Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

[Evo]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

Wow, thanks for that Pyth. Seems obvious where he leans. I think his voting record is very clear that we'd be seeing more of his religious beliefs making his decisions. I'm afraid that this is going to be another election based primarily on religious beliefs on the Republican side*. Unfortunate, IMO.

He's voted against everything that I firmly believe in.

*Not saying that all Republicans are Christian Fundamentalists, just seems that's the party with the majority of them, IMO.

 

[ThinkToday]

About fiscal practices:



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Well, as a percent of any GDP under Obama, I'd have to agree. I suspect Ryan's planning on a much larger GDP by 2050. I think if Obama had not wasted some much time with ACA, bailouts, green energy, union favors, stopping US energy production, met more with business leaders about what it would take to grow our way out of this mess, and taken the time to meet with his own jobs council, maybe we'd be on our way out of this mess. Or, if Obama had taken the time to use the expert analysis of HIS http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/ maybe we'd be on the way to a better economy. However, no guts and no glory, so the Commission work hits the recycle bin... again. The Commission's work would have been a very hard pill for both Republicans and Democrats to take, but had the President made the effort, perhaps they could have convinced the country the choices were necessary. BTW, the report is here http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

IMO, this country needs a leader and someone like Romney with business experience and the knowledge to get business up and running again. It also needs leadership like Ryan to push for the hard choices, including defense spending, SSI, welfare, etc.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

He's voted against everything that I firmly believe in.

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

 

[lisab]

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

Why can't we have both ?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Why can't we have both ?

Because a moderate is unelectable :(

 

[Haborix]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

Let me add to this list:

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, including:
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/

So he's not much of a fiscal conservative either.

 

[ThinkToday]

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

I don't see that as an "or"

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't see that as an "or"

Are you saying Paul Ryan will vote for gay rights?

 

[Pythagorean]

Are you saying Paul Ryan will vote for gay rights?

Or that Obama's administration can get financial back on track...

 

[Pythagorean]

In my somewhat long explanation of your points supporting "His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists", I merely point out they maybe consistent with fundamentalist positions, but not exclusively the view of fundamentalists.

That's exactly why I chose the language I did. To align with something is not to be the thing.

 

[Evo]

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

 

[lisab]

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

Remarkable to me, and troubling, that Ryan proposes no taxes on capital gains, interest, or dividends:

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan

Ah...I see what Romney sees in the guy .

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As for the first Vote you listed, I see no reason the federal government should be paying for optional after the fact birth control.

How about a recognition that sex is a normal and healthy part of human life and that time and time again expectation of abstinence has been shown to be unreasonable? Given this wouldn't it be in the public interest to ensure people (especially young people) can engage in safe sex?

I do support funding for rape, incest, and to save a mother’s life. I’m not a Fundamentalist, but I think someone that has willful unprotected/under-protected sex and gets pregnant just exercised their “Freedom of Choice” and should live with the choice, just like the man.

Men do not have to live with the choice, sure they have to pay support but that's hardly the same as a woman having to grow another human being. Your thinking seems very male centric and has undertones of anti-female sexuality.

if you don’t think the man should have the same right to choose to be a parent, why not? Mine isn't a Fundamentalist point of view; it's about fairness.

Simple: the man isn't the one going through the pregnancy. Not his body, not his say.

As for the second and third Votes you listed, I don’t have a problem with stem cell research, but I don’t think Federal dollars need to go into what will ultimately be high profit private business lines.

Tapdancing past the issue of profitability in medicine and the quagmire of patents for such therapies isn't the role of government to fund things that are in the public interest and aren't being satisfied by the market? Stem cell therapies have not and will not get to the stage of
commercial products without government funding of some sort or another. The intial R&D of stem cell biology is just too high and the risk too great to rely purely on the market.

As for the bioethics debate there is no reason why this could not occur whilst funding said research considering the initial level it is at now. Indeed said funding could remove the possibility/desirability of controversial methods e.g. research into ESC differentiation could lead to controlled differentiation of ASCs.

Regarding the fourth Vote, from the Declaration of Independence

I don't think the inclusion of religious words in these texts is a justification for requiring oaths under god in a legal system.

 

[Pythagorean]

Thank you Ryan_m_b; that was a time investment I was dreading.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thank you Ryan; that was a time investment I was dreading.

No problem though we should probably use my full username to avoid confusion with the very different Ryan being discussed in this thread

 

[Pythagorean]

No problem though we should probably use my full username to avoid confusion with the very different Ryan being discussed in this thread

Done.

 

[russ_watters]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Or a less extreme characterization would be to say his political actions are aligned with his party. [shrug]

 

[russ_watters]

About fiscal practices:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Also from the linked link:

Ryan's plan was also useful in part because it prompted President Obama to show some cards of his own. Obama's big deficit speech last week was a meaningful step in the direction of liberalfiscal honesty and represented a breakthrough for him in two big ways. It was the first time the president has seriously confronted our long-term fiscal problem with meaningful specifics. And it was the first time he has put forth a coherent vision of government's role.

So basically, that's a liberal saying that before Ryan put forth his plan, Obama wasn't being fiscally honest.

 

[russ_watters]

He's Catholic and has managed to gain the disaproval of the Catholic bishops.

I feel like you are wanting to imply that's a bad thing... I thought you were saying before that he's heavily religion-driven?

Based on how unpopular Ryan's proposed budgets cuts are, especially Medicare, It appears that Romney might regret his VP pick.

To all, RE the [un]popularity of the Ryan Budget:
The problem with budget talk is this: For several generations, we've been feeding the economy with debt. Giving people free money is very popular, regardless of how bad of an idea it is. To correct that, not only do you need to stop giving people free money, but you need to get younger people to pay back the money given to people who are now retired or dead. So people would much rather just pretend there aren't any problems or hope they die before the check comes due than make any attempt to right the ship. As we've seen in Europe, people prefer to stubbornly fly their economic plane straight into the ground than try to pull up.

That was Obama's plan. Stimulus makes people happy, so let's do more. Taxing the rich makes the 99% happy even if it doesn't do much for the budget, so let's try to do that. But for God's sake, don't talk about SS and Medicare or mention the rapidly growing debt.

Then Ryan comes along and starts making budgets that actually address some of the core problems, which then forces Obama to respond. Ryan put issues on the table people (Obama) would rather not touch with a 10-foot pole. Were they well developed or workable in the form he submitted? Popular? Perhaps not, but I'd much rather have someone in office who would engage the issues than ignore them.

My fear is that telling people they can no longer have free money will always be so unpopular we'll fly our economy into the ground right next to Europe's. My hope is that people [still] embrace the ideals of true fiscal conservativism and give Ryan and Romney a chance to reinstate them.

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

Equally easy to just say let's slash the military's budget. Harder to admit that either way, we just don't have the money anymore to keep giving so much of it away.

 

[Pythagorean]

Or a less extreme characterization would be to say his political actions are aligned with his party.

There's no reason to deny any two stable consenting adults the right to marriage or adoption besides religious conviction, especially based on sex discrimination. This is a fundamentalist position.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue. Romney and Ryan (and their voters) are going to be left behind when Obama is re-elected.

 

[Evo]

I feel like you are wanting to imply that's a bad thing... I thought you were saying before that he's heavily religion-driven?

He is, that's why it's funny, or sad, depending on how you feel about it, that he managed to unintentionally upset his own church. Oooops, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

There's no reason to deny any two stable consenting adults the right to marriage or adoption besides religious conviction, especially based on sex discrimination. This is a fundamentalist position.

I'm not sure that first part is true, but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

Again, your propaganda characterization isn't helpful here. Just because you don't agree with a view doesn't make it "bizarre" unless you are simply unable to comprehend views that differ from your own.

