Paul Ryan - Stimulus Cash Advocate

[carlfense]

I believe one area not considered/discussed nearly enough concerning this years election is the judiciary. More than likely, this election will allow the appointment of Supreme Justices that will shape the court for the next 30 years. That is just at the Supreme level. The influence at lower courts will be affected similarly.

Far more important than the two individuals involved, this election will decide the direction of the country for the foreseeable future.

+1

 

 

So, the natural question is this - why are you voting for Barack Obama?

Because I'm afraid of Romney's Ginsburg replacement.

 

There are more reasons than that . . . but that's the biggest.

[JJ Husker]

 

Which Romney/Ryan policy proposals do you think offer more economic hope than the current administration? Romney seems to be offering the exact same ideas as the George W. Bush fiasco that helped get us into this mess . . . complete with the potential for starting another war in the Middle East.

 

Honestly JJ, I think that you and I have a similar mindset but are coming at the issue from different directions. I don't think that Obama is great. You don't think that Romney is great. I don't think that Obama's policies are the best possible options for the US but I do think that they are better than the alternative. You don't think that Romney's policies are the best possible options for the US but you do think that they are better than the alternative. Etc.

 

 

Anyways, one way or another we will have some answers this fall. Ryan as VP makes this election something of a referendum on which direction is desired by the American people. If Romney/Ryan loses . . . it will be interesting to see if the GOP doubles down again or if they gradually move back towards the center.

I would say that may sum up our positions very well. Once again we are relegated to poor choices for a job that requires much more than either can offer.

 

However, I do take issue with one thing you said. I'm not buying the Obama talking point that Bush's or republican economic policies "got us into this mess". I think what caused the mess was a perfect storm of the attacks on the WTC, undertaking 2 wars, bubbles that burst (primarily the housing bubble) but also natural market corrections, the bundling and multiplying of bad debt that occured in our financial industry and their subsequent bail out, and bailing out the auto industry (because of unsustainable policies and unions). Throw in the lack of consumer confidence these things caused and you get one hell of a mess. But, I do not believe these can be attributed solely or even primarily to republican economic policies. Trickle down economics was not and is not the cause of our current problems. If I had to blame one parties policies on our problems it would have to be the dems social engineering which contributed to the housing bubble and the auto industries union problem. Both parties are responsible for the lack of oversight in the financial sector. Neither party is responsible for 911 or the necessity of war following (however it could be argued that one of those wars was maybe a little ill advised and possibly more Bush's fault). But the story that trickle down economics caused all this is patently false. Reasonable people can disagree on what is more responsible for our debt problem, lower taxes for our upper echelon or higher spending on our entitlement programs or, as I prefer-both. Both parties are responsible for tons of wasteful spending, inefficient government, and policies that only benefit the ultra wealthy and politicians themselves.

[carlfense]

 

Which Romney/Ryan policy proposals do you think offer more economic hope than the current administration? Romney seems to be offering the exact same ideas as the George W. Bush fiasco that helped get us into this mess . . . complete with the potential for starting another war in the Middle East.

 

Honestly JJ, I think that you and I have a similar mindset but are coming at the issue from different directions. I don't think that Obama is great. You don't think that Romney is great. I don't think that Obama's policies are the best possible options for the US but I do think that they are better than the alternative. You don't think that Romney's policies are the best possible options for the US but you do think that they are better than the alternative. Etc.

 

 

Anyways, one way or another we will have some answers this fall. Ryan as VP makes this election something of a referendum on which direction is desired by the American people. If Romney/Ryan loses . . . it will be interesting to see if the GOP doubles down again or if they gradually move back towards the center.

I would say that may sum up our positions very well. Once again we are relegated to poor choices for a job that requires much more than either can offer.

 

However, I do take issue with one thing you said. I'm not buying the Obama talking point that Bush's or republican economic policies "got us into this mess". I think what caused the mess was a perfect storm of the attacks on the WTC, undertaking 2 wars, bubbles that burst (primarily the housing bubble) but also natural market corrections, the bundling and multiplying of bad debt that occured in our financial industry and their subsequent bail out, and bailing out the auto industry (because of unsustainable policies and unions). Throw in the lack of consumer confidence these things caused and you get one hell of a mess. But, I do not believe these can be attributed solely or even primarily to republican economic policies. Trickle down economics was not and is not the cause of our current problems. If I had to blame one parties policies on our problems it would have to be the dems social engineering which contributed to the housing bubble and the auto industries union problem. Both parties are responsible for the lack of oversight in the financial sector. Neither party is responsible for 911 or the necessity of war following (however it could be argued that one of those wars was maybe a little ill advised and possibly more Bush's fault). But the story that trickle down economics caused all this is patently false. Reasonable people can disagree on what is more responsible for our debt problem, lower taxes for our upper echelon or higher spending on our entitlement programs or, as I prefer-both. Both parties are responsible for tons of wasteful spending, inefficient government, and policies that only benefit the ultra wealthy and politicians themselves.

I wasn't solely referring to trickle down economics . . . although there isn't much evidence that trickle down economics works.

 

I was mostly referring to our government's fiscal health (or lack thereof). Increasing government spending while cutting taxes, unpaid for huge new entitlement programs, unpaid for wars, etc.

[sd'sker]

knapp- Thanks for clarifying that you were calling him a hypocrite and why. Your clarification substantiates the claim whereas I did not feel your original claims did. To be clear, I don't feel the mere fact that he claimed to be against the stimulus and then subsequently wrote letters in favor of people seeking those funds is a valid enough reason to accuse him of being a hypocrite. Being for a republican stimulus but against a democrat stimulus could however meet the mark. Of course, depending on the specifics of the different plans.

 

I guess what gets me most in this whole debate is why anyone would defend so vigorously the Obama administration or so readily attack his opponents. I understand that the republicans have virtually limitless shortcomings as well but, I just don't understand how, after the last 4 years, Obama merits this level of support and the endless attacks on his opponents. It may very well have been time for a change when Obama was elected but, I feel it is more desperately a time for a change once again. Nothing has improved and things have only gotten worse in my estimation. I have stated numerous times that I do not particularly like Romney but I firmly believe ANYONE other than Obama is the better option at this point in time. Using Obama's own reasoning, he has not earned re-election. I struggle with why and how people who claim to be impartial seem to find more fault with his opponents when there is the clear body of evidence of the last 3.5 years. I'm trying to understand it but just not getting there.

i would call him a hypocrite, along with others who bashed the stimulus and later benefit from it, because his actions are disingenuous. they play it both ways, nationally they get to bash political spending to gain political points at the national level. then they get to vote against it knowing that the dems. will carry the burden to pass it. then they get the benefit of the stimulus, while getting to continue to criticize it. they all knew their constituents would receive a benefit from the stimulus and probably needed it. but they also wanted to plank to grandstand on. to me, that is what is wrong with politics and extremely hypocritical. it is not that they were against it and begrudgingly accepted it, they played it both ways to gain the maximum benefit from their politicking.

[sd'sker]

 

Which Romney/Ryan policy proposals do you think offer more economic hope than the current administration? Romney seems to be offering the exact same ideas as the George W. Bush fiasco that helped get us into this mess . . . complete with the potential for starting another war in the Middle East.

 

Honestly JJ, I think that you and I have a similar mindset but are coming at the issue from different directions. I don't think that Obama is great. You don't think that Romney is great. I don't think that Obama's policies are the best possible options for the US but I do think that they are better than the alternative. You don't think that Romney's policies are the best possible options for the US but you do think that they are better than the alternative. Etc.

 

 

Anyways, one way or another we will have some answers this fall. Ryan as VP makes this election something of a referendum on which direction is desired by the American people. If Romney/Ryan loses . . . it will be interesting to see if the GOP doubles down again or if they gradually move back towards the center.

I would say that may sum up our positions very well. Once again we are relegated to poor choices for a job that requires much more than either can offer.

 

However, I do take issue with one thing you said. I'm not buying the Obama talking point that Bush's or republican economic policies "got us into this mess". I think what caused the mess was a perfect storm of the attacks on the WTC, undertaking 2 wars, bubbles that burst (primarily the housing bubble) but also natural market corrections, the bundling and multiplying of bad debt that occured in our financial industry and their subsequent bail out, and bailing out the auto industry (because of unsustainable policies and unions). Throw in the lack of consumer confidence these things caused and you get one hell of a mess. But, I do not believe these can be attributed solely or even primarily to republican economic policies. Trickle down economics was not and is not the cause of our current problems. If I had to blame one parties policies on our problems it would have to be the dems social engineering which contributed to the housing bubble and the auto industries union problem. Both parties are responsible for the lack of oversight in the financial sector. Neither party is responsible for 911 or the necessity of war following (however it could be argued that one of those wars was maybe a little ill advised and possibly more Bush's fault). But the story that trickle down economics caused all this is patently false. Reasonable people can disagree on what is more responsible for our debt problem, lower taxes for our upper echelon or higher spending on our entitlement programs or, as I prefer-both. Both parties are responsible for tons of wasteful spending, inefficient government, and policies that only benefit the ultra wealthy and politicians themselves.

a lot of those problems happened because of deregulation. the banking industry was completely changed after the first depression, bush did everything he could to get us back to before then. also, unions are the great boogeyman. chevy and gm failed because they had terrible business models and were short-sighted. instead of innovation, they relied on discounts and offering employee rates to the public. not to mention that they spend more on healthcare than steal (so, you know universal healthcare would help make them more competitive). finally, car companies were not always in the game of finance, but over time they became big banks that sold cars. also, how is offering affordable housing social engineering? the problem arose when banks used this to take advantage of the less fortunate by selling them mortgages they would never be able to afford. the banks denigrated themselves into a 'check into cash' type operation. (that response was very stream of conscious). finally, a lot of things you blame the economic mess on i agree with, but they were also the results of bush's policies (e.g. 2 unfunded wars).

[sd'sker]

Looks like liberals waking up, better late than never.

 

Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition

 

Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.

 

More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for subsidies — finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he’s completely ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.

 

We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?

[carlfense]

Looks like liberals waking up, better late than never.

My personal favorite from that piece is when the author tries to blame Obama for the job losses since January of 2008.

[ZRod]

All the sh#t he has said, he doesn'r deserve any respect let alone class. Bush was NEVER as divisive as this current administration has been! THEY DAILY SHOW IS A SHOW!!! SHOW ME WHERE THE RUN THEIR SOURCES AT THE END OF THE SHOW??? Like I said use it as a source for a thesis and see what you get! funny that oil speculators hasn't been mentioned yet.

You do know that they cite the source during the show, i.e. when it say January 1, 2009 at the top and then you see the little emblem at the bottom originally from Fox, NBC, ABC, CNN, CSPAN, or what have you. And most of the stuff they use comes directly from someones mouth and it has been recorded permanently in the digital media so it isn't too hard to find for yourself if you want to take the time. The correspondents side pieces while mostly factually are usually satirical in nature and are meant to show the absurdity of the issue and not to be taken literally. And the guest are free to say what they want and can always be fact checked by anyone.

 

Look what I found!!! Isn't the digital age so great!

http://aladinrc.wrlc....pdf?sequence=1

[lo country]

Looks like liberals waking up, better late than never.

My personal favorite from that piece is when the author tries to blame Obama for the job losses since January of 2008.

 

True, he wasn't in office then. BUT just like he has made a career blaming Bush for everything. You can't deny that unemployment, on his watch, with a Dem controlled House and Senate until Jan 2011, has increased to levels above the highest under GW. One can argue this and that to say why it has risen, but the bottom line is it has. Same with our national deficit. If folks want to make GW the devil, then that same line of argument makes BO the devil as well.

 

Again, I think what I think and others have their opinion as well. No matter how much counter info gets passed on this board, I would be shocked if anyones opinion changed. That would make a great poll question. "Has the political discussions on this board changed your opinion to support another person."

[carlfense]

True, he wasn't in office then. BUT just like he has made a career blaming Bush for everything. You can't deny that unemployment, on his watch, with a Dem controlled House and Senate until Jan 2011, has increased to levels above the highest under GW. One can argue this and that to say why it has risen, but the bottom line is it has. Same with our national deficit. If folks want to make GW the devil, then that same line of argument makes BO the devil as well.

What?

[lo country]

True, he wasn't in office then. BUT just like he has made a career blaming Bush for everything. You can't deny that unemployment, on his watch, with a Dem controlled House and Senate until Jan 2011, has increased to levels above the highest under GW. One can argue this and that to say why it has risen, but the bottom line is it has. Same with our national deficit. If folks want to make GW the devil, then that same line of argument makes BO the devil as well.

What?

 

Obama, when taking office blamed all of his woes on Bush and continued to do so. He blamed the economy, unemployment etc...... No one has taken into account that 9/11 truly financially capitulated this country. The two wars, housing market collapse etc..... Fast forward, Obama wants to claim all the success in the economy improving, the death of Bin Laden etc, but wants to giver no credit to anyone but himself. The unemployment is higher under his watch, the deficit is higher under his watch. At what time to people (his supporters) start holding him accountable. He wants to blame Bush for what he "was given", but not take responsibility that things haven't improved. People demonized Bush, but IMO Obama seems to have gotten a pass. It is Bush's fault.....

