Viciously attacking? Methinks the Doper doth protesteth toeth mucheth.
I feel better knowing that he was only bat shit in sane in 2010.
I disagree, though it’s probably moot, since he’s not running for president, and even if Romney wins he’s not going to get all that pushed through (even if you assume Romney is in lockstep with Ryan over the budget, which I’m not convinced of). I think that the budget process has been a work in progress for Ryan, as he works through practical attempts to implement a workable budget using conservative philosophy. As people bring up issues or problems, he goes back to the drawing board to address them. Having read a bit about the guy and this process, it’s actually quite interesting how he’s doing this.
Again, you might not agree with him or his conclusions (even I, nominal ‘conservative’ on the SDMB don’t agree with all or even a lot of what he’s concluding), but it’s pretty silly to try and use stuff he’s already moved on from to score points against him on the budget, especially since I don’t see anyone else taking much of a shot or sticking out their necks by putting something out there that can be looked at and criticized.
Am I supposed to pretend that I haven’t seen political advertisements that are doing just that, and using the 2010 data as if it’s the latest thing he’s come up with? 
Tends to grow? How does money, in and of itself, tend to grow? I have a couple of quarters in my pocket. If I leave them there for 10 years, are they going to appreciate in value all on their own?
I agree with BobLibDem on this issue. Has Ryan actually repudiated his earlier stance on eliminating these taxes and said he’s had a change of heart on this issue? If not, I think we can accept this proposal as a valid indicator of the direction Ryan wants to go (and by extension, Romney endorses by choosing Ryan as his running mate). Maybe he realizes eliminating taxes on the wealthy is unrealistic, but if that’s his dream goal then we can expect he’ll do what he can to reduce taxes on the wealthy.
Really unfair when Romney and Ryan have declared a standard that any financial issues that are older than two years are off the record in this election. Why won’t the Democrats follow the rules?
Well to be clear you said " viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals", which…vicious? Maybe we are just working on different definitions.
Actually, what I said was ‘the Dems are viciously attacking Ryan over earlier versions of his proposals’ which I think is accurate as far as it goes, though one could argue that some of ‘the Dems’ are actually not directly associated with the Democratic Party. But ‘vicious’? Yeah, I’d say so based on some of the adds talking about throwing grand ma out into the street and some of the other over the top hyperbole I’ve heard…especially since, to me, it looks like a deliberate use of spin to use his 2010 budget to make all these points and conveniently ignore the fact that there are updates. I mean, at a guess the updated version wouldn’t play well with liberal/Dem types either, so it’s interesting that they have focused their attacks on stuff that’s several revisions back in the cycle. Don’t you think?
Why won’t they use his most recent budget proposal and attack THAT, instead of one that’s already out of date and thus is irrelevant? Of course, ‘the rules’ are that you attack your opponent with anything that gets traction, whether it’s a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone not paying attention. Which has pretty much been the Republicans modus operandi for years (the Dems too of course). What I find ironic is the howls I hear around here when the Pubs do this, but how passive folks are when it’s clear the Dems are doing the same thing. Gores, oxes and all that sort of thingy…
There’s that slight difference of the Democrats criticizing Ryan for a budget plan that he developed himself and has never disavowed vs the Republicans slamming Obama for things that Bill Ayers did when Obama was in grade school or what Obama’s pastor said when Obama wasn’t there.
There isn’t enough detail in the current proposal regarding vaguely needed “base broadening measures”
But as I said above, unless he’s repudiated his 2010 proposal, we can assume he still believes in it. Which means it is still relevant to judging what he will propose in the future.
“Obamacare” was enacted in 2010. Do you think Romney is going to take that issue off the table? Of course not and he shouldn’t. What Obama did in 2010 is relevant to discussing what he might do in 2014. And the same thing applies to Romney and Ryan.
Exactly. Note the thread title. This is about what Ryan WANTS to achieve, not what he believes it is politically feasible to achieve.
And what he wants to achieve, judging from his initial proposal, is a US in which the richest don’t pay taxes-- a US in which those who work for a living also bear the burden of paying all of the nation’s bills.
This ongoing narrowing of what’s “relevant” makes it difficult to find any issue that can be discussed.
“Romney assaulted a gay student when he was in school.”
“That was a youthful indiscretion. You can only discuss his adult life.”
“Okay, there was that time he irresponsibly killed his dog.”
“That’s his personal life. You can only discuss his public life.”
“Well, there’s his questionable business practices.”
“That’s not political. You can only discuss his political history.”
“Okay, there’s some things when he was governor.”
“That’s ancient history and he’s changed. You can only discuss what he’s said in this campaign.”
“Well, how about that thing he said in his speech last week.”
“That’s old news. You have to move on. You’re supposed to be discussing his VP choice this week.”
“Okay, Ryan doesn’t have much of a legislative record for a seven term Congressman.”
“You can’t just look at the laws he enacted. You have to look at his ideas.”
“Okay, his 2010 tax proposal would favor the wealthy.”
“You can’t hold him to things that were just proposals.”
“Okay, let me see if I understand the current rules. We can’t discuss Romney’s or Ryan’s past, present or future acts, words, or thoughts whether they’re personal, business related or political. What are we allowed to discuss?”
“You’re allowed to discuss Romney’s and Ryan’s good looks.”
“Actually, Romney looks like a soap opera villain and Ryan looks like Eddie Munster.”
“Oh, so it’s personal attacks on trivia like how they look. Why won’t you guys discuss any issues of substance?”
Does Romney have a mortgage? I vaguely remember his saying something to the effect that one of the big lessons he was taught by his father was that it was irresponsible to run for public office if you have a mortgage to pay.
He’s revised it. He incorporated in the parts that he thought worked, and put in new stuff to rectify problems and issues that were brought to his attention. Why would he repudiate the old one? Seriously, I must be missing something here because this makes zero sense to me.
Well, the two rather obvious things that leap out at me are, A) ‘Obamacare’ was passed, so it’s actually legislature that is in effect…so, of COURSE it’s still going to be an issue today in the election. B) If there were changes to it then it would be highly stupid (to me) to address ‘Obamacare’ as it was 2 years ago and ignore how it is today.
Again, I’m missing something here, because this seems to be making excuses for something that is pretty obviously playing on folks ignorance over the fact that there have been multiple updates to Ryan’s budget. Personally, while I find his budget attempts interesting, and while I certainly would address them in a political debate (while avoiding the lack of similar initiatives and neck sticking by the Dems), to me it’s pretty low key. Ryan isn’t running for President, and it’s unlikely bordering on a zero probability that his budget would be adopted and implemented, especially in the current political environment. I see it (and I think he intended it from what I’ve read and heard) as more a strawman (in the technical sense of the word)…a plan that can be stood up with shots fired at it and explored for flaws and problems, so that a good working and realistic plan might emerge. I wish the Dems would do something exactly the same, as I think they are quite helpful…get SOMETHING on paper that can be looked at and criticized (in the good sense), to see what works and what obviously doesn’t. I think the Dems should put out an ideologically based but well rooted budget plan in the same detail, and maybe if Ryan gets some traction with it they will.
Except that this is spin as well…and, taking the spin out of it I’m not seeing a lot of difference, especially since you are cherry picking just one of the myriad things that the Pubs have tried to slam Obama for in an attempt at a ridiculous apples to alligators comparison.
That’s a good point, and one that IS a valid criticism of Ryan’s plan. How does he plan to pay for it, what specifically WILL be cut and how, etc etc. And if the Dems were doing that over the current incarnation of Ryan’s budget then I wouldn’t have wandered into this thread to give my 2 cents (and cheap at triple the price…inflation being what it is and all). Instead, I see a lot of handwaving and excuses for what SHOULD be a slam dunk that the Dems are obviously spinning this and being deliberately deceptive. It’s like I have been told over and over in the past by posters on this board, just because the other side does something doesn’t make it right to do…correct? 
The Democrats saying “Romney and Ryan would abolish all taxes on the rich and make abortions illegal if they could” is the equivalent of the Republicans saying “Obama and Biden would abolish private health care and confiscate all firearms if they could.” Both sides realize that their opposition probably couldn’t achieve those supposed goals but they don’t want their opponents to move the country in the direction of those goals - such as lowering taxes on the wealthy, increasing public healthcare, and making abortions and firearms more difficult to obtain.