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

See, when Obama was running and it was pointed out that his voting record was the most liberal in the House, people in this forum scoffed that it was meaningless -- he was just following the party mainstream. But once in office, he loaded-up a heavily liberal legislative agenda. But while Ryan's voting record is solidly conservative, he strikes me as mostly a one-trick pony: economics only. It is the only thing he's made a name for himself doing. Which I very much like. I think if Ryan doesn't shill for the Christian Right during the campaign, Democrats will have a tough time making the claim that he's a shill for the Christian Right stick, regardless of his voting record.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue.

Er, if we're past this issue, then that means it won't even come up in the election, which means it couldn't hurt them.

 

[Pythagorean]

but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

That was actually my argument about your characterization of Ryan. Your argument is essentially calling everyone in the mainstream republican party a "fundamentalist", by extension. The only unfalsifiable arguments used to protest homosexuality are fundamentalist ones. Social and scientific arguments have shown repeatedly that gays make just as fit of parents as straight parents (in some domains, they actually are shown to have slightly better outcomes).

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

See, when Obama was running and it was pointed out that his voting record was the most liberal in the House, people in this forum scoffed that it was meaningless -- he was just following the party mainstream. But once in office, he loaded-up a heavily liberal legislative agenda. But while Ryan's voting record is solidly conservative, he strikes me as mostly a one-trick pony: economics only. It is the only thing he's made a name for himself doing. Which I very much like. I think if Ryan doesn't shill for the Christian Right during the campaign, Democrats will have a tough time making the claim that he's a shill for the Christian Right stick, regardless of his voting record.

Saying what you don't like about John and Jane to make Joe look better is a persuasive tactic, not a reasonable argument. It's particularly disturbing that you want to accuse others of propaganda in the same post that you demonstrate this behavior.

Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

I don't know what any of the candidates will do once they're on the other side of the vote. They're all liars, and with increasing frequency near election time.

 

[lisab]

I'm not sure that first part is true, but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

Maybe not everyone, but how many does it take to make a difference? I agree that ~20 years ago, Pythagorean's sentiment would be absurd. But consider a question you asked in that post:

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

The very fact that someone like Palin made it as far as she did is astounding to me, and it indicates that the fundamentalists have penetrated the mainstream Republican ranks far further than I imagined was possible.

While I see the point you're making, and I don't fully disagree with it, I just don't trust the Republican party of 2012. It makes me nervous that so many seem to want to use political means to further a fundamentalist agenda, and that they can get so close to doing it.

 

[mheslep]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)

Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?

the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these [PPACA] bills. ...

 

[mheslep]

Let me add to this list:

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-...

http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/

So he's not much of a fiscal conservative either.

As compared to who? Democratic leadership, Pelosi, Reed, Obama?

 

[russ_watters]

That was actually my argument about your characterization of Ryan. Your argument is essentially calling everyone in the mainstream republican party a "fundamentalist", by extension.

No, that's your argument! What the heck?!

The only unfalsifiable arguments used to protest homosexuality are fundamentalist ones. Social and scientific arguments have shown repeatedly that gays make just as fit of parents as straight parents (in some domains, they actually are shown to have slightly better outcomes).

Well:

I agree that ~20 years ago, Pythagorean's sentiment would be absurd.

This is exactly my point. Near as I can tell, for 20,000 years of human cultural development, it was taken for granted that that the biological mom and dad should be the parents. That view has nothing whatsoever to do with religion*. Now you [Pythagorean] think that in 20 years that view can completely flip to being the absurd one? That's just plain not reasonable. The traditional view doesn't have to be right for it to be reasonable to be skeptical of such a radical change. It is certainly not reasonable to label that view as being strictly a religious fundamentalist view and therefore anyone who holds it as being a religious fundamentalist.

*So why is this issue so connected to religion? Because religious people are the ones who care. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Saying what you don't like about John and Jane to make Joe look better is a persuasive tactic, not a reasonable argument. It's particularly disturbing that you want to accuse others of propaganda in the same post that you demonstrate this behavior.

I don't think you know what propaganda is. I didn't use inflammatory language, you did, and the example I used were not cherry-picked to show contrast where it doesn't exist, they were about the most relevant examples possible (the last Repub VP candidate and the last Democratic Presidential candidate).

