Ryan says he will become SoH with conditions....
- Thread starter joelbc1
- Start date
I know he's morally corrupt, but there's something about Newt I like. He's certainly a positive figure in the world of federal research funding, and there is no doubt he's extremely intelligent.
Their partnership was stormy to say the least, but I believe there was a mutual admiration for each other and both honestly wanted to work for the betterment of the country.
Two very bright slimeballs who sold out the middle class and squandered the peace dividend.
I agree with the first part, and respectfully disagree with the second and third parts. But, that's fine. It would be pretty boring if everyone agreed on everything.
Unless, everyone agreed with me!
I'm pretty sure this is already in the works.
Paul Ryan, Opponent of Paid Family Leave, Demands Congress Respect His Need for Family Time
Last night, Paul Ryan announced that he’d run for Speaker of the House if his Republican colleagues met a list of demands. Among them: insisting that time Ryan spends with his family not be sacrificed.
Ryan, whose wife and three young children reside in Janesville, Wisconsin, flies home for a visit every weekend. That’s nice. If only he believed that other Americans deserved the same.
In 2009, Ryan voted against a bill that would have given federal employees four weeks of paid paternity leave. ThinkProgress additionally notes that Ryan proposed cuts to child care subsidies for poor parents:
The sky-high cost of child care in the U.S. can dwarf a parent’s income, particularly a low-income parent. Child care subsidies help defray that cost, allowing a parent to find a place to leave their children while going to work and knowing that they don’t have to rely on family members or unsafe, unstable arrangements. Without them, however, poor parents can face a tough choice between continuing to work and simply staying home because the cost is too high.
At the same time, however, he’s often said that more poor people need to be in the workforce and combat what he sees as a “culture problem” where they don’t value work.
And, as the Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel points out, Ryan’s GOP caucus blocked President Obama’s attempt to mandate paid parental leave in both the public and private sectors here in the US. We’re one of only three countries in the world that doesn’t guarantee new parents paid time off from work to care for their offspring.
And we certainly don’t have any enshrined rules that guarantee fathers time away from work to spend with their 10-, 12-, and 13-year-old children. Perhaps if Paul Ryan hadn’t spent much of his political career fighting laws that promote realistic work-life balance for parents of all socioeconomic levels, asking for family time would make him look more like a hero and less like a hypocrite.
Last night, Paul Ryan announced that he’d run for Speaker of the House if his Republican colleagues met a list of demands. Among them: insisting that time Ryan spends with his family not be sacrificed.
Ryan, whose wife and three young children reside in Janesville, Wisconsin, flies home for a visit every weekend. That’s nice. If only he believed that other Americans deserved the same.
In 2009, Ryan voted against a bill that would have given federal employees four weeks of paid paternity leave. ThinkProgress additionally notes that Ryan proposed cuts to child care subsidies for poor parents:
The sky-high cost of child care in the U.S. can dwarf a parent’s income, particularly a low-income parent. Child care subsidies help defray that cost, allowing a parent to find a place to leave their children while going to work and knowing that they don’t have to rely on family members or unsafe, unstable arrangements. Without them, however, poor parents can face a tough choice between continuing to work and simply staying home because the cost is too high.
At the same time, however, he’s often said that more poor people need to be in the workforce and combat what he sees as a “culture problem” where they don’t value work.
And, as the Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel points out, Ryan’s GOP caucus blocked President Obama’s attempt to mandate paid parental leave in both the public and private sectors here in the US. We’re one of only three countries in the world that doesn’t guarantee new parents paid time off from work to care for their offspring.
And we certainly don’t have any enshrined rules that guarantee fathers time away from work to spend with their 10-, 12-, and 13-year-old children. Perhaps if Paul Ryan hadn’t spent much of his political career fighting laws that promote realistic work-life balance for parents of all socioeconomic levels, asking for family time would make him look more like a hero and less like a hypocrite.
I agree with your post, but this is the second time you've spelled ridiculous as rediculous. I thought it was a typo the first time. Now I'm not so sure.
you wasted my time with a spelling lesson? who the hell are you....my mother?
I have to correct myself on that one on a regular basis. My fingers "hear" me thinking REE DICK YOU LUS and type accordingly.
Damn fingers. It comes from dividing your IQ by 10 fingers. No individual finger is particularly bright. It's why 2-finger typists make fewer mistakes. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
We will give you Bill, Monica and a dead ambassador to be named later.
It will be interesting to see if Ryan will be able to work across the aisle to get things done for the good of the country or whether he will cave to the "freedom" caucus tantrums. In another article I read that he promised to "respect" the Hastert Rule, so that's not a very promising sign for good governance:
Republicans got their man: Paul Ryan looks certain to be the next speaker of the House, following an almost-endorsement from the House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday night. Ryan's ascension will set off celebrations in much of the GOP, as the Wisconsin Republican is clearly a major star in the party and now finally willing to take his place as a first among equals.
