Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

TheHammer wrote:1) Paul Ryan is a joke. His budget proposals never took into account the damage reducing the government would have, laying off hundreds of thousands if not millions of people does hurt the economy.

What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?

2) Romney was in a tight spot. T Paw or Portman are boring white guys who give him nothing. Other candidates who are otherwise attractive and young were likely to not want it, Rubio and Jindal especially, since Obama will win in November and being a failed VP candidate is likely to be a death sentence for one's political ambitions in this day and age.

You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....

3) Ryan was at least somewhat exciting and helps smooth things over the insane right wing base of the party. It's not an accident that he chose Ryan after his campaign pissed off the Tea Party.

There some truth to this...

4) Instead of having this election continue to be about the economy and veiled racism ("Believe in America"? "Make America great again"? "Take back our country"?), Romney instead chose to make this election about Medicare and Medicaid, tax cuts for the wealthy, and raising taxes on lower income Americans.

Uh... no... it's about a different vision. Instead of talking about Romney a taxcheat/murder/gutter stuff, he's FORCING a conversation on what vision does the American people want from their government. It's a shame that Romney couldn't do it himself as he needed a VP pick to save him. But, honestly, could ANYONE change the narrative by himself. Give credit to Romney here... Ryan is a respected fighter.

5) Mitt Romney had a disastrous trip abroad and decided to nominate a guy as VP who has no experience with foreign affairs.

Disastrous trip is overblown...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/
Mediscare won't work...

whembly wrote:You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....

No, its a political pick. I know this because I've seen a lot of political picks in my time.

Also, great secret, Mitt Romney is a politician running for President.

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....

No, its a political pick. I know this because I've seen a lot of political picks in my time.

Also, great secret, Mitt Romney is a politician running for President.

I thought that said T'Pau. I was thinking "dude Vulcans aren't real. You'll only get the trekkie fans."

My brother just sent me this:
edit: found the link where my bro got this: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/13/video-erskine-bowles-says-ryan-budget-sensible-honest-serious/

Why is this important? Erskine Bowles has a long pedigree as a Democratic budget thinker — and presidential adviser. When Barack Obama needed to pick the co-chair for his deficit committee, which he roundly ignored in the end, he chose Bowles to represent his side on the panel. Bowles served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and earlier ran the Small Business Administration for Clinton. Ezra Klein predicted on Friday that Bowles would be the front-runner for Tim Geithner’s job at Treasury if Obama wins a second term. Bowles stated:

“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.

And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.

The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....

No, its a political pick. I know this because I've seen a lot of political picks in my time.

Also, great secret, Mitt Romney is a politician running for President.

Eh... I disagree... if he wanted to maximize his chances, he'd go for Rubio.

With Ryan, he hurt his chances...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

I thought that said T'Pau. I was thinking "dude Vulcans aren't real. You'll only get the trekkie fans."

Reminds me when I go drunk so bad, I was warning that we needed to ally with the Vulcans so that we can take down Darth Vader and the Empire...

Fun times...

whembly wrote:
Eh... I disagree... if he wanted to maximize his chances, he'd go for Rubio.

Who has absolutely no reason to accept the nomination because, at his age, its a step down. In 2020 Rubio will still be south of 50.

Also, he's a Senator, Ryan is a Congressman. Congressmen are easy to replace, Senators are not. You can't just think about getting elected, you have to think about what you'll do after.

Including if you fail.

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:
Eh... I disagree... if he wanted to maximize his chances, he'd go for Rubio.

Who has absolutely no reason to accept the nomination because, at his age, its a step down. In 2020 Rubio will still be south of 50.

Also, he's a Senator, Ryan is a Congressman. Congressmen are easy to replace, Senators are not. You can't just think about getting elected, you have to think about what you'll do after.

Hmmm.. I see what you're saying. Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP? Good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Including if you fail.

Ah... a failed VP run with Rubio would be bad for him...

But, in Ryan's case, at least it elevates his profile.

whembly wrote:Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP?

I think its a case of "I have a shot at the big chair, whether or not you win."

Though I would also guess that the larger GOP didn't really push* Rubio to take a nomination.




*There is no way in hell he wasn't asked.

