"Grow up", about what I have seen you telling others on your postings, as you pretend to be the only "adult" allowed an opinion. The Dems have not "refused" to pass a budget, they can`t pass what would benefit the country without some bipartisanship, and there is none to be had. When did the Senate Democrat leader come out and specifically say their main goal was to keep Bush/Reagan/Bush, etc., from a second term, almost immediately after an election? Even long time Republicans are saying they are too far to the right.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...
One of the main reasons I post so little anymore is because of the increased level of hostility that you, your "gang" on the right, and some on the left, show in the postings instead of debating subjects. You, especially, have shown more of a biased, and nasty attitude , including name calling and accusing people of being trolls, when you seem to be the biggest one on here. Just once, when one of "your side" makes a totally false or ridiculous statement, why haven`t you called them on it like you do the "other side"?
Look in the mirror, and tell yourself to "grow up".

"When your avowed purpose is to keep the president from a second term"
-
Grow up, this happens with all presidents. The other party always wants to be in charge; this is nothing new.

If you don't like it change the system. But remember adding another party (which wouldn't be a bad idea) just means 2 parties will then want the other president out.

Pharm what side voted and passed a budget? What side has refused to pass a budget in the senate? Hint: all budgets need to pass both houses before a president can sign it. As with all budgets after both houses pass a version, always having some difference, they then proceed to conference committee were differences are hammered out. When one party refuses to participate in the process how do you expect one to happen?

Bringing party into it is distracting. As if signing a no tax pledge, and taking an element away from problem solving, is the way to go. A bad budget is worse than no budget, especially if it will increase deficits/debt because it cannot work unless all the planets align and elephants fly. Make a serious effort to negotiate, I include both parties, and a solution can be found. When your avowed purpose is to keep the president from a second term, how can you claim to be working for the best interests of the country? Shouldn`t the country come first, and party loyalties a distant second? Adding to the defense budget, cutting social safety nets, even when the Pentagon offers budget savings, is not putting the country first. The budget offered by the president had cuts to discretionary spending, the only raises were in mandatory programs, but it was dead on arrival because of party politics, both parties. They are supposed to negotiate, but if your hands are tied(campaign money)by silly pledges, you cannot do it.

Lol. The continuing resolutions are based on the INCREASED spending budget, Obama's first and only. Keep thinking not correcting those limits are like unicorns, serves your party well.

And yet the country continues to function, doesn`t it? Passing a bad budget is worse than none at all, especially if it is one that is based on whimsey and unicorns!

Pharm, I have not seen any political budget yet that is perfect. The fact is at least that one was voted on and passed by the house. For over 3 years the senate has not passed a budget at all. Ignoring the problems by choosing not to pass a budget is worse than passing a bad one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...
What fiscal soundness? Assuming continued revenue of 19% of GDP when it only happens 13% of the time is ridiculous.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...
His own numbers speak against the supposed soundness of his plan.

Speaking of talking in circles, you are very near the circular logic that traps poo. A novel is not a world view. One has no correlation to the other, much like her choice of religion. The very fact those on the left continue to bring it up has become hillarious. Smacks of grasping at staws, like inflicting a clergies view on the national budget, exactly when did that become a reason to like or not like the fiscal soundness of it.

RAF, please go back to school and learn basic comprehension so you can carry out rational arguments. It is Rand's atheism that becomes extremely important, I wrote "that she happens to be an atheist is extremely important, but only in the context of Ryan insisting his budget is built on Christianity."

Do you know what that means? Her atheism becomes important only because Ryan based his budget on her "inspiring" economics and worldview (individualism vs collectivism). He rants about that all the time. Yet he claimed Catholic teachings shaped his budget to which catholic bishops strongly disagreed. I'm not accusing Ryan of being an atheist - got that? But Rand's atheism plays a major role in her economics and parts of her worldview of which Ryan strictly adheres to. We're going in circles here.

"Aaron Aegerter of Janesville said Rand was a foundation of Ryan’s political philosophy and that she was 'an outspoken atheist, said altruism is evil, supported abortion and condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor.'" A simplistic, sound-bite paraphrase, no doubt. But even at face value, sadly enough - and however painful it might be to admit it - Rand was likely substantially right. Nature hones strength and function; in too many cases, long-term charity under the guise of sympathy and compassion enables generational dependency.

