PDA

View Full Version : Romney/Ryan Economic Fools



Gayle in MD
08-11-2012, 07:55 AM
Saturday, April 07, 2012"On Ryan Apologists"

Wanted: Reasonable Republicans:


On Ryan Apologists, by Paul Krugman: ...the continuing defense of Paul Ryan is a remarkable phenomenon. Heís still being treated by many pundits as a man deeply concerned about deficits, when the fact is that his policy proposals are all about redistributing income upward, and make no serious effort to curb debt. Heís even given credit for advocating higher taxes on the rich when he has more or less specifically rejected the things for which heís given credit.

Whatís going on here? The defenders of Ryan come, Iíd argue, in two types.

One type is the pseudo-reasonable apparatchik. There are a fair number of pundits who make a big show of debating the issues, stroking their chins, and then ó invariably ó find a way to support whatever the GOP line may be. Thereís no mystery in their support for Ryan.

The other type is more interesting: the professional centrist. These are people whose whole pose is one of standing between the extremes of both parties, and calling for a bipartisan solution. The problem they face is how to maintain this pose when the reality is that a quite moderate Democratic party ó one that is content to leave tax rates on the rich far below those that prevailed for most of the past 70 years, that has embraced a Republican health care plan ó faces a radical-reactionary GOP.

What these people need is reasonable Republicans. And if such creatures donít exist, they have to invent them. Hence the elevation of Ryan ó who is, in fact, a garden-variety GOP extremist, but with a mild-mannered style ó to icon of fiscal responsibility and honest argument, despite the reality that his proposals are both fiscally irresponsible and quite dishonest.

How much longer can this last? I guess weíll eventually find out.

Paul Krugman may be hesitant to mention David Brooks as one of the biggest chin-stroking offenders here, but I'm not. Brooks writes an entire column wondering if there is room in the Republican party for moderates -- how they are fleeing a party of extremists -- only to follow it up with a column treating Ryan as someone with ideas that deserve serious attention. Ryan is portrayed by Brooks and others as a moderate rather than an extremist who is helping to push the party far, far to the right. As Krugman says there is a need to invent moderates that don't exist as foil for Obama, including portraying the Ryan budget as a reasonable alternative. However, Krugman was right to when he said the Ryan budget is "nonsense" shortly after it came out (and the updated version* of his budget is little better):

itís really time to stop pretending that the Ryan plan is an intellectually sound expression of a philosophical viewpoint. Even from its own ideological perspective, itís a piece of incompetent junk; all you had to do was spend a little while poking through the assumptions, and it became clear that it was nonsense. I know this is a hard thing for people who gushed about the plan to accept, but itís the simple truth.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The "people who gushed about the plan" include Brooks, and it's a lot easier for Brooks to dig in his heels and defend the Ryan plan rather than admitting his initial take on the Ryan budget gave it far more credibility than it deserved, i.e. that he was wrong:</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>When the gaping holes in the Ryan plan were revealed, I expected the Very Serious People to move on and find a new GOP daddy to idolize. Instead, however, theyíve mostly dug in, condemning anyone who points out that the plan is a piece of junk as being somehow out of bounds.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Finally, this is not what social Darwinism means in the modern context, and Brooks should know better (see here), but nevertheless Brooks makes a claim that allows him to justify the bile that Republicans routinely spew by creating a false equivalency that Obama does it too (one of his specialties):
Obama ... unleashed every 1980s liberal clichť..., calling the Republicans a bunch of trickle-down, Trojan horse-bearing social Darwinists. Social Darwinism, by the way, was a 19th-century philosophy that held, in part, that Aryans and Northern Europeans are racially superior to brown and Mediterranean peoples.

Obama was not saying this, but with the recent comments from the NRO's John Derbyshire, perhaps he should have.</span>

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/04/on-ryan-apologists.html

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 08:35 AM
itís a piece of incompetent junk

Perfect for Mitt Robme then! Fits the campaign so far to a tee.

"Life is taxless. It's fantastic!" -- Romney Girl

Gayle in MD
08-11-2012, 08:40 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

So did his introduction of Ryan as THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! We both nearly fell of out seats laughing our a**es off!

Can't wait to see John Stewart on this one!

Dems all over the country are celebrating today!

Romney has got to be related to Dubya somewhere down the line, lol. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Same golden foot in mouth disease!

LWW
08-11-2012, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">itís a piece of incompetent junk</div></div>

Why?

What is the alternative?

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

So did his introduction of Ryan as THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! We both nearly fell of out seats laughing our a**es off!

Can't wait to see John Stewart on this one!

Dems all over the country are celebrating today!

Romney has got to be related to Dubya somewhere down the line, lol. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Same golden foot in mouth disease! </div></div>

Then, after not catching his error himself, but being told he'd said the wrong thing, he went up to Ryan, put his hand around Ryan's shoulder, and said, 'I've been known to make mistakes.'

He quickly added, 'Paul Ryan is not a mistake,' before clarifying that he would be (allegedly) the next VICE president of the United States.

Quite the double whammy video clip ad, right there.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">itís a piece of incompetent junk</div></div>

Why?

What is the alternative? </div></div>

Something actually fiscally conservative would be honest and possibly coherent, unlike Ryan's plan.

Ryan's 'conservatism' is small-government conservatism, without much concern over deficits or debt, which his plan will gravely increase. His plan MAY balance the budget, if an improbable series of things come about, as of 2040. But because he has to shoehorn in the additional costs of whatever number-- $4 or $5 trillion-- in extra tax cut losses to the government beyond what even the baseline figures indicate now, he has to essentially zero out the entire government except for defense, the interest on the debt, and whatever the cost of his voucher programs for SS and MC in their withered versions he proposes.

To be specific, it's probably a requirement that if the government spending gets stabilized at a given percentage of gdp, it ought to be about 24%, not the 19% he suggests, given the doubling of the number of people eligible for SS/MC we will see in the next 15 years or so.

Gayle in MD
08-12-2012, 04:40 AM
Floored me to see in polling data that 38% don't even know who Ryan is!

No wonder our country is having problems!

They will know soon enough, though.

The Ryan Plan will put Mitsey's elitist ONLY THE WEALTHY, fron and center, LMAO!

The president should easily take Florida once they learn about Ryan's voucher plan. And there are so many retirees in the south...hmmm.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
G.

Qtec
08-12-2012, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

So did his introduction of Ryan as THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! We both nearly fell of out seats laughing our a**es off!

Can't wait to see John Stewart on this one!

Dems all over the country are celebrating today!

Romney has got to be related to Dubya somewhere down the line, lol. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Same golden foot in mouth disease! </div></div>

Then, after not catching his error himself, but being told he'd said the wrong thing, he went up to Ryan, put his hand around Ryan's shoulder, and said, 'I've been known to make mistakes.'

He quickly added, 'Paul Ryan is not a mistake,' before clarifying that he would be (allegedly) the next VICE president of the United States.

Quite the double whammy video clip ad, right there. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'I've been known to make mistakes.' </div></div>

LOL

The Dems are thanking him for that. LMAO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 'Paul Ryan is not a mistake,'</div></div>

Really? LOL Prove it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

What a train wreck.

Every time Mitt opens his mouth he either lies, insults someone or says something stupid.

Q

LWW
08-12-2012, 07:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">itís a piece of incompetent junk</div></div>

Why?

What is the alternative? </div></div>

Something actually fiscally conservative would be honest and possibly coherent, unlike Ryan's plan.

Ryan's 'conservatism' is small-government conservatism, without much concern over deficits or debt, which his plan will gravely increase. His plan MAY balance the budget, if an improbable series of things come about, as of 2040. But because he has to shoehorn in the additional costs of whatever number-- $4 or $5 trillion-- in extra tax cut losses to the government beyond what even the baseline figures indicate now, he has to essentially zero out the entire government except for defense, the interest on the debt, and whatever the cost of his voucher programs for SS and MC in their withered versions he proposes.

To be specific, it's probably a requirement that if the government spending gets stabilized at a given percentage of gdp, it ought to be about 24%, not the 19% he suggests, given the doubling of the number of people eligible for SS/MC we will see in the next 15 years or so. </div></div>

That's actually a better reply than the rest of the cabal combined could muster.

I agree that truly more conservative pln would be better ... and that has no relevance as the odds of different slate of candidates thn these two bing elected this time around is essentially nil.

That brings us back to what s the alternative to Romney/Ryan?

The answer is, sadly, something much worse.

For the seventh election cycle in a row, the two party system has given us choice between FASCIST A and FASCIST B.

In all seven I have voted against someone versus for someone.

For not the first time I will ... barring a dramatic change ... vote for neither.

I think Romney will win, but the only good thing about that will be that Obama is gone.

The worst case scenario is one in which either party controls the White House and both bodies of the congress.

Qtec
08-12-2012, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something actually fiscally conservative would be<span style='font-size: 17pt'> honest and possibly coherent,</span> unlike Ryan's plan. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's actually a better reply than the rest of the cabal combined could muster.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>I agree that truly more conservative pln would be better</span> </div></div>

LOL.

SoFla didn't say it would be better, he just said it would be more "honest and possibly coherent"!

Q