Gyroscopic Investing

And I was thinking to myself: "It would be awesome, but no way would that rich boring old white guy pick a young superstar nerd economist turned politician that thinks like I do.  It would just be expecting too much from the political machine."

Needless to say, I am surprised.  If the Republican party can attract a younger generation that Paul Ryan represents, it may be able to finally jettison the Religious Right and RINO baggage that's been holding it back for decades.

I also think that "rising superstar" Obama will now have his comeuppance with Ryan.  The Democratic Party is now going to go all out with complete falsehoods and lies in sheer desparation.  It will be amusing to watch.

[align=center][/align]

Wasn't Paul Ryan's budget the one that was based on the Heritage Foundation's numbers assuming deficit reduction partly through increased revenues due to his "Path To Prosperity" generating a little over 2% unemployment and high single digit per year economic growth for the next 8-10 years and when people pointed out how ludicrous this was Heritage simply erased the offending numbers from its (now revised) paper and pretended they never existed. Down the memory hole much? Also, don't his (or at least Romney's) tax plans rely on unspecified offsets and "magic asterisks" and continue to treat certain forms of income far more generously (for tax purposes) than others?

I also don't see how Ryan will help "attract a younger generation." His plan basically makes anyone under 50 or 55 pay full Social Security and Medicare taxes for a much skimpier benefit while preserving those benefits for most of the Baby Boomers. Why would someone who is, say, 30 years old support paying more for less? I certianly would not...now if he was talking about outright ABOLISHING Social Security and/or Medicare (and anyone who's currently receiving it would just have to do without which would seriously hurt the elderly but on net probabaly benefit the young) and instead letting people keep what they made in order to fund a private or quasi-private system I might be interested but as it is he is basically saying "spare the geezers from any cuts and anyone under 55 gets the shaft".

He is also a hypocrite on "small government" because he has no plan to cut our military spending from its current bloated levels despite the fact that (last time I checked) the military is indeed a government program.

Won't be getting my vote...who are the Libertarians running this year?

Ryan may be young, but he's clearly the adult in the room.  Putting any real plan out there to address our economic problems will draw criticism as people have the opportunity to pick apart the details.  But compared to the President whose last budget proposal garnered zero votes even from his OWN party, he's clearly on another level when talking about economics.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

I'm looking forward to the VP debate where Ryan runs circles around Biden, and I think he has the intelligence and charm to explain economics to the masses in a way most people can understand.  And that's gotta be the biggest concern for Democrats -- naming Ryan the VP will turn the conversation back to the economy.

I don't know why a guy like Ryan would accept a VP offer in the first place.

You go from being a rising star in your party to the butt of jokes who literally has nothing to do except monitor Romney's health.

One way or another, this will position Ryan well for his own serious White House run down the road, but there is a lot of obscurity to be experienced between now and then.

I wonder how closely Ryan studied the VP's role in shaping policy in U.S. history.  Apart from Cheney and the handful of VPs who became President because of the untimely death of their predecessors, it's mostly an utterly dead end job during the time you're in it.

MediumTex wrote:I wonder how closely Ryan studied the VP's role in shaping policy in U.S. history.  Apart from Cheney and the handful of VPs who became President because of the untimely death of their predecessors, it's mostly an utterly dead end job during the time you're in it.

It is a very, very long shot to go directly from the House of Representatives to the White House.  I can't remember the last one to pull that off, or even if there were any.  The VP spot may have been viewed as an easier route than via the Senate or as a state Governor.

My feeling is that Ryan won't attract the middle too much, something that Romney needs to win. It might be a nice stepping stone for running in 2016 though.

I think Ryan is a little too extreme in his budget policy to attract much interest outside of the Republican base.  Remember, his budget wanted to privatize Medicare and just give seniors a certain amount of money to spend each year - when they ran out they stopped getting healthcare.  To me that doesn't sound like a budget plan that can win the senior vote, and that is one voting bloc you don't want to lose.  Between Romney scoring poorly with female voters and Ryan's budget gutting Medicare, I think they've just alienated two really huge constituencies.

Not to mention, Ryan is a hypocrite when it comes to deficit spending.  He voted for Gramm-Leech-Bliley, which gutted Glass-Steagal and set us up for the 2008 collapse.  In 2002 he voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, giving George W. Bush the power to execute an unfunded war.  In 2003 he voted in favor of Medicare part D, another deficit funded bill.  In 2004 and 2005 he voted to privatize Social Security.  Can you imagine how well that would have played out if we allowed them to privatize social security and take a 50% market loss in 2008 with the Social Security trust fund?  

He also voted for TARP in 2008 and for the GM and Chrysler bailout.  In short, just another wannabe deficit hawk that never saw a good deficit spending bill he didn't like.

