Ryan is a champion of a reduced federal government, and stronger rights for individual states. Ryan’s budgetary approach would mean far greater expense for the elderly and the poor, who would receive vouchers to help them buy private insurance, or allow them to rely on fee-for-service help options.
Recent polls from numerous sources show Romney falling behind Obama, in a campaign revolving almost entirely around economic issues. Republicans have resisted every plan from the administration, and they hope that their criticism of jobs, unemployment, and the American economy will propel them to the White House. In addition Romney, who has little diplomatic experience, has made several gaffes in recent weeks, possibly costing him votes. He was critical of the London handling of the Olympics. Responding to the Wisconsin temple shooting, he mispronounced Sikhs ("Sheiks", he said). Romney stands firmly behind any decision that the state of Israel makes, up to and including a unilateral attack on Iran. He is openly hostile to the people and government of Palestine.
Congressman Ryan and his wife have three children, and had been preparing for a week-long vacation in Colorado.
Photo credit: Mitt Romney.com
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
Very little can be done with regard to reducing expenditures for health care until junk food addressed forthrightly. Also, read my lips. No new wars. This country needs to keep the defense budget within 3.5% of the GDP or face very ugly financial and social consequences for years to come.
2 - Igor
Why would anyone think that Ryan is an expert on budgets or economy? He has no degree in economics and has never started or managed a company.
I don't think he's ever held a job, other than on the federal payroll.
3 - Clav
I don't think he's [Ryan} ever held a job, other than on the federal payroll.
Not unlike Obama.
We're plagued with the useless bastards...
4 - Igor
Well, Clav, did you rage against Obama?
5 - Igor
And therefore, Clav, will you rage against Ryan?
6 - Glenn Contrarian
But what the "he's never held a real job" crowd often doesn't get is that there's a BIG difference between running a business and running a government - they're two completely different paradigms. One runs a business to make money. One runs a government for the betterment of the people. One requires the profit motive, while the other requires the utter lack of the profit motive.
It's nice if a politician understands business - just as it's nice if a politician understands military service - but it's absolutely crucial that said politician knows how to govern...and CEO's do not govern.
So I won't berate Ryan for never having had a 'real job'...I'll just berate him for the idiotic positions he holds.
7 - Clav
Tsk, tsk, Igor. Where on earth do you come up with these goofy ideas? If I disagree with the principles (or lack thereof, as the case may be, and usually is) of one individual, why would you expect me to pledge to disagree with another who opposes him? Do the Democrats ever find merit in the Republicans? Vice versa? If, during WWII I opposed Hitler, would that obligate me to oppose Churchill as well?
My opposition (or approval) of any politician of whatever stripe hinges on my perception of his ideas and actions, not on whether or not it's his turn to receive my disapproval, and although I have a low opinion of all American politicians, even they, like a broken clock, are right occasionally.
Sorry, Igor, you're once again not making any sense.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
At the risk of starting another argument with you that I'm sure to lose (if my 0-2 record with you is any indication), I'd like to point out two things:
1 - There are good politicians, even great ones, in any nation - including America. Yes, they all have feet of clay and no mistake, but we still have the responsibility of picking out the diamond from the haystack of cubic zirconias.
2 - You said, "Do the Democrats ever find merit in the Republicans?". I have on many occasions...but of course the BC conservatives never seem to recognize it when I do. By the same token, I'd love to see even one BC conservative speak well of any Democratic president even a quarter as often as I have of certain Republican presidents. But they won't, and they really don't see the problem perpetuated by their refusal to do so.
9 - Cindy
You said, "Do the Democrats ever find merit in the Republicans?
I did? Wow. I really don't remember that.
And right now, I am not even sure why I said it. I am filled with disgust at a terrible racist 'joke' email from my husband's sister, who is a conservative, right-winger whose spent most of her adult life in Georgia. Maybe you have seen this crap.
Now, I will get over it. I just never discuss politics with her. I did that one time for about 5 minutes and I told her we must never ever discuss politics ever again because I don't want to jeopardize our good relationship.
10 - Clav
I did? Wow. I really don't remember that.
Prolly coz you didn't, Cindy. I did.
11 - Zingzing
Cindy, pertaining to your sister-in-law's "joke," don't you love it when someone complains about someone else not knowing English, then in the very next line, screws up the possessive for the plural (in "daddy's")? I'm sure they know better, but the irony is making me all wet in my nethers.
12 - Zingzing
Clavos, I think you can see igor's logic, even if you pretend not to. It's weird how so many claim he's got no experience, but is a political insider as well. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose.
13 - John Lake
I may be wrong, but am of the impression that those on public aide, and on unemployment are required to submit proof they are regularly seeking employment and/or taking courses to make them more employable. Wow. That should be in "There! I just said it!"
14 - Zingzing
Actually, although it may differ from state to state, here in NY, the standards appear to pretty lax. My friend's restaurant closed a few years ago and he was on unemployment for a few weeks, and other than an initial meeting with a city (or state) employment agent, he said he just had to confirm that he was looking for work every week when he made his claim online every week (a check box). I know for a fact that he wasn't looking for work much, if at all.
15 - Clav
My friend's restaurant closed a few years ago and he was on unemployment for a few weeks, and other than an initial meeting with a city (or state) employment agent, he said he just had to confirm that he was looking for work every week when he made his claim online every week (a check box). I know for a fact that he wasn't looking for work much, if at all.
Thanks for the perfect example of why entitlement programs are ripoffs to the taxpayers.
Cut, Ryan, cut.
16 - zingzing
nah, clavos. they just need to actually follow up and make people prove that they're actually looking for work. and he did find work, and very quickly (unemployment benefits are shitty, and you don't want to suffice on them for too long, especially around here). luckily, the restaurant industry in nyc has incredible turnover, what with the average lifespan of a restaurant being less than a year in this city.
what do you want? a bunch of homeless people? times is tough out there. it's not gonna get better if everyone out of work is forced to do things you'd rather they didn't just to survive.
what you call for is a recipe for disaster. and everyone knows that this economy runs on demand. every dollar of unemployment benefits paid out pays more than that back into the economy. it lets people pay their bills, for one.
christ, clavos...
17 - Glenn Contrarian
So...Clavos -
Could you tell us once again why it is that all - ALL - the first world nations do have such entitlement programs to help the poor, while very few third world nations have such entitlement programs?
Here's a clue - the rich are NOT the "job creators"...and on a macroeconomic scale, except for money that is spent outside of the nation, very few taxes are truly wasted. Why? Because the tax dollars taken from the taxpayers go directly back into the economy to keep up demand...which keeps the economy going.
Think about it - every giant corporation has its roots in one garage, or one storefront, or one webpage. With the exception of the financial giants - which, by definition, must be started by someone rich - all our business was started by the middle or lower classes. The idea that the rich are job creators is a BIG LIE.
Give a rich guy a bunch of money and what will he do with it? Stash it in the Caymans where it does ZERO good for the American economy. Give someone in the middle class a chance and he'll build a real, honest-to-goodness business just like the Adult Family Home that my wife and I started August 1st of this year, and we're making money on it now. Did we worry about taxes when we started our business? Hell, no! We worried about doing what we needed to do to make the business run, and we're doing it. That's what middle class entrepreneurs do.
But back to my original question - why is it that ALL the first world nations have those entitlement programs, yet they're still first world nations? Because those same entitlement programs (as long as they're not taken beyond the pale as Greece did) help the middle class grow, and help the economy as a whole grow.
Or do you think it was an accident that America's poverty rate was cut in half after LBJ instituted Welfare? You might not like it, Clavos, but it WORKS.
18 - Clav
Could you tell us once again why it is that all - ALL - the first world nations do have such entitlement programs to help the poor, while very few third world nations have such entitlement programs?
Why is it that half the first World nations, including and especially the "god damn" USA are going broke? Could it be too many entitlements? Nah, must be those few thousand rich bastards who are only paying 40 percent of all the income tax revenues -- they should be paying 100 percent, maybe 125 percent, then all the rest of us could live on the dole and not have to work; thereby also eliminating the problem of jobs going overseas. Obama's right: make them rich pieces of shit pay for everything, assholes.
Or do you think it was an accident that America's poverty rate was cut in half after LBJ instituted Welfare?
Oh really, Glenn? Census data shown here indicates that, from 1950 on, poverty rates were plummeting until LBJ began the infamous and wasteful War On Poverty, at which time the percentage of the population living below the poverty line leveled out and has remained level since. The obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that welfare and other poverty programs do not relieve poverty, they subsidize it, and thus perpetuate it.
19 - Zingzing
Clavos, your first paragraph is useless hyperbole and you know it. Your second paragraph doesn't take into account any history (meaning the depression, the war, america's new position as the world power, the fluctuation problem endemic to capitalism, etc)... It would be great if poverty went less than 10%, but come on... What was it like in the previous 50 years? The previous 100?
20 - Zingzing
Clavos--how are your stepsons doing with that metal band?
21 - troll
Glenn Contrarian - every time you use your 1st world argument you set my teeth to hurting...the 1st world model of development is neither sustainable nor one to be recommended to folks in 'lesser' worlds imo
22 - Clav
Good point, troll. Plenty of "third world" people will tell you they have no desire to emulate "first world" countries like the USA, and with good reason.
23 - Clav
Clavos, your first paragraph is useless hyperbole and you know it.
Not the first sentence, zing, and you know that. As for the rest of the first graph: It's just my way of pointing out that even if we were to relieve the rich of every penny they own, we still wouldn't come close to paying for all the entitlements already in place. The fact is there are limits, even here in lala land, but somehow the liberal mindset seems to have concluded that the USA's pockets are bottomless. They aren't.
24 - Glenn Contrarian
troll -
Here's the thing about "sustainability", friend. The only way - repeat, the only way - that humanity will ever have even a ghost of a chance at a sustainable existence on this world without destroying our habitat through overpopulation is to dive head-first into technological progress. That's the only way, sir.
Ever spent time in a third world nation? Maybe you have, and I invite you to go do so again. Why? Because in most (but not all) poor third-world nations, you'll find skyscrapers and McDonald's and lots and lots of cars...in other words, the third world is unsustainable, too, but just not nearly to the point that the first world is. That's the end result of overpopulation times trade plus peace, to whatever exponent would be represented by modern media and the internet.
The solution, then, is technological and societal progress. Why? Because short of pandemic, genocide, or terrible famine, that's the only way to stop population growth. Feel free to check your history - I don't think you can argue differently. And it's only through technological progress and the hope that it brings for solutions to the mess we're making of this world that we might, just might keep from going over some type of cataclysmic cliff, whether that cliff be Malthusian, Orwellian, or something all too reminiscent of Soylent Green.
And one more thing, as to whether life in the first world is to be recommended. That's a "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" kind of thing. Why? My youngest son just returned from spending a couple years in the Philippines, then found to his dismay that his "buds" here stateside were still stuck in the same high-school stoner mode they'd been in when he'd left, and he now realizes he's outgrown them. He wants so badly to go back to the Philippines - he loves it there - basically because the younger people there are obviously more into planning for their lives and getting a good education. On the other hand, if you ask almost anyone who's grown up there, they'd MUCH prefer to live in almost any first-world nation, preferably America, with somewhere in the Commonwealth running a close second.
So the 'recommended' part of your retort definitely depends on your personal point of view.
Thanks for letting me make your teeth hurt! Next time I watch "Little Shop of Horrors", I'll feel a bit more camaraderie with Steve Martin's character!
25 - troll
Glenn Contrarian - comrade
...what technologies will make the human relationships on which the 1st world depends sustainable - printable guns?
that does seem to be where many technological advances go (historically speaking that is)
imo while technology is nice and all the the most likely way forward is to redefine ourselves as essentially communal cooperative beings