[QUOTE]... and Obama could have helped that, more than he did IMO, without needing to headline "bipartisan".

Indeed, once Republicans had publicly and repeatedly vowed unanimous opposition, Obama's public repetitions of "bipartisan" just made it harder to peel loose a Republican vote now and then through quiet negotiation.
[/QUOTE]I agree.

[QUOTE]See: Wisconsin state government, early 2011. [/QUOTE]Personally, I don't know why Obama thought he'd be all that good at bipartisan work anyway. At least Mitt Romney has some experience in that ring.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;307608]
Without 61 (Democratic + like-minded Independent) Senators on his side, [U]there was never a time when Obama could push through any bill without at least one Republican Senator's consent[/U].[/QUOTE]

You're off by one. It only requires 60 Senators to stop a filibuster. See [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate[/url]

I believe Obama had a filibuster-proof majority for his entire first year. I see one of Obama's biggest failures at the start of his Presidency was to cede leadership to Reid and Pelosi.

Mittens picks another faux-fiscal conservative "tax cuts for the rich are the solution" as his running mate. One ZH reader [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/romney-ratifies-ryan-proscribes-pawlenty-and-portman]comments thusly[/url]:
[quote]I didn't know much about Ryan, until I read this on ye olde wikipedia:

n 2002, Ryan voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.[29] In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the Medicare Part D prescription drug expansion.[30] In 2004 and 2005, after the reelection of Bush, Ryan pushed the Bush administration to propose the privatization of Social Security; Ryan's proposal was ultimately not fully supported by the Administration and it failed. After the next election, he was chosen as the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.[31]

In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Wall Street bailout that precipitated the Tea Party movement, and the bailout of GM and Chrysler.[32]

Now I know all I need to know.[/quote]
So Ryan helps ensure bankruptcy of Medicare by voting for the cost-exploding Part D expansion of the program; now he wants to "fix Medicare" by cost-shifting the resulting unsustainable outlays onto the states. Clearly the Ponzi Force is strong in this young Jedi...

Discuss!

[QUOTE]In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.[29][/QUOTE]So, Paul Ryan was in Congress before Obama began his career in the Senate in 2005. I'd say that is one thing going for Ryan.

As for the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution"]Iraq Resolution[/URL], I don't see it as very relevant to the present contest. I don't see it as saying much about Ryan. (Of course, I don't see a Vice Presidential pick as saying much about a presidential candidate either.)

[QUOTE=Prime95;307623]You're off by one. It only requires 60 Senators to stop a filibuster. See [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate[/URL][/quote]Arrggghhh!

Off-by-one bug!

Thanks.

[quote]I see one of Obama's biggest failures at the start of his Presidency was to cede leadership to Reid and Pelosi.[/QUOTE]I agree.

[QUOTE]In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the Medicare Part D prescription drug expansion.[30][/quote]I don't know much about this one. [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/313766/brief-note-paul-ryan-and-medicare-prescription-drug-benefit-reihan-salam"]Here is an article[/URL] and a [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313757/grasping-medicare-distortion-yuval-levin"]second article[/URL] from a conservative website discussing some issues related to this.

[quote] In 2004 and 2005, after the reelection of Bush, Ryan pushed the Bush administration to propose the privatization of Social Security; Ryan's proposal was ultimately not fully supported by the Administration and it failed. After the next election, he was chosen as the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.[31][/QUOTE]I currently like the idea of privatizing Social Security, but I don't know all that much about it.

[QUOTE]In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Wall Street bailout that precipitated the Tea Party movement, and the bailout of GM and Chrysler.[32][/QUOTE]At the time, I was against TARP. But a lot of people smarter than me, across the political spectrum, have said that it was both a good and necessary thing.

[QUOTE]I see one of Obama's biggest failures at the start of his Presidency was to cede leadership to Reid and Pelosi. [/QUOTE]Double ditto. (The second biggest failure I see is that he didn't follow through on the Gitmo stuff, but in fact expanded `illegal' detentions, including on American citizens.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;307732]I don't know much about this one. [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/313766/brief-note-paul-ryan-and-medicare-prescription-drug-benefit-reihan-salam"]Here is an article[/URL] and a [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313757/grasping-medicare-distortion-yuval-levin"]second article[/URL] from a conservative website discussing some issues related to this.[/QUOTE]
Just follow the curve of actual and projected costs, and then tell us how much Mr. Ryan's proposal actually does (according to semi-credible estimates, e.g. CBO-style) to rein in the cost-rampage, as opposed to just shifting the costs off the federal balance sheet.

As opposed to sites-with-an-obvious-political-agenda, let's see what [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D"]Wikipedia has to say[/URL], with the emphasis on the blatant-giveaway-to-Big-Pharma aspects:
[quote]By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40%[26] and 58%[27] less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, the VA pays as little as $782.44 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin) 20 mg, while the Medicare pays between $1120 and $1340 on Part D plans.
...
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[28][29] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.[/quote][QUOTE]I currently like the idea of privatizing Social Security, but I don't know all that much about it.[/QUOTE]How can you judge whether you like it not if you are self-admittedly uninformed on the issue? Everything I've seen points to the various privatization plans as "same Ponzi scheme, but now with all those $trillions in the hands of Wall Street bankers." Yeah, that's gonna work out really well.

[QUOTE]At the time, I was against TARP. But a lot of people smarter than me, across the political spectrum, have said that it was both a good and necessary thing.[/QUOTE]And as we've seen, the banks' eternal gratitude at having been saved from their own misdeeds has caused them to mend their ways and get back to their original (and sole legitimate) purpose, namely of helping to grow the real productive economy. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Just follow the curve of actual and projected costs, and then tell us how much Mr. Ryan's proposal actually does (according to semi-credible estimates, e.g. CBO-style) to rein in the cost-rampage, as opposed to just shifting the costs off the federal balance sheet.[/quote]Okay. You do the same with the plan proposed by the current president. Oh wait, he has no plan. He has had no viable plan for 4 years. At least Paul Ryan is starting the process.

[quote]As opposed to sites-with-an-obvious-political-agenda, let's see what Wikipedia has to say, with the emphasis on the blatant-giveaway-to-Big-Pharma aspects:[/QUOTE]I had no issue with your claim that Medicare part D has some very bad aspects. I linked to the site (with-an-obvious-political-agenda [which I pointed out beforehand]) in order to give evidence that Ryan's vote for Medicare-D was not necessarily representative of his philosophy on Medicare reform.

[QUOTE]How can you judge whether you like it not if you are self-admittedly uninformed on the issue?[/quote]Badly, of course. Just like 99.999% of the voters. ;-)

[quote]Everything I've seen points to the various privatization plans as "same Ponzi scheme, but now with all those $trillions in the hands of Wall Street bankers." Yeah, that's gonna work out really well.[/QUOTE]I would hope that the plan eventually passed would avoid such pitfalls. But I am an eternal optimist.

[QUOTE]And as we've seen, the banks' eternal gratitude at having been saved from their own misdeeds has caused them to mend their ways and get back to their original (and sole legitimate) purpose, namely of helping to grow the real productive economy. [/QUOTE]Irrelevant to my point.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;307738]Okay. You do the same with the plan proposed by the current president. Oh wait, he has no plan. He has had no viable plan for 4 years. At least Paul Ryan is starting the process.[/QUOTE]

I made no claims to the effect of Obama having more credibility on deficit-cutting ... quite the opposite, cf. my "Friday Humor" posting about O's pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his 1st term. My claim is simply that Ryan is getting far, far more credit for "budget hawkishness" and credibility of his deficit cutting plan that the facts bear out. Cost-shifting is not a credible form of deficit reduction, and blatant giveaways to Big Finance and Big Pharma in fact have the very opposite effect, as do the tax cuts for the rich which Romney/Ryan support.

In that case, I would agree. Thanks for clarifying.