we've been talking a lot about bowles/simpson. he has a position that differs -- >> there's a couple points. first in terms of business writ large, the business community constantly talks about simpson/bowles. ryan's against it. frankly, obama's against it. frankly, romney's against it. i mean, romney will say he likes the concept of it, but when you get into the details, obama will say he likes the concept when you get into the details. the problem with simpson/bowles, everyone thinks in concept it's good. if there was an up or down vote today and people read it, not just a sin ynopsis, but the who thing, there are too many things that offend people on both sides. >> northeast of the apprehension is because god forbid a republican should sign off on something that raises taxes. >> i think that's part of it. god forbid, a democrat would argue you're killing medicare, medicaid, what have you. but that's the point of it. which is that it only works because everybody loses in some respects and that's the win. >> right. but paul ryan'

what are some of the elements that he supports from simpson-bowles, bowles-simpson? >> first idea of tax reform that broadens the base and lowers rates. the notion that we have to get serious about the problems that we face in social security. doesn't agree with all the exact fixes there but a number he believes are step in good direction. finally the need for deficit reduction. we have to get to the point cut our spending and move to a balanced budget. adam: lan-hee chen, thanks very much for joining us. a lot of people, 40 million plus will watch mitt romney in tampa, florida. >> thanks again, sir. have a good one. adam: you've been following in the newspapers and television the battle de jure of century, i'm talking google versus apple. before his death, apple ceo steve jobs, called for quote, thermonuclear war against google for stealing his ideas and using those ideas in the android mobile operating system. last week a jury ordered samsung to pay apple more than one billion dollars for violating at that time points on the -- patents on the iphone with eight of t

>> i'm willing to do the bowles-simpson plan. not one person who's looked at this in a bipartisan way said you need to raise tax rates. bowles-simpson says let's flatten the tax code, take the money to pay down rates. pay off the debt. >> that's sort of a long-term thing? these cuts are going to expire on the 31st. >> i'm not going to do a short-term thing that's stupid. it would be stupid in an economy this weak to raise tax rates on a million small businesses at a time they can't hire people. now, if you are looking for a job, this election's not about romney's tax returns, it's about your tax returns. look how many millions of people are underemployed or have lost their jobs. the last thing i'm going to do is play politics with their future. what we should all be doing is fixing sequestration in a bipartisan manner. both candidates should pledge if i get to be president of the united states, we're going to do bowles-simpson. that's what america is yearning for, and i want both candidates to step up to the plate and lead and st

>> i'm willing to do the bowles-simpson plan. not one person who has looked at this in a bipartisan way says raise the taxes. bowles-simpson is let's fix the tax code, take the money to pay down rates, and pay off debt. >> but long-term. that's sort of a long-term thing. these cuts will expire on the 31st. >> i'm not going to do a short-term thing that's stupid. it would be stupid in an economy this weak to raise tax rates on a million small businesses at a time they can't hire people now. if you're looking for a job, this election is not about romney's tax returns. it's about your tax returns. look how many millions of people are underemployed or have lost their jobs. the last thing i'm going to do is play politics with their future. what we should all be doing is fixing sequestration in a bipartisan manner. both candidates should pledge, if i get to be president of the united states, we're going to do bowles-simpson. that's what america is yearning for. and i want both candidates to step up to the plate and lead here and stop t

>> i'm willing to do the bowles-simpson plan. not one person who has looked at this in a bipartisan way says raise the taxes. bowles-simpson is let's fix the tax code, take the money to pay down rates, and pay off debt. >> but long-term. that's sort of a long-term thing. these cuts will expire on the 31st. >> i'm not going to do a short-term thing that's stupid. it would be stupid in an economy this weak to raise tax rates on a million small businesses at a time they can't hire people now. if you're looking for a job, this election is not about romney's tax returns. it's about your tareturns. look how many millions of people are underemployed or have lost their jobs. the last thing i'm going to do is play politics with their future. what we should all be doing is fixing sequestration in a bipartisan manner. both candidates should pledge, if i get to be president of the united states, we're going to do bowles-simpson. that's what america is yearning for. and i want both candidates to step up to the plate and lead here and stop thi

