Paul Ryan's Voter Values Speech 9/14/2012

[Intense]

Having self interests makes one a narcissist? That's a gross over-simplification.

Self-interest does not make one a narcissist.

I am talking specifically about the Randian philosophy that, apparently, is the driving force behind the current GOP vice presidential candidate. This is a philosophy that holds that self-sacrifice and altruism are affirmatively "evil" (that's Rand's word).

To see ostensible followers of Christ embrace a philosophy that teaches the moral wrongness of self-sacrifice is surreal.

Personally, I believe that Rand, saw Manipulation as Evil. An Atheist that Believes in Justice, Conscience, and Unalienable Right's, is not really an Atheist, huh. Maybe Deist. My bottom line, is that one thing that should Never be Sacrificed, especially for the Will of the State is Conscience, further, Salvation. That is the Ultimate Evil. She was a Whistle Blower on People Exploiting other People, for the benefit of attaining unworthily. I understand why that might offend, some.

 

[Foxfyre]

First, I thank both Foxfyre and Gatsby for dealing with my post in a collegial manner. I think I understand your perspective much better. The series of posts you have made, however, do not resemble any debate or discussion I have ever seen. I see no facts or logical arguments, just some feel-good opinions for one side and gratuitous bashing of the other.

Gatsby can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the topic to be the values cited by Ryan in a specific speech on a specific day. Most of us are doing our best to discuss those values whether or not we agree with them or even agree with what values he holds.
For me it is an interesting topic and requires ability to think critically about specific concepts. Using it to spoutr assigned speaking points to bash Obama, Republicans, or anybody else is not, in my opinion, suitable for this thread.

OK, so you think this is about the speech. Gatsby provided a 25 minute video, 16 excerpts on various topics ranging from Obamacare and abortion to Romney’s charitable endeavors, then provided a link to the entire text of the speech. While the speech was delivered at a “values conference”, Ryan’s speech spent almost no time on values but was long on praising Romney and bashing Obama. If the subject is values, why quote all the other stuff?

Later on there are posts praising Romney for his charitable acts, unrelated to anything in Ryan’s speech. You seem to have opened up the discussion to further praise of Romney and Ryan outside the content of the speech, but to also cry foul if anyone says anything negative concerning either candidate.
OK, let’s talk about one of the Ryan quotes.

“And i can assure you, when mitt romney is elected, we will get to work – on day one – to repeal that mandate and all of obamacare.”

That is the excerpt in its entirety. What does that quote have to do with values? It’s a policy statement.
But since we are discussing the speech, that quote raises a few questions. For one it contradicts Romney’s most recent statement that he intends to keep those portions of Obamacare which he likes, such as community rating (no penalty for pre-existing conditions). Ryan himself has steadfastly proposed a budget that uses the $780 billion of savings in Medicare administrative costs negotiated by Obama with the health insurance industry to fund tax reductions.

Now this statement and its contradiction does say a lot about values.

First, is the Romney—Ryan ticket breaking faith with the health insurance industry by keeping community rating and forcing them to accept high risk pre-existing conditions and removing the offsetting revenue that the individual mandate provided? Is it ethical to take a negotiated compromise and announce that you oppose all portions that benefit you and renounce the portions that benefited the other party? This is exactly what the Romney-Ryan ticket has done and Ryan has underlined the breach of trust in his speech.

Second, what other parts of Obamacare will the Romney—Ryan ticket decide to keep? What concessions will they offer the health insurance industry to in exchange for dropping the individual mandate? The ACA is a done deal, accepted by the health insurance industry. Does the public have a right to know how Rpmney-Ryan intend to rewrite the law? If so, when were they going to provide the answers? We all know what is in the ACA, we don’t know what is in the Romney—Ryan revisions. To put off disclosure until after the election is intellectually dishonest and morally craven. That tells me a lot about Ryan’s values: they do not include intellectual honesty or respect for the rights of the American voter to know what they will do once in office.

Finally, If the intention all along was to keep many of the elements of Obamacare, why did Ryan use an absolute statement in his speech? Did he intend to mislead? Again it raises a question of fundamental honesty.

So my question to you is, “Do you intend to discuss any of the policy statements in Ryan’s speech? And if we are discussing Romney and Ryan’s moral character and values, do I get to bring up animal cruelty?

On the subject of honesty and personal attacks, perhaps Foxfyre would like to defend the following statement:
.” But there is not a single story in which Romney enriched himself at the expense of somebody else or in which the Romneys wallow in a lavish lifestyle. His critics love to point to the jobs he eliminated when he was fixing an ailing entity or corporation, but they never point out the tenfold more jobs that were created as a result of his efforts.”
“Conversely, where is the criticism of the Obamas enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and their lavish lifestyle that we pay for?”

There are several thousand American workers who lost their jobs so that Bain capital could and Romney could make millions through devices such as unfunding pension plans and letting the taxpayers through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation take the hit. The assertion that Romney created tenfold more jobs than he destroyed is an assertion even Romney does not try to make, he claims to simply not know. I have seen no evidence of either personal enrichment or lavish life style on the part of the Obama’s. You state as fact opinions which can be and have been factually rebuted. And exactly where do these allegations appear in Mr. Ryan’s speech?

In my opinion those things for which Ryan criticized Obama go straight to the issue of what are American values when it comes to government, spending, programs, and policy. Is the President somehow above reproach? He should nnot be evaluated on what he has said, what he has done, what he has proposed, and what he has supported when we decide whether to re-elect him for four more years? How does one separate values from that? And if you believe that he has been wrong, has been ineffective, has been destructive or harmful in policy, that should not be fair game for discussion? Would you feel that way about any other President?

And yes, the stories of Mitt's quiet and unpublicized altruism goes straiight to Ryna's comment that Mitt should talk about himself more, because the media and the left are characterizing him as somebody he is not.

And anybody who reads the honest record of Bain Capital knows that many more jobs were saved and created by Bain's work in saving companies and helping them grow than were those that could not be saved. Bain was a good company when Mitt Romney was in charge of it and the honest record, not the deliberately dovctored political one presented by the left, illustrates that.

I rather insist that the whole story be told, about everybody, left or right, rather than cherry pick things to create false images.

To the conservative, Ryan's speech in its entirety was one of values that conservatibves will be considering when they vote in November. And they all are the truth as Ryan sees it.

 

[oldfart]

In my opinion those things for which Ryan criticized Obama go straight to the issue of what are American values when it comes to government, spending, programs, and policy. Is the President somehow above reproach? He should nnot be evaluated on what he has said, what he has done, what he has proposed, and what he has supported when we decide whether to re-elect him for four more years?

By all means criticize Obama. I'll probably join in, lambasting him for a naive faith that he could negotiate with Republicans for the common good, for blowing his only chance to promote a rapid economic recovery by defering too much to Congress and being too solicitous of Wall Street.

Would you feel that way about any other President?

I'm not sure what the point is here. I like to read a lot of history, and generally have an opinion on each president, including the obscure ones. The best had flaws and made mistakes. Most had some redeeming qualities, although I would be hard pressed to name one for Warren G Harding or James Buchanan. Did you have a particular president in mind?

And yes, the stories of Mitt's quiet and unpublicized altruism goes straiight to Ryna's comment that Mitt should talk about himself more, because the media and the left are characterizing him as somebody he is not.

And anybody who reads the honest record of Bain Capital knows that many more jobs were saved and created by Bain's work in saving companies and helping them grow than were those that could not be saved. Bain was a good company when Mitt Romney was in charge of it and the honest record, not the deliberately dovctored political one presented by the left, illustrates that.

You are stating as fact your opinion which is not shared by everyone. If you want to have a debate on Bain Capital and its effects on the economy, I'm game. You will have to be prepared to present specific facts from reliable sources and sound economic reasoning to do that. I expect to be held to that standard also.

 

[Foxfyre]

I doubt you and I would agree on what a reliable source is, OldFart. But if you start a thread on Bain Capital in the CDZ I will participate if the discussion is interesting. I have done enough reading from reliable sources on Bain Capital to know that Romney's involvement in that organization has been definitely unfairly demonized by the Left who too often don't allow any mitigating facts into that discussion.

But for this thread, let's focus on Ryan's point of view re values, as that was the thesis of this thread. I've had a good discussion on his views of Ayn Rand and whether Rand's influence has been a positive or negative thing so far. If you followed that discussion, I believe it was useful for those who want the truth. So which of Ryan's comments would you like to explore in depth now? ( Those just looking for a reason to demonize Ryan or Romney through whatever criteria and who aren't interested in considering anything else are quite boring to me though, just so you know.)

 

[oldfart]

I doubt you and I would agree on what a reliable source is, OldFart.

First of all, a proper source is adequately identified and what is a direct quote is made clear. I've seen a lot of posts where that was not the case.

Second, statistics should refernce the original source, and not a blog post or screed that misstates the numbers. I see a awful lot of that.

Third, sources should not have their statements or research twisted to support a position they oppose, in most cases.

So if the numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and you see it in a news article or blog; go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and check the facts before you repost them, and clearly separate the numbers from your interpretation of their meaning. And if you are going to to quote Robert Reich about their meaning and you are getting it from some one other than Robert Reich, chek Reich's blog to make sure the pundit has not msqoted Reich to support a position Reich is diametrically opposed to.

People disagree on issues, and I have no problem with someone quoting Ayn Rand or Ann Coulter. But opinions are not facts, nor are they analysis if the reasoning does not hold up. This is what I mean by reliable.

But for this thread, let's focus on Ryan's point of view re values, as that was the thesis of this thread....So which of Ryan's comments would you like to explore in depth now?

We could start with how Mr. Ryan feels about his duty as Chairman of the House Budget Committee to reveal the actual numbers in his budget that allow him to claim that his budget will reduce the budget deficit and in time the national debt. He has presented a bill (Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2013), which shows almost $897 billion in an entry for unspecified cuts (page 16, Table 2) under a catchall called "Category 920 Allowances".

This is a lot of money, virtuall all of the deficit reduction in the 2013 budget he proposes. The Committee Report for the bill states that this amount does ot contain any cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Specific cuts are listed for Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment benefits. Ryan's office has also stated that it does not iclude any cuts in veteran's benefits. So where are these vast cuts going to come from?

This bill passed the House 228-191 on March 29, 2012, with no Democrats voting yes. On May 16, the Senate rejected the plan by a vote of 58-41. The vote among Senate
Republicans was 41-4 in favor.

On September 7 in Westlake Ohio Ryan stated: "We will not duck the tough issues. We will not kick the can down the road." and "We will lead. We will not blame others for four years; we will take responsibility and fix this country’s problems." This is a pretty ambitious statement of goals and values. Should it no include being honest and transparent in revealing where the nearly trillion dollars of cuts will come from?

 

[Foxfyre]

I doubt you and I would agree on what a reliable source is, OldFart.

First of all, a proper source is adequately identified and what is a direct quote is made clear. I've seen a lot of posts where that was not the case.

Second, statistics should refernce the original source, and not a blog post or screed that misstates the numbers. I see a awful lot of that.

Third, sources should not have their statements or research twisted to support a position they oppose, in most cases.

So if the numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and you see it in a news article or blog; go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and check the facts before you repost them, and clearly separate the numbers from your interpretation of their meaning. And if you are going to to quote Robert Reich about their meaning and you are getting it from some one other than Robert Reich, chek Reich's blog to make sure the pundit has not msqoted Reich to support a position Reich is diametrically opposed to.

People disagree on issues, and I have no problem with someone quoting Ayn Rand or Ann Coulter. But opinions are not facts, nor are they analysis if the reasoning does not hold up. This is what I mean by reliable.

But for this thread, let's focus on Ryan's point of view re values, as that was the thesis of this thread....So which of Ryan's comments would you like to explore in depth now?

We could start with how Mr. Ryan feels about his duty as Chairman of the House Budget Committee to reveal the actual numbers in his budget that allow him to claim that his budget will reduce the budget deficit and in time the national debt. He has presented a bill (Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2013), which shows almost $897 billion in an entry for unspecified cuts (page 16, Table 2) under a catchall called "Category 920 Allowances".

This is a lot of money, virtuall all of the deficit reduction in the 2013 budget he proposes. The Committee Report for the bill states that this amount does ot contain any cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Specific cuts are listed for Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment benefits. Ryan's office has also stated that it does not iclude any cuts in veteran's benefits. So where are these vast cuts going to come from?

This bill passed the House 228-191 on March 29, 2012, with no Democrats voting yes. On May 16, the Senate rejected the plan by a vote of 58-41. The vote among Senate
Republicans was 41-4 in favor.

On September 7 in Westlake Ohio Ryan stated: "We will not duck the tough issues. We will not kick the can down the road." and "We will lead. We will not blame others for four years; we will take responsibility and fix this country’s problems." This is a pretty ambitious statement of goals and values. Should it no include being honest and transparent in revealing where the nearly trillion dollars of cuts will come from?

So where is a copy of this budget that we are to evaluate? The one that was voted on. But seriouslhy, all they have to do cut a trillion projected dollars is repeal Obamacare.

(And there are a lot of identified sources cited on message boards, including USMB, complete with links and everything, that I do not consider a reliable source.

 

[oldfart]

So where is a copy of this budget that we are to evaluate? The one that was voted on. But seriouslhy, all they have to do cut a trillion projected dollars is repeal Obamacare.

You really don't know how to find the text of legislation?

budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy2013_budget_resolution_report.pdf

For comparison the President's budget proposal is here:
The*President's*Budget for*Fiscal Year 2013 | The White House

(And there are a lot of identified sources cited on message boards, including USMB, complete with links and everything, that I do not consider a reliable source.

I agree with you there. Proper identification is a necessary but not sufficint condition to establish the bona fides of a source.