Sunday, 12 August 2012
Paul Ryan is a budget hawk's budget hawk, never one to believe a government bureaucrat who self-servingly claims that a spending cut will cause real damage to his program and the people it benefits. But there are exceptions:
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) expressed skepticism Thursday that U.S. military leaders were being honest in their budget requests to Congress. “We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice,” Ryan said during a forum on the budget sponsored by the National Journal. "We don't think the generals believe their budget is really the right budget."
"You don't believe the generals?" [managing editor Kristin] Roberts asked.
"What I believe is this budget does hollow out defense," Ryan responded...."I think there’s a lot of budget smoke and mirrors in the Pentagon’s budget," Ryan added, saying his proposal was an "honest Pentagon budget."
Just to be absolutely clear here: if we're talking about a program that helps the poor or the elderly or the sick, Ryan is eager to cut spending. In fact, he's usually eager to be the biggest budget cutter in the room. But if it's a program for the military, he won't accept spending cuts even if the military brass supports them. In fact, he insists on raising their budget.
For some reason, this is known in mainstream circles as being a "deficit hawk."
Why is the GOP and thier pawn Paul Ryan so interested in cutting money from everything BUT the military? Obviously because they want war.
Check out the sham "stimulus" debate in 2009...
When trying to convince people not to do a Stimulus... this was the argument put forward by the Republican National Committee and Fox News i.e. spending leads to a depression... but that's not the best part, the best part is that they were argueing that SPENDING ON WAR (NOT ON PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES) leads to recovery (people seem to have forgotten about that crazy "debate"!)...
Explanation: That spending is good for an economy shouldn't be debatable. If you have a business and nobody buys your stuff (i.e. if no spending occurs) you will make no money. This is basic economics, even George Bush wanted people to spend to boost the economy, he just wanted it to be ALL on consumer spending while the Government focuses it's spending on war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The debate should be instead on WHAT FORM OF SPENDING SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT. I support peaceful spending activities (done properly, transparently and efficiently), while the GOP and the Paul Ryan Plan goes the other way.
The V.P. selection of conservative dreams is about a lot more than boosting the GOP's chances this fall
Paul Ryan’s selection as Mitt Romney’s running mate could have real electoral implications in November. This in and of itself would be unusual.
Modern campaign history shows that a vice-presidential candidate generally has little to no effect on the outcome. Under the best-case scenario, he or she might provide a modest, concentrated boost to the ticket; under the worst-case scenario, he or she can cause damage that’s broader, but still not that severe.
Ryan is a somewhat unique V.P. pick because his resume, personality, life story and geographic base aren’t really what landed him on Romney’s ticket. His budget blueprint did, though, and the basic principles behind it – dramatic changes in social safety net programs, in the tax code, and in the government’s basic spending priorities – will now dominate the fall campaign.
Republicans hope this will imbue their ticket with a feeling of purpose and mission, that swing voters will be inspired to see Romney and Ryan as a pair of courageous truth-tellers intent on tackling a Serious Issue. Democrats hope those same voters will be alarmed by, say, Ryan’s call to turn Medicare into a voucher program, or by the massive cuts that would be required to make his numbers add up. Either way, the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee figures to play a central role in the 2012 race’s outcome.
But the electoral implications of the Ryan pick will extend well beyond November, because today’s developments also say something about Ryan’s place in the Republican Party and its future.
Again, he’s different in this way than the average vice-presidential nominee. Being selected for a national ticket is a huge career boost for any politician. The track record of V.P. candidates going on to win the White House on their own isn’t that great (George H.W. Bush, chosen by Ronald Reagan 32 years ago, was the last to do it), but they almost all emerge as national players. Often, this presents them with opportunities they never would have had otherwise. Joe Lieberman probably wouldn’t have run for president in 2004 without his stint on Al Gore’s ticket, Lloyd Bentsen wouldn’t have had Democrats begging him to run in 1992 if he hadn’t accepted Michael Dukakis’ offer in 1988, and if she hadn’t been picked by John McCain, Sarah Palin wouldn’t be … whatever she is today.
But the Ryan pick seems more politically significant than any recent V.P. selection because of how it came about. Ryan was the subject of a concerted pressure campaign by prominent conservatives and grass-roots activists, who specifically wanted him on the ticket. This, in turn, was an outgrowth of the way in which Ryan has almost single-handedly given the Obama-era right an economic vision around which to rally.
