Paul Ryan Discussion

[po18guy]

Take name and political party affiliation out of the picture. Look at the aggregate economic indicators. Current ideas and direction are clearly not working in the nation’s (or the world’s) favor.

To me, this is like a person who has fallen overboard, but is criticizing the life preserver that the Captain intends to throw to them, because it has a scuff or stain on it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Poll: Gop not hurt by medicare reform

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/25/poll-gop-not-hurt-by-medicare-reform

 

[_Abyssinia]

Poll: Gop not hurt by medicare reform

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/25/poll-gop-not-hurt-by-medicare-reform

 

[LisaA]

Thank you for explaining yet again Bob. The only problem here is that many are economically illiterate.

Many people don’t realize that if they have 401k’s, IRA’s, etc. they:

1. Most likely have investments offshore
2. The money is sheltered from taxes.

So in order to not be hypocritical, people complaining about what Romney is doing would have to fogro all their deductions and pull their money out of thier investments.

Also of course remember all of the cries of “Why doesn’t Romney HELP America by putting the money in American banks.” Aside from the reality that “money” is numbers on a piece of paper, not gold bullion in a safety deposit box, the same people likely have a house full of electronics made in China, a car made in Japan, eating food from South America and putting Canadian based gas in their cars.

Oh yes, these items are higher quality or far less expensive than the American counterpart. But if you are Mitt Romney you’re supposed to be magnanimous and forget about stability and security and return on investments and instead put them into American banks…of course the same American banks might well loan those funds to benefit a company or individual that has non-American operations or investments…

Oh and I LOVE Harry Reid saying he “hides” money in Swiss bank accounts. Gee Harry even a blind squirrel finds nuts now and then and since you’ve discovered these “hidden” assets I have to wonder who well hidden they are.

Truly a silly and pointless issue but when you a record of failure and misery, you have to point at bright shiny objects…or squirrels.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I think the trouble with Romney is that his pro-choice, pro-gay rights views of the past aren’t so far in the distant past. Therefore the electorate isn’t quite sure what his core values are and what positions he is likely to advocate and attempt to implement in the near future after his possible election. With Obama, we know and with Ryan, we know; but with Romney, we are left wondering. The only true constant for Romney is his lack of consistency; that is, except for foreign policy, in which he has no past track record to speak of, only his current statements, which, one can only hope, are mere political pandering…

Why are you left wondering? Had he gone back and forth a few times, maybe you could make a claim that you don’t know where he stands. But when someone makes a change of mind, makes a commitment and sticks with it, I tend to believe them. Maybe because I was pro abortion rights until I was in my 40s. Now I am strongly pro-life. I am NOT going back to the dark side and I don’t think Romney would either. I have listened to his statements regarding these issues and one of the things he said when running I think for Senate was “Roe is the law of the land.” Who else said that? Justice John Roberts. I think he has some pro life cred even though I disagree with his Obamacare decision.

Further and more important there is one consistency I’ve seen in long observance of Romney (he was my pick in 08 and I’ve never wavered on my support) and that is he is a PROBLEM SOLVER and he is a SUCCESS at everything he’s ever done.

Compare this to Obama Biden neither of whom accomplished anything in their pre-political life. My theory is that Obama doesn’t want us to see his transcripts or more importantly his college applications is that he used his skin color and perhaps his father’s foreign status to get into these colleges. How else could a dope smoking self described slacker have even been accepted at these colleges?

In regard to the war, Obama has at least set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, something Romney is opposed to. And with regard to the Iraq War, Obama was one of the few who voted against it, if I remember correctly.

The timetable, according to literally every general is the wrong approach. As many experts have said, Afghanistan never loses a war, they just defect to the winning side. Having had many personal and lengthy correspondences with troops on the ground in Afghanistan, either we should have significantly escalated the war or left long ago. This cobbled together nation building is not what the military was sent to do. I hope we’ve learned our lesson…

I believe Obama came into the Senate in 2005. He had no chance to vote against the Iraq War which began when he was in Illinois voting “present” and supporting laws protecting infanticide.

Lisa

PS you can probably tell who I’m voting for

 

[meltzerboy]

Why are you left wondering? Had he gone back and forth a few times, maybe you could make a claim that you don’t know where he stands. But when someone makes a change of mind, makes a commitment and sticks with it, I tend to believe them. Maybe because I was pro abortion rights until I was in my 40s. Now I am strongly pro-life. I am NOT going back to the dark side and I don’t think Romney would either. I have listened to his statements regarding these issues and one of the things he said when running I think for Senate was “Roe is the law of the land.” Who else said that? Justice John Roberts. I think he has some pro life cred even though I disagree with his Obamacare decision.

Further and more important there is one consistency I’ve seen in long observance of Romney (he was my pick in 08 and I’ve never wavered on my support) and that is he is a PROBLEM SOLVER and he is a SUCCESS at everything he’s ever done.

Compare this to Obama Biden neither of whom accomplished anything in their pre-political life. My theory is that Obama doesn’t want us to see his transcripts or more importantly his college applications is that he used his skin color and perhaps his father’s foreign status to get into these colleges. How else could a dope smoking self described slacker have even been accepted at these colleges?

The timetable, according to literally every general is the wrong approach. As many experts have said, Afghanistan never loses a war, they just defect to the winning side. Having had many personal and lengthy correspondences with troops on the ground in Afghanistan, either we should have significantly escalated the war or left long ago. This cobbled together nation building is not what the military was sent to do. I hope we’ve learned our lesson…

I believe Obama came into the Senate in 2005. He had no chance to vote against the Iraq War which began when he was in Illinois voting “present” and supporting laws protecting infanticide.

Lisa

PS you can probably tell who I’m voting for

Obama/Biden? (My reading comprehension isn’t as good as it used to be.)
Seriously though, my hope at this point is that the team who can best help our country wins the election.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Yes, he was, but this kind of rhetoric will continue to push logical people away from the GOP, which is actually fine by me.

You really think so?

• m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dwh_w2I0NIc4&v=wh_w2I0NIc4&gl=US
• obamaspast.com/

Even His Grandmother Swears He was Born in Kenya.

• commieblaster.com/ineligible/index.html

Shalom
God bless

 

[LisaA]

Again, it’s money that isn’t taxed now - that’s my point. I can put more money into my 401k and reduce my current tax burden for 30-40 years. If someone looked at my tax returns, they would most likey say I’m not paying as much as I could be paying.

According to that vague anti Romney article previously cited YOU too are investing in TAX SHELTERS…the horror of it all!

There has never been a law or even a concept that one is noble by paying more than they owe. Most “tax shelters” or tax deferrals which is a more proper term, were created to stimulate a particular behavior that is considered a societal good. Everything from charitable deductions to deferring income into retirement plans to investing in capital assets to municipal bonds has an intended benefit to society. While some disagree with using tax law for social engineering, the reality is our Code is full of such devices. If you think they are detrimental to society or unfair, then work to legislate them away. But it’s simply petty and disingenuous to point fingers at Romney or others when they are following the law and taking advantage of the same law that applies to everyone else.

Although Reagan is known for dramatically reducing tax rates (which incidentally INCREASED revenue just as with John Kennedy’s reductionss) few give him credit for the laws that basically eviscerated the rather abusive tax “shelters” that were common investments at the time. The good old days of putting in a small investment and then reaping huge deductions without actually putting your money at risk are long gone.

