Paul Ryan selected for Veep

Mjollnir · 14-08-2012 06:40PM

Amerika wrote: »

It's interesting that those who argue against the requirements of ID in order to vote, when making the claim of few actual cases, fail to mention that voter fraud is widely reported but often not investigated nor prosecuted.

A fairly recent election, and its consequences, should illustrate the need to combat voter fraud. It involves the election of Al Franken to the US Senate.

Republican Senator Norm Coleman led Democrat Al Franken by 725 votes after the election in 2008. Franken and the Democrats utilized an army of lawyers to challenge the results. Afterward, Coleman was still considered the winner, but his lead was down to 206 votes. But still litigation by the Democrats continued until somehow it was determined that Franken was ahead by 312, and was suddenly declared the winner.

It has been reported that 1,099 convicted felons illegally voted in the 2008 Minnesota election. It has also been noted that about 74 percent of felons would vote Democratic in presidential and U.S. Senate, according to analysis of demographic and voting data of elections dating back to 1972 that I’ve read.

Franken’s declared victory gave Senate Democrats that 60th vote needed to pass ObamaCare and overcome a Republican filibuster. Therefore without Franken's vote ObamaCare might not exist today.

It doesn't take a grand leap of faith to realize voter fraud is real and has dire consequences.

No, it actually takes ignoring facts and close to delusional, wishful thinking to claim that it's real in any substantive manner.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/study_voter_impersonation_fraud_target_of_voter_id_virtually_non-existent.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

It takes a great leap of faith to maintain something is a threat when it doesn't exist.

"It has been reported...." and "It has been noted...." fail to qualify as actual, credible evidence, but, since you're interested, try this on for size:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9467

Brian? · 14-08-2012 06:46PM

Amerika wrote: »

Well, I was kinda referring to media sources like the supposed "America's Most Trusted News Source" CNN.

I know you love to throw media bias around, so lets's get real for a second shall we? Fox news is the no.1 rated cable news network, ahead of CNN. If that doesn't make it mainstream, I don't know what does.

We all know who Fox are biased towards, so drop the nonsense. If you mean CNN, then say CNN. Saying "mainstream media" is completely ignoring Fox News's dominant position in the mainstream.

And let’s have a look at this, as I play on another tagline of theirs... "I report. You decide." Typical!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/13/soledad-obrien-caught-reading-liberal-blog-during-heated-debate-romne

( I’m shocked Obrien didn’t get a gig hosting a presidential debate. )

Fine, you think CNN is biased. Then name CNN as I said before, don't make out there is some grand liberal bias in the media that remains unchecked.

hooradiation · 14-08-2012 07:05PM

Amerika wrote: »

How so?

When someone turns 65, under Ryan's proposed new system, they have 3 options.

Option 1: Drain all of their retirement savings into keeping themselves alive via free market healthcare. Become homeless and die.
Option 2: Drain all of their retirement savings into keeping themselves alive via free market healthcare. Become crushing financial burden to their families.
Option 3: Realise their family don't have enough money to successfully keep them alive. Die.

Ryan's plan is barbaric. He's going to throw seniors onto the health insurance market, without protections against predatory practices, with $6000 to find a plan that will cover their health needs. This is assuming they can even get a plan, considering the risks entailed in insuring a 65 year old and the unlikelihood the insurance company will make any money.

Here's a nice picture.

See that seniors rate? That's Medicare (and strengthening Social Security).

For someone who's so concerned with granny's and cliffs, it's odd that you're advocating for a system that would seek to place as many goddamn cliffs as possible in her way.

And that's before we even get into the grander picture of ryans budget which according to the CBO would gut absolutely everything but do fuck all to the deficit because while the cuts are massive all that money he's cutting goes toward cutting the capital gains tax to zero, as well as another huge tax cut for wealthy income brackets, and he's adding another $228 billion of spending to our military.

It's fantasy from start to finish, it's craven stupidity masquerading as reasoned thought.

Amerika · 14-08-2012 07:28PM

hooradiation wrote: »

When someone turns 65, under Ryan's proposed new system, they have 3 options.

