GOP’s Response To State Of The Union

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Republicans, State Of The Union, Video

There’s no doubt that Paul Ryan is a smart guy, but his idea of “self government” didn’t really feel like it resonated. Also, given how much Obama talked about cutting the deficit, increasing exports, reforming the tax code and consolidating government…Ryan’s speech didn’t seem to really sync up with what we had just heard.



Your thoughts?

Transcript after the jump…

Good evening. I’m Congressman Paul Ryan from Janesville, Wisconsin – and Chairman here at the House Budget Committee.

President Obama just addressed a Congressional chamber filled with many new faces. One face we did not see tonight was that of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We all miss Gabby and her cheerful spirit; and we are praying for her return to the House Chamber.

Earlier this month, President Obama spoke movingly at a memorial event for the six people who died on that violent morning in Tucson. Still, there are no words that can lift the sorrow that now engulfs the families and friends of the fallen.

What we can do is assure them that the nation is praying for them; that, in the words of the Psalmist, the Lord heals the broken hearted and binds up their wounds; and that over time grace will replace grief.

As Gabby continues to make encouraging progress, we must keep her and the others in our thoughts as we attend to the work now before us.

Tonight, the President focused a lot of attention on our economy in general – and on our deficit and debt in particular.

He was right to do so, and some of his words were reassuring. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I assure you that we want to work with the President to restrain federal spending.

In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress’s own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs.

The reason is simple.

A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it’s imperative. Here’s why.

We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.

On this current path, when my three children – who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old – are raising their own children, the Federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay.

No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country.

Frankly, it’s one of my greatest concerns as a parent – and I know many of you feel the same way.

Our debt is the product of acts by many presidents and many Congresses over many years. No one person or party is responsible for it.

There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation.

Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.

The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25% for domestic government agencies – an 84% increase when you include the failed stimulus.

All of this new government spending was sold as “investment.” Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.

Then the President and his party made matters even worse, by creating a new open-ended health care entitlement.

What we already know about the President’s health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.

Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree – and we think his health care law would be a great place to start.

Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.

Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the President’s law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy.

Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis.

We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.

And that is exactly what Republicans pledge to do.

Americans are skeptical of both political parties, and that skepticism is justified – especially when it comes to spending. So hold all of us accountable.

In this very room, the House will produce, debate, and advance a budget. Last year – in an unprecedented failure- Congress chose not to pass, or even propose a budget. The spending spree continued unchecked.

We owe you a better choice and a different vision.

Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you – to show you how we intend to do things differently … how we will cut spending to get the debt down… help create jobs and prosperity … and reform government programs. If we act soon, and if we act responsibly, people in and near retirement will be protected.

These budget debates are not just about the programs of government; they’re also about the purpose of government.

So I’d like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution.

They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government.

We believe government’s role is both vital and limited – to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense … to secure our borders… to protect innocent life… to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights … to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity … and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that “the pursuit of happiness” depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.

Whether sold as “stimulus” or repackaged as “investment,” their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much.

And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten – along with record deficits and debt – to the point where the President is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit.

We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.

Our nation is approaching a tipping point.

We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked – and it won’t work now.

We need to chart a new course.

Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time… but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.

Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.

Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.

Some people will back away from this challenge. But I see this challenge as an opportunity to rebuild what Lincoln called the “central ideas” of the Republic.

We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative – not political clout – determines who succeeds.

Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise – but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.

Today, a similar kind of irresponsibility threatens not only our livelihoods but our way of life.

We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That’s the real secret to job creation – not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.

Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.

These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The <> American story has been cherished, advanced, and defended over the centuries.

And it now falls to this generation to pass on to our children a nation that is stronger, more vibrant, more decent, and better than the one we inherited.

Thank you and good night.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 and is filed under Republicans, State Of The Union, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

36 Responses to “GOP’s Response To State Of The Union”

  1. Jim S Says:

    If Paul Ryan were really that smart wouldn’t he recognize that unregulated capitalism (Which is certainly what he sounds like he is supporting.) is not the answer to all of our ills? Wouldn’t he admit that more of the blame for our most recent recession lies with the actions of those who got the deregulation they wanted? But of course while that would be honest, it wouldn’t fit in with his ideology.

