gut;1257677 wrote:You're really going to compare Ryan's experience to Obama? I guess when you're desperate you're left with diminishing accomplishments of others to prop-up Obama.

Uhhhh.... Obama has 3-1/2 years experience as POTUS. That is 3-1/2 years more experience than Romney and Ryan combined.

IggyPride00;1257685 wrote: It is easy to be for it when you don't have the power to make it happen (as has been the case the past few years). When you have the power though (as we saw from 2000-06) the temptation to expand government proved to be too intoxicating to pass up for him and many like him in Congress.

That will be the true test of his new conversion to fiscal conservatism and whether it was more than just lip service to get elected.

Fair enough, but good politicians evolve...smart people change views based on new information (why I've always found the "flip-flop" disparagements a bit puzzling).

I'd also point out that your comparing his positions/voting in 2000-2006 as a relatively junior member isn't probably entirely fair. We all know how Congress works with junior members. Sure, he lacks business experience but Romney doesn't. I think the two have complementary skills and experience.

HitsRus;1257593 wrote:^^^^yeah....like you actually watched.

I have, (some). It's good for the LULZ in small increments of exposure.

I will limit my watching to some that may have an impact in the future after this November. Ryan and romney will pretty much be off the radar in December.

Devils Advocate;1257704 wrote:Uhhhh.... Obama has 3-1/2 years experience as POTUS. That is 3-1/2 years more experience than Romney and Ryan combined.

Looks to me like mostly 3.5 more years of campaigning and golfing. And looking at his track record, I don't think we need to let him accumulate any more experience. When you're incapable and incompetent, you don't gain or learn anything from experience, just fail and flail around (which pretty much sums up Obama's record of leadership).

gut;1257711 wrote:Looks to me like mostly 3.5 more years of campaigning and golfing. And looking at his track record, I don't think we need to let him accumulate any more experience. When you're incapable and incompetent, you don't gain or learn anything from experience, just fail and flail around (which pretty much sums up Obama's record of leadership).

Since you do not want to talk about experience ( I know why, It's OK ) Lets talk about vacations and golf

From CBS 8/18

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

I guess he has under performed there as well.

You really want to compare experience? Obama had TWO years in the Senate. That's it. His record as an executive is abysmal. Obama and his supporters can't play the experience card.

Ryan has 14 years in Congress. Romney has an extensive business record and a term as governor in MA. Both dwarf Obama's experience and accomplishments when he got elected.

Honest question, what has Obama accomplished that remotely makes you want to vote for him again? Are you hoping now that he can finally stop campaigning that he might actually do his job?

Are you hoping now that he can finally stop campaigning that he might actually do his job?

Neither of these guys is going to get a chance to govern if elected.

Neither party has any shot at getting 60 senators, and whoever is in the minority will filibuster absolutely any and everything as the past few years have shown how potent a tool it is to the party out of power as a means of getting it back.

Willard gets elected, won't be able to pass anything since he won't have 60 Senate votes (BHO couldn't get shit done with 59 Senators for that reason), and then the Dems retake the House in the 2014 mid terms on the backs of the argument the guy hasn't fixed anything. That is the new playbook.

IggyPride00;1257737 wrote:Neither of these guys is going to get a chance to govern if elected.

Neither party has any shot at getting 60 senators, and whoever is in the minority will filibuster absolutely any and everything as the past few years have shown how potent a tool it is to the party out of power as a means of getting it back.

Willard gets elected, won't be able to pass anything since he won't have 60 Senate votes (BHO couldn't get **** done with 59 Senators for that reason), and then the Dems retake the House in the 2014 mid terms on the backs of the argument the guy hasn't fixed anything. That is the new playbook.

Except that democrats are being purged en masse, i.e. 2010 and again in 2012. Thus, even if the repub's do not get to 60 senators (although they could), I think that enough dem's (say, 4-6) will have seen the writing on the walls to end the standoff and start doing the people's work. Otherwise, they will be next in getting the pink slips. The tide is shifting, and the economic realities are going to take hold.

BTW, Ryan and Rice were absolutely brilliant last night, as expected.

It is over for obama/biden.

IggyPride00;1257737 wrote: Neither party has any shot at getting 60 senators, and whoever is in the minority will filibuster absolutely any and everything as the past few years have shown

That's not actually true. Harry Houdini has used failed votes to block a filibuster to derail anything coming to the floor. The filibuster itself has not been used nearly as much, Harry has just used the pretense of the threat of filibuster to prevent debate and voting (so his members facing re-election don't have to go on record on tough decisions).

Just another fraudulent excuse for the massive failures of leadership from the Axis of Incompetence.

Devils Advocate;1257704 wrote:Uhhhh.... Obama has 3-1/2 years experience as POTUS. That is 3-1/2 years more experience than Romney and Ryan combined.

By the time I'm in a job that long, I'm usually pretty good at it. Too bad we can't say that here.

"and then the Dems retake the House in the 2014 mid terms on the backs of the argument the guy hasn't fixed anything. "

It is hard for me to see that happening by '14. The DEMS may control Cali, NY, etc. in the electoral college but are they gaining in the legislative branch? If anything I see the GOP making gains in Congress.

Ryan and Rice were brilliant ........ how refreshing to hear smart people put it all out there without media filter.

obama/biden are toast.

queencitybuckeye;1257749 wrote:By the time I'm in a job that long, I'm usually pretty good at it. Too bad we can't say that here.

To be fair, you probably didn't spend those 3.5 years still trying to convince your employer to hire you.

it's kind of gross to see all the slobbering over a guy who got up on the podium and lied (Ryan), all because people want to believe the lie. I hate conventions, both sides just spout out crap without fear of rebuttal, trying to throw the most shit on the wall and hoping it will stick.

Devils Advocate;1257704 wrote:Uhhhh.... Obama has 3-1/2 years experience as POTUS. That is 3-1/2 years more experience than Romney and Ryan combined.

What kind of experience did Obama have when he ran back in 2008?

Here are 5 GOP platform issues other than the abortion and gay marriage issues that are worth checking out.

Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.

Everyone on the Chatter knows how big this problem is! LOL

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.

The resources of the federal government’s law enforcement and judicial systems have been strained by two unfortunate expansions: the overcriminalization of behavior and the over-federalization of offenses. The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to over 4,450 by 2008. Federal criminal law should focus on acts by federal employees or acts committed on federal property – and leave the rest to the States. Then Congress should withdraw from federal departments and agencies the power to criminalize behavior, a practice which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has created “tens of thousands” of criminal offenses.

Is the war on drugs over?

In any restructuring of federal taxation, to guard against hypertaxation of the American people, any value added tax or national sales tax must be tied to the simultaneous repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which established the federal income tax.

Bad idea!

Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

"None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers— a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free, but us."

P. Ryan, 8/29/12


Amen, brother.

gut;1257677 wrote:You're really going to compare Ryan's experience to Obama? I guess when you're desperate you're left with diminishing accomplishments of others to prop-up Obama.

And I'd offer there's a HUGE difference between the two - Ryan actually knows what he's talking about while Obama fooled many, many voters with his magic teleprompter.

LMAO at your calling Ryan's budget a "fairy tale" that will "explode the deficit" when you solution is MORE govt spending, ignoring the keynesian economics is failing all over the globe. It's not surprising to me that "more is less" is a concept completely foreign to you. The govt can't grow the economy when the multiplier is so clearly less than 1 (perhaps even negative), which recent empirical evidence pretty clearly illustrates.

Neat that you continue to play with the truth as much as Paul Ryan did last night.

1. Ryan IS as inexperienced as President Obama was. At least Paul Ryan is going for Veep instead of the top but he is inexperienced. BUT, you will give him a pass (despite constantly lamenting BHO's lack of experience) because he spews your pro-growth supply-side nonsense.

2. "Ryan knows what he's talking about" is why you'll give him a pass for being an un-experienced Washington insider. Even though, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The guy has basically advocated returning to non-paper money which you yourself have ridiculed.

3. Keynesian economics isn't "failing all over the globe." The fact that you have said this multiple times is really something. It's becoming clear that despite your condescending attitude you really just play for team republican. It is the attempt to reign in deficits during depressed economic conditions that is failing. Mark your beliefs to market and not your bias against countries with large welfare-states (which isn't keynesianism) which you seem to fail to understand (nevermind that it is countries with the weakest welfare states that are doing the worst...because that's right the problems you're alluding to have nothing to do with welfare states and/or keynesianism but monetary union without fiscal union but we've been over this and it matters not to you).

4. Ryan's budget IS deficit exploding...but all deficit spending is not equal; (See below) but you're totally ok with giving him a pass for it even though YOU'RE the one who is a deficit scold! It is a fairy tale and it's time the "fiscal hawks" start bringing the politicians in the party of "fiscal discipline" to account. Otherwise the Republicans offer nothing but woefully inefficient and misapplied Keynesianism soaked in a disdain for the unemployed and the "moocher class"...drastically worse than the even the Democrat's mediocre inefficient tax cut oriented version. After all we're still wondering why Republicans agree that military budget cuts would contract the economy rather than inspire confidence and therefore private investment and consumption?

