Morning Must Reads: Ryan

  • Share
  • Read Later

Further reading: Three recent Ryan profiles, including one straightforward (by the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza); one hostile (by New York’s Jonathan Chait); and one glowing (by the Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes). See also David Von Drehle’s TIME 2011 Person of the Year runner-up profile.

692 comments
politathiest
politathiest

Dealing with Paule BJ,

OR, repost items that he can't or is to chicken to defend , or hits so to the core truthful or hypocritical to his conservative base he stops trying. Something so Oxymoronic to his base of conservatives he knows no defense is possible. I submit this repost as a suggestion

Paule BJ, writes,

Sound familiar? It should;

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx

Pails BJ, here's references Marx took from to support his positions, behold, the greatest compilations of some of the most socialists of all time. I think we need to distance ourselves from such an obviously corupt religion...don't you agree.

Acts 2 : All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4: 2 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money,have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” - Jesus

18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ 20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ - Jesus.

There's lots more where that came from!

53underscore3
53underscore3

For paulejb's most recent post, I'm going with 6 and 7.

53underscore3
53underscore3

Handling paulejb: A few suggestions:

1. One way to deal with this is to post links and images only in response.  Try to avoid a lot of text that gives him any endthreadable material.

2. His more inane posts just don't respond to, I will observe this, too.

3. Never respond to his endthreads, I won't either.

4. If you must endthread paulejb, but don't give him any text for fodder. Inanae images and links might be a good idea, I'll stick to it, too.

5. Post inane imagery as a response.

6. Don't respond to him.

7. If you feel like refuting something he's posted, start it on a fresh thread directed at all participants. Do not address him directly.

8. Post items that he can't or is too chicken to defend , or hits so to the core truthful or hypocritical to his conservative base he stops trying. (I suggest minimal or no additional text---53_3 comment).

Any other suggestions?

Pollopa
Pollopa

Some of these idioms seem to apply :

Bit off more than he could chew

Did't think this one through

You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear

add your own please.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

3x, earlier today, (edited ala paulie).

"swamp-libtards..."

...followed by several more unsubstantiated insults and personal attacks, then ending with...

"What a disgraceful totally dishonest bunch."

Are you proud of your behavior 3x? Calling everyone a 'libtard' then claiming the "libtards" are the disgraceful ones here? And that's not even counting all your 'you're not a Real American' crap and accusing black people of waging war on white people.

At what point are YOU the disgrace, 3x? What insult would that take? Do you even have a limit?

3xfire3
3xfire3

Obama’s Attack on ‘Workfare’

President Obama has created a firestorm by overturning the work requirements of the popular 1996 welfare-reform law. Now his White House is bristling because Mitt Romney dares to point out that fact on the stump and in a new campaign ad.Obama’s move is only the latest step in a long history of liberal opposition to work requirements. The Left blocked welfare-reform efforts under both Presidents Nixon and Reagan, for example.

In 1996, a Republican Congress drafted a welfare-reform law — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — that for the first time established meaningful work standards for welfare recipients. President Clinton reluctantly signed this legislation.Ever since, Democratic leaders have attempted — unsuccessfully — to repeal welfare’s work standards, blocking reauthorization of TANF and attempting to weaken the requirements.Unable to eliminate “workfare” legislatively, the Left now acts contrary to the law and employs a bureaucratic maneuver to gut the work requirements. The Obama administration claims authority to grant waivers that allow states to skirt these requirements.

This hostility to workfare is deeply at odds with the public’s view. A recent Rasmussen survey reveals that 83 percent of adults favor work requirements. Only 7 percent oppose them.

Recognizing such strong support for work requirements, liberals historically used camouflage tactics: They publicly praised workfare while seeking to murder it behind the scenes. The Obama administration has adopted this “talk right, govern left” strategy.

Humorously, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius even asserts that the administration abolished the TANF work requirements in order to increase work.

This is false.The Obama administration claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF work provisions (section 407), including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates” — in other words, the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can write any policy it chooses. Because HHS granted itself total authority to change any aspect of the work standards, the agency will not be bound by its state-by-state waiver approach in the future.

