Paul Ryan Still Doesn't Get it.

Paul Ryan is politically tone-deaf as he says 'I'm not for raising tax rates'

Rep. Paul Ryan sat down Tuesday with ABC News' senior political correspondent Jonathan Karl for his first interview since his devastating defeat on election day and once again showed he is out of touch with the mainstream of even his own party.
The biggest news and most startling news to come out of this interview is Paul Ryan's statement that "I'm not for raising tax rates." Paul Ryan is still appealing to his base, a quickly dwindling base.
The reality is that President Obama is willing to take the tax debate to the wall and allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire and force the Republicans to then vote on tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000 a year. The "I'm not for raising tax rates" is a clear statement of Paul Ryan's political tone-deafness, knowing that the President's position will prevail.
Paul Ryan, who is trying to become a national leader of the Republican Party, is anxious to paint his devastating defeat in a good light.




Video: Paul Ryan is politically tone-deaf as he says 'I'm not for raising tax rates'


Paul Ryan did not say he opposes raising of revenues and favors closing loopholes and deductions in order to enhance revenues. Ryan also commented on House Speaker John Boehner derisive remarks that "Paul Ryan is a policy wonk," to which Ryan said took it "as a great compliment" Nevertheless, the tension between Speaker Boehner and Paul Ryan's Tea Party wing is real and is something that in the past handicapped Boehner in the 2011 negotiations with President Obama.
Paul Ryan is considered a sure thing to run for President in 2016, but in the House of Representatives he is just one of 435. Speaker John Boehner is reasserting his leadership and solidifying his power and a successful tax and budget bill will only strengthen Speaker Boehner.
Speaker Boehner does not need Paul Ryan undermining his efforts once again.
This, on the same day that President Barack Obama set the bar very high for the upcoming negotiations, by saying to labor leaders and progressive leaders that he is calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade. $1.6 trillion is far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.
President Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden met in the West Wing of the White House with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Executive Director of the Center for Community Change Deepak Bhargaua, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Justin Ruben and International President of the Service Employee International Union Mary Kay Henry. The meeting also included AFSCME, the woman's group AAUW and the liberal think-tank Center for American Progress. All were active in Obama's re-election effort, and Obama could call on them for help as he makes his case to the American people for his "balanced" approach to cutting the country's yawning deficit problem.
"We are very, very committed so that the middle class and workers don't end up paying the tab for a party we didn't get to go to, and the president is committed to that as well," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in front of the White House's West Wing following the meeting.
The participants in the meeting voiced their opposition to changes in Medicare and Social Security, including opposing changes in the eligibility ages of those programs.
President Obama will meet with chief executives of a dozen companies today and on Friday will meet with congressional leaders from the Democratic and Republican parties.

http://www.examiner.com/article/paul...sing-tax-rates

What part don't you understand? More people voted for a GOP congress than voted for Obama. That would indicate to me that more people want fiscal responsibility than increased taxes on the rich (job providers).

What part don't you understand? More people voted for a GOP congress than voted for Obama. That would indicate to me that more people want fiscal responsibility than increased taxes on the rich (job providers). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Gerrymandering is a figment of the imagination i guess

key word being "for" .. in the perfect world not one single politician is for higher taxes, NOT ONE

in the not too distant future "for" will become "must" and that all she wrote ..

What part don't you understand? More people voted for a GOP congress than voted for Obama. That would indicate to me that more people want fiscal responsibility than increased taxes on the rich (job providers). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Looks like you still don't get it either.

The so called Job providers have had the Bush tax cuts for years, where are the jobs they were supposed to create?

Barack Obama is the president, he was re-elected, he will not sign anything that allows the rich to have continued tax breaks. The Congress can pass laws all day, if he don't sign them, they don't happen.

The Bush tax cuts reduced my taxes and I am not rich. Stop the lie, the election is over. Obama already resigned the Bush tax cuts remember. And those jobs created that Obama likes to take credit for...there are your Bush tax cuts. You can't have it both ways...then again, maybe you do take it both ways.

Read your Constitution, Obama can't pass a law without Congress. Separate but equal branches.

Read your Constitution, Obama can't pass a law without Congress. Separate but equal branches. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There is what you don't understand old man. The tax cuts are gong to expire! He doesn't have to pass any law...all he has to do is not sign another extension!

Kiss the tax cuts for the "job creators" goodbye old man.

And we are surprised, how?

Now, markroxny, take it easy on the old (and probably white) men - I'm past 60. I just don't have a terminal case of backinthedaysbeforethecivilwar-itis. But, at least I don't either lie about my marathon time or admire someone who does - heh heh heh!

JDB, as usual you're too cute by half - half-wit, that is. Guess you forgot about the automatic nature of the expiration, heh? Dumbass...

The Bush tax cuts reduced my taxes and I am not rich. Stop the lie, the election is over. Obama already resigned the Bush tax cuts remember. And those jobs created that Obama likes to take credit for...there are your Bush tax cuts. You can't have it both ways...then again, maybe you do take it both ways.

Read your Constitution, Obama can't pass a law without Congress. Separate but equal branches. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

then under the proposed tax structure your tax responsibility wont see any increases

simple enough eh ...

What part don't you understand? More people voted for a GOP congress than voted for Obama. That would indicate to me that more people want fiscal responsibility than increased taxes on the rich (job providers). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You know, the GOP maintained its advantage in the house (though lost ground) and lost ground in the Senate.

Obama wins the popular vote by several million.

HOW DOES YOUR STATEMENT MAKE SENSE?

If more people voted republican, then I guess you wouldn't be whining so hard today! Maybe you would.

BTW -- separate but equal is NOT a reference to the branches of government, you racist motherfucker.

Apparently Assup did poorly in school. But that is no surprise. He gave even his best teachers very little to work with.

This is from a teacher's website discussing the "separate but equal" branches of government. I don't know how that is racist, but Assup sees hate and racism everywhere, because he is a hater and racist. That's how they are.

Now for the civics lesson:

The powers of our federal (national) government are divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The branches are separate but equal. They each have special responsibilities concerning laws, the principles that govern our nation.

For those of you who care to learn, here is the website:

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/a...separate-equal

And please, don't tell Assup that, once again, I made him look like the ignorant moron he is. It will only make him upset.

<<<Assup // COG>>>

What part don't you understand? More people voted for a GOP congress than voted for Obama. That would indicate to me that more people want fiscal responsibility than increased taxes on the rich (job providers). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

given that logic lets cut to the chase


more people voted for Obama, and elected him president for a second term ... he was elected on a platform FOR raising taxes on incomes above 250K ... it was no surprise exactly what his intentions were then or are now for the tax cuts ...

that would indicate to me more people want fiscal responsibility based on the presidents tax reform plan ... not the tax plan thats been in place for well over a decade and has done very little, if anything to stabilize the economy or produce jobs.