Paul Krugman

[$tevie]

The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinio...omics.html

[Grace62]

The good news is that, like last year's Ryan plan, this budget has no chance of passing the Senate. Democrats running for the Senate need only point to this budget as the reason the Senate cannot turn over to the GOP this fall.

[$tevie]

I hope the Democrats can use it to their advantage. They so often seem to trip all over their own feet.

[Sam3]

:agree: They really are incompetent at getting their message out.

If they were smart, the Democrats would start going after the emotions and not the logic. Logic might be correct, but that doesn't get people up in arms. Emotions get people up in arms and that is what the Right is doing quite well. This is why, I think, the Democrats lost the blue collar everyman vote. President Bush played that up quite well, he was a President that Joe Everyman could have a beer with. President Obama's team needs to start getting that "everyman" feeling about the President out into the voting public. He needs to be seen as being able to relate to everyman, what better way for him to do that than to shoot some hoops, and not with just some NBA superstars. I'm already seeing anti-Obama ads that tie the President with Wall Street fat cats, the Democrats need to counter such ads.

[vision63]

Sam3 wrote:
:agree: They really are incompetent at getting their message out.

If they were smart, the Democrats would start going after the emotions and not the logic. Logic might be correct, but that doesn't get people up in arms. Emotions get people up in arms and that is what the Right is doing quite well. This is why, I think, the Democrats lost the blue collar everyman vote. President Bush played that up quite well, he was a President that Joe Everyman could have a beer with. President Obama's team needs to start getting that "everyman" feeling about the President out into the voting public. He needs to be seen as being able to relate to everyman, what better way for him to do that than to shoot some hoops, and not with just some NBA superstars. I'm already seeing anti-Obama ads that tie the President with Wall Street fat cats, the Democrats need to counter such ads.

That's what Clinton was good at. It would help if Obama had a good-hearted but imbecilic brother.

[Grace62]

Sam3 wrote:
:agree: They really are incompetent at getting their message out.

If they were smart, the Democrats would start going after the emotions and not the logic. Logic might be correct, but that doesn't get people up in arms. Emotions get people up in arms and that is what the Right is doing quite well. This is why, I think, the Democrats lost the blue collar everyman vote. President Bush played that up quite well, he was a President that Joe Everyman could have a beer with. President Obama's team needs to start getting that "everyman" feeling about the President out into the voting public. He needs to be seen as being able to relate to everyman, what better way for him to do that than to shoot some hoops, and not with just some NBA superstars. I'm already seeing anti-Obama ads that tie the President with Wall Street fat cats, the Democrats need to counter such ads.

I get that "have a beer with the candidate" thing but that's not at all how or why I choose a leader, and I think I'm not alone in this.

I don't expect to EVER have a beer with the President, or coffee or anything, (although that'd be awesome!!)

What I DO expect is a leader who is intelligent, well-educated, ethical, views leadership as service, has a global perspective and sees our country as a partner in the world, and has some remote understanding of the struggles of everyday people in this country.

I vote on reason, not emotion.

What a complete joke for Republicans to try to make Obama look out of touch, given his upbringing, when they are running MITT ROMNEY!!??

[davester]

Grace62 wrote:
I don't expect to EVER have a beer with the President, or coffee or anything, (although that'd be awesome!!)

What I DO expect is a leader who is intelligent, well-educated, ethical, views leadership as service, has a global perspective and sees our country as a partner in the world, and has some remote understanding of the struggles of everyday people in this country.

I vote on reason, not emotion.

What a complete joke for Republicans to try to make Obama look out of touch, given his upbringing, when they are running MITT ROMNEY!!??

That is exactly how I feel. I don't want the democrats to stoop to the pandering and propagandizing level of the republicans just to reel in votes. I think they'd lose as many voters as they gained if they took this path.

What I would like would be some type of mechanism that could expose the complete and utter BS that is spouted by the republicans and propagandized by their outlets (Fox News, am talk radio, etc) without fear that factual corrections will ever reach the ears of their sheep listeners.

[RgrF]

davester wrote:

That is exactly how I feel. I don't want the democrats to stoop to the pandering and propagandizing level of the republicans just to reel in votes. I think they'd lose as many voters as they gained if they took this path.

What I would like would be some type of mechanism that could expose the complete and utter BS that is spouted by the republicans and propagandized by their outlets (Fox News, am talk radio, etc) without fear that factual corrections will ever reach the ears of their sheep listeners.

Just where do you think those voters would go, would they not vote in protest? The real problem might actually be about how a candidate who pandered to win would later feel about the process and how they'd govern as a result.

To take office with the feeling people know you and the issues you espouse is different than taking the oath while thinking you may have won through manipulation rather than merit.

I'm not suggesting that elections aren't manipulative but would suggest that those who gain power this way inevitably seek to retain power through means other than straightforward campaigns; means like vote suppression and rigged electronic voting come to mind.