Romney picks Paul Ryan as his running mate

[downzy]

Can't see Obama's campaign spending much time on Ryan's family health history when there's so many other things they can attack him for.

By picking Ryan, Romney has decided that this election won't be a referendum on Obama's first term. With poll numbers showing Obama with a healthy, if not sizeable, lead with less than three months to go, I think they've decided to make the election about where America wants to go. By picking Ryan, they've given Americans a clear choice between individualism and liberty versus a more measured approach by Obama and the Democrats. The Democrats were always going to string Ryan around Romney's neck, I suppose Romney might as well embrace it and make a push to motivate the right to actually vote (as enthusiasm for Romney alone clearly isn't there).

But as I said in my previous post, you've got to admire two individuals sharing a stage who were both born into wealth and argue for a greater erosion of state protections and assistance. I think it would be one thing for someone like Obama to argue such a case, since he didn't have his parents money or connections to rely on, but for these guys to claim that they're where they are solely because of their own individual merit is rich (excuse the pun).

As Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple.

Edited August 11, 2012 by downzy

[Dazey]

Can't see Obama's campaign spending much time on Ryan's family health history when there's so many other things they can attack him for.

By picking Ryan, Romney has decided that this election won't be a referendum on Obama's first term. With poll numbers showing Obama with a healthy, if not sizeable, lead with less than three months to go, I think they've decided to make the election about where America wants to go. By picking Ryan, they've given Americans a clear choice between individualism and liberty versus a more measured approach by Obama and the Democrats. The Democrats were always going to string Ryan around Romney's neck, I suppose Romney might as well embrace it and make a push to motivate the right to actually vote (as enthusiasm for Romney alone clearly isn't there).

But as I said in my previous post, you've got to admire two individuals sharing a stage who were both born into wealth and argue for a greater erosion of state protections and assistance. I think it would be one thing for someone like Obama to argue such a case, since he didn't have his parents money or connections to rely on, but for these guys to claim that they're where they are solely because of their own individual merit is rich (excuse the pun).

As Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple.

Did I ever tell you you're a fucking cracking poster? Glad you've dropped the sig at the end of each post too.

[downzy]

Did I ever tell you you're a fucking cracking poster? Glad you've dropped the sig at the end of each post too.

Thanks! My sig was actually a carry over from the old Dust N' Bones GNR mailing list days from the 90s. It was a common practice of identifying your post by your name since everything was posted based on email rather than user name like found in forums nowadays. I kept it going because some of those people still participate, lurk on the forums and it was a way of identifying myself as a DNB subscriber. Plus, no one ever seemed to have a problem with it until I started posting here. It wasn't some vain need of mine to always see my name at the end of my post.

I decided to stop doing it since those who disagreed with me would often criticize that then my point. I'd rather any responses I receive be about what I write about, not how I identify myself.

Edited August 11, 2012 by downzy

[Dazey]

Did I ever tell you you're a fucking cracking poster? Glad you've dropped the sig at the end of each post too.

Thanks! My sig was actually a carry over from the old Dust N' Bones GNR mailing list days from the 90s. It was a common practice of identifying your post by your name since everything was posted based on email rather than user name like found in forums nowadays. I kept it going because some of those people still participate, lurk on the forums and it was a way of identifying myself as a DNB subscriber. Plus, no one ever seemed to have a problem with it until I started posting here. It wasn't some vain need of mine to always see my name at the end of my post.

I decided to stop doing it since those who disagreed with me would often criticize that then my point. I'd rather any responses I receive be about what I write about, not how I identify myself.

Fuck me, is that what it's all about? Well you learn something new every day. Wondered why you used your real name. Not like Ali writing "Ali" at the end of each post then. Sorry man, it just boils my piss!

[GivenToFly]

Paul Ryan? Is that the guy who wants to cut everything?

[downzy]

Paul Ryan? Is that the guy who wants to cut everything?

Everything, excluding military expenditures. This includes capital gains taxes (so the rich can pay even less than 15% on their investments), corporate taxes (even though they hoard trillions of dollars in foreign reserves), and high-income earners (from 35% to 20% I believe). He'll cut medicare (through the use of vouchers that aren't pegged to the actual cost of care), medicaid (or eliminate), social security (by privatizing 401ks so people's retirement is entirely predicated on how the stock market is doing that particular year rather than a guaranteed and fixed return). But such cuts wouldn't do much to the deficit and debt if he were to impose his tax deductions as well. All this means the country would be worse off financially than it would otherwise be now.

