Since there does not seem to be too much truth coming from Paul Ryan(R-Wall Street) these days, I thought I would help clarify. He was recently on Chris Matthews show(and I am not a huge Matthews fan), but Ryan used it as a chance to forward his failed agenda. Unfortunately he knows how extreme it is also, so much so that he left all of his facts at home and just spouted talking points. It is sad that our elected reps are allowed to be this dishonest and continue on in government.

Unfortunately for all of us, republican talking points are never based in fact. The main theme of the Wall St congressman is that 75% of the bush tax cuts went to small businesses. That letting the bush tax cuts expire will be a tax increase on the small business owner.

The question he has to answer is does he know that is not true and is dutifully lying to get re-elected or is his understanding of economics that poor?

from politifact: People in the top tax bracket, “these so-called wealthy, most of them are small-business owners.” -BARELY TRUE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/

7 Responses to Just to clarify

  1. Lou K. says:

    Ryan said, “Last year when we did a budget, I brought a budget to the floor that specifically cut $4.8 trillion out of the budget.” But we’re talking about annual budgets here right? Last year, Ryan’s ideological budget did not contain any numbers at all, but now he says his cut $4.8 trillion? He repeated he meant trillion. The total annual budget for 2009 was $3.5 trillion!! If he’s talking about a 10 or 20 year projections, then he’s talking about cutting $350 billion a year at best. Matthews stood up to the congressman but he could have done better by exposing his fraudulent rhetoric.

    • squidknuckle says:

      Yes, he is talking about a 10 year outlay. But I have to ask, what does the Democrat’s budget say? Oh, that’s right, they don’t have one.

  2. Proud Progressive says:

    yes ryan introducing an alternative budget with no numbers was one of his greatest hits….

  3. Locke says:

    The Treasury Department estimated that 75 percent of tax payers in the top bracket reported this type of income.

    Does this mean that all those wealthy taxpayers were small business owners? Probably not. This kind of income could be reported from anyone who earned money from a source other than a regular job, such as consulting or public speaking. It could also be reported by those who make most of their income from partnerships, such as law firms and medical practices. And it could include investors who have little involvement in the day-to-day operations of a company.

    OK. Consultants don’t count. Public speakers don’t count. Lawyers and doctors don’t count. People who merely own a business but don’t directly operate it, well they don’t count either. Because, you know they’re not really real business owners becasue…um… Can some one help me here, I just fail to grasp the logic.

  4. squidknuckle says:

    He didn’t say “small business OWNERS,” he said “small BUSINESSES.” And he said it more than once. Did you not listen or do you not know the difference between the two?

    And I don’t know where you get this baloney about that budget not having numbers:

    http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/hbcrepbudget.shtml

    I see all kinds of numbers.

  5. squidknuckle says:

    Also, if Paul Ryan didn’t have facts and only talking points, what did Crowley have exactly?

  6. Jake formerly of the LP says:

    No, the best Ryan B.S. was him claiming that his Medicare plan would involve rationing, but would leave it up to “you, your family, and your Doctor.” He strangely forgot insurance companies. I’m sure it was an accidental oversight…

    What is it about people like Purty Mouth Paulie and Silly Scotty Walker that are constantly propping up the corporate sector, but yet have never worked ONE DAY in it? Hell, Ryan has never had a job based in WISCONSIN in his life.

    One forced buzz cut or one punch to the face, and Purty Paulie has no more career. Or once the Dems actually start showing the towns in his district that have collapsed in no small part due to policies he claims are good for them. Whichever comes first.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.