Option 1: Drain all of their retirement savings into keeping themselves alive via free market healthcare. Become homeless and die.
Option 2: Drain all of their retirement savings into keeping themselves alive via free market healthcare. Become crushing financial burden to their families.
Option 3: Realise their family don't have enough money to successfully keep them alive. Die.

Thanks for the information. It doesn't quite tie into what I've learned about Ryan's plan. First, I hope we can both agree there is no change to anyone 55 and over... right? And here is a recap of what I've read comprises the Ryan plan. Odd, nowhere did I see "Die" as an option.

Exchange is set up

Medicare completes with private plans

If individual opts for private plan then they get a voucher for plan

If voucher exceeds plan cost then the individual gets a rebate.

Only downside looks to be that we begin to put caps on how quickly Medicare costs can increase annually and we gradually increase the eligibility age to 67.

Basically, it is a roundabout way to limit increasing costs of Medicare to something that is sustainable for future generations. If costs rise slower then GDP +.5% then benefits go up. If cost exceed GDP+.5% then benefits go down. The GDP +.5% is a number that politicians believe is sustainable for Medicare. Ryan is just saying that this is our budget and we are going to work within that budget.

What happens to Medicare under Obama's plan in the future... fear the Independent Payment Advisory Board?

MadsL · 14-08-2012 08:07PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

they can get id if they are passionate about their voting rights.

How do you get ID if you need a birth certificate as you were born overseas and they have no record of your birth?

southsiderosie · 14-08-2012 08:55PM

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Hi thanks for the replys to my query. To add to it, isn't it a requirement in the states to have an id card on you at all times, if this is the case should this not be good enough for voting rather then having people get another id card.

No, there is no national id requirement, nor do you need a state ID. Social security cards are not photo IDs. I would guess that the majority of people have a state-issued ID because they have a drivers license.

Because there is no national ID, you cannot determine citizenship status from having voter ID laws - non-citizens can get a drivers license and/or state ID. So theoretically someone could have a green card and not be a citizen, yet still have all the necessary documentation to vote. Subsequently this negates the "immigrants are voting!" hysteria, because there is no way to tell whether or not someone is a citizen through their state-issued ID.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

To be honest the fact remains thatwhatever their motivations are it is still easily obtained though no?

How are votes being supressed if all must nave voter id?

The answer that some are less likely to have id than others does not justify calling it voter supression they can get id if they are passionate about their voting rights.

The republicans are not supressing some...but rather relying on voter apathy...

If voter id is made equally available i don't think you could call it supression.

I have no doubt that the motivation behind it is self serving but really if this actually does impact on voting then people reallying don't want to vote and THAT is what is stopping them.

My father is from rural Mississippi, and most of my elderly relatives still live there. Many of them do not drive, and since most of them were either farmers, housewives, or domestic workers, they never needed photo ID to get a job. Your social security card is not a photo ID. So it is very plausible that there are pockets of folks who do not have photo id.

I will also add that this is the same generation that put their lives on the line in order to get the right to vote, and despite their relative poverty, they vote at higher rates than other groups with comparable socio-economic status (blacks in general vote at higher rates than whites when you control for socio-economic status, in part because they, more than any other group in America, understand the kinds of sacrifices people made for that right). So it is a bit insulting to suggest that they don't 'care' about voting - they clearly do care, which is exactly why they are the target of measures meant to reduce their turnout.

Amerika · 14-08-2012 09:10PM

Not a complete list, but it is my understanding that you need a photo ID for the following:

Driver's license
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Apply for welfare
Apply for food stamps
Cash a check
Purchase a firearm
Make any large credit card purchase
Open a bank account
Rent an apartment
Be admitted to a hospital
Get a marriage license
Obtaining credit to purchase a car
Sign a mortgage
Get a passport
Collect Social Security

If it is a problem to have a photo ID to vote, why then haven’t we heard the outrage that it’s a problem for all the other things?

Hmmm... Perhaps the problem really is all about voter fraud?

Manic Moran · 14-08-2012 10:29PM

MadsL wrote: »

How do you get ID if you need a birth certificate as you were born overseas and they have no record of your birth?

If you were born overseas, how did you get into the country without someone at the border noticing, even if as a babe in arms? And surely that issue is more a matter of 'how does one get onto the electoral rolls to be checked against in the first place', as opposed to 'how does one prove you are who you say you are when you check in'? If you have enough evidence to get onto the rolls, then getting the evidence for a photo ID is likely easier.

To add to it, isn't it a requirement in the states to have an id card on you at all times

It is not. It is required to identify yourself to an officer if requested, but you don't have to show ID to back it up. If they really want to check, they can take the effort to do so. An interesting sidebar is that it is possible to fly commercial through a TSA checkpoint without photo ID, but be prepared to spend a lot of time being held aside while they conduct investigations to try to verify that you are who you say you are. (Minimum is ten minutes)

His conclusion was that "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."

Though it's the second-largest source of weather-related death in the US (after drowning), and you can be really unlucky (Ask Roy Sullivan, after seven strikes), I accept the point that it is not going to often have a significant effect on the outcome. However, I am curious as to how they determine how often voter ID fraud occurs. Things like the dead voting, or people voting twice, are very easy to identify after the fact in external audits. Unless someone comes out and says "I was told I voted already" or "I voted fraudulently" it seems rather difficult to truly establish the extent, or lack thereof, of the problem and that demonstrated instances are probably less than actual numbers.

If these states enact voter ID laws for the election, there is an argument that they have to make provisions for people to get a government-issued id for free - otherwise this constitutes a poll tax, which is illegal under the 24th Amendment of the US Constitution

Some States already do this. If memory serves TN is one such, it has a 'must have ID to vote' requirement, and if you don't have a driver's license, getting a State ID is free.

That said, there is a level of expense which is considered acceptable in order to carry out a Constitutional right. The government does not refund you the cost of the shoe leather or petrol you had to expend to get to the polling station. There are no contitutional issues with paying an administrative fee for a permit to hold a protest or demonstration, or paying a registration fee to own a firearm, as long as the fees are not onorous enough to form a barrier, and that the actual permitting/registration process is fair and reasonable.

Although I will accept that the issue of voter ID fraud is certainly not the biggest problem which needs to be addressed, I really don't see it as necessarily forming a large barrier either. Whatever hoops or barriers there are to getting onto the rolls in the first place are probably not significantly different to those required to obtaining an ID card (I just had a look at the voter registration form for the State of California: If you don't have a State ID card, you must have a Social Security Number, which means you have to have two documents to prove age, identity and legal status. If you can get that lot for an SSN, it's not too hard to get a State ID card).

Frankly, the whole thing is a political red herring for both sides, as far as I'm concerned. For the Republicans, it's so they can say they're all for upholding the integrity of the process, and for the Democrats it's so they can say they're protecting the poor/disenfranchised.

Both are speaking complete BS, but I don't see the Republican side having a particular downside.

NTM

MadsL · 15-08-2012 02:00AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you were born overseas, how did you get into the country without someone at the border noticing, even if as a babe in arms? And surely that issue is more a matter of 'how does one get onto the electoral rolls to be checked against in the first place', as opposed to 'how does one prove you are who you say you are when you check in'? If you have enough evidence to get onto the rolls, then getting the evidence for a photo ID is likely easier.

Refugees, for example, may not be registered in the country they fled from yet be legally in the country. Equally elderly rural, poor may not have had their births registered. If you need a birth cert to get ID to vote then you disenfranchise those who are legally entitled for vote but cannot get access to a birth cert. I assume you need a birth cert or id to get registered.

Any way, thread derailed sorry - back to Ryan.

joseph brand · 15-08-2012 02:39AM

Duck Soup wrote: »

Ryan's off to a not particularly auspicious start. The video of his attempted speech at the Ohio state fair is near the base of the page. Notice (a)that he's a painfully bad public speaker and (b) Fox News manages to talk over the second set of hecklers, eventually having to cut away from their live feed completely.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/paul-ryans-iowa-speech-opens-with-hecklers-getting-dragged-away-and-they-just-keep-coming/

Painfully, awfully, terribly dreadful public speaker. He has all the charm and charisma of a skid mark on a hotel pillow case.

