November 15, 2016

"Welcome to the dawn of a new unified Republican government" — said Paul Ryan, as he is chosen, once again, to serve as Speaker of the House.

"It feels really good to say that, actually. This will be a government focused on turning President-elect Trump’s victory into real progress for the American people. Our team is very excited, and we cannot wait to get to work."

185 comments:

MikeR said...

Good. I like that someone on Trump's "team" wants a balanced budget.

mockturtle said...

It's no surprise, since the GOP majority is made up of pretty much the same people who voted him in before.

320Busdriver said...

I want to be there when Trump reminds them to work on term limits.
That will be a fun day.

Mike Sylwester said...

I'm happy that the vote was unanimous.

mccullough said...

More like the twilight than the dawn

320Busdriver said...

When the Dems had this chance they rolled up their sleeves and the wonderful product Obamacare was born.

I have high hopes this time will be different, especially with a bar set SO low. If done right the Dems could be banished for years. Delicious!

Sebastian said...

It really is striking that Americans who normally prefer balance and divided government ended up giving the GOP exclusive control. Apart from the Trump victory, that's the ultimate verdict on Obama's misrule.

rehajm said...

So much for that signature Trump vengeance...

Congratulations to America and to Wisconsin. Ryan has a very ambitious and exciting plan to improve the standard of living for all Americans.

Clayton Hennesey said...

I like how adaptable to any given moment best pal Paul Ryan is.

Gahrie said...

I am actually quite optimistic at this point. Trump understands how to make a deal, and there are no more excuses for Ryan and McConnell...they have Congressional majorities, the presidency, and a remarkable clear mandate to finally reform Washington D.C..


There could not possibly be a better time to institute a flat tax system and abolish the IRS.

Department of Education can be axed, EPA reigned in and downsized, NASA repurposed and every department mandated to reduce regulations on the American people.

Rick said...

Sebastian said...
It really is striking that Americans who normally prefer balance and divided government ended up giving the GOP exclusive control.


Did we understand that would be the outcome? I think more people expected a GOP House / Senate blocking Clinton.

MikeR said...

I just hope they have some sense. There are so many things that Congress and Trump can do that will be popular, that will not be considered overreach. Shrink the regulatory system. Undo executive orders. Repeal Obamacare, replacing the popular parts with something _simple_ (tho expensive). Build a wall and deport felons (stop talking about deporting everyone; when the wall is built we can sit down again and try to figure out paths for citizenship and such). Appoint good Supreme Court Justices (stop talking about Roe v Wade, please). Don't start any wars. Help poor people get good education for their kids with vouchers.
Or, they can do like the Democrats did and start passing things that most of the country hates. And have all their work undone in 2018 and thereafter by an angry citizenry.

Sebastian said...

"Did we understand that would be the outcome? I think more people expected a GOP House / Senate blocking Clinton." That's why I said "ended up." Many GOP candidates ran ahead of Trump. But obviously enough people voted the straight party ticket, including most regular GOPers who didn't vote for the Donald in the primaries, as well as some party switchers in places like PA.

Curious George said...

"Sebastian said...
It really is striking that Americans who normally prefer balance and divided government ended up giving the GOP exclusive control. Apart from the Trump victory, that's the ultimate verdict on Obama's misrule."

You mistake collective outcomes for some unified decision.

AJ Lynch said...

Dept of Education spent $125 Billion this year. Trump should abolish it and cut it by 30% to $90 Billion but send that money directly to the states apportioned by population. A state like Pennsylvania would get about $3.5 Billion to use as it sees fit.

Of course, that would mean the free school lunches and breakfasts would no longer be provided by the feds [I think they are paid from Dept of Ed funds] so the states would have a tough choice to make.

Curious George said...

"to the dawn of a new unified Republican government"

I don't like how that sounds. I like the possibilities.

MikeR said...

"Trump should abolish it and cut it by 30% to $90 Billion but send that money directly to the states apportioned by population." I would make a condition that it go only to states (and from there only to local jurisdictions) where you are allowed to fire teachers. And/or have school vouchers. Enough already.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Was the apparent opposition from the Republican establishment types such as Paul Ryan part of the magic trick that won Trump the election?

There should be little doubt but that Ryan saved himself through helping win Wisconsin for Trump and retaining the House for Republicans. I'm curious how many California Republicans Ryan's reticence toward Trump helped win districts carried by Hillary Clinton.

In that vein, should we really think FBI Director Comey is going to be fired, now that he also helped Trump win?

Some may want to go back over just exactly where the rabbit was slipped into the hat. Some may just want to admire the trick. Some may want to be angry that they missed the trick.

Steve Uhr said...

Sounds like he will not remove ObamaCare provisions requiring insurers to take people with preexisting conditions and allowing a child to stay on a parent's plan through the age of 26. Two pretty key provisions.

Is everyone okay with that?

MaxedOutMama said...

Unified my ass.

What, does he think we all have dementia?

The Republican leadership in Congress was almost as horrified at Trump's election as Van Jones - if Trump does succeed in shaking things up, it's gonna cost each member a lot monetarily.

JAORE said...

Lucy and the football?

mockturtle said...

320Busdriver said: I want to be there when Trump reminds them to work on term limits.
That will be a fun day.


Yes, it will. Can we honestly expect Congress to vote term limits for themselves? Pay raises, yes. Term limits, no. Since they are the employees of the American people, we should decide both of those issues.

damikesc said...

Trump gave them all hats.

Democrats decided to watch SNL and late-night talk hosts during their conference.

Neither are jokes.

Thorley Winston said...

Sounds like he will not remove ObamaCare provisions requiring insurers to take people with preexisting conditions and allowing a child to stay on a parent's plan through the age of 26. Two pretty key provisions.

Is everyone okay with that?


Depends on the specifics. We already had a law under HIPAA that basically said that if you paid your premiums and you got sick, you couldn’t be denied coverage because your condition was preexisting. So something like that (as opposed to allowing people to drop coverage and wait to buy insurance when they get sick) would probably be okay.

As far as parents being allowed to keep their kids on their plan until they turn 26 – it probably isn’t a big deal because people in that age group tend to not use a lot of health care services so it’s relatively cheap to cover them (and if they’re all paying premiums, it may actually hold them down for the other insured). Given that’s it also a popular provision that if it had been offered as a standalone bill without the rest of the ACA probably would have passed with significant bipartisan majorities in both Houses, it’s probably smart to keep that in place and focus on getting rid of the destructive parts of the ACA – the mandates, taxes on medical innovation, IPAB, Medicaid expansion, etc.


Curious George said...

"...till death do us part"

Thorley Winston said...

Also keep in mind that Trump said during the primary at the first debate that he wanted to keep in the provision about not denying coverage for preexisting conditions. AFAIK no one even mentioned provision about covering twenty-six year olds on their parents’ insurance so I don’t consider either of these to be “flip flops.” If he backs off of wanting to block grant Medicaid or allowing consumers to buy insurance across State lines without federally mandated “essential benefits” then I’d be concerned. My impression is that President Trump would probably sign any bill that Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell get through both Houses. As long as Ryan is one of the deciders, I’m pretty comfortable with that.


Gabriel said...

@Left Bank of the Charles:In that vein, should we really think FBI Director Comey is going to be fired, now that he also helped Trump win?

He should appoint HRC to State, since her illegal email servers helped him win.

Not to mention Huma Abedin; letting her emails get on her husband's laptop helped him win.

Don't forget Clinton's housekeeper who was given access to the SCIF without clearance; she helped him win too and also deserves a place.

MikeR said...

"Is everyone okay with that?" Not okay, exactly, but I think I can recognize that it isn't wise to get rid of the popular part of ACA. The country will cheer if you get rid of the strangling regulations, allow insurance across state lines (I wait Geico to offer health insurance!) - and just make sure that all Americans have protection from major medical expenses.
Trouble is, that one single clause is what makes ACA so expensive. The idea was to pay for with the other parts, but the other parts didn't work, which is why premiums are going up and up. Everyone else is paying for it. We may not be able to save money.
Still worth it to get rid of the bureaucratic nightmare that was threatening to drive our health care into a death spiral. There are much simpler ways to provide the safety net: McArdle already suggested a simple subsidy that kicks in when someone's health care goes above a certain percentage of their annual income.
So yeah, I'm okay with it and I think it's wise.

Gabriel said...

@MikeR:There are much simpler ways to provide the safety net: McArdle already suggested a simple subsidy that kicks in when someone's health care goes above a certain percentage of their annual income.

It's simple but extremely expensive. A very small percentage of people are responsible for the vast majority of medical costs. You'd be putting the government on the hook for 80% of it, and are they going to disavow any attempt to control the market? No.

JWH said...

Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny-starver

Larry J said...

Just a quick note to the Republicans in DC - there are no more excuses. Back in 2009, you were in the minority in Congress and Obama was in the White House, so it was hard for you to do anything. I get that. In 2010, you said that if Republicans had the House, you could stop Obama. You won control of the House and did nothing. You said that if you had control of the Senate, you could stop Obama. Once again, you won control of the House and Senate but did nothing to stop Obama. With Trump coming into the White House next January, with Republicans controlling the House and with a narrow majority in the Senate, you'd better not be making excuses when you fail to deliver. The people who elected all of you are in no mood for excuses. It's time to put up or shut up.

n.n said...

They really need to qualify progress or monotonic change. Historically, it has ranged from reconciliation of individual rights to today's variants that promote capital punishment of the wholly innocent, clinical cannibalism, class diversity, perpetual smoothing functions, social justice adventures, monopolistic practices, immigration "reform", selective exclusion, devaluation of capital and labor, scientific mysticism, etc.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Don't start any wars.

I find it amusing that after eight years of drone strikes and disastrous interventions in the Middle East, suddenly ANSWER and Code Pink are active again.

AprilApple said...

No one else stepped up to take that thankless job.


Gee - all that whining for nothing.

AprilApple said...

Ryan is a bit of a squish - but with a Trump at the helm - Ryan might shine. lets give him a chance before we shoot him.

wholelottasplainin' said...

" Can we honestly expect Congress to vote term limits for themselves? Pay raises, yes. Term limits, no. Since they are the employees of the American people, we should decide both of those issues."

******************************

That's why Mark Levin has argued for a Convention of States to amend the Constitution, as set forth in Article V. The GOP has the necessary 2/3 of all states to convene one.

mockturtle said...

splainin' says: That's why Mark Levin has argued for a Convention of States to amend the Constitution, as set forth in Article V. The GOP has the necessary 2/3 of all states to convene one.

Problem is, the GOP are just as tenacious as their Democratic counterparts.

Wilbur said...

Maybe they (Congress) can summon up the immense political courage to create and pass a budget.

I trust Paul Ryan about as far as I can throw him. He's one of the elites or insiders who decided to play along under Obama's rules instead of fighting him where he could have. You know, to get along go along. Those days are through.

I expect on many things Trump will have to go over their heads to their constituents to get anything done. I hope he does.

Trump needs to make his case to the people on many of these issues. He needs to use avenues apart from the MSM to do so, like have his people produce 5 minute TED-like talks on why, for example, the Department of Education needs a drastic reduction or abolishment. Just set out the facts.

320Busdriver said...

http://www.conventionofstates.com

Hear! Hear!

Virgil Hilts said...

The same sentence translated for Democrats -- "Now Witness the Firepower of this fully Armed and Operational Battle Station"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7-tskP0OzI

Bill Peschel said...

Trump's not even sworn in, and already the GOP Congress wants to bring back corrupt earmarks and the GOP ways and means committee chair Kevin Brady is pleading to keep the Trans Pacific Partnership.

They may be in charge, but we still have to watch the $#%#$%#.

Michael K said...

McArdle already suggested a simple subsidy that kicks in when someone's health care goes above a certain percentage of their annual income.

It's simple but extremely expensive. A very small percentage of people are responsible for the vast majority of medical costs. You'd be putting the government on the hook for 80% of it, and are they going to disavow any attempt to control the market? No.


You do it the way the French do it. They pay a basic subsidy for everyone. There is a fee schedule that is negotiated between doctors associations, which are unions, and Social Security the health plan. Then the patient can choose to pay more if they want to do so.

For certain diseases, like diabetes and cancer, there are funds to pay for care but only for that diagnosis. If you get appendicitis, that is outside the fund.

There are also organizations like HMOs plus doctors can choose to take the Social Security payment as full payment. Lots of GPs and 60% of specialists do so. In return, Social Security pays for pension and vacations for the doctors.

It's a pretty good system and has the highest patient approval in Europe. That's from people who have used it, not like the surveys of the well in Britain.

David said...

Enjoy it while you can. Republicans still have this tendency to devour their own.

AllenS said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
There should be little doubt but that Ryan saved himself through helping win Wisconsin for Trump and retaining the House for Republicans.

I live in west central WI, and I know nobody who thinks that is true. Nobody. If anything, we all feel the opposite to be true.

MikeR said...

"It's simple but extremely expensive. A very small percentage of people are responsible for the vast majority of medical costs. You'd be putting the government on the hook for 80% of it, and are they going to disavow any attempt to control the market? No." Yeah, I said that. But it isn't more expensive than ACA, which does the same thing via taking control of the insurance market and making the rest of us pay through rising premiums.
So we won't save money on the repeal. Save money elsewhere. Most of us don't hate ACA because of the cost, but because it is in the process of ruining American healthcare.
If you want to find ways to save money on the safety net, do it later. Right now get rid of the rest of ACA, and you will be very popular with the majority of the American people.
Or, as I said, you can make loads of them angry, and reap the rewards in 2018. Depends on whether you want to win. I think Trump is making the right call.

MikeR said...

"It's a pretty good system and has the highest patient approval in Europe." What works in France won't work here. That's why McArdle is suggesting a subsidy that only kicks in for cases of near-bankruptcy. The whole point of ACA repeal is to get the federal government back where it belongs, or mostly.

viator said...

I expect that amongst the chaff and nonsense going on regarding the new administration this may stand out as a trail marker. Hannity was adamant that Ryan must go but there he is the new speaker. I expect he is on probation, after all the 2018 campaign is less than two years away. We shall see how Trump and Ryan work together. Some people doubt that Trump said what he meant. I don't.

Fen said...

Ryan sells us out again in 3 2 ...

grimson said...


Gahrie said... There could not possibly be a better time to institute a flat tax system and abolish the IRS.

That is what it thought during Dubya's first term--the first time in my life that the GOP had the White House, House, and Senate. After that I became an independent.

I expect Trump to be pretty similar to Dubya--bigger government, bigger deficits. I would prefer a balanced budget amendment to term limits; there is no other way you are going to get them to make hard choices.

Big Mike said...

@viator, 2018 is why I have some confidence that the Republicans will be able to get reasonable legislation passed. They only hold a four vote edge in the Senate, but 25 Democrat Senators will be up for reelection then, many in states Trump carried handily. A lot of House Democrats who followed Nancy Pelosi's lead on Obamacare found themselves losing reelection in 2010. If I were a senator up for reelection in 2018 I'd think about how obstructive I'd want to be.

Drago said...

rehajm:"So much for that signature Trump vengeance..."

To be fair, just how would Trump have gone about removing Ryan if that was his goal?

There is no mechanism for that other than Trump running down to the hill and threatening Armageddon on any Rep who didn't toe his line and vote Ryan out.

With majorities set and groups already working on Trump proposals what is the upside to that?

Drago said...

Fen: "Ryan sells us out again in 3 2 ..."

Maybe.

Maybe even probably.

Still, let's wait and see first.

This situation feels different and I think that Ryan knows that the revolt against his leadership would begin at the first sign he is working at fundamental cross-purposes from Trump.

Note that I didn't stipulate there had to be complete agreement. Just not fundamental differences.

rehajm said...

To be fair, just how would Trump have gone about removing Ryan if that was his goal?

You'd have to ask those that wished and/or believed it was coming. (I was neither)...There was plenty of that around last week...

Robert Cook said...

"...it isn't more expensive than ACA, which does the same thing via taking control of the insurance market and making the rest of us pay through rising premiums."

Not that I'm a fan of ACA, as it preempted Medicare for all, but how does it take control of the insurance market?

"Most of us don't hate ACA because of the cost, but because it is in the process of ruining American healthcare."

How is it doing that?

Robert Cook said...

"'It's a pretty good system and has the highest patient approval in Europe.' What works in France won't work here. That's why McArdle is suggesting a subsidy that only kicks in for cases of near-bankruptcy."

Why wouldn't it work here? If there are aspect of it that wouldn't scale or transfer well, why couldn't it adjusted to make it better applicable to whatever problems you believe (but don't explain) would prevent it's success here?

Also...how, in essence,is getting to "near-bankruptcy" substantially better than actually getting there?

Thorley Winston said...

You'd have to ask those that wished and/or believed it was coming. (I was neither)...There was plenty of that around last week...

Yeah I never bought that Trump was going to try to (or capable of) topple Ryan as Speaker. Ryan was elected as Speaker with the broad support of the entire House GOP caucus. There is no other candidate with nearly that level of support who could challenge him. At this point Trump needs to shore up support amongst the Republicans who opposed him in the primary (a majority) but voted for him in the general election to stop Hillary Clinton if he wants to get any part of his agenda through Congress. Having Ryan as Speaker talking about how they had a productive meeting and came to consensus on issues to move through the House is more important than making impotent threats to enact vengeance for any perceived slights.


Paul Zrimsek said...

You are witnesses at the new birth of Spinal Tap Mark II, hope you enjoy our new direction.

Rick said...

but how does it take control of the insurance market?

Ah, the tactical ignorance strategy.

ACA includes many regulatory restrictions which mandate product features and limit options. Apparently Cook is pretending to not understand that defining the products available is controlling the market. His style is like forcing everyone to teach kindergarten which probably explains how his worldview stopped development at that point.

mockturtle said...

Wilbur says: Maybe they (Congress) can summon up the immense political courage to create and pass a budget.

I trust Paul Ryan about as far as I can throw him. He's one of the elites or insiders who decided to play along under Obama's rules instead of fighting him where he could have. You know, to get along go along. Those days are through.

I expect on many things Trump will have to go over their heads to their constituents to get anything done. I hope he does.


And we constituents need to do our part by reminding our elected officials just why we voted for Trump and what we expect out of them.


Fabi said...

I guess Cookie doesn't know any doctors, insurers, or administrators.

Bruce Hayden said...

" Can we honestly expect Congress to vote term limits for themselves? Pay raises, yes. Term limits, no. Since they are the employees of the American people, we should decide both of those issues."

It might be possible, esp. if the Republicans can build their majority, esp. in the Senate, in the next election. What has to be kept in mind is that the Republicans in the House have had term limits on committee chairmanships (etc) for awhile now. Forces them to change hats every four years or so. Possibly one reason that the Republicans in the House appear so much more energetic than the Democrats, whose senior members move back and forth between chair and ranking member on committees until they die in office. Indeed, the Dems are even thinking of copying the Reps with term limits on committee chairs (and, in their case, ranking members). They desperately need to replace minority leader (and former Speaker) Pelosi, but will they? Similarly, Elijah Cummins on the Judiciary Committee. I think it unlikely. But, we shall see.

Alex said...

Inga & Ritmo have nothing to say?

Alex said...

Having Ryan as Speaker talking about how they had a productive meeting and came to consensus on issues to move through the House is more important than making impotent threats to enact vengeance for any perceived slights.


But you know that Steve Bannon is a vengeful type. I hope Trump ignores Bannon when it comes to those things.

MikeR said...

As usual, I find the comments about Ryan discouraging. The Republican Party is in a very good position right now - so sure enough all its partisans are readying themselves to make it go overboard.
Three years ago, Ryan was a very good fiscally responsible Tea-Party-ish candidate. Now everyone is all ready to throw him overboard. Just what we need: let's jettison someone who is 75% perfect, leaving only the Republicans who are far far worse. Let's demand policies that will lose us Congress in 2018 or 2020, and get all our changes rolled back, instead of policies that get us 75% of what we want and that will make the majority of the American people happy.
You can get 75% of what you want. Or you can freak out and end up with nothing.

campy said...

It won't be a unified republican government if Hillary manages to convince (pr bribe/blackmail/threaten) enough Trump electors to come over to the side of evil.

Gabriel said...

@MikeR:That's why McArdle is suggesting a subsidy that only kicks in for cases of near-bankruptcy.

And while this is rare, in terms of the number of people it would happen to in a given year, it is not rare in terms of the dollars spent on healthcare that year.

Such a subsidy, which "only" kicks in for near-bankruptcy, is only 20% different from nationalized health care.

jimbino said...

Though I voted for Johnson, I'll be happy with Trump if he drains the DC swamp and cleans out its Augean stables. Asking for more would be presumptious.

MikeR said...

"And while this is rare, in terms of the number of people it would happen to in a given year, it is not rare in terms of the dollars spent on healthcare that year." For the third time, I didn't say it would save money. Trump admitted as such in his interview. However, it will not be more expensive than ACA is now.
I think Trump is making the right call: getting rid of the massive regulatory structure of ACA, without insisting that the safety net goes away. That former is the part of the bill that most Americans hate.
You hate another part of the bill as well; fine - I agree with you. It isn't worth losing 2018 and getting the Democrats back.
But so many conservatives aren't willing to make that kind of calculation. Discouraging.

jacksonjay said...

So, all that talk about The Swamp, elitists, RINOs and GOPe was just bullshit. Not surprised. I guess that Ryan, McConnell, Cruz and the rest aren't Swamp Thangs after all.


Lets us get started on Ivanka's child care entitlement and anything else Daddy can give her. A big fat infrastructure boondoggle also seems in order now that we can't accuse our guys of being big spenders, er uh, let's call it an "investment". SOS!

MikeR said...

'Such a subsidy, which "only" kicks in for near-bankruptcy, is only 20% different from nationalized health care.' No! It is totally different: it would leave the health care of the rest of us alone. This time, if you like your doctor you could actually keep her.
As jimbino said, the point is to drain the swamp.

Gahrie said...

Can we honestly expect Congress to vote term limits for themselves?

Term limits for Congress would just give unelected staff and lobbyists more power.

Fabi said...

Is "flipping electors" one of the stages of grief?

jacksonjay said...

Oh yeah, everybody knows them Clinton are good folks. He wasn't being literal or serious about prosecuting Hillz. He was just shittin all those gullible bellowing buffoons!

Make America Great Again!

Tremendous!

Ok! OK!

campy said...

"Is "flipping electors" one of the stages of grief?"

No, but it could become a cause of grief.

rhhardin said...

Boilerplate is not a good sign.

Quaestor said...

Term limits for Congress would just give unelected staff and lobbyists more power.

Please explain.

I think that as you explain you'll unconvince yourself of that claim.

rhhardin said...

I think you have to fix insurance by carrying everybody with a current preexisting condition for that condition, and let other people purchase policies for themselves from zero.

As well as the preexisting people for other conditions.

This because you're screwed up the preexisting people who won legitimate bets with insurance companies before their payoff policies were cancelled by law; you have to figure out some way to continue those won bets into the private market.

But those people will die off or recover, and that cost will end, leaving only an unregulated private market. Place your own new bets. I'd suggest catastrophic coverage only, but I'm a cheapskate.

Bad Lieutenant said...

jacksonjay said...oh who cares what jacksonjay said...like you were ever onside.

ZFG. The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.

Bay Area Guy said...

Is it possible to both like Paul Ryan and Donald Trump?

Yes, it is.

By tone and temperament, I am more of Paul Ryan man.

But, Ryan and his boss, Romney, were demonized by the Left anyway, and rendered ineffectual in the election of 2012.

Trump, albeit the loud, obnoxious, Pussy-Grabber that he is, was necessary to break through the layers of political correct BS, entrenched leftism in the media, and the entrenched, sclerotic political class in Washington. And, now that Trump has broken through, I do believe conservative policies and institutions will be shortly follow.

So, as a matter of principle, I like Ryan. As a matter of circumstance, though, Trump is what the country needs at this time in human history -- if you believe the USA and her values and traditions are worth saving (which I do).

Bad Lieutenant said...


Blogger campy said...
"Is "flipping electors" one of the stages of grief?"

No, but it could become a cause of grief.
11/15/16, 6:32 PM

If by grief you mean actual, literal Civil War in America, a 6 million square mile Beirut, then yes, by all means, tomfoolery with the Electoral College could cause grief. I think even they understand that. Hell, given the crises that await, Hillary probably has to think with half her mind that she dodged a bullet.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, we don't have ein volk and it's debateable whether we really have ein fuehrer. But at least Ryan can welcome in the dawn of ein reich!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Inga & Ritmo have nothing to say?

Some of us have lives, you loony toon.

You really do wait around for me to comment. Like a lonely puppy dog. Sad.

Saint Croix said...

Paul Ryan is the man!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Paul Ryan will say whatever he's told to say.

campy said...

If by grief you mean actual, literal Civil War in America, a 6 million square mile Beirut, then yes, by all means, tomfoolery with the Electoral College could cause grief. I think even they understand that.

I doubt it. They want Power, and they don't care how they get it.

Saint Croix said...

"Welcome to the dawn of a new unified Republican government"

ha! that's like saying the Althouse blog is unified

more like

unified and rambunctious

Quaestor said...

Paul Ryan will say whatever he's told to say.

A crude calumny and unsupportable as well.

Ryan was opposed to Trump, perhaps for the same reason he failed to use the power of the purse to constrain the Obama administration. However, no matter where his loyalties have lain in the past Ryan is a professional politician. He can smell the zeitgeist. Ergo he has made homage to the new lord of the manor; whether for reasons selfish or ideological is neither knowable or important. Ryan has adapted like any survivor.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

Pretty Wisconsin dominated, no? Preibus + Ryan in such high positions and Wisconsin being a key swing state the elected Trump. No wonder Ann is feeling so hoity toity.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

Ryan is a professional politician.

A crude calumny and unsupportable as well.

Do you Vichyssois have to find everything insulting? Whatever disagreements they have will be relegated to private. So no one knows where principle begins with the guy. Sort of like how Trump just says whatever comes into his head - but the opposite. I didn't realize that Trump had some mandate. The only thing he did right was become the first person mine into working class economic discontent like a jackhammer. Kudos to him. Perhaps if Ryan figures that out he'll actually deserve credit. Until then, he's just being a Trump-worm.

