Paul Ryan selected for Veep

southsiderosie · 12-08-2012 05:48AM

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 · 12-08-2012 06:21AM

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 · 12-08-2012 06:35AM

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 · 12-08-2012 11:47AM

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 · 12-08-2012 11:48AM

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 · 12-08-2012 01:21PM

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 · 12-08-2012 01:55PM

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 · 12-08-2012 05:34PM

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

Canvasser · 12-08-2012 05:40PM

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 · 12-08-2012 06:22PM

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 · 12-08-2012 06:51PM

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 · 12-08-2012 06:55PM

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 · 12-08-2012 06:58PM

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 · 12-08-2012 07:21PM

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 · 12-08-2012 07:42PM

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 · 12-08-2012 11:26PM

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 · 13-08-2012 02:36PM

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 · 13-08-2012 02:39PM

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 · 13-08-2012 02:49PM

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 · 13-08-2012 02:57PM

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.

southsiderosie · 13-08-2012 03:14PM

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".

Bowles is a deficit hawk and a policy wonk, and has been since the Clinton administration, so I am not sure how this is in any way revelatory. The Ryan budget gave the Dems somewhere to start in terms of deficit reduction and a reduction in spending, but given GOP intransigence over increasing revenues I have to question how serious they really are about reducing the deficit. This just seems like a political weapon to beat Obama over the head with - if House members could not hide behind the skirts of a Dem-controlled Senate, then I wonder if they would support Ryan's budget so wholeheartedly: it is easy to vote for massive entitlement cuts when you know that your vote is meaningless.

Amerika · 13-08-2012 04:26PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Bowles is a deficit hawk and a policy wonk, and has been since the Clinton administration, so I am not sure how this is in any way revelatory. The Ryan budget gave the Dems somewhere to start in terms of deficit reduction and a reduction in spending, but given GOP intransigence over increasing revenues I have to question how serious they really are about reducing the deficit. This just seems like a political weapon to beat Obama over the head with - if House members could not hide behind the skirts of a Dem-controlled Senate, then I wonder if they would support Ryan's budget so wholeheartedly: it is easy to vote for massive entitlement cuts when you know that your vote is meaningless.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t these things often passed through the House as a starting point, strongly supporting one parties position, with hopes a discussion and debate take place within the Senate and a compromise can be made somewhere in the middle?

Didn’t the Dem-controlled Senate reject every one of President Obama’s budget proposals?

Einhard · 13-08-2012 05:44PM

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 think that America needs to make some serious decisions about cutting her deficit, and very quickly too, but I didn't really give Ryan's plan any great consideration until the weekend. Then, I did a bit of research, and the plan doesn't seem to stand up under any scrutiny. I'm not syaing this because he's Republican, but because his plan isn't anything liek it's cracked up to be. Both he and Romney claim that they will claw back trllions in lost revenues through closing loopholes, but they don't mention the loopholes they'll target. They're basically saying, trust us, we're gonna get trillions extra, but we can't tell you how. How on earh do people fall for this?

It's not a serious plan at all. On top of all that, it benefits the very wealthy. There's no two ways about it. Now, one might argue that tax cuts create a trickle down effect, which benefits the economy. I might not agree with that, but at least it's something on which to base one's tax cuts. Yet, if that were the case, tax breaks for the middle classes would have as significant a trickle down impact as those for the uber-wealthy, and yet Ryan's plan would benefit the very rich to a much greater degree than the middle class (not even mentioning the poor here).

I really don't get it. I approached Ryan's plan with an open mind. America needs a conherent strategy. And Repubicans claim that this plan offers that. Yet it does nothing of the sort. And I'm really cofused. Because how can rational, intelligent, well-meaning people, who want deficits cut and spending controlled, look at this plan and see something that is considered and worthwhile? It doesn't make sense. Unless those self-same people see Republican on the plan, and support it on that basis alone. Which I suspect to be the case. And which is sadly entirely indicative of America today.

