Ryan: Obama 'sowing social unrest'

[gnjsdad]

Libertarians know fascism when they see it, and that is the current economic model in place in the United States.

I don’t agree that fascism is the current economic model in place in the United States, primarily because fascism requires a strong central government calling the shots and directing the goals of its corporate components. I rather see the current economic model as corporatist, that is, the instruments of government are under the control of its powerful corporations and banks.

Scott_Lafrance:

Look it up for yourself. Fascistic Corporatism, although a case can be made that it more closely resembles sydicalism. But we do not have free market capitalism in this country anymore and haven’t since the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. To claim that we do is to admit ignorance of history and economics.

The Bretton Woods system set up a mixed economy. Bretton woods collapsed in the wake of the stagflation crisis of the late 1970s and was replaced by the Friedmanite deregualtion system ushered in by Reagan. That system collapsed in 2008, and we don’t know yet what will replace it.

 

[ishii]

That is unfair coming from Ryan. Ryan is a follower of objectivism. This is a philosophy that champions selfishness and a belief that the poor should be blamed for their failures. The belief system is very insulting to those who believe in God, it is highly anti-religion. I encourage people to really to study Ayn Rand and the philosophy she expouses.

My understanding is that Ryan is a practicing Catholic. So what you’re saying is quite unfair.

Of course Obama is sowing fear - his administration is about reaching political ends through the clever use of fear. That is the Democrat party’s modus operandi. That’s what happens when you run out of ideas - you run on fear.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

My understanding is that Ryan is a practicing Catholic. So what you’re saying is quite unfair.

Of course Obama is sowing fear - his administration is about reaching political ends through the clever use of fear. That is the Democrat party’s modus operandi. That’s what happens when you run out of ideas - you run on fear.

Ishii

Paul Ryan is a devout Catholic who has frequently consulted with his bishop when developing economic legislation to ensure that what he proposed meets the Church’s criteria for subsidiarity and care for the poor.

Anyone who says differently is either misinformed or lying. Archbishop Dolan has spoken about Ryan’s attention to the needs of the poor in correspondence with the Representative

 

[gnjsdad]

Paul Ryan is a devout Catholic who has frequently consulted with his bishop when developing economic legislation to ensure that what he proposed meets the Church’s criteria for subsidiarity and care for the poor.

First, subsidiarity is only one part of the Church’s social doctrine. It must be understood in relation to the common good and solidarity. I never hear conservatives and libertarians mention, let alone discuss, the common good as the Church understands it.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by saying Paul Ryan “consults with his bishop” regarding economic legislation. His policy prescriptions have a distinctly Randian underpinning and I haven’t heard that he has repudiated Ayn Rand as one of his political influences. Until he does, I will take his “consultation” with his Bishop like I take Nancy Pelosi’s “consultation” with her Bishop regarding her “pro choice” stand and certain Cathloic neoconservatives claims to have “consulted” with Pope John Paul II about the moral justification for the Iraq War.

 

[gnjsdad]

B) You really don’t see a meaningful distinction between government and private enterprise?

I see no meaningful distinction between government and large corporate entities. The movement of corporate big shots between the two is downright incestuous.

Let me put it this way: who do you think is more likely to become Treasury Secretary – the Chairman of Goldman Sachs or the head of your local credit union? And just how does the transition from “good” private company head to “bad” government official take place?

rlg94086:

One is funded by tax dollars, so we, as voters, get to determine the best way to use our money. The other is a private enterprise, so we, as consumers, get to determine the best use of our money.

When the private corporate head moves to government, he listens to the lobbyists for the corporate industries from which he came. When he goes back to the private sector, he becomes a “consultant”, that is someone who gets handsomely paid to use his “connections” to get favorable legislation passed.

rlg94086:

If a smaller, local business does a better job and cares more, than we can choose to patronize that business, rather than the large, bureaucratic company. We can, and do, regulate businesses where reasonable (sometimes, we go a little overboard). Outside of those reasonable regulatory measures, we let them run their business, as we should.

.

I am all for small businesses, and I tend to agree with this. I just don’t see that what is good for large buisnesses with all the influence they have in Washington is good for small local businesses.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I never hear conservatives and libertarians mention, let alone discuss, the common good as the Church understands it.

That’s because you don’t have the slightest clue what’s good for Oklahoma, nor do I for Pennsylvania, yet you vote for what you think is best for me. While I try to keep my politicians from trying to dictate what they think is best for you.

 

[ishii]

 First, subsidiarity is only one part of the Church's social doctrine. It must be understood in relation to the common good and solidarity.

What do you mean?

I never hear conservatives and libertarians mention, let alone discuss, the common good as the Church understands it.

As the Church understands it, or as you interpret the Church as understanding it?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying Paul Ryan "consults with his bishop" regarding economic legislation. His policy prescriptions have a distinctly Randian underpinning and I haven't heard that he has repudiated Ayn Rand as one of his political influences. Until he does, I will take his "consultation" with his Bishop like I take Nancy Pelosi's "consultation" with her Bishop regarding her "pro choice" stand and certain Cathloic neoconservatives claims to have "consulted" with Pope John Paul II about the moral justification for the Iraq War.

You mentioned Nancy Pelosi - on what issue is Paul Ryan in defiance of Church teaching in the way Pelosi is? Be specific.

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

I see no meaningful distinction between government and large corporate entities. The movement of corporate big shots between the two is downright incestuous.

Let me put it this way: who do you think is more likely to become Treasury Secretary – the Chairman of Goldman Sachs or the head of your local credit union? And just how does the transition from “good” private company head to “bad” government official take place?

When the private corporate head moves to government, he listens to the lobbyists for the corporate industries from which he came. When he goes back to the private sector, he becomes a “consultant”, that is someone who gets handsomely paid to use his “connections” to get favorable legislation passed.

.

I am all for small businesses, and I tend to agree with this. I just don’t see that what is good for large buisnesses with all the influence they have in Washington is good for small local businesses.

Amongst your cynicism, you didn’t answer these questions:

When it comes to government ventures, we the people get to decide what is best. Do you think that a bloated, federal bureaucracy best serves the people? I don’t. I think the state level is the highest we should go for items outside of the pervue of the Constitution. In many cases, the municipality is the best place - for example: police and fire.

Why is it important to liberals that social welfare be provided at the federal level?

 

[gnjsdad]

What do you mean?

I’m not going to do your homework for you, but I will provide a link to The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

The Compendium discusses all of the principles of the Church’s social doctrine and how they are interrelated, and are all predicated on the proper understanding of the common good.

ishii:

As the Church understands it, or as you interpret the Church as understanding it?

I said as the Church understands it.

ishii:

You mentioned Nancy Pelosi - on what issue is Paul Ryan in defiance of Church teaching in the way Pelosi is?

I would say his economic policy prescriptions are at odds with Church teaching on the common good. His economic policies are aimed at reducing benefits for the poor and increasing benefits for the wealthy.

He is a devotee of Ayn Rand, an atheist who called religion a “curse” and “the negation of reason”. Christianity, according to Rand, is “the best kindergarten of communism possible”.

Ryan has been quoted as saying…

“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”

He has not, to my knowledge, disavowed his past enthusiasm for Rand.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Here’s a riposte to Ryan on YouTube:

youtube.com/watch?v=GVYaA2PCXGk

 

[Ridgerunner]

He is a devotee of Ayn Rand, an atheist who called religion a “curse” and “the negation of reason”. Christianity, according to Rand, is “the best kindergarten of communism possible”.

Ryan has been quoted as saying…

“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”

He has not, to my knowledge, disavowed his past enthusiasm for Rand.

This is silly. George Washington was, as far as is known, a Mason. So, do we have to reject everything Washington ever did or said or wrote for that reason? Does approval of any of his thoughts or actions automatically require approval of Masonry? Or could the man have been right in some things and wrong in others?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I** haven’t heard that he has repudiated Ayn Rand as one of his political influences.** Until he does, I will take his “consultation” with his Bishop like I take Nancy Pelosi’s “consultation” with her Bishop regarding her “pro choice” stand and certain Cathloic neoconservatives claims to have “consulted” with Pope John Paul II about the moral justification for the Iraq War.