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP?

I think its a case of "I have a shot at the big chair, whether or not you win."

Though I would also guess that the larger GOP didn't really push* Rubio to take a nomination.


*There is no way in hell he wasn't asked.

Good points...

Just heard this... I think I heard this right...
Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?

whembly wrote:
What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?

No, don't be ridiculous. Just don't expect those HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that are laid off by these cuts to then find work elsewhere. They won't, and this will create a huge drag on the economy.

You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....

This IS a political pick. Romney doesn't pander to the right wing base enough, and boy do those guys want to be pandered to, and picking Paul Ryan goes a long way towards shoring up his base. He'll still lose, though.

Uh... no... it's about a different vision. Instead of talking about Romney a taxcheat/murder/gutter stuff, he's FORCING a conversation on what vision does the American people want from their government. It's a shame that Romney couldn't do it himself as he needed a VP pick to save him. But, honestly, could ANYONE change the narrative by himself. Give credit to Romney here... Ryan is a respected fighter.

Talk about vision all you want, but it's a crap argument.

I don't blame President Obama for being negative on Romney. Romney is willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, which oftentimes means pandering to crowds and being vague in policy proposals. What is President Obama supposed to campaign against? Romney's 59 point plan to economic recovery? Romney's platitudes about American greatness? Give me a break. Romney says little and mostly runs on his resume', and it turns out that the only thing his resume' has that isn't totally awful is his "saving" the Olympics.

Disastrous trip is overblown...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/

His trip was a disaster. It made him look small, ignorant, and petty.

And "Mediscare" is a bs word invented by donkey-caves. If we're going to have this be a "campaign about ideas" than maybe we can talk about Medicare and what each party wants to do with it.

You know how I know the "Mediscare" argument is total bs? If it wasn't all crap the Republicans would not make such a big point of telling every old person that their plans won't affect those that currently receive Medicare. They say this all the time, and if what they were doing about Medicare didn't basically destroy it than why would they make sure to say that over and over and over again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP?

I think its a case of "I have a shot at the big chair, whether or not you win."

Though I would also guess that the larger GOP didn't really push* Rubio to take a nomination.


*There is no way in hell he wasn't asked.

Good points...

Just heard this... I think I heard this right...
Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?

What's wrong with sharing prosperity?

I bet you have not realized that the ideology spewed by these folks is the same exact ideology and economic platform that lead to child labor, The Jungle, and all the other horrors of the late 19th / early 20th century. :(

sebster wrote:That sums up the whole thing rather well.

The only point I'd add is that while attacking Ryan over his budget might be easy, it's also unlikely to be make much difference. I mean, attacks on Palin made little real difference because ultimately she isn't the President, so attacks on Ryan's budget are unlikely to matter much more.

I'd argue that the Ryan budget is a real and common talking point and has a much greater effect on the personal lives of the democrats (and to a large extent republicans) voter bases. Where Palin was a hollywood sideshow, that in a lot of ways worked to her credit. It's hard to base a vote around someone you don't take seriously and believe would be sidelined. Palin never did or said anything substantial, she just sort of parroted slogans and talked about hockey. Ryan and his budget are taken seriously as the role models of conservative deficit hawks and he is much more an enemy of the democrat party than even Romney himself. Romney can and will be overshadowed in this election cycle by his VP and I can't think of a time in my life when that has happened before. I suspect ryan will become inextricably linked to the elections primary issues (taxes and the economy) in a way that will be significantly more meaningful than VP choices in recent history.

In a lot of ways Ryan himself is an election cycle issue. He's the mascot for teaparty policy where Palin was the mascot for teaparty theatrics. Americans to an extent simply ignore theatrics in modern times. A "plan" that is actually outlined and detailed can be significantly more damaging.

Shuma is right!

I'd also wager that the Ryan Plan would do better politically if he didn't also include massive tax cuts for the wealthy and for incorporated individuals (haha, saying this makes me sad).

Seriously, Americans are a lot of things but they aren't half as craven and mean spirited as people make them out to be, and I don't think they are largely in favor of cutting benefits for the weak so that we can give the wealthy tax cuts.

