.

Paul Ryan - Why We Need Him Now

This coming presidential election will one way or another influence the direction this country is headed. What role could Paul Ryan play this November?

In 2008 Barack Obama ran a campaign with the tagline of hope and change. Now four years later Americans have lost hope in the country’s future and the only change has been that our country is steadily falling deeper into debt. It is 2012 and the facts need to be addressed.

America is in serious trouble. No matter which side of the political aisle you stand on, the truth of where America is headed is commonly accepted. The economy is in rough shape. Our foreign relations with a multitude of nations lie in shambles. Meanwhile here on the home front the unemployment rate is currently hovering right around 8.2% which is up from 4.9% in February of 2008.

All the while in Washington, our selected leaders seem to be unable to right the sinking ship because of never-ending political war where the battle lines have been drawn countless times with neither side willing to give up any ground to the other.

It seems obvious that in order for America to move forward together, our leaders must be united, united as one political entity that will work tirelessly for the good of the American people and the ideals this country was founded upon.

So who can be this unique leader? Can we afford another four years of our current policies with the subsequent rate of decline? Can one man possibly hope to unify the country and offer a realistic vision for the future? Four years ago people thought that President Obama could be that man. Yet clearly his policies have led us down the wrong path. Perhaps there is a man who could infuse this nation with new life. I say why not give Paul Ryan a chance? At least he is a man with a forward-thinking plan.

Paul Ryan contains no secrets. His agenda seems simple: cut the power and cost of the federal government and allow individuals and businesses to grow or falter based upon nothing but their own ingenuity and resourcefulness. He is a bona fide genius when it comes to fiscal planning and for the first time in years his budget proposal outlines not just a plan, but a solution - a solution that hinges on our trusted politicians putting their selfish egos behind them and working towards a national fix before it is too late.

Here is where Paul Ryan has the chance to change everything He has the know-how and a plan that can appeal to both political parties as well as the ability to clearly articulate the benefits of such a plan. Not only can he show the nation the truth of its debt crisis, but he can open a door to a brighter future in the process.

He may be a dedicated conservative, but his plan goes beyond party lines. See Ryan is smart enough to know that drilling for oil everywhere will not be the solution to our economic crisis. Yet at the same time he also realizes we can’t just throw money towards unnecessary stimulus packages. The solution lies in changing the behavior of Americans and how we go about taxing and spending our money. It is a plan that seems so simple, yet somehow has eluded us for much too long.

