Paul Ryan -Republican candidate for VP

[August1991]

Second, Ryan was an Any Rand devotee; she was required reading for his staff and interns until the Catholic church took issue with his budget plan, calling it immoral and questioning Ryan following the philosophy of Ayn Ryan, an atheist, instead of Jesus. So now, she is no longer his favorite philosopher and his staff doesn’t have to read her books. How do you say flip flop?

So, according to you, Paul Ryan follows the dictates of the Vatican.

Is this the new Democrat talking point? Ryan is worse than an objectivist; he's a Roman Catholic!

WONT HAPPEN. Once you take Medicare way from those under 55 they will vote to get rid of it for those over 55. It has to be an all or none solution. Only an idiot would think people under 55 would tolerate a two teared system where the baby boomers get to live for free off those who are still working and paying taxes.

We're in a situation (in Canada, the US and and western Europe) of the proverbial father of a large (12 kid) family who promises each of his kids to pay for university tuition. Number One Son and Daughter dutifully go off to college - paid by Dad. Several kids later, Daughter Number Seven just graduated high school, Dad is on his deathbed and there's barely enough money to pay for the funeral. Younger son and daughter, Number 11 and Number 12, look on and wonder.

What happens next?

Daughter 7, son 11 and daughter 12 get involved in a bun fight about the will. In the extreme case, they hire lawyers to sue son and daughter number one.

All the kids argue about the fairness/unfairness of life rather than get on with life and create.

Edited August 17, 2012 by August1991

[bleeding heart]

So, according to you, Paul Ryan follows the dictates of the Vatican.

Is this the new Democrat talking point? Ryan is worse than an objectivist; he's a Roman Catholic!

What?

Read it again, but without your own internal voice acting as shadow puppet over what you're reading.

Bitsy didn't make any judgements about Rand or about the Church. (She no doubt has opinions on them....but they're not part of her argument here.)

She is making a demonstrably realistic observation about Ryan's evident propensity to change his favourite philosopher...as per the admonishment of the Church.

It's about the flip-flop...a more than usually obvious one in this case.

[Bitsy]

So, according to you, Paul Ryan follows the dictates of the Vatican.

I did not say that. He flip-flopped because there are more Christians in the US than Randites.

Is this the new Democrat talking point? Ryan is worse than an objectivist; he's a Roman Catholic!

No, it is not a talking point, old or new. Joe Biden is a Roman Catholic!

Are you always this obtuse?

[bleeding heart]

I did not say that. He flip-flopped because there are more Christians in the US than Randites.

Your points were obvious to everyone else.

Are you always this obtuse?

No, he isn't. Just often.

[Bitsy]

Your points were obvious to everyone else.

Thanks, glad to know that most understood.

No, he isn't. Just often

Thanks again...good to know,I will try to remember that.

[j44]

If Obama can't hold Wisconsin, he's finished.

This is a joke, right?

[Guest American Woman]

Shady, on 16 August 2012 - 06:59 PM, said: If Obama can't hold Wisconsin, he's finished.

This is a joke, right?

It made me laugh.

[Shady]

This is a joke, right?

Why would that be a joke? If he can't hold Wisconsin, it would be symptomatic of a larger problem. Much in the same way McCain not being able to hold Indiana. When you have to spend resources in states that should be solidly in your column, it spells trouble. Perhaps I should have been more descriptive in my response.

[BubberMiley]

But Obama still has a 3.5 lead in Wisconsin, even after Ryan was nominated for VP. There wasn't even a VP nomination bump, as would normally be expected. I'm sure the fact that Ryan is from a swing state played largely in Romney's decision to choose him, so I would imagine they're very disappointed that overall he hasn't generated any kind of momentum anywhere at all.

