paul ryan says what he really means

[B-Large]

There are no liberals here. Just moderate independents who voted for a Republican once and blood thirsty, abortion clinic bombing, radical, right wing fundamentalists, constitutional scholars, tax code experts, miltary stragegy gurus, and most important independently wealthy 1%'ers. Those are the rules in PPP.

 

I hope you don't mind, but you description was not quite done

[birdog1960]

Then you clearly don't understand the political realities yourself.

generally those in a more powerful position negotiate from the top down and the weaker parties from the bottom up. ryan has it reversed and therefore, to many, looks ridiculous.

 

There are no liberals here. Just moderate independents who voted for a Republican once and blood thirsty, abortion clinic bombing, radical, right wing fundamentalists. Those are the rules in PPP.

i wasn't aware til just now that i was breaking the rules.

[Magox]

generally those in a more powerful position negotiate from the top down and the weaker parties from the bottom up. ryan has it reversed and therefore, to many, looks ridiculous.

 

This really isn't a difficult argument to make. This is a men are from Mars and women are from Venus case here.

 

You believe his budget is ridiculous. Ok, fine I accept that. I believe that the Senate Democrats deficit reduction package of an additional trillion dollars of new taxes, 100B of new stimulus spending, and not addressing and reforming the Entitlements, which any sane rational person agrees is the main driver of our debt moving forward, is even more ridiculous. In other words, liberals aren't serious about reducing the Debt.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Magox

[birdog1960]

This really isn't a difficult argument to make. This is a men are from Mars and women are from Venus case here.

 

You believe his budget is ridiculous. Ok, fine I accept that. I believe that the Senate Democrats deficit reduction package of an additional trillion dollars of new taxes, 100B of new stimulus spending, and not addressing and reforming the Entitlements, which any sane rational person agrees is the main driver of our debt moving forward, is even more ridiculous. In other words, liberals aren't serious about reducing the Debt.

it wouldn't matter if the sides swapped plans. ryan is negotiating from a weak position and is acting like he's in a dominant position. Edited March 14, 2013 by birdog1960

[Magox]

it wouldn't matter if the sides swapped plans. ryan is negotiating from a weak position and is acting like he's in a dominant position.

 

I disagree...

 

Let's face it, both sides won't get what they want, the likely hood of a grand bargain happening is pretty remote. One side is pretty far to the right, the other side is simply retarded.

 

Mars, Venus

Edited March 14, 2013 by Magox

[dayman]

I disagree...

 

Let's face it, both sides won't get what they want, the likely hood of a grand bargain happening is pretty remote. One side is pretty far to the right, the other side is simply retarded.

 

Mars, Venus

 

His point has to do with the expectations of how to negotiate more so though...

[Magox]

They are both markers. The house set theirs, and the Democrats will soon do the same. From there, negotiations begin.

 

That's how it works.

 

Unfortunately, the gulf between the two, from my perspective is too large. So I don't see anything getting done.

 

If a deal does get done, it will look something like this:

 

1) Some Revenues through the closing of loopholes etc. Most likely maxed out at no more than $500B

 

2) Reforming the entitlements. Chained CPI, means testing and eliminating "waste"

 

3) Some Defense budget cuts

 

4) Some sort of modest welfare reform

 

Obamacare and Medicaid will go unscathed.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Magox

[dayman]

 

 

If a deal does get done, it will look something like this:

 

1) Some Revenues through the closing of loopholes etc. Most likely maxed out at no more than $500B

 

2) Reforming the entitlements. Chained CPI, means testing and eliminating "waste"

 

3) Some Defense budget cuts

 

4) Some sort of modest welfare reform

 

Obamacare and Medicaid will go unscathed.

 

Almost no way that would make it out of the house.

[Magox]

Almost no way that would make it out of the house.

Almost no way that would make it out of the house.

 

I don't see a deal getting done.

 

If it did, it would need a good mixture of the two parties to vote for it. It would be a rare instance of having both parties with roughly the same amount of votes from each side, voting on the measure.

 

Real Fiscal conservative hawks like Coburn would probably vote for it, providing enough cover to pick some conservative votes off.

 

However, I just don't see enough Liberals voting on reforming the entitlements, unless Obama really puts the pressure on them.

 

In any case, if we did do a "grand bargain" it would probably look like that.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Magox

[B-Man]

How can the last two elections be a rejection of conservatism when we didn’t nominate conservatives?

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

How can the last two elections be a rejection of conservatism when we didn’t nominate conservatives?

 

 

.

did you actually read this article? it argues that perry, who by the authors appraisal a true conservative, couldn't win a majority of latinos in texas and that he probably wouldn't nationally. i fully agree. i can't fathom how you'd find this analysis optimistic for the path repubs are currently taking. "forget whether general election voters would elect a conservative over obama if they had a chance"...really? brilliant strategy. keep it up cons. Edited March 15, 2013 by birdog1960

[dayman]

All I know is Perry is awesome. I would not vote for him...but the guy is hilarious in a good way.

Edited March 15, 2013 by SameOldBills

[B-Man]

did you actually read this article? it argues that perry, who by the authors appraisal a true conservative, couldn't win a majority of latinos in texas and that he probably wouldn't nationally. i fully agree. i can't fathom how you'd find this analysis optimistic for the path repubs are currently taking. "forget whether general election voters would elect a conservative over obama if they had a chance"...really? brilliant strategy. keep it up cons.

 

 

and there it is.

 

Another "analysis" through the bd1960 prism, that demonstrates how little he knows about conservatism and for that matter Americans.

 

.

[Wacka]

Why doesn't that Fred Savage wannabe just STFU and take her dozen or so viewers with her?

[birdog1960]

and there it is.

 

Another "analysis" through the bd1960 prism, that demonstrates how little he knows about conservatism and for that matter Americans.

 

.

well, maybe you'll like mark brooks' analysis better: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/shieldsbrooks_03-15.html. doubtful, but the observation on cpacs ability to pick a winner is at least interesting. i think he's nailed it: 3 seperate republican teams that don't much care for each other - rubio camp, rand paul camp and jeb bush camp. these a 3 very different visions and will be very difficult to reconcile. even with reconciliation can any of them beat hillary?

[B-Man]

 

Ryan on Dem budget: 'Vatican is not the only place blowing smoke'

 

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Friday defended his budget as "an end to brinksmanship" and a moral document for the country's future in a major speech to conservatives that provided few clues about his 2016 plans.

 

"I am proud of our budget because it's changed the conversation. Today we're not talking about ‘cliffs’ or ‘ceilings’ or ‘sequesters,’ we're talking about solutions, and that's how it should be," Ryan said to cheers during his keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

 

{snip}

 

Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the 2012 vice presidential nominee, took a different tack on Friday, and stuck to the policy focus that has become his calling card.

 

He argued the competing budgets that were released by the parties this week show that Democrats "are a party of shared hardship,” while Republicans are "a party of equal opportunity."

 

He gave a full-throated defense of his plan to balance the budget in 10 years, arguing that aggressive action is needed to save the country from financial ruin.

 

"We're not balancing the budget as an accounting exercise. We're not just trying to make the numbers add up. We are trying to improve people's lives. Our debt is a threat to this country. We have to tackle this problem before it tackles us."

 

"A debt crisis would be more than an economic event, it would be a moral failure," he said. "A budget isn't just a list of numbers, it's an expression of our governing philosophy."

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288387-paul-ryan-gop-budget-an-end-to-brinksmanship#ixzz2NfUUisya

[dayman]

well, maybe you'll like mark brooks' analysis better: http://www.pbs.org/n...ooks_03-15.html. doubtful, bu

t the observation on cpacs ability to pick a winner is at least interesting. i think he's nailed it: 3 seperate republican teams that don't much care for each other - rubio camp, rand paul camp and jeb bush camp. these a 3 very different visions and will be very difficult to reconcile. even with reconciliation can any of them beat hillary?

 

don't fool yourself the rubio/jeb camp are the same...even though Rubio will ride any political whim he is still Jeb's little child

[IDBillzFan]

don't fool yourself the rubio/jeb camp are the same...even though Rubio will ride any political whim he is still Jeb's little child

 

I always find it interesting how the left is constantly trying to paint Rubio, Rand, Ryan, Cruz, Scott, Love, West, etc. in some negative light. While I understand the need to define your competition before the competition can define itself, it's amazing how nasty and libelous the left can be to the very hispanics and blacks they claim to protect.

 

And then you look at how unbelievably empty the left's bench is, and it all makes sense.

Edited March 16, 2013 by LABillzFan

[dayman]

I always find it interesting how the left is constantly trying to paint Rubio, Rand, Ryan, Cruz, Scott, Love, West, etc. in some negative light. While I understand the need to define your competition before the competition can define itself, it's amazing how nasty and libelous the left can be to the very hispanics and blacks they claim to protect.

 

And then you look at how unbelievably empty the left's bench is, and it all makes sense.

 

you can view it negative if you want...but Rubio is a political child of Jeb in reality

[IDBillzFan]

you can view it negative if you want...but Rubio is a political child of Jeb in reality

 

It was the "ride any political whim" comment. Stuff like that isn't just old from the left. It's predictable.