Mitt Romney Chooses A Running Mate
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-13/mitt-romney-chooses-running-mate
Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate is already generating momentum among conservatives. But the choice also highlights divisions between the parties over spending, taxes and entitlements. The Wisconsin congressman is the architect of a plan to remake Medicare and cut trillions in federal spending. And despite the boost he brings to the GOP presidential ticket, Romney is already distancing himself from Ryan’s controversial budget proposal. And President Barack Obama is now calling Ryan the ideological leader of the Republican party. Diane and her guests discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the 2012 Republican presidential ticket.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of a new book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Byron York
chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner.
Michael Gerson
columnist for The Washington Post and author of "Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace American's Ideals."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Diane, why does even NPR (and all news media I've encountered to date) continue to refer to Social Securiity and Medicare as "entitlements" -- lumping it with Welfare, etc.?
Social Security and Medicare are citizen-funded investments made over decades by its recipients and funded by the recipients themselves, who stupidly trusted their government to wisely protect this investment.
Please stop letting those who want to further degrade Social Security and Medicare get away with lumping it together with actual entitlements. This is grossly unfair and inaccurate. You are giving fuel to the conservatives' arguments by doing so.
Romney is morally bankrupt and honesty deficient. He is ALREADY throwing the Ryan budget under the bus.He claims he has one of his own. It didn`t take long for "Flipper" to flip yet again..
Mike Sergeant wrote: "You are most likely to receive more than you paid in for any investment, that's why people invest. To get more out than they put in"
Is this a joke? Medicare is an insurance program that does not pay for itself. It's not a investment, no one ever said it was supposed to be one. If it was the people who invented it would be in jail with Madoff. If it wasn't government run and propped up with additional funding it would have been out of business a long time ago.
After decades of spending on defense, homeland security, the drug war, legalized tax evasion and legalized financial crime by the banks, the Republican plan is to let old and poor people pay for it.
The big loser here is Ryan. He will mot likely be blamed for Romney's defeat, which is pretty much to be expected. But if Romney by some change should win, Ryan will be forced to compromise all of his lofty principles. No Administration, demcoratic or republican will ever enact a budget such as the one proposed by Ryan. Nand no Vice PResident has ever dared breaking openly with his boss. Ryan is a loser.
roland wrote: 'After decades of spending on defense, homeland security, the drug war, legalized tax evasion and legalized financial crime by the banks, the Republican plan is to let old and poor people pay for it'
Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support everything you mention, what is your point?
fool me once wrote: "Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support everything you mention, what is your point?"
You're right. There is no point in voting for me.
lyleoross wrote:
"The notion proposed in the interview that Ryan is well informed, especially about budget issues, is directly commented on by Paul Krugman who points out that none of what Ryan says makes sense. "
Paul Krugman? The "Nobel Prize Winner" who said that the stimulus which wasted $1T wasn't ... BIG enough?!
Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, lyleoross also wrote:
"The MSM has done a very poor job of dissecting what Ryan has proposed. In depth analysis of it shows clearly that it won't work, that it doesn't get you to where Ryan says it will and that it is at best silly, not bad, but so bad that it is silly. "
Won't work, poorly constructed, silly, blah, blah, blah, nothing of substance.
Read: "No, I haven't read the bill and I am counting on the likes of Krugman to tell me if I should like it or not".
antelopelady wrote:
"Diane, why does even NPR (and all news media I've encountered to date) continue to refer to Social Securiity and Medicare as "entitlements" -- lumping it with Welfare, etc.?"
No offense, ma'am, but you've been talking to the antelope for too long.
SS and MC ARE entitlements precisely because you have paid into them! You are ENTITLED to participate and receive benefits because you have contributed. It is your right.
You do not have a "right" to welfare. It exists only at the behest of lawmakers in Washington. Welfare could be ended at any moment and no one would be able to squawk that they are "entitled" to it. SS and MC cannot because you have paid in. No the benefits that accrue may change, but by and large, you will always have the "right" to participate" - you are entitled to.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people!
SRinGR wrote:
". . . The discussion on women's issues by three men is also insulting. The attack on women's issues (over 50% of the US population) ARE economic issues...Cilizza. Let's get that straight first before poo-pooing these issues as not being central to "what most people are focused on in this election". So tired of his rightwing spin and telling what he thinks is important to the country's women. So sad."
I agree with you, but as a man, I will tell you that I understand women's issues to this extent: Women must have equal rights, just like all people must have them. Women must have control of their bodies, their educations, their finances, etc. I'm not interested in living in a world in which half the world's population doesn't get to assert their creativity, intellect, and compassion.
Having said that, I support women's issues and take my cues from women I respect, because I can't possibly understand the full implication of being a woman in our society and on our planet - Just as I take cues on ethnic & racial issues from those I respect who are part of those groups, and cues on education from parents, students, and educators I respect.
It isn't that three men were discussing this issue, it's that they can only report what they've learned from women and not present themselves as authoritative.
I note that women's issues are human issues that affect all of us. So, I will vote on women's issues.
I can't say whether women will vote on women's issues or not because there's an unknown: How successfully will Republicans use fear and propaganda to get us to vote against our interests as Republicans have been doing for many years.
If you want my opinion: Everyone will vote on women's issues because women's issues are inextricably linked to respect for the dignity of all human beings which is determined by how we handle the economy, jobs, education, defense, and every other issue.
I totally agree that Medicare and other government programs are broken and need reform and I would agree with Paul Ryan so far. People need to work longer to earn the benefits of Medicare and SS. But if you see these problems, you cannot on the other hand say that you will leave the Pentagon budget untouched AND lower taxes for the rich. That just does not work. Everybody has to contribute. Lowering taxes on the rich does not help the middle class. It has been tried the last 12 years. If rich guys like Romney are allowed to bunker more money in Swiss bank accounts and on the Cayman Islands, there won't be a single job created in the US.
So, the middle class has to contibute in working longer, until 67 or 68 and the rich will have to pay a little higher taxes and the military spending has to be cut to a sustainable level, then the problems can be overcome.
after the woman caller said the she felt the refusal to discuss his budget with the nuns who are trying to bring attention to it's harms showed Ryan's dislike towards women the on air respondents said they felt the Romney camp would say they do not want to discuss social issues, this is not a campaign about social issues but about the economy. Of course, they do not want to discuss Romney's record at Bain either - the experience he says makes him qualified to be President. They also do not want to discuss his taxes and the loop holes that he uses to have a very low tax rate while he is also out saying people like him need more tax cuts. Where is the discussion of the gotp obstruction of the last 4 years? Their lack of jobs bills, their governors turning down funds for high-speed rail, their causing our countries credit rating to be downgraded for the first time. The campaign doesn't want to discuss their positions on social issues nor the gotp elected members who have focused on them so strong for the last 2 yrs especially. This is a campaign about america's future - are we a nation of only individualists or are we a nation of combined needs and interests? These are the questions that decide our economic future and our social one - I hope the media doesn't let the Romney campaign continue the republican success of controlling every message. Maybe people want the wild west, but we won't know if we continue to side step the conversation!
wahl-profi wrote:
"I totally agree that Medicare and other government programs are broken and need reform and I would agree with Paul Ryan so far. People need to work longer to earn the benefits of Medicare and SS. But if you see these problems, you cannot on the other hand say that you will leave the Pentagon budget untouched AND lower taxes for the rich."
And you too are spitting out talking points without referencing the Ryan budget.
Perhaps on defense, this is what you meant, "With American men and women in uniform currently engaged with a fierce enemy and dealing with emerging threats around the world, this budget takes several steps to ensure that national security remains government’s top priority" as opposed to an indiscriminate 10% cut across the board.
On taxes, perhaps this is what you meant, "The current code for individuals is too complicated, with high marginal rates that discourage hard work and entrepreneurship. This budget embraces the widely acknowledged principles of pro--‐growth tax reform by proposing to consolidate tax brackets and lower tax rates, with just two rates of 10 and 25 percent, while clearing out the burdensome tangle of loopholes that distort economic activity."
Was it the elimination of loopholes or lowering the base rate to 10% that you object to?! Perhaps it is the elimination of bailouts and crony capitalism that you object to? That's in there too.
Read the plan - in its enitrety. Then you will be able to speak with authority.
To blame Obama for government dysfunction is laughable. It is the Republicans who have been obstructionist, wild-eyed and fuzzy-headed, and who make budget deal impossible by total intransigence. Now they are trying to say the fact that this characterizes the Obama administration is a reason to vote for them. Disgusting - they throw the country under the bus just to win. Shame on the US public if we buy any of it.
Thank you Maggie from Boston.
There are more of us out here who share your point of view.
Thanks for another provocative and informative show.
GMG wrote:
"To blame Obama for government dysfunction is laughable. It is the Republicans who have been obstructionist, wild-eyed and fuzzy-headed, and who make budget deal impossible by total intransigence."
Really? In what wild-eyed, fuzzy-headed, alternate universe do you actually live?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-bu...
"Teece Bowman wrote:
Partisan wrote previously:
"or the chance to put ourselves on more solid footing"
What a laughable joke. If Rmoney and Ryan get elected, our country is doomed.
August 12, 2012 - 10:47 pm"
Aren't you the Guy who said there is no difference in the Parties (and Candidates) or were you just running off at the mouth?
Words have effects, and you equivalencers are destroying our Democracy!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"ecgberht wrote:
lyleoross wrote:
"The notion proposed in the interview that Ryan is well informed, especially about budget issues, is directly commented on by Paul Krugman who points out that none of what Ryan says makes sense. "
Paul Krugman? The "Nobel Prize Winner" who said that the stimulus which wasted $1T wasn't ... BIG enough?!"
Straw Man is Back!!!
"Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, lyleoross also wrote:
"The MSM has done a very poor job of dissecting what Ryan has proposed. In depth analysis of it shows clearly that it won't work, that it doesn't get you to where Ryan says it will and that it is at best silly, not bad, but so bad that it is silly. "
Won't work, poorly constructed, silly, blah, blah, blah, nothing of substance.
Read: "No, I haven't read the bill and I am counting on the likes of Krugman to tell me if I should like it or not".
August 13, 2012 - 1:53 pm"
IT DOESN'T ADD UP AND YOU KNOW IT!!
Listen, Eggbert, I'm really sorry for all the mean things I've said about you (your argumentation actually)
I thought your insane reaches were just an underhanded way to win a point, which is legal in Formal Debates, if you can get away with it.
But it was Abigail who showed me that you experiencing serious degradation in your ability to think clearly.
I wish I had been more thoughtful and less inclined to react so emotionally.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"wahl-profi wrote:
I totally agree that Medicare and other government programs are broken and need reform and I would agree with Paul Ryan so far. People need to work longer to earn the benefits of Medicare and SS. But if you see these problems, you cannot on the other hand say that you will leave the Pentagon budget untouched AND lower taxes for the rich. That just does not work. Everybody has to contribute. Lowering taxes on the rich does not help the middle class. It has been tried the last 12 years. If rich guys like Romney are allowed to bunker more money in Swiss bank accounts and on the Cayman Islands, there won't be a single job created in the US.
So, the middle class has to contibute in working longer, until 67 or 68 and the rich will have to pay a little higher taxes and the military spending has to be cut to a sustainable level, then the problems can be overcome.
August 13, 2012 - 2:04 pm"
well, wahl-profi, you made a big boner in sentence Two, but fixed it a little in the rest of the paragraph.
If the stunning increases in the productivity of American Labor, since WWII, hadn't been stolen by the 1% and the Kabal, we could have earned a full pension in 10 Years!!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
For all of today's Commenters who are mystified by the lack of scrutiny from the Media, I repeat--
mchaun wrote:
The Media are like the Orderlies in a Lunatic Asylum, carefully listening to the Republican Inmates, nodding in implied agreement (don't agitate them) while they blabber their deranged Boiler Plate, Cutting Taxes creates jobs, Global warming is a lie, the recession is Obama's fault, Government is too big, Privatization has been a roaring success, on and on and on.
