Werthless wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Demand-side economics. We might want to give it a try since the (more or less) last 30 years of the other strategy hasn't worked.

I disagree with your opinion that no one has been trying counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy (ie. Keynesianism) in recent history. This is the entire motivation behind the stimulus package, quantitative easing, TARP, etc of recent history; they were done to increase demand. And then there's the uncomfortable Keynesian evidence of the Great Depression.

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's impressive how many people on BSG know more about politics than Mitt Romney's inner circle and have access to the focus group/polling work they've done testing various messages

So based on quotes coming out of Mitt's campaign and what Silver said, it looks like this pick wasn't about focus groups or polling. It was about Mitt feeling comfortable with Ryan and liking the fact that they both want the rich to have all the wealth in the world, or something like that. His campaign didn't want Ryan. So it looks like your sarcastic remark was way off the mark.

jerseyhoya wrote:I imagine this was something that worked.

Warszawa wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Demand-side economics. We might want to give it a try since the (more or less) last 30 years of the other strategy hasn't worked.

I disagree with your opinion that no one has been trying counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy (ie. Keynesianism) in recent history. This is the entire motivation behind the stimulus package, quantitative easing, TARP, etc of recent history; they were done to increase demand. And then there's the uncomfortable Keynesian evidence of the Great Depression.

I believe the money the government spent on the TARP went to the wrong people in a demand side model - it should have went to the middle and working classes, not big corporate banks. The stim worked to a point but wasn't big enough as many economists said when it passed. The depression years were thwarted by conservative efforts to stop government spending and it was the biggest stim of all (WWII) that helped take us out of it

Phan In Phlorida wrote:ah tee hee

Doll Is Mine wrote:I don't know who's advising the Romney camp these days but the last thing I'd want to do is prolong the Medicare discussion. Releasing an ad like that will backfire on them. There's not a single person, the right included, who actually believes that Obama or the Democrats is a threat to Medicare.

But by all means, keep going there.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:I don't know who's advising the Romney camp these days but the last thing I'd want to do is prolong the Medicare discussion. Releasing an ad like that will backfire on them. There's not a single person, the right included, who actually believes that Obama or the Democrats is a threat to Medicare.

But by all means, keep going there.

Although I agree that it's a bad discussion, I think you're seriously underestimating the average American's tendency to believe anything that the TV tells them.

jerseyhoya wrote:Did you both miss the 2010 elections?

TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Right.
TAPPER: A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: You saw that with the ‘doc fix.’
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?
OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria.

Werthless wrote:The issue that I have is that counter-cyclical fiscal policy is a pipedream... no man-made government has the discipline to run a surplus in non-recessions.

Werthless wrote:Eh, sorry I don't really ave much energy for these kinds of debates anymore. I enjoy reading you guys, though.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama conceded the bill was paid for by cutting Medicare and said he'd veto any attempt to change it. I'm sure there's plenty of nuance or accounting bs the ad is leaving out, but for a campaign ad this cycle, that one up there is pretty close to true.

TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Right.
TAPPER: A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: You saw that with the ‘doc fix.’
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?
OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria.

President Obama in 2009 Pledged to Veto Attempts to Undo Medicare Cuts

Democrats are going to shamelessly tell seniors that Romney/Ryan will take away their Medicare when the plan doesn't touch current beneficiaries or anyone 55 or older. Pointing out to them that Obama took hundreds of billions of dollars out of the program can help bring that to a draw and allow us to get back to talking about the economy without losing ground.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:The issue that I have is that counter-cyclical fiscal policy is a pipedream... no man-made government has the discipline to run a surplus in non-recessions.

President Clinton would like a word... though it's probably a fair point that if he had Dem majorities in Congress at the time, it wouldn't have happened. For us to run surpluses probably requires both crazy good growth and divided government.

Werthless wrote:Eh, sorry I don't really ave much energy for these kinds of debates anymore. I enjoy reading you guys, though.

I can dig it, though I'm not sure that for me it's a question of energy so much as the realization that when I really get into arguments in this thread, the only result I can be sure of is that I get pissed off. FWIW, the issues you tend to raise are often ones I can engage on without that happening, which I appreciate.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The more I read the more I think Ryan's biggest potential liability is with single women.