Paul Ryan selected for Veep

MadsL

NBC reporting 3 sources confirming Paul Ryan as running mate.

Atlantis50

Has also been practically confirmed by DRUDGE who has strong links to the Romney campaign http://drudgereport.com/

Official announcement is at 1.45 pm Irish time today.

This is Ryan making some points about Obama's healthcare law to Obama's face:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

MadsL

At an Atlas Society meeting celebrating Ayn Rand's life in 2005, Ryan said that "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand",[18] and "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."[19]

In response to criticism from Catholic leaders, in 2012 Ryan distanced himself from Rand's Objectivist philosophy, telling National Review that while as a young man he became interested in economics because of her novels, "It’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist... I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan#Personal_life

Flip-flopper - can see why Romney likes him,

Mark200

His campaign is clearly getting worried, or they would have chosen someone safe

hooradiation

Personally, i think Romney should have picked a game changer

like sarah palin

no one would have expected Sarah Palin a second time

jank

Well he is better than Palin but maybe a little bit too intellectual for the average man? It is a very high brow nomination but not a bad selection by any means.

hooradiation

jank wrote: »

Well he is better than Palin but maybe a little bit too intellectual for the average man? It is a very high brow nomination but not a bad selection by any means.

The headline I saw for the Paul Ryan pick was "bold and risky".
I suppose if someone does something inexplicably stupid I should start commending them for making a "bold and risky" move.

I will however congratulate the GOP on this ticket's hair.

Suryavarman

It's a pretty good choice for Romney. Ryan is a fairly well spoken person, appears to be fairly knowledgeable about the budget and his proposed budget will take some attention away from some of Romney's failings such as his refusal to release his tax returns.

Brian?

Slow golf clap for Mitt.

Instead of choosing someone that might appeal to moderate swing voters, he's picked someone who will "energise the base" of the GOP.

4 more years for Obama it is.

Amerika

Excellent choice in Ryan. I see the narrative becoming the ticket of blame vs the ticket of solutions. Energizes the Conservatives, appeals to those looking for solutions rather than rhetoric regarding the main issue of the economy, and helps Romney with the mid-west states. Although no southerner on either ticket, Ryan's conservative ideals will play well with the south. And Ryan did more in selling Romney in his first speech as the VP pick than Romney has had in the last month selling himself to the American people.

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

I see the narrative becoming the ticket of blame vs the ticket of solutions.

Accurate, but not in the way you're thinking.

sink

Of the little that I've seen of him he seems very articulate which is uncommon for a republican. I only know of his economic views for which I would have a lot of sympathy, but I know little of his social views and the little I know does not sound good. However he still seems a much better choice than the usual lowbrow candidates put forward by the republicans, hopefully he will raise the level of debate

touts

Aaron Sorkin will be pissed that Romney picked the one Republican that hasnt been subject to a Will McAvoy rant in the last 8 weeks.

Denerick

Absurd choice. Ryan will alienate the ageing swing voters who reject his policy on social security (He basically wants to wind it down)

Romney will probably lose this election but he is making Ryan the frontrunner for 2016. For those who care about social justice, that is a very worrying thing.

MadsL

Bit young for Veep, no? He's only 42 ffs. Just seven years older than the minimum.

A Primal Nut

MadsL wrote: »

Bit young for Veep, no? He's only 42 ffs. Just seven years older than the minimum.

I'm indifferent about Ryan but I'd hate to think that a person's age has any relevance in the average voter's mind. Obama was only 47 when he was elected so its a non-issue.

poeticseraphim

sink wrote: »

Of the little that I've seen of him he seems very articulate which is uncommon for a republican. I only know of his economic views for which I would have a lot of sympathy, but I know little of his social views and the little I know does not sound good. However he still seems a much better choice than the usual lowbrow candidates put forward by the republicans, hopefully he will raise the level of debate

He is against abortion even in cases of rape incest or when a woman's life is in danger. He would be in favour of making it illegal and women could face jail.


He is a weird hybrid that always puzzles me when it comes to the right......a libertarian when it comes to money...but a complete statist when it comes to women and social issues.