Moreover, HHS has made it clear that it will not accept waivers for new conservative policies. The agency’s guidance states that it will not approve policy initiatives that are “likely to reduce access to aid.” Translation: HHS will oppose any policy that reduces welfare caseloads. Following the historic pattern, the Obama administration wrapped its anti-work policies in pro-work rhetoric. Stung by criticism, HHS now claims that states receiving a waiver must “commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared [with] the state’s prior performance.”

This sounds impressive, but a state can accomplish this merely by raising monthly “employment exits” (people exiting welfare to take a job) from, say, 5 percent to 6 percent of its caseload. That kind of change will occur automatically as the economy improves.

Liberals traditionally use sham “exit” statistics to pretend they are shrinking welfare, while in reality they’re increasing it. Given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of individuals moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place.

Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. TANF curtailed the use of sham measures of success and established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not “bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.

Obama’s goal is to “spread the wealth” by massively increasing the welfare state. The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.

Roughly a third of the population receives benefits from one or more of these programs. (These figures do not include Social Security or Medicare.) Total welfare spending in 2011 came to $927 billion.Last month, only three of these programs included any type of work requirement. Now that number is two, since Obama ended welfare reform as we know it.

Richard Giles
Richard Giles

The choice is clear as long as we keep reality clear in our minds and the reality is that the rhetoric doesn't ever matter as the politicians' actions will be totally consistent with satisfying the interests of their supporters who demand no less ... and the more support that is given, the more mega-millions that is poured into that support, the more tightly are the strings tied to that support. The abundant and slanted rhetoric offered about the issues is the necessary subterfuge aimed to rationalize, with deception and creative logic, in oder to seem authentic ... but the consistent reality is that the politicians literally have to be focused on satisfying their strong supporters.  It is totally obvious when putting the subterfuge aside and considering what is at the heart of their actions, seeing the reality of who always benefits.

The Republican / Tea Party is owned and controlled by "the money" and over the last twelve years we have clearly seen their "puppet" performances in both the protection of "the money's" interests and their stubborn blocking and arrogant faulting of Obama's and the Democrats' efforts – literally they just have no choice and we should expect nothing else. The Democrats, while receiving a few sizable contributions, are largely dependent on the people for their support and power, which dictates they have to focus on the people's interests ... with the problem there being "all of the people's interests", with it then being hard to satisfy everyone, thus leaving opportunities for many to be conned and manipulated with appeals to biases, prejudices, fears, emotions and loyalties. In the final analysis, it should be remembered that the Republicans have no choice, no matter how they disguise it, but to cater to the 1% and that just leaves no room for ever satisfying the 99%. The rest is simply BS.

filmnoia
filmnoia

The worse thing about Ryan is his putrid taste in music. I mean, the guy even likes The Grateful Dead - sooooo booooring. Most people know that the Stones are the greatest band ever. Anyway .....

 Once the Obama ads about Ryan's budget plan gets a work out around the country you will have  GOP House members and senate candidates soiling themselves as they attempt to run away from it as fast as they can. This ought to be fun.

politathiest
politathiest

Paule BJ, writes,

Sound familiar? It should;

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx

Pails BJ, here's references Marx took from to support his positions, behold, the greatest compilations of some of the most socialists of all time. I think we need to distance ourselves from such an obviously corupt religion...don't you agree.

Acts 2 : All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4: 2 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money,have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” - Jesus

18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ 20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ - Jesus.

There's lots more where that came from!

Pollopa
Pollopa

More on the IOKIYARyan :

1) You don't have to have a REAL job, working in washington your whole career is okey dokey

2) Government programs should help guys like you get through college

3) We got people who do foreign policy

4) Women's issues are for sissies

5) Those catholic bishops and nuns are crazy anyway

6) Telepromters  are tech savvy

7) No need to pay down the deficit it'll get done sometime

8) Whoa dude you want to use Stairway to Heaven for your intro? Go for it

paulejb
paulejb

bobell,

"The president has delivered a budget to Congress every year.  It dies there every year, sabotaged by the Republican House with all sorts of intolerable amendments and therefore ignored or voted down by the Senate."

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

"Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate"

http://www.washingtontimes.com... 

No Amendments, bobell. Just the President's budget.

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

"Yet everyone else manage to figure out how not to come across like needy little children."

