Paul Ryan it is...

[spence]

I don't think Ryan brings that much to the ticket. Sure, he'll bring some additional conservative appeal but nothing for moderate voters outside of Wisconsin. Ryan is supposed to be the numbers guy but that's what I thought Romney was?

With how bad Romney did on his international test drive I'd have thought they'd look for someone with a little more diplomatic experience.

And Ryan's plan isn't going to resonate with the average voter. It makes massive supply side assumptions that are contradicted by even the last decade, and his plan for Medicare is terrible. Peg Federal contribution to inflation? That's just going to stratify the system and increase the cost of care...right back to where we started.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

his plan for Medicare is terrible.

-spence

And Obama's plan for Medicare is......

Spence, maybe you don't like Rytan's plan. But pointing at Ryan and saying "see! He hates sick people!" isn't an alternate option...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think Ryan brings that much to the ticket. Sure, he'll bring some additional conservative appeal but nothing for moderate voters outside of Wisconsin. Ryan is supposed to be the numbers guy but that's what I thought Romney was?


-spence

By picking Ryan, the ticket is showing how serious it is about solving the debt crisis.
This resets the tone of the real issues, the economy and jobs.

Obama had his shot at" Hope and Change" and now it's time to look forward
to solving the real problems not trying to spend our way out of debt.
Ryan's plan of Cutting taxes and loopholes will lead to increased revenues.

Ryan is a young well educated guy with a lot of ideas for the future, father of 3, Cub Scout leader, hunter and fisherman, very well rounded.

While both parties are guilty, it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever.

Now we have the tickets, let's hear and debate the plans.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

While both parties are guilty, it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever.

Now we have the tickets, let's hear and debate the plans.

"While both parties are guilty..."

Agreed 100%...

"it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever."

That's the choice in this election. Romney/Ryan will offer th etough, but necessary, sacrifices to get u sback to financial stability (no one likes hearing that the well is dry, but when it's dry, it does no good to pretend otherwise).

Obama/Biden will attack Romney/Ryan for the horrible Draconian cuts they are proposing, and will do everythnig they can to demonize Romney/Ryan. Yet they will offer no alternatives, other than to say we can get $90 billion a year by taxing the uber-rich. Whoop-dee-do.

That's what this election comes down to. Are we ready to right the ship, or are we going to buy the be swayed by the guy who promises us more free stuff than the other guy.

If Obama offers specific solutions, I'm willing to listen. But from what I can see, his plan consists of (1) accusing the other side of hating poor people, and (2) more taxes and more spending. Earth to Obama...you cannot get out of a hole by digging your way out.

[CTSurfrat]

Love having Paul Ryan on the ticket! Maybe now we can seriously address the financial disaster we are facing with some honesty, though the left will claim that republicans hate old people, poor people sick people, want dirty air, dirty water etc....

In my humble opinion it comes down to a fundamental difference in the role we think government should play in our lives...one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. I will be voting for limited!

[scottw]

Romney can appeal to the moderates and independents and the current president has very little to offer those groups in terms of accomplishments or potential going forwrd, Ryan energizes the conservative base and he's very impressive....still trying to figure out why the current president picked Joe Biden aside from making him look really smart in comparison.....

maybe he listened to David Frum?

"Conservatives remain skeptical about Mitt Romney, but he is still the only candidate who even has a chance of winning the general election. The key is that Romney is the only candidate who can potentially appeal to moderates.

Even if there is no conservative enthusiasm, the underlying numbers still make Romney the best possible nominee. Because Democrats have a statistically smaller base, they need moderates more desperately than Republicans. If conservatives show up to the polls at the same rate as they did for McCain, Romney only needs modest gains among moderates to win the election."

Hey Romney, Don't Forget to Pander to Moderates - The Daily Beast

[Nebe]

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

The Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution . . . follow the Constutution. We need a President, and a Congress, and a Supreme Court, that follows the Constitution. Without a foundation, without principals, without a Supreme Law, none of the above will be ruled. They will rule us and spend our money, and distribute our wealth, and create regulations upon regulations that put us in increasingly smaller boxes from which it will be increasingly more difficult to squeeze and wriggle out of. They are operating now without direction and ever growing power at the expense of our own. The system consumes neophyte congressman and spits them out as bureaucratic clones. New ones are outnumbered by the entrenched holders-on. The only ones who can make them bend to our will is We The People. But without a common principle of governance, but, instead with fragmented and opposing desires that are fed, or promised to be fed, to disparate groups with incoherent policies and "plans," we remain at the mercy of the bumbling and essentially lawless bureacracy.

The most difficult, and most essential task, now, for We The People, is to unite with common purpose to free us from the dependence on, and expectation of, a benevolent government to "fix" itself. It cannot be fixed if it thinks it is doing what is right and good. The unsolvable mess that you describe is ultimately of our own making. We allow it. We choose to remain ignorant of what a society, or country needs to exist, perpetuate, and flourish--a common foundation, a uniting principle. We refuse, in our case, to understand our own Constitution, preferring to leave it up to the politicians and judges. Our ignorance is their license.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

"
i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems"

But Ryan has, courageously, done exactly that. His budget calls for Medicare savings in the multiple trillions of dollars.

What was the Democratic response? Did they offer an alternative plan to save the trillions that we need to save? No. They made a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff.

That's the choice in thsi election. Romney/Ryan are taklking about the best way to make the difficult but necessary cuts. Obama/Biden will try to make us fear them for that.

Eben, I agree, we are in thsi mess because both parties chose to ignore this problem for 40 years. But today, one party is addressing these issues, the other is not.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

In my humble opinion it comes down to a fundamental difference in the role we think government should play in our lives...one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. I will be voting for limited!

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that.

fortunately..."it" still has an active debate within "it's" ranks regarding the proper size, expanding role and limits of government....the other "they" don't seem to be having any such debate....sounds like he's chosing the "side" that might at least provide him hope

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that.

You are right. Each side has its interests that it panders to. In an ideal world i would get rid of all politicians and start over. The one change would be term limits. It used to be that individuals would serve for a limited time and then go back to provate life willingly as soon as possible.

It is all about limited government and freedom -that is our history, that is what has made America the greatest nation on earth.

I am by no means wealthy, but I still do believe in supply side economics. I never got a job from a poor person. I love how with liberals it is the horrible cruel mean conservatives that earned money in evil corporations that are so greedy and selfish. How the CEOs make so much and all the underlings get so little. However, they never complain about professional athletes makes 25k for an at bat and the poor schlep selling peanuts in the stands or the guy in the parking lot making 25K for a year. Or the actor making 25 million for a movie and the make up artists or camera guys making only a tiny fraction for their work on the film. I guess it is ok to be filthy rich and greedy if you hold the same liberals beliefs.

And if people think that Obama, Biden, Buffet and all the other so called "generous" liberals that want the rich to pay more than the 70% they already pay don't hire CPAs and financial planners to reduce their tax burden, then I have a bridge for sale!! They are always willing to be more than generaous with other peoples money.