The political world focused like a laser this weekend on Mitt Romney's new vice presidential running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). This morning, we took a closer look in to the record of Congressman Ryan.
Based on the discussion this morning, the Wisconsin Republican's plan to overhaul Medicare looks to be the central focus of the debate in the campaign moving forward. Reince Priebus, chairman of the RNC, used a question on Ryan's Medicare plan as a jumping off point to attack the president.
"If any person in this entire debate has blood on their hands in regard to Medicare, it's Barack Obama. He's the one that's destroying Medicare," Priebus said, citing the $700 billion the president "stole" from Medicare in his health care bill.
On the other side, President Obama's chief re-election strategist David Axelrod called Paul Ryan's medicare plan a "voucher system" (Ryan calls it 'premium support') and said it would "throw seniors onto the tender mercies of the private insurance market."
You can watch the entire program on our website including our roundtable discussion that tried to answer the question: Who is Paul Ryan? David was joined by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow; NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director Chuck Todd; Editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry; the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, and author and radio talk show host Bill Bennett, for whom Ryan was a speechwriter while Bennett was Secretary of Education.
Meet the Press will also re-air today on MSNBC at 2pmET.
We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
Leave a Comment:
I want to thank Rachael Maddow for correcting Rich Lowrey when he said Pres Obama "stole" money from Medicare. She said exactly what I was saying at the same moment!! Rich Lowrey used the same tactic I have seen used by other Rethuglicans when backed into a corner. He kept repeating the same thing over and over. That shows me that he is relating rhetoric, and not his own opinion.
I want discussions, not the constant repitition of the same old thing! People who are willing to discuss are getting their points across better than those who spew election jibes.
The show was a good'un by gum~!
Thank you for your work.
Sincerely Judith L. Beckwith Swift
I am appalled at the lack of control David Gregory shows each time he has Rachel Maddow on his show. He allows every Regressive boot-licker to attack Rachel, refusing to allow her to speak...what brave men they are....NOT!
Gregory is also one of the R's boot-lickers, which I will use for a term that would probably have my comment deleted. It is so apparent he is all for Romney and the R's...its sickening. I swore after the last time he had Rachel on his show that I wouldn't watch it again...but tuned in today and David is still very comfortable with sitting by and letting that Richard Lowrey sit their in his all-too-soon and unjustified pompousness, attack Rachel...shame on all of you R's...that just proves the "War On Women" more explicitly....the last one was a guy she once-considered a friend!
On the RCC Chairman...Reince Priebus? Excuse me? Who IS he? Where is he from? What kind of name is that? I want to see his birth certificate...and the nerve of that idiot to call Harry Reid a 'dirty liar'????? Really a smart guy....also NOT!
Too bad Gregory has decided its safe to let us all see that he is an R through and through...what's wrong, NBC? You can't get FAUX to take David Gregory? He isn't worth a lot, in my book...but I am pretty sure the FAUX babies just adore him...
Rachel, why even bother with David Gregory? None of the men he has on his show are capable of respecting a woman...and especially a brilliant woman as yourself.
Sorry for the wrong use of 'there'...delete the 'their' regarding Lowery and insert 'there'.
I liked it best when she was asked what SHE thought of Obama cutting $700M from Medicare (yes, he really did) and SHE broke down to a seething mass of froth. It's ok to have convictions if you stand behind them, but she folded up like a weak umbrella. That's what happens when faced with facts that can't be supported; watching this melt down was hilarious. And yet she stood up for the miconception that Ryan was going to cut Medicare given the chance. Classic. If you think she still knows what she's talking about you need to unenroll yourself from the voting polls.
Huh? Madcow got herself painted into a corner. She was asked a question about her position and refused to answer it. Why should Gregory defend a dimwit? She opened the can of worms and then when asked what she thought about cuts that have already happened she took a run away defense. Yes, the cuts have happened, ask anyone on Medicare. If you don't know about the cuts you need to educate yourself. Of course, that would put the President in a bad light, and we can't have THAT! My God, according to the Press, he is the MOST perfect President we have EVER had! Zero mistakes!
Yes, he did cut Medicare. Look it up.
Steampunk, in what alternative universe of argumentation does ANY speaker or debater's personal association with a particular POV have a bearing on that person's ability to examine, argue, or advocate any particular position?