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

True. You and the rest of the hive come across as a convention of Know-Nothings. A more ignorant bunch has never been seen.

paulejb
paulejb

Steve0T,

"The neo-con policies of the right-wing chicken hawks are what's increasing the fed. debt, sport. Rmoney-Rayn will bankrupt the nation and gut the middle class, while giving huge tax breaks to the millionaires."

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

Geez! Even your lies are patently moronic. Is that the best you can dredge up, Stevie?

paulejb
paulejb

outsider2011,

"If it's formatting, why does it seem like no one else has the problem?"

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

What problem? It is only chumps like you that claim that there is a problem, but that's only because you're ducking the issues that you can't defend.

paulejb
paulejb

QUESTION:

Is there not even a single liberal at Swampland who knows anything about the Constitution or the rules of the Congress or anything about how the government works other than the date that their next dole check is due.

politathiest
politathiest

It's been a hard choice but I think I've decided to switch my allegiances and go with romney / ryan. I'm a big picture guy and have a good knowledge of world history. Many times on these blogs I've shown through solid facts and statistics the extreme disparity that has formed in the last 20 to 30 years in both income and accumulated assets . It also doesn't take advanced statistics to figure out the disparity will only worsten and so completely starve the middle class of disposable income that eventually, even the poor brainwashed southerners will be kicking themselves for voting against their own self interests and rise up in revolution like they did against the oligarcs of Czarist Russia, 18th century France, Batistas Cuba, etc. Etc. This is the basis of my realignment. While Obamas policies may stave off the coming Oligarcy and plutacratical facism that is coming, even his fighting the good fight of the middle class will only slow down the coming conflict. I now believe it is better to allow the coming crony capitalistic rulers to take over and strip this countries remaining middle class of its remaining "wages" and wealth so we sooner have the coming cleaning that is neccessary and start afresh! To all Dems and progressives, I suggest you consider the following and follow suit and allow for the total libertarianism of all markets and wealth accumulation to continue unfeatered...... Its really only a matter of time any way. As to staunch , "head in the historic sands" conservatives like Paule BJ, remember the saying about gettin what your wishing for. Go Romney / Ryan 2012

outsider2011
outsider2011

 It's going to be something of a weird experience, but for the first

time in my life, I'll be voting Democratic in this fall's presidential

election.

Granted, it won't be that weird: in 2004, I strongly

considered voting for John Kerry out of disgust with President Bush's

failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as well as what I

viewed as his mishandling of the war. Ultimately, I just couldn't bring

myself to vote for someone with a (D) after their name.

This time around, there will be no hesitation on my part. The Mitt

Romney-Paul Ryan presidential ticket is the most distasteful choice I

have encountered in my sixteen years of voting -- because it's the first

GOP ticket in recent history that seems to stand for absolutely

nothing.

I voted for the Bob Dole-Jack Kemp ticket in 1996, repulsed by

President Clinton's attempt to blame talk radio for the Oklahoma City

bombing and what I regarded as his generally low character. Dole struck

me as a moral, honorable man -- and Kemp impressed me with his

commitment to a big-tent, inclusive Republican vision. I felt as though I

was the only person in Massachusetts who voted for Dole-Kemp, but I was

proud of my vote -- and couldn't help reminding my Democratic friends

during the Monica Lewinsky controversy that I didn't vote for their guy.

Anti-Clinton animus continued to motivate me in 2000; while I was temporarily repulsed

by George W. Bush's pandering to the bigots at Bob Jones University in

February 2000, my opposition to all things Clinton was stronger than my

opposition to the Bob Jones visit, and I voted for Bush over Clinton's

vice president, Al Gore. (At the time, I actually blamed the Democrats

for the drawn-out aftermath of the November 7 election, reasoning that

Gore's failure to win Tennessee and Clinton's alienation of Cuban voters

in Florida with his handling of the Elian Gonzalez matter ultimately

brought about the fiasco in Florida, not any chicanery by the GOP.)

In 2004, I doubted Bush's ability to "win" the Iraq War. I was not a

Kerry fan: I viewed him as a standard-issue liberal and loved laughing

at Boston talk radio star Howie Carr's description of the Bay State's

then-junior senator as John "Live Shot" Kerry, so named for his alleged

obsession with getting face time on local TV news shows. Yet I had a

hard time with the idea of voting for Bush again. Bush's April 13, 2004 press conference

in particular disgusted me; his arrogant smirk, his refusal to

acknowledge specific mistakes in his prosecution of the War on Terror

and his overall "I'm the president and you're not!" demeanor ticked me

off. I was even more upset with him than I was four years earlier when

he showed up at Bob Jones University.

