and again during all our historical military conflicts where we've spent lots and lots of money.
I'm not sure if the Right disputes this fact (that spending can lead to increased revenue), but they certainly believe that the heart of solving the problem lies in major reductions in government spending.
My point above is that while I agree that spending can fuel an economic boom, I'm also in agreement that spending less and cutting budgets is a necessary part of the solution.
In other words, I think it's a two-pronged approach, as opposed to the single prong that each of the Dems and Republicans like to espouse.
Here's what I generally think needs to be done (this is very general, and admittedly I don't have any heroic plan for how the specifics would work):
1. Increase spending in areas that generate long-term economic success -- primarily education, research, medicine and small business support. Historically, this country has been so wealthy because we've been innovators -- but we're quickly losing that. Pump money into overhauling the education system (not the current public school system), technology and medical research and programs like the SBA, and in 20 years, we'll be leading the world in innovation once again, and our economy will reflect it.
2. Overhaul every major part of our social and welfare systems. This includes healthcare. Clayton Christensen has researched and written extensively on how we could overhaul our healthcare system to make it more efficient, more effective and MUCH less costly -- the problem is that the current insurers are making so much money they have no incentive to overhaul anything. But, by overhauling the health care system in this country, along with welfare and retirement programs, we can do everything we're currently trying to do with a lot less money and a lot fewer people (fewer government jobs is a good thing).
3. Decrease spending across the board. Cut the budget of every government agency in the country, and let the leaders of those agencies figure out how to deal with it. Coming from a corporate background, I can guarantee this works -- every organization has a lot of overhead, and if you force the heads of the organization to trim the fat, it will happen without any loss of effectiveness.
4. Overhaul our military budgeting system. I used to work for the DoD and a DoD contractor, so I'm not completely naive on the topic (though mostly). Regardless, several high ranking members of the military have come out and said our military could operate just as effectively and without any additional threat to our nation on a smaller budget. Let's give them the opportunity to try it.
5. Reduce corruption. I could write a book on my thoughts here, but given that I have absolutely no expertise on the topic whatsoever, it would probably be a waste of a book. That said, clearly there is plenty of fiscal corruption in our government, and someone needs to be in charge of doing something about it.
If we did all of that, both the Democrats and the Republicans SHOULD be happy (they won't be, because they'll have had to compromise, but they should be).
And while many Americans would no-doubt have to make sacrifices, in 10 years we'll all forget how it "used to be," and will be much happier knowing that our kids will inherit a country that isn't on the brink of bankruptcy.
Notice I didn't say anything about taxes. Personally, I think we should raise taxes on the wealthy, but ONLY AFTER we've reformed the government to the point where the money isn't just going down the tubes.
- Real Estate Investor · Forked River, NJ · Member since 2011 · 96 posts · 10 votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
The Democrats have offered no proposed solution to the problem and don't even seem to acknowledge there's a problem.J Scott, let me start by saying I've enjoyed reading your posts.
During the whole debt limit debacle, President Obama was very interested in a "grand bargain" type deal which would tackle entitlement spending. The Republicans rejected it because they refused to entertain any deal that included even 1 cent of revenue increases.
This country's debt problem cannot be solved by cuts alone. Increased revenue has to be part of the solution. It is a mathematical necessity (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/12/news/economy/boehner_spending_cuts/index.htm).
Obama was willing to buck his own party on entitlements. Earlier this year, all of the Republican presidential candidates (Romney included) stood on a debate stage said they would reject a deal even if it was 10 to 1 cuts to increases, on the grounds that revenue increases were off the table.
I'd argue that the best way to cut spending is to force compromise by voting Obama for President and Republicans for the House. The Senate is a worthless institution since the minority will obstruct everything regardless of who is in power.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
J Scott, I think you almost got it, the right is using the deficit and reduction of spending as the basis to get rid of social programs, especially those not in line with abortion, health care, education just to name a few, as these can all have private interests providing services for profit. It's not that slimming down and infusing capital would not work, but why do that when such an opportunity exists to slash and burn?
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Greg NJ:
J Scott, let me start by saying I've enjoyed reading your posts.During the whole debt limit debacle, President Obama was very interested in a "grand bargain" type deal which would tackle entitlement spending. The Republicans rejected it because they refused to entertain any deal that included even 1 cent of revenue increases.
Greg -
I completely agree with you, but there's more to it.
The Right is completely ideological and inflexible, and they're willing to screw this country over in order get their way -- they've proven over the past 3 years that they care more about themselves and their big business cronies than they do about the American people.
Obama, on the other hand, is more flexible and pragmatic, but doesn't have the political prowess to actually accomplish anything in the face of the brick wall the Republicans have set up in Congress. Obama is too much about compromise; he's working too hard to keep those on both sides of the aisle happy and doesn't recognize this is an impossible task; ultimately, he is just causing gridlock and wasted time, effort and money.