Yawn... if you wanted George W. Bush part II, this is your ticket.

Reub wrote: The average voter craves honesty and straight talk. Ryan provides this and will help win over middle-America.

You think Ryan could make up for Romney in that department?

Reub wrote: The average voter craves honesty and straight talk. Ryan provides this and will help win over middle-America.

Gag.  The guy's a fraud and is no straight-talkin' nerd economist.  He is a seemingly-friendly version of Peter Schiff who still spent to his hearts content when he felt like it. 

Simonjester wrote: he is just another politician .... i cant think of a more derogatory description of what he stands for or what he will do....

Storm wrote: I think Ryan is a little too extreme in his budget policy to attract much interest outside of the Republican base.  Remember, his budget wanted to privatize Medicare and just give seniors a certain amount of money to spend each year - when they ran out they stopped getting healthcare.  To me that doesn't sound like a budget plan that can win the senior vote, and that is one voting bloc you don't want to lose.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that voters over 65 are actually the most receptive demographic to Ryan's budget plan. They favor the Ryan plan to Obamas plan 48/43.  Perhaps seniors are more motivated by responsible spending and a sustainable economy for their grandchildren than free stuff for themselves - something the younger generations can't comprehend. Or perhaps they don't fully understand the details, and may change their mind once they do.  Who knows.  But I wouldn't be so quick to assume the voting motivations of an entire block of people based on a single issue.

jmourik wrote: My feeling is that Ryan won't attract the middle too much, something that Romney needs to win.

Ryan has won in a district that is heavily democratic and if you look at the stats from the last election, a number of people in his district must have voted for Obama and Ryan.

Ryan is honest, and articulate and if you haven't seen the video of him and Obama on the topic of Obamacare it is illustrative of what Ryan is capable of.

Really? There are *honest* politicians in congress?

Storm wrote: Yawn... if you wanted George W. Bush part II, this is your ticket.

Ryan is certainly no Libertarian.  He's still a NeoCon and a RINO based on his Congressional voting record.  I also note that he is upper-middle to upper class in his small hometown and his wife is first cousin to some long-established Democratic Party family.  So, down-to-earth and straight-talking and a grasp of economics he may have, but he's hardly blue collar.

No one can expect perfection, but I rather have Ryan in the game than some boring, pompous political blowhard that hasn't done a damn thing in decades all the while gettng super-rich at taxpayer expense (Schumer, et al.).

Ryan seems like a very intelligent and well-intentioned person who would probably make a nice neighbor.

But he's still a politician who seems to be squarely in the same old statist paradigm as most of his colleagues.

Romney could have done a lot worse, though.  Realistically, I don't know if he could have done much better.

Ryan will potentially be very valuable for the next 12 weeks or so, at which time he will either fade into obscurity as VP or he will fade into obscurity as he tries to figure out what other office he might run for in 2014.  If Romney wins, I'm sure that Ryan will find that being VP just doesn't mean much for someone who wants to have a say in formulating policy.

On a lighter note, does anyone else think that Ryan looks like a journeyman vampire?  That widow's peak and pale skin make it very easy to visualize him in a tuxedo with a cape cruising the blood banks.

Ryan may not be perfect, but this is a pretty good performance on video from awhile back Ryan taking on Obama/Obamacare:

http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-ryan/201 ... -6-minutes

He will play the role of attack dog well, which is what Romney needs right now.

If you want to see how extreme his budget is, the Atlantic did a good piece on it back in March.  By 2050 he would reduce the federal budget to 1950 levels.  That is pretty extreme considering that in 1950 we had no Medicare or Medicaid, and Social Security was a fraction of what we spend today.



What is more troubling is that he would keep some limited form of Medicare/Medicaid around, so look at the "All Else" column:



"In Ryan's 2050 budget, the "All Else" category shrinks to 3.75% of GDP. How small is 3.75%? Let's put it this way: Mitt Romney has proposed defense spending at 4% of GDP ... and defense spending makes up only about half of this category! Ryan's own ten-year projection doesn't let defense spending fall below 3%. It's unlikely he wants it to fall much further. That would leave 0.75% of GDP to do everything else.

Today, 0.75% of GDP is about $100 billion. That is about as much as we spend on education and vocational training in the discretionary budget, as Michael Linden of the Center for American Progress pointed out. Imagine if everything else disappeared. It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... et/254845/

I have a hard time taking Ryan's criticism of Obamacare seriously when his own budget is this far out in crazy land.  All politicians play games with numbers, but I've never seen a budget proposal that the entire GOP stands behind that is this insane.

What is really "extreme", a word that the Dems have been using for decades to negate anyone who may disagree with them, is taking this country to fiscal bankruptcy without even trying to stop it.