Then again, we get a lot of commentators that talk about Paul Ryan's "bravery" since he's so willing to do that. Weird, where I grew up we wouldn't call someone who was a bully that.

TheHammer wrote:

whembly wrote:
What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?

No, don't be ridiculous. Just don't expect those HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that are laid off by these cuts to then find work elsewhere. They won't, and this will create a huge drag on the economy.

If R/R wins... who will be laid off? But, if there's excess here ( I think there is ), yeah, there will be a drag.

You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....

This IS a political pick. Romney doesn't pander to the right wing base enough, and boy do those guys want to be pandered to, and picking Paul Ryan goes a long way towards shoring up his base. He'll still lose, though.

Rubio would've been a much better choice to rally the base...

Uh... no... it's about a different vision. Instead of talking about Romney a taxcheat/murder/gutter stuff, he's FORCING a conversation on what vision does the American people want from their government. It's a shame that Romney couldn't do it himself as he needed a VP pick to save him. But, honestly, could ANYONE change the narrative by himself. Give credit to Romney here... Ryan is a respected fighter.

Talk about vision all you want, but it's a crap argument.

Why? THATS part of the political process! You've got two camps.. we THINK we know what they stand for, but they still need to sell it.

I don't blame President Obama for being negative on Romney. Romney is willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, which oftentimes means pandering to crowds and being vague in policy proposals. What is President Obama supposed to campaign against? Romney's 59 point plan to economic recovery? Romney's platitudes about American greatness? Give me a break. Romney says little and mostly runs on his resume', and it turns out that the only thing his resume' has that isn't totally awful is his "saving" the Olympics.

Romney does have issues... (who doesn't?), but it's Romney vs Obama... take your pick.

Disastrous trip is overblown...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/

His trip was a disaster. It made him look small, ignorant, and petty.

I disagree... I thought it was a wash...

And "Mediscare" is a bs word invented by donkey-caves. If we're going to have this be a "campaign about ideas" than maybe we can talk about Medicare and what each party wants to do with it.

I agree!

You know how I know the "Mediscare" argument is total bs? If it wasn't all crap the Republicans would not make such a big point of telling every old person that their plans won't affect those that currently receive Medicare. They say this all the time, and if what they were doing about Medicare didn't basically destroy it than why would they make sure to say that over and over and over again?

Which horse's mouth did you get this?

I don't know about you, but you missed this part for 60 minute:

Romney answered critics who say Ryan’s Medicare plan will hurt the ticket’s chances, especially in Florida.

“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney said.

“What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, “We’re going to give you a bigger choice.” In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”

Ryan added, “My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida. Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms. That have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP?

I think its a case of "I have a shot at the big chair, whether or not you win."

Though I would also guess that the larger GOP didn't really push* Rubio to take a nomination.


*There is no way in hell he wasn't asked.

Good points...

Just heard this... I think I heard this right...
Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?

What's wrong with sharing prosperity?

I bet you have not realized that the ideology spewed by these folks is the same exact ideology and economic platform that lead to child labor, The Jungle, and all the other horrors of the late 19th / early 20th century. :(

Well, let's just see how the campaign of "cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Pell Grants, Food Stamps, Headstart, and taxes for the wealthy" does.

I don't think Americans are bullies or like bullies.

And thats why we can't have a serious discussion about the budget, deficits, or pretty much anything. The candidate that makes that mistake is instantly destroyed by the other side as being EEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!! Doesn't matter which side, or which issue.

Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.

People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.

Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!

Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.

TheHammer wrote:Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!

Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.

And my point is made. Thanks for helping out so quickly!

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.

People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.

His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.

People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.

His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.

Did I say otherwise? I'm stating we can't have the discussion, else we'll get posts like have been noted.

Frazzled wrote:

TheHammer wrote:Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!

Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.

And my point is made. Thanks for helping out so quickly!

Can we have at least an honesty debate? (not gunna happen tho)

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.

People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.

His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.

Did I say otherwise? I'm stating we can't have the discussion, else we'll get posts like have been noted.

Your couching your plea for a discussion in a defense of something designed to squelch discussion by being a demagogues manifesto. What you're doing isn't well concealed. A call for moderation can't be made in defense of extremism. That's extremism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

TheHammer wrote:Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!

Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.

And my point is made. Thanks for helping out so quickly!

Can we have at least an honesty debate? (not gunna happen tho)

Most of the people in this thread don't know enough to be capable of having one on this topic. The U.S. budget is a truly vast and complicated thing. This is a sub forum in a tiny plastic man game forum.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.

People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.

His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.

Did I say otherwise? I'm stating we can't have the discussion, else we'll get posts like have been noted.

Your couching your plea for a discussion in a defense of something designed to squelch discussion by being a demagogues manifesto. What you're doing isn't well concealed. A call for moderation can't be made in defense of extremism. That's extremism.

No. You're letting your bias get in the way of your vision again. I'm saying lets argue the merits of the issue for once, at least a little bit.
Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.

... you mean, like Paul Ryan's "budget" itself?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.

It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.

Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.

... you mean, like Paul Ryan's "budget" itself?

Sure (if Romney doesn't put out a budget plan in which case nope), but you have to then put up the Democrat's plan, which would be the Obama budget.
Which one's better? Why? Why not? first person to say Nazi or Commie loses. FIGHT !

Most of the people in this thread don't know enough to be capable of having one on this topic. The U.S. budget is a truly vast and complicated thing. This is a sub forum in a tiny plastic man game forum.

Good points...

But, this is what I see...

We've got a wonderful group with diverse backgrounds in this "tiny plastic-man game" sub-forum.

It really is an interesting discussion and that I'd like to think we all can learn something.

But, back on topic...
A democrat on the ranking budget committee Erskine Bowles said this of Ryan:

“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.

And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.

The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”

Now... I know that's one man's opinion... but, interesting nonethenless...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Sure, but you have to then put up the Democrat's plan, which would be the Obama budget.
Which one's better? Why? Why not? first person to say Nazi or Commie loses. FIGHT !

Ryan's plan is a good START.

*do I winz?

Sarcasm is so awesome!

It's almost as if you have nothing to contribute to any political discussions besides half truths and trolling!

But, here, I'll give you a serious bit of conversation about debt, deficits, entitlements, and the economy:

We face several issues right now. Our economy has shrunk in real terms and in personal terms. Individuals now work harder (productivity is higher than ever) and longer for less. It takes more education, more work, and longer hours just to get by.

There are many programs that have sheltered many groups in this country from literally dying, or otherwise being adversely affected by the economic climate. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, subsidized housing, and lots of other programs have saved millions of lives and helped many million more escape poverty.

We must also acknowledge that two of these programs, Social Security and Medicare, have been hugely successful and are becoming victims of their own success. One need only look at people living longer, living better in old age, and otherwise having a higher quality of life for many more years into the future to see how these have been successful. Conservatives oftentimes point out that Medicare projections by the government have been off, and they're right: but it's because the government never expected Medicare to be as successful as it was and to result in people living even longer than expected, which in turn makes Medicare more costly.

All the same, medical expenses for the elderly are rising and unless addresses will negatively impact our economy. We must address Medicare spending.

First of all, Ryan's plan is terrible. Giving vouchers to seniors to pay for private medical insurance is insane. It's literally stupid. How does a health insurance company insure an 80 year old man with diabetes and make a profit? It's impossible. It can't be done. This is a clear cut example of where the marketplace and profit motive is not capable of providing for a very serious public good. Dogmatically saying it can because you read Atlas Shrugged does not change reality.

One of the fixes, and one of the things the weak Democratic Party never talks about, is in the Affordable Care Act. By providing for medical care to individuals before they go onto Medicare means that they will enter old age more healthy than before. Too many seniors could not afford to get routine check ups, preventative measures, and otherwise essential medical care before entering Medicare and when they do finally enter Medicare they do so costing the system much more than they otherwise should. The Affordable Care Act will help people better take care of themselves and will help offset some of the costs of Medicare because people will literally be healthier.

Next, we must acknowledge the successes of Medicare. It's a successful program and successful programs should be paid for and not destroyed because of their success. Raising taxes to pay for this program, and that of Social Security since individuals don't pay into it after a certain point, will go towards better funding the program.