Here's the problem I have (and I'd bet a lot of other people also have) -- I tend to be a lot more fiscally conservative than the current base of Democrats and a lot more socially liberal than the current base of Republicans, so people like me need to make a hard decision -- vote for the party that seems to not mind a growing deficit/debt (despite what they say) and is doing what I support socially, or vote for the party that seems to want to control the growing deficit/debt (despite what they actually vote for) and is clearly against what I support socially.
It wouldn't be too hard for either side to sway people of my situation...here's all either party would need to do to sway enough moderate voters to easily win the White House:
If the current crop of Bible-thumping Republicans would check their Conservative Cheat Sheets and remember that being Conservative means less government intervention in our lives, not creating more laws to force a single religion's morality on the country, I think a lot of people like me would be able to put the social issues on the back-burner long enough to at least listen to their fiscal plan and give them some consideration.
And if the current crop of bleeding-heart Democrats would use their common sense to recognize that if you don't pass a budget for multiple years straight, fiscal responsibility probably isn't high on your To-Do List. In addition, there are a lot of Americans who work hard, and while many of us care about those who are truly in need (and recognize that many American really, truly are in need), we still want checks and balances on where our tax money is going -- I don't like seeing people buying beer with food stamps, especially when they drive off in a car nicer than mine. If the Democrats were to at least acknowledge that there are people taking advantage of the system and at least provide a plan for reducing the debt/deficit instead of ignore it, I think a lot of people like me would be all ears.
If either party were to do that, they'd be in a lot better off shape come this election day. Unfortunately, both sides are controlled by ideologues who care more about their own ego, wallets and desires than they do about the American people.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
Hey, I hear ya J. Scott, but I don't think you can buy beer with food stamps in any state, it would be illegal and it would be the store in the bag with the buyer here. Probably what you saw was them getting beer with the money they saved on food with the food stamps! I agree.....the car issue should be addressed, allowing one car it could be a Bently, maybe a valuation would be better for assets.
Won't be long and this will get moved to the political thread....LOL
- Investor · Southeast, MI · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes14y
I think the original post was what we think about Romney's choice of Paul Ryan for V.P.
I have been a fan of Paul Ryan for several years now. He understands that this country is on a downward financial spiral and that deep cuts are going to have to be made.
Mitt Romney is not my first choice. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Since I want Obama defeated in November, I will vote for anyone that has the best chance of beating him. I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for Romney. I would even vote for Santorum or Gingrich, although I might throw up right afterward. Having said all of that, Paul Ryan makes it a little less painful to vote for Romney. If Romney had chosen Condoleeza Rice or General Petraeus, I would have a much more difficult time voting for him.
Yesterday, the subject of Paul Ryan came up. The first thing that someone in the conversation said was, "He's going to cut social security. I'm 68 years old and I'm entitled to my money." I had to point out that she's not "entitled" to anything. We can not afford to keep going in the direction that we are. People like me who are under 40 have no hope of getting a social security check. It's a Ponzi scheme anyway. We also understand that our kids are going to have to pay off this massive debt.
Paul Ryan understands all of this. He is the type of numbers nerd that we need looking over the books.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Rob K -
I voted for Ron Paul last time as well. If I thought he could win, I'd vote for him again this time...
Originally posted by Rob K:
He understands that this country is on a downward financial spiral and that deep cuts are going to have to be made.I don't mind Paul Ryan at all (seems like a smart guy who has some decent ideas), but that description of him is not at all consistent with his voting record. As I mentioned above, he voted for TARP, he voted for the auto bailouts, he voted for Medicare expansion, he voted for housing subsidies, he voted for unemployment extensions and he voted for the 2008 and 2009 stimulus.
Hardly the kind of record that indicates he's for "deep cuts."
So, is the true Paul Ryan the one that's talking or the one that's voting? And how will we know before it's too late?
Yesterday, the subject of Paul Ryan came up. The first thing that someone in the conversation said was, "He's going to cut social security. I'm 68 years old and I'm entitled to my money." I had to point out that she's not "entitled" to anything.So, if someone is *forced* to pay money into Social Security for 40 years, they are not entitled to get the benefit of that money upon retirement? I disagree.
Are there other agreements with the American people that the government is allowed to just ignore? Who determines which agreements must be upheld and which can be thrown out?
Do you believe the government should have the ability to take our private retirement funds as well? Or just our social security money? What's the difference?
- Real Estate Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2010 · 449 posts · 173 votes14y
I'm cautiously optimistic about Ryan. For all the misgivings about his budget proposal, at least there is an attempt there to make a plan to address our long term problems. Even if there are 10 rounds of compromise required to arrive at a plan that both sides are comfortable with, the process always had to start with someone sticking their necks out and taking that first stab at it. Agree or disagree, he has done that. Now I think it is on the democrats to come up with a counter-proposal which also balances the budget, while avoiding the cuts in Ryan's budget that they don't like.
