Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

A Libertarian's Critique of Paul Ryan

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 9:29:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You'd think libertarians would be head over heels in love with Paul Ryan based on his reputation as a serious budget cutter, but I think he leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, I think his proposed budget plan is more or less the same as Obama's in terms of how much we spend, how much we cut, ballooning the crippling debt, spending trillions more than we take in, etc. Both Obama's and Ryan's plans increase spending by trillions of dollars over several years; Ryan's happens to increase it slightly less than Obama's does. Here are the numbers:

The Ryan budget plan says that we will spend $3.6 trillion this year while bringing in $2.4 trillion in 2012. Obama's budget says has us spending $3.8 trillion in 2012 and bringing in $2.5 trillion. Ryan would have us spend $3.5 trillion in 2013 and $4.9 trillion in 2022; Obama would have us spend $3.8 trillion in 2013 and $5.8 trillion in 2022. Ryan's plan has GDP over the next 10 years averaging 20 percent of GDP with revenue amounting to 18.3 percent; Obama's has spending at 22.5 percent of GDP with revenues at 19.2 percent. So contrasting those numbers, I see that Ryan's plan is more fiscally responsible than Obama's, but barely; so yeah, I support his plan over Obama's, but it's only marginally better, increases spending by the trillions either way, and still has us spending more than we take in. Neither plan even considers balancing the federal budget in 10 years. Ryan's plan would eliminate the budget deficit... By 2040.

Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years. He voted for No Child Left Behind, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D - Bush's prescription-drug entitlement, which added over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the national tab - and he strongly supported the auto and bank bailouts. Ryan's track record is literally antithetical to free market, small government, budget cutting/balancing economics, and totally in line with the supposedly "liberal" expansion of the federal government's role in economic affairs.

In terms of foreign policy, Ryan has supported all the Bush and Obama wars; he even voted against winding down the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2011. His budget proposes an actual increase in defense spending. As Gene Healy writes in Reason magazine:

"Wars aren't free: We've spent over $1.3 trillion in direct outlays on the War on Terror abroad, with the true cost much higher. The Pentagon makes up about 19 percent of the federal budget. If you leave it off the table, as Ryan does, you're just not serious about staving off fiscal Armageddon."

As Joseph Sobran said, "War is just one more big government program." And as Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." It is clear that Ryan's consistent support of policing the world with bombs and bullets in illegal, endless, bloody, costly wars are inconsistent with a true advocacy for small government and responsible, "conservative" economics. War provides the greatest incentive for the government to grow and massively restrict civil liberties.

But then again, Ryan aggressively promotes the government's restricting of our liberties, so his support for war is at least consistent with that. Ryan voted for the Patriot Act and all its extensions, the NDAA (bill authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens who are "suspected terrorists", without trial), the war on drugs, etc.

It is my conclusion as someone who favors true fiscal conservatism, not rhetoric alone, that in terms of fiscal policy, foreign policy, and civil liberties, Paul Ryan is very nearly as pro-big government and anti-freedom as Barack Obama has proven to be... probably even more so on foreign policy and civil liberties. In short, he is a libertarian's worst nightmare.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 9:32:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 9:29:28 PM, jat93 wrote:
He voted for No Child Left Behind, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D - Bush's prescription-drug entitlement, which added over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the national tab - and he strongly supported the auto and bank bailouts. Ryan's track record is literally antithetical to free market, small government, budget cutting/balancing economics, and totally in line with the supposedly "liberal" expansion of the federal government's role in economic affairs.

0_0 my brain just sh*t itself
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 9:38:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll just say this about the budget thing...

Romney acknowledges that large, sudden cuts to the budget would hurt the economy. I don't think this is really something that we don't agree on. We can't cut a trillion from our GDP during a recession/slow growth and expect daisies.

But, I am glad to see a plan that does slowly back off the spending, and even eliminate the debt. Yeah, his plan would take a while, but heading toward no debt is much better than not.

The thing I think is important is that Romney and Ryan are both advocating new rules that would, long term, keep us from getting into this kind of spending mess again.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 12:43:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 9:38:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The thing I think is important is that Romney and Ryan are both advocating new rules that would, long term, keep us from getting into this kind of spending mess again.

That's idealism if I've ever seen it. What makes you think a) they can implement all of their proposed policies, or b) that they will remain unchanged over the next 30 years in order to see if their proposal would work anyhow? I don't remember the last time one party held significant dominance for that lengthy of a period of time.

Even if you prefer Ryan's politics, I think the point of the OP is that it's wrong to consider Paul Ryan a fiscal conservative when he certainly is not. The media constantly refers to him as a "fiscal hawk" and many on Fox News and MSNBC alike say he's practically a Libertarian. I believe the OP proves why he isn't. It's fine to say you like his plan over Obama's, but people shouldn't be misled (since everyone accepts whatever the pundits say as fact) to believe that he's Libertarian-friendly. He says Ayn Rand inspires him. She was for small government, and he is not - neither in terms of economic or social freedoms.

He's being portrayed that way because the Republican party needs to tap into both of its biggest subgroups: the backwards rednecks (God Hates Fagz people) and the Tea Party. Ryan's a Catholic who is completely against LGBT rights and opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. I'm sure the people in Kentucky will love that about him. I only hope that the Tea Party people look into his voting record and actual budget rather than just assume he shares similar economic ideals.

The numbers prove his budget is only slightly better (maybe) in terms of figures. But I also think there are aspects to Obama's plan that may give the U.S. an edge in terms of other factors that contribute to strengthening the economy - eg. better education investments, etc. And do I really buy that lowering corporate tax rates will keep companies here on American soil? NO. Obviously not. Companies are going to go overseas because it's cheaper even with all of the tax breaks. Why? Because other countries have a lower standard of living and will work for much smaller wages. Period. So lol @ all of the Republicans who believe that nonsense about how employers would suddenly be willing to decrease their profits in order to create jobs in the U.S. if only it weren't for those silly taxes.

Anyway, I support neither candidate (obviously). But in terms of the lesser of the two evils, I believe it's blatantly obvious which side is definitely the more evil.
President of DDO
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 6:13:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paul Ryan =/= fiscal conservative
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 6:35:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Ryan Plan balances the budget in about 16 years; Obama has no plan to ever balance the budget. Ryan restores Medicare to fiscal soundness; Obama's idea is to cut reimbursements to doctors and hospitals while keeping user benefits the same -- that's a guaranteed disaster.

Ryan proposes tax simplification, working towards a flat tax. That's extremely important. the myriad of loopholes serves to move capital from more productive investment to less productive investments to gain tax advantages. the tax system is so complex that investment in the US is avoided to avoid the huge overhead to parsing the tax code and filing. Reagan cut tax rates and closed loopholes, with the result that revenues increased.

The Obama projections are wildly optimistic because he assumes that investment will not move loopholes to avoid the higher rates. Rather than getting the extra revenue, revenues will likely drop. Obama admitted as much in a Q&A years ago.

No budget plan will work unless the economy starts growing. The major factor holding back the economy is not taxes, it is regulation. Dodd-Frank forbids most loans to small business to save the banks from risks. 70% of recovery jobs usually come from small business. Not this time. Looming Obamacare regulations inhibit hiring. energy prices are kept high by restricting fossil fuel development and use. The Administration is writing 10,000 pages of new regs per month (2.5x Bush rate), and if he is reelected, the rate will likely soar.

Ryan is clearly on the side of deregulating. Obama wants to achieve the socialist ideal of directing the economy to accomplish "social justice." He is working to achieve the goal through regulation rather than seizing industry outright.

The notion that libertarians do not believe in military defense is not an accurate generalizations. Libertarians differ. Promoting the idea of a free market in nuclear arms is a guaranteed way to lose elections.

The idea that Ryan and Obama are about the same requires one to believe that the economy is a zero-sum game. Under that thinking, money is only rearranged, but wealth is never created. That's false. In fact, freeing the economy is by far the most important factor.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 1:10:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:35:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Ryan Plan balances the budget in about 16 years; Obama has no plan to ever balance the budget. Ryan restores Medicare to fiscal soundness; Obama's idea is to cut reimbursements to doctors and hospitals while keeping user benefits the same -- that's a guaranteed disaster.

Ryan proposes tax simplification, working towards a flat tax. That's extremely important. the myriad of loopholes serves to move capital from more productive investment to less productive investments to gain tax advantages. the tax system is so complex that investment in the US is avoided to avoid the huge overhead to parsing the tax code and filing. Reagan cut tax rates and closed loopholes, with the result that revenues increased.

