VP Candidate Paul Ryan
Wow. I admit that I didn’t think Romney would make a pick this bold.
NORFOLK, Va.—Mitt Romney announced Saturday he’s selected Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidential running mate. The announcement came just after 7am ET via Mitt’s VP, a mobile application launched by the campaign earlier this month.
My couple of random quick thoughts are…
Romney has been making the campaign about economic competence and this pick underlines that theme.
Romney has said that he supports the Ryan budget and now he has the best defender of that budget on the ticket.
I am eagerly looking forward to the Ryan/Biden debate.
Once again, Wisconsin conservatives are leading the conservative movement.
Congratulations to Paul Ryan and his family. It’s always good to see a local guy do well.
Wonderful pick. The recognition of Ryan as a national conservative leader again puts Wisconsin in its’ rightful place. Replacing Ryan will be difficult.
Politics in many ways is a lot like baseball where farm teams nurture players and the best of the best move up to the big leagues. It is rare to find a leader like Ron Johnson that can leap frog the pecking order. That is why it so it is important that we elect quality conservatives.
It is my sincerest hope that Tuesday, voters continue to embrace conservative principles and send the RINOs that have infested our local politics packing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 0708 hrs
This makes the presidential election about Obama’s economy, and pins that tail on the correct donkey. No more Democrat talking points shilled-off as economic policy.
I can’t wait for the VP debate - Joe Biden trying to pretend he knows anything about what his boss did to America! The entertainment factor alone makes this one worth watching.
Any chance we can get a Pres/VP debate, Romney vs. Biden and the main attraction, Oblowhard vs. Ryan?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 0720 hrs
The libs will be ripping him from one end to the other as they simply cannot deal with facts and logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 0745 hrs
Lets compare Ryans budget to the democrates budget. Oh thats right they don’t do bugets anymore. Just keep spending with no questions asked.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 0826 hrs
So Ryan is gambling any Presidential aspirations on Romney…not so sure that’s a great call. There’s a mountain of past history making a pretty strong case that if Romney loses Ryan’s never sniffing the White House.
Really have to think it’s a matter of hearing the call to serve that he can’t ignore.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 0835 hrs
I think this is less about Romney and more about preparing Ryan for the 2016 race.
In this era of short sound bites and mindless rhetoric, will it be possible for Ryan to advance solutions that take more that 30 seconds to explain?Posted by Charlie Hillman on August 11, 2012 at 0917 hrs
Am I the only person who thinks that is an amazingly accurate, yet scarily pathetic description of the American public at large? 30 seconds of attention? No other explanation necessary for our current situation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1039 hrs
I think this is less about Romney and more about preparing Ryan for the 2016 race.
No way. That’s saying that the GOP powers that be know this race now is lost and they want Ryan in the limelight to get him more exposure. IF that’s the case, did they not learn from Palin? Or are you saying that IF they fail, then Ryan will be “more ready?”
The Ryan pick was made because the message is fiscal. Portman couldn’t bring that message given his involvement in the Bush admin, and Pawlenty is a joke as a fiscal candidate. Assuming those were the other two main guys in the running.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1245 hrs
The librats are already ripping on Ryan which tells ME that they fear him.
Obama, one and done.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1343 hrs
It’s a desperate pick made by someone who, after a year, has finally recognized his strategy of not being Barack Obama can’t consistently get him any closer than 3-5 points.
Portman has some Bush baggage, but it’s really no more baggage than Ryan and his many budget-busting votes in Congress on Bush proposals.
If Romney was ahead, Pawlenty would have been the choice because he’s safe.
In terms of an out-of-the-box choice, I’m surprised it wasn’t Marco Rubio based simply on Rubio being a better defensive play. Looking at current state polls, if Obama wins Florida, he only needs to win one other minor state from a grab bag of eight or nine options to win the race. Obama can win without Florida. Romney absolutely cannot.
Romney, largely through his own missteps and poor choices, has allowed this race to become a likeability contest. Picking Ryan is an attempt to change that. I don’t think it’ll work, because I think VP picks rarely factor into voting choices.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 11, 2012 at 1404 hrs
Recess…are you voting Obama now?
I don’t have the dire outlook. I think as we saw in 2008, the VP pick CAN energize the base, which is exactly what Romney needed at this moment.
But unlike 2008, this VP pick is actually very qualified and intellectually scares the crap out of the MSM and the Dems. And won’t offend the middle as Palin did. They can’t demonize him that he’s a scary incompetent. That meme won’t fly. They’ll have to intellectually engage him with their attacks, and to do that we will come right back to the budget and jobs, which is where Romney needs this election to play out.
Yes Florida becomes more problematic but Ryan also puts into play Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan as Ryan can campaign strong in this area.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1457 hrs
No, I’m voting for Gary Johnson. That was decided months ago.
Romney’s not winning Michigan. It’s not even all that close there right now - Obama consistently polls up between 5 and 9. Ryan’s not going to change that. Wisconsin, maybe - but even that’s a stretch. Wisconsin’s in that same 5-9 range just like Michigan. People make up their minds much earlier these days and that old canard about undecideds breaking hard for a challenger has been disproven time and time again. It’s usually much closer to a 50/50 split.
VP picks just don’t matter all that much. Biden didn’t matter, Cheney didn’t matter, Gore didn’t matter, Quayle didn’t matter, Bush didn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter.
Also, Ryan makes Florida a *much* tougher win for Romney given the high number of seniors there. That, to me, is the one thing that makes no sense about this pick. Like I said, unless one is putting on the rosy glasses and hoping there’s some Romney landslide in the wings that’ll put states like PA and MI in the Romney column, Romney absolutely needs to win Florida to have any chance of getting to 270.
I’ve got no real agenda here or hopes for one guy or the other. I didn’t vote for Obama four years ago, I was critical of his lack of experience as a candidate, and I think Mitt Romney is the GOP equivalent of John Kerry; a tone-deaf rich guy that nobody likes.
I just think some conservatives are so blind to the reality of how things really are. They dislike Obama and his policies so much that they’ve convinced themselves that surely everyone must agree with them; how could any thinking person not agree with them? And that’s just not how it is out here. Conservatives approach Bush with the same of irrationality that liberals approached GWB with in 2004.
Liberals couldn’t believe they lost in 2004, when in reality, it was pretty easy to figure out how they lost. They nominated a guy that was hard to like and with whom nobody could identify. When Romney loses in November, it won’t be any different.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 11, 2012 at 1517 hrs
That next-to-last paragraph should reading “conservatives approach Obama.” My bad.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 11, 2012 at 1519 hrs
Well said RS. The American people cannot relate to the Thurston Howell III types. It is interesting how many do vote with them yet have no connection to what they are proposing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1717 hrs
Food for thought…a libertarian states that Ryan is NOT a true conservative based on his record.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210028
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1854 hrs
Recess….do you recall the 1988 dem convention? Dukakis came out of it in August with a 17 point lead over wealthy east coast wimp, George Bush.
Different time. Different era I’ll grant you. But I bet if we asked you two years ago whether the Wisconsin GOP and Scott Walker could survive repealing virtually all collective bargaining for State employees, you might have said it wouldn’t be possible to get ACT 10 passed, much less defend most of those seats in recalls.
I don’t think Romney is a great candidate. But he might actually be one of the better suited executives for the job. He’s pretty even tempered and a proven results getter. He also isn’t an ideologue, which is what has hurt him with the GOP base up until now.
Wouldn’t pretend to know how November goes. But I know we’ve got 8 percent unemployment, no growth, most peoples houses in other areas of the country are under water and we perhaps have 4 dollar a gallon gas.
I would not want to be an incumbent President running under those conditions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1941 hrs
Thanks but no thanks. I will be my own judge of conservatism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 1942 hrs
I can relate to Thurston way more than I can relate to someone who thinks business owners didn’t build their businesses.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2012 at 2108 hrs
Yeah, I do remember 1988, Steve. I’m also pretty sure we’re not going to see Barack Obama riding around in a tank with a helmet on that makes him look like Rick Moranis’ character in “Spaceballs,” and that Mitt Romney’s campaign doesn’t have someone as talented/dirty as Lee Atwater to do the hatchet work.
As it were, all the Dukakis-like mistakes thus far have been made by Romney, perhaps with the exception of “you didn’t build that.” Of course, watching the GOP ride that quote way past its expiration date doesn’t bode well for Romney’s campaign having any real idea of where to go next.
Rather than capitalizing on that quote by releasing some kind of a plan to help small business, the GOP seems content to giggle about Obama’s fumble like a 12-year-old boy who just heard the word “vagina” in sixth-grade health class.
It’d be like if Democrats were still trying to get mileage out of Romney talking about his wife owning two Cadillacs. Unless a campaign does something with it, it becomes about as stale as a “three men walk into a bar” joke after a few media cycles.
I agree with most of your third paragraph. I think Romney actually could be a good president if he was willing to shed all the Tea Party nonsense and put the GOP leaders in Congress in their place. Romney’s not well-suited to be an ideologue but rather a technocrat, which is sort of what America needs right now. Unfortunately, the anti-intellectuals and the faux-populists in the GOP caucus seem to think that they’re the dog and President Romney would be the tail. They don’t seem willing to be led by anyone, which to me is concerning. If it weren’t for them I think Boehner and Reid could have gotten a lot more accomplished this session.