It is a contradiction in ideologies.....
His budget would put most of American resources out of the hands of the middle class and into the rich and completely screw the poor.

He used social security survivors payments when his father died to pay for his education.

There is a dual culture within the man that cannot be reconciled in my opinion.

He is against gay marriage and any kind of benefit to gay couples.

I cannot seem to find anything on foreign policy.

20Cent

Good news for the Democratic party.

Expect this ad soon.

A woman's voice over. "You've worked hard all your life. You've paid Medicare taxes for almost 30 years. But under the Republican plan, Medicare won't be there for you. Instead of Medicare as it exists now, under the Republican plan you'll get a voucher that will pay as little as half your Medicare costs when you turn 65—and as little as a quarter in your 80s. And all so that millionaires and billionaires can have a huge tax cut.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/attack-ads.html

UNI4MER

Denerick wrote: »

Absurd choice. Ryan will alienate the ageing swing voters who reject his policy on social security (He basically wants to wind it down)

Romney will probably lose this election but he is making Ryan the frontrunner for 2016. For those who care about social justice, that is a very worrying thing.

The ageing swing voters know that unless Obama care is repealed their future for the first time will be in the hands of bureaucrats. It's up to Ryan to articulate this and sell an alternative. And if social security is not reformed it will be bankrupt soon.

Duck Soup

Mark is right, this is a choice that was forced upon Romney because the Obama campaign is dictating the narrative of the race. Unless he shakes things up, Romney goes down in November not with a bang but with a low drone about dressage.

A few things. The percentage of undecided voters is abnormally small for this point in the election cycle - one poll had it at between 4 and 5%. The two most recent polls, CNN and Fox, have Obama ahead 7 and 9 points. The broader problem is the narrative one. The Obama campaign has successfully cast Romney as a self-interested plutocrat with something to hide and of no fixed principles. Perhaps most importantly, they've framed Romney as being a friend of Wall Street and the 1% and an enemy of the middle class.

The Ryan pick has big risks - if they can hang the Ryan plan around the ticket's neck (Romney's already disavowed it, but typically hasn't said a word about what would be in its place), then they're as good as dead in the water. In that sense, it's 'bold'. There are certainly upsides, such as the possibility that Ryan might be able to get the conversation back onto the economy without it getting bogged down in Bain Capital, off-shore accounts, tax records etc. Factor in though, that while Ryan is undeniably smart, that doesn't necessarily translate into either likable or able to communicate successfully to a great mass of voters.

There's a strong possibility - especially given the strength of the Obama campaign - that the conversation about the economy spearheaded by Ryan becomes a conversation about Ryan dismantling Medicare.

So Ryan is the hold-what-we-have candidate. It's a sign that they're not going to try for Latino or black votes or anyone outside of the base. Ryan is famously hardworking, so my guess is that his job for the next 2 and half months is to criss-cross the country, getting the white Christian coalition fired up and behind the Republicans. An animated base, plus the voter suppression measures that have been put in place by Republican state legislatures across America, they're hoping might just sneak them a win.

cristoir

He should have picked Jindal. He is very conservative, appealed to the base but also to moderates as he was seen as a highly successful governor. Plus he has the few bonus's that come with being a member of minority section of society.

Ryan is very risky. His budget plan is highly unpopular. Whilst most Republican talked about cutting spending by waffling on about minor cuts to discretionary spending his plan (somewhat admirably) took on the big fish. Sadly for him those big fish, SS and Medicare, happen to be extremely popular. His suggested reforms are seen as "ending Medicare as we know it". Unless he disowns the plan or sells it very well it will cost the ticket Florida.

Also I reject the notion he is deficit hawk. Just because his plan slashes spending doesn't mean it would tackle the deficit. It also gives away many billions in tax cuts. "Deficit Hawks" don't cut taxes while the deficit is ballooning.

UNI4MER

Ryan is articulate and his plan is the only one put forth that deals with medicare and SS both going broke. But it is all about the message and how it gets articulated. There are so many problems caused by Obama's policies it's like a buffet on where to start. If it weren't for the mainstream media protecting Obama and the Dems any candidate would be way ahead of Obama by now. Somehow the Republicans have to take the message to the unemployed and give them a reason to vote for Romney and that cannot be done by being polite. Reagan won by 2 landslides as an underdog because he was able to deliver a clear and concise conservative message and no Republican since him has tried to do the same.

hooradiation

UNI4MER wrote: »

Ryan is articulate and his plan is the only one put forth that deals with medicare and SS both going broke.