I came close, damn close, to going for Kerry. I figured that if the

Republicans retained control of the House and Senate, Kerry's worst

impulses would be restrained. I couldn't imagine Kerry showing weakness

in the War on Terror once he was actually in office.

Yet I couldn't go through with it. It was too much of a psychological shock to vote for a Democrat back then.

In 2008, I ruled out a vote for Barack Obama: I regarded him as too

liberal, too inexperienced, too much like Massachusetts Governor Deval

Patrick, someone I strongly opposed

at the time. McCain's views were simply closer to my own, and I

believed his rhetoric about putting the country first. I initially defended his selection

of Sarah Palin as a necessary and effective way to galvanize the

conservative base -- though she lost me with her suggestion that only

certain parts of the country were "pro-America."

Nevertheless, I voted for McCain, reasoning that his Supreme Court

picks would be better and that he, not Obama, would be able to apply

salve to our partisan wounds.

I still wonder what would have happened if McCain had won. I still

think McCain would have pushed back against the more ideologically

exotic elements of the GOP.

I know for a fact Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan won't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

paulejb
paulejb

Steve0T,

"This country doesn't need the gung-ho spending and tax cuts of the Dubya years."

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

And it certainly does not need Barack Hussein Obama's neo-Marxist vision.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c... 

It didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work here.

paulejb
paulejb

bobell,

"I suppose that you'll claim that calling him a neo-Marxist isn't hateful."

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

It's absolutely accurate, not hateful, bobell. Everything that Obama does and says proves his neo-Marxist tendencies. From "spreading the wealth around" to this little gem: 

"A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared"

http://www.realclearpolitics.c... 

Sound familiar? It should;

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Karl Marx

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Mitt Romney's choice of Rep. Paul Ryan as a vice presidential

candidate has raised the decibel level of the anti-government movement

dramatically. We started Rediscovering Government

at the Roosevelt Institute to balance such ahistorical and destructive

views, and Ryan's is among the most extreme. If we are to think the best

of Ryan, it is this: He believes in what he says. But what he says is a

matter of faith, not of evidence.

Ryan's budget proposal, which propelled him to the headlines a couple of years ago, would return government spending to 16 percent

of GDP, the same the size it was in 1950, before Medicare or Medicaid

were created or Social Security expanded enough to lift the majority of

the elderly out of poverty. He would basically privatize Medicare,

providing an inadequate subsidy to enable the elderly to purchase plans

on the open market. He once proposed to change change Social Security in

a similar way, but that is now apparently on the back burner. He will

deeply gut Medicaid and would almost entirely cut out all other

government spending in coming decades, except for defense, which he

seems to adore. This includes students loans, veteran programs,

infrastructure spending, Ramp;D, and so on.

Despite all this, he would not balance the budget, because the tax

cuts he proposes are so extreme that even his social spending cuts won't

pay for them for a generation. Indeed, the size of his tax cuts seems

to get lost in some analyses. They are bigger than Romney's, really

whoppers. There was a casual promise that they would be partly financed

by closing tax loopholes, but as with Romney, we have yet to see

details.

Most Democrats seem to be rejoicing. They are probably right.

Romney's choice shows just how lost he really is. Unable to ignite his

campaign merely by citing the unemployment numbers against Obama while

hiding all kinds of secrets about his own life, he threw up his hands

and chose Ryan, who one presumes he thinks will energize the base. Now

that the race is about Medicare and tax cuts--and not jobs so much

anymore--the Democrats believe they've got Romney.

But it's worth thinking about why Ryan is so popular with many

Republicans. He is thought of as honest, willing to tell difficult

truths, and courageous. These are qualities few politicians exhibit

today. He is genial. He promises major change, not just incremental

change. Could this perception create a groundswell of support? I think

there is reason to be wary of overconfidence.

But there's reason to question Ryan's supposed honesty. Sharply lower

tax rates will not create renewed prosperity and jobs. Under George W.

