Who is Paul Ryan and what does he stand for?

[Juan_Bottom]

Yes Woodruff, yes. As I have said twice now, 50% of the elderly lived below the poverty line before Social Security came. Now it's less than 10%.

[Juan_Bottom]

AND they/we all pay into Social Security too, so social security hasn't even added a dime to the national debt.

[Neato Missile]

(1) Learn about Public Choice.

This is interesting stuff, but I think that by now most of us are at least somewhat aware of the fact that the vast majority of politicians are in it to serve their own bottom line. The fact remains that the policies they enact while questing for the almighty dollar can have huge ramifications on us lowly plebes.
It's entirely possible that I foolishly missed the point you were trying to make here. Public choice theory seems to claim that citizens should stay ignorant of politics, so maybe you're suggesting that as Rational Actors we should just tank the thread?

(2) Correction: The CBO is good enough for Congress, but it isn't good enough for assessing the effects of public policy over 330+ million people.

(3) Advice: take neoclassical economic predictions for an entire country or State with a grain of salt. The future is uncertain, and there are no constants in the social sciences/for human behavior; however, the methods of neoclassical economists neglect that, and then run into trouble when it's applied at the State/national level.

These are good points, but seem to exist solely to stymie discussion. If the future is so uncertain and the populace so large that economic predictions are doomed from the start, then what facts can we look at when discussing these issues? You mention "neoclassical" economics twice: is there an alternative form of prediction that can produce more accurate results, which the government/media does not utilize for some reason?

(4) Just remember that when you put economics (any kind) into the hands of the government, then those politicians and bureaucrats tend to have a strong incentive to confirm their own bias, as in manipulate it for their own goals--regardless of the extravagance of the assumptions used in the economic analysis. It's like having the cigarette industry pay for experiments on whether or not tobacco leads to cancer.

(5) More honest analysis? ... What exactly are you looking for?

Absolutely, data can and will be skewed the moment it gets into a politician's hands. This was what led me to the CBO report in the first place-- it seemed like the best way to avoid these biases. I've since learned that, particularly in the wake of Ryan's VP nod, some Republicans consider the CBO untrustworthy. "Honest" was a poor word choice, I was more interested in finding out if there's an analysis that is even more non-partisan than the CBO.

The CBO can only score the literature in front of them. They can't analyze how the law will actually apply to revenues and costs once it's actually applied to the real world. Furthermore, legislators can pack it with gimmicks to make it appear balanced (or even gaining revenue), which happened all over the Obamacare law.

Not to pull the "NO U" defense, but it seems like the more people look at the Ryan Plan, the more they're realizing that it is also packed with gimmicks, revenue-gaining and otherwise. If any budget submitted to the CBO can game the system so easily, how does a layman gain any understanding? Should we just flip a coin when we hit the ballot in November, hoping it lands "jobs" side up?

[Juan_Bottom]

I dunno what all BBS had to say, but I want to point out that the CBO always acknowledges where they are lacking information and they also warn that it is impossible to make decade-long estimations because politics & funds change. They're also non-partisan so they point out funding tricks within legislation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Another odd thing I'm seeing, is that I'm defending the poor, the sick, and the elderly in here while all the Jesus freaks want to throw 'em to the dogs. WTF?

Ummm....no. Every conservative has always argued that it's the job of individuals to help other individuals, not for the government to force participation in their unconstitutional programs. You assume that the government is the only option for providing assistance, which is why you delusionally see yourself as the only one defending the needy.

Unfortunately, history has shown that individuals are not sufficient to provide the amount of assistance that is necessary.

(1) How do you know?

(2) How much is sufficient?

(3) If it is "sufficient," and if the unintended consequences exacerbate poverty, then are current forms of government entitlement programs actually sufficient and necessary?

[Night Strike]

Another odd thing I'm seeing, is that I'm defending the poor, the sick, and the elderly in here while all the Jesus freaks want to throw 'em to the dogs. WTF?

Ummm....no. Every conservative has always argued that it's the job of individuals to help other individuals, not for the government to force participation in their unconstitutional programs. You assume that the government is the only option for providing assistance, which is why you delusionally see yourself as the only one defending the needy.

Unfortunately, history has shown that individuals are not sufficient to provide the amount of assistance that is necessary.

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

[AndyDufresne]

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

I'm not sure your logic is sound in this, but I am no logic expert. I'll leave that to BBS or Haggis or whoever else was posting in the various logic topics.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

Another odd thing I'm seeing, is that I'm defending the poor, the sick, and the elderly in here while all the Jesus freaks want to throw 'em to the dogs. WTF?

Ummm....no. Every conservative has always argued that it's the job of individuals to help other individuals, not for the government to force participation in their unconstitutional programs. You assume that the government is the only option for providing assistance, which is why you delusionally see yourself as the only one defending the needy.

