Thread: 5 Things Mitt Doesn't Want You to Know About Paul Ryan

5 Things Mitt Doesn't Want You to Know About Paul Ryan


By Elizabeth Hartfield | ABC News – 4 hrs ago

The selection of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate is sure to excite the Left almost as much as it does the Right.

Ryan, 42, has been considered a rising star in the party for years. He's been the chairman of the House Budget Committee since Republicans took back control of the House in 2010, and he's known for his keen fiscal knowledge. Plus, he hails from an important state.

The GOP has been hoping to take Wisconsin this cycle. Although the state hasn't gone red in a presidential race since 1984, Republicans have been buoyed by the successful gubernatorial race of Scott Walker, who became the first governor to face a recall election and win last June.

Read More About Romney's Selection of Paul Ryan
Ryan is an exciting pick, but there's no such thing as a perfect candidate, and Ryan brings his own set of political risks to the table.

Here's a list of five things that Mitt Romney might not want highlighted about his VP candidate (hint: most of them have to do with his budget proposals).

1. His budget plans include big cuts, and there's ample room for Democrats to continue with their "Romneyhood narrative." The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 62 percent of Ryan's cuts are to programs for the poor.

2. Ryan's budget proposals have included big changes to Medicare - including gradually replacing the program with a voucher program for private health care, and gradually raising the retirement age. That could scare older Americans, a crucial voting bloc.

3. He voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. While a lot of other Republicans did too, and it was proposed by the Bush administration, some have viewed it as a rejection of the conservative economic values Ryan and hard-line fiscal conservatives espouse.

4. He's easily pegged as Washington insider. He's been in Congress since 1999, and before that he worked as a congressional staffer. Congressional approval ratings are abysmally low- a recent CBS News/NY Times poll showed that only 12 percent of voters approve of the way Congress is doing its job.

5. This is both a pro and a con to Ryan, depending on who you ask, but he's notably further to the left on the issue of lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender rights than the base of the party. He broke with a lot of his party to support the Employee Non-Discrimination Act in 2007. He explained his reasoning for the vote in this way: "They [his gay friends] didn't roll out of bed one morning and choose to be gay. That's who they are."

5 Things Mitt Doesn't Want You to Know About Paul Ryan - Yahoo! News

This is troubling that the repubs do not want tax increases on the two percentupper incomes, but advocate 62% of the budget cuts are charged to the poor. Compassionate conservatism in action?

So I guess you could say I've been catching up on this Paul Ryan dude watching the news. And one thing I've been hearing is that he is a Tea Party favorite and a fiscal conservative. Well according to the article above:

3. He voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. While a lot of other Republicans did too, and it was proposed by the Bush administration, some have viewed it as a rejection of the conservative economic values Ryan and hard-line fiscal conservatives espouse.

This has to be a joke right?

Unlike Sen. Marco Rubio, who was born in the U.S. to Cuban citizen parents, Rep. Paul Ryan is a "natural born Citizen," that is, "one born in the country of parents who are citizens," as interpreted by the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875).

Whatever else you may think of Gov. Romney's pick for his running mate, he chose to select a Constitutionally eligible candidate over an ineligible candidate who might garner more Hispanic support.

"No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President." - U.S. Constitution, Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." - Amendment XII, last sentence.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

This definitive, authoritative, and unanimous U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from Minor v. Happersett (1875) 100 U.S. 1; 88 U.S. 167 (at p. 167), which was repeated verbatim as authoritative in both the opinion and the dissent in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 U.S. 655, 679-680, 708 ff.. This interpretation, though not repeated verbatim, was stated similarly or harmoniously in Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 U.S. 349-350, The Venus (1814), and Shanks v.DuPont (1830).

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Unlike Sen. Marco Rubio, who was born in the U.S. to Cuban citizen parents, Rep. Paul Ryan is a "natural born Citizen," that is, "one born in the country of parents who are citizens," as interpreted by the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875).

Whatever else you may think of Gov. Romney's pick for his running mate, he chose to select a Constitutionally eligible candidate over an ineligible candidate who might garner more Hispanic support.

"No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President." - U.S. Constitution, Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." - Amendment XII, last sentence.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

This definitive, authoritative, and unanimous U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from Minor v. Happersett (1875) 100 U.S. 1; 88 U.S. 167 (at p. 167), which was repeated verbatim as authoritative in both the opinion and the dissent in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 U.S. 655, 679-680, 708 ff.. This interpretation, though not repeated verbatim, was stated similarly or harmoniously in Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 U.S. 349-350, The Venus (1814), and Shanks v.DuPont (1830).

I'm betting there were several ALIPAC members that thought Romney, in an attempt to pander for the Hispanic vote, would select Rubio as his running mate (just my humble opinion). I must admit, in view of the media hype, even I was a little concerned about that possibility. While I don't like Ryan's position on legal immigration, at least we didn't get a known illegal alien amnesty supporter. I have mixed emotions about a Romney/Ryan ticket but I know for certain that I'd rather fight a White House with Romney/Ryan much more than I would one with Obama/Biden. Obama has already proven, without a doubt, that his administration's agenda on illegal immigration is almost the polar opposite of ours! The same thing cannot be said about Romney because he does support many of our views on illegal immigration, which include the enforcement of our immigration laws, national E-Verify, and the strengthening of border security.

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

This is troubling that the repubs do not want tax increases on the two percentupper incomes, but advocate 62% of the budget cuts are charged to the poor. Compassionate conservatism in action?

Since when did it become the governments responsibility to take care of the needs of all Americans and immigrants? For example, did you see the latest move of the Obama administration involving the requirement to work or be actively looking for a job to receive unemployment handouts? That requirement to work or be looking for a job can now be waived (thanks to Obama). We need some serious reforms in our social programs because they are breaking the bank! Furthermore, I've read that around 50% of our population doesn't even pay federal income taxes which means the 50% that does pay taxes are helping to support the 50% that don't.

Did you know that it cost $80 billion to assist 46 million people in 2011 through the government’s food assistance program? Moreover, the cost of fraud in the program during 2011 was estimated at $800 million (source: The high cost of food aid fraud | TheGazette). The government's food assistance program is only one federal aid program on a very long list of programs and I'm sure many of these programs are frought with fraud. It's unfortunate but there are to many people in our country today that have made a profession out of living off the sweat and hard work of others.

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

This is troubling that the repubs do not want tax increases on the two percentupper incomes, but advocate 62% of the budget cuts are charged to the poor. Compassionate conservatism in action?

Where do the majority of taxes spent go when looking between the poor or rich? How many programs are there to help the rich while how many programs to help the poor?

Now should we blame someone for being rich and successful? Should we punish them or think they should pay a lot more to the rest? Look at all the programs for the poor and those recieving. Many are deadbeats or uneducated who had opportunity after opportunity and failed or ignored such as free education and its really not so hard to get college money or even join the damned military like I did if you can keep your nose out of trouble until 18. But instead we believe in rewarding failures and those who simply don't care.

Now I was homeless for almost a year, no family, no friends, nothing. While living on the streets I started day labor jobs, worked up enough to get a cell and then a better job. Got a cheap room and worked myself up. Yet I saw others on the street didn't give a damn about helping themselves but just expecting someone else to do it for them. These are those getting SSI, SSDI (as laziness as a condition heh), Medicaid, public housing, welfare, and every other program they could. Yet myself as a single white male who was then 23 just out of the Army couldn't get a lick of help other then a cot sometimes and meals at the local christian shelter open to all.

I personally say cut all the welfare handout programs for those not working or with a real disability. If you won't work you don't eat. If this was done back in the early 90's we wouldn't have many of the problems today. (SS and Medicare are not handouts imo, so no flames pls).

Originally Posted by MW

I'm betting there were several ALIPAC members that thought Romney, in an attempt to pander for the Hispanic vote, would select Rubio as his running mate (just my humble opinion). I must admit, in view of the media hype, even I was a little concerned about that possibility. While I don't like Ryan's position on legal immigration, at least we didn't get a known illegal alien amnesty supporter. I have mixed emotions about a Romney/Ryan ticket but I know for certain that I'd rather fight a White House with Romney/Ryan much more than I would one with Obama/Biden. Obama has already proven, without a doubt, that his administration's agenda on illegal immigration is almost the polar opposite of ours! The same thing cannot be said about Romney because he does support many of our views on illegal immigration, which include the enforcement of our immigration laws, national E-Verify, and the strengthening of border security.

Well he has already been pandering to them by promising immigration reform by working with BOTH parties in all those Spanish ads he has been running. Marco Rubio would have simply been an addition to that agenda of his.

Oh and you forgot this little tidbit. From Romney's own site:

"Mitt Romney believes that young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children should have the chance to become permanent residents, and eventually citizens, by serving honorably in the United States military."

Immigration