Paul Ryan
 

is the nail in the coffin for the Romney campaign. His only chance was Rob Portman.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Agreed. Terrible choice.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Why is he so bad?

Re: Paul Ryan
 

I don't follow enough politics to be 100%, but from what I gathered.. he doesn't really balance the ticket much.. if anything leans too far to the right on some of his views, and may potentially turn some of Romney's base away from the ticket.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

He is a risk, but a intelligent risk. Here is why:

Risk: He is very fiscally conservative, and essentially a one issue politician. He concentrates all of his time on the budget, and his ideas involve an incredible amount of change to the current system (which, by all accounts, is failing). These changes involve overhauls of the tax code, medicare, social security, etc. This makes him an easy target for fear-based attacks, including this commercial:



For the left, he will be portrayed as the poster boy of the "1%" feeding the rich at the expense of the poor. As illustrated above, the left will portray his plan as sacrificing the elderly, but in fact his plan does not impact anyone over 55 and it changes medicare into a system that is similar to what Congress currently has (public funds to choose from private insurance options).

Also, Ryan's ideas tend to work best in a debate or discussion format, and he may not get many opportunities to express himself in long form.

Reward: This choice gets the conversation off of petty subjects like Romney's taxes and Bain record, and on to substantive issues like the budget and and the economy, and both those topics play well for Republicans. Paul Ryan is incredibly intelligent, and can communicate complex economic issues very simply and convincingly. He tends to use math instead of personal attacks, and is liked and respected by most people he works with on both sides of the isle.

Even Pres. Obama has treated him with kid gloves over his tenure, including an uncharacteristic flummoxing during the health care summit:



This is why I think both parties both love and fear this selection. Democrats love it for the opportunity to make attacks on Ryan's change heavy ideas, but they are absolutely terrified of how convincing Ryan can be when given the opportunity to express his views in a debate or open discussion. Conversely, Republicans fear his vulnerability to attacks and straw man arguments, but love his ability to convince others and elevate the conversation.

Some will say this is Romney reaching out to his conservative base, but I disagree. This is a broadside for independents who vote with their wallet and primarily care about the economy.

In any case, this election just got "real".

Re: Paul Ryan
 

The thing that confuses me most is they keep saying "we need to fix America and go back how it used to be."

What "used to be" are they talking about? Which time period are we trying to go back to?

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Exactly. I don't understand all this "restore America" talk. Restore it to what?? I can't think of any period that I would really want us to go back to. No voting rights for women? Slavery?

And here's an article about the Portman v Ryan question:

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney%E2...-the-gop-.html

Re: Paul Ryan
 

I don't think Ryan's speaking ability will help that much. There's only one vice presidential debate (I think), and since when have Americans paid any attention to well-reasoned arguments? It's all about performance art - who looks good, and who appeals to your emotions the best.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Welcome back, Game! I can't listen to the audio of the video, but I saw an interesting stat: Paul Ryan's plan eventually lowers spending to 15% of GDP. To be honest, this is necessary if e ever want to actually pay off our debt. Over time, we tend to bring in about 18% of GDP in revenue each year. We are currently spending at about 25% of GDP and we are accruing absurd amounts of debt.

If we ever want to pay it off, we eventually have to 1) raise revenue to normal levels by encouraging investment and employment, and 2) lower spending below normal levels. Now raising revenue is a sincere and difficult discussion, but we can't avoid lowering spending.

Also, I've been hearing a lot about Ryan's plan over the last few days. Here are some clarifications:

1) Ryan's plan does not cut spending, but mainly freeze's it. The cuts people are talking about are cuts to future spending. The idea is to transition the future burdens/opportunities to the marketplace with the expectation that the market can provide a better product more efficiently by promoting competition.

2) Ryan's plan preserves medicare for those 55 and older.

3) Interestingly enough, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the only plan that technically cuts Medicare, and it cuts it by about $600-700 billion.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

He never said "go back to how it used to be", he talked about "founding principles", most that defy even the country's spotty history. In essence, he believes that the greatest society concentrates on promoting the equality of opportunity before the equality of results and believes that the nation is far more important to divining the future of the country than the government.

These are big statements, I know, but that is what he is talking about. Of course he's not referring to slavery, etc. Someone should tell that to Biden, though...

