• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Something doesn't add up about Paul Ryan.

Bronson said:
Hyperbolic nonsense

And yes, Obama's economic policies are destroying the country. His policies destroy Medicare, Social Security, and saddle future generations without untold amounts of debt. The economy will collapse if we continue on the irresponsible path he has set this country. That's not hyperbole. That's FACT:
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's total BS.

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said Barack Obama robs Medicare of more than $700 billion to pay for Obamacare


$700 billion from Medicare?

The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?

First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.

Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.

What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.​
 
lpast said:
Not really and Ill tell you why...I keep forgetting im not a republican anymore...I was right up until a year or so ago....I was furious over obamacare and the way it was shoved down our throats by Pelosi and Reid...I voted for McCain/Palin...but the denigration of McCain on another political site infuriated me...the punk teaparty brats were even denigrating and questioning his nam service...calling him a POS lib he should die...and on and on...
That and nagging feelings of guilt knowing I had voted for people and things that werent in my heart for years....I dropped the GOP tag because it is no longer the GOP...and I became an independent...Now surely you see how I piss everyone off tucker...the gays hate me for gay marriage...The right hates me cuz I dont cheerlead for the rich..and I jump back and forth on alot of issues...and I make no apology for it...and I call it like I see it...NOW...believe me I realize that I can be wrong and I am wrong alot...Im not afraid to apologize when I find im wrong.

I dont know your a lot brighter th an I am tucker...but tell me..how does anything get done that actually is good for the country without compromise.....We saw what one sidedness does for the country with the Democrats RAMMING obamacare down our throats the way they did...and now we see a Big brick wall of teaparty...that refuses to pass anything but tax cuts and more subisidies for the rich...
There needs to be compromise...but the far right teaparty aint havin none of that....and in the end it will be their undoing...just like it was Pelosis
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point there, lpast.
 
Tucker Case said:
Ah, so you've forgot what you just said. You said: "It does depend on your frame of reference.....which is why you asked for frames of reference,"

I would be worried if I were you. There seems to be some problem with your short-term memory.
Click to expand...
Sigh, whatever dude, you have my frame of reference as to why it is "fiscally conservative".







No, in your first post you made an argument for TARP being the appropriate action. You didn't make an argument for it being fiscally conservative. In fact, I repsonded by pointing out the problems with your unsupported claims.
Click to expand...
No, now you are not reading what wrote, I gave reasons why I view the AUTO BAILOUTS as "fiscally conservative".




No it doesn't. The words in the term have real meanings that can't just be ignored like that. Just because some fiscal liberals have decided to bastardize the term to mean "anything in keeping with the republican party line" in order to avoid admitting that they, too, are fiscally liberal doesn't mean that the term actually means what they claim it means.

Fiscally conservative, in it's most basic sense, means not throwing money around in an irrational, short-sighted manner. It requires fiscal responsibility, which means taking a long-term perspective and mitigating risks when one is required to spend money.

The problem here is that the irrational nature of the two-party dichotomy allows those who bastardize words to suit their short-term political goals to gain from their bastardizations.
Click to expand...
You are operating on a misunderstanding of the basic term, I just gave half of the modern understanding of the term as it applies to US conservative thought. Along with the ideas of smaller limited govt, getting "out of the way of free markets", is the idea of no deficits, of creating balanced budgets.

I am all in favor of "pay as you go", creating a regime of taxation to cover the costs of programs that the citizenry wants. But I also want the govt to step in in times of great economic unrest to stabilize the markets, to conserve the economy.

I don't agree that it is as simple as "not taking risks" or "not throwing money around", that is not the definition of fiscal conservativism is in our modern understanding by any "side".
 
Tucker Case said:
To making significant improvements to fixing a broken system. The system is broken. The differences between the party lines only serves to distract from the underlying problem.
Click to expand...
...that "money is just being thrown around"?
 
lpast said:
probably i miss alot ...care to indulge an old dummy
Click to expand...

Even while you complained about blaming things on one side, you blamed all the problems on one side. It was humorous.

I don't disagree that the tea party is inhibiting compromise right now. I do disagree as to what the ultimate cause of that is, though. I think the system is broken. The system is designed to lead to compromise. That's why the two sides are fundamentally the same. They only really differ in the practical application of the big-government philosophy. The tea party having such an affect on the system is having the effect of exposing the inherent flaws in the system. If only the tea partiers realized that both parties are equally responsible for the system being what it is, instead of placing a higher degree of blame on one side, then real change might occur. Instead, they allowed themselves to be co-opted by the republican party.

The end effect? Someone like Ryan gets touted as being a "tea party guy", despite voting for the very things that led to the tea party's existence.

The problem isn't one side or the other, it's the system itself. My stance is that in order to fix this nations problems, we need to scrap the current system and rebuild it from the ground up so that we get one that works. But that's to be expected by a guy who calls himself a neo-anti-federalist.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sigh, whatever dude, you have my frame of reference as to why it is "fiscally conservative".
Click to expand...

So this is the best you can muster when you get undeniably proven wrong? Not even a sorry my bad? :lol:

If you can't even admit to an error that glaring when it's thoroughly undeniable that you were wrong, you certainly aren't worthy of wasting any more of my time on.
 
Tucker Case said:
Even while you complained about blaming things on one side, you blamed all the problems on one side. It was humorous.

I don't disagree that the tea party is inhibiting compromise right now. I do disagree as to what the ultimate cause of that is, though. I think the system is broken. The system is designed to lead to compromise. That's why the two sides are fundamentally the same. They only really differ in the practical application of the big-government philosophy. The tea party having such an affect on the system is having the effect of exposing the inherent flaws in the system. If only the tea partiers realized that both parties are equally responsible for the system being what it is, instead of placing a higher degree of blame on one side, then real change might occur. Instead, they allowed themselves to be co-opted by the republican party.

The end effect? Someone like Ryan gets touted as being a "tea party guy", despite voting for the very things that led to the tea party's existence.

The problem isn't one side or the other, it's the system itself. My stance is that in order to fix this nations problems, we need to scrap the current system and rebuild it from the ground up so that we get one that works. But that's to be expected by a guy who calls himself a neo-anti-federalist.
Click to expand...

I did do that your right...my bad :(....see your way will never come to pass...the system will never be scrapped its self perpetuating...we have to work within the system and the only way historically it ever worked for the beneifit of many is through compromise...compromise is non existent right now.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, now you are not reading what wrote, I gave reasons why I view the AUTO BAILOUTS as "fiscally conservative".
Click to expand...

Jeez, my bad. I thought you meant the first post where you actually answered my question instead of the one where you didn't actually answer my question.
 
Tucker Case said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

I never saw it work any other way in my lifetime...and Unless Im missing something...there doesnt seem to be any indications of it now either
 
Tucker Case said:
So this is the best you can muster when you get undeniably proven wrong? Not even a sorry my bad? :lol:

If you can't even admit to an error that glaring when it's thoroughly undeniable that you were wrong, you certainly aren't worthy of wasting any more of my time on.
Click to expand...
If that is what you want to hang your hat on, to claim as your victory, go for it.

As if it was anywhere near to the main points under discussion....yes yes, you got me by showing that I did forget that I pointed out your reason for asking "why you asked".

Wow....tucker scores!

Pathetic.
 
Tucker Case said:
Jeez, my bad. I thought you meant the first post where you actually answered my question instead of the one where you didn't actually answer my question.
Click to expand...

Actually, it wasn't that I did not answer your question, it was that I did answer a question NOT directed to me......as if that somehow has become a crime, something not done on the forums. Heavens, grab the smelling salts.....oh...the vapors!

And as usual, you decide to sidestep the main point of the discussion and instead focus on tiny, insignificant sidelines.

Pathetic...again.

It is pointless to have a discussion on fiscal conservatism when your opponent can't even come to the modern, basic understanding of it, but instead decides to run victory laps based on meaningless points.

Goodbye and good luck.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
yes yes, you got me by showing that I did forget that I pointed out your reason for asking "why you asked".
Click to expand...

False. I pointed out that you lied about my reasoning because you made it up. Up until your cowardly attempt to avoid admitting error by adding more lies on top of the existing lies, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but since you've shown yourself to have the intellectual integrity of a jelly doughnut, I am confident in calling it a lie.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Actually, it wasn't that I did not answer your question, it was that I did answer a question NOT directed to me......
Click to expand...

False. you are clearly incapable of comprehending what you read, as the question was not limited to the GM bailout. Anyone with intellectual integrity would be capable of realizing that you did not actually answer the question until I pointed out your abysmal failure to actually answer the question.
 
Aaaanyway, getting back on topic....

Let's recall that Ryan is playing the fiscal conservative card despite having voted for virtually every budget busting, big government program in the last 12 years. I say virtually every because he did not vote for Obama's stimulus package. He did say that stimulus doesn't work ... though he argued during Bush' first term that the tax cuts could be justified as stimulus to help with that recession ... but I digress. So while Ryan pounded his podium, inveighing against Obama's stimulus ... he did in fact request tens of millions of dollars in stimulus funds for his district, and in so doing he talked up the wonderful stimulus effect and job creation properties the funds would have! He was questioned about this several years ago and lied, saying that he never requested such funds. He was questioned about it again yesterday, and again lied. But when his actual request letters were presented to him ... well ... what could he do? He made a pathetic excuse, stating that he didn't recall because he considered it "constituent services"! Amazing....

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ryanletters0813.pdf
 
Last edited:
Good OP. When it comes to the tough decisions, looks like Paul Ryan will compromise his principles. I really didn't like the TARP vote and politicians should be called out on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom