Paul Ryan

[Sparky]

Anybody going to the Lakewood rally Tuesday?

[Bailey Guns]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ab19_blog.html

Didn't know Ryan went to crazytown to pick up his abortion opinions. If anything will let Obama make the election about stuff other than the economy, Ryan's "no abortion including in cases of rape or incest" is going to help out quite a bit.

Yeah. Go figure. A conservative Catholic who's against abortion. People that stand up for their religious and conservative political beliefs really piss me off, too.

I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me. That was pure pandering to the UAW by Obama, nothing more.

Here's Ryan's explanation for a few of his votes. Whether you like his explanation or not, he sounds honest to me. Furthermore, if what he says is true and Romney/Ryan win, the country will be much better positioned to fight the economic war on the horizon:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2917667/posts

I asked Ryan about these criticisms during a phone interview this week. Here’s what he had to say:

The DC: As you’re getting more attention, besides the criticism that you’re getting from the Democrats, I’ve also started to see some critical comments of you from the right over your votes for TARP, the auto bailout, and the tax on CEO bonuses. How often do you hear that in your home state, how often do you hear it on the Internet, and what do you tell people when they criticize you on those things?

Ryan: You know I don’t hear it here at home that much. You’ve got to remember Obama won my district. Dukakis and Gore won my district. Clinton won my district. So I don’t come from, you know, a red area. So I think it’s important to keep in mind where I come from. I don’t hear that here.

TARP. I’ll take one at a time. I believe we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression. I think that’s probably pretty likely. If we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn’t have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn’t a fun vote. You don’t get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have — which are restoring the principles of this country — I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation.

Auto. Really clear. The president’s chief of staff [Josh Bolten] made it extremely clear to me before the vote, which is either the auto companies get the money that was put in the Energy Department for them already — a bill that I voted against because I didn’t want to give them that money, which was only within the $25 billion, money that was already expended but not obligated — or the president was going to give them TARP, with no limit. That’s what they told me. That’s what the president’s chief of staff explained to me. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want them to get TARP. We want to keep TARP on a [inaudible]. We don’t want to expand it. So give them that Energy Department money that at least puts them out of TARP, and is limited.’ Well, where are we now? What I feared would happen did happen. The bill failed, and now they’ve got $87 billion from TARP, money we’re not going to get back. And now TARP, as a precedent established by the Bush administration, whereby the Obama administration now has turned this thing into its latest slush fund. And so I voted for that to prevent precisely what has happened, which I feared would happen.

The whole AIG thing, you know that was — you know I obviously regret that one. I was angry at the time because I was worried that all these companies were jumping into TARP thinking they could use TARP as a way to best their competitors, as a way to get cheaper credit, to get money at cheaper rates, at the expense of their smaller competitors. And so I was seeing TARP as sort of a new tool of crony capitalism, and I thought it’d be a good signal to send to the large banks who were jumping into this thing, who really didn’t need it: ‘Stay away from this, don’t get in bed with the government, even though it might in the short term give you a leg up on your competitors, you’ll be burned. That was what was running through my mind at the time, given the fact that we had about six hours notice on the vote, and our lawyers were telling us that it was not a bill of attainder. Now when a week went by, and our lawyers had a chance to read it more clearly and carefully, they reversed their opinion of the bill and said it was in fact a bill of attainder, which therefore should not have passed …

The other thing that bothered me was the Democrats were in a real political pinch, because Chris Dodd wrote in the exemption for those bonuses in the bill, and they were on the hook for it. And they were trying to get themselves off the hook and Republicans on the hook. And that bothered me too, was just the political cynicism behind it bothered me and I didn’t want to give the Democrats that as well. So those were the thoughts running through my mind when I had to make more or less the snap judgment on that bill.

[Rooskibar03]

Anybody going to the Lakewood rally Tuesday?

I just got 3 tickets for me and the family.

[Rucker61]

I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me. That was pure pandering to the UAW by Obama, nothing more.

Eh?

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11405...-it-again.html

[Bailey Guns]

I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me.

Eh?

Obama's deal was far more involved than Bush's. Obama also changed the bankruptcy rules that favored autoworkers at Chrysler and GM. Bush didn't buy stock in the automaker companies using taxpayer money.

Here's a good article to back up my point: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...268680454.html

Here's an excerpt from another:

Pushing against a reluctant Congress, Bush steered $17.4 billion in emergency loans to GM and Chrysler in his final weeks in office, on condition they shrink debt, negotiate wage and benefit cuts with workers and submit plans to achieve "long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency."

The new Obama administration followed with more than $60 billion in aid, more expansive requirements and hands-on management of the crisis.

With hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, ideology took a back seat. "Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy," Bush said in a speech this month. "I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment."

Steven Rattner, who led Obama's auto task force, credited Bush with giving his team "a little breathing room" to restructure the companies and for providing a framework of "expected sacrifices that paved the way for our demands for give-ups from the stakeholders."

[Bailey Guns]

BTW: When I said it isn't a deal killer to me I really mean that. I have two 2012 GM vehicles sitting in my garage/driveway.

[Pancho Villa]

Yeah. Go figure. A conservative Catholic who's against abortion. People that stand up for their religious and conservative political beliefs really piss me off, too.

Liberals believe the government can fix everything, Catholics believe that abortion is murder. They have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them.

Your religious convictions ought to be kept private, not brought into political play. If you want to believe whatever, that's none of my business. If you want to start stuffing your magic men down my throat via legislation, we have problems.

I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me. That was pure pandering to the UAW by Obama, nothing more.

And by Ryan, so that's comforting.

Here's Ryan's explanation for a few of his votes. Whether you like his explanation or not, he sounds honest to me. Furthermore, if what he says is true and Romney/Ryan win, the country will be much better positioned to fight the economic war on the horizon:

I'll call it right here, right now - screencap if you want and let's review 6 months after the election.

A Romney/Ryan presidency will:

- Flounder at actually cutting the budget
- Extend the Bush tax cuts but nothing more
- No capital gains tax reforms
- No significant regulation reform
- They will either not repeal Obamacare or "repeal and replace" with something that is functionally the same (ie coverage for preexisting conditions, which is the teeth of Obamacare and will kill the insurance industry and toss us into single-payer by necessity - but which polls well and which Romney has supported.)
- They will not reform the tax code to keep insurance from being connected to your job
- Expect a lot of DEM GAYS and 'BORTION stuff to distract from the economy and keep the social cons happy.

Also I'll give a 50/50 shot at some big expansion of federal welfare ala Medicare Part D from Bush in the first term, to prove how compassionate Romney is. Expect the economy to flounder more.

Again, any jerk can talk a good game. It's what they vote for that reveals to you where they will bend to political pressure or what they are passionate about vs what they find beyond the pale.

[Great-Kazoo]

Liberals believe the government can fix everything, Catholics believe that abortion is murder. They have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them.

Your religious convictions ought to be kept private, not brought into political play. If you want to believe whatever, that's none of my business. If you want to start stuffing your magic men down my throat via legislation, we have problems.



And by Ryan, so that's comforting.



I'll call it right here, right now - screencap if you want and let's review 6 months after the election.

A Romney/Ryan presidency will:

- Flounder at actually cutting the budget
- Extend the Bush tax cuts but nothing more
- No capital gains tax reforms
- No significant regulation reform
- They will either not repeal Obamacare or "repeal and replace" with something that is functionally the same (ie coverage for preexisting conditions, which is the teeth of Obamacare and will kill the insurance industry and toss us into single-payer by necessity - but which polls well and which Romney has supported.)
- They will not reform the tax code to keep insurance from being connected to your job
- Expect a lot of DEM GAYS and 'BORTION stuff to distract from the economy and keep the social cons happy.

Also I'll give a 50/50 shot at some big expansion of federal welfare ala Medicare Part D from Bush in the first term, to prove how compassionate Romney is. Expect the economy to flounder more.

Again, any jerk can talk a good game. It's what they vote for that reveals to you where they will bend to political pressure or what they are passionate about vs what they find beyond the pale.

If the GOP takes back the white house i don't expect they will do anything different than what's going on now.
NOW if the GOP maintains a slim majority in congress and the WH, then, no still the same shit, just more posturing how things are being done.
O gets 4 more years and the vitriol of "No one is working together" will lead us deeper in to the shit pile we've been in.

I'm still pulling the lever for the GOP because every vote does count.

[ronaldrwl]

I love the choice. Paul Ryan seems to always be on the right side of the issues. At least I think so.

[ghettodub]

Fiscally, I like Paul Ryan. But I think this pretty much guaranteed Obama's victory.