• 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!

Paul Ryan, Help Or Hurt Romney

Will Ryan as VP help or hurt Romney win election?


  • Total voters
    120
The Republicans in and of themselves shouldn't be blamed completely. I agree that with good government oversight the banks probably couldn't have pulled off the more obvious cons but some (most!?) blame has to fall on the banks. And even if you don't buy into the banks theory the other option presented was too much private credit, which still has nothing to do with overzealous government spending. In a nutshell, I don't care which party you're blaming because I'm not as much of a hack as you think I am. From the evidence and reports I've seen, and I've even skimmed through a couple of those 3-digit monster reports, it's either the banks or too much private debt. I favor the former but admit I might be convinced of the latter with more/better information, which I doubt we'll ever see.
My point is this. President W Bush increased the size and scope of gov't. President Obama did it even more. There's only so much room in the market. When gov't shoulders its way into the market, the result is what we have now. I know that isn't the only reason for the collapse though. It just didn't help.
Maybe you should live through a few decades of watching how government works instead of repeating pie-in-the-sky ideals out of a book. Most social theories die right outside the door of the library.
You mean the social theories like utopianism, collectivism, and socialism that this President has engaged in? Yeah, you're right. They are dying. And they're taking the country with them. But you have no issue with that. You would probably say that FDR was a good POTUS too wouldn't you? What I said is not a social theory. It's the way gov't works. I understand full budgets aren't passed. The entire point of the Senate proposing their budget, the House submitting one, the POTUS submitting one is the parts of each budget that can be agreed upon and pass muster in both chambers are what we get. When one chamber doens't put anything forth, the system breaks down. The system we see now worked great when Clinton was POTUS. It may have been nasty, but it worked eventually.
It takes two sides to negotiate and the Republicans have repeatedly shown they have no interest in doing that.
Heaven forbid they might do something that would give the Dems any credit.
Oh, I see. The Republicans should have just continued their free spending ways and this would all be better. It makes so much sense to me now that you explain it that way.
That would be in direct violation of Job #1, which you have said was acceptable to you. What did you expect would be the real world result of such a policy? One result is exactly what you've been seeing, obstructionism.
As I said, and you repeatedly ignore my statements to make me look like the partisan here, if a Congressman has voted no on a bill just to make Dems look stupid, I wouldn't agree with that. They should do what's best for the American people. I have no issue with a Senator or Representative actively campaigning against a POTUS though.
Yeah, all 51 "just quit". What happened to the other 49? :roll:
Did they pass a budget or not? I don't want to hear this "Well, well, those Republicans in the House would have shot it down anyway so, so, that's why we didn't pass anything........No, wait, it was TEA PARTY! Yeah, the Tea Party did it. They came in here yelling and waving Don't Tread on Me flags and it distracted us from passing a budget for over 1,000 days"
It wasn't any worse than the House budget --- both were just as unpalatable to the other side.
Both were presented. One passed muster in the House. The POTUS and House did their job.
I don't think both sides did screw it up --- so what part of your comment do you think I didn't address?
If you meant "We'll have to agree to disagree then you should have said so".
Nope, I meant that both sides screwed up. This is where you are a partisan hack. You believe the failing of the Super Committee was all one sides fault. That's like saying a divorce is always the mans fault.
 
Why is it that you and others claim that President Obama simply cannot lower costs but keep services via decree or negotiated settlement or law while many of the same Obama critics do exactly that by mandating that public school teachers can indeed give the same service - or even more - at the same time they reduce wages or benefits for them?

It seems there is a serious contradiction in the thinking process there.

Well, that's a good question. I would suggest that you are, however, missing a couple of key points.

1. You are running for an hour? good grief - I'm so glad I don't have to do that any more. CrossFit, baby :)

2. Many on the right are not "pushing to lower teacher pay and benefits" as an end in itself - we are looking to make them more flexible to allow localities to survive.

3. Within that push, you will find that generally we support the same thing in healthcare prices that we support in "teacher" prices - namely, that the price be set by competition rather than government fiat. We believe that such a model will get us the best result for the buck, and that is why we support things like school choice.

4. In fact, many conservatives wish to pay teachers more in order to pay them competitively, specifically with regards to incentive and performance pay. It is the current compensation packages that are problematic. Conservatives tend to suspect that you get what you pay for, and by instituting compensation packages that are tilted away from items that can be linked to job performance (and aren't anyway) such as salary and towards retirement packages, we suspect that we are attracting candidates who are being rewarded not for performance, but for longevity.

5. It's worth noting that unions actually feed this suspicion. Our end product that we seek in education is not a "good teacher", but rather a "well educated student body". By loudly and aggressively attacking any notion that teachers can be held responsible for whether or not they have had an impact on producing a "well educated student body", unions teach the rest of us that we do not need to pay for top-teachers, as it seems that they cannot have a discernible difference on our end product.


Now, I don't believe the union claims in #5 for a second. But the more that teachers shout that they cannot be priced competitively, the more people think "okay, then we don't need to pay them competitively".
 
Last edited:
My point is this. President W Bush increased the size and scope of gov't. President Obama did it even more. There's only so much room in the market. When gov't shoulders its way into the market, the result is what we have now. I know that isn't the only reason for the collapse though. It just didn't help.
So ... what have we determined? That the credit rating drop was not the result of over-zealous government spending. It was the result of the government not being able to get it's collective act together to figure out a way to address the debt. There are two other credit rating agencies who haven't down-graded us and they've already said they will be watching what we do up to 2013 when the reductions kick in. At that point they'll re-evaluate. Do you think Republicans whining about the existing plan that they helped create - and some absolutely insisted on! - are easing the concerns of those agencies?

You mean the social theories like utopianism, collectivism, and socialism that this President has engaged in? Yeah, you're right. They are dying. And they're taking the country with them. But you have no issue with that. You would probably say that FDR was a good POTUS too wouldn't you? What I said is not a social theory. It's the way gov't works. I understand full budgets aren't passed. The entire point of the Senate proposing their budget, the House submitting one, the POTUS submitting one is the parts of each budget that can be agreed upon and pass muster in both chambers are what we get. When one chamber doens't put anything forth, the system breaks down. The system we see now worked great when Clinton was POTUS. It may have been nasty, but it worked eventually.
You keep claiming you're not a hack but ^^this^^ proves otherwise.

If it IS the way government works then it would be happening right now. But it isn't working that way, is it? Because what you're describing is a social theory - an ideal. If this was a scientific theory your theory would be shot to hell.

When all 242 Republicans pass a House budget you let me know. With the Senate being as close as it is, it will remain locked following McConnell's Job #1 policy. Republicans have no reason to cooperate as you're proving with each post. Are you blaming Republicans for the lack of a Senate budget? Not one little bit. Job #1 accomplished!

Oh, I see. The Republicans should have just continued their free spending ways and this would all be better. It makes so much sense to me now that you explain it that way.
Do you need some help with that reading comprehension skill? Or maybe the vocabulary I used was too high-dollar for you? Either way, I'm sure we can find someone to help.

As I said, and you repeatedly ignore my statements to make me look like the partisan here, if a Congressman has voted no on a bill just to make Dems look stupid, I wouldn't agree with that. They should do what's best for the American people. I have no issue with a Senator or Representative actively campaigning against a POTUS though.
Every Congressman's Job #1 should be running the country, not their political agendas. McConnell seems to have other ideas and publicly stated as much.

Did they pass a budget or not? I don't want to hear this "Well, well, those Republicans in the House would have shot it down anyway so, so, that's why we didn't pass anything........No, wait, it was TEA PARTY! Yeah, the Tea Party did it. They came in here yelling and waving Don't Tread on Me flags and it distracted us from passing a budget for over 1,000 days"
When the House manages to get ALL the Republicans on board you let me know. For now, McConnell's Job #1 stands; No Republican Senator is going to vote for a Dem sponsored budget and no Republican Senator will put forth a budget that a Dem would vote for. Job #1 accomplished.

Nope, I meant that both sides screwed up. This is where you are a partisan hack. You believe the failing of the Super Committee was all one sides fault. That's like saying a divorce is always the mans fault.
Sometimes in a divorce one side IS 100% at fault, unless you think it's the "fault" of a spouse who is unwilling to put up with their partner sleeping around. Infidelity is unacceptable in my book. Are you saying it's OK in your book? Or are you just being a hack?
 
Last edited:
So ... what have we determined? That the credit rating drop was not the result of over-zealous government spending. It was the result of the government not being able to get it's collective act together to figure out a way to address the debt. There are two other credit rating agencies who haven't down-graded us and they've already said they will be watching what we do up to 2013 when the reductions kick in. At that point they'll re-evaluate. Do you think Republicans whining about the existing plan that they helped create - and some absolutely insisted on! - are easing the concerns of those agencies?
So, according to your logic once someone starts down a path, even if its wrong, they must continue down that path? You've never made a decision in your life and decided it was the wrong thing to do and changed your mind? Who's more at fault, the person who makes a mistake, realizes it, and tries to change it or the person who makes a mistake and bullheadedly pushes forward as a matter of pride? I'm just happy someone up there is realizing we can't spend money like we have the past 12 years. It ruined 8 good years of relatively good fiscal responsibility.
If it IS the way government works then it would be happening right now. But it isn't working that way, is it? Because what you're describing is a social theory - an ideal. If this was a scientific theory your theory would be shot to hell.
So you contend we are not falling into a socialist-like system? Lets see, we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, a central bank, horribly regulated welfare, federal regulations on everything from how much water your toilet can flush to the wattage of your light bulbs, laws against allowing people to discriminate against people on their own property, etc, etc. I could keep going and going. The sad part is that of Karl Marx's core 10 principles needed for a socialist state, we are checking the box on 7 of them.
When all 242 Republicans pass a House budget you let me know. With the Senate being as close as it is, it will remain locked following McConnell's Job #1 policy. Republicans have no reason to cooperate as you're proving with each post. Are you blaming Republicans for the lack of a Senate budget? Not one little bit. Job #1 accomplished!
Hey! Look! The House has already passed its FY13 bill! Where's the Senate's bill?
House Passes FY2013 Budget Bill | C-SPAN
Oh, there it is. Presented by a Dem who didn't allow anyone to vote on it or amend it. Oh, and to our previous debate about how budgets work.
Quoted from the story:
Normally, each house of Congress passes its own budget, reconciles the differences, and then sends the final bill to the president for his signature.Three Years Have Passed Since Senate Passed a Budget | CNSNews.com
Do you need some help with that reading comprehension skill? Or maybe the vocabulary I used was too high-dollar for you? Either way, I'm sure we can find someone to help.
I can see the armor cracking now. Usually, when someone is wrong, they resort to personal attacks.
Every Congressman's Job #1 should be running the country, not their political agendas. McConnell seems to have other ideas and publicly stated as much.
How many times do I need to say I agree with you on this? Maybe you should heed the advice you tried to give me in the sentence above.
When the House manages to get ALL the Republicans on board you let me know. For now, McConnell's Job #1 stands; No Republican Senator is going to vote for a Dem sponsored budget and no Republican Senator will put forth a budget that a Dem would vote for. Job #1 accomplished.
Why do they need all Republicans? That's now how it works. You need a majority. They have that. The Dems didn't even ALLOW a vote on their proposal so we have no clue how it would be voted upon to begin with.
Sometimes in a divorce one side IS 100% at fault, unless you think it's the "fault" of a spouse who is unwilling to put up with their partner sleeping around. Infidelity is unacceptable in my book. Are you saying it's OK in your book? Or are you just being a hack?
Whatever bro. Hear what you want to. All I'm seeing is a budget every year, on time, from the House and nothing from the Senate since 2009. Your second attempt at smarminess due to being wrong is the equivalent of the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. This is why I don't like debating with people of your ilk. You don't know what you're talking about and resort to personal attacks to cover said ignorance.
 
I can see the armor cracking now. Usually, when someone is wrong, they resort to personal attacks.
Your previous "response" wasn't responsive so I gave back what you gave me.

Most of what you've said here isn't responsive, either. Who's wrong and who's calling who names?

At this point I'm sick of your hackery and avoidance. You're a waste of my time and a perfect imitation of your Washington masters. The Tea Party once again proves that it can get nothing resolved by being adamant. Thank you for reminding us all of that fact.
 
Last edited:
Your previous "response" wasn't responsive so I gave back what you gave me.

Most of what you've said here isn't responsive, either. Who's wrong and who's calling who names?

At this point I'm sick of your hackery and avoidance. You're a waste of my time and a perfect imitation of your Washington masters. The Tea Party once again proves that it can get nothing resolved by being adamant. Thank you for reminding us all of that fact.
AKA, I've got nothing so I'm going to bail out of this argument and try to take the high road by saying I'm above you even though the substance of all of my debate points proves otherwise. I haven't avoided a single topic and attempted to debate you in a civil manner. To which you decided to take a turn for personal attacks (sounds familiar) with statements such as:
"Do you need some help with that reading comprehension skill? Or maybe the vocabulary I used was too high-dollar for you? Either way, I'm sure we can find someone to help."
or
Infidelity is unacceptable in my book. Are you saying it's OK in your book?
There's no reason for that. Yet, you do it anyway because you have no counterpoint. This is the typical response of someone who knows their point has no substance. We see it everyday from politicians and it looks as though you are following suit.
 
You are very confused about what Obama is doing here. Obama is taking from those that now pay (or who have paid) into Medicare and giving to those that get will get PPACA subsidies to make PPACA appear not to be as expensive as it actually is. That is far different from changing the pay/benefit level for a particular gov't job. Obama is not saving any tax money, he is spending more tax money, just changing who is getting that money from Medicare patients to PPACA patients.

So if you are correct about this, you should be able to show us what actual flesh and blood people will be denied actual benefits. That is the question I asked in the very beginning of this discussion.
 
So if you are correct about this, you should be able to show us what actual flesh and blood people will be denied actual benefits. That is the question I asked in the very beginning of this discussion.

4 million seniors who will lose their medicare advantage coverage. the seniors who will be unable to access healthcare when they need it because of the reduction in providers willing to accept it. etc. and so forth.

in a fee for service model, fees = services. you cut fees, you cut services. As the President himself has admitted.





Expect to see this clip alot in the next few months.
 
Nuns protest Ryan's budget plan.

"Nuns on the Bus, a tour of Catholic congregations in nine states, made its final stop in D.C. on Monday, where the participating Catholic sisters held a rally for their cause, a fight agains the Republican budget plan put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The nuns say the proposal will hurt families struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy."

Nuns on the Bus disembarks in the District - The Washington Post

1345452346727.cached.jpg
 
Selecting Ryan will help Romney. Will it be enough to win? Who knows. Shaping up to be a closer race than we expected.

What I do know is Ryan is a rock star within the Republican party and will get some of the voters who think Romney isn't "right" enough.

But what does it really matter? Donkeys or elephants, it's still animal crap. Like either one of these geniuses will yank us from the jaws of death and fly us to the mountain of gold in the sky with a free meat buffet and all-you-can-drink Long Island Ice Teas served by a bikini-clothed Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox while watching trailer park strippers wrestle in a vat of pudding.
 
Selecting Ryan will help Romney. Will it be enough to win? Who knows. Shaping up to be a closer race than we expected.

What I do know is Ryan is a rock star within the Republican party and will get some of the voters who think Romney isn't "right" enough.

But what does it really matter? Donkeys or elephants, it's still animal crap. Like either one of these geniuses will yank us from the jaws of death and fly us to the mountain of gold in the sky with a free meat buffet and all-you-can-drink Long Island Ice Teas served by a bikini-clothed Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox while watching trailer park strippers wrestle in a vat of pudding.

So you don't think Romney would have done better with a more moderate running mate?:confused:
 
Either of those men would have been problematic. Rubio because he is so young, and Christie because it would turn off significant portions of Romney's base while not really demonstrating much appeal to moderates. Christie's New-England-Republican politics turn off conservatives, and his hard-edge-rhetoric turns off independents.

It really came down to two choices: Portman if Romney wanted to make this race a referendum on Obama's failed policies, or Ryan if Romney wanted to make this race a referendum on what he would replace them with.
 
So you don't think Romney would have done better with a more moderate running mate?:confused:

Balancing the ticket approach. It works well enough, but I'm more interested in who is going to be Romney's go-to man.
 
But what does it really matter? Donkeys or elephants, it's still animal crap. Like either one of these geniuses will yank us from the jaws of death and fly us to the mountain of gold in the sky with a free meat buffet and all-you-can-drink Long Island Ice Teas served by a bikini-clothed Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox while watching trailer park strippers wrestle in a vat of pudding.

Libertarian land?
 
Selecting Ryan will help Romney. Will it be enough to win? Who knows. Shaping up to be a closer race than we expected.

What I do know is Ryan is a rock star within the Republican party and will get some of the voters who think Romney isn't "right" enough.


But what does it really matter? Donkeys or elephants, it's still animal crap. Like either one of these geniuses will yank us from the jaws of death and fly us to the mountain of gold in the sky with a free meat buffet and all-you-can-drink Long Island Ice Teas served by a bikini-clothed Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox while watching trailer park strippers wrestle in a vat of pudding.
This suggests they would have voted for Obama. I just don't see that happening.

It is more possible that they might have not voted at all, but in this election I kind of doubt it.
 
This suggests they would have voted for Obama. I just don't see that happening.

It is more possible that they might have not voted at all, but in this election I kind of doubt it.

I agree, I don't think it is very likely that there are too many voters who would've sat out this election until Romney picked Ryan. I think Romney's real strategy behind picking Ryan was to try and put Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan into play. It seems to have closed the gap some, but we'll see if the gamble pays off.
 
This suggests they would have voted for Obama. I just don't see that happening.

nope. they would have voted for a third party candidate or stayed home. or perhaps come and voted, but not brought their friends, family, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom