The Republican ticket

The Ryan roadshow

The new vice-presidential candidate fires up the base in Iowa

See article

Readers' comments



I find it trully amazing how gullible people are. I mean, not only Americans, but Americans are indeed in the top 5 list of people who easily forget the past...

Come on, when Obama got ellected president in 2008, EVERYBODY knew the mess Bush had left him to clean up. However, we are not talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, we are talking about a country who had a few trillion dollars in debt.

And what? Super Obama is just supposed to fix the 8 year mess Bush has left the country with in only 4? Come on American people, you guys go to good schools, you learn how to debate ideas, and critically think about them, so... why not exercise that right?


But really, how about the years BEFORE 2007? California Representative Nancy Pelosi and Nevada Senator Harry Reid lead the Democratic Party in taking control of both the House and the Senate in the 2006 congressional elections, THE FIRST TIME IN 12 YEARS that Democrats secure control of both houses of Congress simultaneously.

So please, the mess didn't start AFTER 2007, but waaaay BEFORE the Democrats took control of the congress. BUT, nobody seems to take that into consideration.

Anyone here has any doubt about the debt due to Bush's war loving ways?

Lets see:

2003 - Bush and his folks started (actually continued what Bush father couldn't finish) the War in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal being "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."


2003 – Georgia and Djibouti. "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities.

2004 – Haiti. 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force.


2004 - Drone attacks in Pakistan




2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid,[14] helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.

Well... it's no news to the world the US was/is made out of going to wars. (Very smart, as wars have always been very profitable for the government), but how about the trillions and trillions of dollars spent on military?

With that amount of cash the US spends on wars, it could easily end world hunger. But who cares about that, right?

Sorry, but as George Carlin once said, this "war for peace" is the same as "f*cking for virginity".

This Ryan guy. Who is he, seriously? Go Ryan! Keep on spending money on military, go ahead and buy U$170mi worth of farm products, and if we have $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, partially offset by around $1.7 trillion in spending cuts — with the tax cuts, surprise, disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent, while the spending cuts would primarily come at the expense of low-income families.

You go ahead American people! Vote Romney/Ryan! What a team! What a team!


Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics

Enough? no.


Enough? no.


Without politics, what do we need from media and journalists?

So they make politics our daily topics, economy becomes an afterthought. Therefore, that is all people in "free" world care : they judge everything by politics, not economy; every plan must be first politically correct, like the illegal immigrant issues.



I don't quite get the logic behind the buying up $170m worth of farm products from Iowa after this summer's drought. The price for these farm products usually increase after this kind of product shocks. Less supply in the market, so prices will go up to satisfy the demand. The farmers don't need to sell up their products this year.

It's sad that a person has been nominated VP who has no real record of legislation and whose ideas are technically bankrupt.


Ryan doesn't give a damn about debt. He's just using it as a political tool like any other politician-- he'll grab all the pork in the barrel that he can reach, then shout down government debt in the same breath.

Brian Pelican in reply to Melissia



Ryan is the only one advocating the government spending be brought down from 25% to the long term average below 20%.

That will shave $750 billion from the deficit on its own. (5% of GDP of $15 trillion).

Obama is happy to skate right through the next 4 years and run off with Michelle and his millions from book sales to enjoy the good life. He doesn't need to worry about the long term stability of Medicare - he can buy whatever he needs.

supamark in reply to Brian Pelican

That's just factually incorrect. The problem Obama has with debt reduction is that the Republicans are not willing to see the reality that revenues must also increase (or slash defense spending)... at least as long as Obama is in office and people still care what that POS Grover Norquist has to say.

Melissia in reply to Brian Pelican

Keep lying to yourself kid, it might make you feel better.

Ryan has voted for more pork than Obama has. Think about that for a moment before making the assertion that he somehow gives a damn about the budget.


