Comments on: Paul Ryan to Slam President Obama for ‘Politics of Division’ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/ The latest Politics news and blog posts from ABC News contributors and bloggers including Jake Tapper, George Stephanopoulos and more. Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:42:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Chris M http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5713472 Chris M Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:05:02 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5713472 Ryan says that the true class warfare that threatens us is “a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society.” He's just described the Republican party. “Ironically, equality of outcome is a form of inequality – one that is based on political influence and bureaucratic favoritism. Their gains will come at the expense of working Americans, entrepreneurs, and that small businesswoman who has the gall to take on the corporate chieftain.” Except for the "equality is inequality" nonsense, he described what had happened during the Bush Jr. administration, with Republicans running Congress, and the main reason why the economy is so bad. Ryan says that the true class warfare that threatens us is “a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society.”
He’s just described the Republican party.

“Ironically, equality of outcome is a form of inequality – one that is based on political influence and bureaucratic favoritism. Their gains will come at the expense of working Americans, entrepreneurs, and that small businesswoman who has the gall to take on the corporate chieftain.”
Except for the “equality is inequality” nonsense, he described what had happened during the Bush Jr. administration, with Republicans running Congress, and the main reason why the economy is so bad.

]]>
By: Mojo http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5699902 Mojo Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:07:51 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5699902 I have to take issue with PKSK531, because that post is based on wildly inaccurate claims. Firstly, the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2010 was not prevented by Republicans from voting on the President's plan. As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made clear in a June 2010 address to The Third Way, the position of Democrats was that no budget resolution would be possible until the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission had released their findings in December, beyond the end of the fiscal year. This is hogwash, of course, but it makes a specious kind of sense - and it clearly identifies the President's commission as the reason cited by Democrats for their failure to pass an annual budget resolution. Hoyer also bravely asserted Democrats would embrace fiscal responsibility, even as they "deemed" as passed a phantasmal budget for FY 2010. FY 2010 recorded the largest fiscal deficit, in absolute terms or as a share of GDP, in history. In 2011, the House has passed a budget. The Senate doesn't have to abide by it; it can produce its own and pass it, and let the two fight it out in joint committee. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, far from blocking the passage of such a bill, has repeatedly urged Harry Reid to break a habit now more than 900 days old and fulfil the basic responsibility of the Senate by passing an annual budget. Reid has declined - as Majority Leader in the Senate, he has absolute discretion over the scheduling of such a debate - citing... the deficit-reduction work of, first, the Biden-led exercise in futility, and, now, the supercommittee forged out of the last wrangle over deficit reduction. If this sounds familiar, it should. It's still hogwash, and it's still not Republicans' fault. The whole thing, in fact, including the debt-ceiling showdown and the downgrade of U.S. credit - another historic first under Obama - was avoidable if only Congress had passed, rather than deemed, its budget in the past two years. This is because, by rule, any budget bill explicitly authorizes a debt-ceiling increase to cover the budgeted spending; Congress can only risk exceeding the debt ceiling if it doesn't actually budget in the first place, which is what the Democrats did. Then there's the filibuster canard. Filibusters were enabled by a Senate rule change in 1806, rather a while before Obama became President. The rule enabling a supermajority (originally, two-thirds of the Senate) to invoke cloture was established (by Democrats) in 1917, under President Woodrow Wilson. It was amended to its current "three-fifths of the Senate" formula by Democrats in 1975. There was no rule change in 2005 - Republicans threatened a "nuclear option" to overcall the filibusters being used BY DEMOCRATS at that time to block Senate business (since, in 2005, Republicans enjoyed a majority in both chambers of Congress, it would be very strange for a 2005 rule change by Republicans to benefit the minority party), but never actually invoked it, the Gang of 14 arising to head off that problem as events unfolded. The Constitution does not require a simple majority for the Senate to pass a bill; the Constitution, quite properly, allows the Senate leeway to devise its own rules for debating and passing legislation, which have included cloture votes for almost a century in one form or another. They're used more frequently now, because Mr. Obama's "we won" attitude to bipartisan compromise is the new normal. It's good for democracy that they are; it would be better if our representatives could take their duties seriously, but that's not a reasonable expectation. I have to take issue with PKSK531, because that post is based on wildly inaccurate claims.

