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.
Before Paul Ryan was pinned as an "extreme" and "radical" ideologue, Democrats actually kind of liked the guy.
Several clips of prominent Democrats -- including President Obama -- praising Ryan have surged through the Internet in the days since Mitt Romney tapped the Wisconsin congressman as his running mate. They once called his ideas "serious" and "honest," which is not what the Obama campaign and its affiliates are saying about him now.
Arguably the most robust praise came from Erskine Bowles, the White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton who recently co-chaired President Obama's deficit-reduction committee.
In a late 2011 talk at the University of North Carolina, Bowles told the audience "this guy is amazing."
"I always thought I was okay with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me, and he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere," Bowles said. "And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget."
Bowles went on to criticize the spending plans that had come out of the Obama White House.
North Carolina's News & Observer newspaper dug up the rest of that speech, finding that at one point, Bowles also called Ryan's controversial Medicare overhaul "a pretty radical change" that he'd rather avoid.
But in a March 29, 2012, PBS interview, Bowles said that Ryan's plan to offer government payments to buy private insurance should nevertheless remain an "option" going forward. He even said "you would want to consider" a newer version of the Ryan plan that lets people keep traditional Medicare as an alternative.
Bowles repeated his sentiment that Ryan is a "very smart, stable, honest, hardworking guy."
In 2010 on the same program, Bowles said: "I wish we had more people like Paul who are thinkers and do their homework."
Around the same time, Obama was similarly upbeat on Ryan's role in the Republican Party.
In 2010, Obama said at a Republican retreat that Ryan had "made a serious proposal" with his budget. Obama criticized the idea of giving "vouchers" for Medicare, but acknowledged the need to address the deficit spending that Medicare and Medicaid fuel.
Romney, though, is pointing most prominently to Ryan's work with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden to make the case that Ryan is more bipartisan than he's made out to be by Democrats.
Ryan and Wyden late last year drafted a new proposal for Medicare -- tweaking Ryan's old plan by offering seniors a choice between government-subsidized private insurance and regular Medicare.
"One of the things I like about Paul Ryan is he's demonstrated over his years there an ability to work across the aisle to find people who have common purpose who may disagree on some issues but find enough common ground to get things done," Romney said Monday. "And, for instance, him coming together with a plan to save Medicare for future generations, no change to current Medicare beneficiaries or people near retirement but for future beneficiaries, he and Sen. Wyden have come together. This is the kind of bipartisanship we need more of, not less."
In an interview this summer on a program called Medscape, Wyden discussed that proposal, saying: "It really starts from the proposition that no one would go out and buy a house without some idea of knowing what they're paying for.
"And much of what we're going to have to do with Medicare is to be sure that traditional Medicare with its purchasing power can be maintained, while at the same time we offer private sector choices, so that the two will strengthen each other. And in that sense, we recognize that much of the Medicare debate is not at all ideological," he said.
According to The Huffington Post, Wyden is pushing back on some of Romney's claims, particularly one that Wyden and Ryan helped "co-lead" a piece of legislation -- since they wrote a policy paper, not a bill.
Then there's the off-mic moment caught in 2011 between Clinton and Ryan backstage at an event.
In the cellphone footage, aired by ABC News at the time, Clinton said he hoped a recent Democratic congressional victory wouldn't be used "as an excuse to do nothing."
"My guess is it's going to sink into paralysis is what's going to happen," Ryan told the former president. "And you know the math. I mean, it's just we knew we were putting ourselves out there. But you've got to start this. You've got to get out there. You've got to get this thing moving."
Clinton opened the door, saying: "If you ever want to talk about it ..."
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Whatever he was years ago, the Paul Ryan that Romney stood beside is a different person. Whatever his math skills, his social stances destroy any chance of his being good for the US.
I know its like we have a reincarnated John Kennedy. Heavens to betsy. Small government, tax breaks, Catholic, oh my!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
labmouse42 wrote:I disagree. There was no way radical change would have passed the Senate.
Given the way a filibusterer works in today's congress, if even one democrat or independent decided that the change was to radical then it would have never passed.
Do you remember Ben Nelson and the "Cornhusker Kickback" he required to get on board. If the change was more radical, then others would have required kickbacks or not gotten on board at all.
If filibusters still required someone standing on a podium talking, like when the Louisiana senator Huey P Long who recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, they would end considerably faster.
Stangely we've maged to enact Social Security, oversaw Reconstruction and the constitutional amendments follwing the Civil War, oversaw the 1960s civil rights movement and legislation, Welfare, and Welfare reform with the exact same system.
No, we didn't. The system has changed fundamentally in those years. Senate and congressional procedure is in no way identical now to either of those times.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
streamdragon wrote:Whatever he was years ago, the Paul Ryan that Romney stood beside is a different person. Whatever his math skills, his social stances destroy any chance of his being good for the US.
YEAH! Like years ago when he actually talked about his social stances and made them an issue. Before he shelved, and told other Republicans to shelve, social issues and "agree to disagree." Instead focusing on fiscal policy. That bastard, how dare he back off the hard line rhetoric and focus on things that actually have chance of changing.
It's cool though bro you should keep looking back and saying he's not the guy he was, then saying that the things he was concerned about then are the reason you don't think he's good for America now; it will probably make more sense if you don't say it like that though. It makes you look like you just repeat what other people say.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
streamdragon wrote:Whatever he was years ago, the Paul Ryan that Romney stood beside is a different person. Whatever his math skills, his social stances destroy any chance of his being good for the US.
YEAH! Like years ago when he actually talked about his social stances and made them an issue. Before he shelved, and told other Republicans to shelve, social issues and "agree to disagree." Instead focusing on fiscal policy. That bastard, how dare he back off the hard line rhetoric and focus on things that actually have chance of changing.
Unless of course he is using fiscal policy to affect the social issues he stands for.
Why change laws and agencies you don't agree with if you can simply cut funding for them
Or like how Romney was ok with a health care program he advocated and got implemented in his state until he ran for national office, at which point he lambasted it. The idea that politicians don't change stances, and therefore never gain or lose support, seems a bit untenable, considering the vast number of examples even in recent history. IF you don't get elected you can't govern, and sometimes that means compromise and sometimes that means change. It isn't even endemic of politicians. I'm sure we all know people that we didn't like but changed of time, or did, and over time found them less appealing.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I thought the policy of his health care program in his state was aimed at the 8% that was uninsured in his state..................
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote:I thought the policy of his health care program in his state was aimed at the 8% that was uninsured in his state..................
You do know that Obamacare is, essentially, Romneycare, yes? To criticize one is to criticize the other, and it is a bit of a problem for the man who was one of the key figures in developing the program, but has to run for office while bashing it.
Which isn't really the point. The idea that because someone liked someone else in the past means they have to like them now is a bit silly. The reasons why are certainly up for debate, but not the idea that it is possible to change ones mind. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the idea that people that liked Ryan in the past have to like him now, or are disingenuous for souring on him, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. We've all had people we liked and then later didn't, or didn't and then later did. Like anyone, Ryan is capable of changing and maybe in the past was more agreeable in some way or another. I'm sure there are also people who like him now that didn't like him in the past. There are probably quotes of people who support him now that said things before that were less than supportive.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Jihadin wrote:I thought the policy of his health care program in his state was aimed at the 8% that was uninsured in his state..................
You do know that Obamacare is, essentially, Romneycare, yes?
No... two different cases.
To criticize one is to criticize the other, and it is a bit of a problem for the man who was one of the key figures in developing the program, but has to run for office while bashing it.
Honestly, it is an albatross for Romney...
Lets keep it simple...
Romney was gov when the Mass. electorate WANTED this...
YEAH! Federalism is in the works!
Obamacare was so unpopular, it had to be passed in Congress via reconciliation (among other things)...
While it's bad optics from the Standpoint that Romney is now argues against Obamacare (from a "bad bill" perspective), he's been consistent.
I have yet to hear/see that Romney repudiated Romneycare in Mass.. (if he did, please show me... then he'd be hypocritical).
Which isn't really the point. The idea that because someone liked someone else in the past means they have to like them now is a bit silly. The reasons why are certainly up for debate, but not the idea that it is possible to change ones mind. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the idea that people that liked Ryan in the past have to like him now, or are disingenuous for souring on him, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. We've all had people we liked and then later didn't, or didn't and then later did. Like anyone, Ryan is capable of changing and maybe in the past was more agreeable in some way or another. I'm sure there are also people who like him now that didn't like him in the past. There are probably quotes of people who support him now that said things before that were less than supportive.
Yeah... I can agree with that. We're all allowed to have our own opinion and reserve the right to change it.
Wasn't whembly the one who said a 56page bill was the same bill as a 2000 page one?
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Frazzled wrote:
Or just go to a Canadian style system that everyone has to use regardless of wealth.
Not how Canadian healthcare works.
Actually, if you reduce Canadian healthcare down to a one-line description, then yes, that is how it works. Nobody is denied coverage in our health care system, and nobody is turned away because they are poor.
While we have the options to use private insurance, it really doesn't change anything of significance: private insurance is mostly with respect to dental coverage, and prescription drugs. Typically, private insurance is used more for travel to the USA (I won't set foot across the border without travel insurance).
Jihadin wrote:I thought the policy of his health care program in his state was aimed at the 8% that was uninsured in his state..................
You do know that Obamacare is, essentially, Romneycare, yes?
No... two different cases.
I guess if it keeps someone's cognitive dissonance at bay, a person can come up with whatever explanation they want.
Read my next statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote:Wasn't whembly the one who said a 56page bill was the same bill as a 2000 page one?
Same "bill" as in they both would achieve the same result.
That 2000 page bill "reads" like a campaign speech... Sessions just stripped that out leaving the actual numbers in place (you know, that actual law)
It was a gaky tactic by Sessions though (he's a politician, whatdoyouexpect?)... I'd just let 'em vote on the original 2000page bill and it still wouldn't have passed.
And just so that you know, Sessions CHALLENGED the dems to correct him and no one took him up for that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/14 19:44:19
Same "bill" as in they both would achieve the same result.
No. No not really.
That 2000 page bill "reads" like a campaign speech... Sessions just stripped that out leaving the actual numbers in place (you know, that actual law)
Produce the document and show me the comparison. Oh wait, you can't. You've never read it. The document is not 40 times smaller while containing the same information. I very much doubt the original document was in size 400 font.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/14 20:00:22
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Same "bill" as in they both would achieve the same result.
No. No not really.
Then why didn't anyone in congress correct Sen. Sessions when offered to correct it?
Lemme reiterate... he should've left it alone and made everyone vote on the 250page bill, not the stripped down version that he did.
That 2000 page bill "reads" like a campaign speech... Sessions just stripped that out leaving the actual numbers in place (you know, that actual law)
Produce the document and show me the comparison. Oh wait, you can't. You've never read it. The document is not 40 times smaller while containing the same information. I very much doubt the original document was in size 400 font.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Then why didn't anyone in congress correct Sen. Sessions when offered to correct it?
Because it was a bs waste of time political ploy so transparent you can't even picture what it looked like in your head.
Added the extra "0"... it's actually 250 pages.
I beg to differ... did YOU read it? Here it is:
The Budget also funds a jointly administered mathematics education initiative, with $30 million from the Department of Education and $30 million from the National Science Foundation to develop, validate, and scale up evidence-based approaches to improve student learning at the K-12 and undergraduate levels.
10 minutes of wrangling with adobe reader and 20 seconds of comparison later and this appears to be missing. The presidents budget was itemized, the republican budget wasn't. At best it was an index, but without a master document it's vague and worthless. This isn't even close to being the only item expenditure that didn't make it into the clipped document. The republicans weren't trying to pass a budget, they were trying to show that the presidents budget was fat and theirs was lean. It was a circus sideshow and a sign of the fundamental breakdown of the republican party as anything but a clown show.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/14 22:57:46
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
I'm not actually sure how this happened...but somehow I read this thread as "Paypal is Romney's Running Mate." I'm less interested, knowing the real title.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
whembly wrote:What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?
No. Just no.
Aggregate demand is impacted by the amount the government spends. There is just no doubting this. So when you talk about changes to the overall level of government spending you need to account for the drop in aggregate demand produced by a drop in government spending.
That's just how it is. Ryan's bill doesn't do that, and that means the actual impact of his bill is unknown.
Whether or not you want to say 'boo government' doesn't change the basics of economics.
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....
He's a politician picking a politician. Pretending it's anything else is just spin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: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?
Success and economic growth being enjoyed by all is what you're supposed to pretend to believe in. You know that old Republican thing about a rising tide lifting all ships?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote: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.
That's the challenge for Obama and his team. It can't just be 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas' but 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas and therefore the guy who picked him as VP and also the whole Republican idea of the way forward is bad'.
I just don't think its a given to go from the first to the second. You might be right, and Ryan might overshadow the actual Presidential candidate and in that case it'll be pretty easy, but at the end of the day despite the fuss right now he's still just the VP candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
Remember that 'fix the budget' thread we had ages ago, where I was trying to point out that bringing the budget into surplus is easy if you have a free hand, but hard in reality because everything is piece of spending, every tax concession is someone's sacred cow?
Well, yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
Actually, in the US the biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses. So no, a lot of people don't make it work. Instead they get sick and go bankrupt because of it.
Regulation and Legal implications DRIVES up the cost. The Administrative architecture is so byzatine, it's assinine.
Yeah, because its a 50 year old reform of a 100 year old system. It's always going to end up a mess of competing interests all taking their own piece of the pie, coupled with a whole mess false economies.
The HCR bill sought to tackle a lot of those issues, by the way. It's why the CBO expects there to be a $500 million saving to medicare without a single drop in the standard of care provided.
It's why the HCR should be viewed as the first step to a many layered reform of US healthcare, to limit the amount taken by special interests, and continue to pull out all those false economies.
But the Republicans picked it as the issue they could hurt the Democrats on, and so its unlikely healthcare will be meaningfully touched by a government for a long time yet.
Not that I really blame the Republicans over this. Afterall, they went from the brink of oblivion back in to being legitimately considered for government in the course of a few months. But the idiots who let some inane soundbites about socialism convince them to ignore the actual substance of the HCR... those people should be fething ashamed of themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:No, we didn't. The system has changed fundamentally in those years. Senate and congressional procedure is in no way identical now to either of those times.
I think its less the procedures and more the culture within the two parties, and how that culture has impacted the electorate as a whole. It used to be that variation within the party was accepted, so you could be a Republican because you liked tax cuts and small government and a big army, but you could potentially think that it was a woman's right to choose if she wanted to have an abortion.
But now such variation from the party line is unacceptable, and it makes cross party compromise a whole lot harder.
It might be pointed out how artificial such groupings are - how could one's beliefs on the idea size of the armed forces control how likely they were to be for or against abortion? Except increasingly the US is shifting into two camps that follow one artificial grouping of beliefs or the other - it used to be that you could go into rural areas and find people who believed in socially conservative values, but find they'd often differ with Republicans over social programs and farm subsidies. But now those social conservatives are increasingly in favour of more right wing economics. Similarly you used to be able to find upper middle class urbanites who held all the socially acceptable views on social policies, but who didn't believe they should pay more tax to fund someone else's unemployment - but now those people are becoming more liberal economically.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 05:39:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 06:26:20
azazel the cat wrote:Typically, private insurance is used more for travel to the USA (I won't set foot across the border without travel insurance).
When I booked my travel insurance for the US I was surprised to find out it wasn't a list 1 cheap insurance company like if I'd gone to Europe. It was in the same group as Africa... not because there's any great risk of something happening like there is in Africa, but because if I did get hurt it'd cost a stupid amount of money compared to if I suffered a similar injury in Europe or here at home.
A few days later an Australian woman suffered an injury in the US and it became a national story here because she was uninsured and the bill was in excess of a million.
Here's the website for booking travel insurance, tool around with it to see how much more companies will charge you to go to the USA, because of the nutty cost of health insurance;
http://www.medibank.com.au/travel-insurance/default.aspx
I put in a trip for one person to the USA, for 15th July to 31 October, and it cost $615. The same trip to the UK was $260. They're both stable countries with no reputation for criminal preying on tourists, only difference there is the cost of treatment if you get hurt and that more than doubles the cost of coverage.
Denmark is $260 as well. Afghanistan cost the same as the USA. Afghanistan... all the extra risk of getting attacked or abducted or whatever, and it breaks even with the USA because of the cost of health coverage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
Ryan is a smart guy who earned himself a place at the centre of the Republican policy debate. I don't, and you may not, like his beliefs but that doesn't make him an idiot like Palin, who could only parrot concepts put forward by others (and not even that some of the time).
With Romney and Ryan at least we've got a pair of adults running for the presidency, unlike when Bush and Palin were on their respective tickets. They may be adults who want to sink a whole country on the mantra of balance the budget & no new taxes, but they're still adults.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 06:27:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
The major difference is that Paul Ryan is actually very intelligent, and by all accounts fully capable of useful input on the state of the federal budget.
Whether or not that makes him a better, or worse, person than Sarah Palin is up to the individual.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 06:27:56
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
The major difference is that Paul Ryan is actually very intelligent, and by all accounts fully capable of useful input on the state of the federal budget.
Whether or not that makes him a better, or worse, person than Sarah Palin is up to the individual.
You can be really smart, but that doesn't make you incapable of having dumb ideas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 06:28:20
What I was trying to get at is that Ryan's budget is useful to Paul Ryan, but not necessarily anyone else. As Shuma and others have been saying, its just a piece of political chicanery.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
d-usa wrote:You can be really smart, but that doesn't make you incapable of having dumb ideas.
Sure, but then the correct attack is 'his ideas are dumb' not 'he is as dumb as Sarah Palin'. This is more than just a point of pedantry, because sooner or later people are going to see a fair bit of Ryan, and if all they've heard from Democrat pundits is 'he's dumb' and he comes out and shows a strong grasp of the numbers and quick rhetorical brain they're going to think the Democrat pundits were wrong.
But if they hear that Ryan's budget and therefore his ideas for the country are dangerous, ideological silliness that will only increase the gap between rich and poor... well that's something else entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:What I was trying to get at is that Ryan's budget is useful to Paul Ryan, but not necessarily anyone else. As Shuma and others have been saying, its just a piece of political chicanery.
Definitely. Ryan's budget took the guy from being a young congressmen with a fair bit of potential to an actual player in national politics. It was never a budget that was going to get passed, but a budget that marked his place in the political landscape. But it was also, I think, a genuine effort to actually start a debate on long term budget planning (which some Democrats including the President to some extent actually tried to take him up on, only for the presently partisan nature of congress to make impossible).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 07:31:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Yeah, the President did offer an alternative, but sadly, that's been mostly ignored because of the reelection.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Its unfair to say that the only reason Ryan isn't getting the piss ripped out of him as much is because he has a cock.
The fact is, he might be a dick, but that's because of his right wing/Christian leaning.. you know, the whole "I hate abortion thing"
I mean, Palin also happened to hate abortion and such, but the fact is, Palin had the IQ of a rocking horse, and Ryan doesn't.
Thus the unfair comparison.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?