Paul Ryan Discussion


#1

Story:

politico.com/news/stories/0412/75109.html


#2

'Progressive Catholic leaders.'


#3

Spun off from this thread

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=701796


#4

[quote="Robert_Bay, post:3, topic:295695"]
Spun off from this thread

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=701796

[/quote]

The other thread ended with it being said "John McCain released 2 years" before the mod spun off the thread to here. Actually my understanding was John McCain released returns for his Senate races. So if that was the case more than 2 yrs of his would have already been public knowledge.


#5

[quote="CMatt25, post:4, topic:295695"]
The other thread ended with it being said "John McCain released 2 years" before the mod spun off the thread to here. Actually my understanding was John McCain released returns for his Senate races. So if that was the case more than 2 yrs of his would have already been public knowledge.

[/quote]

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/01/bill-clinton/its-typical-presidential-candidates-release-10-or-/

For the record, in 1980, Ronald Reagan offered up just one return.

We should note here that Clinton was way off when he said McCain released 20 years of returns; McCain only released two. Similarly, Romney has said that Kerry released only two years of returns when Kerry had released many more than that.

But again, our fact-check here is intended to gauge what’s "typical" for presidential candidates. As our tally above indicates, though, there's a lot of variation in how many tax returns candidates released. Mathematically speaking, our tally shows the median number of tax returns released to be seven and a half. But individual candidates released anywhere from 30 to one.


#6

This was interesting and helpful, I thought.
taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/


#7

Round and round we go. I believe this thread has run it's course. Actually, one of the most invigorating and informative debates I've had in a long time.


#8

Estesbob, you noted your question concerning why Romney's tax returns should be important to anyone is a serious one, and I will attempt to give a serious response. Romney made this an issue for Democrats to pounce upon because he released only the bare minimum of tax returns, knowing full well that the precedent in modern Presidential elections has been in favor of releasing several years of tax returns, since only one or two years may not disclose sufficient information. While I admit there are more important issues on the minds of voters: jobs, the economy, the deficit, health care, foreign policy, to name a few, nonetheless we're talking about the election of a POTUS and I believe the nature of this position demands a higher level of scrutiny. Romney has inflicted this wound upon himself by not taking the advice of many of his fellow Republicans. If he in fact has nothing to hide relative to his off-shore investments, why does he persist in refusing to compromise by releasing five years of returns, thereby putting any lingering doubts and speculation to rest? Instead, he wants us to "trust him." I'm sorry but that's not good enough for a potential President. As Reagan used to say regarding the Soviet Union, we should "trust and verify." It's that important. Further, one can be sure that if the shoe were on the other foot with regard to President Obama's tax returns, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder.

A final word. Although many of you may know I am a partisan who (less than enthusiastically) supports Obama in the upcoming election, at the same time I make an effort to be fair and would have taken the same position if the Democrats had not released several years of their tax returns. For example, I have been critical of Obama for his HHS mandate which I feel abridges religious freedom, particularly the Catholic Church, and I have no doubt Obamacare is far from a panacea with respect to this country's health-care challenges. I'm not completely sure (but do have some ideas) why, for some, politics must be so partisan, such a dualistic, black-and-white situation, rather than a bipartisan meeting of the minds for finding common solutions to the problems that confront us. I perceive this partisan attitude too frequently in both major political parties as well as on this Forum, and think it unfortunate.


#9

[quote="DeSanto, post:7, topic:295695"]
Round and round we go. I believe this thread has run it's course. Actually, one of the most invigorating and informative debates I've had in a long time.

[/quote]

I believe it has too. At least for me. Thank you for your contributions and for hangin' there DeSanto. It had it's informative moments. Peace and God's blessings to you.


#10

I think its better to acknowlege our differences rather then gloss over them in a phony display of unity. Our country is divided. One side wants is basically conservative and the other side is basically liberal (for lack of better terms). We all know that generally speaking, the liberal side is more secular, supports govt. programs as a way of solving societal problems. The other side believes more in the free market and private institutions as a way of dealing with our problems. Of course I’m generalizing, but I think that is a fair characterization. Of course there is another segment that probably doesn’t really think or care much about politics - what I call the “muddled middle” and they likely don’t really get excited much unless they see their lifestyle threatened. If the economy goes south, look for the muddled middle to vote for the guy whose solution is to lower taxes and find new sources of energy to keep prices down. The muddled middle cares more about who won monday night football or who is going to win Dancing with the stars than they do our fiscal policy, divorce rate, or the morality of abortion.

