Clinton White House Chief of Staff: Ryan budget is "sensible...honest, serious"

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles says, Paul Ryan's budget is "sensible...honest, serious"

Erskine Bowles: Ryan budget is "sensible...honest, serious" by morgenr
www.youtube.com...#!

Please watch the video before you post a comment. Thanks in advance.

The videos has too many cuts, therefore it lacks context.

Be weary of youtube videos with cuts and breaks, it may leave out pertinent info.

reply to post by ErEhWoN


If it lacks pertinent information, can you please direct me to the video that isn't edited. It would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ErEhWoN

You've got a point, so I did a little digging. I don't think The Huffington Post is biased in Ryan's favor.

Erskine Bowles, co-chair of President Barack Obama's budget-deficit commission, had unusual praise for Paul Ryan at a 2011 event, shown in a video posted to YouTube on August 12.

"I’m telling you this guy is amazing," Bowles said in the video, reportedly taken at a 2011 University of North Carolina event.

The past praise for Ryan and his budget plan is a stark contrast to his recent criticism of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's tax plan. Bowles also criticized Obama's plan at the time, saying nobody "took that budget very seriously":

“I always thought that I was okay with arithmetic. [Paul] can run circles around me, and he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion... The President came out with his own plan and the President, as you remember, came out with a budget, and I don’t think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework, and in that new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10-year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it really was about a two and a half trillion dollar cut.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Whatever flaws Ryan may have, and I'm sure they'll be pointed out, it looks like no one in either party is equipped to handle money and budgets as well as he can. If people need a reason to vote for Romney, one might be to get Ryan into the game.

Hey! I think I've found it, well, at least the audio recording of the speech. Try here:www.sgrtoday.com... One thing to remember is that when he speaks about Medicare, he is talking about the 2011 plan. The 2012 plan is significantly different.

reply to post by RELDDIR


LOL.. you know what those "...'s" mean? They mean that they took that guy waaaay out of context.


Honest, yeah sure, too bad Ryan honestly believes that women should be FORCED TO CARRY A RAPISTS BABY to term

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Dear GogoVicMorrow,

I'm afraid your post wasn't worthy of you. More context is available from The Huffington Post, above. And the speech link has also been posted. It's there if you want it. He's not taken out of context.

And the pregnancy comment has no place in this discussion.

I've seen you do better.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I will concede here. I read those words describing paul ryan, but didn't see them repeaed for the budget. Regardless it doesn't really matter because he is not running for president and Romney has his "own" agenda. The pregnancy comment is relevant to me and should be to everyone else because it indicates that he's either an insensitive lunatic, or he says what it takes to appeal to the neo con crowd which makes his proposal worthless.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Dear GogoVicMorrow,

Nice post, well done. You make ATS look good.

Regardless it doesn't really matter because he is not running for president and Romney has his "own" agenda.

Ok, let's accept that. But isn't that the same on the abortion question? Shouldn't you also say that "it doesn't really matter because he is not running for president and Romney has his own agenda?" That would seem fair. And Ryan is perfectly willing to follow Romney's lead on this.

“Well, you know, look. I’m proud of my record,” Ryan said when asked about differences between himself and Romney regarding abortion in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered, a similar answer to the one he gave in a Pittsburgh TV interview Wednesday morning. “I don’t – I’m proud of my record. Mitt Romney’s going to be the president. The president sets the policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I’m comfortable with it because it’s a good step in the right direction. I’ll leave it at that.”

From The Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com...
The New York Times also looks at the extremism of Ryan's position, noting that only 22% of Americans agree with him: www.nytimes.com...

On the abortion issue, too, Democrats have a tendency to forget that the public doesn’t necessarily agree with them. Only 22 percent of Americans would ban abortion in cases of rape or incest, according to Gallup. But that’s an exceptional number for exceptional circumstances. The broader polling shows a country persistently divided, with women roughly as likely to take the anti-abortion view as men. (Indeed, the small minority that opposes abortion in cases of rape includes more women than men.)

The polling also shows plenty of cases where public opinion cuts strongly against the pro-choice side. Large majorities support bans on second- and third-trimester abortion, on sex-selective abortion and on the controversial “partial birth” procedure.

These are issues where many Democratic politicians have something in common with Akin: They have abortion positions well outside the American mainstream.

But, you know, I'd really rather that the country was considering issues like the Middle-east, the defecit, defense, health care, and the economy. I get the feeling that some of the other things are considerably less important to the nation.

Anyway, again, nice work.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I don't think The Huffington Post is biased in Ryan's favor.

The Huffington Post is notoriously far left. I'm VERY SURE they won't be biased in Ryans favor.


That being said .... Romney isn't running on The Ryan Plan. Romney is running on The Romney Plan. It's different than the Ryan Plan. Also .. side note ... considering our recent POTUS choices (Bush43, Obama, Romney) .. I'm thinking Bill Clinton would be better in office. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but the man understood finances.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Dear FlyersFan,

Leaving aside every other consideration for the moment, do you think the Romney-Ryan team comes more equipped to deal with budgets and finances than Obama-Biden? My guess is that R-R would be stronger in this area.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Yeah yeah.. I can admit when I am wrong.
I don't like it, but I can admit it.

I agree. I have always thought the abortion issue was just a distraction, that's another reason I support Ron Paul though. Leave abortion and marriage equality to the states so people won't be distracted by them. As I said in another thread "Republicans would vote for Satan himself if he promised to ban abortion and gay marriage."

Did anyone see the speech tonight? Ryan strikes me as someone with a serious plan to fix the budget.