It's Paul Ryan (R) WI

If you are speaking to me, Karl, I am not "you guys" on my own blog.  At age 42, I don't find Paul Ryan to be a career anything.  He has 14 years in the House of Representatives.  And is the chair of the House finance commitee - He has published comprehensive plans to address the difficult questions in our government, that others have feared to approach, for six years that I have been reading about him.  My link in the bottom of the original post above goes to an Active Rain post of mine in June of 2008 when I thought Senator Mccain should look at him.  He may be one of the few members of Congress that has been in the real world for at least six years.

I like Paul Ryan.  I believe he will be a constructive addition to the ticket and will be extremelh competent as Vice President.  But let's not forget that Mitt Romney is the candidate for President and is the top of the ticket.  What I appreciate about Romney's selection of Congressman Ryan is that it underscores Romney's commitment to focus on the budget, the debt and the economy.  And, at this point in time, I am glad to be reassured about that.

When your candidate ran for office - he had limited experience in anything - public or private.  Now he has a record of poor performance, lack of leadership, inconsistency and incompetence.  He has hired inexperienced staff and he has surrounded himself with questionable advisors who have served him poorly.  The lapdog media has never vetted his background, his questionable associations or his agenda for the public.

I understand much of the support Mr Obama had in 2008 - although I disagree.  He skillfully played on the fears and concerns of many Americans and successfully ran with unabashed media partisanship  against Mr Bush, who was not on the ballot.  He offered change and no body asked what that meant.  And, Mr McCain was not a strong candidate with sufficient fund raising behind him.  If Mr Obama is re-elected, which is a possibility, I will not be as understanding.  There is enough information out there now on the state of the economy and his performance that I hope much of his support from 2008 will not be with him now.  Particularly young voters should understand that they are in a much poorer position now as a result of Mr Obama's policies.  

I will see you, Karl on the flip side with many more conversations to come in the next 84 days.

And thanks to all for stopping by. 

I really want to have part of this discussion in response to a new post.  When we continue conversations several days after a post, no matter how interesting the comments are, there is a limited audience of die-hards on both sides of the thread.  So when I have time I will begin to provide some new canon fodder as soon as I have time.  

Yolanda - thank you for kind words !

Satar - the debt ceiling is not a good place to make your decision.  Due to the process we use, increasing the debt ceiling merely authorizes payments on money already authorized by Congress and spent.  It does not decrease spending.  So failure to authorize payments would cause chaos in the financial markets.  To me the criminally negligent action (by Harry Reid - but I will find a way to blame it on the President) is the refusal of the Senate to participate in the budget process.  How in the world do you prioritize spending to plan for decreases in spending if you do not have a budget.  When you are borrowing 42% of every dollar you spend - and you have no budget - how do you fix it ?  

I would guess that part of the delay in bringing the budget into line in Ryan's plan is the attempt to cover all seniors in Social Security and Medicare if they are 55 years old or older.  This protects existing seniors from negative impacts and implements changes on those who have adequate time to prepare for any change in the system by seeking alternatives.  

We haven't even gotten to the tough questions.  We are looking at reductions in discretionary spending which is not the big slice of the pie.  The really tough questions will come when we start to talk about reducing entitlement spending.  The future can only remain sunny if we increase revenues by growing the economy.  Big time and now. We must grow the economy, reduce the deficit by reducing spending (and I suspect we are talking about eliminating some cabinet departments - not just cutting a percentage) and revising the tax code to remove social engineering and special interests from the tax code.  The tax code must incentivize investment because it will be easier to raise revenues by increasing the economy than by increasing taxes while trying to grow the economy.  There may come a time when increasing taxes may be necessary to talk about - but first we must reduce tax rates to stimulate jobs and economic growth.  Then we must agressively reduce spending.  And before my liberal friends shout for reduction in the defense budget - remember that national defense is one of the few enumerated powers specified in the Constitution.  And it is the obligation of the Federal Government.  

I can assure you that I will be more active in posting articles for discussions over the next 84 days leading up to the election.  Members on both sides of the issues we will discuss need to put aside the talking points and look at the facts and make your own decisions.  I can remembering watcing the political conventions for Eisenhower's second term (1956) and ever since.  So I have been lied to by experts on both sides of the aisle.  I welcome the comments of all who have been active here - but I expect facts and rational agument. We are discussing important events and values here which may shape our futures and our children's futures for generations to come.  As John Denver used to say when asking the audience at his concerts to join in on the choruses "So if you sing - sing good.  And I will try to do the same"

Satar - Re: debt ceiling:  It does not force the goverrnment to live within its means.  You need to stop the spending, not try to stop the payments after the money is already spent by refusing to raise the credit card limit after the spending has already taken place.  That is dishonest.  Like taking the merchandise home and then stopping payment on the check.

The problem is the lack of budget to control appropriations.  I have suggested that the House of Representatives, where all appropriations are initiated, change their own chamber rules in the House - which they can do without Senate or President approval.  The house could rule that no appropriations may be proposed unless they reference a specific line in a current Congressional budget.  They could stop this nonsense of Harry Reid's Senate refusing to participate in the budget process as required by law. (And yes there could be a provision for emergency appropriations, requiring a super majority to accomplish).  Folks - we borrow 42% of every dollar we spend.  How can you prioritize spending without a budget?  How can you even get the big picture without a budget.  Harry Reid won't do it because he doesn't want his members to be accountable for this mess and this massive debt.  I can't impeach Harry Reid - each chamber disciplines their own members.  Reid hides behind his immunity to speak nonsense from the Senate Floor such as his claims that Mr Romney hasn't paid his lawful taxes, without evidence or even a disclosed source.  

Re: Social Security and Medicare.  You have seen the ads of Ryan pushing the grandmother off the cliff.  Striking image but it is horsepuckey.  Every Ryan plan has kept the government's word to seniors.  If you are over 55, there is no change to your programs and payments.  But changes have to be made - I agree.  The changes proposed are directed to under 55 year folks who have time to evaluate the new coverage options and make their plans from the available plans and the private sector options.  They have ten years or more to position themselves to the new realities that are already here.

Re: defense spending... reasonable folks can disagree here (and we do) and there needs to be a public debate on these important issues.  

My original point remains the same.  Paul Ryan is one of the top Congressional experts on these issues and the options available.  And (referring to my article linked at the bottom of the original post) he is one of the few voices in Congress that has offered comprehensive plans addressing all the tough issues in writing and in proposed legislation for at least six years that I know of - possibly more.  I may not agree with every jot and tittle in each of his presentations - but he has had the courage and the integrity to put himself out there on spending and entitlements where his colleagues have feared to follow.  

Romney's selection of Ryan is proof to me that Romney will focus on debt, budget and spending issues as well as the President's appalling lack of leadership on these issues.  All elected officials have votes i their past that they might regret now.  We are in extraordinary times and new answers must be developed regardless of positions held in years past.  Never in my life have the rating agencies downgraded the obligations of the United States Government until this administration.  Is anybody listening ? Is anybody watching the economic picture in Europe - where Greece, Spain and Ireland are merely the first economies to go over the cliff.  The economic policies of Europe are dangerous and unsustainable - and this is the program that my liberal friends want to adopt and follow. ?

Active Rain members who were around in 2007 will remember significant controversy over the use of the term "lemmings" - But what other word demonstrates the foolishness of large groups of voters who support running toward the cliff as fast as we can.  It is never my intent to ridicule people who disagree with me.  It is their right to do so.  But there seems to me to be hard evidence from history and from current events that the policies of this administration fall into the dangerous and unsustainable category.  I am glad we can engage in this debate and I hope we can resolve some of the issues in the next 84 days.  I recognize that we may not convince each other on the main points, and that is ok.  But perhaps we can identify some points where we can agree and discuss which candidate and which plans will get us where we need to be.  I will continue to suggest that only the free market forces that have been the strength of this country in the past can pay to get us out of the hole that we are still digging.  I believe that government must remove its regulatory foot from the neck of the productive engine that can save us all. We will talk about all of it for three months.  Thank you all for your thoughts and your participation.