It wasn’t long ago that Ryan’s budget ideas were seen as outside the mainstream of his own party, too politically toxic for the GOP to etch into its platform. But the election of Obama radicalized the conservative movement, which embarked on a campaign not just to fight the president’s agenda relentlessly but to cleanse its own ranks. Ryan’s plans offered these conservatives both a substantive-seeming alternative to Obama’s proposals and a way of coming to terms with the failure of the Bush years — if only we’d been following this road map, we’d never have ended up with Obama! Thus have they elevated him to hero status on the right over the past few years.
This process has been abetted by once-pragmatic Republicans. Previously, they might have spoken up to temper it, but in the face of a restive base and the real threat of primary challenges, they acquiesced to the right’s Ryan fervor. The grief that rained down on Newt Gingrich for calling Ryan’s Medicare plan “right-wing social engineering” last year was an example to any Republican with an instinct to question the wisdom of embracing Ryan-ism. Both his Medicare plan and budget blueprint have passed the House with near-universal Republican support.
And now Romney has acquiesced too. The most powerful and influential conservative forces within the Republican Party wanted this pick – badly. And because of his own shaky standing with those forces and his deteriorating position in the race against Obama, Romney found himself ill-positioned to say no to them. Vice-presidential nominees almost never come with the level of intraparty enthusiasm that Ryan generates. There was no comparable push for Palin, Lieberman, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, Bentsen, Geraldine Ferraro or just about any other V.P. nominee of the past few decades.
In this sense, Ryan’s selection is confirmation of his rarefied stature within the GOP. It’s a statement of the degree to which conservative leaders and activists see him and his ideas as their future. Surely, they wanted him on the ticket because they believe it will help their cause this year and that he’d keep a watchful eye on a President Romney. But they also understand that the national spotlight Ryan is now entering will radically enhance his future political prospects – that even if the ticket loses this year, he’s likely to emerge as a top-tier contender for the 2016 nomination. They are playing a long game here, too.
Granted, plenty could go wrong for Ryan these next few months. Maybe he’ll stumble in an embarrassing way, or turn in a dreary debate performance, leading conservatives to look for another Face of the Future. The example of Jack Kemp, whose selection as Bob Dole’s running mate in 1996 briefly thrilled the right, is worth keeping in mind; by the end of that campaign, many conservatives had turned on Kemp after he made a point of refusing to play an attack dog role against Bill Clinton, and his stock for the 2000 race plummeted. (He ended up not running.) For all we know, this could be Ryan’s fate.
But even if Ryan’s budget proves an albatross for Romney and the GOP ticket goes down, it’s not hard to see conservatives rationalizing away the defeat: The problem was Romney couldn’t sell the message – that’s why the next time we need Ryan at the top of the ticket! They’ve believed for a few years now that Ryan-ism should be their party’s future, and today’s announcement is a major step toward making it so.
i.e. No safety nets + depression + war factories + warmongering = WAR ...
i.e. small companies making big ticket items such as fighter jets; this means less people are employed, smaller number of people make huge profits and these huge profits make the economy look like its growing when actually its just a few companies making huge profits benefiting a small group of people.
2. There are "900 bases in 150 countries"
3. From The Economist: Indeed, the one lesson that can be drawn from the data is that today's strategic priorities can shape deployments for decades to come, long after the original reason for putting G.I.s in a particular region has gone.
With ALL the jobs being sent abroad and ALL the Government healthcare jobs gone, there will be just one place left to work... the military (also see first video above)...
European Union Collapse & War-Fueled Recovery
The fastest way to start a European war is to piss off the Germans, so America should kick them in the schnitzels to jumpstart a World War II-style economic recovery.
Historical note: The US Government got out of the last depression, with historically high unemployment rates, by going to War (i.e. World War 3). This solved the economic problem because of the war industry AND the large decrease in population (millions dies storming beaches lined with machine guns, again and again... how long will it just be the drones? There's Iran, Syria to invade and Iraq (to go back into, as Rick Perry said during the debates - Romney was smart enough to stay quite). All the apparatus is there, all the GOP needs is control of the executive branch. There may be contractors in Iraq but the army has drawn down. Libya's attack is over. With the GOP this wil continue. The Libertarians are walking into a GOP-Romney trap by taking the GOP's side in ANYTHING. It's how the GOP works, literally, everything is a lie or half truth designed to take us into war
The Paul Ryan EXOPOSOTHON Link Ring...