Would that it were not so, but the distastefulness of reality doesn't make it any less real. In a culture were we spend so much time at attempting to be politically correct in our generation of euphemistic terms to try and keep ahead of the reality curve, we should occasionally be wise enough to look back and see what is gaining on us...Nature - callous and indifferent, yet pure and perfect - and with a vengeance! PC that!

Onward, Christian Soldiers...

YKM and now your back saying atheism is important. As soon as you make your mind up let me know.

LT, I understand your point about Ryan doing the switcheroo. He's back-pedaling and flip-flopping any way he can to avoid the pot of boiling oil he alone has been cooking up. My point about the atheism argument is to let his church to do it. They're good at those arguments. Ryan's personal philosophy is clearly aligned with Rand's worldview and economics and that she happens to an atheist is extremely important, but only in the context of Ryan insisting his budget is built on Christianity. IMO Which again, the Church claims it is not. We're on the same page.

It's deniers and tools like RAF who will attempt to feed readers half-baked twisted logic and then try to discredit the truth tellers with juvenile putdowns and deflection.

Kaysbrew, I'm trying to find your substantive posts that are full of facts and references on the gazette website, and all I find are right wing talking points sprinkled with cherry picked links.
------
Fear is a powerful motivator, and is exactly what the right wing uses to whip it's base into a frothy frenzy, that's why you'll see numerous "terrorist" threat news items running up to the election. They win on fear. There is one political party, the business party, and the Repubs and Dems are but wings of that vast entity. Paul Ryan is a career politician, just like the rest of them. He knows what side his bread is buttered on. Ask Paul Ryan why he think our military leaders, who testify if front of Congress, aren't being truthful. Then ask yourself the what the only way feasible to keep the military-industrial complex humming along is. War is America's most successful jobs program, and Ryan want's to keep shoveling in the cash, regardless of debt.

It's so funny like mouse and wine to see the liberals grab just one talking point and never let go. It's all they have left poor dears.

Spoken like a true sock puppet

You stated "The problem for Ryan is the fictional novel "Atlas Shrugged" was Ayn Rand's worldview philosophy. If the reason Ryan got involved in public service was because of Ayn Rand the thinker, he should explain that statement instead of just claiming his opposition to atheism." and "...Whatever, that's leaves almost no wiggle room for him with Rand except to reject her atheism." I guess I miss took your repeated atheism injections, if you say it was meaningless.

He has addressed his view on the book and his choice for getting into economics many times. I suspect we both have a misconception here.

RAF, I'm answering your stupid questions directly for free. be respectful!! I don't play games and I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't accuse Ryan of being an atheist or bring it up. Hint: it's part of the topic in the newspaper article. But I would suppose if you're an atheist, no offense to atheists, ecomomics might be your religion. So I can see your confusion. Do you know the difference between economics and religion?

You claim it doesn't but then claim he should denounce her religious beliefs. Make up your mind, it either matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't why do you bring it up? Again just trying to play by your ever changing rules.

"How does liking her book(s) lead to raising questions of atheism?"

ummm. It doesn't. But Ryan proclaimed Ayn Rand the thinker and her "great" book "Atlas Shrugged" as his guiding force to public office and in part economics. I didn't say that. Ryan did, or maybe he'll retract that tomorrow. Whatever, that's leaves almost no wiggle room for him with Rand except to reject her atheism. Ryan at the same time said his budget was shaped by his Catholic faith. He can say anything he wants of course, but an official committee of Catholic bishops said his budget is not built on Catholic teachings. I didn't say that. The bishops did. They should know. So, we are to believe Ryan built the economics of his budget on Christianity and not on the economics of Ayn Rand? Does he think we're stupid?

How does liking her book(s) lead to raising questions of atheism? Either you want to play the game you started or you don't. Your rules just make up your mind on how you want to play it.

