Mitt Romney's Selection Of Paul Ryan Is A Sign Of Desperation (Excellent Libertarian Analysis)

Zero Hedge ^ | August 12, 2012 | Tyler Durden

[Lakeshark]

I'm sorry, there are no excellent points in this article.

What a crock. Many "libertarians" are just extensions of liberals and this guy is clearly one of those.

He really believes this? Good grief is he stupid.

[GlockThe Vote]

So who again do the fanatics want?

From what I can tell - its all about the Sarahbots and Paulbots melting down all over the place.

[GlockThe Vote]

Bingo - i see a lot of libertarians, most paulbots still refusing to get behind Romney because he did not pick Paul.

I ask these idiots why would Romney ever pick Paul when Paul himself has not even said he would support Romney in the first place?

Same delusional people like we have here.

[BO Stinkss]

Wow! I didn’t know! I guess I’ll have to change my vote to Obama now.

[SamAdams76]

So apparently the author feels Romney should have gone for a "base hit" with Pawlenty or Portman as opposed to going for a home run with Ryan.

Sheer idiocy. As Babe Ruth used to say, hitting singles doesn't pay off as much.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Nothing has been debunked. ZeroHedge is registered to ABC Media, P.O. Box 814 Sofia, Bulgaria. That’s the same contact address for Daniel’s father, Krassimir Ivandjiiski, who was a journalist in the communist state-controlled Bulgarian media (pre-1990).

The clues are everywhere on ZeroHedge. The constant linking to RT. The unqualified support for OWS/Wikileaks/Anonymous. The overwhelmingly pro-Iranian/anti-Israeli sentiment. The absence of any serious criticism of the Russian regime. Daniel Ivandjiiski (he of the lifetime ban from the securities industry for insider trading) is a Putin puppet. ZH is every bit the Soviet-style influence operation that Russia Today is.

[kabar]

Shouldn't our defense expenditures be based on existential threats and the protection of our national interests? I have no problem in making defense cuts as long as they make sense and not just part of a number crunching, across the board exercise. The National Defense is one of the primary responsibilties of the federal government and arguably the most important. It should be noted that defense is already taking big cuts under the Obama administration. Sequestration looms as a possibility for even further cuts.

We could cut costs of unemployment, food stamps and whatever other forms of relief by just putting people back to work and growing the market of good paying jobs.

So exactly how do we do that? Why are we bringing in 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS a year into this country? 57% of immigrant headed households are on welfare. We also have guest worker programs (temporary work visas) that bring in millions more.

What R/R needs to do is to have a jobs plan, and right now, not after the election. This chart says that 41% of revenue comes from individual income tax. They’ll need that revenue to cut the deficit. Jobs!

The private sector creates jobs. What the government needs to do is to create the environment for the private sector to create jobs. That said, it won't be easy. We have some structural problems in this country along with the growing difficulty to be competitive in the global economy. China and India can produce just as educated a workforce and they have access to the highest technology in terms of manufacturing and production.

One big difference is wages and benefits, which are cheaper in the emerging economies. And there is less environmental regulation and taxation. We will need to create a more welcoming enviornment for business and to exploit our advantages in the production of cheap domestic energy.

And even if we increase revenue, we need to curtail the welfare state. Otherwise the increased revenue will be sucked into the welfare vortex and just increase our deficits.

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “Well, that isn’t what he actually said.”

Well, yes it is. If you read the National Review article from which you claim he rejects Ayn Rand -

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

- you will see that Ryan is speaking in regard to Ayn Rand’s “objectivism” philosophy:

“I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them. They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman, but it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist. I reject her philosophy, it’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas, don’t give me Ayn Rand.”

And so, all of what Ryan said, within the context of the article is - I like(d) Ayn Rand’s books, they influenced me to study economics and Milton Friedman, the Chicago School of economics - but, unlike Ayn Rand, he is not an “objectivist” which, among other things, denies God’s existence, denies that true knowledge (epistemology) of reality comes from God, and denies the morality of alturism (living one’s life for the sake of others).

I am not an atheist, but I like and agree with much of Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy, including the idea that self interest and individual rights are key to a strong, healthy economy and actually helps people of all economic levels much more than a forced socialism by the government. I would temper Rand’s “self-interest” idea by the teachings of the Bible and Jesus’s example of living for others. Therefore, I can accept much of Rand’s economic views without embracing her underlying philosophy of atheistic objectivism. Isn’t this what Ryan is also saying? I believe it is.

One would have to be an atheist to get the idea that Ryan is repudiating Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

You don’t like Romney and so now you have to rip Paul Ryan with some kind of false claim that he contradicted himself in regard to Ayn Rand. I read the article in context and in full and anyone who does will see that he is not rejecting Ayn Rand’s economic views in total - he is rejecting Ayn Rand’s philosophical objectivism as it relates to God and altruism.

People can appreciate and even live out their ethics based on the teachings of Jesus, yet not be a Christian. Can’t one appreciate Rand’s economic views without being an “Objectivist”??

Again, read the whole article.

[tacotuesdays]

This is nothing but a shallow, unsourced liberal hit job. Paul Ryan is one of the most conservative memebers of congress BAR NONE, and to suggest otherwise shows a shallow grasp of the facts.

[SuziQ]

Ryan's plan spends MORE on Medicare than Obama. This is quite the shock considering that Ryan's plan is considered to be the most courageous entitlement reform evah! It is ironic that Obama and the Left are painting Ryan as the grim reaper chasing your granny, where instead he is slowing down Medicaid to HELP granny.

And I noticed this graph stops at 2021. Ryan has said all along that Medicare wouldn't change for those who are 55 and over, so I don't see any reason why it should go down in the next 10-15 years. The difference is that Ryan doesn't got for the full monty bureaucracy of Obamacare, and the government controlling healthcare for all Americans. NOT doing Obamacare would be a savings of TRILLIONS in the future.

[citizen]

Jeez, another lunatic post on FR...what is this forum becoming??

[Monorprise]

I agree JediJohnes that is indeed the issue we must fouse our minds and resources upon solving. All other issues are somewhat academic if we can’t get our message thou the leftist firewall.

Perhaps a twitter, facebook, drama and cold hard facts to attack Obama with the truth of our convictions and most of all the truth of his actions to bare witness to his untrustable lies.

If they ignore us we shall simply go directly to the people with our message and reasoning. We will wage an offensive rather than defensive war. We should see to it that with the light of truth nobody believes anything anyone says.