1. gary says

    this made my head explode (which maybe is a good thing – who knows). lower the tax rate by 20% and close unspecified loopholes and it is revenue neutral? is this an example of “new math”?

  2. robert says

    1. A game, usually involving gambling, in which a person hides a small object underneath one of three nutshells, thimbles, or cups, then shuffles them about on a flat surface while spectators try to guess the final location of the object. Also called thimblerig.
    2. A fraud or deception perpetrated by shifting conspicuous things to hide something else.
    — American Heritage Dictionary

  3. e.c. says

    Paul you don’t need to explain ALL the math to us, but how about you give just ONE example of a loophole you would close and how much that would save.

    We’re waiting….

  4. ChristopherM says

    This from a guy who “forgot” $60,000 in income and had to submit an amended tax return, conveniently on the day Money Boo Boo released his 2011 taxes so that no one would talk about it. Some money genius the GOP has there.

  5. Joel says

    They won’t even explain their generalities. Are they making rates 20% smaller or are they reducing rates by 20%? For instance, I pay 20%. If they make my rate 20% smaller, that makes my new rate 16%; if they reduce rates by 20%, then I pay 0%. If, like most middle class Americans, I only pay about 12%, then a 20% reduction in rate would only be a net change of 2.4%.

    Also, I fail to see how something “revenue neutral” gives people MORE money. If it’s revenue neutral, then won’t people just be keeping the same amount of money? I have no idea how you can campaign on something that essentially promises to change nobody’s life and only serves to make your accountant’s job easier.

    Can anyone explain this to me, because I really don’t understand and I really want to.

  6. Miguel R. says

    Wow, all those Gay Republicans silent on this one? Hmmm…
    Here’s the translation: You people are too stupid to understand how my gutting popular social programs and giving that money to the rich benefits you.
    Not a good look, Ryan. Not a good look.

  7. bkmn says

    “Times R tuff, so the gullible public should trust my Eddy Munster hair and my pretty lips and sparkly eyes. Ignore the Koch brothers hands up my ass everyone, that is a feature, not a liability.”

  8. Will says

    Is it bad that this poor man reminds me of one of those monkeys that sits on a street vendor’s shoulder and winds up a music box?

  9. Andrew says

    The scary thing to me is that a Republican party so out of touch with what the majority of Americans want is so close to the democrats in the polls.

  10. i could go on, but I won't says

    The Republicans have had a plan to destroy social security by running up huge federal deficits for a long time. Part of that plan is to cut taxes because that reduces government revenue and is always popular.

    As to cutting costs or eliminating loopholes which are both unpopular they have no serious intentions. When the deficit becomes un-fundable they will have accomplished their real goal.

    Bush/Cheney carried out a major step in that direction and Romney/Ryan will complete the task if they are elected.

  11. says

    And this shameful toad has the temerity to ask the American people to vote him Vice President.

    He is an offensive little reptile……(hmmm, is a toad a reptile ?)

    Anyhow I say he is a member of Opus Dei and they are allowed to lie.

  12. Rob Zeleniak says

    What an extraordinary charlatan. They say he’s a “really smart, nice guy.” I think he’s not all that adept at speaking and has a somewhat deliberate delivery I find annoying and haughty.

  13. Tanoka says

    Of course he won’t explain! That would confuse their voter base and chase away the independents. Numbers and logic that don’t add up isn’t a good platform to run on. Fear, bigotry, and God seems to be working for them, though.

    I am so looking forward to the debates!

  14. john patrick says

    I think someone among the punditry must have bought the Republicant party assertion that Ryan is smart and an expert in taxes and wonky. Then the belief spread throughout fellow pundits and the MSM. But I agree with Rob Zeleniak that he is a charlatan. What he offers is an attempt at a smokescreen to cover his plans to destroy Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and to stick it to the poor and middle classes so he and his fellow rich people can enjoy more and more riches till they die and are buried and turn to dust.

  15. says

    Funny.. I’ve been getting messages on my smart phone about my 4G connection being “wonky.” In that sense, it means it’s unreliable to a point where it doesn’t work.
    So I guess it’s true that Ryan “doesn’t want to get too wonky.” Problem is, it’s too late.

  16. Jeffrey says

    Yet another reason Romney isn’t qualified to be president, let alone wipe President Obama’s ass!

  17. Henry says

    Theoretically this is actually a good idea. Make tax simpler is a conservative value (at least over here in the the UK), but it’s sad he doesn’t have – to hand or in memory – a list of loopholes to be closed. It is quite logical that rates can be lower when the ridiculous list of ‘loopholes’ (or exemptions as they are better called in the UK) are closed.

    The logic extends however to closing loopholes but lower taxes meaning those who pay tax won’t pay any more or less. So why bother, other than for cost/complexity reasons? What normally happens is that closing loophole favours the poor as they have fewer to take advantage of. Is this really what’s going to happen? He already lists a few loopholes that he wouldn’t close, health care for example.

    Does he know what the Romney/Ryan ticket are going to do? Perhaps, but there is no evidence that he does, as he refuses to provide it. He’s clearly ticked off by someone who asks anything more than ‘we’re going to lower taxes’.

    A politician at his worst. Full of crap and no evidence to back up anything he says. Dreadful.

  18. e.c. says

    Here’s some simple math for you Paul. If I’m paying an effective rate of 15% your 20% reduction will mean a break for me of 3% down to 12%. Now if I was paying 30% my rate would be reduced 6% down to 24%. So even though “20% for everyone” sounds like we all get the same tax break the more you’re paying (i.e. the wealthier you are) the bigger your return both by percentage of income and in gross dollars.

    But then again since it’s allegedly “revenue neutral” you’re just going to have to eliminate my deductions so that my taxable income will increase and I’ll end up paying the same amount as a “smaller” percentage of a higher income. Because if it’s revenue neutral for the government the it’s gonna be revenue neutral for me too? Right?

    Does that about cover it Paul?

  19. Bob says

    Mitt who wants to be our leader does not have time to tell us how he is going to screw us and thinks 47% of us who are American seniors who worked and paid taxes and put out the fires and policed the streets and fought wars to keep all Americans free and Mitt does not care about us or want to spend the time on us because we are takers. How did this clown even get to run for president? Who the hell did he pay off to get that far?

  20. Jerry6 says

    Mr. Ryan, do you have someone keeping track of all the lies and half truths you have been telling us so that when you next go to confession you can give an accurate account of your Sins to your Confessor?