Paul Ryan, bowhunter

[Devil Diver Down]

Ben,

I can't vote for Romney/Ryan and I will not vote for Obama/Biden. To me they are just different sides of the same coin.
Nemont

This thread was won right here, IMHO. Such a sad state of affairs that this is the best our country can muster. 95% of people won't be swayed but any policy or voting record anyway. They will look for the (R) or (D) after the name and make assumptions, or worse, excuses and rationalizations for those records, so they can vote without having to actually think about the choice they're making.

As an aside, I dressed as Harry Whittington - Dick Cheney's injured hunting partner - for a Halloween party in Scottsdale back in 2006. Complete with bbs stuck to my face and little blood trails running down. Not a ton of people with (D) trailing their name at that party (those of you who know about Scottsdale will understand right away) and it was pretty entertaining having people who clearly had never hunted in their life excuse the accident away as a 'no fault' sort of thing. Only thing we hunted down that night was a giant Grey Goose. Several of them, actually. The fun ended when the hostess pulled one of the bbs off my face. With her mouth. Me trying to explain that incident as 'no fault' was probably equally entertaining.

Back to the debate.

 

[lbirch]

For those of you that would rather go back and forth with left this and right that, there must be a better forum for you. Find one and save us all some misery.

 

[sweetnectar]

A politician that actually hunts and not just for the camera. Ryan has my vote.

 

[1_pointer]

Pointer, WHIP is a good program? for who?? A guy with some cash buys a large chunk of farm land, enrolls it into WHIP, turns it into a duck and deer hunting paradise by flooding some of it, gets paid back the purchase price from tax payers and has the right to keep everyone off that land but his buddies. IMO WHIP is a taxpayer scam unless it has changed in the last few years. WHIP should have never been, the money used to pay back owners who still own it should have been used to purchase said land instead.

I guess I am confused, as there is no provision to compensate the landowner for the purchase price of land through WHIP. WHIP cost shares for conservation practice planning, installation, and engineering. The percentage of cost share depends on the practice can ranges from about 50% to 90% of the total cost. It's an incentive program to do things on the land other than farming it and to get that benefit you have to follow established practice standards/methods.

The closest the NRCS/FSA will get to purchasing land is through the WRP where a permanent conservation easement is purchased for a given parcel which prevents it from being farmed or built upon. Indiana now has 63K acres of wetland/floodplains with permanent easements on it through this program. I can't step foot on all of it, but I think the state's sportsmen as a whole do benefit from it. I can step foot on this though and it was made possible through WRP:
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3094.htm

There is no program offered, CRP, WHIP, WRP, GRP for private landowners through NRCS or FSA that require public access. It's still private land. At least around here, having a few folks put acres into habitat vs. commercial-esque row cropping is a plus in my book. No, the public cannot access them, but the critters can. I know folks that have created nesting habitat for ducks/geese, increased quail habitat, etc through this program. So, I'd say if you value increasing habitat in areas/states with mostly private ground that WHIP I'd think you'd consider it a good program.

All that said, I too would like to see more state and federal money spent on acquiring more lands for the public. However, in this budget climate that is going to be more rare than common, especially in areas with lots of agriculture.

 

[1_pointer]

except he doesn't support hunters and wants to cut benefits to those who can't afford it while letting those who play bigger games with the tax code get off scott free.

Ben, I've been thinking a bit about this post since I read it yesterday. I admit that I am mostly ignorant to politics, so I'll ask this question. For those like me who can afford my benefits and make too little to be directly impacted by upper end tax code changes, which platform has my best interests in mind?

I find it funny that so much focus in each candidates commercials is being placed on what I see as two ends of the spectrum with little info given as to what will impact the majority (middle class). My limited understanding is that O wants to tax the "rich" more to give more to the "poor" and R wants to give breaks to the "rich" while curtailing some of the benefits to the "poor". I am neither...

 

[MattK]

1 pointer- I agree with your assessment as per who the politicians pander to. It seems that both ends of the spectrum get the most attention. Right now (as far as taxes) if you make less than 250000. per year, Obama wants to keep your tax rate as it is right now (part of the Bush tax cuts). Whereas if you make over that amount, Obama's plan would be to stop the Bush tax cuts thus increasing your tax. So I guess it depends on which side of that number you are for Obama's plan. Romney wants to either keep the tax structure as is (staying with the Bush tax cuts) or he wants to decrease the tax on those making over 250000 and cut many of the social programs (as well as tax some of the current exemptions as stated in the article above). BTW- the 250000 mark is for adjusted gross income. At least this is my understanding of the two plans/ ideas.