Denerick · 13-08-2012 05:50PM

The American deficit could be solved easily if they simplified their tax system so that it no longer resembles a plutocrat's wet dream (Only wealthy people can afford the tax lawyers that enable to pay so little) and if they withdrew something like 20 to 25% of their military spending (Which is relatively painless also as it would mean huge reductions in ground forces troops which are an anachronism in a thoroughly nuclear and technological age.)

There is no political will, and the american middle class have the wool firmly pulled over their eyes by a corporate media.

southsiderosie · 13-08-2012 05:56PM

Amerika wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t these things often passed through the House as a starting point, strongly supporting one parties position, with hopes a discussion and debate take place within the Senate and a compromise can be made somewhere in the middle?

Didn’t the Dem-controlled Senate reject every one of President Obama’s budget proposals?

Yes, in part due to provisions added on by Republicans, including Jeff Sessions. But many Democrats feel that Obama's budgets have been unrealistic about spending - a position that the GOP seems to be unwilling to take when it comes to taxation.

Notably Ryans plan could not get unanimous support from Republicans in the Senate - the moderates defected.

Ryan's vision of a regressive, minimal tax system, and privatization of old age entitlements is deeply worrisome for many, including members of his own party. And since the GOP lined up behind the budget in the House, it is hard to say that it is something that a Romney administration would not try to implement, especially if the Dems lose the Senate. The GOP's nomination of Ryan gave Obama his best weapon against the Romney ticket he could have possibly asked for.

Atlantis50 · 13-08-2012 05:58PM

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.

So let's get this straight:

Obama's $700 Billion medicare cuts 'not good'.

Ryan budget's unspecified (by you) medicare cuts 'really extreme'.

Winner on medicare cuts = Obama.

Are you for real?

southsiderosie · 13-08-2012 05:59PM

Denerick wrote: »

The American deficit could be solved easily if they simplified their tax system so that it no longer resembles a plutocrat's wet dream (Only wealthy people can afford the tax lawyers that enable to pay so little) and if they withdrew something like 20 to 25% of their military spending (Which is relatively painless also as it would mean huge reductions in ground forces troops which are an anachronism in a thoroughly nuclear and technological age.)

There is no political will, and the american middle class have the wool firmly pulled over their eyes by a corporate media.

To add to that, social security would be solvent if people paid into the system at an equal rate: the maximum taxable income for SS is $110,100.

20Cent · 13-08-2012 06:08PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

So let's get this straight:

Obama's $700 Billion medicare cuts 'not good'.

Ryan budget's unspecified (by you) medicare cuts 'really extreme'.

Winner on medicare cuts = Obama.

Are you for real?

Obama was able to cut the medicare bill because of savings in costs. Ryan wants to just cut it altogether thats the difference.

Ellis Dee · 13-08-2012 06:14PM

Just as McCaint's choice of a Miss Snowshoe Queen runner up was a calculated gamble that fell flat on its face:rolleyes:, Romney's choice of Veep is a sign of desperation. Ryan will delight the Tea Party flakes and the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-(fill in your own word) dinosaurs, and maybe Romney thinks this member of the so-called Minnesota Irish mafia will attract some Irish-American voters in addition, but O'Bama is ahead on that front as well.:)

Brace yourself for a horde of Republican functionaries taking over some or other Irish town or village and creating Moneygall II.;);)

Atlantis50 · 13-08-2012 06:22PM

20Cent wrote: »

Obama was able to cut the medicare bill because of savings in costs.

Can you link me to a breakdown of the $716 billion Obama medicare cuts?

20Cent wrote: »

Ryan wants to just cut it altogether thats the difference.

What's the source for this? Any independent policy think-tanks to back up that claim?

Politifcat labelled the claim that the Ryan plan 'would end medicare as we know it' as the lie of the year 2011. See here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

Paul Ryan selected for Veep

Comments