Support NeoGAF

[cartoon_soldier]

So, the general consensus has been that Romney would have to select a conservative darling for VP to drive up enthusiasm.

But with Obama's gay marriage stance, conservative will already be energized. Their groups will do a lot of targeting this fall to defeat Obama because of this.

Does, this free him up to a bigger list of potential VP candidates?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

What does Paul add to a ticket though?

A sweet-ass perm. Maybe Romney would get one too.

 

[Manmademan]

So, the general consensus has been that Romney would have to select a conservative darling for VP to drive up enthusiasm.

But with Obama's gay marriage stance, conservative will already be energized. Their groups will do a lot of targeting this fall to defeat Obama because of this.

Does, this free him up to a bigger list of potential VP candidates?

not really, no. Conservatives already assumed (and most were outright stating and/or accusing) Obama supported gay marriage and/or wants to "destroy" the traditional marriage.

This just confirms what they've been telling themselves for years already. Romney needs a lot more than this.

edit: to be perfectly frank, Romney is ALREADY too far to the right. There simply aren't enough hardline conservatives to make up the gap he's losing/lost with independents. Any additional moves in that direction (say, hypothetically, nominating Santorum) would alienate far more independents than he'd gain by energizing conservatives. It's a losing proposition, and Obama coming out strongly in favor of gay marriage (which independents as a group support) has forced Romney to double down on a position that loses him votes with this bloc.

The only thing that would truly be a gamechanger is strong moves toward the center (nominating a moderate conservative, or an independent like Bloomberg) but there's zero chance this happens.

 

[eznark]

So, the general consensus has been that Romney would have to select a conservative darling for VP to drive up enthusiasm.

But with Obama's gay marriage stance, conservative will already be energized. Their groups will do a lot of targeting this fall to defeat Obama because of this.

Does, this free him up to a bigger list of potential VP candidates?

As the economy improves it's going to free up some of the younger people to potentially attach themselves to the ticket in order to improve their name recognition without worrying about getting stuck in a garbage job like VP.

As Romney's chances get worse I think the liklihood of a Paul Ryan VP run get better. He can use it to sort of vet himself. All the skeletons come out now and he has four years to deal with them before running in 2016, or they prove too much and he is stuck in a House leadership role. Either way it's risk free. He isn't losing his district ever.

 

[Manmademan]

As the economy improves it's going to free up some of the younger people to potentially attach themselves to the ticket in order to improve their name recognition without worrying about getting stuck in a garbage job like VP.

As Romney's chances get worse I think the liklihood of a Paul Ryan VP run get better. He can use it to sort of vet himself. All the skeletons come out now and he has four years to deal with them before running in 2016, or they prove too much and he is stuck in a House leadership role. Either way it's risk free. He isn't losing his district ever.

Ryan is toxic to everyone but hardline conservatives. Nominating him as VP immediately puts the "republicans tried to destroy medicare" argument back into play.

Not to mention, that budget was so poorly put together that it undermines Romney's claim to being fiscally responsible. Even Biden could dismantle Ryan easily by putting the specifics under a fine toothed comb and forcing him to defend it. It would be the FIRST thing that came up in a VP debate, and a serious issue for Romney to defend in a presidential debate.

Top that off with Wisconsin not being remotely in play as a swing state, and it's a waste of a VP slot. Use that bump to put Florida or Ohio into play which Romney MUST carry to have a shot.

 

[eznark]

Ryan is toxic to everyone but hardline conservatives. Nominating him as VP immediately puts the "republicans tried to destroy medicare" argument back into play.

Not to mention, that budget was so poorly put together that it undermines Romney's claim to being fiscally responsible. Even Biden could dismantle Ryan easily by putting the specifics under a fine toothed comb and forcing him to defend it. It would be the FIRST thing that came up in a VP debate, and a serious issue for Romney to defend in a presidential debate.

Top that off with Wisconsin not being remotely in play as a swing state, and it's a waste of a VP slot. Use that bump to put Florida or Ohio into play which Romney MUST carry to have a shot.

All of this assumes anyone think Romney has a chance to win. If the economy grows, he doesn't. Simple as that. At that point the party will likely step in and attempt to make the decision. I don't see Ryan as being "toxic" outside of the group of people who think all GOP is toxic. It makes sense for the party to air him out now so that some of the same ol' attacks in 2016 seem stale. That's assuming he is going to eventually run of course.

For him, there is little to lose as Romney has no shot therefore he won't actually have to give up his seat.

 

[AlteredBeast]

All of this assumes anyone think Romney has a chance to win. If the economy grows, he doesn't. Simple as that. At that point the party will likely step in and attempt to make the decision. I don't see Ryan as being "toxic" outside of the group of people who think all GOP is toxic. It makes sense for the party to air him out now so that some of the same ol' attacks in 2016 seem stale. That's assuming he is going to eventually run of course.

For him, there is little to lose as Romney has no shot therefore he won't actually have to give up his seat.

That is potentially what happened with Romney in 2008. He looked pretty good overall, then 2011/2012 Romney came out and WTF?!! Honestly, I don't know if he is as bad of a candidate (CANDIDATE, not politician) as Mondale or McGovern, but he is getting worse and worse as time wears on, instead of better.

 

[Manmademan]

All of this assumes anyone think Romney has a chance to win. If the economy grows, he doesn't. Simple as that. At that point the party will likely step in and attempt to make the decision. I don't see Ryan as being "toxic" outside of the group of people who think all GOP is toxic.

Ryan's budget was SO bad that Catholic Leadership came out in force to denounce his plan and his values as being the antithesis of what Catholic values stand for. That goes way beyond just disagreeing with the GOP- his plan was called out as being socially toxic to the point of immorality. For a candidate (Romney) trying desperately to win points with independents, this is Not A Good Thing.

For him, there is little to lose as Romney has no shot therefore he won't actually have to give up his seat.

He doesn't really have anything to gain, either. As you said, his seat is likely safe so he doesn't need the additional exposure. Running him as VP on a losing ticket means he gets attacked nonstop throughout the campaign season and may not be viable for 2016. It's the same reason I expect rubio to turn down any potential nomination. Anyone serious about preparing for 2016 will likely stay as far away from the Romney ticket as possible.

 

[Clevinger]

Paul Ryan should be toxic, but the media seems to love him in a way that reminds me of how they used to love John McCain. Except John McCain actually used to have admirable qualities. Paul Ryan doesn't really have any.

 

[Manmademan]

Paul Ryan should be toxic, but the media seems to love him in a way that reminds me of how they used to love John McCain. Except John McCain actually used to have admirable qualities. Paul Ryan doesn't really have any.

McCain was known for being a war hero, and a respected elder statesman willing to compromise and work with both sides of the aisle. He had credibility to spare leading into 2008.

Paul Ryan is known for exactly ONE THING (his budget proposal) and that specific thing is very, very easy for democrats to use to attack both him and Mitt Romney as being socially and fiscally irresponsible. It would be one thing if the cuts made sense, but fiscally that plan makes some extremely questionable assumptions, like 2.8% unemployment by 2020 to make the numbers work.

Put it under a microscope and it falls apart, and in a presidential campaign EVERYTHING is given extreme scrutiny.

On TOP of that, that budget was concocted in an environment where the republican argument of Deficits > Everything else had a lot of traction, and in the post OWS environment that's no longer true. The deficit argument has given way to income inequality, and Ryan and his proposal are perfect poster children for the Obama campaign to paint Romney and the GOP yet again as being out of touch with the concerns of the average american, and pandering to millionaires as the expense of everyone else.

As easy as it is to do this to Romney ANYWAY, nominating Ryan is the last thing Romney needs- but I would be overjoyed to see him try.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Let's have an adult talk about Paul Ryan's budget. What are the points and counterpoints of it?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Does the Ryan budget let you make money off of the facebook IPO?

 

[Manmademan]

Let's have an adult talk about Paul Ryan's budget. What are the points and counterpoints of it?

