Jump to content

Ryan Talking Out His Arse?


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

I understand the frustration with Obama, and the disagreement on various policies, actions, etc, but is Paul Ryan going to be any better as Vice-President to Romney?  This guy loves twisting facts to fit his agenda.  I trust Romney far more than I trust Ryan!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When a reporter can only find (5) potential miscues for a politician in a major speech, that is the positive statement.  We will see how the others match up, I would suspect much more stretching on others than that Ryan.  I say others, but I have read that the powers that be will not even let Biden speak in Charlotte :)

 

Cheers

JEast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a reporter can only find (5) potential miscues for a politician in a major speech, that is the positive statement.  We will see how the others match up, I would suspect much more stretching on others than that Ryan.  I say others, but I have read that the powers that be will not even let Biden speak in Charlotte :)

 

Cheers

JEast

 

That would be smart.  They are better off letting Michelle Obama speak.  I did really enjoy Condolezza Rice's speech though, and I think the Republicans would certainly attract alot more people with her running as VP instead of Ryan.  Ryan reminds me too much of John Edwards...gosh, schucks...wink, wink, nudge, nudge...oh did I do that?  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at some of the data provided by the "fact checker" you need to question his honesty:

 

1.  As to Medicare, the Romney/Ryan plan does not have this cut.  Based upon this logic, Obama should be tied to the public option as in the past he supported this option.  As to future cuts whoevers plan is adopted there will be cuts.  The question is should the cuts be determined by choices people can make based upon how much the gov't will spend or gov't fiat via the Healthcare board who will determine how the gov't will spend the money.

2.  The point he is making about the stimulus is accepted by most that it was not the most effctive use of funds.  He has never stated that he would not try to get largesse for his constituants if it is available.

3.  The point that he cannot bring up the point about no plan from Obama because he did not vote for the plan is a statement of fact and the point that Obama has a much larger influence than Ryan.  Equating Obama and Ryan's role about Boles/Simpson is a little dishonest.

4.  The GM plant promise was made in the campaign so I don't see how this is not true.  Does the reporter try find out why Ryan voted against the GM bailout plan?  No he assumeds Ryan was fine with closing it for which there are no facts to support. 

 

If these guys are not in the tank for Obama, I don't know who is.  I do like it better when Ryan has a positive message vs. his attack dog role.

 

Packer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is to be expected. Ryan is closer to Obama then Romney on Medicare. He has to twist a bit to stay in line with his boss. This is my 3rd election following politics closely. I am now fully in the cynic camp and this type of stuff is to be expected...

 

This is our first political thread in a long while, also how can you trust Romney reminds me of this joke ...

 

--

 

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

 

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

 

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

 

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, both parties will tell the lies that they can get away with.  What starts with principle slowly turns into "whatever it takes" to get the votes.  If people are less willing to pay attention and hold their feet to the fire for lying, then the lies will increase.

 

It is sort of like what Steve Jobs said regarding television - and I paraphrase - that when he was younger, he thought there was a conspiracy to put bad programming on TV, but when he got older, he realized that the stuff on TV was exactly what people wanted to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me about the Republicans is they preach small govt this, cut budget that, eliminate the deficit; but when they have the power like they did under Bush with control of both the executive and legislative branches of government they rack up huge deficits themselves.  They added trillions to the debt by doubling the size of the education department, expanding medicare with the prescription drug plan, taking us to war unnecessarily IMO in Iraq.    And yesterday they officially nominated the guy who Obama copied his healthcare plan after with a vice presidential nominee that voted for TARP and stimulus.    What a bunch of hypocrites.  I respect the Democrats more in that they tell you they want to provide a person with cradle to grave benefits where as the Republicans breach small govt and do the opposite of what the preach.  That is why I view the R has hypocrites.

 

Which is sad because I'm more aligned ideologically with the Republicans; i.e., the Ron Paul Republicans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me about the Republicans is they preach small govt this, cut budget that, eliminate the deficit; but when they have the power like they did under Bush with control of both the executive and legislative branches of government they rack up huge deficits themselves.  They added trillions to the debt by doubling the size of the education department, expanding medicare with the prescription drug plan, taking us to war unnecessarily IMO in Iraq.    And yesterday they officially nominated the guy who Obama copied his healthcare plan after with a vice presidential nominee that voted for TARP and stimulus.    What a bunch of hypocrites.  I respect the Democrats more in that they tell you they want to provide a person with cradle to grave benefits where as the Republicans breach small govt and do the opposite of what the preach.  That is why I view the R has hypocrites.

 

Which is sad because I'm more aligned ideologically with the Republicans; i.e., the Ron Paul Republicans.

 

If you are sad because politicians in whole are hypocrites you may never find yourself happy...it is par for the course after all.

 

The election this go around is more focused on economic policies underpinning the two parties which I think is the largest positive. The social agendas are what loses me in these elections. There is no question my vote is Republican. Obama had his chance and has not effectively accomplished anything. Regulations and red tape have only increased and business outlook in this regard is not positive.  Romney and Ryan in my opinion are walking down a better path and direction. I think as a Commander Romney will be more effective in placing competent people in key positions to turn the wheels government. This is where I think Obama has failed. Good orator, bad manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me about the Republicans is they preach small govt this, cut budget that, eliminate the deficit; but when they have the power like they did under Bush with control of both the executive and legislative branches of government they rack up huge deficits themselves.  They added trillions to the debt by doubling the size of the education department, expanding medicare with the prescription drug plan, taking us to war unnecessarily IMO in Iraq.    And yesterday they officially nominated the guy who Obama copied his healthcare plan after with a vice presidential nominee that voted for TARP and stimulus.    What a bunch of hypocrites.  I respect the Democrats more in that they tell you they want to provide a person with cradle to grave benefits where as the Republicans breach small govt and do the opposite of what the preach.  That is why I view the R has hypocrites.

 

Which is sad because I'm more aligned ideologically with the Republicans; i.e., the Ron Paul Republicans.

 

If you are sad because politicians in whole are hypocrites you may never find yourself happy...it is par for the course after all.

 

The election this go around is more focused on economic policies underpinning the two parties which I think is the largest positive. The social agendas are what loses me in these elections. There is no question my vote is Republican. Obama had his chance and has not effectively accomplished anything. Regulations and red tape have only increased and business outlook in this regard is not positive.  Romney and Ryan in my opinion are walking down a better path and direction. I think as a Commander Romney will be more effective in placing competent people in key positions to turn the wheels government. This is where I think Obama has failed. Good orator, bad manager.

 

Politicians being hypocrites doesn't make me sad, I was saying that it is a sad state of affairs that they talk out of both sides of their mouths.  I'm not sure exactly where you got that from my statement.    Politicians have little to no effect on my mental state of whether I'm happy or sad, but they definitely do have an impact on my wallet, quality of life, and civil liberties. 

 

I really don't care for either party but as I mentioned I'm more aligned with the Rs.  I'll probably vote third party this time around like I have been doing in all Presidential elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how anyone can willingly say that they are casting a vote for Obama because they are so bullish about what he can do for the economy.  He has had his chance, and the results are quite mediocre, despite the increases in equity market values. He is a lightweight who is now just resorting to gutter political ads and character attacks on a guy (Romney) who is one of the most squeaky clean people on the planet (despite the flip flopping on certain issues). In thinking about the long-term future of the country, I know that Romney/Ryan have a more compelling plan and more credibility beyond just having a big checkbook and a printing press.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In thinking about the long-term future of the country, I know that Romney/Ryan have a more compelling plan and more credibility beyond just having a big checkbook and a printing press.

 

The Reagan tax cuts were dynamite because for years the purchasing power of the middle class had declined as a result of stagnant tax brackets and rapid inflation.  By merely moving the tax brackets, it was a sudden relative jolt in after-tax income for the middle class.  They went out and spent it which led to a boom in consumption, thus output/hiring rose to meet this demand, and ever since the Republicans have been saying that "tax cuts on investment lead to booms... just look at Reagan".  Oh, and they can say that because Reagan also lowered taxes on investment.  So there's room for them to misattributed middle class tax cut economic growth as coming from tax cuts on investment.  This was a convenient excuse for cutting investment tax to 15% under GWBush -- not much firepower was delivered to the middle class consumers, but just to the investors. 

 

So personally I'd be expecting Romney to have learned from all of that.  But no,

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2012/0830/Romney-plan-would-cut-taxes-for-the-rich-Romney-adviser-confirms

 

It looks like he plans to raise taxes on people earning between $100k and $200k, and paying for it by cutting taxes on people making more than $200k.

 

I fear that by raising taxes on the many and paying for it by cutting taxes for the few, we'll wind up with less economic activity as a large number of people have less in their after-tax pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard Buffett say many times (with a large cash pile) that what ultimately drives him to invest is final demand.  Like, for example, you don't add manufacturing capacity if you can't find consumers for your existing output.  He's stated time and again that cutting his taxes won't make him invest -- he will only invest if somebody is there to actually buy the final product.

 

This makes perfect sense to me.  However it sounds like Romney's plan isn't going to address final demand -- raising taxes on the $100k-$200k range of people isn't going to get Buffett to invest when it leads to less consumption.

 

Or is there a theory that it would actually lead to more consumption because when the ultra-high income people have yet even more money to save it boosts consumption?  I don't see how Romney's plan is going to create consumer spending growth with this approach.  And if consumer spending growth isn't the goal in order to get businesses hiring again, then what will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

I don't understand how anyone can willingly say that they are casting a vote for Obama because they are so bullish about what he can do for the economy.  He has had his chance, and the results are quite mediocre, despite the increases in equity market values. He is a lightweight who is now just resorting to gutter political ads and character attacks on a guy (Romney) who is one of the most squeaky clean people on the planet (despite the flip flopping on certain issues). In thinking about the long-term future of the country, I know that Romney/Ryan have a more compelling plan and more credibility beyond just having a big checkbook and a printing press.

Does the president really control that much of the economy between him, congress and the fed? Even the feds actions have had limited effect, why would you hold the president responsible for the economy?

 

I'll believe Romney to be squeaky clean when he releases his tax returns for the last decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Reagan's tax cuts what about Clinton's cap gains tax cut and Kennedy's?  By lowering the tax rate it encouraged sales and new re-investment.  Is it a coincidence that large economic growth occurred after these tax declines? 

 

The real question is what is the alternative a larger amount of GDP controlled by the gov't with better results?  If I knew that a tax increase was not going to be controlled by DC but my local gov't that I am closer to or close the deficit, I would be more sympathetic to the cause.  But money going to the cronies of whoever is in power is not a way to run a gov't.

 

Packer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Reagan's tax cuts what about Clinton's cap gains tax cut and Kennedy's?  By lowering the tax rate it encouraged sales and new re-investment.  Is it a coincidence that large economic growth occurred after these tax declines? 

 

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2004/01/tax_cuts_in_camelot.html

 

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity

 

 

 

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

 

 

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

 

 

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney's speech was far better than Ryan's.  Condoleeza Rice seriously should have been chosen as VP to get the minority and female votes...I think she's more capable than Ryan too.  I like Romney...don't like Ryan as VP.  Romney will be a hell of a lot better than anything the Republicans have given us in a long time too!  It's going to be a close election. 

 

And if I ever hear another American talk about fanatical religious groups around the world, then they've got to simply look at the Republican Party...God Lord...excuse my hypocrisy!  I felt like I was being recruited by the Jehovah's Witness or something during the telecast.  Even one of the commentators on CNN said something like..."I've always found those that believe in a higher power to be humble, giving, sincere and honest people."  So atheists and agnostics are evil, lying, cheating, egomaniacs!  ;D  Cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I ever hear another American talk about fanatical religious groups around the world, then they've got to simply look at the Republican Party...God Lord...excuse my hypocrisy! 

 

I jokingly called it "The Talibanization of America" to my wife, but then later we were watching Bill Maher and he called Rick Perry's home schooling a "Christian Madrassa".  So I guess a lot of people are noticing it too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat disappointed by the extent to which some of the posters here have no idea how bad the situation is in the US right now. I highly recommend the following interview with Wilbur Ross:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ross-the-markets-are-in-a-very-treacherous-spot-sCaz6LLYSNaPKs_BS9FidQ.html/

 

Paul Ryan is exactly what is required to get the US back on track.

 

Also recommend the following video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNKfbO_PvkI

 

Ryan is the only politician who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the debt and has actually put a sensible plan forward.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Reagan's tax cuts what about Clinton's cap gains tax cut and Kennedy's?  By lowering the tax rate it encouraged sales and new re-investment.  Is it a coincidence that large economic growth occurred after these tax declines? 

 

I already pointed out that the Kennedy tax cut was aimed at the demand side.  (unlike the Romney proposal)

 

 

As for the Clinton cap gains tax cut of 1997...  (note the timing of the cuts relative to the largest bubble ever in the stock market, and how the bubble was growing in hyperdrive)

 

well, what have we learned about the spending habits of Americans when their assets are in a sky high bubble and they feel rich from the easy wealth?  I'm talking about the mother of all stock bubbles -- that huge stock bubble that grew like a beast in the late 1990s and made people giddy and spend freely as if the good times would last forever... 

 

Nah, that wouldn't be relevant, never mind  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Reagan's tax cuts what about Clinton's cap gains tax cut and Kennedy's?  By lowering the tax rate it encouraged sales and new re-investment.  Is it a coincidence that large economic growth occurred after these tax declines? 

 

I already pointed out that the Kennedy tax cut was aimed at the demand side.  (unlike the Romney proposal)

 

 

As for the Clinton cap gains tax cut of 1997...  (note the timing of the cuts relative to the largest bubble ever in the stock market, and how the bubble was growing in hyperdrive)

 

well, what have we learned about the spending habits of Americans when their assets are in a sky high bubble and they feel rich from the easy wealth?  I'm talking about the mother of all stock bubbles -- that huge stock bubble that grew like a beast in the late 1990s and made people giddy and spend freely as if the good times would last forever... 

 

Nah, that wouldn't be relevant, never mind  :D

 

 

It is the debt load that is crippling the economy. Highly recommend Marc Fabers new essay this week: http://www.acting-man.com/?p=19036

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather Romney have picked Portman to reinforce his economic strengths. Portman has a good reputation for working with Dems, whereas Ryan seems an ideologue - see his behavior on the Simpson-Bowles commission, for example.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79724.html

 

------------

Now the saintly, do-good aura that surrounds Simpson-Bowles presents an awkward challenge for Mitt Romney and his running mate. Romney is pitching Ryan as a problem solver who wants to use his command of the budget to forge bipartisan deals to solve the nation’s fiscal crisis.

 

But in reality, Ryan, according to the recollection of some commission members and staffers, was a key part of the dynamic that undermined the commission and allowed the triumph of partisan and ideological loyalties over a budget deal.

----------

 

Karl Denninger, a libertarian financial blogger, really dislikes Ryan:

 

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210028

 

-------------

And Ryan is one of the liars-in-chief in the House.  If you need your memory refreshed may I recommend you read the following links:

 

(discretionary budget, welfare reform, retirement security and more)

(voted for and supported TARP)

(Medicare, cost-shifting at gunpoint and more)

(more Medicare lies)

(Ryan's fraudulent -- for the second time -- budget proposal) and of course

(Ryan's lies about the sequester ex-post-facto creating exemptions to it)

 

The problem with Ryan is that he's not a "conservative" at all.  Beyond the fiscal mess documented up above -- a mess he not only helped create but is promulgating and continuing, along with the explicit and implicit support of frauds up and down the line in our financial system via TARP and other schemes he also supports blatantly unconstitutional laws on top of it, including The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity for telecommunications firms that broke the law on warrant requirements and more.

-------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather Romney have picked Portman to reinforce his economic strengths. Portman has a good reputation for working with Dems, whereas Ryan seems an ideologue - see his behavior on the Simpson-Bowles commission, for example.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79724.html

 

------------

Now the saintly, do-good aura that surrounds Simpson-Bowles presents an awkward challenge for Mitt Romney and his running mate. Romney is pitching Ryan as a problem solver who wants to use his command of the budget to forge bipartisan deals to solve the nation’s fiscal crisis.

 

But in reality, Ryan, according to the recollection of some commission members and staffers, was a key part of the dynamic that undermined the commission and allowed the triumph of partisan and ideological loyalties over a budget deal.

----------

 

Karl Denninger, a libertarian financial blogger, really dislikes Ryan:

 

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210028

 

-------------

And Ryan is one of the liars-in-chief in the House.  If you need your memory refreshed may I recommend you read the following links:

 

(discretionary budget, welfare reform, retirement security and more)

(voted for and supported TARP)

(Medicare, cost-shifting at gunpoint and more)

(more Medicare lies)

(Ryan's fraudulent -- for the second time -- budget proposal) and of course

(Ryan's lies about the sequester ex-post-facto creating exemptions to it)

 

The problem with Ryan is that he's not a "conservative" at all.  Beyond the fiscal mess documented up above -- a mess he not only helped create but is promulgating and continuing, along with the explicit and implicit support of frauds up and down the line in our financial system via TARP and other schemes he also supports blatantly unconstitutional laws on top of it, including The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity for telecommunications firms that broke the law on warrant requirements and more.

-------------

 

Are you seriously quoting Denninger? I recommend you actually watch the TARP debate video on his site and see what Ryan and Boehner and other republicans were saying. They explicitly stated their objection to the bill but the need to pass it to avert a disaster. Congress passed TARP , Obamas incoming government deployed it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...