Will a Romney/Ryan victory end the bull run on PM's ?

[SilverDragon72]

Ryan had A budget, which should be separation enough to show there's a difference.

I could copy and paste a previous year's budget, put my name on it, and then I would have A budget too. Ryan's plan is the same-old same-old with slightly lower spending increases. If that's what he thinks is "right," fine. But let's not pretend it's anything more than a band-aid for a gunshot wound. It doesn't deserve to be called a "conservative budget" by any stretch of the imagination, and it certainly doesn't garner the libertarian / Tea Party support the media is pretending Ryan gets.

Nate, we all know where you're coming from. I have a lot in common with the Paul camp. I wonder though if you can find me a cute little cartoon with someone pointing and screaming, "You're an unelectable distraction! A skinny little distraction!"
you cannot see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but It's there.

Ryan is a distraction. Or maybe a misdirection would be a more accurate description. The Romney campaign will trump him up as a fiscal conservative and attempt to reel in libertarian-leaning Ron Paul type sector of the party, but truthfully, Ryan has been on the big-government (left) side of almost every fiscal issue to date, and there's nothing to indicate he'll suddenly change his path if he moves to the executive branch.

Here's a nice little summary.
http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/

Nice list you got here. I would say +3 for this!
Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.

Anybody pretending he isn't just another clown in the GOP circus is setting themselves up for a big disappointment. As is Romney, because Ryan probably won't fool enough of the libertarian / Ron Paul voters to get elected. Hard to win when you can't even get your own party on board. Romney could have had the election in the bag with the right choice of running mate, but that would have required a big change in his lets-go-bomb-them foreign policy. By refusing to compromise there, he has set himself up for a much more difficult race.

[OneBiteAtATime]

The restatement of Ryan's record is compelling. You have persuaded my thoughts about him. Sincerely.

Who other than Ron Paul would have been the better choice? Another Wisconsiner comes to mind for me, Scott Walker.

But now we're playing what may have been.

Wasn't aware of what's going on in Maine, these are just convention delegates? What's the point of fighting for them?

If I were Romney's advisor, I would have him ask Ron Paul to be the Fed chief in a Romney administration. Mr Paul would have the opportunity to dismantle as much of the monster as he could from that seat. He may be the only statesman who can tear it back apart.

But still, I cannot throw my time, money and vote behind the candidate that has no hope of winning so I can make a political statement and accomplish nothing. I would feel like an idiot buying a smart car and then asking my neighbor for the keys to his Ford F150.

[Treetop]

Who other than Ron Paul would have been the better choice?

He isnt terribly popular so perhaps it woudlnt have helped, although Id tend to think many would vote for romney/whoever just because they are the lesser evil in their eyes, and libertarians might like.. Gary Johnson. hes got a pretty good record. I like him. I would have had to think twice about romney if he had a VP like that. (or RP of course)

[PADFH]

Let me start by saying statistically speaking, the Romney/Ryan ticket is a pretty big dog given our current understanding of the polling and which states matter. The GOP voter suppression effort will help Romney/Ryan a lot but we'll see if it turns the tide in the election, data here is inconsistent and contradictory. A messy breakup in Europe can obviously have consequences but the ECB seems determined to use JUST enough duct tape to hold the whole thing from coming apart. Also, Ryan could turn out to be a major liability. First reason may or may not matter. As noted in this thread his image as a "strong fiscal conservative" is basically bull[excrement] but given our media and the role they wish Ryan to play("serious" policy wonk) it seems likely this image will stick. Second, he's on the lunatic fringe on women's issues. The democrats have actually been campaigning on this and Romney has a serious problem with women voters. When they find out Ryan's sponsored bills to ban all abortion(no exceptions), ban hormonal birth control(the pill) and in vitro, de-fund Planned Parenthood, etc. that won't help with the women's vote. Check the Paul Ryan "Hey Girl" meme if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Now to the point on PMs. I really don't know with confidence. My expectation is that the GOP will basically abandon every idea they're currently proposing if they gain control on the WH and congress. Standing tall to principles doesn't seem to be their strong suit. My guess is if elected, they flip on the spending and make the argument for "investment in the future". This is basically what Obama's doing and the only problem I bet the GOP sees is not getting the credit. I also assume loose monetary policy as they've largely supported this in the past from Friedman through Reagan to GWB. Therefore my expectation is increased spending financed by deficits and loose monetary policy.