I don’t think its realistic to think people who fundamentally disagree with each other can simply roll up their shirtsleeves and “find common solutions to our problems”. Such a view is naive, imo. One side will win, the other will lose. There may be some oppurtunity for common ground, but ultimately, one side will win. The liberal side has been winning - Obama-care, abortion rights, etc. It is time for the other side to win a few.

Ishii


#11

From Maureen Dowd's op-ed piece in today's NYT:

Mitt Romney expects his running mate to help deliver the Catholic vote and smooth over any discomfort among Catholics about Mormonism. (This is the first major-party ticket to go Protestant-less.) Yet after Ryan claimed his budget was shaped by his faith, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops deemed it immoral.

“A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons,” the bishops wrote in a letter to Congress.

The Jesuits were even more tart, with one group writing to Ryan that “Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The nuns-on-the-bus also rapped the knuckles of the former altar boy who now takes his three kids to Mass. As Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the Catholic social justice group Network, told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, it’s sad that a Catholic doesn’t understand that “we need to have each other’s backs. Only wealthy people can ever begin to pretend that they can live in a gated community all by themselves.”

Even Ryan’s former parish priest in Janesville weighed in. Father Stephen Umhoefer told the Center for Media and Democracy, “You can’t tell somebody that in 10 years your economic situation is going to be just wonderful because meanwhile your kids may starve to death.”

Beyond the even-keeled Ryan mien lurks full-tilt virulence. A moderate demeanor is not a sign of a moderate view of the world.


#12

Mo Dowd is an angry white female. Reading her could be a form of penance?

Father Zuhlsdorf's answer to Sister Simone Campbell is go out and buy Father Robert Sirico's book Defending the Free Market: A Moral Case for a Free Economy


#13

[quote="meltzerboy, post:8, topic:295695"]
Romney has inflicted this wound upon himself by not taking the advice of many of his fellow Republicans. If he in fact has nothing to hide relative to his off-shore investments, why does he persist in refusing to compromise by releasing five years of returns, thereby putting any lingering doubts and speculation to rest?

[/quote]

I don't see how putting your money in foreign bank accounts helps to support people in America who are facing the loss of employement. Do we have on the one hand a candidate who says he will do everything possible to increase employment in the USA, but on the other hand, he puts his money in foreign accounts and foreign investments which go to support employment overseas and transfer American jobs outside the USA?


#14

What does putting your money in foreign bank accounts have to do with the policies one pursues to get the economy back on track and restore fiscal sanity? This whole Romney offshore banking account is just a red herring/non-issue designed to distract people from the abject failure of the Obama presidency.

Ishii


#15

Did campaign Obama ask for McCain to release more than 2 years? I have asked a couple of times and no one has presented any evidence that he did


#16

Paul Ryan urges Catholics to act before religious freedoms erode

In an August 17 conference call organized by the online fundraising group Catholics2012.org, Rep. Ryan (R-Wis.) said that he tries to apply the teachings of his Catholic faith to his work.

“I’m proud to acknowledge that it’s why I do what I do,” he said.

The vice presidential candidate also discussed religious liberty concerns that have taken center stage in the Catholic community over the last several months.

The concerns center around a federal mandate that requires most employers to offer health insurance plans that offer contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

The mandate has drawn criticism from groups representing a wide variety of religious and political backgrounds. It is currently the subject of numerous lawsuits throughout the country.

Critics of the mandate have said that it infringes upon religious freedom and could force Catholic hospitals, schools and charitable institutions to shut down rather than violate their sincerely-held religious convictions.

Ryan warned that this “assault on our religious liberties” constitutes “a serious threat to all peoples of faith.”

“It is a violation of the First Amendment of our bill of rights,” he said.

The vice presidential contender cautioned that the philosophy behind such actions “seeks to displace civil society” and “crowd out our social mediating institutions,” such as churches, charities and hospitals.

These are “groups that connect the person to the community,” he explained, and they play a role in implementing the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity and the preferential option for the poor that should be practiced in civil society.

Ryan said that he “shudder(s) to think what the world could look like” if President Obama is re-elected and his administration is able to continue eroding religious liberty.

There is a need for practicing Catholics to “get the word out” on these important issues, he said.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/paul-ryan-urges-catholics-to-act-before-religious-freedoms-erode


#17

[quote="ishii, post:14, topic:295695"]
What does putting your money in foreign bank accounts have to do with the policies one pursues to get the economy back on track and restore fiscal sanity? This whole Romney offshore banking account is just a red herring/non-issue designed to distract people from the abject failure of the Obama presidency.

Ishii

[/quote]

:thumbsup:


#18

The problem with this whole Swiss bank account thing is…who is Mitt and can we trust this guy is being honest with us. He is very shady with any details with his policies and he is very shady with any details with his net worth. He is asking for “blind trust” from America after. I decided I better get more informed before opening my big mouth. So, that’s what I did. And what I have found in within the last few days has been very interesting. It made me wonder why these certain people so well informed in this area failed to reveal the true reason why Swiss bank accounts are so attractive. He blatantly refuses to release more than one year of returns. And of that one year, he refuses to disclose more details of his net worth that makes it more difficult to see if everything really was on the up and up. Something about “Confidentiality Disclosures”. Let me add a quote from his own father, George Romney on why he showed so many years of his returns, “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.” Now, i want to show you some info I have gathered on the subject of “Off Shore Accounts”…

For one, if anyone is interested in why Swiss Bank Accounts are so attractive, it is not simply because they are stable!!! They are considered tax havens because they gaurd the identities of their clients and their money. There are loopholes that skirt tax laws. Offshore finance evading taxes via tax havens.

Switzerland, Bermuda, Luxumbourg, Cayman Islands…these are jurisdictions with virtually no tax and virtually no compliance. There are confidentiality laws that will have you put in jail for even asking for information on these accounts.

Blind Trust is an interesting word I learned about. I believe there is a clip of Romney speaking out against Blind Trusts several years ago saying they’re really not “blind”. Well, I can see what he means now. His blind trust were held by his wife and personal lawyer. Hmm. There is not proof that his blind trust were blind because we have no paper work provided by him to prove anything.

These are some interesting names I encourage research on:

Bain Fund, Sankaty, Solamere, Elliot Associates.

Some more words to think about:

Hedge Fund Kingmakers, Super PAC donors, Blocker Corporations, Unrelated Business Income Tax, 2009 Swiss Bank Account Amnesty, Switzerland’s International Tax Evasion Dispute. Tax Haven USA plan *criminial foreign money and the tax law that benefit foreign money that Americans cannot take advantage of., Leveraged Byouts, Financialization, “Feeder” tax havens.

Off Shore Tax Havens are shrouded in secrecy and lack transparency. They skip around taxes, disclosures, and regulatory requirements. This is why they are attractive.

Also, please research these investors for Romney: Robert Maxwell (very interesting story) and Eduardo Poma.

I also learned a little about “carried interest” and taxing profit share as “ordinary income”. Now the problem I have with Romney is he is a billionaire getting away with paying his fair share whether legal or not and betting against the U.S. dollar while running for president.

The fact is if your income in from work (if you work for a living) you are going to pay twice as much in income tax as someone who gets their money from wealth. And the worker also pays payroll taxes on top of that. AND…under Romney’s plan (what details we do have of it) he would actually pay even less.

I will thank you for respectful responses…I’m hear to learn and have learned much while here.


#19

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:2, topic:295695"]
'Progressive Catholic leaders.'

[/quote]

"Could it be SATAN???" :rotfl:


#20

I agree. People tend to diversify their investments and some of these investments may be in foreign instruments. This is common sense.

Also, when you have a system that is hostile to success and very uncertain, most everyone would keep their money offshore.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.