Unfortunately, history has shown that individuals are not sufficient to provide the amount of assistance that is necessary.

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

Night Strike, what does the term "history has shown" mean to you? It seems odd to me, but your response seems to simply be a rant against how things are NOW...

[Phatscotty]

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

I'm not sure your logic is sound in this, but I am no logic expert. I'll leave that to BBS or Haggis or whoever else was posting in the various logic topics.


--Andy

idk about "logic" but it seems like an accurate observation of what I have seen

[BigBallinStalin]

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

I'm not sure your logic is sound in this, but I am no logic expert. I'll leave that to BBS or Haggis or whoever else was posting in the various logic topics.


--Andy

Crowding out effect

In other words, in some situations, people have the ability to supply help without being taxed.

Implied: But that doesn't happen as much as I'd like today, because of the crowding out effect.

What's the point of helping people if you perceive that your help will not reduce their dependence on government welfare? Essentially, your help would be a subsidy that will inadvertently promote living on welfare entitlements.


The above are good points.


Woodruff gives a snarky comment, while failing to answer relevant questions to his assertion.

[BigBallinStalin]

I dunno what all BBS had to say, but I want to point out that the CBO always acknowledges where they are lacking information and they also warn that it is impossible to make decade-long estimations because politics & funds change. They're also non-partisan so they point out funding tricks within legislation.

And they're hardly responsible (monetarily) for their mistaken predictions. Great system, guys!

[Juan_Bottom]

Paul Ryan Only Passed 2 Bills Into Law In More Than A Decade

WASHINGTON -- He's been in Congress for nearly 13 years, but Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has only seen two of his bills pass into law during that time.

Ryan, who Mitt Romney has tapped as his running mate, passed a bill into law in July 2000 that renames a post office in his district. Thanks to Ryan, the post office on 1818 Milton Ave. in Janesville, Wis., is now known as "Les Aspin Post Office Building."

The other time Ryan saw one of his bills become law was in December 2008, with legislation to change the way arrows (as in bows and arrows) are hit with an excise tax. Specifically, his bill amended the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 39-cent tax per arrow shaft, instead of a 12.4 percent tax on the sales price. The bill also "includes points suitable for use with arrows in the 11 percent excise tax on arrow parts and accessories."

Kevin Seifert, Ryan's congressional spokesman, did not respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE: 2:30 p.m. -- It appears Ryan had a personal interest in passing the arrow tax bill: He is an accomplished bowhunter. Jay McAninch, president of the Archery Trade Association, earlier this year praised Ryan on his blog for pushing that bill through.

"Congressman Ryan has never asked for anything from the archery industry when he’s done things for bowhunting," McAninch said. "Nearly 10 years ago, he led an effort to change the tax on arrows and level the playing field for arrow manufacturers, especially those making arrows on American soil. For that, he took nothing from us except our thanks and gratitude."

User Megane inadvertently lead me to this. She/he mentioned that Ryan was an accomplished hunter/gatherer, so I did some reading into his sports and I smacked into this.
Anyone know how much money he's been paid for this? I'm finding a figure of $11.5 million dollars for Ryan and his aids. I dunno if that's a legit figure or if it includes his free healthcare/paychecks for life or not. Anyone have facts on his salary?


The post office that he renamed^

[Phatscotty]

That's 2 more than Obama passed

[Juan_Bottom]

In contrast here is a list of bills co-sponsored by Obama as a Senator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bi ... tes_Senate

I can't find a list for Paul Ryan. . . ?

[Juan_Bottom]

That's 2 more than Obama passed

And what's up with this:

Committees (Obama)

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (110th Congress)
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (110th Congress)
Subcommittee on Investigations
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration
United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Environment and Public Works (109th Congress)
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection
Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on European Affairs (Chairman - 110th Congress)
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Subcommittee on African Affairs
Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection

Source: United States Senate 109th Congress[25] Source: United States Senate 110th Congress[26]

Committee assignments (Ryan)

Committee on the Budget (Chairman)
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Health

[Phatscotty]

That's 2 more than Obama passed

And what's up with this:

Committees (Obama)

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (110th Congress)
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (110th Congress)
Subcommittee on Investigations
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration
United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Environment and Public Works (109th Congress)
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection
Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on European Affairs (Chairman - 110th Congress)
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Subcommittee on African Affairs
Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection

Source: United States Senate 109th Congress[25] Source: United States Senate 110th Congress[26]

Committee assignments (Ryan)

Committee on the Budget (Chairman)
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Health

Like Ryan isn't on a buttload of subcommittees?

Those are something different that bills passed. You brought apples to an orange juicing. But I will remind you that no matter how many committees Obama polished his resume with, he still voted "present" 97% of the time, virtually refusing to cast a yes or no vote.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not comparing committees to Bills passed. I'm just talkin' about interesting general facts about Ryan & keeping the thread alive with topics for discussion.
That's all of the Committees that Wiki has listed under Ryan's name. There's not much to talk about there, but compare it to the list under Obama's name. Dude is a liberal all right.

[rockfist]

The Budget committee and the Ways and Means committee take FAR more time and effort than many of those listed for Obama.

[Phatscotty]

[Night Strike]

435 representatives versus 100 senators - of course senators will be on more committees. That doesn't mean they actually do jack while on those committees.

By the way, being a sponsor of a bill also means jack squat. Anybody will attach their names to "positive" bills so they can claim they've achieved more, yet very few will actually sponsor the tough legislation that is required to reign in excessive spending. Paul Ryan's bills haven't typically become law because he's actually doing work that most of the other people in Congress vote against or the president vetoes. Plus, I think most of the actual spending legislation gets sponsored by their respective committees (or by the speaker/majority leader if an omnibus spending bill) and not by the budget committee that maps out spending plans for the entire chamber.

[john9blue]

since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

Good point, a true statement can be a smear. I misspoke. Still, if Ryan is running on his economic acumen-- which certainly seems to be the case-- why wouldn't information about his budget be fair game? If it damages his reputation to shine a light on the very thing he's built said reputation around, isn't that Ryan's error more than Juan's?

a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation.

By this logic, it is impossible for someone to present the facts of a situation, because there will always be someone who will claim it is that presenter's intention to ruin the reputation of the individual. And even if that is the intention, those facts are still facts. Further, sometimes people need to be made aware that the existing reputation someone has is ill-founded. It seems odd to me that you would claim that a presentation of facts constitutes a smear campaign. Well, it doesn't seem odd to me that YOU would, I suppose, given that it was regarding a Republican candidate.

by your logic, it is impossible to state a correct fact, because there will always be someone who will claim that the fact is wrong.

what other people think doesn't matter at all, woody. i'm only talking about the actual intentions of the PERSON WHO POSTED IT.

and i never said that all smear campaigns are bad.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff gives a snarky comment, while failing to answer relevant questions to his assertion.

That link doesn't go to a Woodruff post, you realize.

[Woodruff]

since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

Good point, a true statement can be a smear. I misspoke. Still, if Ryan is running on his economic acumen-- which certainly seems to be the case-- why wouldn't information about his budget be fair game? If it damages his reputation to shine a light on the very thing he's built said reputation around, isn't that Ryan's error more than Juan's?

a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation.

By this logic, it is impossible for someone to present the facts of a situation, because there will always be someone who will claim it is that presenter's intention to ruin the reputation of the individual. And even if that is the intention, those facts are still facts. Further, sometimes people need to be made aware that the existing reputation someone has is ill-founded. It seems odd to me that you would claim that a presentation of facts constitutes a smear campaign. Well, it doesn't seem odd to me that YOU would, I suppose, given that it was regarding a Republican candidate.

by your logic, it is impossible to state a correct fact, because there will always be someone who will claim that the fact is wrong.

No, my "logic" did not suggest any such thing. Lern 2 Reed.

what other people think doesn't matter at all, woody. i'm only talking about the actual intentions of the PERSON WHO POSTED IT.

Which part of "that presenter's intention" do you not understand?

[BigBallinStalin]

Woodruff gives a snarky comment, while failing to answer relevant questions to his assertion.

That link doesn't go to a Woodruff post, you realize.

My apologies.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176574&start=105#p3859413

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) Learn about Public Choice.

This is interesting stuff, but I think that by now most of us are at least somewhat aware of the fact that the vast majority of politicians are in it to serve their own bottom line. The fact remains that the policies they enact while questing for the almighty dollar can have huge ramifications on us lowly plebes.
It's entirely possible that I foolishly missed the point you were trying to make here. Public choice theory seems to claim that citizens should stay ignorant of politics, so maybe you're suggesting that as Rational Actors we should just tank the thread?

What is Public Choice?

Some public choice economists examine the extremely low chances of one sole vote in changing the outcome of an election in order to highlight the incentive faced by a voter. Since the chance is so little, it's rational that the average voter spends very little time in informing himself about the costs and benefits of voting for various politicians. Compare this to the incentive one faces when buying a car or a house. This is a positive economics; it explains what is happening.

Based on the positive economics, some economists (and others) shift to normative economics/science (and away from Public Choice),
by concluding that voting is irrational, and people shouldn't vote,
but that would be erroneous because the rationality of one's vote depends on other values, e.g. the satisfaction in participating in a vote or supporting one's party, the feeling/efficacy of "strength in numbers," etc. So, I wouldn't recommend ignorance or tanking the thread--from both economic perspectives (pos. and norm.).