 

[d-bone20917]

I'm with the other guys on here that think all the candidates suck, so I have enjoyed the information in this thread and have learned from it.

Raising taxes on those making over $250,000 means any adjusted gross income over 250K will be taxed higher. The first 250K will still be taxed at the same rate. Seeing as I'm no where near that it won't affect me.

 

[Rat Fink]

You guys have posted a lot of good info on why Paul Ryan is the best man for VP. Union buster, hunter, tax reformer, entitlement limiter, all good reasons to vote for the guy.

It's about time someone is willing to decrease taxes for income earners and put more people overall on the tax roll. The bottom tier are consumptive users of our tax dollars. Make them put some skin in the game by forcing them off food stamps and make them pay taxes again. This will force people to get jobs. Nothing pisses me off more than some bum that is on food stamps, while using cash to buy smokes and beer. Use that cash to save or a down payment on a home or just general betterment of self. Broaden the tax base but decrease the rates for all. And while we are at it, lets get some drug testing for welfare. Cut off the scum of civilization and get more people into the productive part of society. Broadening the tax base decreases the burden for everyone plus it gives them a legitimate say in how our government is run.

 

[schmalts]

Pointer, given the countries financial state I am not happy with my tax money going to improve private property. Cancel whip and wait until we have money and then put it into public land. Is that unreasonable?
Btw, coming home from a hunt i had a long talk with a farmer from Indiana/ Illinois. He taught me what he has done with much of the land he has purchased. Rules have changed some... but still he was getting damn near free land in the end.

 

[noharleyyet]

...along those lines rat fink:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/...ther-piers-morgan-belongs-to-the-mantra-club/

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: I suppose the fundamental debate that’s going to be had, though, will come down to whether the Republicans can sell to the American people that they are really concerned about jobs, about people’s livelihoods, and all the rest of it. If they’re also scratching the backs of their rich and wealthy members, which is clearly I think the flaw in the Ryan plan is that it just does. I mean, if you’re very wealthy, you’re going to be doing a lot better out of Paul Ryan than you would out of Barack Obama who believes fundamentally the rich should pay more tax.
NEWT GINGRICH: You know, I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but I do wonder sometimes if you guys all get off in a little club and learn a brand new mantra and then all repeat it mindlessly. The fact is, these kinds of things were said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan’s tax cut – which was developed by Jack Kemp who Paul Ryan worked for – Ronald Reagan’s tax cut raised more people to middle class status, took more people out of poverty, created more jobs.
You know, this is the core thing that liberals don’t get. If you want to have jobs, you have to encourage job creators. If you discourage job creators, if you engage in class warfare, if you do what Barack Obama’s been doing, you have what we currently have. This is the worst recovery in 75 years.
Now, nobody in the media seems to want to come to grips with the fact that the Obama economic policy is a disaster for the poor. Look at the unemployment rate for black teenagers. Look at the unemployment rate for Latino teenagers. At what point do we hold the president accountable for a policy which is crippling the poor in America by crushing the economy under big government?
Ryan and Romney represent a different approach. And I think there’s this mantra you guys almost sound like you’re an extension of the Obama campaign. The Ryan/Romney plan empowers middle class Americans to get a job. When they get a job, their income goes up. They pay more taxes. They are independent. They’re able to live their own lives.
Obama worries about student loans. None of those students are going to get any jobs under Obama. Ryan and Romney are worried about getting jobs for those students so they can pay off the Obama loans.
I think this is a fundamentally different model, and I know everybody in the media wants to rush down and narrow it down to one point. So I’m going to rush down and narrow it down to one point: how long are we going to tolerate a president who makes the poorest Americans more unemployed, who pushes more poor Americans on to food stamps, and who eliminates hope for minorities? And that’s the Barack Obama record after four years.

 

[d-bone20917]

So how did 8 years under a republican president turn out? If you believe everything Newt says then we should have had more jobs then we had people to fill them under 8 years of Bush.

 

[noharleyyet]

So how did 8 years under a republican president turn out? If you believe everything Newt says then we should have had more jobs then we had people to fill them under 8 years of Bush.

Yep, it's Bush's fault...ad nauseum.

 

[1_pointer]

Pointer, given the countries financial state I am not happy with my tax money going to improve private property. Cancel whip and wait until we have money and then put it into public land. Is that unreasonable?
Btw, coming home from a hunt i had a long talk with a farmer from Indiana/ Illinois. He taught me what he has done with much of the land he has purchased. Rules have changed some... but still he was getting damn near free land in the end.

I wouldn't say it's unreasonable, but I don't think there is much support in large parts of the country for increasing the amount or quality of federal lands. I know its not all that appreciated here in Indiana.

If one wants to get a large portion of the purchase price of a property back, and it can be done, WHIP will not be the program. You cannot "make" money off of WHIP. It only pays a portion of the costs to do something. You can make money off CRP and WRP if the land is in the right place and for the right price. I'm thinking it's one of those two programs that you really have issues with.

Given that resource conservation is very important to me, even in this financial state I am happy to see money going towards it regardless if the land is public or private. Now, there are many other things I'd rather not see my money spent on with foreign aid being very near the top. I attended a talk by an university economist who's helped write every Farm Bill since Nixon. He showed a simple graph that was quite telling. Military, social securtiy, medicare and medicaid alone put this country in a deficit. Conservation programs and federal lands management is small potatoes compared to those...

 

[MattK]

NHY- I don't believe Newt is correct. If the "trickle down" economics worked, then why is it that the stock market is close to an all-time high and corporate profits are at an all time high but incomes and country wide prosperity is not at an all time high? Somewhere there is a disconnect...Can you explain where this disconnect is?

 

[steamfitter]

And by the way, Home Depot amongst other pro associate companies provide better pay and benefits that most others. Hell im 20 and work part time, I have dental, medical, stock options AND a 401k....

Yep u r trully misinformed on unions . Yes i pay dues 30 dollars a week wow thats a lot but i also make 57 dollars an hour a non union guy doing the same thing (pipewelder) makes about 16 an hour with no insurance no retirement.So your logic is sound home depot probably pays u 11 an hour you pay for your insurance out of your check and you pay for your 401k and they might match 2% or so which isnt much because you probably only put a dollar or two in sounds like you are knocking down some good wage there. Does unions have some things i dont agree with yes for the good far outweighs the bad.I dont pay the union a large some of money i pay a small amount for the return i get and its tax deductable so in reality i dont pay anything but keep working for a non union places and supporting them because if it werent for the unions you wouldnt be making more than min. wage anyway.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Yep, it's Bush's fault...ad nauseum.

When you can't answer, deflect.

 

[JoseCuervo]

You guys have posted a lot of good info on why Paul Ryan is the best man for VP. Union buster, hunter, tax reformer, entitlement limiter, all good reasons to vote for the guy.

.

Two questions for you:

1. Are you aware that the Ryan Plan calls for selling off My Public Lands?
2. Are you good with not having Public Lands to hunt on?

 

[Rat Fink]

Two questions for you:

1. Are you aware that the Ryan Plan calls for selling off My Public Lands?
2. Are you good with not having Public Lands to hunt on?

Yep and Nope.

I am willing to risk that issue at this time because I do not believe there is the political will by other members of congress to actually make it happen, plus it will get tied up in lawsuits for years IF there was actually a proposed sale. In the meantime I will take all the other issues that he represents my viewpoint and hope they move forward with his election. If need be I will fight the public lands liquidation later IF it actually becomes an issue.

Straight from the mouth of a HUGE proponent of public access and public lands.

 

[d-bone20917]

Yep, it's Bush's fault...ad nauseum.

I never said it was Bush's fault, I'm just wondering why Newt and others seem to think this strategy is the answer when it clearly didn't work then. Business and rich people couldn't have asked for anymore certainty then they had under 8 years of Bush. When did they plan on letting it trickle down? After all, that is the whole argument on their side right? Reward the rich people with tax cuts and businesses by cutting regulations and everyone below them reaps the benefits.

I don't support either party right now. The whole system has become completely dysfunctional and I don't see anything improving with either of our choices.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Yep and Nope.

I am willing to risk that issue at this time because I do not believe there is the political will by other members of congress to actually make it happen, plus it will get tied up in lawsuits for years IF there was actually a proposed sale. In the meantime I will take all the other issues that he represents my viewpoint and hope they move forward with his election. If need be I will fight the public lands liquidation later IF it actually becomes an issue.

Straight from the mouth of a HUGE proponent of public access and public lands.

And what are these other issues that you are willing to sacrifice Public Lands for?