Ryan as VP is a brilliant move by the one percent

[woo me with science]

to make sure the public welcomes, rather than revolts against, new rounds of austerity and cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security....the traditional Third Rail of American politics.

They know Romney can't win. They know Ryan can't win.

The purpose of Ryan is to fill the election season with horror stories of what his budget would do to us, so that when Obama is reelected, the country welcomes and embraces the planned bipartisan Deficit Commission's Grand Bargain II as a humane, even generous, plan.




We have to keep in mind what the real goal is. They want to ease us into austerity, and they fear public revolt more than anything else.

[sabrina 1]

1. Hi wmws!

Nice to see you here.

I do think that 'Austerity' is on the table, however I think they will have a huge fight on their hands and even those who are being quiet now because of the election, will be outraged if they are betrayed like that.

Watching what is going on in Europe, it would be insane to allow those failed policies to be implemented here.

[No Elephants]

4. Great to see both of you! Love your avatar, too.

[sabrina 1]

11. Hi, thank you, I keep meaning to come over and losing the link

but someone posted it again in the thread about madfloridian so here I am :-)

Can you see my avatar here, it is figure skates which Electric Monk made for me. I cannot see it here. Or did you mean the dancing girl on the bull? I love that also.

[woo me with science]

14. Hey, No Elephants,

Good to see you! Good to see the old DU, too.

I miss it. :(

But you are doing an awesome job here. :) :) :)

[woo me with science]

13. LOL, fancy meeting you here!

I keep forgetting this place is here, and it is my very favorite part of DU.

I hope you are right about the huge fight on their hands. It seems to me that they came awfully close last time, with disturbingly little pushback.

Of course, that all took the public pretty much by surprise...that debt ceiling "emergency." We have time to prepare for this. People are waking up to the game.

[No Elephants]

2. Hi. Great to see you!

[Enthusiast]

3. I believe you have it right.

Why did President Obama even create a deficit commission to start with?

And why did he appoint two anti-New Deal zealots to head it up? And remember, even the deficit commission voted down the commission's recommendations.

I would cut the military to a skeleton crew before I cut "entitlements". We know stealing the "Trust Fund" has been in the works for years.

Social security and medicare are REAL AMERICAN SECURITY, not faked up Bush-style security as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[woo me with science]

15. That would be an amazing campaign theme,

if we had a campaign that was interested in pushing it.

Real security versus fake security.

I drive myself crazy sometimes imagining the landslides we could get if we really focused on the issues that are important to people.

[No Elephants]

5. Ryan may energize some the base, but will alienate OASDI recipients.

Maybe this is more about Ryan 2016 than it is about Romney 2012?

Do I smell Koch?

I am surprissed. I thought sure it would be one of the interchangeable P candidates.

Color me wrong.

[woo me with science]

16. "...the interchangeable P candidates."

:rofl:

God, I hope you are wrong. Ryan 2016 would give me nightmares.

Honestly, I can't imagine Ryan coming out of this smelling like a rose to anyone, once the details of his plan come out. *Everyone* has elderly parents or friends or neighbors or concerns about their own old age or their children's future. I just don't see this country voting to give their loved ones measly Medicare vouchers or to slash the social security checks they depend on to live. It would be like opening the door to a wolf. The results would be quick and drastic and painful to so many, and the campaign will highlight all of that.

I do see us lapping up the alternative, though, and letting in some little wolverines who don't look quite as scary....They will start in at the toes and work up.

[No Elephants]

19. Thing is,

we could once distinguish between the parties based on Social Security, aka the third rail.

However, when both parties say it has to change, one negative change or another to Social Security goes from third rail to inevitablity.

And it just becomes a matter of which Party's change you hate least. Or which Party is more persuasive about its proposed change.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Yikes! I hope you're wrong. There's so much wealth to go around if only we'd reverse trends.

I see your point, though.

By contrast to Ryan's slaughter, austerity would look appealing.

Kinda like this, except for all public services:

[Divine Discontent]

7. good description of Ryan's budget!

slaughter is what will be to America's poor, elderly, etc... it's a joke!


Get it here:
http://www.zazzle.com/bushs_comeback_team_2012_bumper_sticker-128086037468948857?rf=238107662556833486

[No Elephants]

8. Love the graphic. It also fits if you lose all the words, except "American," then put an "s"

at the end of "American."

I am very interested in suggestions about what, if anything, we might have a chance of doing about it now, though, given no one jumped out of the pot 25 years, er, I mean 25 degrees ago.

(One definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result.)

[sabrina 1]

10. That graphic says it all. It is funny but so true!

:-(

[woo me with science]

12. That's fantastic!

Definitely one to copy and pass on....Thank you!

[No Elephants]

9. Woo Me, I read your OP too quickly.

I am cynical enough to believe that you could be right on the money.

Even if Ryan were not on the ticket, Obama was going to have to distinguish himself from the Ryan budget anyway, because Romney agreed with it. I think Romney and his backers knew that too and therefore surprised me by not going with one of the bland guys. At least, Ryan will help energize the Republican base, though, as I posted above, they may lose some Republican seniors and disabled folk.

So, I expected to hear a lot of populistic sounding language from Obama during the campaign.

But, campaign promises are a dime a dozen because the Democrats can blame Republican filibusters/"obstructionism," even if Republican are in the minority. So, the Democrats could promise to buy every adult American a Bentley, secure in the knowledge that Republicans would filibuster and it would never come to a vote. Then, the Democrats could tell their base the devil Republicans made them let down their base.

And, for their part, the Republicans can do their own version of that with their own base.

IMO, unless and until we lose the Senate filibuster rule, no one is going to be able to hold anyone accountable for anything. It lets both Parties block everything except the few things they agree on like wars, and endlessly foolish spending for "defense" and Homeland Security.

Whatever usefulness the 60 vote rule may have had in the 1840s or whenever it started, its only usefulness now is to help both parties hide from the people who elected them. And, now that you can have a filibuster without even saying a word, they don't even have to exert themselves.

I am more against the 60 vote rule than I am about the Citizens decision. There is not much that decision allows that was not being done already anyway, one way or the other, including foreign money, what with bundling and corporations donation in the names of their nearest and dearest 400 employees.

[woo me with science]

17. What a great post.

Someone sent me a link to this article a while back (apologies if it was you). I'm sure you have seen it, but just in case....

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Greenwald argues that just changing the rule won't fix everything - we have to get rid of the Third Wayers who are gaming the system....

"This is why, although I basically agree with filibuster reform advocates, I am extremely skeptical that it would change much, because Democrats would then just concoct ways to lack 50 votes rather than 60 votes — just like they did here..."

...but you are right that it certainly helps them to hide.

[No Elephants]

18. Thanks! No, changing the rule will not change everything, but it would enable us to see behind the

curtain.

Maybe Democrats (and Republicans) would find ways to lack fifty votes, but we would at least see which ones voted for or against something on substance.

And then, people could hold politicians accountable at the polls, or at least try to. At least they would know who they would like to hold accountable at the polls.


Right now, Democrats can just tell the left that Republicans foiled them with a faux filibuster and Republicans can just tell the right that Democrats foiled them with a faux filibuster. And neither base knows whom they would like to hold accountable because it's all a shell game.

I want to know which shell is hiding the damned peanut, don't you. I, mean, we pay their salaries and every other expense associated with Congress. Which employer in the private sector doesn't get to find out which of his or her employees was responsible for blocking an action the employer wanted them to take?

And I think I have a legal right to know, just like any other employer.

Indeed, I think the Framers contemplated that I would know. For one thing, the Constitution requires both houses to keep records of their proceedings. I think they would spin in their graves and kick themselves if they knew our "representatives" had come up with a one person secret hold, or a sixty person faux filibuster rule.

I think the people would finally do something if they only knew whom to blame for what--and that is what they try so hard to keep from the people. As it is, they just keep throwing out incumbents.

Also, their conventional wisdom is that people never vote against you for legislation you didn't pass, only for legislation you passed. So, passing as little as possible enahances their sense of job security, especially when each side can blame the other.

Supposedly, our entire system of public education was deemed necessary for national well being, to enable voters could vote intelligently. Yet, they do their best to keep from us some of the most relevant information--their actual voting records. And two of the ways they do that are the one person secret hold and the faux filibuster to prevent things from coming to a vote.

ETA: No, I was not the one who sent you that article, so no apologies necessary. In fact, no apologies necessary anyway. I don't expect everything I do to be burned in anyone's mind, especially since it's not even burned in my mind. I often come across one of posts and don't even recognize it!