Paul Ryan

[Neo]

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

[Jason1]

Agreed. Terrible choice.

[Vampyr]

Why is he so bad?

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Why is he so bad?

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.

[Professor S]

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".

[Vampyr]

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?

[TheGame]

[Professor S]

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

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.

[Professor S]

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

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'

[TheGame]

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

[Professor S]

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.