Lastly, and this is the crappy thing no one will ever talk about: at a certain point we reach diminishing returns with Medicare. The majority of healthcare costs come in the last 6 months of a person's life. At a certain point we throw good money after bad and Medicare can be better maintained and funded so that it can have the most benefit for the dollar. I believe that having deductibles come into effect at a certain point for certain treatments at a certain point in a person's life will help lower costs for Medicare.

The rest of our budget can be talked about in 3 other areas: Military spending, welfare, and infrastructure.

Military spending should be cut. We're spending too much for too little and don't need it. Yes, we can destroy the planet a hundred times over. No, we don't need to do it 101 times over. Military spending adds very little back to the economy and there's only so much protection we need.

Welfare is important. We have endemic poverty in many parts of the nation and the solution is not to just throw people off of government entitlements. I find it bizarre that the Republican Party exists as the party that yells at President Obama for high unemployment but yet thinks people on welfare should just go find a job. The amount of cognitive dissonance is dizzying. Until we have a country where low skill / low education work can provide for a stable life I don't think we can blame people for being on welfare.

Infrastructure is also hugely important. Roads, education, research, and all other areas should be increased dramatically. We can only grow ourselves out of our fiscal hole and that takes investment.

Next, trade is never talked about. We are losing our blue collar middle class. We can not be a nation of computer programmers. We must make sure there are middle class jobs for the everyman that graduates highschool and wants to work hard but is otherwise not exceptional. That means bringing back manufacturing from abroad. By opening trade so completely we are trying to compete with what basically amounts to slave labor. We can't do that, nor should we have to. By restricting trade with those that do not value the environment or worker's rights we can bring back many jobs.

Lastly, we need to refocus our tax code on labor and not capital investment. We must raise the taxes on investment income and on incomes above $250,000. No, that will not solve the deficit but it will take some positive steps in doing so. By keeping taxes low on the working class, by giving them better jobs, by investing in infrastructure, and by otherwise bringing up the quality of life of the working class through work and guaranteeing certain economic rights we can provide enough demand to keep the investment class profitable. Right now our big problem is consumption, and we must understand that lowering taxes on suppliers and investors will not create additional demand in a marketplace swamped with supply.

But, yes, we can have a serious conversation about all these issues. It just involves not being awful about it.

Until those on the right want to concede that we can balance the budget on the backs of the weakest in our society while giving tax cuts to the wealthy I will continue calling them what they are: petty bullies waging class war on the working class.

Whats the Obama plan? All I know is he cut Medicare by $700bn to fund Obamacare. Thats not a lot of information to go on. is the Obama budget gong to restore that or what? What deficit are we looking at under the Romney plan vs. the Obama plan?

What is the duty of taxpayer vis a vis the federal government? Aka, what are the boundaries the federal govenrment should have in regard to spending and requirements to help others with taxpayer money?

What is the duty of the federal government to provide some semblance of a balanced budget? How much spending per GDP is too much?

Frazzled wrote:And thats why we can't have a serious discussion about the budget, deficits, or pretty much anything. The candidate that makes that mistake is instantly destroyed by the other side as being EEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!! Doesn't matter which side, or which issue.

It doesn't inspire confidence in our nation's ability to actually address its challenges and issues. Look at health care. Every so many years there's a consensus that something needs to be done. Then when someone tries to do something, in leaps the other party and 1000 special interests declaring it to be evil.

From what I've read, I'd probably have issues with aspects of the Ryan plan. Seems like more velvet glove treatment of the rich at the expense of everyone else. The middle class has taken umpteen gut punches over the last 30 years, and they don't need any more of those.

But it's a serious proposal that actually attempts to do something, and it took some political courage to draft it. So I respect it and think it's worthy of serious discussion. Not that I think the campaign will shake out that way. The Dems will be quick play the evil card and hang the Medicare cuts around Romney's neck, and Romney probably won't stand firmly in favor of the Ryan plan, just because he hasn't shown much of a backbone. And thus the chance for some substantive discussion will die on the vine.

Still, Ryan was probably Romney's best possible choice just because his campaign was going less than nowhere in recent weeks.