Location: Resident of Alfred.. Yes the town named after Batman's butler
Now Playing:
Posts: 10,317
Re: Paul Ryan
Quote:
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.
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".
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 08-13-2012 at 04:30 PM.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Paul Ryan
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
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?
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:
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.
__________________
I write for Cracked. So can you!
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.
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?
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...
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.
__________________
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1776-3011
Nintendo ID: Valabrax
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.
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.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Paul Ryan
Quote:
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.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
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.
Paul Ryan
Linear Mode