MachineGhost wrote: No one can expect perfection, but I rather have Ryan in the game than some boring, pompous political blowhard that hasn't done a damn thing in decades all the while gettng super-rich at taxpayer expense (Schumer, et al.).

Exactly!  These people are just politicians -- and for mainstream politicians, this is the pick that yields maximum fun.  At this point, all but the most willfully blind understand that this administration deserves an epic rhetorical beating for its economic policies.  This will be cathartic after nearly four years of high unemployment, staggering debt, and big spending, command-and-control venture socialism.

It will also be great fun to have an intelligent, articulate politician (even a compromised one) making the case for halting the growth of our metastasizing federal government.  In order to enjoy this experience more, I'll just have to close my eyes and hallucinate that this same person didn't also vote for Medicare Part D or the bailouts.    (Hey, if you're going to properly enjoy political theater, you must be willing to suspend your disbelief!)

Reub wrote: What is really "extreme", a word that the Dems have been using for decades to negate anyone who may disagree with them, is taking this country to fiscal bankruptcy without even trying to stop it.

Considering that the "extreme" Ryan budget doesn't even balance until around 2030-2040, this "extreme" label is just more of the hyperventilation that gets tossed around during the silly season.  I view the Ryan plan as quite moderate, if not kind of wimpy.  I'd hate to see how people reacted to a budget that limited the federal government to its actual Constitutional responsibilities. 

Reub wrote: What is really "extreme", a word that the Dems have been using for decades to negate anyone who may disagree with them, is taking this country to fiscal bankruptcy without even trying to stop it.

After seeing the difference between fiscal campaign rhetoric and fiscal governing reality in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, it seems to me that in modern times Democrats and Republicans are basically equally fiscally responsible.  Both parties are made up of people who want to expand the size of government and spend huge amounts of money--they just want to spend it on different things.

In that regard, Romney reminds me a bit of George Bush.  Basically, a man of privilege with little personal conviction beyond his sense of entitlement to power.  As Bush did, Romney will say whatever he needs to say to become President, and like Bush will probably take us into several pointless military adventures and leave office with the country's finances in worse shape than when he arrived.

Democrat...Republican...just different stripe kits on a basically statist model.

Reub wrote: What is really "extreme", a word that the Dems have been using for decades to negate anyone who may disagree with them, is taking this country to fiscal bankruptcy without even trying to stop it.

I think what is really "extreme" is that everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in complete denial as a whistleblower either gets ignored or becomes a Whack-A-Mole.  This seems to me to be exactly the kind of behavior that occurs over and over again in financial bubbles.  So we must be in a governmnet-spending financial bubble of historically unprecedented proportions.  People are not going to wake up or be forced to confront reality until after the SHTF.  Kudos to Romney and Ryan for trying to change the debate, but if we look at the track record on change since Goldwater, it is really lacking in substance.

Too bad MMR complicates the entire issue.  It seems like an irrational licence to stay in fantasy-land as the never-ending printing press faucet flows eternally.

I think the extreme anti-abortion position Ryan takes needs to be acknowledged:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... views.html

Along with his anti-gay marriage views, Ryan is an unapologetic social statist.

In Freakonomics, the conclusion from longitudinal studies of anti-abortion policies was that the economic and social effects of these policies created more crime, violence and misery from a generation of unwanted children. Here's the link for that argument:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/ ... u-believe/

From this point of view, it seems ironic, indeed, that this man wants to save the economy.

            Depending on the mountain top you are standing on, there are a lot of viewpoints about Ryan.  One is his ability to logically mediate and arbitrate the issues and stop the class warfare.  This division rings offensively loud, as the only job President Obama has accomplished well.
Our forefathers were individuals of means. And except in volunteering, most all of us never will work for a financial deficient employer. Nor will we ever hire anyone if bankrupt.  Also, It is silly if not illegal to expect someone to pay more for goods or services just because they have more. So why the division?  History exhibits, governments are easiest change when groups within it’s society are vilified. I would like to see all this talk from “Butter Battle Book”? by Dr. Seuss about “those who butter the bottom of their bread”? stopped.
              Thank you.

MediumTex wrote: and like Bush will probably ...leave office with the country's finances in worse shape than when he arrived.

MT,

What makes you say that about Romney?  he is far from perfect, but he has been a successful businessman, and is seeing what is happening in Mass to the costs of his health care program.

lazyboy wrote: I think the extreme anti-abortion position Ryan takes needs to be acknowledged:

Many people, myself included feel that statism/economy is the only relevant issue. 

As an aside, overusage of the word extreme, probably does not help your case.

Neither Romney nor Ryan have to be libertarians or Austrians, though it would be great if they were.  They simply have to offer a level of competence that exceeds that of the current administration.  That shouldn't be hard.