Mitt’s VP Shocker

[Finster]

Paul Ryan probably wasn’t on many pundits’ short list for Mitt Romney’s most likely running mate. Not on mine, at least. The expectation was for a more political pick … someone more cynically calculated to bring in votes on identity group politics. It’s a positive surprise though … I like the choice of Paul Ryan because he has solid federal budget credentials. In my view the single biggest threat to the viability of the US economy is the federal debt and deficits, so if anything, put together with Romney’s business and finance background, it’s a good ticket.

Okay, so maybe it’s not quite my dream team (that would have included Ron Paul), but I prefer a Romney presidency over the obvious alternative. Besides debt and deficits, the main reason is his stated opposition to Obamacare. It’s a little less than solid, though, because it’s not yet clear what would replace Obamacare. The status quo isn’t much better, and the Reps will have to settle on some kind of positive proposal. I don’t like Obamacare because one of the biggest problems with the status quo is that it mixes up employment with medical insurance, and if anything Obamacare just further cements that in place. We don’t have the fifties-era lifetime career economy any more. We have and need employment mobility - including mobility between traditional employment, self-employment, and unemployment. It would be much better to revamp tax policy to disincentivize employer medical insurance benefits, and if too many are still falling through the cracks, expand aid programs or provide tax credits or deductions where needed.

This election should be about the economy and the federal budget, and it probably is. The Ryan choice speaks well of Romney’s sense of priorities, suggesting he shares that view.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Paul Ryan's stances on political issues as evinced by his voting record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm
I'll highlight a few issues I feel are particularly relevant to the common man:


Civil Rights

Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)


He sees homosexuals as being less than equal to heterosexual people. That is the only conclusion one can draw from his stance. And he supports the PATRIOT Act, the largest intrusion upon the civil rights of Americans we have ever experienced.


Crime

Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)


Despite the fact that we have the largest prison population in the world, he wants to ensure that we imprison even more people. So even though the prison system is crumbling beneath the weight of the massive amount of prisoners already, it is perfectly fine to not only continue our current policy, but to accelerate it.


Free trade

End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
Rated 67% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)


He is a major supporter of free trade, which has caused the destruction of our domestic industries. Free trade only serves to enrich the extremely wealthy and corporations. It does not serve out national interest at all as it has reduced our collective wealth substantially.


Energy Policy

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)


He supports subsidizing fossil fuels, which are on a major decline, but does not support alternative energy to reduce our dependence on those declining resources.


Environment

Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)


He has an incredibly destructive stance upon the environment. He would further endanger species that are under incredible pressure as it is while also supporting deforestation, a key habitat for all creatures. And judging by his stance on CO2, he does not recognize climate change as a threat.


Foreign Policy

America is the most pro-human idea ever conceived. (Sep 2010)
Commitment to unbreakable U.S.-Israel bond. (Mar 2010)


I fail to see anything pro-human about a nation that lets massive amounts of its population toil away in poverty while also failing to recognize everyone as being equal under the law. I think he means America is the pro-rich country in the world.

Homeland Security

Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

He supports intruding upon American privacy without any legal backing for it.


Taxes

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)


He wants for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer since these tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. Another example trickle-down economic policy that has only materialized gains for the rich and significant losses for everyone else. He is also part of the crew that passed some of the most damaging, bankster-friendly legislation around.


Technology

Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)


What a complete joke. He wants to remove a public news forum that has been an immense boon while having a negligible cost on the national budget. And at the same time, he wants to destroy the Internet by allowing powerful players to section it off and charge for content.


The man is a complete shill for corporations and the entitled ultra-wealthy. The R/R team will continue the same agenda of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[c1ue]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Interesting, my view of Ryan's selection as VP is to solidify Romney's appeal to his core demographic and to extend it to the Tea Party.

In this light, hardly an enlightened selection - it is proof of ongoing divisiveness rather than any attempt paths toward a better future.

I do agree that Ryan is a fine selection in terms of providing ammunition to the ongoing austerity debate, but of course my view on austerity isn't the same as Ryan's.

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Obama-Biden are doing a good job of making everyone poorer.

Trillions have been spent on helping the poor; triilions in taxes have been paid by the rich. Why are there still so many poor? I've worked in the anti poverty program. Our poverty wage ($75 a month) program did more for the poor than any other government program. The only people really helped by the antipoverty program are the overpaid, overbenefited government workers.

Yes, the economy must be restructured to significantly reduce FIRE, and increase industry. Yes, the loopholes should all be closed and lobbyists unemployed.

This is a spending problem and a structural problem. Corporations must work with a downsized governmemt to achieve this.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Obama-Biden are doing a good job of making everyone poorer.

Just like Bush and Cheney before them. Just like Clinton and Gore before them. Just like Bush Sr and Dan Quayle before them. Just like Reagen and Bush Sr before them. So on and so forth. Democrats and Republicans both blow it out their arses.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I do agree that Ryan is a fine selection in terms of providing ammunition to the ongoing austerity debate, but of course my view on austerity isn't the same as Ryan's.