RAF, being wrongly disparaged by the likes of you is a badge of high honor. Thank you. But unlike Ryan who is on public record for his admiration of Ayn Rand and her books, I never said Stalin was a person or philosophy I admire or follow. But, since you never have any genuine argument to make other than making stuff up Goebbels-style with your feeble attempts to destroy the messenger, I suppose "we" should now place all of Hitler's thoughts and beliefs on you, and those like you too. Fair is fair. oooops, I'm sorry. I forgot. Since Hitler didn't play fair, I know you won't either.

youkillme since you echo many socialist ideals, as did Stalin, based on your correlations between Ryan and Rand we should now place all Stalin's thoughts and beliefs on you, and those like you too.

As a sock puppet you now have less credibility than mouse.

The problem for Ryan is the fictional novel "Atlas Shrugged" was Ayn Rand's worldview philosophy. If the reason Ryan got involved in public service was because of Ayn Rand the thinker, he should explain that statement instead of just claiming his opposition to atheism. And, the Catholic Church seems to think that Ryan's claim that his budget was inspired by Christian teachings is quite a stretch in itself. Why can't more people see through Ryan for the chameleon snake that he is?

You mean your HANDLES?

Raf- ""
fear and rhetoric
""

For dummies , my handle expresses exactly what Ryan and Fox news continue to spread- fear and rhetoric for DUMMIES, and so many like you continue to buy in. Hilarious!!

Were there any 71 year old retired men arrested for speaking out at this "listening session"?

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

Hahahaha! Hope he took his blood pressure medication! Hahahahaha!! Spoken like a true man of the people!

RAF, Act Blue rarely takes political positions of it's own like ALEC, AFP or the Tea Party does. Their mission is to level the playing field for candidates competing against Big Money interests, but the executive officer of Act Blue criticized Obama in 2008 for opting out of the public financing system. That in itself is a statement of support for public campaign financing, they also added this:
"Public financing could work, in a closed system, and it may well be that such a system would carry certain advantages. But the system, as it exists, is not closed; funds from special interests often drown out public monies."

http://blog.actblue.com/blog/2008/06/oba...

That's why campaign financing desperately needs reform. Are you aware of any popularly known "conservative" PAC's or organizations that support public campaign financing? Feel free to name them and post a link because public campaign financing needs all the support it can get.

Paul Ryan, the voice of reason in a foolish and reckless Presidential administration.

We've survived debt problems....check out Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. We have a harder time getting out of a depression...check FDR. Paul Ryan does the smoothest job of selling destruction and causing fear anywhere. People are catching on that he is for HIS people, and not for THE PEOPLE.

yada, seriously? With all the problems that need to be solved in our federal government you want us to focus on how much Paul Ryan's bottle of wine cost?

Since this is really important to you, why don't you check all of Herb Kohl's dinner receipts and get back to us. I'm sure he's ordering off the dollar menu.

setinmyways, I don't see how federal spending can be cut without touching everything. I am really surprised a party that toughts fairness as a reason to increase taxes wouldn't also want all spending cut; just to be fair.

Term limits won't solve a thing, unfortunately. The revolving door in D.C. will simply send in more corporate fatcats/ex lobbyists to win more elections. Term limits will actually make backroom deals and corporate favoritism worse as a greater number of term limited, outgoing Congressman will have absolutely nothing to lose by making more deals during their last term.

RAF, I believe it is 14 or 15% now. I know I pay 15% as a self employed person. I did not know he was cutting Veterans benifits also. It figures, coming from a non-vet like him, representing (I use this VERY loosely) an area he has never lived in as an adult. He should look at cutting all the congressional perks for money savings. Lets not pay then a per diem, or free health care. Lets cut thier pay, maybe pay them minimum wage. The work they are doing is not worth much more.

yada how do you know Ryan wasn't just support the Democratic leader of the US house who owns a wine vineyard of her own?

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/nanc...

Paul Ryan is a major part of the problem politically. Regardless of how he NOW is trying to distance himself from his favorite philosopher AYN RAND. His budget policies are all the evidence you need to see that he follows the values of Ayn Rand more than anything else. Paul wants America tighten their belts while he sips from TWO $350.00 bottle of wine with his Capital Hill buddies.

onedayatatime I agree to a point. The whole idea behind SS and medicare was sold as a type of insurance when it really is a pay as you go ponzi scheme. The funds above use have already been borrowed out for other federal uses; there is no real fund of cash sitting there.

To declare you want money removed that has already been spent sounds good, but it can't happen.

If you gave American's the choice to invest their 12% anyway they wanted, it would be a much better solution.

fake lincolntruman uttered "Your fuzzy math doesn't add up"
-
Really, if so prove it?

youkillme stated "Because Act Blue also supports a public financing system - I support them"
-
I have not seen that position put forth by them, could you post where you read it.

Btw the mission statement of ActBlue: "At ActBlue, our mission is to democratize power by putting powerful fundraising tools in the hands of Democratic candidates, voters, fundraisers and donors across the United States."

raf commented "Why do you consistently ignore the problems with sustaining the current social security model and echo talking points on a plan to fix it as dismantling Social Security?"
My idea of fixing SS is to simply take the money that has been siphoned from SS to finance wars (starting with LBJ to finance the Vietnam War) from the defense budget and pay it back to the people who paid into the insurance fund. I don't consider it an entitlement when I ask my insurance company to pay a claim for damage to my home or auto. I look at it as them holding up their end of the contract, not to say "well we spent your money on something else and we resent you feeling entitled to reclaim any of it."
What is unsustainable is the level of military spending which is more than Russia, China and 13 other countries COMBINED. It has been proven throughout history countries have fallen or are failing due to too much military spending and spreading their resources too thin.... Roman, Napoleon, USSR, North Korea and China. The last country mentioned, China, only started to rebound and grow once they cut back on military spending and focused on rebuilding their infrastructure. Maybe we could learn something from them before it’s too late and we suffer the same fate of other countries mentioned.

http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/s...

Corporations are not people. Here is a video link that is very easy to understand.

Vatoloco, small businesses have no pull with the government or politicians. Big corporations donate to campaigns to get that politician to do what they want, to benefit their business. Term limits would help get these special interest, bought and paid for politicians out of control. Campaign finance reform would make it possible for the best person for the job to get elected, not just those with billions in contributions. It would even up the playing field, and put our government back into the hands of the people, not corporate interests. serving your district in any capacity was not meant to be a career, from City Councils to Us Senate. Serve your time, then go back to your life and let someone else have a go.

I wish Ryan was as conservative with the tax breaks for the rich as he is with cutting medicare

I agree with rockenvironmental. Corporate money is buying government and I don't want to be ruled by corporations. They are not people.

RAF, the tax deferment on 401k's contributions is really not a tax deduction or a tax credit. Payroll contributions into 401k's are not taxed at all so the account holder would pay taxes on withdrawals with the assumption they would be in a lower tax rate bracket when they retire. That is actually a key selling feature of the 401k's.

Term limits and campaign finance reform. Get corporations out of government, and the career politicians that support corporate interests.

My view is no candidate should unilaterally disarm themselves from any support, corporate or union, while their opposition has legal full access to private money. I support the candidates that are sincere in their support for public financing campaign reform and promise to make it a priority if elected. Because Act Blue also supports a public financing system - I support them because that is one of my priorities.

Oh one more thing, the 401 issue. My view has always been any and all deductions and tax credits should go away. If it happens, as long as all others are eliminated I have no problems with it. How are the fish doing?

youkillme just curious on what you think of Act Blue. I don't recall you mentioning this organization before. Based on your views on election financing just curious what your view is on the group that tops the list for giving.

RAF, prove they're rumors. Prove they are false. History is my side. What do you have?

But hey, it should be easy for you with all your infinite wisdom to shut it down in your own words. The House committee on 401k's was recently formed under House leadership (Ryan) and then temporarily tabled - it's an election year. RAF, I've already said I'm not going to do your work. What part of that you don't understand?

Just curious if you are going to keep ignoring the question over your statements on Ryan now that you are bringing up rumors on 401k's, Reagan, and Norquist? Perhaps when you're done shooting those fantasy fish you will...

RAF, don't flatter yourself and think this topic is about you. It's not. I have no questions for you.

Does anyone know what Ryan's congressional record is on outsourcing jobs, labor unions, giving tax breaks to the boss and smashing pensions? If you think Ryan support for unions is obvious, present me with one link that shows his unequivocable support and legislation favorable for them.

Do you know that a recent Republican House committee formed to end the tax deferment on payroll contributions into 401k's? Do you know that in 2001, Paul Ryan wanted greater tax cuts than the Bush tax cuts to lessen CBO projected surpluses at the time, and now Ryan wants greater tax cuts to lessen projected deficits?

Do you know that since the mid-80's under Reagan's trickle-down economics and the Norquist tax pledge our national debt has skyrocketed, while before for the past 40 years up and through the evil Jimmy Carter, the national debt was relatively flat?

This is too easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Well seeing how a vote doesn't outsource jobs or smash pensions I just assumed you could explain how he did it. I also have not seen any federal votes to bust any unions, again just assumed you could explain how he did it. If you don't want to support your claim that's fine. At least this time you didn't accuse me of any hate, but the day is still young.

I have expressed my opinion on election financing before, was there a question you had on that?

RAF, if I post links to Ryan's past record to support my claims, it will likely consume too much bandwidth and get deleted. Besides, you have the entire web at your fingertips - stop relying on others to do your work. I've presented one solution for campaign finance reform. What's wrong? You don't agree? Fine. Why do consistently attack opinions and views of others yet offer absolutely nothing of your own but to offer veiled support for Ryan's unworkable proposals? The fact is, people like you have nothing to offer.

Oh wait. I'll help you with a cut and paste response to my comment.

"Typical retort youkillme. Whenever some liberals can't argue based on the facts, they present platitudes and faux arguments. I also have no problem identifying the false bravado put forth to push a political agenda. The fact is people like you copy and paste other peoples words but never lead by example in the ideas you do bring forth.

Look in the mirror RAF and smile.

youkillme please tell me exactly how Ryan has outsourced jobs, busted unions, and smashed pensions.

Why do you consistently echo the talking points on tax breaks to the rich (boss) when all had people who paid federal income taxes had their rates reduced?

Why do you consistently ignore the problems with sustaining the current social security model and echo talking points on a plan to fix it as dismantling Social Security? If you or a person of the party you support have a plan to fix it bring it up.

I really don't care to know whether one poster has multiple pseudo-names are or not, it's the content that's important. If it jibes with reality, presents new information or is based on a sound logic, I don't care if Glennbeck posts it.

After outsourcing our jobs, busting unions, smashing pensions, giving tax breaks to the boss and now looking to dismantle Social Security, Medicare and medicaid, Ryan complains about current poverty-fighting policies and claims they are not working. HIS policies have overwhelmed the system. What did I miss there?

Why is it necessary for politicians to know where their campaign money came from? Ryan wants more transparency under the guise to keep the money flowing. There is no need for public officials to know - nothing to sell and nothing to buy, no favors to return. This is exactly why we need public financing for campaigns. Wrong way Ryan. But people lap up the kool-aid. Why?

RetiredAirForce said, "The fact that the lincolntruman poster has identical habits of another poster, fear and rhetoric, may not interest youkillme. For me I find it hilarious how far some people go on message boards, screams of a serious need for help; IMHO."

People that spend time analyzing similarities of anonymous comments on a blog are more likely the ones in need of help.

"What's your point". It was stated pretty clear, sorry can't make it any better for you.

And...What's your point, RAF? I read Lincolntrumans comment before they pulled it. It was very informative. Because this is Ryan's hometown newspaper, posting links to Paul Ryan's own words, past actions and record is taken as an attack on him and his entire local support machine. Stay on topic. This is about Paul Ryan. But to you it's about attacking commenters you don't agree with and killing the messenger with fear and rhetoric.

The fact that the lincolntruman poster has identical habits of another poster, fear and rhetoric, may not interest youkillme. For me I find it hilarious how far some people go on message boards, screams of a serious need for help; IMHO. For the record anything poo attempts to do is always the farthest from "calling" me on anything.

Was there something else you wanted to discuss or does that about cover it?

RAF posts three words, "fear and rhetoric" with no details or direction, but just to draw in and enflame anyone willing to take the bait. When someone calls him on it, he responds with projection by directing them to a wiki link about trolls. ROFL. Sunday morning comics.

Manufacture a crisis, and then claim that you're gutting of the system is rescuing it. Very familiar.

Agreement? Is this another example of your inability to grasp reality?

See the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Inte...) to further explain your actions.

We're in agreement on that one, RetiredAirForce -- Ryan's comments were laced with fear and rhetoric.

fear and rhetoric