NY Times: Paul Ryan's Cramped Vision

A New York Times editorial today calls Paul Ryan a "man of cramped vision."

A candidate [Mitt Romney]of no details — I’ll cut the budget but no need to explain just how — has named a vice-presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, whose vision is filled with endless columns of minus signs. Voters will now be able to see with painful clarity just what the Republican Party has in store for them.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adds:

Mr. Ryan’s budget “will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment,” the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. “These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”


Blinded by the Light:

< Saturday Open Thread: Romney's Wrong Turn | Paul Ryan on Crime Issues >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If a tree falls in the forest ........... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    Repeating 1000 times the horrible plans Romney/Ryan have in store for America means "0" if your only news source is Fox & Talk Radio.

    Even with the disastrous campaign Romney has run so far, the polls are still relatively close. Add in the "Lie Factor," the number of people who say they'll vote, and the number who will actually vote, and the unknowable effect of the nationwide voter suppression effort, complacency now = electorate suicide.

    by BernieO on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:16:04 AM EST
    It's the swing voters. If - and that's a big if - the Dems manage to let people know about the naive, dangerous beliefs of Ryan he will be a big negative for those voters. The biggest problem is that Ryan is apparently a very likeable guy so the mainstream media will probably go easy on him despite the nastiness of his ideology.

    What Dems need to do is hang Ayn Rand around Ryan's neck. Paul (Ryand?) Ryan has much closer ties to her nutty, extemist philosophy than Obama ever did to Saul Alkinsky. Rand was a radical, militant atheist who believed that the free market would solve all of our ills. She even called altruism "evil" in her interview with Mike Wallace (availble on You Tube). In her view people who are struggling are all losers who deserve their fate. Helping them just enables them to avoid trying to fix their problems.

    I do not understand how Democrats have not made a big issue of the right's romance with Rand. It has had a much bigger influence than most people realize. After all Alan Greenspan was a close associate of hers. No wonder he was so surprised when the magical financial free markets did not regulate themselves. It is hard to square his blindness with his belief in such simplistic, naive ideas as Rand's. After all the man was a genius. The MSM continually told he was so it must be true.


    Jeez, BernieO, please don't shout (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:10:05 AM EST
    I agree with you.  There are many on this site who no doubt agree with you.  But all caps make my eyes bleed.  Thanks!  

    Read all (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:31:45 PM EST
    about it here:

    Person-hood declaration of a zygote is the same thing as miscarriage is murder laws. This law was even VOTED DOWN in MS!!!

    The more I look at Ryan and his nutty views, the more it looks like he's probably one of the worst VP picks in the recent history of the country. So Romney shoots himself in the foot again. What else is new?

    It should be noted that being the worst VP pick (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    in recent history is not an easy task when you have to fight contenders like Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin for the title!

    No, it is not (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    Please quit making things up.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:14:33 PM EST
    it is. If a zygote is a person then anything that happens to said zygote is treated the same as a you. If you do something that causes said zygote to die, you are a murderer according to the law.

    So if you're in a car wreck and woman miscarries, you are going to jail for murder. If a doctor has to do emergency surgery on a pregnant woman and she subsequently miscarries, he can be put in jail for murder. That's the truth and you can seem to handle the truth Jim. You're the one that constantly makes things up but honestly, you're not the only conservative that does this.


    Actually, no. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:45:55 PM EST
    The "personhood" law is awful and dangerous to women, but your description of how criminal liability for "murder" works is way off, Ga6th.  As Towanda and others repeatedly remind us, we can't win this fight unless we scrupulously tell the truth.  You can't win the high ground against shameless liars by relying on careless analysis, scare tactics or exaggerated rhetoric.

    You may be right; however, it should be (none / 0) (#16)
    by observed on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    noted that Ryan has supported jail sentences for women who get abortions. This being the case, your legal nicety may not be relevant.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    When you have time could you explain exactly what it means then? I would certainly appreciate that.

    Provide the text, or a link to the text (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    of the particular proposal you are referring to, and I will do my best to explain it.  I can say, though, that if a state statute defines a xygote or fetus, from the moment of conception, as a "person," for purposes of homicide law, then any intentional act of abortion that is not constitutionally protected could be treated as a homicide (murder or manslaughter, depending on the accused's state of mind, and the presence or absence of justification or excuse).  During the first trimester, however (so long as Roe v. Wade stands), and during the second to some extent (depending on court interpretations and modifications of Roe), no abortion with the woman's consent could be made criminal.

    The propaganda (from either side) that says that a "personhood" amendment would overrule Roe v. Wade is fallacious, by the way.  Roe's constitutional reasoning does not depend on the (correct) idea that a fetus is not a 14th Amendment "person" but upon the idea that a pregnant woman is a 14th Amendment "person," and that restricting her right to choose abortion (or not) deprives her of 14th Amendment "liberty."  Whether the fetus is a "person" or not is irrelevant, since it is not the state that proposes to deprive the fetus of "life" (again, regardless of whether the fetus has a 14th Amendment "life" of its own); the abortion is private action (by the woman and her doctor), not state action.  Only "state action" is within the purview of the 14th Amendment's due process clause.


    Here's an article (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 06:06:44 PM EST
    I don't know if this helps



    No, but based on your prior link, I found (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:20:54 PM EST
    that what Ryan sponsored was a federal bill, in 2011, called H.R. 212:
    A BILL

    To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


        This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Human Life Act'.


        In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States--

            (1) the Congress declares that--

                (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

                (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

            (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.


        For purposes of this Act:

            (1) FERTILIZATION- The term `fertilization' means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

            (2) CLONING- The term `cloning' means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

            (3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

    This bill, as federal legislation, is nonsensical. It compels nothing, and forbids nothing.  It defines no term as used in other legislation. Congress does not have the authority to define terms used in the Constitution (see sec. 2(1)(A)), only the Supreme Court (or the lower courts, subject to review) have that authority. Congress cannot legislate a biological fact or theological concept (see sec. 2(1)(B)), and the scope of the only potentially meaningful part of that subsection (that a xygote or fetus has "all the legal ... attributes and privileges of personhood") is so vague as to be essentially unintelligible.  Subsection (2) is a self-proclaimed rhetorical statement, not a legal command or prohibition, and in any even probably not disputed by anyone anyhow, even as "human being" is defined in that bill.  Interestingly, I see that GovTrack gave the bill a 1% chance of enactment. In short, ideological dog-whistling and grandstanding, not serious proposed legislation (and thus inconsistent with a philosophy of cutting wasteful abuses of government resources).


    Ryan (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 05:47:21 AM EST
    has a history of supporting wasteful things as long as those wasteful things are something the GOP supports.

    Peter, you are right (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:38:45 AM EST
    You can't win the high ground against shameless liars by relying on careless analysis, scare tactics or exaggerated rhetoric.

    The Demos use to call my Mother every election cycle telling her how the Repubs were gonna take her Social Security and Medicare.

    It would scare her to death and I would have to reassure her that it was not true.

    Looking back, it was one of the things that kept telling me that I had done the right thing when I left the party years before.


    I agree with (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    Peter but disagree with you. You have been shopping plenty of lies and disinformation. I'm at least willing to restate based on FACTS not spin while you will never admit you are wrong.

    That's Ol' 40% Jim for ya (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    My facts are facts and (1.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    I support them with links. Re Emanuel and the attempts to claim he didn't say what he said.

    I quoted him.

    BTW - I note you called me a liar. I'll use it on you in the future and see how you like it.

    Like when you lie when you write:.

    You have been shopping plenty of lies and disinformation.

    Don't get upset.I'm only giving back what I get.


    You cut (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:53:23 PM EST
    and pasted something that has been discredited and tried to make it something it wasn't.

    I provided context for (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:07:10 PM EST
    the quotes and gave a link to the article.

    It is obvious to any non-biased person that Emanuel is describing a system in which challenged people and old people are to be sacrificed.

    Now, after he has been caught, he wants to claim that he didn't mean it and that ordinary people are not smart enough to understand.

    A typical response from an elitist who has been caught expressing socially and politically unacceptable positions.

    He is what he is and he wrote what he wrote and that can't be concealed by phony "explanations."


    Ordinary people are plenty smart ... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    ... enough to realize that Dr. Emanuel wasn't saying what the lying right and Betsy McCaughey are trying to claim when they twist his words.  Dr. Emanuel was not saying what you claim he was saying.  He has been consistent in his opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, let alone the laughable right-wing farce they call "death panels".

    The nonpartisan Politifact.com Web site described McCaughey's claim as a "ridiculous falsehood."  FactCheck.org said, "We agree that Emanuel's meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited."


    There are many more articles debunking these silly lies if you need them, Jim.  This ridiculous lie has been debunked so often it's funny that anyone would still be duped by it.


    Distortions are not "facts" (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 04:11:32 PM EST
    When someone takes "quotes" out-of-context to distort their meaning, it's closer to a lie than a "fact".

    We'll wager that, unless you happen to be a practicing bioethicist, you'd never heard of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel six weeks ago. But now Emanuel, the director of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, finds himself labeled a "deadly doctor" by Betsy McCaughey in an opinion piece in the New York Post. And controversial conservative pundit Ann Coulter recently proclaimed that "Zeke Emanuel is on my death list."

    We debunked McCaughey's charges in an Ask FactCheck item we posted today. The short version is that McCaughey has quoted a number of passages badly out of context and twisted their meaning.

    You and Betsy both, Jim.


    to be more accuarate.. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 04:42:31 PM EST
    what Jim generally does is pass along other people's lies and distortions.

    Actually concocting disinformation out of whole clothe himself would run the risk of deviating from the script that gets passed from right wing think tank to Fox and talk radio to the rw blogosphere.


    After years of personal attacks (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:08:04 PM EST
     by jondee and his continual demonstration of an inability to debate the issues I am forced to note that discussing anything with him is not worthwhile. Simply put, he is incapable of a reasoned debate.

    Waaahhhhh... (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:51 PM EST

    Hey, finally an issue on which you (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by observed on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    are better informed than global warming!

    Actually observed (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    the county of Canada and I are on the same page, seeing as how they dropped the Kyoto Treaty.

    But hey! What do they know? They've just got all these scientists and stuff.



    Funny Jim (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:27:52 AM EST
    Canada didn't withdraw from Kyoto based on your conclusion that MMGW wasn't real.  They did so because Kyoto didn't cover the two largest emitters (the US and China) and Canada was failing to meet their emissions targets (i.e. facing large financial penalties).

    Plus, it was the conservatives in the Canadian government that pulled out of Kyoto.  As a "social liberal", surely you are aware of the serious issues conservatives have with scientific studies, data and science in general.


    One has to be incredibly stupid (none / 0) (#33)
    by observed on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:28:02 AM EST
    and ill-informed to think that governments decide scientific facts.
    Probably this is just another of your very funny jokes.

    And one has to be stupid (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    and ill-informed to think that governments don't decide things.

    You claim to know all about MMGW but weren't aware of this?

    OTTAWA -- Canada said on Monday that it would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.



    gosh, and I thought scientific (none / 0) (#44)
    by observed on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    consensus was best demonstrated to the conservative mindset by online petitions, signed by retired professionals in areas totally unrelated to the subject at hand.
    I see that when Emerson was speaking of the limitations of foolish consistency, he must have been picturing you in his mind.

    The problem is when a right wing (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by observed on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    fanatic. possessing an almost aub-normal intelligence---roughly twice a Dan Quayle IQ---fancies that there are morons, not already  deluded, who will be persuaded by the same infantile drivel which captivates him.
    Jim, I've read your comments for years.
    I don't believe I have ever once seen you properly cite a piece of evidence. In fact, I rarely have seen you offer any evidence beyond anecdote, fabrication or misquotes.
    Ever mentioned an actual scientific study, which you accurately report on? Not that I recall.
    This Gerber's  that you dribble onto the page doesn't fool anyone.

    Your vulgar, nasty (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    personal attack is typical of you.

    You are guilty of what you claim I do.

    This is you.


    Is that the same as (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:59:56 PM EST
    "I know you are, but what am I"? Sure sounds like it.

    Your basic problem is stated (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    as "I thought." That's where you failed.

    BTW - I just heard a news flash that some music industry dude was upset about Ryan.


    Check the mirror (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 07:26:57 PM EST
    "Quit making things up"?!?  From the same guy who just finished posting the debunked lie about Ezekiel Emanuel and death panels?

    As several bloggers (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Makarov on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    and others have noted, we should now see the clear dividing line between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

    President Obama wants to cut future retiree social security benefits, ostensibly as a means to 'save' the program from decades-out projected revenue shortfalls. The administration has also floated the idea of raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67. When scrounging for budget $ for a small increase in the school lunch program, the administration also approved cuts to SNAP, aka food stamps, to pay for it.

    Team Obama, in various ways, has or wants to cut the precarious social safety net tens of millions of Americans depend on. All this in the name of 'fiscal responsibility'.

    Conversely, Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his VP signals his plans for the safety net. Republicans like Romey and Ryan don't want to cut the safety net. They want to eliminate it. Privatizing social security (something Ryan voted for), eliminating Medicare and replacing it with an Obamacare-like voucher program (likely without guaranteed issue, of course, sorry sick people), and generally 'starving the beast of government' except in the areas of defense and national security.

    I voted for Obama in 2008, hoping against expectations he wasn't another neo-liberal who talked progressive policies while signing 'free trade' agreements. While Obama might not have been as bad or worse than John McCain, his handling of the housing crisis and the economy have been so much worse than my worst expectations it's ridiculous. If you had told me in '08 that Obama would appoint a Sec Treas who, with $50B at his disposal to help those facing foreclosure, would devise a scheme to help banks suck more $ out of consumers all while continuing to foreclose on their homes, I'd have said you were nuts.

    I've since come to the conclusion that we don't get more progressive policies by electing bad Democrats. I'm not going to settle for the candidate that merely wants to trim down the social safety net, instead of destroying it. Jill Stein is getting my vote this year.

    That's your decision and choice. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:04:33 PM EST
    I respect it, and if you're in a state where the outcome is not really in doubt either way, I don't have a problem with it.

    And if you can get a major Green candidate up to a certain percentage level in some states like Hawaii, i.e., 5% or 10%, then the party would automatically qualify for the ballot next time around, and that party's members don't have to spend so much time on petition drives to qualify for the ballot. When it comes to elections, the more candidates the merrier, I always say.

    Speaking for myself, I'm not going to vote for someone for president who's not even on the ballot in all 50 states, but I'm also not going to any time or effort into the Obama campaign -- of course, given that he took 72% of the vote in Hawaii last time and will probably do equally well this time, such talk is admittedly cheap.

    I'm concentrating my efforts instead on local races, in particular our Honolulu mayoral race and our U.S. Senate contest between Mazie Hirono (D) and former GOP Gov. Linda Lingle.

    If you're really serious about promoting progressive and liberal policies, then I'd respectfully suggest that you might consider looking to an important local race where you live -- such as a city council, mayoral or state legislative campaign -- and find a progressive candidate you'd like to support with more than just your vote. I'm sure that he or she would really appreciate the help.

    Local races are where progressivism and liberalism can have a pretty substantial impact, because you're working at the base level of politics where decisions can have a direct and immediate impact upon people's lives.

    I worked both on Capitol Hill and in our State Capitol, and honestly, I actually prefer the nuts-and-bolts policymaking found in state legislatures and city / county councils. You'd be surprised how a lot of great policy can actually trickle upstream to the federal level.

    For example, President Obama's recent executive order mandating insurance coverage for contraception at no cost to the employer or employee was drafted directly from Hawaii statute that we first enacted back in May 1999, and it's been in effect for 13 years.

    Anyway, take care and good luck. Aloha.


    It is not for you (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    to decide, no matter what.
    if you're in a state where the outcome is not really in doubt either way, I don't have a problem with it.
    So apparently it's only okay with you for another to vote his or her conscience when it's a token vote.

    ... it's my problem, isn't it? Please don't take something I said out of context, and blow it up to outsized proportions. I was clearly talking about one's having an impact as a progressive, not voting one's conscience.

    Well then you're still (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    talking out of your a$$ IMO
    I was clearly talking about one's having an impact as a progressive
    Voting Dem these last 20 years hasn't had any impact for progressives.  Or maybe it has, I don't know.  I do know that it hasn't done a d@mn thing for us bleeding heart, true blue liberals.

    I'm supporting (none / 0) (#47)
    by Makarov on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:55:49 AM EST
    a local candidate for the PA state house, and that's where my volunteer energy is going to go.

    My feeling about Obama's chances in PA are he should win fairly easily if the recently passed voter ID law is nullified or otherwise set aside. That's not a sure thing, but I give it at least a 50-50 chance. We should know how the first state court decides this week. The state actually stipulated to the court that they have no evidence of in-person voter fraud, what the law is allegedly designed to prevent. Conversely, the ACLU had numerous witnesses who could not obtain photo ID under the new law for a variety of reasons, mostly due to lacking a birth certificate or decades old marriage license.

    If the voter ID law is in full effect come November, Obama will have a very close race on his hands.

    The only other statewide race is Casey, Jr running for re-election. A recent poll has him up 18 points, and I've not seen a single commercial for his opponent, a Republican I've never heard of. Casey's unwavering support for SOPA/PIPA and the recent 'let your boss decide whether you get contraception coverage' amendment lost my vote, but I certainly won't be voting Republican in that race.


    BTW - I seem to remember (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    that Bush's plan to privatize Soc Sec was to allow the employee to place up to 5% of the employee's contribution in a government approved investment program.

    Wow!!!! that would be 2.5% of the total contribution. A truly radical and earth shaking move.


    It was nothing (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    more than a bail out for wall street. Wall Street apparently thinks they don't have enough money so getting their grubby hands on the SS Trust fund is what that was all about.

    Whatever you want to call it (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    it wasn't as described in the comment I responded to.

    As Peter said, it helps to be accurate.


