Paul Ryan will not seek re-election

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, 80Tiger said:

I would like to hear the argument that tax cuts hurt his constituents.

Well here's two easy ones off the top of my head.

1)  The tax cuts are temporary.  When they expire, his constiuents and everyone else in the country will actually pay higher taxes than they were before.

2) According to the CBO, the tax cuts will add at least $1T to the national debt.  Think his constituents want to help pay that, especially the younger ones?

[80Tiger 902]

52 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well here's two easy ones off the top of my head.

1)  The tax cuts are temporary.  When they expire, his constiuents and everyone else in the country will actually pay higher taxes than they were before.

2) According to the CBO, the tax cuts will add at least $1T to the national debt.  Think his constituents want to help pay that, especially the younger ones?

But you have nothing that says his actually constituents are unhappy with the tax cut and the extra money they are currently receiving in their paychecks. Since we are prognosticating for the future,  I would be willing to say that the tax cuts will be extended or made permanent. But even if they do not I imagine the constituents will be mad at the actual people who raise the rates in the future.

As for the debt, we will have to wait and see if those come to fruition. I am of the mind that if congress would get serious about cutting spending, then there will be a positive impact on the debt.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, 80Tiger said:

But you have nothing that says his actually constituents are unhappy with the tax cut and the extra money they are currently receiving in their paychecks. Since we are prognosticating for the future,  I would be willing to say that the tax cuts will be extended or made permanent. But even if they do not I imagine the constituents will be mad at the actual people who raise the rates in the future.

As for the debt, we will have to wait and see if those come to fruition. I am of the mind that if congress would get serious about cutting spending, then there will be a positive impact on the debt.

Well I obviously haven't gone to Janesville, Wisconsin and spoken to his constituents.  But that's not what you asked for.  You asked for "the argument that tax cuts hurt his constituents."  So, I gave you that argument.  If you want to move the goal posts, that's on you.

As for the debt and permanent tax breaks, it doesn't work both ways.  If you lower spending, you still need to up taxes to pay off the massive debt.  A balanced budget only gets you to status quo.  We actually need a surplus right now to pay down loans.  Spending cuts need to made across the board, especially to entitlements, the military, and foreign aid, combined with previous tax rates, in order to start making an impact.  Here's the problem for the GOP and the Dems though: BOTH of their voting bases love entitlement spending!  By the way, the Ryan-led House has shown zero interest in reducing spending.  Or did you miss that massive spending bill that was just passed?

As for this comment: "But even if they do not I imagine the constituents will be mad at the actual people who raise the rates in the future."

If you believe that, then I'm going on record to say his constituents are Bama fan levels of stupid.  Considering the short memories many tend to have at the ballot box though, you're probably right.  It's sad because if the cuts expire in a decade, which I personally hope they do, it was Ryan and the Republicans that actually raised their taxes, not anyone else.

 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So in your eyes, any Congressmen who supports entitlement reform, but then receives a pension under constitutional federal statutory law, is a hypocrite and should be “pissed on”? Or just him?

I'd say in general, not just him.  "Entitlements for me, but not for thee."

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I'd say in general, not just him.  "Entitlements for me, but not for thee."

Titan, can you articulate "entitlements?" In other words, what is it that justifies the term "hypocrite?" 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Titan, can you articulate "entitlements?" In other words, what is it that justifies the term "hypocrite?" 

A guaranteed federal pension is not appreciably different than Social Security (other than the annual amount paid).  Social Security is an entitlement program for retirement benefits.  So is a pension.  

[alexava 6,973]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

A guaranteed federal pension is not appreciably different than Social Security (other than the annual amount paid).  Social Security is an entitlement program for retirement benefits.  So is a pension.  

As was the ss death benefits he received as a minor. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

A guaranteed federal pension is not appreciably different than Social Security (other than the annual amount paid).  Social Security is an entitlement program for retirement benefits.  So is a pension.  

Per my understanding, pensions are "guaranteed," but only after conditions. I suppose that's beside the point. 

So, because he was a proponent of entitlement reform (because the price of programs are rising faster than the funds to pay for them) and yet is a beneficiary of Congressional pension, he's a hypocrite? Just seems a bit tenuous to me. I know you've not made an argument. Thanks for clarifying.

[PUB78 1,363]

Ryan was a weak leader.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Per my understanding, pensions are "guaranteed," but only after conditions. I suppose that's beside the point. 

So, because he was a proponent of entitlement reform (because the price of programs are rising faster than the funds to pay for them) and yet is a beneficiary of Congressional pension, he's a hypocrite? Just seems a bit tenuous to me. I know you've not made an argument. Thanks for clarifying.

If his idea of entitlement reform is to lower benefits to those recipients (who aren't drawing anything close to $79k a year for life in benefits) while not including his generous pension (which most workers these days don't get as almost every company now has 401(k) plans instead) in the belt-tightening, then I think it could reasonably be seen as hypocritical.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If his idea of entitlement reform is to lower benefits to those recipients (who aren't drawing anything close to $79k a year for life in benefits) while not including his generous pension (which most workers these days don't get as almost every company now has 401(k) plans instead) in the belt-tightening, then I think it could reasonably be seen as hypocritical.

But his action would need to be tampered by legislative compromise among his constituents right? If he proposed/supported a bill that decreased Congressional pension, probably wouldn’t draw as many votes in Congress - lesseneing the chance of any changes re reform. Does this make sense?

Now, given my unfamiliarity with such bills, I could be procedurally wayyyyyy off.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

48 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But his action would need to be tampered by legislative compromise among his constituents right? If he proposed/supported a bill that decreased Congressional pension, probably wouldn’t draw as many votes in Congress - lesseneing the chance of any changes re reform. Does this make sense?

Now, given my unfamiliarity with such bills, I could be procedurally wayyyyyy off.

But he didn't even make the effort is the point.  It's one thing to champion reducing Congressional entitlements but being unable to convince your colleagues to go along.  It's entirely another to bang the drum for reducing poor people's benefits while uttering nary a whisper about your own.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But he didn't even make the effort is the point.  It's one thing to champion reducing Congressional entitlements but being unable to convince your colleagues to go along.  It's entirely another to bang the drum for reducing poor people's benefits while uttering nary a whisper about your own.

My view of the legislature differs from yours. The utterances of both Chambers are drawn (or at least should be) from the desires of those who elected them, not personal preference of a legislator. The people’s voice should not be susupensed for the personal preference of individual legislators. Thus, I disagree to infer hypocrisy from silence. Paul Ryan’s position was not one of which his subjective desires were to be pursued. If the people who elected him decried Congressional pensions, yet he remained silent, I might entertain the notion of hypocrisy - but even then, the complexities of the legislative branch could dissuade me from it.

Happy Friday.

[homersapien 11,452]

23 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My view of the legislature differs from yours. The utterances of both Chambers are drawn (or at least should be) from the desires of those who elected them, not personal preference of a legislator. The people’s voice should not be susupensed for the personal preference of individual legislators. Thus, I disagree to infer hypocrisy from silence. Paul Ryan’s position was not one of which his subjective desires were to be pursued. If the people who elected him decried Congressional pensions, yet he remained silent, I might entertain the notion of hypocrisy - but even then, the complexities of the legislative branch could dissuade me from it.

Happy Friday.

Good grief.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Good grief.

 

Good, bye.

[keoson7 28]

this would not even be a discussion, if term limits were in place to send these tax parasites home after a few years..with no pension