But I forgot. As much as the right bitched and moaned about Obama, they seem to be much bigger cult of personality fans. Are you (or Ryan) afraid of getting executed by firing squad for criticizing the guy, at all? As much as I'm told to keep an open mind, the neo-alt right seem to be about as hierarchical a bunch of dominant-submissives as I've ever seen in politics. You can keep the discussions closed in your congressional cloak rooms, but don't expect it from radio free America. The broadcasts will continue and there's not a thing King Orange Twitter and the RNC ("lackeys no more!") can do about it.

jacksonjay said...

Bad Lieutenant scoffed at those Obamabots who believed they could keep their doctor and rake in $2500 to boot! How could they fall for all that Hope and Change? The Not A Politician is different, donja know! Keep the faith Lieutenant!

MikeR said...

"Ryan is a professional politician. He can smell the zeitgeist. Ergo he has made homage to the new lord of the manor" I really don't understand any of this stuff. I opposed Donald Trump completely - I would have taken any other one of the Republican candidates over him, hands down. On the other hand, he is the president-elect and they aren't. Does it show a lack of principles on my part that I would like him to be successful and that the Republican Party Congress should be successful with him?
Makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to suggest that this means Ryan has no principles. This is what he is supposed to do: work with the president.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I know of other leaders who in the 1930s convinced their politicians to have no convictions - other than allegiance to the leader.

MikeR said...

Huh - someone suggests Jim Webb for Secretary of Defense (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/15/jim-webb-for-secretary-of-defense/). Interesting idea; who says that that's a political appointment? And I would rather we stay out of wars.

n.n said...

I question his use of unqualified "progress". Also, how will we know when we have left the twilight zone? Perhaps we should just throw another baby on the barbie.

MikeR said...

"I know of other leaders who in the 1930s convinced their politicians to have no convictions - other than allegiance to the leader." Completely nonsensical. Where's the slightest evidence of "no convictions"? Is that synonymous with, "I'm going to try to work with the new president"?

Robert Cook said...

"ACA includes many regulatory restrictions which mandate product features and limit options. Apparently Cook is pretending to not understand that defining the products available is controlling the market."

Do these restrictions and mandates apply to insurance policies NOT provided under ACA? The insurance I have--through my employer--has not changed noticeably in its coverage since the advent of ACA.

What are some of these mandated product features and what are some options that are limited?

Robert Cook said...

I suppose that regulations prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods and drugs, or products that are unsafe are also egregious in their "control of the market."

Rhythm and Balls said...

Completely nonsensical. Where's the slightest evidence of "no convictions"? Is that synonymous with, "I'm going to try to work with the new president"?

What exactly are Kapo Ryan's convictions then, and how are they keeping him from working with President-Elect Orange?

This election is a total psychological case study in everything wrong with the right. Thank goodness Obama was the predecessor. He never thought a difference of opinion should get in the way of working together. But now we have a far right-wing backlash to that. Allegiance or death, seems to be their motto. Now is the scariest time for people with no position but the ambition for power to be in the State's New One-Party. But hey - at least it's not Hillary! She was nothing like that! /sarc.

DavidD said...

Sorry, but that quote from Paul Ryan reminds me this:

https://youtu.be/AQ7RvRPCSWM

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Obama never thought a difference of opinion should get in the way of working together."

LOL!

Michael K said...

"I suppose that regulations prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods and drugs, or products that are unsafe are also egregious in their "control of the market."

The Pure Food and Drug Act, was passed by Congress in 1907. You fool.

Cookie, you contribute to my despair at ever finding an intelligent leftist.

MikeR said...

'I suppose that regulations prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods and drugs, or products that are unsafe are also egregious in their "control of the market."'
I infer that you see a contradiction between these two statements:
1) It is appropriate for the US Federal Government to administer the Coast Guard and interstate highways.
2) The US Federal Government has become a conduit to transfer funds from the middle class to the politically connected. Only the politically connected have a say in what happens in Washington anymore. The Ship of State is now mostly barnacles.
Most of us, however, think that both can be true and actually are.

MikeR said...

@R&B.../sarc
I assume the tag goes on everything said, as no one could believe any of it. Blighter, is that you?

Rhythm and Balls said...

So you don't know what Paul Ryan's convictions are MikeR and you don't care? Have I got that right?

That's some hell of a leadership you and your One-Party have, MikeR.

Alex said...

Ritmo has the faux arrogance of someone who thinks they are winning the culture wars.

Achilles said...

Gahrie said...

Term limits for Congress would just give unelected staff and lobbyists more power.

Assuming we elect people who go to DC and just hire the guy sitting in their office waiting for them. Most people will have their own people to bring with them. The first group of people to go when term limits pass will be those useless staff lifers.

MikeR said...

I already answered you, R&B. You didn't bother to bring one bit of evidence that he has no convictions. No one needs to answer accusations that you don't bother to justify. The fact that he is trying to work with the president is not evidence, much as you would like it to be. It's the right thing to do.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...
I suppose that regulations prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods and drugs, or products that are unsafe are also egregious in their "control of the market."

God you are a fucking idiot. Not like we haven't seen that straw man 8 billion times.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Some of us have lives, you loony toon.

Debatable in many cases.

You really do wait around for me to comment. Like a lonely puppy dog. Sad.

This blog is much more fun for me when you are here. Inga and Cooke not so much. At least Cooke has some principles but he really is not capable of putting up a rhetorical fight. Inga is both stupid and boring. Bad combination.

Achilles said...

My question for sincere leftists is how do you think nationalized health care would be better than the VA?

I was in the VA for years. It took 1-2 months to get an appointment and I had to drive for at least 2 hours to get to it, sometimes more if they sent me to Spokane. They snowballed/lost/fucked up my disability paperwork very badly. They were often rude and hard to get a hold of.

Theoretically Veterans are a popular group. What do you think a nationalized VA is going to do for unpopular groups or neutral groups? The VA was free, but my wife and I ended up going to private coverage when she got a job as a nurse. We chose to pay for something else.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You didn't bother to bring one bit of evidence that he has no convictions.

Nice little reversal of logic you displayed, there. We don't assume things not in evidence. At least, those of us who have ever passed a science course or seen the inside of a laboratory don't do it.

So even though you cannot identify a single one of Paul Ryan's "convictions," I'm supposed to take it on faith that he - someone named by one of your fellow travelers here as a "professional politician" - actually has some?

No thanks. I'll leave the absence of evidence lovers to project their completely self-serving presumptions of the guy on their own.

Myself, I can tell he has one conviction. Whichever one gets him elected.

You guys were right about politicians. I just never realized they applied so nakedly and so prominently in the Republican One-Party.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Thanks Achilles. You're one of the good guys too.

It's these alt-right spokespeople who freak me out. Bannon might not be the worst of the bunch. But his steady following of Nazi wanna-be's seems like it would be a problem in American politics.

I take it others either disagree, or (more likely) are too mentally lazy to have an opinion on it.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ritmo has the faux arrogance of someone who thinks they are winning the culture wars.

