Saturday, August 11, 2012

Romney makes the perfect VP choice

I've long been a big fan of Paul Ryan, so I am thrilled with Romney's VP choice. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents the single best hope for reforming our runaway government and reviving our sickly economy. If the people do not respond to this overwhelmingly in November, then the future of our country will be in serious doubt.

UPDATE: For a fairly comprehensive look at the origins of Paul Ryan's approach to policymaking, see  this article by John Podhoretz.

15 comments:

Jake said...

I think we'll be okay either way.

Gil Rodveltz said...

Beware of economists making forecasts

Squire said...

If Romney wins, Ryan will be in constant contact with Congress. There is so much reform for which legislation is needed. Romney and Ryan will be a tag team with Congress.

In 2011, Medicare + Medicaid + CHIP spending equaled $768 billion dollars. The spending has been doubling every 5 to 6 years. Do we believe that we will be spending $1.5 trillion on these programs in five years? And it doesn’t even include the VA or Obamacare. Including them do we really believe that the central government will spend $2 trillion on medical care in five years? Do we really believe that we can increase taxes to cover that? Do we really think the economy can grow that fast to cover it?

The healthcare industry is the biggest government created industry cartel in the U.S.

brodero said...

Does Ryan help Romney win
Ohio,Virginia,or Florida? Maybe he helps Romney win Wisconsin.

Paul said...

The choice is pretty clear now for the American voter: free markets vs. freeloaders.

Lawyer in NJ said...

By repealing RomneyCare...I mean ObamaCare, the Repos would be handing a victory to the freeloaders.

Same as it ever was...

Unknown said...

If Romney wins ...

The democrats will continue to control at least one house of congress, and so little or none of Romney's agenda will get passed. Does anyone seriously think the democrats are going to roll over and pass any of Romney's agenda after the republicans spent most of the past 2 years doing everything they could to stonewall Obama's agenda? Dream on!

If that weren't enough, at the mid-term elections in 2014, since nothing will have happened except gamesmanship which will have accomplished nothing, voters will be frustrated and, as they're prone to do, blame it mostly on the party controlling the White House. So they'll probably vote democrats into a majority in both houses ... which, of course, will only make things worse and even less will get accomplished than in Romney's first 2 years.

This is all eminently predictable and I find it hard to believe otherwise intelligent people actually believe this choice today is somehow meaningful.

Benjamin said...

If Romney, who is indecipherable in every regard, and who keeps money stashed in secret Cayman Island bank accounts and refuses to release copies of his tax returns, and who contends he was not involved with Bain Capital while filing forms with the SEC that he was chairman, CEO and sole shareholder, is the best choice we have...I want another party.

Ryan strikes me as simplistic, bombastic, ambitious.

Is this ticket better than Obama?

Look at federal spending during the GOP-dominated Bush jr. years, provided by Grannis on the next post.

The GOP loves agency spending.

Squire: Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP spending was $768 billion? Defense, Homeland Security and VA spending topped $1 trillion.

Henry H said...

When Marxist Romney repeals universal healthcare in Massachusetts, I might believe the Ryan pick is a reveral of his socialist ideals. It's just a dog and pony show for the "conservative".

Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

My only disappointment with "Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan" is the word "vice."

Scott Grannis said...

All: I highly recommend this article for excellent background info on Ryan's policy experience and objectives:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/ryans-hope/

Paul said...

"By repealing RomneyCare...I mean ObamaCare, the Repos would be handing a victory to the freeloaders."

What a bunch of Obama spoon-fed blather. Obamacare vastly expands Medicaid and expands subsidies for private insurance to people who pay no income taxes. True, the freeloaders may not be going to the emergency room for routine care now. But they won't need to since the taxpayers will be picking up their insurance for them.

Paul said...

Benji,

"Ryan strikes me as simplistic, bombastic, ambitious. "

Maybe because you don't know anything about him. You were calling him "Ryan Paul" just a few months ago.

William said...

Paul said...

"True, the freeloaders may not be going to the emergency room for routine care now. But they won't need to since the taxpayers will be picking up their insurance for them."

The taxpayers - meaning the 50% of American who pay Federal income taxes - are already picking up the cost of the uninsured who use emergency services or who require hospitalization through the higher prices for all hospital services required to cover the lost revenue of those who don't pay - the poor and uninsured.

These higher hospital fees then must be covered by medical insurance companies which raise their premiums annually.

There is no free lunch here. 45,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance for various reasons. But when they need hospital health care, the hospitals - by law - must provide the care. Currently, those who can afford to pay or have health insurance are paying higher hospital fees and insurance premiums which ultimately reimburse the hospitals for charity care.

Paul said...

"There is no free lunch here."

I agree,at least not for the taxpayers. Obamacare hands many of the freeloaders taxpayer paid insurance on the front end.

"Currently, those who can afford to pay or have health insurance are paying higher hospital fees and insurance premiums which ultimately reimburse the hospitals for charity care."

And with an insurance policy, 32 million people are going to, on avg, use the health care system 2x as often. You can argue that's more humane(but I wouldn't) but you can't argue it's going to save much money, or end the free ride.