The Obama projections are wildly optimistic because he assumes that investment will not move loopholes to avoid the higher rates. Rather than getting the extra revenue, revenues will likely drop. Obama admitted as much in a Q&A years ago.

No budget plan will work unless the economy starts growing. The major factor holding back the economy is not taxes, it is regulation. Dodd-Frank forbids most loans to small business to save the banks from risks. 70% of recovery jobs usually come from small business. Not this time. Looming Obamacare regulations inhibit hiring. energy prices are kept high by restricting fossil fuel development and use. The Administration is writing 10,000 pages of new regs per month (2.5x Bush rate), and if he is reelected, the rate will likely soar.

Ryan is clearly on the side of deregulating. Obama wants to achieve the socialist ideal of directing the economy to accomplish "social justice." He is working to achieve the goal through regulation rather than seizing industry outright.

The notion that libertarians do not believe in military defense is not an accurate generalizations. Libertarians differ. Promoting the idea of a free market in nuclear arms is a guaranteed way to lose elections.

The idea that Ryan and Obama are about the same requires one to believe that the economy is a zero-sum game. Under that thinking, money is only rearranged, but wealth is never created. That's false. In fact, freeing the economy is by far the most important factor.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 5:42:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The biggest problem is the fact that he voted to make the Patriot Act permanent, voted against medical marijuana, supports the military industrial complex and imperialism.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:31:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:55:40 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
@walstreetatheist, Two minutes into the video the guy had not said anything about Ryan. Is there anything relevant in there?

^^^
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:33:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:31:05 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:40 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
@walstreetatheist, Three and a bit minutes into the video the guy had not said anything about Ryan. Is there anything relevant in there?

^^^
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:51:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm a libertarian and a traditionalist, but I'm only a traditionalist in the sense that I believe that the U.S Constitution should be revered and followed in both spirit and letter. Every four years we're faced with a choice between fiscial responsibility and civil liberties, i.e, Republicans or Democrats; that is putting it into simple terms.

Both parties have failed to deliver what they promised, and we've spent ourselves into a hole that will likely take decades to crawl out of. This election we're faced with a choice between someone that pays lip service to balancing the budget, and someone that has a plan to balance the budget. Is his plan perfect?-no, because it increases military spending and doesn't balance the budget fast enough.

He has a plan though to balance the budget though, and it is a realistic one. While I don't like his stance on abortion or gay marriage, those issues are not nearly as important to me as balancing the budget and paying off the debt. I'll take the man with the plan over the man that just talks.

Don't get me wrong, I will always support the Libertarian Party. I'm voting libertarian, and if there was a libertarian running locally I would support him as well. Until libertarianism can stand on its too legs though, us libertarians will need to pick the man that has the most realistic plan for enhancing economic and political freedom. Right now that man is running on the Republican ticket.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:03:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:51:30 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I'm a libertarian and a traditionalist, but I'm only a traditionalist in the sense that I believe that the U.S Constitution should be revered and followed in both spirit and letter. Every four years we're faced with a choice between fiscial responsibility and civil liberties, i.e, Republicans or Democrats; that is putting it into simple terms.

Both parties have failed to deliver what they promised, and we've spent ourselves into a hole that will likely take decades to crawl out of. This election we're faced with a choice between someone that pays lip service to balancing the budget, and someone that has a plan to balance the budget. Is his plan perfect?-no, because it increases military spending and doesn't balance the budget fast enough.

He has a plan though to balance the budget though, and it is a realistic one. While I don't like his stance on abortion or gay marriage, those issues are not nearly as important to me as balancing the budget and paying off the debt. I'll take the man with the plan over the man that just talks.

Don't get me wrong, I will always support the Libertarian Party. I'm voting libertarian, and if there was a libertarian running locally I would support him as well. Until libertarianism can stand on its too legs though, us libertarians will need to pick the man that has the most realistic plan for enhancing economic and political freedom. Right now that man is running on the Republican ticket.

