Nader to Ryan: Time to Debate

[georgephillip]

Paul Krugman is the funniest read since Larson stopped doing "The Far Side"

Ryan in Two Numbers.

"I could do this in detail, but you can learn everything you need to know by understanding two numbers: $4.6 trillion and 14 million.

"Of these, $4.6 trillion is the size of the mystery meat in the budget.

"Ryan proposes tax cuts that would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade relative to current policy — that is, relative even to making the Bush tax cuts permanent — but claims that his plan is revenue neutral, because he would make up the revenue loss by closing loopholes.

"For example, he would … well, actually, he refuses to name a single example of a loophole he wants to close.

"So the budget is a fraud.

"No, it’s not 'imperfect', it’s not a bit shaky on the numbers; it’s completely based on almost $5 trillion dollars of alleged revenue that are pure fabrication.

"On the other side, 14 million is the minimum number of people who would lose health insurance due to Medicaid cuts — the Urban Institute, working off the very similar plan Ryan unveiled last year, puts it at between 14 and 27 million people losing Medicaid."

Ryan in Two Numbers - NYTimes.com

Tell us what's funny about 14,000,000 people losing Medicaid.

 

[SayMyName]

I know who Ralph Nader is, but I am not so sure I understand why Paul Ryan alone should have the obligation to debate him.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't see how "helping the campaign" is the important issue here.

If Paul Ryan can't defend his budget against charges like those coming from David Stockman, Paul Krugman, and the Urban Institute then his campaign doesn't deserve help or support from anyone except the 1% and others blinded by ideology.

Ryan

I dont know, maybe because we are having a Presidential race.

What do you see as the purpose of that Presidential race?
Ryan's budget provides tax cuts of $240,000/year to the richest 1% of voters.
If Ryan can't or won't defend his numbers, why would anyone else vote for his ticket?

Ryan in Two Numbers - NYTimes.com

 

[georgephillip]

I know who Ralph Nader is, but I am not so sure I understand why Paul Ryan alone should have the obligation to debate him.

Nader isn't putting himself forward as Ryan's opponent.
Ralph mentions Paul Krugman as one possibility, and there are more radical economists than Paul to choose from.
Ryan's budget offers $4.6 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade yet he also claims it's revenue neutral.
He wants us to believe he'll close loopholes to make up for the cuts.
But he's unwilling to tell us which loopholes he would close.
Except for one; he's made it clear he won't touch capital gains.

As long as Republicans AND Democrats get away with preaching to their choirs we'll never get answers to questions like those swirling around Ryan's budget.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know who Ralph Nader is, but I am not so sure I understand why Paul Ryan alone should have the obligation to debate him.

That's just it. The whole proposition makes no sense and serves no purpose for the campaign.

 

[georgephillip]

I know who Ralph Nader is, but I am not so sure I understand why Paul Ryan alone should have the obligation to debate him.

That's just it. The whole proposition makes no sense and serves no purpose for the campaign.

Your statement is true if Ryan's budget "serves no purpose to the campaign."

Since that obviously isn't the case, Ryan should debate the specifics of his Path to Prosperity.

 

[antagon]

I know who Ralph Nader is, but I am not so sure I understand why Paul Ryan alone should have the obligation to debate him.

It's like rappers dissing one another and trying to battle.

 

[georgephillip]

I know who Ralph Nader is, but I am not so sure I understand why Paul Ryan alone should have the obligation to debate him.

It's like rappers dissing one another and trying to battle.

Except Ryan the Rapper is hiding instead of dissing.
Where've you been?

 

[Avatar4321]

I know who Ralph Nader is, but I am not so sure I understand why Paul Ryan alone should have the obligation to debate him.

That's just it. The whole proposition makes no sense and serves no purpose for the campaign.

Your statement is true if Ryan's budget "serves no purpose to the campaign."

Since that obviously isn't the case, Ryan should debate the specifics of his Path to Prosperity.

You think people arent smart enough to read it?

 

[Vidi]

Ralph Nader has sent Paul Ryan three letters requesting a debate on the Ryan Budget.
Paul's "too busy" to defend his budget in front of millions interested American voters on national television.

Heeeere's Ralph:

"Very well, Mr. Ryan, then why have you refused to civilly debate your proposals and their consequences with any of your critics inside and outside the Congress before a national television audience?

"I requested that you have this important exchange in three letters (first,second,third). Finally, your office demurred on the grounds that you were too busy.

"Are you really too busy to debate your plan which has passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and has been generally endorsed by Mitt Romney?

"Or are you too fearful of trying to defend your numbers and their plutocratic values to the likes of Princeton professor and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who has called the Ryan budget 'the most fraudulent in American history'”?

Ryan

Maybe Ryan doesn't want to make Nader look even dumber than he already does.

Nader isn't offering himself as Ryan's antagonist.
How about David Stockman?

"'In short,' wrote Stockman in The New York Times, 'Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices…. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity – just empty sermons.'”

Or Paul Krugman?

