Now the Game Begins
By The Troll On August 11th, 2012MITT ROMNEY & PAUL RYAN: AMERICA’S COMEBACK TEAM
Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today announced Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate.
Below is Congressman Ryan’s biography:
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan is in his seventh term in Congress representing Wisconsin’s First Congressional District. He is Chairman of the House Budget Committee, where he has worked tirelessly leading the effort to reign in federal spending and increase accountability to taxpayers. He also serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, where he has focused on simplifying the tax code and making health care more affordable and accessible.
In January 2010, Ryan gained attention nationwide after unveiling his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a proposal to eliminate the federal deficit, reform the tax code, and preserve entitlements for future generations.
Ryqn is a thinking man, which separates him from most Republicans. He’s not an empty suit like Palin. He’s far more capable than Biden.
He has really tried to grapple with the details of the budget and its problems. No other major Republican, Romney included has done any of this.
Now it gets interesting.
This looks like a good sensible choice for Romney. Obama will have to up his game.
A man who begged Congress to pass TARP, a supporter of the Bush’s drug prescription programme, just another phoney-baloney pro-war, neocon, welfare-warfare socialist Republican.
Big Deal.
A fair minded and recent article on Ryan from the New Yorker with biographical detail
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza
Colm
Obama has made a decision to run a relentlesly cynical and personally nasty campaign, Chicago style
His associates recently ran ads blaming Romney for a woman’s death by cancer, somehow associating it with Bain Capital. All of the facts were wrong.
I think Paul Ryan could be a very good Vice President but I don’t think he’ll be a very good Vice President candidate. It puts Wisconsin in play but that maybe about as much tactical help that he will bring (especially compared to the sort of tactical help that the likes of Marco Rubio would have brought).
Ryan also won’t appeal to independent and swing voters because, as Phantom pointed out, he actually tried to find budget solutions and some of them (changes to Medicare and Medicaid for example) won’t be popular. I don’t agree with most of what he says but at least he is an actual thinker instead of a slogan machine but I do feel he will give the Democrats a lot of ammunition to hit the Romney campaign with.
He is personally popular in a state with a lot of Democrats. He gets votes from “Reagan Denocrats ” there
A downside – no private sector or executive experience. But he sure has wonkish street cred. He gets into the details and he has criticized the many Republicans who criticize but who dont have detailed alternatives
Yeah. He probably brings Wisconsin from leaning Obama to probably leaning Romney but that’s about it.
A thinking and personally likable guy like him could have appeal among independents across the country
This GOP ticket is miles ahead of the 2008 ticket intellectually, top and bottom.
Could have but he also has major policy pitfalls. Regardless of how sensible his solutions are, or the kudos he should get for actually being willing to review the current budgetary problems with mandatory spending entitlements, most independents aren’t going to read his policies and come to the conclusion that he is a great thinker and provides thought provoking ideas. They are going to hear “Romeny’s VP will cut Medicaid” in a 30 second ad and that will have a bigger impact on their vote that his record. This is going to be a bloody, negative campaign and Ryan gives the Democrats a lot to work with.
The word is that Obama PACs have already produced ads far filthier than the recent ” Romney killed my wife ” ad. They are too nasty to be used now but will be rolled out if things get desperate. Fact.
Romney and his PACs will hit back with negative ads, then Obama will hit back, the Romney will hit back and by that stage the campaign will be so negative no one will be shocked with atrocious, disgusting ads.
Like so many outsiders Seamus really has no clue….
Ryan was the Tea Party’s first pick even before Rubio. No one thought whoever got the nomination would have the balls to pick him.
The 2010 elections were about Obamacare and the Budget they were the largest turnout for a midterm in history, more seats changed hands than other election in history.
The Tea Party contrary to what you have been told and what you may believe, they represent the American majority. They are Republican, Democrat, and Independent. All that drives them is “the economy stupid”.
Last week in Kansas 7 out of 8 Republican candidates were swept from office and replaced by Tea Party Candidates.
Romney has guaranteed himself victory in November. This race will get nasty as hell, Romney has already been called by the Administration, a Felon, a Tax Cheat, a Dog Hater, a Woman Hater, and the latest a Murderer. (sshh he’s also mormon). Ryan has been depicted pushing Grandma in a wheelchair over a Cliff. It will get worse.
and it won’t make a damn bit of difference.
Who gives a damn if he was the Tea Party’s first pick? And where did I say Rubio was the Tea Party’s choice?
Also can you name one Tea Party congressional representative in the Democratic Party?
Seamus…. take a deep breath
I am only trying to explain the reality of what has just happened.
Who gives a damn if he was the Tea Party’s first pick? The people that will turn out and vote in November thats who. and the majority in that turnout will be the Tea Party
And where did I say Rubio was the Tea Party’s choice? You didn’t but that has been the general script by the media.
Also can you name one Tea Party congressional representative in the Democratic Party? NO cause there aren’t any. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelousy have done terminal damage to the Democrat Party. They will be brought to a minority position for at least two elections. They have lost the argument.
You said I have no clue and followed that straight away with “Ryan was the Tea Party’s first pick even before Rubio”. Now you have admitted that I didn’t say otherwise so how did that statement that I didn’t give show that I had no clue? Unlike you I don’t read from a script that someone else prepared. I have the ability to actually think for myself. You should try it sometime.
“NO cause there aren’t any”
Right so the Tea Party includes Republican, Democrat, and Independent yet only seems to elect Republicans. It isn’t everyone. It isn’t the majority. It is the extreme right of the Republican Party.
I would have preferred Rubio (of course) but Roger Simon at Pajamas Media sets out a good case for Romney’s Ryan pick:
“It’s the economy – we’re not stupid!” that’s a good one!
first off Seamus the statement that you have no clue still stands, the fact that you immediately connected the next line as if it was something you said and not something I was stating only emphasizes how really clueless you are.
Second I don’t read a script I AM the Script.
Third once again you emphasize how clueless you really are. The 2010 Turnout was high in all groups Democrat and Republican. Democrats even in Wisconsin voted Democrats out and voted Tea Party Republicans in. The numbers prove that a third of registered Democrats voted Conservative.
You are Clueless
Okay Mr Script can you provide those numbers?
Unfortunately I think this is true- reforming entitlements is necessary in the long term, but it is politically unpopular. The Democrats are now going to run a demagogic campaign centred around scaring old people with tales of how Romney and Ryan will throw them out on the street.
There is a reason that all previous attempts at sorting out the budget have failed- it’s because it is very damaging politically to anyone who tries it.
Google 2010 election turnout, number of seats changed: Local, State, and Federal.
Do some research boy, Who knows you actually figure out how to learn something. Although I doubt that you have the mental construction to crunch numbers, who knows, surprise me.
Where are the numbers? The hard, cold numbers proving that registered Democrats voted Republican? If you are going to make assertions back them up. I’m not doing your research for you. Go ahead and provide those numbers or accept that you are, as usual, talking shite.
The fact is that a Gallup poll in 2010 identified the population of the US as 29% Republican, 31% Democrat and the remaining either independent or one of the mental parties. So both sides got plenty of votes from the independents. There is actually no way of calculating whether or not Democrats voted for Republicans (and Republicans for the Democrats [there is some school of thought that Harry Reid got some Republican votes to prevent the Tea Party candidate from winning]) because of the huge number of independents. Does it happen? Yes. Can you quantify it? No.
Additionally just because someone voted Republican doesn’t mean they voted for the Tea Party.
So how about you try again in your proof that the Tea Party has a lot of Democrats, oh great holder of the mighty Script.
Above, quotes from Paul Ryan.
This guy is cut from a better intellectual cloth than the rest. He is principled, but is not a slave to idelogy. You need flexibility in this world.
And he has been reelected again and again in an area that tends to vote Democrat. This is a good choice.
That proves two things: (1) that Ryan’s a Keynesian and (2) when it comes to Wall Street vs Main Street, he’s with Wall Street.
He’s for Main Street.
The blue collar workers would have suffered more than any others if we did nothing and allowed a depression to happen.
The government should never be a passive actor in a time such as 2008.
Phantom is for Wall Street.
FFS !
None of these clowns are ‘Elected’ they are ‘Selected’ .. Give me strength, those woods are right in front of your pre-programmed eyes, what you don’t appear to have the ability is, to actualy see the trees?
Oh. You.
Phantom
Go on, ask Harri to describe the trees
Harri
Did you ever eat potstickers? They’re quite good.
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/pot-stickers-traditional/
Did you ever eat potstickers? They’re quite good.
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/pot-stickers-traditional/
No to be honest, but seeming as ‘They’re quite good.’
You have
Romney has tied himself and the Republican party to the Ryan budget. Every Republican in an election now has a bullseye on his back for the arrows of the ‘you want to kill grandma’ argument. Romney’s choice reeks of desperation. When he loses he cannot be blamed for not going hard right. If he thought this choice would reduce his negatives, he has only added to them when he attempts to defend the Ryan budget. He can no longer try to wriggle out of being a defender of an amateurish and irresponsible budget.
Game begins, game over; Romney loses economic argument in first round.
Anyone that meets with the approval of the Tea Party has my respect
I don’t care for Romney and his Mormonosity, but the man’s a successful businessman, they’re both focussed on the economy which is right, and who cares whether Romney makes stakesmis? You need a business brain, not acting ability -Unfortunately there’ll never be another Ronald Reagan..
I have decided that were I American I would never vote Democrat, because Democrats means more and bigger government. And looking out for the little guy and the illegals guarantees you’ll never run out of either…
I guess nobody has read the link Phantom added, which suggests that Obama will be very pleased with this selection and could even be credited with putting him in the position to be selected.
Agit8ed -
“I have decided that were I American I would never vote Democrat, because Democrats means more and bigger government.”
So you wouldn’t vote GOP either.
Everyone wants a decent sized govt when you dig a little, except dreamers who long for a glorious past that simply wasn’t what they think it was.
Pete,
I’ve already made it clear I am no fan of bloated government. There comes a point where government becomes part of the problem, not the solution. It could be argued that Government now exists for its own benefit, not the peoples. It is the ultimate public sector company funded entirely by conscripted taxpayers whose main function now is to feed the monster.
I was never a fan of neoCons either. The war machine is in its way just as bad, but I think the road to smaller more responsive/accountable government lies within the Republican party, not with the Democrats.
Agit8ed -
” .. but I think the road to smaller more responsive/accountable government lies within the Republican party, not with the Democrats.”
Well more fool you. The Grand Old Plunderers are just as pro-state, pro-war, pro-welfare and pro-big government as the Democrats. They’re simply two cheeks of the same state backside arrayed against peace, trade and civil society.
Come on, you or any Republican voter: when did the GOP last shrink government? When has it ever done so?
Pete,
I didn’t say they have, I said I believe it is more likely to come through the Republicans. You can be very extreme in your views sometimes!
They haven’t shrunk govt because Republicans want soxiql services too
“soxiql services”
Phantom, what have sox got to do with it?
Nate Silver has two interesting pieces of analysis on the Ryan pick for the political nebs.
David Frum is busy forecasting the future blitz of Obama attack ads.
Should be an interesting next few months. Barring complete economic collapse, I predict a tight race.
Totally off topic, but I just saw this hilarious video and immediately thought of Troll and the various atw commentariat responses/reactions to his bold statements.
No offense intended, Troll. Bottoms up!
Agit8ed -
My argument is supported by history. The GOP has never shrunk government. In fact, under the Lincoln tyranny, it set the federal government on the road to being the out of control monster it is today.
Even Ronaldus Optimus Maximus expanded government plundering and spending against civil society.
I’m sorry, your views are extreme. Set against the entirety of GOP history, the idea that it will shrink government is bonkers.
Hey, I have a salient comment awaiting moderation…. Too many links attached to jump through the filter I expect.
Tell him, Pete.
Daphne,
In general I find Brunettes in Bikinis quite appealing. But this one has a real facial hair problem…
I can totally see Troll hamming it up in a bikini, Agi. I also saw Pete, Seamus, Patty, Mahons, Phantom, Colm, Paul, etc. on the reaction side.
Btw, congrats on the Apple decision. I moved to Mac eight years ago and finally fell in love my computer. My husband just got his first iphone and can’t stop raving about its intuitive ease. They make great products.
I dunno about Troll in a bikini. The thought’s quite horrifying, to be honest.
I can see him seduced by a fine piece of GOP T&A though, only to discover in a few years it’s got a beard and a cock and has run off with his wallet.
Heh.
“dunno about Troll in a bikini. The thought’s quite horrifying, to be honest.”
Troll of course would go for the modified bikini with the chain gun option..
Isn’t Ryan is one of those weirdos obsessed with that sick bitch Ayn Rand?
that was both frightening and hysterical Daphne.
The road back is a long road, the progressives took 100 years to bring the US to where it is. all the R&R Freight train need do is put us back on the tracks.
, Pete just took the step further from sanity than Allan…lol
Old Jack
Yes…he…is
Which aspects of progressivism do you dislike?
Pure food laws? The FDA?
Universal tax funded primary and high school education?
Unemployment insurance?
Safety regulation of airlines , buses and private cars?
Workplace safety laws?
Minimum wage? Overtime ? Prohibition of child labor except as specified?
Antipollution laws?
Public health?
Social security?
Which of these would you get rid of? Because each and every one of these are seen as progressive or ” too much regulation / gummint ” by the crackpots.
Above addressed to Troll
Phantom, you should have listed Veterans benefits. The Ryan plan financially guts that particular entitlement.
Every one with a brain is progressive
We should never let the lib And Democrat sons of bitches steal that word.
You need to define the terms which the brain dead can never do
first off do your homework
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
Second, interesting list. Not one item on that list belongs under the Umbrella of the Federal Government. So if we are talking on a Federal Level I would do away with the entire list.
Each item on that list belongs to the States, the Courts, and the individuals. Not one of them is in any version of the constitution I have ever seen.
Please show me the section of the Constitution that empowers the Feds involvement in these areas. Is there a good and plenty clause in the version you have?
I could take each of those points on your list and demonstrate where due to Federal interference in the issue it has caused great harm. In the case of private cars and cafe standards even deaths.
We as a people do not need the Fed to dictate to us to insure our safety and they have been nothing but detrimental to our prosperity.
You talk like an old union fool, “Unions protect the working man”… no they don’t. They served a purpose a century ago. Long term they have destroyed the American industrial base. Just as the Feds involvement in all your points above has led to disaster, death, destruction, illiteracy, and poverty in every point you list.
Ah a tricky dicky Bill Clinton definition of is answer, as expected.
Don’t give the Konstitooshun phony baloney limp wristed Ron Paul bullshit. I have zero tolerance for that.
Tell me which you would get rid of. Bullet points, not evasions.
no bullet points needed, and how dare you accuse ME of a RP answer. I thought I was clear ALL OF THEM
Not one thing on that list is needed or efficient
Ok thats a straight answer.
A Paulie answer but a straight one
Highlight those views and watch Obama win PA by 95% of the vote.
Neither Romney nor Ryan share those positions.
Ron Paul does.
Fact.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/reagan-budget-director-paul-ryan-plan-fairy-tale-164917087.html
Phantom, you are a dope!
” The former director of the Office of Management and Budget for the Reagan administration, David Stockman, blasts Paul Ryan’s budget plan in a New York Times op-ed.
Stockman calls the budget an “empty conservative sermon” and “fairy tale” and says it will “do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.”
Stockman’s main complaint about the Ryan budget, which reflects his broader frustration with today’s Republican party, is that it preserves massive and, in his view, unnecessary spending on Defense and other programs while screwing people who actually need help by cutting food stamps, Medicaid, and other efforts that lessen the pain of poverty.
Stockman also rails against the new “Wall Street-coddling” bailout Republicans like Ryan, who stand by and let the Federal Reserve fix interest rates, encourage speculators, crush savors, encourage overconsumption, and punish thrift.
Specifically, Stockman observes, Ryan’s “phony” budget plan:
•Maintains Defense spending that is nearly twice the $400 billion (adjusted for today’s dollars) that General Eisenhower spent in the 1960s
•Shreds the safety net provided by $100 billion in food stamps and $300 billion in Medicaid
•Does not cut one dime from Medicare or Social Security for another decade
•Includes no serious plan to create jobs
•Radically cuts taxes on the richest Americans while eliminating tax breaks that mostly help the middle class
•Fails to even consider a “value-added sales tax,” which is the only way the country can begin to climb out of its budget hole
In short, Stockman says, Ryan’s plan is “devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”
Harsh words coming from a fellow Republican. But, then, today’s Republican party doesn’t look much like it did in Stockman and Reagan’s day”
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-economy-plan-2012-8
“With this in mind, here are a few key points to keep in mind about the way the economy really works, as opposed to how Mitt Romney says it works:
No one likes paying taxes, myself included, but modestly higher taxes would not make me work any less hard or remove my incentive to help create a great product. If the government jacked the top marginal tax rate up to 75% or 90%, sure, that would remove some incentive. But no one is talking about jacking the top marginal tax rate up that high. Most reasonable people are talking about raising it back to the Clinton-era levels. (Whether this should be done in the face of the current weak economy is a different question.)
Raising personal and corporate income taxes, in fact, might encourage us to invest more money in our business, not less, because then we would pay less in taxes. I don’t make millions of dollars, but if I did, and the government raised taxes on this income, I might decide to pay myself less and instead invest the cash in the business. This reinvestment would be good for the economy, because it would encourage us to spend more and hire more people.
Entrepreneurs do not “create jobs.” My ego would like to believe that I “created” the ~100 jobs at Business Insider, but, alas, I’d have to be delusional to believe that. What created and sustains all of these jobs, including mine, is the quality of the product we collectively produce combined with the willingness and ability of our customers to support that product. In other words, what sustains the jobs is the relatively healthy economic ecosystem in which Business Insider operates, not the person who founded and owns it.
Investors do not “create jobs.” Investment capital is an important part of the economic ecosystem, as are entrepreneurs. But investment capital alone cannot create sustainable jobs. Investors do not keep investing in businesses that don’t produce products the market wants and will pay for. And, eventually, no matter how much money is invested up front, unless the ecosystem supports a company, whatever jobs it temporarily adds will disappear.
There is plenty of investment capital around right now—an astonishing amount, in fact. Most persuasive entrepreneurs with good ideas can raise all the seed capital they want right now. Banks have huge “excess reserves,” interest rates are very low, and stock valuations are reasonable (and, in some cases, high). The capital-availability part of the ecosystem, in other words, is healthy. It’s the demand side (customers) that is weak.
“Uncertainty” about taxes and regulations plays absolutely no role in our corporate decision-making. For a while, one of the popular memes in Washington was that “uncertainty” about future policies was crippling the economy. This was a complete crock. At Business Insider, we have never once held off on making an investment or strategic or hiring decision because of “uncertainty” about future government policies. What affects our decision-making is uncertainty about the economy. And “the economy,” in this case, means the financial health of average Americans.
In other words, with all due respect to readers who think I don’t understand why Mitt Romney’s economic plan will fix the economy because I don’t own and run a successful business, I actually do own and run a successful business.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-economy-plan-2012-8#ixzz23Xi9HfHq“
Ryan has a plan, flawed as it may be.
Obama doesn’t even have that, esp as respects Medicare and Medicaid….
Paul Ryan was a political suicide choice for weak and weakening Romney.
An Obama landslide is still my prediction.
Read this most excellent article @ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/23/how_republicans_sabotaged_the_recovery?page=0,1
How Republicans Sabotaged the Recovery
“Most first-year students of economics learn about how government spending and tax cuts can affect the economy. When the government spends a dollar, it buys goods or services from a vendor; this is new economic output. The vendor then puts the government’s money in the bank, which may in turn lend out a portion of the money. When that portion of the money is spent, it generates more economic output, and so on. This is called the multiplier effect. Tax cuts have a multiplier, too. When people get money back from the government, they may save some and spend the rest. The part that they spend generates new economic output, and the cycle begins again.
Mathematically, the multiplier for a dollar of spending should be higher than the multiplier for tax cuts unless the saving rate is zero, which has often been true in the United States in recent years. But Republicans were essentially arguing that the multiplier for government spending was lower or even zero — in other words, that the spending was so wasteful that it would just shift economic activity from one area of the economy to another.
Economics textbooks did not agree, and neither did a diverse group of the nation’s best economists. At the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, the Initiative on Global Markets launched a forum to poll economists on some of the biggest issues in economic policy. It brought together a panel of more than 40 top academics from both sides of the political divide, including members of the Council of Economic Advisers from the presidencies of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. As four panelists wrote in an editorial for Bloomberg News, they wanted to dispel “a common belief that economists can’t agree on anything important.” The forum, they said, “provides an introduction to the half-century of fact-based research that informs the scholars’ opinions.”
In 2012, the panel was asked about the stimulus bill that the Democrats pushed through Congress against the Republicans’ vocal opposition. Each panelist could agree or disagree with the following statement: “Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.” Ninety percent of the panel said they agreed or strongly agreed. Then they were asked if the benefits of the stimulus would end up exceeding its costs — not an essential aspect of a stimulus package, since the goal of stimulus is to borrow growth from the future to smooth out a rough spot in the present. Still, 46 percent agreed or strongly agreed, and most of the rest said the result was uncertain; only 12 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. Not only did the stimulus successfully lessen the pain and duration of the downturn, which was its main purpose; it also had a decent chance of being a net gainer for the economy in the long term.
How could that be? Looking at data going back to the 1950s, economists from the University of California at Berkeley found that during recessions, every additional dollar spent on goods and services by the government yielded between 1.5 and 2.1 dollars of economic activity. For investments in infrastructure and other forms of public capital, the effects were bigger: 2.8 to 3.4 dollars of economic activity for every dollar spent. The effects were large, the economists wrote, because during recessions the additional spending was very unlikely to crowd out any consumption or investment by the private sector.”
You pick an Obama landslide and Patty picks a Romney landslide.
I think that it will be very close electorally.
Romney will win every state that the McCain won last time, and will very possibly take North Carolina / Virginia / Florida also. As a start.
The Democrat policy will be to scare the hell out of old people, and to exploit racial differences, endless division and negativity.
Note that Obama’s people heckled Ryan when he tried to speak yesterday.
It is noted that two can play this game, if that’s what y’all want to do.
Patty says a Romney landslide?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Phantom ‘your a dummy.’
Romney just doesn’t have the electoral college votes- no way to get to the magic number. Not going to happen.
Heckled? Oh come on now Phantom, everyone gets heckled!
I suggest that the Ryan pick will cost the GOP seats in the house and senate- due to his medicare ‘plan.’
It was political suicide.