The Economist has published a provocative article on whether USA will have a prime-minister after the Presidential elections. The possible candidate for this power is Paul Ryan, pointed by the magazine as the "leader" of the Republican Party. In Facebook an interesting discussion happened on this theme...
The article is
Joey Gunn Repubs will ruin the country.
Li Zhang paul ryan lies all
the time ... like even about his marathon time .. he recently claimed to have
ran a marathon under 3 hours ...
Li Zhang you know who runs
the marathon under 3 hours ... olympic athletes ...and a drugged up lance arma
Brad Herring You have got to
be kidding. Ryan is no Dick Cheney. He is just more representative of the
Moshe Modeira hilarious!
Li Zhang so that means either
1. he takes steroids, or 2. he is not doing his job as a congress man and is
tranning for a marathon like a pro athelete or 3. he is compulsive lier (for
why would any one lie about a marathon time if they are not a compulsive lier,
that is the exact definition of compulsive lying, that you lie when you don't
even have to)
Malcolm Morrison Pardon me, I
think I just Ryaned in my pants.
Eoin Ryan Lyin' Ryan is
right. Can't believe that the press aren't calling him up on some of his porkie
Paul Klutes God, let's hope
not. Ryan is an imbecile . . . I think it was Paul Krugman who said, "he's
not an Economist, but he plays one on TV." That just about sums it up.
Bradley Scarbrough I thought
it was the creepy guy with all the casinos.
Michael Gallemore America's
Next Prime Minister...sounds like a new reality TV series.
Jesse Overall For every $1
Paul Ryan has to his name, Romney has $100.
I think the Economist underestimates Romney's style of understated competence,
and mistakes it for ineffectuality.
Mark Steven Saari The press
didn't confront him on his lies and asked if he wanted to take back his
statements, he replied no. Why anyone would even consider voting for him is
Lisa Quigley-Moon That's not
the conclusion I come to. They are both brainy & Paul just happens to be
younger & has great ideas. There isn't any thing wrong with Mittens. He is
a very nice guy who happens to be more reserve in his personality. I want a guy
who can do the job not a personality. So he isn't the life of the party so
what. They are both smart & number guys. I want to be told the truth not
lied to like the present poser n chief
Travis Deaton There are no
illusions that with his extraordinary skills Rep. Ryan wouldn't set the speed,
tone, and agenda of a Romney Administration. The role of VP has enlarged in the
previous 4 administrations-skip Bush Sr Adm.- and it is a safe bet that Rep.
Ryan will continue that trend. Romney and Ryan may experience riffs between one
anothers offices if they are elected, and that would be an interesting thing to
see play out.
Baron Ismir-Latte von Schamberg-Lippe
This guy is a freaking nut job! He holds Ayn Rand economic principles while at
the same time believes in the worst social programs of the extreme right. no
wonder he is the darling of the tea-moron-party. Yet regardless of how crazy he
is, or who wins the election, Romney-Ryan will receive approximately 50% of the
vote and that alone speaks volumes about this country ..
Lisa Quigley-Moon As far as
Mittens having all that money I say YAY. I want a smart guy helping me make
money for my old age. I have been horribly depressed at the thought of what
Oblame-O was doing to us. I have hope again. I know its popular in Europe to be
poor but not here
Phewwweeee!!!! Lying Ryan leads the GOP in group STINK!!! you'd have to call
him the Prime Sinister, the Pied Piper of deluded, angry white men.
Lisa Quigley-Moon To the
commenter who was unhappy because Ryan like Ayn Rands writings Obama is an
Alinskyite. Saul Alinsky who wrote 'Rules for Radicals' the other bible of the
democrat party. The other one is Marx's book
Viktor Nagy Can anybody
provide any specific argument against Paul Ryan other than his marathon time?
Chris Chisholm All you
retarded Anti-capitalist losers are making fun of Paul Ryan just because he
wants to implement austerity in our economy, and sharply scale back all
spending so our f*****g country has a fiscal future.. and you can't think of
any good comeback on that alone so you go launch your ad honenim, non sequitur
Chris Chisholm Remember:
Barack Obama back in 2009 said that he'd "pledge to cut the deficit in
half he 'inherited'". How did that one and the $3.6tn he added turn out??