[j44]

http://www.economist.com/node/21560552?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/ahealthydifference

'From 2022, firms would present plans at least as generous as Medicare; the voucher would be set at the price of the second-cheapest private plan or of traditional Medicare, whichever is lower. Firms would compete on a new exchange, vying to give the best services at the lowest price. If a plan cost less than the voucher, a beneficiary could pocket the extra cash. If a chosen plan cost more, beneficiaries would pay the difference. And if competition among plans didn’t contain costs, a cap would. Under the plan, Medicare spending may not rise by more than the growth of nominal GDP plus one percent

Democrats gleefully declare that Messrs Romney and Ryan would “end Medicare as we know it”. To meet the cap, the Ryan-Wyden plan says that “Congress would be required to intervene”, for example, by cutting hospital payments. But Congress cannot be compelled to act, as it proves yearly. Instead, critics say, the proposal would merely cap vouchers, shifting costs to patients. (Mr Ryan’s budget for 2013 suggests as much.) Others contend that private plans, which often limit the choice of doctors, would attract healthier patients. Traditional Medicare would have a sicker population, so would have to raise its fees, which would in turn drive more healthy people to private plans.

Mr Obama offers a different approach. His health law includes an array of experiments—for example, rewarding hospitals that keep patients well. But Mr Obama uses two main tools to cut costs. First, his law slashes payments to hospitals and doctors. Second, it creates the controversial, Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to keep Medicare growth below that of nominal GDP plus one percent (the same as in the Ryan-Wyden plan). IPAB’s cuts would automatically become law unless Congress agreed to similar cuts by other means. Notably, IPAB may not raise beneficiaries’ fees or reduce benefits.

In these diametrically-opposed visions, the Republicans trust firms to curb costs and improve services. Mr Obama makes top-down cuts, while testing new ways to deliver and pay for care. The comparison is inevitably muddier than this. Democrats, citing a defunct analysis, say Mr Ryan would force 65-year-olds to pay an extra $6,000 a year. Republicans say that Mr Obama is taking $716 billion from Medicare and that they will restore it. Most confusing, Messrs Romney and Ryan detest exchanges for those younger than 65, as set out in Mr Obama’s law, while Mr Obama scowls at exchanges for those over 65, as in Mr Ryan’s proposal. Beneath this rhetoric, however, lies a political anomaly: a substantive debate.

[j44]

Why would that be a joke? If he can't hold Wisconsin, it would be symptomatic of a larger problem. Much in the same way McCain not being able to hold Indiana. When you have to spend resources in states that should be solidly in your column, it spells trouble. Perhaps I should have been more descriptive in my response.

Saying he's screwed if he loses the state the opposing VP is from is pushing it. A lot. What does it have? 10-12 electoral votes?

Losing other mid western states would be a symptom of a larger problem. Losing Illinois would mean he's screwed.

As mentioned, i would say that if the GOP can't win the state of their VP then Romney is screwed.

[Shady]

But Obama still has a 3.5 lead in Wisconsin

Not true. You're citing old polling data. The latest poll from there showed a virtual tie, with Romney up by 1.

Saying he's screwed if he loses the state the opposing VP is from is pushing it. A lot. What does it have? 10-12 electoral votes?

It's not a matter of it's electoral votes, it's the fact that it's a blue state, and has been for quite sometime. If he loses there, then similar type states like Pennsylvania could also be in jeopardy.

As mentioned, i would say that if the GOP can't win the state of their VP then Romney is screwed.

Nonsense. Republicans don't win Wisconsin almost ever, regardless of a VP selection. It's a blue state.

[j44]

It's not a matter of it's electoral votes, it's the fact that it's a blue state, and has been for quite sometime. If he loses there, then similar type states like Pennsylvania could also be in jeopardy.

Nonsense. Republicans don't win Wisconsin almost ever, regardless of a VP selection. It's a blue state.

Yeah, losing it could mean other states would be in play but that hardly means he is screwed.

Same goes for my point about the number of votes. It could mean something but with those numbers it is doubtful he would be screwed.

Blue or red, it doesn't look good that it didnt swing for them after the nom. Even a temp. boost would be a good sign. It is a small state. As goes Wisconsin so goes the United States? I'm pretty sure that isn't an axiom.

[Shady]

Blue or red, it doesn't look good that it didnt swing for them after the nom.

Not really, like I said, it's a solid blue state with many more Democrats than Republicans. The fact that they have a chance is telling. Did you also expect Massachusettes to swing for Romney after he was nominated?

[Guest American Woman]

Nonsense. Republicans don't win Wisconsin almost ever, regardless of a VP selection. It's a blue state.

So how many VP candidates have come from Wisconsin?

[Guest American Woman]

Not really, like I said, it's a solid blue state with many more Democrats than Republicans.

Yet they have a Republican Governor.

[Guest American Woman]

Saying he's screwed if he loses the state the opposing VP is from is pushing it. A lot. What does it have? 10-12 electoral votes.

Ten. And I agree. Totally.

[Shady]

Yet they have a Republican Governor.

So what? California had a Republican Governor for 8 years, and was still a lock for Democrats in presidential elections.

[Guest American Woman]

So what? California had a Republican Governor for 8 years, and was still a lock for Democrats in presidential elections.

You said: "it's a solid blue state with many more Democrats than Republicans. The fact that they have a chance is telling." The fact that those "many more Democrats" voted for a Republican Governor hardly makes it "telling" that Romney has a chance in a state that the VP candidate is from. Which brings me back to your claim that "Republicans don't win Wisconsin almost ever, regardless of a VP selection." So again, how many VP selections have been from Wisconsin?

[jbg]

It's not a matter of it's electoral votes, it's the fact that it's a blue state, and has been for quite sometime. If he loses there, then similar type states like Pennsylvania could also be in jeopardy.

Pennsylvania is highly unlikely to go Republican, no matter what the pundits say. But if Wisconsin goes Republican, states such as Iowa are also in jeopardy. It would be a serious development for the Democrats.

[jbg]

Yet they have a Republican Governor.

There are many "blue" states that regularly elect Republican governors. Those include New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and California.

[j44]

Not really, like I said, it's a solid blue state with many more Democrats than Republicans. The fact that they have a chance is telling. Did you also expect Massachusettes to swing for Romney after he was nominated?

Nope, but I expected more of a swing in Wisconsin. I'd guess a lot of others did too.

And you know that Wisconsin and Massachusettes are dIfferent, right?

[BubberMiley]

Not true. You're citing old polling data. The latest poll from there showed a virtual tie, with Romney up by 1.

Cherry picking one poll is not accurate. Go to Realclearpolitics.com and check the overall averages of the latest polling data. You will find that you are wrong again and he is up by 3.5.

But I agree it would be bad news for him if he lost Wisconsin. I would have expected Ryan to have given the GOP more of a boost than that pathetic performance though. It's looking very bad for them.

Edited August 19, 2012 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

Pennsylvania is highly unlikely to go Republican, no matter what the pundits say. But if Wisconsin goes Republican, states such as Iowa are also in jeopardy. It would be a serious development for the Democrats.

Wisconsin was considered a swing state in the 2008 election, too. Nothing has changed there. Wisconsin has voted Republican three times out of the last ten presidential elections, while Iowa has voted Republican 5 times out of 10. It's not as if their being swing states this election is the "telling" event that it's being made out to be regarding Obama. Furthermore, Ryan did not give as high a temporary rise in polls immediately following his selection as VP candidate as Biden and/or Palin did. Furthermore, analysts putting the results of all the latest polls together (which, as usual, are conflicting), say they show that Obama still has a 4 point lead.

When all is said and done, it will be what it is, but presenting it as Obama "needing" to take Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes - and that it's "telling" if Wisconsin, the home state of the VP pick - goes Republican, is not presenting it the way it is. Furthermore, Wisconsin has nothing to do with what Iowa does, on the off chance that that's what's being insinuated here.

There were ten states that were considered swing states in the last election, 8 in this election. It's par for the course.

Edited August 19, 2012 by American Woman

[Bitsy]

Republicans seem to be comfortable in winning PA...........with a little help from thier judges.