It's also terrible, which is why senate put it down like the rabid dog it was.
Effort does not equal worth.

UNI4MER wrote: »

But it is all about the message and how it gets articulated. There are so many problems caused by Obama's policies it's like a buffet on where to start. If it weren't for the mainstream media protecting Obama and the Dems any candidate would be way ahead of Obama by now.

Yup, it's everyone else's fault that the GOP nominee is so bland and unappealing that despite kicking Obama the length and breadth of the field in fundraising still hasn't been able to manage anything more than simply passable. At best.

UNI4MER wrote: »

Somehow the Republicans have to take the message to the unemployed and give them a reason to vote for Romney and that cannot be done by being polite.

It actually cannot be done, being polite or not won't change that.

matthew8

I like this pick. Ryan is the sort of guy who's actually ultra-conservative and will help please the base, but he also sounds rational which can help with moderate appeal. Far too much is made of his medicare plan.

Duck Soup

matthew8 wrote: »

I like this pick. Ryan is the sort of guy who's actually ultra-conservative and will help please the base, but he also sounds rational which can help with moderate appeal. Far too much is made of his medicare plan.

Not totally convinced of Ryan's ability to appeal outside of the base. He's certainly, from one perspective, a counterbalance to Biden's Scranton-boy man-of-the-people persona and serves much the same purpose for Romney as Biden does for Obama. The top of the tickets are an academic and a financier, so Biden and Ryan give them all-important blue collar credibility.

Remember as well that there are a handful of states, and within those a sliver of voters, that will decide the election. I think the Romney campaign has identified the white, blue collar voters in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania as their key demographic. An Irish-American Catholic from a modest background helps with that.

The danger is that Ryan's slash-and-burn ethos comes across as an even harsher version of Romney's tax-cuts-for-billionaires and let-Detriot-die messaging. Ryan then comes across not as a regular Joe made good but a political ideologue with a deaf ear to ordinary families. Everyone wants savings; nobody wants it at their expense.

The Romney campaign needs for once to get on the front foot and to frame Ryan before the Obama campaign does it for them. If he's set up to look like a hitman for Medicare, Medicaid and welfare, he's going to make a lot of seniors, the unemployed, and middle-income earners very, very nervous.

There's also a growing feeling that the Democrats are winning the argument on the rich paying a little more (which is why Romney's tax returns are widely emblematic rather than a simple matter of personal probity). Ryan wouldn't raise an extra cent in more taxes. He wants to cut corporate tax from 35% to 25%. All the savings come out of cuts. People have an increasing sense that the 'job creators' are making like bandits; Ryan asks nothing of them and for everyone else to take a hit.

southsiderosie

UNI4MER wrote: »

The ageing swing voters know that unless Obama care is repealed their future for the first time will be in the hands of bureaucrats. It's up to Ryan to articulate this and sell an alternative. And if social security is not reformed it will be bankrupt soon.

Older voters in the US are very happy to leave their health care in the hands of Medicare bureaucrats.

cristoir wrote: »

He should have picked Jindal. He is very conservative, appealed to the base but also to moderates as he was seen as a highly successful governor. Plus he has the few bonus's that come with being a member of minority section of society.

They tried to trot out Jindal after a State of the Union address, and he was clearly not ready for prime time.

cristoir wrote: »

Ryan is very risky. His budget plan is highly unpopular. Whilst most Republican talked about cutting spending by waffling on about minor cuts to discretionary spending his plan (somewhat admirably) took on the big fish. Sadly for him those big fish, SS and Medicare, happen to be extremely popular. His suggested reforms are seen as "ending Medicare as we know it". Unless he disowns the plan or sells it very well it will cost the ticket Florida.