A new CBO report just in. The report looks at the newly proposed Ryan Defense Vouchers. The Ryan plan is to replace normal defense spending with vouchers so that US citizens can help moderate defense spending and make better consumer choices.

"In 2022, the first year the voucher would apply, (the Congressional Budget Office) estimates that total defense expenditures for a typical citizen would be almost 40 percent higher with private coverage under the Ryan plan than they would be with a continuation of traditional Defense," center president Bob Greenstein wrote. "CBO also finds that a citizens annual out-of-pocket costs to fund 1 hour of F22 flight would more than double — from $6,150 to $12,500. In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater."

In other news it was reported that defense contractors were planning to raise the premiums of all of their war insurance schemes by 7% citing "excessive demand" by US citizens including "Their insistence on chasing every futile foreign conflict that Fox and CNN sensationalize on TV screens".

Brian Pelican in reply to bradshsi

It is a myth - CBO report is out of date and does not reflect the latest positions on either side. But the Obama admin doesn't care about accuracy. Whatever they can slide into the debate to color it their way.

"One of President Obama's regular attacks on Paul Ryan's Medicare reform is that it would force seniors to pay $6,400 a year more for health care. But merely because he keeps repeating this doesn't mean it's in the same area code of accurate.

The claim is based on a now out-of-date Congressional Budget Office estimate of the gap between the cost of health care a decade from now, in 2022, and the size of the House budget's premium-support subsidy for a typical 65-year-old in 2022.

Editorial board member Joe Rago critiques the latest Obama Medicare ad.

In other words, the $6,400 has no relevance for any senior today. None. But it also is unlikely to have any relevance for any senior ever because CBO concedes that its number is highly uncertain and "will depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict." That's for sure.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

The more fundamental problem is that the CBO analysis has nothing to do with the current Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan plan. Nada. Over the last year Mr. Ryan has made major adjustments to his original proposal as he sought a compromise with Democrats. In its most up-to-date analysis, CBO admits that it "does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects" in the new version. That is, it does not have the tools to make its $6,400 exaggeration again.

The reason CBO can't model the 2013 House budget and the Romney-Ryan plan is that they harness markets with competitive bidding. Congress's budget gnomes can't handle these dynamic forces.


If seniors chose that No. 2 option, whether it was Medicare or another plan, they'd break even and pay nothing extra out of pocket. If they picked the cheapest plan, they'd keep whatever was left over after the government subsidy—that is, they'd get a cash refund. If they instead picked the third-cheapest option, the fourth-cheapest, etc., they'd pay the difference above the government subsidy.





None of these facts are likely to deter Democrats from their distorted claims. But the truth is that the Ryan-Romney reform isn't anywhere close to Mr. Obama's cartoon version."

bradshsi in reply to Brian Pelican

Actually I was satirizing Ryan's refusal to consider cuts in military spending.

But since you brought it up, Politifact found the $6400 claim was "Mostly True".

The only reason that the CBO report is out of date is the same reason the claim is only "Mostly True". That is to say Ryan has modified his plan but not provided details of the math behind it.

Pasting a WSJ story doesn't bolster your case any because it is an opinion piece that basically argues that a combination of exchanges (that Romney/Ryan were against in Obamacare) and market forces will save the day.

In actuality we really don't know what savings will be realized, but the track record of the private sector thus far suggests not much.

bradshsi in reply to Brian Pelican

Also the WSJ comparing Medicare Advantage in 2009 with the CBO calculation of Ryan 1.0 in 2022 seems really dumb.

The difference of course down to a little thing called inflation. Now one can argue what rate is appropriate (The CBO assumed 3% I believe), what isn't credible is to assume it will be zero, which is the only way the WSJ comparison would be apples to apples.


The more I read and hear Paul Ryan the more confused I become.

His family built a business on government contracts or government subsidized ventures (, he went to college on government money, except for a brief stint in the company business, has spent his entire career working for the government.

Yet Mr. Ryan is against almost anything to do with government.

Paul Ryan is the perfect running mate for Mitt Romney. Neither one has any real consistency in their statements, beliefs and actions.

Perhaps the only ticket that could be more consistent would be Newt Gingrich and John Edwards.


The Democrat Medicare plan: Do nothing. In a few years America is hit with a debt induced economic collapse. Unlike Greece, America is too big to be bailed out. Medicare and Social Security? Gone. Jobs? Gone. FDIC insured bank accounts? Gone.

The Republican Medicare plan: Make some modest cuts to all programs including Medicaid, Medicare, and government employee pensions. With these cost savings, Social Security and Medicare are fully funded for the next 100 years.

unclefalter in reply to bradshsi

He isn't for cutting defense spending because unlike most American liberals, he does not have a death wish. He gets that the US faces an unprecedented array of threats and is now trying to manage these with, for example, the smallest Navy since 1917. This isn't to excuse *how* the spending has gone, but just to note that the money is still needed for more boots and rifles kind of thing.

The whole of the free world seems not to want to pay for the very thing that makes it free. Too many of us take what we have for granted. Perhaps we all need a lesson in reality, and will get it if the kind of cuts you people speak of actually happen.

teacup775 in reply to unclefalter

So let's institute universal compulsory military service for all able bodied residents 16 and over. Get em as they enter high school. Make em work their butts off 3 days a week instead of PE. We cut the obesity problem at its root, train kiddies what reality is like and stop this nonsense, eventually, of people in high office, with no experience of military service, shooting their mouths off about war.
We spend more than the next 20 nations combined. Nothing in the US constitution talks about throwing gobs of money at "defense" with absolutely no eye to bang for buck. Seriously, the US seems to be operating on the idea of dropping buck billets, smothering with dollars, as a valid concept of warfare. If we ever ended up in a war with China, Japan or Korea, they'd simply out price us.
The Death wish comes from today's seniors who are bleeding every one younger dry for a few fat last years of life. They are the one's killing this country.

unclefalter in reply to teacup775

Totally agree America is not spending wisely. However when you look at what rudimentary ships cost, or even 'basic' planes needed to replace aging equipment, more MRAPs and so on, and then factor in that we're facing a giant 4 times our size that is very likely lying about its real military budget and ambitions, to say nothing of all the others, I think we need to spend 20 times more than the others. And especially when you consider the outrage of our European 'partners' who also need us to spend on their behalf since they won't do it themselves, since they can free-ride off of us.

bradshsi in reply to unclefalter

Twice as much as the Western average sounds like indulgance to me.

The real threat to the US has always been ourselves when we fail to keep our infrastructure and productivity up to par. Of course its much easier to blame others such as a "giant 4 times our size" and call for even more tanks and guns and planes.

Sounds like my defense voucher satire might actually be needed so that defense boosters such as yourself don't permanently drain us.

supamark in reply to unclefalter

Bahahahahahahahahahaha, oh my god that's hilarious! Oh, wait, you weren't joking?

Our military budget is as large (or larger) than the next 15 largest military budgets in the *WORLD*. It's more than a bit bloated, don't believe me ask Ike (the guy who ran WWII) - or view his exit speach upon leaving the presidency... the military/industrial/(congresssional) complex he warned of is in full effect.


OMG, is TE going to do another disastrous endorsement like Bush in 2000? All this favorable coverage of Ryan/Romney, and a seemingly intentional disregard of valid and reasoned opposition by readers, leads me to believe that such a disastrous blunder may well be on the way.

2000: "The Economist, if it had a vote, would choose George W. Bush..."

In 2004, TE put Bush's face on the cover calling him "Incompetent".

Bush was bad, real bad, the worst President since Warren G. Harding, but Romney, a deeply flawed man with a huge downside, could be even worse. I encourage TE to stay out of the endorsement business this year. The mark of a competent organization is not whether mistakes have been made in the past but whether the organization learned from them.

