Personally I don't think this makes the election a slam dunk for Obama. I see what I think is a strong line of attack for reps now, which could work on the emotional "don't like numbers" mentality of the general pop.Quote from AK Forty Seven:
I think dems are more excited about this pick then republcans![]()
Spending is in the same mode. Borrow more then half of what you spend. Borrow it against future tax payers payments.Quote from Free Thinker:
what politicians who pander to the tea party fail to understand is that they are mostly hypocrites. they want spending cuts but just dont touch their benefits. they want the cuts to come from that other guy.
SS will be fine so long as the boomers are not immortal.Quote from Mercor:
SS and Medicare will cease to exist as we know it if nothing is done.
Ryan has a plan to save it
Maybe not. But to answer the question about how he can win election seven times in a dem district, the standard answer which suffices for most politicians is simply that he does not actually do what he says he'll do. : )Quote from wjk:
Gleeful times for dems...or not.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313732/smart-democrats-should-be-worried-john-fund
"No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.
First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent â in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote...
...Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger version of the devil theyâve tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental issues in a weak economy. Thatâs precisely how Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for years afterwards."
Maybe it's not game over just yet.
Good post.Quote from Ricter:
Reps have put themselves in this bizarre position. For the decades of my life (with the recent flop now that Obama is killing the enemy) they have been the hawks, the foreign adventurers, the "securers" of America's resources "accidentally" located abroad, yet at the same time they insist on very low taxes. They think this can work because this one time, when they cut taxes, revenues rose, but ignoring the fact that it was their military spending which inflated GDP. The result of those two contradictory goals? Deficits and debt have exploded, turning the country into a debtor nation. Now, a big recession comes along (the product of people gambling to secure some kind of decent retirement) and scares the shit out of people, so suddenly it's "government is too big!", completely ignoring the data which indicates we are a middling spending but low taxing country. The fear begets the Tea Party, a mass of pitiable boomers whose members (45%) will not have so much as ten grand to their name in their senior years, and who of course cannot afford tax increases, to where they should have been all along, so all they can see is spending cuts. Finally, here comes the plutocrats' accountant, Ryan, who "educates" us that the lack of currency circulating among the general population is a result of too much spending (13% of the country's budget, whoa!) on the young, the poor, the old, the sick.
/rant