[andi*pandi]

He is not Palin 2.0, he is more qualified. I will give him that. The only comparison I can quickly see is they are both tea party leaning.

It is surprising that Romney didn't choose to balance the ticket more with diversity(Rubio, a woman, etc) or at the very least a southern candidate.

[Chongo]

From Sept 08, 2011. Erskin Bowles, co-chairman of Obama's deficit reduction team, and President Clinton's Chief of Staff and Director of the Small Business Admin..

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzpuqWo6yU[/VIDEO]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

He is not Palin 2.0, he is more qualified. I will give him that. The only comparison I can quickly see is they are both tea party leaning.
It is surprising that Romney didn't choose to balance the ticket more with diversity(Rubio, a woman, etc) or at the very least a southern candidate.

I think Rubio would have turned him down. I think most good candidates would.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think Rubio would have turned him down. I think most good candidates would.

Most GOOD candidates? What makes for a good candidate in your estimation? And why would your idea of a good candidate turn down a chance to run with Mitt Romney???

[Snow-i]

What you won't find anywhere in the left-leaning news:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/videos-surface-dems-praising-ryan-in-contrast-to-extreme-claims/

Before he threatened their power, this guy was praised by key democratic leaders, including Obama himself. Seems that the democratic party is moving away from "fixing the economy" as a campaign platform.

[The Final Dakar]

I thought his rise to prominence was based in part on positive comments by Obama.

Edit: I thought Ryan dealt with the deficit, not the economy.

[OAW]

The new Romney/Ryan campaign logo?



Predictable but somewhat clever nevertheless.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Meh.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The new Romney/Ryan campaign logo?

Predictable but somewhat clever nevertheless.
OAW

I like the Obama logo better

[The Final Dakar]

I don't get it. Also, two lens flares?

[OAW]

@Chongo ..... nice!

OAW

[andi*pandi]

Instead of Forward?

[The Final Dakar]

Was that his old slogan? All I remember is hope and change.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is principally aimed at growth yes, but I don't see how a simpler structure is more complicated on a larger scale. In other words, I often use this argument myself with regard to maintaining bureaucracy, but how is less of it necessarily more problematic by virtue of scale?

The structure doesn't break down with size, it's whether that structure provides the government with enough money to function properly.

If you have an immense, non-homogenous country, that's going to cost more per capita than in a small, homogenized country.

Also, how much are these countries really growing vs. just attracting banking money from other countries.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Was that his old slogan? All I remember is hope and change.

It's the new slogan

http://www.barackobama.com/

[The Final Dakar]

...and that shows how much I'm paying attention.

[andi*pandi]

liberal slacker!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

liberal slacker!

Redundant.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The structure doesn't break down with size, it's whether that structure provides the government with enough money to function properly.
If you have an immense, non-homogenous country, that's going to cost more per capita than in a small, homogenized country.

At some point the spending so far exceeds the revenue that you're no longer talking about this tax or that without alienating behaviors you're going to need. IMO, this is where we are and I suppose "function properly" is subject to interpretation. A 0'd rate activates commerce. It's stimulus for anyone who buys and sells. In short, we should free money up, not print it. I sense that businesses are scared of the people at the top and it's trickling-down. I would argue that in a system as large as ours, simple is better.

Also, how much are these countries really growing vs. just attracting banking money from other countries.

Yes, banking money from other countries like the US. I'd like to change that.

[subego]

I don't disagree with you fundamentally, I'm just trying to be a realist about it. That's a ****ton of money, and where is a replacement going to come from?

You can cut all the programs you want. We're still way in the hole.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The new Romney/Ryan campaign logo?

Predictable but somewhat clever nevertheless.
OAW

Don't all you Obamabots realize that we can hire Romney and Ryan to do for America what you accuse them of only doing for themselves and their 'rich friends?'

Or would that violate your principles or something?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Don't all you Obamabots realize that we can hire Romney and Ryan to do for America what you accuse them of only doing for themselves and their 'rich friends?'
Or would that violate your principles or something?

You mean outsource jobs to China and closing plants/shops in the US?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You mean outsource jobs to China and closing plants/shops in the US?

No, I mean..."Where are the jobs, Mr. Obama?"

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

No, I mean..."Where are the jobs, Mr. Obama?"

You mean where are the jobs RNC keynote speaker Chris Christie?

Unemployment rate in NJ remains unchanged since Chris Christie became governor in 2010.

NJ unemployment is doing much worst than the national rate.

So RNC choose Chris Christie not because he knows anything about job creation, but because he is a big fat loudmouth.

4993/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You mean where are the jobs RNC keynote speaker Chris Christie?
Unemployment rate in NJ remains unchanged since Chris Christie became governor in 2010.
NJ unemployment is doing much worst than the national rate.
So RNC choose Chris Christie not because he knows anything about job creation, but because he is a big fat loudmouth.
4993/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

I believe we are talking about BARACK OBAMA'S sorry job performance while occupying the White House.

Although your attempt to shift the focus from the man who doesn't really understand what it is to be an American because his formative years were spent on the streets of Jakarta and Nairobi, to the corpulent all-American New Jersey Governor, comes straight from the Saul Alinsky radical playbook, it's not going to work with me, buck-o.

We're talking about the Presidential race and the selection of a fine man and terrific VP candidate, Paul Ryan.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You mean outsource jobs to China and closing plants/shops in the US?

How does GE or anyone else in Obama's two economic advisory panels have anything to do with this?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't disagree with you fundamentally, I'm just trying to be a realist about it. That's a ****ton of money, and where is a replacement going to come from?
You can cut all the programs you want. We're still way in the hole.

The only way, and I mean only; is to grow out of it. You can't do this with policies hostile to the growth you're going to need.

[Chongo]

The only one rolling granny over a cliff are the Democrats and Obama and his $700 billion cut to Medicare to pay for ACA.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Hahahaha!
Obama has already lost the election and many of his fanboys are going to wake up on Nov. 7th and wonder how it could have happened. Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth they will experience! Shades of 2004.

Once again, you prove you've missed your calling, and should be doing stand up.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You mean outsource jobs to China and closing plants/shops in the US?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How does GE or anyone else in Obama's two economic advisory panels have anything to do with this?

Let's not forget Obama is heavily investing in oil drilling, in Brazil. Then there is Obama's war on Coal.

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU[/VIDEO]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The only one rolling granny over a cliff are the Democrats and Obama and his $700 billion cut to Medicare to pay for ACA.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/heal...disagreem.html

None of these reductions were financed by cuts to Medicare enrollees' eligibility or benefits; benefits were improved in the ACA. Cuts were focused on hospitals, health insurers, home health, and other providers. Except for insurers, all the affected groups publicly supported the reductions to help finance the ACA's expansion in health insurance to about 32 million uninsured Americans.

In the spring of 2011, the new Republican House majority votes overwhelmingly in favor of the budget proposal advanced by the new House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Ryan proposes a controversial restructuring of Medicare to move it in a premium support/voucher direction beginning in 2023, a proposal that gets lots and lots of attention, pro and con. Ryan's budget proposal also includes complete repeal of the ACA, with one little-noticed exception, the $500 billion in ACA Medicare reductions.

Nearly every House and Senate Republican votes for the Ryan proposal. In the spring of 2012, Ryan again releases the plan, and includes the same repeal of the ACA, minus the Medicare reductions, now approaching $700B. And, again, nearly every House Republican votes for the plan.

So, what am I missing here?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then there is Obama's war on Coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...of_Mitt_Romney

In 2003, Romney as Governor of Massachusetts, said in a press release "If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts . . . I will always come down on the side of public health."[41] Insisting that a coal power plant meet tough emissions standards even at the cost of losing jobs, Romney announced "I will not protect jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people."

Amazing.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/heal...disagreem.html
So, what am I missing here?

The ACA is law. How will cuts in payments to hospitals, health insurers, home health, and other providers NOT affect current enrollees?

Remember this?

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo[/VIDEO]

Then there was this call to Mark Levin's show last December

http://blog.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Phone_call_from_Neurosurgeon_32bps-1.mp3

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The ACA is law.

What is this, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"? If the republicans had their way, they'd cut just as much. Only there'd be no ACA to pick up the slack.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How will cuts in payments to hospitals, health insurers, home health, and other providers NOT affect current enrollees?
Remember this?

Then there was this call to Mark Levin's show last December
http://blog.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Phone_call_from_Neurosurgeon_32bps-1.mp3

Got text?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only way, and I mean only; is to grow out of it. You can't do this with policies hostile to the growth you're going to need.

Again, I don't disagree with you. What I disagree with is the severity with which you think these pretty non-onerous rates will crush growth.

Didn't we have had a 20% (or more) rate when Reagan was president?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What is this, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"? If the republicans had their way, they'd cut just as much. Only there'd be no ACA to pick up the slack.

You forgot starve children and poison the water.

Got text?

Mark Levin asked the same thing. It sounds in line with Obama's take a pain pill response.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You forgot starve children and poison the water.

Uh, what?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Mark Levin asked the same thing. It sounds in line with Obama's take a pain pill response.

Uh, what?

[OldManMac]

Some more Ryan reality. This man is so out of touch with the American people, he hasn't got chance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/paul-ryan-more-trouble-than-hes-worth/2012/08/14/7191d68e-e628-11e1-8741-940e3f6dbf48_blog.html?hpid=z7


All the profiles of Ryan note his full embrace of supply-side economics. So, I was surprised to see David Stockman, Mr. Supply Side himself, blasting Ryan to smithereens on the New York Times op-ed page today.
Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse....
Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade.
A true agenda to reform the welfare state would require a sweeping, income-based eligibility test, which would reduce or eliminate social insurance benefits for millions of affluent retirees. Without it, there is no math that can avoid giant tax increases or vast new borrowing. Yet the supposedly courageous Ryan plan would not cut one dime over the next decade from the $1.3 trillion-per-year cost of Social Security and Medicare.
Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Shifting more Medicaid costs to the states will be mere make-believe if federal financing is drastically cut.
The fire coming from Stockman is akin to that coming from Republicans behind the scenes. Politico reports that the fret level within the GOP political class is high over the selection of Ryan as Romney’s running mate.

