Pressure on Romney to pick Ryan as VP

[Midnight Marauder]

Rope-a-dope isn't punching bag. If they are playing rope-a-dope they're not doing it right. That's all I am saying.

Choosing Ryan as VP is a attempt to get the debate back on matters of substance - a realm where Obama has zero chance to win, and he knows it.

[Toro]

I like it.

However, its tricky and has to be used deftly. Unfortunately, "deaf" seems a more appropriate word for Romney's campaign thus far than "deft."

[American Horse]

Coming soon: the catchy phrase, "Ryan wants to " 'Blow Up Medicare' "

Source for that is Senator Claire McCaskill on FNC this AM. She repeated that four times in a minute and a half.

[walruskkkch]

Not tacky enough. How about "Ryan wants to hijack a plane and fly into the twin towers of Medicare and Social Security." There, much better.

[moomin]

That wouldn't fly with Moslem-Americans. Or else it would. My head hurts.

[walruskkkch]

Well it would, but you can't say that.

[Thanatos144]

I think it is a good choice...It shows Romney is serious about the issues Obama is failing at...I guess that means everything since Obama is failing at everything.

[Toro]

The Ryan pick is a good one, if for no other reason in that it may catalyze an adult conversation this nation needs to have regarding the budget, one that we are not having.

However, it is probably swimming against the political tide. Over the past decade, middle class incomes have been stagnant while the top of the income strata has soared. If people can't achieve their aspirations out of the economic arena, they'll attempt to take it out of the political arena. Polls have consistently shown over the past 3-4 years that people are in favor of raising taxes on the rich and not cutting spending that matters to them. The Republicans have nominated a very rich guy who, fairly or not, is perceived to represent an industry which is seen as excessive and recipients of government largesse. He has picked a guy who is very much perceived to favor the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Ultimately, Ryan is correct and the Democrats are not. Taxes will have to be raised on the middle class or social spending will be cut, or some combination of the two. Taxes can go up on the rich somewhat without damaging the economy, but the rich cannot pay for it all. Americans are in La-La Land if they think otherwise.

The Democrats are moving towards "Californiaizing" the national economy, which is a bad thing not a good one. But in this environment, it's probably enough for Obama to win re-election.

[Midnight Marauder]

Originally Posted by Toro

The Ryan pick is a good one, if for no other reason in that it may catalyze an adult conversation this nation needs to have regarding the budget, one that we are not having.

However, it is probably swimming against the political tide. Over the past decade, middle class incomes have been stagnant while the top of the income strata has soared. If people can't achieve their aspirations out of the economic arena, they'll attempt to take it out of the political arena. Polls have consistently shown over the past 3-4 years that people are in favor of raising taxes on the rich and not cutting spending that matters to them. The Republicans have nominated a very rich guy who, fairly or not, is perceived to represent an industry which is seen as excessive and recipients of government largesse. He has picked a guy who is very much perceived to favor the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Ultimately, Ryan is correct and the Democrats are not. Taxes will have to be raised on the middle class or social spending will be cut, or some combination of the two. Taxes can go up on the rich somewhat without damaging the economy, but the rich cannot pay for it all. Americans are in La-La Land if they think otherwise.

The Democrats are moving towards "Californiaizing" the national economy, which is a bad thing not a good one. But in this environment, it's probably enough for Obama to win re-election.

But what's been happening is, "hidden" new and raised taxes on the middle class, buried in bills we have to pass before we find out what's in them.

But those can't make up for the 20 million taxpayers we lost, the "funemployed" as Obama and the Dems used to call them, who are no longer paying in. There's your "revenue problem."

But the fact is we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. When you put the 20 million "funemployed" back to work, revenue will explode without raising taxes on anyone. Because you'll have those 20 million people back, paying in.

It's been laid out many times before - you can confiscate 100% of ALL of the people's wages who make more than a million a year, and not even put a dent in this deficit. Therefore you KNOW for sure it's not a revenue issue.

Romney/Ryan should co-opt James Carville's line from the 1992 campaign, and update it for today:

"IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID!"

[American Horse]

Originally Posted by walruskkkch

Not tacky enough. How about "Ryan wants to hijack a plane and fly into the twin towers of Medicare and Social Security." There, much better.

Nice one I heard today is Romney and Ryan are out on a tour " taking no prisoners "

What happens when no prisoners are taken?
They shoot them and let god sort then out, right?

And why does the Republican party actually accept the characterization that they will "make things leaner and meaner?" tacitly to be their modus?
Why not "leaner and cleaner" if it leans that way?