"... Princeton professor and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who has called the Ryan budget 'the most fraudulent in American history'”?

"Would you be interested in hearing Ryan's responses to this Urban Institute claim in front of millions of US voters?

"His 'block grant plan alone would lead states to drop between 14 and 27 million people (the poor and those with disabilities) from Medicaid by 2021,' according to the Urban Institute."

Ryan

heres a thought:

How about Ryan be required to debate his opponent.

Oh wait he IS going to debate Biden.

If the rest of those people want to debate Ryan, they should run against him or stfu.

I hate Paul Ryan but Nader isnt running for office and therefore is in no position to demand a debate.

Paul Ryan is going to clean Bidens clock in a debate, which isa shame, because Ryan is a piece of garbage hypocrite whos lived off the taxpayers since before he graduated high school. He is the epitome of entitlement programs breeding success and then wants to deny others access to the very programs that put him where he is today. What a fuckhead Paul Ryan is.

And Nader still isnt in a position to demand anything from him.

 

[georgephillip]

That's just it. The whole proposition makes no sense and serves no purpose for the campaign.

Your statement is true if Ryan's budget "serves no purpose to the campaign."

Since that obviously isn't the case, Ryan should debate the specifics of his Path to Prosperity.

You think people arent smart enough to read it?

I think it's likely most voters without a college education would find their eyes glazing over if they tried to read it.
Most voters without at least a Bachelors degree in Economics would find a debate helpful in order to arrive at an informed choice.
Certainly any undecided voters would be influenced by Ryan's defense of his budget; maybe that explains why he's "too busy" to provide one?

 

[thanatos144]

Nader is the progressives Ron Paul .......

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe Ryan doesn't want to make Nader look even dumber than he already does.

Nader isn't offering himself as Ryan's antagonist.
How about David Stockman?

"'In short,' wrote Stockman in The New York Times, 'Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices…. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity – just empty sermons.'”

Or Paul Krugman?

"... Princeton professor and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who has called the Ryan budget 'the most fraudulent in American history'”?

"Would you be interested in hearing Ryan's responses to this Urban Institute claim in front of millions of US voters?

"His 'block grant plan alone would lead states to drop between 14 and 27 million people (the poor and those with disabilities) from Medicaid by 2021,' according to the Urban Institute."

Ryan

heres a thought:

How about Ryan be required to debate his opponent.

Oh wait he IS going to debate Biden.

If the rest of those people want to debate Ryan, they should run against him or stfu.

I hate Paul Ryan but Nader isnt running for office and therefore is in no position to demand a debate.

Paul Ryan is going to clean Bidens clock in a debate, which isa shame, because Ryan is a piece of garbage hypocrite whos lived off the taxpayers since before he graduated high school. He is the epitome of entitlement programs breeding success and then wants to deny others access to the very programs that put him where he is today. What a fuckhead Paul Ryan is.

And Nader still isnt in a position to demand anything from him.

Biden and Ryan are NOT debating one another.
They're taking part in a scripted panel discussion where neither is required to prove anything.
That's how each wing of the Wall Street Party "debates".
They collaborate on behalf of the richest 1% of voters.
Ralph wants Ryan to defend his budget on national television before the election.
Ryan would probably prefer to avoid that indignity.

 

[thanatos144]

Nader isn't offering himself as Ryan's antagonist.
How about David Stockman?

"'In short,' wrote Stockman in The New York Times, 'Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices…. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity – just empty sermons.'”

Or Paul Krugman?

"... Princeton professor and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who has called the Ryan budget 'the most fraudulent in American history'”?

"Would you be interested in hearing Ryan's responses to this Urban Institute claim in front of millions of US voters?

"His 'block grant plan alone would lead states to drop between 14 and 27 million people (the poor and those with disabilities) from Medicaid by 2021,' according to the Urban Institute."

Ryan

heres a thought:

How about Ryan be required to debate his opponent.

Oh wait he IS going to debate Biden.

If the rest of those people want to debate Ryan, they should run against him or stfu.

I hate Paul Ryan but Nader isnt running for office and therefore is in no position to demand a debate.

Paul Ryan is going to clean Bidens clock in a debate, which isa shame, because Ryan is a piece of garbage hypocrite whos lived off the taxpayers since before he graduated high school. He is the epitome of entitlement programs breeding success and then wants to deny others access to the very programs that put him where he is today. What a fuckhead Paul Ryan is.

And Nader still isnt in a position to demand anything from him.

Biden and Ryan are NOT debating one another.
They're taking part in a scripted panel discussion where neither is required to prove anything.
That's how each wing of the Wall Street Party "debates".
They collaborate on behalf of the richest 1% of voters.
Ralph wants Ryan to defend his budget on national television before the election.
Ryan would probably prefer to avoid that indignity.

Lmao you think Nader is different

 

[Vidi]

Nader isn't offering himself as Ryan's antagonist.
How about David Stockman?

"'In short,' wrote Stockman in The New York Times, 'Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices…. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity – just empty sermons.'”

Or Paul Krugman?

"... Princeton professor and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who has called the Ryan budget 'the most fraudulent in American history'”?

"Would you be interested in hearing Ryan's responses to this Urban Institute claim in front of millions of US voters?

"His 'block grant plan alone would lead states to drop between 14 and 27 million people (the poor and those with disabilities) from Medicaid by 2021,' according to the Urban Institute."

Ryan

heres a thought:

How about Ryan be required to debate his opponent.

Oh wait he IS going to debate Biden.

If the rest of those people want to debate Ryan, they should run against him or stfu.

I hate Paul Ryan but Nader isnt running for office and therefore is in no position to demand a debate.

Paul Ryan is going to clean Bidens clock in a debate, which isa shame, because Ryan is a piece of garbage hypocrite whos lived off the taxpayers since before he graduated high school. He is the epitome of entitlement programs breeding success and then wants to deny others access to the very programs that put him where he is today. What a fuckhead Paul Ryan is.

And Nader still isnt in a position to demand anything from him.

Biden and Ryan are NOT debating one another.
They're taking part in a scripted panel discussion where neither is required to prove anything.
That's how each wing of the Wall Street Party "debates".
They collaborate on behalf of the richest 1% of voters.
Ralph wants Ryan to defend his budget on national television before the election.
Ryan would probably prefer to avoid that indignity.

If Ralph wants to debate Ryan, the Ralph should run for office or as I so eloquently put it before, stfu.

Ralph Nader doesnt get to interfere with our election process just because he has yet another stray grey hair up his ass.


Did Nader issue the challenge BEFORE or AFTER Ryan was named the VP candidate?

After? Hmmm....what does that tell you?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it's likely most voters without a college education would find their eyes glazing over if they tried to read it.
Most voters without at least a Bachelors degree in Economics would find a debate helpful in order to arrive at an informed choice.
Certainly any undecided voters would be influenced by Ryan's defense of his budget; maybe that explains why he's "too busy" to provide one?

So you think people are stupid. Got ya.

 

[Vidi]

I think it's likely most voters without a college education would find their eyes glazing over if they tried to read it.
Most voters without at least a Bachelors degree in Economics would find a debate helpful in order to arrive at an informed choice.
Certainly any undecided voters would be influenced by Ryan's defense of his budget; maybe that explains why he's "too busy" to provide one?

So you think people are stupid. Got ya.

apparently, only Nader and he "get it". The rest of us, regardless of our politics are just following the Wall Street Shills.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nader isn't offering himself as Ryan's antagonist.
How about David Stockman?

"'In short,' wrote Stockman in The New York Times, 'Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices…. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity – just empty sermons.'”

Or Paul Krugman?

"... Princeton professor and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who has called the Ryan budget 'the most fraudulent in American history'”?

"Would you be interested in hearing Ryan's responses to this Urban Institute claim in front of millions of US voters?

"His 'block grant plan alone would lead states to drop between 14 and 27 million people (the poor and those with disabilities) from Medicaid by 2021,' according to the Urban Institute."

Ryan

Stockman? The guy that went to divinity school? Do you seriously think he can go up against a guy with a degree in economics?

Stockman's not my first choice...

"(Richard D.) Wolff earned a BA magna cum laude in history from Harvard in 1963 and moved on to Stanford—he attained a MA in economics in 1964—to study with Paul A. Baran. Baran died prematurely from a heart attack in 1964 and Wolff transferred to Yale University, where he received a MA in economics in 1966, MA in history in 1967, and a PhD in economics in 1969. As a graduate student at Yale, Wolff worked as an instructor.[1] His dissertation, 'The Economics of Colonialism: Britain and Kenya,'[2] was eventually published in book form in 1974."

Richard D. Wolff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Think Ryan would show up?

Stockman was the first one you thought of though.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why are the debates limited to the candidates of the two party coup d'état?

The debates are between the two who top the polls. If you want someone else, support them, if enough people do, that person will be in the debate and one of the others will be out.

And that is democracy?!

Actually… yes it is.

Interestingly enough, if the voters wanted it and called for it then there would be more debates and more people participating. The ugly reality is that people base much of their vote off of who they DON’T want to vote for rather than the one they do. This is why campaigns are largely negative in nature. You never see a mostly positive campaign because the voters simply will not have it.

Sure the voters SAY that’s what they want but actions are louder than words and the actions of the voters say differently.

On that note, additional debates only allow for greater number of gaffs to be repeated, more chances to take one statement out of context or find that single sound bite to hang a politician with. That is all that a politician opens themselves up to if they debate more than the minimum number of times and with someone other than their direct competition. IF positive things were reported, IF positive statements mattered to the people at large and IF people actually paid attention to the messages of the candidates rather than the finger pointing and name calling that we have today then you might actually see something like you want. In this climate and with the current voting habits of the populous at large, that simply will not happen.

 

[Katzndogz]

The real question is who cares what Ralph Nader thinks! He's completely irrelevant.