Ryan only considers austerity for the poor, not the rich or corporations. He has been a major promoter of fiscal irresponsibility by voting for BOTH wars, bailouts for bad companies, continuation of subsidies for rich industries, etc. But no, the places that need trimming are 'entitlements' for the poor despite the fact those 'entitlements' were PAID for.

Where people get this idea that Ryan is interested in fiscal responsibility and government austerity is beyond me. He has been all big government, all big spending the entire time. The man is a fiend.

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

[COLOR=#464646][FONT=Verdana]He sees homosexuals as being less than equal to heterosexual people. That is the only conclusion one can draw from his stance.

That's a pretty bold claim. What's your reasoning?

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Interesting, my view of Ryan's selection as VP is to solidify Romney's appeal to his core demographic and to extend it to the Tea Party.

In this light, hardly an enlightened selection - it is proof of ongoing divisiveness rather than any attempt paths toward a better future.

I do agree that Ryan is a fine selection in terms of providing ammunition to the ongoing austerity debate, but of course my view on austerity isn't the same as Ryan's.

Good point about the Tea Party ... although I'd taken that the conventional wisdom was that Romney needed "the middle" more. It also may be that it's not "an enlightened" ticket, but realists gave up on looking for enlightened statesmen long ago. (Heck, some folks even think Ron Paul doesn't even qualify any more... ;-) For me, anyway, it's the lesser of the evils.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

That's a pretty bold claim. What's your reasoning?

Because he doesn't want to extend the same rights to them as the government does for heterosexual people. That's pretty much the definition of inequality to me. Gay people should not adopt, have marriages, and he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This guy needs to be punted back to the 13th century. He would do well with the likes of people then.

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

i have a mixed view on both romney and ryan.
altho i consider myself a 'conservative', i'm more of a hybrid (read: think the .gov blows too much money and spends too much in particular on 'wars on drugs', telling us what sorts of stuff we can eat, enforces PC behaviour that makes nobody 'happy', or wants to use the courts to change 'societal norms' when they cant get their way at the ballot box) - that guy who's piece you put up awhile back mr c1ue, who i-d'd himself as a 'green/red hybrid' - IIRC - is the way i'd put it as well.

my reservations in supporting the 'repub ticket is that so far they havent put up any kind of a REAL PLAN on what they intend to do about the economy, aside from the usual GOP platitudes of cutting spending and taxes (without saying much about what and/or on who, with the out-of-control .mil budget being their biggest liability)

but that said, i'd rather lean in their direction than even think for one second that 4 more years of the disaster that started in 2007 (when pelosi, reid&co took over the beltway) is a better way to go

in other words i'm an ABO voter.
and the status quo is a LOSER, no matter who 'wins'

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Because he doesn't want to extend the same rights to them as the government does for heterosexual people. That's pretty much the definition of inequality to me. Gay people should not adopt, have marriages, and he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This guy needs to be punted back to the 13th century. He would do well with the likes of people then.

I should have guessed; we've been hearing this bogus "equality" argument for a long time. Gays have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else. Whether their marriage preferences differ doesn't make the law unequal. At the bare minimum, it's clear that your conclusion about Ryan's view being the only one possible is false.

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Obama-Biden are doing a good job of making everyone poorer.

Trillions have been spent on helping the poor; triilions in taxes have been paid by the rich. Why are there still so many poor? I've worked in the anti poverty program. Our poverty wage ($75 a month) program did more for the poor than any other government program. The only people really helped by the antipoverty program are the overpaid, overbenefited government workers.

Yes, the economy must be restructured to significantly reduce FIRE, and increase industry. Yes, the loopholes should all be closed and lobbyists unemployed.

This is a spending problem and a structural problem. Corporations must work with a downsized governmemt to achieve this.

+1

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I should have guessed; we've been hearing this bogus "equality" argument for a long time. Gays have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else. Whether their marriage preferences differ doesn't make the law unequal. At the bare minimum, it's clear that your conclusion about Ryan's view being the only one possible is false.

That does make it unequal. That demonstrates entirely that they are viewed as being of lower status than heterosexuals. I don't understand how you can look at that and not see it as discrimination and inequality made manifest by some foolish bigot. He not only does not want to extend the same right to marriage to them, but he wants to ensure that they never receive it. He also wants to ensure that they cannot have children. You have your head buried in the sand.

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

one problem i have with this particular issue is it seems to attract those who tend to be one-issue voters.

personally, i couldnt care less what consenting adults want to do with and to each other in the privacy of their own abodes - i get sick of being bombarded daily in every form of media by the 'pro marriage lobby' - one would think this is The ONLY Social Issue that matters and that 75% of the public is somehow 'concerned' about it, when mabye 5or10% even care, one way or another.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

The thing is, this issue speaks a lot about someone's personality and ethics.