that's how you make simpson bowles work and ryan plan. bring down the rates and plug the loop holes and president obama would never agree to anything that brought down marginal tax rate. >> i will say this and there is enough blame to go around. both pears were skittish from the commission and divorcing themselves from it and by and large, the feel thag the work would be in a nice leather binder gathering dust in the end. >> it was all about midterm election. people upset with both parties. the incumbents were in trouble and should still be in trouble. the president controls everything. he had the world at his finger tips f. he embraced it it would be on the way to being long. >> that is so long. >> it is laughable to blame john boehner that we didn't get tax reform. that was going to happen? getting rid of the deductions and lowering marginal tax rates. >> here are the problems for president and democrats right now. two years they were unfettered to do whatever they wanted do . before the president came in, he said he was going to do som

broad principles and the bowles simpson plan are two stories. the president embraced the large principles but isn't prepared to endorse that. >> how he would approach things like spending in order to get the economy back. >> backup the bowles simpson plan as written? >> i'm not going into specifics line by line. there is a lot to discuss on which would be there and which wouldn't. governor romney has been clear about reforming spending. >> one more from ryan's speech and then i want to preview about the auto bailout. >> right there at the plant, candidate obama said i believe that if our government is there to support you this plant will be here for another hundred years. that's what he said in 2008. well, as it turned out that plant didn't last another year. >> fair hit since the plant shut down during the bush administration? >> it is. it is a question of how to bring back the economy overall so plants like that one can see the economic growth in the community so they can thrive and grow. that's, again, another important distinction we'll have

i think the simpson-bowles story is interesting. neither campaign is embasing it but they want the halo of simpson-bowles but they won't say we want this to be starting place for negotiation. >> obama proposed it, organized it -- >> tried to negotiate with boehner based on it. >> when the commission reported he completely abandoned it. >> voted against it. >> bret: do we hear simpson-bowles in the general election a lot? >> i don't know. >> bret: one word, mara. >> i hope so. >> no. >> maybe. >> nah. >> bret: nah? that is how we end it? that is it for the panel. back to wrap things up in a moment. whoa, look at all those toys. insuring that stuff must be a pain. nah. he's probably got... [ voice of dennis ] allstate. they can bundle all your policies together. lot of paperwork. [ doug ] actually... [ voice of dennis ] an allstate agent can help do the switching and paperwork for you. well, it probably costs a lo [ voice of dennis ] allstate can save you up to 30% more when you bundle. well, his dog's stupid. [ voice of dennis ] pood

i think the simpson-bowles story is interesting. neither campaign is embasing it but they want the halo of simpson-bowles but they won't say we starting place for negotiation. >> obama proposed it, organized it -- >> tried to negotiate with boehner based on it. >> when the commission reported he completely abandoned it. >> voted against it. >> bret: do we hear simpson-bowles in the general election a lot? >> i don't know. >> bret: one word, mara. >> i hope so. >> no. >> maybe. >> nah. >> bret: nah? that is how we end it? that is it for the panel. back to wrap things up in a moment. whoa, look at all those toys. insuring that stuff must be a pain. nah. he's probably got... [ voice of dennis ] allstate. they can bundle all your policies together. lot of paperwork. [ doug ] actually... [ voice of dennis ] an allstate agent can help do the switching and paperwork for you. well, it probably costs a lo [ voice of dennis ] allstate can save you up to 30% more when you bundle. well, his dog's stupid. [ voice of dennis ] poodles are one of t

second, paul ryan, yes, did vote against bowles-simpson. but then he came out with his own plan to reduce the debt and deficit. >> i volted for it, i later voted against it, senator john kerry. he was blasted for that. you clearly said it. and keep in mind, many republicans called for that type of commission before ran from it after it was already put in place. democrats and republicans say oh, great idea, but we really don't want to implement what they are talking about. >> sadly, we have to end this without any resolution, gentlemen. i'm sure we'll take it up again soon. >> really? >> just put will cain dancing on the edge of truth. >>> soledad, while they are fighting, back to you in new orleans. >> oh, yes. a storm at the cnn grill. a storm where i am as well. it just doesn't end. >>> still ahead this morning on "starting point," we'll continue our coverage both from the rnc and also of what is now tropical storm isaac. as we are feeling the aftereffects as rain and wind comes in. we'll update out what's happening not only in the state

