• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments


Yeah, that Paul Ryan, what a radical! But let us define our terms:

If a person is to believe his media, he would have to accept that bringing discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, as Ryan has suggested, is like letting a Koch-funded plutocrat in war paint shred the social contract and throw it into a Klan-lit bonfire. Nearly every outlet, every interviewer, every reference about Ryan's plan is imbued with a tone that asks, "Isn't this nuts?"

But adding $11 trillion to the national debt, as Obama's proposed budget does, well, that passes the levelheaded policy test. One day, perhaps when fact checkers take a break from crunching every uncompromising decimal point in Ryan's budget proposal, they can explain how Obama's plan is supposed to work and how spending without end ends -- you know, for the kids.

Those who dominate the debate get to decide what's "radical," which is why a lot of us hoping for a dramatic change in the conversation after November. Who knows, maybe even calling for constitutional limits on the power of government won't seem so insurrectionist.


Rebecca Mallory
Sat, 08/18/2012 - 2:07pm

In 2000, the "radical" Paul Ryan proposed a "radical" legislative act to limit taxpayer risk at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

His office was flooded with correspondence asking him to stop this "radical" plan.

He was joined in this legislation by only 12 other "radicals" who failed to gain further support.

Eight years later when Fannie and Freddie collapsed, the loss to the taxpayer totalled $190 billion.

Sometimes those "radicals" have good ideas.

Christopher Swing
Sat, 08/18/2012 - 3:58pm

Rebecca, if you're going to lift your entire comment from an opinion column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, at least get it right.

"On July 27, 2000, a first-term Congressman from Wisconsin signed his name to the Housing Finance Regulatory Improvement Act. The 30-year-old legislator didn't have much company. Of 435 Members of the House, only 12 were willing to join Paul Ryan in sponsoring a bill to reduce the taxpayer risks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

BTW, Paul Ryan didn't propose HR 3703 (106th), Richard Baker did, so your first sentence isn't even correct. Ryan was just one of the 12 co-sponsors. Learn to copy better.

(Also: how many of the other 423 were republicans as well? Aren't they as much to blame?)

Also, logical fallacy: just because they had an idea to reform Fan/Fred, doesn't necessarily mean their particular plan was actually good. It wasn't 12 republicans against 423 democrats, after all.

BTW, is this the flood you were talking about?

"Mr. Ryan continued his sometimes lonely effort to reform the mortgage giants, for which he endured their usual political wrath. In 2008 he told us that Fannie once called every mortgage holder in his district, claiming falsely that Mr. Ryan wanted to raise the cost of their mortgage and asking if Fannie could tell the Congressman to stop on their behalf. He received some 6,000 telegrams."

Because that was in a different part of that opinion article, and is based on a claim made by Ryan himself. And we already know he's not good at remembering things like this.

Then again, you're not very good at plagiarizing in an attempt to make yourself look smart, Rebecca.

Andrew J.
Sat, 08/18/2012 - 6:51pm

Me thinks the woman is busted!



tim zank
Sat, 08/18/2012 - 8:40pm

Good Lord Woodward & Bernstein,  she read an article, obviously agreed with it and paraphrased it's message...

If she'd copied and pasted it, you'd have chastised her for that instead. She's not a reporter, she's commenting on a blog for crissakes...grow up...




Christopher Swing
Sun, 08/19/2012 - 2:58am

..."she read an article, obviously agreed with it and paraphrased it's (sic) message..."

And the funny part is nevermind passing it off as her own thoughts (and she adds nothing of her own to what she lifted) she couldn't even manage to copy it right.


"If she'd copied and pasted it, you'd have chastised her for that instead."

WTF are you talking about, are you some sort of meathead?* We copy/paste relevant chunks into comments here all the time, with links to the original, along with our commentary. Hell, that's most of Leo's posts in the first place. That's Leo's post above. Obviously no one here has a problem with that. Are you so desperate to white knight your little friend here that you'd actually type something that dumb?*

*Spoiler: the answer is likely yes.

tim zank
Sun, 08/19/2012 - 2:11pm

So let me get this straight Swing,  you only disagree with the way she procured and presented her information, correct?

Christopher Swing
Mon, 08/20/2012 - 12:45am

Nope, keep trying Zank. Try sounding out the larger words slowly and don't rush through when you're reading the original comment. Don't worry, you'll catch up to the rest of us eventually. ;D

tim zank
Mon, 08/20/2012 - 8:03am

Atta boy swinger. I love lefty logic (or rather lack thereof)...When in doubt, obfuscate....

Christopher Swing
Mon, 08/20/2012 - 2:03pm

No obfuscation, Zank. I'm clearly mocking your inability to grasp what I originally wrote. :D