This an interesting perspective with a twist. Anita seems to think that Ryan's economic policies will make up for his anti-Choice (ie ProLife) beliefs. I can't argue that if he can save the USA way of life and reverse the National Debt trend, she may be right for many women. However, I am pretty sure the single Mothers with dependent children, and those that want an abortion won't feel very supported as he is cutting their supports systems and rights. CNN Not Bad for Women
Now the twist is that apparently the author and Ryan both were beneficiaries of the Social Security death benefit. Which I perceive as one of those Government programs that would go away if Social Security was privatized. I mean normal Conservative folks buy life insurance, they don't rely on Government insurance.
Since I picked on Obama about his skimpy giving in the past, it appears that Ryan may have been even worse. He may need to confess his stinginess the next time he goes to church now that it is public record. Reuters Ryan Returns He definitely tarnishes the concept of charitable Conservative Christians.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I object to your notion of "cutting their support systems and rights." There can be no right to do that which is wrong, to quote Alan Keyes, and furthermore, there can be no right to demand that I (and taxpayers generally) pay for it. If you want to have a child out of wedlock, that's your affair, and if you can't work because of that, that's your affair, too. And if you choose to kill the baby to avoid those natural consequences, that is your affair, though many think it is exactly that-- killing a child-- and should be highly restricted, at least. If Ryan succeeds in removing the incentives for all of these irresponsible choices, what's the problem? It certainly isn't that some "right" has been taken away.
J. Ewing
There is no real reason to think Paul Ryan is a deficit hawk. He voted for the measures like the Bush tax cuts, that are most directly responsible for the latest deficit plunge. Paul isn't really from the anti deficit wing of the Republican Party, he is from the Jack Kemp wing, which believes in their heart of hearts, that growth is what matters and that we can grow our way out of government deficits.
--Hiram
J, Welcome back. I was starting to worry we had lost you or you were injured.
My take is that Roe vs Wade has verified that it is a Right, though it looks like the GOP wants to change that. GOP Abortion Plank Also, apparently Ryan is in Akin's camp regarding no exceptions allowed.
So much for getting Government out of our personal lives and Doctor/Patient relationships....
Hiram,
You are probably correct, he does seem to have that Reagan / Bush zeal about him. And we know that really grew the Debt.
Which begs the question, how does one rapidly grow the economy when it is the Lion's share of the world economy.
I have not been at all persuaded that the Romney-Ryan economic plan will lead to growth and jobs and least of all deficit reduction.
If they would eliminate the massive tax cuts for the wealthy I might get slightly nervous about their chance of winning. But as it stands it is very clear they are not serious about deficit reduction.
I think only brainwashed (Fox viewers) or poorly informed women will be voting for them.
Do we really believe that the problem with the economy is that at 20 million a year, Mitt Romney isn't making enough in take home pay? That if we threw him an extra million or two, money paid for with increased taxes on the rest of us, he would suddenly create jobs for Americans?
--Hiram
so many errors, so little time...
Paul Ryan's plan is not sufficiently hawkish on the deficit, but it's the best plan to have passed either side of Congress since 2008. Democrats have no proposal at all.
The only way we get out of debt, realistically, is to completely reform spending and then grow the economy.
Thinking we can't grow the economy is wrong. US economic growth doesn't depend on "taking it away" from other nations, we can "bake a bigger pie."
Roe v. Wade established that it is a "right" only to the point where a second (viable) human life is involved, and that after that states may regulate. The GOP plank goes further, but the Democrat plank goes to the opposite extreme.
And yes, "tax cuts for the rich," would lead to more employment. Did you ever get a job working for a poor guy? No. Whatever Romney might do with that money-- spend or invest-- would lead to jobs for somebody, somewhere. Money sent to DC simply goes into a black hole and produces nothing.
And something you haven't thought of. The CBO says that unless Congress stops the biggest tax hike in history on Jan. 1, the economy is headed for a deep recession-- the "double dip." So much for the idea that raising taxes is going to solve anything.
J. Ewing
I agree that the pie can be made bigger. The question is at what rate? And what constrains that rate? When you dominate the pie, your rate is likely limited by the other portions more than your own workings. (ie trading partners)
I haven't heard of the Democrats arguing for softer abortion laws? Just the Republicans trying to remove that personal freedom of choice. (ie Government KNOWS best)
Government spending may not always be efficient, however it certainly employees people. The Metrodome remodel will definitely generate jobs. Even the Light rail and bike trail projects have that benefit.
The problem is that Ryan does nothing to reform spending. He advocates an increase in defense spending, and proposes no cost cutting with respect to health care, that part of the budget really driving the deficit.
Meanwhile, the Romney tax plan does nothing more than lower taxes for the wealthy, tax cuts to be paid for by the rest of us in higher, not lower taxes.
==Hiram
I always wonder about the efficiency of the private sector, the one that pays Mitt Romney 20 million dollars a year despite the fact that he hasn't worked in it, since 1999. And I wonder about the efficiency of a private sector that apparently paid Mitt a high salary for a no show job between 1999 to 2001.
Didn't anyone notice he wasn't coming into the office anymore?
==Hiram
Wash Times Double Dip
I assume this is what J was alluding to. To me it sounds like there are many factors involved here. It seems the DFL is ready to extended 90% of the "low" Bush tax rates, yet the Republicans are stalling to protect their Patrons.
It also indicates that cutting Gov't spending is another key factor in promoting the double dip. Yet Republicans want to cut that spending.
Being deficit averse, let's leave things as they are and see what happens. Though I wouldn't mind if this healthcare program/cost was reversed.
The Republican attempt to destroy America's economy last summer, by dishonoring our debt had a short term political objective, to wreck the presidency of Barack Obama. No such immediate motive will be in place after the presidential election. That being the case, one would hope that Congress would find away around the Congress. If they don't, there might not be a Congress in the very near future.
==Hiram
Come now, no one was trying to destroy America's economy. It was just a very high stakes game of negotiation. Each side trying to achieve what they believe is best for America.
Come now, no one was trying to destroy America's economy.
Republicans were trying to dishonor America's debt which would have destroyed America's (and the world's economy). It's as simple as that. They were quire sincere.
--Hiram
If that was their goal...
Why didn't they succeed?
They were in control.
Why didn't they succeed?
The Republican view could not command majorities as Congress was then constituted.
Post a Comment