Yeah, I don't get the Ryan pick at all. To me, it is a strong signal that the inmates are running the asylum inside of the GOP - do they really think they can win without Florida and Ohio? Obama is already polling ahead in these states, and a veep candidate who wants to switch Medicare to a voucher system and privatize Social Security isn't going to give Romney much of a boost.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's a pretty good choice for Romney. Ryan is a fairly well spoken person, appears to be fairly knowledgeable about the budget and his proposed budget will take some attention away from some of Romney's failings such as his refusal to release his tax returns.

His refusal to discuss any budgetary specifics also, for me at least. This isn't a private CEO bid, and you don't have some super-secret way to turn the company around (actually, thats still ridiculous) - you're already in politics, go propose your budget ideas and get them passed, if they are worth anything, and stop trying to tell people you have a plan when you don't.

Then again I guess that's why everyone is afraid of Ron Paul, because he only ever told the american people exactly what he thought, and exactly what he would set out to do. Every other politician just weasels around and does nothing effective.

Ron Paul is still running, by the way.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/hope_persists_for_ron_paul_bec.html

Black Swan

Changing Social Security has been a major political issue of Paul Ryan.

It may not be wise for Paul Ryan (or Mitt Romney) to include changing Social Security as a part of the GOP 2012 platform. There are millions of voters that count on their Social Security checks as part of their retirement income.

Many are living from paycheck to paycheck during the Great Recession, and for someone to be seen as threatening, or reducing this paycheck beginning in 2013 may be cause for them to vote NO on Romney/Ryan November 2012 (by voting for Obama/Biden).

2008 General Election, US Census Bureau:

• Age 65-74 Reported Voted = 14,176,000 (72.4% of age group voted).
• Age 75 plus Reported Voted = 11,344,000 (65.8% of age group voted).
  
• Total age 65 plus = 25.5 million in 2008 election voted.
  
• This voting block will be larger in November 2012, as the Baby Boom begins to retire in increasing numbers (approximately 70 million Americans born 1946-1964).

Furthermore, labeling Social Security as an "entitlement" (and attempting to treat it like Welfare) may not be in their best political platform interests. Social Security and Welfare are very different. For decades millions of blue collar and professional employees were forced to contribute to the Social Security fund (from monies they earned), with the promise of the US government that such monies would be there for them when they retired. No such promises were made through Welfare taxation.

The Social Security system certainly has a problematic future, but to beat the "change" Social Security campaign drum between now and November 2012 may be a huge mistake; one that could cost the GOP the presidential election.

Reference:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html

UNI4MER

southsiderosie wrote: »

Older voters in the US are very happy to leave their health care in the hands of Medicare bureaucrats.

According to who?

UNI4MER

Quote:
It's also terrible, which is why senate put it down like the rabid dog it was.
Effort does not equal worth.

Lesson 1: the senate is controlled by democrats what do you expect?


Quote:
Yup, it's everyone else's fault that the GOP nominee is so bland and unappealing that despite kicking Obama the length and breadth of the field in fundraising still hasn't been able to manage anything more than simply passable. At best.

Lesson 2: the mainstream american media is on the side of the dems purposely avoiding any scrutiny of Obama at no cost to his campaign.


Quote:
It actually cannot be done, being polite or not won't change that.

Lesson 3: See Ronald Reagan

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

Older voters in the US are very happy to leave their health care in the hands of Medicare bureaucrats.

UNI4MER wrote: »

According to who?

According to the fact that they scream bloody murder any time politicians try to cut the program, to the point that even members of the GOP were alarmed by the proposed medicare changes in the Ryan plan.

Also according to pretty much any poll you can find on the subject.

Senior entitlements are the third rail of American politics. This is not news.

southsiderosie

UNI4MER wrote: »

Lesson 2: the mainstream american media is on the side of the dems purposely avoiding any scrutiny of Obama at no cost to his campaign.

This is perhaps the lamest excuse I've seen for the weakness of the GOP right now. The economy is crap and real unemployment is in the double-digits - facts that the apparently Obama-controlled media have not papered over - and Obama is STILL polling ahead of Romney. And that's before we even get into the obscene amount of money being poured into Obama attack ads.

If you can't sell a parched man a cool drink on a hot day, something ain't right in the Kool-Aid.

poeticseraphim

I am just waiting for someone to have the guts to call their fiscal policy out for what it is pure facism.

