• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Mitt Romney announces Paul Ryan as running mate

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, I hope that continued discussion will get Americans to take budgets seriously. Obviously, I would hate for the liberals to win the discussion, with modest middle class taxes/high upper class and budget cuts for stuff that I might like, but I would prefer 1 side winning to putting change off until we're doomed.

Is that reasonable? I hope so.

It's actually quite irrational, and I don't mean that in an offensive way, just literally. A discussion about budgets in terms of revenue vs. spending has no substantive value whatsoever. And your underlying assumption that there is "doom" in the future--presumably as a some kind of result of not talking about a budget--has no basis in reality. There is an entire argument underlying this point that has to be established for your position to make any sense. And that argument--that government "debt" is problematic--is not possible for you to win.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ealthy-even-bigger-tax-cuts-than-romney-does/

cbpp-ryan.jpeg.jpg


He eliminates ALL TAXES on Capital Gains, Dividends and Interests. Romney's budget explodes deficit by 4.3 trillion dollars, Ryan's budget is 10 trillion dollars...helping the wealthy most.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ealthy-even-bigger-tax-cuts-than-romney-does/

cbpp-ryan.jpeg.jpg


He eliminates ALL TAXES on Capital Gains, Dividends and Interests. Romney's budget explodes deficit by 4.3 trillion dollars, Ryan's budget is 10 trillion dollars...helping the wealthy most.

Didn't you hear? Romney already said he doesn't support Ryan's plan after already saying he supported it and they are coming up with a new plan lol.
Stupid decision by Ryan. This is going to bury his political career.

He's still win his dumb seat in Novemer
 
Ryan's record apart from the budget http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-ryans-non-budget-policy-record-in-one-post/

Most interesting:

Ryan’s Social Security privatization proposal, the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005, which he sponsored along with then-Sen. John Sununu (whose father has been a prominent Romney surrogate), would have allowed workers to funnel an average of 6.4 percent of their 12.4 percent payroll-tax contribution to a private account. Lower-income workers would be able to divert more of their wages, as the plan allows 10 percent of income up to $10,000 and 5 percent of income up to the payroll tax cap to be diverted. By default, the private account would be invested in a portfolio set by the Social Security Administration of 65 percent stocks and 35 percent bonds. Workers could choose an 80/20 stock-bond portfolio, or a 50-50 portfolio, but would not be able to pick individual stocks or bonds. At retirement, all participants in the plan would be required to buy an annuity.

The Social Security Administration concluded that the Ryan-Sununu plan would require huge increases in general budget revenue to make up the shortfall left in payroll tax revenue. Specifically, revenue would have to increase by 1.5 percent of GDP every year, an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found, or about $225 billion at current GDP. That’s a big honking tax hike. What’s more, under the plan, investments in the stock and bond markets would skyrocket such that by 2050, every single stock or bond in the United States would be owned by a Social Security account. This would mean that the portfolio managers at the Social Security Administration would more or less control the entire means of production in the United States.

As I said, a right wing hack dressed as a wonk. Not really serious about the deficit, just serious about helping the wealthy.
 
I've often wondered if this is actually true. Do you think they actually BELIEVE in "trickle down", or are they just pulling a fast one to make themselves and their buddies even more money? If America ultimately failed due to the extinction of the middle class and the financial wealth of the top 1% shifted to be 98% of the wealth, would these guys be laughing all the way to the bank, or would they be scratching their heads in perplexity wondering where it all went wrong?

There is a whole psychology at play. Probably many do indeed believe it, but it's a post hoc rationalization for what they want. Most ideological beliefs are adopted after the fact as justification for a position already taken, not based on their reasoned merit. Many studies have shown that people's beliefs aren't typically formed based on evidence and argument. So trickle down was indeed devised as a justification for class warfare by business interests against the middle class. But that doesn't mean a lot of people don't also believe it.

"entitlement reform"? Is this the new double-speak for gutting social programs for the poor? Up there with job-creators.

Yes, but not just the poor. They are targeting the middle class as well.
 
...How can anyone vote for Romney/Ryan? Exactly what level of sanity do you require in order to believe that either of them are going to do any good?
 
Without defending Ryan's no-doubt orthodox Republican anti-gay-rights positions, you should be very skeptical when you read anything about DC-related voting. there's a really elaborate long-game related to congressional stewardship of DC and bickering back and forth with the DC council. a lot of tit-for-tat withholding and vote games. DC council does X, Congress disapproves by doing Y totally unrelated thing. Pretty gross on both sides.