  2. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » GOP’s Response To State Of The Union -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Donklephant. Donklephant said: DONKLEPHANT: GOP’s Response To State Of The Union http://ow.ly/1b1ZxM [...]

  3. Agnostick Says:

    Jim S,

    That’s probably why you heard from, at least, a second-stringer last night (and maybe even a third-stringer or fourth-stringer).

  4. kranky kritter Says:

    I thought Ryan hit all the predictable points in a goofy, clunky way that made him seem like a bit of a minor leaguer.

    Basically the same thing about Bachman. I am not someone who is at all afraid of Sara Palin. But if I was, then I would be more afraid of Bachman, who seems to have a somewhat better grasp of things than Palin, and more poise. Not much more, but more. Bachman doesn’t really seem to me to have any policy insights or the slightest idea how to be a legislator. She got elected by complaining, and now she thinks all she has to do is keep complaining.

    If Paul Ryan were really that smart wouldn’t he recognize that unregulated capitalism (Which is certainly what he sounds like he is supporting.) is not the answer to all of our ills? Wouldn’t he admit that more of the blame for our most recent recession lies with the actions of those who got the deregulation they wanted?

    “If Paul Ryan was really smart?” Don’t you mean “if he was really a liberal and a democrat instead of a conservative and a republican?”

    You comment can quite safely be translated as “conservatives are stupid to believe what they believe. If they were smart, they’d agree with me.”

    Can’t you do any better than that?

  5. theWord Says:

    How about taking on faith that all regulations are bad and making them into a sacred cow ignores the evidence like toxic toys, BP oil spills and the economic meltdown to name a few recent things that appear to say it’s a bit more complicated than, “What I want good, What they want bad.” Although they have done pretty well with their base on that.

  6. kranky kritter Says:

    How about taking on faith that all regulations are bad and making them into a sacred cow.

    Yeah, that’s exactly what they do. I can’t think of a better basis for a bipartisan discussion than the presumption that all Republicans believe all regulations are intrinsically bad. I am sure conservatives will see the error of their ways now that this has been pointed out.

  7. theWord Says:

    I’ve consistently heard two things from the GOP They hate taxes and they oppose regulations on business. Oh and they don’t like government solutions (which is where a regulation comes from)

    Which country are you living in?

    I don’t think conservatives will see the error. I do find it unfathomable how anyone could look at the Bush years and say “With the wild growth, jobs and across the economy benefits their economic ideas brought us before we really need to do more of the same.”

    If you can honestly tell me that if you grabbed a Republican, stuck them in front of a crowd and tell them that they should say “We want to get government off your backs and end these job-killing regulations” I would make an educated guess that 1) It would be a huge applause line for their audience and 2) It would most likely have already been in their speech. The world isn’t that simple. But simple is a really easy sell.

    Some things government does are good, some things need to be done and America has a really short memory. Your happy when there is a move to the middle. The middle keeps moving farther and farther to the right.

  8. theWord Says:

    There is one other thing since you talk about bipartisan discussion as if there is a hope for that. Saying we want to get rid of everything you’ve done(and were elected to do) and defund everything you have done seems to be a bit of a non-starter too if your bias weren’t showing.

  9. blackout Says:

    @theWord: I agree with the cognitive dissonance of regulation=bad, gov’t needs to be limited (e.g. less regulation), and “poor decisions in Washington and Wall Street.” My suspicion is that Fannie and Freddie are Washington’s poor decisions, not the failure to regulate. And of course Wall Street’s poor decisions — the unhealthy relationship of derivatives and mortgage-backed securities, the scandalous failure of self-regulation seen with Moody’s bogus ratings, banks forgetting they’re banks — are supposed to bolster our faith in the role free markets play in our society?

    On one hand Wall Street is significantly to blame for causing a financial crisis, squandering our savings, breaking our trust, and crippling our economy, but on the other free markets are an unalloyed good and regulation is the devil and certainly not the place of our federal gov’t. It’s extremely hard to take this seriously.

    Just as Obama coopted a slew of Republican talking points last night, a less doctrinaire GOP rebuttal could have seized the high ground on sensible, necessary regulation. Instead of free market, anti-regulation boilerplate it’s time for wonks like Ryan to abandon the sloganeering and start speaking to the realities of our economy.

    I was a little surprised at the Cassandraesque tone of the rebuttal, repeatedly invoking fear, and I’m interested in how it was generally received. I think you could replace most of the economic elements with changes in climate and melting icecaps and it would have been indistinguishable from a typical ten minutes in Al Gore’s house. lol

  10. theWord Says:

    I worked in the brokerage industry for 20 years and if you think they are in an industry that has any potential for self regulation, I’d have to strongly disagree. Brokerage firms are about taking your money and turning it into their money. They even joke about it regularly. I worked with hundreds of brokers in several states and the one overriding factor was to make money, not to do anything for society. If they could make a million and move every job outside of the country, they would have no problem. Anyone else isn’t even on their radar.

    If you truly want to talk to elite, smug people with no concern for others talk to one of the top level brokers at any of the firms.

    Captcha elasion millions

  11. WHQ Says:

    You comment can quite safely be translated as “conservatives are stupid to believe what they believe. If they were smart, they’d agree with me.”

    It could be translated that way, KK, but I don’t know if one can do so “quite safely.”

    What one can do quite safely is take it at face value, reading the words as they appear. Jim S. only mentions Ryan, not conservatives in general.

    You may be excluding a middle between what Ryan said in his reponse and what Jim S. may personally believe, such that Jim S. may not have made the same criticism of Ryan had Ryan said something less extreme, even if it didn’t match up precisely with Jim S.’s beliefs.

    Let me ask you this, KK – would you have preferred what Ryan said or something like this?

    “Look, we obviously need some level of regulation. What the Republican party is opposed to is ineffective and onerous regulation that unduly inhibits economic growth. Yes, we need to be sure that we protect our people and the environment from the potential dangers of unwise or capricious corporate behavior. But we have to be smarter about it than we have been. We have to use some common sense. We need to be results-oriented and not micro-manage businesses.”

  12. Loviatar Says:

    WHQ,

    He can’t say that, why?

    Its simple KK is caught in a bind, like most “sensible conservatives”, he is smart enough to understand that he has been pigeonholed by the rhetoric of his partners (social cons, neo-cons, fiscal-cons, etc) in power.

    These people he defends aren’t true conservatives in any sense of the word; i.e. Paul Ryan votes to explode the US deficit and cripple the US economy by extending the Bush tax cut and he is considered one of the preeminent fiscal conservatives. But they are a path to power and power is what its is all about so KK, the “sensible conservative” has to defend him with a silly strawman argument, which as you pointed out was not the point of the post.

    “If Paul Ryan was really smart?” Don’t you mean “if he was really a liberal and a democrat instead of a conservative and a republican?”

    You comment can quite safely be translated as “conservatives are stupid to believe what they believe. If they were smart, they’d agree with me.”

    This is what the Republican party has denigrated to; the crazies and the people who defend them, sad isn’t it.

  13. kranky kritter Says:

    Loviatar-weak guess, I’m not a conservative. I simply enjoy the sport of pointing out the more preposterous exaggerations of partisans. Pretty spectacularly inconvenient for all that other stuff that you imagined about me. An aside: you’ve confused “denigrate” with some other similar sounding word that I can’t recall. I believe you meant “devolved” or something like that. Not saying that to be a smart ass.

    @whq You’re right. I should have translated it as “Paul Ryan is stupid to believe what he believes. If he was smart, he’d agree with me.” My bad. Pretty much stand by the rest though.

    Let me ask you this, KK – would you have preferred what Ryan said or something like this?

    “Look, … businesses.”

    Absolutely I would have preferred it if Paul Ryan had expressed a sophisticated understanding of the pros and cons of regulation. That’s why I opened with “hit all the predictable points in a goofy, clunky way that made him seem like a bit of a minor leaguer.”

    That’s not derisive enough or clear enough for you? I have to say he’s a talking points spouting lightweight?

    I honestly can’t imagine how most partisans remain sane without doing a little bit of translating of speeches to big audiences. I am familiar with all the red meat talking points of both sides. I’m accepting of the fact that politicians think they need to speak to big audiences using short, clear, absolute declarative sentences.

    And I’m comfortable with the idea that most national Republican politicians think in general that we are over-regulated and overtaxed, not that either are intrinsically bad and totally unnecessary. A few politicians and a lot of angry simpletons probably do think that both are intrinsically bad. I have no interest in defending the latter. But I do have a serious interest in avoiding conflating all of the former with the latter.

    One more thing. I wholeheartedly agree with those who are suggesting the GOP has been showing a real gap in its causal reasoning about our current economic circumstances. I’d call it selective amnesia. To the minds of conservatives, we need not hark back to any of the events prior to Barack Obama’s election in order to prevent the mistakes that have caused our current malaise. And that’s preposterous.

    Look, I happen to agree with financial conservatives that the expanded scope of government spending since the final Bush budget has placed us on unsound financial footing. And that solving this needs to be a serious and immediate priority. And I also agree with some or maybe even many of the pro-economic-growth policies that republicans think will help bring back jobs better than government spending.

    But deficit spending and tax policies and regulations didn’t cause the financial collapse. Greed, ignorance, and crony capitalism did. Particularly, in banking and financial services. The silence from Republicans on this has been deafening.

    In other words, I think financial conservatives have useful insights to offer in terms of how to prescriptively address our deficit and our economy. But their ideas are in some respects untempered by some of the most troubling and valuable lessons from the collapse of our economy due to the real estate bubble pop. Sometimes they seem an awful lot like the Mayor of Amity urging everyone back into the water.

    Sharks exist. There’s no use pretending they don’t. And no utility in presuming we can’t do a thing about them. Still, we must swim.

  14. WHQ Says:

    That’s not derisive enough or clear enough for you? I have to say he’s a talking points spouting lightweight?

    No. That’s good enough for me. I don’t have a minimum-hate requirement. ;)

    Your opening was a general statement that didn’t seem directly related to your later discussion of Jim S.’s comment. Well, I guess that means that it wasn’t clear enough, but it is now.

    But I still think, even limiting your interpretation to Ryan, you’re exluding a middle.

  15. Loviatar Says:

    KK,

    You are correct the proper word should have benn “devolved”.

    As to my point, whatever you call yourself is meaningless, because your actions prove you to be most reliably an apologist for conservatives.

  16. Mike A. Says:

    “degenerated”

  17. Loviatar Says:

    Mike A,

    I believe you are more correct, because as defined in the dictionary “Degenerated ” best fits as a description for today’s Republican/Conservative party.

    Degenerated –

    1: to pass from a higher to a lower type or condition : deteriorate
    2: to sink into a low intellectual or moral state
    3: to decline in quality
    4: to decline from a condition or from the standards of a species, race, or breed
    5: to evolve or develop into a less autonomous or less functionally active form

    i.e. Burke to Buckley to Beck

  18. kranky kritter Says:

    Degenerated was the word on the tip of my tongue. I new it was something really close to “denigrated.”So thanks for that.

    Whatever you call yourself is meaningless, because your actions prove you to be most reliably an apologist for conservatives.

    LMAO. Maybe the reliable liberals here believe that. The smaller number of reliable conservatives probably not so much. Simon? Tilyosu? I am quite confident that if anyone kept score, my “actions” as an apologist here are pretty unreliable for both liberals and conservatives.

  19. Loviatar Says:

    KK,

    Here on a blog that I and most who study American political science/history would consider center right at the least, you are most often apologizing for views of posts that are to the right of this blog. I will give you credit for defending the Liberal point of view when there is a factual error being reported, but your ideology is clearly on the right.

    Also, it really means nothing that Simon and Tilyosu constantly rail against you, it just means that, like the rest of us you’re not crazy.

  20. kranky kritter Says:

    Here on a blog that I and most who study American political science/history would consider center right at the least, you are most often apologizing for views of posts that are to the right of this blog.

    Where’s your data? You don’t have any. What you have is a subjective impression based on a random sample, almost certainly a fairly small one. And apparently based solely on what I’ve said at THIS blog.

    Newsflash, I post at other places as well. You’re incorrect about me.

    And you’re incorrect about this blog as well. It’s just slightly left of center. The owner and primary contributor is fair-minded, and he’s openly acknowedged that he’s a democratic supporter.

    Maybe that’s not left of center enough for you. Maybe you think the center is in the middle of the democratic party? I am quit certain that if a random sample of 100 democrats and 100 republicans read this blog regularly for a year, it would score somewhat left of center. Now, if 100 regular readers of the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post did the same thing, they’d score it insufficiently progressive.

  21. Jacob Says:

    Well, since the thread has devolvenegrated into a discussion of Kranky’s politics I’m going to go ahead and get his back.

    In my opinion, he’s holds pretty tight to the center – with an ever-so-slight tilt to the right. He’s open-minded, thoughtful and admits when he’s made a mistake or someone else has made a point. I quite enjoy his posts, and how he manages to equally enrage partisans on the left and right.

    As far as Donklephant goes, the posts are mostly center-left (because Justin and Donar do most of the posting lately) and the threads tend to pull right.

    most who study American political science/history

    I have a degree in Government and Public Policy and lean decidedly to the left.

  22. WHQ Says:

    Be happy you can have a reasonably reasonable conversation on a political blog. If you can just chill out and recognize that we (you know, “we”) aren’t making policy, it’s fairly easy not to get your back up and not make the discussion personal.

    Just because kk might have a strong sense of what he’s saying, it doesn’t make him as arrogant or ideological as I’ve seem people here accuse him of being.

    I consider myself to be pretty damned liberal, and I’d say this blog, based on the the posters, is definitely left of center. The commenters are mixed, though.

    But whatever. Each argument is a new argument with new specific points being made by the specific people making them at the moment. Deal with it on that basis, and we might be able to have real conversations.

  23. Mike A. Says:

    Yea I agree with Jacob’s assessment of Kranky, since it’s obviously time for his performance appraisal here. Works very hard to be in the center, but gets pulled. After the presidential elections, somewhat left. After the midterm elections, somewhat right. No data for this, just an impression.

  24. kranky kritter Says:

    Well, thanks for the support guys. FWIW, I think of myself as an independent and a utilitarian first, rather than as a centrist.

    I think I’ll wander off to a conservative site to get called a progressive tool now.

  25. blackout Says:

    @theWord: “I worked in the brokerage industry for 20 years and if you think they are in an industry that has any potential for self regulation, I’d have to strongly disagree.”

    Did anyone here say that? I missed it if they did. I work with brokers every day, and they’re absolutely a mixed bag. I wouldn’t say they’re amoral to a person, but when you examine their incentive structure it’s a wonder that thery aren’t.

  26. blackout Says:

    @Loviatar: “your actions prove you to be most reliably an apologist for conservatives.”

    Ummm, huh? No. The worst you can accuse KK of is a questionable regard for objectivity as defined within the confines of the Right-Left horse race. Not much of a problem. If he wants to run the partisan tote board that’s his business.

    I guess it’s human nature to accuse the ref of favoritism when you don’t like his calls. lol

  27. theWord Says:

    @Blackout
    One of the major complaints the GOP has pushed has been rolling back the regulations on the financial industry (which I didn’t think had gone far enough) I didn’t mean to imply that anyone here had made that case.

  28. Jim S Says:

    Kranky wrote

    I thought Ryan hit all the predictable points in a goofy, clunky way that made him seem like a bit of a minor leaguer.

    Basically the same thing about Bachman. I am not someone who is at all afraid of Sara Palin. But if I was, then I would be more afraid of Bachman, who seems to have a somewhat better grasp of things than Palin, and more poise. Not much more, but more. Bachman doesn’t really seem to me to have any policy insights or the slightest idea how to be a legislator. She got elected by complaining, and now she thinks all she has to do is keep complaining.

    If Paul Ryan were really that smart wouldn’t he recognize that unregulated capitalism (Which is certainly what he sounds like he is supporting.) is not the answer to all of our ills? Wouldn’t he admit that more of the blame for our most recent recession lies with the actions of those who got the deregulation they wanted?

    “If Paul Ryan was really smart?” Don’t you mean “if he was really a liberal and a democrat instead of a conservative and a republican?”

    You comment can quite safely be translated as “conservatives are stupid to believe what they believe. If they were smart, they’d agree with me.”

    Can’t you do any better than that?

    Easily, KK, because I did. Just because you can’t comprehend it isn’t my fault. So far as I’ve been able to tell Ryan does belong to that branch of his party that basically blames everything on the government and nothing on excesses on the part of the private sector, including our most recent crash. Yes, I think anyone who believes that is an idiot, not just someone who disagrees with me. If you want to be counted among them, go right ahead. My comment cannot be “translated” to what you claim except by someone who is not nearly as non-partisan as he claims. I don’t care one whit who defends you given the utter crap you wrote about my post. I’m not the one stupid enough to actually believe that the government was responsible for what the banks chose to do. Ryan and his branch of the Republicans are. If you aren’t that dumb, then don’t defend those who are quite so vociferously.

  29. kranky kritter Says:

    I’m not the one stupid enough to actually believe that the government was responsible for what the banks chose to do. Ryan and his branch of the Republicans are.

    Ummm, Jim? That’s a confession. You’ve just acknowledged that my translation is correct. So thanks for that.

    At no point did I defend Ryan. All I did was say that your basis for calling him stupid was essentially his failure to see things as you do.

    You should probably try to actually read my posts before disagreeing with them. I know that can be a chore, but still.

  30. Jim S Says:

    Sorry, but it’s not a confession. It’s pointing out a fact based on their own actions and words. There are studies that support the view that the government wasn’t the responsible party. I did read your post. That’s how I know that you’re wrong. And that you can’t admit it. And that you are defending him when you claim that his false claims are true.

  31. Jim S Says:

    Paul Ryan’s Roadmap

    A response to Ryan’s criticism of the CBPP analysis

    One of the primary defenses Ryan makes of his plan is that it looks at a 75 year span of the future. Everyone who thinks that he or anyone else can really have a clue of what is really going to happen in that time frame, please raise your hand.

  32. kranky kritter Says:

    Please excerpt the specific quote that you interpret as me defending Ryan.

    Then please explain which specific claim of mine you think is wrong.

  33. WHQ Says:

    From where I’m sitting, it appears at this point that you guys are both arguing with people inside your respective heads rather than with each other. Here’s my boiled-down version:

    Jim: Ryan’s acting like an idiot.

    KK: You think he’s an idiot because he doesn’t think just like you.

    Jim: What makes you think he’s not acting like an idiot? Look.

    KK: See. You admit that you think he’s an idiot because he doesn’t think just like you.

    Jim: He is too an idiot. Look again.

    KK: I didn’t say he wasn’t an idiot.

  34. Jim S Says:

    I pointed out that Ryan’s branch of the Republican Party insists on believing something that isn’t backed up by the facts and that I think that makes them idiots. KK says no, that doesn’t make them any such thing, just someone who disagrees with me and that I am just attacking him/them for that disagreement. Yes, I interpret that as defending them. What you are wrong about is me attacking him because he disagrees with me. I attack him because he presents himself as someone who is serious about deficit reduction even as he consistently produces numbers that just don’t add up.

  35. WHQ Says:

    What you are wrong about is me attacking him because he disagrees with me.

    Pronoun trouble: Who is “you” here?

  36. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Introspective open thread Says:

    […] This thread on Paul Ryan’s SOTU response took a detour when Loviatar described Kranky Kritter as a “sensible conservative”. […]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: