Paul Ryan!!

[Rich_Olszewski]

Not to mention that Cubans and Puerto Ricans tend NOT to like each other. And Caribbean latinos don’t consider themselves in the same case of ethnicity as South American latinos. To say that the Latino vote is homogenous is to say that the Catholic vote is homogenous. It simply isn’t.

I didn’t say that he’d get the entire Latino vote. Rubio is Cuban-American, Florida’s Latino community is mostly Cuban-American, he’d get that good conservative bloc of Latinos. It would do the GOP well not to be as lily-white as it always is.

 

[salusanimarum17]

I didn’t say that he’d get the entire Latino vote. Rubio is Cuban-American, Florida’s Latino community is mostly Cuban-American, he’d get that good conservative bloc of Latinos. It would do the GOP well not to be as lily-white as it always is.

“Picking a Latino would have guaranteed that vote”, you said. The “conservative bloc” will go for Romney/Ryan, won’t they? It would do us all well to not divide the USA into race/ethnicities (cf. Obama at the 2004 convention) and make generalizations about them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t worry about the poor. Why should the GOP care about them? The GOP mantra is Matt 26:11, “The poor you will always have with you.” So, it doesn’t matter what cuts the GOP makes further empoverishing the poor.

Let’s see. Obamacare removes some $700 billion from medicare funding. I’ll agree that not all elderly are poor. But many are. The chief actuary for Medicare says by 2022, Medicare will pay less than Medicaid. Since Medicaid is not particularly desired by providers, the elderly poor will be in a bad way under Obamacare.

Obamacare adds 17 million people to Medicaid. Providers limit the number of Medicaid patients they will take. So those who are poorer than the ones to be added will be crowded out further.

“Cash for clunkers” was a subsidy to the upper middle class and the rich. It destroyed the “clunkers” upon which poor people depend for transportation and drove the price of used cars higher through scarcity.

Obama could have, during his first two years, passed any legislation “for the poor” he wanted. Did he improve SSI, the program for the disabled needy; the poorest of the poor? No. Nothing for them. Cash for Clunkers, yes. Raise SSI, no.

While one might question whether the Repubs are going to improve the lot of the truly poor, it’s fairly certain the Dems won’t. They had their chance and showed that they don’t care any more for the truly poor than they say the Repubs do. It’s possible, of course, that if the Repubs succeed in curtailing Dem middle class welfare and welfare for the rich, they just might aid the poor. No certainty, but they might. After all, the last real benefit to the poor was Reagan’s Earned Income Credit.

“True believer liberals” aren’t totally happy with Obama because of things like that. Nor should they be. There ought to be more to liberalism than sexual politics, and among some there is.

 

[Charlotte408]

Setting aside the fact that I find little of value in these projections, what does he project the size of the economy to be in 2050? How does it compare to 1950? There is your growth.

Yes but if there is only a certain amount of that growth allotted to each of the programs per the budget, wouldn’t that excess go to savings or to pay off the debt?

Which is a good thing, we should save and we should be trying to be debt free - I just worry that our needs are not as they were in 1950.

Please clarify for me if I am not understanding the process.

 

[SamH]

Yes but if there is only a certain amount of that growth allotted to each of the programs per the budget, wouldn’t that excess go to savings or to pay off the debt?

Which is a good thing, we should save and we should be trying to be debt free - I just worry that our needs are not as they were in 1950.

Please clarify for me if I am not understanding the process.

Actually our needs are the same as they were in 1950 - its the wants that have grown.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Obama could have, during his first two years, passed any legislation “for the poor” he wanted. Did he improve SSI, the program for the disabled needy; the poorest of the poor? No. Nothing for them. While one might question whether the Repubs are going to improve the lot of the truly poor, it’s fairly certain the Dems won’t. They had their chance and showed that they don’t care any more for the truly poor than they say the Repubs do. It’s possible, of course, that if the Repubs succeed in curtailing Dem middle class welfare and welfare for the rich, they just might aid the poor. No certainty, but they might.

Well argued.

 

[DeniseNY]

" It would do us all well to not divide the USA into race/ethnicities (cf. Obama at the 2004 convention) and make generalizations about them.

But class and race warfare is all the left has to offer.

 

[AtomicB]

sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/is-ryan-veep-material/1783606239001

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I have a question. CBO showed Ryan’s plan four decades into the future, and said that the size of government would shrink to 15% of the economy by 2050, which would be the smallest government since 1950/'51. How would we provide for the growth of our country from 1950 till now? What kind of impact would that drastic of a cut have on education or other programs that serve the poor?

Tell us how simply throwing money at our problems has solved them over the last 4 decades. Poverty is still at the same levels even though we have government programs to help get people off of them, our education systems have gone down in quality despite getting more money.

At some point the gravy train will become unsustainable because you will run out of other peoples money to spend.

 

[SamH]

At some point the gravy train will become unsustainable because you will run out of other peoples money to spend.

I think we’ve reached that point.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I think we’ve reached that point.

Yes we have.

I have read that we need to tax everyone making $70K or more at 100% in order to cover current government expendetures.

SS and Medicare are not going to be available to the younger generations if something isn’t done.

Simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire is only a drop in the ocean.

Entitlements are the biggest area of the budget.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

“Picking a Latino would have guaranteed that vote”, you said. The “conservative bloc” will go for Romney/Ryan, won’t they?

It would send a message that the GOP isn’t just the lily-white party.

It would do us all well to not divide the USA into race/ethnicities (cf. Obama at the 2004 convention) and make generalizations about them.

Why not? We are not homogenous.

 

[LisaA]

Actually our needs are the same as they were in 1950 - its the wants that have grown.

SamH you are the KING of one liners! Absolutely! Everything has become supersized (except our families!) Huge homes, huge muffins, huge TV screens.

I think the point of taking the FEDERAL budget back to an earlier time is that the expansion of the FEDERAL budget has put it into areas where it was never intended…federal regulations for lightbulbs anyone? REALLY??? I think Scott mentioned the Dept of Education. How’s that workin out? Talk to any teacher from the early 1960s about the work load and standards of their students. Dept of Agriculture…yes that’s really necessary post Dust Bowl days. Did you hear about their 1 million dollar intern? There is huge waste, huge over reach in the federal government. Maybe we can’t cut back to 1950 but we have to stop feeding the beast. Too bad Michelle Obama isn’t more concerned about government obesity.

Lisa

 

[Catherine_S]

Announcing the pick at this time was nothing more than a attempt to move the focus off of Romney’s refusal to disclose his tax records. Normally, the VP pick would be announced at the convention.

It is estimated that Ryan’s budget would push 900,000 more children into extreme poverty, while extending tax breaks to the 1 percent who own more than the bottom 90%.

Ryan may oppose abortion, but in terms of some important social justice issues,*** I don’t think that “voucher boy” can stand up to scrutiny.*** It will be interesting to see what AARP has to say about him to their membership. And this choice was made by the architect of Romneycare in massachusetts. Utter hypocrisy.

As disappointing as the Obama presidency has been, we can’t afford to continue taking from the poor children in order to increase the net worth of the billionaires. It is wrong morally. It is bad economic policy.

:nope:
If we do not listen, we do not learn! This is called** fairness**!
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ewtn%2cpaul+ryan%2cyoutube&mid=1A49BA79D2C54B827E821A49BA79D2C54B827E82&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7

 

[salusanimarum17]

It would send a message that the GOP isn’t just the lily-white party.

Why not? We are not homogenous.

“Send a message” to whom? Would you have said, if Rubio was picked, that “Oh, the GOP is not just the lily-white party anymore!” I doubt it. More likely, you and others on the left would have said something like “Oh, the token minority. Please stop the pandering and pretending. You know you’re just the lily-white party.”

We’re Americans first of all. There is much more that unites us than divides us. That sort of thing. Didn’t Obama say something like that in the past? I’ll be “bipartisan” and agree with him for a change.

 

[salusanimarum17]

sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/is-ryan-veep-material/1783606239001

What’s this? Please explain. I don’t like clicking an unknown link.

 

[seekerz]

I quoted all the pertinent posts, so you can see where his point soared over your head.

DeSanto made the oft repeated, logically flawed statement that abortion will still exist, even if we make it illegal. It is flawed because everything still exists, even when illegal - theft, murder, tax evasion, discrimination, etc. He discounted support for Romney-Ryan for pro-life reasons because they wouldn’t end abortion

He Man illustrated DeSanto’s flawed reasoning by pointing out that supporting Obama due to a belief that his policies would better help the poor could just as easily be answered in the same manner - poverty won’t be ended by Obama.

You made the illogical and unfounded leap to the idea that He Man was concluding that we shouldn’t bother to help the poor. You obviously completely missed his point, as ComputerGeek25 pointed out.

Jesus said the poor will always be with us. He also called on us to help the poor, but He never mentioned anything about helping them through a bloated, federal bureaucracy. In fact, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (drawing from many encyclicals and letters from the Magisterium) makes it clear that a bloated, federal bureaucracy is not the way to help the poor.

In regards to abortion, the Church also provides us clear teaching. You brought up Jesus’ lack of statements on the matter. Do you believe Jesus is pro-choice? Would He be in favor of women killing their unborn children?

Thanks for the detailed explanation and yes, it does make sense now. All I was questioning is the way the references to scripture were used. We can’t simply pick a verse of scripture and make an argument based on one sentence - THAT was the only point I was trying to make.

 

[seekerz]

SamH you are the KING of one liners! Absolutely! Everything has become supersized (except our families!) Huge homes, huge muffins, huge TV screens.

I think the point of taking the FEDERAL budget back to an earlier time is that the expansion of the FEDERAL budget has put it into areas where it was never intended…federal regulations for lightbulbs anyone? REALLY??? I think Scott mentioned the Dept of Education. How’s that workin out? Talk to any teacher from the early 1960s about the work load and standards of their students. Dept of Agriculture…yes that’s really necessary post Dust Bowl days. Did you hear about their 1 million dollar intern? There is huge waste, huge over reach in the federal government. Maybe we can’t cut back to 1950 but we have to stop feeding the beast. Too bad Michelle Obama isn’t more concerned about government obesity.

Lisa

Generalisations and more generalisations, a wacky example here and there…Like the 1950s didn’t have their own excesses? Please.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

“Send a message” to whom? Would you have said, if Rubio was picked, that “Oh, the GOP is not just the lily-white party anymore!” I doubt it. More likely, you and others on the left would have said something like “Oh, the token minority. Please stop the pandering and pretending. You know you’re just the lily-white party.”

Send it to America! Sure, there’d be some of that from the far left, but the fact would remain that a minority person was chosen to be VP, the proverbial “one step away from the Presidency.” The longest journey starts with one step, and that choice of a Latino or Black or a woman would be that first step for the GOP.

We’re Americans first of all. There is much more that unites us than divides us.

Not when it comes to politics. Nothing is so divisive in America as its politics these days.

 

[LisaA]

Ryan’s budget for 2013 also repeals the Affordable Care Act (so I know it’s never going to pass the Senate and therefore is an election year pitch to the base). Doing that would repeal:
-The establishment of health insurance exchanges and subsides for eligible individuals and families who purchase coverage through them;
-The expansion of Medicaid coverage to include most nonelderly people with income below 138 percent of poverty;
-The Community Living Assistance Service and Supports (CLASS) act (which Congress has blocked anyway – this is assistance to adults needing support with daily activities like getting out of bed and feeding themselves);
-The fix to the “doughnut hole” in Medicare Part D;
-The tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance.
In order to repeal the individual mandate.

On aggregate, Ryan’s budget results in reducing poor people’s access to health care and the number of people with health insurance. Meanwhile, he protects (and arguably increases) defense spending at a rate of around $700 billion, and extends tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the highest-income earners.

So I think of what Ryan’s 2013 budget would do and I see that it hurts poor people and helps rich people and boosts military spending. I think of that as anti-poor and pro-rich. He may do a ton of volunteering, but numerically, that’s not going to make up the deficit in Medicaid.

I’m using the independent Bipartisan Policy Center for my source here.

I agree that abortion is important. I started a thread on the issue and changing culture (in response to the Ninth Federal Circuit blocking Arizona’s fetal pain law):
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=702097

fnr (Chad?) you have swallowed the Dem talking points hook, line and sinker. And SINK is our healthcare system under Obamacare. It needs to be repealed and replaced.

Please tell me how Obamacare INCREASES access to healthcare? You can have the nicest gold plated insurance card out there but it won’t help you if there are no doctors or hospitals to care for you. Obamacare has gutted something like $700 billion out of Medicare. It’s created a distant bureaucracy that will make healthcare decisions for you and for your family. It WILL result in rationing and the devaluation of human life.

The plan was never intended to solve any problems in our system, it was intended as a first step toward a single payer system. It provides all sorts of perverse incentives for employers to drop health coverage, thus dumping people onto the “exchanges.” As the states noted a huge increase in Medicaid and a huge burden on the states (who successfully sued). Medicaid pays very poorly as does Medicare and fewer and fewer doctors accept these patients. More patients with poorly paying coverage means less access and poorer care.

I don’t recall if you are Catholic but the fact that Obamacare and its plethora of regulations forces Catholic and other religious institutions to provide abortofacient drugs, ABC and sterilization should give you pause. And dont’ think abortions aren’t covered under Obamacare…they are with a little accounting trick that is obvious to anyone.

Ryan’s plan denotes and understanding of healthcare delivery in this country. The objective should be to increase access and decrease cost. Making the system patient centered and market based will force competition. Low income people are given MORE premium support and it’s means tested which should convince you that Ryan doesn’t hate poor people It gives people far more choices in what should be an individually based decision process. One size fits all does NOT work in healthcare.

As to reducing costs of healthcare, there are a number of ideas that were repeatedly offered but stepped on the toes of various Democrat constituancies…trial lawyers, big pharma etc. Obamacare needs to go and quickly. It is a wet blanket on the economy and destroys a great system of medical care.

I could go on all day…this is my area of expertise…but I’ll just ask you to please get beyond the Dem talking points.

Lisa