Firstly, the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2010 was not prevented by Republicans from voting on the President’s plan. As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made clear in a June 2010 address to The Third Way, the position of Democrats was that no budget resolution would be possible until the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission had released their findings in December, beyond the end of the fiscal year. This is hogwash, of course, but it makes a specious kind of sense – and it clearly identifies the President’s commission as the reason cited by Democrats for their failure to pass an annual budget resolution.

Hoyer also bravely asserted Democrats would embrace fiscal responsibility, even as they “deemed” as passed a phantasmal budget for FY 2010. FY 2010 recorded the largest fiscal deficit, in absolute terms or as a share of GDP, in history.

In 2011, the House has passed a budget. The Senate doesn’t have to abide by it; it can produce its own and pass it, and let the two fight it out in joint committee. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, far from blocking the passage of such a bill, has repeatedly urged Harry Reid to break a habit now more than 900 days old and fulfil the basic responsibility of the Senate by passing an annual budget. Reid has declined – as Majority Leader in the Senate, he has absolute discretion over the scheduling of such a debate – citing… the deficit-reduction work of, first, the Biden-led exercise in futility, and, now, the supercommittee forged out of the last wrangle over deficit reduction.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s still hogwash, and it’s still not Republicans’ fault.

The whole thing, in fact, including the debt-ceiling showdown and the downgrade of U.S. credit – another historic first under Obama – was avoidable if only Congress had passed, rather than deemed, its budget in the past two years. This is because, by rule, any budget bill explicitly authorizes a debt-ceiling increase to cover the budgeted spending; Congress can only risk exceeding the debt ceiling if it doesn’t actually budget in the first place, which is what the Democrats did.

Then there’s the filibuster canard. Filibusters were enabled by a Senate rule change in 1806, rather a while before Obama became President. The rule enabling a supermajority (originally, two-thirds of the Senate) to invoke cloture was established (by Democrats) in 1917, under President Woodrow Wilson. It was amended to its current “three-fifths of the Senate” formula by Democrats in 1975. There was no rule change in 2005 – Republicans threatened a “nuclear option” to overcall the filibusters being used BY DEMOCRATS at that time to block Senate business (since, in 2005, Republicans enjoyed a majority in both chambers of Congress, it would be very strange for a 2005 rule change by Republicans to benefit the minority party), but never actually invoked it, the Gang of 14 arising to head off that problem as events unfolded. The Constitution does not require a simple majority for the Senate to pass a bill; the Constitution, quite properly, allows the Senate leeway to devise its own rules for debating and passing legislation, which have included cloture votes for almost a century in one form or another. They’re used more frequently now, because Mr. Obama’s “we won” attitude to bipartisan compromise is the new normal. It’s good for democracy that they are; it would be better if our representatives could take their duties seriously, but that’s not a reasonable expectation.

]]>
By: pksk531 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5686092 pksk531 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:27:21 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5686092 The tea party intransigence and Mitch McCOnnell filibusters have NOTHING to do with this? The fact that the Republcians pretty much stalled everything with NO is completely faultless? The Dems had 60 votes in the Senate for only 6 months until Brown took over Kennedy's seat. In 2005 the republicans changed teh filibuster rules and now McCOnnell insists that pretty much everything requires a super majority - the Constitution only requires a SIMPLE majority. They live in a fantasy world. The tea party intransigence and Mitch McCOnnell filibusters have NOTHING to do with this? The fact that the Republcians pretty much stalled everything with NO is completely faultless? The Dems had 60 votes in the Senate for only 6 months until Brown took over Kennedy’s seat. In 2005 the republicans changed teh filibuster rules and now McCOnnell insists that pretty much everything requires a super majority – the Constitution only requires a SIMPLE majority. They live in a fantasy world.

]]>
By: PA-Independent http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5678952 PA-Independent Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:53:19 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5678952 I really, really enjoy when Republicans get branded as the party as no, and accused of stopping everything Obama did in his presidency, as "THE_Mick" is doing. Take a simple civics lesson kid. To pass something in the House you need 218 votes, the Democrats had more than that by around 30 votes, and in the Senate you need 60 votes, which the Democrats had. The Republicans could of said No, Yes, Maybe, or literally screamed or left and done NOTHING. The Democrats had COMPLETE control of the House, Senate and the Presidency. COMPLETE, not just a majority, but a supermajority, they literally could of passed a bill raising taxes or whatever they wanted. So to blame the Republicans is not only wrong, but simply stupid. There is no reason that the Democrats could not have passed a budget in the first 2 years of Obama's presidency. Let me reiterate, they had COMPLETE CONTROL. I really, really enjoy when Republicans get branded as the party as no, and accused of stopping everything Obama did in his presidency, as “THE_Mick” is doing. Take a simple civics lesson kid. To pass something in the House you need 218 votes, the Democrats had more than that by around 30 votes, and in the Senate you need 60 votes, which the Democrats had. The Republicans could of said No, Yes, Maybe, or literally screamed or left and done NOTHING. The Democrats had COMPLETE control of the House, Senate and the Presidency. COMPLETE, not just a majority, but a supermajority, they literally could of passed a bill raising taxes or whatever they wanted. So to blame the Republicans is not only wrong, but simply stupid. There is no reason that the Democrats could not have passed a budget in the first 2 years of Obama’s presidency. Let me reiterate, they had COMPLETE CONTROL.

]]>
By: Geoff http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5678132 Geoff Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:43:04 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5678132 The R's did have control for 12 years as stated. They ushered in great prosperity with the .com and the booming economies of the latter 90's and mid 2000's. They also ushered in great ruin with 2 wars, huge expansion of government, and and unrivaled deficits. I could not agree with the D's more that they dropped the ball....... What I want to know is, honestly now, how can you say that Obama has made not made it worse? You cant give Clinton credit for the economy during his term but blame the Rs for Obama's economy. At best he is a poor leader who cannot compromise with the R controlled congress. At worst, his policies are a complete disaster that is quickening the ruin of this country started during Bush's second term. The R’s did have control for 12 years as stated. They ushered in great prosperity with the .com and the booming economies of the latter 90′s and mid 2000′s. They also ushered in great ruin with 2 wars, huge expansion of government, and and unrivaled deficits. I could not agree with the D’s more that they dropped the ball……. What I want to know is, honestly now, how can you say that Obama has made not made it worse? You cant give Clinton credit for the economy during his term but blame the Rs for Obama’s economy. At best he is a poor leader who cannot compromise with the R controlled congress. At worst, his policies are a complete disaster that is quickening the ruin of this country started during Bush’s second term.

]]>
By: tmferretti http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5674432 tmferretti Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:07:01 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5674432 Has anyone noticed that the republicans want de-regulation but never say what regulations they want repealed. Maybe the regulation that says you can't sell meat that has salmonella or other bacteria or that electronics plants can't dump toxic wastes into our ground water or that companies have to provide a safe work place. Why are they afraid to be more specific? Has anyone noticed that the republicans want de-regulation but never say what regulations they want repealed. Maybe the regulation that says you can’t sell meat that has salmonella or other bacteria or that electronics plants can’t dump toxic wastes into our ground water or that companies have to provide a safe work place. Why are they afraid to be more specific?

]]>
By: demNme5 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5672202 demNme5 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:42:14 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5672202 These so called JOBS bills that sits in the Senate SHOULD sit. Whenever the Cons come up with what THEY call a jobs bill is most times consists of their USUAL ideas which encompass LOWERING Taxes, De-Regulating very important safety rules, and other ideas that will of course make the rich even MORE rich but will do NOTHING for the working Americans. Republicans, we've got your number and no matter how much lying you do, average Americans KNOW which party will do well for ALL and which one will only help those who need it LEAST! Also, it take a lot of gaul to SAY that Dems are being devisive when back in gw's time, all ya did was try to make the whole Country fearful that ONLY the Republicans would be successful at "Keeping us SAFE". Boy has THAT LIE ever been debunked. These so called JOBS bills that sits in the Senate SHOULD sit. Whenever the Cons come up with what THEY call a jobs bill is most times consists of their USUAL ideas which encompass LOWERING Taxes, De-Regulating very important safety rules, and other ideas that will of course make the rich even MORE rich but will do NOTHING for the working Americans. Republicans, we’ve got your number and no matter how much lying you do, average Americans KNOW which party will do well for ALL and which one will only help those who need it LEAST! Also, it take a lot of gaul to SAY that Dems are being devisive when back in gw’s time, all ya did was try to make the whole Country fearful that ONLY the Republicans would be successful at “Keeping us SAFE”. Boy has THAT LIE ever been debunked.

]]>
By: tmferretti http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5670522 tmferretti Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:24:23 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5670522 The tea party, confederacy of dunces, supposedly formed to change Washington, to stop the grid lock. Instead they elected people who had to follow their narrow believes and made them sign pledges to never compromise. Now they blame the President because Congress can't do its job. They think the majority of Americans are either blind or deaf and can't see all the BS that goes on in the Republican Party. The tea party, confederacy of dunces, supposedly formed to change Washington, to stop the grid lock. Instead they elected people who had to follow their narrow believes and made them sign pledges to never compromise. Now they blame the President because Congress can’t do its job. They think the majority of Americans are either blind or deaf and can’t see all the BS that goes on in the Republican Party.

]]>
By: Secondlook http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5670002 Secondlook Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:16:49 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5670002 I'm sick of hacks trying to blame the entire rise in our debt on this President while they ignore the huge part the recession as well as Bush spending played. I’m sick of hacks trying to blame the entire rise in our debt on this President while they ignore the huge part the recession as well as Bush spending played.

]]>
By: Laura Nason http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/paul-ryan-to-slam-president-obama-for-politics-of-division/#comment-5669492 Laura Nason Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:10:46 +0000 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=155202#comment-5669492 UH! Just for the record! The GOP held both the house and the senate from January, 1995 until January, 2007. For those trolls who would argue about those dates, elections were held in November of 1994 and 2006 but the TERMS didn't start til the following JANUARY in each case. Six years under Clinton and six years under Bush. Don't believe it ? LOOK IT UP. 12 years under Republithug rule got us on the brink of disaster and they are working their little bottoms off to finish us off. Obama RAN and was ELECTED in 2008 but he DID NOT take office until JANUARY OF 2009. You can pretend he was president when the TARP bailout took place but you can't change the fact any more than the GOP idiots who used a chart showing all presidents up to and including Obama but with Bush's face moved to a tiny little corner disconnected from the rest and stated that Obama personally had run up all debt from the time Clinton left office until the day the Congressman made his phony analogy with his chart. Just because FOKKKS tells you differently doesn't change the FACTS. If anything, Harry Reid should use reconciliation as often as he can and the GOP be d****d because they would rather see the U.S. crash and burn before helping anyone other than their cash cows. To those of you who know the facts, just ignore. Only those trolls who whine about the Democrats being responsible for everything the Rs have done and the one who claims Rs didn't hold both the house and senate for 12 years need the lesson. Though I'd be willing to bet he/she will never bother to check because it's easier to just listen to FOKKKS and live in fantasy land. UH! Just for the record! The GOP held both the house and the senate from January, 1995 until January, 2007. For those trolls who would argue about those dates, elections were held in November of 1994 and 2006 but the TERMS didn’t start til the following JANUARY in each case. Six years under Clinton and six years under Bush. Don’t believe it ? LOOK IT UP. 12 years under Republithug rule got us on the brink of disaster and they are working their little bottoms off to finish us off.
Obama RAN and was ELECTED in 2008 but he DID NOT take office until JANUARY OF 2009. You can pretend he was president when the TARP bailout took place but you can’t change the fact any more than the GOP idiots who used a chart showing all presidents up to and including Obama but with Bush’s face moved to a tiny little corner disconnected from the rest and stated that Obama personally had run up all debt from the time Clinton left office until the day the Congressman made his phony analogy with his chart.
Just because FOKKKS tells you differently doesn’t change the FACTS. If anything, Harry Reid should use reconciliation as often as he can and the GOP be d****d because they would rather see the U.S. crash and burn before helping anyone other than their cash cows.
To those of you who know the facts, just ignore. Only those trolls who whine about the Democrats being responsible for everything the Rs have done and the one who claims Rs didn’t hold both the house and senate for 12 years need the lesson. Though I’d be willing to bet he/she will never bother to check because it’s easier to just listen to FOKKKS and live in fantasy land.

]]>