Paul Ryan!!!

[fatbeer]

Game changer!!!

[PseudoSABR]

Game changer!!!

No, it's doubling down.

 

It's a wet dream for you, but my first reaction is that I don't see how this pick wins the White House. He's a career politician with no business experience. His right-wing fiscal policies certainly pair with Romney's perceived agenda, but I don't see how he curries any new voters nor does he seem to sure up any weaknesses.

[fatbeer]

It depends if Obama can convince us he eats babies or not. Worst economy ever and Obama is unwilling to fight on the issues.

[DaveW]

Shuffling the chairs on the deck of the titanic at this point.

[TheLeviathan]

Ryan is direct, smart, and very fiscally focused. Those are all strong things to bring to the table. Let's be honest, many of the exchanges Ryan has had over his budget with the White House he has generally gotten the better of the argument - whether you agree with his approach or not - at least he's upfront and honest. He's not afraid to have a conversation about what's wrong.

 

To people like me - that is a welcome breath of fresh air.

[PseudoSABR]

He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

[drjim]

He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

I generally agree with this. Ryan has talent but I can't shake the thought that he really speaks to a minority of the electorate. The other downside is that it changes the main focus of the campaign from the poor economy to fundamental change in the social safety net. I think people like the idea of reform in the abstract but balk when it is presented in real terms of cuts to medicare and whatnot. I also doubt massive tax cuts for the wealthy is a winner right now.

[drjim]

It depends if Obama can convince us he eats babies or not. Worst economy ever and Obama is unwilling to fight on the issues.

And now Romney has moved the discussion from the economy to huge fiscal cuts.

 

The Democrats won't even have to exaggerate with Ryan just make sure voters know exactly what is in his budget.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

 

I generally agree with this. Ryan has talent but I can't shake the thought that he really speaks to a minority of the electorate. The other downside is that it changes the main focus of the campaign from the poor economy to fundamental change in the social safety net. I think people like the idea of reform in the abstract but balk when it is presented in real terms of cuts to medicare and whatnot. I also doubt massive tax cuts for the wealthy is a winner right now.

I agree with you as well. Ryan speaks to the minority of the electorate. The minority that actually pays taxes. Personally I could give a **** less what they guy down the street is paying, but evidently I'm in the vast minority there.

 

If we don't get a hold on spending, especially (but not only) entitlement spending, tax rates will not matter. I am glad Ryan had the balls to take on the issue. I just hope people don't dismiss Romney out of pure jealousy and envy of his worth, because it looks like that's the direction Obama has chosen to move his campaign.

 

Taxes are essentially a giant game of chicken now anyways. The more you raise them the more people will try to get out of them. The only "fair" tax is a flat rate with no BS deductions, credits, etc. Steve Forbes had this figured out 25 years ago, but my guess is the Democrats and Republicans can't resist taking this issue off the table since they both think they are right, squabbling over the relatively small amounts the majority of us actually end up paying while taxing/borrowing and spending us into oblivion.

[fatbeer]

About 60% will vote in this election, which means the 40% can keep there heads in the sand if they want. The rest of us will vote based on the real fiscal crisis we are facing. I want the economy fixed for the long term, and if that means benifits have to be ajusted downward in the short term so be it.

 

As for moderates who cares as long as Obama's team keeps accusing Rommney of major crimes with no evidence the moderates will stay home or vote Rommney.

[Jocko87]

He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

 

I generally agree with this. Ryan has talent but I can't shake the thought that he really speaks to a minority of the electorate. The other downside is that it changes the main focus of the campaign from the poor economy to fundamental change in the social safety net. I think people like the idea of reform in the abstract but balk when it is presented in real terms of cuts to medicare and whatnot. I also doubt massive tax cuts for the wealthy is a winner right now.

 

Are you saying that the minority of Americans believe in cutting government spending? I just can't believe this, it's one of the greatest running jokes there is-the $2000 Kindle or the $25,000 toilet seat come to mind. This is why the Dem's get no traction with me, all the taxes in the world won't solve the real problem.

 

I like Ryan alot. Watch this three part series on the youtubes...

 

Lots of straight talk about pain to come and he also addresses the main lib concerns of "evil corporations" and the "evil 1%" Removing the loopholes effectively raises taxes for them by actually taxing the real money. True leaders tackle hard issues, even if there is pain involved. I hope he can pull it off.

