Well, what other conclusion should be reached, since you have not show anything about how to teach anyone to fish.  Unless you can, you do believe in nothing but magic.  At least show exactly WHAT Ryan's plan is to get individuals sufficient education so they don't have to starve and can go fish.  If you can't, it likely means the issue really doesn't matter to you either.  Again, here is another take on that video in question about Ryan (I am trying to find the full video):

Maybe the conclusion that I don't want people to starve but rather that I think a freer and more dynamic economy creates more opportunity and feeds more people? Haha, just kidding. That'd be silly. By all means, continue in your overwrought emotionalism. Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad person, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

Then you'd be seeing the opposite, and the people quite capable of paying their way deciding not to.

Anyone else thinking of the "Suggested donation" scene from the Simpsons?

And what exactly are you disagreeing with, that somehow society, whether voluntarily, or through the use of government, has a role in getting people fish, and enabling them to train to be successful people who can fish?  I say that is a role of society collectively, and government can be a means.  And apparently, because you fail to give answers, and plead "overwrought emotionalism" as opposed to what? "Unemotional and cold not caring"?  

Creating more opportunites is part of it, but exactly are individuals able to take advantage of such opportunities, unless they get help, if they are disadvantaged?

Go back to the original video with the woman.  She brings home less than $200 a week, and works.  She asks how she is going to get a hand up to get out of that, and what Ryan proposes.  All I am seeing is you say is, "leave people alone and everything will sort itself out".  And exactly what is your proposal for a freer and more dynamic economy?  Is it that you eliminate all welfare, so people end up on the streets without housing, going from soup kitchen to soup kitchen?  They are freed of economic support needed to survive, and I guess they then could be free to be beggers like they are in China.  And then you allow a system to then end up having those that have get even more.

In this, when do people exactly learn how to fish and who pays the trainer, particularly those who are now homeless beggers because the former government support is behind.  Oh wait, churches, right?  My experience with a church my parents attend.  I ask them about a current situation I am in, and see what they can do.  You know what?  Try nothing.  Not their responsibility.  

The thing is, you operate under presumptions of magic that somehow no restraints and anyt demands put on others (these things called collective responsibilties) will magically alone end up making everything work out just fine.

It's not magic, and it's not perfect, but the free market system has been proven to be the best thing going. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any system around. That is simply a fact. You operate under this silly notion that what makes for a good politician is that they care the most, or at least profess to. There will always be poor people, but it's funny that there are a lot more of them under Obama, who supposedly cares soooooo very much about them. What about tomorrow's people? How is it anything short of a moral outrage to finance your great, all-loving, all-caring welfare state on their backs, stealing from tomorrow so people can live beyond their means today? But I suppose it serves all those little bastards right for the crime of... not being born yet. Do you care about them, or do you just care that you get yours?

As for Paul Ryan, I'm not going to answer for someone else. Fuck if I know or care what he thinks. But between their love of debt-financed welfarism and their pathological abortion fetishism and their willingness to let the public education system fail to teach kids how to fish year after year after year just to avoid making the teachers unions angry, the Democrats have no business pretending to care more about teh childrenz than those mean, old Republicans.

badgenome, 80% of what you do is create a caricature of whoever you're debating and mock it. That's funny when you're being funny, but when you're not joking it stops working.

I don't agree. I think partisanship has driven people to actually become caricatures of their ideologies. The primary driving force in partisan politics seems to be spite, and as partisans increasingly define themselves more by what they are not rather than by what they are, they come to resemble what the other side thinks them to be rather than whatever it is they originally were.

When someone accuses me of arguing in bad faith because everything I say is a smokescreen for the fact that I really just want people to starve to death, I'm at a loss as to why you think he doesn't deserve to be mocked.

There is a portion of Republicans, and conservatives, who take issue with the concept that the free market will magically end up taking care of everything.  Individuals like Mike Huckabee, who have been governors, had to deal with issues and support having a welfare system of some sort, but making it work.  It isn't just gut the safety net and hope for the best.  

As for there being more poor people now, DUH!  When an economy tanks, there are more poor people.  That happens.  It doesn't mean, however, that a society that consists of a free market and the only values it has is that of the market, is going to end up teaching anyone to fish.  And a market driven by people who end up believing you fire bad customers (this is a business principle by the way), is going to end up having more people fishing sufficiently.  It just doesn't happen.  Cutting welfare benefits merely cuts the budget.  It doesn't make the people on it suddenly get benefits.

And if you want to ask me my views, I don't have issue with government welfare, per-se, if that is how a society decides to help the disadvantaged.  I also don't have issues with it sufficiently doing things on a private level.  What I do have issue is with individuals who don't even bother to think these matter, and just claim  some sort of neglect as being a magic solution to resolve things, or who end up making the helping the poor as some sort of mark of moral superiority and focused on the giver. 

The reality is, whatever views you have, have consequences.  When you argue that there should be cuts, and propose no solution for this, you are supporting the consequences of such actions.  This can result in premature death.  It is the fallout of your beliefs.  This is reality.  Maybe you don't really like the idea of these consequences if you directly did them, but take them as the price of your beliefs.  People argue things aren't perfect as a mask for a lot of things that can be done better, but choose not to.

And with this, then it is asked to show otherwise.  I did ask you to show otherwise, AT LEAST, showing what Paul Ryan has proposed, as a way to get people trained sufficiently, since he said you teach to fish, rather than just feed fish (to them.  My point for posting was NOT to say Paul Ryan was feeding fish, but show that he told a woman who is on welfare and working poor, she can make it if she just had enough talent).  If you don't propose any way, or argue for it, you show you really don't care, and haven't given much thought.  You propose a belling of cats, rather than anything else.  It is down to rationalization level, the way Paul Ryan is.  Show otherwise for Paul Ryan.  The Bishops in his own church havet taken him to task over his policies on the poor (and his glorification of Ayn Rand):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-04-17/catholic-bishops-paul-ryan-budget/54361480/1

I'm quite tired of having this conversation with you over and over again. The fact that I continue to engage you in it makes me question my own sanity because every single time we have it, you refuse to accept the fact that the government is not society. Just because a government doesn't make charity and economic interventionism its mission, doesn't mean that society's only value is the free market. It just means that that society believes that there is a limit to what a government can and should do. This idea was at the very foundation of the United States, and yet - quite amazingly - the generation of the founders somehow managed to have other values than sheer, unfettered capitalism for its own sake. Yet time and time and time again you conflate society with its government. They are not the same thing, or at least they are not in a healthy society, and when they do become one and the same, that's when you have a serious problem because the people who drive society and decide what its values shall be do so not by reason and argument but by force and graft.