Paul Ryan would financally benefit from his own legislation

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Oct 19, 2010
11,802
3,429
350
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Paul Ryan could financially benefit from the legislation he wrote as part of "The Roadmap for America's Future."
I guess you can't blame the guy as he has the capital means to expand his wealth so he can live the American Dream. Ryan is one of the wealthiest representatives in the House.

Ryan's Shrewd Budget Payday


When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP blueprint for cutting government spending, he asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.
<snip>
The financial disclosure report Ryan filed with Congress last month and made public this week shows he and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan&apos;s budget plan.

Ryan's father-in-law, Daniel Little, who runs the companies, told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that the family companies are currently leasing the land for mining and drilling to energy giants such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon, and XTO Energy, a recently acquired subsidiary of ExxonMobil.

Some of these firms would be eligible for portions of the $45 billion in energy tax breaks and subsidies over 10 years protected in the Wisconsin lawmaker&#8217;s proposed budget. &#8220;Those [energy developing companies] benefit a lot from these subsidies,&#8221; explained Russ Harding, an energy policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, when presented with the situation, without reference to Ryan. &#8220;Without those, they&#8217;re going to be less profitable.&#8221;

<snip>

&#8220;Sure, senior citizens should have to pay more for health care, but landholders like [Ryan] who lease property to big oil companies, well, their government subsidies must be protected at all costs,&#8221; says Melanie Sloan, the director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. &#8220;It smacks of hypocrisy.&#8221;

<snip>

Aside from the land-lease income, Ryan could also personally benefit from the package of subsidies and incentives he has fought to protect. According to a report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, Ryan himself would be eligible to recover money from the government for investments the four family companies might make in such things as machines and maintenance if they didn&#8217;t pan out on the properties and failed to generate revenue.

Stephen Comstock, a tax analyst with the American Petroleum Institute, says the provision and several others like it would be protected under Ryan&#8217;s budget.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/17/paul-ryan-s-shrewd-budget-payday-congressman-could-benefit-from-tax-breaks-he-proposes.html?om_rid=NJowYu&om_mid=_BN$0xzB8by7dGP


Is this act worse than letting the energy companies writing our country's energy policy? Is this ethical? How does this benefit Main Street America who has been asked to sacrifice under Ryan's blueprint?

Feedback?
 
Last edited:
Do you know the difference between 'could' and 'would'?

Two completely difference meanings. Therefore, your title is bullshit.

Could we keep things honest or would that be too fucking hard?
 
What's that you say.....a ConJob, Repug/Teabagger would benefit from Legislation he is the author of?????

We already know that Ratso used SSI bennies to get through colleage, and now would deny those same bennies to others. We know that a "Coupon" is just another name for "Voucher" and we know that ConJobs, Repugs/Teabaggers are low life, scum sucking, belly crawling cowards. None of this comes as a great surprise.
 
Benefiting from legislation you've written has been declared just fine, by the likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Dianne Frankenstein.

Nothing to see here.
but we're talking a CONSERVATIVE who would benefit! Oh that just shouldn't be!
 
Do you know the difference between 'could' and 'would'?

Two completely difference meanings. Therefore, your title is bullshit.

Could we keep things honest or would that be too fucking hard?

From the article: "Stephen Comstock, a tax analyst with the American Petroleum Institute, says the provision and several others like it would be protected under Ryan’s budget".
 
Benefiting from legislation you've written has been declared just fine, by the likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Dianne Frankenstein.

Nothing to see here.
but we're talking a CONSERVATIVE who would benefit! Oh that just shouldn't be!

I just thought I'd use the above post because it reflects the response I expected from our far right posters (which proved to be a correct assumption).
If one looks at my history, I was one of the first not-far right posters who called for Weiner's resignation and called him a loser and I have stated Obama isn't fit to be president. I feel a wrong is a wrong no matter who has committed the wrong or what party they ideology they subscribe to.
I'm Main Street America, I see it wrong that this country has a huge debt as the result of fiscal irresponsibility by both parties. I see it morally wrong to try to correct this problem on just the backs of just Main Street America. I'm all for shared sacrifice for the good of the US.
Because some are so married to their ideology, that their moral vision has been blurred by ideological talking points.
 
Everyone would financially benefit from Ryan's legislation. Improving the economy does that.
 
Benefiting from legislation you've written has been declared just fine, by the likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Dianne Frankenstein.

Nothing to see here.
but we're talking a CONSERVATIVE who would benefit! Oh that just shouldn't be!