You are familiar with the term sophistry, right? The ability to argue any side in a debate, to examine the reasons dispassionately, in an attempt to evaluate their pros and cons on their own terms? (and in its most crass incarnation, to cynically manipulate or take positions as a means to some strategic or tactical end).
Maddow made the clear point: HER position had no relevant bearing on the question at hand. She is not a legislator nor is she running for office. She is not a journalist in the US fake balance sense, nor is she a flak for any particular entity, flogging talking points.
What she is is an observer who examines and evaluates positions, in an attempt to compare them, discover their pros and cons, and PERHAPS to suggest that Position A may be stronger than Position B in certain situations, while there are inherent contradictions between Position B and Position C which preclude choosing Position B, therefore Position A is further reinforced.
That's a far cry from taking top-down talking points and mindlessly repeating them (a PR tactic, message control, not an argumentative tactic. It looks stupidly futile in an actual debate).
Again, I say, what Maddow actually BELIEVES is MOOT. Policies and debates are not about beliefs, are not about some kind of essentialist identity politics, where you wear beliefs like some kind of flag to goose-step behind.
ANY rhetor (especially preachers or those who wear very righteous and public religious faith) can be crass and cynical in representing any belief. ANYONE professing a belief is automatically suspect in my book. Belief is not identity.
Positions on issues, on policies, on debates, are like pairs of pants. You try them on, you take them off, you like the blue pair better than the red pair.
Unless you are of a certain authoritarian persuasion, then your belief is like choosing sides in a kickball team, and you never take your jersey off and you take your marching orders from your coach/preacher/mindcontrol agent.
The rest of us cherish independent thinking and don't adopt argumentative positions as a foundational belief, in anything.
I too support Maddow but I disagree where you say that Policies and debates are not about beliefs.
Belief reflects one's ideology. Ryan's budget reflects his ideology. Any debate that Ryan engages in will reflect his ideology. When the Tea Party resurrected McCarthyism to fight ObamaCare they were expressing an ideology held by the Birch Society, Senator Joe McCarthy. Ayn Rand. Everything that the Tea Party proposes to implement conforms to a bourgeois ideology. Hardly surprising since they are supported by the mega billionaire Koch Bros.
i·de·ol·o·gy/ˌīdēˈäləjē/
Noun:
It infuriated me that Rachel was shouted over by that boorish Republican hack who endlessly repeated his lie about the 700 billion dollar cut. David Gregory should have given Rachel time to talk. Those cretins always shout and filibuster and it is about time a mic button is used on them.
And it really shows that Lowrey wouldn't get to the heart of the matter, instead erecting a strawman and attacking a position that Rachel wasn't even defending.
What's most hilarious is Rich Lowry's "fans" seem to think he "schooled" Rachel Maddow by repeating the same aggressive and irrelevant red herring question over and over.
As someone who used to teach writing and argument, and competed in speech and debate in college, I regard a person who makes such diversionary assertions as if I were talking with someone whose fly is open, but doesn't know it.
Do they really know so little about fallacies, support, and lines of reasoning to not realize Lowry embarrassed himself?
And by not letting Lowry overtly derail the discussion at hand (his to make it about her instead of the actual issue at hand, an inane diversionary tactic than any of my students could have easily spotted), Rachel Maddow reveals that she IS far better schooled in formal argumentation and debate, on a level that makes these silly Fox News-steeped shouters look like silly pikers.
People like Rachel who have had to "defend" a dissertation against "all comers" in a public event where any counter-argument or cherry-picked obscure research can be brought up against you generally do know what makes a valid point and what is absurd.
The far right can pooh-pooh academics as pointy-heads all they want, but the epistemology of the alpha male shouter doesn't garner as much support and persuasive value as they apparently think it does.
But the bigger question is, "Have the Fox News norms for hasty generalization, strings of irrelevant red herring diversions masquerading as "support" for an unrelated argumentative point, and a tendency to claim an argument is 'won' by the loudest and most arrogant and impervious-to-reason alpha male d*ck-wagger in the room distorted our Commons and national conversations irrevocably?"
Is there any hope? Or should we just consign Aristotle et. al. to the ash heap of history?
Lie? What lie? You need to go back and have a look. Obama cut Medicare spending by $500M first, and then took an additional $200M. It is not a lie, and when confronted with the facts, Madcow couldn't defend it. Sure had a lot to say about Ryan, though. Any time any one of these idiots is confronted with something Obama did they retreat in haste. That should tell people a LOT.
If you think it's a lie, ask someone on Medicare, who's co payments have gone UP because of the cuts, who's medication coverage has gone DOWN because of the cuts, and who's supplemental medicare insurance (thanks, Bush :( ) costs have gone UP while coverage has gone DOWN. Sorry, but the cuts were REAL, and the cuts were made thanks to Obamacare.
You really need a reality check, got off MSNBC and NBC in general, and get some FACTS.
Lowrey was trying to get to the heart of the matter; Madcow has no defense because it was indefendable. She knew she was in a corner and turned into a mass of froth, because she knows the truth. Too bad she never speaks it. She does, occasionally, if you listen carefully, but then it's only half truths and things taken out of context.
The cuts don’t target beneficiaries — they mainly come in the way of reduced payments to hospitals, discounts on Medicaid prescription drugs, and pay cuts to private insurers under Medicare Advantage. The hospital and drug industries endorsed the law despite the cuts.
The figure is actually the projected savings through reduced growth of future spending on Medicare over the next 10 years (Ryan's plan does the same); the law does not cut the current Medicare budget, and there are no cuts to guaranteed Medicare benefits.
Do some basic independent research on both sides. Ask your self if something makes sense. Assume both sides are stretching the "truth" or at least discussing the portion that suits their needs at that point. I see people on both sides loosing their ability to educate themselves with facts and choose only to regurgitate talking points. You are a prime example of the willful ignorance that clouds public discourse and an open discussion of ideas.
My parents and grandparents are on Medicare, I have asked them as you suggested above, and you are wrong. You're like a scrabble player that makes up a word, and then says "if you think it's not a word look it up in the dictionary". As if that adds credibility to your argument.
Thanks for this. At least there is one other person here who actually knows what Ryan's Medicare overhaul said, and not what they are TOLD to think.
Race to define Ryan before they have a chance to put lipstick on the Medicare pig. Leading up to convention is a critical time. How do they get Americans to want to give up Medicare? If they pull that off, Ryan deserves to be President.
The entire question of how to control health care costs could be eliminated if we just let the Government be the insurance company. Why can't we kick United Health Care and the rest of them out of the market. They make money, in fact, their profits have been going up for the last 10 years.
We kicked the bankers out of the student loan program, for doing absolutely nothing, just making profit without risk. So why can't we do the same for our health care industry. The Government could take what would be profits and put that money back into health care. Our veterans get excellent care. All of us should get that kind of care. Budget problem solved.
Paul Ryan, is the one he don't care about Middle class families, what I understand he cut every thing the health care ,the medicare , and going to pravitas the social security and cut tax for the rich people, and he want's to balance the pa get from the pour people monthly pay check, and lie he is going to help the pour families, I hope all the pour people wake up and understand the truth, and I hope he nver win????????????????
This is why there should be a test given before you enter the polls to cast a ballot. My God. How much more WRONG could this person be?
He's a quick guide: Ryan's proposal was to give people on Medicare vouchers, and then the vouchers would be presented to the doctor, the hospital, etc, and then the Medicare Administration would decide what the treatment was worth. Unlike Obamacare, which is aimed at the demand side, this goes after the Supply side, which is where it SHOULD be. If you people throwing Ryan under the bus would actually take a minute away from Madcow and MSNBC and find out what Ryan really said you'd be running from Obamacare. Obamacare does NOTHING to stop the greedy money managers in the Health Care industry you all hate so much, in fact, it maintains business as usual. Ryan went after these people, in effect saying "This is what we will pay you for this service." My God, how can you all be in favor of anything different?
Government control or private enterprise is what is at stake...and show me the government profits??!!! The shell game on dollars being played to get through this election will come to an end, one way or the other. The tax-spend-borrow with no budget [1200 days] and no plan with legislation written and approved in the back room without publishing has made this administration and the Senate the least transparent in history.
It is impossible to compare a 'terrible' Ryan plan to an Obama plan as none exist to compare to...Soc Sec..Medicare, etal..can only continue with adjustments or with so much printing of dollars as to meet the promised amounts but it would take a wheel barrow full of dollars to buy a loaf of bread...have not enough countries gone down that road?
The loans and debt will come due, there is no free lunch, and if it is a European type economy we want then we best settle in on achieving less, earning less, and having a lot less in making decisions for ourselves as inflation eats up everything.
So are you for the plan to double the military budget proposed by the GOP?
Health care for profit is inhumane and it's bankrupting the Country it needs to be eliminated. Screw United Health Care and the like. What do we need them for? They just drive up the prices and they profit from the Government (us) without really caring for anyone.
And this is what the Ryan plan does. But too many people are so blinded by the Media they don't bother to find out for themselves, and we get unfounded comments such as have been showing up here. Defend Obama, he's good for the insuance and Health Care fat cats you all hate so much. WHY do you think those companies stocks went UP the day after Oabamcare was passed?
Of course, no amount of fact pointing will do anything for these people. I don't know why I waste my time. Go back to MSNBC and MoveOn and think what you are told to.
My perception of the debate is that the argument is not about whether austerity is required. Both sides agree that austerity is inevitable. The debate is about which class is better equipped to bear the brunt of austerity and how harsh the implementation should be. The Democrats want less harshness than the Tea Party. Democrats believe that the bourgeois class are best equipped to bear the brunt of austerity, while Republicans want to protect the bourgeois class.
For Fox readers and Birchers I would clarify this by adding that bourgeoisie is from the French language defined as The capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production..
Nice Guy but Wrong Guy for our country and for our citizens. Romney/Ryan plan actually will bring to life those famous death panels that Sarah Palin fabricated .....take from the poor and ill and give to the rich. What's wrong with this picture?
It also surprises me that a man who claims to be so spiritual as Romney can support all the lying and distortions in his ads. If he lies and distorts now, what will he do as president!
WHAT?!?!?! YOU need to have a GOOD LOOK through Obamacare. The "Death Panels" are there, in that a review board will look to see if a treatment is worth paying for! Especially for people above the age of 60. My GOD!!!!!!!! How can you all be CHEERING this?!?!?!
David,
I have had some high hopes for you when you chosen to lead this program but I fear after watching this morning's program that I am troubled about you ability to facilitate the program. The message that seems to generated after Rich Lowery was demonstrating the typical cocky, tea party, childish, ignorant, rant with no option to listen to facts, has become the republican mantra will surely lead this country to ruin. The reason many watch this show is because of Rachel, and continuing to "pull back" from an intelligent debate, that I am sure you know Rachel will be able to delivers, is truly a disappointment. The left continues to hide behind issues that are so ancient it is depressing. The economy was devastated by the past republican administrations that are so clearly shown in the math that it is so hard for the hardworking engaged people of this country to have any regard for any Republican plan for austerity
It is laughable. Please allow for intellegent debate to continue and stop pandering to the sophmoric behavior of some of your guests. Please invite adults only. We are not first in anything in this country that matters because if the aristocratic nature of what the majority of the republican base believes in and clearly shows everyday. Protect the corporations and they will save the country, privatize everything
and let the markets rule and regulate the day. How's that working out....not so well. Take a look around globally. We continue to see all of the agenda of the republican party hidden behind morals and austerity and the truth is it is just cover, because the base is ignorant of trying to understand how government truly works for the people.
Respectfully,
Michael
P.S. the founding fathers would have been appalled and so would Jesus.
I agree with Michael and others. David, I have always been a fan, but there is absolutely no excuse to allow the sexist bashing of Rachel Maddow that happened this a.m. It's one thing for David Axelrod to show emotion, it's another for Michael your panelist to hammer and interrupt Rachel Maddow over and over, taunting her to answer, without allowing her the space to answer. It's hours after the program aired, and I still feel intense outrage, and am considering banning this program from my TV set. As a very kind professional who hates to show anger, that speaks vollumes. PLEASE apologize to your fans and to Rachel Maddow, and do not allow such sexism again.
"absolutely no excuse to allow the sexist bashing of Rachel Maddow" I listened to the podcast and didn't hear the sexist part. I just heard Rachel unable to justify O stealing money from Medicare.
National Review's Rich Lowry Destroys MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press
Stealing money, Mike, from medicare? This means you have no understanding of those ACA terms and are repeating the MISINFORMATION that prevails on these boards and wastes all of our times.
How about "cut" instead? Click on the #8.4 link so you can be better informed.
Yeah. Too bad Madcow couldn't answer the question, instead of going off on tangents. She took a position, and when asked to defend it ran and tried to hide. GOOD FOR LOWERY! Get them to STAND UP for themselves! I don't think Gregory should have stepped in at all, other than tell Madcow to ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I question whether David Gregory is unbiased. Why would he allow that tea party guy to constantly interrupt Rachel. A nd worse than that shae his finger in her fce. How disrespectful and the moderator did not try to stop him. ITt kind of makes me think the moderator thought it was ok. IT WASNT.
David Gregory unbiased? Ha. It's so obvious that he votes Republican he can't hide it. He's doing everything he can to skew his questioning to conform to the message that THEY want to get out instead of asking the difficult questions or even pointing out to that idiot RNC chairman that the "American people" WANT medicaid and the jobs bill but the Republicans aren't listening. What's wrong with David that he does not point to the polls showing the "will of the American people"?
It's a bit of a stretch to presume that David Gregory is biased, but I am rather disappointed in his seeming inability to control his own table's conversation.
Of course that's not to say you should try and exercise too much control; but when one of your panelists starts erecting strawmen and ceases to engage in respectful conversation, as Lowrey obviously was, it's time to put your foot down.
I always had the impression that David G. is a republican. And the fact that he failed to control the conversation is evident. Rachel Maddow is ALWAYS very respectful of her guests... if anything, she is too nice. David allowed her be savaged by the teabagger, who couldn't make any valid points and proceeded just to get angry and pensive.
with all due respect to his widow and surviving family members:
Tim Russert must turn in his grave every time david gregory appears under the
"Meet The Press" banner; while comcast smiles everytime. gregory and matthews do more to destroy the democratic party while disguised as "liberal media" personalities. I have not been able to watch very much of the once highly respected Meet The Press...it is too painful to watch as it is being destroyed by this occupant of the Trojan Horse that MSNBC is becoming. Starting off most of the morning with republican talking points from morning joe and his gang and 2 hours in the evening of "blue dog" at best matthews . Liberal media ? What liberal media ? If it weren't for Rachel, Ed, Lawrence and one or two others the left would not even be heard from at all !
Are you guys for real? I'm surprised Gregory just doesn't come out in an "Obama-Biden 2012" sweatshirt every week. A person was asked to defend her position and couldn't. Medicare HAS been cut under Obama, look it up.
Who is paul Ryan? He is eddie Munster, a young blood sucking vampire, who will feast on the benefits of the elderly.
I can't believe this. You guys are all whack.
Ryan at some point will make a comment and hurt the Romney campaign. The Republican party is on the defensive....They would have to do something to catch my attention. Republicans bringing back focus too "We the people...." I don't think so!
Thanks David for pointing out that Obama made the same slip of the tounge when introducing VP candidate Biden. What you failed to point out was the fact that Obama made the immediate recovery from saying President to VP, whereas Romney not only walked away from the podium, but no doubt had to be briefed on his error before returning moments later to admit that ooops! I have been known to make mistakes. Yep that's what the American people want a guy who needs hand holding.
Oh David .. If you like Paul Ryan so much ... why don't you just Suck His Dick. .. and mine too while your at it ! In fact, if I had 2 dicks .. you could suck them both !
Romney/Ryan string puppets operated by the hands of the super rich! One script for all!
OK. So tell us something. How much are YOU willing to give up? Obama keeps flapping his gums about "redistributing wealth", so here's a reality check for you: if you're not in the recipient class, then you'll be in the group doing the giving. Plain and simple. Now, it appears you have a computer and an interenet connection, and a TV so you can watch Maddow; did you WORK for it? Did you earn it? The prime example is the girl who goes to college, and comes home and tells her father she's a Democrat. She then goes on to talk about her roomate, who doesn't study, parties all the time and is just squeaking by. Her father says, "Go to the Dean and tell him you want to donate 1.0 of your 4.0 grade average to her, you'll both have 3.0 GPAs. Take some of the money from your job, and give her half, so she''l have some money, too". The daughter says, "I WORKED for those things, why should I just give them away."
Apply as necessary. How much are YOU wiling to give up so someone who stays home all day watching the Kardashians can have it as good as you do?
Srsly, question about Ryan having no private sector, no foreign policy experience? laughable. did u ask that about O?
Mike, don't you just love that?? Biden will chew him up and spit that Voucher dude out.
These two Vulture/Voucher are puppets. Gregory is so obviously in the bag with the R's and is terrible, he can't even moderate :(
These two will also be the first to go into Iran. Neither, other than Mitts foreign bank account, and his draft dodging days in Paris, have nothing. The poor and or unemployed young will be dragged into another war, no ones wants to pay for.
Foreign Policy and where are the tax returns Mitt??
Economy recovery and where is O's birth certification??
The BC debate is over. Obama sealed his records 90 mins after becoming Pres, so he has to give permission for his records to be released. Yeah, that's going to happen. So much for the Freedom of Information Act. If Romney cheated on his taxes, don't you think Geitner would have said something by now? Ooops...Geitner and cheating on taxes in the same sentence. Isn't that a no-no?
They don't care about the economy, or the recovery, they just want the Government to mommy them, but they'll be in for a surprise when they find out THEY make too much money and it's all going for others, legal or not. Every time Obungler oopens his mouth the word "tax" comes out, people draw up their purse strings, and nobody hires anyone.
It appears what they want is "equality" where everyone is drawn to the same level of poverty. There's something to aspire to.
It's painful to watch Gregory serve up softballs for Preibus - allowing him - unchallenged - to repeat the "everyone knows medicare is going bankrupt" lie. Taxes pay for medicare and social security (and infrastructure, education, research etc.) - if you keep lowering taxes on the 1% - obviously you'll run out of money. Gregory is helping them frame an intellectually dishonest argument. (And Axelrod didn't call him on it either). You all suck.
They overload the actual number of lies they dish out making most of them indefensible due to time constraints. Couple that with some obvious bias, eureka! More manipulation of this country by the already have it alls.
Medicare isn't going bankrupt? What's your source? Or is it you just know.
Social Security is only funded to 2032 right now (and that's straight from a friend who is a government economist...isn't that an oxymoron...) so what is your source that Medicare isn't going bust?
Rachel is a great battle MC
She's the best
She's a friggin idiot. She couldn't even answer the question about her own convictions.
Watching Rick Lowery, who was rude and sexist was nauseating. Someone needs to teach him manners. or send him back to Fox.The show was good. I think Romney's choice was a desperate choice to pander to the right , who do not trust him. He is going to have keep pulling rabbits out of his hat each time they get their panties in twist.
"Watching Rick Lowery, who was rude and sexist was nauseating." I listened to the podcast and didn't hear the sexist part. Maybe next time close your eyes.
Gregory is NOT A MODERATER !
David Gregory HAS GOT TO GO !!!
I don't expect a Tim Russert, he will never be replaceable. Gregory doesn't have a clue on how to MODERATE a panel.
Rachel draws viewers, I will write to her next. When Gregory needs her, I'd tell him to stuff it.
Gregory has NO CLUE on any of the bills to even ask a half way intelligent question. I have to record MTP. No large doses of him for me.
I just have one question about today's incident between Rachel and Rick Lowery. He kept pressing her if she was in favor of the $700B cut from Medicare caused by the Affordable Care Act. This was her perfect opportunity to point out how much the Affordable Care Act was going to bring down health care costs overall, and thus benefit Medicare recipients, as well as everybody else. The Ryan plan isn't going to bring down health care costs at all from what I understand, just throw more burden on seniors. And, if I understand correctly, why aren't the Dems promoting these cost savings more to the voters? Am I missing something?
The issue with Ryan, is the severity of the Ryan budget which cuts most government support for medicare and social security while raising taxes on the middle income labor and small business, and lowering taxes on the well off and wealthy whose income is derived from capital investment. Ryan is known to adhere philosophically with Ayn Rand and he describes her work as the moral justification for Capitalism. Coincidentally, Greenspan was also a well known believer in pure market, unregulated capitalism, and Greenspan had to admit in 2008 that he had been wrong about the markets self-correcting and self-regulating. The deregulation of Wall Street, and the ensuing financial meltdown brought on by the use of untried, unregulated financial tools, and aided by greed to promote dishonest evaluations of risk should be proof enough to most politicians, as it was to Adam Smith, that regulation is necessary ensure that trust in the institutions that drive our economy is maintained. If Greenspan could admit that pure markets don't exist, and that markets do need regulation, how does Paul Ryan square that with his belief in Randian economics?
In my view, Capitalism is a system of creative destruction that both requires a social safety net to ensure human capital can retool, rebuild, and survive in cycles of destruction. Without some confidence that there is a net, we will be forced into a cash economy for homes, cars, education and health care. The risk of losing everything is too great if there is no means by which Americans can commit to their obligations for a mortgage, for children, for a student loan when they can be made unemployed and unemployable by unpredictable economic cycles.
We no longer live on the farm, able to live off the land, set some aside for a "rainy day" or drought. We are now a wage economy, dependent on the balance between need, wants, supply and demand. We are dependent on well thought out policy that works for the American people, all of them, not just those at the top. Rand never got around to acknowledging that altruism is sometimes necessary, regulation is sometimes necessary, so I would like to know how Ryan plans to provide for those that need trust in government promises, in justice and security for themselves and especially for the children-the elderly-the sick in a way that allows them to become productive citizens.
They truly lack an empathy gene. They don't care. Greed is good, and any method used to get there, goes. I got mine mentality.
If we don't get out and vote this cycle our childrens' futures are at risk. Corporations of America will destroy life as we have known it.
Richard Lowry's behavior was reminiscent of Rick Lazio when he debated Hilary Clinton. Rude, arrogant, and yes -- sexist. How dare Rachel attempt to speak while he was interrupting her?! It also shows his personal insecurity and inability to have an honest debate, which given what I heard out of his mouth, he certainly would have lost against a class act like Rachel.
Now for a note to David Gregory: I think you should rename your show to "Meet the Represslicans" because the only thing less fair and balanced as you is Faux News.
Paul Ryan: "I grew up on Ayn Rand... that's what I tell people. [It} taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff"
Ayn Rand quotes: "[Faith] is a sign of a psychological weakness . . . I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire, above the evidence of what your mind knows. That’s what you’re doing with the idea of God."
"You couldn’t really understand it because there is no way in which you could justify, nobody has ever given a reason why man should be his brothers’ keeper, and you have every example, and you see examples around you of men perishing by their attempt to be their brothers’ keeper."
"Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. The purpose of man's life is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question."
What happened to Rachel being talked over was inexcusable, enough said on that. Run some voltage through those chairs if you need that to control your panel.
Also, why the heck is *Rance Preebus* on that show every week? And when is he going to say something that makes sense?
Rance: Obama is the one with blood on his hands for cutting Medicare!
David: But Ryan wants to make/preserve the same cuts to Medicare in his plan.
Rance: Yeah, but Ryan is making the hard decisions and that's what it takes to be a leader. Hail Ryan and his glorious Medicare cuts!
i can't believe you were watching the same show...that lady was rude.
"That lady" could have only been considered "rude" by someone who expects women to show constant deference to the superior "male" at the table who holds forth as an authoritarian patriarch, dictating the topic for debate, changing the topic for debate at his whim and convenience.
Sometimes I think this is also what is behind the crazy-extreme reaction of so many on the right to President Obama. It's not anything he's actually DONE that so incenses them, it's the fact that he's sitting in the chair in the highest office in the land, an act that is so deeply "uppity" that it offends their unconscious sense of order in the world, the divine right of kings or something.
And then, President Obama has the absolute GALL to sit in that chair and hold that office, and SPEAK AND WRITE as if he were president, instead of holding his hat in hand and ask the real power brokers for permission to do whatever he proposes to do first.
White patriarchal entitlement is an especially ugly thing when it is most invisible and unthinking:
--When you don't know why you are mad at that woman, except that she talks more, and more assertively, than you are willing to allow women to be talking, and that in itself is an offense unto the heavens. She doesn't dip her shoulder toward you when you speak or look away and down enough to indicate that she honors the higher male power at the table.
--When you don't know why you are threatened and scared of the power wielded by that man in that high office, except that you expect to be oppressed by it as "Other," because the only way you know how to relate to people like him is from a position of assumed superiority, oppressing them as "Other." These men are SO very frightening to you, you create laws that effectively keep most of them in prison at any given time.
They are just so rude, those terrible people, aren't they? How dare they challenge and stand up to our right and true authoritarian way of thinking with ideas that come from OUTSIDE our dominant mind-set?