And here is the difference between the GOP ticket and the Democrat ticket..

Ryan reluctantly admits that social security and medicare need to be overhaules in order to be saved. Ryan shares the irrefutable datga to suggest that those programs will collapse under the weight of the Baby Boomers, and he proposes a specific plan to address it.

The Democratic response is a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff. That's not an exaggeration, that happened.

In the VP debate (which I cannot wait for) Ryan will calmy explain precisely why he believes what he believes. Biden will scream at the top of his lungs, bang the podium, throw papers in the air, accusing Paul Ryan oif wanting to kill old people, sell their organs in ebay, and split the profits with Wall Street fatcats.

I would love someone to ask Joe Biden just one wuestion..."Mr Vice President, you claim to be catholic, but you support abortion. Sir, is the Pope wrong on that topic"?

I don't think Ryan brings that much to the ticket. Sure, he'll bring some additional conservative appeal but nothing for moderate voters outside of Wisconsin. Ryan is supposed to be the numbers guy but that's what I thought Romney was?

With how bad Romney did on his international test drive I'd have thought they'd look for someone with a little more diplomatic experience.

And Ryan's plan isn't going to resonate with the average voter. It makes massive supply side assumptions that are contradicted by even the last decade, and his plan for Medicare is terrible. Peg Federal contribution to inflation? That's just going to stratify the system and increase the cost of care...right back to where we started.

-spence

I also did not know that Ryan is an avid fisherman and bowhunter.

It's an interesting choice. Removing political considerations, Ryan would have been my first choice. But you can't ignore political angles. Perhaps the Romney camp assumes they will win Florida anyway, and figure Ryan gives them a shot at Wisconsin?

Here's the next Obama commercial...telling everyone that "Romney", spelled differently, is...

Money (R).

Surprised they haven't used that against him yet.

From my perspective, it's nice to have an actual Catholic on the ticket, as opposed to the Kennedy-Biden crew who claim to be Catholic yet refuse to live as Catholics. Nothing harder to admire than a politician who goes to mass on Sunday, then on Monday tells Planned Parenthood how swell abortion is.

To believe in everything is to believe in nothing.

his plan for Medicare is terrible.

-spence

And Obama's plan for Medicare is......

Spence, maybe you don't like Rytan's plan. But pointing at Ryan and saying "see! He hates sick people!" isn't an alternate option...

I don't think Ryan brings that much to the ticket. Sure, he'll bring some additional conservative appeal but nothing for moderate voters outside of Wisconsin. Ryan is supposed to be the numbers guy but that's what I thought Romney was?


-spence

By picking Ryan, the ticket is showing how serious it is about solving the debt crisis.
This resets the tone of the real issues, the economy and jobs.

Obama had his shot at" Hope and Change" and now it's time to look forward
to solving the real problems not trying to spend our way out of debt.
Ryan's plan of Cutting taxes and loopholes will lead to increased revenues.

Ryan is a young well educated guy with a lot of ideas for the future, father of 3, Cub Scout leader, hunter and fisherman, very well rounded.

While both parties are guilty, it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever.

Now we have the tickets, let's hear and debate the plans.

While both parties are guilty, it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever.

Now we have the tickets, let's hear and debate the plans.

"While both parties are guilty..."

Agreed 100%...

"it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever."

That's the choice in this election. Romney/Ryan will offer th etough, but necessary, sacrifices to get u sback to financial stability (no one likes hearing that the well is dry, but when it's dry, it does no good to pretend otherwise).

Obama/Biden will attack Romney/Ryan for the horrible Draconian cuts they are proposing, and will do everythnig they can to demonize Romney/Ryan. Yet they will offer no alternatives, other than to say we can get $90 billion a year by taxing the uber-rich. Whoop-dee-do.

That's what this election comes down to. Are we ready to right the ship, or are we going to buy the be swayed by the guy who promises us more free stuff than the other guy.

If Obama offers specific solutions, I'm willing to listen. But from what I can see, his plan consists of (1) accusing the other side of hating poor people, and (2) more taxes and more spending. Earth to Obama...you cannot get out of a hole by digging your way out.

Love having Paul Ryan on the ticket! Maybe now we can seriously address the financial disaster we are facing with some honesty, though the left will claim that republicans hate old people, poor people sick people, want dirty air, dirty water etc....

In my humble opinion it comes down to a fundamental difference in the role we think government should play in our lives...one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. I will be voting for limited!

Romney can appeal to the moderates and independents and the current president has very little to offer those groups in terms of accomplishments or potential going forwrd, Ryan energizes the conservative base and he's very impressive....still trying to figure out why the current president picked Joe Biden aside from making him look really smart in comparison.....

maybe he listened to David Frum?

"Conservatives remain skeptical about Mitt Romney, but he is still the only candidate who even has a chance of winning the general election. The key is that Romney is the only candidate who can potentially appeal to moderates.

Even if there is no conservative enthusiasm, the underlying numbers still make Romney the best possible nominee. Because Democrats have a statistically smaller base, they need moderates more desperately than Republicans. If conservatives show up to the polls at the same rate as they did for McCain, Romney only needs modest gains among moderates to win the election."

Hey Romney, Don't Forget to Pander to Moderates - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/06/only-romney-has-a-chance-at-winning.html)

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

In my humble opinion it comes down to a fundamental difference in the role we think government should play in our lives...one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. I will be voting for limited!

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that. :hs:

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that. :hs:

fortunately..."it" still has an active debate within "it's" ranks regarding the proper size, expanding role and limits of government....the other "they" don't seem to be having any such debate....sounds like he's chosing the "side" that might at least provide him hope:uhuh:

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

The Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution . . . follow the Constutution. We need a President, and a Congress, and a Supreme Court, that follows the Constitution. Without a foundation, without principals, without a Supreme Law, none of the above will be ruled. They will rule us and spend our money, and distribute our wealth, and create regulations upon regulations that put us in increasingly smaller boxes from which it will be increasingly more difficult to squeeze and wriggle out of. They are operating now without direction and ever growing power at the expense of our own. The system consumes neophyte congressman and spits them out as bureaucratic clones. New ones are outnumbered by the entrenched holders-on. The only ones who can make them bend to our will is We The People. But without a common principle of governance, but, instead with fragmented and opposing desires that are fed, or promised to be fed, to disparate groups with incoherent policies and "plans," we remain at the mercy of the bumbling and essentially lawless bureacracy.

The most difficult, and most essential task, now, for We The People, is to unite with common purpose to free us from the dependence on, and expectation of, a benevolent government to "fix" itself. It cannot be fixed if it thinks it is doing what is right and good. The unsolvable mess that you describe is ultimately of our own making. We allow it. We choose to remain ignorant of what a society, or country needs to exist, perpetuate, and flourish--a common foundation, a uniting principle. We refuse, in our case, to understand our own Constitution, preferring to leave it up to the politicians and judges. Our ignorance is their license.

this is pretty comical but i guess an indicator of where we're at, keep in mind Obama's proposed budgets have been laughable and the Senate Dems have failed to pass a budget since....well, a very long time...which some might consider extreme and radical since they are Constitutionally mandated to do so:uhuh:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a
sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from
foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.
Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is
shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and
grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better. "

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that. :hs:

You are right. Each side has its interests that it panders to. In an ideal world i would get rid of all politicians and start over. The one change would be term limits. It used to be that individuals would serve for a limited time and then go back to provate life willingly as soon as possible.

It is all about limited government and freedom -that is our history, that is what has made America the greatest nation on earth.

I am by no means wealthy, but I still do believe in supply side economics. I never got a job from a poor person. I love how with liberals it is the horrible cruel mean conservatives that earned money in evil corporations that are so greedy and selfish. How the CEOs make so much and all the underlings get so little. However, they never complain about professional athletes makes 25k for an at bat and the poor schlep selling peanuts in the stands or the guy in the parking lot making 25K for a year. Or the actor making 25 million for a movie and the make up artists or camera guys making only a tiny fraction for their work on the film. I guess it is ok to be filthy rich and greedy if you hold the same liberals beliefs.

And if people think that Obama, Biden, Buffet and all the other so called "generous" liberals that want the rich to pay more than the 70% they already pay don't hire CPAs and financial planners to reduce their tax burden, then I have a bridge for sale!! They are always willing to be more than generaous with other peoples money.

The Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution . . . follow the Constutution. We need a President, and a Congress, and a Supreme Court, that follows the Constitution. Without a foundation, without principals, without a Supreme Law, none of the above will be ruled. They will rule us and spend our money, and distribute our wealth, and create regulations upon regulations that put us in increasingly smaller boxes from which it will be increasingly more difficult to squeeze and wriggle out of. They are operating now without direction and ever growing power at the expense of our own. The system consumes neophyte congressman and spits them out as bureaucratic clones. New ones are outnumbered by the entrenched holders-on. The only ones who can make them bend to our will is We The People. But without a common principle of governance, but, instead with fragmented and opposing desires that are fed, or promised to be fed, to disparate groups with incoherent policies and "plans," we remain at the mercy of the bumbling and essentially lawless bureacracy.

The most difficult, and most essential task, now, for We The People, is to unite with common purpose to free us from the dependence on, and expectation of, a benevolent government to "fix" itself. It cannot be fixed if it thinks it is doing what is right and good. The unsolvable mess that you describe is ultimately of our own making. We allow it. We choose to remain ignorant of what a society, or country needs to exist, perpetuate, and flourish--a common foundation, a uniting principle. We refuse, in our case, to understand our own Constitution, preferring to leave it up to the politicians and judges. Our ignorance is their license.

Bingo.

I believe we have two additional problems.
Like Nebe said, the hard problems are pushed under the rug for the next guy. We have a bunch of representatives that once in, want to make a career of their office, forgetting they are supposed to be servants as the Founding Fathers envisioned.
We need true servants who are willing to follow the constitution make the tough choices and do what's best for the country, not for selfish reasons, not looking towards the next election.

Second we have a fractionated population where politicians pander most too the group they think will re-elect them. Our melting pot has unfortunatley ceased to melt.
Except for our armed services, who truly serve, Patriotism is fading away and it's up to our President and Representatives to make us one, lead by example and lead us back to being American's first.

Rythm and Blues

just reading around the vaious sites that would be considered "conservative" sites, the Ryan pick is very popular, if the conservative base was tepid about Romney as they were with McCain, this pick has provided a significant spark heading into the convention, and while Palin delivered some inspiration to a party that was desperate for some/any with McCain she was easily caricatured...I imagine that there are many in that moderate/independent block that regret taking a flyer on BO and many more are looking for a direction which includes some fiscal sanity which does not seem to be a concern for the current bunch....BO is in the unenviable position that McCain was last go round in that many will consider a vote for him to be a vote for more of the same and with the economy not likely to make any great gains and the country going in the "wrong direction" polls consisently around 60% for a very long time (62% latest RCP average and those favoring repeal of his signature legislation consistently around 50% and trailing Bush in terms of job approval at this point in his reelection effort ).....it's going to be interesting to watch the strategy

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

"
i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems"

But Ryan has, courageously, done exactly that. His budget calls for Medicare savings in the multiple trillions of dollars.

What was the Democratic response? Did they offer an alternative plan to save the trillions that we need to save? No. They made a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff.

That's the choice in thsi election. Romney/Ryan are taklking about the best way to make the difficult but necessary cuts. Obama/Biden will try to make us fear them for that.

Eben, I agree, we are in thsi mess because both parties chose to ignore this problem for 40 years. But today, one party is addressing these issues, the other is not.

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

"
i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems"

But Ryan has, courageously, done exactly that. His budget calls for Medicare savings in the multiple trillions of dollars.

What was the Democratic response? Did they offer an alternative plan to save the trillions that we need to save? No. They made a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff.

That's the choice in thsi election. Romney/Ryan are taklking about the best way to make the difficult but necessary cuts. Obama/Biden will try to make us fear them for that.

Eben, I agree, we are in thsi mess because both parties chose to ignore this problem for 40 years. But today, one party is addressing these issues, the other is not.

Jim - even though you sometimes give me a headache reading your posts you are spot on with this. Ryan IS the only one offering some kind of plan out. He stuck his neck WAY out and got pig piled on for it but he did have the testicular fortitude to do it. The Democratic party has NOT come up with a way out.

Ryan's plan is too austere for my tastes and would be watered down a bit but it is part of the way forward.

The LONGER we wait to implement something than the more austere it would be.

"
i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems"

But Ryan has, courageously, done exactly that. His budget calls for Medicare savings in the multiple trillions of dollars.
Ryan has not presented any serious proposal to save Medicare trillions of dollars, if anything he's proposed a theory that shifting costs to seniors will decrease overall healthcare costs through competition.

But without insurance exchanges (as established by Obama) there's no way to manage risk which will likely result in what we had before the HCB, namely insurers seeking to game the system by avoiding it, something that would only get worse with less regulation.

The closest thing to a government subsidized system via private insurers (Medicare Advantage) I believe has RAISED costs 8%.

-spence

Ryan has not presented any serious proposal to save Medicare trillions of dollars, if anything he's proposed a theory that shifting costs to seniors will decrease overall healthcare costs through competition.

But without insurance exchanges (as established by Obama) there's no way to manage risk which will likely result in what we had before the HCB, namely insurers seeking to game the system by avoiding it, something that would only get worse with less regulation.

The closest thing to a government subsidized system via private insurers (Medicare Advantage) I believe has RAISED costs 8%.

-spence

Spence, I asked you what Obama/Biden have offered as a solution to Medicare. In true liberal fashion, instead of answering my question, you choose to insult Ryan.

Is Ryan's plan the best possible solution to save Medicare? Maybe not. But as of today (as JohnR said), he is the only elected official in Washington (that I know of) who had the intellectual honesty to say out loud that Medicare is broke and needs fixing.

In response, all Obama has done is insult Ryan. And you are doing the same.

Jim in CT: Spence, what is the Democratic plan to save Medicare

Spence: Ryan's plan is not serious.

See what I mean, Spence? You didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask you what you thought of Ryan's plan (because everyone on Earth knows what you think of it). I asked you what your party's plan is...and your party has no plan. All they can do, all you can do, is insult.

Do you never, ever get tired of that?

The LONGER we wait to implement something than the more austere it would be.

John, the actuaries have been saying for FIFTY years that the Baby Boomers will destroy Medicare and Social security. And for 50 years, politicians haven't been honest enough to do anything about it.

I'm not saying Ryan's plan is necessarily the best solution. But as of the time I sit here and type this, NOONE on the other side is offering any alternatives, other than to keep kicking the can down the road. We can't afford to do that anymore.

Ryan admits this, even though he knews he'll get crucified. Obama and Biden also know this to be true, but they aren't honest/brave enough to say it out loud. We have serious problems that require serious, brave, honest leadership. Obama ain't remotely it.

"The Democratic party has NOT come up with a way out."

And what does that say about them? The lowest estimates for the shortfalls for SS and Medicare are at least $40 trillion. That's more than $130,000 for every living American. How can anyone take a party seriously, that doesn't have a plan to fix this? Anyone with half a brain admits this debt rises to the level of a genuine national security threat, and the Democratic plan is to make the other side too politically afraid to talk about it.

John, the actuaries have been saying for FIFTY years that the Baby Boomers will destroy Medicare and Social security. And for 50 years, politicians haven't been honest enough to do anything about it.


Yup, I can remember hearing it way back in the 50"s when the Baby Boomers were
being born by the droves. No one, that I can remember, ever even tried to address
the problems except Bush's Soc Sec plan.
Ryan came up with both a budget and Medicare plan, but between the press not covering them, and the opposition poo pooing them, they really never saw the light of day. As mentioned above, each day we wait for a solution the more austere it will be if it can be salvaged at all.

We are going broke,this election has to be about who has the best solutions for paying down the debt, improving the economy, increasing jobs and coming up with solutions for Soc Sec and Medicare.
Overdue time to pay the piper.

Ryan has not presented any serious proposal to save Medicare trillions of dollars, if anything he's proposed a theory that shifting costs to seniors will decrease overall healthcare costs through competition.

But without insurance exchanges (as established by Obama) there's no way to manage risk which will likely result in what we had before the HCB, namely insurers seeking to game the system by avoiding it, something that would only get worse with less regulation.

The closest thing to a government subsidized system via private insurers (Medicare Advantage) I believe has RAISED costs 8%.

-spence

Spence, I asked you what Obama/Biden have offered as a solution to Medicare. In true liberal fashion, instead of answering my question, you choose to insult Ryan.



What Spence said is an insult? And you follow it with "in true liberal fashion"?

What Spence said is an insult? And you follow it with "in true liberal fashion"?
I doubt he even read my post.

Obama has laid out numerous proposals to bolster Medicare. From negotiation of drug prices, ending insurance over payments through Medicare Advantage, cost controls when rates increase faster than 1% of GDP, programs to improve accuracy of care and coordination to eliminate redundant services etc...

Does this represent a proposed "fix"? I don't think anyone could propose a real fix. A fundamental question is if you believe Medicare is a compact to ensure you'll have health care when at the end of your life you likely won't be able to afford it.

Don't forget as well that under it all is the HCB. From what I've read about the Ryan plan, there are numerous pieces of the Obama plan (like exchanges) that Ryan would need to reuse.

The GOP could be in a pickle when people get down to the details and realize there's more similarities under the covers.

-spence

U all know that neither the Dems nor Repubs will ever cure medicare; medicaid; social as long as they R not included in the programs...take away their exemption from the above and the programs will be fixed.

go:fishin: people...do not waste your day on something that UUU have no imput on...:)

I doubt he even read my post.

Obama has laid out numerous proposals to bolster Medicare. From negotiation of drug prices, ending insurance over payments through Medicare Advantage, cost controls when rates increase faster than 1% of GDP, programs to improve accuracy of care and coordination to eliminate redundant services etc...

Does this represent a proposed "fix"? I don't think anyone could propose a real fix. A fundamental question is if you believe Medicare is a compact to ensure you'll have health care when at the end of your life you likely won't be able to afford it.

Don't forget as well that under it all is the HCB. From what I've read about the Ryan plan, there are numerous pieces of the Obama plan (like exchanges) that Ryan would need to reuse.

The GOP could be in a pickle when people get down to the details and realize there's more similarities under the covers.

-spence

"I doubt he even read my post."

Sure I did. Unlike you, I read, and I answer the questions asked. You said Ryan's plan was not serious.

"Obama has laid out numerous proposals to bolster Medicare"

None of them have cause the actuaries to conclude that Medicare is in better financial shape than it was before....Ryan claims his plan addresses the long-term crisis that's coming.

"A fundamental question is if you believe Medicare is a compact to ensure you'll have health care when at the end of your life you likely won't be able to afford it."

No. here is the real question...if Medicare is in the red to the tune of $100,000 for each one of us, what do we do?

Spence, I don't pretend to have any answers here. But i do know that attacking the once-in-a-generation politician who admits we have a problem, is not itself a solution.

Again, you pose it as a touching, emotionsl, gut-wrenching scenario about medical care for those who need it. And of course, that's a big part of this. But you (and Obama) never, ever, ever address the underlying debt. So another question is, do we bankruypot the next generation to take care of Baby Boomers?

I don't know the answer. But unlike you, I (and Paul Ryan) are asking the question.

"The GOP could be in a pickle..."

$15 trillion in debt, another $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities. we're all in a pickle, Spence. The democrat plan is to bury their heads in the sand, only to emerge to say that Republicans hate poor people and old people. That's not my idea of decisive leadership. Obama's dodge-and-demonize approach works on a lot of people like you (and you're not stupid), that doesn't mean it's effective leadership.

What Spence said is an insult? And you follow it with "in true liberal fashion"?

Zimmy, I asked Spence what Obama's alternative idea is to fix Medicare. That's a fair and simple question.

Spence's answer was that Ryan's plan sucks.

That's not remotely answering the question that I asked. But it is absolutely what liberals do, again and again. Do you recall the commercial showing Paul Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff? Zimmy, is that productive dialogue in your opinion?

I think I've located part of the problem :)





From what I've read about the Ryan plan,

-spence

here's some reading Spence
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313757/grasping-medicare-distortion-yuval-levin

here's some reading Spence
Grasping the Medicare Distortion - Yuval Levin - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313757/grasping-medicare-distortion-yuval-levin)

Good piece

Good piece

Great piece...

"congressional Republicans over the past few years have decided that they cannot leave Medicare to collapse and take the government’s finances (and the nation’s economic future) with it, and so they must address the problem despite the standing threat from the left to demonize anyone who tries."

Try making that wrong...although not enough Congressional Republicans are talking about this...they should all be talking about it, and talking about the fact that the Dems refuse to address it in the least.

Anyone know if Ryan is resigning from Congress? People in his position usually do not, but I haven't heard anything...

Interesting article. Thank you. It actually seems unbiased...

Anyone know if Ryan is resigning from Congress? People in his position usually do not, but I haven't heard anything...

I heard yesterday he was continuing his campaign for reelection. This was on cnn btw.

Interesting article. Thank you. It actually seems unbiased...
About the only part that wasn't biased was when the author admits the Ryan plan might be a total failure...TWICE :faga:

-spence

About the only part that wasn't biased was when the author admits the Ryan plan might be a total failure...TWICE :faga:

-spence

Ryan's plan might indeed be a failure, Spence. But unlike the president, at least Ryan proposed a possible solution.

Spence, the other unbiased part was when the article said that we can no longer afford to ignore the problem. Yet, that's precisely what Obama has done. To be fair, Bush also ignored the problem of Medicare finances (in fact, made it worse). But Obama promised something along the lines of "change" and "a different way of doing things", or some such nonsense.

Not doing anything, is a disaster for all of us. And that is basically what Obama has done with Medicare - nothing.

Spence, I keep asking you what Obama's vision is to save Medicare. I get nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkus.

Let's stop attacking Ryan for trying to solve the problem, and come up with a better solution. Insulting Ryan is not a viable alternative solution.

R&R have my vote, but it's sad that this is the best ticket the repubs have to offer, I think this election will be a layup for o.b. :wall:

About the only part that wasn't biased was when the author admits the Ryan plan might be a total failure...TWICE :faga:

-spence

every plan may fail spence. thats why it takes people with testicles to implement.
Simpson-Bowles was a good plan, sponsored by Obama. Where is that plan now? ??? No balls to implement.
The time to talk is over, the time to act is now.

every plan may fail spence. thats why it takes people with testicles to implement.
Simpson-Bowles was a good plan, sponsored by Obama. Where is that plan now? ??? No balls to implement.
The time to talk is over, the time to act is now.

I thought Simpson-Bowles was certainly a step in the right direction. It's a shame the GOP led House voted it down. Yes, Obama wasn't a strong supporter but he never even had a bill to sign or reject.

-spence

Spence's answer was that Ryan's plan sucks.



I can't find where Spence said it sucks. I saw a post where he pointed out things in the plan that he thought were bad ideas, but that isn't what you are talking about. I think my tin hat must be messing with me. Now wait... that was the post you quoted. Did he edit the insulting part where he said it sucks?

I thought Simpson-Bowles was certainly a step in the right direction. It's a shame the GOP led House voted it down. Yes, Obama wasn't a strong supporter but he never even had a bill to sign or reject.

-spence

"Which brings us to Simpson-Bowles (see how I did that?). On Wednesday, Reps. Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette managed to put Simpson-Bowles to a vote before the House of Representatives. It didn't just fail. It got crushed. The final tally was 382-38. Twenty-two of the supporters were Democrats, while 16 were Republicans. But overall, the rejection was overwhelming, and overwhelmingly bipartisan."

Wonkbook: House reaches bipartisan deal to reject Simpson-Bowles - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-house-reaches-bipartisan-deal-to-reject-simpson-bowles/2012/03/29/gIQAfucdiS_blog.html)

Greenspan: Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’ Was Rejecting Simpson-Bowles Deficit-Reduction Plan
http://www.moneynews.com/FinanceNews/Greenspan-Obama-Simpson-Bowles/2012/05/02/id/437734

Geithner explains why Obama never embraced Bowles-Simpson
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/211153-geithner-explains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson

I can't find where Spence said it sucks. I saw a post where he pointed out things in the plan that he thought were bad ideas, but that isn't what you are talking about. I think my tin hat must be messing with me. Now wait... that was the post you quoted. Did he edit the insulting part where he said it sucks?

Zimmy, are you feeling well today?

I said many times I don't know if Ryan's proposal is a good proposal. But at least he had the honesty and courage to say "this is going broke, here's my idea to overhaul it".

Zimmy, what's Obama's idea to overhaul Medicare? Nothing. Except to say that Ryan wants t'o "end Medicare as we know it". Earth to liberals...it isn't Paul Ryan that will end Medicare as we know it. The Baby Boomers will end Medicare as we know it.

Spence, you're saying the GOP rejected Simpson-Bowles? So Obama wanted to implement most of the recommendations, did he? I guess I missed that.

"Which brings us to Simpson-Bowles (see how I did that?). On Wednesday, Reps. Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette managed to put Simpson-Bowles to a vote before the House of Representatives. It didn't just fail. It got crushed. The final tally was 382-38. Twenty-two of the supporters were Democrats, while 16 were Republicans. But overall, the rejection was overwhelming, and overwhelmingly bipartisan."

Wonkbook: House reaches bipartisan deal to reject Simpson-Bowles - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-house-reaches-bipartisan-deal-to-reject-simpson-bowles/2012/03/29/gIQAfucdiS_blog.html)

Greenspan: Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’ Was Rejecting Simpson-Bowles Deficit-Reduction Plan
Greenspan: Obama?s ?Worst Mistake? Was Rejecting Simpson-Bowles Deficit-Reduction Plan (http://www.moneynews.com/FinanceNews/Greenspan-Obama-Simpson-Bowles/2012/05/02/id/437734)

Geithner explains why Obama never embraced Bowles-Simpson
Geithner explains why Obama never embraced Bowles-Simpson - The Hill's On The Money (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/211153-geithner-explains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson)
Was anything I said not factual? Please be specific, I'm trying to build cred with my foxhole buddy Jim.

-spence

Was anything I said not factual? Please be specific, I'm trying to build cred with my foxhole buddy Jim.

-spence

just adding context to your biased version

"It's a shame the GOP led House voted it down" vs. the rejection was overwhelming, and overwhelmingly bipartisan

"Obama wasn't a strong supporter" vs. Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’ Was Rejecting Simpson-Bowles and Geithner explains why Obama never embraced Bowles-Simpson


specific enough?:) and this from Ezra Klein types.....for context and cred


glad you said "foxhole" :biglaugh:

Was anything I said not factual? Please be specific, I'm trying to build cred with my foxhole buddy Jim.

-spence

Honest question here...what, specifically, did the GOP-led house shoot down?

It's now practice to denote respect by indicating if you'd share a foxhole with the quotee. It's part of the political forum reform plans.

I'm not sure I'd share a foxhole with you to be honest. While you were busy digging up out of context quotes to snidely parse the enemies battle cry, Jim would probably have already shot them.

This is really about my safety after all.

-spence

I'm not sure I'd share a foxhole with you to be honest. While you were busy digging up out of context quotes to snidely parse the enemies battle cry, Jim would probably have already shot them.

-spence

what...no specifics? what did I quote that was not factual?.... snidely?

So the hate-fest begins in earnest.

(1) At Ryan's kickoff speech, 2 female left-wing haters were heckling him, and tried to storm the stage. On MSNBC, Rachael Maddow used that as evidence that Ryan isn't a good pick. Maddow said something to the effect of "see, at his first speech, he gets that kind of a response from the crowd (2 people out of 10,000 heckled him). Therefore, Ryan is not a good pick.


(2) Enter Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, who said Ryan's selection "is not a pick for suburban moms, is not a pick for women". So we have established that Ryan is anti-women. Check.

(3) Enter Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. The esteemed senator Sanders said on MSNBC last night "unlike Paul Ryan, I believe America needs a strong middle class to thrive". OK. So now we also know that Paul Ryan doesn not want America to have a middle class. Check.

(4) Every single guest/host on MSNBC, every single one of them, said the following..."Paul Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it."

Earth to Ryan-bashers...Paul Ryan doesn't want to end Medicare as we know it. The economic impact of the Baby Boomers (millions of people getting old, who will live in old age for decades, needing tons of expensive care) are going to end Medicare as we know it. Medicare as we know it will not exist for anyone younger than Baby Boomers. Paul Ryan doesn't want that. He simply admits it. Finally, his plan (as it turns out) only ends Medicare for people who opt out into a voucher system. People can still choose to stay in a Medicare-type plan if they want. Or, if they prefer, they can opt out into a system where every married couple gets $11,000 a year to find their own health plan. Maybe this is a good idea, and maybe it's not. But it's better than the liberal plan, which is to stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and hope that the problen somehow goes away.

Sp Spence said in this thread that the Simpson-Bowles commission made some good suggestions about the economy. Here is what one of the chairs of that committee, Erksine Bowles, has to say about Paul Ryan. Mr Bowles was Bill Clinton's chief of staff, and remember the Clinton administration did an amazing job turning the economy around...


Erskine Bowles praises Paul Ryan, budget plan (VIDEO) | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/erskine-bowles-praises-paul-ryan-budget-plan-video-003642883.html)

""I'm telling you, this guy (Ryan) is amazing. I always thought I was OK with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me," Bowles tells a class of students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did by four trillion dollars."

But I thought Ryan wanted poor people to die, so he could sell their organs on ebay and give that money to Wall Street fatcats? At least, that's what they're saying on MSNBC...

glad you said "foxhole" :biglaugh:

First big laugh of the day :rotf2:

So the hate-fest begins in earnest.

(1) At Ryan's kickoff speech, 2 female left-wing haters were heckling him, and tried to storm the stage. On MSNBC, Rachael Maddow used that as evidence that Ryan isn't a good pick. Maddow said something to the effect of "see, at his first speech, he gets that kind of a response from the crowd (2 people out of 10,000 heckled him). Therefore, Ryan is not a good pick. It was more than 2 hecklers but still not surprising by Maddow. Wench.



(2) Enter Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, who said Ryan's selection "is not a pick for suburban moms, is not a pick for women". So we have established that Ryan is anti-women. Check.

Mitchell is incapable of hiding her bias.

I know longer watch MSNBC because of the inherent bias. CNN is actually more fair these days. I have not found a news channel that is unbiased - sadly

Sp Spence said in this thread that the Simpson-Bowles commission made some good suggestions about the economy. Here is what one of the chairs of that committee, Erksine Bowles, has to say about Paul Ryan. Mr Bowles was Bill Clinton's chief of staff, and remember the Clinton administration did an amazing job turning the economy around...


Erskine Bowles praises Paul Ryan, budget plan (VIDEO) | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/erskine-bowles-praises-paul-ryan-budget-plan-video-003642883.html)

""I'm telling you, this guy (Ryan) is amazing. I always thought I was OK with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me," Bowles tells a class of students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did by four trillion dollars."

But I thought Ryan wanted poor people to die, so he could sell their organs on ebay and give that money to Wall Street fatcats? At least, that's what they're saying on MSNBC...

To be clear, that wasn't all he said - Bowles did have some negatives he brought up on Ryan - but it was mostly positive.

First big laugh of the day :rotf2:

It was more than 2 hecklers but still not surprising by Maddow. Wench.




Mitchell is incapable of hiding her bias.

I know longer watch MSNBC because of the inherent bias. CNN is actually more fair these days. I have not found a news channel that is unbiased - sadly



To be clear, that wasn't all he said - Bowles did have some negatives he brought up on Ryan - but it was mostly positive.

"To be clear, that wasn't all he said - Bowles did have some negatives he brought up on Ryan - but it was mostly positive"

John, I'm not saying Ryan walks on water. But he is not anywhere near what the left is making him out to be, either. We need (in a real hurry) to get past the point of saying "you should fear Paul Ryan because he wants to end Medicare". We need to be able to say "here are the good things about his proposal, and here are the things we can improve upon". No one on the Democratic ticket is saying that.

John, I believe our kids are about the same age (mine are 5, 2, 1). Unless something drastic is done, they will each be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate college. That is not hysteria or exaggeration on my part, it is mathematical fact.

John, I believe our kids are about the same age (mine are 5, 2, 1). Unless something drastic is done, they will each be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate college. That is not hysteria or exaggeration on my part, it is mathematical fact.

Agree %100, and unless something is done now with Medicare it will
be dead in the water in 12 years. Soc Sec won't be far behind.
In the end ALL of us will have to give up something and sacrafice in order
to get this country back on the right track.

In the real world, there is no Santa Claus.

unless something is done now with Medicare it will be dead in the water in 12 years. .

Oh, you just hate old people.

Last night on MSNBC, they repeatedly referred to a recent national poll where 80% of the respondents said they didn't want significant changes to Medicare. Therefore, according to Rachael Maddow and 'Red' Schultz (2 swell guys), we should leave Medicare alone. Never they mind that 'leaving it alone' isn't a long term option.

That's what we're up against, and here in CT, we lose to these people every single year. Soon, I'm going to contact the payroll department where I work and ask them to stop paying me in dollars. Instead, I want to get paid in kerosine and canned food, so I can start stocking up.

"To be clear, that wasn't all he said - Bowles did have some negatives he brought up on Ryan - but it was mostly positive"

John, I'm not saying Ryan walks on water. But he is not anywhere near what the left is making him out to be, either. We need (in a real hurry) to get past the point of saying "you should fear Paul Ryan because he wants to end Medicare". We need to be able to say "here are the good things about his proposal, and here are the things we can improve upon". No one on the Democratic ticket is saying that.

John, I believe our kids are about the same age (mine are 5, 2, 1). Unless something drastic is done, they will each be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate college. That is not hysteria or exaggeration on my part, it is mathematical fact.

Oh - I agree and I agree. We are at $50K for every American just to pay off we we are now - TODAY - not including continuing debt obligations.

We have a tremendous gash in the hull of the Fiscal Ship of State and we are discussing what is on the menu from brunch and what deck chairs clash with other deck chairs - we are not even rearranging yet.

The one thing that might get Grannies more upset than their medicare might be to tell them that their grandkids will be indentured slaves at current course.

I know longer watch MSNBC because of the inherent bias. CNN is actually more fair these days. I have not found a news channel that is unbiased - sadly
I only watch Morning Joe, the nightly programming just isn't very interesting.

-spence

Ryan came up with both a budget and Medicare plan, but between the press not covering them, and the opposition poo pooing them, they really never saw the light of day. As mentioned above, each day we wait for a solution the more austere it will be if it can be salvaged at all.
CNN already has an opinion bash-piece about Ryan's plan to try and let people invest a portion of their SS taxes into a private investment vehicle.

It is currently *the* front page featured article from their CNN Money sections. They never feature articles from the Money section of their website.
Ryan's controversial Social Security plan he doesn't discuss - Aug. 14, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/news/economy/ryan-social-security/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1)
http://imgur.com/mzOlj.jpg

I didn't take that article as a bash piece.....

CNN headline -

Is Ryan for or against Ayn Rand.

so silly

Maybe CNN can help the opposition come up with the perfect plan,
or any plan at all.?????? Pussy footers afraid of their own shadow. :hihi:

CNN headline -

Is Ryan for or against Ayn Rand.

so silly

Read it, it's actually pretty interesting.

-spence

Read it, it's actually pretty interesting.

-spence

Yes, interesting. The author states that Ryan can be an objectionist, or he can be a Christian, but he can not have it both ways.

Has the author ever put in print "Biden can either be a Catholic or he can be an abortion advocate, but he can not have it both ways?". Nope...

Yes, interesting. The author states that Ryan can be an objectionist, or he can be a Christian, but he can not have it both ways.

Has the author ever put in print "Biden can either be a Catholic or he can be an abortion advocate, but he can not have it both ways?". Nope...

Apples and oranges.

Biden is a known quantity and his position on abortion has been consistent. I'm not sure polls indicate that the Roman Catholic's absolute position on abortion is really embraced in the US anyway.

With Ryan the author is assertion a clear and very recent contraction. Ryan is a subject of interest who most people don't know much about...

Apples and oranges.

-spence

I'm not sure polls indicate that the Roman Catholic's absolute position on abortion is really embraced in the US anyway.

-spence

it's trending well :uhuh::)

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx)

Half of Americans, 51%, consider abortion morally wrong and 38% say it is morally acceptable

this could be BIG trouble

The percentage of political independents identifying as pro-choice is 10 points lower today than in May 2011, while the percentage pro-life is up by six points. As a result, pro-lifers now outnumber pro-choicers among this important swing political group for only the second time since 2001, with the first occurring in 2009.

More broadly, since 2009, independents have been fairly closely divided between the two abortion positions, whereas for most of the 2001-2008 period, significantly more independents were pro-choice than pro-life.

it's trending well :uhuh::)

It's still pretty flat over 5 years...go back a year and it was flipped...some of those Catholics must have been back in the kitchen...

-spence

I'm not sure polls indicate that the Roman Catholic's absolute position on abortion is really embraced in the US anyway.


-spence

Spence, I'm not sure what planet you live on. Here on Earth, recent polls I see, show it's about 50-50 in this country. And as Scott correctly said, it's trending in the Catholic doctrine. I don't know why, but it is.

It's still pretty flat over 5 years...go back a year and it was flipped...some of those Catholics must have been back in the kitchen...

-spence

Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

Spence, do you ever get tired of incessantly moving the goalposts until it looks as though your side has scored a goal?

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;953839]Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

QUOTE]

makes you wonder what he was doing between 5:13 and 5:34

Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

Spence, do you ever get tired of incessantly moving the goalposts until it looks as though your side has scored a goal?

You're not paying attention.

There's a difference between an absolute position on abortion and what Catholics or for that matter Americans really think.

Please read my posts twice before you respond.

-spence

You're not paying attention.

There's a difference between an absolute position on abortion and what Catholics or for that matter Americans really think.

Please read my posts twice before you respond.

-spence

really?

"Half of Americans, 51%, consider abortion morally wrong"

what's the diffrence between this and an "absolute position on abortion and what Catholics or for that matter Americans really think."


"38% say it is morally acceptable"

is there a difference between those that find abortion morally accptable and an absolute position in favor of abortion and what pro choice or for that matter Americans really think?

it's either morally wrong or morally right..if you want to talk about certain exceptions in either case, it doesn't change the morality, if someone robs a bank it's morally wrong ( AT LEAST MOST AMERICANS MIGHT AGREE)....if someone robs a bank because they need money to feed their starving family......it's still morally wrong but some might look on it with less condemnation due to the situation that prompted the action, it doesn't suddenly become morally right due to your situation and the victim(s) don't know the difference :uhuh:

why do I feel a relativism argument coming on?

You're not paying attention.

There's a difference between an absolute position on abortion and what Catholics or for that matter Americans really think.

Please read my posts twice before you respond.

-spence

Spence, there's no need for me to read your posts twice. I don't even need to read them once, because I know what you're going to say before you post it. Always, always, always the liberal spin. Ignore anything that makes the conservative side look good, and focus on what makes the liberal side look good. If there is nothing that makes the liberal side look good, then do whatever you have to do to poke holes in the conculsion that conservatives might therefore have a point.

A little intellectual honesty makes life a whole lot easier. When I say intellectual honesty, I mean this...

Yes, Paul Ryan is proposing changes to Medicare. But so is Obama, who (1) shifted $500+ billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and (2) proposed that Medicare start paying doctors even less than they get paid now.

In an honest world, we would debate the pros and cons of both proposals. In the world we live in, Obama (and everyuone in the media not employed by Foxnews) tells seniors to be afraid of Paul Ryan, and no one caresthat Obama's plan is the only one that will effect those currently on Medicare. So, thanks to dishonest dialogue, seniors are afraid of Ryan, and they are embracing Obama.

Your side doesn't want that honesty injected in the debate Spence. Your side goes to unbelievable lengths to avoid anything resembling an honest debate. Because it's easier to defend slavery than it is to defend most (not all) liberal platforms.

First you denied that abortion was getting less popular. When you couldn't deny it any longer, you dismissed it.

"There's a difference between an absolute position on abortion..."

I assume by "absolute" you mean no allowance for abortion, even in the case of rape or when the mom's life is in danger. Spence, no one on the Republican ticket is saying that they would outlaw all abortions. Even if one of the candidates is saying they personally never support abortion, they aren't suggesting that become public policy.

.

Biden is a known quantity and his position on abortion has been consistent. -spence

Yes, it has consistently been in direct violation of the sacred teachings of the church he claims to be a member of. Spence, Biden goes to Catholic Mass on Sunday because he wants those votes. Then he goes to a pro-abortion rally on Monday because he also wants those votes. That's called pandering. If you want to get the Klan vote, fine. But you shouldn't also court the endorsement of the NAACP.

Real leaders take a stand, tell you what they think, and let you decide if you like them or not. To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.

That's called pandering. If you want to get the Klan vote, fine. But you shouldn't also court the endorsement of the NAACP.

Real leaders take a stand, tell you what they think, and let you decide if you like them or not. To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.
You've just clearly articulated my biggest gripe and reservations with Romney.

Yes, it has consistently been in direct violation of the sacred teachings of the church he claims to be a member of. Spence, Biden goes to Catholic Mass on Sunday because he wants those votes. Then he goes to a pro-abortion rally on Monday because he also wants those votes. That's called pandering. If you want to get the Klan vote, fine. But you shouldn't also court the endorsement of the NAACP.

Real leaders take a stand, tell you what they think, and let you decide if you like them or not. To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.


I am admittedly a lapsed Catholic, but I know more than a few people who are practicing Catholics, but disagree with some of the Dogma, but still believe in their faith and are supportive of their church. They do not go just to pander...

I am admittedly a lapsed Catholic, but I know more than a few people who are practicing Catholics, but disagree with some of the Dogma, but still believe in their faith and are supportive of their church. They do not go just to pander...

Of course, there are exactly zero Catholics who are perfect, we all have our flaws.

But the cathechism has binding beliefs, and non-binding beliefs. Binding beliefs means just what it says...those are things that you cannot disagree with and call yourself Catholic...like believing that Jesus is the son of God, believing in the importance of charity (not a strength of Biden either), and being opposed to abortion.

My point being, it's OK to disagree with some of the dogma. It's OK if you don't say the rosary, for example. It's not OK to disagree on abortion.

I don't know why anyone who is pro-choice would choose to call themselves a Catholic. I'm certain Biden (and Nancy Pelosi) does it to increase his voting base. And if his bishop had any spine whatsoever, he'd tell 'Plugs' to decide whether or not he wants to get Communion on Sundays.

Separation of church and state. :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.



Yes, and if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Read it, it's actually pretty interesting.

-spence

That Ryan's views on Ayn Rand might put him at odds with the christian right or the Catholic Church are moot since both are at odds with both parties, but probably more so with the progressive anti-religious views of the Dems.

Weiss allows college students to go through a "literary infatuation" with Rand and then to repudiate her later, but Ryan must not be allowed this path, and must always forever be a true and absolute Randian.

Weiss mentions that her books celebrated greed and selfishness and saw altruism as "evil," but doesn't go into her arguments of why so, just drops those loaded words into his essay to help paint her as a brutish, uncaring, anti-social being. Also mentions that she was a militant atheist who favored abortion, which, not being an atheist who favors abortion actually is a prime reason to understand that Ryan is not a pure Randian.

Ryan says, according to the article, that he was more deeply influenced by his Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas (than, it follows,more than by Ayn Rand.) But, somehow, we must not accept that as true, but, rather, as true the implication that he is a true Randian because of a speech, whose words in that speech must be the total truth of his views that negate anything else he might say. In that speech he says he was taught quite a bit about who he is and what his value systems are and what his beliefs are. But "quite a bit" is different than "totally." But we are to assume, by the author's implication, that the true and total Randian view is what his value systems are, therefore they cannot be his Catholic faith or Thomas Aquinas.

Further, Ryan, according to the article, says that if there were one person who he might credit for going into politcs, it would be Rand and her views (in stark terms as the Weiss emphasizes) on the struggle between the individual and the collective.

The thing about Howard Roark, hero of "The fountainhead" is he was an ideal, a totally virtuous individual, not a real flawed human being full of various sometimes conflicting ideas. Being an ideal, it is likely that such men do not, or rarely exist. He was a literary emblem. And Weiss points out, gratuitously, that the book was denounced as amoral. Which is strange since it was about an ultimate morality, and was contradicted as a Randian position by Weiss's comment on her next book, "Atlas Shrugged," being a statement that laissez fair capitalism is the only moral social system.

The fact that, as Weiss concedes, "Ryan is no atheist, but atheism was at the core of [Rand's] philosophy," certainly indicates that Ryan does not fully accept Rand's philosophy. He certainly doesn't act like a true Randian hero--he is fighting for his views through government, not as an individual ousider. Just as the only ideal Christian was Jesus Christ, the only ideal objectivist might be Ayn Rand. The other "Christians"--see puritans, liberation theologists, Catholics and various protestants and sects, can, apparently depart from the ideal Christian, so saying that Ryan cannot be an objectivist and a Christian at the same time is an extreme and absolutist view. One that a "centrist" might object to. We as centrists, relativists, rationalists, eclectivists, modernists, pholosopers, realists, individualists (more so than collectivists), and especially politicians (even statesmen), can take what is good and useful from philosphies, even those like Rand's, which might be impossible or too ideal, yet have value that take us in the direction, the vector, of our society's ideals.

The U.S. Constitution (you know I had to get that in here) which Rand admired (except for the commerce clause not being more clearly articulated) points the vector toward individual freedom. Socialism's, Marxism's, Communism's, and progressivism's vector points us toward the collective over the individual.

Which vector do you prefer?

Don't think Ryan was in college seven years ago, but you're right, there's danger in interpreting Weiss's interpretation of Ryan's interpretation of Rand.

That being said, listen to the actual audio here from 2005 that received condemnation from the Catholic Church:

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand's ideas: in the hot seat again | The Atlas Society (http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again)

(2:54) And so when you take a look at where we are today, ah, some would say we’re on offense, some would say we’re on defense, I’d say it’s a little bit of both. And when you look at the twentieth-century experiment with collectivism—that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism—you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism than Ayn Rand.

If you're a Rand fan I'd say he articulates a very compelling position.

Then contrast with his statements in 2012 to the National Review:

Ryan Shrugged - Robert Costa - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa)

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

A lot of my views have certainly evolved since college, but not like that in the past seven years. Is he guilty of hyper-pandering? Perhaps, but like the author says, you can't have it both ways. If Ryan really is the intellectual leader of the GOP in regards to money, I would think voters would want to know where he'll really get his inspiration in 2013.

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern :hihi:

-spence

In today's New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote this about Paul Ryan...

"Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."

The New York Times published a statement that Paul Ryan's intent is to hurt people.

Why can't liberals honestly lay out Paul Ryan's ideas, and then explain why they think Obama's ideas are better?

Go ahead and defend that, Spence...

In today's New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote this about Paul Ryan...

"Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."

The New York Times published a statement that Paul Ryan's intent is to hurt people.

Why can't liberals honestly lay out Paul Ryan's ideas, and then explain why they think Obama's ideas are better?

Go ahead and defend that, Spence...

Most papers have both news and personality driven opinion. Dowd is an opinion columnist. She's their bomb thrower. Her comment was clearly meant to highlight the irony of Ryan's positions.

I'm glad you're reading Dowd but I'd also encourage you to think in the process.

-spence

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern :hihi:

-spence

why is this difficult?....

in the first case he's referring to Rand's political philosphy:

"that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism"

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[103] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[104] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[105] Rand believed that rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[106] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[107]


and in the second he's referring to her religeous philosophy(or lack of)......and in response to "These Rand-related slams, Ryan says, are inaccurate and part of an effort on the left to paint him as a cold-hearted Objectivist. Ryan’s actual philosophy, as reported by my colleague, Brian Bolduc, couldn’t be further from the caricature. As a practicing Roman Catholic, Ryan says, his faith and moral values shape his politics as much as his belief in freedom and capitalism does."



“I reject her (objectivist) philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview."



Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."[91] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and esthetics.[92]

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[93




if you know anything about Rand you know that she was a bit of a conundrum...

she often took controversial stances on political and social issues of the day. These included supporting abortion rights,[72] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"),[73] supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 as "civilized men fighting savages",[74] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[75] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws against it..........

why is this difficult?....

if you know anything about Rand you know that she was a bit of a conundrum...

Sounds like Ryan might be one as well,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like Ryan might be one as well,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you were smarter than that:uhuh:

Don't think Ryan was in college seven years ago, but you're right, there's danger in interpreting Weiss's interpretation of Ryan's interpretation of Rand.

Can views only evolve from one's college days, or only after the same specified amount of time? That's ridiculous. Right, the danger is in misrepresenting Ryan's views for political purposes to falsely influence voters. Of course, if that is your intent, it would be an objective, not a danger.

That being said, listen to the actual audio here from 2005 that received condemnation from the Catholic Church:

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand's ideas: in the hot seat again | The Atlas Society (http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again)

Did he receive "condemnation" from the whole church, Pope and all, or from a bishop? Does that bishop not approve of any of Rand's views? Are all Catholics in lock step about Rand? They certainly aren't about other things. In my opinion, from my reading of the Bible, Christian political activism is a personal rather than a faith based action. Jesus seemed to have little concern for political systems, and certainly little to no concern for secular politics. He stated it succinctly with "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." And he didn't seem to fight for government solutions to poverty and health. Was he not mostly concerned with your individual soul and its salvation? Were his "miracles" which brought back life from death, fed a multitude from a small amount of bread and fish, transformed water to wine, perfomances meant to inspire governments to do the same, or, rather, to inspire those who witnessed to believe in the power of God, not government, to inspire that belief in him was the way to salvation and heaven on earth, not belief in government?

If you're a Rand fan I'd say he articulates a very compelling position.

Then contrast with his statements in 2012 to the National Review:

Ryan Shrugged - Robert Costa - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa)


As Scottw points out one is a political philosophy and one is a religious view. Why is it difficult to understand that Ryan can be intelectually influenced by Rand's view on individualism versus collectivism, and yet be spiritually and emotionally moved by his perception of Catholicism?

A lot of my views have certainly evolved since college, but not like that in the past seven years. Is he guilty of hyper-pandering? Perhaps, but like the author says, you can't have it both ways. If Ryan really is the intellectual leader of the GOP in regards to money, I would think voters would want to know where he'll really get his inspiration in 2013.

Why must Ryan's views evolve like your's? He might have been mini-pandering to the Atlas folks, but it is extremist, absolutist to say he must be totally a Randian, or totally be what a particular bishop considers Catholic?

We were not supposed to care about what inspired Obama, such as his Communist mother and her family, or Reverend Wright, or Bill ayers, so why would voters want to know where Ryan got his inspiration? Isn't the proof in the pudding, as you like to say, not in the cook? How about actually focusing on his plan, not what inspired him?

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern :hihi:

-spence

The greater cause for concern in the campaign rhetoric the next few months, in the interest of informing the voters, is truthful debate. Both sides are claiming this to be a most important election. It is fitting, then, to be honest, not to merely win, not to lie or influence by inuendo or implications.

Weiss's article is very much inuendo and implication--that mixture of half truths and facts meant to imply contradictions that don't exist. Somewhat similar to your post earlier in this thread in response to the National Review article on Ryan's plan where you said that the author "admits" the plan might be a "total failure" . . ." twice!" There was no such "admission." There was speculation that "if" it did, things would simply revert to the present state which the Democrats seem to prefer. And if that is "total failure," then the status quo that the Dems prefer is a total failure. And the article was far more optimistic about Ryan's plan than your assertion, and its choice of words, implies.