Those hecklers just wanted the fastest exit strategy from his gruelling speech. Smart women.

Never mind that though, he's magic.

Manic Moran · 15-08-2012 03:16AM

Refugees, for example, may not be registered in the country they fled from yet be legally in the country. Equally elderly rural, poor may not have had their births registered. If you need a birth cert to get ID to vote then you disenfranchise those who are legally entitled for vote but cannot get access to a birth cert. I assume you need a birth cert or id to get registered.

In order to be legally entitled to vote in a Federal election, you must be a US citizen. Good luck with that if you have no documentation to back it up.

With exceptions of, I believe, Texas and Wyoming (And even then with requirements to be in the process of naturalisation), you must also be a citizen of the US in order to vote in State elections.

If you were a refugee without a birth certificate, then to be eligible to vote you will have to have been naturalised. The INS and SSA probably has some documentation to give you stating (1) who you are, (2) that you are a US citizen, and (3) have a Social Security Number.

I don't see this as being a barrier to obtaining an ID card.

NTM

hooradiation · 15-08-2012 11:42AM

Amerika wrote: »

First, I hope we can both agree there is no change to anyone 55 and over... right?

What? No.

Amerika wrote: »

And here is a recap of what I've read comprises the Ryan plan. Odd, nowhere did I see "Die" as an option.

Let's see

According to the CBO under Ryan's plan by 2030 seniors would be paying 68% of their medical costs out of their own pocket.

In case you're not aware, old people get sick. A lot. It's kind of what they do.
Which brings us right back to the three possible options.
Die, become financial burden then die. Die.

Citing your understanding of the text of the plan is fine, but that's no good if you're unwilling to follow through with what will happen if it's implemented.

Amerika wrote: »

What happens to Medicare under Obama's plan in the future... fear the Independent Payment Advisory Board?

Last I checked, Paul Ryan and Barack Obama are not the same person, so I fail to see the relevance of this. I'm going to assume that wasn't a transparent attempt at meaningless whataboutery.
That would be terrible.

Overheal · 15-08-2012 12:25PM

Amerika wrote: »

Well, I was kinda referring to media sources like the supposed "America's Most Trusted News Source" CNN.

And let’s have a look at this, as I play on another tagline of theirs... "I report. You decide." Typical!

Because other outlets are just so... Just. and properly weighed and measured in equilibrium respective to all sides of the issues.

Amerika · 15-08-2012 02:08PM

I see the Democrats and the majority of the media keep going after Ryan (and Romney for that matter) for explanations regarding Ryan’s proposed plans submitted as Chairman of the House Budget Committee. A good debate for the time being to give the people an inside look into Ryan’s thinking, but it does the American people a disservice if the media and Democrats don’t let up on the attacks soon and move on. And unfortunately I don’t see them changing. Romney is running for President, not Ryan. Ryan’s plan was stopped cold in the Senate… done, finito, history! He has now signed onto the Romney ticket. The American people deserve to lean about what Romney plans to implement. I know congress shot down every one of President Obama’s budget proposals. I don’t want the President to continually have to explain why Congress thought his ideas were so bad, I want to know his plans for tackling our problems going into the future. Romney’s plan is high on goals, but short on specifics. I want to know how Romney plans to stop our unsustainable deficit spending, deal with entitlement programs that can't be maintained, when we will balance the budget, etc. I want the campaign to focus on that… not have to continually explain something that never came to fruition.

Duck Soup · 15-08-2012 02:59PM

Amerika wrote: »

I see the Democrats and the majority of the media keep going after Ryan (and Romney for that matter) for explanations regarding Ryan’s proposed plans submitted as Chairman of the House Budget Committee. A good debate for the time being to give the people an inside look into Ryan’s thinking, but it does the American people a disservice if the media and Democrats don’t let up on the attacks soon and move on. And unfortunately I don’t see them changing. Romney is running for President, not Ryan. Ryan’s plan was stopped cold in the Senate… done, finito, history! He has now signed onto the Romney ticket. The American people deserve to lean about what Romney plans to implement. I know congress shot down every one of President Obama’s budget proposals. I don’t want the President to continually have to explain why Congress thought his ideas were so bad, I want to know his plans for tackling our problems going into the future. Romney’s plan is high on goals, but short on specifics. I want to know how Romney plans to stop our unsustainable deficit spending, deal with entitlement programs that can't be maintained, when we will balance the budget, etc. I want the campaign to focus on that… not have to continually explain something that never came to fruition.

What we keep hearing is that Republicans want to elevate the debate and talk about policies. And they want this more substantive debate to start right now.

The problem is the only policy specifics come from Ryan's plan. Romney says his plan isn't the same as Romney's. But he won't say what the specific differences are.

So how can we have a debate on the substantive issues if Romney doesn't have any positions on them?

hooradiation · 15-08-2012 05:24PM

Duck Soup wrote: »

So how can we have a debate on the substantive issues if Romney doesn't have any positions on them?

Hey now, that's not true!
Romney holds all positions on the issues, it's quantum grandstanding!

For example, 2008 Romney told criticized John McCain's claim that "cutting spending would help the economy, claiming: “That’s not stimulative.” "

Duck Soup · 15-08-2012 09:58PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Hey now, that's not true!
Romney holds all positions on the issues, it's quantum grandstanding!

For example, 2008 Romney told criticized John McCain's claim that "cutting spending would help the economy, claiming: “That’s not stimulative.” "

This is true. After all, here's Romney in 2002 clearly and categorically speaking out in favour of abortion and dare anybody suggest otherwise.

As for the current election cycle, Ryan is something of a pro-life true believer, and Romney told Mike Huckabee in a Fox interview that he believed in personhood amendments and the sanctity of life from conception.

That would suggest a presidential ticket strongly to the right on the issue, but as far their actual position, God only knows.

Atlantis50 · 16-08-2012 05:33AM

Duck Soup wrote: »

What we keep hearing is that Republicans want to elevate the debate and talk about policies. And they want this more substantive debate to start right now.

The problem is the only policy specifics come from Ryan's plan. Romney says his plan isn't the same as Romney's. But he won't say what the specific differences are.

So how can we have a debate on the substantive issues if Romney doesn't have any positions on them?

Here's Romney's policy positions (also Ryan's as he agreed to adopt all of the Romney platform when he accepted the VP nomination). All 87 pages:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

Duck Soup · 16-08-2012 11:31AM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Here's Romney's policy positions (also Ryan's as he agreed to adopt all of the Romney platform when he accepted the VP nomination). All 87 pages:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

Yep, that's the document ex-Republican congressman and current TV pundit, Joe Scarborough (a huge fan of Ryan by the way), called "totally calorie free". In other words, completely lacking in detail.

How badly lacking in detail? The word "Medicare" occurs 3 times in 87 pages and one of them is in reference to Obama's policies.

That Romney Medicare plan in full (from the document):

Any serious attempt to rein in spending will have to include entitlement reform. This issue is among the most complex facing policymakers, but some basic principles guide Mitt Romney’s position. First, we must keep the promises made to our current retirees: their Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be affected. But second, we should ensure that the promises that we make to younger generations are promises we can keep.

With respect to Social Security, there are a number of options that can be pursued to keep the system solvent — from raising the eligibility age to changing the way benefits are indexed to inflation for high-income retirees. One option that should not be on the table is raising the payroll tax or expanding the base of income to which the tax is applied. Similarly, with respect to Medicare, the plan put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan makes important strides in the right direction by keeping the system solvent and introducing market-based dynamics.

As president, Romney’s own plan will differ, but it will share those objectives.

Glad we sorted that one out.

joseph brand · 17-08-2012 07:12PM

Paul Ryan voted against President Obama's federal stimulus bill, and has repeatedly attacked the legislation, calling it a "wasteful spending spree" and "a monstrosity." Thus, the revelation that he and several other Republicans asked for stimulus funds for companies in their district caused a minor stir when it was first reported by The Wall Street Journal in 2010.

