bbauska wrote:Has the deficit increased? Yes it has, and lately at a faster rate. If Congress and the President are wanting to do anything about the budget then I don't see it.

We could equally point out that the Romney tax plans would appear to add to the deficit, so does that mean he also doesn't 'want' to address it?

As far as I can see, the impasse in Congress is not because one side wants to address the deficit and the other not, it's more that the two sides want to do completely different things about it, and neither is doing much to compromise.

Purple wrote:

bbauska wrote:It will be a battle between those who want something done about the deficit and those who don't.

This seems to me to be a pretty silly statement. Who doesn't want to do "something" about the deficit?

Instead of "want something done", if Bauska had said "have a a plan to deal with the deficit", would you see it as an important statement. I'm not saying that Romney-Ryan have a coherent plan to deal with the deficit, but they have released a budget and a long term forecast based on that budget, which shows real deficit reduction.

I haven't seen that from the Democrats. Have you?

I have said BOTH sides have a problem. Ryan put forth a plan. It did not go to a balanced budget immediately, but at least it showed balance in the future.
Did Obama's? NO!
Did the Democrat's? What budget? They showed even more cowardice.

I have said that since both sides want different things done w/ the budget, nothing gets done. As something NEEDS to be done we should cut ALL departments equally. (20% actual cut, not after projected increases)

Ray Jay wrote:Instead of "want something done", if Bauska had said "have a a plan to deal with the deficit", would you see it as an important statement.

I certainly wouldn't have picked on it.

Admittedly, the choice of Ryan does raise the visibility of the deficit as an issue, and that will help the GOP. The problem for Romney is that it also pushes other issues to the fore, such as the future of Medicare. It opens the door to effective Dem scare-mongering of seniors, something they are VERY good at and have used in more than one election to achieve victory.

Actually Jay Cost talks about how any possible Democratic Mediscare campaign may actually help the Republicans. The key part is

. Obamacare exacerbates the problems in the Medicare system, since it takes $700 billion from Medicare to fund the newly created entitlement. Even the chief actuary for the Medicare and Social Security systems, Richard Foster, concludes that Obamacare will likely yield cutbacks in services to senior citizens rendered by Medicare.

So the first time the Democrats run an ad about the Ryan budget plan ending Medicare, the Republicans respond with an ad centered around the Foster quote.

Well given that Ryan is an Ayn Rand fan, I'm sure seniors will be happy to hear that they are "parasites" on the rest of us....Ryan's philosophy makes his budget plan particularly scary. Another Ayn Rand adherent (Greenspan) contributed significantly to the finanical meltdown of 2008. And I think seniors know that they are in better shape with Obama than Romney and a guy who believes in having no safety net, Archduke

bbauska

Ryan put forth a plan. It did not go to a balanced budget immediately, but at least it showed balance in the future.

2040
If you agree with the math.
And if you beleive that the nonspecifics on which tax breaks he;d cut will be satisfactorily addressed. A lot of the biggest items appear to be untouchable. (mortgage interest)

Ryan’s plan envisions a broadening of the tax base and a lowering of individual income tax rates from a maximum of 35% at the moment, to 25%. There would be one lower tax rate of 10% for those filing jointly with income under $100,000. It would end some tax breaks and deductions to help bring in revenue, although his plan doesn’t specify which ones. The big ticket items, like mortgage interest and charitable deductions, are unlikely targets. Similarly, Ryan’s plan would reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and remove exemptions. His most recent budget would bring in $37 trillion in tax revenue over ten years compared to the White House’s most recent plan, which would bring a little over $40 trillion over the same period.
Ryan’s plan would spend $6.8 trillion less over ten years than the current White House budget. Those cuts come primarily from the health care programs; defense spending is untouched.
The Ryan plan’s budget deficit would be around 1% of GDP over the next ten years. It is not projected to balance the budget until 2040.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/11/th ... z23MSmyFJs

purple

The most predictive survey questions are the "most like me" sort and the "would prefer to have a beer with" sort.

I've never seen any evidence that bears this out.... I'd be interested if you have anything...
People tend to vote in what they perceive is their self interest. If they haven't a clear idea about who's likely to act in their interests they might go with who's more likable... But they won't take likeability over a clear case of someone acting against their interest.

Ricky: I have no proof, though I suppose it wouldn't be impossible to dig up old surveys if you had all the resources. It's my impression, having paid some attention to such things for the last 11 elections or so. That's all. As for voting against their interests: you were smart to add the words "a clear case" to your last sentence, because it can be awfully tough to tell 1) whether your short-term and long-term interests line up with the same candidate, and 2) who really best represents your interests in either case.

Can you think of a case where the more likable candidate lost? The most recent I can think of is Nixon/McGovern, but McGovern was hardly a warm and fuzzy sort of guy. Stevenson was possibly more likable than Eisenhower but that was before even my time. (I worked as a volunteer for McGovern!)

EDIT: and BTW, the two questions I mentioned weren't exactly the "most likable" one. "Most like me" is a combination of the "shared values" sort of question and a matter of being able to identify with someone's background and situation. And "would prefer to have a beer with" certainly includes likability but also touches on respect/admiration, thinking the guy has interesting things to say, and so on. Bottom line, what I'm saying is that people often don't go through careful analytics of policy positions before voting; often they prefer sincerity and other character traits they consider important, and which they mostly judge by gut feelings. Further, I'd say that this isn't such a bad thing.

There are some psychological studies that indicate voters may base their decisions on a politician's appearance. My recollection of one study was that people were shown photos of two candidates that were running for office (the people surveyed did not know the candidates) and just based on the photos were able to predict 70% of the time who won the election. So when a voter says that a candidate is likeable they may be responding to something they see in a candidate's face (strength or some other characteristic) rather than some thought out assessment of a candidate's personality. I suspect that this ability to detect who will win an election based on a photograph is based on an evolutionarilhy deweloped sensitivity to what a stranger's face tells yoiu as opposed to what are they saying.

So, yes, I agree with Purple on the likeability factor and evolution would explain why we would vote for a candidate whose policies we may not approve of, but there is something in his/her face that we trust or respect.

Ryan entered office in 1999.

As for Ryan himself, to begin with, what policies turned Clinton-era surpluses into Bush-era deficits? In large part, two tax cuts, two wars and a massive prescription drug benefit, and Ryan voted for all of them. (He also voted for TARP, by the way; his fiscal rectitude only included actually voting against massive expenditures once President Obama took office.) His “serious” debt-reduction plan doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. By contrast, the House Progressive Caucus budget, whatever else you think of it, balances the budget within a decade.(Note: In both cases, those are the budgets’ authors’ projections; your math may vary.) Furthermore, no doubt in fear of the senior vote, Ryan dropped the Social Security privatization aspect from his debt plan and now only guts Medicare for people 55 and younger. Finally, Ryan refuses to touch defense spending, retains tax breaks for oil companies that don’t need them, zeroes out the capital gains tax and finds his savings in programs by shredding the already hole-ridden safety net.

A useful resource regarding Ryan, from a highly biased source: HERE

It's basically oppo research by an organization that describes themselves as "a progressive research and communications organization committed to holding Republicans accountable for their words and actions and helping you ascertain when Republican candidates are pretending to be something they’re not."

I wouldn't post it were it not the case that many links to primary sources are provided. But even so, be warned that the authors intended to include nothing good about Ryan. Use it and you'll inevitably get a lop-sided view of him.

Purple is right to a significant degree, which is bad news for Romney because I certainly can't imagine too many candidates I'd less like to have a beer with. Not that I'm a voter of course.

purple

Further, I'd say that this isn't such a bad thing

.

Isn't that how you ended up with George Bush? Twice?

sass

which is bad news for Romney because I certainly can't imagine too many candidates I'd less like to have a beer with

.

And it would have to be a root beer.

Purple wrote:A useful resource regarding Ryan, from a highly biased source: HERE

It's basically oppo research by an organization that describes themselves as "a progressive research and communications organization committed to holding Republicans accountable for their words and actions and helping you ascertain when Republican candidates are pretending to be something they’re not."

I wouldn't post it were it not the case that many links to primary sources are provided. But even so, be warned that the authors intended to include nothing good about Ryan. Use it and you'll inevitably get a lop-sided view of him.

Although not Purple, I am purple and find it disgusting how each party and their supporters attempt to paint any pick from the other side as extremist. The Democratic attack on Ryan is now at a feverish pace; they are trying to define the man as an extremist before the vast majority of the electorate can meet the man and find out who he is. (Both parties do this, and it is a real disservice to the voters, those people who they claim to represent.)