ryan had a vote and simpson-bowl got 10 and not 11. if ryan killed simpson-bowls and not the president. the president put a system in place. >> it was his commission. >> ryan could have brought it to the floor and he didn't. ryan could have voted for it and he voted against it. >> and one thing we do know while the president does agree with what is in skim sim-bowles he doesn't agree with everything. the governor has made it all about the economy. does it become budgets and deficits and spending and tax cuts and the thing that is the governor may not want to talk about in the way that the democrats want to talk about it. >> john, chris and brad are giving a perfect example much case study why the ryan pick is going to take the campaign to the next level. it energizes the conservative and obama and democrats they wanted this pick, too. they would like to shift the discussion you know, to medicare and meda scare . say that ryan would end medicare as we know it. republicans say look, democrats are always make about the ryan budget and all

paul ryan was a pivotal figure kill in the two thousand and ten bowles simpson agreement which republican presidential candidate mitt romney now holds out as a model for putting america's fiscal house in order ryan killed the plan because it raised a few taxes on the rich something paul ryan is not allowed to do because he signed multimillionaire lobbyist grover norquist tax pledge you'd be hard pressed right now to find one other convention speech in our nation's history riddled with more allies than paul ryan's which begs the question why why did paul ryan the rest of the republican party have to lie about their agenda well frankly it's because their agenda is based in fantasy actually it's even worse it's because their agenda is based on crippling the united states it's based on sucking the life out of the middle class and turning the united states into a corporatocracy an oligarchy they can't be honest about that their agenda is the same agenda that's been carried out over the last thirty years with disastrous results a shrinking middle class record poverty record wealth inequality it

why did paul ryan reject bowles-simpson. >> for the same reason that i'm not in favor of bowles-simpson and we ought to take the good things without the bad and there are two fundamental reasons why i rejected and why paul rejected bowles-simpson. it goes back to check growth. economic growth has a big impact on the deficit in this country. we need to get growth going again and taxes have a big part to play in that economic growth and ernst & young study pointed out that the president's call for tax increases will cost 700,000 jobs, okay? it will decrease the ability for us to grow. so the baseline and the assumptions in the bowles-simpson commission called for a nearly $2 trillion tax increase over the next ten years. that is not something that will lend itself to economic growth. the second piece, wolf, is the fact that the structure of the entitlement programs and healthcare was left in place and we know that that has been ineffective at lowering costs to allow more people access to coverage. >> your good friend is the vice presidential nominee and mitt romney is about to do the bigg

paul ryan was a pivotal figure kill in the two thousand and ten bowles simpson agreement which republican presidential candidate mitt romney now holds out as a model for putting america's fiscal house in order ryan killed the plan because it raised a few taxes on the rich something paul ryan is not allowed to do because he signed multimillionaire lobbyist grover norquist tax pledge you'd be hard pressed right now to find one other convention speech in our nation's history riddled with more allies than paul ryan's which begs the question why why did paul ryan the rest of the republican party have to lie about their agenda well frankly it's because their agenda is based in fantasy actually it's even worse it's because their agenda is based on crippling the united states it's based on sucking the life out of the middle class and turning the united states into a corporatocracy an oligarchy they can't be honest about that their agenda is the same agenda that's been carried out over the last thirty years with disastrous results a shrinking middle class record poverty record wealth inequality th

why do you think -- what do you think of the simpson-bowles? >>neil: did you get a response from the debate commission? donald trump when he heard you were among those pushing this, he was not a fan. maybe you clarified this, but he thinks the message you were sending is wrong. this is donald trump from a couple of days ago. >>guest: nadler is the kind of guy that gets us in trouble so when you look at him and you look at what his suggestion is we should not put this on the table, it was his boss, obama, that brought it up in the first place. >>guest: well, consider the course. donald trump is not the brightest guy in the world. second of all --. >>neil: he is a billionaire. >>guest: you start with $40 million and make good investments and the state bales you out you can become a billionaire. >>neil: donald trump is dumb? >>guest: i will not get into that. i will not get it to that. no point to discuss that. we have been feuding for 25 years. in point to that. i opposed his project on the west side of manhattan. but that is not the point. i did

the president commissioned the simpson/bowles commission and put out a set of propoproposals. the president put out a set of proposals that reflects what simpson/bowles has been trying to achieve. the plan has been out there for a year. let's talk about paul ryan. paul ryan sat on that commission. he didn't show up on day of the last vote. he phoned it in and voted no. then now he says he's got a deficit reduction plan. it has no reflection of the simpson/bowles commission or the balance we need to reduce the deficit. his is based on complete phony numbers. me says he's going to reduce the deficit but a $4.5 trillion tax cut but he won't tell us how he's going to pay for it. those are the facts. the president didn't walk away from deficit reduction. he put his own ideas on the table that reflect simpson/bowles which is why bowles supports the president and actually says the romney/ryan plan won't achieve -- >> bowles has been quoted as telling a north carolina audience, i think, very high praise for paul ryan, for his brain, for his ability, his grasp of the facts. facts are s

if we will update simpson- bowles. it will be simpson-bowles plus. \ we want a blueprint. it is a viable brand. when folks mentioned simpson- bowles, a lot of heads will not and say why didn't you pass that? we will give them an opportunity to look at another package which we will work out in the context of bipartisanship in the context of a goal, that goal being to reduce the debt and deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years and along the lines of what the original simpson-bowles proposal was, and updating things the biden group agreed on and things other groups. suggested simpson-bowles and i were invited to speak to members of the senate a couple weeks ago. 40 senators showed up. it was amazing. from both sides of the aisle. everybody stuck around for about an hour-and-a-half to talk about how we do this, how we put in place the procedure and then the actual policy to get significant defdebt and deficit improvements going for word. -- forard. i thinkhe election there will be fertile ground to get something big done. we want to make sure there's blueprints to work off of if

romney said he would embrace something like simpson/bowles. paul ryan served on the simpson/bowles commission and voted against its recommendations. one of the key questions about if you're going to lower rates but keep the revenues basically in place is what loopholes they're going to close. where the simpson/bowles commission says we should close loopholes, mitt romney said, that's off base. and here right when erin interviewed paul ryan in the halls of congress earlier, he spoke about it as well. let's take a listen. >> it sounds to me like you're opening to increasing revenue by doubling revenue by getting rid of loopholes? >> and lowering tax rates. don't forget the second part which is broaden the tax base but lower the tax rates. here's the deal. like i said, most of our businesses, we don't want to charge them with a 45% tax rate when their competitors, like in canada, are having a 15% tax rate or in china a 25% tax rate. we want to lower these tax rates to get more economic growth. so we think we can get at least as much revenue to th

romney said he would embrace something like simpson/bowles. paul ryan served on the simpson/bowles commission and voted against its recommendations. one of the key questions about if you're going to lower rates but keep the revenues basically in place is what loopholes they're going to close. where the simpson/bowles commission says we should close loopholes, mitt romney said, that's off base. and here right when erin interviewed paul ryan in the halls of congress earlier, he spoke about it as well. let's take a listen. >> it sounds to me like you're opening to increasing revenue by doubling revenue by getting rid of loopholes? >> and lowering tax rates. don't forget the second part which is broaden the tax base but lower the tax rates. here's the deal. like i said, most of our businesses, we don't want to charge them with a 45% tax rate when their competitors, like in canada, are having a 15% tax rate or in china a 25% tax rate. we want to lower these tax rates to get more economic gwth. so we think we can get at least as much revenue to the

compare the romney plan to simpson-bowles. where are the differences and do you think simpson-bowles or the gang of six do you think they're on to something or entire different solution? >> i think the simpson plan was fundamentally about getting some balance. you got some revenue, you got some discretionary cuts, you got some defense cuts and entitlement cuts, you save some interest, you try to build that they could do something. it strikes me you look at the romney plan, it's totally the opposite. he's dealing with a non-partisan tax think tank about whether or not his tax plan is $ trillio2 trillion, $5 trillion or breaks even and if you're in that space you can't do bowles-simpson in the slightest way. >> i've heard figures are so hard when we're talking in trillions to talk about. we had someone earlier in the week talk about how well the 1% or how well rich people would do under romney's plan but we had one of his spokespeople on, governor sununu said that the 20%, the top 20% and what they pay now that there's no way it

romney said he would embrace something like simpson/bowles. paul ryan served on the simpson/bowles commission and voted against its recommendations. one of the key questions about if you're going to lower rates but keep the revenues basically in place is what loopholes they're going to close. where the simpson/bowles commission says we should close loopholes, mitt romney said, that's off base. and here right when erin interviewed paul ryan in the halls of congress earlier, he spoke about it as well. let's take a listen. >> it sounds to me like you're opening to increasing revenue by doubling revenue by getting rid of loopholes? >> and lowering tax rates. don't forget the second part which is broaden the tax base but lower the tax rates. here's the deal. like i said, most of our businesses, we don't want to charge them with a 4 tax rate when their competitors, like in canada, are having a 15% tax rate or in china a 25% tax rate. we want to lower these tax rates to get more economic growth. so we think we can get at least as much revenue to the

that was the bowles-simpson proposal that was never officially presented to concert in part because it was voted down by a blue-eyed dream boat named ryan. ryan gosling -- wait a minute! you know what? we need to tell a personal story about an auto plant that closed in ryan's district. perhaps this will hold hard truths. >> president obama, candidate obama said i believe if our government is there to support you this plant will be here for another 100 years. that is what he said in 2008. that plant didn't last another year. the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight. >> jon: yeah, except that plant announced in june of 2008 that it would be stopping production, hold on a second, siri, who was president in june of 2008? george bush! thank you, sir i are, thank you, siri, this was the intellectual leader of the new republican party's big night. how will he spin his way out of it. >> i didn't say president obama shut down that plant, what it was was an indictment on a deeper level which is a debate i would love to have. >> i think he didn't provide context. >> well, you know, broa

they didn't like the bowles recommendations. >> bowles and simpson have both said is that they looked at the president's budget proposal and it comes a lot closer to the balanced approach they proposed than the republican budget that is put forward in the house by ryan and the house republican leadership. the reason for that is that the ryan budget doesn't ask for one penny from the very wealthiest americans to help reduce our deficit. the math is pretty clear. if you say the wealthiest don't have to pay a penny more, it means the budget will sock it hard to everybody else. that is exactly what their budget does. they have been uncompromising about the approach they have taken. you know last summer they threatened to have the united states default on the obligations for the first time in history if they didn't enact the budget proposa >> the democratic congressman from marynd. a colleague of paul ryan on the house committee, thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> paul ryan has been on a mission to re invent the republican party. we will talk about his ideological root when

has to be increased each year, you're not goingng to get to the point we are talking about with the bowles-simpson kind of solution. that is the reality. i think tt democrats have to confront it as well. >> for the 100th time, there is a difficulty here in undersrstanding the distinction between the warring tax rates and lowering tax revevenues. what ronny wants to do, what ryan wants to do, is to lower tatax rates anincreased the base increased the amount you tax, by y eliminating loopholes deductions, exemptions, and tax shshelters -- >> not s saying what they are. >> which is genelly what the rich are able to do an ordinary americans are e not able to do. that is how youncrease revenues and stimulate the economy did exactly what happened in 1986 when democrats and republicans did the ultimatete inax reform. that is what we're talking about. [ male announcer ] some think obamacare is the same as free health care. but nothing is free. obama is raiding $716 billion from medicare changing the program forever. taxing wheelchairs and pacemakers. raising taxes on families making less than one hundred

they didn't like the bowles recommendations. >> bowles and simpson have both said is that they looked at the president's budget proposal and it comes a lot closer to the balanced approach they proposed than the republican budget that is put forward in the house by ryan and the house republican leadership. the reason for that is that the ryan budget doesn't ask for one penny from the very wealthiest americans to help reduce our deficit. the math is pretty clear. if you say the wealthiest don't have to pay a penny more, it means the budget will sock it hard to everybody else. that is exactly what their budget does. they have been uncompromising about the approach they have taken. you know last summer they threatened to have the united states default on the obligations for the first time in history if they didn't enact the budget proposal. >> the democratic congressman from maryland. a colleague of paul ryan on the house committee, thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> paul ryan has been on a mission to re invent the republican party. we will talk about his ideological root w