If your opinion is that the GOP will do as they say, then how well do PMs do under low long term growth and wage stagnation, increased debt loads at every level and strong tight monetary policy? The evidence seems to lead us with that expectation if you try to cut spending and reduce monetary expansion while in a depression.

Either way, I'm stacking!

[mflugher]

Thought I"d bump this, since the debacle at the convention is now over, and we had our first presidential debate...

Anyone's opinion changed?

[68Camaro]

I didn't get into the original thread because it quickly got sidelined, as seems normal here when politics show up in a thread.

To the original question, no.

If RR win they will have lassoed a wild bronco with no gloves on and the rope will pull out of their hands faster than it will for Obama (because they will be trying to fix things rather than kicking the can down the road). The deficit overspending is impossible to stop within my lifetime. They can slow it, but it'll take years they don't have. Their biggest weapon, if they can pull it off, is massive reduction in federal regulations - if they could pull that off within the first year, small businesses (as well as large) would start taking some chances again, and there is some small prayer we might see improvement in the job market by 2014, and an increase in tax revenue to start offsetting deficits. I give them a chance at this, a small one, and in the meantime inflation will be roaring along at double-digit levels.

But if they cut too much too fast, we'll have mass rioting in the streets, and they'll be out of office.

We will fundamentally still be overspent, with huge deficits, huge debt, huge liabilities, and fiat currency. PMs will continue to push upward.

[Gobirds66]

I do not know, and I do not pretend to know. I just keep stacking......

[SilverDragon72]

Ryan had A budget, which should be separation enough to show there's a difference.

I could copy and paste a previous year's budget, put my name on it, and then I would have A budget too. Ryan's plan is the same-old same-old with slightly lower spending increases. If that's what he thinks is "right," fine. But let's not pretend it's anything more than a band-aid for a gunshot wound. It doesn't deserve to be called a "conservative budget" by any stretch of the imagination, and it certainly doesn't garner the libertarian / Tea Party support the media is pretending Ryan gets.

Nate, we all know where you're coming from. I have a lot in common with the Paul camp. I wonder though if you can find me a cute little cartoon with someone pointing and screaming, "You're an unelectable distraction! A skinny little distraction!"
you cannot see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but It's there.

Ryan is a distraction. Or maybe a misdirection would be a more accurate description. The Romney campaign will trump him up as a fiscal conservative and attempt to reel in libertarian-leaning Ron Paul type sector of the party, but truthfully, Ryan has been on the big-government (left) side of almost every fiscal issue to date, and there's nothing to indicate he'll suddenly change his path if he moves to the executive branch.

Here's a nice little summary.
http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/

+3 Nate! That pretty much sums it up right there. I believe way too many people put too much emphasis on the President. The president is ONE man! I didn't care for Bush, gotta say. However, I don't blame everything on him. The real power lies with Congress! I distrust Romney/Ryan....I support Obama, even though there are some things about his policies that have disappointed me.

No matter what happens, I really hope that my PM stack will continue to grow...and the ever growing divide in our country starts to recede. It's enough to make me sick, frankly.

I do like the idea of a viable 3rd party in this country. It would be nice to have more options, rather than just Dem or Repub....ho hum...

Let's have a REAL debate....where the audience gets to ask questions, without being prescreened. It would be nice to know that whatever candidate is running for office...that he or she has the ability to "think on their feet."

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.

Anybody pretending he isn't just another clown in the GOP circus is setting themselves up for a big disappointment. As is Romney, because Ryan probably won't fool enough of the libertarian / Ron Paul voters to get elected. Hard to win when you can't even get your own party on board. Romney could have had the election in the bag with the right choice of running mate, but that would have required a big change in his lets-go-bomb-them foreign policy. By refusing to compromise there, he has set himself up for a much more difficult race.

[mflugher]

If RR win they will have lassoed a wild bronco with no gloves on and the rope will pull out of their hands faster than it will for Obama (because they will be trying to fix things rather than kicking the can down the road). The deficit overspending is impossible to stop within my lifetime. They can slow it, but it'll take years they don't have. Their biggest weapon, if they can pull it off, is massive reduction in federal regulations - if they could pull that off within the first year, small businesses (as well as large) would start taking some chances again, and there is some small prayer we might see improvement in the job market by 2014, and an increase in tax revenue to start offsetting deficits. I give them a chance at this, a small one, and in the meantime inflation will be roaring along at double-digit levels.

But if they cut too much too fast, we'll have mass rioting in the streets, and they'll be out of office.

We will fundamentally still be overspent, with huge deficits, huge debt, huge liabilities, and fiat currency. PMs will continue to push upward.

Sadly I tend to agree.


how bout a side topic since RR supposedly might possibly consider implementing a gold/silver standard, what would that do to us?

[alpacafarmer]

I really expected Obama to kill Romney in the debate. With out a teleprompter he crashed and burned. I'm not a big fan of Romney but did like what he said at the debate. Regardless of how you feel about Romney how could anyone want 4 more years of what we have now.

[barrytrot]

I really expected Obama to kill Romney in the debate. With out a teleprompter he crashed and burned. I'm not a big fan of Romney but did like what he said at the debate. Regardless of how you feel about Romney how could anyone want 4 more years of what we have now.

Interesting, I've not heard people that thought Obama could out debate Romney before.

What did you base that on?

I thought most people thought Romney's sole edge was the debates.

[baggerman]

I really expected Obama to kill Romney in the debate. With out a teleprompter he crashed and burned. I'm not a big fan of Romney but did like what he said at the debate. Regardless of how you feel about Romney how could anyone want 4 more years of what we have now.

Interesting, I've not heard people that thought Obama could out debate Romney before.

What did you base that on?

I thought most people thought Romney's sole edge was the debates.

Not sure how folks think Romney should have had the edge in the debate, after all Obama supposedly has been DOING the job of president for 4 years and should have been able to rattle it off the top of his head IMO. I did find if laughable that Obama asked for a change of subject when Romney was talking about how bad off the middle class has had it the last 4 years.

As for PMs I think an Obama win will give us a spike in prices and a Romney win will give us a spike down for a short period of time but in the end I really expect $50 an ounce silver by the 2nd quarter of 2013 no matter who wins, we are on a run away train that can't/won't be stopped.

[Mossy]

New politicians, but

Same old bureaucrats advising them
Same old Lobbyists trying to persuade them
Same old power brokers setting up deals
Same old social set for them to hang out with
Same old, same old, same old...

Palin's biggest attraction to me was the hope she would turn that all up side down.

[theo]

I really expected Obama to kill Romney in the debate. With out a teleprompter he crashed and burned. I'm not a big fan of Romney but did like what he said at the debate. Regardless of how you feel about Romney how could anyone want 4 more years of what we have now.

Interesting, I've not heard people that thought Obama could out debate Romney before.

What did you base that on?

I thought most people thought Romney's sole edge was the debates.

I believe many were influenced by media bias in favor of Obama. Afterall everybody knows Obama has a genius-level IQ Also the President did fairly well against an inept McCain in 2008 and Romney made his share of mistakes during the primary debates (remember the $10,000 bet?). In the end, Obama was clearly under-prepared and could not hope to counter the facts that Romney kept pounding home.

I didn't get into the original thread because it quickly got sidelined, as seems normal here when politics show up in a thread.

To the original question, no.

If RR win they will have lassoed a wild bronco with no gloves on and the rope will pull out of their hands faster than it will for Obama (because they will be trying to fix things rather than kicking the can down the road). The deficit overspending is impossible to stop within my lifetime. They can slow it, but it'll take years they don't have. Their biggest weapon, if they can pull it off, is massive reduction in federal regulations - if they could pull that off within the first year, small businesses (as well as large) would start taking some chances again, and there is some small prayer we might see improvement in the job market by 2014, and an increase in tax revenue to start offsetting deficits. I give them a chance at this, a small one, and in the meantime inflation will be roaring along at double-digit levels.

But if they cut too much too fast, we'll have mass rioting in the streets, and they'll be out of office.

We will fundamentally still be overspent, with huge deficits, huge debt, huge liabilities, and fiat currency. PMs will continue to push upward.

I agree. Too much damage has already been done. However, I think another important question is, how would each administration react to a dramatic rise in PMs? I would argue that our current President would be far more likely to pass laws hostile to those of us who believe in hard money (confiscatory taxation, reporting requirements. . . etc) probably through executive order. What say you?

[m21221]

Too far gone! No politician will last long doing was really has to be done. PM's will rise and fall near term but the long term trajectory will coincide with our debt.

[Tourney64]

I believe one metal will drop in value if Romney is elected - lead.

[Trapper30]

Obama - $45
Romney - $24

[PolishPunisher]

I think the challenger has the advantage in the debates, especially the first one. The President has to defend the last four years, while he cannot attack the challenger on his record as well. The challenger can always argue that things would have been better had he been in charge and that can't be disproved. Eight years ago, Kerry clearly won the first debate and still lost. While in 1992, Clinton did well in the debates and beat Bush I.