Bush, America experienced the slowest rate of job creation in the

postwar period. Under Ronald Reagan, whom the conservatives revere as a

great success, unemployment and deficits remained high, and wages

stopped growing for the next 20 years. George H.W. Bush had to live with

Reagan's broken promises for his difficult four years in office.

Republicans are promoting a myth, and Ryan pretends with the best of

them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

paulejb
paulejb

This is the kind of crap you get when you elect left wing extremists to high office.

The USDA’s ‘Two Millon Dollar Man’

"It seems that the Department of Agriculture is beyond parody, and its Office of the Chief Information Officer did really spend $2,013,396 on an internship program that only produced one intern."  

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

paulejb
paulejb

MomentoMori,

"paulie has to snip these things out of context and jam them at the end of the thread, otherwise he'd come off as a whiny little traitor who thinks more of his party than his country."

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

Mori manages to mix his demented rantings about traitors while carping about the formatting. Sad, really.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Robert Gibbs on lies.  Who do you believe?  More "I am not affiliated with Priorities USA" coming from the Obama Team members.  Just like Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, they are trying to distance themselves from Priorities USA and their despicable ad that is tearing the Obama campaign apart at the seems.  

But, yet again Gibbs doubles down on some ridiculous accusation that Romney is lying in a recent ad he put out that Barack Obama is gutting the welfare to work program passed by a bipartisan House, Senate and President in 1996.  But, Barry has waived the work requirement.  He is allowing States to for-go the law and not track work requirements in the law.  Not only is it unconstitutional, but fully out of Barry's authority to give out the waivers.  But, he is doing it none the less.  

See Gibbs lying in order to pump up his boss.  Robert Gibbs is a liar just like Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.  

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

paulejb
paulejb

'Obama: "A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared" '

http://www.realclearpolitics.c... 

Not exactly a new vision, Barry. Karl Marx came up with it first in 1875.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Karl Marx

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Late Friday, NBC News and the Huffington Post reported that Mitt Romney had chosen Rep. Paul Ryan

(R-Wis.) as his vice presidential nominee. The two will hold a joint

campaign appearance in Norfolk, Virginia on Saturday morning aboard the

USS Wisconsin, before hitting the trail together in advance of the GOP

convention in Tampa in late August. The appeal for Romney is

obvious: Ryan is telegenic (he's 42) with an impeccable reputation among

conservatives as not just a policy wonk but a once-in-a-generation

visionary. (For what it's worth, he also catches catfish with his hands.) As New York's Jonathan Chait explained in a profile of Ryan in April, Ryan, more so than Romney himself, has become the face of the Republican party over the last two years.

But that's also what makes Ryan's choice such a wild card for the GOP

and a potential gift for President Obama and downballot Democrats. His

signature legislative accomplishment, an eponymous budget proposal that

was passed by the House but died in the Senate, would gut the social

safety net and then some. Over the next three months, expect to hear a

lot of variations on this analysis, from the Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities:

Chairman Ryan’s sweeping budget plan has been labeled “courageous,”

but it’s a cowardly budget in a crucial respect. It proposes a dramatic

reverse-Robin-Hood approach that gets the lion’s share of its budget

cuts from programs for low-income Americans — the politically and

economically weakest group in America and the politically safest group

for Ryan to target— even as it bestows extremely large tax cuts on the

wealthiest Americans. Taken together, its proposals would produce the

largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern

U.S. history, while increasing poverty and inequality more than any

measure in recent times and possibly in the nation’s history.

Mitt Romney had already offered his tacit support for the Ryan budget. Now, he's basing his campaign on it.

We'll have more on Ryan in the next few days. In the meantime, read Ryan Lizza's New Yorker profile of Ryan from last week, David Corn on the unseriousness of Ryan's budget, Suzy Khimm on Ryan's union soft spot, and check out Charlie LeDuff on the struggles of Ryan's hometown of Janesville.

http://www.motherjones.com/moj...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 In a way, Paul Ryan

is exactly whom President Barack Obama wanted on the Republican ticket

with Mitt Romney. By selecting the Republican congressman from

Wisconsin, whose name is synonymous with the GOP's

cut-taxes-for-the-rich and

slash-programs-for-the-middle-class-and-the-poor, Romney has helped

Obama in his No. 1 mission: shape the election not as a referendum on

the sluggish economy but as a sharp clash between opposing sets of

values and programs for the future.

Ever since the Democrats' clock was cleaned by the tea party-ized

Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections, Obama has pursued a grand

political strategy

of setting up his reelection contest as a choice between archly

different visions. Long before Romney had vanquished the midgets of the

GOP pack, Obama began using the Ryan budget proposal as his chief foil.

In April 2011, he gave a speech

at George Washington University that was a tongue-lashing of the Ryan's

budget plan, which would end Medicare as a guaranteed benefit and throw

more tax breaks at the well-to-do than George W. Bush could imagine.

Ryan, who attended the speech, was insulted and immediately blasted the president.

Throughout the 2011 battles over budget cuts (which nearly caused a government shutdown) and the debt ceiling limit (which nearly caused a financial crisis), Obama kept pointing to the Ryan budget

as a plan that would cause hardship for many and reflected a

pessimistic and Darwinian GOP vision of the future in which the United

States could not afford to invest in education, infrastructure, and

innovation—the ingredients necessary for a strong economy that would

support a vibrant middle class. While the Republicans praised

individual freedom and the powers of the market (which didn't work too

well in the run-up to the crash of 2008) and once again pressed the

theology of supply-side tax cuts, Obama emphasized communal action,

prudent investments, and responsible deficit-cutting.

The Ryan budget allowed Obama to do all that. Ryan's presence on the ticket will do the same.

http://www.motherjones.com/moj...

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

“The thing I really have against him is actually how he and Gov. Romney have misused the Declaration of Independence,” MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry said on Saturday in reaction to the the Paul Ryan decision. “I’m deeply irritated by their notion that the ‘pursuit of happiness’ means money for the richest and that we extricate the capacity of ordinary people to pursue happiness. When they say ‘God and nature give us our rights, not government,’ that is a lovely thing to say as a wealthy white man.” 

Democrats and their surrogates continuing with the class warfare and with racist statements.  

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Why does CNN hire racists?

3xfire3
3xfire3

Thought you would all like to get this hot off the press information.

Positive views of Ryan jump higher after pick

The Washington Post August 13, 2012

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan — the freshly minted Republican vice presidential candidate — got an immediate ratings boost in the wake of his selection as Mitt Romney’s running-mate, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.Little known nationally before Saturday’s announcement, favorable impressions of Ryan jumped 15 percentage points among the overall electorate with positive views soaring from 49 to 70 percent among conservative Republicans.

In Wednesday through Friday interviews, fully 45 percent of Americans expressed no opinion of Ryan, dropping to 30 percent on Saturday and Sunday. The increasing familiarity all went to the positive side of the ledger, giving Ryan an initial advantage in the sprint to define his candidacy.Overall, in interviews after his selection, 38 percent of all Americans express favorable views of Ryan, 33 percent negative ones. (Before the the announcement, Ryan was somewhat underwater, scoring 23 percent favorable, 32 unfavorable.)

One of the largest movements on Ryan’s favorability numbers was the 21-point jump among conservative Republicans, but the initial movement was positive among independents as well, doubling from 19 to 39 percent. The shift among Democrats was similar in both a positive (up 10 percentage points on favorability) and negative direction (up eight on unfavorability).

Before the announcement, senior citizens split 28 percent apiece positively and negatively on Ryan, but afterward his favorable number shot to 46 percent with no change on the other side of the equation. Seniors are likely to get even more outsized attention in the coming months due to Ryan’s controversial proposal to change the Medicare entitlement.

Wow, he’s favorability went up 18% among Seniors and is now higher than Obama among seniors. He even went up 10% among Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Debbie now says she knew that Priorities USA was run by Democrats.  But, on Fox, Debbie didn't know who was behind it.  

Debbie continues her lies by saying that Romney/Ryan would "end Medicare as we know it", that seniors like her parents and the "tens of thousands" of seniors in her district would be affected by those changes.

That's not true, that's a lie Debbie.  And you are a LIAR.  

The Romney / Ryan medicare would only change for someone YOUNGER than 55 today.  Those 55 and older will have medicare just as medicare is today.  They will be able to continue their retirement planning as if nothing happened at all.  Unless Barry Obama is re-elected, and ObamaCare is allowed to take over 700 BILLION out of that fund in order to bring health care to 12 million other Americans.  