I just thought I'd use the above post because it reflects the response I expected from our far right posters (which proved to be a correct assumption).
If one looks at my history, I was one of the first not-far right posters who called for Weiner's resignation and called him a loser and I have stated Obama isn't fit to be president. I feel a wrong is a wrong no matter who has committed the wrong or what party they ideology they subscribe to.
I'm Main Street America, I see it wrong that this country has a huge debt as the result of fiscal irresponsibility by both parties. I see it morally wrong to try to correct this problem on just the backs of just Main Street America. I'm all for shared sacrifice for the good of the US.
Because some are so married to their ideology, that their moral vision has been blurred by ideological talking points.
Talking points schmalking points.

The first thing any of the lamestream media hacks do when just about any legislation authored by anyone without that (D) by their name does is go on a fishing expedition, on how said legislation "may" benefit whomsoever wrote it.

Yet, when we find proof positive of such chicanery in the here and now, perpetrated by someone who carries that (D) by their name, it gets buried faster than a turd in a cat box.

This ain't my first time around the mulberry bush.

So, get the fuck over yourself.
 
Sadly this kind of stuff is the norm, the norm for BOTH parties.


Ryan as the OP shows is a great example of a rep doing it, Gore's huge profits from the man made global warming adventure is a great example of a dem doign it.
 
Sadly this kind of stuff is the norm, the norm for BOTH parties.


Ryan as the OP shows is a great example of a rep doing it, Gore's huge profits from the man made global warming adventure is a great example of a dem doign it.
Wait, Gore has profited BILLIONS from the AGW fraud... and Ryan's profited how much so far by legislation that hasn't even passed yet?
 
Tell us why Gore being a private citizen he should not seek a profit from doing what he believes in?
 
Sadly this kind of stuff is the norm, the norm for BOTH parties.


Ryan as the OP shows is a great example of a rep doing it, Gore's huge profits from the man made global warming adventure is a great example of a dem doign it.
Wait, Gore has profited BILLIONS from the AGW fraud... and Ryan's profited how much so far by legislation that hasn't even passed yet?

I'm a man of principle, not a man of scale, and they're both violating the same principle of not using your current or former government position for profit reasons.
 
Tell us why Gore being a private citizen he should not seek a profit from doing what he believes in?

I'll believe that Gore believes in man made global warming when he stops living in a house that sucks down energy like 10 times faster than the average house and when he stops using a private jet everywhere he goes.
 
Sadly this kind of stuff is the norm, the norm for BOTH parties.


Ryan as the OP shows is a great example of a rep doing it, Gore's huge profits from the man made global warming adventure is a great example of a dem doign it.
Wait, Gore has profited BILLIONS from the AGW fraud... and Ryan's profited how much so far by legislation that hasn't even passed yet?

I'm a man of principle, not a man of scale, and they're both violating the same principle of not using your current or former government position for profit reasons.
Of course, Ryan's legislation hasn't been passed and the given parts of it can easily be stricken...Whereas the democrat malefactors I listed profited handsomely from their legislative duplicity without a peep from the same worthless media tools screeching about Ryan.
 
Wait, Gore has profited BILLIONS from the AGW fraud... and Ryan's profited how much so far by legislation that hasn't even passed yet?

I'm a man of principle, not a man of scale, and they're both violating the same principle of not using your current or former government position for profit reasons.
Of course, Ryan's legislation hasn't been passed and the given parts of it can easily be stricken...Whereas the democrat malefactors I listed profited handsomely from their legislative duplicity without a peep from the same worthless media tools screeching about Ryan.

Again, it's the exact same principle. Whether it happens or not, Ryan is trying to use his position of power in order to make more profits.

It's not a partisan issue, no matter how desperate partisans are to make it into one.
 
I'm a man of principle, not a man of scale, and they're both violating the same principle of not using your current or former government position for profit reasons.
Of course, Ryan's legislation hasn't been passed and the given parts of it can easily be stricken...Whereas the democrat malefactors I listed profited handsomely from their legislative duplicity without a peep from the same worthless media tools screeching about Ryan.

Again, it's the exact same principle. Whether it happens or not, Ryan is trying to use his position of power in order to make more profits.

It's not a partisan issue, no matter how desperate partisans are to make it into one.
Oh, I get that part.

My point is that the howling over it rings completely hollow, when it comes from those who've looked the other way, or worse have run interference for such blatant corruption as somehow or another being a good thing....Which exactly describes the band of little media weasels linked in the OP.
 

Forum List

Back
Top