So, Yeah, Paul Ryan is Exactly the Douchey Little Frat-Boy You Thought He Was.

From Time Magazine's Lightbox:

The Backstory

Thursday, October 11, 2012 | By Belinda Luscombe | 1117 Comments

Paul Ryan: All Pumped Up for His Closeup

When TIME named Paul Ryan a runner-up in the 2011 Person of the Year issue,

[What the fuck? Was it that pathetic a year?]

many were familiar with his proposed budget, but few knew that the Wisconsin Congressman stayed fit with the now best-selling P90X workout plan.

Also, no one gave a good goddamn. No one looked at Ryan's ridiculous budget plans and thought "how does that moron stay so darn trim?"

 

(Ryan’s father and grandfather both died of a heart attack.)

That is one hell of a heart attack, to kill two men with one attack!

In fact, it was Ryan’s fitness regime — and Herculean strength on all things fiscal — that inspired this workout-themed sitting for Person of the Year.

Herculean strength on all things fiscal? If by Herculean you mean idiotic and by strength you mean also idiotic, then sure. He has Herculean fiscal strength. Nice objectivity, by the way, Time Magazine. Did a 13-year-old fangirl write this? Damn liberal media!

 

This looks exactly like the college-aged tools that used to try to buy beer from me when I worked in a convenience store, the guys who called me "brah," and would ask me 'sup?

This is really, really not a congressional look. This is not the look of a serious person. It is certainly not the look of a person with "Herculean strength" either in fiscal or physical matters.

Seriously, Paul Ryan, if you're going to pose with weights like this:

 

 

You really ought to have a physique like this:

  

Or this:

 

 

Or, dare I say, this:

 

 

 

 

If you're going to invite us all to the gun show, there really ought to be some guns. Just sayin'.

Why Bother, Congressman Ryan?

Everyone's been giving Paul Ryan shit about his "I don't have time to explain the math" line on FOX, and rightly so. But here's what really sticks with me from that interview. Ryan claims that his tax cuts will be "revenue neutral." If that's true (spoiler alert: it isn't) then why bother?

Why bother cutting tax rates and closing loopholes if the end result is the same?
Seems like the process goes something like this:

So last year, your tax rate was x amount of dollars. 

Congratulations, you're getting a 20% tax cut!

Whoopee!

But we're getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction

 and whatever other deductions you used to take.

Um, okay? So how much am I going to owe this year?

 

Hmm, let's see. . . . carry the one. . . divide by . . . aha!

 This year your tax bill will be x-amount of daollars!

But that's exactly the same!

 It's pronounced "revenue neutral."

 

Maybe Ryan can explain this better:

How much would it cost?" Wallace wondered. "The cut in tax rates."

"It's revenue neutral... Lower all Americans' tax rates by 20 percent," Ryan replied.
"Right, how much will it cost?" Wallace pressed. "It's not revenue neutral unless you take away the deductions."
"I won't get into a baseline argument with you because that's what a lot of this is about," Ryan explained. "We're saying, limited deductions so you can lower tax rates for everybody. 

 But let me say it this way, you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we're saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates."

So, besides the fact that he's completely full of shit, that there is no way that a 20% across-the-board tax cut can be revenue neutral, especially if you're preserving deductions  for home purchases, charitable contributions, health care, etc, even if that were somehow magically true by the power of wishing really hard, what's the point? If the revenue is going to be the same, if, in other words, taxpayers are going to be paying the same, then why bother? And I haven't heard anyone in the media asking that question, so maybe it's just me that doesn't get it. But I kinda doubt it.