They’re worried about inviting Medicare — usually death for Republicans — into the campaign. They’re worried it sidetracks the jobs issue. They’re worried he’ll expose the fact that Romney doesn’t have a budget plan. Most of all, they’re worried that Romney was on track to lose anyway — and now that feels all but certain....

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

They’re worried he’ll expose the fact that Romney doesn’t have a budget plan

Unlike Obama's budget that was rejected by the Senate 97-0

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Unlike Obama's budget that was rejected by the Senate 97-0

Think about this for a second Chongo.

You're not a fan of Democrats. Do you actually think not a single one supports Obama's budget? They've all seen the light. Right now, during an election?

Tell me with a straight face you really think Obama doesn't have the support of his party.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What you won't find anywhere in the left-leaning news:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/videos-surface-dems-praising-ryan-in-contrast-to-extreme-claims/
Before he threatened their power, this guy was praised by key democratic leaders, including Obama himself. Seems that the democratic party is moving away from "fixing the economy" as a campaign platform.

Great post.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Think about this for a second Chongo.
You're not a fan of Democrats. Do you actually think not a single one supports Obama's budget? They've all seen the light. Right now, during an election?
Tell me with a straight face you really think Obama doesn't have the support of his party.

Don't take my word for it.


[VIDEO][VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzpuqWo6yU[/VIDEO][/VIDEO]

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Don't take my word for it.
[VIDEO][VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzpuqWo6yU[/VIDEO][/VIDEO]

The video tag doesn't work yet (if it ever will).

I'm not questioning the vote happened, I'm asking you to justify the conclusion you've come to about it.

Tell me with a straight face you really think Obama doesn't have the support of his party. This doesn't seem the slightest bit fishy to you?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You forgot starve children and poison the water.

Chongo, can you please clarify what this means?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Chongo, can you please clarify what this means?

For the last 40 years, I keep hearing every election cycle how Republicans want to starve children, poison the water, and blah blah blah.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

For the last 40 years, I keep hearing every election cycle how Republicans want to starve children, poison the water, and blah blah blah.

Since, I didn't say that, why the strawman? Is this what passes for a rebuttal to my pointing out that Republicans want to cut medicare in some fashion, while simultaneously fear-mongering that Obama will do the very same thing?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Since, I didn't say that, why the strawman? Is this what passes for a rebuttal to my pointing out that Republicans want to cut medicare in some fashion, while simultaneously fear-mongering that Obama will do the very same thing?

Obama has already made a $700 billion cut to Medicare

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

The video tag doesn't work yet (if it ever will).
I'm not questioning the vote happened, I'm asking you to justify the conclusion you've come to about it.
Tell me with a straight face you really think Obama doesn't have the support of his party. This doesn't seem the slightest bit fishy to you?

His budgets don't have their support



You can't see the YouTube Video?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Obama has already made a $700 billion cut to Medicare

I already addressed that. Do you want to address what the same amount of cuts Republicans support and want to pass?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I already addressed that. Do you want to address what the same amount of cuts Republicans support and want to pass?

From what I have read, the suggested restructuring of medicare would allow future participants more options, including the same plan enjoyed by Congress.com

From CatholicVote. http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34581

Ryan & Obama’s Contrasting Medicare Visions


by Dan Flaherty


The selection of Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan to be the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket is going to have one definite effect on the national debate between now and November—the future of Medicare is going to be a topic of conversation.

Two distinct alternatives on the future of Medicare will be on display in the presidential election

No side in this debate seriously disputes that the rising costs of health care threaten the existence of the social insurance program for the elderly, one of the old Democratic Party’s great achievements that’s today imperiled because it’s present-day stewards stay locked in on reactionary thinking, something that becomes crystal-clear when you consider the alternatives each side offers on cost control.

President Obama’s solution is to establish government boards that determine “quality of care over quantity.” These boards are the infamous “Death Councils”, that came in for such criticism in August 2009.

I don’t really believe the president envisions a world where the government orders the offing of the elderly. But he proposes a structure which, over time, is going to offer a clear temptation to do just that. And it’s that structure, not the intentions of the Oval Office’s current occupant which will endure.

Congressman Ryan’s proposals work to bring market forces into the equation and allow competition amongst insurers to drive costs down. By giving Medicare recipients a voucher, they can shop for the plan that best suits their needs.

For those who believe in the Catholic Church’s social justice vision, I would argue that the use of vouchers, as proposed by Ryan, bridge the gap between the historical achievements of traditional Democrats in the establishment of the social insurance and the need for upgrading those programs and bringing them into the 21st century.

"Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (Pope John Paul II, 1988, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici), n.38).