Romney Hood Rides Again!

Okay, it’s official. Romney Hood is now all-in on robbing the poor and middle class to give to the rich.

In March, Ezra Klein wrote this:

Here’s the basic outline of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget in one sentence: Ryan’s budget funds trillions of dollars in tax cuts, defense spending and deficit reduction by cutting deeply into health-care programs and income supports for the poor.

What Romney’s pick of Ayn Rand-fan and right-wing social engineer Paul Ryan shows is just how desperate the embattled candidate is to keep the Ann Coulter-Rush Limbaugh creeps on his side. And while there will be a lot of whoppers told between now and November 6, the biggest whopper of them all was told this morning by Paul Ryan:

I believe there is no person in America who is better prepared, because of his experience, because of the principles he holds, and because of his achievements and excellence in so many different arenas, to lead America at this point in our history.

Because of the principles he holds“? Huh? Maybe he means that Romney is better prepared because he has held at one time or another most of the available principles:

I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.’ [1]

‘I never really called myself pro-choice.’ [2]  

_____________________

‘It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.’ [1]

‘I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.’ [2]

_____________________

‘I like mandates. The mandates work.’ [1]

‘I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.’ [2]

_____________________

‘I will work and fight for stem cell research.’ [1]    

‘In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise.’ [2]

_____________________

‘I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.’ [1]    

‘Ronald Reagan is… my hero.’[2]

Wow. Romney does have the monopoly on principles alright.  But what about Ryan himself? He certainly sounds like a man of principles, especially now that he is charging President Obama with failing to fix the mess George W. Bush left us. But put your peepers on the following, a graphic presented by Chris Hayes on MSNBC this morning:

One would have to squint really hard to see how Ryan’s austerity-for-all-but-the-wealthy-because-we’re-going-off-the-fiscal-cliff principles today mesh with those principles he actually used to cast votes in that crucial period leading up to the Great Depression. As Chris Hayes put it,

Those are his votes—we’re not event talking in the abstract—I mean Paul Ryan was sitting there during that period of time, making those votes, and I think what drives people crazy is the sense that, “You burned the house down and now you’re complaining about there being no house!”

But as with Mitt Romney’s principles, those votes were Ryan then and this is Ryan now:

President Obama, and too many like him in Washington, have refused to make difficult decisions because they are more worried about their next election than they are about the next generation. We might have been able to get away with that before, but not now. We’re in a different, and dangerous, moment.

Yes, the moment is different, and it is beyond dangerous to put anywhere near the White House a man who helped create the mess we are still living with today. Especially a man who appears to have learned nothing from the mistakes of the past.

These days both Romney and Ryan are hell-bent on demonstrating that trickle-down economics, a scheme of giving mythical “job creators”—those fortunate few who already enjoy a disproportionate share of America’s wealth—more and more in hopes some of it will, like a leaky faucet, slowly drip on the rest of us.

Perhaps now, at this moment when Romney has doubled-down on the failed economics of the past by picking a Randian True Believer for his running mate, it is appropriate to look at a sentence in Robert Reich’s recent column:

The 400 richest Americans are richer than the bottom 150 million Americans put together.

Think about that. No, really, think about it. Read it again. And again. As Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan stood on that retired battleship this morning, they unequivocally and unapologetically stood for those 400 folks, who will do just fine no matter who wins the election.  The question is where do those 150 million Americans, who stand to lose so much if Romney wins, stand?

Paul Ryan did get something right this morning. People have now been given a choice:

What kind of country do we want to have? What kind of people do we want to be?

The selection of Paul Ryan, an advocate of radical austerity for all but the wealthy, has definitely given folks a choice, and we shall soon see how deeply planted in American soil are the roots of extremist Tea Party philosophy.

Because Paul Ryan is its champion.

16 Comments

  1. ansonburlingame

     /  August 12, 2012

    The choice for America has become now even more clear.