Public Choice assumes that politicians (and bureaucrats) are as self-interested as all other individuals. In the late 1960s and 1970s, this school of economics took much criticism because many intellectuals assumed that politicians and bureaucrats were not self-interested (or were extremely altruistic and hardly selfish). Although it's obvious to us that politicians and bureaucrats are self-interested, it's an observation that we tend to forget. For example, whenever anyone supports a policy to be implemented by the government, they're assuming that the interests of the politicians and bureaucrats are aligned with the goals of that policy. In many cases, this assumption is discovered to be false, and the occurrence of unintended consequence can seem dumbfounding. (You'll see this assumption on TV, in speeches, and here on the fora).

In other words, even if you can codify a public policy, if the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats are not aligned with the policy, then they'll distort the policy, reject it, or implement it and (un)intentionally let it fail. The incentives faced by politicians and bureaucrats typically gear them toward not serving the interests of the public, but for the sake of brevity, I'll stop here. You can PM me if you like, or ask more questions here--whichever is more useful for you.

(2) Correction: The CBO is good enough for Congress, but it isn't good enough for assessing the effects of public policy over 330+ million people.

(3) Advice: take neoclassical economic predictions for an entire country or State with a grain of salt. The future is uncertain, and there are no constants in the social sciences/for human behavior; however, the methods of neoclassical economists neglect that, and then run into trouble when it's applied at the State/national level.

These are good points, but seem to exist solely to stymie discussion. If the future is so uncertain and the populace so large that economic predictions are doomed from the start, then what facts can we look at when discussing these issues? You mention "neoclassical" economics twice: is there an alternative form of prediction that can produce more accurate results, which the government/media does not utilize for some reason?

For public policy, Austrian Economics is not formalized, so it isn't tractable, which is a big problem for AE.

Nevertheless, the methodology and assumptions of neoclassical economics (Keynesian plus added revisions and other schools) base their "validity" on strong correlations and aggregative analysis, which produces a tractable yet inaccurate view of the economy--depending on how much one scales up the subject matter (one firm v. national economy). This explains why the central planners (Federal Reserve) create so many unintended consequences which they can't correct or predict.

The problem is that regardless of the accuracy of AE, the recommendation of AE is in a nutshell "the government must stay out of the economy," which politicians and bureaucrats don't find impressive because they're interested in looking for a science which confirms their necessity.

The theories within microeconomics yield predictions, but with complex phenomena, basically these predictions only show tendencies because all relevant factors cannot be formalized. The neoclassicists gloss over this problem with their macroeconomics (and aggregative analysis) and then proceed with "predicting" the future--based on their economic models which don't sync with reality.

For smaller firms, neoclassical economics is useful for future planning. For a nation of 330+ million people and with political and bureaucratic incentives at play, it's usefulness is extremely limited, but this doesn't matter if no one really understands how this works (which describes nearly all voters). Competitive predictions based on profit and loss incentives yields a more accurate, or self-correcting, mechanism for parting some of the fog of the future, but with the government, their predictions are monopolized (Federal Reserve, CBO, etc.) and even alongside other analysis, which is funded by the government, then the future won't be nearly as clear as the market-based predictions.

That's why you'll get guys like Barney Frank saying that there is no housing crisis on the horizon (2005), or you'll get Bernanke (Federal Reserve) saying all sorts of things contrary to the opinions and analysis of people in the market (see: Crash Proof 2.0).

(4) Just remember that when you put economics (any kind) into the hands of the government, then those politicians and bureaucrats tend to have a strong incentive to confirm their own bias, as in manipulate it for their own goals--regardless of the extravagance of the assumptions used in the economic analysis. It's like having the cigarette industry pay for experiments on whether or not tobacco leads to cancer.

(5) More honest analysis? ... What exactly are you looking for?

Absolutely, data can and will be skewed the moment it gets into a politician's hands. This was what led me to the CBO report in the first place-- it seemed like the best way to avoid these biases. I've since learned that, particularly in the wake of Ryan's VP nod, some Republicans consider the CBO untrustworthy. "Honest" was a poor word choice, I was more interested in finding out if there's an analysis that is even more non-partisan than the CBO.

The futures market is somewhat useful.
The stock market, and market for bonds can be useful.
So, papers which talk about these might yield what you're looking for (WSJ, Bloomberg).

As far as grand public policy is concerned, it's largely a joke---as we've seen with Paul Ryan's budget and its huge assumptions, and the same goes for Obama and any president with their Plan for the Future that tend to be very limited on details or which make grandiose assumptions.


For non-partisan institutes and think tanks, here's a list of 98 of them:

http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fello ... ost-search

You can find relevant criticism on public policy there, sort by category, etc.


http://mnfmi.org/category/climate-change/

That one analyzes the effects of regulation regarding the environment.