Paul Ryan can walk the line between conservatives and liberals in a way no one else seems to be able to do. This coming November election is not about Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. It can’t be. Bigger issues like the future of our country are at stake. It’s time to end this bureaucratic stalemate and put someone in Washington who can pilot this sinking ship out of these stormy waters. We can’t rely upon promises of hope and change any longer. What this country needs is the hope that it can change back. Back to the time when capitalism drove America’s financial future and people put their faith not in big government but in the people that propelled this nation forward. 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Hershal Webster August 23, 2012 at 06:11 PM
The Obama's have been tooling around in some pretty fine rides to be all up on Global Warming. Translation: Democrats talk the talk but do not walk the walk, on climate change.
Hershal Webster August 23, 2012 at 06:20 PM
I give Obama a lot of credit, he deserves it. He single handily increased the deficit by almost 6 trillion dollars, in 4 years. WoW, the man is a machine. Oh yeah, the Chinese gave him a lot of credit too, just a different kind.
James R Hoffa August 23, 2012 at 06:25 PM
@Randy1949 - I'd rather have the ability to realize a true interest generating investment, as opposed to having to pay more taxes and falsely calling it an interesting generating investment. You're defending the model, but the entire model is flawed, in that it depends on the federal government engaging in deficit spending. In our past, the deficit spending was justified and premised upon our need to engage in fighting world wars, remember? Under Reagan, the deficit spending was largely attributable to fighting what was called the 'cold war.' And although we're currently fighting a war against terrorism, you guys on the left claim that such wars are not legitimate or justified. So, what reason do we now have to justify the need to engage in deficit spending? Remember, on the right, we believe that there is currently no pressing need to engage in deficit spending. So, if the federal government operates according to a balanced budget, as it currently should be doing, where will the government invest the SS funds then?
Randy1949 August 23, 2012 at 06:39 PM
We're still fighting a war in Afghanistan and paying off the debt on the older wars. Just as we were still paying off the cold war debt during the Bush 1 and Clinton years. Also, when has the country ever run without a debt of some sort? The only President to pay off the national debt was Andrew Jackson in 1835, and a depression followed.
Randy1949 August 23, 2012 at 08:36 PM
@Herschal -- You seriously expect the First Couple to travel around on a bicycle built for two? Or maybe matching Segueways?
Nick Schweitzer August 23, 2012 at 09:12 PM
Paul Ryan is not a fiscal conservative, and certainly not a brave political leader. Among his "fiscal conservative" credentials are the following: - Voting for the 2001 Airline Bailout - Voting for No Child Left Behind - Voting for Medicare Part D (the largest increase in the Medicare entitlement since it's creation) - Voting for TARP - Voting for the Auto Bailout His "Roadmap for America's Future" will take 30 years to simply balance the budget. Its hardly any more "radical" than Barack Obama's plan... The Ryan plan says that we will spend $3.6 trillion this year while bringing in $2.4 trillion in FY2012. In contrast, President Obama's budget says that we will shell out $3.8 trillion in FY2012 and bring in $2.5 trillion. You should re-examine Ryan's voting record. When part of a Republican Majority, Paul Ryan votes for Big Government spending, Big Government programs, and big debt. The only time that he tuns into a fiscal conservative is when his party is in the minority. That doesn't make him radical. It makes him a political hack.
Kevin R Martin August 23, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Evan Kudos on writing this article knowing that it would expose you to criticisms, some intelligent and some otherwise. While political beliefs may change with time, the conviction to stand for them does not. You are a young man who is showing the willingness to do what you believe is right. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant at this time. Please continue to be a thoughtful, articulate and open minded advocate.
Greg August 23, 2012 at 09:56 PM
That must be the Obama budget where he is going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Check out that record.
Bren August 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Anti, two thoughts on that $109,777.78 number: First I'd be interested in knowing if that breakdown includes indirect job creation and saving; and secondly, we know that the Iraq War was the War of the Contractor. At the peak of the war there were 180,000 contractors (http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm). The average cost to deploy one U.S. soldier was $390,000 (Ibid). The salary of the average contractor ranged from approximately $74,000k to approximately $350,000k. In 2003 Zapata Engineering received a one-year, $3.8 million contract for 5 employees. That broken down is $350,000 salary plus $850,000 overhead, insurance and profit costs for the liaison officer and $275,000 salary plus costs for four project managers. In Feb. 2004 Zapata received another one-year contract of $32.5 million to hire up to 108 workers. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11843 Through this lens, $109,777.78 is a bargain! Mr. Hoffa, I have a similar pay adjustment deal with my employer as Congress/Senators have with the U.S. government in their own benefit packages. If insurance rates go up I get a salary adjustment so the take-home doesn't change--that's what Paul Ryan gets as a Congressman; that's what he forgot to include for the rest of us in his so-called budget. As far as I am aware they have the same SS and Medicare benefits as we do; they just receive the nice pension, etc. as well.
Bren August 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Some folks have short memories. Aren't we in some sort of recession-thingy that began in 2008 or thereabouts?
Bren August 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM
How many more of these right-wing fake news sites are going to crawl out of the wainscoting of the World Wide Web? FreeBeacon.com, with a proud journalistic tradition stretching back to February 2012 is a child of the right-wing 501(c)(4) Center for American Freedom. Not to be confused with a legitimate news source.
Bren August 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Nick, that's why Romney is backing away from Ryan's budget. Paul Krugman broke down the Ryan budget quite nicely here: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21356175/paul-krugman-paul-ryans-economic-plan-is-joke
Bren August 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Certainly both parties want to win, Steve, Keith. I think what has changed is the length that one party is willing to go in order to win. As an example, Watergate was a break-in into Democratic Party HQ by Republican-paid agents. I consider ALEC as aligned with right-wing interests because of its focus on promoting legislation that supports Big Business; whose interests have long been championed by the GOP. Their policy-writing also includes voter ID legislation which is determined to disenfranchise voters who would likely vote Democrat. Union stripping and Right to Work legislation destabilizes a significant Democratic revenue stream. It's all a bit over the top, and I don't think our democracy would survive under a permanently dominant one-party system.
WEACHATER August 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Very interesting that you are a prominent poster here as well as for the metro San Francisco market. So who exactly are you, a mouth piece for this liberal rag called Patch of maybe some DNC plant?
Kevin R Martin August 24, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Weachater "This liberal rag called Patch"? Post something half intelligent so I can respond to your comment about a "rag". Otherwise, do not waste the effort.
Keith Schmitz August 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Going over the cliff? Hell, Eddie will be driving that bus.
Keith Schmitz August 24, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Gee, all of that can be pinned on Republican obstructionism and guys like Romney sending jobs overseas. Free Beacon is hardly mainstream.
Keith Schmitz August 24, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Lot's of books and reports coming out about how the GOP made a conscious effort to obstruct, and in the process set back economic progress for millions of families. But aside that, R and R are promising us nothing different than the same imbecilic policies pushed by Bush, not to mention more wars promoted by the mentally Ill John Boulton. Thanks to their obstructionism, they don't deserve to take over the government and history tells us they are not capable of policies that do the most good for the most people. But that doesn't concern sociopaths.
Bren August 24, 2012 at 02:22 AM
WEACHATER wrote: Very interesting that you are a prominent posted here as well as for the metro Milwaukee market as well. So who exactly are you, a mouth piece for this liberal rag called Patch of maybe some DNC plant? -------------------------------------------------- HEY GENIUS, this is Bren from Pacifica, California talking to you! I am not, I repeat, NOT the Bren who posted these comments about Paul Ryan, so the sooner you stop SPAMMING Pacifica / San Francisco Patch with your copied and pasted comments attacking me, the less foolish you will look. I've even taken the time to upload a profile pic, just so you can have an easier time telling us apart. To Greendale Wisconsin's Bren, I salute you! Anybody who could be mistaken for a DNC operative is somebody I'm proud to share my name with!
The Anti-Alinsky August 24, 2012 at 03:42 AM
Bren, when it comes to Obama, you tend to choose the lens that makes him look best for you. True, the cost to deploy a soldier in Iraq was incredibly high and so was Afghanistan. But that was for an overseas job in a tough environment with some incredibly advanced equipment. How did they calculate that number? Did they just take the cost of the war and divide it by the number of soldiers used? Does that $390,000 include tanks, planes, fuel,... Regardless, 109,777.78 per job is not a bargain. Comparing it to the cost of a war is like comparing apples to hand-grenades.
Jay Sykes August 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Some of the strings of comments contain photos, others do not;this string does not have any photos. How would one know one 'Bren' from the other 'Bren'? Does anyone know why some comment strings carry photographs and not others?
Luke August 24, 2012 at 01:00 PM
@Jay - It depends on the browser you use. The Safari browser in the iPad and iPhone almost always shows the pics. The Bren from Wisconsin has a handlebar moustache.
Bob McBride August 24, 2012 at 01:04 PM
I always suspected that Bren was a hipster.
Bren August 24, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Patch seems to display the pics inconsistently. I usually use Firefox on a Macintosh, and sometimes the pics appear, but other times they don't. If Weachater is unsure, however, he or she should click on the profile of whichever Bren he or she is responding to, 'cause when you look at our profiles, even if our pics don't show up, you can see what city we live in. :-)
Steve ® August 24, 2012 at 07:41 PM
If you were educated enough you would realize that after a certain amount of comments the avatars are removed from posts.
Bren August 24, 2012 at 07:53 PM
Really, Steve? This issue is that I am not educated enough? Sorry, I totally goofed off during that semester when I took the "Quirks of Patch.com" class. And now I'm obviously paying for it.
Steve ® August 26, 2012 at 07:00 PM
You are unable to see the reality you participate in. It is telling and explains in full detail why you are a far left wing liberal. I for one had the same question months ago, but was able to come up with the answer on my own. You think that a class or union teacher should provide the answer. It's OK though. In the long run less competition as a producer and job creator is a good thing for me, Steve®. We can't have too many self educated and successful people on the internet.
Randy1949 August 26, 2012 at 07:13 PM
@Steve -- You don't seem to be able to spot when someone is being facetious. I guess you're just not 'educated' enough.
Bren August 26, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Well said, Randy! Isn't an inability to recognize irony and sarcasm one of the symptoms of psychosis?
Randy1949 August 26, 2012 at 08:27 PM
Or autism. Or sociopathy. It could be any of them.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »