Skip to main content


Reposted from ProgressiveLiberal by MKSinSA

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan was rattled today on NBC Meet The Press when David Gregory showed the snippet from the President’s Inauguration speech, rebuking those that believe America is divided between makers and takers. David then showed a snippet where Ryan actually made the statement. Ryan visibly turned red and was immediately defensive implying the snippet was taken out of context.

Given that the 47% of “takers” include social security recipients and other important entitlements, Ryan was unable to identify specifically who he referred to as takers. If competent analysis is done on Ryan’s now third major budget proposal, he will likely lose all credibility and the reality of him simply being a Randian with no concern for the middle class, the takers, will become evident.

Paul Ryan went unchallenged when he articulated several categorical lies. He stated that it is proven fact that Keynesian economics was a failure. David Gregory allowed that lie to go unanswered when the fact is that the Great Depression ended with large deficit spending to build the World War II engine. That was Keynesian economics on steroids. The Reagan Recovery was built with tax cuts and spending increases that caused deficit spending. This is a backdoor Keynesian approach cloaked in tax cuts. Of course Bush’s approach failed because his policies allowed the pilfering of the middle class by rewarding a few, leaving the many with little disposable income necessary to grow an economy (the wealthy’ s marginal propensity to consume varies very little with tax rates and as such will not harm economic growth).

Jonathan Chait wrote a must read piece “Paul Ryan Breaks Down Under Wonkterrogation” that must be required reading on how easy it is to take down the Paul Ryan “Budget Fixing Numbers Man” mystique. Suffice it to say that Ezra Klein allowed him to hang himself by using his own words against him. One example is the talking point Ryan has been using when he states that in caving the Republicans have already offered revenues, and as such that is off the table. When reminded that in the debt deal debacle much more in spending cuts were already effected, he simply said, “that was last session”. It should be noted that his revenues were also last session.

In these debates both sides talk past each other. It is for different reasons. While Right Wing Republicans talk about cutting expenditures to bring down the debt, the debt is not their concern at all. Their concern is the effecting of minimal taxes and Randian selfish policies. Progressive Democrats want the deficits mitigated in order to continue the ability to have a healthy safety net. In effect the deficit is just a proxy fight used to promote ones ideological vision of America.

Make no mistake; the outcome of these debates will have a material effect on the middle class. The big lie is that the policies Ryan wants to put in effect will be pro-growth and somehow rebuild the middle class. All aspects of his proposals over the years do the exact opposite. Lack of guaranteed healthcare coverage inhibits entrepreneurs from stepping out on their own to innovate because of dependency on corporate healthcare. Increasing the retirement age means the young will have a harder time finding jobs and elderly will age painfully. One could go on and on. What his policies ensure is a continued decline in the quality of life of the middle class even as the wealthy get a bigger part of the pie.

A commenter asked for video. Check it out here.


LIKE My Facebook Page

Discuss

Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:40 AM PST

Eat The Rich - Chapt. 3: Paul Ryan

by blip1944

Reposted from Mike the Gun Guy by MKSinSA

Remember the Ryan Budget?  The Magna Carta of the Tea Party that sailed through the House back in March, then got Ryan on the national ticket because Romney was so taken by his intellectualism and new ideas?

Well guess what?  It's dead as the veritable doorknob.  And you know why?  Because back on November 6 those damn Americans just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a smaller government.

The fold awaits thee....

Continue Reading
Reposted from Laura Clawson by MKSinSA
U.S. representative (R-WI) Paul Ryan attends a vigil in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, August 7, 2012. The killings of six worshippers at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin has thrust attention on white power music, a thrashing, punk-metal genre that sees the white race u
... And they're off! Losing Republican vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio, once seen as a prime contender to be a losing Republican vice-presidential nominee, appeared at the Jack Kemp Foundation awards dinner Tuesday night, and both were trying to establish themselves as totally not Mitt Romney. Do you hear that, 2016 voters? Neither of these men has personally made millions putting you out of work, and they have definitely learned a lesson about not calling 47 percent of you moochers, at least not where a hidden camera might catch them.

Sure, they both offered Romney-style policy ideas like cutting anti-poverty programs (Ryan) and school vouchers privatization (Rubio). Making the wealthy pay more taxes? Forget about it. But they tried to convey that they'd pass these terrible policies with love and compassion and understanding for the poor, working-class, and middle-class people the policies would hurt.

"We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American," Ryan said. And "In most cases, we’re still trying to measure compassion by how much we spend—not by how many people we help." Also, "poverty." In fact, Ryan said "poverty" 15 times, so he must really really really care.

Rubio was not to be outdone in the caring about people department, especially when it comes to immigrants like his parents. Except for the part where he opposes immigration reform that would give people from places other than Cuba the opportunities his parents had. But "One of the fundamental promises of America is the opportunity to make it to the middle class," people, and don't you worry your pretty little heads about what Rubio would or would not do to actually expand that opportunity. The point is, he cares.

In addition to all that caring and concern for the little people, Ryan and Rubio showed off the comedy chops that will have us all busting a gut throughout the 2016 primary process:

"I'll see you at the reunion dinner, table for two. You know any good diners in New Hampshire or Iowa?" Ryan joked to Rubio during his speech. "I’m sure the press won’t read too much into that."

Rubio shot back later with a smile, saying that he appreciated the offer, but "will not stand by and watch the people of South Carolina ignored."

Har har har. Can you even stand it? No? Me neither.
Discuss
Reposted from Joan McCarter by MKSinSA
Paul Ryan holds up a copy of his
Paul Ryan dusts off his ridiculous budget for another round.
Those $716 billion in Medicare cuts in Obamacare that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan lied about all through the campaign? The $716 billion that were in both of Paul Ryan's budget proposals? They're back, in Ryan's next budget proposal.
Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman, had preserved Obama’s Medicare cuts in two consecutive budget proposals that repealed the rest of the Affordable Care Act. Ryan is now back at work crafting his next budget, and Republicans on his committee say the $716 billion in Medicare cuts will likely survive.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) said the $716 billion cut is part of the committee’s over-arching plan to save and reform Medicare. He said he doesn’t expect Ryan to back away from any part of that goal just because Romney was on a different page.

It's as if Ryan was never complicit in the false attacks by Romney. And as if Romney never existed. What's more, Woodall now says that this is a "sound proposal." Hypocrites? Of course.
Discuss
Reposted from Steven D by MKSinSA

Paul Ryan is listed as Number 8 on Foreign Policy's list of the top 100 Global Thinkers.  Barack Obama is listed at Number 7, just beating out Mr. Ryan.  Both Clintons and the two Gates (Bill and Melinda) are listed ahead of them.

For some other comparisons Benjamin Netanyahu is listed at 13th, Ben Bernanke at 15th, Dick Cheney is 38th (tied with his daughter Liz), Charles Murray writer of "The Bell Curve is 43rd (though Salman Rushdie beats him out by ten spots), Bjorn Lomborg, a well known climate denialist (until he changed his mind - sort of - in 2010) is 58th, Rand Paul (yes, that Rand Paul) is listed at 71st, and (ahem) journalist and Iraq war supporter (until he wasn't) Peter Beinert is at 99th.

Even The New Republic, not exactly a bastion of liberalism at this point, finds Mr. Ryan's inclusion in this list highly suspect (they make no comment about the two Cheneys or Rand Paul):

Arguably the only things more superfluous than magazine lists (something that, yes, even this magazine has been known to offer up at times) are critiques of such lists. But this latest one from Foreign Policy—featured on the cover of its new issue—is worth reckoning with for what it says about elite reputation in our era, specifically about elite reputation’s durability in the face of contrary evidence.

And no one exemplifies this better than Ryan. After he was selected as Romney’s running mate, I took a closer look at how it was that the young Wisconsin congressman had developed a reputation as a big thinker, despite the fact that the numbers in his grand manifesto didn’t really add up and that his intellectual underpinnings seemed more Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged than Locke and Oakeshott. What I concluded was that Ryan recognized early on the value of being someone who can throw around numbers and policy in a Washington that has grown increasingly ignorant of such matters: “The upshot is that Washington now finds itself highly susceptible to doe-eyed young men brandishing graphs. What these ‘wonks’ propose doesn’t even have to add up or be scorable, as the case may be with the Ryan budget, because people who lack much policy knowledge themselves regard those who have it with a reflexive awe.” This dynamic was even stronger within Ryan’s party—as Republicans had grown more anti-government, they relied even more on people like Ryan who understood government enough to articulate the case for its dismantling.

I think they might be on to something.  Throw pie charts at ignorant buffoons who just happen to be math addled elected Republican officials, and pull numbers out of your ass, while extolling the virtues of Ayn Rand's novels and you too might become known as on of the Wise Men of Washington, D.C., even if you get the math wrong and your philosophy of greed and selfishness demonstrates that your cognitive development is stuck at the age of a 13 year old boy.  In other words, to be a great global thinker these days, one must only be able to fool people who cannot think for themselves.  Either that or you must be famous, hold a prestigious political office or work at a major international financial institution, attended soirees in Georgetown and managed to sound less drunk than your fellow attendees, or be really, really rich (Yes, George Soros and Warren Buffet made the list as well, though I think to be fair they are more deserving than Mr Ryan).  Then again, how Peter Beinert made the list defies all explanation.

The list is perhaps more telling for who did not make the cut: Paul Krugman, Michael Mann (the climate scientist, not the movie director), Al Gore, Joseph Steiglitz, Bernie Sanders (Rand Paul makes it and Sanders doesn't?), Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (don't laugh - okay laugh, because they are funny, but also more deserving than many of the cretins on this list such as the Cheneys and Charles Murray), Markos (not brown-nosing here since I often disagree with him, but he's worthy of inclusion if Liz Cheney is), Sandra Fluke, Elinor Ostrom (an economist, but more than that - google her), Ron Fouchier (virologist), and any number of other, more worthy candidates whose thinking truly is global in scope. Unlike Mr. Ryan.

Not sure what criteria Foreign Policy, a very "Inside the Beltway" publication, used to compile this list (e.g., the Opposition leader in Burma and Nobel Peace prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Burma's current president, Thein Sein, are tied for the top spot) but please feel free to peruse it yourself and discuss the idiocy, laziness boot-licking tendencies, wisdom or lack thereof, of the Villagers our so-called elite public policy intellectuals.

Discuss
Reposted from mittromneyitems by MKSinSA

This is my first attempt at armchair political analysis.  Let’s see how this goes…

I was trying to think about the logic in John Boehner “picking” Paul Ryan to lead the budget negotiations.    In trying to analyze a decision that a person makes, I try to put myself in that person’s shoes.   I try to ask myself what motivates an individual.

My major assumption on what motivates the Speaker is that he really doesn’t care if taxes go up, but wants to keep his Speakership and avoid a primary challenge.

So what would cost him his job?  Probably any deal that goes off the reservation on taxes.   The reason is because most of the House did not pay any real political price for their economic positions (I understand gerrymandering played a role).   My speculation is that true conservatives think they have been validated.  

Right now with a roughly 50 seat majority and a smaller majority in 2013, Boehner needs to get 218 votes for a deal.  If he gets roughly 28-30 GOP votes to vote with a 100% unified Democrats in the House, he gets a deal but loses his job and probably faces a primary challenge.

So how does he salvage this?  Well, stick Golden Boy Paul Ryan in the negotiations.   The base still loves him.    They blame Romney for their problems.  

Three things could happen:  

1) The GOP gets what it wants which are no tax cuts and spending cuts.  
Golden Boy looks like a hero.  Boehner looks great and retains his Speakership.   Boehner convinces Ryan to run for Majority Leader and takes out Cantor.  Ryan looks like the clear front runner for the GOP nomination 2016.   Even if Cantor runs for the Speakership, as the captain of a successful House ship, Boehner would have built up enough “street cred” to fight off a challenge.

2) The GOP caves and agrees to tax hikes/spending cuts, the balanced approach.   With egg is on everyone’s face, Paul Ryan gets the blame.  His future in the party is tarnished and the pest goes away.  Or, everything stays the same with Boehner having cover because the true conservatives also went along with tax hikes on the wealthy.    

3) The talks completely crash and burn.    We either go off the cliff, hill, staircase, curb whatever you want to call it which gives Boehner leverage with the party to become the adult and negotiate a deal.    It maybe enough to keep his Speakership and avoid a primary challenge.   Ryan is discredited as a leader and Boehner could wrest control of the House from the true believers.  

I know that there are more nuanced outcomes than this.  But, they could all rotate around these 3 universes.  

Either way the Speaker is in a tough spot.   But by putting Ryan in this, it is a win-win for him.  If we call this “winning.”

Discuss
Reposted from Daily Kos by MKSinSA
Paul Ryan washes dishes at a Youngstown, Ohio soup kitchen. According to news reports, the dishes were already clean.
Paul Ryan washed dishes at a soup kitchen on Saturday — even though the dishes were already clean.
You know that fake photo-op from Saturday in which Paul Ryan washed dishes at a soup kitchen even though those dishes were already clean? Well, the head of the charity responds—and he's not happy with Mr. Ryan:
Brian J. Antag, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

“We’re a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations,” Antag said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. “It’s strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors.”

He added: “The photo-op they did wasn’t even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.”

Actually, it was worse than nothing. Because in the process of trying to score political points by washing dishes that didn't need to be washed, Ryan injected politics into the charity, which is supposed to stay away from politics:
Antag, a self-described independent voter, said that he “can’t fault my volunteers” for letting the campaign in but said that the campaign “ didn’t go through the proper channels.”

He noted that the soup kitchen relies on funding from private individuals who might reconsider their support if it appears that the charity is favoring one political candidate over another.

“I can’t afford to lose funding from these private individuals,” he said. “For us to even appear like we’re backing somebody, it’s suicide. … If this was the Democrats, I’d have the same exact problem. It doesn’t matter who it was.”

According to The Washington Post's Felicia Sonmez, who has done a great job covering this story, Antag said the whole incident has caused him a lot of "grief." As for what he would have done had Ryan asked for permission?
"I certainly wouldn’t have let him wash clean pans and then take a picture," Antag said.
For the life me, I can't think of a better illustration of the fundamental emptiness that is the Romney campaign than this incident.

2:19 PM PT: True fact: 47 percent of soup kitchen volunteers say they would never wash clean dishes purely for the purposes of staging a political photo op. The other 53 percent thought the question was so ridiculous they couldn't stop laughing long enough to answer it.

Discuss
Reposted from kenm by MKSinSA

From the NYT article on Romney's newest tax info release:

In an amended return also released Friday, Representative Paul D. Ryan, Mr. Romney’s running mate, disclosed that he and his wife had initially failed to report $61,122 in income from 2011. He said the failure was inadvertent. The change raised their total income to $323,416 and increased their taxes by $19,917 to $64,674, or 20 percent of adjusted gross income.

They owed a penalty of $59 for the original underpayment. The Ryans explained that they had overlooked their income from the Prudence Little Living Trust. Mrs. Little, who died in 2010, was Mrs. Ryan’s mother.

Yup. I overlooked that $60K, almost 20% of my income. $60K here, $60K there, how am I supposed to keep track of it? Who can remember every penny? Besides it came from some obscure source I'd never remember ... what was it again? ... oh yeah, your Mom's trust.

Or maybe, just maybe, what I overlooked was the fact that I would be the vice-presidential candidate and wouldn't be able to count on the trust income going unnoticed and unreported.

Sorry, no time for questions, got to run another sub-3-hour marathon.

(As Paul Krugman has always called him: the flim-flam man.)  (Updated below)

Continue Reading
Reposted from nyceve by MKSinSA

 Along with the 2011 Romney tax returns, Romney/Ryan released some health information.

So while they go around the country railing about repealing Obamacare, keep in mind what Paul Ryan considers sacred for himself--government, taxpayer subsidized health care.

Paul Ryan is taker not a maker, and a card carrying member of Mitt's mooching 47%.

Who pays for Paul's healthcare?  Who pays for The Office of the Attending Physician. We do, the taxpayers.

Photobucket

Photobucket

Discuss
Reposted from njhoo by MKSinSA

A few days ago, we got a chance to experience Paul lyin ryan.  Turns out Runners World has uncovered another Ryan lie.

Last week, Paul Ryan, in a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, talked of his running prowess.  Ryan claimed His personal best marathon time is

Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something
Problem is, Runners World investigated this.  It seems Lying Ryan ran a 4 hr plus marathon

Follow below

Continue Reading

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 10:18 PM PDT

Ryan shaved hr off marathon time

by Dave in RI

Reposted from Dave in RI by MKSinSA

Paul Ryan has admitted he shaved an hour off his best time in the marathon in an interview with Hugh Hewett last week. In the interview, Ryan claimed an outstanding personal best of under 3 hours.

HH: I’ve just gotta ask, what’s your personal best?

PR: Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.

HH: Holy smokes.

Lots of runners doubted it, and Runner's World magazine took up the chase...
Continue Reading
Reposted from Barefoothoofcare by MKSinSA

Paul Ryan tried to blame President Obama for the GM plant closure in his Wisconsin district in 2008, before Obama became President. So the Republicans are  trying to muddle the story by playing around with the dates.

Is this guy an idiot or what?

Paul Ryan Statement on GM's Announcement

October 13, 2008

WASHINGTON - Wisconsin's 1st District Congressman Paul Ryan released the following statemtn regarding General Motors' decision to discontinue production of their current product at the Janesville Assembly Plant on December 23, 2008:

"GM's decision to end production of their SUV's at the end of this year gets at the heart of our economic crisis. Today's announcement is disappointing, although not surprising given the drop-off of sales of SUV's.  I will continue to do all that I can to support those in our community hit hardest by this loss, as we work to rebuild and revitalize Southern Wisconsin.  

"Contrary to headlines I've read this morning, it is also critical to note that this accelerated timeline applies only to the current SUV product at the plant.  I am encouraged by the tireless work of state, local, and union leaders who have offered a comprehensive incentives package to GM to bring another product to the plant.  GM and local officials have continued their dialogue on keeping GM in Janesville, and I am hopeful that their talks will be successful. "

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site