Is Either Party Serious About Our Problems?

[USANick7]

Paul Ryan is definitely serious!

What have the Democrats offered in response???

Is Either Party Serious?

Ryan is a 7 term Congressman including serving as Chairman of the Budget Committee, serving on Ways and Means and , the sub committee on Health ...how will being Vice President allow him do what he hasn't managed to accomplish during all those years in Congress?

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by WCH

Ryan is a 7 term Congressman including serving as Chairman of the Budget Committee, serving on Ways and Means and , the sub committee on Health ...how will being Vice President allow him do what he hasn't managed to accomplish during all those years in Congress?

I think Doc answered this rather well...obviously it takes more than one person. The larger issue is the governing philosophy...

The leftist approach to government simply doesn't work, regardless if it is a Democrat or a Republican trying it.

[USANick7]

http://youtu.be/4nPfwVMEQco

The Democrat party has been completely co-opted by a government focused element. This isn't a new development...I would argue that it started under Wilson...I would also argue that Republicans have had their fair share of "Big Government" politicians as well. The real question is not necessarily between individual politicians but policy.

Leftist policy consistently fails, while policy which advocates individual economic liberty, protection of private property, limited government, etc. succeeds.

While politicians should be judged individually according to their effectiveness, etc. I am shocked that Democrats who should know better are still arguing for larger government, central planning, etc.

[ironyoshi]

Originally Posted by USANick7

The Democrat party has been completely co-opted by a government focused element. This isn't a new development...I would argue that it started under Wilson...

It definitely goes way back. Democrats love to channel the ghost of FDR, and LBJ instituted the Great Society some time ago.

I would also argue that Republicans have had their fair share of "Big Government" politicians as well. The real question is not necessarily between individual politicians but policy.

Incidentally, in the renewed interest in the Great Depression that this downturn has brought on, some conservatives are making the case that Herbert Hoover played a big role in dooming the economy with a misguided series of spending initiatives.

The Republican record before 2008 is dismal on spending. Thank goodness for the Tea Party.

[Box]

I care...
elect me.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by WCH

Ryan is a 7 term Congressman including serving as Chairman of the Budget Committee, serving on Ways and Means and , the sub committee on Health ...how will being Vice President allow him do what he hasn't managed to accomplish during all those years in Congress?

I think a 7 term congress critter does bring a lot to the job of VP..

from wikipedia,, a less than accurate source,, but at times fruitful..

Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the United States Senate.[4] In that capacity, he or she is allowed to vote in the Senate when necessary to break a tie. While Senate customs have created supermajority rules that have diminished this Constitutional power, the Vice President still retains the ability to influence legislation (e.g. the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005).[4][5][6] Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College.[2]

A "player" on Capital Hill can do a lot to get both houses in gear, get POTUS' plan to the critters that make the deals,, Get the deals done....

Joe is a BAD example..
LBJ was a good example..

Ryan should be closer to LBJ's in abilities..

[Cool Breeze]

I am a conservative Republican as most of us are but I am pretty down on both parties. We have strayed so far from what this country was set up to be. The founding fathers specifically did not want to set up a system that created entitlement for public servants and did not want to set them up as "royalty".
The plan was that they serve their time, then go back to their "real jobs" and let another take their place.
Both parties say what they need to get elected and for the most part, do only what they need to do to stay in office. Why wouldn't they? Lifetime salary better than most people make, no taxes, and lifetime health coverage.
I believe the only way to fix things is to establish term limits for every elected official all the way down to dog catcher.
I also think we should remove the "benefits" and force these elected officials to get a "real job" when they leave office.
How did we get to the point where the law makers create laws for citizens that don't apply to them?