But before you can be a good president you have to be a good candidate, and I’m just not sure I see the Romney campaign getting him to that point.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 11, 2012 at 2220 hrs
But before you can be a good president you have to be a good candidate, and I’m just not sure I see the Romney campaign getting him to that point.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 11, 2012 at 2220 hrs
Shocking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 0942 hrs
This seems like an effort to shore up the base (B&S readers, as a good example) rather than an effort to expand one’s reach to moderate voters. Lots of people who were already going to vote for Romney unenthusiastically will now vote for him a little more enthusiastically. Big deal. Meanwhile a lot of people who might have voted for him will now refuse to do so based on things in the Ryan budget. The Obama campaign is absolutely going to kill Romney/Ryan with ads on the Medicare thing. With this pick, Romney has hurt himself with one constituency he’s been counting on: older white Americans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1130 hrs
Older Americans are completely and totally unaffected by the Ryan budget (his proposals to Medicare and SS). This is a great opportunity to stop kicking the can down the road before these people will need to be impacted.
The ‘white’ portion of the demographic comment ... further proof that we’ll never get past…. ever…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1143 hrs
Older Americans are completely and totally unaffected by the Ryan budget (his proposals to Medicare and SS)
Not a bad point. But these are still the people who care the most about keeping the program intact, as they have first-hand knowledge of how valuable and important it is.
The ‘white’ portion of the demographic comment ... further proof that
It’s proof that you’re oversensitive about something. Poll data regularly slices up data by demographics: age, sex, ethnicity, income, marital status, etc. Mentioning this kind of data doesn’t make one a racist, nor does it mean you’re calling someone else one. Take a breath, man. Romney does poll well among older white Americans—especially older, white males. If that’s his demographic base, he might do well not to piss them off by embracing policies older Americans by and large find noxious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1152 hrs
Romney does poll well among older white Americans—especially older, white males.
Not really.
I’m okay .... way okay ... with the conversation regarding reform, and this election hinging on it. We need adults in the room. The Dems have no budget and no plan. American can’t fix this problem if Barack Obama won’t come to the table. Disagreement is part of the process.
Look at Wisconsin. Scott Walker presented a solution. The Democrats ran (literally) from the table. Republicans are in no danger of losing momentum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1202 hrs
Not really.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Is Romney polling ahead of Obama with blacks? Hispanics? Other ethnic groups? Is he polling better among women…or men? Is he doing well with younger or older voters?
Maybe you’re just trying to argue with everything I say, I’m not sure. But I don’t know how my comment about Romney polling well among older, white males is controversial in any way. I thought it was a commonly accepted fact of polling data. What’d I miss?
The whole reason I bring it up, remember, is to suggest that perhaps the Ryan Medicare thing isn’t going to help him with that demographic. Admittedly, that’s a guess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1234 hrs
Romney is simply not winning that demographic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1422 hrs
What demographic is he winning?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1431 hrs
People that put more into gov’t than take out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1451 hrs
If that were so, wouldn’t he be winning blue states instead of red ones?
But you’re really not answering my question. What demographic groups is Romney polling well with?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1505 hrs
What demographic groups is Romney polling well with?
For what it’s worth, this is from 4 days ago. Obviously this doesn’t account for the VP news.
CNN Poll: Obama Leads Romney 52-45%Breaking the Obama lead down demographically, Obama leads amongst men, women, and non-white voters, while white voters skew to Romney by a 14 percent margin. Obama is also strong in the under 50 crowd while Romney performs better for those voters over 50.
Obama draws a nearly 20 point advantage for voters who attended college, while Romney has a similar 17 point lead among those surveyed who never went to college.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1524 hrs
So in other words… Romney is doing well with older, white, uneducated voters. Which, again, is why I’m wondering if Ryan won’t hurt more than help, seeing as his Medicare ideas won’t play well with older voters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1553 hrs
Ultimately Romney’s problem isn’t his vice presidential pick, but his campaign about nothing. He won the nomination by standing for nothing in particular and seems to think that is sufficient to win the Presidency. He’s wrong. Standing for nothing is the same as standing for the status quo. That status quo, in his case, is the Republican establishment on who’s ticket he will be running. They’ve long since demonstrated no ability to address the issues facing the country.
I too will vote for Gary Johnson, RS, but America needs a technocrat like a hole in the head. It needs an idealogue, precisely to solve the problems caused by technocrats and their never-ending belief that there’s nothing they can’t do and nothing they shouldn’t do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1600 hrs
He won the nomination by standing for nothing in particular and seems to think that is sufficient to win the Presidency. He’s wrong.
He did do that, yes. And it does seem insufficient for the general, you’re right. But it was worth a try, in my opinion. With high unemployment, it was a good bet that voters would just vote for “the other guy.” Strange that they don’t seem to want to this time around. All bets are off, however, if the economy takes a nosedive in, say, September.