Debbie shouldn't lie to her fellow Americans.  They may get mad and throw her out of office.

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

paulejb
paulejb

This from Steve0T,

"The hive doesn't know whether to throw eggs at you or laugh their heads off."

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

Now try to tell me that I don't live rent free in the hive mind. Even Stevie admits the existence of the hive.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 The stated rationale behind the Republican campaign to require voter ID at the polls is utterly baseless, evidence from a new study confirms.

Republican legislatures are increasingly imposing strict ID

requirements for voters, ostensibly to deter in-person voter fraud. But

voter fraud in general is rare. And that particular form of voter fraud

is "virtually non-existent," according to the extensive public-records

search conducted by News21, a nonpartisan investigative news project

funded by the Carnegie and Knight foundations. Researchers filed more

than 2,000 public-records requests and reviewed nearly 5,000 court

documents, official records and media reports to get their information.

They identified 2,068 alleged cases of voter fraud since the year

2000, a period during which there have been more than 600 million votes

cast in presidential elections alone. That, the study noted, is an

"infinitesimal amount." It also showed a total of 10 cases of in-person voter fraud during that period.

With Republicans in control of so many state houses, 25 laws and two executive actions to restrict voting have passed since the beginning of 2011, in 19 states. The most common new voting law, now effective in nine states, requires voters to show certain government-issued photo identification cards.

Supporters defended voter id laws when News21 presented its data.

“Whether you have proof of it or not, what in the heavens is wrong with

showing an ID at polls?” said Bill Denny, a Republican state

representative in Mississippi who sponsored his state’s voter ID bill.

So why are Republicans pushing for ID cards so hard? One obvious answer: voter suppression.

Despite the popular conception that no one can function in modern society without a valid photo ID, there are an estimated 11 percent of U.S. citizens -- more than 21 million people -- who don't have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with a photograph.

A

multitude of groups are more likely to lack a valid ID: people who

don't leave their homes very often; the disabled; the elderly; people

who have moved since they registered; people who forgot to renew their

licenses; people who don't have cars and live far away from ID-issuing

offices; people who tried to get one, but could not without the birth certificate required to get a government-issued photo ID, and you need a photo ID to get a birth certificate.

By all estimates, those disproportionately affected by voter ID laws

include the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults. Three out of

four of those demographic groups tend to vote more Democratic than

Republican.

Especially if an election is close, disenfranchising several hundred

thousand predominantly Democratic voters could easily change history.

The new study is only the latest to conclude that in-person voter fraud doesn't exist as a problem.

State officials in Pennsylvania, now trying to defend their law in court, nevertheless have conceded

that they have no evidence of prior in-person voter fraud in their

state, or any reason to believe that such a thing would be more likely

without a voter ID law.

By contrast, officials found that, at first glance, it appeared as

many as 1.3 million of Pennsylvania's 8.2 million voters -- more than 1

in 7 -- didn't appear to have valid state IDs.

The News21 research began by reviewing more than 300 cases of alleged voter fraud

collected by the Republican National Lawyers Association. But the

researchers said they found that the list consisted "mainly of newspaper

articles about a range of election issues, with little supporting

evidence of actual in-person voter fraud."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

paulejb
paulejb

Steve0T,

"Bigot Paulie trying to deflect attention. Sorry, sport, only so much bull excrement you can shovel."

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

Your pitiful lack of originality must be record setting, Stevie boy.

La_Randy
La_Randy

Breaking, Shooting near Texas A amp; M.

paulejb
paulejb

Steve0T,

"I admit, ridiculing Teabaggers like you and calling your b.s. out is rather enjoyable."

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

Really, Stevie? Is that what you are doing? I thought that you were just throwing a fit.

paulejb
paulejb

bobell,

"I've stopped posting that we can get along fine without a budget and that the reason the Senate won't pass one is that the Republicals keep inserting poison-pill amendments."

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

With all due respect, bobell, you are full of it.

The Democrat majority can simple vote down any Republican amendment and the Republicans have no recourse. A Budget can not be filibustered. Got that? It CANNOT be filibustered.

You are either lying or abysmally ignorant. Which is it, bobell?