Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

Godfather.

drawing out...I love it !
I'm just not good at that stuff but I enjoy reading yours and a a few others.

Godfather.

Prince Of Dorkness

Byrnzie wrote:

Not twisting anyone's words, just drawing out the logical conclusions to the above train of thought. Isn't that what the Teapartiers keep harping on about? Reducing the power of government, and letting money and big business rule the roost?

A very valid question to which I doubt you'll get a reply.

Johnny Abruzzo

pandora wrote:

Many seniors coming up in the next 30 years will have retirement plans in place
and long term care insurance, better prepared.
This will help with medical costs.
And the poor of any age should be taken care of by a caring society,
I think most feel this way.

Wow, I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. You know that defined benefit plans are in a free fall right now, right? Well, I work in the industry, and guess what, they are. Corporate America is just not interested in dealing with defined benefit pension plans (and for some good reasons). I don't know anybody with long term care insurance. When it comes down to it, who really wants to think of themselves ending up in a nursing home (although many of us will, of course)? Bottom line is future generations (and the current generation) of "retirees" are going to be in dire straits. DB plans are going, going, gone, Social Security is under attack by the Right Wing (and probably needs some downward adjustment in benefits to keep solvent), and 401(k) plans are a sick joke as a retirement plan (How would you ever know if you have enough money to live out your days? What if you wanted to retiree at the end of 2008? ).

Most feel the poor should be taken care of? Are you reading this thread? The Ryan Budget rips the "caring society" pledge to shreds, FYI. If you really feel the "poor should be taken care of by a caring society" then a vote for Romney/Ryan is in complete contradiction with that.

Personally I do not really agree with your statement. This is capitalism, and nobody should be "taken care of" unless there is some special circumstance. I just think we should keep the programs that help out those who have bottomed out for whatever reason, to help them back on their feet, like RW's parents & Prince of Dorkness, both of which are great success stories of the welfare programs of their respective countries. But it should just be a temporary thing, and then you're back to work and "taking care" of yourself.

Johnny Abruzzo

Byrnzie wrote:

And how do you feel about your tax dollars paying for criminal wars of occupation, and for $4 Billion of American tax dollars being used as military aid to Israel every year?

Or do you only have a problem with the % of your tax money that goes towards helping the poor and unfortunate in America?

This is just beautiful.

Paul Ryan Budget has ZERO cuts in military spending. Nice job buddy. :roll:

peacefrompaul

Byrnzie wrote:

...letting money and big business rule the roost?

They don't already?

Besides, when these corporations are more regulated, all they do is fund politicians that vote and address legislation in their favor. By taking that away, you take away the power they seek.

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Many seniors coming up in the next 30 years will have retirement plans in place
and long term care insurance, better prepared.
This will help with medical costs.
And the poor of any age should be taken care of by a caring society,
I think most feel this way.

Wow, I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. You know that defined benefit plans are in a free fall right now, right? Well, I work in the industry, and guess what, they are. Corporate America is just not interested in dealing with defined benefit pension plans (and for some good reasons). I don't know anybody with long term care insurance. When it comes down to it, who really wants to think of themselves ending up in a nursing home (although many of us will, of course)? Bottom line is future generations (and the current generation) of "retirees" are going to be in dire straits. DB plans are going, going, gone, Social Security is under attack by the Right Wing (and probably needs some downward adjustment in benefits to keep solvent), and 401(k) plans are a sick joke as a retirement plan (How would you ever know if you have enough money to live out your days? What if you wanted to retiree at the end of 2008? ).

Most feel the poor should be taken care of? Are you reading this thread? The Ryan Budget rips the "caring society" pledge to shreds, FYI. If you really feel the "poor should be taken care of by a caring society" then a vote for Romney/Ryan is in complete contradiction with that.

Personally I do not really agree with your statement. This is capitalism, and nobody should be "taken care of" unless there is some special circumstance. I just think we should keep the programs that help out those who have bottomed out for whatever reason, to help them back on their feet, like RW's parents & Prince of Dorkness, both of which are great success stories of the welfare programs of their respective countries. But it should just be a temporary thing, and then you're back to work and "taking care" of yourself.

I call poor a special circumstance with many factors involved.
Obviously there are casualties of capitalism too.

And of course a temporary thing ... welfare ...in a perfect world
but we got babies making babies and no jobs to go around.

You don't need to tell me about 401k's
and the losses as far as benefit plans, we are employers so
I understand the lack of those forthcoming,
we being a pefect example of the changes from the 90's.

I do believe though that many more are planning ahead
at least than my parents generation.

Wanted to retire in 2008? ... how old would this person be?
Crap everyone wants to retire ...

I think many in my generation, being 56 pictured themselves being able to
and I know a very few who are.

No one needs to retire before 65 and these days should plan on working at something
well into their 70's if they can physically and mentally. Work is good for a body.
We are planning on this for sure, if we live that long and the ship doesn't sink before that.

As far as the thread I was addressing most people out there want to see the truly poor
helped. This I believe.

And yes I realize this is not necessarily the agenda of the Republicans
and the Democrats are more suited to this but I am an Independent who is weighing
all factors.
I want fraud taken care of,
I want the truly hungry fed not those driving Cadillacs,
I want community service to be mandatory for all,
and now the newest thing ...

do the poor really need cell phones?
and in a way that the phone companies make millions doing so?
And fraud is now rampant with the phones themselves, triple users on one account etc.
estimating billions :wtf:

The working class is being taken advantage of. So which party will ever represent them?...
not the Democrats as we are seeing. Not the Republicans but through corporations doing better
the middle class will get jobs back. They want to work and our President has failed at this.

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Paul Ryan Budget has ZERO cuts in military spending. Nice job buddy. :roll:

Did you expect there would be?

I hope the budget has provisions for returning military who can not find jobs with the current
problems. I want them taken care of... actually I hope to hire some if the economy can improve.

inlet13

inlet13 wrote:

Tossing money to the government to solve problems rarely solves anything. In fact, many times it creates additional problems.

So, that up there is what I said. Perhaps, reading and comprehending the words written instead of what you want them to say - would help you. :idea:

Byrnzie wrote:

So you think the government should be severely reduced so that we end up in a situation where Capitalism and privilege are given complete freedom to run amok, and everyone just fends for themselves in a dog-eat-dog World, with no regulations, and no accountability?

Wow. And this is where you went.

I think government should be reduced yes. But, my point here was that tossing money at the government rarely solves anything - instead it can create additional problems. Where you got the rest of this stuff from is - um - I don't know?

inlet13 wrote:

Just let the mega-rich cream away all the wealth and let everyone else sink to the bottom. Fuck welfare, fuck medical aid, and fuck all public services, right?

Hmmm... I don't believe I said all that. My point had to do with this - if you have a problem. Government is often not the best source to correct the problem. Particularly in this day and age when people really think that spending more always makes things better. So, more money is not always a solution. Further, the government rarely corrects problems. Finally, our government's broke by the way.

inlet13 wrote:

Though just out of curiosity, where would you be sitting in this scheme of things if it came to pass? Would you benefit from such reckless, uninhibited greed and anarchy, or would you sink with the 99% of people? Because unless you are one of the mega-rich then I fail to see your motivation here.

Not sure what scheme your mentioning. Are you speaking of the one you just concocted in your head and regurgitated here on this forum?

inlet13

Godfather. wrote:

always adding a twist or words to someone elses statement...you my friend are the hidden fan of FOXNEWS

Godfather.

Some of the twisting of words here is very comical. I agree.

Johnny Abruzzo

pandora wrote:

Wanted to retire in 2008? ... how old would this person be?
Crap everyone wants to retire ...

How about, was forced into retirement in 2008, with their 401(k) having just lost 40%.

This thing about working until one's 70s is a fantasy. Corporations have no desire to have 70-year olds working for them. They want to clear these people out and hire younger, cheaper labor. Yeah yeah, there are age discrimination laws. But they are a joke. Corporations can easily just get rid of the old people whenever they want, and get cheaper employees (or outsourcing) in their place. Workers have no rights. So now you're going from, say, an engineering job to being a greeter at Wal-Mart. If that's what you want to call "working" then great, but it's not going to pay the mortgage, or the greatly increased health insurance costs because of Ryan's voucher program.

Cliffy6745

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Paul Ryan Budget has ZERO cuts in military spending. Nice job buddy. :roll:

Did you expect there would be?

I hope the budget has provisions for returning military who can not find jobs with the current
problems. I want them taken care of... actually I hope to hire some if the economy can improve.

Except Ryans budget cuts spending for veterans by $11 billion

Johnny Abruzzo

You know one thing people haven't talked about too much...

Paul Ryan has never even run for statewide office. This guy is going to be thrown to the wolves, perhaps in an even more extreme say than Sarah Palin was. I understand he is smarter than Palin, but at least she had run for a statewide office.

This op-ed is biased, but I think underscores the challenges he's going to face.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/paul-ryan-on-soapbox-at-iowa-state-fair/2012/08/13/7a04d3c4-e598-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html?hpid=z2

It was not exactly the kickoff Ryan and Romney wanted, but it did help to establish why Romney chose the young House Budget Committee chairman as his running mate: Ryan is almost as awkward as Romney.

Johnny Abruzzo

Cliffy6745 wrote:

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Paul Ryan Budget has ZERO cuts in military spending. Nice job buddy. :roll:

Did you expect there would be?

I hope the budget has provisions for returning military who can not find jobs with the current
problems. I want them taken care of... actually I hope to hire some if the economy can improve.

Except Ryans budget cuts spending for veterans by $11 billion

"Military spending" does nothing to get jobs for veterans after they come home. Nothing in Ryan's budget does anything to make jobs for anyone, really. For a campaign that wanted to talk about jobs, it really is a curious choice.

Zoso

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

You know one thing people haven't talked about too much...

Paul Ryan has never even run for statewide office. This guy is going to be thrown to the wolves, perhaps in an even more extreme say than Sarah Palin was. I understand he is smarter than Palin, but at least she had run for a statewide office.

This op-ed is biased, but I think underscores the challenges he's going to face.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/paul-ryan-on-soapbox-at-iowa-state-fair/2012/08/13/7a04d3c4-e598-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html?hpid=z2

It was not exactly the kickoff Ryan and Romney wanted, but it did help to establish why Romney chose the young House Budget Committee chairman as his running mate: Ryan is almost as awkward as Romney.

he is coming straight from congress... the white house and election race is a very different animal. agreed he will find it tough and if they lose come November may hurt his career for decades.

mikepegg44

peacefrompaul wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

...letting money and big business rule the roost?

They don't already?

Besides, when these corporations are more regulated, all they do is fund politicians that vote and address legislation in their favor. By taking that away, you take away the power they seek.

shhhh

norm

GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan
By: Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin
August 14, 2012 04:30 AM EDT

You’ve heard them on television and read them on POLITICO — cheerful, defiant statements from Republican political professionals about Mitt Romney’s bold masterstroke in tapping Paul Ryan as his running mate, and turning the 2012 presidential race into a serious, far-reaching debate about budgets and the nation’s future.

Don’t buy it.

Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren’t being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington: Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right — and a huge chance of going horribly wrong.

(PHOTOS: Scenes from Romney's VP announcement)

In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives — old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike — the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election.

It is not that the public professions of excitement about the Ryan selection are totally insincere. It is that many of the most optimistic Republican operatives will privately acknowledge that their views are being shaped more by fingers-crossed hope than by a hard-headed appraisal of what’s most likely to happen.

(PHOTOS: Paul Ryan hearts charts)

And the more pessimistic strategists don’t even feign good cheer: They think the Ryan pick is a disaster for the GOP. Many of these people don’t care that much about Romney — they always felt he faced an improbable path to victory — but are worried that Ryan’s vocal views about overhauling Medicare will be a millstone for other GOP candidates in critical House and Senate races.

Let’s get to the caveats: No one is asserting that Washington operatives in either party are oracles or seers. What’s more, it is not as if there is anything like unanimity in GOP circles about the merits of the Ryan pick, though the mood of anxiety and skepticism is overwhelming.

Most of all, if you are one of those people who thinks if someone has something negative to say, they should have the guts to put their name on it, you won’t find much to impress you in this article. Nearly all the Republican professionals interviewed for this story said they would share their unfiltered views only “on background” rules of attribution.

(PHOTOS: Paul Ryan through the years)

But Washington political chatter is a pervasive reality even when the chatterers prefer not to risk personal relationships or professional prospects by publicly second-guessing their party’s nominee. For Romney, even if he ultimately proves the doubters wrong, the skepticism among capital insiders is an obstacle as he seeks to frame a general election argument.

And that skepticism about Ryan among GOP strategists is striking.

They’re worried about inviting Medicare — usually death for Republicans — into the campaign. They’re worried it sidetracks the jobs issue. They’re worried he’ll expose the fact that Romney doesn’t have a budget plan. Most of all, they’re worried that Romney was on track to lose anyway — and now that feels all but certain.

(Also on POLITICO: Ryan alters campaign's dynamic)

“I think it’s a very bold choice. And an exciting and interesting pick. It’s going to elevate the campaign into a debate over big ideas. It means Romney-Ryan can run on principles and provide some real direction and vision for the Republican Party. And probably lose. Maybe big,” said former President George W. Bush senior adviser Mark McKinnon.

“Whether or not they [the Romney campaign] want to say that they have their own plan on Day One, or whatever they’re doing, it doesn’t change the reality of them having to own the Ryan plan. How is that in the wheelhouse of creating jobs?” added a GOP consultant.

Joked another: “The most popular phrase in Washington right now is: ‘I love Paul Ryan, but …’”

“This could be the defining moment of the campaign. If they win the battle to define Medicare, then I believe Romney wins the presidency. If they lose it, then they lose big in the fall,” the same strategist said, acknowledging that Romney had to choose from a flawed list of VP options.

The most cutting criticism of Ryan, shared only by a handful of strategists, is that Ryan isn’t ready to be president — or doesn’t come across as ready. A youthful man who looks even younger than his 42 years, Ryan could end up labeled as Sarah Palin with a PowerPoint presentation, several operatives said.

“He just doesn’t seem like he can step into the job on Day One,” said the strategist, who professed himself a Ryan fan.

And that’s just what it does to the Romney-Ryan ticket. Forget how it plays in close House and Senate races.

“Very not helpful down ballot — very,” said one top Republican consultant.

“This is the day the music died,” one Republican operative involved in 2012 races said after the rollout. The operative said that every House candidate now is racing to get ahead of this issue.

Another strategist emailed midway through Romney and Ryan’s first joint event Saturday: “The good news is that this ticket now has a vision. The bad news is that vision is basically just a chart of numbers used to justify policies that are extremely unpopular.”

The Romney campaign isn’t oblivious to Republican skittishness about the pick. In fact, several sources close to the Romney campaign said that top advisers to the candidate initially favored Tim Pawlenty as a “do no harm” choice for the vice presidency, and that even late in the process some leaned toward Ohio Sen. Rob Portman as a running mate who would bring gravitas and governing heft to the ticket — without Ryan’s obvious risks.

Sources close to the selection process tell POLITICO that within the Romney campaign, there was considerable unease about picking Ryan — but also a recognition that each of the possible picks for running mate had drawbacks to varying degrees.

With Ryan, some on the campaign feared that his first and most crucial days on the trail would be consumed with answering charges about his views on entitlements and completely get the ticket away from its economic message. That’s the signal concern now among the Republican worrywarts.

Asked about alarm in the consultant class about the Ryan selection, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Ryan’s selection would allow Romney to campaign on big ideas and argued: “The excitement is on our side.”

“President Obama and his Democrat allies have done everything imaginable to keep from talking about the issues and President Obama’s failed record and to make this big election about small things,” she said. “This election will be about the issues and President Obama’s inability to get this economy going, regardless of how small President Obama and the Democrats try to make it.”

Strategists across the party call that the absolute best-case scenario for the Romney campaign and everyone else involved: President Barack Obama gets forced into a policy debate on ground where Republicans are most comfortable, Republicans counterpunch hard on the Affordable Care Act and Democrat-approved spending reductions in Medicare, and Romney roars into November with an energized Republican base behind him.

Longtime GOP presidential strategist Charlie Black conveyed that view of the race: “We have plenty of time and money and four debates to air out this Medicare reform issue. And I think we win on it when we air it out.”

Still, that remains a complicated way of saying Romney now needs to win a titanic clash of contrasting policies and ideologies. That may be a good deal harder than treating the 2012 campaign as a pure up-or-down vote on Obama and his handling of the economy.

“It turned a referendum into a choice,” said one Washington Republican lawyer. “[Choosing Ryan] forfeited the no-real-world-experience point Romney has been building up for months [about Obama] and put a new state in play that was otherwise trending his way [Florida].”

A top Republican in the 2012 campaign expressed doubt that even a protracted fight about the national debt would produce the kind of outcome Republicans are looking for: “My polling says that while the debt does matter to people, (a) they don’t really like any of the things we would have to do to fix it and (b) the economy has roared back as the No. 1 issue in every battleground state, eclipsing the issue that Ryan brings to the fore.”

Republicans are not (evidently) at the point of publicly breaking ranks with Romney and Ryan, and may never get there. After all, Romney is still the presidential nominee and Ryan commands deep respect — even awe — in many corners of the party. Several have noticed that Romney seems more energized since Ryan joined the ticket and that their chemistry seems real.

Yet the Romney campaign has quieted few doubts in the 36 hours since announcing Ryan for vice president. The Republican presidential nominee has endured withering press coverage in senior-heavy Florida and dodged questions about where his views on Medicare differ from Ryan’s.

The longer Republicans have to litigate this issue instead of campaigning on jobs and the economy, strategists say, the more ground they will lose against Obama and the greater the odds that Romney will drag down other members of his party.

The short-term trajectory of the race could turn around quickly if Romney’s able to deliver a clear and consistent message on Medicare that parries Democratic attacks and sends him into the Republican National Convention at the end of the month in Tampa with momentum behind him. Ryan’s first visit to Florida this coming weekend will be an important test.

Republican consultant Terry Nelson is hoping that a big debate on the presidential level will make it tougher for Democrats to mischaracterize the debate down ballot, where many Republican candidates in the House and Senate have already taken votes in favor of the Ryan plan. The more Romney and Ryan have to defend Ryan’s plan in the presidential race, the more they’ll provide air cover for other candidates.

Nelson believes, too, that if and when Romney comes out with a plan, that’s what will matter. “What matters is not where Paul Ryan stands, what matters is where Mitt Romney stands. The Romney campaign may make its own proposal on Medicare, Social Security and the budget. At the end of the day, that will be the more important debate,” he said.

Since Saturday, however, the actions of campaigns on both sides of the 2012 race have effectively spoken for themselves on the importance Ryan’s plan may have in the race: Democrats have launched, almost by reflex, into a full-scale “Medi-scare” campaign while Republicans have rushed to blunt that argument with attacks on Obama’s health care plan.

Yet another operative deeply involved in the 2012 campaign said that in “every competitive race in the country, strategists have held conference calls in the last 48 hours to try to figure out how to be on offense on this. A week ago we were talking about jobs, and this week we’re talking about entitlement reform.”

“Everybody loves Paul Ryan. Everybody supported the Ryan plan,” the strategist said. “But nobody thinks Ryan should be the tip of the spear.”

Well — not literally “nobody.”

“I am personally and politically ecstatic,” said veteran Republican strategist Mary Matalin, whose publishing house imprint produced a “Young Guns” book co-authored by Ryan. “I have heard from all quarters of the party and have heard nothing but ecstatic shock and awe. What everyone wanted was a campaign and presidency of purpose with a mandate for reform. In addition to the issue excitement, there were universal accolades for the manner, method and substance of Romney’s decision-making process.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... html?hp=t1

Johnny Abruzzo

Paul Ryan's hypocrisy:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/14/paul-ryan-and-the-stimulus-a-match-designed-to-make-my-head-explode/

My main obsession these days is President Obama’s misunderstood stimulus bill—why, yes, thanks for asking, The New New Deal did come out today—but I’m also fascinated by the partisan Republican budget-buster Paul Ryan and his absurd reputation as a brave deficit hawk. So I thought I’d check out Ryan’s positions on the stimulus. Let’s just say they won’t surprise those of us familiar with his work.


Ryan made his skepticism about stimulus clear in a Roll Call op-ed just a month after Obama’s election, complaining, as he always does whenever a Democrat wants to spend money, that it would add to deficits and debt. He also took aim at “the most recent example of stimulus failure,” the $168 billion stimulus package that President Bush had enacted earlier in the year, consisting mainly of tax rebates to American families. “Instead of spending the extra cash, as proponents had hoped, most recipients simply paid off bills or saved the money,” Ryan declared.

Funny, Ryan somehow forgot to mention that he was one of those proponents. He had voted for the Bush stimulus, along with the Bush tax cuts, the Bush wars, the Bush security spending binge, the Bush prescription drug benefit, the Bush highway bill that included the Bridge to Nowhere, and the Bush bank bailout. Fiscal conservatism!

Ryan did oppose the Obama stimulus, as did every other House Republican. But as I describe in my book, there was an interesting behind-the-scenes debate going on within the GOP caucus about what Republicans should support instead, and it’s telling to see where Ryan ended up.

One side, call it the political side, was led by Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. He’s a staunch conservative, but his top priority was making sure the Republican vote on the Obama bill was unanimous. So he wanted to stage a vote on a GOP alternative that had plenty of highway projects and other spending that Republican moderates and concrete lovers could support, so they would have something to say yes to while saying no to Obama. The other side, call it the ideological side, was led by Conference Chair Mike Pence of Indiana, who argued that the whole point of fiscal conservatism was opposing government spending, that the Republicans shouldn’t be trying to out-New Deal the Democrats.

“You can’t say spending does nothing for economic growth and then on the other hand, let’s put it all in highways,” one conservative leadership aide recalled.

So the Republican leadership, as former Democratic congressman David Obey put it, decided to fall off both sides of the horse. The official $478 billion Republican stimulus alternative was an ideological bill, consisting entirely of tax cuts and unemployment benefits, with not a penny for infrastructure or other spending. But Republicans also crafted a second $715 billion substitute that was almost as expansive as the $787 billion bill Obama signed into law. It slashed spending on Obama priorities like energy efficiency, the smart grid, summer jobs programs, and aid to help cash-strapped states avoid massive layoffs of teachers and cops, but it actually increased spending on highways and the environmentally destructive water projects of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Republicans never explained how $715 billion worth of tax cuts and spending could be good public policy while $787 billion worth of tax cuts and spending was freedom-crushing socialism. In the minority, they didn’t have to. And Paul Ryan? As usual, he fell off both sides of the horse. He voted for the ideological tax-cut bill that would have increased the deficit, and the political spending bill that would have increased the deficit. And then he railed about Obama and the Democrats increasing the deficit.

“They shocked the American people,” he later explained. “They certainly shocked me…Bam! Out of the gates, these people had a hard-core left agenda…They used the rhetoric of freedom and choice and opportunity to sell an inherently statist agenda.”

Yes, the rhetoric of choice and opportunity. Like the rhetoric a certain congressman from Wisconsin used on October 7, 2009, when he wrote Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to push a stimulus grant for a local group.

“I have reviewed the Energy Center of Wisconsin’s grant narrative, and I believe that they would make effective use of the funds,” Ryan wrote. He noted that they would “develop an industry-driven training and placement agenda that intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs.” Ryan also wrote several letters to the Energy Department, seeking stimulus for local groups that would help retrofit homes and businesses to “reduce their energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate the local economy by creating new jobs.”

Courage!

Cliffy6745

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -for-ryan/

Jason P

Here is a headline from FoxNews.com ...

Fact Check: Ryan budget plan doesn't actually slash the budget

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/#ixzz23Y0xFYfb

hmm ... time to start buying gold and canned goods.

Johnny Abruzzo

Jason P wrote:

Here is a headline from FoxNews.com ...

Fact Check: Ryan budget plan doesn't actually slash the budget

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/#ixzz23Y0xFYfb

hmm ... time to start buying gold and canned goods.

OUCH - that's gonna hurt. He's just as interested in cutting the deficit as all other Republicans.