I mean I might take you seriously if you'd repudiate the GOP's deficit exploding plans like a Ron Paul voter might or something. It'd be one thing there work Howard Taft style republicans who took on keynesianism with a budget-hawk approach but that's just not the case. I mean you've got QuakerOats saying deficits should warrant the death penalty but he's gonna vote for guys that propose exploding the deficit???:laugh:

5. LOL the multiplier is NOT "clearly less than one": What Ryan proposes to explode the deficit; lower marginal rates; has a low multiplier. 0.29 according to actual recent research by Moody's whereas something as benign as Food Stamps which basically pays people to sit on their ass has a multiplier of 1.73 according to the same; Infrastructure spending that crowds-in private investment when interest rates are at the zero lower bound and there's no rationing by the government for something like a war effort has well demonstrated multipliers but hey public management is a priori inefficient and incompetent and someone as grossly as incompetent as President Obama only exacerbates that problem no doubt.

But, a lot of the above is a sidetrack from the thread topic.


The RNC has demonstrated that Republicans are flat out willing to lie as they think there are no consequences (and there apparently aren't). Paul Ryan's speech was amazingly dishonest. But hey they can get 60% of the white male vote just by having an Oklahoman governor declare that individualism founded Oklahoma and not really the Federal Army throwing out Native Americans and the federal Homestead and Railroad Act's. The damn theme for the convention is based on a mendacious lie about a poorly worded statement by the president.


This is what has become of the party of William F. Buckley Jr. and it is a shame if you ask me.

quaker, sometimes I read what you type and I can't tell if you're the greatest troll of all time or an insane person. kudos either way

QuakerOats;1257742 wrote:Except that democrats are being purged en masse, i.e. 2010 and again in 2012. Thus, even if the repub's do not get to 60 senators (although they could), I think that enough dem's (say, 4-6) will have seen the writing on the walls to end the standoff and start doing the people's work. Otherwise, they will be next in getting the pink slips. The tide is shifting, and the economic realities are going to take hold.

Unlikely. The republicans were purged en masse and they didn't see the writing on the wall. In fact, their intransigence was rewarded. There's no doubt democrats will do the same thing...and if history is any guide, they'll pick up seats in 2014. Perpetual dysfunction.

Here we go; Gut the "Fiscal Hawk" derides Barack Obama's proposal to cut $4 trillion from the debt over the next decade (which was stonewalled by Paul Ryan) because it's not enough. Then, Gut the "Fiscal Hawk" praises Paul Ryan who proposed a plan that will add $5 trillion to the debt of the next decade. :laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1yTY2MciOk&feature=player_embedded#!

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote:Neat that you continue to play with the truth as much as Paul Ryan did last night.

1. Ryan IS as inexperienced as President Obama was. At least Paul Ryan is going for Veep instead of the top but he is inexperienced. BUT, you will give him a pass (despite constantly lamenting BHO's lack of experience) because he spews your pro-growth supply-side nonsense.

What bullshit. By definition, NO ONE but a POTUS up for re-election is experienced. And that's a stupid argument. Obama's lack of experience has to do with leadership and politics - umpteen years as a community organizer and 2 years in the Senate. Romney and Ryan both are far more accomplished and experience. That's not spin or a lie, it's absolute fact. Yeah, Obama has 3.5 years as POTUS...3.5 worthless, disastrous years.

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote: 2. "Ryan knows what he's talking about" is why you'll give him a pass for being an un-experienced Washington insider. Even though, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The guy has basically advocated returning to non-paper money which you yourself have ridiculed.

Again, Ryan is not inexperienced, ESPECIALLY when compared to Obama in 2008 and even now. You're continued effort to obfuscate the facts doesn't change that.

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote: 3. Keynesian economics isn't "failing all over the globe." The fact that you have said this multiple times is really something. .

It is absolutely. I'm not sure what the hell you're reading or what data you're looking at that says otherwise, but it's pretty clear to most people not named Krugman.

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote: 4. Ryan's budget IS deficit exploding...but all deficit spending is not equal;

No, Obama's "budget" (since we haven't had one) are deficit exploding. 20% of GDP does not go far enough, but I prefer not to bleed out while waiting for solutions. Apologies for cutting the rest of your nonsensical rant here, but it is humorous to see you defend Keynsian economics while railing on Ryan's budget as deficit exploding. Yes, not all deficit spending is create equal. What we've gotten from Obama has equaled pretty much nothing. I've tried to explain to you that you are confusing the effects of capital markets and general economic growth with "austrian" measures. Canada did it successfully. Rarely in business or anywhere does throwing money at sinkhole problems work, yet this is what you continue to pound on the table. It's obvious from your repeated denial of the Obama overhang that you know little of how successful businesses operate.

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote: I mean I might take you seriously if you'd repudiate the GOP's deficit exploding plans like a Ron Paul voter might or something. It'd be one thing there work Howard Taft style republicans who took on keynesianism with a budget-hawk approach but that's just not the case. I mean you've got QuakerOats saying deficits should warrant the death penalty but he's gonna vote for guys that propose exploding the deficit???:laugh:

More obfuscation. You have a simpleton's view in which there are only two extreme choices - massive austerity (which NO ONE is advocating even though it's your favorite strawman here) or massive spending increases. I'm going with the choice that is closer to the middle with hope it gets us moving in the right direction.

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote: 5. LOL the multiplier is NOT "clearly less than one": What Ryan proposes to explode the deficit; lower marginal rates; has a low multiplier. 0.29 according to actual recent research by Moody's whereas something as benign as Food Stamps which basically pays people to sit on their ass has a multiplier of 1.73 according to the same; Infrastructure spending that crowds-in private investment when interest rates are at the zero lower bound and there's no rationing by the government for something like a war effort has well demonstrated multipliers but hey public management is a priori inefficient and incompetent and someone as grossly as incompetent as President Obama only exacerbates that problem no doubt.

Oh dear lord. Without commenting on the fuzzy math of multipliers, what are you reading that claims the stimulus deficit spending has a multiplier greater than 1 (which, by the way, is actually wasteful when factoring in interest). If you just look at the most basic of economic data you have to be on crack to think the multiplier is over 1. The most massive spending increases in history and yet we've had the most anemic recovery, in relative and absolute terms. Where the hell is the multiplier effect? Growth less than 2%....Unemployment in the tens of millions...Where is this magical effect you refer to? Oh, that's right, you'll say it wasn't enough. But there's not some magical tipping point, there's 0 evidence we've gotten any return on all this spending.

Funny thing is, I used to be a believer in Keysian economics. But I see now it has limits. I've looked at the data and changed my position. To be fair, we've never practiced the surplus side of Keynesian economics. But that is PRECISELY why it is failing now. This should be so obvious, and it's why more spending isn't going to work. It's so obvious that the more crap you pile on the plate, the more people that leave the table. That's why there's no multiplier benefit.

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote: The RNC has demonstrated that Republicans are flat out willing to lie as they think there are no consequences (and there apparently aren't). Paul Ryan's speech was amazingly dishonest. But hey they can get 60% of the white male vote just by having an Oklahoman governor declare that individualism founded Oklahoma and not really the Federal Army throwing out Native Americans and the federal Homestead and Railroad Act's. The damn theme for the convention is based on a mendacious lie about a poorly worded statement by the president.

There was some spin and deception. Par for the course in politics. It's hypocritical - and even more comical - to pretend it's one-sided (especially when some of the "lies" are only outted by lies from the other side). When you refuse to acknowledge the game on both sides, you pretty clearly out your bias and ignorance (if it already wasn't blatantly clear from the rest of your post).

BoatShoes;1257835 wrote:Here we go; Gut the "Fiscal Hawk" derides Barack Obama's proposal to cut $4 trillion from the debt over the next decade (which was stonewalled by Paul Ryan) because it's not enough. Then, Gut the "Fiscal Hawk" praises Paul Ryan who proposed a plan that will add $5 trillion to the debt of the next decade. :laugh:

LMAO. Source? At what point do you stop listening to what Obama says and start looking at the record of what he's done? $5-6T in new debt. I don't care what partisan or biased fuzzy math he tries to bring to the table, or I guess it seems you only get concerned about "lies" coming from one side. LMFAO, Obama is going to "cut $4T from debt", as oppsoed to LOWER growth in spending? The guy hasn't come close to even $500B from a balanced budget, and you think he's going to LOWER debt?!?!?!?!? C'mon, I thought you were smarter than that. It would be a minor miracle if another 4 years of Obama doesn't add another $3T+ in debt.

This is what I know: Obama will have 24-25% of GDP spending, an impossible amount to sustain. Ryan/Romney are targeting 20%, which still likely leaves a gap. Like I said, I choose not to bleed out before help arrives.

No need to obsfuscate, spin or deceive. It's that simple. Obama is a failure that has to go. That simple.