Romney to pick Ryan.

A risky choice.

As predicted, if Romney wins, now especially with Ryan, he will have no choice but to govern from the far right.

Ryan, the classic heartless conservative budget extremist. Slash the budget. Let the poor suffer and die.

This will make the tea party base happy.

It will make Romney's loss much more likely.

When Romney loses he can blame the far right, and deflect blame from himself.

I think he made this pick because he knows he is going to lose so wants to be seen in history as believing in something, because nobody really believes he does now.

All in all, a great day for Americans! (Because Romney will lose.)

Agreed. MSNBC is viciously ripping apart Ryan already. Romey is toast.

I just hope Ryan didn't pull a prank on anybody when he was in high school. It would be ok if he only smoked dope like another elected official did all the way through his learning years, but a prank would be unforgivable.

Here's Ryan in action. He will be the smartest man to grace the Oval Office with his presence in the last three years when Romney is elected.

Agreed. MSNBC is viciously ripping apart Ryan already. Romey is toast.

Something like 10 people per day watch MSNBC. They don't even matter.

Agreed. MSNBC is viciously ripping apart Ryan already. Romey is toast.

Something like 10 people per day watch MSNBC. They don't even matter.

UG, have you watched the HBO show "The Newsroom" yet? You'll love it, as it creates the perfect Oberman far more successfully than than the West Wing created the perfect Clinton.

Agreed. MSNBC is viciously ripping apart Ryan already. Romey is toast.

Something like 10 people per day watch MSNBC. They don't even matter.

UG, have you watched the HBO show "The Newsroom" yet? You'll love it, as it creates the perfect Oberman far more successfully than than the West Wing created the perfect Clinton.

"perfect Olberman". Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?

I want to see The Newsroom. I loved the West Wing.

I want to see The Newsroom. I loved the West Wing.

It's on the torrent and usenet sites for download. But in this series Sorkin has dropped all pretenses of being neutral. In the West Wing they at least made the effort to present the other side of the argument. But right from the first episode of the Newsroom we are informed that "there are not always two sides to an argument, sometimes there is only one, sometimes there are many" but sure enough through the 1st 7 episodes never has an issue been uncovered that has more than one side.

For entertaiment purposes, sometimes I can forget about logic long enough to enjoy a TV show with a far-left point of view.

For entertaiment purposes, sometimes I can forget about logic long enough to enjoy a TV show with a far-left point of view.

Yes, sometimes its fun to suspend reality. It liked Mr. Ed for much the same reason.

I found Mr. Ed to be a little sad. He always had such a long face.

He was a smooth talker though.

Ryan is a great pick. Ryan is very intelligent and has balls enough to tackle entitlements. Maybe we still have a chance to save America before Obama flushes it down the toilet.

Ryan would be a good pick if along with his penchant for reigning in spending he also were keen on throwing out the tax code and starting over and raising upper bracket taxes. I haven't heard any of that from either him or Romney so consequently I agree with JT that he will mark the kiss of death for that ticket. America needs comprehensive tax and spending reform. Since neither party seems likely to do that the incumbent will likely remain. Hopefully the Republicans can take the whole Congress and gridlock will allow for mandatory spending cuts. Unfortunately that will mean the Bush tax cuts get extended which should have been alloed to lapse

Ryan is a great pick. Ryan is very intelligent and has balls enough to tackle entitlements. Maybe we still have a chance to save America before Obama flushes it down the toilet.

Ryan would be a good pick if along with his penchant for reigning in spending he also were keen on throwing out the tax code and starting over and raising upper bracket taxes. I haven't heard any of that from either him or Romney so consequently I agree with JT that he will mark the kiss of death for that ticket. America needs comprehensive tax and spending reform. Since neither party seems likely to do that the incumbent will likely remain. Hopefully the Republicans can take the whole Congress and gridlock will allow for mandatory spending cuts. Unfortunately that will mean the Bush tax cuts get extended which should have been alloed to lapse

Now, now, Ryan avocates tax, spending and entitlement reform, but he does not want to raise taxes on anyone and that includes the wealthy. It is well documented that raising taxes on the wealthy would do almost nothing to cut the deficit. The democrats refuse to address these crucial issues just to get reelected - which is all they care about. Ryan has courage and vision and is a great VP pick.

Now, now, Ryan avocates tax, spending and entitlement reform, but he does not want to raise taxes on anyone and that includes the wealthy. It is well documented that raising taxes on the wealthy would do almost nothing to cut the deficit. The democrats refuse to address these crucial issues just to get reelected - which is all they care about. Ryan has courage and vision and is a great VP pick.

There you are being disingenuous again. Objective independent analysis of the Ryan budget conclude a massive tax cut for the wealthy and a massive tax increase for the middle class.

Now, now, Ryan avocates tax, spending and entitlement reform, but he does not want to raise taxes on anyone and that includes the wealthy. It is well documented that raising taxes on the wealthy would do almost nothing to cut the deficit. The democrats refuse to address these crucial issues just to get reelected - which is all they care about. Ryan has courage and vision and is a great VP pick.

There you are being disingenuous again. Objective independent analysis of the Ryan budget conclude a massive tax cut for the wealthy and a massive tax increase for the middle class.

Let's take a look at Obama's tax plan. At least the only one anybody knows about.

It is Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire unless the Republican House agrees to raise taxes on the wealthy. Correct so far?

The Republican House is saying they will only extend the Bush tax cuts if it applies to every income level. Correct again?

Obama says he will veto the Republican's intention to extend the Bush tax cuts for everybody unless it stops tax cuts for the so-called wealthy. Stalemate?

So Obama is willing to raise taxes on 100% of the tax paying public because the Republicans refuse to raise taxes on the 1%. who pay the majority of the taxes already.

Does that about sum it up or are you aware of some, as yet unpublished, Obama version of a new tax strategy?

Adding the cancellation of the Bush era tax cuts on top of the largest increase in taxes in the history of the US, known as Obamacare (PPACA) hardly seems to be an acceptable solution to the problem.

That must be Obama's second four year plan...after the failure of his first four year plan which was nonexistent.

Exactly. I think we know who is being disingenuous once again.

Ryan is a great pick. Ryan is very intelligent and has balls enough to tackle entitlements. Maybe we still have a chance to save America before Obama flushes it down the toilet.

Ryan would be a good pick if along with his penchant for reigning in spending he also were keen on throwing out the tax code and starting over and raising upper bracket taxes. I haven't heard any of that from either him or Romney so consequently I agree with JT that he will mark the kiss of death for that ticket. America needs comprehensive tax and spending reform. Since neither party seems likely to do that the incumbent will likely remain. Hopefully the Republicans can take the whole Congress and gridlock will allow for mandatory spending cuts. Unfortunately that will mean the Bush tax cuts get extended which should have been alloed to lapse

Addressing your concerns, LRB, let me add a couple of comments.

First, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy would bring in an estimated $85 Billion in revenue for fiscal year 2013.

Secondly the proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2013 is $3.6 Trillion. This equates to $9.863 Billion per day to operate the federal government 24/7, or an hourly average of $411 million. Breaking this down to the ridiculous, the federal government is costing the tax paying public $6.849 Million per minute.

All the silly comments coming from the Democratic party camp means their primary tax goal of taxing the rich would enable the federal government to operate only about 8 DAYS AND 14 HOURS.

What really needs to happen is a serious discussion about cutting the federal budget, and I don't mean cutting 200 Billion over the next ten years.

For starters, we could close the Department of Education. They operate no schools, they have no teachers and they do not teach one student. The 2013 budget for the Education department is $69.8 Billion. Let's let the states have the honor of teaching their own students.

How about the Energy Department. All they do is back companies that are owned by Obama's campaign bundlers and block oil expoloration both off shore and on federal land. Budget? $27.2 Billion

Viola! These two government bureaucracies cost taxpayers $97 Billion annually, yet do nothing constructive. Get rid of them and there is no need to raise taxes on anybody!

Let me loose with a red pencil on the federal budget and I would have a field day.

Foreign Aid? Diminished greatly.

Earmarks? Gone.

UN participation? Vastly reduced.

Obamacare? Overturned so no need to hire an additional 16,500 IRS agents.

The list is lengthy, might even be considered endless..

Now, now, Ryan avocates tax, spending and entitlement reform, but he does not want to raise taxes on anyone and that includes the wealthy. It is well documented that raising taxes on the wealthy would do almost nothing to cut the deficit. The democrats refuse to address these crucial issues just to get reelected - which is all they care about. Ryan has courage and vision and is a great VP pick.

One thing that's got to go is the perception that making $250,000 per year is perfectly normal and should be subject to middle class tax rates. That bracket should probably be adjusted downward to something like $150,000 which would raise all kinds of revenue.

Ryan is a great pick. Ryan is very intelligent and has balls enough to tackle entitlements. Maybe we still have a chance to save America before Obama flushes it down the toilet.

Ryan would be a good pick if along with his penchant for reigning in spending he also were keen on throwing out the tax code and starting over and raising upper bracket taxes. I haven't heard any of that from either him or Romney so consequently I agree with JT that he will mark the kiss of death for that ticket. America needs comprehensive tax and spending reform. Since neither party seems likely to do that the incumbent will likely remain. Hopefully the Republicans can take the whole Congress and gridlock will allow for mandatory spending cuts. Unfortunately that will mean the Bush tax cuts get extended which should have been alloed to lapse

Addressing your concerns, LRB, let me add a couple of comments.

First, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy would bring in an estimated $85 Billion in revenue for fiscal year 2013.

Secondly the proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2013 is $3.6 Trillion. This equates to $9.863 Billion per day to operate the federal government 24/7, or an hourly average of $411 million. Breaking this down to the ridiculous, the federal government is costing the tax paying public $6.849 Million per minute.

All the silly comments coming from the Democratic party camp means their primary tax goal of taxing the rich would enable the federal government to operate only about 8 DAYS AND 14 HOURS.

What really needs to happen is a serious discussion about cutting the federal budget, and I don't mean cutting 200 Billion over the next ten years.

For starters, we could close the Department of Education. They operate no schools, they have no teachers and they do not teach one student. The 2013 budget for the Education department is $69.8 Billion. Let's let the states have the honor of teaching their own students.

How about the Energy Department. All they do is back companies that are owned by Obama's campaign bundlers and block oil expoloration both off shore and on federal land. Budget? $27.2 Billion

Viola! These two government bureaucracies cost taxpayers $97 Billion annually, yet do nothing constructive. Get rid of them and there is no need to raise taxes on anybody!

Let me loose with a red pencil on the federal budget and I would have a field day.

Foreign Aid? Diminished greatly.

Earmarks? Gone.

UN participation? Vastly reduced.

Obamacare? Overturned so no need to hire an additional 16,500 IRS agents.

The list is lengthy, might even be considered endless..

If you and I were charged with sorting things out chuck, I'm pretty sure we could get it done. Unfortunately that's not the case. My point made in the other post is that I would lower te level at which one is considered wealthy and I think you'd see a whole bunch of new revenue.

The truth is that if the USA is going to raise revenues like the democrats want, they would have to raise them on everyone, not just the wealthy. They will not admit it before the election, but nothing else makes any sense.

As an Australian may one ask what the policies of the Republicans and the Democrats?

1. Foreign Policy.

Why is one person the "President " so important? What determines which party will govern? The one with the most seats usually.

Why does the party in power not appoint a leader?

The US would be far better off if it looked at the Australian system of even the UK system.

ie the Westminster system of goverment.

One must say the US political system is very strange indeed.

You do understand, that to us, your system seems strange too?

It seems yet another one of Obama's hallmark legislative victories is turning bitter sweet.

August 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout

By David Shepardson

Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM's stock price was $22.20 a share.

On Monday, GM stock fell $0.07, or 0.3 percent, to $20.47. At that price, the government would lose another $850 million on its GM bailout.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120813/AUTO01/208130392#ixzz3q2eFkBDd

You do understand, that to us, your system seems strange too?

You mean because the people don't elect a leader? They let political parties appoint them after the election? Is that how their system works? Seems even worse than ours.

Here is Daniel Greenfield with some interesting views I tend to agree with.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-most-divisive-campaign-in-american.html

After 2010, the numbers were crunched, and it was clear that Obama and the Democrats could not win a mainstream campaign. Instead, they targeted narrow groups, stirred up conflicts over issues aimed at that group, whether it was union pensions, racism or birth control. There was no more pretense of a national election, only a frenzied rush to polarize as many groups as possible and join them together into an acrimonious coalition, not so much for anything, as against Republicans.

An interesting article indeed!

"There isn't any inspiration here. Just paranoia over everything from gay marriage to abortion to racial profiling to illegal immigration. A dozen illegal benefits being handed out with the explicit threat that they will be lost if Romney wins. A dozen mini-civil wars being stirred up to divide Americans and set them at each other's throats for the benefit of the Obama campaign.

From Occupy Wall Street to Wisconsin, from Trayvon Martin to Chick-fil-A, the goal of these manufactured conflicts has been to divide and conquer the electorate by emphasizing group rights over individual economic welfare."

Ryan is a great pick. Ryan is very intelligent and has balls enough to tackle entitlements. Maybe we still have a chance to save America before Obama flushes it down the toilet.

Ryan would be a good pick if along with his penchant for reigning in spending he also were keen on throwing out the tax code and starting over and raising upper bracket taxes. I haven't heard any of that from either him or Romney so consequently I agree with JT that he will mark the kiss of death for that ticket. America needs comprehensive tax and spending reform. Since neither party seems likely to do that the incumbent will likely remain. Hopefully the Republicans can take the whole Congress and gridlock will allow for mandatory spending cuts. Unfortunately that will mean the Bush tax cuts get extended which should have been alloed to lapse

America doesn't have the stomach for comprehensive tax reform. Everyone has their favorite entitlement or tax deduction that they know in their heart is righteous. No US politician could ever get anywhere if they proposed a Singapore or Hong Kong-style tax structure where everyone pays the same progressive rate on their gross earnings, with no deductions. Never would Americans accept a tax system where all people earning the same amount of money paid the same amount of taxes.

Here is Daniel Greenfield with some interesting views I tend to agree with.

http://sultanknish.b...n-american.html

After 2010, the numbers were crunched, and it was clear that Obama and the Democrats could not win a mainstream campaign. Instead, they targeted narrow groups, stirred up conflicts over issues aimed at that group, whether it was union pensions, racism or birth control. There was no more pretense of a national election, only a frenzied rush to polarize as many groups as possible and join them together into an acrimonious coalition, not so much for anything, as against Republicans.

That's how the Left works. All those anti-war protests you saw on TV? I went to them when I lived in Washington DC and they were a mix of many small leftists groups joining together to support each other, but promote their own pet causes while they were at it. That's why you would see interviews with protesters who didn't seem to have a clue about the issue they were protesting. They likely didn't.

An interesting article indeed!

"There isn't any inspiration here. Just paranoia over everything from gay marriage to abortion to racial profiling to illegal immigration. A dozen illegal benefits being handed out with the explicit threat that they will be lost if Romney wins. A dozen mini-civil wars being stirred up to divide Americans and set them at each other's throats for the benefit of the Obama campaign.

From Occupy Wall Street to Wisconsin, from Trayvon Martin to Chick-fil-A, the goal of these manufactured conflicts has been to divide and conquer the electorate by emphasizing group rights over individual economic welfare."

Hope & Change! A bigger crock today than it was 4 years ago.