Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[ecoli]

^You liberals with your socialist propaganda. Get a job, hippie.

 

Unfortunately, the position of ditch digger has already been taken. I'm going to go back to school in the hopes of qualifying for the position of ditch fill-back-up-er.

[swansont]

^You liberals with your socialist propaganda. Get a job, hippie.

Liberal? I once voted for Pat Buchanan.

[Ben Banana]

I like making prompts, because they help people (me atleast) think:

 

What determines the chance that a politician yields resolution by a certain issue? You must be asking, rather: Does Mitt Romney understand the principles necessary to solve your issue? Well, which of ourselves understand the principles necessary? How so? What do you think are the principles behind a healthy economy, and how well are these supported by evidence?

 

These questions have probably already been answered somewhere within this thread, but I'm just throwing this out there. Time to read 7 pages.

[ecoli]

... What do you think are the principles behind a healthy economy, and how well are these supported by evidence?

 

These questions have probably already been answered somewhere within this thread, but I'm just throwing this out there. Time to read 7 pages.

 

They haven't been answered, because there's more speculation than data to address those speculations. Well data on the economy exists, but even economists can't agree on how to interpret that data and I've often seen the same dataset/ graph used to justify both sides of an economic argument. Such is the dismal science.

[iNow]

They haven't been answered, because there's more speculation than data to address those speculations. Well data on the economy exists, but even economists can't agree on how to interpret that data and I've often seen the same dataset/ graph used to justify both sides of an economic argument.

However, recent events these past 5 years (the crisis and the ensuing slump) have given us a real world testing ground for the various ideologies and economic doctrines. Some have held up much better than others. Some have been consistently wrong. At this point, anyone who is being intellectually honest knows which interpretations have merit and which should be abandoned as a result of these natural experiments in which we've recently engaged.

[Ben Banana]

Yes, I meant, answers have likely already been suggested/asserted & discussed.

[swansont]

Ran across this graph of the debt. Notice how much is due to Republican policies instituted under Bush. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/republican-national-convention-the-one-graph-you-need-to-see-before-watching/

 

How will more of the same from Romney/Ryan save us from the disaster that has been Republican policy the past decade?

[Ben Banana]

Haha really? That's completely invalid. I like to hang my graphs upside down because it simply makes them easier for me to read. Are that insisting that I go to college and learn to read graphs correctly? What a scum bag. How dare you!

[moth]

Haha really? That's completely invalid. I like to hang my graphs upside down because it simply makes them easier for me to read. Are that insisting that I go to college and learn to read graphs correctly? What a scum bag. How dare you!

 

 

Attack the messenger?

Wow, your rhetoric is so old you probably buggin watergate

[swansont]

Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them

 

And Ryan's acceptance speech was even too much for Fox News to digest. That's right. Fox News said he lied.

http://www.politiscoop.com/us-politics/wisconsin-politics/1502-sorry-paul-ryan-even-fox-news-isn-t-buying-it.html

 

Wow. What is this supposed to save us from, again?

[moth]

... That's right. Fox News said he lied.

 

 

 

It seems like they're bragging. As if somehow being a "real" American is correlated with how firmly you believe and defend the lies.

[proximity1]

I've taken quite a bit of flack because of my inability to answer questions asked of me for statements or questions I myself have made or asked. But in almost all instances questions as such are much more easily asked than answered. This topic alone should get the ground shaking. Being little more than borderline lower middle class citizen myself you might question my reasoning for a leaning to the right. It's simple, I just don't sympathize with socialism bordering on communism. Not to say that a true "ism" in any respect is wrong, it's only that none of them have seemed to turn out right. So, if this Romney-Ryan is a winning ticket, will it bring us a better future or more heartache?

 

 

I'm reminded of reading opinion poll results in the press which indicate what respondants have said concerning some controversial issue--without any idea of just how much, if anything, any of these respondants actually knows about the facts concerning the issue, its history, its variously contended aspects, etc.

 

What difference does it, should it, make that X% of the respondants think Y or Z about topic "A" if, at the same time, some substantial portion of those respondants--and we don't know which ones among them all---are quite simply completely ignorant of the issue's basic facts?

 

Imagine that you read an article presenting the results of people's opinions concerning topics in one of the natural sciences--physics, biology, chemistry, or another---and you had no idea which respondants replying one way or another had any familiarity with the facts about the topic about which the questions are posed: how much credit would you give to that poll's results?

 

You write, above,

 

"I've taken quite a bit of flack because of my inability to answer questions asked of me for statements or questions I myself have made or asked."

 

I think that is rather fair criticism. It suggests, among other things, that you may not have even acquainted yourself on the issues sufficiently to respond with a demonstrated awareness of the already existing main opposing camps' views, an awareness of what these main camps hold as true or false and why, an awareness, in short, of the recent or not-so-recent history of the controversy over any given issue. And, if that is in fact the case, then why aren't your critics quite correct to fault you for having not-very-much to say as concerns what you'd propose to do about X, Y, or Z as a social or political problem? Indeed, the very definition of what's a problem and what isn't already tells us something important about a person's starting assumptions.

 

In any question under consideration--- as I think would autoalmtically be the case concerning a topic in science--- the question of "Where do we begin concerning our readers' views about and knowledge of X ?" arises.

 

We can read and gather a number of things about your views by interpreting the comments you've already posted. But, we still have little idea of the bases of these, even if we've interpreted the comments correctly.

 

I'm much more interested in why you view some significant portion of Americans as being at or near the point of being fairly described as socialists or communists, much more interested in learning just what you may (or may not) know about what socialism or communism is (or is not) than in the fact itself that you consider some significant number of Americans to be rightly described as such.

 

Am I making sense to you?

 

I've taken quite a bit of flack because of my inability to answer questions asked of me for statements or questions I myself have made or asked. But in almost all instances questions as such are much more easily asked than answered. This topic alone should get the ground shaking. Being little more than borderline lower middle class citizen myself you might question my reasoning for a leaning to the right. It's simple, I just don't sympathize with socialism bordering on communism. Not to say that a true "ism" in any respect is wrong, it's only that none of them have seemed to turn out right. So, if this Romney-Ryan is a winning ticket, will it bring us a better future or more heartache?

 

 

I see I forgot to address the question at the end of your opening post:

 

"So, if this Romney-Ryan is a winning ticket, will it bring us a better future or more heartache?"

 

 

As I see it, the answer is: definitely more heartache as a nation as a whole.

 

 

But that has to be put into perspective: in general, those who enjoy the very top-most privilege, wealth, power, will enjoy as much or more of these (for a while yet) under Romney and Ryan, than perhaps they do or would under Obama. For the rest, in increasing proportion as one descends the scale of wealth and privilege, the heartache increases until one reaches those with the least in material resources, in privilege and in power, where the heartache is proportionately the greatest.

 

I wrote, "for a while yet" because the process of savaging the middle-class or, even more, the poorest, in order to transfer even greater wealth and privilege to those at the top of the pyramid can only go on for a certain limited time before the benefits to those at the top reach the limit of diminishing returns. Then things crash in an open and catastrophic way that seriously touches even the top of the pyramid.

[ACUV]

The United States of America is a Republic of the people , for the people. If the peoples' Republic provides for the people in the form of socialism by taking from those who have to give to those who have not then the Republic has won for it's people.

[Ben Banana]

How will more of the same from Romney/Ryan save us from the disaster that has been Republican policy the past decade?

 

I see no reason why voters would favor Romney beside the forces of their strong ideological grasps. I'm trying to figure this out. Honestly, could rigney come back and concisely tell us why Romney is so great besides Obama being not so great? Could there be more aspects about Romney to perceive favorably beside an ideological contrast towards Obama -- which is, furthermore, so vague it seems subjective to the voter's perception? I only manage to see this favor caused by a force of ideology rather than reasoning with concrete principles.

 

Now to keep myself clear, what kind of ideological chords? Unfortunately, I can not see much principle substance behind Romney. I am curious to understand what exactly rings in rigney with his favor towards Romney. I'm reading through the topic and I still fail to see his appeals to Romney elaborated. I'll admit this (my assumption regarding the influences of ideological forces) is just a guess. I am a dummy, so rigney better spoon feed me with his applesauce and get it through my head.

 

Though meanwhile, I reason that favor for Mitt Romney as the next U.S. President is just idiotic.

 

EDIT:

@moth

Well to be honest, I really didn't intend it to be rhetoric in a public manner. I liked the idea (it was more of personal rhetoric) -- though you're right, I should have kept it to myself. As well, I should think through my personal-teases before sharing them.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[Phi for All]

Ultimately, to me, Romney represents corporate models that have learned to profit from manipulating the government in ways that don't promote the general welfare. I don't think General Electric has any products that represent the kind of ROI they got when they spent $84.4M lobbying for tax breaks that saved them $8.4B. Helping make businesses wealthy at the expense of tax revenue is NOT my idea of free market capitalism at its best.

 

In 1955, corporate taxes were 27.3% of federal revenue. In 2010, they were a mere 8.9%, yet they continue to get Republicans like Romney to scream about overtaxation of "the job creators". I guess if you strangle education long enough, you get people dumb enough to believe anything.

 

And of course there's the integrity issue. "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth" is not the mantra for how I want to be represented in my government. I was born a moderate, progressive Eisenhower Republican, and what the right wing has done to that proud party makes me sick.

[John Cuthber]

By the simple expedient of lying, they will save us from the truth.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/

except for the reality that "truth will out"

[proximity1]

You're right and simply have to call a spade a spade of which I am one. I just don't know enough to do anything about it. Each of us know that we are being used by both political parties and don't have a grasp on either. Sheeple! I believe is the word used to define us. We definitly need a champion for the good of America, but unless a way is found to contain politicians to a single term in office, this ka-ka will go on forever and the champ will always wind up being a chump. Man or woman, when people get drunk on power, it's one hell of a tug trying to get that power back from them. Right now I'm looking at Republicans as the lesser of two evils

 

 

"Single-term" service (as does, in the current circumstances, all electoral politics), inherently favors the class, the party, the interest group, which is the wealthiest and best-organized. Do you understand why that would be?

 

RE:

 

..." but unless a way is found to contain politicians to a single term in office, this ka-ka will go on forever"....

 

It won't go on forever, of course. But, in ending or metamorphizing into something else, the something else could easily be far, far worse. What would actually change the facts on the ground is a system by which people come into office by random lots---assuming that this could be done without completely rigging and manipulation. That way, newcomers would present two (albeit temporary) problems to the forces of organized money's (OM) strangle-hold on the political processes---

 

1) they (OM) would have to meet, get to know and successfully corrupt (or suffer a decline in their interests' dominance) a new group of office-holders who are not already beholden to these same interests for the financial support that they required to run a successful election campaign,

 

2) ordinary mortals, rather than the rich (OM) or those annointed by them (OM surrogates), would come to hold office and have an opportunity to resist the efforts of OM to corrupt them.

 

This prospect, that ordinary people ---in majority numbers--might one day come to control democratic processes and institutions is the summum of power's fears and the thing the prevention of which it takes as its foremost goal in its efforts to propagandize the public. So far, those efforts are so spectacularly successful that there remains simply no danger at all that such an outcome could occur in the foreseeable future. The public, at this, are completely disarmed before the power and effectiveness of OM. To alter that imbalance would presuppose a degree of political awareness and attention that the public show less and less liklihood to have any interest or capacity to acquire. If they did, there would be a very bloody and open fight, for at that point, a rich and privileged tiny minority would be faced for the first time with the prospect of having its dominance reduced to its numerical place in the political processes and their outcomes.

Edited September 2, 2012 by proximity1

[rigney]

"Single-term" service (as does, in the current circumstances, all electoral politics), inherently favors the class, the party, the interest group, which is the wealthiest and best-organized. Do you understand why that would be?

I understand what I believe is to be your meaning, how to express my interpretation is what I'm not sure of. Our (two party system), which it has become; is very well organized and funded. That's because wealth is massive and pretty much equally distributed in both camps. But bias and propaganda are the basic issues motivating our problems. Since a rich man or a poor man has only one vote, it's how these votes are manipulated that really matter. As I have stated before, we are sheeple and duped quite easily. So, being dupes we look for the best offer from either party. I guess the Civil Rights movement was the only time in this country sheeple really turned to attack their masters. It was a just and humane cause that should have been settled in 1865, yet has taken another 100 years to even get it close to being over and done. As the marches went on in the south, it wasn't monetary gain these people were looking for, only equal rights. Today it's not rights people are seeking, but hand outs that they have become accustomed to at the expense of government through taxation. "Lemmings" jump off the nearest cliff to end their suffering? How can we sheeple end our dilemma without bringing our nation to an end? A beautiful rendition of "Kum-ba-yah" won't do it either.

And if you can believe all of the BS about Paul Ryan telling nothing but lies from those on this forum and as related by all of the liberal media, then you really are a dupe.

Edited September 3, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

"Lemmings" jump off the nearest cliff to end their suffering? How can we sheeple end our dilemma without bringing our nation to an end?

We could set things right. We could reform our politics, end special interests and reform campaign financing, remove the waste from government programs while strengthening the ones that work, start a national health insurance program that allows doctors to be doctors who put health above the dollar, put regulations back that protect our economy from relentless business models, tax the top and the corporations at the rate they were taxed when the USA was at it's most prosperous all around, and bring some integrity back into our representative government. The real problem, rigney, is going to be convincing people who hold your point of view that we're not "bringing our nation to an end" as we're setting things right.

[rigney]

We could set things right. We could reform our politics, end special interests and reform campaign financing, remove the waste from government programs while strengthening the ones that work, start a national health insurance program that allows doctors to be doctors who put health above the dollar, put regulations back that protect our economy from relentless business models, tax the top and the corporations at the rate they were taxed when the USA was at it's most prosperous all around, and bring some integrity back into our representative government. The real problem, rigney, is going to be convincing people who hold your point of view that we're not "bringing our nation to an end" as we're setting things right.

My point of view? I'm only scared of what I find to be alarming. Friend, fear mongering, coersion and lying from either side will never get it done. If you actually believe your ideas are the best, go into politics and fix our problems. Don't equivocate or try beating on me over the head to slake a demeaning and demanding nature. Edited September 3, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

My point of view? My friend, fear mongering, coersion and lying will never get it done.

But these are the very things that you seem to support with your arguments.

 

 

 

 

The health insurance idea is just my opinion, of course. By offering a competitive government-backed (read "taxpayer-backed") health insurance, we let the market decide which is best, and with the least amount of change to the healthcare system as a whole.

 

My point is that anything progressive that's suggested gets shot down by people with your point of view as "bringing our nation to an end". It seems very simple to me, for instance, that we should adjust our tax structure back to the level it was when we were prosperous. Same with regulations that protected the consumers, citizens and businesses alike. Businesses still did very well under those regs, and the vast majority of the people did better also.

 

Your arguments are very vague, waving your hands at some kind of evil liberalism without any cogent examples of why it's evil. And then you bring up the extreme views of others, saying you agree with them, but when pressed you put your hands in the air and claim they aren't your words. I can see why Romney is your guy, both of your overall stances suffer when people bother to check the facts.

[rigney]

But these are the very things that you seem to support with your arguments.

 

 

 

 

The health insurance idea is just my opinion, of course. By offering a competitive government-backed (read "taxpayer-backed") health insurance, we let the market decide which is best, and with the least amount of change to the healthcare system as a whole.

 

My point is that anything progressive that's suggested gets shot down by people with your point of view as "bringing our nation to an end". It seems very simple to me, for instance, that we should adjust our tax structure back to the level it was when we were prosperous. Same with regulations that protected the consumers, citizens and businesses alike. Businesses still did very well under those regs, and the vast majority of the people did better also.

 

Your arguments are very vague, waving your hands at some kind of evil liberalism without any cogent examples of why it's evil. And then you bring up the extreme views of others, saying you agree with them, but when pressed you put your hands in the air and claim they aren't your words. I can see why Romney is your guy, both of your overall stances suffer when people bother to check the facts.

Since I personally don't have the answers that you do seem to have, I suppose we both will both wait until after Nov.6 to see who will be doing all of the finger pointing, crying and teeth gnashing. I've been hosed by both parties for 80 years, but you evidently have just begun to feel the political f-c-ing.

Misquoting or taking things out of context seems to be the liberal standard for getting the job done. Here is what I stated:

My friend, fear mongering, coersion and lying from either side will never get it done.

And here is what you quoted.

rigney, on 3 September 2012 - 09:46 AM, said: My point of view? My friend, fear mongering, coersion and lying will never get it done.quote] On that note, quite likely we have nothing more to discuss.

Edited September 3, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

And if you can believe all of the BS about Paul Ryan telling nothing but lies from those on this forum and as related by all of the liberal media, then you really are a dupe.

The point is not that he "tells NOTHING but lies." The point is that he's been found lying numerous times and that this speaks against his reputation as an honest serious policy wonk. Sure, some of those lies were "technically" correct, but wrong in the spirit of what they suggest... Wrong for what they imply.

 

For example, he spoke of the GM plant closing in Wisconsin and implied this was Obama's fault. The decision to close that plant took place before Obama took office.

 

He lashes out at Obama for gutting Medicare by over $700 billion, yet his own Medicare plan preserves those cuts! Further, Obama's cuts do not effect the benefits allotted to plan participants, whereas Ryan's cuts DO impact the care eligible to participants.

 

He cries out how Obama didn't support Bowles-Simpson and how he is monster for failing to drive it forward when Ryan himself voted against it and said it was a bad idea while he was on the panel that helped put it together.

 

He says that his plans will cut the deficit, but every nonpartisan and independent fact checker says his points are mathematically impossible. He wants to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, make Medicare a system of vouchers that won't keep pace with inflation and will cause out of pocket costs for seniors to rise, and he wants to increase spending on the military. He says he will pay for it by "broadening the tax base" and by "closing tax loopholes," yet he has failed to name even a single loophole he would close and even if we assume the tax base is broadened as much as absolutely possible it STILL would result in a massive increase in our deficit given what he's put forward.

 

Those are serious flaws in ideas, serious disconnects from reality, and serious examples of lies, hypocrisy, and disingenuous dishonest dialog with audiences. Add on top of that all of the other little things he's lied about... Such as claiming that he does not support Ayn Rand despite giving a speech in 2005 to the Atlas Society where he credited her for being his driving force and "the one thinker, the one person" responsible for getting him involved in politics, and despite mandating that every intern that works for him read Atlas Shrugged before they're allowed to work on Day 1. There is also how he claimed to have run a marathon in less than 3 hours, yet when checked it turns out it was actually more than 4 hours. "Ooops... Did I say I ran a magnificant marathon? I meant I ran a fairly normal one. I must have forgot." Runners don't forget stuff like that, but liars often inflate it. This last one is not a big deal at all, but it adds further evidence to the larger point that his reputation as an honest serious thinker is an unearned mirage.

 

 

There are more, too, Rigney... Yet you blindly cast aside and ignore all of these falsehoods and acts of hypocrisy and then on top of it you have the audacity to call *us* the ones who are dupes? Seriously? Get a clue, old man. There is one fool in these conversations and you will find him staring back at you in the mirror.

 

You seem genuinely curious about this stuff, and genuinely involved in the political discourse, yet you remain willful in your ignorance of the facts and unwilling to correct your thinking when you are shown indisputably to be mistaken. Yes... You're right... the sheeple in our nation are causing major problems for all of us right now, so how about you remember Truman's great line about where the buck stops and focus on no longer being one yourself!

 

I know... I know. This is one of those long thought out replies with many points that make you feel all overwhelmed and you'll just reply with, "I ams what I ams and that's all that I ams," or some unsupportable equivocation about how it's bad on both sides or frankly some other ridiculous unrelated, uninformed, unlogical ridiculousness.

Edited September 3, 2012 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Since I personally don't have the answers that you do seem to have, I suppose we both will both wait until after Nov.6 to see who will be doing all of the finger pointing, crying and teeth gnashing. I've been hosed by both parties for 80 years, but you evidently have just begun to feel the political f-c-ing.

No, I began to feel it starting with Reagan's trickle-down, and just got fed up during Bush II. The first seemed more of an oratory, but the latter was far more anal.

 

Misquoting or taking things out of context seems to be the liberal standard for getting the job done. Here is what I stated:

rigney, on 3 September 2012 - 09:46 AM, said: My point of view? My friend, fear mongering, coersion and lying from either side will never get it done.

And here is what you quoted.

rigney, on 3 September 2012 - 09:46 AM, said: My point of view? My friend, fear mongering, coersion and lying will never get it done.

On that note, quite likely we have nothing more to discuss.

If you'll note the time-stamps at the bottom of the actual posts, I quoted what you wrote at 8:46 am MDT, but you edited it 7 minutes later at 8:53 am MDT. Unlike you though, I'm not implying you did it maliciously.

[rigney]

The point is not that he "tells NOTHING but lies." The point is that he's been found lying numerous times and that this speaks against his reputation as an honest serious policy wonk. Sure, some of those lies were "technically" correct, but wrong in the spirit of what they suggest... Wrong for what they imply.

 

For example, he spoke of the GM plant closing in Wisconsin and implied this was Obama's fault. The decision to close that plant took place before Obama took office.

 

He lashes out at Obama for gutting Medicare by over $700 billion, yet his own Medicare plan preserves those cuts! Further, Obama's cuts do not effect the benefits allotted to plan participants, whereas Ryan's cuts DO impact the care eligible to participants.

 

He cries out how Obama didn't support Bowles-Simpson and how he is monster for failing to drive it forward when Ryan himself voted against it and said it was a bad idea while he was on the panel that helped put it together.

 

He says that his plans will cut the deficit, but every nonpartisan and independent fact checker says his points are mathematically impossible. He wants to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, make Medicare a system of vouchers that won't keep pace with inflation and will cause out of pocket costs for seniors to rise, and he wants to increase spending on the military. He says he will pay for it by "broadening the tax base" and by "closing tax loopholes," yet he has failed to name even a single loophole he would close and even if we assume the tax base is broadened as much as absolutely possible it STILL would result in a massive increase in our deficit given what he's put forward.

 

Those are serious flaws in ideas, serious disconnects from reality, and serious examples of lies, hypocrisy, and disingenuous dishonest dialog with audiences. Add on top of that all of the other little things he's lied about... Such as claiming that he does not support Ayn Rand despite giving a speech in 2005 to the Atlas Society where he credited her for being his driving force and "the one thinker, the one person" responsible for getting him involved in politics, and despite mandating that every intern that works for him read Atlas Shrugged before they're allowed to work on Day 1. There is also how he claimed to have run a marathon in less than 3 hours, yet when checked it turns out it was actually more than 4 hours. "Ooops... Did I say I ran a magnificant marathon? I meant I ran a fairly normal one. I must have forgot." Runners don't forget stuff like that, but liars often inflate it. This last one is not a big deal at all, but it adds further evidence to the larger point that his reputation as an honest serious thinker is an unearned mirage.

 

 

There are more, too, Rigney... Yet you blindly cast aside and ignore all of these falsehoods and acts of hypocrisy and then on top of it you have the audacity to call *us* the ones who are dupes? Seriously? Get a clue, old man. There is one fool in these conversations and you will find him staring back at you in the mirror.

 

You seem genuinely curious about this stuff, and genuinely involved in the political discourse, yet you remain willful in your ignorance of the facts and unwilling to correct your thinking when you are shown indisputably to be mistaken. Yes... You're right... the sheeple in our nation are causing major problems for all of us right now, so how about you remember Truman's great line about where the buck stops and focus on no longer being one yourself!

 

I know... I know. This is one of those long thought out replies with many points that make you feel all overwhelmed and you'll just reply with, "I ams what I ams and that's all that I ams," or some unsupportable equivocation about how it's bad on both sides or frankly some other ridiculous unrelated, uninformed, unlogical ridiculousness.

You have such a wonderful way with words.

There are more, too, Rigney... Yet you blindly cast aside and ignore all of these falsehoods and acts of hypocrisy and then on top of it you have the audacity to call *us* the ones who are dupes? Seriously? Get a clue, old man. There is one fool in these conversations and you will find him staring back at you in the mirror.

Mercifully I have an image to look back at me and I do understand my inadequacies. But unfortunately, you are such an intellectual that you haven't a clue as to what your shortcomings are. Edited September 3, 2012 by rigney