# Paul Ryan steals lunch (story) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 7, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111 "2014-03-07T14:57:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/81 "2014-03-11T16:52:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Nothing in life is absolutely certain. And of course if we were talking about raising the minimum wage to $100/hour, it would become false. But within the general range where minimum wage increases actually happen, it’s about as certain as anything having to do with the behavior of human beings can be. OK, to be crystal clear, then: you say that raising the minimum wage is so obviously positive, so clearly unambiguously the correct thing to do, that “it’s about as certain as anything having to do with the behavior of human beings can be.” Yes? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/82 "2014-03-11T17:03:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. But encouraging business growth by keeping the minimum wage from rising to the point where it will cause losses of jobs DOES help them…much more than handing them largess today and making them come back for it tomorrow. There may be a point where the minimum wage stifles jobs, but we’re nowhere near there. Progressive states with higher minimum wages are often doing as well or better than the national average. $10 an hour is not an unreasonable minimum, businesses can either slightly raise their prices or tolerate slightly lower profit margins to compensate. Republicans often act like they’re the little Dutch boys with their fingers in the dike preventing a disaster if the minimum wage is raised. It happens every time it’s raised and their gloom and doom prognostication is quickly forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/83 "2014-03-11T17:11:40Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There may be a point where the minimum wage stifles jobs, but we’re nowhere near there. Progressive states with higher minimum wages are often doing as well or better than the national average. $10 an hour is not an unreasonable minimum, businesses can either slightly raise their prices or tolerate slightly lower profit margins to compensate. Republicans often act like they’re the little Dutch boys with their fingers in the dike preventing a disaster if the minimum wage is raised. It happens every time it’s raised and their gloom and doom prognostication is quickly forgotten. AGAIN, though – you see what happens here? I’m not arguing the specific issue of which answer is the best one. I’m arguing AGAINST the notion that one answer is so blatantly, obviously correct that no one can possibly support the other one except through “pathetic moral bankruptcy.” I don’t object to someone saying, “Look, the facts strongly support my case.” I objected to the comments above that said, in effect, “The opposition to my case is outright evil.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/84 "2014-03-11T17:35:27Z")
“I disagree” is not an argument. Even in court, I’d expect. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/85 "2014-03-11T17:47:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In your view. > > Could a reasonable person feel differently without being evil? I’m not calling any person evil – only actions and outcomes. > [@](#): > > Do you make room for the possibility that no matter how well-intentioned a government policy is, it might have individual effects that you’d call “an evil result?” Sure. > [@](#): > > No. I call the supporters thereof mistaken in their core beliefs. Not the supporters, the action of supporting abortion. Do you think doing something that may result in a woman choosing to abort is an evil action? I don’t think those who oppose the right to abort are necessarily evil, but I believe that any action that is intended to result in a woman not having the legal right to choose to abort or not abort without interference is an evil action. For example, I believe that standing outside of an abortion clinic (or women’s health clinic), berating women and showing them graphic images of aborted fetuses, is an evil thing to do. It doesn’t mean that everyone who does it is evil – but I think that specific action is an evil action to take. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/86 "2014-03-11T17:54:48Z")
Since we are deep into the semantics of theology, invested in resolving the utterly crucial question of evil, how might we interpret Mr. Ryan’s remark about his political opponent’s program for a full stomach and an empty soul? I am well aware that many spiritual guides recommend fasting as an aid to spiritual growth, but fasting is voluntary, otherwise its simply “going without”. What is the source of Mr. Ryan’s insight into the care and maintenance of the soul? Didn’t hear anything like that in my Sunday School, my understanding was that my number one favorite Jew was quite explicit about the need to provide for the needy. And how is it that he can offer such pronouncements _ex rectum_ without so much as a “tsk tsk!” from our resident semantic theoretician? A very fine line to draw, seems to me, between advocating policies that degrade and impoverish the soul and “evil”. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/87 "2014-03-11T17:59:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No Republicans are simply “slamming the door,” least of all Ryan. His favored programs do not prioritize direct handouts, but do favor creating a business climate that prospers, making more jobs available for those who can then “learn to fish” – that is, to feed themselves through their own efforts. Even aside from the fact that the supply side economics that has been the Republican mainstay for the last 3 decades has done little to help job creation particularly when we are in the problem with the economy is more on the demand side, the notion of opening up fishing holes is very different from “teach to fish”. The point of the aphorism wasn’t that one should not give people fish. All it says about it about is that it is inferior to the alternative. The key is in the actual harder work of teaching to fish. In fact it helps matters to give the man fishes while he is in the process of learning to fish. The later would involve providing assistance to help people escape their under privileged circumstances and reach a point self sufficiency. Such things would include providing the means to do a job search, such as cell phones, and reliable public transportation, economical broad band internet access, child care, as well as job training and education grants. All things Republicans are generally opposed to. The Republican attitude really is that those who can’t learn to catch fish on their own for whatever reason don’t deserve to have any. That is, they are effectively told to “Go fish”. It’s possible that in a world of limited resources this attitude is the correct one, but it seems extremely patronizing to me when it is portrayed as being for the person’s own good. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/88 "2014-03-12T17:24:39Z")
[Ryan tells Bill Bennett:](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/12/1284076/-Ryan-says-men-in-inner-cities-aren-t-even-thinking-about-working?detail=hide) > [@](#): > > We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning to value the culture of work, so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with. It isn’t just dogs who can hear that one, Paul. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/89 "2014-03-12T17:26:16Z")
[More from Mr. Ryan today](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/paul-ryan-inner-cities_n_4949165.html) on his CPAC speech; he was a guest on Bill Bennett’s radio show: [QUOTE=Paul Ryan] “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…[W]e want people to reach their potential and so the dignity of work is very valuable and important and we have to re-emphasize work and reform our welfare programs, like we did in 1996. "That’s this tailspin or spiral that we’re looking at in our communities…Your buddy Charles Murray or Bob Putnam over at Harvard, those guys have written books on this.” [/quote] I think most folks around here are familiar with Charles Murray’s arguments from his book _The Bell Curve_. First off, last time I checked, most anti-poverty initiatives included a work requirement (largely as part of the reform in 1996). Second, whenever someone starts lauding “the dignity of work”, I wonder why they don’t also criticize lazy aristocrats living off trust funds? Why can’t a billionaire benefit from mopping floors the same way the poor do? Any chance there’s a stereotype at work here, especially considering he says it’s part of the culture of men from the “inner cities in particular”? With statements like these, I simply do not believe Ryan’s plan has any interest in the poor. At all. He’s not looking for a better way, he just wants to cut them off, and he seems willing to lie about the history of welfare reform, use racist code-words, and cite Murray’s discredited work to do it. What would you call that? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/90 "2014-03-12T17:29:34Z")
He forgot to say “shiftless”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/91 "2014-03-12T17:33:15Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > [More from Mr. Ryan today](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/paul-ryan-inner-cities_n_4949165.html) on his CPAC speech; he was a guest on Bill Bennett’s radio show: > > I think most folks around here are familiar with Charles Murray’s arguments from his book _The Bell Curve_. > > First off, last time I checked, most anti-poverty initiatives included a work requirement (largely as part of the reform in 1996). Second, whenever someone starts lauding “the dignity of work”, I wonder why they don’t also criticize lazy aristocrats living off trust funds? Why can’t a billionaire benefit from mopping floors the same way the poor do? Any chance there’s a stereotype at work here, especially considering he says it’s part of the culture of men from the “inner cities in particular”? > > With statements like these, I simply do not believe Ryan’s plan has any interest in the poor. At all. He’s not looking for a better way, he just wants to cut them off, and he seems willing to lie about the history of welfare reform, use racist code-words, and cite Murray’s discredited work to do it. What would you call that? I don’t completely agree. It’s true that Ryan doesn’t laud the virtues of “hard work” for lazy aristocrats living of trust funds. But the reason is very basic: Ryan believes that personal freedom should be even more sacrosanct. The difference is, however, that the aristocrat does not demand others feed, clothe, or shelter him. Ryan is, I suspect, not saying that everyone should work. He’s saying that work is the proper vehicle to obtain money, which can be traded for goods and services. If you already have the money, i imagine he’d add, then work is not something your government can demand of you. As to “racist code words,” I hope you agree there is a difference between the cities and the suburbs, and that the phrase “inner city,” has a meaning that is not racial. I hope you can concede that there are specific social issues that arise in the inner cities that do not translate well, or at all, to suburbs or rural areas. What word or words would you recommend someone use to describe such issues? Or do you contend that the social problems to be solved in this country are identical in the city, suburb, and rural environments? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/92 "2014-03-12T17:45:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The difference is, however, that the aristocrat does not demand others feed, clothe, or shelter him. If that is the difference, then does that mean that you think the poor demand that others feed, clothe, and shelter them? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/93 "2014-03-12T17:46:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As to “racist code words,” I hope you agree there is a difference between the cities and the suburbs, and that the phrase “inner city,” has a meaning that is not racial. I hope you can concede that there are specific social issues that arise in the inner cities that do not translate well, or at all, to suburbs or rural areas. There’s a history of the Republican party using the phrase “inner city” to mean black people. Maybe Ryan didn’t mean it that way, but he should be knowledgeable enough about the history of politics and his party to recognize that it might be interpreted that way, and perhaps he should have used a different phrase. Or maybe he meant it exactly that way, because there’s a significant segment of the party that really buys into that stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/94 "2014-03-12T18:38:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There’s a history of the Republican party using the phrase “inner city” to mean black people. Maybe Ryan didn’t mean it that way, but he should be knowledgeable enough about the history of politics and his party to recognize that it might be interpreted that way, and perhaps he should have used a different phrase. > > Or maybe he meant it exactly that way, because there’s a significant segment of the party that really buys into that stuff. Right – which is why I asked: > [@](#): > > What word or words would you recommend someone use to describe such issues? I assume you don’t contend that no Republican is permitted to even speak of such issues. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/95 "2014-03-12T18:39:30Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If that is the difference, then does that mean that you think the poor demand that others feed, clothe, and shelter them? No – but others demand these things on behalf of the poor. There is generally no such demand, directly or by proxy, for the lazy aristocrat. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/96 "2014-03-12T18:48:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No – but others demand these things on behalf of the poor. There is generally no such demand, directly or by proxy, for the lazy aristocrat. Of course Ryan wants to help the lazy aristocrat by lowering his taxes. And helping the companies that make up the aristocrat’s holdings with all sorts of corporate welfare and relaxed regulation. Ryan’s vision of helping poor people is to actually help rich people, and then because of trickle down magic, poor people better off. As I’ve said before, he isn’t mustache-twirling evil, in that I doubt he knows he’s a bad person. He’s delusional because of an ideological addiction to a profoundly stupid set of beliefs. He does want to do cruel and damaging things however. And the fact that he’s too mixed up to know it, doesn’t mean the damage he’s trying to do is any less. So is it better to say that Ryan is _doing evil_ rather than _is evil_? Does that satisfy the nitpicker in you? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/97 "2014-03-12T18:55:36Z")
I don’t know how to do nested quotes, so I put your question in quotes. > [@Bricker](#): > > Right – which is why I asked: “What word or words would you recommend someone use to describe such issues?” > > I assume you don’t contend that no Republican is permitted to even speak of such issues. It depends on what he’s trying to say. Is he trying to say “some poor people don’t work hard enough”? If so, then there’s no need to confine the statement to inner cities. Is he trying to say “some city poor people don’t work hard enough”? If so, why is he focusing on city poor people, who are disproportionately minorities, while there are plenty of non-city poor people? In fact, the [poverty rate in rural areas](http://www.dailyyonder.com/ruralurban-poverty-gap-narrows/2011/09/19/3526) is and has been for many decades _higher_ than the poverty rate in urban areas. Is he contending that, despite the higher poverty rates of rural areas, the urban poor are lazier? Because that’s an utterly ridiculous and evidence-free statement. It’s the kind of statement that is so patently ridiculous that it makes me question the motives of the speaker – either he is extremely ignorant of the nature of poverty in the US, or he is deliberately focusing on “inner city poor” for political reasons. Either choice deserves criticism. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/98 "2014-03-12T19:10:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No – but others demand these things on behalf of the poor. There is generally no such demand, directly or by proxy, for the lazy aristocrat. I suspect many poverty programs are the result of multiple factors. One is the common human decency you describe. People want to help those that have fallen. Well, most people. Some stand by and laugh. The other more important factor in our safety net, is, I would say, the desire to not live in the 19th century. We don’t want to have corpses in the streets. Swarms of mothers turning tricks to feed their children. We don’t want masses of hopeless people getting more and more desperate. Ryan’s ideas of greatness may be a neo-gilded-age, with fewer laws and regulations protecting the small and inconveniencing the rich, but those ideas would increase the amount of human misery and work back the improvements we’ve made to our society over the last century. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/99 "2014-03-12T20:28:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course Ryan wants to help the lazy aristocrat by lowering his taxes. And helping the companies that make up the aristocrat’s holdings with all sorts of corporate welfare and relaxed regulation. The fundamental difference is that lowering taxes and giving money are two different things. The taxes are money taken away – _I’ll help you by not taking as much of your property away_ – as opposed to \*I’ll help you by giving you property that used to belong to other people. I – and, I am sure, Ryan also – understand that some measure of taxation is necessary. But in my view, you cannot credibly claim that it’s evil to have a different opinion on how much taxation is wise policy. > [@](#): > > As I’ve said before, he isn’t mustache-twirling evil, in that I doubt he knows he’s a bad person. He’s delusional because of an ideological addiction to a profoundly stupid set of beliefs. > > He does want to do cruel and damaging things however. And the fact that he’s too mixed up to know it, doesn’t mean the damage he’s trying to do is any less. So is it better to say that Ryan is _doing evil_ rather than _is evil_? Does that satisfy the nitpicker in you? It’s a certainly a better formulation, and perhaps one I should simply accept for the sake of my primary point here. But in fact, I don’t even concede that that he’s doing evil. Still, that’s not what I was arguing against. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111/100 "2014-03-12T20:33:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No – but others demand these things on behalf of the poor. There is generally no such demand, directly or by proxy, for the lazy aristocrat. Only because the lazy aristocrat already has food, clothes and shelter. We do find that aristocrats, both lazy and active, do themselves lobby, both directly and by proxy, for other things of value. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-steals-lunch-story/683111.md?page=6)