INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Ryan’s Budget Is Radical? Far From It.As Jim Geraghty noted, everything Obama says comes with an expiration date. Every single thing.
What’s radical is jacking up federal spending to near-World-War-II levels, and funneling much of the money into the pockets of cronies.
But even Obama didn’t think the Ryan budget was radical when it came out: FLASHBACK: Obama in 2010 on Ryan Roadmap: ‘This is an entirely legitimate proposal.’
Video at the link.
UPDATE: Reader Kenneth Nachbar writes:
Great work on the video of Obama legitimizing Ryan’s plan. But you buried the lede! At about 4 minutes in, he concedes that Medicare is the real problem, and that we must not attack opponents’ plans as “irresponsible” or trying to “hurt senior citizens.”Only for those possessed of a conscience.
So I guess ads like this are off the table, right?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Expiration Date
From Instapundit:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It's reassuring to know that no one could accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flopping.
enjoy Ryan while you can . . . Romney just handed the presidency back to Obama. Not that I don't like Ryan? But, who is he going to help Romney get out to vote who wasn't already there?
What's radical is cutting revenue to 60 year lows, knowing you have the largest generation in history retiring who will require increasingly expensive health care, but you won't allow yourself to negotiate prescription drug costs. Oh, and you could fight two wars while sticking by revenue cuts because, you know, wars don't cost any more money than normal. And you could deregulate derivatives and securities enough that a few can profit in the hundreds of billions while the economy tanks. And then you could complain about the increasing debt as revenue continues to plummet because corporations have trillions in cash but realize they don't have to hire people because workers became more productive. So, of course the consumer spending that you'd naively been depending on disappears because wages are lost or suppressed.
Yeah, that would be pretty radical.
Your buddy Barack said (and you can see it on the video), "This is an entirely legitimate proposal." Who are you to argue with The One?
This is your choice, America: an approach that Obama’s own debt commission co-chair calls “sensible, straightforward, honest and serious” … or dog-on-the-roof jokes and an accusation of a return to slavery.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/313982/what-coming-debates-will-sound
Who was that co-chair? Oh, that's right, it was Erskine Bowles. Could you remind me, please, with which political party Bowles is affiliated?
And do you have any comment on Biden's comment that President Romney would put blacks back in chains?
I await your thoughtful response.
For the Obama administration having a budget is considered radical and sticking to it is considered extreme. If we had more extremists like Ryan maybe we wouldn't be in this position with Obama seeking yet another stimulus to replace the one he squandered giving to campaign contributors.
Careful, Ellen. Any further talk like that and someone will call you a raaaaaaaaacist.
BTW, has there *ever* been a president who served an entire term who didn't sign a single federal budget, or is Obama the first?
And, Ryan's proposal is a "legitimate" proposal.
The President is not backing away from that. He - and many - have validly argued that Ryan's plan was the first to take a serious and detailed stand on debt and deficit reduction. It opened the serious discussion and was a great starting point and a complement to others in the works, such as Simpson-Bowles.
Opening the arguments on key factors of Medicare solvency was a bold and legitimate move, and Ryan should be appreciated for his wonkiness and willingness to challenge the Do-Nothings. Ultimately, Simpson-Bowles and others are preferable because they actually identify more of the details - especially the closing of tax breaks and deductions that make a lower tax rate sustainable.
Nothing wrong with Ryan's plan except for its weaknesses in securing a floor of revenue - and with Baby Boomers retiring we need a sound floor for at least thirty years. It's legitimate, even though it's ambiguous in too many places. Starting the discussion was a legitimate proposal. My "buddy" isn't saying it's no longer legitimate. He just believes it's the wrong approach because of its weak points.
*You* said it's radical. So now it's both radical and legitimate? While the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, they aren't common bedfellows, either.
None of which matters, because the VP has even less influence on the budget than does the President . . . who can only suggest and veto. The sole purpose of a VP is to garner enough votes to elect their running mate . . . and Ryan won"t do that. On a side Ryan note . . . on Sac"s usually best local talk show this morning, one of our hosts wondered aloud what would have happened if a Democrat had expressed the same love for a "Soviet Communist" as Ryan did for . . . Ayn Rand? Really? Communist?
No, I didn't say Ryan's plan was radical. I was referring to the GOP's actions for the past decade.
I'm sure, if you reread this comment thread, that you can understand why I thought you were talking about Ryan's proposals. My B.
Post a Comment