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

He’s responding to McGurn point by point. The lack of specificity should be laid at the door of the article that “set the agenda”–McGurn’s. ** This is not a good excuse for Winters. If he wanted to show McGurn wrong, he should have done it, not just disagreed without giving any good reason why anyone else should disagree.**

Again, he’s responding to McGurn. He doesn’t say that Ryan wants to do away with food stamps–he’s responding to McGurn’s claim that “liberals” want to continue “food stamps” ad infinitum without considering the effects of such policies. **Same. If Winters wanted to show that liberals don’t, he could have given some evidence for it. The absence of any plan on liberals’ part is what McGurn was talking about. It was Winters’ obligation to show otherwise if it is otherwise, but he didn’t. **

The only distinctions Ryan himself has made are that he doesn’t agree with her atheism and her epistemology. He has not, that I’m aware of, named any aspect of her economic/social thought with which he agrees. Hence, it seems clear to me that Ryan is the one who is obfuscating–he’s getting all indignant at being held accountable for his expressed admiration for Rand’s economic/social views, but his “refutation” is to mention unrelated points on which he doesn’t agree with her. This is a shell game.
Of course, his budget plans are “non-Rand” inasmuch as they do preserve the “safety net”. Isn’t that clear enough to show that he doesn’t agree with Rand on social policies? There’s no shell game to it. Liberals can’t show that he’s anything more than a believer that redistribution for its own sake, and the cronyism and bureaucracy that attends it. Instead, they just want to identify him with Rand as if they could ignore what he really has done and proposes. It’s lame, and I think as Ryan continues talking about policy, the Rand libel will fade.

But the burden of proof is on the one who asserts. McGurn asserted, uncharitably and unjustly, that “liberal” Catholics who oppose Ryan are themselves dissenters. What McGurn said is that truly liberal Catholics are dissenters, which they are. They are dissenters when it comes to life issues, but also when it comes to economic issues. Catholic teachings regarding the needy urge addressing the truly needy. Left liberals are proponents of middle class welfare for class identity purposes, and ignore the truly needy.

It’s not merely a “budgetary” problem. This is the Big Lie the right is putting forward about Ryan–that he’s just a pragmatic, fiscally conservative policy wonk. Nonsense. There’s a clear ideology behind Ryan’s budgetary proposals, an ideology that matches his often-expressed enthusiasm for Rand. That’s why Rand is important. Rand is irrelevant to an honest analysis of Ryan.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Also of course remember all of the cries of “Why doesn’t Romney HELP America by putting the money in American banks.” Aside from the reality that “money” is numbers on a piece of paper, not gold bullion in a safety deposit box, the same people likely have a house full of electronics made in China, a car made in Japan, eating food from South America and putting Canadian based gas in their cars.

Additionally, there is no certainty that the money is NOT invested in the U.S. Money comes into the U.S. from all kinds of foreign banking sources, and for a lot of reasons, just as it outflows to all kinds of places for all kinds of reasons.

It would be unusual, indeed, if any offshore money Romney has is NOT invested somewhere by the bank itself or by the entity that controls the funds. For all we know, he might be loaning the money to Bain, investing it in the stock market, financing real estate or any number of things.

But it isn’t just sitting there.

 

[Ender]

What an astonishing discussion. Ryan is being attacked for being an acolyte of Ayn Rand even though no one has actually identified anything he has done or proposed that is outside normal political differences. Romney is being attacked because the possibility has been raised that he may have followed the law and employed tax shelters. In neither case is there any substantive charge about … anything. It is understandable why the administration would circulate such charges but it is truly incomprehensible why anyone actually takes them seriously.

For the true believers I don’t suppose it matters what the arguments are; they will vote to continue the policies that have so plainly failed. For those who are concerned about serious issues, however, like the level of unemployment and the ballooning deficit, it hardly needs pointing out that side shows “issues” like Ayn Rand and a global investment portfolio truly are insignificant.

Ender

 

[rlg94086]

What an astonishing discussion. Ryan is being attacked for being an acolyte of Ayn Rand even though no one has actually identified anything he has done or proposed that is outside normal political differences. Romney is being attacked because the possibility has been raised that he may have followed the law and employed tax shelters. In neither case is there any substantive charge about … anything. It is understandable why the administration would circulate such charges but it is truly incomprehensible why anyone actually takes them seriously.

For the true believers I don’t suppose it matters what the arguments are; they will vote to continue the policies that have so plainly failed. For those who are concerned about serious issues, however, like the level of unemployment and the ballooning deficit, it hardly needs pointing out that side shows “issues” like Ayn Rand and a global investment portfolio truly are insignificant.

Ender

 

[stinkcat_14]

A vote for a third party is a vote for Obama. See Perot, Ross

But of course, that is a matter for the prudential judgement of the individual. There is nothing in Church teaching that says we must consider the electability of the person we vote for.

 

[stinkcat_14]

He wasn’t a third party candidate. A vote for the “Constipation” party will be a vote FOR Obama. If you are Catholic, it’s not a possiblity.

Lisa

Please quote me church teaching that says voting for a third party is immoral.

 

[rlg94086]

Please quote me church teaching that says voting for a third party is immoral.

It’s definitely not immoral. Dumb or self-defeating, if you prefer the opposite of Obama? Perhaps. But, it’s not immoral.

 

[LisaA]

Please quote me church teaching that says voting for a third party is immoral.

I’m sorry this was confusing. If you read it the way I wrote it, voting for Obama is not a possibility if you are a practicing Catholic. THAT would be immoral. However the Romney Ryan ticket is considered acceptable for Catholics so voting for this ticket wouldn’t be immoral.

My reference to third party throwaway votes is that in effect since these third parties don’t have any chance of winning, in effect this gives Obama one more vote he would not have had if you’d voted for the other ticket.

You see, a win win situation Vote AGAINST Obama and vote for a candidate who can and I pray will win in November. Or toss your vote away and give us four more years of misery, incompetence and a militant pro-death agenda. Imagine Obama cut loose from having to mollify ANYONE.

Lisa

 

[stinkcat_14]

It’s definitely not immoral. Dumb or self-defeating, if you prefer the opposite of Obama? Perhaps. But, it’s not immoral.

It may or may not be dumb. Like I said, it is a matter for prudential judgement. Voting for a third party does have consequences. I imagine those consequences are going to be a lot different in California than in Wisconsin, given that Romney has pretty much zero chance in California.

 

[gnjsdad]

voting for Obama is not a possibility if you are a practicing Catholic. THAT would be immoral.

This I agree with.

LisaA:

However the Romney Ryan ticket is considered acceptable for Catholics so voting for this ticket wouldn’t be immoral.

There are serious problems with the Romney/Ryan economic agenda in terms of Catholic social doctrine.

Voting for either is morally problematic because both are opposite poles of an individualistic ideology that is antithetical to Catholic teaching. Obama’s promotion of sexual libertarianism is matched by Romney’s promotion of an economic libertarianism that coddles the wealthy and kicks the poor.

Read the articles linked by Contarini.

 

[LisaA]

This I agree with.

There are serious problems with the Romney/Ryan economic agenda in terms of Catholic social doctrine.

Voting for either is morally problematic because both are opposite poles of an individualistic ideology that is antithetical to Catholic teaching. Obama’s promotion of sexual libertarianism is matched by Romney’s promotion of an economic libertarianism that coddles the wealthy and kicks the poor.

Read the articles linked by Contarini.

There are many bishops who defend the Romney/Ryan ticket’s approach. One of my most admired Catholics, Cardinal Dolan is speaking at the Republican Convention. (BTW he was dissed and NOT allowed to speak at the Dem Convention apparently). When Cardinal Dolan says Romney/Ryan as a ticket are unacceptable, I’ll listen.

Further there is no comparison between a disagreement on a non-negotiable like Sanctity of Life and a disagreement about the method of dealing with social problems such as poverty.

BTW IS there a third party candidate that has the support of every Bishop in the country?

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

It may or may not be dumb. Like I said, it is a matter for prudential judgement. Voting for a third party does have consequences. I imagine those consequences are going to be a lot different in California than in Wisconsin, given that Romney has pretty much zero chance in California.

Exactly. That’s why I said perhaps.

That said, California has gone Republican in the past, so I would never put it at zero. Unlikely? Yes. Zero? No.