I wonder how the American People came to be convinced of that nonsense.
CUT TAXES (FURTHER) ON THE WEALTHY,Repeal Obamacare, "Restructure" Social Security, slash Medicare and Medicaid, slash Regulation, accelerate Privatization.
Our Democracy hangs by a thread and the Media, which should be the Bulwark of our Democracy, is worse than worthless.
Why in God's name would any ordinary American vote for Romney and a Republican Congress??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
July 20, 2012 - 10:09 pm
In reply to: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-bu...
This is a lie. The Republican submitted a phoney document that was not Obama's budget, just so everyone would vote against it. Yet another republican gimmick just so you can post what you posted and think what you think. But it is a lie, and you, and our country as a whole, are the unfortunate victims of a propaganda machine.
If you look at this article around the web you'll notice that all the republican propaganda outfits describe it as you did. I see no evidence of any respectable news organization describing it as the "Obama Budget". It was in fact submitted by republican Jeff Sessions with the full knowledge that is was a gimmick.
Here is an actual news story on the subject, in contrast to the propaganda piece from the Washington Times:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/senate-republicans-enginee...
Http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOCIAL_SECURITY_GOOD_DEAL?SITE...
The above link is what a Rupert Murdoch owned paper (and the AP) says about Social Security.........basically it is NO LONGER going to return what a taxpayer pays in. Some taxpayers will get more bennies IF they experience more than average illness in old age, BUT that comes from Medicare, not Social Security.
Many thanks to E.J. Dionne for accepting the invitation to chime in. The show was being literally dominated by the right wing news drone until he offered alternative views. Chris Cilliza always tries to soft pedal every issue....he must be looking for a job someplace.
By the way, a commenter indicated Paul Ryan had disavowed his affection for Randism. He actually was leader of the Rand Society and kept Ayn Rand's picture in his office along with copies of her writings. Rand was an atheist and often decried tenets long held by the Catholic Church. At least nobody can claim Rand was a communist.........but she held Ryan's own religion in the lowest esteem.
mchaun wrote:
"Straw Man is back"
lyleoross relies on the word and bona fides of Paul Krugman that the Ryan budget won't work. I merely pointed out that in doing so, he is leaning on a rotten stick. lyleoross gives no other specifics but to say it is silly and "won't work". It's his whole argument.
Now, if you think there is a strawman argument in there, then spell it out, mchaun. Inference doesn't prove your point. Here, let me refresh your memory:
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
And abigail? abigail was left in the dust and as far as I can tell hasn't been back since. The sum total of her argument was "I'm right and you're wrong" oh ... and "your tone is snarky"! You can read about it on 7/11 and 7/13. I put a good explanation of the strawman argument in there as well and some specific examples where abigail used it.
GMG wrote:
"This is a lie. The Republican submitted a phoney document that was not Obama's budget, just so everyone would vote against it. Yet another republican gimmick just so you can post what you posted and think what you think. But it is a lie, and you, and our country as a whole, are the unfortunate victims of a propaganda machine."
Ummm ... did you read your link, GMG? I did. It doesn't say what you said it says AT ALL! The budget WAS the Obama budget. Listen!
"The aim was to highlight the Democratic majority’s failure for the third straight year to produce a budget blueprint — and to embarrass President Obama by bringing his budget to a vote. Whether the president was embarrassed remains to be seen, but a procedural motion to proceed to the Obama budget failed 99-0. There is less significance to that tally than it would appear. Not every Democrat opposes the president’s tax-and-spending plan, but a presidential budget is a different beast than a Congressional plan".
That sounds like Obama budget to me, whether you like it or not. Your article says it at least three times. And even his own party wouldn't vote for it. Did the Republicans take political advantage? Sure. But that's politics. The very bottom line is, this President doesn't know what he's doing and his budget proved it.
How on earth can people be able to work longer when it is quite evident that older people are being forced out of the workforce? I've seen it, and I know it exists. This argument is perpetrated by those who don't have the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject. A number of whom regularly post comments on this board.