• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Paul Ryan: 'It Would Take Me Too Long' To Explain Mitt Romney's Tax Plan

Now, if you really want to argue about something I would suggest that whether or not Paul Ryan has time to present his position in spreadsheet form should be the least of anyone's concerns.
An accountant is trying to tell me "The numbers don't matter"? :shock:
 
An accountant is trying to tell me "The numbers don't matter"? :shock:

LOL!!

Not exactly. What I'm saying [and have been saying all through this discussion] is that the circumstances of the interview made it impractical to get into a full blown numbers discussion right then. The numbers absolutely matter but Wallace was asking for something that Ryan couldn't reasonably give him under those conditions.

Look, Wallace tossed Ryan a meatball with the Obama clip. Ryan had the opportunity to knock it out of the park but chose to bunt. It wasn't the home run it could have been but he didn't whiff either and ultimately that decision is much less important than the differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan which everyone seems to be ignoring. Both plans raise taxes on those with higher incomes but they go about it differently and that is what's important.
 
The details that he didn't have time to explain in this interview should come out in his debate with Biden. As for which tax deductions will be eliminated he should state those he would prefer but it honestly will depend on negotiations with Congress. I love the proposal to eliminate taxes on interest earned. Once rates begoin to go up again that will be a big help to the middle class and an incentive to save.
 
LOL!!

Not exactly. What I'm saying [and have been saying all through this discussion] is that the circumstances of the interview made it impractical to get into a full blown numbers discussion right then. The numbers absolutely matter but Wallace was asking for something that Ryan couldn't reasonably give him under those conditions.

Look, Wallace tossed Ryan a meatball with the Obama clip. Ryan had the opportunity to knock it out of the park but chose to bunt. It wasn't the home run it could have been but he didn't whiff either and ultimately that decision is much less important than the differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan which everyone seems to be ignoring. Both plans raise taxes on those with higher incomes but they go about it differently and that is what's important.

Again, the problem is that the Romney campaign has flat-out refused to produce the numbers ANYWHERE. That's why Romney's program can't even be scored.
 
Again, the problem is that the Romney campaign has flat-out refused to produce the numbers ANYWHERE. That's why Romney's program can't even be scored.

The Tax Policy Center managed to score it....which is why Wallace asked the question in the first place. What TPC didn't have in their analysis was the deductions that would be eliminated or reduced or at what level those phase outs would happen.
 
LOL!!

Not exactly. What I'm saying [and have been saying all through this discussion] is that the circumstances of the interview made it impractical to get into a full blown numbers discussion right then. The numbers absolutely matter but Wallace was asking for something that Ryan couldn't reasonably give him under those conditions.
Again;
me_earlier_in_the_thread said:
Ryan could have said "I'll get that to you",
That fits into the interview. :2razz: , that is entirely reasonable under the conditions, and THAT is how we know that "it would take too long" is a lame excuse to cover for the real reason. What is the real reason? *shrug* We can't determine precisely because we are getting non-answers.

You really don't get the sense from that you are being handed "half truths, misleading statements and outright bull****" by Paul "candidate for elected office" Ryan?
Look, Wallace tossed Ryan a meatball with the Obama clip. Ryan had the opportunity to knock it out of the park but chose to bunt. It wasn't the home run it could have been but he didn't whiff either and ultimately that decision is much less important than the differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan which everyone seems to be ignoring. Both plans raise taxes on those with higher incomes but they go about it differently and that is what's important.
Both plans allegedly do so, and each with certain side effects. Devil's in the details...where-by details means numbers, and when someone is holding out on numbers...:ninja:

If a client was doing that to you they'd be very quickly a non-client right? So why are you letting yourself get snowed here?
 
Again;

That fits into the interview. :2razz: , that is entirely reasonable under the conditions, and THAT is how we know that "it would take too long" is a lame excuse to cover for the real reason. What is the real reason? *shrug* We can't determine precisely because we are getting non-answers.

You really don't get the sense from that you are being handed "half truths, misleading statements and outright bull****" by Paul "candidate for elected office" Ryan?

Both plans allegedly do so, and each with certain side effects. Devil's in the details...where-by details means numbers, and when someone is holding out on numbers...:ninja:

If a client was doing that to you they'd be very quickly a non-client right? So why are you letting yourself get snowed here?

When I'm interviewing a client I expect generalizations because most of the time they don't even know what it is I need to know.

When I choose to take them on as a client it's a different story and yes, I have terminated relationships with clients because they fail to get me reasonable data.
 
Unfortunately for Mr. Ryan:
1) I, and I would hope you, expect that info before full sign-up on Nov 6 since invoking termination on his contract is a bear after that.
2) I would hope he does know what is needed already. He should have a file folder on his desk/file directory on his computer marked "fix the f&*$ing tax system", or something like that, right? :2razz:
 
Unfortunately for Mr. Ryan:
1) I, and I would hope you, expect that info before full sign-up on Nov 6 since invoking termination on his contract is a bear after that.
2) I would hope he does know what is needed already. He should have a file folder on his desk/file directory on his computer marked "fix the f&*$ing tax system", or something like that, right? :2razz:

Well, Dwight, there is a big difference between Paul Ryan and a client....I don't have clients running against each other for a seat at my desk.

You may have noticed that over the years there has been a significant dearth of "real" numbers presented in campaigns. Candidates love to spout numbers but they generally mean nothing. We had all kinds of numbers presented for health care and even now, 3 years after it passed, we still don't have all the numbers and those that we do have are a long, long way from what was presented.

This is a campaign. If a campaigner gives specific numbers there is going to be an ad 2 years from now showing how those numbers were wrong. No sane candidate gives hard numbers. The just give "wish lists". And you know what? That IS acceptable because what we're actually looking for is the path that the candidate plans on walking us down rather than an inventory of the mile markers. Everybody is on this numbers trip right now because Bill Clinton got out on stage and presented a whole bunch of mathematical "facts" which, even the like of the Washington post found questionable (here)

What we have here is a difference in the way candidates choose to use present issues. Obama likes to give numbers and then, when they don't pan out, he blames Republicans. Ryan simple chose to avoid giving out specifics....so he gets blamed by Democrats.
 
Well, Dwight, there is a big difference between Paul Ryan and a client....I don’t have clients running against each other for a seat at my desk.
So that means you should expect less? :shock:
You may have noticed that over the years there has been a significant dearth of “real” numbers presented in campaigns.
So when asked for them we should expect to get blown off with “half truths, misleading statements and outright bull**** by candidates for elected office”?
Candidates love to spout numbers but they generally mean nothing. We had all kinds of numbers presented for health care and even now, 3 years after it passed, we still don’t have all the numbers and those that we do have are a long, long way from what was presented.
Starting point, ballparks. There are unknown but at least getting the assumptions out there so they can be discussed, rather these decisions being made on emotional rants, who was diddling their maid, who loves Jesus/babies/apple pie more, and other assorted crap.
If a campaigner gives specific numbers there is going to be an ad 2 years from now showing how those numbers were wrong. No sane candidate gives hard numbers.
“This is what I propose we do, this is how that works.” Even vaguely ballpark, because yeah gathering all the. Right now their claims simply don’t make a lick of sense, without a serious shift of tax load percentages towards the middle class or some other rather sizable thing they are leaving out. It has con game written all over it.

<snip your example of exactly why numbers are important>

Lets say that someone wants to play numbers con artist and tries to mess with them later? *shrug* The solution to someone lying about something isn’ t to stop talking about the whole subject, just like the solution to someone saying something stupid isn’t to ban that speech. This is about growing the fck up as a society, and we don’t do that by giving a pass this sort of crap. Information void is NOT the answer. Exactly BECAUSE of that article you linked.

P.S. I’ve been on a ‘numbers kick’ for several decades. But then I’m pro-Enlightenment. Maybe that is where the “style” difference comes in, because more and more the GOP isn’t. Go feudal dark ages! :elephantf
 
Last edited:
“You haven’t given me the math,” Wallace said in one exchange.
“I don’t have the ... It would take me too long to go through all of the math,” Ryan responded.

You can take every single word and action from the Republicans over the past four years and they are all perfectly crystalized into that Ryan response.

The Dems should take that and make a commercial ad with it. It is the personification of GOP vapidness and dishonesty.
 
So that means you should expect less? :shock:

So when asked for them we should expect to get blown off with “half truths, misleading statements and outright bull**** by candidates for elected office”?

Starting point, ballparks. There are unknown but at least getting the assumptions out there so they can be discussed, rather these decisions being made on emotional rants, who was diddling their maid, who loves Jesus/babies/apple pie more, and other assorted crap.

“This is what I propose we do, this is how that works.” Even vaguely ballpark, because yeah gathering all the. Right now their claims simply don’t make a lick of sense, without a serious shift of tax load percentages towards the middle class or some other rather sizable thing they are leaving out. It has con game written all over it.

<snip your example of exactly why numbers are important>

Lets say that someone wants to play numbers con artist and tries to mess with them later? *shrug* The solution to someone lying about something isn’ t to stop talking about the whole subject, just like the solution to someone saying something stupid isn’t to ban that speech. This is about growing the fck up as a society, and we don’t do that by giving a pass this sort of crap. Information void is NOT the answer. Exactly BECAUSE of that article you linked.

P.S. I’ve been on a ‘numbers kick’ for several decades. But then I’m pro-Enlightenment. Maybe that is where the “style” difference comes in, because more and more the GOP isn’t. Go feudal dark ages! :elephantf

*Sigh

If you want to talk hard numbers then let's start a thread for that. Otherwise, both the Obama plan and the Romney plan are out there and both of them have their own version of what they believe their numbers will look like (as far as they go).

What I expect in a candidate, Dwight, is that during their campaign they address ALL the issues. I also expect them to go through the process bit by bit but I really don't expect the spreadsheets because the odds of anything on those spreadsheets other than, maybe, the headers coming out the way it's presented is nil. It just won't happen. Like I keep on saying, this Ryan issue is nothing but campaigning and the agitation that some are expressing over this issue is exactly what the Obama campaign wants because it distracts from all the **** wrong with their campaign. It's just games at this point and I tend to vote based on track record. Obama's track record on the economy sucks and as far as I'm concerned he has proposed absolutely nothing that will get it to un-suck.
 
Back
Top Bottom