One trap I think some people fall into when responding to the Ryan plan is this: they look at, say the portion concerning medicare, and compare what is available today with what is proposed for 2033 in his budget. What is proposed is not as attractive as what is available today, so it is interpreted that things are being taken away. I think the more valid comparison to make is to compare what we will have in 2033 if we continue along our current trajectory versus what is in the plan. Considering that Medicare could quite easily be bankrupt by then if we continue as we have been, then the budget certainly seems less like it is taking things away.
Overall, J Scott's description of where he stands - socially liberal, but fiscally conservative - best describes my position.
The things that make me lean republican are that I strongly believe in free enterprise and personal responsibility. I think too much welfare (except in the case where a person is genuinely down on their luck) erodes personal responsibility by making it somebody else's problem. I'm against higher taxes, not because I'm greedy, or because I don't want to help poor people, but because I believe that small businesses and successful individuals generally do a much better job of moving money around in a way that benefits society than does government.
For example, suppose that under an Obama government, I am taxed an additional $10,000 per year. Over 2 or 3 years that is enough money to make a downpayment on a property. What happens if I were allowed to keep that money and actually bought that property? Well, as you all know well, properties are tricky little muthas to get up and running and generating cash flow, especially in the early months. Suddenly, I am spending money on real estate agents, title companies, painters, handymen, carpenters, roofers, electricians, lawn mowers, Home depot, the list goes on and on and on. In other words, money is going into the economy. And it happening efficiently because it goes directly from me to all of the above, without middlemen in most cases. And it is done without waste, because these properties represent my family's future financial security - since I have a stake, I take responsibility for what I'm doing.
Now if none of the above happens, and instead the money goes to the government, then what happens? Sure some of it might go to fund some programs which are worthwhile. But before it reaches it's intended recipients, it is filtered through government agency after government agency, and sadly, much of it is wasted on the running costs of these agencies.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
Harry, just wonder how you figure 10k more in taxes on BO's watch as they have cut many taxes.
What's good about Ryan? He's a Washington insider (yes, that can be good) as he is more awar of the operations of government (I'm sure) than Romney would be.....the technical side. He is a good communicator and his youth is a plus as he probably won't fall down steps like Ford. He's an intelligent guy.
Actually, I'm a fiscal conservative, very much so, as to waste and abuse (after all I'm an old auditor). I'm totally against the political loopholes for congress to tag pork to unrealted bills. Pork should stand on its own. And, like those above socially to the left of dead center, but not far left.
I'm empathetic toward the poor and disabled with needs and critical of the get-overs too, but recognize there will always be the get-overs, as there are also the get-over wealthy with corporate welfare.
Thought I'd clarify as it was sounding like I was a far lefty......
- IL · Member since 2012 · 29 posts · 9 votes14y
Originally posted by Harry M.:
I'm against higher taxes, not because I'm greedy, or because I don't want to help poor people, but because I believe that small businesses and successful individuals generally do a much better job of moving money around in a way that benefits society than does government.For example, suppose that under an Obama government, I am taxed an additional $10,000 per year. Over 2 or 3 years that is enough money to make a downpayment on a property. What happens if I were allowed to keep that money and actually bought that property? Well, as you all know well, properties are tricky little muthas to get up and running and generating cash flow, especially in the early months. Suddenly, I am spending money on real estate agents, title companies, painters, handymen, carpenters, roofers, electricians, lawn mowers, Home depot, the list goes on and on and on. In other words, money is going into the economy. And it happening efficiently because it goes directly from me to all of the above, without middlemen in most cases. And it is done without waste, because these properties represent my family's future financial security - since I have a stake, I take responsibility for what I'm doing.
Now if none of the above happens, and instead the money goes to the government, then what happens? Sure some of it might go to fund some programs which are worthwhile. But before it reaches it's intended recipients, it is filtered through government agency after government agency, and sadly, much of it is wasted on the running costs of these agencies.
I'm not a mathematician or anything, but for your taxes to go up 10K per year you need to be grossing like 250K per year, making you filthy rich IMO :) You'll be able to retire comfortably in a few years at that pace, especially in Dallas. Other people need that money way more than you need an extra property every three years. Like our veterans, for instance. And our veterans will spend the money better than any rich person. They can't afford to put it in offshore accounts to avoid taxes. They shop at home depot, too.
Bottom line is somebody's gotta pay for these countries that we decided to destroy and then rebuild. So either you give up your 10K and retire in 6 years instead of 5, or we take the pensions of teachers and cops to make sure that they have to work every day until they're dead.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
And Harry, the CBO has given the analysis on the budget cuts and they don't compare the savings of today to future allocations, each year is onsidered and brought back to a present value as used for appropriated and non-appropriated funds. SO it's apples and apples, sounds like something Rush would have said.....
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.