If there's a gay rights fight to be had, the best way to frame it ought to be on national recognition of gay marriage (and possibly sexual orientation as a protected class under existing antidiscrimination laws)--there's a stark dichotomy between Obama and Romney's expressed public positions on this issue.

It's true, and it's fair enough, and Ryan is actually on record as saying he basically made a lot of his votes during the Bush years under duress (regarding fiscal policy, anyway). That's still a really awkward defense for his voting record, even if it's the case for most Congressmen, to varying degrees.
 
If there's a gay rights fight to be had, the best way to frame it ought to be on national recognition of gay marriage (and possibly sexual orientation as a protected class under existing antidiscrimination laws)--there's a stark dichotomy between Obama and Romney's expressed public positions on this issue.

Could you elaborate on this? Not calling you out, just trying to understand the dichotomy.
 
Could you elaborate on this? Not calling you out, just trying to understand the dichotomy.

What he's saying is that we shouldn't call Ryan out on that voting record because much of Washington's voting is just for political games and dumb shit while their actual expressed opinions on the matter is important. While Obama supports gay marriage, the entire Republican party in office right now is starkly against and wants a constitutional amendment banning it.


Wait Ryan actually voted yes on TARP? What a hypocrite.
 
...How can anyone vote for Romney/Ryan? Exactly what level of sanity do you require in order to believe that either of them are going to do any good?

If we're just talking about the budget/tax plan, you have a point. A major point, but Romney does have some good ideas. Unfortunately running with this guy will only serve his political base and no one else.
 
Could you elaborate on this? Not calling you out, just trying to understand the dichotomy.

Barack Obama: For same-sex marriage. For protected classes. For expanding protected classes to include sexual orientation, including in hate crimes/criminal violence context.

Mitt Romney: Apparently against same-sex marriage. Against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, at least situationally, but does not favour federal action to include sexual orientation in list of protected classes. Not sure where he is on hate crimes more generally, but definitely does not support expanding protected classes to include sexual orientation.

Romney is definitely not a fire-and-brimstone type on sexual orientation issues at all, but insofar as a movement towards country-wide same-sex marriage recognition now exists, there is a decent size policy distinction between the candidates. There generally is on identity politics, anyway, but certainly in this case.
 
It's actually quite irrational, and I don't mean that in an offensive way, just literally. A discussion about budgets in terms of revenue vs. spending has no substantive value whatsoever. And your underlying assumption that there is "doom" in the future--presumably as a some kind of result of not talking about a budget--has no basis in reality. There is an entire argument underlying this point that has to be established for your position to make any sense. And that argument--that government debt is problematic--is not possible for you to win.

How about, whether or not debt matters in actuality, it does dictate politicians' actions? Aren't you the sort of person who would appreciate an argument against an aggressive or interventionist foreign policy based on its costs and military industry subsidizing? I'm asking you to construct your view of the uses of spending, taxation, and government scope here.

(Sorry, I've long forgotten most individual posters' idiosyncratic views. If I'm honest, the majority just register as "hivemind." That may be my fault. Anyway, you seem to have forgotten my own views on balanced federal budgets, too.)
 
what class do they keep trying to tax, and burden all of the costs of our society. Yep. Poor people, who own maybe 1% of the country's wealth.

There are entire economic schools dedicated to what is referred to as 'trickle-down' economics. To say that it has no academic integrity is to ignore huge swathes of peer-reviewed literature. To assign an intention on those that believe in the theory behind it is really quite ridiculous.

What he's saying is that we shouldn't call Ryan out on that voting record because much of Washington's voting is just for political games and dumb shit while their actual expressed opinions on the matter is important. While Obama supports gay marriage, the entire Republican party in office right now is starkly against and wants a constitutional amendment banning it.

Barack Obama: For same-sex marriage. For protected classes. For expanding protected classes to include sexual orientation, including in hate crimes/criminal violence context.

Mitt Romney: Apparently against same-sex marriage. Against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, at least situationally, but does not favour federal action to include sexual orientation in list of protected classes. Not sure where he is on hate crimes more generally, but definitely does not support expanding protected classes to include sexual orientation.

Romney is definitely not a fire-and-brimstone type on sexual orientation issues at all, but insofar as a movement towards country-wide same-sex marriage recognition now exists, there is a decent size policy distinction between the candidates. There generally is on identity politics, anyway, but certainly in this case.


Ah thanks.
 
Didn't you hear? Romney already said he doesn't support Ryan's plan after already saying he supported it and they are coming up with a new plan lol.


He's still win his dumb seat in Novemer

Until he presents one, Romney is going to get fucking hammered for both the flip flop on that and because Ryan's plan will be perceived as the basis for whatever he does.
 
What he's saying is that we shouldn't call Ryan out on that voting record because much of Washington's voting is just for political games and dumb shit while their actual expressed opinions on the matter is important.

Well, it's true in general--plenty of people "vote no" on funding something because of some baggage in the bill or because they favoured another amendment or because they favoured stronger funding, so much of voting is gamesmanship... but I was calling out DC-Federal relations specifically. The federal government has a management role in DC and it's a constant battle of attrition between the city and the feds. Given the tit-for-tat stuff, I don't read any congressional vote on a DC issue as being an authentic expression of policy position.

If you wanted to debate Ryan or Romney on same-sex issues, the good thing to do would be to ask them point-blank where they stand on them. Ask Ryan if he believes gay adoption should be legal, rather than relying on a vote on DC gay adoption where other issues might cloud the discussion. This goes both ways--it's unfair to him to fault him for playing the game, and it allows him an unfair defence of the vote and distraction from the issue.
 
Hmm, taking a look at the blogs, most of the lefty blogs are predicting doom from this choice; most of the righty blogs think this is a decent pick and are optimistic.

Which side is correct? Which pundit commenting in the next few days will have the most accurate predictions? Who's gonna eat the most crow? It'll be interesting to find out. Whatever the outcome, it'll be interesting.
 
Hmm, taking a look at the blogs, most of the lefty blogs are predicting doom from this choice; most of the righty blogs think this is a decent pick and are optimistic.

Which side is correct? Which pundit commenting in the next few days will have the most accurate predictions? Who's gonna eat the most crow? It'll be interesting to find out. Whatever the outcome, it'll be interesting.

Predicting doom for who?

Their side or the Republican side?
 
Hmm, taking a look at the blogs, most of the lefty blogs are predicting doom from this choice; most of the righty blogs think this is a decent pick and are optimistic.

Which side is correct? Which pundit commenting in the next few days will have the most accurate predictions? Who's gonna eat the most crow? It'll be interesting to find out. Whatever the outcome, it'll be interesting.

Is your VP choice is going to be a major focus of your campaign (or attacks against your campaign) you picked the wrong person. At the end of the day, things were slipping away from Romney and he needed a guy to change the narrative because he was dying a death of a thousand cuts.
 
Hmm, taking a look at the blogs, most of the lefty blogs are predicting doom from this choice; most of the righty blogs think this is a decent pick and are optimistic.

Which side is correct? Which pundit commenting in the next few days will have the most accurate predictions? Who's gonna eat the most crow? It'll be interesting to find out. Whatever the outcome, it'll be interesting.
Yep. The lines are drawn. It will be up to independents and moderates to decide if they want another four years of the same or to try something new. It's going to be close.
 
Romney-Ryan 2012.

WE'LL MAKE AMERICA FUCK AWESOME!*


*By America fuck awesome, we mean for those of you who are white, heterosexual, Christian males with millions of dollars to your name. The rest of you can go fuck yourselves.
 
Hmm, taking a look at the blogs, most of the lefty blogs are predicting doom from this choice; most of the righty blogs think this is a decent pick and are optimistic.

Which side is correct? Which pundit commenting in the next few days will have the most accurate predictions? Who's gonna eat the most crow? It'll be interesting to find out. Whatever the outcome, it'll be interesting.

The right loves him because he is their ideas in human form. He's basically GOP Materia.

The left loves him because his ideas are super unpopular, have a long paper trail of not working, and basically reinforces every negative critique of Romney. Also, Obama vs Romney was a sort of "Obama vs Obama" in that they were very similar in a lot of regards, and thus not that exciting, whereas "Obama vs Ryan" is a very stark difference that will convince people to go to the polls.

The real question is what matters to the independents who live in swing states IE the 5% of the population that matters in a national election. My guess would be they don't like Ryan, but Romney will do his best to play down his importance post-convention (Veeps don't matter really! etc).
 
How about, whether or not debt matters in actuality, it does dictate politicians' actions? Aren't you the sort of person who would appreciate an argument against an aggressive or interventionist foreign policy based on its costs and military industry subsidizing? I'm asking you to construct your view of the uses of spending, taxation, and government scope here.

(Sorry, I've long forgotten most individual posters' idiosyncratic views. If I'm honest, the majority just register as "hivemind." That may be my fault. Anyway, you seem to have forgotten my own views on balanced federal budgets, too.)

EV is an advocate of Modern Monetary Theory, which, if I understand it correctly, is the view that as long as a country is solvent in its own currency, deficits do not matter to any great extent until full employment is reached, for only then will inflation be any kind of real threat.

Edit: Not that I don't think you would know what MMT is; I was more summarizing it for myself and others that might not be as familiar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom