Paul Ryan? Thank you Mitt!!!

Left-media, right-media...biased as they are, it's up to the viewer to discern any truth from the bs...not always easy, I know. Harder yet on the gullible lol

 

I think it would be reasonable to surmise that when a candidate announces a running mate they will both gain and lose potential votes.

This, of course, does NOT mean that the vote one loses is necessarily going to be a gaining of a vote for the other party.

Case in point was the comment my coworker, a self proclaimed Libertarian who proudly displays a Tea Party sticker on his SUV made today.

His comment?

"The Republican party lost my vote".

Now, knowing my coworker as well as I do, I am as close as one can be to saying there is a 100% chance he's not going to vote for
President Obama either.
He absoulutely HATES President Obama.

His reasoning is simple. Ron Paul was NOT Romney's choice for VP.

Not that I thought Ron Paul had a snowball's chance in hell of being named as VP candidate but I have to wonder just how many Ron Paul supporters are going to follow the same reasoning.

The race is becoming more interesting.

 

You would not believe how much popcorn I've saved-up for the occasion. What's an episode of "As The Stomach Churns" without popcorn? A soap opera. I hate soap operas...except for some guy named "Victor". I jokingly asked my girlfriend: "If he's so tough, why doesn't he just rip the heart out of his enemies", then laughed maniacally, of course. She was unfazed and explained that, he did, and then he had it put into his own chest. Then she stared at me to an uncomfortable degree. I don't want to talk about it anymore.

 

Here is an interesting take on the pick.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/11/opinion/morrissey-ryan/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I tend to agree that if Romney can make the election about the economy and budget/debt (which looks like the game plan with this pick), he can do well. But, that assumes, of course, that the population is up for big boy election topics that more time to digest than their McDonald's double cheeseburger and fries...and that might be a stretch.

 

Up to now, Romney has basically criticized Obama's economic record followed by vague promises that a Romney administration will somehow do better. In the process he conveniently ignores the fact that what he is condemning as a failure is at best half a plan since the Republicans have rejected compromise and pulled out all the stops to thwart or limit what the Dems have tried to do. This of course is politics in 2012. But the fact is if you are going to call the Obama program a failure you need to acknowledge the Republicans' contribution to that failure.

If the Ryan plan is Romney's solution to his specicifity deficit then, well, good luck with that. Whether Republicans like it or not they are tied to the largely accurate perception that their support for corporate America and the uber-rich is total and uncompromising and that the only program cuts or tax increases that they are willing to run with are those that don't touch the Exxons, the Cargills, the Chases, the Kochs, and the Romneys of the world. We have to sacrifice, but for them its business as usual.

I don't think Ryan and his plan do much to change that. In the VP spot he will probably energize the Baggers who now have one of their own to vote for, someone who will counter Romney's lack of raw meat by at least adding some heady sauce to his moldy hamburger. I don't know how others not so blindly ideological will see it.

 

I still think it depends.

Ryan is a guy who brings a plan and can communicate that plan. The plan may change via Romney being the lead on the ticket but there is a possibility there will be a real plan from one side. Ryan is also quite intelligent and articulate.

If big issues about the budget and the economy are the message that forms this election, it will be a game changer. And the Dems will be in big, big trouble. It will be a real, national mandate type of election. Think Reagan v Carter rather than Bush v Kerry or Obama v McCain. Trimming 40 billion from our trillion dollar deficits by taxing the rich won't cut it in a meaningful election.

If it stays at the level it is now. The base, no real issue, talking point, attack level suited to an electorate who doesn't really want to think about the tough choices we have to make before they are imposed upon us. If it is that kind of style election, the Dems will continue to be in the driver seat like they are up to this point. But if it turns into a substance issue, I think the Repos now take the lead.

I don't know if this pick is enough to get me to vote Republican this year. But, it has the chance...which Romney and most other VP picks never would have had. I will still have to wait and see if the Republican ticket is brave enough to honestly discuss the issues facing us and present real solutions, though.

 

With Ryan on board they do have a plan. Of course they had the plan anyway if they wanted it. Having Ryan on board technically doesn't matter in this regard. The question is whether it's a good plan. Just being a plan is not enough. For me, the answer is no. When it comes to tough choices and sacrifices, Romney and Ryan want to make sure that the middle class and the poor have to make them but their corporate masters and the super-rich don't. Whether the American people will go for this or not is, oddly to me, an open question.

As for me personally, it's kind of academic. I'll probably do fine either way at least economically. But I'm lucky enough to have options that probably most other people don't have. I say this to head off accusations that my "radical Leftism" and alleged hatred of the rich is grounded in envy. I remember Coin taking this tack a while back and I didn't appreciate it much.

 

So you prefer Obama's budget which;
Cuts Medicare spending
increase government spending
never balances the budget
has never received a single positive vote by either party
will bankrupt the USA - with its own projections
adds/raises 2000+ taxes and fees
if implemented, has been shown to reduce employment by 1,000,000+

as opposed to Ryan's budget which;
sustains Medicare
reduces government spending
balances the Federal budget
has passed the House with bipartisan support, but Reid has blocked it in the Senate (he is afraid it might pass?)
could return our budget to being balanced
leaves the present tax rate in effect just as Obama and Clinton have previously stated as a requirement for a healthy economy

 

I don't recall ever claiming to know your personal economic status, but if you have money and/or assistance from friends or parents there's nothing wrong with that. I don't envy you and neither should anyone else. If they want to achieve what you've achieved or been given in your life they will just have to work for it.

 

Yep.

(sighs) ...Yep.

lol

 

And you are entitled to celebrate that success. ...(nods, then hesitates)...People suffer. As a country, we are capable of alleviating much of it. Currently, our society is indifferent to suffering. Hopefully it won't always be.

 

Well, it does in the fact that (prior to being nominated as VP anyway) he has been very bold in his plan and very articulate in explaining it.

When compared to the plan that has been implemented for the last 4 years, I don;t know why it would be odd that it is quite an open question.

That is where we differ. If this was a small problem issue, I would say you are right. I will be fine economically under either candidate. But, really, I don't think it is a small problem issue. I think it will eventually touch most every one hard if not tackled very soon.

 

That , is a matter of opinion. Yours is unbelievable.

 

The Recession already did that. The massive loss of crop this year will hit us soon enough. The hits keep coming.

 

I think picking Paul Ryan does exactly what the talking heads on both sides say it does. It paints two very different visions of where this country should go. Picking Ryan doubles down on Romney's trickle down approach to the economy often referred to as voodoo economics and points out in a fairly stark contrast that Obama's approach relies on investment and growing the middle class.

Of course this pick also brings the Medicare debate to the front and center of the campaign. A debate which the Right has pretty much lost before it starts even among some of the Tea Party folks which has already been pointed out in this thread. Medicare is an issue the Democrats can and will win on every single time. Ryan's proposed budget asks exactly nothing of those doing the just fine and in fact lowers their taxes by a whopping 26% overall. That adds over 4 trillion dollars to the debt and even though they claim that it is revenue neutral, they fail to explain exactly how that happens. My guess is the middle class will pick up the tab.

As far as the Rights continuing claim that they are trying to protect Medicare from the ravages of the Obama Aminstration which they claim cuts $500 billion out of Medicare through the implemetation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), they simply keep pushing a lie well after it has been exposed as a blatant falsehood. The fact that the ACA is able to save $500 billion doesn't mean that it is being cut unless you believe that savings are cuts which is what the Right wants you to believe in this instance.

This article explains the whole lie better than I could possibly explain it but I did add my commentary for effect:

ABC News’ Chris Good and Shushannah Walshe report:
In expressing his opposition to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mitt Romney provided some jaw-dropping numbers as to why he believes the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is “bad policy” and a “bad law.”
“Let me tell you why I say that. Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion,” (The lie) Romney told reporters. “Obamacare cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion.(The lie repeated) And even with those cuts, and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations onto coming generations.”(The final lie)
So, where does the Romney campaign come up with those numbers? (We have to wonder don't we?)
They cite a memo written by Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (part of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services), that claims the ACA will, says Romney, “cut Medicare by more than $500 billion.” (The lie they are still selling)
So does it “cut” Medicare by $500 billion? (Good question!)
Medicare spending will continue to grow, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but ACA will slow that growth.(Slow the growth? It will? How?) According to a report from the Kaiser Family Health Foundation over the next 10 years, the federal government will devote about $500 billion less to Medicare than it would have without ACA. (That
CMS and the Kaiser Family Foundation tell ABC News that there will be no benefit cuts to Medicare. (So they are saving $500 billion and according to the Right, that means they are cutting $500 billion from Medicare) (They add) They say instead of Medicare’s being cut, there will be much more spending at the end of a 10-year window, but it does slow the rate of that growth. (So slowing growth is now considered cutting Medicare by the Right) This is all unless Congress makes drastic changes to Medicare, for example passing House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan.
CMS says—and Kaiser agrees—that spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies. It sends a message to those insurance companies: Operate more efficiently.
And instead of cuts, the CMS says they will be able to fund new benefits, including free preventive care and broader prescription coverage, including closing the “doughnut hole” affecting seniors. (So we know know that saving money and cutting costs is a bad thing to those on the Right. Gotcha!)

 

My opinion is that you're a chronic complainer who had a few tough breaks in life, but instead of trying to better your lot you wallow in self-pity and laziness. Just my opinion.

 

And we no longer have the fiscal resources to do a darn thing about it. And I bet your state doesn't either. That is where a decade of kicking the debt can down the road has led us.

The debt right now is 15.9 trillion. GDP is 15.1 trillion. By the end of the next presidential term, the debt is projected to be 18-22 trillion. And the 18 trillion is a complete fantasy because it projects all the 'temporary' tax cuts and 'temporary' stimulus will expire as planned...this time, unlike the last time. 20-22 trillion is the realistic projection unless there is a bold plan to reverse the course of the last 10 years.

When the numbers are this big, it doesn't take long to reach the end of the rope.

 

I agree with Stujoe on the subject in general terms that debt must be reduced.

 

How about another tax break? That always works so well for bringing down the debt. Let's take in LESS revenue and reduce the debt by taxing those whose income has been shrinking all along. I'm sure that there is some world where this actually happens even if it isn't this one. Yikes!

 

Joe, Joe, Joe, tax cuts stimulate the economy and encourage corporations and people with lots of money to create jobs. Taxes are about as low on the rich now as they've been since I donno, Hoover probably. Maybe even George III. And look at how well we're doing. Jobs frigging everywhere. Lower the taxes on the rich even more and we'll probably all have two jobs. We need to go back to 2008 policy wise. That is if we think we can handle an economy that good. Banks strong. Wall Street rock solid Housing market booming. Factories humming away. A full dinner pail, man. And the Ryan plan will make it happen.