http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70459.html http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/wydenryan.pdf A quote from another person: Say what you want about Congressman Ryan being an extremist, but he recognizes the need for bipartisanship and working with the other side in this era of great polarization. That is laudable and everyone should acknowledge his willingness to compromise regardless of whether you support his ideas. The tea party doesn't like compromise (neither do Obama or most Democrats, but that's neither here nor there) so Ryan deserves a lot of credit for being willing to compromise his principles. Sure, principles are very important, but compromise is imperative to get things done - and Ryan has shown that he can be pragmatic and not a rigid ideologue. Obama opposed this bipartisan plan.
But Wyden back tracks..... http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/08/sen_wyden_says_romney_is.html
Looks like Romney is caught lying again. He's unable to be honest, whether it's with the IRS or Real Americans. If he weren't so rich he'd likely be in a federal prison.
You might read the Simpson/Bowles report: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf 3) Health Care Cost Containment: Replace the phantom savings from scheduled Medicare reimbursement cuts that will never materialize and from a new long-term care program that is unsustainable with real, common-sense reforms to physician payments, cost-sharing, malpractice law, prescription drug costs, government-subsidized medical education, and other sources. Institute additional long-term measures to bring down spending growth. Cap revenue at 21% of GDP and get spending below 22% and eventually to 21%. 2) Comprehensive Tax Reform: Sharply reduce rates, broaden the base, simplify the tax code, and reduce the deficit by reducing the many “tax expenditures”—another name for spending through the tax code. Reform corporate taxes to make America more competitive, and cap revenue to avoid excessive taxation. (All elements of Ryan's plan)
Did you actually look at the documents in the link? I don't see any trades. Just a lot of entries for dividend income.
The definition of "bipartisanship" is when both parties approve a plan they like, not when a wannabe mass killer of retired people admits that he has no chance unless he suckers congressmen with a conscience into voting with him.
From the article: Denny, in your haste to ridicule whether he examined the statements, your answer makes me believe you looked only at the initial (ledger) pages, not the last (journal) pages. SP appears on some of the irrelevant pages, S and P on the relevant pages. The date 9/18/08 appears on pages 12 and 13. A close date, 9/30/08, appears on page 14. I would assume that they mean sale and purchase, and that you're totally wrong that they are dividends.
That's kind of beneath you. The fact is that he worked together with the other political party to try and solve some issues. I give him some credit for that. Now, to be sure, the "other side" also worked with him and they deserve the same credit. Why do some of y'all insist on making this a "we win, you lose" issue of every single thing. That's the same attitude that caused all our problems in the first place and continues to make things worse.
Because it's rather unnegotiable as to whether the bottom 95%, Americans without pensions other than Social Security, should die when they hit 65. He talked to a Democrat. Whoopee. We're supposed to praise the Armaggedon extremist for talking before being rejected?
Whenever I see the name Paul Ryan I think it is some kind of anagram for Ayn Rand, like he is some vessel for her immortal soul.
https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI (look at 5 year view, mouse around until it shows 9/18/2008 in the upper right of the graph). Anything he bought on 9/18/08 took a rather sharp decline by 9/30.