    Ryan, the intellect in Congress behind some Tea Party views has written a real BUGET (and it was voted upon and passed) that cuts over $5 Trillion from the deficit in ten years. Not enough to balance the budget in those ten years but by FAR, the most dramatic and bold public proposal in a long time to correct our economic turmoil.

    Collectively, the Congress and President passed into law legislation, not a full budget, that reduces the deficit by $1.2 Trillion over the same ten years. And that collective effort, a democratic effort if you will, results in claims of a “fiscal cliff” unless it is radically changed right now.

    Finally we have an administration and collective Congress that has not PASSED A BUDGET in now four years. With “continuing resolutions” that same Congress and President have provided historical deficits and debt. So What asks the left? That is not the problem right now, debt and deficits.

    In fact the left wants to spend more and more, to hell with debt and deficits. Europe anyone?

    There are three clear choices for voters come November and it is far too close for anyone to reasonably call it, yet.

    But I do believe that as we listen to campaign and highly partisan rhetoric now we will hear TWO choices. 1. If you vote for “him” we will go over a spending cliff, just like Europe is proceeding to do, full speed ahead. 2. If you vote for “him” we will have a social revolution making OWS seem mild in comparison.

    Such rhetoric at least will make it seem that we only have the choice of “which cliff” to go over.

    I ask where is the reality of making one choice or the other. Keep the current partisan divide in place and for sure we will continue to stalemate after the election. That more than anything else, seems to me to head us directly for some kind of “cliff”, for sure.

    Anson

    Like

  2. RDG,

    Romney’s opaque summer campaign has been focused on turning the election into a referendum on Obama’s alleged mishandling of the economy. The problem with this strategy is Romney’s resume. It’s hard to convince voters that you’re a job creator when your business career was spent pocketing millions of dollars from following this unusual job creating formula: take over a company; borrow money against the assets; procure millions more with taxpayer funded grants and low interest loans; take the money and run. While getting very rich as a practicing “vulture capitalist” isn’t illegal, it’s not the type of free enterprise that produces paychecks.

    After weeks of fan dancing around the release of past income tax returns — when he’s not reprising the role of Clark Griswald in a remake of “National Lampoon’s European Vacation” — the unemployed wealthy presidential candidate picked a Randian-on-steroids to bolster “job creation” credentials with the working class. Brilliant. Who better than Paul Ryan to assuage the fear that Romney is an out-of-touch elitist, primarily concerned with easing draconian tax burdens on the rich? Although Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare with vouchers will pose problems with retirees having no off-shore accounts to draw from, they can take comfort in the fact that their painful sacrifice facilitates the demise of Social Security. After all, what’s better than hunger and poverty to spur fictional Galts into entrepreneurial frenzy? Although a sudden glut of megalomanic architects into the marketplace does little to staff fast food franchises, desperate Americans will never again suffer the moral humiliation of government dependency. Of course, Ryan’s humbler biography will assuage Romney’s rich-at-birth stigma, especially when the Congressman reminds audiences that he wears a hair shirt beneath his suit to atone for receiving a taxpayer funded college education.

    http://truthdogg.tumblr.com/post/29228654600/why-do-we-pretend-the-ryan-budget-was-ever-about#.UCipvaNs8rh

    Like

    • Well said, John. I just finished the truthdog article and it makes the case in clear prose: trickle-down voodoo economics is alive and well in the Tea Party brain.

      One might think here in the twenty-first century that certain economic myths would finally be put to rest, but alas, it isn’t so. Lodged in the conservative brain are certain convictions that simply aren’t true:

      1. Keynes was wrong and government budgets can and ought to be managed like family budgets.
      2. Successful entrepreneurs are superior in every way and owe nothing to the little people.
      3. Government is mostly an impediment to business and should be minimized (except for Defense, of course).
      4. Secrecy is good for competition and important to the entrepreneurial spirit.
      5. Personal economics is a game and those who prevail at it by virtue of better genes, nurture, and education are by definition superior to the losers. And after all, the poor houses are still in operation, are they not?

