It's Official--Romney and Ryan for 2012!!!

[Foxfyre]

If the Ryan plan is imperfect or will produce unintended negative consequences, the debates and discussions and close analysis will reveal that and there will almost certainly be fixes and amendments. Electing Ryan does not make his plan for Medicare reform automatic any more than some of Barack Obama's more radical concepts became automatic when he was elected.

Ryan's plan solves nothing. Its claim to fame is that it aims to hit a per enrollee Medicare spending growth target that has already been achieved.

It's ideological drivel--a more expensive alternative designed solely to smash the most popular and most effective federal program in history.

Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But we won't know without honest evaluation by people who want a solution rather than just want to favor or demonize somebody in politics.''

We can talk until we're blue in the face about this guy or that guy or whether something was filibustered--news flash: the filibuster is available to and is used by both parties--but until we are willing to look at a plan, concept, or idea objectively and leave personalities and politics out of it, there will never be any solutions to anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ryan will harm the ticket in Fl, VA, MN, and NV; will help it in WI, NC, IA, NH, CO, MO; who knows in PA and OH?

PA and OH will determine the election, and this is where Romney and Ryan are going to have to go to work.

 

[Liability]

Ryan will harm the ticket in Fl, VA, MN, and NV; will help it in WI, NC, IA, NH, CO, MO; who knows in PA and OH?

PA and OH will determine the election, and this is where Romney and Ryan are going to have to go to work.

Nonense.

The VP choice has almost NO effect on any ticket (with one or two exceptions, at mot, and this aint one of them).

If the VP choice actually mattered, why would the incumbent have chosen Plugs?

 

[Greenbeard]

The VP choice has almost NO effect on any ticket (with one or two exceptions, at mot, and this aint one of them).

That's because a VP choice usually isn't a statement of or commitment to policy.

Usually it's equivalent to a statement of "I enjoy flags and apple pie and so does this guy!"

This time around it's become a statement that "I'm dedicating to shredding Medicare and the nation's safety net in order to institute millionaires' tax cuts that would reduce my own tax burden to 0.82%."

That makes this a rather unusual pick.

 

[Liability]

The VP choice has almost NO effect on any ticket (with one or two exceptions, at mot, and this aint one of them).

That's because a VP choice usually isn't a statement of or commitment to policy.

Usually it's equivalent to a statement of "I enjoy flags and apple pie and so does this guy!"

This time around it's become a statement that "I'm dedicating to shredding Medicare and the nation's safety net in order to institute millionaires' tax cuts that would reduce my own tax burden to 0.82%."

That makes this a rather unusual pick.

Nice spin, but quite flatly wrong.

It's a statement that INCLUDES a commentary ABOUT Medicare. And that comment is that it is broken and needs to be fixed.

And if there is an HONEST full discussion about the changes that Ryan contemplated, even the liberal bias of the main stream media might not work to prevent the people from SEEING that.

 

[Katzndogz]

I find it hilarious because Obama mine as well not even campaign this is going to be the easiest re election win EVER. He had a chance to pick Rubio who is Latino and from a swing state Florida,or Martinez from New Mexico a swing state,Woman and Latino. Or Governor Haley from South Carolina a woman and a minority. But he picks a white guy from Wisconsin...just makes no sense to me but hey I wasn't gonna vote for him in the first place and this hasn't changed my mind and I am not voting for Obama either. November 6th will be a 55% Obama,35% Romney,10% Gary Johnson.

I knew it! Less than 24 hours and Romney already picked "the white guy".

More than likely the pick was made because Ryan has a degree in economics and has been chairman of the budget committee. But, color and pussy would trump all that wouldn't it? Haven't we enough of putting people in charge because they are incompetent but politically correct?

 

[Borillar]

I must disagree with your statement.......

I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.

He has never said anything different regardless of what the Dem smear ads would like you to believe.

There is no question that Medicare as it exists today is simply not sustainable for the future. Changes MUST be made. If those changes are made now, they will be fair less painful than if we wait until we are plunging over that cliff.

Fearing that change only puts off what most of us know must happen one way or the other....or Medicare just won't exist for us.

So, what if you're 54 and been putting into the system for close to 40 years? You're just shit out of luck? Your older siblings will be taken care of, but you get some shitty voucher that doesn't come close to paying the bills? No thanks.

With an unrealistic and obsolete age of 65 years when the life expectancy is well over 75 years is simply unsustainable, for both Medicare and Social Security.

It MUST be raised, and it must start somewhere.

55 seems like a good start.

Yeah, especially if you are already over 55 and won't be affected. For those of us who are close to the cut-off, not so good. If you are in your late 40's or early 50's, and putting into the system your whole working life, it's too late to start planning for something else.

 

[Liability]

So, what if you're 54 and been putting into the system for close to 40 years? You're just shit out of luck? Your older siblings will be taken care of, but you get some shitty voucher that doesn't come close to paying the bills? No thanks.

With an unrealistic and obsolete age of 65 years when the life expectancy is well over 75 years is simply unsustainable, for both Medicare and Social Security.

It MUST be raised, and it must start somewhere.

55 seems like a good start.

Yeah, especially if you are already over 55 and won't be affected. For those of us who are close to the cut-off, not so good. If you are in your late 40's or early 50's, and putting into the system your whole working life, it's too late to start planning for something else.

I have almost no expectation that SS will "be there" for me when I retire.

My contributions are seen, by me, as paying for those who preceded me. I figure I came in at the wrong time to collect on this dopey Ponzi-like scheme.

I am making alternative plans.

 

[candycorn]

You could call it that from an unsophisticated viewpoint.

Could you give me the sophisticated explanation for this?

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

The Congress did the same to a Reagan budget once.

Zero votes? Link?

It's what happens when you have one house i n Congress that hates the President.

Obviously, that explains why not a single member of the President's own party voted for his budget. LOL!

Thanks, that was funny!

House Unanimously Rejects Pres. Obama’s Budget Proposal

House Unanimously Rejects
Pres. Obama's Budget Proposal
FOX News
Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.

Republicans have opposed Obama's budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts.

The vote came as the House debated a GOP budget that contains far more deficit reduction than Obama has proposed.

GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama's plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama's budget priorities, but they largely voted "no" Wednesday night.

Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama's proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

The budget was offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), to show how few votes the president's budget might get.

House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton's budget.

House Democrats floated three of President Reagan's budgets in the 1980s. Those budgets collected 28, 15 and one votes, respectively.

When you understand it was a political gimmick; the importance fades unless you don't buy the gimmick nature of it. In that case, you're just not that sophisticated when it comes to federal politics.

414-0 is a gimmick? Why did Obama's Dems go along?

I guess Obama showed them when he put forward another version of his budget?
Wait, he never did?
I get it, that's the gimmick, the President never submitted a budget.

Well, if that is the case, what was voted down?

Congress votes down every budget submitted by the President based on principle and constitutionality that Congress creates the budget. As Reagan said, "I signed every balanced budget you sent me."

You'd have to ask the members of Congress why they didn't go along.

 

[candycorn]

A terrible ticket politically. The pair may have made a good Secretary of Commerce and OBM Director but the game here is to get a plurality of voters in each state to pull a lever next to your name. That wasn't going to happen in the Governor's case before this and certainly won't happen after this.

I think that you meant OMB ( OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) rather than OBM.
A similar thought had occurred to me, as Ryan's membership in the House of Representatives and his intense focus on budgetary matters brings to mind David Stockman, who became Director of OMB in the first Reagan Administration.

You are correct. In the next Republican administration; the pair would be good fits for those slots.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the thing about Ryan is that the people who are excited about him should have already been firmly in Romney's corner since he cinched the nomination.

Romney doesn't need the people who are already against Obama. he needs the people who voted for Obama last time, were disappointed, maybe willing to reconsider. Historically, this is a tall order, usually incumbants improve on their vote totals, and when they don't, it's because a third party saps off their former supporters. (Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992.)

 

[Sallow]

From where I sit..this looks like a paniced choice meant to energize the base.

It looks like the Romney campaign is counting on voter suppression and Republicans coming out in droves for a win. He's done with trying to woe independents.

 

[JoeB131]

From where I sit..this looks like a paniced choice meant to energize the base.

It looks like the Romney campaign is counting on voter suppression and Republicans coming out in droves for a win. He's done with trying to woe independents.

And that's kind of the problem. When your base is saying, "Man, I wish the Veep Pick was at the top of the ticket", it's never a good sign.

 

[chanel]

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

 

[JoeB131]

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

again, I don't see how.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience. And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down. He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.

But... a heartbeat away? Not so sure about that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

again, I don't see how.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience. And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down. He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.

But... a heartbeat away? Not so sure about that.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2008.
All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2012.
Add no budget experience.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edited.

Obama is far more qualified this time out, and he demonstrated a great foreign policy ability that has improved our safety in the world.

However, Romney is the person we need for the economy.

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

again, I don't see how.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience. And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down. He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.

But... a heartbeat away? Not so sure about that.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2008.
All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2012.
Add no budget experience.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama is far more qualified this time out, and he demonstrated a great foreign policy ability that has improved our safety in the world.

However, Romney is the person we need for the economy.

again, I don't see how.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

I thought the biggest mistake McCain made in picking Palin was that his best argument against Obama was experience. And he put someone a heartbeat away who had very little.

Now, I do think that Ryan can more than hold his own in any debate or sit down. He actually comes off a lot more comfortable in his own skin than Romney does.

But... a heartbeat away? Not so sure about that.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2008.
All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2012.
Add no budget experience.

Obama is far more qualified this time out

Well, having zero qualifications last time, how could he not be?
But when you see his experience has been mostly making things worse........

 

[Sallow]

And from "where you sit" any choice would have given you the same response.

The most important thing to consider when choosing a VP is whether they are qualified to be president if need be. Isn't that the argument libs gave for destroying Sarah Palin?

From where I sit...Ryan is qualified.

You obviously haven't read the myriad of posts I have put out there regarding Romney's choices.

Edited.

 

[Sallow]

False, Toddsterpatriot.

Obama is far more qualified this time out, and he demonstrated a great foreign policy ability that has improved our safety in the world.

However, Romney is the person we need for the economy.

No executive experience.
No Business experience
No military experience
No foreign policy experience

All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2008.
All good reasons to vote against Obama in 2012.
Add no budget experience.

Obama is far more qualified this time out

Well, having zero qualifications last time, how could he not be?
But when you see his experience has been mostly making things worse........

So..you think that killing Osama Bin Laden and no major foreign attacks on this country has made things worse.

I disagree..of course.

Along with the stock market soaring, a comprehensive health care act, a steady decline in unemployment, tax cuts for the middle class and small business..we are slowing recovering from the devastation (And that is not some conflation, we suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, the worst stock market crash, one unprovoked war, unmitigated spending without applicable revenue growth to cover it and a collapse in almost every sector of the economy) wrought by the Republicans.