    And then there's Stephanie Miller, ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:32:15 PM EST
    ... my favorite talk show host to whom I never get to listen because she's on the air at 4:00 a.m. HST. As one of the panelists on CNN's Reliable Sources, she shows Democratic pundits who it's done by seriously smack down Howard Kurtz's suggestion that Paul Ryan is one of the adults in the room who offers proposals which are "bold" and "refreshing":

    KURTZ: "But at least he has a plan and he's put himself out there with a detailed, or fairly detailed budget, some omissions in it clearly, and the Democrats are largely ducking the debate about entitlements. So how do you take that one on?"

    MILLER: "Oh, you mean ducking, as in not wanting to destroy the social safety nets? This is what drives me crazy about the 'mainstream media' -- present company excepted, of course -- is that somebody puts forward a plan like that and people go 'oh, well, that's bold and courageous' and 'ooh, he's serious.' It's seriously a horrible plan. I don't think there's anything, you know, bold or refreshing about destroying Medicare and replacing it with vouchers."

    More Stephanie Miller, and less Bob Schrum and Harold Ford, please.

    Of course SM was referring (none / 0) (#39)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:13:26 AM EST
    to brainless comments of the type host Kurtz had just uttered.  But to be polite and to preserve her place for future appearances on that show, she decided not to make an example of the host.  Excellent retort though.

    As for Shrummie, I wouldn't lump him with the worthless corporatist DINO Harold Ford Jr.  The Shrumster is an actual old fashioned liberal Dem with populist leanings, is a great often sharp-edged debater, and goes very deep on the issues.  He also has a solid knowledge of American electoral politics.

    Shrum, Begala and Maddow all have those qualities, and all three are effective spokespeople for the Obama-Biden ticket.  Miller in her own way also can be helpful.  All these commenters, minus Harold, will be needed going into the fall.


    One thing (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    FireDogLake makes a valid comparison between Ryan's "Medicare Plan" and Obamacare.  FDL even calls Ryan's plan, "Obamacare for Seniors".  So when Obama forces us to buy insurance from crooks, it's "reform" and "good for us".  When Ryan suggests pretty much the same policy for seniors, it's "soulless".

    No, I'm not defending Ryan. I am suggesting that Obamacare mandates are just as soulless.

    Here is the FDL comparison:  Link

    Except that (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    medicare for seniors exists and healthcare for everyone else didn't.  Obamacare isn't dismantling a better program.

    True... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    but Obama & Congress could/would not copy the better model, the Medicare singler payer model.

    If Ryan & Romney were really smart, they would have come out in strong support of Obamacare, then they could propose abolishing Medicare with a straight face, replaced by the brilliant subsidies and exchanges in Obamacare.    


    Ryan (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    supports miscarriage as murder laws. So apparently he thinks there aren't enough doctors and women in prisons.

    Well, we must have monthly (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by observed on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    pregnancy testing for all women, then, so that so-called "spontaneous" abortions can be detected and prosecuted with the full force of the law.

    Wow. Would even the most (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    strict right-to-lifer agree w/this?  

    Wow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    I thought he was just an extreme conservative on economic issues. I had no idea that he was a psychopath on social issues!

    And yet he is "liberal" on gay rights (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:51:24 PM EST
    Of course, on this issue, he has friends who are gay, so suddenly he becomes a half-decent human. What boggles the mind is that the media cannot make the obvious connection here, or refuse to.  This type of convenient empathy for those you know personally is called a lack of imaginative humanity.  IOW, it is clear evidence of a person who lacks the ability, on his own, using nothing but his own experience and abilities (or inabilities, in this case) of observation, to feel actionable empathy.  It is why he believes, when push comes to shove, people must be sacrificed, literally, to save money.  

    The power of stupidity knows no bounds.


    The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    scored Paul Ryan (over the past five years available) with 4 years as zero, and one year as a 10--out of a possible 100. In May 2012, Ryan voted to prohibit the use of funds to be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act; in 2010 Ryan voted against repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell; in 2009 Ryan voted against the Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act; In 2007 Ryan did vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, only to later vote against it; and Ryan voted twice in support of the (failed) Federal Marriage Act, in 2004 and 2006.   With friends like Ryan gays do not need any enemies.  But then maybe Paul is basically fine with equal rights for gays, but has a phobia-- saving Ryan's privates.

    Hence my quotes (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    And you are right. I have no doubt he's flipping fast, due to a need to suck up the (self)righteous right.  

    I "fact-checked" this (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:34:36 PM EST
    These days, unless it's (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    doubleplus fact-checked, I don't know who to believe!

    When in doubt, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:34:04 PM EST
    believe BTD.  Or TL. In a pinch, believe me.

    Just so you know (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:48:10 PM EST
    I really appreciate the time and thought you put into your fact-check/breakdowns on things 'round here in the comments. My brain appreciates it too! ;)

    Oh, believe me, I always trust what (none / 0) (#32)
    by observed on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:26:42 AM EST
    you say about the law.

    I think the USCCB commentary (none / 0) (#8)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    is going to prove extremely devastating to Team R&R.  One of the reasons I have seen cited for choosing Ryan was to woo the middle class Catholic vote as Ryan himself is a Catholic and could counter Biden's Catholic roots by strongly opposing the ACA, which the USCCB has been at war with the Obama administration over very publicly.  Choosing Ryan, however, may have now neutralized the USCCB's ability to "tacitly" endorse R&R since they have come out publicly against the cuts in the budget that is Ryan's biggest claim to fame.

    Worse yet, the USCCB could look at this as an opportunity to show that the U.S. Catholic church is not just aligned with one party to counter the criticisms it received about politicizing the ACA fight.  They could double down on their criticism of the Ryan budget, which would not be helpful R&R.

    Threre goes the argument (none / 0) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:48:17 PM EST
    ...that both parties are the same.

    As flawed as Mr. Obama is, he isn't running against Jesus, he's running against these soulless creeps.


    "Trickle down fairy dust"!!!! (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    What a fantastic put-down of Republican economic policies. Great job from the Obama team!

    Home Run for Obama/Biden... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    Romney just did Brand D a big favor. By picking Mr. Hardcore Austerity as a running mate, Romney has made the future of the safety net the front and center issue, which sure beats the economy and jobs front & center if you're Barack Obama.

    Full on spin control on Fox this morning...all they could talk about over and over was "Ryan's plan is not Romney's plan, they're running on Romney's plan."  They're panicking already...

    If Fox (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    is playing that game, you know it's a really bad pick.

    And you're right. We're now going to have a whole election based on Ryan's agenda of getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. Romney has to be one of the most stupid and clueless politicians there is. Newt Gingrich would have been a better running mate than Ryan.


    kdog (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    I seem to remember you believing that you will never receive SoSec or Medicare.

    Now, that belief must be based on something.

    I have to guess that it is the current condition and projections.

    The Demos haven't told us how they can keep that from happening. Instead they worry over Romney's dog and his wife's horse.

    So, are you for the status quo or do you want a solution??


    Status quo... (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:14:23 AM EST
    I'm fine paying my SS and Medicaid deductions without expecting it to be there for me...my moms is gonna need it so she doesn't have to work till she drops dead.  I look at it as a straight-up tax, and the one I least mind paying.  I'll cross my bridge when I'm old...If I live hard enough, I won't have to worry about it;)

    I'm not opposed to some tweaking, tax increases if necessary, and taking funds from the general fund currently allocated to other less important or over-funded things...defense, drug-war, surveillance, corporate welfare.  Ryan's plan is extreme and ignores our main problem...f8cked up priorities.  We have plenty of money and resources to care for the sick and the old better than any country on earth...if we get our priorities straight.


    kdog, you have avoided my question. (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    I'm for a solution... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:38:25 PM EST
    that preserves the staus quo in the face of the demographic challenges.

    We went to the moon, we can figure it out without resorting to drastic measures like health insurance coupons and benefit cuts.  All me need, as Dadler would say, is some imagination.  And like I always say, a sense of priorities.

    Does that answer your question?


    Yes and no (1.00 / 2) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:23:27 PM EST
    Since neither of us have any influence, what we want makes no difference.

    My point is that Obama has no plan. And if we don't do something millions will get nothing.

    Yet,instead of pushing Obama for his plan, which may or may not be better than Ryan's, all I see is you, and others, criticizing Ryan and giving Obama a free ride.

    Why?? Unless you are just a Demo and are going to vote the straight party ticket, shouldn't you be demanding to know what Obama's plan would be??

    You know, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 and knew what he was. But, I thought that maybe, just maybe, he would solve the health care problem by putting a single payer system modeled on Medicare in place. And when I saw the huge majorities he had I really expected him to do so.

    Instead he paid off the insurance companies and stole from Medicare.

    We all now know what Hope and Change meant.

    Fool me once, same on you. Twice? Nah. Shame on me.


    Where (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    have you been? Not many around here give Obama a "free ride" in my estimation. As a matter of fact many of us have been called "Obama haters" by the likes of Angry Black Guy. You are once again making stuff up.

    As a matter of fact Obama does have a plan it's called the Simpson/Bowles Plan and that's something that's not popular around here either but I guess you haven't noticed.

    Good luck with your coupon plan. Too bad you can't cash it in on a cruise because that would be a better use of the money.


    You will vote for Obama (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:30:38 PM EST
    You know and I know it.

    You will ignore the fact that he has no plan to solve anything.


    You know no such thing (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:01:40 PM EST
    Get a new crystal ball. Your current one has a few cracks in it.

    Unbelievably disingenous (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    You pester and pester kdog for an answer to your question (which he very thoughtfully answered TWICE) and then you tell him to never mind because he doesn't have any influence in D.C. anyway.

    You're a real piece of work there Jimbo. A completely dishonest piece of work. And the very definition of INTERNET TROLL.


    kdog and are friends (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:34:13 PM EST
    We pester each other  sometimes and argue.

    Too bad you don't can't do anything but make insults and complain.

    BTW - Can you tell me Obama's plans??

    No?? Thought so.

    BTW - I pointed out that neither of us have any influence. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?


    I repeat: You are aTROLL (none / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:56:21 PM EST
    and an incessantly whiny, little baby as well. You have already lost all of your arguments, but just keep on repeating yourself ad nauseum and see if you get anything but derision from the rest of us.

    You have not answered (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:33:49 AM EST
    any of my points.

    I guess you can't.

    And insults prove only that I am right.


    Define "stealing from Medicare," (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    if you can.

    I'm betting that's just a talking point for you, and you have no idea what it means, or how Medicare is impacted.

    So here, consider this (bold is mine):

    The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they'll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.

    AARP, the seniors' lobby and chief gatekeeper of Medicare benefits, endorsed the Affordable Care Act despite its cuts, arguing that they wouldn't affect seniors' access to care. The law expanded benefits by closing the prescription drug coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole." The hospital and drug industries also endorsed the legislation, believing that the additional customers via the coverage expansion would more than make up for the cuts.


    Obama's long-term plan to save Medicare, approved under the Affordable Care Act, is to set up a panel of 15 Senate-confirmed experts tasked with issuing proposals to rein in the growth of spending if it exceeds a certain level. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, may only propose cuts to providers, not beneficiaries. Congress may replace the cuts by passing its own or with a three-fifths super-majority.

    So, whattya know...sounds suspiciously like a plan, doesn't it?

    Now, do you think there's any chance you will quit spewing your conservative garbage?  Speak in something besides Fox News sound bites?

    Nah, me either.


    Ol 40% Jim doesn't care for facts (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    shoephone (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:32:04 AM EST
    Why don't you try debating  instead of insulting?

    Is it because you can't answer my point??


    Nope, sounds like (1.00 / 4) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:37:00 PM EST

    of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they'll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.

    Explain please how cutting funds will not reduce care.

    After you have done that please explain how 4 - 2 is 6.


    It does (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:39:35 PM EST
    reduce care but your beloved GOP wants you to have NO care. That's the choices that you have this election.

    Do you think you can turn Ryan's coupons into food? Maybe you should work on that because you just might need it.


    GA, that is a drastic over statement (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    that is inaccurate and does nothing to further the debate on who would be the best leaders over the next 4 years.

    Ryan has offered a plan.

    You don't like it, fine.

    But please quit making up wild statements.


    Ryan (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    voted to eliminate Medicare. That is a fact. Ryan turns Medicare into a coupon program. That is a fact.

    Obama has a plan... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    a kindler, gentler version of f*cking working people in the arse...he'll maybe buy you a drink first, whisper sweet nothings, lube up, wear a rubber.   Where as the Romney/Ryan plan is like the rape scene from Pulp Fiction.  "Mitt...it's Paul.  Spider caught a couple flies."

    You know I didn't vote for Obama either..I try to vote for something, not against something.  But no question I much prefer Obama to Mitt Romney.  Mitt Romney and his little buddy Paul Ryan are extreme rightwing idealougues. Dangerous men...not to mention arseholes of the first order.


    The question you need to (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    ask yourself is this.

    Am I and the country better off now than it was during the Bush years??

    kdog, we are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend.

    I'm not sure whether you have a credit card, but you have to know that at some point the bank will say, "No more."

    I didn't "love" Bush and I sure don't "love" Romney but Obama has failed and his plans for the future is more of the same.


    Well (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    Obama hasn't lied us into a war. So there's that.

    You're forgetting that the typical chickenhawk (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 12:17:46 PM EST
    likes war, as long as he can fantasize about it without ever having to go fight in one..

    There you go again (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Farmboy on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    I have to guess that it is the current condition and projections.

    Current projections for SS shows that with no changes the US Treasury won't exhaust the SS reserves until 2033. After that payroll taxes will fund about of the expected 75% payout. Raising the income cap - not the rate, the cap - would fund the fund for perpetuity.

    The current crop of GOP members, of course, is against this. Why? Because pleasing the wealthy matters more to them than anything else. And having to pay even a penny more than the current cap toward SS would not please the wealthy. No, not at all.

    The Demos haven't told us how they can keep that from happening.

    Actually, yes, they have. Repeatedly. And the GOP, as represented by Paul Ryan, has responded by saying programs like SS and Medicare:
    "lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency, which drains them of their very will and incentive to make the most of their lives. It's demeaning."

    And current projections are based on what?? (1.00 / 3) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    What if the economy continues to slow? And where does the 25% not covered come from?? Raising the income cap on an income that is tanking??

    And you don't mention Medicare. What's the answer there??

    Obama has no plan. All he wants to do is feed you Hope and Change.


    Medicare costs are growing slower than (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    costs on the private insurance side, so what sense does it make to take a program that's working, and working at less cost, and prevent a younger demographic from being part of the coverage pool by forcing them to get insurance on the private market?

    That's how you guarantee that Medicare fulfills the lie of the current prophecy; that's how you create an unsustainable program out of one that isn't even close to being unsustainable.

    For reasons I cannot even hope to ever make sense of, conservatives think the answer to "fixing" everything is to take money out of the public sector - they want to do it with education, they want to do it with Medicare and Medicaid, they want to do it with food stamps, they want to do it with Social Security - and give it to the private sector - which has proven time and again to care only about lining its own pockets and those of its shareholders.

    I am under no illusion that Obama's "plans" will prove to make any more sense than those of Romney/Ryan, so don't think you can box me into one of your false choices and strawmen arguments.


    Are you completely clueless on these topics? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Farmboy on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    The economy is growing, despite what you say. Since the stimulus went into effect during the summer of 2009, every month has shown positive GDP growth. As for jobs, since February of 2010 the economy has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4 percent increase.

    And either you don't know what the income cap on SS is, or you're trolling. Requiring the top 10% to pay payroll taxes on income above 110k is the best solution for everyone who needs or ever will need SS benefits. Raising the income cap would not only provide solvency for SS into the future, it would also allow benefits to be increased and the payroll tax rate to be lowered.

    As for Medicare, are you incapable of reading what many others here have written, or are you trolling on this topic as well? Medicare as it is now isn't in danger - except from the Romney/Ryan plan to kill it.

    Obama and the Dems have many plans. Those plans that have been put into place are helping to get us out of the mess that the GOP created in our country, as well as extend opportunities for more of the people who live in our country.

    Romney/Ryan and the GOP also have plans. The GOP plans involve us abandoning all hope if we travel deeper into their realm.


    The second sentence was supposed to read: (none / 0) (#49)
    by Farmboy on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    After that payroll taxes will fund about 75% of the expected payout



    It's important to note (none / 0) (#50)
    by Makarov on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:46:30 AM EST
    why there is a projected shortfall in a couple decades. It has nothing to do with lack of preparing for the Baby Boomers retiring. That was done when the payroll tax was basically doubled by Ronald Reagan in 1983.

    If share of growth in income had continued, on average, in line with what it was at that time, there would be projected shortfall. Instead, since the early 1980s, except for a few years in late 90s, something over 80% of income growth has been captured by the top 10%, all in excess of the current SS cap on wages.

    More plainly, the vast majority benefits of economic, wage, and productivity growth over the last 30 years have flowed to those making over $110K per year. If people making less than $100K saw their wages increase at the same rate, there would be little or no projected shortfall.

    This is a result of vast income inequality, an issue that neither campaign has plans to address.


    And if a bull frog had wings (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:18:05 PM EST
    he wouldn't bump his butt.

    What is Obama's plan????


    Stop repeating yourself (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:47:47 PM EST
    and start paying attention. People have already answered you with what they'd like to see Obama do, and the fact that even Obama's worst plan is still better than Ryan's and Romney's extremist old-people-can-f*ck-off-and-die plan.

    The more you repeat yourself, the more you show what an unremitting troll you are.


    When you get to be (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    blog Captain, let me know.

    Until then, answer my comments with facts instead of insults unless you want to be seen as what you are.


    meant to type (none / 0) (#51)
    by Makarov on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    "If share of growth in income had continued, on average, in line with what it was at that time, there would be NO projected shortfall."

    First sentence, second paragraph.