would that Paul Ryan gets in the race. he speaks the truth: Indeed, in almost every sense, Ryan says, Obama has been “fundamentally un-presidential” throughout the summer, “dragging his feet, failing to address the looming debt crisis — which he knows is coming — because he remains committed to his ideology.” “This is, unfortunately, the way he operates,” Ryan says. “This is his pattern of behavior, this is his personality. For the next 18 months, it will probably be like this. It’ll be in-your-face class warfare, with bitter appeals to envy, fear, and anxiety, plus the demonization of the other side’s motives.” Ryan, usually a happy warrior on fiscal matters, sounds resigned when asked whether he can help Republicans craft a long-term deal with the president to reduce the debt. Obama, he says, has made such a scenario near impossible. He cites Obama’s remarks to CBS News last week, when he said he could not guarantee Social Security payments, as well as the president’s “very personal” criticism of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor at the White House, as examples of the president’s inability to “discuss these issues in good faith.” “Whenever I hear him speak now, I just shake my head and think, there he goes again,” Ryan says. “When it comes to actually governing, leading and fixing fiscal problems, he is not in the game.” He predicts that, with their votes this week, House Republicans will show that they are. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272060/ryan-urges-united-front-robert-costa
Danials would have given Republicans a much better shot than anyone currently in the field, but I guess he is not interested, at least this time around.
Agree, thanks for posting basso - good for a laugh, when a guy who forces his staffers to write book reports on "Atlas Shrugged" is whining about others being "committed to ideology", you'd think he'd be almost stupid enough to get busted while tossing back $400 bottles of pinot with lobbyists while talking 'bout the need for belt tightening. oh...wait....
Right. He has no shot. I still like the chances of him being an effective executive better than most of these clowns. I don't believe in the campaigns as I don't believe any politician running for president actually tells us, or could even know, what he is going to do if elected.
Eh, his ability to mismanage his meager resources so far and torpedo his campaign within weeks brings his ability to be an "effective excecutive" into serious question. That's always beent eh knock on Newt, he has a surplus of ideas, good and bad, but has coupled this with zero ability to execute or follow through on any of them or learn from past miscues.
I know he has his faults. Like I said, still like him better than the rest. A bunch of weasels and clowns. It's a circus and I'm not ready to volunteer to walk behind the elephants with the pooper scooper by voting for one of them.
I do agree with her on that. I am actually in favor of not raising the debt ceiling. There is enough money coming in to pay off creditors, so the results would not be defaulting on the debt, but rather a partial government shutdown, which I would not be opposed to, considering I think the government does way too much. Mostly the thing I like about her is what you see as one of her faults, that her positions are ideological. There are two other branches of government and a whole staff of advisers to make sure the President doesn't go off the rails, but none of them will change the philosophy that drives the president. I would prefer an idiot that is more in line with my philosophy to a genius that is opposed to it.
I actually haven't heard as much about it this campaign as opposed to last election when I was defending, but would those who support Paul go ahead and explain his political report? You know, the one that is filled with homophobic, blatantly racist stuff? Either Paul knew about it, which makes him scum. Or he didn't know about what was written in his name, which makes him an idiot. I don't want either one in charge of this country.
Considering that your philosophy of eliminating government debt entirely ASAP would be considered idiotic by most people, I'd say your choice of an idiot to run it evidences a profound synergy.
Perhaps this is better debated in another thread but I find Bachmann's argument regarding not raising the debt ceiling to be not even half-baked. She said we can pay soldiers and pay interest but after that she won't even address how other obligations might be met. While I can understand that you like her would like to see much more limited government wouldn't you agree that a drastic shutdown of much of government would cause some big problems. Also lets not forget what affect lowering US Treasury bond ratings might have also. Keep in mind I am experience a partial government shutdown in MN and far from being a money saving measure will end up costing the state much more than if government was running the past three weeks as it was the prior three weeks. Also while you might agree with her ideologically do you honestly think she is the best standard bearer for your ideology? From following her career since she was a state Senator there really seems very little intellectual depth to her beliefs. She comes off as someone who thoughtlessly believes what she believes and is both opportunistic and lucky enough to gain political advantage from them. Lets not forget how often what she says comes off as both sloppy, misinformed or both. You say you would prefer an idiot who agrees with you than a genius who opposes you but that is a pretty poor choice and reflects very poorly on the state of modern Conservatism.
I imagine it would cause problems for some. Most people have very little interaction with the federal government in their day to day lives. Some of the problems could also be mitigated. For example, meat inspections could be done by a private entity, or the meat suppliers could just do without the USDA rating temporarily. If the interest is paid, there should be no lowering of treasury bond ratings because paying the interest is paying off the treasury bonds. It depends on how things are handled. If things are just not done during the shutdown and they don't try to pick up all that slack afterword (use careful planning to see what we can just do without for that period) it shouldn't raise costs. No. I think I am the best standard bearer for my ideology, because I agree with myself 100% of the time. Unfortunately I am not in a position to be elected President of the United States. Like most people, I just have to pick from a pool of unsatisfying candidates. I would say it reflects poorly on the idea of representative government as implemented in the United States. How many people are really excited about any candidate and think that is the best possible person to sit in the oval office? I vote for the person who is least offensive to my sensibilities.
funny, this sounds exactly like the GOP strategy for the last 10 years or so. and when did yall bush supporters start caring about the deficit and fiscal responsibility? was it sometime in late january 2009? bush spent more than all previous presidents combined in a mere 3.5 years and none of yall cared then. infact, you slandered those who were critical of bush's fiscally liberal policies. it is true that obama has come along and outspent even junior, but you bush-supporters have absolutely ZERO credibility when you criticize obama on spending and the debt. "deficits don't matter" - dick cheney