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Do we even want to pay off the debt? I thought that as long as the debt is lower than the GDP you're fine. It's not household economics - there's not going to come a day when we are actually called in to pay that debt. We can carry it forever.

I think right now the debt actually is a little over the GDP, which is definitely not good...but saying you're going to "pay off the debt" is a pipe dream and wouldn't even yield the healthiest economy. You want to have a debt. You want to have an ever increasing debt. You just want it to stay lower than the GDP.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Bond would likely give a better explanation of the impact of debt on economies than I. But I look across the Atlantic ocean and see a pretty stern warning.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

You need to get some audio. lol

-EDIT-

And just in case you think this guy doesn't slam democrats too:


I think the downside of Ryan is that he doesn't hide what he's planning, and it's unpopular.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Game, notice he never says that the ACA isn't taking over $700 billion out of Medicare. It is, and the "savings" he mentions just seconds later are the funds taken from Medicare. Cenk plays a lot of semantics, but plays them poorly. The non-partisan source he mentions is likely the CBO and that was debunked in the Paul Ryan video I posted earlier in the thread.

Also, when has moving services from the private sector to the public sector ever improved prices or corruption? The minute someone can show me proof this has ever happened I'll register as a Democrat.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Ok, lets go a little more mainstream with it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...medicare-cuts/

"Those Medicare savings -achieved through reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse, not benefit cuts – appear in the House Republicans’ FY 2013 budget, which Ryan authored."

That's exactly what he's saying in the video. Republicans are being misleading, Oh, and their comeback? At the end of the ABC article? "He’s used it to pay for Obamacare, a risky, unproven federal government takeover of health care" Ok so Romney/Ryan won't use the 700 billion to pay for Obamacare, understood... and "And if I’m President of the United States, we’re putting the $716 billion back” Excelent word play, but lies non the less... unless his meaning is 'back' into the governments pockets to pay for his own plan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...are-cuts-says/

I'm not even going to quote that one, you should read it. But to Sum it up, there's two facts here (as reported by non partasian sources:

1) The Ryan plan supports and protects the same 700 billion in "cuts" or "savings" (or whatever you want to call it) that Obama's plan does.
2) Ryan is accusing of Obama for "robbing" those funds to pay for Obamacare, but in Ryan's plan he's also "robbing" those funds to pay for his own plan.

So this whole 700 billion dollar "arguement" is all smoke and mirrors. Romney, Ryan, and Obama (aka the corporatist party) all support these changes. Instead of being misleading and focusing on the 700 billion cut, they should have an honest debate about where the funds are going.. aka 'Obamacare' vs 'Romneyryancare'

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Game, when you're right you're right. I fell for the same thing I blame a lot of the Obama attacks for: calling reductions in future spending "cuts".

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-...re-falsehoods/

Once I read the actual facts it doesn't make me like the ACA any more, to be honest.

By the way, I recommend FactCheck.org. It's from the University of PA and I find it to be much more even handed than PolitiFact, which is run my a newspaper.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

So the Joker convinced Batman of something finally. LOL

And yeah, I love FactCheck.org - Now that the debates and elections are coming up that site is likely going to be pumping out a lot more articles.

From a political standpoint, the republicans would have been better off picking someone who's on the same intellectual level as Ryan, but with the same track record of a Sarah Palin (or even Obama). All of these harsh claims against Obama are going to bite them in the ass when the truth comes out. Ryan's financial plans are a gold mine for information on cuts that Obama can use to sway voters.

I'm on the side that thinks that this will be a train wreck when push comes to shove. (Unless some type of financial meltdown happens mid election, which is very possible)

As annoying as it is, having a strong opinion on how to fix things and having it well documented works against you. Unfortunatly all of Obama's policy changes from his 2008 campaign he won't have to answer for since he followed the corporatist agenda. What's Romney going to say? "Why didn't you raise taxes on the top 5% like you promised? Why are you focusing on spending instead? Why did you make a health care mandate instead of making the public option??"

Since Obama turned into Mitt in his first 4 years in office, they can't even use the main issue that liberals/progressives have against him as a weapon.

