Who is Paul Ryan and what does he stand for?

[thegreekdog]

Most statists have a good idea on how to keep those programs going - tax people more. I'm just saying, it's not like statists don't have ideas in mind; it's just that politicians don't like saying "let's raise taxes" because then their chances of reelection dwindle.

Then it would be dishonest and deceptive to not run on that plank. So most statists politicians (presuming they aren't Walter Mondale) are deceptive and dishonest.

You misspelled "politicians" there.

Since most politicans, Republican and Democrat (including all major party presidential and vice presidential candidates) are statists, I agree with Woodruff's spelling correction.

Not anymore! All the freshman from 2010 are different. Just imagine the majority of the House of Representatives whose majority of seats who have only been in place for 2 years or less.....

I think that is the best thing we can hope for. I think that absolutely qualifies as "throwing the bums out"

I will reserve my judgment for 2014.

[patches70]

Unholy Cuts: The Bishops Decry Ryan Budget

On Tuesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a series of stern letters to Republican committee chairman in the House. The subject was proposed cuts to programs like food stamps and housing assistance, consistent with the overall spending blueprint that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan has put forward. The message: Don’t slash the safety net, particularly if you’re doing so to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.

Major reductions at this time of economic turmoil and rising poverty will hurt hungry, poor and vulnerable people in our nation and around the world … The bishops’ conference acknowledges the difficult challenges that Congress, the Administration and government at all levels face to match scarce resources with growing needs. A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all. ...

With other Christian leaders, we urge the committee to draw a “circle of protection” around resources that serve those in greatest need and put their needs first even though they do not have powerful advocates or great influence.”

You guys probably saw Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, where the discussion was about the Catholic Conference and their position on Ryan. While Ryan claims that his faith shaped his budget, these Bishops don't seem to believe him. He's getting some seriously lukewarm reception from Catholics with his stance issues like gay rights, the poor, and birth control. What's your view?

Interesting you using the above line. We all know what your view is....

[Juan_Bottom]

I can assure you all that I've said much worse things than that about Christianity in several places. But you can also clearly see that I didn't inject my personal views about Ryan's religion in my post. This is a thread about Paul Ryan and what he stands for, and his own church's opinions of him are important.

It is odd though that nobody is actually defending Ryan here. Like Fox New's said, I also think that CC's general opinion of Paul Ryan is a negative one.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.