Helga Vierich God help you all.
Paul Klutes ?@Chris Chisholm
- nice mouth Chris. I'm a capitalist down to my socks, sport - but I can tell
you that a peek at Europe would show you that "austerity" has
produced double dip recessions and a declining tax base in where it has been
implemented (look at the UK for a specific example). Doesn't sound real smart
to me . . . but it does sound like the tripe that Ryan spouts.
Malcolm Morrison Hey Chris
Chisholm, purchase a thesaurus and dictionary and climb out from under that
hate/fear monger rock you live under. I understand if your having a hard time
understanding what the rest of educated humanity is telling you but your
screwing your kids, the rest of the planet and your 401k by electing sub par
humans as a way to making a bad situation better.
Carlton Godbold ?@Viktor,
YES! The GOP rabble rousers have the Teabillies up in arms and howling about
the National Debt. The greedhead moneybags are the creditors, they don't want
us to do the right and prudent things, they'd rather see the economy go to hell
in a hand-basket via deflation so they can buy up more of the property and
capital assets. Same deal with the Fossil Fuel Fascists, they make their money
selling us products made from imported oil; they don't want Energy
Independence. TRAITORS, all!!
What few people understand is that,
while we do need to be fiscally responsible, the U.S. is not about to go broke.
Unlike Greece, Spain or the EU countries, we can still print money. This causes
angst and gnashing of teeth among the monetarily illiterate. It shouldn't.
Monetary tightening during economic hard times is proven to make matters worse.
Increasing the money supply via the Fed's monetary easing risks inflation, but
the dangers of deflation are far greater and as long as the Fed does Quantitative
Easing with care, runaway inflation is not a danger, especially when wages are
constrained by unemployment above the "natural rate." Note that the
Fed uses QE to buy U.S.Treasuries, thus transferring more of our National Debt
from actual creditors to the Fed's expanded balance sheet. A controlled rate of
inflation (current target 2%) eases the burden of existing debt, both on the
government and individuals, and it encourages investment, since interest rates
are kept low. I'd like to see more QE money going into local infrastructure
bonds, especially PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) bonds, but the Fed
Board of Governors seldom asks my advice. Remember also, and this is a deep
secret, the gains we as a Nation enjoy through seignorage, by issuing the
World's de-facto reserve currency, in circulation worldwide. We're in good
hands. Not that there are no worries, but we're not on the edge of a cliff with
debt, not by a long shot. Cheers and kudos to the Federal Reserve Bank of the
United States, staffed by some of the finest minds on the planet.
Daniel Lee If american gave 8
years for George Bush to destroy its economy, why can't they give Obama 4 more
years to rebuild it?
Chris Chisholm ?@Paul Klutes,
Malcolm Morrison, et. al, Why you're welcome. I figured I'd be called out for
my mouth and not at all everyone else's on the now-liberal economist's forum,
and this facebook post. To answer your question, that's because as keynsians
believe, austerity is bad because America's and most European economies are
consumption based, not production, and this aggregate spending declines.
However, the obvious and sad fact is that we, and most European countries are
broke, and you are correct @Paul Klutes that their citizens are already
overtaxed. You can't tax them and businesses any further, unless you want those
businesses and ex-pats fleeing. Therefore, across the board budget cuts are the
only thing left to do............. But that won't happen, because of
ideological differencs (as seen on this forum), and no one really wants to
reform defense & entitlement spending. So yeah, austerity sounds real smart
to me...... unless you're a fan of printing money to infinity to pay off our
debts, or outright defaulting on our obligations. Since M1 and M2 have seen a
half trillion dollar increase over the past 4 years... and M3 isn't counted
anymore because it is so utterly embarrasing how much dollars we have moving
around in our economy.... it seems like we will probably face a biflationary
spiral before hyperinflation kicks in. And to you @Malcolm Morrison.. nice
ad-homenim, baseless attacks... the facts point to that we are already screwed
as a nation, and you will just never see your 201k return to a 401k ever or at
least reach its purchasing power.. Since we won't get there for about another
30 or so years, i'd rather take the pain of austerity now, then raising the
debt ceiling 20x and experiencing hyperinflation later. Welcome to the
"New Normal" as economists call this period.
This was the discussion up to September 5th, 11:00 p.m. GMT