Not to use that term lightly but genuinely and seriously.

It is bandied about too much by the left to dismiss right wingers unfairly.

But facism is neither right wing nor left wing. It is pure economic protectionism.

And his budget is built on it.

His social policies are built on it. It is a war on women. He does not even support equal pay laws. Nor anti-discrimmination laws.... check out his voting record on women's issues http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/paul-ryan/68/womens-issues it's not good..

Romney's foreign policy is looking very aggressive.

The republican party has pumped so much money into this campaign in comparison to what the democrats have been able to raise and it looks as if they are hired to protect that 1% at the cost of a nation.

The problem is Obama is not much better ....a blanket recapitalisation of banks and not addressing the inherent cause of their insolvency. The regulation allowing incorrect audits to distort the finacial realtiy of the health of thosebanksneed to change and they needed incentive tobe fiscallyprudent.Certain banks needed to be wound down and let fail while stading behind those that were more financially healthy.

And the simple truth is America cannot afford the military it currently has ...it just cant. Forget about even being able to afford the wars it cannot afford to be the biggest military power at the momment.


America spends more on healthcare than any other country ..it is just incredibly inefficient...more is spent on administration than patients ..it achieves a lesser health outcoms for a greater expenditure..its fragmented..stronger incentives for overuse of advanced diagnostic and treatment technology when it may be unneeded driving up costs.
http://lanekenworthy.net/2011/07/10/americas-inefficient-health-care-system-another-look/

If it were more efficient cuts would not have to necessarily be so damaging...bcause America actually spends a lot...it just does not really get much for its buck.

Duck Soup

This may sound like a strange thing to say, but I'm not sure that even the conservative big money funders - the Koch Brothers, Rove etc - are convinced they're going to win the presidential race. What's just as important - and probably more realistic - is to make sure that they maintain their control of the HoR and maybe pinch a few seats in the Senate.

In that regard, Ryan acts as a figurehead for true believers down ticket. The signs are already there that the conservative Super PACs are spending surprisingly large amounts on congressional and senate races (but then they do have rather a lot to splash around).

Even if Obama wins, they want to ensure that he can't pass measures like raising taxes on the very wealthy, greater financial markets oversight and stricter EPA regulations. He may well get to be a two-term president, but Koch Brothers and friends are going to make sure Obama can get as little as possible done against their interests in the second term.

Memnoch

poeticseraphim wrote: »

If it were more efficient cuts would not have to necessarily be so damaging...bcause America actually spends a lot...it just does not really get much for its buck.

Of course they spend a lot. Where else are all the massive profits for insurance companies, drug manufacturers and HMOs going to come from?

But remember, private = efficient. Public = waste.

P.S. Don't tell the libertarians (anarcho-capitalists).

Memnoch

Duck Soup wrote: »

This may sound like a strange thing to say, but I'm not sure that even the conservative big money funders - the Koch Brothers, Rove etc - are convinced they're going to win the presidential race. What's just as important - and probably more realistic - is to make sure that they maintain their control of the HoR and maybe pinch a few seats in the Senate.

In that regard, Ryan acts as a figurehead for true believers down ticket. The signs are already there that the conservative Super PACs are spending surprisingly large amounts on congressional and senate races (but then they do have rather a lot to splash around).

Even if Obama wins, they want to ensure that he can't pass measures like raising taxes on the very wealthy, greater financial markets oversight and stricter EPA regulations. He may well get to be a two-term president, but Koch Brothers and friends are going to make sure Obama can get as little as possible done against their interests in the second term.

Democracy is dying. Bit by bit, piece by piece, it is being cut away and the serfs are voluntarily putting their heads on the chopping block, lining up to kiss the feets of their new corporate masters.

How long before the entire world is run by corporate conglomerates?

Denerick

Memnoch wrote: »

How long before the entire world is run by corporate conglomerates?

The depressing reality is that the ultra wealthy basically control all of our national and international institutions.

What we need right now is a new democratic movement, harking back to the chartists, the civil rights movement etc. Starting off with a complete ban on any corporate (Or labour) money in politics. All politicians and their campaigns to be funded through general taxation. Until that happens, ordinary people will have absolutely no control over their governments.

Tougher regulations on media ownership needs to happen as well. The level of deliberate misinformation perpetuated by the powerful is becoming gradually more Orwellian.

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

The depressing reality is that the ultra wealthy basically control all of our national and international institutions.

What we need right now is a new democratic movement, harking back to the chartists, the civil rights movement etc. Starting off with a complete ban on any corporate (Or labour) money in politics. All politicians and their campaigns to be funded through general taxation. Until that happens, ordinary people will have absolutely no control over their governments.

Tougher regulations on media ownership needs to happen as well. The level of deliberate misinformation perpetuated by the powerful is becoming gradually more Orwellian.

I don't think the bans on corporate money are ever going to come into place in the US because of the Constitution, but I think two policy changes that could make a difference right away are 1) actually enforcing anti-trust laws, and 2) reinstating Glass-Steagal. You would think that we haven't been through this before...

Canvasser

Paul Ryan is an extremist lunatic who preaches the hate filled ideology of objectivism. It will be a land slide for Obama.

Canvasser

Memnoch wrote: »

Of course they spend a lot. Where else are all the massive profits for insurance companies, drug manufacturers and HMOs going to come from?

But remember, private = efficient. Public = waste.

P.S. Don't tell the libertarians (anarcho-capitalists).

Libertarians is an ironic term for these Ron Paul and Ayn Rand types. They want to "free" people from things like healthcare, education and employment.

UNI4MER

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is perhaps the lamest excuse I've seen for the weakness of the GOP right now. The economy is crap and real unemployment is in the double-digits - facts that the apparently Obama-controlled media have not papered over - and Obama is STILL polling ahead of Romney. And that's before we even get into the obscene amount of money being poured into Obama attack ads.

If you can't sell a parched man a cool drink on a hot day, something ain't right in the Kool-Aid.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday 8/12 shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. See tracking history.

Memnoch

Canvasser wrote: »

Libertarians is an ironic term for these Ron Paul and Ayn Rand types. They want to "free" people from things like healthcare, education and employment.

Based on my dealings with 'libertarians,' on these forums it is my opinion that a more accurate description of their political philosophy is anarcho-capitalism as well as the demolition of any kind of effective democracy.

P.S. You forgot to mention basic employment rights and other nice things like child labour.

Denerick

UNI4MER wrote: »

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday 8/12 shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. See tracking history.

RCP is the more convincing. As of today, Obama is +4.6% in the polls.

He is also ahead in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada...

Get real.

To outside observers the US media is a joke, but not the in the way you think (That is supposedly panders to the dems and the left)

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

The depressing reality is that the ultra wealthy basically control all of our national and international institutions.

What we need right now is a new democratic movement, harking back to the chartists, the civil rights movement etc. Starting off with a complete ban on any corporate (Or labour) money in politics. All politicians and their campaigns to be funded through general taxation. Until that happens, ordinary people will have absolutely no control over their governments.

Tougher regulations on media ownership needs to happen as well. The level of deliberate misinformation perpetuated by the powerful is becoming gradually more Orwellian.

It's not going to happen though is it?

Obama tried to fight off the Super Pacs in the end he had to give in. Now... even if Obama wins, there are Super Pacs behind him, we know nothing about, putting in tens, potentially hundreds of millions. I doubt this is charity or altruism. They will demand a return on their investment and we will probably never know what that will be. Another war? Subsidy? Taxes?

Worse x10 with Romney because he is starting from a position of having no principles to begin with.

History seems to indicate that the elite consolidate their power and disenfranchise the masses. This continues until the masses reach breaking point and then there is a bloody revolt.

Except now we have mass media, disinformation and incredibly effective brainwashing to the point where poor white people want to give tax breaks to the richest people on the planet under some kind of unproven underpants gnome type belief that things will... 'trickle down,' to them.

It's a bleak view but I don't really see any light at the end of the tunnel.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Can we please not let this thread descend into yet another libertarian-bashing session? I think there is more than enough grist for the mill here without dragging in issues from other threads.

hooradiation

UNI4MER wrote: »

Lesson 1: the senate is controlled by democrats what do you expect?

I would have expected this "brave" plan to have enjoyed the support of all the republicans, given that voting in lockstep is kinda their thing. It did not.
Hell, even Rand Paul voted against it, though that's probably because it wasn't awful enough.

UNI4MER wrote: »

Lesson 2: the mainstream american media is on the side of the dems purposely avoiding any scrutiny of Obama at no cost to his campaign.

No, not really.
Also, where's this can-do, pull yourself up by the bootstraps attitude? I mean Isn't "waaaah! it's everyone's fault but mine!" the most common stereotype of the liberals that gets trotted out? Come on now, don't become the caricature you rail against - there's only so much schadenfreude a man can take.

UNI4MER wrote: »

Lesson 3: See Ronald Reagan

The best part of this constant invocation of Regan is good old Saint Ronny would be run out of town as a RINO these days, that's how bugfuck insane the current GOP is.

Overheal

Black Swan wrote: »

Changing Social Security has been a major political issue of Paul Ryan.

It may not be wise for Paul Ryan (or Mitt Romney) to include changing Social Security as a part of the GOP 2012 platform. There are millions of voters that count on their Social Security checks as part of their retirement income.

And that will continue to be the case, indefinitely, until it's altered. I'd personally rather they tackled it now, not just because I don't want to pay more money into a system I will never see a return from, but because it needs to happen.

There will always be some good excuse not to do it. 2008 campaign? Housing bubble. 2004 Campaign? Fighting two wars; too busy bla bla focus on terrorism. 2000 Campaign? You tell me, I wasn't that old. I'm guessing though it was probably a lot of "well things are looking so good right now theres no reason to do such a thing".

Whatever the excuse, whether it be from an optimistic or pessimistic slant, we're always going to have one.

Memnoch wrote: »

Of course they spend a lot. Where else are all the massive profits for insurance companies, drug manufacturers and HMOs going to come from?

But remember, private = efficient. Public = waste.

P.S. Don't tell the libertarians (anarcho-capitalists).

Don't forget Monsanto, Tyson Chicken, and the Tobacco industry. The Agricultural industry, really.

[David Lettermen]: Name the industries that spend billions of dollars lobbying congress every year to meddle in private capitalism.

I'm constantly alarmed at the kind of injustice that happens at the FDA, for instance. There's not much point in having such an organization if it's going to be corruptible from the top down.

Amerika

I see the Democrats are now attacking in full force... Paul Ryan on his budget proposal and especially regarding his wishes to transform our unsustainable Medicare program. Curious though... can someone please tell me how the $700 billion in cuts to Medicare under ObamaCare are good, when Ryan’s plans are bad?

Canvasser

Amerika wrote: »

I see the Democrats are now attacking in full force... Paul Ryan on his budget proposal and especially regarding his wishes to transform our unsustainable Medicare program. Curious though... can someone please tell me how the $700 billion in cuts to Medicare under ObamaCare are good, when Ryan’s plans are bad?

I don't think Obama's planned cuts are good but the cuts proposed in Ryan's budget are really extreme and would impoverish millions of Americans. The fact that the Ryan budget also proposes tax cuts for the rich while cutting jobs and services makes it all the more obnoxious.

Amerika

Canvasser wrote: »

I don't think Obama's planned cuts are good but the cuts proposed in Ryan's budget are really extreme and would impoverish millions of Americans. The fact that the Ryan budget also proposes tax cuts for the rich while cutting jobs and services makes it all the more obnoxious.

Really? Erskine Bowles, the Democratic Co-Chair of President Obama’s commission on Fiscal Responsibility called Ryan’s plan… "sensible," "straight-forward," "honest," and "serious".

Canvasser

Amerika wrote: »

Really? Erskine Bowles, the Democratic Co-Chair of President Obama’s commission on Fiscal Responsibility called Ryan’s plan… "sensible," "straight-forward," "honest," and "serious".

What exactly is that video supposed to prove? Of course there will always be rich, greedy and selfish people who would rather have another tax cut than help the poor. And how can the cureent level of military spending be justified when health and welfare programmes are falling apart.