Just because Ryan has a plan it doesnt mean it wont

a) fall short of expectations (Same thing happened to Obama in 2008 when he promised economic reform

b) be compromised to make it pass into law (laws need bipartisian support to be passed oterwise it would be shot down)

c) be approved at all since the Dems could control the Senate after the election

d) be the top priority in office as it was during the campaign. (When Bush was elected his primary foreign policy concern was to make a missile shield in Eastern Europe against Russia, but then 9/11 happened and things changed)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:06:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:35:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
No budget plan will work unless the economy starts growing. The major factor holding back the economy is not taxes, it is regulation. Dodd-Frank forbids most loans to small business to save the banks from risks.

The Volcker Rule, a section in the Dodd-Frank bill that forbids banks from using money from insured deposits to finance proprietary trading, will force banks to step up lending to small businesses in order to make money. Loan approval rates could double over the next few years, but it's not true that the bill "forbids" loans.

Ryan is clearly on the side of deregulating. Obama wants to achieve the socialist ideal of directing the economy to accomplish "social justice." He is working to achieve the goal through regulation rather than seizing industry outright.

1 - If deregulating were the best idea, the financial crisis wouldn't have happened to anywhere near the capacity it did and Dodd-Frank would be obsolete. Plus it's kinda laughable to talk about stealing from Americans in terms of taxes to fund social programs like Medicare, but leave out stealing 700b from citizens for bank bailouts... which by the way, Ryan voted for. In other words it's apparently good fiscal policy to give banks carte blanche on spending (deregulation) but then not hold them liable, and force people to uphold their shoddy business models (and fund bonuses for executors of these bad business models) through tax bailouts. Hmm. I'm not a Democrat but I laugh at how Republicans only call out the Dems for terrible spending policy.

2 - Obama isn't a socialist. Stop with the Tea Party rhetoric. Some of his policies resemble socialistic ideals, but that's because America in general (including Republicans) have supported certain notions for years regarding the role of government in the markets, and supporting certain programs or things like public schools. Those can be considered "socialist." However the overall goal of socialism does not coincide with Obama's proposals. If you talk to a real socialist they will tell you all of the ways Obama completely fails a socialist's expectations.

The notion that libertarians do not believe in military defense is not an accurate generalizations. Libertarians differ. Promoting the idea of a free market in nuclear arms is a guaranteed way to lose elections.

Believing in military defense and the ways in which you fund that defense - and how much you put toward it - are different. And yes promoting Libertarian ideals in many instances is a guaranteed way to lose elections. Why do you think Republicans in all of their budget cutting glory never talk about touching the big stuff? They'd lose votes.

Politics is about theft, and the debate is over where your stolen money should be appropriated to. I don't believe that either side has a remotely good plan nor good intentions. It really is about choosing the lesser of the two evils, and like I said I'm pretty sure it's clear which side is the less evil. All of the budget proposals are useless because they will never be enacted. Ryan's plan doesn't balance the budget by 2016 - it balances it by 2040, in which case the U.S. will have also accrued in additional 13 trillion in debt. Like I said, I'd love to see where you're getting your facts and figures so that I could compare and contrast. However even if the numbers for Ryan's plan were slightly better, I think you ought to consider other variables that will contribute to strengthening or diminishing the economy. I see nothing from the Republicans that aims to do either. Deregulation hasn't worked. Tax cuts haven't worked. So what's next?
President of DDO
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:06:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because Ryan has a plan it doesnt mean it wont

a) fall short of expectations (Same thing happened to Obama in 2008 when he promised economic reform

b) be compromised to make it pass into law (laws need bipartisian support to be passed oterwise it would be shot down)

c) be approved at all since the Dems could control the Senate after the election

d) be the top priority in office as it was during the campaign. (When Bush was elected his primary foreign policy concern was to make a missile shield in Eastern Europe against Russia, but then 9/11 happened and things changed)

You're absolutely correct to say that his plan could get derailed, and I actually worry about this too. At least if we vote for Romney we'll see an attempt to pass a plan that balances the budget, rather than not see a plan under Obama. With that said, if we capture the Senate, retain the House, and have a Republican POTUS we'll be all set to pass the budget reform.

Is that unlikely to happen? Not as unlikely as it was four years ago.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:07:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:03:22 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:51:30 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I'm a libertarian and a traditionalist, but I'm only a traditionalist in the sense that I believe that the U.S Constitution should be revered and followed in both spirit and letter. Every four years we're faced with a choice between fiscial responsibility and civil liberties, i.e, Republicans or Democrats; that is putting it into simple terms.

Both parties have failed to deliver what they promised, and we've spent ourselves into a hole that will likely take decades to crawl out of. This election we're faced with a choice between someone that pays lip service to balancing the budget, and someone that has a plan to balance the budget. Is his plan perfect?-no, because it increases military spending and doesn't balance the budget fast enough.

He has a plan though to balance the budget though, and it is a realistic one. While I don't like his stance on abortion or gay marriage, those issues are not nearly as important to me as balancing the budget and paying off the debt. I'll take the man with the plan over the man that just talks.

Don't get me wrong, I will always support the Libertarian Party. I'm voting libertarian, and if there was a libertarian running locally I would support him as well. Until libertarianism can stand on its too legs though, us libertarians will need to pick the man that has the most realistic plan for enhancing economic and political freedom. Right now that man is running on the Republican ticket.

Just because Ryan has a plan it doesnt mean it wont

a) fall short of expectations (Same thing happened to Obama in 2008 when he promised economic reform

b) be compromised to make it pass into law (laws need bipartisian support to be passed oterwise it would be shot down)

c) be approved at all since the Dems could control the Senate after the election

d) be the top priority in office as it was during the campaign. (When Bush was elected his primary foreign policy concern was to make a missile shield in Eastern Europe against Russia, but then 9/11 happened and things changed)

That logic can be cross-applied to any politician's platform. Therefore, we should look at the suggestions first, before being pessimistic about what can happen to them.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:20:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:07:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:03:22 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:51:30 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I'm a libertarian and a traditionalist, but I'm only a traditionalist in the sense that I believe that the U.S Constitution should be revered and followed in both spirit and letter. Every four years we're faced with a choice between fiscial responsibility and civil liberties, i.e, Republicans or Democrats; that is putting it into simple terms.

Both parties have failed to deliver what they promised, and we've spent ourselves into a hole that will likely take decades to crawl out of. This election we're faced with a choice between someone that pays lip service to balancing the budget, and someone that has a plan to balance the budget. Is his plan perfect?-no, because it increases military spending and doesn't balance the budget fast enough.

He has a plan though to balance the budget though, and it is a realistic one. While I don't like his stance on abortion or gay marriage, those issues are not nearly as important to me as balancing the budget and paying off the debt. I'll take the man with the plan over the man that just talks.

Don't get me wrong, I will always support the Libertarian Party. I'm voting libertarian, and if there was a libertarian running locally I would support him as well. Until libertarianism can stand on its too legs though, us libertarians will need to pick the man that has the most realistic plan for enhancing economic and political freedom. Right now that man is running on the Republican ticket.

Just because Ryan has a plan it doesnt mean it wont

a) fall short of expectations (Same thing happened to Obama in 2008 when he promised economic reform

b) be compromised to make it pass into law (laws need bipartisian support to be passed oterwise it would be shot down)

c) be approved at all since the Dems could control the Senate after the election

d) be the top priority in office as it was during the campaign. (When Bush was elected his primary foreign policy concern was to make a missile shield in Eastern Europe against Russia, but then 9/11 happened and things changed)

That logic can be cross-applied to any politician's platform. Therefore, we should look at the suggestions first, before being pessimistic about what can happen to them.

not at all, we should be looking at candidates whose policies are the most realistic and most likely to be implemented. A plan by a Republican VP who Dems are saying will "end Medicare as we know it" (although I have no idea why they think that) will be borderline impossible to be passed into law unless the Republicans have both houses and the presidency (when was the last time that happened???)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:35:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 5:42:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The biggest problem is the fact that he voted to make the Patriot Act permanent, voted against medical marijuana, supports the military industrial complex and imperialism.

Ah, take notice! The essence of 'limited government' found in conservatism continues to dwindle away! I love it. +1
turn down for h'what
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ah, take notice! The essence of 'limited government' found in conservatism continues to dwindle away! I love it. +1

Blame the bestest president in history for brutally killing the Old Right. Yea, I'm talking 'bout Eisenhower.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:07:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:38:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
Roy do you have any sources? Just curious.

Ryan and his proposals have be covered redundantly on the news and in interviews since he was nominated. It's only necessary to watch the news. Ryan is a reliable spokesman for what his plan is. Notice that none of the attacks on Ryan in this thread or elsewhere are ever required to be substantiated. If you or someone else would like to debate specifics, I'm up for it. "Ryan's Medicare plan is better than Obama's." would be a good topic, for example.