Although I agree with the idea of making modest cuts will likely vote Republican (I'm an independent), you statements are not only harsh but also assumptious. Try and stick to the topic without personal attacks. It'll help with your postings.

Can't wait for the debates!

ok so with your attempt at ad hominem (I say attempted since there is no way to know that Roy is on welfare), you not only shred your credibility but manage to sound mean spirited too.

Congratulations on dragging down the level of debate.

Nice, you managed to take the discussion on a board that usually attracts better-educated individuals and drag it down to the gutter in only 4 sentences. Congratulations on that splendid effort. Too bad your comments are void of any actual facts or knowledge.


Here is a fun quote that is going viral:


Yankee Doodle

The Democrats tried to create another unpopular national health care system and as a result the lost all power for 14 years. This time it will be more like 28 years that they are gone.

Yankee Doodle

Ryan's role is to explain that just as the our retirement accounts were legally looted by the bankers, that our Medicare accounts were also legally looted by Obama for his pet projects. The Trust Fund will never get the $716 billion back to pay beneficiaries and Medicare will collapse as a result sometime between 2018 - 2024.

RoyFan51 in reply to Yankee Doodle



Rep Ryan is young, smart, good looking, and an expert at the economic policies necessary to save the economy of the United States to restore growth and jobs. He reminds me of JFK. Gov Romney has shown with this choice that he is 100% serious about fixing the terrible damage Obama has inflicted on our poor debt and UNEMPLOYMENT ridden nation. Obama will continue to run the dirtiest, nastiest, issueless, slimiest, hateful campaign in history, but it won't help save the most failed Presidency in U.S. history! Our nation is just month away from beginning to recover and restore Growth and Jobs with Romney / Ryan!!!

supamark in reply to valwayne

lolwut? Obama caused the banks to make very risky and bad bets on mortgage backed securities, then bailed them out (before he was inaugurated)? wow, he must have mad skillz as the kids say. Did he also start two unfunded wars that have added over a $trillion to our debt, or do it while also cutting taxes putting us another $trillion or so in the hole? No? Then STFU until you actually get your facts straight.

Brian Pelican

Interesting article by Peggy Noonan in today's Wall Street Journal.


American politics is very amusing, you have the extremes, the air heads and even religous nuts running the show. But...having these kinds of people in positions of power is very dangerous.
Ummm, does democracy in America means anyone can run for a government postion even if he's an idiot/ignorant/or...just nuts?

NickyGoodtimes in reply to Brian Pelican


NickyGoodtimes in reply to Brian Pelican

MY ignorance? This coming from a man who's party has given us such high- minded concepts as "keep your government hands off my medicare" , "tax cuts increase revenue", and "corporations are people".

Look- I get it that arguing with a troll such as yourself is the same thing as wrestling with a pig: you both expend a lot of effort and end up covered in mud...except the Pig likes it.

In my replies to your assertions, I have always taken a fact-based, elevated- discourse approach. When you have asked for links as evidence in two recent occasions (both replies began with "Challenge accepted should you wish to refresh your memory) I have provided them...only to be met with either silence or an ad hominem attack.

I'm sorry that, in your retirement, a night of banging away at the comments section while Fox news plays in the background is considered an entertaining evening. Best of luck and I hope you eventually find that self-worth and vindication you're so desperately searching for in the ether.

Omricon in reply to Plain Speak

I am happy to have sensible discussions on these forums with people from all backgrounds, Republican, democrat, socialist. People like RR often make a good point.

Brian Pelican is however an unreasoning troll who very neatly drops into a number of logical fallacies such as black/white (Red always good, blue always bad, in fact both parties have good and bad ideas) and ad hominem (attacking people on these forums for posting at work).

(Yes its a copy just like your post is)

Steve Allen317

Today's Republican politicians seem so adamant in undoing all the government's programs created during the Great Depression [1929 through 1939] that created the American society American's enjoy today.

An example is Social Security created during Roosevelt's administration. Social Security is a defined, guaranteed, monthly check for retirees. This program was created because the banks gambled and lost depositors money during the stock market run up of the 1920, and subsequent crash in 1929. Rep. Ryan's plan would convert Social Security from a guaranteed monthly check, to a 401K invested in the stock market, with no guaranteed monthly check or guarantee of value. The same as before the "New Deal" in the 1930s. With the banking laws of the Depression Era repealed, seniors, just like in the 1920s, could once again lose all their money, like those who fell prey to the housing bubble boom and subsequent bust and lost their money.

Medicare would go from a defined benefit, to one where the people get a voucher to buy insurance in the private industry, without defined benefits and without a defined cost of that insurance. Just like people today who choose the cheapest medical insurance premium, thus get the least insurance coverage for medical care, seniors would be on the hook for any expenses not covered by the insurance.

I'm surprised that the American people do not realize that the Republicans are dismantling the very society Americans enjoy, by dismantling the programs created during the Great Depression that gave Americans the society they enjoy and was the envy of the world for 7 decades.

Brian Pelican in reply to Steve Allen317

"Today's Republican politicians seem so adamant in undoing all the government's programs created during the Great Depression"

That's a nice bit of scaremongering there.

Let's see.

Obama has taken $716 billion from Medicare for his Obamacare program which a majority of Americans don't want.

Romney/Ryan have indicated that any changes they make will not affect anyone over 55 yoa.

They have proposed a voucher system to replace the current Medicare for those under 55 to reign in the escalating higher costs because the medicare unfunded amount has now reached $38 trillion and will bankrupt the nation in little more than a decade. And destroy ALL government support programs.

What is it about that, that you do not understand?

Do you see the unfunded government programs number on the US debt clock linked below that is racing higher by the millisecond?

$120 trillion and counting. Eight full years of the country's GDP.

All of it.

3NpykGzfe4 in reply to Brian Pelican

Have you got a citation for your claim that a majority of Americans don't want the health care reforms that have been passed?

The reason that the Romney/Ryan plan doesn't affect Medicare for anyone over 55 yoa is a pacifier for those older, much-needed voters. And it makes it a sufficiently distant prospect that middle-aged voters won't be terrified.

Do you see the massive defense spending? Do you remember that the government ballooned under Bush and has shrunk since Obama came into office? And that "more jobs were created in 2011 than in any year since 2005"? (

Steve Allen317 in reply to Brian Pelican

Do you know why there is escalating medical care costs for Medicare that the government pays for? It's the method the government uses to pay for medical care seniors have. The payment method is "fee for service". While the federal government sets the fees for the types of services it will pay for, the hospitals and doctors all use the system to make as much money as they can, by providing as many services as they can. Has nothing to do with quality of care a patient receives, though doctors and hospitals want people to believe it is. Giving patients options for medical care. But reality is, that's how doctors and hospitals make money. Assembly line medical care where the more services they provide, to as many people as they can, the more they can bill. The more doctors and hospitals can bill the more money they make, thus doctors and hospitals will come up with more and more services for patients so they can bill more and more.

While an ever expanding population, thus an ever expanding tax base, was supposed to fund Medicare [and Social Security], the population in America didn't "ever expand". People found that the cost of having lots of kids ended financially unfeasable. Thus people had less and less kids. The result was a smaller tax base.

The politicians solution was first basically force people off "Welfare" by reforming it, forcing them to work. Thus they become tax payers rather than simply collecting a monthly welfare check. When that didn't increase the tax revenue, the politicians solution was to allow massive immigration to increase the tax base. However, a bigger problem existed. Those immigrants couldn't afford to live here. The politicians solution? To subsidize low wage workers living expenses. The problem with that solution was the low wage workers take out of the assistance programs more than they put in, in taxes. They do that because politicians being who they are, expand eligibility requirements and change benefit requirements as a campaign promise for re-election. The massive debt you mention isn't actually from unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security, rather that the number of people receiving benefits from the myrid of social programs exceed the amount of tax revenue from the people, thus the government must borrow to fund them.

That's the real problem. Politicians who's only concern is their political career, promising the people "Free Stuff" to get re-elected, without regard to the consequences of their actions.

Steve Allen317 in reply to Steve Allen317

In addition:

When I say the real problem is the politicians, it's that the politicians simply have no idea how to run a country, rather rely upon someone else, lobbyists, union executives, bankers, Corporate CEOs, etc to tell them what's good for the country and those individual/businesses/labor "interests" each have conflicting ideas of what is best for the country that is best for their interest, all at the expense of the tax payers who pay the taxes which gives the government the money to spend.

On the one hand the Republicans want lower taxes which means the people have more money to spend, but also means the government would have less money to spend. On the other, the Democrats want more money to fund more and more government programs.

Higher taxes means people with money will try to find ways to pay less taxes. If they can't find a way, those with money, in an effort to keep it, move where they can keep it.

That means governments who relied upon the taxes to fund their budgets, find their tax revenue decreases because people moved to avoid the high taxes. Many local city governments are finding this problem, as cities experience large changes in populations, as people move around for jobs, or for lower tax rates. There's a reason, other than the weather, that Florida has the highest population fo seniors of any state. It's they don't tax pensions, social security etc.

The progressive tax system only works where a few at the top of the pyramid, receive a benefit from the many at the bottom of the pyramid. When the pyramid becomes inverted,financial ruin happens. American's financial pyramid is becoming invested because more and more people are at the top, because the politicians promised them more government paid programs, thus making more people "at the top".

ThPusher in reply to Brian Pelican

Can you please detail how the Ryan Medicare plan addresses the rising cost of healthcare? The fact is neither the ACA nor, the Ryan pan address the rising cost of healthcare. Until we address the cost of healthcare in the US, we are skirting around the issue. the reality is, the US is subsidizing healthcare for the world while letting insurance companies skim off the top. let me know when one of the US political parties wants to address the root cause of rising healthcare costs in the US. Until then, we're just pussyfooting around the problem.

3NpykGzfe4 in reply to Plain Speak

Exactly. This poll says very plainly that a majority of Americans (51% vs. 41% who want the entire law overturned) want to keep the health care law - except for the mandate, which was originally a Republican idea. It was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, and championed by Newt Gingrich (whatever you may think of him now, he was one of the architects of the current GOP).

Plain Speak in reply to 3NpykGzfe4


Wrong - a blatant lie.

"The New York Times and CBS News poll released today shows that more than two-thirds of Americans hope that the Supreme Court overturns at least part of Obama’s 2010 health care reform law. 41% want the entire law overturned, while 27% hope at least the individual made is overturned."

3NpykGzfe4 in reply to Plain Speak

Right. 27% don't like the mandate, but apparently are fine with the rest of the law. You forgot to add in the 24% who want to keep the entire law. So that adds up to 51% of the people in the poll who had an opinion one way or the other.

Plain Speak in reply to 3NpykGzfe4

A blatant lie. So typical of dems to assume you won't challenge.


supamark in reply to Brian Pelican

Well, I don't understand the lie about the $700 billion since it goes to "Obamacare" to still cover those people. The voucher system won't work because without "Obamacare" the elderly could never get health insurance for anywhere near the amount of the vouchers. What health insurance company would cover the sickest, just-about-to-die-est portion of the population without a *substantial* montly premium?

What about actual reality don't *you* understand? The easiest way to solve medicare/medicaid solvency is through additional revenues... OR... just move to single payer - it objectively costs less and works better than private insurance. Why do you think the rest of the world has better healthcare outcomes for half the cost? No profit motive for one thing.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

