.jpeg?1371057738)
 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Generation X’er Ryan turns slacker on the details
So I went to see the first true member of my Generation X on a national presidential ticket.
Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan and I are the same age. He graduated from high school in 1988. I was in the class of ’89. This is new territory for our generation. He seems invigorated. I feel old.
I wondered whether Ryan’s Gen X-itude would make his rally in Cedar Rapids Tuesday any different. Would Winona Ryder, or maybe Ross and Rachel, warm up the crowd? Would Ryan shuffle into Johnson Hall on the Kirkwood campus in a trench coat, hoisting a boombox over his head, blasting “In Your Eyes,” like Lloyd Dobler in “Say Anything?” Maybe a moment of silence for Kurt Cobain?
But, nevermind, it was pretty much like most other rallies. The weekday GOP crowd skewed somewhat older than Gen X. But I did find some folks in, or at least near, my generation. Most said it’s nice to see a younger candidate on the big stage. But they’re much more interested in his policy positions.
“To find someone you can agree with on the issues, to me, is more important,” said Brad Lewis, a Hiawatha farmer, who, at 30, is on the back edge of X, depending on where you slice it. “Smaller government, in general, is what I believe in.”
“I think that he is all smoke and mirrors, as far as I’m concerned,” said Jasmine Almoayed of Fairfax, a Democrat and “on the cusp” near-X’er born in ‘83. “If you actually look at the fact checker stuff from his speech at the RNC, half of it was crap.”
But, trust me, Generation X knows “crap.”
We’ve been voting our whole political lives for presidential tickets that talked a great game but served up disillusioning disappointments. We’ve read lips and cringed at West Wing sexcapades and shook our heads at faulty WMD intelligence. Last time, we voted for a charming, hopeful guy who claimed he could tame the pitbulls of our tribal politics into cuddly comity. Turns out he should have been a lot more “Wolverines!” and a lot less Beanie Baby.
Lots of big promises, but inevitably, in the end, reality bites. Some reality, up front, would be nice.
And that’s what made Ryan’s rally speech disappointing. The famed Wisconsin wonk, R-Specific, went all aimless slacker when it came to explaining his ticket’s plans. He bashed the president plenty, but spent precious little time explaining how his team would do any better. He ticked off a “five-point plan” that included formless items such as “domestic energy, let’s use it,” more job training and trade. Team R&R is going to slice our debt and cut our taxes, How, exactly? Ryan’s ideas for Medicare, of keen interest to our generation, have vanished from view.
Maybe, in his eyes, this is a meaty message. To me, he’s another national politician willing to say anything to win.
Your last sentence: Look’s like you’ve made a pretty objective judgement. (I’d say for his running-mate: About the same.)
Of all the important issues being debated today, the economy has to be number 1. Last night, President Clinton commented brilliantly on the proposed Romney/Ryan plan. Ryan is known to be a “detail guy”. It’s time for Ryan and Romney to provide a real explanation as to how their plan would work. Will the proposed massive tax cut for the wealthy really be revenue neutral or will it just add to the debt? If it is revenue neutral, they need to explain exactly how it will be paid for now – not after the election.
” It’s time for Ryan and Romney to provide a real explanation as to how their plan would work.”
Right, let’s hear B0′s plan first. He’s had almost 4 years and gotten no where.
” If it is revenue neutral, they need to explain exactly how it will be paid for now”
Right, we’ve had 4 years of $1T+ deficits and you’re all of a sudden worried “how it will be paid for”? I guess it only matters when they’re not your party, because I’m sure that’s all that matters.
A lot of us have been worried about the increasing deficit for years but the Republicans have absolutely refused to consider revenue increases which are absolutely essential. As far as the Republican pitch it seems to be essentially “Obama has the wrong plan and we’ll cut taxes” but that doesn’t offer any plan at all. (Speaking for myself, I’m an staunch independent that has become for voting purposes a Democrat — I find the Republican Party has nothing (!) to offer.)
” Republicans have absolutely refused to consider revenue increases which are absolutely essential”
See here’s the problem with your soak the rich thinking. There’s only around $54T in total wealth in the US, that’s not income, that’s WEALTH. So even if you confiscated all the rich peoples houses, stocks etc. you’re only going to get about $5-6T and then what? We have a spending problem, it’s just that simple.
Yes, we have a spending problem but no it’s not “that simple”. We are currently borrowing around $.40 of every dollar spent. If we cut that $.40 it doesn’t take a PHD in economics to see that will severely impact government expenditures on such things as the military, social security, medicare, Etc., and obviously put many thousands of people out of work. Were am I, or anyone else, talking about “soaking the rich”?
Romney is the one who has explicitly claimed that his tax cuts for the wealthy would be revenue neutral. Since he made that claim, the burden is on him to explain how he will do that. Frankly, I don’t expect he will. Therefore, my objective is to make certain as many people as possible are skeptical of Romney’s claim. Thank’s for helping.
“Since he made that claim,”
Okay, give a source for your assertion.
You’ll find a good, non-partisan analysis of Romney’s tax proposals here – -http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/
For the record, I have always worried about “how things will be paid for”. I’ve worried about the war in Iraq, the war in Afganistan and Medicare Part D. Those are 3 big ventures we entered into with no plan to pay for them.
Hmm 18 middle class tax cuts, ended the abhorrent DADT policy, ended the war in Iraq, took out America’s Public Enemy #1 (bin Laden), expanded the CHIP program (any parent in America can applaud this), done real work to overhaul the health care system… I’m actually shocked that he’s accomplished as much as he has considering that the only goal the GOP has worked towards is blocking every possible thing they can and not offering up solutions of their own.
“So I went to see the first true member of my Generation X on a national presidential ticket.”
“…said Brad Lewis, a Hiawatha farmer, who, at 30, is on the back edge of X..”
I keep hearing people refer to Gen X and wonder if they understand that this is a term that refers to those who were born of the decline of the post WWII baby boom who generally reached the age of maturity (or at least who had some independence from their parents) starting at about 1977 (perhaps slightly later) and ending at about the time when that generation abandoned M-TV and that broadcast medium dropped its original format in favor of ‘reality’ based programming (about 1990).
Certainly Billy Idol’s re-use of the name Generation X in his 1977 band called ‘Generation X’ has much to do with this time frame. Certainly it is most appropriate for those who were born after the peak of the baby boom and who discovered that the great post war expansion that their older brothers and sisters and cousins benefited from, were not extended to their own generation due to budget cutbacks, etc. aka The Forgotten Generation (or Gen X).
Clearly Barack Obama (born 1961) is a member of this generation. Ryan, on the other hand, may not be. Certainly others you mention in this article are of the Gen Y generation (a generation which may ultimately have a different designation in years to come).
The most commonly accepted time frame I’ve found for Gen X is 1965-80. It’s the subject of much debate, but from a cultural/media standpoint, I think that’s where most folks think Gen X fits.
Which makes Barack Obama on the tail end of the Baby Boomers
That said, while it is possible to make broad generalizations about people based on the decade in which they were born, it is essential that it be kept in mind that these are generalizations
Perhaps some from the “Generation X” are too young to remember, too stupid, politically brainwashed, or have selective memories regarding Bill Clinton. During his reign NAFTA was born, he didn’t inhale, his near impeachment, and his greatest accomplishment was under his desk.
Generation “X” doesn’t know CRAP about the deceit on both sides of the isle but most of the baby boomers or a.ka. “great generation” certainly do.
Both sides of which isle? Capri? Wight? Man?
LOL Rhodes, Crete, Santorini . . . ?
Ummm. The Greatest Generation = Baby Boomers?
See the word “or” . Perhaps I should have used the word “and”. I’m sure some people with “get it”.
Sorry, I didnt see the word “or” I guess thats because you spelled it “aka”. Also the Baby Boomers and the “Great Generation” have a generation inbetween them. Are they just as stupid, politically brainwashed, or have selective memories as “Generation X?
Members of the “Great Generation” and Baby Boomers are a bit wiser by experience. Additionally they grew up without the “instant propaganda media” and less influenced by it. The biggest factor is the “dumbing down America”. Education is fractional at best compared to 40-50 years ago. Last but not least we have legions of dumb and brain dead voters soaking enitlements off the government with no incentives to either educate themselves or produce anything meaningful for society. They are the most vulnerable to Liberal propaganda and politicians know that.
Since Johnson’s “Great Society” we’ve created massive armies of inner city ghetto dumbos destined to vote Democrat for one purpose only. Your cash.
