Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Well in a time of financial crisis i.e. a recession in which a lot of people lost their jobs, it makes sense to make it easier to get benefits and make sure people don't lose their homes, etc. To do otherwise would be failing to cushion the blow to our society nd making the recession worse- which was actually caused by irresponsibility brought about by deregulation of the financial sector. Guess who did that? I'll give you a hint- It wasn't Obama.
I found it hilarious that you enjoyed what he had to say so much, yet never bothered to compare what he was saying with ACTUAL FACTS. Let me enlighten you.
I actually laughed when he blamed the downgrading of the country's credit score on Obama- when anyone who was actually paying attention would know it was done because the republicans were threatening to not vote to raise the debt ceiling if they didn't get their way. You know- holding our country's economic future in jeopardy so they could push through initiatives? Yeah that time.
Also, I found it interesting that he blamed Obama for the Janesville GM plant shutdown. I for one would like to borrow Obama's time machine in that case, since the plant closed while Bush was still in office... And I don't feel that either president could have prevented the initial wave of fallout from decades of no financial responsibility anyways. That damn Obama and his time traveling troublemaking though!
Another point I totally missed but saw someone else bring up was his insistence that Obama had "taken $716 billion out of Medicare" when in fact that is how much was saved in reimbursement rates, which Ryan actually supports in his own plan. Just because the money wasn't spent doesn't mean it wasn't saved, or that benefits were lost- which is not the case.
So I guess my question would be- would you rather be told a feel-good lie no matter how blatant or have somebody be real with you? If it's the former, Paul Ryan is totally your man! All you have to do is be fully ready to suspend reality and just pretend you've never paid attention once in regards to politics, which come to think of it shouldn't be hard since it appears you haven't. Sure the speech sounded great if you look past all the flat out misrepresentations he made in order to give you good lip service and reaffirm your disdain for the Muslim Kenyan impostor we have in office right now that wants to give your house to mexican illegals.
So yeah, of course it sounded good. People who say whatever sounds best with no regards to accuracy or truthfullness usually have no problem making that happen. But hey, he was only meant to be the sounds-good-looks-good white guy to make the bible belt sheeple feel good about themselves so I never expected anything more than that.
I'm waiting for the revision that you can abort the baby if it tests positive for the gay.
I agree completely.
How do you like Ryan's budget plan then?? If you're not familiar with it, check out it's black and white specifics in the link below.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/ryan-2/
If you don't have time, I'll give you a synopsis. Hold on to your hat, it's a doozie.
1). Another tax break for the rich BEYOND the average $125k a person who makes a$1M a year already got with the Bush tax cuts. (which he also wants to make permanent btw) And furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts. Overall, this would mean $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction, a significant step in the direction of fiscal stability. (copypasta'd that last part totally) so whoever claimed extending the Bush tax cuts wouldn't do anything has either been misled or doesn't understand what they're looking at.
2). Cutting funding to states and local projects. This includes education spending (their plan on how schools recieve funding and teachers are paid is pretty horiffic as well), DPW projects, police and fire funding among other things that matter to people who aren't rich will take a huge hit, as will social security.
3). He wants to increase defense spending beyond it's already astronomical level, which blows my mind in and of itself seeing as we're supposed to be on our way out of the middle east.
4). 62% of the money he's considering to be either absorbed by the top-income-earners tax cut or reallocating to increased defense spending comes from cutting low-income programs such as pell grants for college students, Medicaid, job training, etc.
5). He wants to hand over control of Medicare to Wall Street, which if we've learned anything in the past 5 years it's that Wall Street is out for Wall Street and nobody else. That would be a disaster.
Basically it's the least socially responsible plan possible- taking anything that isn't nailed down from those who need it most, and giving more and more to those who need it the least. More or less taking all the stupid things Bush did that fucked us over as a country and multiplying them many times over. Robert Greenstein, President of The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had this to say:
"The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document — one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse — on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history). It also would stand a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission’s report on its head — that policymakers should reduce the deficit in a way that does not increase poverty or widen inequality."
So to you I ask, sure we can balance the budget- but at what cost- and to whom? Should the poor in very real need be stripped naked and told to fuck themselves while big business is bailed out time and time again without penance to their actions that got us in this mess in the first place- while the rich are given guilded chaise lounges and patted on the back for most likely being born with money? I personally say no. But that's just me, and I hate politics, mostly because I hate being lied to.
I lied to you- keeping the Bush tax cuts in play is a terrible idea. Otherwise I agree with you though.