jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (12 posts)

Ryan rattles saber at ...China

  1. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Granted, my experience as a debtor is quite limited compared to our nation's. However, it has been my experience that "getting tough" with or "cracking down" on my mortgage lender or the bank that issued my credit card doesn't work too well.

    More to the point, however, is that Congressman Ryan is criticizing President Obama for actions he (Ryan) voted against him (Obama) taking.

    What do you want to bet there will be many, many more "Ryinconsistencies" we'll be hearing about between now and November??

    WASHINGTON – Paul Ryan on Thursday began to criticize China as a currency manipulator, speaking out against the country’s trade policies with the same sharp rhetoric that his new running mate, Mitt Romney, has used for months.

    “Free trade is a powerful tool for peace and prosperity, but our trading partners need to play by the rules,” Ryan said at a campaign rally in Ohio. “This challenge focuses on China. They steal our intellectual property rights, they block access to their markets, they manipulate their currency.”

    “President Obama said he would stop these practices,” he added. “He said he’d go to the mat with China. Instead, they are treating him like a doormat. We’re not going to let that happen. Mitt Romney and I are going to crack down on China cheating and we’re going to make sure that trade works for Americans.”

    But there’s one glaring problem: Ryan voted against legislation in 2010 that would have helped do just that.

    In 2010, when the House voted on the Currency Reform Fair Trade Act, Ryan was among the 79 congressmen who opposed the measure. The bill passed – 348 to 79, with 99 Republicans voting in favor – but was not taken up by the Senate so it never became law.

    The legislation would have given the president expanded authority to impose tariffs on the imports from countries that have “fundamentally undervalued” currencies.

    The different views – one that Ryan took when casting a congressional vote, the other he is now espousing on the campaign trail – illustrates some of the challenges of adopting the policies of a presidential campaign that was in place long before Ryan got there.

    A Ryan campaign spokesman, Brendan Buck did not specifically address the discrepancy but said Ryan’s views are in line with Romney’s. Ryan’s campaign also notes that they believe that Obama already has the tools needed to crack down on China, and doesn’t need any legislation from Congress.

    “Like Governor Romney, Congressman Ryan believes America must take aggressive action to confront nations like China that cheat on trade,” Buck said in a statement. “He believes this can be done most effectively when the president has the freedom to take appropriate action, and that we need a president like Governor Romney who is committed to doing just that instead of one like President Obama who has shown he won’t.”

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm still amazed that the Romney/Ryan duo treat American citizens with such contempt. Are they so out of touch that they believe the US electorate, are not only semi-illiterate, but unable to research Romney's voting record? I find it staggering, and if I were a US citizen, i'd probably feel pretty offended, too.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's a bit unclear at the moment who's driving the RR bus.
        There are bound to be some wrinkles to iron out as each one rushes to adopt the other's positions. Thus causing him to have to flip-flop on his own.
        Ryan's a quick study, tho. He's picking it up quite well.
        And Romney's mastered that task quite well as he clawed his way over each of the other RNC primary candidates.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He's a slick rick all right. Interesting though, that he has Murdoch's full support. If only M could find that voice? Not sure it's gonna be enough though. Obama, at least from this side of the pond, does not seem to be in nearly enough trouble for slick rick to make a lasting impression on the electorate. Rmoney's gonna need some bounce in the next few weeks to make headway. I doubt he'll get it.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It took a little research the is the real deal.

      Paul Ryan has a long history talking about the D valuation of the Chinese money. And it is also true that he voted against the bill that MM pointed out. But he did not vote against that bill because he was against the issue, he voted against the bill because of the way they were looking to come to a solution. The way the bill is set up they would have been extra tariffs and taxes on the products, and of course China just would've ended those costs to the products and pass them on to us the consumer. The fact of the matter is that the House of Representatives passed that bill, it went to the Senate, and it is still sitting there. So before the Democrats keep pointing to the fact Ryan voted against it, answer the question as to why in two years that sits in the Senate and they haven't even voted on it yet.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You raise good points, as usual, AV.
        Thanks for the added layer of scrutiny on this.
        1. I cannot explain and I'm sure Ryan cannot explain why the bill is stalled in the Senate.
        2. However, the House vote of 348-79, of which Ryan voted in the distinct minority, tells us something about him and his position within the House.
        3. It's really the whole "get tough on" stance (I call it posturing) that concerns me. Me 'n Mitt will be tough on China. Me 'n Mitt will be tough on Iran. Me 'n Mitt will be tough on ____________fill in the blank, because negotiation and compromise are for wimps.

        Ryan and his buddies got "tough on" the debt ceiling and as a result America's credit rating got downgraded. Thanks, guys!

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this


          You know how many elections cycles have we heard the same " get tough" montra. I agree with you it is getting tiring. I hope someone really does get tough soon because we need it

          1. Mighty Mom profile image92
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            True, AV.
            Last election cycle (2010) it was about getting tough on Congress.
            We're doing an excellent job of getting tough on our own citizens.
            Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
            If we don't have the basic LIFE necessities like a job or a roof over our heads*, the rest is pretty much rhetorical, dontcha think?

            *I would also include decent education to enable us to function in life as productive adults. I also would add access to affordable healthcare, but that's opening another can of worms.

            So what do we do? We allow ourselves to become distracted and DIVIDED by a myriad of secondary issues.
            At the end of the day, owning guns, using birth control and who marries who are not primary issues. Obama's birth certificate and Romney's tax returns are not primary issues.
            I will admit to being a willing participant in the distraction.
            Why? Because the primary issues are too awful to wrap my little brain around.


    3. 50 Caliber profile image59
      50 Caliberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      M.Mom, I oft times wonder when I look at issues of who voted how on an act or bill, was it the vote for or against the act or bill in the Language of title that is all most Americans understand, IMHO, it leaves so much hidden inside of many bills that fails to get press and the Average American is not informed of earmarks and additives that if they were removed...... there remains the chance that the votes would be different, no?
      I don't know but always curious as to the TRUE stakes of a vote that I'm never told. Leaving me ashamed of the way America thinks and acts without any full knowledge of the motives of votes, yay or nay.
      I believed in them once and became a Marine with a career in mind until I found the truth of why I had to witness the ultimate price so many times for a "Police Action" that most certainly was war, never meant to be won in the first place.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You've said a mouthful, my friend.
        It's entirely possible that Congresspeople may vote against a bill based on the earmarks buried deep within it.
        Such that the votes themselves become extremely imperfect gauges of how the Congress is really voting on issues. But that's the system.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    If the British gov does a military assault on the Ecuadorian embassy, to get Assange, one can consider the world social order in a state of anarchy.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing would surprise me about the UK Government. However, i think it's just posturing. Can't see it, the Coalition is in enough trouble, I hope (really hope) that the masses would not stand for that.