Veep announcement [Romney picks Paul Ryan]

[Sam_Stone]

Back to the topic of the thread:

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately away from partisan web sites. Stepping back into them illustrates just how strong the echo-chamber effect is. For example, I look at the raw polls, and I see a pretty close race: Obama and Romney are close to being in a statistical dead heat. Then I go to a Republican web site, and everyone is yakking about how there’s no possible way Obama can win. I come here, and see threads discussing whether Romney is intentionally throwing the election because it’s so obvious that he has no chance at all to win.

The choice of Paul Ryan has instantly energized the Republican party. It has also healed, at least in part, the split between libertarians and conservatives. Fund raising is shooting through the roof, and the grassroots are going to be energized and ready to fight for Romney. From that standpoint, it was a brilliant pick. It’s like McCain’s choice of Palin, before she beclowned herself.

From the Republican’s perspective, it changed the entire nature of the race. The big worry was that Romney was going to position himself as ‘Obama-Lite’ - someone who agreed with the need for big government solutions to every problem, just not quite as much. The feeling was that this was a losing strategy: people who want big government would just vote for Obama, and people who didn’t would stay home. Romney was looking a bit like the second coming of John McCain or George W. Bush.

Choosing Ryan means that the election is going to draw a sharp contrast between two visions of government; the social democratic welfare state vs individualist capitalism and limited government. That’s a debate the right has wanted to have for a long time, and in Paul Ryan they see someone who is capable of making their case in an eloquent and persuasive fashion. Now, the Republican partisans are sure that this is a debate they will win, and I’m sure the people here think that it’s a debate that the left will win. I’m honestly not sure. The character of America has been changing pretty drastically in the past few years, and I honestly don’t know where the public is on this.

If Ryan’s pick pulls the Presidential campaign out of the mud and forces it to be about actual philosophy of government and practical economics, it’ll be good for the country as a whole. Americans will finally find out what they really want, and whoever wins will have a mandate to carry out their agenda.

Whether the pick ultimately helps or hurts Romney is an open question. No doubt Ryan is a polarizing figure, and his pick will energize the left as well as the right, as we can see from the attitude towards him on this board. To my way of thinking, having a smart, principled, eloquent person to carry the message and defend capitalism is a hell of a lot better than having a ‘Mama Grizzly’ as its spokeswoman.

[elucidator]

… to dementia in the elderly as amusing as the person who used it? Or perhaps my humor switch got accidentally turned off this morning.

I thought he was joking, thought you were joking back. Well, shit.

[InterestedObserver]

@Stratocaster

The last 3+ years have seen spending increase. Seriously, what are you talking about? The annual budget now clocks in at around $3.5 trillion dollars, closing in on $4 trillion. It’s gone up every year. The spending under Obama has been staggering.

I’ll believe the Dems are serious when entitlements are on the table. Nothing else moves the meter materially (including taxing the rich). That’s the spending we need to manage. Taxing the rich is going to accomplish squat in the grand scheme of things. It’s pandering.

I call bullshit.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
"Obama spending binge never happened.
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s…

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has…
In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear."
And PolitiFact agrees:

Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any...

“…using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years…using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase – in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.”
As for “taxing the rich”, the top rate is at historically low levels, having been this low (35%) for only 19 out of the last 100 years. From 1950 to 1963, for instance, it was 90% or 91%. It was 70% in 1980 and didn’t fall below 50% until 1987. See table below:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
At a time when deficits are running high, concentration of wealth and income equality are at all time highs (see cite below) and corporate profits are likewise setting records, increasing the tax burden on the richest Americans (the roughly 2.5% who earn $250,000 or more annually) and large corporations is not only increasingly politically popular but a common-sense and painless way to increase revenues.

Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY

"Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes…

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that’s “higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring” 1920s. “…while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002-2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.” "
As for the richest Americans and large corporations being the “job creators”, that is utter bollocks. According to data from the last few years of monthly jobs reports (which I have followed) most or ALL of the jobs being created in this recovery are from SMALL to MID-SIZED businesses (with large companies typically ELIMINATING jobs in the U.S.)

About 80% of the Bush tax cuts went/go to the top 2-3% of taxpayers, and THEY have NOT been creating jobs or investing in America; they have been SITTING ON IT and growing ever richer. Romney would give them even MORE tax breaks! :eek:
As for Ryan as the VP pick, I think Romney has given up on every demographic but the angry White male and/or extremist Right. He sure has been going out of his way to offend and alienate everyone else, including the moderate Republican base (he is not pandering to the base, but to the FRINGE).

He either thinks he can win with that minority (perhaps along with voter suppression nationwide) or simply realizes that it is the only segment of the electorate he has a chance with anyway so is going for it.

[elucidator]

@Sam_Stone

…To my way of thinking, having a smart, principled, eloquent person to carry the message and defend capitalism is a hell of a lot better than having a ‘Mama Grizzly’ as its spokeswoman.

On this last point, you are on solid ground, no question. A pity Romney couldn’t find one.

[lance_strongarm]

@Sam_Stone

The bus driver was already paid for his contribution. As was everyone else.

Yeah, but less and less each, year, with less benefits, working longer hours in unsafe conditions…

The difference between liberals and classical liberals is that liberals see everyone as part of one ‘community’, and that any success earned by an individual belongs, at least in part, to the larger community.

That’s not something you see, it’s an undeniable truth.

Classical liberals see people as free individuals who contract with other free people, and are therefore not obligated to the community at large. If I come up with a great idea for a machine, but I can’t weld, I must hire a welder. But I paid the welder an agreed-upon fee for his services, and therefore he has no further claim on me. If I then sell that machine for $1 million, it doesn’t matter that the welder only got $50. I may thank him for his help, but he doesn’t deserve a percentage of my profits unless my initial contract with him specified it.

And that’s also true.

Who the hell is saying that bus drivers or welders deserve something they don’t? This isn’t about that, it’s about the fact that the bus driver works for the government, and people on the right are attacking government as if bus drivers were completely useless.

Further, classical liberals do not believe that the larger community can impose a debt on individuals because of existing infrastructure. I had no choice in whether my great grandparents spent their money to build a railroad, and therefore I have no obligation to share the profits I may incur in part because I could use that railroad - I’m only responsible for paying the negotiated fare of use, or for paying the taxes required to maintain it. Once I have done so, my obligation to the larger community ends.

Who believes otherwise?

[UltraVires]

@Sam_Stone

That’s a debate the right has wanted to have for a long time, and in Paul Ryan they see someone who is capable of making their case in an eloquent and persuasive fashion.

I agree with this statement. He gives a great stump speech. We’ll see how he performs under fire.

[Sam_Stone]

@Bosstone

Except that Republicans want to cut funding. Which means bus drivers stop getting paid. Teachers stop getting paid. Come on, man, it’s not that hard.

Come on, that’s nonsense. No one’s talking about forcing bus drivers or teachers to work without pay. We’re talking about whether or not they deserve part of someone else’s success simply because they interacted with that person in a positive way at some point in their life.

What you believe is that everyone carries around a long tail of legal obligation to everyone else, and that gives everyone else a legitimate claim to part of an individual’s success in a way that gives government the right to legally take away the successful person’s property and re-distribute it.

That’s current US conservative thinking: that because the star student or the entrepreneur succeeded, then they would have succeeded with or without the infrastructure, and meanwhile the infrastructure is being used to prop up kids that aren’t succeeding. The infrastructure, therefore, is irrelevant or a drag on our pocketbooks, and needs to go.

That is not true at all. What conservatives believe is that to the extent that a commons is beneficial (infrastructure, public places, whatever), we should all pay for it through property taxes, reasonable income taxes, usage fees, etc. But that’s where the obligation ends. In a free society, that’s where it must end, because the notion that we are all part of one big social construct and everyone has a right to the property of everyone else is antithetical to individual rights and freedoms.

No one denies the value of infrastructure, but we deny the right of the state to treat us as indentured servants merely because we interact with other people or use infrastructure that we helped pay for in the first place, or that already existed because our ancestors built it.

[Sam_Stone]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Do you suppose that there’s a gene for “gratitude” that conservatives simply lack?

Given that conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals, I don’t think so. I happen to think it’s more moral and more charitable to voluntarily give than it is to advocate for a government that will take from others at the point of a gun and give the proceeds to someone else.

In fact, conservatives seem to recognize the value of ‘gratitude’ far more than do liberals, because conservatives believe in charity being local and voluntary precisely because the recipients are more likely to feel gratitude and therefore an obligation to ‘pay it forward’. If I co-sign a loan for my cousin or help my nephew through college, that person is much more likely to behave in a like fashion to others than if I tell him he has a right to free education or a government loan guarantee, handed to him by a faceless bureaucrat.

‘Community organizers’, on the other hand, exist by riling people up and convincing them that they are being wronged and that they are owed something they don’t have. They tell them they have a right to a better life, and if they aren’t getting it it’s because of greedy bad people in the world, and if only they would vote for an advocate, that person will use the lever of government to take by force what those greedy people would not give up voluntarily, and ‘give it back’ to the community, as if it was theirs in the first place.

Tell me: In that environment, where is the gratitude? Go into an area that receives a lot of public existence, and tell me whether you see a lot of gratitude for the help, or a lot of anger for not receiving more? And then tell me whose fault it might be for encouraging the anger?

[Bosstone]

@Sam_Stone

Come on, that’s nonsense. No one’s talking about forcing bus drivers or teachers to work without pay. We’re talking about whether or not they deserve part of someone else’s success simply because they interacted with that person in a positive way at some point in their life.

But in the end, it comes down to funding. This “they are not part of the entrepreneur’s success” is exactly the rationale used to cut funding.

The rest of your post is just so much strawmanning and telling me how I think. Not interested.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Well, at least you’ve been able to maintain your cockeyed optimism Sam. I give you credit for that.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10176306&postcount=29

They’ve found their Reagan again. That’s what it comes down to. And because she’s young, the Republicans are now feeling as though their party might actually have a future. It’s okay that she won’t be president - McCain may only serve one term, but even if he does two, they know that Palin will be the nominee the next time around.

Of course, it could all come crashing down. Palin could turn out to be Dan Quayle II. I highly doubt it, though. But if she doesn’t, then even if McCain loses they’ll be happy, because Sarah will be there ready to take on the Democrats in the next election.

It may not all be totally rational, and Palin may not deserve that level of accolade, but she’s gotten it because she’s pushed all the right buttons, and she’s done it while becoming a star of Obama proportions.

And it’s not just Republicans. McCain has opened a 15% lead among independents because of her. That’s astounding. That kind of move from independents hasn’t been seen for a decade or more.

That’s why the base is energized.

Perhaps, just like Palin before him, Ryan will be the new Reagan, positioned perfectly for the next election!

[Sam_Stone]

@lance_strongarm

Yeah, but less and less each, year, with less benefits, working longer hours in unsafe conditions…

Really? Bus drivers are getting less and less each year? But more to the point: are they being forced to accept a lower salary at gunpoint? Or are they free to seek new employment if they don’t like the conditions of the job? I’ve quit several jobs in my life because I no longer felt the job was paying me what I was worth, or because conditions deteriorated to the point where I no longer wanted to work there. Why shouldn’t the same be true for bus drivers?

That’s not something you see, it’s an undeniable truth.

No, it is not. You need to read some philosophy of government, and not just the stuff you already agree with. When it comes to the proper relationship between the individual, the state, and the community, there are many differing opinions. You can start by reading Locke and Rousseau, because they quite eloquently represent the opposing sides of that debate. It’s not a new thing.

Who the hell is saying that bus drivers or welders deserve something they don’t? This isn’t about that, it’s about the fact that the bus driver works for the government, and people on the right are attacking government as if bus drivers were completely useless.

No, it’s about the notion that a successful person owes part of his wealth to the larger community, because of the positive effect that community had on him. It’s about the notion that the successful person owes a part of his wealth to the government, because the government provided part of the infrastructure he used. That was Obama’s main argument in the ‘you didn’t build that’ speech. It’s essentially the communitarian argument I described - that because each of us exists in a community of others, we are obligated to share our successes with everyone else.

[UltraVires]

@Bosstone

But in the end, it comes down to funding. This “they are not part of the entrepreneur’s success” is exactly the rationale used to cut funding.

The rest of your post is just so much strawmanning and telling me how I think. Not interested.

I think this is a strawman argument. Which Republican wants to eliminate public infrastructure or school bus drivers? I see Republicans that want to eliminate things like the Department of Educate, Commerce, HUD, and Energy, but not basic societal services.

To that extent, the argument that “You couldn’t have done this without public infrastructure” is a non-starter. People are put in positions in life and some fail and some succeed with the same public infrastructure. Therefore the success or failure of the person is not defined by the paved road they traveled to the job, but what that individual did when he got there. To dismiss this is an insult to people who are successful.

Some people use the roads to go somewhere to create things. Others use the road to flip their cigarette butts on while they drive to the store to buy more beer. The road is not responsible for either of the two extremes.

[Mosier]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

You appear to not know the difference between favorability ratings and head to head voter preference numbers! Wow.

I can see why you’d think that. Let me clarify my position a bit. I predicted seniors would vote Republican at a rate of 2 to 1. I was exaggerating, and I know no reputable source would back up that number.

However, I do think seniors will vote Republican this cycle. Seniors are typically conservative, and this cycle in particular they seem to prefer the “most conservative” among the conservative candidates. That’s what my cite was for.

@Marley23

Negative comments about groups are allowed here, but crass generalizations like this don’t contribute much to the debate. And personal insults are not allowed at all.

I don’t know if this was an official warning, but I’ll tone it down. I was mostly being sarcastic, though.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Mosier

I can see why you’d think that. Let me clarify my position a bit. I predicted seniors would vote Republican at a rate of 2 to 1. I was exaggerating, and I know no reputable source would back up that number.

However, I do think seniors will vote Republican this cycle. Seniors are typically conservative, and this cycle in particular they seem to prefer the “most conservative” among the conservative candidates. That’s what my cite was for.

You predicted 3:1. Then you came back with a favorability rating. The polling numbers in Florida prior to the Ryan pick showed a two percentage point difference between Romney and Obama.

There’s just nothing empirical to support your hopeful outcomes.

[lance_strongarm]

@jtgain

So just to be clear, you think that the bus driver and the taxpayers for providing the public road deserve the credit instead of the students?

Wow, you really need this explained?

The bus driver gets a very very tiny part of the credit. Maybe 0.0000001 percent.

But the bus driver is still absolutely essential, since he/she got the kid to school.

That’s it. Not a hard concept.

[lance_strongarm]

@jtgain

I think this is a strawman argument. Which Republican wants to eliminate public infrastructure or school bus drivers? I see Republicans that want to eliminate things like the Department of Educate, Commerce, HUD, and Energy, but not basic societal services.

Many want to deeply deeply cut basic services, yes.

Are you not paying attention?

[Peanut_Gallery]

@Sam_Stone

whoever wins will have a mandate to carry out their agenda.

I hope this becomes a popular meme of the campaign. I hope the R/R (R) ticket says it loud and proud over and over again. Then if/when Obama wins, can America finally get a little bit of the reasonable regulation of big banks, environmental protection, funding of education, safety nets, infrastructure, etc etc that it needs? Somehow I doubt it. This ‘mandate’ thing will only work one way, and the R congress will continue to shit on everything the people mandate the Ds accomplish. I happen to agree with the idea. Either way, people will have indicated how things should go. I just think the only way things will actually go the way the winner intends will be if it is an R victory. The Ds are very weak like that.

@Sam_Stone

defend capitalism

Cuz mean ole Obama HATES when people make profits! Give me a break, Mr. Hannity. Capitalism needs to be defended from itself. Deregulation is its own worst enemy. See the self-destruction of the financial industry.

@Sam_Stone

Palin … beclowned herself.

I’m just quoting this bit cuz it is so delicious, and cannot be repeated enough. It being VP-nominee season again, I have been recollecting how things went last time around. So many of us laughed our asses off right out of the gate, while others nobly jumped to her defense … and now it is established as fact on all sides (even Cheney fercrissakes) that she was a [del]joke [/del]retard from the start.

[lance_strongarm]

@Sam_Stone

Really? Bus drivers are getting less and less each year? But more to the point: are they being forced to accept a lower salary at gunpoint? Or are they free to seek new employment if they don’t like the conditions of the job?

Where? At the other job that’s paying less now?

You don’t get it - it’s not about bus drivers, it’s about the entire economy. The bottom 90 percent of wage earners hasn’t had an increase in income, after inflation, in THREE DECADES. That can’t be sustained.

I’ve quit several jobs in my life because I no longer felt the job was paying me what I was worth, or because conditions deteriorated to the point where I no longer wanted to work there. Why shouldn’t the same be true for bus drivers?

What kind of jobs? You think bus drivers have lots of better jobs, higher paying, waiting for them?

No, it is not. You need to read some philosophy of government, and not just the stuff you already agree with. When it comes to the proper relationship between the individual, the state, and the community, there are many differing opinions. You can start by reading Locke and Rousseau, because they quite eloquently represent the opposing sides of that debate. It’s not a new thing.

No academic lectures please.

No, it’s about the notion that a successful person owes part of his wealth to the larger community, because of the positive effect that community had on him. It’s about the notion that the successful person owes a part of his wealth to the government, because the government provided part of the infrastructure he used. That was Obama’s main argument in the ‘you didn’t build that’ speech. It’s essentially the communitarian argument I described - that because each of us exists in a community of others, we are obligated to share our successes with everyone else.

Well, yes, I’d say that’s true. It’s the basis of our progressive tax system (one of the bases, that is). But no, you’re not “sharing” your success, you’re simply paying back the system that supported your success, as everyone should when and if they are successful. Instead of thinking of it as higher taxes on the rich, consider it lower taxes on the poor, and you’ll feel better about it.

[lance_strongarm]

@Sam_Stone

Come on, that’s nonsense. No one’s talking about forcing bus drivers or teachers to work without pay. We’re talking about whether or not they deserve part of someone else’s success simply because they interacted with that person in a positive way at some point in their life.

Oh come on.

The Republicans are trying to screw the working class at every turn, including cutting the pay and benefits of public workers.

Nobody is saying a bus driver should get a big bonus because a kid on his bus became a billionaire. Just that he should get decent pay and benefits, instead of having his wages cut to finance tax cuts for that billionaire.

[Bosstone]

@jtgain

To dismiss this is an insult to people who are successful.

Who said anything about dismissing the efforts of an individual?

Look, if you successfully drive from point A to point B, that makes you a good driver, but it’s not as if you could do that without a road to drive on. Your success doesn’t negate the necessity of the road, and the fact that some people get into accidents and never reach point B likewise doesn’t show that the road is useless.

An awful lot of conservatives, particularly those of Tea Party and Libertarian bent, want to say “I succeeded, therefore I didn’t need the road, and the existence of the road is simply allowing the failures to be a burden on successful people.”

Infrastructure provides people the opportunity to succeed. Everyone should have a vested interest in making sure infrastructure – education, roads, healthcare, the non-profit-driven parts of life that allow people to focus on being productive – is solid. Not only does the infrastructure allow people to be successful, it maximizes the productivity of non-successful people who can give the successful ones a boost by working for them and doing the jobs that need doing.

But the people who can afford private jets start wondering what we need all these roads for. They start seeing it as a drain on their private jet funds, and they start calling for pruning the infrastructure they themselves don’t need any more.