Printable View
He exudes intelligence, he looks good, but is that going to increase Romney's base?
Now that Sarah Palin has lost her defenders, even Cheney said that she was a poor choice, it seems Ryan's pick was to conolidate the right wing base. Of course, it is a moot point since Romney is going to win by a landslide, right?
The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections exactly right was Rasmussen.
Rasmussen commented that in 2004 before the national conventions he had Bush ahead by 3. Nothing changed. Bush won by 3. In 2008 at the same time he had Obama ahead by 5. Nothing changed. Obama won by 5-7%. Now he has romney ahead by 4. Likely nothing will change, especially because romney, as opposed to Mccain, will not be outspent 10:1. And, by the way, for the first time in my life, I will make a campaign contribution to end the tired, failed and devisive policies of Obama.
[QUOTE=Dccpa; 425289]Esten you seem to have left out this one critical fact:
"The White House faced harsh criticism from conservatives and liberals after the vote on the budget, which was put forth by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and used spending targets from Obama's budget proposal offered earlier this year. A similar bill by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) failed 414-0 in the House."
[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-republicans-barack-obama-budget-jeff-sessions-mick-mulvaney.php[/url][/QUOTE]And you have omitted a critical fact.
The budget introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions was a a small 56-page document with the same topline numbers as Obama, but no specifics. So it had a connection, giving some cover to call it Obama's budget. But without specifics it was just an empty shell. From the White House: "For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."
Predictably, nobody voted for this perverse gimmick.
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/[/url]
[QUOTE]For a vote like this to happen, each political party must believe they can gain from it. If BO didn't want this vote to happen, Harry Reid would not have allowed the budget up for a vote. Either that or BO has lost control of his party.[/QUOTE]Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.
When you dig into the details, you learn this was nothing but a Republican stunt for headlines. Anyone who believes Congress voted on Obama's budget, has been duped by the Republican party.
[QUOTE=Esten; 425310]And you have omitted a critical fact.
The budget introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions was a a small 56-page document with the same topline numbers as Obama, but no specifics. So it had a connection, giving some cover to call it Obama's budget. But without specifics it was just an empty shell. From the White House: "For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."
Predictably, nobody voted for this perverse gimmick.
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/[/url]
Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.
When you dig into the details, you learn this was nothing but a Republican stunt for headlines. Anyone who believes Congress voted on Obama's budget, has been duped by the Republican party.[/QUOTE]When do the Democrats plan to submit a balanced budget, same for Republicans, when does the Ryan budget balance? I think both plans continue pouring on the red ink for a long time to come, making it much harder to dig out of the hole. Better to bite the bullet and balance the budget now, not in 10 years, Gary Johnson (Libertarian) plans to submit a balanced budget in year one. Democrats and Republicans in power means perpetual, endless debt that will eventually lead to a major financial crisis. Barak Obama ran on fiscal responsibilty in 08 and then did the opposite by making the enormous Bush deficits look pale in comparison. Democrats and Republicans alike spend our hard earned money like drunken sailors. It's time for change and that change is Libertarian.
[QUOTE=Esten;425310]Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.[/QUOTE]Hmmmm, a plan to outline spending for the next fiscal year. Obviously a plan too radical for Harry. How many head shots did he receive during his boxing career?
[QUOTE=Tequila Tim;425313]Hmmmm, a plan to outline spending for the next fiscal year. Obviously a plan too radical for Harry. How many head shots did he receive during his boxing career?[/QUOTE]Harry Reid also wants the brothels to be shut down in his home state of Nevada (how idoitic is that!) , that's something I'd expect from social conservatives like Mitt Romney, not a Democrat, go figure. Of course, Libertarians want prostitution to be legal.
Conclusion: Harry Reid wants to cut jobs in his home state and impose his morals on others. Isn't is time go Libertarian and choose freedom vs government control?
The reason that Obama, Reid, Pelsosi etc were never worried about a budget is because Obama, Reid, Pelosi were spending somebody elses money. The idea that we would eventually have to repay every cent of their spending sprees never crossed the peabrain minds of Obama, Reid or Pelosi. As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with liberals is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to spend.
Starting Jan 20 or 21 of next year with the new Romney / Ryan administration we will have something we have not had for a long time. A budget. And a team that will be good stewards of the money we send them.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425315]The reason that Obama, Reid, Pelsosi etc were never worried about a budget is because Obama, Reid, Pelosi were spending somebody elses money. The idea that we would eventually have to pay every cent of their spending sprees never crossed the peabrain minds of Obama, Reid or Pelosi. As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with liberals is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to spend.
Starting Jan 20 or 21 of next year with the new Romeny / Ryan administration we have something we have not had for a long time. A budget. And a team that will be good stewards of the money we send them.[/QUOTE]My understanding of the Ryan budget is that it doesn't balance for years to come, help me out, WHEN does the Ryan budget balance, or was Dick Cheney right when he said that deficits don't matter? Libertarian Gary Johnson's budget will balance in year one, like it is supposed to, not years down the road when they are out of office anyway.
Silver star.
The answer to that is easy. The romney / Ryan administration will balance the budget a lot sooner than an Obama / Biden administration. Which is not saying much considering that Obama / biden have no idea what a budget is.
The reason Romney was asked to salvage the 1998 Winter Olympics was not only because corruption and kickbacks were rampant but because cost overruns in Salt Lake city were reaching federal deficit levels. Something similiar to what we have in Washingdon DC today. Romney stopped the corruption and kickbacks and brought the games in on schedule - no deficits.
I have nothing against Gary johnson. But at this junction in our history we are fortunate to have someone as capable and intelligent as Romney to get us back on track.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425317]Silver star.
The answer to that is easy. The romney / Ryan administration will balance the budget a lot sooner than an Obama / Biden administration. Which is not saying much considering that Obama / biden have no idea what a budget is.
The reason Romney was asked to salvage the 1998 Winter Olympics was not only because corruption was rampant. The cost overruns in Salt Lake city were reaching federal deficit levels. Romney stopped the corruption and brought the games in on schedule. No deficits.
I have nothing against Gary johnson. But at this junction in our history we are fortunate to have someone as capable and intelligent as Romney to get us back on track.[/QUOTE]I pulled up this article on Ryan's budget and his past votes in Congress to expand government and the socialistic welfare state in big ways. (see below) Looks like the Ryan budget balances in the year 2040, so I'll probably be dead before we see a balanced budget! Romney did a great job in the Olympics, thumbs up, but his record and past policy statements in the 90's lead me to believe he is a believer in big government, especially since he fathered RomneyCare, essentially a carbon copy and a blueprint for Obamacare. If that isn't a warning sign of what is to come, then I don't know what is.
Governor Gary Johnson got his state what was run by Democrats in a mess, amd left it with a surplus, by getting government out of the way, and letting the free market work its wonders, that's why he was reelected by a bigger majority than what he was elected with to start in an overwhelingly Democratic state. He also balanced the budget by not raising taxes. (The correct way) Mitt Romney was too chicken to face the voters again in MASS and was not reelected.
Mitt Romney has also flipped flopped on way to many issues to have credibility, and his "get tough" policy with China risks a very dangerous trade war. Free trade and markets work better, Gary Johnson understands that.
Don't Believe the Hype About Paul Ryan.
Gene Healy | August 14, 2012 |* Reason Magazine.
*
[url]http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/14/dont-believe-the-hype-about-paul-ryan[/url]
*
Paul Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, and a big government conservative under Obama.
*
If nothing else, Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-Wis.) , as his running mate has made a dull and joyless campaign a little more interesting.
*
When I heard the news, my internal monologue went something like this:
*
"Are wonks suddenly cool?"
*
"Why is a guy my age potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
*
"Does that he really only have 6 to 8 percent body fat?"
*
"Why do I know that?"
*
"Will someone please buy Ryan a suit that fits?"
*
Some conservatives are considerably more exuberant, viewing Ryan as the budget-slashing paladin we've long been waiting for. As a curmudgeonly libertarian, it's my job to pour cold water on the flames of political passion. So—hey girl: If you're over the moon about the Ryan pick, let me confess: I'm not so excited. And I just can't hide it.
*
Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, voting for No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, among other debacles. At the dawn of the Tea Party, Ryan lent his support to the auto and bank bailouts. He voted for TARP and gave "one of the most hysterical speeches" demanding others do the same, as Michelle Malkin observed in 2009.
*
In a newly popular YouTube video, the articulate congressman lambastes Barack Obama for creating, in Obamacare, yet another entitlement we can't afford. *It's an impressive performance, but in 2003, Ryan voted for Bush's prescription-drug entitlement, adding over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the national tab.
*
Ryan's much-hyped budget plan would eliminate the deficit,"but not until 2040 or so," my colleague Mike Tanner explains, and his cuts in domestic discretionary spending amount to an average of just $35. 2 billion per year below what Obama himself has proposed.
*
In May, FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy usefully compared Ryan's budget to the much bolder plan introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky). *Paul Ryan's budget "would achieve balance in 26 years;" *Rand Paul's,"in five." *Paul Ryan's plan is short on specific cuts, whereas "Mr. Paul eliminates four Cabinet agencies—Commerce, HUD, Energy and Education." *Tellingly,"Mr. Ryan increases defense spending. Mr. Paul does not spare the Pentagon from scrutiny."
*
As Newsweek's Eli Lake explains, Ryan "tilts the ticket closer to the neoconservatives" on defense policy. *Indeed, Ryan voted for the Iraq War in 2002—and against winding down the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2011.
*
Last summer, he gave a foreign policy speech suggesting that the most pressing reason we need to solve our budget problems is so we can continue being the world's policeman."We can and we must remain committed to the promotion of stable governments that respect the rights of their citizens" in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ryan insisted. It seems he's learned absolutely nothing from a decade spent wasting American blood and treasure making the world safe for democracy abroad.
*
Wars aren't free: We've spent over $1. 3 trillion in direct outlays on the War on Terror abroad, with the true cost much higher. The Pentagon makes up about 19 percent of the federal budget. If you leave it off the table, as Ryan does, you're just not serious about staving off fiscal Armageddon.
*
I've been in D. C. Nearly as long as Ryan has. And since this is a town where Bethesda's Tom Friedman passes for a deep thinker, I probably shouldn't be surprised that Ryan has developed a reputation as a serious fiscal conservative.
*
He's not. But there's a silver lining here: his selection means that the 2012 campaign just might bring us a serious discussion of these issues.
==========
[QUOTE=Esten;425310]Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.[/QUOTE]So were the Democrats arrogantly stupid in their interpretation of the rules or were they simply outsmarted by the Republicans?
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425307]The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections exactly right was Rasmussen.
Rasmussen commented that in 2004 before the national conventions he had Bush ahead by 3. Nothing changed. Bush won by 3. In 2008 at the same time he had Obama ahead by 5. Nothing changed. Obama won by 5-7. Now he has romney ahead by 4. Likely nothing will change, especially because romney, as opposed to Mccain, will not be outspent 10:1. And, by the way, for the first time in my life, I will make a campaign contribution to end the tired, failed and devisive policies of Obama.[/QUOTE]Where are you seeing Romney up by 4. At RCP they have the Rasmussen poll with Obama up by 2.
Dccpa.
The rasmussen poll is a daily poll. The daily average for the last month is 4% for Romney. There are daily fluctutations but the daily average is a 4% edge to romney. I think Obama has been ahead of romney for about 2 days in the last month which is just statistical variance.
Check it out daily and the trend will be obvious. But, who knows, maybe things will change. This poll taken over a period of time is pretty accurate.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425321]Dccpa.
The rasmussen poll is a daily poll. The daily average for the last month is 4% for Romney. There are daily fluctutations but the daily average is a 4% edge to romney. I think Obama has been ahead of romney for about 2 days in the last month which is just statistical variance.
Check it out daily and the trend will be obvious. But, who knows, maybe things will change. This poll taken over a period of time is pretty accurate.[/QUOTE]The Rasmussen poll excludes Gary Johnson, even though he's going to be on close to 50 ballots.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;425320]Where are you seeing Romney up by 4. At RCP they have the Rasmussen poll with Obama up by 2.[/QUOTE]El Alamo was perusing some internet porno sites and forgot to change his glasses. I recommend a glass of carrot juice every morning, things will become more vivid, and less confusing.