So while Ryan made false statements in two interviews, he didn't actually realize he was lying. The Globe notes that Ryan didn't explain why someone in his office didn't tell him that they actually had requested stimulus funds when the issue first came up in 2010. If Ryan is telling the truth, we're guessing there's a panicky junior staffer out there who's been telling him or herself for the past two years, Come on, it's not like the guy's going to be asked to be vice-president.

Not recognizing the benefits of government spending is what his party is based on.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/ryan-denies-taking-stimulus-then-admits-he-did.html?mid=reddit_dailyintel

http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2012/08/17/paul-ryan-stimulus-budget-ayn-rand/

GOP supporters have mentioned the liberal media bias a couple of times. Is this all media outlets bar Fox 'news'? Serious question.

Amerika · 17-08-2012 08:42PM

joseph brand wrote: »

GOP supporters have mentioned the liberal media bias a couple of times. Is this all media outlets bar Fox 'news'? Serious question.

Don’t with to derail the topic, but I’ll try and answer your question. I’m one of those people that claims media bias. No it’s not everyone but Fox News (although sometimes it appears that way LOL). There are just far too many occurrences where the MSM plays heavy on stories that appeal to the left or show them in better light, but when the opposite happens you often hear silence, or very little from them… unless a story gains legs and the MSM is forced to report on it.

As an example… With all the stories about some recent shootings and the mega story play they are getting here in the MSM, one has to wonder why the recent shooting at the Family Research Council Center received so little attention from them. You might recall when the shooting took place at a movie theater, within a short time a CNN reporter was reporting that the shooter might have been a TEA PARTY MEMBER (which turned out to be completely inaccurate). Take a read at the following and you’ll get an idea what I'm trying to get acorss regarding the Family Research Council.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/08/15/only-abc-offers-full-story-shooting-frc-cbs-nbc-blow-it-tiny-reports#ixzz23ii4uAux

joseph brand · 17-08-2012 09:52PM

Amerika wrote: »

Don’t with to derail the topic, but I’ll try and answer your question. I’m one of those people that claims media bias. No it’s not everyone but Fox News (although sometimes it appears that way LOL). There are just far too many occurrences where the MSM plays heavy on stories that appeal to the left or show them in better light, but when the opposite happens you often hear silence, or very little from them… unless a story gains legs and the MSM is forced to report on it.

As an example… With all the stories about some recent shootings and the mega story play they are getting here in the MSM, one has to wonder why the recent shooting at the Family Research Council Center received so little attention from them. You might recall when the shooting took place at a movie theater, within a short time a CNN reporter was reporting that the shooter might have been a TEA PARTY MEMBER (which turned out to be completely inaccurate). Take a read at the following and you’ll get an idea what I'm trying to get acorss regarding the Family Research Council.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/08/15/only-abc-offers-full-story-shooting-frc-cbs-nbc-blow-it-tiny-reports#ixzz23ii4uAux

That link you provided. Their sole purpose is "exposing and combating liberal media bias". Or as I read it, "pushing a conservative, right wing agenda".

Why not tell the news honestly, and let the facts speak for themselves. Something which Fox know nothing about, you have to agree with me (and almost everyone with sense) here. C'mon!

I don't want to get bogged down in 'who gave more airtime to which shooting', or 'was the shooter a Republican conservative TeaBagger'.

Every news site I come across, be they American, Irish or British has some new 'dirt' on Romney-Ryan. Not to mention all the anti-Republican sentiment in their comments sections. One would imagine that if anyone reads the news, they will become disillusioned with the lies that Romney-Ryan are telling voters. So who are their supporters?

My view is that they are:
1. Rich/ super rich.
2. Old.
3. Racist.
4. Not very intelligent.
5. Die hard GOP supporters voting on the 3 G's. (Guns, God and Gays)
Or
6. Some combination of the above.

joseph brand · 17-08-2012 10:08PM

Rachel Maddow talks about Paul Ryan and his thoughts on the stimulus, which he then wanted $20 million from, for jobs.

Amerika · 17-08-2012 10:29PM

Hmmm... So the comment "Serious question" was just a ploy eh?

I now doubt it will help, but I can always hope:
http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/1642/

joseph brand · 18-08-2012 12:27AM

I mentioned in an earlier post that the GOP supporters may be old.