      What amazes me is how the 99% swallow this stuff without realizing its certain future impact on them.

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  August 13, 2012

        Here is a quote for you two.

        ““the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics — the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.”

        Who said it? Barack Obama.

        What have we been doing for 4 years? Go read the quote.

        As for Jim’s list describing “conservatives” not a single one is accurate in my view. It is simply another attempt to distract by the “petty and trivial”.

        anson

        Like

      • Very nice, Jim. Your list is perfect.

        Part of the answer to why these myths persist is that liberals-progressives have not done a good enough of job of dispelling them. Debunking this stuff requires much diligence, a willingness to repeat, and then repeat, and then repeat, the truth again, and again, and again.

        That’s what conservatives do and it works.

        Duane

        Like

    • John,

      Perfect summation.

      The best and most important line from the piece:

      For conservatives, cutting services is a moral issue, just as maintaining a safety net is a moral issue for liberals.

      That is about as good a way of putting it as I can think of.

      Duane

      Like

  3. ansonburlingame

     /  August 13, 2012

    It is very easy right now to criticize the GOP approach to resolving our economic problems. The generalized solution from the GOP is to “cut” down to what we collect in revenues. Voters do NOT like to think of being “cut” in terms of anything. They generally want MORE from government at least in the bottom 50% of income ranges.

    So Duane is correct in wondering how anyone “on the dool” could even consider voting for the GOP. Amost all of my current old age income is from “government” for example so how could I possibly call for LESS government spending, right? I am just like many other middle class older folks where the GR consumed my home equity and 401K down to hardly anything.

    The reason why I take my form of a conservative approach to resolving our current economic decline is rather simple. I take the long term view, not the approach of immediate gratification proposed by Dems who might well try to “shovel some more money in MY direction”.

    Dems, including “brillant Pulizer Prize wining economists” call for spending MORE right now and don’t even hint politically what to do after another round of huge spending. Well keep “Medicare as we know it” is a great politcal slogan to get today’s votes for sure. But “what about the kids” is unanswered by and large.

    I will agree, basically, that we “spew” too much crap into our environment today and do not like our 100 plus heat this summer. Dem solution was to start to control “spewing” through cap and trade, right? Environmentalist in particular and most Dems want to “control” spewing in terms of carbon because the long term consequences are maybe pretty dire.

    Well just in HC alone we “spew” trillions of dollars each year, 40% of it borrowed dollars. Think of our national debt as similar to the “buildup” of carbon in the atmosphere.

    But what is the Dem solution to that “spewing” of dollars, borrowed dollars? More spewing is what I hear all the time!!!

    Well Al Gore and others think we are at or beyond the environmental tipping point related to Global Warming. My point is we might well be at or beyond the economic tipping pointing in debt accumulation.

    I hear pretty “radical” solutions proposed by environmentalists and progressives for our environment and I as well hear some pretty “radical” solutions from the right for our economy. The point being of course is that if we as a world population or even just Americans are going to deal with long terms issues, we better figure out how to stop “spewing”, which of course if very painful and thus unpopular.

    The really big question now to me is how much “painful stress” can democracies take to figure out the correct path forward, environmentally and economically, and militarily for that matter.

    As before I also point out that our economic spewing is NOT a sudden “thing” for America, or Europe for that matter. It has been going on for at least 50 years, just like carbon buildup in our atmosphere. So pick your “tipping points” and come up with how to prevent more “spewing” without some pain to voters.

    Anson

    Like

    • I will only address one thing you said:

      I will agree, basically, that we “spew” too much crap into our environment today and do not like our 100 plus heat this summer. Dem solution was to start to control “spewing” through cap and trade, right? Environmentalist in particular and most Dems want to “control” spewing in terms of carbon because the long term consequences are maybe pretty dire.

      Cap and trade was a Republican idea, Anson. It was part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, as it was first used to fight acid rain via the use of emissions trading . And it had success and is still working to this day.  All Democrats were proposing was to apply the same market principles to carbon emissions. It’s that simple.

      And yet your side has demagogued the hell out of it because many on your side are know-nothings like Rush Limbaugh who just happen to have big mouths and microphones.

       

      Like

    • Matilda

       /  September 9, 2012

      What’s the dool?

      Like

      • AB appears to be contemptuous of spell checkers, Matilda, and is perhaps somewhat dyslexic. He means “the dole”.

        Like

  4. “Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.” That sounds like it was written yesterday doesn’t it? But it was actually penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1821. Of course, Jefferson was an anti-federalist who wanted minimal government and unfettered freedom for the people (well, OK, not ALL the people) to do pretty much as they wanted. In other words, Thomas Jefferson was a Republican’s wet dream. Suffice to say, Mitt Romney is no Jefferson, much less Paul Ryan.

    Like

    • Herb,

      While both parties attempt to claim him, Jefferson is unclaimable. He lived in times when “minimal government and unfettered freedom” were more tenable than today. And as an aside, the Constitution did not represent minimal government nor was it a document that secured unfettered freedom. Big government, relatively speaking, is what the Constitution established.

      Duane

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  August 15, 2012

        Duane,

        Go read the Constitution without “penumbras” or “hidden meanings”. Just go read the actual words, specifically in Article One, Section Eight, to start with. Then tell me again that “Big government, relatively speaking, is what the Constitution established.”

        The 10th Amendment, I would suggest let’s “government” get just about as big as any State government chooses to get. But the Constitution SPECIFIES the LIMITED powers of the Federal Government, on PURPOSE.

        Had it done otherwise it would have never been ratified by the 13 States and you know that as well.

        Take that as a basis for the Constituion, limited, very limited powers for the federal government. If you don’t like that approach, fine. CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION to meet YOUR needs. Add another clause in Article One Section Eight to include HC as a federal responsibility. Change the Second Amendment then control guns all you like as well.

        But until you do with that our founding “contract” with American citizens you are faced with debate in the congress and ultimately the Supreme Court over such “contract law”. Then we can argue what “is, is”!!

        Anson

        Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  August 14, 2012

    Herb,

    We have not had a Jefferson since, well, Jefferson. Same with looking for a “Lincoln”.

    You say Romney nor Ryan are not such men and I agree. But are you implying that Obama and Biden are “Jefferson’s”, etc.

    We have what we have, now, to choose from. Yikes!!

    Anson

    Like

  6. Wow…all the economic “EXPERTS” on here. I can see where Owebomba learned how to ruin a country. And I thought it was his expertise as a community organizer,wow. Or his fast food,I don’t care if you smoke guru Michelle…whose attacks on an obese Oprah isn’t getting them as much support this go round. Wow…Romney Hood..what a concept. I’m stunned learning from Barack Hussein and his czars that its a crime to be rich! Wow,I was always told that’s what couldhappen in America if you worked hard and earned it honestly. Apparently you idiots believe that absolutely NO democats are rich OR have NO offshore accounts. Wow. Stupidity abounds with you liberal progressives in spite of what you say. Its more like OwebamaHood…he wants to ROB from the rich and give it ALL to the poor for votes….feed em for free,provide their every selfish desire,so their vote will be at his beck and call. Initiate a Dream Act to get a couple million more votes. And you wonder why the people in my great state of Pa wanted a voter ID? We know this OwebombaHood doesn’t come from the goodness of his pea pickin heart…its ALL about the votes..and BHOs final countdown to total government control over everyy Americans life

    Like

    • And through more stimulus giveaways and bank bailouts followed by bailing out ANY business/corporation this King desires,the complete economic destruction of our economy…to bring us under his control. Your kness will bow as well as ours if you don’t wake up America….and follow Newsweeks lead….VOTE THIS BUM OUT!

      Like

%d bloggers like this: