Joe Biden thought he had Paul Ryan when he pointed out that Ryan helped two constituents
apply for stimulus funding. Ryan, of course, opposed the stimulus.
Purple Wisconsin blogger, Jim Rowen, takes up the cudgel on this, adding
that Ryan opposed the stimulus on "ideological grounds" which,
actually, is just another way of saying that he thought it was a very
bad idea - as, indeed, it proved to be.
But here's my question for Joe Biden.
Mr.
Vice President, you opposed the across the board reduction in income
tax rates proposed by President George W. Bush and enacted in 2001 and
2003. Those reductions passed over over your objection, as the
stimulus package passed over those of Congressman Ryan.
Have you
paid taxes at the lower rates that you opposed? Have you refused to
take advantage of those lower rates by calculating your taxes using the
higher rates that you preferred to remain in place?
Just wondering.
Cross posted at Purple Wisconsin
9 comments:
Or, did Mitt Romney complain that the Tax Policy Center was a liberal think tank when it tore apart an opponent's tax plan?
Unfinished business, Rick.
I'd also argue it's one thing to do your taxes and pay what the calculations end up saying you need to pay.
It's quite another to submit a letter lauding the jobs to be created by a program you claim won't create any jobs. Especially when you've advocated keynsian stimulus in the past...
http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2012/08/19/paul-ryan-loves-stimulus-spending/
Don't worry, nobody expects you to respond. Just move on to another topic.
Another example of Democrats confusing the normative and positive. Ryan believed that the stimulus should not have been enacted but, once it was, he dealt with the real world. Think of all the votes cast by Senator Obama against the Bush Administration's national security measures, that would conflict with what President Obama has done to maintain national security. For example, because we obtained intelligence that led us to bin Laden's hiding place by waterboarding al-Quatani, was President Obama a hypocrite for using that intelligence to later order bin Laden's assassination?
Anony 12:51, so Ryan dealt with the real world by requesting money that would create jobs?
If this is the case, isn't he then lying if he says the stimulus failed?
Anon 5:26 -- The stimulus was supposed, for example, keep unemployment from ever reaching 8%, and it failed to do so. It was also supposed to bring us the Recovery Summer of 2010, but it didn't. I'd be interested in any evidence you can provide that the stimulus did not fail.
Anony 4:04:
There is plenty of evidence out there that the stimulus did not fail, if you're willing to accept it. Take for instance the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42216
Or, perhaps, a survey of economists by the University of Chicago (hardly a den of left-leaning economics):
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/07/25/the-secret-consensus-among-economists/
So, there is your evidence. Now, if you've closed your mind to contrary evidence and accept only that which you hear on Fox News or WISN, then that probably won't cut it. But even if this is the case, unwillingness to accept objective facts that you don't like doesn't change reality.
Now, you make the point about the promise to not exceed 8 percent. Fair enough, but I would argue it was stupid to make that promise to begin with because the extent of the economic problems we faced was not clear at the time - it was much worse.
So, did it live up to the promise made when the information was imperfect? No, I guess not. But, did it make things better than they otherwise would have been? Yes, clearly. The problem, as you and the Professor and partisan hacks point out, is that that's a hard argument to make.
Look at this way - in two years Governor Walker will be running for reelection. He promised that if elected the State would create 250,000 new jobs. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So I can assume, naturally, that being intellectually honest you will agree he failed and must be removed.
Or to take another example, when Bush's tax cuts passed in '01 and '03, they promised 350,000 jobs per month and never-ending prosperity. That obviously did not happen, therefore I assume you agree his policies of tax cuts failed.
Or, is it possible that when the time comes to decide on whether Mr. Walker deserves reelection, you're going to be arguing something different, and that his economic policies worked, just maybe not as well as promised, especially if there is evidence that this is so, as with the stimulus?
I know which option I'd bet on.
Professor--Have you paid taxes at the lower rates that you opposed? Have you refused to take advantage of those lower rates by calculating your taxes using the higher rates that you preferred to remain in place?
Have YOU ever taken advantage of a law that you had opposed? If yes, then your point is moot. If no, please cite the specific instances. We'll be waiting...
If the stimulus had worked, president obama would be running away with the election. It didn't and he isn't.
Anony 10:16, go back to the drawing board. Refer to the sources provided by Anony 8:20 p.m. and get back to us.
Post a Comment