On the Sunday 8/19 installment of Up with Chris Hayes, the host revealed a devastating 2002 clip of Paul Ryan giving an impassioned plea for stimulus. You're not likely to see this clip air on Fox "News".
This is yet another case of IOKIYAR. The stimulus was OK under then-President Bush, but it's not now that President Obama is in office. I don't see how even the most ardent Ryan supporter can spin this one. If any of you want to give it a try, I'm all ears.
23 comments:
Malcolm, for the past month I've been occupied with my son, who was injured in an Army accident, therefore I haven't had a moment to research anything about Ryan, or anyone else for that matter.
With that being said, late last night while listening to Coast to Coast AM, a guest (don't know his name but he wrote Obamanonmics) said that Ryan voted for some form of stimulus under Bush but not under Obama and I was like -- WTH?! So it's ok under a Republican but not under a Democrat??
For me it's one or the other regardless of the R or D. It either works or it doesn't.
I will not be surprised to find out that Ryan did indeed vote for a stimulus, I just want to find out what the heck his reason is for saying no under Obama.
This crap just ticks me off.
So, our Liberal friends, how's that Hope & Change working out for you?
This is the real America in a new age of Depression. You won't hear these kinds of stories on the campaign trail or in the billions of dollars spent on commercials with politicians selling you empty words that can't fill your belly at dinner time.
I never seem to hear about any llegal immigrants from Mexico on food stamps going hungry !!
I just reas a blog about Cheryl Preston a 54-year-old mother of three and grandmother of three in Roanoke, Va., says there are days she skips meals so her husband and son can eat. If they notice, she says, she'll let them think she's fasting. She waters down the milk and juice to make it last longer. She visits food pantries, but it's not enough.
"Who would think that in the land of plenty, hard-working families would go hungry? But I am living proof it is true," Preston writes in a first-person account for Yahoo!.
In the last three years, she hasn't been able to replace a $500 loss in monthly income. Her husband's job can't always guarantee 40 hours a week; his second job lasted only through Christmas. So mealtime suffers: Her family eats in one day what they used to eat at one meal. Often, they manage on a nearly barren cupboard for five or six days until the next pay day. They sometimes skip family gatherings at restaurants because they can't pay the tab.
"It is distressing," Preston writes.
"When you get a check for $250, and your basic needs require at least $400, you are already defeated. You can only cut back so much and then you have no choice but to do without. I long for the days when I could pay my bills on time, buy more than enough groceries and have money left over."
She's not alone. Eighteen percent of Americans say there have been times this year that they couldn't afford the food they needed, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday. In particularly hard-hit regions of the United States, like the South, at least one in five didn't have enough money for food. In Preston's Virginia, 15.2 percent of state residents are affected. One has to wonder is she is better off today than she was 4 or 8 years ago! And the sad part about all this is that it's gonna get worse. When and if Obama gets re-elected there is nothing to stop him. We are seeing signs of that already. He'll have 4 more years left to complete his “re-shaping America. If Obama gets re-elected there is only one thing we can do. put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!
And Ms. Pamela D. Hart, there is much more going on in the Obama administration that should be " just ticking you off"... BTW, I'm very sorry to hear this about your Son. We are hearing much to much of this lately. . So Mr. Obama, how about your "promise" to get us out of that Hell Hole?
hypocrites make me sick... especially the ones who call for tax returns but not birth certificates.... or is it the other way around... I forget.
Yeah he's clearly been talking out of his ass for years. I wish that I could say that I'm surprised by this....but I'm not.
I clearly remember Bush's stimulus package. These guys talk out of both sides of their mouths.
For the life of me I can't imagine why ANY woman would want to vote Republican this year. All this nonsense about insurance paying for birth control, when practically anyone's insurance pays for Viagra. Who came up with that idea?!?
At a diverse gathering in Virginia, a Moron named Joe Biden who was appointed by another Moron named Barack Hussein Obama , directed some inflammatory words to the black listeners in attendance. "They're gonna put y'all back in chains!" warned Joe with a faux-southern dialect. Biden claims he was referencing republicans giving Wall Street cronies free reign or something.
No surprise, the Obama camp backed up Joe's inciteful words, demeaning not not only to blacks, but to ALL Americans. Barack Obama suggested we're taking Biden's words too literally. Put another way, Obama suggested, Joe said it but he didn't really mean it. Sorta like Obama's "You didn't build that" insulting comment to business owners.
Oh, you know, cuz we're all over-sensitive dolts, over-reacting to every little thing. What's a little slave reference among friends? They're gonna put y'all back in chains! Obama cleared that right up with this remark:
"The truth is that during the course of these campaigns, folks like to get obsessed with how something was phrased even if everybody personally understands that's not how it was meant. That's sort of the nature of modern campaigns and modern coverage of campaigns."
I call bullshit on that response! Your paygrade demands a bit more responsibility for what comes out of that piehole and your teen-like defense is unacceptable.
Mitt Romney gave a slap-in-the-mouth response, to Team Obama, IMHO: "Take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago."
Both Romney and Ryan declared that Biden's remark sinks the office of the presidency to yet another low. I couldn't agree more. But they also reminded us Team Obama will continue on this course as a means to distract voters from real issues. Divide and conquer, basically.
As disgusting and disheartening as Joe's remarks are, their dirty campaigning really is par for the course of where we've come in America since November 2008. As painful as it seems, this evolution of racial acclamation is necessary for us as countrymen. We still acclamating to the racial discord of America's past and present. However, sooner rather than later the hat trick of race cards, is revealed for its repeated slight of hands.
Individuals on the left (or center, moderates, whatever) who continue in dismissing and defending Team Obama's reckless play on words see only what they want to see. Sure! The same can be said about us on the right. But if you're a thinking person consider this:
Joe Biden is nobody's homeboy. The Scranton native did not switch to a southern preacher's drawl to drive home any points about Wall Street cronies despite his claims. So when he says "put y'all back in chains" you should ask yourself why those words don't bother you. If you're still feeling dismissive about it all, alrighty then. Go back to sleep, I didn't mean to disturb you.
Many of us are awake. And I don't care what color any of us are. I don't think it's clever nor do I see any humor in using embarrassing and hateful terms and racially tense phrases to further your campaign. And as a black person who happens to be a Republican I'm not going to stand around pretending you didn't say and mean what you said, Joe.
"For the life of me I can't imagine why ANY woman would want to vote Republican this year."
Because most women, according to recent polls, think abortion is a bad idea. And otherwise, they don't get bent out of shape over whether or not they get a handout worth a few bucks a month of free birth control.
Francis: Your comments are weak as hell! You can't defend Ryan's hypocrisy so not only do you try to change the subject, but you throw the racist tag at me. Please seek medical attention... fast!
Pamela: I'm sorry to hear about your son. I hope he's going to be OK.
Ryan not only voted for the Bush stimulus, but he staunchly defended it (as was shown in the clip). To the best of my knowledge, no interviewer has confronted Ryan with his hypocrisy. If that ever happens, I can't wait to hear his response.
Matey: In all those words you wrote, not one of them addressed the topic. Just to refresh your memory, this post is about Paul Ryan's hypocrisy regarding the stimulus. Do you care to comment on that?!
pShaw: Do you have anything to say about the topic at hand?
Reggie: Ever since Chris Hayes played the 2002 clip of Ryan defending the stimulus, I haven't heard much else about it. Ryan can probably thank Todd Akin for that. Hopefully, Ryan's hypocrisy regarding the stimulus will be brought up by Martha Raddatz (the moderator of the VP debate). By the way, I can't imagine why any woman would vote Republican either.
dmarks: What are your thoughts on Paul Ryan's hypocrisy regarding the stimulus?
Mr. Lee: Wow, you sure had a lot to say. Too bad, none of it has anything to do with the topic of this post. Do you have any thoughts on Paul Ryan's hypocrisy or will you continue deflecting?
Paul Ryan is not the problem, in fact he may just be the solution. But in your blind racist eyes, you cant' see it.
Mr. Lee: Not only are you deflecting, but now you're playing the race card! Man you are weak!
Malcolm, this "threaded" thing leaves the forum so disjointed and hard to follow. I know it is a default downgrade of Blogspot/Blogger.
Anyway, you asked: "dmarks: What are your thoughts on Paul Ryan's hypocrisy regarding the stimulus?"
I give Ryan credit for coming to his senses about these insane pointless give-away stimulus packages that are nothing but Miracle Grow for the debt problem. He is more experienced and wise now, and now opposes them. It is certainly not any sort of hypocrisy.
Changing your mind from bad ideas to good ideas is not hypocrisy. It reflects and open and learning mind.
However, if Romney is elected and Ryan decides to flip flip and go back to bad stimulus policies, that would show he is either a hypocrite or is stupid and forgets learned lessons. Either way, it would not be good. But either way, he has not done this yet.
dmarks: I would give Ryan the benefit of the doubt about his current stance on stimulus spending. However, I'm not because of the following statement he made after being asked about the letters he wrote to two federal departments seeking grants under the Obama administration’s economic recovery package:
"I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work."
If he really believes stimulus spending doesn't work, why did he vote for it under Bush?
Changing one's mind doesn't make one a hypocrite. However, if someone is changing their stance based on ideology, it's hypocrisy pure and simple.
Dave: I totally agree. Even though I disagree with most of what dmarks says, he did at least stick to the topic. Too bad I can't say the same about some of these other clowns.
Dave: None of the people being discusses are "radical" anything. You are using this word as a meaningless insult against mainstream people. And it ends up being as laughable as when someone calls Barack Obama a radical leftist.
" Everyone not in their cult is the enemy and are to be regarded as objects of hate."
...is no less true of hardline Democratic partisans.
Malcolm: Do you agree, then with the complete miss-use of the word "radical" by him/
Malcolm: I tuned out Mr. Lee when he first used the word "moron". He immediately established himself as the same sort of lowbrow, unintellectual debater as you see in Dave Dubya, Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, and Rush Limbaugh.
dmarks: We'll have to agree to disagree on your assessment of Dave Dubya and Ed Schultz.
dmarks: I agree with both you and Dave. The following are a few examples of "radical Right" behavior:
* In an effort to stymie President Obama, Republican politicians now being against ideas they once supported
* Elected officials, political pundits, etc. accusing President Obama of hating this country, not being a U.S. citizen, being a Muslim, etc.
* The GOP supporting/passing bills which work against women, minorities, the LGBT community, etc.
Because this type of behavior is a shift away from what the GOP used to represent, I consider it radical. However, the radical mindset by many in the GOP and those who support them is taking over the party. As a result, you are sadly sort of correct in referring to this as "mainstream". At least, mainstream within the conservative bubble.
Malcolm: Again, you are using "radical" as a catch-all insult, without regard to meaning. The radical or far right means groups like the KKK and Nazi Party.
" In an effort to stymie President Obama, Republican politicians now being against ideas they once supported" has nothing to do with azi or KKK ideology. Some of this is partisan hypocrisy. More often than not, it is "older and wiser" people who supported bad ideas before now seeing reason and opposing them. Neither way, this is not "radical". Moderates even do this a lot.
-------------
As for the rest, The GOP supporting/passing bills which work against women, minorities, the LGBT community, etc. "
Well, this is true only of the bills against the LGBT community. As for the rest, not giving in to sexists and racists and insisting on equal rights is not 'working against' someone.
Even this (the only group you named that the GOP pushes for bills "against", this is hardly "radical" at all. President Obama, in 2008, campaigned against gay marriage. The same view which is mainstream (still) among the GOP. I doubt very much you called Obama any sort of radical conservative, ever.
As of July this summer, 51% of African-Americans oppose gay marriage: taking the GOP view. Are these people mainstream, or radicals?
Again, your use of the word 'radical' has nothing to do with radicalness.
dmarks: You are mistakenly interpreting the word "radical" as having only one level of meaning. I never said nor did I imply that the GOP's behavior is equal to Nazis or the KKK.
"As for the rest, not giving in to sexists and racists and insisting on equal rights is not 'working against' someone."
Does this mean you think support of the DREAM Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Act is giving into racists and sexists?
When I mentioned bills which work against the LGBT community, I wasn't referring specifically to same-sex marriage. However, I will add that the number of African-Americans who oppose it is decreasing. After President Obama's endorsement in May, 59 percent of African-Americans in most recent surveys express support. Also, simply opposing something and using one's power to enact laws against a particular group are two different things. I wouldn't call a black person a radical for simply opposing gay marriage anymore than I would a conservative for holding those same views.
As I said earlier, I wasn't talking specifically about same-sex marriage:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/03/476087/house-republicans-want-to-strip-lgbt-immigrant-and-native-american-protections-from-violence-against-women-act/
You conveniently skipped over my comments about people on the right accusing President Obama of being a Muslim, hating this country and not being a U.S. citizen. Does this mean you view this as radical/extremist behavior?
As I alluded to earlier, your interpretation of the word "radical" is one-dimensional.
Post a Comment