 

I know you and I will never agree, but as another poster stated I just do not see this unabashed inability to admit that Obama has some issues.

[strigori]

True, he wasn't in office then. BUT just like he has made a career blaming Bush for everything. You can't deny that unemployment, on his watch, with a Dem controlled House and Senate until Jan 2011, has increased to levels above the highest under GW. One can argue this and that to say why it has risen, but the bottom line is it has. Same with our national deficit. If folks want to make GW the devil, then that same line of argument makes BO the devil as well.

What?

 

Obama, when taking office blamed all of his woes on Bush and continued to do so. He blamed the economy, unemployment etc...... No one has taken into account that 9/11 truly financially capitulated this country. The two wars, housing market collapse etc..... Fast forward, Obama wants to claim all the success in the economy improving, the death of Bin Laden etc, but wants to giver no credit to anyone but himself. The unemployment is higher under his watch, the deficit is higher under his watch. At what time to people (his supporters) start holding him accountable. He wants to blame Bush for what he "was given", but not take responsibility that things haven't improved. People demonized Bush, but IMO Obama seems to have gotten a pass. It is Bush's fault.....

 

I know you and I will never agree, but as another poster stated I just do not see this unabashed inability to admit that Obama has some issues.

As F'ed up as everything was in 2008, do you really think everything was going to be fixed by Jan 2010? Years of issues collided to make the massive cluster F that was 2008. It takes years to get things right again. Any economist will say the same, it takes years. Not just Bush either, a number of problems started under Clinton (bank deregulation for one) its was never going to be fixed in 4 years.

[knapplc]

As F'ed up as everything was in 2008, do you really think everything was going to be fixed by Jan 2010? Years of issues collided to make the massive cluster F that was 2008. It takes years to get things right again. Any economist will say the same, it takes years. Not just Bush either, a number of problems started under Clinton (bank deregulation for one) its was never going to be fixed in 4 years.

 

The insanity that goes along with partisan politics makes people think this, yes. It's nuts to think that the mess from the last administration would be fixed by now and we'd be A-OK with tons of jobs and a budget in the black, but that's exactly what people think.

 

But here's the kicker - we're WAAAAY not out of the woods right now with this economic debacle. It's going to take years to fix. But if Romney wins, suddenly the positions will flip-flop, and the Democrats will be hanging the economy on Romney while the Republicans will blame Obama.

 

And the best part about all of it is, both sides will do it with a straight face, and neither side will see the irony of it all.

[sd'sker]

Obama, when taking office blamed all of his woes on Bush and continued to do so. He blamed the economy, unemployment etc...... No one has taken into account that 9/11 truly financially capitulated this country. The two wars, housing market collapse etc..... Fast forward, Obama wants to claim all the success in the economy improving, the death of Bin Laden etc, but wants to giver no credit to anyone but himself. The unemployment is higher under his watch, the deficit is higher under his watch. At what time to people (his supporters) start holding him accountable. He wants to blame Bush for what he "was given", but not take responsibility that things haven't improved. People demonized Bush, but IMO Obama seems to have gotten a pass. It is Bush's fault.....

 

 

I know you and I will never agree, but as another poster stated I just do not see this unabashed inability to admit that Obama has some issues.

you are doing exactly what you criticize him of. you say that he only takes credit for the good and takes no responsibility for the bad (which i wonder why you are so hellbent on the characterization of him), yet you say that everything that is bad that is going on is solely his fault and everything that is good that happened he deserves no credit.

 

i think if you were able to ask him, he would be the first to say that we (including him) have a long way to go to get america back on track. blame does not seem to be a big issue in this election, you seem to be projecting a lot onto obama. the issue is about where we are going, where we should go, and who best takes us there.

[carlfense]

Obama, when taking office blamed all of his woes on Bush and continued to do so.

Which woes were Obama's woes and why?

 

Fast forward, Obama wants to claim all the success in the economy improving, the death of Bin Laden etc, but wants to giver no credit to anyone but himself.

lo country . . . this is not true. Further, I suspect that you know it's untrue. Be better than that.

 

I just do not see this unabashed inability to admit that Obama has some issues.

If you don't see this you need to open your eyes. I don't think there is a single poster left here on Husker Board who is an unabashed blind Obama fan. Heck, I've probably made dozens of posts in this forum alone about my concerns about Obama.

 

And you? Can you admit that much of the blame for our current state of affairs falls during the years of the Bush administration?