DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Paul Ryans Speech

Quote:

---

I'm going to disagree here

---

Please, feel free to do so. but you won't convince me.

By the way, I'd say the same thing about any of the candidates.. so it's not a Ryan hate thing at all..

Personally, I'm sick of rhetoric and spin, I want substance.. Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan offer only rhetoric and spin. neither team has substance.

for me, it's like voting for Dumb or Dumber...

But you go for it. Believe what you like,, I'll still have a beer with ya.. LOL

I don't agree with many of the more liberal ideas .... but I do agree that the only way to get anything done is to drive the liberals into the ditc ..... err, I mean .... work together.

Look at the past couple of years with a Republican Congress. They passed budgets and the Senate never even took them up. That's amazing, given that budgets are one of Congress's essential and primary duties. Instead of either side really including the other, the Republicans pushed through a budget that they knew the Democrats in the Senate would never approve ..... and the Democrats in the Senate never even took the budget up in committee.

Now I would put more of the blame on the Republicans, but the Democrats couldn't, or wouldn't, pass a budget even when they had both Houses of Congress, along, of course, with the White House. I truly find that amazing.

I wish that they would get together for a truly all encompassing energy program, that would allow drilling for oil and gas, along with the use of clean coal technology to put us on the path to energy independence, while also offering tax support for alternative energy programs. There is no reason why we should have to buy a drop of oil or gasoline from any foreign country. Add a couple of refineries away from the Gulf Coast. Drill baby drill. Do so in a way that promotes care for the environment, but let's use our resources instead of being dependent upon all kinds of despotic regimes.

Imagine how our foreign policy would change if we had no need for oil from any Middle Eastern country.

On energy, I am most closely aligned with Mitt Romney, and I feel that energy independence is vital to a strong foreign policy. I do not understand why the Democrats block even domestic drilling that can be done safely, and which can create US jobs.

I want tax breaks for businesses for net hiring/hours paid/wage increases. To qualify a company would have to show progress in all 3 areas. Why can't something like this be out immediately on the table? Why wouldn't both Parties support it?

I am assuming that the Republicans will take back the Senate this election, while holding the House. I am increasingly hopeful that they will also defeat Obama. If this happens, they should put forth very simple bills, without a ton of riders and extras, pushing these 2 vital areas immediately. Jobs and energy, which can actually go hand in hand, should be the immediate priorities. Simple bills ...... one on tax reform for business hiring, and one allowing expansion of energy exploration and exploitation of our own resources would put everyone on record as to where they stand, and heaven help anyone who tries to block them in this environment.

Unfortunately, I do not trust either Party to do what is smart. That seems to be one thing they have in common all too often.

That actually is a good point. This President seems to have no idea how to work across the aisle with people of the opposing Party. He blames, demagogues, and damn near slanders them, then wonders why they won't give him everything he wants.In compromise, you have to give something. Obama seems unwilling to give an inch. I'm actually surprised that he agreed to extend the Bush Tax Cuts .... even though he today is against extending them again ...... even after saying that raising taxes in the fiscal environment we had a year ago would be foolish .... and that environment has changed very little.

The housing crisis was the fault of both Parties. Both wanted to get people int houses of their own. Hell, they even wanted people on welfare buying houses.

Just crazy.

They wanted to make sure that racial numbers were more balanced ..... so many financial and credit qualifications went out the window. Why would lenders care? The loans were insured, and when they foreclosed on the house, it likely was worth more than when they made the loan anyway.

Both Parties supported various elements that led to the housing crisis, and that housing crisis led to many of the problems we are experiencing today.

Instead of truly making sure that this can never happen again though, we see demagoguing on both sides, and the race card being played. That's not constructive.

The Congress passed laws like Dodd Frank, which seemed to be good ideas for consumers ..... but have they truly been beneficial? Is allowing a new agency the write to " Autonomously write rules for consumer protections governing all financial institutions" truly a good solution? Is it really Congress's role to look out for bad investments by banks?

While there might have been some beneficial portions of the law, there are some other parts that are an absolutely frightening mess. This was a massive overreaction to a problem, much like Obamacare was.

Speaking of Obamacare ..... why weren't simple, and free, Republican ideas that would help control costs ...... like standardization of paperwork, and allowing competition by all companies across state lines, just dismissed out of hand? These ideas would have saved a great deal of money. Providers would be able to have just one form for every company's claims. They could have 1 form for follow up as well, which could then easily be computer generated. Instead no doctor wants to pay for hundreds, or even thousands of forms to be programmed in, so consumers pay form fees to their doctors, doctors have to take time from their patients to fill out these forms, and it could so easily have been fixed. Ditto for allowing competition across state lines. What happens if you live in a state with only 1 healthcare provider under Obamacare? Looks like any savings from competition goes right out the window. This also could easily have been fixed. Further, while I know that there is massive disagreement over tort reform, largely due to the influence of lawyers on certain members of Congress, the Congress still could have instituted some limited tort reform. Even if it didn;t go as far as the Republicans wanted, lower risk from lawsuit abuse would benefit every level of the healthcare system. Even removing just 10% of the risk could result in a substantial lowering of costs. This would be especially true since Congress dictated just how much profit the entire industry could make.

Anyway ..... there are so many other things that were just completely ignored by this President and his Party ..... and he really didn't even pretend to compromise, so why would Congress work with him? Obama's exact quote was "Elections have consequences, and, at the end of the day, I won." While that is certainly true, it is also true that very little can get done with that attitude if you lose the House, and/or if you lose a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Obama continued to govern, in many ways, as if he still had both Houses and a super-majority.

That, ultimately, may prove to be his downfall. He never had to work with people of the opposing Party to get things done. He never even shepherded any signature legislation through the Senate. In short, he really had little idea how the whole process works, as far as gaining bipartisan support, and working across the aisle. That has really come back to bite him.