Once the high fives and back slaps fade, however, the massive task of truly bringing House Republicans together begins. The vote for speaker is, quite frankly, the easy part. There's no policy at stake. Conservative members can point to Ryan's service as the 2012 vice presidential nominee and his hard-truths budget proposals as evidence that he is one of them. Plus, Ryan is a popular and respected figure within large swaths of the most conservative elements of the GOP; GOP voters like him and are generally inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt -- at least at the start.
The speaker's vote, while the easiest of the challenges before Ryan, contains a kernel of the larger problems he is likely to face. The Freedom Caucus didn't technically endorse the Wisconsin Republican's bid for speaker, which would have required 80 percent of its membership to be for him. Rather, it offered a super-majority recommendation, meaning that at least 65 percent of their members wanted Ryan as speaker. So, even on a vote that is entirely defensible to your constituents and even to most -- though not all -- of the conservative talk types out there, the most conservative element of the party couldn't unite behind Ryan.
What will happen when the fights are over the annual budget or raising the debt ceiling or immigration policy? It seems unlikely to me that a Freedom Caucus will abandon their convictions solely because they like Ryan and think he is, generally, a good guy. That will leave Ryan with a choice: Does he work with Democrats to pass legislation or does he hold his ground, go damn-the-torpedoes and see what happens if, say, the debt limit isn't raised?
Ryan's predecessor, John Boehner, took the first of those options -- often under the threat of government shutdown or financial cataclysm. Boehner was an old-school pol, believing that you fought like hell to make the best deal possible but the end goal was always a deal of some sort. And that deal involved, by necessity, compromise with the other side.
That was long the governing philosophy of both parties in Congress. But, the influx of tea party-backed members in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections changed all of that; compromise is now regarded as capitulation -- and Boehner became enemy No. 1 of those Republicans who believed their party just wasn't willing to fight for what they believed.
By all accounts, Ryan, while perhaps more conservative than Boehner by nature, is cut from a similar cloth when it comes to how Congress should work (and that Congress should work at all.) "We need to move from being an opposition party to being a proposition party," Ryan told reporters earlier this week. Aside from his annual budget proposals, Ryan is best known as the lead Republican negotiator -- along with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.) -- in the 2013 bipartisan budget deal.
There's little reason to assume that Ryan will abandon his approach to working with people with whom he disagrees as speaker. But, recent history would suggest that if he wants to keep the job he would be very wary of being seen as open to making deals with Democrats from the get-go.
Ryan is a unique figure within the GOP (and in politics) -- a somewhat-unwilling leader now thrust into the spotlight. How does he react when pulled in five different directions by a conference that simply may not be able to be lead. Does the fact that he made quite clear that he didn't want the job and is taking it only for the good of the party help or hurt his bargaining power with his own conference? And, if it helps, for how long can he dine out on the well-you-guys-are-the-ones-who-wanted-me shtick?
For House Republicans, getting Ryan into the speakership is a major victory. But, will it be a lonely one?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-the-next-speaker-of-the-house-but-now-what/
Republicans got their man: Paul Ryan looks certain to be the next speaker of the House, following an almost-endorsement from the House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday night. Ryan's ascension will set off celebrations in much of the GOP, as the Wisconsin Republican is clearly a major star in the party and now finally willing to take his place as a first among equals.
Once the high fives and back slaps fade, however, the massive task of truly bringing House Republicans together begins. The vote for speaker is, quite frankly, the easy part. There's no policy at stake. Conservative members can point to Ryan's service as the 2012 vice presidential nominee and his hard-truths budget proposals as evidence that he is one of them. Plus, Ryan is a popular and respected figure within large swaths of the most conservative elements of the GOP; GOP voters like him and are generally inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt -- at least at the start.
The speaker's vote, while the easiest of the challenges before Ryan, contains a kernel of the larger problems he is likely to face. The Freedom Caucus didn't technically endorse the Wisconsin Republican's bid for speaker, which would have required 80 percent of its membership to be for him. Rather, it offered a super-majority recommendation, meaning that at least 65 percent of their members wanted Ryan as speaker. So, even on a vote that is entirely defensible to your constituents and even to most -- though not all -- of the conservative talk types out there, the most conservative element of the party couldn't unite behind Ryan.
What will happen when the fights are over the annual budget or raising the debt ceiling or immigration policy? It seems unlikely to me that a Freedom Caucus will abandon their convictions solely because they like Ryan and think he is, generally, a good guy. That will leave Ryan with a choice: Does he work with Democrats to pass legislation or does he hold his ground, go damn-the-torpedoes and see what happens if, say, the debt limit isn't raised?
Ryan's predecessor, John Boehner, took the first of those options -- often under the threat of government shutdown or financial cataclysm. Boehner was an old-school pol, believing that you fought like hell to make the best deal possible but the end goal was always a deal of some sort. And that deal involved, by necessity, compromise with the other side.
That was long the governing philosophy of both parties in Congress. But, the influx of tea party-backed members in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections changed all of that; compromise is now regarded as capitulation -- and Boehner became enemy No. 1 of those Republicans who believed their party just wasn't willing to fight for what they believed.
By all accounts, Ryan, while perhaps more conservative than Boehner by nature, is cut from a similar cloth when it comes to how Congress should work (and that Congress should work at all.) "We need to move from being an opposition party to being a proposition party," Ryan told reporters earlier this week. Aside from his annual budget proposals, Ryan is best known as the lead Republican negotiator -- along with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.) -- in the 2013 bipartisan budget deal.
There's little reason to assume that Ryan will abandon his approach to working with people with whom he disagrees as speaker. But, recent history would suggest that if he wants to keep the job he would be very wary of being seen as open to making deals with Democrats from the get-go.
Ryan is a unique figure within the GOP (and in politics) -- a somewhat-unwilling leader now thrust into the spotlight. How does he react when pulled in five different directions by a conference that simply may not be able to be lead. Does the fact that he made quite clear that he didn't want the job and is taking it only for the good of the party help or hurt his bargaining power with his own conference? And, if it helps, for how long can he dine out on the well-you-guys-are-the-ones-who-wanted-me shtick?
For House Republicans, getting Ryan into the speakership is a major victory. But, will it be a lonely one?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-the-next-speaker-of-the-house-but-now-what/
S.E. Cupp shows the twisted logical thinking of the repub mind
No, Paul Ryan Is Not A Hypocrite On Paid Leave
S. E. Cupp | Oct 22, 2015
Earlier this week a high-profile man said he'd only take a high-profile promotion if it didn't mean less time with his wife and children.
Obviously, this man is a monster.
At least, that's how some have decided to frame Rep. Paul Ryan's announcement that he would consider taking the Speaker of the House job if he could maintain his current work-life balance, whereby he already only spends weekends at home in Wisconsin. This request is hypocritical, they say, because as a lawmaker Ryan has opposed mandatory paid leave legislation.
The two issues may seem related at first blush. Journalists have happily accepted the correlation without much scrutiny. See the Politico headline, "Paul Ryan Prizes Family Time, Opposes Family Leave," wherein they are separated only by a comma.
But while this makes for a super-fun talking point for Democrats -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultzquickly tweeted out their condemnations of Ryan's so-called hypocrisy -- there's little if any connection at all between Ryan's demands and the issue of paid leave. I take that back -- there's really no connection at all.
Here's what actually happened. Paul Ryan was asked to take a job he does not want. At all. He is happy with his current job and the family time it affords him. In the current climate of division among the various Republican caucuses, this new job will be thankless and presumably terrible. And, if Ryan has any presidential ambitions, this job is almost always a politician's final resting place (save for the lone exception and everyone's favorite speaker-turned-president, James K. Polk).
But because he knows that House Republicans are desperate, Ryan has made the smart calculation that he can make some demands if he is to consider assuming this new role that he does not want.
This is what a job negotiation looks like between a person who has made himself invaluable and an employer in a bind. Ryan's boss -- in this case, House Republicans -- are free to refuse his requirements and consider another candidate for the job. Or they can decide that his demands are reasonable and that they are willing to meet them.
"Paid leave" as a political issue is not about the ability to negotiate the best scenario for you and your family, as Ryan is. Paid leave is a policy requiring all employers to offer a certain amount of arbitrarily decided paid time off to their employees.
No, Paul Ryan Is Not A Hypocrite On Paid Leave
S. E. Cupp | Oct 22, 2015
Earlier this week a high-profile man said he'd only take a high-profile promotion if it didn't mean less time with his wife and children.
Obviously, this man is a monster.
At least, that's how some have decided to frame Rep. Paul Ryan's announcement that he would consider taking the Speaker of the House job if he could maintain his current work-life balance, whereby he already only spends weekends at home in Wisconsin. This request is hypocritical, they say, because as a lawmaker Ryan has opposed mandatory paid leave legislation.
The two issues may seem related at first blush. Journalists have happily accepted the correlation without much scrutiny. See the Politico headline, "Paul Ryan Prizes Family Time, Opposes Family Leave," wherein they are separated only by a comma.
But while this makes for a super-fun talking point for Democrats -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultzquickly tweeted out their condemnations of Ryan's so-called hypocrisy -- there's little if any connection at all between Ryan's demands and the issue of paid leave. I take that back -- there's really no connection at all.
Here's what actually happened. Paul Ryan was asked to take a job he does not want. At all. He is happy with his current job and the family time it affords him. In the current climate of division among the various Republican caucuses, this new job will be thankless and presumably terrible. And, if Ryan has any presidential ambitions, this job is almost always a politician's final resting place (save for the lone exception and everyone's favorite speaker-turned-president, James K. Polk).
But because he knows that House Republicans are desperate, Ryan has made the smart calculation that he can make some demands if he is to consider assuming this new role that he does not want.
This is what a job negotiation looks like between a person who has made himself invaluable and an employer in a bind. Ryan's boss -- in this case, House Republicans -- are free to refuse his requirements and consider another candidate for the job. Or they can decide that his demands are reasonable and that they are willing to meet them.
"Paid leave" as a political issue is not about the ability to negotiate the best scenario for you and your family, as Ryan is. Paid leave is a policy requiring all employers to offer a certain amount of arbitrarily decided paid time off to their employees.