I haven’t heard him repudiate Monte RCMS as one of his political influences either.

 

[qui_est_ce]

This is silly. George Washington was, as far as is known, a Mason. So, do we have to reject everything Washington ever did or said or wrote for that reason? Does approval of any of his thoughts or actions automatically require approval of Masonry? Or could the man have been right in some things and wrong in others?

You said it better than I.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are influential in my political and economic thought process. There are truisms in the works of both writers to analyze and use, and much that is sophomoric and should be discarded. Marx’s idea that the proletariate would rise up against the bourgeois is a historical fact. Those that ignore it are doomed to see it repeated. Rand’s observations about the abuse of the “producers” is also true. These two need to be observed in context of each other to understand the fallen human condition and how to solve the problems of the poor, without further empowering ambitious and greedy power brokers who only seek to enslave for the “benefit of humanity”.

 

[Petite]

That is unfair coming from Ryan. Ryan is a follower of objectivism. This is a philosophy that champions selfishness and a belief that the poor should be blamed for their failures. The belief system is very insulting to those who believe in God, it is highly anti-religion. I encourage people to really to study Ayn Rand and the philosophy she expouses.

I found this interview on YouTube (

) that a very young Mike Wallace (CBS News) did with Any Rand in 1959. There is a Part I, Part II, and Part III --about 30 minutes altogether. This supports your comments on her philosophy.

In contrast to interviews nowadays, Wallace asks very pointed questions (and injects his opinions–you will be surprised to hear his opinions), and she answers the questions–no talking points.

 

[Pirate_Talker]

I found this interview on YouTube (

) that a very young Mike Wallace (CBS News) did with Any Rand in 1959. There is a Part I, Part II, and Part III --about 30 minutes altogether. This supports your comments on her philosophy.

In contrast to interviews nowadays, Wallace asks very pointed questions (and injects his opinions–you will be surprised to hear his opinions), and she answers the questions–no talking points.

There’s a big difference between Mike Wallace and his son Chris. Mike was a great journalist.

 

[gnjsdad]

This is silly. George Washington was, as far as is known, a Mason. So, do we have to reject everything Washington ever did or said or wrote for that reason? Does approval of any of his thoughts or actions automatically require approval of Masonry? Or could the man have been right in some things and wrong in others?

Well, I find it not silly, but troubling, that a Catholic politician like Paul Ryan would proudly cite as an influence someone like Ayn Rand: a wretched human being who promulgated a wretched philosophy inimical to the Catholic Church’s understanding of the common good. Her contempt for Christianity is well documented. Her contempt for religion in general has been well established. The quotes I posted are not hyperbolic statements, made in the heat of the moment by an otherwise level-headed individual. Rather, they are indicative of her world view, cooly made aforethought. Are you saying her atheism, her hostility to religion, her contempt for Christianity should be ignored, or have no bearing on discussion of her philosophy, just because you happen to like something she said about individual self reliance?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well, I find it not silly, but troubling, that a Catholic politician like Paul Ryan would proudly cite as an influence someone like Ayn Rand: a wretched human being who promulgated a wretched philosophy inimical to the Catholic Church’s understanding of the common good. Her contempt for Christianity is well documented. Her contempt for religion in general has been well established. The quotes I posted are not hyperbolic statements, made in the heat of the moment by an otherwise level-headed individual. Rather, they are indicative of her world view, cooly made aforethought. Are you saying her atheism, her hostility to religion, her contempt for Christianity should be ignored, or have no bearing on discussion of her philosophy, just because you happen to like something she said about individual self reliance?

Are you equally incenced that some Catholics admire Mao Tse Tung? Che Guevara?

 

[gnjsdad]

Are you equally incenced that some Catholics admire Mao Tse Tung? Che Guevara?

Actually, I would be if such could be found in public life today. I know of none who occupy positions of public influence similar to that of Paul Ryan who admire militant communists.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Actually, I would be if such could be found in public life today. I know of none who occupy positions of public influence similar to that of Paul Ryan who admire militant communists.

I believe Mao has made several comments that most liberals agree with and push for on a regular basis.