commission, which i think is fabulous, because bowles-simpson was the one moment in a very partisan environment where we got republicans and democrats to agree on a package. and that package included lower marginal rates, broader bases, and they raised more revenues as well. >> reporter: i haven't been covering economics for quite this long, but over the last 100 years, this is close to the lowest top marginal rate we've ever had. a little lower for a few years, under reagan, 28%, but only for a few years. and its been as high as 90% or north of 90% from the mid-'40s all the way to kennedy, all the way through the eisenhower administration. so are we really going to get more growth by cutting the marginal top rate? >> no single policy, in and of itself, is the magic for growth. if we knew the one lever to pull, we would have pulled it. there's a lot of evidence that higher marginal rates deter people from working as much, from investing efficiently. it leads to a premium on having a clever tax attorney instead of doing your job. that's the reason you want to get rates down. >> repor

and you were talking about, hey, it's time to do some tough things on the -- on the lines of bowles simpson and he's somebody that has spoken positively on bowles/simpson but was on the commission and voted against it. he has his only credibility issues that he has to be careful about and sort of explain now that he's on the national ticket and basically leading the republican party here. >> let's take a look at the matchup for vice president now. he goes against what looks like joe biden will get the nod pretty sure, it's pretty much a certainty he'll be on the ticket. what do you think the debate will be about, here's a debate against a cerebral, versus a street politician guy, not necessarily a wonk. >> i think biden's going to know how to handle that. i think that there's no question that paul ryan is going to know how to handle himself on the issues, you know, i mean he's a -- he's a guy who can put a laser focus on the economy and on the debt. it's what he's studied so much and as budget chairman, what he really knows, he knows how to argue it and he can take a punch, but can he sell

simpson commission and he voted no on bowles-simpson which is something everybody claims to be for now. >> romney will point out as this defense of medicare gets going, that he initially supported the ryan plan, but then modified it to allow seniors to stay in current medicare or make the choice that was part of the ryan model, but this debate is far from over and they're going to have to deal with that. back to luke's point because it's important. if you think about how ryan complements romney, i think luke's exactly right. he's a natural campaigner, a very easy politician, paul ryan is. can he go out there and energize the republican crowd? yes, he can do that. can he do it in working-class sections of the country just like joe biden's doing for president obama? yes, he can do that. he can be a huge fund-raiser because he'll energize conservatives with the fiscal message he's got. if you think about all those areas, including the convention where paul ryan will have such a big role, he really can perform very, very well. that's on the one side of the ledger and the other side is that

world, ok, and has to be increased each year, then you are not going to ever get to the point with a bowles-simpson kind of solution. that is the reality. democrats have to confront it as well that it is not just going to be done in revenues. ask to be done on cuts in entitlements. >> for the 100th time, there is a difficulty here in understanding the distinction between the warring tax rates and lowering tax revenues. -- lowering tax rates and lowering tax revenues. what romney wants to do is lower tax rates and increase the amount that you tax by eliminating loopholes, deductions, exemptions, and taxes shelters -- >> not say in what they are. >> which generally the rich are able to do an ordinary americans are not able to do. that is how you ireduce tax rates and increase revenues and stimulate the economy, exactly what happened in 1986 when democrats and republicans did it the ultimate in tax reform. >> the war in afghanistan. why aren't the candidates talking about that? this photograph appeared on page one of "the new york times" on wednesday the parents of the 1,990th military member to die i

be increased each year, you are not going to ever get to the point we're talking about without the bowles-simpson kind of solution. democrats have to confront it as well, that i.t. is not just going to be done on revenues. has toe done on cuts in entitlements. >> for the 100th time, there is a difficulty here in understanding the distinction between lowering tax rates and lowering tax revenues. what romney and ryan wanted it is lower tax rates and increase the amount that attacks by eliminating loopholes, deductions, exemptions and tax shelters, -- >> not saying what they are. >> which the rich are able to do an ordinary americans are not able to do. that is why you increase tax rates. democrats and republicans did the ultimate in tax reform. that is what we're talking about. >> war in afghanistan -- why are candidates not talking about that? these are the parents of the the 1998 american military service member to die and afghanistan. a week later, an army specialist died in a military hospital in germany. he was no. 2000 in this 11-year- old war. his mother says, "our forces shouldn't be there.