They’ve long since demonstrated no ability to address the issues facing the country.
I couldn’t agree more. Democrats are better, but not a ton better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1607 hrs
I too will be voting for Gary Johnson. When you vote for what you’ve always had, you get what you’ve always got. Obama or Romney are just the same old pigs wearing different lipstick. I can’t imagine any true Tea Party advocates voting for Romney.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1612 hrs
The Democrats are utterly worthless. Their establishment went commie and they have no reform wing. Barack Obama is an appropriate symbol for them. I can’t see voting for a Democrat in my lifetime. As another Gary Johnson voter to be put it to me “Barack Obama is unqualified and incapable of leading or running anything”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1614 hrs
I could argue the opposite, BVBigBro. The biggest problem with government is that it refuses to make data-driven decisions precisely because everyone has some largely ridiculous abstract philosophical belief about how something should or shouldn’t work and refuses to change their mind when they’ve been disproven.
We ended up with a pointless, ineffectively, and maddeningly ineffective war on drugs because people believed that drugs were a moral wrong. We spend more and get less out of incarceration than just about any western nation because some people believe that locking people up means we’re “tough on crime.” We get incoherent tax policy because most politicians don’t understand economics more than what their talking points say.
Give me a bunch of morally relativist nerds with Ph.D.‘s, a heap of data, and no strong convictions towards anything other than efficiency any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 12, 2012 at 1800 hrs
The Democrats are utterly worthless. Their establishment went commie
Preposterous. American politics has in many ways moved to the right over my lifetime. It’s the Republicans who have gone off the edge. Neither Ford nor Nixon nor Reagan could get a Republican nomination in today’s GOP. And if they were sitting congressional representatives they’d be ousted in primaries as RINOs.
Give me a bunch of morally relativist nerds with Ph.D.‘s, a heap of data, and no strong convictions towards anything other than efficiency any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Amen to that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 1934 hrs
@ Scott
seeing as his Medicare ideas won’t play well with older voters.
Why not - his Medicare ideas will not affect anyone currently over the age of 55. The Dems will play the “throw Grandma off the cliff” meme, and Ryan will need to make his point that older voters will not have to worry about the changes affecting them. I would guess that the Dems are betting the farm that their targets will be incapable of discerning the difference. Obama campaign already blew through a lot of money and didn’t move the needle much. Could be “win-win” for Romney/Ryan ticket if Obama campaign blows another wad of money trying to convince voters under the age of 45 that Ryan is going to imperil their future Medicare - most of them are pretty cynical that Medicare in it’s current form will be viable by the time they need it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 2106 hrs
Why not - his Medicare ideas will not affect anyone currently over the age of 55.
It doesn’t matter why. I’m just pointing out that it’s so. But since you bring it up, perhaps the people who care a lot about whether their own Medicare remains intact will, I don’t know… also care that it remain intact for others, too? I’m just spitballing here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2012 at 2258 hrs
Politics, especially in the economic realm scott, has gone so far left of center neither party can even conceive of the center anymore. “Cuts” to government now mean more spending. Thus it is that propostions which merely limit the rate of increase in governmentat at some undetermined future date are considered to be right wing extremism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 0958 hrs
But since you bring it up, perhaps the people who care a lot about whether their own Medicare remains intact will, I don’t know… also care that it remain intact for others, too?
In the onslaught of articles about the Ryan pick on Saturday I came across something that caught my attention, but unfortunately I can’t find it again to properly source it. But it was something to the effect that in recent polls, seniors are showing a growing public acceptance of the idea the Medicare needs to be reformed, that it not doing so will imperil the existing program.
All I could find re: polling is this item from about a year ago:
Reforming Medicare: Public Opinion:
What Seniors Think
An AP-GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications poll narrowed its respondents to individuals currently eligible for Medicare. They were deeply concerned about the future sustainability of Medicare, as 43 percent believed it was unlikely that they would be able to rely on Medicare benefits for basic health needs throughout their retirement. They were also protective of their benefits: 58 percent believed that because they paid into the system and supported previous generations, they deserve full Medicare benefits with no cuts, even if that might jeopardize the sustainability of the program for future generations.
Not surprisingly, seniors appear less willing than the general public to change the current funding and structure of Medicare.
Replacing Medicare with a voucher system: 51 percent of seniors polled oppose phasing out Medicare and replacing it with vouchers for purchasing private medial insurance, while 35 percent favor the policy.
Increasing the enrollment age to 67: 57 percent oppose raising it to 67 and 31 percent favor it.
Increasing the payroll tax: 34 percent were opposed to increasing the Medicare payroll tax by one percentage point and half were in favor.When all else fails: Seniors were more willing to change specific elements of Medicare if it meant preserving current benefits. When a failure to change the system threatened to cut in benefit levels or reduce the number of doctors who accept Medicare, seniors were more willing to raise the age of enrollment (60 percent), increase the Medicare tax (61 percent), or increase copayment and deductibles (54 percent).
I bolded some key points. Not to fuel generational wars, but notice that opposition drops off the less that changes affect them.
In the last paragraph notice that if current benefits aren’t sustainable, increase in copayments/deductible rates the lowest (54%) as opposed to increase Medicare tax (61%) or raise age of enrollment (60%). To me that shows self-interest at work - typical senior would be paying more out of pocket if copayments increased; other two options would not affect them that much (other peoples money).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1017 hrs
Politics, especially in the economic realm scott, has gone so far left of center neither party can even conceive of the center anymore.
Could you explain what you mean by this??
in recent polls, seniors are showing a growing public acceptance of the idea the Medicare needs to be reformed,
Yes, but 84% of people specifically oppose turning it into a voucher program.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1027 hrs
84% of Americans don’t know or understand Ryan’s plan.
Yet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1041 hrs
Maybe they don’t understand what Ryan’s plan is, but they do understand English. And when you ask them…
“Medicare should remain as it is today, with a defined set of benefits for people over 65, OR Medicare should be changed so that people over 65 would receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy.”
65% to 34% think it should remain as it is today. Those are real poll numbers from April of last year from the WaPo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1048 hrs
We can trade polls til the cows come home.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1059 hrs
Scott, the problem is that the question you cite isn’t Ryan’s plan. His plan would make t voluntary to go into the voucher plan or stay on traditional Medicare. If the question was:
“Should people be given the option to opt out of traditional Medicare in favor of receiving a healthcare voucher?”
I suspect the responses would be vastly different.
I’m not faulting the question too much, but this is an artifact of trying to poll about complex issues like Medicare reform. You can’t squeeze the entire plan into a two-sentence question. If the respondent is ignorant of the plan, then the form of the question can drastically skew results.
Posted by Owen on August 13, 2012 at 1114 hrs
We can trade polls til the cows come home.
True, Smeety. My link is a bunch of different polls so they are apples & oranges comparisons, but they make the point that there are different results based on age, financial self-interest, and information provided.
Ryan is going to have 80+ days to make the case that current voters over the age of 55 will not be affected, and that voters under the age of 55 will have a choice between the old Medicare and something new. Ryan will have the floor, the MSM will have to cover what he says, and any “misinformational” ads will be proven false at this level of sunshine. Won’t be able to say “Your Grandma is being pushed off the cliff”.
So, look for different results as a higher level of information is put out there.
Hopefully Ryan won’t say “if you are are under the age of 55 and like our current form of Medicare, you can keep it.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1118 hrs
I suspect the responses would be vastly different.
A bit different, perhaps, but I doubt ‘vastly.’ Still, a fair point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1218 hrs
Both the Democrat and Republican parties are on board with the concept of centrally planning the economy, scott. Additionally both are on board with a level of public largesse and public benefits unrelated to the nation’s productivity. Both are left of center concepts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1345 hrs
And yet to people like myself it seems as if American politics—especially on issues of taxation and social spending—has moved decidedly to the right in recent decades. Wall Street got deregulated from where it was before I was born. Corporate taxes have been cut dramatically, likewise the tax rates on wealthy Americans. If out of control health care costs increases the price tag on Medicare that can hardly be seen as some kind of checkmark on the wish list of progressives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1349 hrs
“Wall street got deregulated..” Really? Are there fewer laws affecting commerce than there were when you were born? We are more regulated than we have ever been and a consequence of that regulation, and the central planning behind it, is that you pay for Wall Street when the central planners inevitably fail.
The United States has a higher corporate tax rate than virtually all of the Western world. Corporate taxes paid, though, are affected more by the Byzantine system of deductions we have; another gift of the central planners.
Out of control costs aren’t and will never be a check on the wish list of “progressives”. They never cared about the costs in the first place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1408 hrs
Really?
Well, let’s talk about the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 vis a vis the bank bailout of 2008.
and a consequence of that regulation, and the central planning behind it, is that you pay for Wall Street when the central planners inevitably fail.
That’s a consequence of the failure to adequately regulate, not a consequence of overregulation. If a bank’s too big to fail it shouldn’t be allowed to get that size, the end. (That would be regulation.)
The United States has a higher corporate tax rate than virtually all of the Western world.
The statutory rates, sure. I don’t know if it’s setting any records, but it’s right up there. Point is, the actual taxes paid… the effective rate… well, you know as well as I do that it’s extremely low. Certainly lower than all but a few of our fellow OECD nations.
the Byzantine system of deductions we have; another gift of the central planners.
I rather think that the “byzantine” system of deductions are the direct result of big money lobbying of Washington to get the lowest effective tax rate they can get. Big businesses, entire industries, they lobby for these things and congresscritters like yours and mine oblige them so they can get reelection money. Or so it seems to me. It most certainly isn’t the result of some Soviet-style “central planning.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1515 hrs
Well, let’s talk about the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 vis a vis the bank bailout of 2008.
Go ahead. See if you can do it in your own words (with references). Then compare to Community Reinvestment and Dodd-Frank.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1828 hrs
84% of Americans don’t know or understand Ryan’s plan.
Yet.
Here’s one of the Democrat’s best & brightest answering the question about how Ryan’s plan affects those older than age 55:
DNC]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5NJF5Fcvmg&feature=player_embedded”]DNC Chair Gets Blitzed By Wolf On False Medicare Attacks[/url]
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1831 hrs
Trying that link again:
DNC Chair Gets Blitzed By Wolf On False Medicare Attacks
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1833 hrs
Go ahead. See if you can do it in your own words (with references). Then compare to Community Reinvestment and Dodd-Frank.
I don’t think so. We’ve had this argument before. I’ve told you: the idea that the housing crash was caused by Barney Frank and Fannie Mae is…unconvincing. The idea that it was caused by “creative” investment deals that megabanks dreamed up after having been freed of regulation…I find that a little more convincing. Your mileage varies, I guess. I can see that. Bottom line is, I know who I trust, and I know who I don’t, and I know what seems plausible to me based on what I already know about how the world works. You want to pin it on Frank and poor people, you do that. But you haven’t even come close to convincing me of it.
About Medicare. Isn’t it more efficient than private insurance? Isn’t it better in that it doesn’t rescind your coverage when you get sick? Isn’t it better in that it doesn’t have a lifetime benefit limit? Isn’t it good that it negotiates hard with providers to fight rising costs? Why would we take a system like that and introduce the failed, inefficient and abusive private insurance market to it? I can’t see how you’ll ever convince me that it’s a step in the right direction. And I don’t trust American conservatives one bit when they say it’s just an “option.” If we allow this, one day private insurance will be the only option.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1857 hrs
I don’t think so.
You can’t find the answers on dailykos.
We’ve had this argument before.
And you have left me completely unconvinced that you even clearly understand the problem.
I’ve told you: the idea that the housing crash was caused by Barney Frank and Fannie Mae is…unconvincing.
That’s not even close to my argument.
The idea that it was caused by “creative” investment deals that megabanks dreamed up after having been freed of regulation…I find that a little more convincing.
This problem was going on long, long before the deregulation.
Your mileage varies, I guess. I can see that. Bottom line is, I know who I trust,
Dailykos
and I know who I don’t,
facts, reason, and common sense
and I know what seems plausible to me based on what I already know about how the world works.
Do you even own a home? I bet you don’t…..
You want to pin it on Frank and poor people, you do that. But you haven’t even come close to convincing me of it.
I’m not looking to convince you of anything. Your side lacks logic.
Scott: Second, F&F’s subprime operations were small-time compared to private banks.
Smeety: $200 Billion dollars.
That’s how much taxpayer money has been given to F&F to keep it afloat. Not small time. Definition of too big to fail.
F&F subprime operations worked in harmony with private banks. Understanding this is kind of important.
Housing bubble occurred because of mortgage defaults. The process (in it’s simplest terms) of defaulting on a mortgage is buying a home, paying on a home for a while and finally defaulting. G-S does not impact that process significantly at any time.
About a quarter of loans (back in the day) were subprime. About two thirds of the defaults have been subprime. How many of the subprime defaults would not have occurred without Community Reinvestment Act? Most.
Would the housing bubble have been as significant if the total number of defaults was cut by 2/3 or 3/4? Obviously not.
Not complicated. Extremely simple. But you won’t find answers on dailykos.
With that said, banks were absolutely too greedy. And I’m not a fan of the deregulation. I bank only at small local banks and credit unions, and I manage my own investments. But hey, if you agree….welcome to the Tea Party.
Posted by Smeety on August 04, 2012 at 0853 hrs
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1909 hrs
You can’t find the answers on dailykos.
Actually, I looked for answers from Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich…but whatever.
I’m not looking to convince you of anything.
Awesome, you’re going to stop addressing your comments about it to me, then.
And what about Medicare? Nothing to add?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1918 hrs
Actually, I looked for answers from Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich…but whatever.
same thing
Awesome, you’re going to stop addressing your comments about it to me, then.
You are more than welcome to put on your thinking cap and retort, but won’t find the answers with your three amigos.
And what about Medicare?
And, here we go…. on to something else. Too much thought trying to figure out where G-S impacts the foreclosure of a home…..
It’s unsustainable. Period. Get your flakes to the table so this problem can be solved.
Nothing to add?
I’ll give you a chance to catch up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1929 hrs
Stop being such a dick already. Jesus.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2012 at 1938 hrs
Scotty Wasserman-Schultz… Frustrated that his talking points get beaten down….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 0554 hrs
A Christian Libertarian calls it as he sees it…
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/ryan-is-a-rino
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 0700 hrs
He voted for head start?? Good heavens, no!
unlike Obama he actually understands the various financial numbers involved
Heh. Perhaps he is worse—but if so, it’s because he understands how brutally unfair his proposals are. He just doesn’t care, i guess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 0710 hrs
No, scott, it isn’t a failure of adequate regulation because central planners do not, and cannot, possess the information necessary to plan an economy. In any event they have no interest in doing so. Their interest is in regulating the economy to accumulate power and benefit cronies at the expense of the good of everyone else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 0835 hrs
Food for thought…a libertarian states that Ryan is NOT a true conservative based on his record.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210028
Posted by greencarman on August 11, 2012 at 1854 hrs
A Christian Libertarian calls it as he sees it…
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/ryan-is-a-rino
Posted by greencarman on August 14, 2012 at 0700 hrs
Obviously you haven’t been long enough to know that the crowd here is a bit too sophisticated for your type of “concern trolling”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 0843 hrs
it isn’t a failure of adequate regulation because
Nothing after your “because” logically follows what preceded it.
You go forth and battle communism while the rest of us try to govern the united states of america here in the real world.
Seriously, though. The drive of the powerful to accumulate more power is often done through—I know this will be a shock to you—through the lack of government regulation.
More on Medicare. Here’s what liberals like myself are reading. Submitted for informational purposes only, quite aware that you don’t find it convincing in any way shape or form.
http://robertreich.org/post/29384825788
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 0843 hrs
You will never be able to “adequately regulate” an economy, scott, because the information necessary to do so does not exist. You may try to govern that way to your hearts’ content. Economics doesn’t care. Its’ reality exists entirely independent of your desire to regulate and govern it.
The drive to accumulate power is done through government, thus the lobbying you so detest.
Plans for medicare are largely irrelevant. Medicare will be reduced drastically because we’ve already spent all the money, we’re already in debt and we have no realistic means of acquiring more money in the short term. You and Robert Reich assume a lender willing to lend money to you at little or no interest. That’s a poor assumption.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 0903 hrs
You will never be able to “adequately regulate” an economy
Oh, so we shouldn’t bother having things like the EPA or OSHA or bank regulations or consumer product safety or the FDA or the FCC or any of the thousands of regulations that business and industry have to abide by in order that their operation not run afoul of the public good. That’s a relief.
You may try to govern that way to your hearts’ content. Economics doesn’t care.
What’s funny is you act like economics “proves” that regulation can’t work, is always bad, etc. It does no such thing. In fact, regulated capitalism is pretty much the only way to achieve economic growth in a just and stable society. Nobody wants 19th century robber barons nor Soviet-style communism. The in-between state is basically regulated capitalism.
Medicare will be reduced drastically because we’ve already spent all the money
Medicare is in no more danger of going bankrupt than the US Navy is in danger of going bankrupt. it’s all a question of priorities. We could choose to increase tax revenue, cut spending elsewhere, reduce benefits, deficit spend or any combination of these things. There is no “the money’s gone so we have to shut the doors.”
Besides which, Medicare isn’t the problem in American health care. it’s one of the solutions. it’s more efficient, is in a better position to negotiate hard with providers to control costs, has done a better job of doing so, and also isn’t prone to the kind of industry abuses seen in the private sector. We should all have Medicare. Then the only question would be what to do with all the money we’re saving.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 1007 hrs
You may have whatever regulation you wish, scott, but economics is reality based. Markets exist, and they will have their way regardless of anyone’s desires. Regulation imposes an economic cost and when the capacity to support that regulation is exceeded, the regulation must be relaxed or you will have reduced economic activity.
“We could chhose to increase tax revenue…” No. You can increase tax rates. You can only assume the ability to increae tax revenue.
“cut spending elsewhere..” The democrats oppose spending cuts and have passed no budget with any such cuts.
“reduce benefits…” The democrats oppose reducing benefits and have passed no budget with any such reductions.
“deficit spend” You once again assume a lender.
The US navy is in the same boat as medicare and it too will be cut back because the money to fund it is gone.
Medicare is unfunded. I’ll take my funded health plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 1657 hrs
“We could chhose to increase tax revenue…” No.
Yes. Really.
“cut spending elsewhere..” The democrats oppose spending cuts
I support many spending cuts. I balanced the budget with a ratio 65/35% spending cuts to tax increases.
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=4543
“reduce benefits…” The democrats oppose reducing benefits
I do oppose benefit reductions. But it’s a choice we could make.
“deficit spend” You once again assume a lender.
Yeah, and there’s every sign that people aren’t willing to buy US debt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2012 at 1707 hrs
“Obviously you haven’t been long enough to know that the crowd here is a bit too sophisticated for your type of “concern trolling”.
NoName, I am merely pointing out that there are individuals and groups with solid credentials who are taking to task Ryan’s voting record and whether he is conservative enough for their liking of their readers and constituents. It’s not “concern trolling”, it’s called fact.
Here is more “food for thought”, this time from a die-hard conservative.
Care to address their legitimate criticisms? We’re all waiting…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 0754 hrs
Enjoy NoName! The author is a die-hard conservative.
http://www.vdare.com/posts/paul-ryan-immigration-enthusiast-donor-driven-choice
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 0833 hrs
So, Greencarman, what exactly is your point? Which choice do you think most conservatives will take:
A) sit out the election or
B) vote for Obama or
C) vote for Romney
Do you think any conservatives will choose A) or B) thinking that in 4 years the “dream conservative” will be running, so they will just wait until then? Not anyone I know.
Actually, there is some advantage to Ryan being portrayed as not “ultra-conservative” - that label scares the crap out of voters in the middle. So, I guess it could work to Ryan’s advantage if the MSM is scaring people about his conservatism, and there are conservatives saying not conservative enough.
Here’s something from the New York Times - not sure if the link will work with their paywall:
Why Moderates Should Like Paul Ryan
I’ll be happy with whoever can blast Obama and his crew out of the White House. Any conservatives disagree?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 1327 hrs
And then there is this interesting twist:
A Romney first: over 40% of youth vote back him
“This is the first time I am seeing Romney’s numbers this high among 18-29 year olds,” said Zogby. “This could be trouble for Obama who needs every young voter he can get.”
I imagine Obama needs every moderate he can get too.
Zogby speculates that Romney’s selection of 42-year-old Rep. Paul Ryan helped turn more younger voters to him. “It could be his youthfulness,” said Zogby of Ryan. Plus, he said, more younger voters are becoming libertarian, distrustful of current elected officials and worried that they are going to get stuck with the nation’s looming fiscal bill.
“They want change,” said Zogby.
So, in my prior post, I wonder if to get change they will take option A), option B) or option C0
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 1342 hrs
Yeah, that was a decent article. I wondered, however, what the evidence was that Ryan had specific loopholes firmly in mind even though nobody knows what they are.
Anyway, I still cannot get my head around the Ryan choice. Romney might win Wisconsin now, but he’ll definitely lose Florida. All six people who might have voted for Gary Johnson may now reconsider voting for the GOP ticket, but seniors—one of the only demographics Romney was doing ok with—will now have Ryan’s Medicare vouchers to think about.
Where’s the upside to that formula? There are no prizes for ideological purity, or for wonkishness, or “boldness” or whatever. If your ideas alienate the very people who were supporting you, you lose. The end.
The only thing that occurs to me is that Ryan is kind of a media darling. A good chunk of what is said about him will be about his exercise routine or about how he’s an “intellectual” rather than the fact that he would really like to end Medicare.
But maybe I’m working too hard at this. Maybe it’s exactly what it looks like to me: an interesting but ultimately bad choice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 1347 hrs
Romney might win Wisconsin now, but he’ll definitely lose Florida.
The rolling average at Real Clear Politics puts Obama +1.7. The poll added today & conducted yesterday has Romney +1.
Real Clear Politics Polls - Florida
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 1435 hrs
I stand by my prediction. Obama will win Florida.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 1437 hrs
And for what’s worth, the Purple Strategies Polls have usually been higher than that for Romney. I guess I was more intrigued that Florida is that close (+1.7) overall.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2012 at 1439 hrs
NoName, I’m not talking about most conservatives. I’m focusing on those ultra-conservatives, hard-core conservatives, right-wingers—whatever label you want to use—who are supporting RINO’s despite their declaration of “open season” on these creatures. The Mark Steyns’, the Charles Krauthammer’s…they in particular have railed against Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, and company as not consistently representing conservative principles. By the own definition of those on the hard right, they despise the moderates who deviate from their ideology. So the point is that those on the hard right who are supporting Romney and Ryan are hypocrites. It has nothing to do with waiting for the “dream conservative”, but everything to do with electability. That’s fine, no problem! It’s just that the hard right will also compromise their principles when it politically suits them, despite their insistence to the contrary.
I expect any members of a tribe—liberal or conservative—to defend their own kind, even if it means violating their own standards, whether it be once in a while or on a repeated basis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2012 at 1340 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 41
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2013 10:11 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).