If you want to understand Ryan's agenda (and the reason why he got into politics), read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

[Tom1447]

Paul Ryan? Is that the guy who wants to cut everything?

yeah, apart from the subsidies to the oil companies and banks, obviously. He was probably chosen because romneys main backers also support him, and money talks.

[arnold layne]

Eewww gross a Wisconsin politician. I better quarantine myself before the disease spreads.

[AbominableHoman]

He is charming. The video is pretty compelling until Krugman had to be a killjoy. Fatass. I like the idea of entitlement reforms, in general, but I'm not sure about how Ryan wants to go about them. I live on the west coast, though, so whatever my vote is it'll ultimately end up Obama.

Romney-Petraeus would have been more interesting. I don't think Petraeus has any intent to enter politics though, and he's in charge of the CIA which is prestigious itself.

Edited August 11, 2012 by AbominableHoman

[estrangedtwat]

Silly Americans.

If voting really could change anything, it would be illegal.

Look at everyone getting all in a tizzy as if this shit actually mattered!

[Nosaj Thing]

Cool

[GivenToFly]

Paul Ryan? Is that the guy who wants to cut everything?

Everything, excluding military expenditures.

That's right, my bad.

This includes capital gains taxes (so the rich can pay even less than 15% on their investments),

This is not necessarily a bad thing, since it encourages investment in young companies. Young companies generate most net job creation and at a time of such high unemployment it's very tempting.

corporate taxes (even though they hoard trillions of dollars in foreign reserves) and high-income earners (from 35% to 20% I believe).

Corporate taxes don't have much to do with how much firms save. That depends more on the general outlook for the economy in the near and medium future. Goes down to the notion that cutting taxes heavily will automatically generate growth which is quite a simplistic view and repeatedly demonstrated untrue. Usually it just puts more money in the pockets of those who save it anyway. Normally it would get interest rates to drop but in a liquidity trap (which is what the current situation is) they can't go any lower so you won't see extra investment. When everyone is deleveraging you won't see banks lend freely to small borrowers.

He'll cut medicare (through the use of vouchers that aren't pegged to the actual cost of care), medicaid (or eliminate),

And therein the problem lies. I admit I don't have very intimate knowledge about the US health economy but from what I do know, the problem is with unit costs. That's where I'd act, not on outreach which indeed, you need more not less off.

social security (by privatizing 401ks so people's retirement is entirely predicated on how the stock market is doing that particular year rather than a guaranteed and fixed return).

This is where I'm all for it. All over the western world pensions have become a crippling burden because of the DB system (guaranteed income). Quite simply there's not enough money because these systems were designed with 90s growth rates forever in mind. DC may not be pretty but it's sustainable. Already the change is made gradually in the UK, EU, Canada etc.

But such cuts wouldn't do much to the deficit and debt if he were to impose his tax deductions as well. All this means the country would be worse off financially than it would otherwise be now.

Didn't stop Bush and Reagan.

If you want to understand Ryan's agenda (and the reason why he got into politics), read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

I've read Atlas Shrugged. It was deeply disturbing.

[AxlisOld]

Um...did downzy really refer to Social Security as a "guaranteed return?" Are you fucking kidding me? I wish we had privatized Social Security a long time ago, then people my age would actually have a chance to get it.

[AbominableHoman]

On the note of social security, something like half of the city of Portland's budget goes to PERS. And the structure of PERS around here is disgusting. Your pension ends up being calculated by whatever your salary had peaked during a minimum of 1-2 years.

[GivenToFly]

The vast majority of US pension funds assume a return to assets of 8%. Dude WTF!

[downzy]

Um...did downzy really refer to Social Security as a "guaranteed return?" Are you fucking kidding me? I wish we had privatized Social Security a long time ago, then people my age would actually have a chance to get it.

On the note of social security, something like half of the city of Portland's budget goes to PERS. And the structure of PERS around here is disgusting. Your pension ends up being calculated by whatever your salary had peaked during a minimum of 1-2 years.

Pension reform and social security reform are two different issues. I agree that most pensions in the United States are bloated and not feasible under existing economic conditions. Entitlement reform is something that truly needs attention. I don't disagre with Ryan who makes entitlement reform an issue time and time again. A big problem with the auto industry in the U.S. is that it became overloaded with crushing pension obligations.

When I say "guaranteed return," what I mean is that your monthly social security return will not waiver from month to month (except when adjusted for inflation), allowing individuals to budget accordingly. This would not be feasible under a privatized social security regime.

But social security is something that can easily be fixed, by either raising payroll taxes or altering slightly the benefits and those who qualify. You always hear cries of "they sky is falling" when it comes to social security, but it's not a complex problem to solve. People thought it was going bankrupt back in the early 80s (well, it would have), but Reagan increased the payroll taxes in 1983 that helped keep the fund afloat for decades. Alter the benefits, the eligibility requirements, or increase payroll and you can keep it a float. These three variables can be made bigger and smaller depending on need and economic conditions. It's a sustainable system so long as it's managed properly.

You may not like what you're likely to get when you retire, but the claim that you're not going to be getting anything is a tad premature. Conservatives always claim that privatizing social security would save it. But if you look at the market (particularly the S&P500), it's remained flat for the past 10 years. Moreover, what would have seniors done in 2002 and 2008 when the market tanked? They would have got nothing to live on, forcing them either to find work (good luck with that, only Walmart hires seniors to wave to people nowadays) or dip into their savings, thus reducing their principle which would lead to less income when the market rebounded. Privatized social security accounts are great when the market is growing, but do you really think your golden years will never suffer from market slips or meltdowns?

Edited August 11, 2012 by downzy

[TeeJay410]

I've spent most of the day reading up on Ryan. Not a fan. He really is the second coming of Ayn Rand.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Funny how running mates can decide an election when they are Vice President they are pretty much useless. Except for Dick Cheney but that was because he was running the country.

[TeeJay410]

Funny how running mates can decide an election when they are Vice President they are pretty much useless. Except for Dick Cheney but that was because he was running the country.

Well running mates basically helps voters realize how each candidate is trying to frame the election. I think even just strategically, Romney is going the wrong route. He's going all in on the economic front, but maybe 10-15% of voters even know/understand/care about the intricacies of the issue. Elections are truly decided on likability, something that Paul Ryan won't help with. Easily more 50% of voters will vote based on party cues or how relatable the candidate is. The ability to relate to a candidate inspires trust. Trust = votes.

Edited August 11, 2012 by TeeJay410

[AxlisOld]

Um...did downzy really refer to Social Security as a "guaranteed return?" Are you fucking kidding me? I wish we had privatized Social Security a long time ago, then people my age would actually have a chance to get it.

On the note of social security, something like half of the city of Portland's budget goes to PERS. And the structure of PERS around here is disgusting. Your pension ends up being calculated by whatever your salary had peaked during a minimum of 1-2 years.

Pension reform and social security reform are two different issues. I agree that most pensions in the United States are bloated and not feasible under existing economic conditions. Entitlement reform is something that truly needs attention. I don't disagre with Ryan who makes entitlement reform an issue time and time again. A big problem with the auto industry in the U.S. is that it became overloaded with crushing pension obligations.

When I say "guaranteed return," what I mean is that your monthly social security return will not waiver from month to month (except when adjusted for inflation), allowing individuals to budget accordingly. This would not be feasible under a privatized social security regime.

But social security is something that can easily be fixed, by either raising payroll taxes or altering slightly the benefits and those who qualify. You always hear cries of "they sky is falling" when it comes to social security, but it's not a complex problem to solve. People thought it was going bankrupt back in the early 80s (well, it would have), but Reagan increased the payroll taxes in 1983 that helped keep the fund afloat for decades. Alter the benefits, the eligibility requirements, or increase payroll and you can keep it a float. These three variables can be made bigger and smaller depending on need and economic conditions. It's a sustainable system so long as it's managed properly.

You may not like what you're likely to get when you retire, but the claim that you're not going to be getting anything is a tad premature. Conservatives always claim that privatizing social security would save it. But if you look at the market (particularly the S&P500), it's remained flat for the past 10 years. Moreover, what would have seniors done in 2002 and 2008 when the market tanked? They would have got nothing to live on, forcing them either to find work (good luck with that, only Walmart hires seniors to wave to people nowadays) or dip into their savings, thus reducing their principle which would lead to less income when the market rebounded. Privatized social security accounts are great when the market is growing, but do you really think your golden years will never suffer from market slips or meltdowns?

I'm saying they should be run like an IRA, they don't have to be put into the hands of the stock market, but there should be an amount deducted for one to do with as they please. You piss it away? That's your tough shit. You want to plant it in a money market and let it accrue that small bit of interest, feel free. Put it in the stock market you want.

Welcome to a free market, not everyone is guaranteed anything, it is what you make of it.

[AbominableHoman]

Funny how running mates can decide an election when they are Vice President they are pretty much useless. Except for Dick Cheney but that was because he was running the country.

Well running mates basically helps voters realize how each candidate is trying to frame the election. I think even just strategically, Romney is going the wrong route. He's going all in on the economic front, but maybe 10-15% of voters even know/understand/care about the intricacies of the issue. Elections are truly decided on likability, something that Paul Ryan won't help with. Easily more 50% of voters will vote based on party cues or how relatable the candidate is. The ability to relate to a candidate inspires trust. Trust = votes.

Biden is more likable and relatable than Ryan? No fucking way.

I think Obama still has that corned for a majority of the nation, especially compared to Romney, but Biden is the farthest removed from all four.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Funny how running mates can decide an election when they are Vice President they are pretty much useless. Except for Dick Cheney but that was because he was running the country.

Well running mates basically helps voters realize how each candidate is trying to frame the election. I think even just strategically, Romney is going the wrong route. He's going all in on the economic front, but maybe 10-15% of voters even know/understand/care about the intricacies of the issue. Elections are truly decided on likability, something that Paul Ryan won't help with. Easily more 50% of voters will vote based on party cues or how relatable the candidate is. The ability to relate to a candidate inspires trust. Trust = votes.

Biden is more likable and relatable than Ryan? No fucking way.

I think Obama still has that corned for a majority of the nation, especially compared to Romney, but Biden is the farthest removed from all four.

Biden was chosen for one reason only. To tear apart the other guy. He is Obama's attack dog. Now that Romney has chosen his Running Mate, Obama is going to turn Biden loose.

[PappyTron]

I don't know who he is, but he has the eyes of a strangler.

[TeeJay410]

Funny how running mates can decide an election when they are Vice President they are pretty much useless. Except for Dick Cheney but that was because he was running the country.

Well running mates basically helps voters realize how each candidate is trying to frame the election. I think even just strategically, Romney is going the wrong route. He's going all in on the economic front, but maybe 10-15% of voters even know/understand/care about the intricacies of the issue. Elections are truly decided on likability, something that Paul Ryan won't help with. Easily more 50% of voters will vote based on party cues or how relatable the candidate is. The ability to relate to a candidate inspires trust. Trust = votes.

Biden is more likable and relatable than Ryan? No fucking way.

I think Obama still has that corned for a majority of the nation, especially compared to Romney, but Biden is the farthest removed from all four.

Biden was chosen for one reason only. To tear apart the other guy. He is Obama's attack dog. Now that Romney has chosen his Running Mate, Obama is going to turn Biden loose.

Biden was a rally the base pick, which was necessary after the long and divisive primary. That's what Romney is trying to do here too. The difference between the Biden Pick and Ryan pick is that Obama was already likable, he could afford to have an attack dog. Romney isn't nearly as likable or relatable. So adding an attack dog only makes his entire campaign seem more extreme and further from what americans like. So while picking Ryan to try and pull the party back together makes sense, its failing will be the simple fact that no one really liked Romney to begin with. He's awkward and stiff and entirely unrelatable. Not a "have-a-beer0with" sort of guy. Ryan doesn't help that.

The best that can be said of the choice of Ryan is that it sort of puts substance behind Romney's whole deal about the economy, Ryan is well known for his plan for the budget and whatnot. So instead of side stepping answers to questions about specifics, Romney can just refer to the Ryan plan. Also, as far as the electoral college Wisconsin just turned into a swing state.

[AxlisOld]

Yea Romney is really more an, "I actually know what I'm doing" kind of guy. If he doesn't want to have a beer with me because he's busy not being as shitty as Obama (and he's Mormon) so be it.