Ahart,
Most of the “entitlements” you hate so much date back to the New Deal, aka the decade in which the Greatest Generation grew up.Some are even older than that. President Truman integrated the Armed Services, and Civil Rights was added to the Democratic Platform in 1948, the same year Truman proposed a universal health care system. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system and initiated a federal student aid program (the Defense Education Act 1957). Kennedy proposed many of the Great Society programs (New Frontier) that came into being during Johnson’s term in office (the Great Society). Nixon was responsible for an expanded food stamp program, Earned IncomeTax credit, and assisted housing (Section 8).
You will have to forgive me, Mr Ahart, for assuming that your last sentence, “massive armies of inner city ghetto dumbos destined to vote Democrat for one purpose only. Your cash”, means exactly what it sounds like
Robeta: It’s September in the year 2012. I don’t think anyone cares about Truman.
No, David, you don’t care about Truman.
As usual, your complaints are completely a-historical.
The Greatest Generation grew up with radio and the baby boomers grew up with television. Both radio and television are “instant propaganda media” and both of them sit right there in your livingroom
If you haven’t seen Ryans plan in detail, then you haven’t been looking very hard!
Dorman you are the slacker!
Well why didn’t/don’t you provide a link to the detailed plan ? I’d think you’d want people to easily access it for examination to see if it looks credible and practical.
His running mate and most of his own party have put as much distance as they can between themselves and Ryan’s plan. If his plan was worthy or politically viable, he would be running for the Big Chair himself and not settling for the most pointless job in America.
Todd finally got goaded into the election and reveals his true nature, just another Deocratic party kool-aid drinker. Hasn’t examined Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney’s candicacy. Found one willing lacky, lackys are a dime a dozen.
“We’ve been voting our whole political lives for presidential tickets that talked a great game but served up disillusioning disappointments.” I(f you vote for Obama you would be doing it again. Barack Obama promised to keep unemployment below 8% – he didn’t, Barack Obama promised to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term – he increased it by $5+ Trillion, he said he would be the President of Red States and Blue States and change the tone in Washington – he changed it alright – FOR THE WORST.
If you had been following the campaign you would recognize that Paul Ryan is an honest dedicated guy with a record of accomplishment. You would also recognize that no matter how many empty promises President Obama offers tonight they will fall flat on the electorate because he hasn’t owned up to his failures.
“Paul Ryan is an honest dedicated guy with a record of accomplishment”. In 14 years in congress he has only written 2 laws, of minimal consequence, that were passed into law.
As for honesty- He blamed President Obama for
closing a plant that was actually closed before President
Obama took office. Then he claimed he was not blaming President Obama. Both statements were lies. How about his claim that he ran a marathon in less than 3 hours. I could go on. Dishonesty is in his DNA.
Richie you have the facts wrong – you better do some research. Ryan was at the Obama speech and the yes it was reported it was going to close before Obama entered office but it didn’t actually close until he did.
No, Mr Ellis, the factory stopped production before Obama took office.
I’m sorry but picking nits does nothing to improve the credibility of either you or Congressman Ryan
Why don’t you tell us, in some detail, Mr. Ellis, what a president McCain would have done that would have resulted in lowering the federal deficit and increasing employment, just to name two. Make an effort to present credible scenarios.
“Why don’t you tell us, in some detail, Mr. Ellis, what a president McCain would have done that would have resulted in lowering the federal deficit and increasing employment, just to name two. Make an effort to present credible scenarios”
Well Cedric we are not debating hypotheticals, McCain wasn’t elected. We are measuring President Obama by his own standard and his promises. Obama said he would cut the deficit in half in his first term. He said he would keep unemployment below 8% and by his standard it should be about 5% right now.
We’ve got it, you don’t have an idea of what a President McCain would have done that would have made a significant difference.
- – - –
The Plant Ryan mentioned in his speech went idle (all but a “skeleton crew” laid off) during the Bush Admin. The “doors closed” the next year.
PS In all fairness perhaps McCain could have handled stimulus efforts better and assuming Congress “turned Republican” as it did he would have had more cooperation rather than the present main objective of defeating Obama.
All that being said a lot of things are in the main out of control of any president, Europe is one example. I sincerely doubt the economy would be significantly better under a McCain. Very possibly worse.