I don't know what any of the candidates will do once they're on the other side of the vote. They're all liars, and with increasing frequency near election time.

Well ok, then -- there really isn't much to discuss then is there? If they're all liars, you can simply choose to believe whatever you want, regardless of if has any connection to reality.

 

[mheslep]

...Social and scientific arguments have shown repeatedly that gays make just as fit of parents as straight parents (in some domains, they actually are shown to have slightly better outcomes)...

There is at least one published paper in a respected journal and well informed opinion to the contrary.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, you guys worrying about the fundamentalists of the right are being paranoid. You sound like the folks claiming Obama was going to turn America socialist in 2008. The political left tote out this argument about the Republicans and religion every single time, and it doesn't happen. It didn't happen back when it had a greater chance of happening, when the country was more socially conservative.

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

I don't think the goal is to literally take away money from such people, it's to re-work such programs over a period of time with new features to make them sustainable (as some of them are flat-out not sustainable). Ryan's plan for Medicare for example would be completely optional, as in people can try it, but if they don't like it, switch back to their regular Medicare. It is a myth being perpetuated by the Democrats that the Ryan Medicare plan will require people to switch to it regardless. It is as much a myth as the Republican claim that Obama's own Affordable Care Act cuts $500 billion out of Medicare.

Remarkable to me, and troubling, that Ryan proposes no taxes on capital gains, interest, or dividends:

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan

Ah...I see what Romney sees in the guy .

Depends on how you look at it. America's capital gains tax rates, prior to the Bush tax cuts, were pretty unfavorable (many other countries were lower or had none). When you take into account the individual state capital gains tax rates, it is even higher. Now theoretically, dividend taxes and a capital gains tax are double taxes, because the company paying the dividends already has been taxed or the item appreciating in value already had taxes paid on it to purchase it.

However, in practice, that isn't always the case because many businesses can exploit lots of loopholes to ultimately pay nothing in tax. However, if one is able to lower rates but close up loads of the loopholes, then it can lead to an increase in revenues. Under Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for example, when the top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 70% to 28%, thousands of loopholes were closed. Prior to it, higher-earning people actually could pay less in taxes with the 70% top marginal rate because of all the loopholes.

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)

Is that really fundamentalist though, as you're then requiring taxpayers who don't believe in abortion to also fund it? He didn't vote to ban abortion. And abortion is covered I believe for women who are victims of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Again, you are dealing with human life here. Stem cell research is fine, embryonic stem cell research, I can see some people being uneasy about. Remember, "embryo" refers to a human life from the moment of conception up to nine weeks, or 63 days. A functioning, albeit rudimentary, heart, starts beating in an embryo at 22 days with it's own blood. A lot of people I think, when they think "embryo" are thinking of something that is just a couple of cells or something, but it's a little more complex then that.

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Agree here.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

And Obama and many Democrats hold some bizarre and unreasonable positions as well. Until a politician comes along who is inbetween, all one can do is vote for politicians from both sides of the isle to create a balance.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue. Romney and Ryan (and their voters) are going to be left behind when Obama is re-elected.

While the U.S. is progressing, I don't know if it has progressed past the issue yet. We will know it has progressed when a politician can openly support LGBTQ issues wholeheartedly and openly and still be able to win the popular vote. Obama had to pretend during the election that he was anti-gay marriage. That was because it was seen that a greater number of the population is against gay marriage then for it and it thus would hurt him in the election.

Also, if the U.S. has progressed so much on this issue, why do gay marriage initiatives keep failing in the states they're held in? The only states with legal gay marriage have gotten there via the courts or legislature, but none by popular vote.

 

[Evo]

Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?

The difference here is that Obama believes in women's rights.

He adheres to similarly conservative stances on other major issues.

For example, Ryan opposes abortion, believing life begins at conception. He defines legal marriage as between a man and a woman, and voted against ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that banned openly gay and lesbian service members.

An avid hunter, he hailed a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a sweeping ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. (Who hunts with handguns?)

Paul Ryan: I'm a policy person

The race to define Paul Ryan is on

Ryan stumps, heckled at Iowa fair

Explain it to me: Ryan's Medicare plan On foreign policy, the 42-year-old Ryan expresses the conservative view that America's unique founding principle of God-given equal rights for all -- referred to as American exceptionalism -- makes it the rightful and necessary country to exert influence and leadership in the world.

"A world without U.S. leadership will be a more chaotic place, a place where we have less influence, and a place where our citizens face more dangers and fewer opportunities," he said in last year's speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society.

Foreign policy shaped by budget battles

To no one's surprise, Ryan calls for repeal of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, both on fiscal and social grounds.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/13/politics/ryan-issues/index.html

 

[russ_watters]

The very fact that someone like Palin made it as far as she did is astounding to me, and it indicates that the fundamentalists have penetrated the mainstream Republican ranks far further than I imagined was possible.

That is also exactly my point, except that I think the contrast with the current ticket means that should have been written in the past tense. It is early so we'll have to wait and see, but at face value, the contrast between Palin and Ryan implies to me a significant shift in the power-base (loss of power of the Christian Right) of the Republican party.

Also, since I am a Republican, I'm not quite so cynical: McCain was always considered The Maverick and as a result I think he felt he needed to have a running-mate that appealed to the Christian right. Yeah, that's the definition of pandering, but I still believed that McCain himself was still The Maverick. I saw quite a contrast between McCain and Palin, whereas it looks to me like Romney and Ryan are birds of a feather. They seem to me to be all about economics, with neither carrying any sort of religious torch.

While I see the point you're making, and I don't fully disagree with it, I just don't trust the Republican party of 2012.

No doubt: Obama supporters don't trust the Republican ticket and Republicans don't trust the Obama ticket. I'm not nearly as cynical as Pythagorean to think they are all just liars, but certainly it is so early in the race for both sides that we don't yet really know what the key issues are for them.

 

[Evo]

I don't think the goal is to literally take away money from such people, it's to re-work such programs over a period of time with new features to make them sustainable (as some of them are flat-out not sustainable). Ryan's plan for Medicare for example would be completely optional, as in people can try it, but if they don't like it, switch back to their regular Medicare. It is a myth being perpetuated by the Democrats that the Ryan Medicare plan will require people to switch to it regardless. It is as much a myth as the Republican claim that Obama's own Affordable Care Act cuts $500 billion out of Medicare.

Well, read this about Ryan's "plan".

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, would fundamentally remake federal health and long-term care services for the frail elderly and adults with disabilities. He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.

It is fair to say that no major party candidate for national office in a half-century would do more to change the way seniors and those with disabilities get care than Ryan. Here is some of what he’d do:

Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.

The government subsidy level would grow more slowly than the growth of medical costs. As a result, if health costs don’t slow, seniors would end up paying a much larger share of their health expenses than they do now. Today, the federal government pays about 70 percent of Medicare costs while seniors themselves pay about 30 percent. In one version of Ryan’s plan, seniors would pay 70 percent.

Continued...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-would-slash-federal-senior-services/

And where does the financial burden fall for seniors lucky enough to have children? On the children.

But of course if you are rich, as you would be if you weren't a deadbeat leech on society (IMO), this wouldn't affect you.

 

[rootX]

I would like to see which economists are backing Ryan's plan.

It seems bit too ambitious and controversial among many economists as I read on a liberal website.

 

[russ_watters]

Evo; I'm willing to listen to alternative solutions to the Medicare funding issue -- ignoring it, as Obama did, though, does not impress me.

 

[Evo]

Evo; I'm willing to listen to alternative solutions to the Medicare funding issue -- ignoring it, as Obama did, though, does not impress me.

There has to be a sane approach, the rich need to pay a fair share of the tax burden, not be given more tax loopholes and lower taxes. We discussed this before, the rich have ways to "legally" evade taxes. Let's get rid of those laws. I'm watching tv, so I'm just typing between commercials.

Russ, I admire you, you're a cut above when it comes to political arguments. I'll be glad to read more of your posts.