Ryan's open to V.P spot

[Dos Equis]

He's probably on the short list. 

Ryan's open to V.P spot
Posted by
CNN Producer Gabriella Schwarz

Washington (CNN) – Republican Rep. Paul Ryan said he would “consider” serving in the No. 2 spot on the GOP presidential ticket in 2012.

But his response was surrounded by the obligatory “it’s not even something in my mind” and “I’m so focused on my job” lines.

“I would consider it but it’s not even something in my mind because it’s a decision someone else makes at a later time,” Ryan said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s a bridge I haven’t gotten close to having to cross so in the meantime I think it’s important to do my job.”

Ryan has risen to national prominence in his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, becoming the point person for the Republican Party on debt and spending.

The Wisconsin representative, who closed the door to a potential presidential bid of his own early in the 2012 cycle, also said Romney is "on his way" to capturing his party’s nomination. The two met on Capitol Hill Thursday.

“I don’t know if I’d say he’s got it wrapped up,” Ryan said on “Fox News Sunday.” “He’s clearly on his way. I think he’s becoming the prohibitive frontrunner and I think the sooner we coalesce around a nominee the better off we’ll be. The prize is November, not this summer. I think it’s coming together, but I’ll let the people of this country decide that.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/25/ryans-open-to-v-p-spot/

[240 is Back]

i think his budget is too extreme to fly mainstream. 

there are plenty better options.  let ryan run on his own height and charm in 2016 after romney loses this time around.

[Soul Crusher]

 

i think his budget is too extreme to fly mainstream. 

there are plenty better options.  let ryan run on his own height and charm in 2016 after romney loses this time around.

Whatever.   His budget is tame and meek by measure of the calamity we face.

[avxo]

Whatever.   His budget is tame and meek by measure of the calamity we face.

What specific measures would you propose for an adequate budget vis-à-vis the calamity we face?

[Soul Crusher]

 

What specific measures would you propose for an adequate budget vis-à-vis the calamity we face?

I like ron pasls proposals to get rid of five agencies, stop baseline budgeting, get rid of federal worker pensions, make workersd pay into health care and ss, end the war in afghanistan, repeal commiecare, sell off federal lands, open more land to drilling and energy recovery, etc.  u

[240 is Back]

Whatever.   His budget is tame and meek by measure of the calamity we face.

yeah, but it took the Gop nominee potentials a looooooooooooooong time to support it. they did that candy-coated 'it's a step in teh right direction' bullshit for a reason.


"I'm going to slash mediare while giving trillion in cuts to the top 1%"  -  LMAO  -  Let's see how that plays with swing voters.  oh brother.

[avxo]

I like ron pasls proposals to get rid of five agencies, stop baseline budgeting, get rid of federal worker pensions, make workersd pay into health care and ss, end the war in afghanistan, repeal commiecare, sell off federal lands, open more land to drilling and energy recovery, etc.  u

So, in other words, nothing particularly original. Got it.

[Soul Crusher]

 .  As opposed to what?   What I said would work     we are broke.

[avxo]

.  As opposed to what?   What I said would work     we are broke.

It's unclear what "would work" means in that context. Not to mention that ideas like: "get rid of five agencies" and "get rid of federal worker pensions" are nothing but platitudes. Unless specifics are offered, they are no better than saying "I'm going to take my Pink Princess Magic Wand and wish, wish, wish our problems away"

Which five agencies would you get rid of? Would the employees fired from those agencies be eligible for unemployment? Would you retain any of the regulations by those agencies? If so, who would administer them? If not, what legal framework would replace them?

If you get rid of federal worker pensions and other benefits, how do you propose to make a government job attractive enough to recruit and retain staff for the agencies you will keep given that government jobs usually pay significantly less than private sector opportunities?

Frankly, you talk about this stuff like you read it in a book.

[Shockwave]

So, in other words, nothing particularly original. Got it.

Hey, sometimes it doesnt take anything particularly original to work.
As long as it gets the job done, who cares how original it is? Unfortunatley, no one is willing to endure the hardships of having to scale back on their lifestyle and "tighten the belt" for enough time to fix it.
Its kind of like knowing youre going to have to do something incredibly painful, and instead of just getting it over with and out of the way, you put it off for as long as possible, knowing full well that every second you put it off is going to make it worse. But just rather than deal with a litte pain now, you just keep putting it off until all the sudden you cant put it off anymore, and it becomes this huge insurmountable obstacle that absolutley debilitates you.

[Soul Crusher]

Government work is not supposed to be attractive and lucrative relative tot he private sector.  Federal pensions are hundreds of billions underfunded. 

Which 5 agencies?   DHS, EPA, DOL, DOE, Dept of Education, Commerce,


We have way too much land under management that should be sold off as well. 

we would also make tens of billions if we opened up areas for drilling. 

Medicare and SS need to be radically reformed as well as those are broke. 

[avxo]

Government work is not supposed to be attractive and lucrative relative tot he private sector.

You are an idiot. Do you really not want the Government to be able to recruit and retain top talent for the important and proper functions that it performs but to instead only get the rejects of the private sector?

You really want someone who is considering a career in the CIA or the NSA to choose to go to Microsoft Research, because the CIA or the NSA will pay around $60,000/year whereas a position in Microsoft Research will pay -- easily -- $120,000/year excluding bonuses and perks?

You really want someone who works as an analyst at the DoD to be someone who couldn't get a job as an analyst anywhere else and settles for the DoD until something better comes along?

You really want someone who works at the DoJ to be a lawyer who couldn't get a job in a private law firm and settles for the DoJ?

Federal pensions are hundreds of billions underfunded.

Right and that should be fixed. But the solution isn't to make it so that you end up trying to recruit people to work for you by offering worse pay and worse benefits than equivalent private sector jobs. That's a recipe for getting the leftovers of everyone else. Are those the kind of people you want your Government to employ?

Which 5 agencies?   DHS, EPA, DOL, DOE, Dept of Education, Commerce

If you eliminate the DHS what would you do with CBP, INS, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard? I assume you plan on keeping those agencies.

If you eliminate the DOE what would you do with the NRC and the National Laboratories? I assume you want to keep the NRC and the National Laboratories.

If you eliminate the EPA would you also scrap all the regulations promulgated by the EPA? If not, who would enforce them? If yes, would you have some other regulatory scheme take it's place, or would they just be repealed outright?

we would also make tens of billions if we opened up areas for drilling.

Would you require permits and compliance with any regulations for drilling in these newly opened areas? Who would issue the permits? Who would enforce compliance with these regulations?

Medicare and SS need to be radically reformed as well as those are broke.

I look forward to hearing your solutions for those too.

[Soul Crusher]

SS age lint needs to be put to 70 ASAP as the basic assumptions have drastically changed. 

Medicare needs to be done away w as well at least means tested and drastically less things covered.   u know of old people who abuse the system for stuff that they should pay for out of pocket. 

it is also abused by hospitals who use it as a ATm machine.

[avxo]

Firstly, I notice you didn't answer any of the questions I asked or address the concerns I raised about your other points.

SS age lint needs to be put to 70 ASAP as the basic assumptions have drastically changed.

Would this change affect everyone? Or only people under a certain age? Would people who are already receiving Social Security but are under 70 stop receives checks?

Medicare needs to be done away w as well at least means tested and drastically less things covered.   u know of old people who abuse the system for stuff that they should pay for out of pocket.

I disagree about means testing for the following reason: If the Government forces me to pay into a program called Medicare throughout my working life, then the notion of mean-testing me when it comes time for the program to pay is ridiculous. The Government might as well just say: "I'm taking this money and forget about it." What does it matter than I'm a millionaire? Did I contribute or did I not contribute?

[Soul Crusher]

Firstly, I notice you didn't answer any of the questions I asked or address the concerns I raised about your other points.
Would this change affect everyone? Or only people under a certain age? Would people who are already receiving Social Security but are under 70 stop receives checks?
I disagree about means testing for the following reason: If the Government forces me to pay into a program called Medicare throughout my working life, then the notion of mean-testing me when it comes time for the program to pay is ridiculous. The Government might as well just say: "I'm taking this money and forget about it." What does it matter than I'm a millionaire? Did I contribute or did I not contribute?

The problem is that the amount people take out of Medicare is way more than they put in, same as SS, both are ponzi schemes based upon TJE assumption that there will be a larger group of new suckers paying in in the future and that is demographically impossible. 

as for SS, it should be done over the next 10 years or so, raised by a year every year or so in order for peel to plan for it.

What part of broke are you not understanding? 

Www.usdebtclock.org.

[avxo]

What part of broke are you not understanding?

I understand broke just fine. I'm just wondering why you won't actually answer questions about your ideas and proposals?

[Soul Crusher]

I understand broke just fine. I'm just wondering why you won't actually answer questions about your ideas and proposals?

Like what?   150k plus benes is not enough for people?   How much should we pay? 

as for all the alphabet soup agencies, we did just fine before we had all these wasteful agencies pissing away money.   Most of these agencies are duplicative and overlap stae agencies doing TJE same bs. 

[240 is Back]

33, avxo delivered some questions that were amazing by getbig political standards.  Break them down - what would you do with those individual agencies?  Should the EPA regulations all just 'go away' too?

[avxo]

Like what?   150k plus benes is not enough for people?   How much should we pay? 

as for all the alphabet soup agencies, we did just fine before we had all these wasteful agencies pissing away money.   Most of these agencies are duplicative and overlap stae agencies doing TJE same bs. 

Do you really want the Government to be able to recruit and retain top talent for the important and proper functions that it performs by offering competitive salaries, or do you want it to instead settle for the rejects of the private sector?

Will you eliminate all the constituent agencies of DHS, such as the CBP, INS, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard, along with the DHS?

Will you eliminate all components of the DOE, such as the NRC and the National Laboratories, along with the DOE?

If you eliminated those departments, would the employees be fired or reduced through attrition? If fired, would they be eligible for unemployment benefits? Would you still honor their contracts vis-à-vis pension?

If you opened lands for drilling, would you require permits and compliance with any regulations in order to drill in those newly opened lands? If so, who would evaluate and issue the permits? Who would issue the regulations against which permits must be evaluated? Who would issue the regulations to be complied with while drilling? Who would enforce those regulations?


Thanks for answering

[Soul Crusher]

33, avxo delivered some questions that were amazing by getbig political standards.  Break them down - what would you do with those individual agencies?  Should the EPA regulations all just 'go away' too?

Yes on many.   The EPA is now being used as a political weapon more than anything.  there are endless stories of the EPA destroying businesses and citizens for no benefit PR gain whatsoever.   

[Soul Crusher]

coast guard should be merged into the NAVY. 

permits should be issued by state agencies.

[avxo]

coast guard should be merged into the NAVY.

What would that achieve? What about all the other agencies?

permits should be issued by state agencies.

So you do not recognize any circumstance where there might be a legitimate Federal interest in the issuance of permits or regulations? So, if, say, Georgia, doesn't care about particulate emissions, then that's fine and dandy because Georgia's air is Georgia's air?

And do you really think that businesses would prefer an environment where they have to operate under a patchwork quilt of regulations?

[Soul Crusher]

What would that achieve? What about all the other agencies?


So you do not recognize any circumstance where there might be a legitimate Federal interest in the issuance of permits or regulations? So, if, say, Georgia, doesn't care about particulate emissions, then that's fine and dandy because Georgia's air is Georgia's air?

And do you really think that businesses would prefer an environment where they have to operate under a patchwork quilt of regulations?

Probably not, but again, this country grew to be the largest most powerful, long before we had all these agencies regulating every aspect of everyone's life.

[avxo]

Probably not, but again, this country grew to be the largest most powerful, long before we had all these agencies regulating every aspect of everyone's life.

It also grew to be the largest, most powerful country long before we had fancy vials with chemicals to help with that last 5%. Your point?

[Soul Crusher]

It also grew to be the largest, most powerful country long before we had fancy vials with chemicals to help with that last 5%. Your point?

My point is that we are broke due to our spending addiction and everything needs to be on the table.