“Todd finally got goaded into the election and reveals his true nature,”
Yeah, I don’t think he’s been very successful hiding it in the past. He’s very left, but doesn’t realize it because everybody he hangs around must be as much of a LIB as he is or worse than him since he thinks he’s “middle of the road”.
The same could be said for those who are very right but don’t realize it because everybody they hang with is of the right, thinking they are “middle of the road”, and everyone else is a lefty or “Lib”. Check the dictionary definition of liberal and tell us what problem you have with it. By the way, what do you call someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal (or the other way around) ?
The following link is an outline of Romneys plan. If you have been listening, he has given some details as to what cuts he would like to make. If you’re a lib you probably won’t like any of them but they need to happen. Romneys plan, in my opinion, is a very sensible and serious plan to cut waste, increase employment, simplify the tax code, etc. “What will Romney do?”
http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Summary.pdf
The issue isn’t what cuts he’ll make. The issue is that he’s pledged to make his cuts revenue neutral by eliminating loopholes and deductions. That’s the part he hasn’t clarified, or how it will impact the bottom line taxes we pay.
“The issue isn’t what cuts he’ll make. The issue is that he’s pledged to make his cuts revenue neutral by eliminating loopholes and deductions.”
So Todd let’s first hold President Obama to a leadership standard. He hasn’t offered a plan to deal with any of our economic issues. His budgets have included deficits for a decade and more. The Senate hasn’t approved a budget for 3 years.
So – why should Romney put out enough specifics for evil minded people to criticize when they are happy with nothing from the current leader????
Cut government waste, create jobs, and simplify taxes. Hmm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe someone has pledged that before ?
I have read the entire link you provided and found no specific indication of the cuts in spending and/or tax deductions, exemptions or credits that Romney would make. This link only provides more meaningless, vague comments. Romney once said, in a momment of weakness, that if he told us what he was going to do he would not get elected. I believe that.
Romney is not that stupid to lay out his entire economic plan at this time of debate while the Liberal “Class Warfare” worms wait in hiding for attack
. We can expect more of the same, and much worse, from Obama’s rediculous “entitlement economy” creating more welfare recipients by design and intent. Just as expected Obama will role out the entitlemen ret carpet full swing leading up to election day.
Last week he declared that no welfare recipient has to work to counter Wisconsin’s(Ryan) most successful welfare reform in the America. Creating employment and education for the poor is very dangerous for Obama’s liberal machine.
Today Obama promises the unions unlimited access which really means endorsing a national union “Card Check” that eventually will force every working middle class American to join a union…..and do that by force of “executive order” if necessary.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/28/union-card-check-fight-escalates/
Please explain how card check will “force every middle class American to join a union”. There is nothing in the link you provided, or anywhere else, that even implies that.
Card check is a license for thugs to bully people because now they do not have a secret vote.
Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein: “Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured… but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.” Now add this, “Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.”
If your opposed to voter ID why would you be in favor of card check?
Extortion is not neutrality regarding “neutrality agreements.
http://www.unionfreeamerica.com/neutrality_cardcheck.htm
Mr Ellis,
In response to your question regarding voter IDs and card check,
if I were opposed to elevator music why would I be in favor of snow?
My next question—why are conservatives so predictable? Why, all the time, these why is a raven like a writing desk questions?
So you say you want to vote for Obama again? Well maybe you should think twice about doing that. Here is Dick Morris who worked for Bill Clinton. This is the man that helped get Clinton elected President twice, and Governor of AR three times. You should watch this video…this is NOT a “phony.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-wIfI2whjiM
David,
Do you think it would be possible to post a reason why you think people should vote for Romney other than you hate Barack Obama, libs, the Great Society, people who llive in cities, and Kool Aide
Allow me http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/the-awful-awful-august-jobs-report/
Sorry, Karen Ramstead, not good enough.
When Obama took office we were loosing jobs at the rate of 800,000 a month. A year later, we were gaining. Not fast enough but gaining. But if we do things your way—cut taxes, cut spending—we will be right back where we started four years ago with an exploding deficit and crashing unemployment.
No thanks
Questions and comments about the commenting policy have been removed. Please stay on topic. Questions or comments about the policy may be directed to annette.schulte@sourcemedia.net.