Paul Ryan Requested Obamacare Funding!

[The Illusive Man]

Oh man this is a doozy. Special thanks goes to The Investigative Fund for finding this via FIOA request.

On December 10, 2010 Ryan wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services for a grant application. This application was for the Kenosha Community Health Center to build a new facility, the grant funds were only able to be requested due to the Affordable Care Act! See also: the New Access Points funding opportunity HRSA-11-017. He even specifically names such in his letter.

PDF of the request letter linked below. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA his signature is even on the request letter.

http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/105018842-Nation-Paul-Ryan-Letter.pdf

But wait, there's MOAR!

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/17/news/la-pn-paul-ryan-now-says-his-office-requested-stimulus-funds-20120817

“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said in a statement late Thursday. “This is why I didn't recall the letters earlier.”

Guy, guys, I personally wrote for the money but I did not remember it!

I am having flashbacks to when Ryan was against the Stimulus bill but used funds from it anyway.

But it gets even better! Kenosha provides family planning as a service too!

Opposing Arguments

1)
The classic Bush created it not Obama.
[Sarcasm]Why yes Bush created it in 2010, during his third term[/Sarcasm]

[ironbite]

....woooooooooooooooooow.

Ironbite-how much baggage does this idiot have?

[The Illusive Man]

....woooooooooooooooooow.

Ironbite-how much baggage does this idiot have?

A lot, I am willing to bet that as the campaign goes on more is to come. I cannot wait for the debates, the carnage will be fucking glorious if they can prevent them from trying to divert away from a question.

A pity they do not allow video, audio, or objects into the debate. That way a “Mitt strategy” could be created. Every time either Romney or Ryan makes a claim, Obama or Biden could then point out that they did the opposite of their claim, reference relevant data, then play/display such in full. All that would be would be needed is peanuts for the whole thing to become a circus.

Protip: I encourage anyone to spread the relevant info posted here for the sake of truth and epic LULZ. Then get some aspirin and watch as conservatives try to spin it as not hypocrisy but pragmatism. Thus by obtaining optional federal funds (grants are not obligatory) via a means they seek to eliminate they are not being hypocritical.

[Lt. Fred]

The important fact, I feel, is that all Republicans (and many Pseudocrats) will vote against Democratic policy that they agree with purely for propaganda purposes (Marxism/Nazism et al).

[The Illusive Man]

The important fact, I feel, is that all Republicans (and many Pseudocrats) will vote against Democratic policy that they agree with purely for propaganda purposes (Marxism/Nazism et al).

Even the moderates?

[Lt. Fred]

The important fact, I feel, is that all Republicans (and many Pseudocrats) will vote against Democratic policy that they agree with purely for propaganda purposes (Marxism/Nazism et al).

Even the moderates?

Take the PPACA. 34 Pseudocrats and 178 Republicans who agreed with the bill voted against it for propaganda reasons. Every Republican senator voted against the bill they supported. Ben Nelson, a Pseudocrat, threatened to fillibuster the bill he supported unless the President bow down to him (and was ultimately fucked off).

Like I always say, the Democrats are not a political party.

[m52nickerson]

Like I always say, the Democrats are not a political party.

...and you are always wrong.

Can we please not start with calling moderate Dems "Pseudocrats".  It's just like the teabaggers calling moderate republicans, or any thinking republican RINOs.

[Lt. Fred]

In a political party, holding the single most important signature bill of your party hostage- a bill you agree with- would not be possible.

[Veras]

This kind of thing is actually pretty common.  Almost every politician who rails against pork asks for it for their district.  It is very important to remember that a member of congress only represents their own district, not the country as a whole.  It is entirely possible for an officeholder to think that a policy is bad for the country (and therefore vote against) but still utilize the policy when it is created anyway if they see that it might somehow benefit their constituents.  Though it is interesting that he pretty clearly lied about forgetting that he made the request.

My favorite thing like this is the Southern governors who tried to reject stimulus funds, then took credit for the projects that were built with the exact same money.

[nickiknack]

When did Ben Nelson become a moderate?? Even in the fucked up right slanted political spectrum of the US, Ben Nelson is still kinda right leaning.

[The Illusive Man]

The important fact, I feel, is that all Republicans (and many Pseudocrats) will vote against Democratic policy that they agree with purely for propaganda purposes (Marxism/Nazism et al).

Even the moderates?

Take the PPACA. 34 Pseudocrats and 178 Republicans who agreed with the bill voted against it for propaganda reasons. Every Republican senator voted against the bill they supported. Ben Nelson, a Pseudocrat, threatened to fillibuster the bill he supported unless the President bow down to him (and was ultimately fucked off).

Like I always say, the Democrats are not a political party.

You fool! By categorizing political party(s) into a black and white comparison you ignore a fundamental procedure of such political systems, the Whip System. Parties have an internalized mechanism to whip members into line when the deviate due to: bribery, intrastate interest, personal interest (usually finical), ect. This political concept is not limited to the political system of the United States either!

This is literally political Science 101, literally.

[Lt. Fred]

The important fact, I feel, is that all Republicans (and many Pseudocrats) will vote against Democratic policy that they agree with purely for propaganda purposes (Marxism/Nazism et al).

Even the moderates?

Take the PPACA. 34 Pseudocrats and 178 Republicans who agreed with the bill voted against it for propaganda reasons. Every Republican senator voted against the bill they supported. Ben Nelson, a Pseudocrat, threatened to fillibuster the bill he supported unless the President bow down to him (and was ultimately fucked off).

Like I always say, the Democrats are not a political party.

You fool! By categorizing political party(s) into a black and white comparison you ignore a fundamental procedure of such political systems, the Whip System. Parties have an internalized mechanism to whip members into line when the deviate due to: bribery, intrastate interest, personal interest (usually finical), ect. This political concept is not limited to the political system of the United States either!

This is literally political Science 101, literally.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Democrats do not have a working 'whip system' (in Australia we call it party loyalty). Members can happily sabotage party objectives without consequence.

[The Illusive Man]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Democrats do not have a working 'whip system' (in Australia we call it party loyalty). Members can happily sabotage party objectives without consequence.

The same thing applies to the GOP, Boehner boner was his attempt to keep the extreme tea party in line then the debt ceiling fiasco hit. Then he called them Knuckle daggers with predictable results.

If dissent immediately destroys a party then there can be no parties because dissent is predictable in the field of politics. You are first and foremost dealing with a groups of people not automatons. Even when dealing with extremes there will be differences. A good political strategy makes use of such.

This is a boon for the Democrats as it demonstrates that Ryan does not have interest in representing the tea party when it comes to matters of obamacare and woman’s reproductive issues. Use this as one means to create a split between the tea party and the GOP because values are not shared.

[m52nickerson]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Democrats do not have a working 'whip system' (in Australia we call it party loyalty). Members can happily sabotage party objectives without consequence.

Australia also has a different system of government.  Which you always fail to understand.

[Vypernight]

I wonder whose idea was it to have the healthcare plan deny contraceptives but yet cover viagra.  In other words, men can have sex, yet women can't, yet men cannot have sex with each other.