Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney that his running mate for vice president will be U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Washington State Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wilbur issued a statement calling Ryan, who serves as budget committee chairman in the U.S. House of Representatives, a "bold and exciting choice for Mitt Romney."
Choosing Paul Ryan to be his running mate shows how serious Romney is about fixing the economic crisis and it shows that he’s willing and able to make the decisions that get the job done. ...(Ryan) has already gone head-to-head with President Obama and proven that he can easily hold his own. He is young, dynamic, smart, and capable, and is the right man for the job.
Check out the Storify feed above to see reaction to the news from around the country.
What do you think? Is Paul Ryan the right person for the job? Does Romney's selection make you more likely to vote for him? Share your thoughts with us in the comments section below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/paul-ryan-medicare_b_1774233.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/paul-krugman-paul-ryan_n_1772105.html http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/705401/how-paul-ryans-budget-would-devastate-social-programs-for-todays-lower-income-americans/
Do you understand why business people took exception when he recently told a crowd that (paraphrasing), business people didn't get where they are because they are smarter or because the work harder? What in the world is the point of that rhetoric? Why does he constantly say they (successful people) need to pay their fair share when he knows full well that they pay more; despite the loopholes. He seems to want to create a divide... and by the analysis of some of the conversation here; mission accomplished!
Same old conservative cry. Welfare and gangsters. You can clean up all the fraud in welfare, ssi, farm subsidies and it won't amount to anything compared to budget. It is insignificant.
Thanks for the lopsided, politically biased reading from Obama supporters. I would ask you to read a more mainstream piece from this week's Newsweek. "Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope." - Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go, Newsweek, August 19, 2012. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
If we could lower taxes on workers by stopping all the corporate bailouts and special interest government payouts, they might have enough of their own money to buy the health care they want. Instead, we tax them into poverty and force them onto a substandard, underfunded medical program that treats them like second class citizens.
Bob Martinek 8:12 am on Tuesday, August 21, 2012 I am on your side except. It is naive to think of a corporation as an entity. A corporation is an organization with overpaid executives and they are the ones that should be held accountable. Corporations are also thousands of employees earning a paycheck and thousands of shareholders, many of which are retired and living on the dividend, bond or stock valuations. To punish a corporation is to punish America. They should be regulated and audited with severe punishment for offenses. While I think of myself as a Keynesian I do subscribe to "free enterprise" a term that the Tea Party has sought to corrupt. Their understanding of a free economy is one that is not regulated or controlled. By definition, look it up in your Macro Econ text book, is a business that can't control price or demand. Hardly what we have today with the consolidation of large corporations and wealth.
Nonsense. Of course it was good that under the leadership of Allan Mullaley (sp), Ford was able to avoid collapse. But to not bailout GM, which is paying the money back WITH interest (a good investment for America) would have meant tens of thousands of people out of work and shareholder with nothing. Today GM is recovering, AIG has paid back it's loan. Those were smart moves by both Paulson and Geitner. Health care, crap, I want a single payer. Tell me why people should profit off of others misery. You want to run it through insurance companies that need to make a profit, advertise and pay for huge crystal palaces. Medical care should be provided to everyone and everyone should pay for it.
Here's what really happened with the "pay back" you mentioned. The total 'package' that we gave to bailout GM was $49.5 billion dollars. Of that, $6.7 billion was considered a loan at 7%. The rest of that money was transferred via a stock purchase of 60% of the equity. The US government also put $13.4 billion into an escrow account for "working capital". Is GM paying back the loan? Payments on the $6.7 billion loan are being made FROM the $13.4 billion dollar escrow account -- all taxpayer money. The fact that the current administration is calling this a success, should tell you a lot about their economic policies. That fact that you believed them, says something else. You said: "Those were smart moves by both Paulson and Geitner" Yes, but smart for who? Not the taxpayers, not for their competition... but yes, there were some winners.
I'm going to change 'misery' to 'health care needs' to make that sound less hyperbolic. The reason we prefer that people profit from health care services is because the profit motive will help maintain and improve the system. If you remove the profit motive, what will the incentive be for continued investments? People only invest if they have a chance to obtain a return on their money. If you advocate for a health care system where everyone involved is a government worker and where people pay nothing for their health care services, the wait time for services will be longer and the quality of care will be lower. We need a system where you can buy the types of services you are willing and able to pay for AND a system which provides low cost/no cost care for those who are truly unable. Neighborhood health clinics hold great promise to deliver services for those who can't afford typical 'retail' medical services. I prefer the high deductible insurance plans where people pay for all "office visit" type services out of pocket. That behavior will drive down prices because consumers will check for lower prices. Insurance should be used only for significant cost items. That lowers premium costs and those savings will pay for the office visits.
I don't believe that American health care is 'middle of the pack'... Reporting is not standardized and too many 'studies' are designed with a particular outcome as their objective. If you have a credible report that illustrates those numbers, I'd be interested to read it.
Thanks.