Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[Steely Dan]

Patriotism should should be based on what is best for the country and not what is best for the political party.

Try telling that to the navy seals.

[metisdead]

Some posts contain a bit of off topic info as well as on topic info, some people just like to focus on the off topic parts of these posts and focus on that part of the post to go off topic. Some posts have been removed.

[koheesti]

Patriotism should should be based on what is best for the country and not what is best for the political party.

.

Or how what the opinion is of other countries. In fact, odds are that if other countries are happy with your choice, you probably made the wrong choice.

[koheesti]

Indiana is not the only state that requires an ID. In fact most of them do. That is nothing new and can not be blamed on Romney and Ryan. .

http://www.ncsl.org/...s/voter-id.aspx

That's a good link. Thanks.

I'm am sure it is only a coincidence, but...most of the states where there are no Voter ID laws, where anyone can claim to be someone else and vote...were won by Obama in 2008. No wonder the Dems are so against showing an ID.

http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/2008-election-map-nytimes.png

[Ulysses G.]

Paul Ryan has a bit of a problem on his hands now doesn't he?

His office requested money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), or stimulus package, for his congressional district, and then he repeatedly denied having done so.

He has a history of requesting federal funds for his district. Nothing wrong with that, but he has been carrying on as if the representatives that do that are somehow bad people and only Democrats. 128 House Republicans voted against the stimulus only to request funds from it, including Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Michele Bachmann. It seems to me that these stalwarts of the tea party were inconsistent and hypocrites.

Why wouldn't Ryan request the funds after the bill had been passed against his advice? His district paid taxes that that were used to make up the funds. His job is to look out for his district and he did the best he could for them in both situations.This is not going to be a problem in the election.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

Patriotism should should be based on what is best for the country and not what is best for the political party.

.

Or how what the opinion is of other countries. In fact, odds are that if other countries are happy with your choice, you probably made the wrong choice.

Especially when the opinion of other places is backed up by political donations, an example of such a place would be the Gaza strip!

http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/71431/

Edited August 19, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Gary A]

Put politics aside and think about our kid's and grand kid's futures. Even the flaming liberals who whine about losing benefits HAVE to be able to see that things can't continue as they are. You can't continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper and then believe that you are doing the right thing. Someone some day will have to pay for this folly.

I read somewhere that democracy will fail when the voters figure out that they are able to vote themselves more and more benefits from the government. It looks like that time is approaching.

[Ulysses G.]

The decline of Western civilization.

[KKvampire]

At a Virginia town hall Friday, a man interrupted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and asked him why he denied securing more than $20 million in stimulus funds for a local energy efficiency organization. He yelled, “Why did you lie about accepting stimulus funds.” Laughing off the question, Ryan simply moved on where he left off. Watch the video:

Yeah shout the guy down, He's asking something about Ryan's record , dont want to know about that, we wanna know what he's gotta say. Republican Hypocrites

Edited August 19, 2012 by KKvampire

[chuckd]

At a Virginia town hall Friday, a man interrupted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and asked him why he denied securing more than $20 million in stimulus funds for a local energy efficiency organization. He yelled, “Why did you lie about accepting stimulus funds.” Laughing off the question, Ryan simply moved on where he left off. Watch the video:

Yeah shout the guy down, He's asking something about Ryan's record , dont want to know about that, we wanna know what he's gotta say. Republican Hypocrites

You brought this up in post number 255. You were provided Ryan's answer in post number 256.

You have already been told what Ryan's answer was.

[geriatrickid]

Put politics aside and think about our kid's and grand kid's futures. Even the flaming liberals who whine about losing benefits HAVE to be able to see that things can't continue as they are. You can't continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper and then believe that you are doing the right thing. Someone some day will have to pay for this folly.

I read somewhere that democracy will fail when the voters figure out that they are able to vote themselves more and more benefits from the government. It looks like that time is approaching.

I have no problem with a realignment of spending priorities, but the emphasis has to be on priorities. The US president has no control over 60% of the budget. 60% is allocated by law; law passed exclusively by the U.S. congress. That mandated spending is approx.$ 2.9 trillion and the biggest allocations were as follows;

• Social Security - $820 billion
  
• Medicare - $523 billion
  
• Medicaid - $283 billion
  
• TARP - $12 billion
  
• All other mandatory programs - $654 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition and Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the Disabled and Student Loans, and Retirement and Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military. (The largest retirement benefit receipients are military veterans.)
  

Okay, I agree with you that something has to be trimmed. What do you want to trim? AARP will not allow any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. The U.S. government has been making a profit on its TARP loans to the corporate receipients, so TARP wasn't all bad. Social security? I have no problem if SS benefits are cut by 25%. The elderly and powerful interest groups like AARP would disagree though and any congress person voting for a reduction would be targeted for defeat in an election. I suppose you could cut child nutrition, unemployment benefits and food stamps. It is not as if the poor can really do anything and kids don't vote, so no worries on alienating that demographic.

The GOP loves to focus on discretionary spending. Let's look at that. About 66% of the discretionary allocation goes to defence spending. The GOP wouldn't let the Pentagon get rid of wasteful expenditures such as the Abrams tank retrofit, so what then? Of the 33% remaining in the discretionary allocation, about 6.5% goes to national debt service. That leaves 26.5% of 40% or, roughly 12% of the US budget for other spending. Even if it was cut to zero, the budget deficit wouldn't be covered. Keep in mind that reducing this spending means that there would be no benefits extended to housing for the poor, no funding for health and human services like the CDC or NIH, no NASA, no NOA, no national parks. Personally, I think it wouldn't be such a bad think if some of the parks like Yosemite were closed to the public and nature was allowed to take over. No need for farm assistance as that would be eliminated. It would be a good idea to do it now since all those farmers suffering from drought are going to be asking for money. The money paid to fight the wildfires is burning a hole in the budget too. If the government eliminated the spending then all those thousands of people would be forced to deal with the impact of their land development. Come to think of it, the elimination of the 12% leftover discretionary budget would mean no more flood insurance or FEMA and we all know what a waste FEMA is. Those people asking for help after a disaster should take care of themselves. I agree.

Go right ahead and cut the biggest costs in the U.S. budget, social security and medicare. I fully support it. Let those old people die faster. It will save us the aggravation of having to put up with them standing in line and slowing things down. The only problem with all the slashing, is that there still isn't enough tax revenue to fund the remaining programs. Taxes have to be increased. One doesn't need to raise taxes, but one can eliminate some credits such as mortgage payments. It is ridiculous that wealthy people can deduct their mortgage payments as it encourages people to get into debt. Fuel taxes have to go up. The GOP whines about energy self sufficiency. Well, maybe if the USA wasn't addicted to gas guzzlers and driving it wouldn't be dependent on other countries. The USA has to be weaned off of its addiction and an increased gas tax would do that. It would also pay for the infrastructure. Won't happen though, because the motto in the USA is now ME, first.

Hard to believe that a nation that was built on sacrifice and generosity is now being destroyed by its own greed and avarice.

[metisdead]

One post has been removed as it was confusing as to whether convicts or conservatives were being discussed.

[Gary A]

Put politics aside and think about our kid's and grand kid's futures. Even the flaming liberals who whine about losing benefits HAVE to be able to see that things can't continue as they are. You can't continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper and then believe that you are doing the right thing. Someone some day will have to pay for this folly.

I read somewhere that democracy will fail when the voters figure out that they are able to vote themselves more and more benefits from the government. It looks like that time is approaching.

I have no problem with a realignment of spending priorities, but the emphasis has to be on priorities. The US president has no control over 60% of the budget. 60% is allocated by law; law passed exclusively by the U.S. congress. That mandated spending is approx.$ 2.9 trillion and the biggest allocations were as follows;

• Social Security - $820 billion
  
• Medicare - $523 billion
  
• Medicaid - $283 billion
  
• TARP - $12 billion
  
• All other mandatory programs - $654 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition and Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the Disabled and Student Loans, and Retirement and Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military. (The largest retirement benefit receipients are military veterans.)
  

Okay, I agree with you that something has to be trimmed. What do you want to trim? AARP will not allow any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. The U.S. government has been making a profit on its TARP loans to the corporate receipients, so TARP wasn't all bad. Social security? I have no problem if SS benefits are cut by 25%. The elderly and powerful interest groups like AARP would disagree though and any congress person voting for a reduction would be targeted for defeat in an election. I suppose you could cut child nutrition, unemployment benefits and food stamps. It is not as if the poor can really do anything and kids don't vote, so no worries on alienating that demographic.

The GOP loves to focus on discretionary spending. Let's look at that. About 66% of the discretionary allocation goes to defence spending. The GOP wouldn't let the Pentagon get rid of wasteful expenditures such as the Abrams tank retrofit, so what then? Of the 33% remaining in the discretionary allocation, about 6.5% goes to national debt service. That leaves 26.5% of 40% or, roughly 12% of the US budget for other spending. Even if it was cut to zero, the budget deficit wouldn't be covered. Keep in mind that reducing this spending means that there would be no benefits extended to housing for the poor, no funding for health and human services like the CDC or NIH, no NASA, no NOA, no national parks. Personally, I think it wouldn't be such a bad think if some of the parks like Yosemite were closed to the public and nature was allowed to take over. No need for farm assistance as that would be eliminated. It would be a good idea to do it now since all those farmers suffering from drought are going to be asking for money. The money paid to fight the wildfires is burning a hole in the budget too. If the government eliminated the spending then all those thousands of people would be forced to deal with the impact of their land development. Come to think of it, the elimination of the 12% leftover discretionary budget would mean no more flood insurance or FEMA and we all know what a waste FEMA is. Those people asking for help after a disaster should take care of themselves. I agree.

Go right ahead and cut the biggest costs in the U.S. budget, social security and medicare. I fully support it. Let those old people die faster. It will save us the aggravation of having to put up with them standing in line and slowing things down. The only problem with all the slashing, is that there still isn't enough tax revenue to fund the remaining programs. Taxes have to be increased. One doesn't need to raise taxes, but one can eliminate some credits such as mortgage payments. It is ridiculous that wealthy people can deduct their mortgage payments as it encourages people to get into debt. Fuel taxes have to go up. The GOP whines about energy self sufficiency. Well, maybe if the USA wasn't addicted to gas guzzlers and driving it wouldn't be dependent on other countries. The USA has to be weaned off of its addiction and an increased gas tax would do that. It would also pay for the infrastructure. Won't happen though, because the motto in the USA is now ME, first.

Hard to believe that a nation that was built on sacrifice and generosity is now being destroyed by its own greed and avarice.

A good start would be to close the massive loopholes for wealthy people and huge companies like GE who pay very little or no taxes. Raising the tax rate percentage would do absolutely no good with all the loopholes available.

Next is to downsize a bloated and incompetent government. We all know fakers who are collecting Social Security disability. That's not to mention the dead people who are still getting checks. Even as it is, Social Security is not the anchor around the neck that people think it is. If the government would pay back the money it "borrowed" and eliminate at least some of the fraud, the trust fund would NOT be broke.

The government is not able to manage the Social Security system and now we are looking at giving them Obamacare. How smart is that? Medicaid should not even be a part of the Social Security system. It should be funded by the welfare system. The government is obviously not able to stop the fraud so it should be taken out of their jurisdiction.

I'm too old to be really affected by the madness but I do think of future generations who will have to deal with massive debt that they won't even be able to pay the interest on.

[geriatrickid]

A good start would be to close the massive loopholes for wealthy people and huge companies like GE who pay very little or no taxes. Raising the tax rate percentage would do absolutely no good with all the loopholes available.

Next is to downsize a bloated and incompetent government. We all know fakers who are collecting Social Security disability. That's not to mention the dead people who are still getting checks. Even as it is, Social Security is not the anchor around the neck that people think it is. If the government would pay back the money it "borrowed" and eliminate at least some of the fraud, the trust fund would NOT be broke.

The government is not able to manage the Social Security system and now we are looking at giving them Obamacare. How smart is that? Medicaid should not even be a part of the Social Security system. It should be funded by the welfare system. The government is obviously not able to stop the fraud so it should be taken out of their jurisdiction.

I'm too old to be really affected by the madness but I do think of future generations who will have to deal with massive debt that they won't even be able to pay the interest on.

My disagreement with you is not a disagreement over the need to reduce spending. I agree that loopholes should be eliminated. I agree that medicare and SS cheats need to be dealt with. The government is doing that, but it requires the assistance of the public. The public has to report the frauds and there is no social contract in place. People have a sense of entitlement. No one talks or negotiates now, it is always expensive litigation.

The problem with trying to prevent fraud when the population is not onside is that it becomes expensive and creates a bureaucracy. The IRS has seen its budget for auditors cut. In order to stop the cheating a large sum would need to be invested. Think TSA. Transport security is needed, but holey moley, look at the cost and no one is happy.

It is often less costly to tolerate fraud and cheating than to stop it. It would be more efficient if people were not cheats.If the government cracked down, there would be even more protests and complaints of "big government".

In respect to welfare and medicare, there is an obstacle. It is called the U.S. constitution with U.S. states having control over various parts of the social assistance programs. Without a standardized federal system, poorer states would not be able to fund some basic programs. There would eb a patchwork of programs and some states would be penalized. It's wonderful to be old in some parts of Florida with meal assistance, subsidised transit, and medical aid programs. It sucks to be old in rural Louisiana where none of that exists. Now imagine what would happen if basic federal programs were cut. I think the onus is on people to do the right thing. My father is entitled to supplemental veterans healthcare under our national system. He doesn't use it and says it should be spent on vets who need it. He is not the only old timer that thinks like that and he was a product of a generation that understood what doing the right thing is. Unfortunately, the baby boom generation has no such sentiment.

Edited August 19, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

You brought this up in post number 255. You were provided Ryan's answer in post number 256.

You have already been told what Ryan's answer was.

IMO, not a very convincing argument and one that belies a lack of sincerity and principle.

[Ulysses G.]

You know what they say about opinions.

[snarky66]

Yes Paul Ryan is a breath of fresh air compared to the thuggish corrupt regieme that is in there now.

[koheesti]

Paul Ryan as VP would be a great improvement over the one now. Here is a hilarious article about good ol' Joe Biden, our current VP and how he can't stop talking...

Biden started talking. And talking. And talking. He spoke and he gesticulated. He wandered off into secondary subjects, and secondary subjects of the secondary subjects. He conjured up a memory of his childhood, and then told a tale from his first campaign.

...

It was not until 45 minutes after he had begun that Joseph I. Biden simply ran out of gas. He came to no conclusion, no closing thought. He just stopped talking, looked down, and at last took a bite of food and drank some water.

...

He spent decades in the Senate doing just this, which was permissible since there are no limits imposed on the amount of time a senator may speak. In her book, “The Obamas,” Jodi Kantor tells a story about Barack Obama, in the first of his three years in the Senate, listening to an endless Biden oration. The future president scribbled a note to an aide. It said: “Kill. Me. Now.”

So why did Obama choose Biden as his running mate? And why is he keeping Biden on as his running mate?

Read more:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_incredible_lightness_of_biden_CgB6Yz8l14K4wlBEFEYnlK#ixzz2423frQPK

[Jingthing]

Foreign policy experience.

Romney-Ryan combined have NONE. I mean zero.

[harryfrompattaya]

Yes this is class warfare and the rich have won. Time to fight back.

I'd rather the rich win than the poor. A poor person has never hired anyone.

That's classic. Most of the money of rich people like Romney now goes OFFSHORE and you bloody well know it.

I am learning a lot about the rich from you. How do you known so much is you or your wife very rich?

It amazing me how poor people known about the rich. You sound like my brother LeRoy never worked a day in his life but kn owns everything. By the way he want Obama to give him more.

[chuckd]

You brought this up in post number 255. You were provided Ryan's answer in post number 256.

You have already been told what Ryan's answer was.

IMO, not a very convincing argument and one that belies a lack of sincerity and principle.

Lack of sincerity and principle on who's part?

[chuckd]

Foreign policy experience.

Romney-Ryan combined have NONE. I mean zero.

It is pretty obvious by now the Obama-Biden team doesn't have a lot of expertise in this area either.

This election is about the economy, not foreign policy.

Twenty million or so unemployed Americans couldn't care less about what is going on in Bangladesh. They want a job and a livable wage and the current administration has shown no ability to produce them.

[Jingthing]

The RYAN-romney budget is cruel to poor people. Any non rich person that votes for this duo is certifiable:

The Jesuits were even more tart, with one group writing to Mr. Ryan that "Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

...

Even Mr. Ryan's former parish priest in Janesville weighed in. Father Stephen Umhoefer told the Center for Media and Democracy, "You can't tell somebody that in 10 years your economic situation is going to be just wonderful because meanwhile your kids may starve to death."

Beyond the even-keeled Ryan mien lurks full-tilt virulence. A moderate demeanor is not a sign of a moderate view of the world.

Read more: http://www.post-gaze.../#ixzz244oRY42d

Edited August 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

The RYAN-romney budget is cruel to poor people. Any non rich person that votes for this duo is certifiable:

The Jesuits were even more tart, with one group writing to Mr. Ryan that "Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

...

Even Mr. Ryan's former parish priest in Janesville weighed in. Father Stephen Umhoefer told the Center for Media and Democracy, "You can't tell somebody that in 10 years your economic situation is going to be just wonderful because meanwhile your kids may starve to death."

Beyond the even-keeled Ryan mien lurks full-tilt virulence. A moderate demeanor is not a sign of a moderate view of the world.

Read more: http://www.post-gaze.../#ixzz244oRY42d

An opinion piece written by Maureen Dowd, hardly a Romney sympathizer. Both feet in the tank for Obama.

I'm looking up a nice Rush Limbaugh article to fight your opinion pieces.

[Jingthing]

How daft. You expect to find an article critical of Romney from a Romney supporter and if it isn't from a Romney supporter, any points made are worthless? Oh, please, spare us.

[Ulysses G.]

Maureen Dowd,writes yet another hit piece on a Republican candidate - like anyone would pay attention to an opinion piece by someone who does not even pretend to be impartial.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Maureen Dowd,writes yet another hit piece on a Republican candidate - like anyone would pay attention to an opinion piece by someone who does not even pretend to be impartial.

Did she make up the quotes I cited? No. She did not. Please focus on the points rather than predictably ALWAYS attack the source.

[Ulysses G.]

You mean the quotes from the guys in Rage Against the Machine and from the Huffington Post? What a shock that they do not support Romney and Ryan.

How about a link to the 400 economists who support the Romney/Ryan plan over Obama's - including four Nobel laureates.

http://economistsforromney.com/

Edited August 20, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

You mean the quotes from the guys in Rage Against the Machine and from the Huffington Post? What a shock that they do not support Romney and Ryan.

How about a link to the 400 economists who support the Romney/Ryan plan over Obama's - including four Nobel laureates.

http://economistsforromney.com/

Where's Rolling Stone when you really need a reputable source?

[chuckd]

How daft. You expect to find an article critical of Romney from a Romney supporter and if it isn't from a Romney supporter, any points made are worthless? Oh, please, spare us.

And my response is...

How daft. You expect to find an article critical of Obama from an Obama supporter and if it isn't from an Obama supporter, any points made are worthless? Oh, please, spare us.

You just made my precise point about opinion pieces.