The Ryan budget was hardcore deficit reduction by slashing spending (and tax cuts for the wealthy), by 5.3 trillion over 10 years. It accomplishes this by:

1.) radically slashing Medicaid: Converts federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that’s indexed for inflation and population growth. To offer some context, health-care costs often increase at twice the rate of inflation or more.

2.) doing the same to SNAP (the food stamp program)

3.) privatizing Medicare entirely and turning it into a voucher program: Future beneficiaries will choose from a menu of private options. They won’t have the choice of the standard Medicare plan. Wealthier beneficiaries will get a small voucher and poorer beneficiaries will get a larger voucher. Vouchers grow at GDP+1%, whether or not Medicare does the same.

note that both the medicare and medicaid programs grow at a fixed rate (inflation or less) that's far below the typical annual increase in healthcare costs. Anyone using either program would have VERY high out of pocket costs in a few short years.

4.) Eliminates the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

5.) Prevents the Bush Tax Cuts from expiring in 2013.

6.) On top of this, rolls back the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.

Summary from the Washington Post

 

[The Librarian]

The Ryan budget was hardcore deficit reduction by slashing spending (and tax cuts for the wealthy), by 5.3 trillion over 10 years. It accomplishes this by:

1.) radically slashing Medicaid: Converts federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that’s indexed for inflation and population growth. To offer some context, health-care costs often increase at twice the rate of inflation or more.

2.) doing the same to SNAP (the food stamp program)

3.) privatizing Medicare entirely and turning it into a voucher program: Future beneficiaries will choose from a menu of private options. They won’t have the choice of the standard Medicare plan. Wealthier beneficiaries will get a small voucher and poorer beneficiaries will get a larger voucher. Vouchers grow at GDP+1%, whether or not Medicare does the same.

note that both the medicare and medicaid programs grow at a fixed rate (inflation or less) that's far below the typical annual increase in healthcare costs. Anyone using either program would have VERY high out of pocket costs in a few short years.

4.) Eliminates the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

5.) Prevents the Bush Tax Cuts from expiring in 2013.

6.) On top of this, rolls back the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.

Summary from the Washington Post

I think he was talking about Ryan's budget for this year which doesn't privatize Medicare.

 

[thezerofire]

You have good taste in ski resorts.
But have you been to Big Sky?

I'm going next season!

/off topic

 

[Manmademan]

I think he was talking about Ryan's budget for this year which doesn't privatize Medicare.

Irrelevant, since Ryan already proposed and defended a plan that drastically eliminates/reduces medicare and medicaid to give out tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, this is what he will be attacked on- particularly since Romney went out of his way to endorse it. Romney could reverse position on that backing of course, but that would of course play into the narrative that Mitt Romney will reverse position on anything.

I'm not familiar with this year's budget proposal so I can't critique it, but THAT one is far better known.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Let's have an adult talk about Paul Ryan's budget. What are the points and counterpoints of it?

His budget is an act of cowardice and his numbers don't add up. It is a budget that funds 2 trillion dollars in tax cuts geared towards the wealthy with a dramatic decrease in programs that help the needy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cit-reduction/2011/08/25/gIQAxawWPS_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...me-inequality/2012/04/03/gIQAJCv2sS_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...udget-numbers/2011/08/25/gIQAEZrePS_blog.html

Ryan’s budget funds trillions of dollars in tax cuts, defense spending and deficit reduction by cutting deeply into health-care programs and income supports for the poor.

He’s saying that in 2050, spending on defense, on food stamps, on infrastructure, on education, on research and development, on the federal workforce, and everything other non-entitlement program combined will be less than four percentage points of GDP.
Consider that defense spending has never fallen below three percentage points of GDP, and Mitt Romney has promised to keep it above four percentage points of GDP. Ryan has not outlined a realistic goal.

In the end, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 62 percent of the cuts come from programs for low-income Americans and 37 percent of the tax benefits go to the few Americans earning more than $1 million.

The Ryan budget would further decimate state budgets, because one of the areas of the budget he hits the hardest is ‘non-security discretionary spending,’ of which 35 to 40 percent of that category is aid to cities and state governments. Normally, you would increase Pell grants to help with this. But he’s slashing Pell grants, too!”

If you have been reading Ezra Klein (<3) you realize by now that Paul Ryan is a not really that good. Especially notice the 2 trillion dollars other spending cuts. What spending cuts? He won't specify them. If we then assume he will cut X for those 2 trillion dollars, he will say NO, that is wrong to assume. His budget and policy ideas would further convert the US from a land of opportunity to a land of the wealthy. Upwards mobility will be further limited with the dramatic reduction in programs for the poor and needy. The only thing government will really spend money on a lot if defense (which his plan doesn't cut at all).

 

[Manmademan]

His budget is an act of cowardice and his numbers don't add up. It is a budget that funds 2 trillion dollars in tax cuts geared towards the wealthy with a dramatic decrease in programs that help the needy...

If you have been reading Ezra Klein (<3) you realize by now that Paul Ryan is a not really that good. Especially notice the 2 trillion dollars other spending cuts. What spending cuts? He won't specify them. If we then assume he will cut X for those 2 trillion dollars, he will say NO, that is wrong to assume. His budget and policy ideas would further convert the US from a land of opportunity to a land of the wealthy. Upwards mobility will be further limited with the dramatic reduction in programs for the poor and needy. The only thing government will really spend money on a lot if defense (which his plan doesn't cut at all).

Awesome analysis. I'd heard all of that before, but couldn't find the data to link back to.

Bottom line is that Paul Ryan (and Mitt Romney along with him) would get flayed alive trying to justify this in the current political climate. The public overwhelmingly supports keeping medicare where it is, cutting defense, and eliminating the bush tax cuts and/or raising taxes on the 1%...none of which this plan does.

If Ryan stays a member of the house, its possible for romney to distance himself from the specifics of the plan, while still claiming to endorse the general message (cut the deficit), but with Ryan actually on the ticket, this becomes a lot harder to get away with and he will be held accountable.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't want to see people hurt, but a part of me wishes to create an alternative America where the Ryan budget was implemented for two years, just to see what happens in an undeniable fashion (Ryan is always going to deny abstract analysis of his budget as biased or wrong).

 

[Dominican Power]

This may be a stupid question, but how does one truly find out whether they're left or right?

 

[Black Republican]

This may be a stupid question, but how does one truly find out whether they're left or right?

listen to santorum speeches and tally what u agree with har har

 

[PhoenixDark]

This may be a stupid question, but how does one truly find out whether they're left or right?

Do you support child pornography and live in NY? Then you might be left!

 

[RDreamer]

This may be a stupid question, but how does one truly find out whether they're left or right?

There's this political compass test that seemed close-ish to accurate when everyone in this thread did it a while back

 

[Manmademan]

This may be a stupid question, but how does one truly find out whether they're left or right?

It's not a simple question of "left" (liberal) or "right" (conservative), there's a fairly broad spectrum between the two, and there are plenty of us here and elsewhere that might be socially liberal (left) but fiscally conservative (right) or vice versa.

Then there are Ron Paul fans, but it's best to just ignore those.

That being said, the political compass test will give you an idea of where your positions fall, and who generally agrees with those positions.

 

[makingmusic476]

I think he was talking about Ryan's budget for this year which doesn't privatize Medicare.

And the new budget drastically cuts non-defense discretionary spending. I think over the course of a decade it becomes almost non-existent. Or something like <1% of GDP.

And that money is used for any governmental projects, like infrastructure projects, national parks, pell grants, etc. etc.

The budget also splits everyone up into only two income tax brackets, at 10% and 25%. I'm not sure of the cut-off between the two. The new corporate tax rate would only tax income earned within U.S. borders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/paul-ryan-budget-analysis-numbers_n_844946.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/28060.html

Edit:

Oh sweet. Here's the CBO's analysis of Ryan's newest budget:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43023

I wrote up an e-mail for some people about this a month or so ago, and could only find the CBO's report for the 2011 budget.

Edit 2:

I kinda fear Ryan's budget would turn us into Greece or something. Only without a Germany breathing down our necks.

Not that Obama's spending cuts and tax increases are going to help the economy. >_>

 

[The Technomancer]

There's this political compass test that seemed close-ish to accurate when everyone in this thread did it a while back

Eh, there are some annoyingly leading questions on that one that skew it towards the liberal side IMO

 

[kehs]

There's this political compass test that seemed close-ish to accurate when everyone in this thread did it a while back

It appears I'm the Dalai Llama.

 

[Dominican Power]

 

[RDreamer]

Wow, that site has Obama way up and to the right compared to 2008. Good reason for it, I suppose, but damn it puts things into perspective...

2008:

2012:

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

There's this political compass test that seemed close-ish to accurate when everyone in this thread did it a while back

I disagree with it. It exaggerates how right and left people are.

In terms of "right vs left" it really depends where you are. Especially when it comes to the authoritarian measure.

I mean looking at the above chart I doubt that a Rick Santorum presidency would be on the same level of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany,

Right and left are very different things in America, Venezuela, Sweden, and Russia.

Though America is the most right wing first world nation out there if that helps.

 

[Skiptastic]

Yep I passed through Ft Wayne too. If you're heading north to Chicago, at least you will pass through the giant windmill farm. Only redeeming part of Indiana.

Seriously. I hate Indiana with a passion. I have a few college friends from there, and my wife's from there, so I've had to pass through a few times and hate it. We went across to Fort Wayne for one friend's wedding and good lord there is nothing on that road. And Fort Wayne itself can eat a dick. Its roads are complete nonsense. When going down through Indiana when we went on our honeymoon, too, I saw some interesting places. When I say interesting I mean it looked like stuff out of Fallout 3. The other weird thing I observed is that everyone seems to have a brand new car, and there are car dealerships in every single little podunk town. No matter how shitty your house is, though: brand new car. Such a weird state... I've been assured by my friend that lives in Indianapolis that I'd love that city, though. We'll see.

Indiana is terrible, full stop. Indianapolis is a terrible excuse for a big city. The state has no redeeming qualities and is the most boring state in the Union this side of Delaware.

Indiana is a great place to live and you all should be ashamed of yourselves for speaking otherwise.

 

[Chumly]

Let's have an adult talk about Paul Ryan's budget. What are the points and counterpoints of it?

What are even the points? Im dead serious. Is there a single positive thing about it? Because it just seems universally terrible. Nothing it proposes solves any of our problems and frankly doesnt even solve the debt problem which it champions itself to be.

 

[Manmademan]

What are even the points? Im dead serious. Is there a single positive thing about it? Because it just seems universally terrible. Nothing it proposes solves any of our problems and frankly doesnt even solve the debt problem which it champions itself to be.

It's a wet dream for conservative ideologues who believe taxation for any reason is bad, and poor people are poor entirely because it's their own fault.

 

[empty vessel]

What are even the points? Im dead serious. Is there a single positive thing about it? Because it just seems universally terrible. Nothing it proposes solves any of our problems and frankly doesnt even solve the debt problem which it champions itself to be.

There is no debt problem.

 

[Chumly]

There is no debt problem.

Does it even do that? Theres a lot of tax cuts and not all of the spending cuts are even specified. Considering they won't cut military spending I doubt they can even solve the problem with it.

 

[eznark]

just walked out of Avengers to a bunch of texts about Tommy Thompson. lol, man conservatives are fired up in Wisconsin

 

[Hawkian]

I would like to note that your use of drop shadow on the text you've used throughout your design critique is particularly appalling, but your comments are salient.

:lol missed this before

True enough, I didn't mess with any of the defaults of this program I use for screengrabbing called SnagIt, thus the aliasing and blaring red as well.

 

[empty vessel]

Does it even do that? Theres a lot of tax cuts and not all of the spending cuts are even specified. Considering they won't cut military spending I doubt they can even solve the problem with it.

I'm just saying there is no debt problem in need of solving. Not only is Ryan's budget shit in and of itself, even its alleged purpose is totally fabricated.

 

[KingK]

Indiana is a great place to live and you all should be ashamed of yourselves for speaking otherwise.

eh, I've lived in Indiana my whole life. I wouldn't say it's great by any stretch, but I wouldn't say it's the worst state either. The best word I can think of to describe it is "meh." I imagine it's one of those states most often forgotten about by non-residents. It's pretty fucking boring.

 

[NihonTiger90]

eh, I've lived in Indiana my whole life. I wouldn't say it's great by any stretch, but I wouldn't say it's the worst state either. The best word I can think of to describe it is "meh." I imagine it's one of those states most often forgotten about by non-residents. It's pretty fucking boring.

Pretty much this. (I live adjacent to Indiana)

 

[thefro]

Wow, that site has Obama way up and to the right compared to 2008. Good reason for it, I suppose, but damn it puts things into perspective...

2008:

2012:

Romney should have his own square considering how many different positions he's taken.

There should be a bigger difference between 2012 Romney and 2012 Obama, though.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Wow, that site has Obama way up and to the right compared to 2008. Good reason for it, I suppose, but damn it puts things into perspective...

2008:

2012:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The site's description of Obama for 2012 is hilarious and completely misses the point. I wonder what answers they assigned for Obama to their own questions. Actually it reads like an article endorsing Ron Paul

 

[RDreamer]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The site's description of Obama for 2012 is hilarious and completely misses the point. I wonder what answers they assigned for Obama to their own questions. Actually it reads like an article endorsing Ron Paul

Why would an article endorsing Ron call his core beliefs "harsh social Darwinism." It also talks about Paul likely succumbing to his billionaire donor just like the rest of them. Sure it's obviously deluded as hell thinking he even had a chance (at what time was this written anyway?), but I don't think it's an endorsement of him. The biggest positive for him on there is his "conviction." I'd have to agree with that in a way. The rest of the politicians are, well, politicians and go with what works sometimes. Paul may be deluded as hell, but he at least has conviction to his delusions... The piece seems more like frustration from an idealist progressive liberal who feels "betrayed" by Obama than a Paulite.

 

[ToxicAdam]

This post is purely for speculawyer, who is banned and will likely be lurking. Which will torture him even more.

OMG PEAK OIL


http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec11_5.pdf

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

This post is purely for speculawyer, who is banned and will likely be lurking. Which will torture him even more.

OMG PEAK OIL


http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec11_5.pdf

You're almost as big of a troll as I am.

 

[empty vessel]

This post is purely for speculawyer, who is banned and will likely be lurking. Which will torture him even more.

OMG PEAK OIL


http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec11_5.pdf

Really? You think oil is infinite? Or just that we're not close to peak production? I think either belief is totally absurd. Why are you scared of admitting that we're nearing the apex of global oil production? I mean, the avoidance seems almost religious in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_curve

US oil production 1935-1970:



US oil production 1920-2009:



You can't point to the upward direction of oil production as an argument that peak oil production is not occurring soon. The very definition of peak oil production means that oil production will be increasing until it is reached.

Spoiler

You're welcome, speculawyer.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Damn, my jaw hurts from all the words being shoved into my mouth.

The context of my post was the history me and spec have where he would often claim (back in 05 and 06?) that global peak oil was already happening. Not that it will never happen.

 

[Hawkian]

Yeah that's intense.

 

[empty vessel]

Damn, my jaw hurts from all the words being shoved into my mouth.

The context of my post was the history me and spec have where he would often claim (back in 05 and 06?) that global peak oil was already happening. Not that it will never happen.

So this grand dispute was about whether peak oil production was happening "now" or "almost now"?

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Putting Ryan on the ticket would be a disaster. Yes it would air him out for 2016 but it could cost republicans the house this year. His budget is already unpopular, and if he was on the ticket it would be the story 24/7.

Rob Portman is safe and from Ohio. He doesn't imbalance the ticket either; Ryan would be the main attraction for most conservatives, as would Christie, and Romney wouldn't stand for that.

If Romney can't win Ohio he's finished. I'd go balls to the walls there and pray for an economic disaster or a white woman in Barry's bed