Obama said today that he will save the $714 billion that he is takina out of Medicare to fund Obamacare will be made up by cutting aste, fraud, and abuse. I'd like to see that defended in a debate.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:37:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:37:13 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Ah, take notice! The essence of 'limited government' found in conservatism continues to dwindle away! I love it. +1

Blame the bestest president in history for brutally killing the Old Right. Yea, I'm talking 'bout Eisenhower.

He at least had the decency to warn us about the military industrial complex before leaving office.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:45:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 9:37:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:37:13 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Ah, take notice! The essence of 'limited government' found in conservatism continues to dwindle away! I love it. +1

Blame the bestest president in history for brutally killing the Old Right. Yea, I'm talking 'bout Eisenhower.

He at least had the decency to warn us about the military industrial complex before leaving office.

He wouldn't have had to warn us about it if Taft had won the nomination and the White House.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:00:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 9:07:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:38:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
Roy do you have any sources? Just curious.

Ryan and his proposals have be covered redundantly on the news and in interviews since he was nominated. It's only necessary to watch the news.

I never thought I would see you say something that naive. So if Obama says his plan will balance the budget by 2016, we should believe him... because he said it on the news? Show me the facts and figures, or link me to where I can see a breakdown of the budget plan. I'm not just going to believe it just because I heard it on the news. That's crazy. From what I read, Ryan's proposal balances the budget by 2040 - not 2016 (which sounds a lot more realistic), and not before accruing an additional 13 trillion in debt. Some sources suggest it's more like 2050. Here are some of the places I read about Ryan's lackluster proposal:

http://www.marketplace.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://articles.cnn.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

The last one includes a graph. So what are your sources? Fox News? Is that the news channel you're suggesting I watch? Do you happen to have a source with a better breakdown of the actual proposal or should I just listen to what the pundits say? I don't think my sources are 100% reliable either, but I'll go with strength in numbers for now until I see more tangible evidence.

One source quips, "You may read reports that the Ryan budget plan achieves a balanced budget in 2040. That is not correct. He created fantasy numbers, instructed the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to suspend disbelief (and its normal methodology, which actually crunches the numbers) and treat the fantasy numbers as real. He had to order the CBO to accept his fictional, numbingly over-optimistic numbers as reality in order to achieve a faux balanced budget nearly three decades from now. Absent the fictions his non-budget never eliminates the deficit. Ryan's deliberate misuse of the CBO to attempt to lend credibility to partisan fantasy numbers is a cynical act of dishonesty. The CBO issued this warning about Ryan's manipulation of the budget estimation process."

And there's more...

http://www.truthdig.com...

Ryan is a reliable spokesman for what his plan is.

So was Hitler.

Notice that none of the attacks on Ryan in this thread or elsewhere are ever required to be substantiated. If you or someone else would like to debate specifics, I'm up for it. "Ryan's Medicare plan is better than Obama's." would be a good topic, for example.

What attacks have been made on Ryan? The only things I've seen were that his policies and voting record do NOT reflect fiscally conservative values. The entire purpose of this thread is to point out that he's not Libertarian-friendly as the ever so reliable media would like people to believe. You're bringing up Medicare out of nowhere. Nobody in this thread has said that Obama's medical plan is better - particularly because this thread was probably directed at Libertarians.

Obama said today that he will save the $714 billion that he is takina out of Medicare to fund Obamacare will be made up by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. I'd like to see that defended in a debate.

Yes, I'm sure you would like to go completely off topic from what we're talking about and debate Medicare on a site riddled with anarchists and Libertarians. But I'm one of them and I never said anything about Obama's medical plan throughout this entire thread (or elsewhere) so I dunno what you're getting at.
President of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:21:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:37:13 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Ah, take notice! The essence of 'limited government' found in conservatism continues to dwindle away! I love it. +1

Blame the bestest president in history for brutally killing the Old Right. Yea, I'm talking 'bout Eisenhower.

No, blame the Conservatives for being stupid and abandoning small government principles.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:56:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 9:07:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:38:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
Roy do you have any sources? Just curious.

Ryan and his proposals have be covered redundantly on the news and in interviews since he was nominated. It's only necessary to watch the news. Ryan is a reliable spokesman for what his plan is. Notice that none of the attacks on Ryan in this thread or elsewhere are ever required to be substantiated. If you or someone else would like to debate specifics, I'm up for it. "Ryan's Medicare plan is better than Obama's." would be a good topic, for example.

Obama said today that he will save the $714 billion that he is takina out of Medicare to fund Obamacare will be made up by cutting aste, fraud, and abuse. I'd like to see that defended in a debate.

Obama gets the $714 billion in Medicare 'cuts" from cutting payments to providers, and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, but mostly the first one (payments to providers).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:05:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:00:53 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/18/2012 9:07:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:38:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
Roy do you have any sources? Just curious.

Ryan and his proposals have be covered redundantly on the news and in interviews since he was nominated. It's only necessary to watch the news.

I never thought I would see you say something that naive. So if Obama says his plan will balance the budget by 2016, we should believe him... because he said it on the news?

In the thread I was talking mainly about the Ryan Medicare proposal, and only incidentally the whole Ryan budget. Here is a recent WSJ summary of the Ryan Medicare proposal. It is exactly what I said:

"So how would Ryan 2.0 work in practice? Traditional Medicare and all private insurers in a region would make bids to cover seniors and compete for their business by offering the best value and prices. Then the government would give everyone a subsidy equal to the second-lowest bid.

If seniors chose that No. 2 option, whether it was Medicare or another plan, they'd break even and pay nothing extra out of pocket. If they picked the cheapest plan, they'd keep whatever was left over after the government subsidy—that is, they'd get a cash refund. If they instead picked the third-cheapest option, the fourth-cheapest, etc., they'd pay the difference above the government subsidy.

That structure ensures that seniors would have at least two choices (and likely far more) that they are guaranteed to do better than they do now. The amount of the premium-support subsidy would also be tied to underlying health-care costs, so it would not shift costs to beneficiaries, as Democrats also falsely claim. The very reasonable Romney-Ryan policy bet is that costs could nonetheless fall over time because seniors would have the incentive to switch to the most competitively priced Medicare plan." http://online.wsj.com...

The article goes on to give the numbers for Medicare.

The bidding method is used in the Bush prescription drug program. It was remarkably successful in lowering costs. The program has cost 43% less than projected, the first time an entitlement ha come in under projections.

From what I read, Ryan's proposal balances the budget by 2040 - not 2016 (which sounds a lot more realistic), and not before accruing an additional 13 trillion in debt. Some sources suggest it's more like 2050. ...The last one includes a graph. So what are your sources? Fox News? Is that the news channel you're suggesting I watch? Do you happen to have a source with a better breakdown of the actual proposal or should I just listen to what the pundits say? I don't think my sources are 100% reliable either, but I'll go with strength in numbers for now until I see more tangible evidence.

So let's compare Ryan's budget with President Obama's. Oh, wait, Obama doesn't do budgets. The Republcan House passes a budget every year. The Democrats control the Senate and the law requires them to pass a budget, but not a single budget has been passed since Obama has been in office. After the Obama proposal lost 98-0 the first year, they don't even brng them up to a vote. The Senate should pass a budget, and it should go to conference committee.

You are quite right that the Ryan budget takes a long time to come into balance. Ryan admits that. How long it takes depends upon the pace of economic recovery, so everyone is free to make it come out sooner or later as they wish. Remember President Obama's campaign promise to reduce the deficit by half by the end of his term? How's that going?

The latest Ryan budget is not scored at all by CBO. They don't have the tools to evaluate the effects of introducing competition into entitlements.

Ryan is a reliable spokesman for what his plan is.

So was Hitler.

Actually not. Hitler and Obama sold promised outcomes, not plans. Ryan is the only one in Washington with a plan.

The only things I've seen were that his policies and voting record do NOT reflect fiscally conservative values. The entire purpose of this thread is to point out that he's not Libertarian-friendly as the ever so reliable media would like people to believe.

Libertarians seem to be people of faith, unwilling to accept any compromise. conservatism is the doctrine of evolutionary change. No, Ryan is not a radical libertarian. If the job is to be done t all, it is going be done incrementally. Ryan moves in the right direction, toards capitalism. Obama is a neo-socialist, in which regulations and taxes control the minute details of the economy to achieve "social justice." My point is that libertarians need to get beyond thinking that thy are the same.