So Alex - you're fighting a right-wing culture war?

How's that working out for you? Have you been making regular visits to Stormfront? CHecking out David Duke's podcasts?

Putting (((triple parentheses))) around the names of bloggers etc. who you'd prefer to see incinerated in concentration camps?

Railing about George Soros?

Do let us know where you intend to go with your new role as champion of the people. Tribune of the alt-right.

cheddar said...

Slate has an article about Ryan running the show while Trump is the figure head Monarch. Not sure you Pence would be - the Rottweiler?

mockturtle said...

The Nazi-like tyranny belongs to the left. They are the ones who want to control, not just our speech, but our thoughts. They are the ones who would deprive those on the right, who do not fall into line with their radical ideas, of our basic Constitutional rights. You know better, too, R&B. You're just trying to start the usual nightly pas de deux.

SukieTawdry said...

Wisconsin is ascendant.

Sounds like he will not remove ObamaCare provisions requiring insurers to take people with preexisting conditions and allowing a child to stay on a parent's plan through the age of 26. Two pretty key provisions.

Is everyone okay with that?


No. How can the system possibly work when people can just wait until they need insurance to buy it? Before Obamacare, many states had pools. If you wrote health insurance in the state, you had to agree to be part of the high-risk pool and accept a certain percentage of uninsured people with pre-existing conditions. Of course, those people had to pay more for their insurance just as anyone who obtains auto or homeowner's insurance from a state pool does. To keep such coverage affordable, the risk must be spread as far and wide as possible. Is Trump considering a nationwide pool?

Rhythm and Balls said...

The Nazi-like tyranny belongs to the left. They are the ones who want to control, not just our speech, but our thoughts. They are the ones who would deprive those on the right, who do not fall into line with their radical ideas, of our basic Constitutional rights. You know better, too, R&B. You're just trying to start the usual nightly pas de deux.

Ah. Nazi-"like." Because, you know how proud you must be to share political goals with these not-so-left wingers!

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-david-duke-20160928-snap-story.html

http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/11/15/13637936/anti-semitic-propaganda

Be proud of what you now own. I'm sure these awesome, decent, down-home "folk" (or is it, "volk") are very concerned with constitutional rights, also. You should hear them go on and on about the "nonsense" about the Declaration and other founding documents. Equal rights for the races? Bah! They hate that stuff.

But now their champion's in at the steering wheel. And their chief propagandist, Bannon, is there to crank out the communiques.

But it's nice to see how much you twist to deny the relevance of that just to throw around some imaginary fantasy of the unnamed, powerless "others" who are worse!

As usual, I have evidence. You're just doing your nightly "my lack of facts is as good as your actual facts!"

They said give him a chance. We did. And now.... TA-DA! Bannon.

Explain him. Stop denying away this shit. You can't coast off of white power forever.

mockturtle said...

No. How can the system possibly work when people can just wait until they need insurance to buy it?

It's like waiting until your house burns down to buy insurance.

I like the idea of health savings accounts, tax exempt, that continue to grow and gain interest [remember interest.

mockturtle said...

R&B, you are clearly delusional. I will pray for you.

Gahrie said...

We did. And now.... TA-DA! Bannon.

Explain him. Stop denying away this shit. You can't coast off of white power forever.


Right after you explain Keith "Nation of Islam and Black supremacist" Ellison as the new head of the DNC.

Rhythm and Balls said...

R&B, you are clearly delusional. I will pray for you.

Well that's only fair. After all, you rely on me to do your thinking for you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Right after you explain Keith "Nation of Islam and Black supremacist" Ellison as the new head of the DNC.

Lol. The false equivalence is amusing. I wasn't aware that Ellison was in charge of a publishing empire as influential and powerful as Bannon's. But you go right ahead with your typical "the less powerful guy is as harmful as the more powerful one!" whining crap. Trump loves whiners.

What is it with the right that they can't see clear disparities of power for what they are? It's like they see massive threats in molehills.

NOI. That's clever. You got anything more tendentious or is that about as tendentious a non-issue as you can come up with?

walter said...

AllenS said...
Left Bank of the Charles said...
There should be little doubt but that Ryan saved himself through helping win Wisconsin for Trump and retaining the House for Republicans.
I live in west central WI, and I know nobody who thinks that is true.
--
Agreed. That notion was almost Onion-esque.

walter said...

Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
Bannon might not be the worst of the bunch. But his steady following of Nazi wanna-be's seems like it would be a problem in American politics.
--
What Nazi or anti-semitic stuff has Bannon posted or said? I'm looking for precise examples.

Qwinn said...

Is R&B seriously equating the power of a blogger to that of a Congressman, and claiming it's ridiculously lopsided in favor of the blogger?

WOW. We've come a long way from "pajama wearing pundits in the basement" days, haven't we?

Oh, and he mocks our caring about George Soros too. Cause who is he next to THE MIGHTY BANNON?!?!?!?!

Rhythm and Balls said...

It's his following, walter. Breitbart fans abandoned the shop en masse after his death somehow paved the way for a commentariat full of Nazis.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Is R&B seriously equating the power of a blogger to that of a Congressman, and claiming it's ridiculously lopsided in favor of the blogger?

Ellison is a minor house member of negligible repute or accomplishment or potential in a party with virtually no power.

If publishers have no power then I suppose the resentment the right wing has for the MSM was always just a ruse.

Kirk Parker said...

"Inga & Ritmo have nothing to say?"

When has that ever stopped them?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, it never stopped you, Kirk.

Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
It's his following, walter.
--
Hmm..so who is responsible for that? Think there aren't "deplorables" following __ on the Left side of the spectrum?
I mean..how hard did Obama denounce the "New Black Panthers"? Seems his DOJ really massaged that.

Gahrie said...

You got anything more tendentious

So accusations of White racism and anti-semetism against an advisor to the president are a danger to the republic, but actual membership in a black racist and anti-semetic organization by a congressman and future leader of the Democratic National Committee is just partisan name calling?

walter said...

Or "knock out punches", attacks on Trumpers at rallies, etc, etc.
It's all shit to be deplored.
Pointing to "deplorables" who support pol A or B is casting a wide, inaccurate net.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Obama could have won without the Black Panthers, walter. How many millions more votes than Romney/McCain he had... you think they were all the oh so dangerous and intimidating and threatening Black Panthers? Aren't those the guys from the 1970s with afros and berets?

Trump couldn't even win the popular vote. He seems to be a bit more reliant on those more effective race warriors than Obama (let alone CLINTON! - ahahahaha) was on whichever groups you find to be so intimidating. The amount of black vote that Clinton lost since Obama was remarkable.

But let's get back to the real issue. Why do you see such equivalence? Or is it just opportunism that makes you say that?

Gahrie said...

Bannon might not be the worst of the bunch. But his steady following of Nazi wanna-be's

But selling your party and your souls to an actual NAZI collaborator is fine and dandy,,right?

Rhythm and Balls said...

You're not arguing in good faith, Gahrie.

Either that, or you really do see Ellison's non-membership in a group he criticized as very intimidating and threatening.

Why are you so threatened and intimidated by black people? You seem to be proving the point.

Gahrie said...

Trump couldn't even win the popular vote.

Trump won almost every where except the cities. Clinton couldn't even win the rural and suburban vote.

Rhythm and Balls said...

FIrst off: Anyone who calls a Holocaust survivor a "NAZI collaborator" is someone who wishes that Jew was as good as dead. So, not really worth discussing things with someone that insane.

Second, I was never aware that Bernie Sanders or any of the other very few progressives that we feel are worth supporting were doing the bidding of George Soros. But then, the right-wing is nothing if not completely ignorant of every other American who's not right-wing.

walter said...

It's not an equivalence I see. It's your lack of reliable data, shaped by your assumptions.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"Trump couldn't even win the popular vote."

Trump won almost...


So you concede my point. Yes, everyone knows what CLinton's problems are/were.

But it says something that you can't admit anything about Trump without throwing in some irrelevant issue that everyone with a brain already knew about Clinton.

Defend your candidate by any means necessary. He really does need it.

Gahrie said...

Ellison was a member, and called himself Keith X Ellison and Keith Mohammed.

He didn't attempt to distance himself from the organization until he decided to run for Congress.

Why are you so threatened and intimidated by black people?

I'm not. I'm just not dumb enough to think that Bannon is the bigger threat to our republic than Ellison.

walter said...

Dunno..you really vacillate between extreme frenzy and relative calm.
As said before, maybe a wait and see approach would be best.

Gahrie said...

FIrst off: Anyone who calls a Holocaust survivor a "NAZI collaborator" is someone who wishes that Jew was as good as dead. So, not really worth discussing things with someone that insane.

You need to go check your facts...Soros was not a holocaust survivor, and he did collaborate with the NAZIS.

You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You need to go check your facts...Soros was not a holocaust survivor,

So he was killed in the Holocaust, then?


...and he did collaborate with the NAZIS.

You are hilarious. You don't know any survivors. You never went to a museum. These were labor camps. You had to do what Nazis running of them wanted to survive. You had to be of use to them. They didn't "let you live" just by snubbing them and sticking around. Your ignorant, typical, right-wing anti-semitic complaint is as stupid as saying that a prisoner who does what the guards want is a "collaborator." Which is probably something Black Panthers and other criminals would agree with you on.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

I think it's a fact that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs than you.

But that's ok. For the sake of "pride", you would have refused the Nazis demands that you be useful to them to avoid being killed.

There's a Darwinian explanation for your trait, right there.

Gahrie said...

I think it's a fact that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs than you.

That is entirely true. So what?

Do you accept the rest of the demographic facts of IQ?

walter said...

(ruh-roh)

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm pretty sure that Gahrie's Holocaust education extends as far as what Glenn Beck and Alex Jones told him about the thing.

I hope he took notes. That chalk board won't create diagrams on its own.

Gahrie said...

But that's ok. For the sake of "pride", you would have refused the Nazis demands that you be useful to them to avoid being killed.

No....it's called integrity......your mistake is understandable since you know nothing about integrity.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Conversation's over, Gahrie.

Go round up some Holocaust survivors and ask them how they made it out alive.

You seem to be in a position to want to commiserate with them, I take it.

Gahrie said...

I'm pretty sure that Gahrie's Holocaust education extends as far as what Glenn Beck and Alex Jones told him about the thing

Fuck you asshole.

Just for the record, I've actually been to Dachua, and I've never defended NAZI collaborators.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The "integrity" of being killed by a Nazi. Now I've heard it all.

Qwinn said...

Soros' father bribed a government official to claim that George was his Christian godson.

So as far as the Nazis were concerned, George wasn't a Jew. He was Christian. Plenty of Christians, however, didn't go around with said government official confiscating all the Jews' property while watching them being taken to the camps. George Soros did. Yes, he was a collaborator.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What is Dachua? A short, long breed of dog?

Gahrie said...

These were labor camps. You had to do what Nazis running of them wanted to survive.

Soros was never in a camp! Not a death camp, concentration camp or work camp.

He and his family took a fucking vacation to Germany in 1939.

Calling him a holocaust survivor is contemptible.

walter said...

Rhythm and Balls said...Conversation's over, Gahrie.
--

Ha!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Right, Qwinn. Better that that property had gone to the Nazis who surely would have otherwise taken it for themselves.

Anything else I need to be "taught?" You guys seem to single-handedly defend Nazi actions or actions benefitting them at every turn. While not wanting to be seen as elevating or agreeing with them.

Odd, that.

walter said...

(in lieu of answering Gahrie's question)

Qwinn said...

Again, since R&B will surely miss the point:

Soros didn't have to comply with anything to save his life. His father had already insured that by masking him as a Christian. When he went door to door confiscating Jewish property and sending them to camps, it wasn't to save his life. He did it willingly. And you are, in fact, defending a Nazi collaborator.

walter said...

(Because certain forms of racism are better than others)

Qwinn said...

Holy crap, now R&B is claiming that it was ok for Soros to make his fortune stealing Jewish property in Nazi Germany because, hey, otherwise the Nazis woukd've gotten it!

Convratulations. I didn't think it was possible to sink any lower.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Any Jew who made it out of that land alive was a survivor, as far as I'm concerned. Theirs was not a regime to be trifled with. You guys watch too many "last stand" Hollywood movies.

Door-to-door beforehand sounds a bit more nefarious - if that's how it actually happened. But I have trouble taking right-wing claims all that seriously on face value alone.

Qwinn said...

"A bit more nefarious".

DIAF.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Right, Qwinn. Give me the cite on what you want to accuse this 14 year-old boy of doing:

Soros did not return to that job; his family purchased documents to say that they were Christians, thereby allowing them to survive the war. Later that year at age 14, Soros posed as the Christian godson of an official of the fascist Hungarian government's Ministry of Agriculture, who himself had a Jewish wife in hiding. On one occasion, rather than leave the 14 year old alone, the official took with him while he inventoried a rich Jewish family's estate, though Soros did not take part. Tivadar not only saved his immediate family but also many other Hungarian Jews, and George would later write that 1944 had been "the happiest [year] of his life," for it had given him the opportunity to witness his father's heroism.[27][28] In 1945, Soros survived the Siege of Budapest in which Soviet and German forces fought house to house through the city.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Qwinn said...
"A bit more nefarious".

DIAF.

11/16/16, 12:17 AM


DIAF? Hmmm.

Is this what you had in mind, Nazi minimizer?

What's up with you and wanting to incinerate people?

walter said...

R&B,
Suppose Soros was a child Holocaust survivor of whatever supreme magnitude. What about his adulthood makes him worthy of his degree of influence/manipulation?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Being adult doesn't make one "worthy" of currency speculation. An unregulated capitalist economy makes it possible, though. If you're going to allow casino capitalism, then that's how it goes. What if the people committing to "The Big Short" were wrong? Should we have no short sales? Are those who shorted the housing market any more wrong than those who inflated the bubble?

Stop letting bubbles happen and maybe we wouldn't have this issue. But I'm skeptical about how you can make it a moral issue when you fail to do anything about it legally or politically.

walter said...

And about his funding of distortive political ventures? That is where most of the animus against him derives.

walter said...

I mean..look at what he actually does..and who follows HIM.

walter said...

I haven't seen you go on a Soros rant like you do regarding Bannon.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Now you're getting desperate. Soros isn't a leader of hate-mongers who was tapped to head up the propaganda arm of a controversial new administration.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Good night.

Sorry you couldn't find better straws to grasp at.

walter said...

Ha! Your projection is in bo9ld relief..(almost entirely) as usual.

walter said...

Hey..how many times has Sharpton been to the WH? On and on and frickin' on.
Yes..sweet frantic dreams.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
It's his following, walter. Breitbart fans abandoned the shop en masse after his death somehow paved the way for a commentariat full of Nazis.

I don't claim to be a breitbart.com follower. I follow links there. I haven't seen anything racist or anti-semitic. Bannon is actually very pro Israel. I can't find anything on him that is more racist than the BLM movement.

To be honest as long as Bannon is in charge of policy that means the WASPs and the Neocons are not. This is important to me.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Now you're getting desperate. Soros isn't a leader of hate-mongers who was tapped to head up the propaganda arm of a controversial new administration.

I am surprised you are defending Soros. He is one of the wealthy oligarchs that have taken over the DNC and turned into the evocation of corruption.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Obama could have won without the Black Panthers, walter. How many millions more votes than Romney/McCain he had... you think they were all the oh so dangerous and intimidating and threatening Black Panthers? Aren't those the guys from the 1970s with afros and berets?

You know the point is not that Obama needed them. It is that the left accepts their help and complains about the KKK.

I desperately want to get to a place where racism is dead. I have two mixed race daughters. If we are going to get past racism in this country both the Black Panthers and the KKK need to go.

Achilles said...

MikeR said...

Makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to suggest that this means Ryan has no principles. This is what he is supposed to do: work with the president.

We know Ryan has principles. Open borders. Crony "free" trade agreements. Voice votes on omnibus bills. Complete and utter cowardice in the face of the democrat media.

Were you one of those people who call themselves conservative and thought Ryan did a great thing stabbing Trump in the back? Principles are worthless if you are a coward and unwilling to fight for them in a way that will be meaningful.

If you don't like those principles on November 9th well he can find some new ones. Why in 20 years you guys will be the biggest Trump supporters ever. Just like Reagan is popular among all the right people now the same "conservatives" that bashed Trump in 2016 bashed Reagan in 76 and 80. You guys are a bunch of frontrunning fairweather jerks.

zyz65 said...

@ Michael K,
"It's simple but extremely expensive. A very small percentage of people are responsible for the vast majority of medical costs. You'd be putting the government on the hook for 80% of it, and are they going to disavow any attempt to control the market"

Yes, you can do it the French way, or the Swiss way. Uninsurables are assigned to insurance cos pra rata with their customer base. Its effectively a tax on the insurable which pays for the uninsurable. Very tidy, very....Swiss

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Being adult doesn't make one "worthy" of currency speculation. An unregulated capitalist economy makes it possible, though. If you're going to allow casino capitalism, then that's how it goes. What if the people committing to "The Big Short" were wrong? Should we have no short sales? Are those who shorted the housing market any more wrong than those who inflated the bubble?

This is why most of us had a problem with TARP. The government forced banks to make mortgage loans to risky borrowers. Banks made a bunch of money loaning to risky borrowers. Fannie and Freddy made more than a bunch of money making loans to risky borrowers. The market crashed. The government took money from taxpayers and gave it to the banks/fannie/freddy.

The crash was not a result of lack of regulation. There were several government policies put in place by the oligarch pets that made the oligarchs rich, and when the crash came the pets in both parties gave them a bunch of our money. This was not an ideological problem. It was a corruption problem.

Stop letting bubbles happen and maybe we wouldn't have this issue. But I'm skeptical about how you can make it a moral issue when you fail to do anything about it legally or politically.

Turning economics into a moral issue is a bad idea. Once you make it a moral issue you focus on the intentions rather than the goals. You are trying to make policy while ignoring human nature.

My goals are to make as many people as possible as wealthy as possible i.e. highest standard of living for the most people. Don't make it wrong for people to succeed and make vast sums of money. Steve Jobs made us the Iphone. It makes a lot of lives better. We the consumers got the best end of that deal. He did way more for us than Bernie Sanders or George Bush or whatever other politician people want to name.

What should be wrong is corporatism. Obama's biggest failure was cozying up to big corporations. Corporations that make money because they donate money to DC should be cut off from the taxpayer teat.

Kyzernick said...

Right. Soros was a leader of hate-mongers who was tapped to help fund the propaganda and activism machine of the controversial outgoing administration. Some of those activists are lighting fires in the streets of American cities and breaking windows to prove that "Love Trumps Hate".

Odd, that.

PianoLessons said...

Great thread here Ann. Stopping in to remind folks that Trump won Wisconsin with Scott Walker's Tea Party army from back in the day when Andrew Briebart came to Madison twice to address the looney left government union driven protests. We were there in front of the stage at the Capitol - both times. Then we worked hard to go local and form an amazing network that got Walker re-elected again. Then we got the Legislature to go GOP without any vote fraud.

Although the looney left media tried as hard as they could to tell the nation Speaker Ryan was appalled by Trump - make no mistake - Ryan, Walker, Priebus and Johnson activated that Walker army to help Trump win.

Someday someone will write the book. It amazes me that no one saw it coming.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Alex said...
Ritmo has the faux arrogance of someone who thinks they are winning the culture wars.
11/15/16, 9:30 PM

It's not fair, Alex, to call R & B's pomposities fake.

They're real, and they're spectacular.

Spengler defends Bannon on anti-Semitism. Personally, as the D tactic du jour is to divide by calumny, I require extraordinary proof of such claims.

A Kapo worked inside the camps. Soros worked outside the camps.

Note that Soros survived not only the Nazis (whether he is a Holocaust Survivor is an interesting question), but also the communists later. This is a survivor's survivor. You think Ryan is too slippery, R&B? He ain't a patch on George Soros.