Jason - thank you for kind words - but we may be of different generations as to music appreciation.

Karl - There is plenty of blame to go around to Republicands and Democrats back at least to Mr Carter.  I may or may not respond to you on the past - But I welcome your views on where we are and how we get out of here. 

Satar - the management that was in control during the lemmings controversy are no longer present so it is not useful to rehash the events.  I agree that the term is not racist as used - and is certainly not intended that way as I use the term. But sometimes the way our language is perceived by others is more important than how we intended for the message to be heard.  

As for debt ceiling - I understanding your point but, in my view, the mechanics are wrong.  You and I agree on the issue of spending money we don't have.  But using the debt limit to prevent payments for money that has already be spent is dishonest, again in my view.  The fight has to be fought at the point of appropriations. And the issue is significantly more difficult when there is no budget to prioritize spending.  I have provided this discussion in multiple comments here and you are not responding to what I have said.  You are welcome to disagree with me - but you can't ignore me on my blog. 

When the government is borrowing almost half of every dollar spent, obviously there is going to be a debt ceiling issue.  But let's not screw with the full faith and credit of the United States to score debating points.  Our obligations have been downgraded by financial ratings companies for the first time in history.  If we continue to be irresponsible as well as stupid - there will be a significant cost as the interest rates go up as our financial instruments are further downgraded.  This interest on the debt (possibly exceeding defense spending by now) is real dollars that provide no benefit or service.  We already face significant problems if the world walks away from the USD as the reserve currency for international markets.  And the only reason that this is not already accomplished is that the rest of the western world is in worse economic condition than we are - and for much the same reasons.  

And by the way, although I want a balanced budget - I do not agree with a balanced budget amendment which would require automatic tax increases when the government refuses to cut spending.  

Stop appropriations without the framework of a comprehensive congressional budget.  Then we can have a debate on our priorities in the light of day.  I can't impeach Majority Leader Reid - The chambers of Congress have to take out their own garbage.  But the Republican party failed to make Reid's re-election in 2010 a national issue - big mistake. But we can change the majority party in the Senate (which can open up the consideration of policy issues in the Senate) in November and we can fire the occupant of the White House.  Now that is hope and change that I can support.

Satar - fair enough... Thank you.  And, after all, it was Sardi that didn't like the John Denver lyrics...

It is a bit ironic that we say that Congress cannot bust the debt ceiling when Congress has the power to raise the limit.  Who thought that system up?  I am not sure I said that voting against the increase and meeting our obligations couldn't be done - only that it is irrational and will result in some sort of disturbance in the force.  After all, we can still monetize the debt.  Qualitative easing anyone? We still have the printing presses at the Fed and the Treasury.  What could go wrong ?

Somewhere way back when... there was a concept that a Congress could not bind later congresses.  Seems to have gone by the boards with the advent of entitlements. (and gutless legislators)

Satar - the line is from historic Athens.  No democracy has ever survived its citizens learning that they could vote themselves benefits. 

Margaret Thatcher, the great lady, also knew that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. 

Lady Thatcher also offered this magnificient gem of truth, " Europe was created by history - America was created by philosophy."  I fear that we are in danger of forgetting that simple truth - and that is how we have moved away from protecting individual liberty.

Kenneth - thank you for kind words.

Bob (or Bonnie) - Jason and I get along very well.  But since he is tending toward the dark side, I can only assume that he has not read all of my blogs.  Either that or I may not be as good a salesman as you think.

But thank you for the kind words.

I stand with Israel and I am mortified at Mr Obama's treatment of Israel (and a number of allies).  But I am concerned about the timing of the point of no return with Iran and Syria.  I would not like to think that the Administration would become involved in another shooting war before the election for political points.