Well, here's Romney 'singing' at a retirement village.

Such charisma. Although I know it's not a talent contest.

Shorter clip here.

Amerika, I dare you to watch. More liberal bias, have at it.

joseph brand · 18-08-2012 12:45AM

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... So the comment "Serious question" was just a ploy eh?

I now doubt it will help, but I can always hope:
http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/1642/

I see that your staple of political reports Fox 'news' and the Washington Times are alone in pushing the GOP agenda.

Am I wrong in thinking that the GOP are the party of the 1% and the other groups I mentioned earlier? Because, if they were, then the media would tend to have a blue tinge off it's reporting. Since the Democrats are more progressive (womens rights for one), the papers/ reporters are going to be hard-pressed to agree with the policies and ideas of the regressive party.

Considering that the GOP have been hijacked by the religious right, aren't they a little outdated? They need to drop the whole "god told me this/ that" and "we want lower taxes for the rich", if they want to stand a chance and get some respect. Between the flip-flopping and bare-faced lies, respect is a luxury they can ill afford. Plus, they are the party who brought us Bush and Palin. These two names are fresh in the memory of voters.

dublinman1990 · 18-08-2012 01:14AM

According to NBC News, Paul Ryan has released his tax returns from 2 years.

The strange thing is that they are posted on Mitt Romney's website, not his own. Does anyone find that behavior particularly strange.

Has Paul Ryan have a website of his own where he can release them?

Anyway, he paid an effective tax rate of 15.9% in 2010, while paying a rate of 20% in 2011.

However, Romney stated at a News Conference in South Carolina that he only pay an effective rate of at least 13%.

Here is the link to the story

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/17/13340853-paul-ryan-releases-2-years-of-tax-returns?lite

joseph brand · 18-08-2012 01:33AM

dublinman1990 wrote: »

According to NBC News, Paul Ryan has released his tax returns from 2 years.

The strange thing is that they are posted on Mitt Romney's website, not his own. Does anyone find that behavior particularly strange.

Has Paul Ryan have a website of his own where he can release them?

Anyway, he paid an effective tax rate of 15.9% in 2010, while paying a rate of 20% in 2011.

However, Romney stated at a News Conference in South Carolina that he only pay an effective rate of at least 13%.

Here is the link to the story

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/17/13340853-paul-ryan-releases-2-years-of-tax-returns?lite

The Land of Opportunity?

Land of Opportunists more like. They hate government yet they need it to make their fortune, eg infrastructure. But they have ways of avoiding paying tax. They need hundreds of millions to live, some need billions. Just like everybody else. :rolleyes:

joseph brand · 18-08-2012 01:43AM

http://kroq.cbslocal.com/2012/08/17/rage-against-the-machines-tom-morello-finds-vp-candidate-paul-ryan-an-unlikely-fan/

After learning that Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan lists Rage Against The Machine as one of his favorite bands and currently on his iPod, fans of the band quickly barraged the band’s most outspoken and socially active member with Tweets demanding a response. Tom Morello, the band’s guitarist, not only stepped up to the task but quickly published a scathing op-ed piece via Rolling Stone.

Morello, confused and upset by Ryan’s choice in music begins, “Paul Ryan’s love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades.”

Morello continues, “Ryan claims that he likes Rage’s sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don’t care for Paul Ryan’s sound or his lyrics.”

No comment.

southsiderosie · 18-08-2012 06:59PM

The FT's Martin Wolf on Ryan's budget plan:

The core of the plan for the long term, however, is elimination of Medicare for anybody below 65 in 2022. Its replacement would be a voucher for purchasing insurance that would put 68 per cent of the cost on to beneficiaries, by 2030. If that happened, it could bring federal health spending down to 4¾ per cent of GDP by 2050, against 5½ per cent in 2010, despite the rise in the share of elderly voters. If you believe that is likely, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Director of the OMB under Ronald Reagan called Ryan's budget plan "a fairy tale" and added:

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.

I may have to get up in time tomorrow to watch the Sunday morning political chat-fests. They should be quite interesting.

Paul Ryan selected for Veep

Comments