[flpmagikat]

Lol at people thinking a republican president Will cut spending. When was the last time that happened?

 

And game changer? Yeah mitt really flipped the script choosing the epitome of sterotypical republicans as his running mate.

[gunnarthor]

Ryan isn't a good choice. It's too easy to point out that his budget priorities hurt the poor and middle class and help the rich. And it won't take much to make seniors - who generally support Romney - get nervous about proposed cuts to things like medicaid. It's also hard to take anyone seriously about lowering government spending who isn't willing to make serious cuts to our defense spending. Ryan's just another right-wing flake. He energizes the birther base but he'll turn off moderates and independents.

[fatbeer]

It won't take much for Obama to scare seniors? Keep up the ads accusing Romney of murder. Good luck with that one. When you basically tell the voters you think there idiots who will buy anything you tell them it doesn't work out to well. If Obama wants the senior vote he better either start telling the truth or figure out how to become white.

[TheLeviathan]

He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

 

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

[Jocko87]

He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

 

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

 

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

 

And the line of reasoning that the republicans want to make kids dumb and leave seniors in the streets doesn't fly with me either. As if republicans don't have kids and parents and people they care about. I firmly believe that nobody will take care of you better than yourself, certainly not the government, and we need to get back to that line of thinking.

[PseudoSABR]

He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

 

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

 

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

Everyone is for getting rid of spending on frivolous toilet seats and the like, but that argument is totally disingenuous (I mean, seriously?). Newt, yes NEWT!, called the Ryan budget plan "suicide" and "right wing social engineering." His idea of budget cuts are totally extreme and imbalancely affects the poorest and weakest Americans. I'm just not sure who is this "we" you're talking about, because it's certainly not me or my extended family or friends.

 

In my opinion, the people who can afford to bare the burden of hard economic times should bare the burden. I don't buy that supply-side, job-creator crap for one second.

[PseudoSABR]

He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

 

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

 

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

 

And the line of reasoning that the republicans want to make kids dumb and leave seniors in the streets doesn't fly with me either. As if republicans don't have kids and parents and people they care about. I firmly believe that nobody will take care of you better than yourself, certainly not the government, and we need to get back to that line of thinking.

Right. But that's totally naive. What about people that can't or won't care for themselves? What about people without family to care for them? Yes, dumb kids and people in the streets is what you get. We should encourage people to be individually responsible, but not be so naive to believe that everyone is able to do so. Stop being so cheap; that's your problem.

 

This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder. (I seriously can't believe Levi gave this guy any credibility.)

[biggentleben]

It won't take much for Obama to scare seniors? Keep up the ads accusing Romney of murder. Good luck with that one. When you basically tell the voters you think there idiots who will buy anything you tell them it doesn't work out to well. If Obama wants the senior vote he better either start telling the truth or figure out how to become white.

Okay, this is driving me nuts:

there = a place "Tommy ran over there."

their = ownership "Tommy ran over their dog."

they're = they are "Tommy ran over their dog over there. They're pissed at him."

 

Thanks.

[biggentleben]

This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital. Does Medicare/Medicaid need some major work? Absolutely. Are there people taking money from welfare/disability payments that could work and earn on their own? Rarely, but it happens. What many don't understand is that those programs are state-run programs with federal money. You want to bitch about the stereotypical FoxNews talking point of the Welfare mother on her iPhone? Bitch to your governor and state legislature for not doing a better screening job. You're pissed off about someone worth 6 figures+ being eligible for Medicaid? Talk to your state social services organization about their screening processes. Cutting federal money to these programs is like putting a band-aid on a chainsaw cut. The real issue needs to be getting these systems set up in a way that spends the federally provided funds on those who truly need it. I work every day with those who ABSOLUTELY need those funds to live their lives, and many of them would be screwed in Ryan's proposed system from his 'Sconnie days as they don't meet his standards of truly worthy of those who "deserve" our support.

[glunn]

It seems to me that we have lost the ability to compromise. In the past the Democrats and Republicans were able to trade increases in taxes for decreases in spending.

 

And I would hope that we could all agree that military spending needs to be trimmed.

[biggentleben]

It seems to me that we have lost the ability to compromise.

A friend and I were discussing this earlier this week. We were discussing what was required for the last time we could remember both parties working together, which was during Clinton's administration when the Republicans had the Contract With America. There was some drastic disgust with what Republicans had done in Clinton's first couple of years, which was very similar to what has been done in Obama's administration to block anything he has brought up. The difference is that we seem to be moving more toward those extremes rather than like in 1994 when we moved toward the middle to work together, regardless of party, to get things done that truly helped the entire nation.

[fatbeer]

It won't take much for Obama to scare seniors? Keep up the ads accusing Romney of murder. Good luck with that one. When you basically tell the voters you think there idiots who will buy anything you tell them it doesn't work out to well. If Obama wants the senior vote he better either start telling the truth or figure out how to become white.

 

Okay, this is driving me nuts:

there = a place "Tommy ran over there."

their = ownership "Tommy ran over their dog."

they're = they are "Tommy ran over their dog over there. They're pissed at him."

 

Thanks.

 

Sweet you'are a 100% their there they're expert. I'd rather be an expert on economics and math, but thatare'is my problem.

[fatbeer]

This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

 

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.

 

Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.

[gunnarthor]

This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

 

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.

 

Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.

 

Charitable givings are nice but after you deduct how little he paid in taxes that normal Americans have to pay (and the many tax shelters he has available to him), it's likely that his taxes + charitable giving is still a lower % than what most Americans give over.

 

But the point of his tax returns isn't that he's some wealthy prick (well, not completely the point). In an era of tough economic times, wouldn't we all be better off with a discussion on the economic disparity that different classes of Americans face? Everyone knows that the rich get treated better by our system but I don't think many people understand just how much better. The former Dodgers owners never paid income tax because of all the tax loopholes in the system. We have a presidential candidate that hides a lot of his money in foreign accounts and, under the Ryan budget, would have paid less than 1% in taxes. Money has made it nearly impossible for normal Americans to run for Congress. Money from a handful of very rich people may have a determinative effect on all elections going forward, heck one person kept Newt Gingrinch's presidential run alive long after republican voters had left him. Money may lead to many Americans being disenfranchised by voter id laws and gerrymandering. Discussing the role of money and the differences among the classes of Americans is a good thing. Shining a light on Romeny's actions can help with that conversation.

[DPJ]

Not that I care as a non-voter, but I guess I wanna know.

 

Does Mitt have any chance at beating the African-American?

[TheLeviathan]

Everyone is for getting rid of spending on frivolous toilet seats and the like, but that argument is totally disingenuous (I mean, seriously?). Newt, yes NEWT!, called the Ryan budget plan "suicide" and "right wing social engineering." His idea of budget cuts are totally extreme and imbalancely affects the poorest and weakest Americans. I'm just not sure who is this "we" you're talking about, because it's certainly not me or my extended family or friends.

 

In my opinion, the people who can afford to bare the burden of hard economic times should bare the burden. I don't buy that supply-side, job-creator crap for one second.

 

God this naive socialism is frustrating. Do you not pay attention to Europe? You realize that most policies being implemented are in the hopes of a future economic rebound to mask the real issues?

 

The "we" I refer to is any thinking American. If I walk up to my house expecting it to have a secure foundation, the last thing I want is the foundation repair guy to hand me a lollipop and tell me that "yeah, things will be fine!" I'd much prefer he tell me: "No...your **** is cracked. You need to do something" We can disagree about the how, but you god damn well better appreciate the effort to not hide the real problems. Otherwise what you get is a system in which the lollipop pushers become the norm because that is the way you get elected.

 

We should encourage people to be individually responsible, but not be so naive to believe that everyone is able to do so. Stop being so cheap; that's your problem.

 

No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.

 

And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

 

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

 

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an ® next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

[biggentleben]

Okay, this is driving me nuts:

there = a place "Tommy ran over there."

their = ownership "Tommy ran over their dog."

they're = they are "Tommy ran over their dog over there. They're pissed at him."

 

Thanks.

 

Sweet you'are a 100% their there they're expert. I'd rather be an expert on economics and math, but thatare'is my problem.

 

Never claimed to be an expert, but you want people to pay attention to what you say, take the 0.001 seconds it takes to ensure you're not ALWAYS using the wrong version. I'd also take the math and economics, and have done so, but I tend to enjoy people listening to what I say when I utilize that expertise.

[Ultima Ratio]

Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

 

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

 

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an ® next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

 

You sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing. <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org.