Anyway I'm just ranting now lol

Re: Paul Ryan
 

to be honest, I think both sides are making some pretty outrageous claims. So far the Obama camp has accused Romney of being a felon, not paying taxes for a decade (with no evidence), and murdering someone's wife with cancer. Neither side is coming off well. As for Romney, I have no idea what his campaign is up to. He's running away from his past, and a past I would have emphasized. Overall his work at Bain was stellar, and while some companies were closed, the vast majority were saved and grown. He seems unable or unwilling to push his success. Instead he lets Pres. Obama define his time there.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

I don't think it really compares. Republicans have been a lot more vicious and telling blatant lies. (700 billion from Medicare and no work requirement for welfare? Yeah ok) But that's how the party has always been, and it works. You tell the same lie/misleading info enough and it sticks.

As for being a felon, that was out of Obama's camp and we can argue about how valid that is. It's not like this is some cornerstone that the Obama camp is running on. You think if the republicans even had a half-reason to believe Obama was a felon they'd do anything less than harp all over it?

As for not paying taxes for a decade... why is he hiding his records? It's not like the whole birther movement, where they're requesting the president provide something that has never been asked of a president before and implying that the President of the United States isn't even an American. These records have been made public for decades and Romney chose to hide it for some reason. Romney's camp already admitted that the Obama camp can use the records against them if released. That should speak volumes by itself.

As for the murder thing.. that was an ad that was ran once and wasn't approved by Obama. They are some conspiracy theories behind it, but it is what it is.

The Republicans are strong and clear in their foul play. They're throwing fastballs right at democrat’s heads and the dems are dodging it.. while dems lob soft balls a little inside and the republicans are screaming for help. I mean, just look at the language from the "Did Obama cut Medicare" video. You don't see any of that kind of language from the left.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Game, the problem is there is at least a kernel of truth in both of the claims by Republicans. Dems are taking $700+ million out of future medicare spending, and they ARE allowing states to remove work requirements from welfare as long as they meet certain goals (which could easily be met by improvements by the economy and have nothing to do with welfare programs themselves).

That is some weak sauce right there. By that logic the Republicans could tie Obama to domestic terror because he went to dinner with the leader of the Weather Underground.

He's hiding them to avoid the inevitable class warfare attacks because Romney, admittedly, paid about 13-15% in taxes because he doesn't earn an income, only capital gains. His tax rate is a red herring, and you know it. All it does is create the opportunity for more ad hominem attacks that distract from real issues.

Sorry, but I call bullshit. I still runs daily on Youtube and other media (I saw it this morning), and the subject as discussed by the Obama camp with the PAC that ran it.

Really? Really?? Excuse me while I watch Paul Ryan throw an old woman off a cliff again...

I don't mean to be partisan here. Both sides are guilty of advertising that stretches the truth, or breaks it completely, but to say the Republicans are somehow uniquely guilty of this in this election cycle isn't accurate, IMO.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Prof,

You're right there is a kernel o truth, but they twist it into something way more vicious and extreme than it really is. People who take what they say litterally think Obama is guting the life out of Medicare and trying to give out more welfare to lazy people... You and I know that's just misrepresenting what is actually happening, but your average guy who just kicks back and watches Fox news doesn't know.

And Republicans DID tie him to domestic terror... LMAO. That doesn't change the fact that Romney misrepresented himself.

As for the taxes... I know he has his reasons to hide it, but he should just be upfront about it. That expectation comes with the territory. Just have it out in the open, explain it.. boom issue dead. He's getting exactly what he has coming by him hiding the records. (And I notice you didn't comment on the birther thing, which was 1000x worse...)

And the ad was only ran on TV once.. idk about youtube or anything.. but in the end Obama didn't approve the ad. But of course, that's an example of the inside lobed soft ball. An ad that indirectly makes romney responsible for someone not being able to afford their healthcare (and that isn't even approved by Obama) turns into "OMG OBAMA ACCUSED ROMNEY OF MURDER".

The Republican party is the strong/aggressive party, the Democratic party is the weak/passive party. To me it's not equal. I don't think the end result of getting Obama or Romney into office is going to make a difference, because they're both corporatists and both going to continue to lead the country down the wrong path.

If you want me to go back to youtube and drag some stuff up I can. Democrats don't use that kinda alarming/hateful langage. On the issues where it counts, I'm not even saying what side is right or wrong... but c'mon you have to admit that it's not even.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

You and I have completely different perspectives on this. I doubt we'll find agreement.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

I'm pretty sure you're both wrong if either one of you thinks either party is passive and weak.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

To me the whole situation with health care reform proves it. You give the other party (who had NO SAY at the time) concession after concession after concession until the bill turned into something the republican party was trying to push in the mid 90's... just to get 0 votes.... I consider that weak. I've never seen a more epic failure in leadership.

When Bush was pres, he'd basically scare the other party into doing what he wanted. "You don't vote for this you don't want to protect the country" and "You don't vote for this and the whole economy will crash and we'll blame you"... weak.

Sorry, I can't follow you two on this one. Give me some examples of when the democrats pushed the republicans into getting exactly what they want... maybe I'm closed minded...

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Oh, I don't think either is weak. The Republicans have done an effective job of trying to shape policy while only having 1/3 of government under their influence since 2010. They can't really create policy, but they can block what they disagree with. Meanwhile the Democrats spent a great deal of political capital from 2008 - 2010 to pass some of the farthest reaching regulatory reforms and entitlements since the Great Society of the 1960's.

I don't think the Republicans are weak, but to say the Dems are weak is insane, IMO. If anything they are more united and focused than the Republicans (mainly due to the divergent interests of tea party organizations, and in the influence of the Libertarian wing).

Re: Paul Ryan
 

I'd say both parties are equally strong, but exercise "strength" in different ways. Seems rather cut and dry.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

None of you guys are even going to try to back up your statements and answer my question? lol

To me, political strength/weakness is based on the fear that the opposition party has. Have the republicans ever been too scared to vote against a democratic bill because of the political ramifications it may have in the last 15 years? (No) How about the democrats, have they been scared? (Yes) Heck, the Democrats were SCARED when they were in power to pass their OWN agenda that happened to be POPULAR at the time.

Hate to harp on it, but back to the healthcare bill... if they would have created something strong that would have benifitted the middle and lower class more, they could have forced republicans to vote for it. But instead they "worked" with the republican party to make it into something weak enough with enough unpopular ideas that the whole Republican party could vote against it on a united front. To me that was pure 100% weak.

But like I said.. maybe I'm closed minded. But since nobody is giving any specific examples I'm going to just assume I'm right.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

This is your recollection of events surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Funny, I didn't think abuse of the reconciliation procedure to avoid filibuster was an example of Democrats bending backwards to bring in Republicans...

Honestly, reading your version of the passage of the bill is a work of revisionist history that was created by those who still live in an alternate dimension where the American people want government run, single-payer healthcare. The truth is they want "free" healthcare, but only if they can keep the care level and choices they have now. As has been proven by fact checkers, they can't even do what with the ACA.

The Democrats are not victims or weak. They created that plan to make the American people more comfortable, not Republicans. They knew they would be fought tooth and nail to the end because as Paul Ryan pointed out in the summit, the two parties simply have two different visions of what America is and should be.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

By the time the bill was put up for vote, it was so weak and filled with consessions for the right wing that democrats had issues bringing their own party on board in the house. You're right, how the bill was passed was the democratic party (at least the senate and executive office) being united and 'strong', but how the bill came to be after over a year of trying to work with the republicans was WEAK.

Americans voted the president/party into power that ran on having a public option, or 'at least' a single payer system. Generally speaking, americans do NOT like the idea of the mandate. How can you even pretend that's revisionist history? Or better yet, how does a MANDATE make the american people more comfortable than a public option?

And keep in mind, the most unpopular idea in the whole bill (cough THE MANDATE) has been supported by republicans for longer than I've been alive. In the mid 90's the republican party was trying to push something similar to the affordable care act to counter what Clinton was trying to push. And don't get me started on Romney.

The way the right wing tries to make it sound, is like the left didn't give any consessions and just shoved the bill down everyone's throats.. when this bill is way more "republican" than candidate Obama ran on. Fox news and the right wing are the revisionists. (And now they run adds like they don't support a mandate, hilarious)

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Pres. Obama didn't really run on health care reform at all. He ran on the economy with healthcare a minor part of their platform and virtually nonexistent in their campaign, and then once elected he basically ignored the economy and spent all their political capital on healthcare reform pretending it was an economic issue.

And just look at polls and you'll see that while people say they want free or single-payer healthcare, they don't want anything that comes with it when implemented. They want a free lunch, but once they find out they can't choose what they want to eat, they find it unpalatable. This isn't opinion, it's polled fact.

There really is no point in arguing about this because we have two very different recollections of what happened in the campaign and over his nearly 4 years as President. If you believe this administration has been conciliatory or compromising, there is literally nothing for us to debate.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

So is it true that Ryan spent this entire speech telling lies at the last convention?

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Well, it depends on your version of the truth, I guess, and how you define spending, etc. Also, it depends on whether or not you consider exaggerations and spin to be the same as lies.

Example Claim - The ACA guts over $700 million from Medicare.

The "Lie" Version: The ACA does NOT cut the current level of Medicare spending at all.

The "Truth" Version: The ACA DOES cut the planned growth in Medicare spending by the amount claimed.

Politicians, including this Administration, have often spoken about current and future spending interchangeably, depending on what benefits them.

From FactCheck.org:

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

Slightly off topic: Yes, the ACA plan to reduce costs in Medicare is to simply pay less for hospitals and doctors. I'm sure this will have no unintended consequences... :rolleyes:

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Oh, and an example of people essentially "lying" about Ryan's "lies":

Claim: "Ryan's budget keeps the same cuts to Medicare Part A that Obamacare does, so Ryan is a hypocrite."

The first part of that statement is true...

BUT

... Ryan's plan puts the future funds directly into the Medicare trust fund to help shore it up (it is bleeding cash), as opposed to the Democrat plan that diverts the funds into the ACA. So if you're a senior, and Ryan states that the ACA "raids" funds from Medicare (healthcare for seniors) to fund the ACA (healthcare for all), it is technically true.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz25hVVRLAJ

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Ryan was being extremely misleading, but I don't think he told any outright lies. That just seems to be his theme now.

http://ed.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/29...-plant-closing

[paraphrasing] Ryan says something like: "Obama said he wanted to keep the GM plan open, but look now it's closed and all these people are out of jobs."

He's obviously implying that Obama is the reason it closed, but it actually happened when Bush was in power. But if you break down his sentance, he's telling the truth... he's just leaving out information, and being misleading.

Reminds me of george bush and dick cheney talk on the war in Iraq. (When they weren't being idiots) they were saying how Saddam and Iraq is linked to terrorism, and would find a way to put 9-11 in the same sentance... but they avoided directly stating that Iraq caused 9-11. But there were strong implications.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

By the way, let's not think that Ryan was the only misleading speaker at a convention. Pres. Clinton was pretty good at that too...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...824_Page2.html

Re: Paul Ryan
 

Do you really think that's just as bad as what Ryan did?

Re: Paul Ryan
 

I suppose "bad" is a matter of opinion, and what you view as important/impactful. As I mentioned above, the omissions and misleading statements made by Clinton about Ryan were pretty "bad", IMO. He insinuated that Ryan's plan simply cuts funds from Medicare (because he is a cruel, heartless Republican), and never mentioned that the funds would actually be moved from Medicare Part A to the Medicare trust fund to help keep it solvent. The full truth actually supports the Ryan claim that their plan would help preserve Medicare, and "Obamacare" pulls future $ from Medicare to fund the ACA.

And for the record, the plant Ryan talked about was still technically open after Pres. Obama was elected, but it was on "stand-by". It was never put back in operation and remained on "stand-by" when Pres. Obama made these comments:

The plant has not been re-opened, even after the GM bailout and debt restructuring. All the pundits and talking heads have claimed this does not constitute a "promise", but I'll leave it to your own judgements as to whether or not what Ryan claimed was an egregious lie.

In the end, it's politics. Both parties are going to spin facts to meet their goals and opinions. Saying one does so more than the other is splitting hairs.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

It depends on how much more. If one person tells one lie and another person tells 100 lies, that's pretty significant.

Just compare the fact check articles on Ryan's speech vs. Clinton's speech. I mean, even Fox was calling Ryan out on what he said.

Re: Paul Ryan
 

I'm not trying to say that Ryan didn't exaggerate or mislead, but I think people are exaggerating Ryan's exaggerations, and downplaying those from the Democrat convention, as I pointed out in my last post. Read the whole article on Clinton's speech. There is more than one exaggeration and half-truth and the ntire speech was based on them. Also, his speech was incredibly effective because of it.

As you say, compare the fact checking on all the speeches and make your own conclusions. I recommend FactCheck.org for a truly unbiased account. The Politico article on Clinton's speech I posted is pretty good as well.

To be honest, the "fact checking" that has been done by most news organizations has been awful on all sides and for both conventions. American news is dead. We're on our own.