Artvoice: Buffalo's #1 Newsweekly
Home Blogs Web Features Calendar Listings Artvoice TV Real Estate Classifieds Contact
Next story:
Previous story:

Ryan, Romney, Regression

Filed under: Presidential Politics
Tags: , , , ,

So, Mitt Romney selected Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan to be his Vice Presidential candidate. Ryan is popular among conservatives, so this should help shore up some rightist support for the wishy-washy Romney. Ryan’s popularity comes despite the fact that his policies are all about doing more for those who have everything and doing less for those who have nothing. 

Don’t say there’s no difference between the Republican and Democratic tickets this year. The difference couldn’t be starker. 

Forward!


  • Jim_Holstun

    Oh, there is some difference, but it COULD be starker–as you’ll see if you vote Green, and keep doing so. But Romney and Ryan are certainly bad enough. For the child-killing hero of Ryan’s hero Ayn Rand, see http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/mark-ames-paul-ryans-guru-ayn-rand-worshipped-a-serial-killer-who-kidnapped-and-dismembered-little-girls.html. Now THAT’s capitalist individualism.

  • tonyintonawanda

    I like the choice and at least it’s a clear distinction between the candidates which is what elections should be about.  Two different views on how to move the country forward.

  • Kelli McMillan

    @google-b23a36809309e32d461213ba0d54459c:disqus I think we’ve tried the Romney/Ryan way several times before and it’s always a dismal failure. Amazing how Americans don’t seem to learn from their mistakes anymore.

    • tonyintonawanda

       It wasn’t a dismal failure when Ronald Reagan used it to save us from Carter’s failed policies…which I might add are the same failed policies Obama is trying now.  See, when can just toss around pointless political rhetoric all we want and get nowhere. Both modern parties have spent us into oblivion and now we have a real choice between which way we want to go starting next year.  I’ll take the heir to the Jack Kemp mantle any day.

      • Tony: were you around in the late 70s, early 80s? Can you maybe do a quick Google search, or search your memory to tell me exactly what the parallels are between the economic crisis of that Carter/Reagan era to the economic crisis of the last 10 years? 

      •  Regan raised taxes several times and also increased spending by astronomical amounts.  Is that what you are referring to?

  • Alan, right off the start your “$150,000 would pay for…”  has an incorrect value.

    “You state 1 firefighter, police officer, or first responder kept on the job $42,000.”

    I went to seethroughny.net just to see how close the figure in the example was.

    If you search town payrolls there are many that are $100,000+ and $200,000+ along with one employee listed for 2009 at $543,416.

    If you easily search City payrolls you will find many law enforcement employees $100k + and many 200k+.

    Remember the figures on seethroughny do not include healthcare cost and pension costs. 

    $42k might be a base starting salary but don’t you think if these graphs are put together they should use accurate #’s?

    • Jim_Holstun

       Tony, you’re right. So let’s jack up the tax on millionaires to 70%, and that will cover benefits, etc., along with better medical care for a few more vets, children, elderly–hell, everybody.

    • You win the Oscar for “missing the point”. Congratulations. 

    •  I guess making $100K plus for a small minority of police and firemen is a bit outrageous even with the risk your life to save others part.  They are just slime living off the job creators like Paris Hilton right?

      •  I didn’t say anyone is not worth what they are paid.  It is also not the “minority” of employees if you take the time to go look through seethroughny.org.  

  • hwhamlin

    Nice montage (collage?) of Dem campaign posters and bumper stickers.

    No comment here on the “Obama Budget”, which could not even attract a Yea vote from a single member of the House or Senate–Democrat or Republican. Defeated in the Senate 99-0. Defeated in the House 414-0.

    No comment here on the “Reid Budget”. Oh, I forgot–there hasn’t been a Reid (Senate) Budget in three years.

  • How about this novel idea for the blue part of the graphic “paid for by the middle class”: “$150,000, funds not spent on anything and instead applied to reducing the national debt”.