Posts Tagged ‘Paul Ryan
An electoral college computer model which has accurately predicted every Presidential election since 1980 is signaling a landslide victory for Romney in November, 320 to 218.
While media outlets generally call the race with a slight Obama victory, those analyses rely on current polling data and do not take into account how trends will break as the election nears. This model, on the other hand, examines more meaningful data like economic statistics from individual states. It suggests voters hold Democrats responsible for high unemployment, and Republicans responsible for low per-capita income. Democrats tend to lose the White House anytime unemployment is above 5.6%.
It’s worth noting that Dick Morris has been predicting a big Romney win for awhile now.
Of course it’s still too early to truly call this race and anything can happen between now and November. Still, the results of this prediction have to be concerning to the Obama re-election team.
I’ve been trying to learn as much about economics as I can over the past few weeks. I was not an economics major in college…in fact…I never took an economics class because it wasn’t a requirement for my major. I’ve always just sort of fluffed over the subject and knew barely the basics. I decided that now is the time to dig in and learn a few things because if I am going to convince some of my liberal friends that we have got to get Obama out of the White House before he pushes our country over a cliff, I’d better be able to back up what I’m saying.
I started thinking about the difference in economic theories embraced by the 2 parties in Congress. I realize that there are some who fall somewhere in between, unfortunately, someone who is an elected democrat in Congress had better put any conservative ideas they may have out of sight and vote in line with their party. The same goes for the Republicans too.
I recently read an article by William Anderson that summed up the Keynesian theory of economics….which is the theoryour current President likes to embrace. It is the hallmark of famed (I use the term loosely) economist Paul Krugman’s beliefs. Anderson writes that “Krugman has almost a religious belief that borrowing and printing money and policies of spending for the sake of spending will pull the country out of a recession. Borrowing from future generations (or repudiating the debt through inflation) is nothing more than making a claim on futurewealth. Furthermore, Krugman’s recommendations do nothing to address the current set of malinvestments which plague the economy, not to mention the huge added burden of government-imposed costs which make production of wealth more difficult.”
So…Krugman is a firm believer that we need to spend even more to get out of this recession…not cut spending. He thinks that the government should print more and more money and flood the system to encourage spending because the more people spend, the more goods will fly off the shelves in stores and this will create the need for more jobs to replace those goods….and so on and so on. Krugman seems to ignore that fact that printing more money will lead to inflation. Those goods are going to cost a whole lot more and people are going to end up cutting back on buying these goods and this is going to hurt the economy.
In contrast to the Keynesian theory is Paul Ryan’s budget plan titled ” The Path to Prosperity”. His plan follows these basic guidelines.
- ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION: Fosters a better environment for private-sector job creation by lifting debt-fueled uncertainty and advancing pro-growth tax reforms.
- SPENDING CUTS AND CONTROLS: Stops Washington from spending money it does not have on government programs that do not work. Locks in spending cuts with spending controls.
- REAL SECURITY: Fulfills the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans by making the tough decisions necessary to save critical health and retirement programs.
- PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE: Repeals and defunds the President’s health care law, advancing instead common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs, expanding access and protecting the doctor-patient relationship.
- RESTORING AMERICA’S EXCEPTIONAL PROMISE: Tackles the existential threat posed by rapidly growing government and debt, applying the nation’s timeless principles to this generation’s greatest challenge. Ensures that the next generation inherits a stronger, more prosperous America.
Needless to say, Obama and the Democrats didn’t like Paul Ryan’s plan at all. Cutting spending means cutting government entitlement programs and that would mean making many of the democrat voters furious. They want their Obama money. The really insane thing is that Obama has managed to infuriate his base anyway by not being “Keynesian” enough. Paul Krugman has ended up being one of Obama’s biggest critics because he thinks Obama is lowering himself to compromise with the Republicans. Krugman thinks that we didn’t have enough money in the stimulus package. He wants more, more, more! The bigger the debt…the happier Krugman will be.
So, the Tale of Two Pauls can be summed up like this….
Cut spending or spend more?
Obama needs to listen to Paul Ryan….not Paul Krugman.
* Paul Ryan looked great
* Paul Ryan speaks adequately
* Paul Ryan did not make any gaffes
* This speech was completely forgettable
* Ryan spoke in many generalities and did not bring this home to people on the household level
* Could have been lifted out of a movie of a Republican talking on TV, at any point in recent history, not really feeling of the moment
The best choice to deliver the Republicans’ State of the Union Response would have been Michele Bachmann. The second best choice would have been Allen West. The third choice would have been Governor Palin.
I think Paul Ryan would have been 11 or 12th. It’s nothing against him, because he is a very nice man…but the GOP needs to start putting more engaging and exciting people on television for these things — not unthreateningly attractive white men in suits who look like the political figures on TV in various movies, who are just talking on the TV as background in scenes where they need to deliver some sort of exposition to move the plot forward. Like in “The Pelican Brief” or something.
Ryan has a wonderful voice for lullabies. But he does not hold the viewer’s interest because his voice is so monotone. He is most likely an excellent father because children respond really well to this sort of voice. It’s calming and nonthreatening, but somewhat commanding. He’s saying things he clearly thinks are important, but there’s nothing that compels a viewer to keep listening to him intently, afraid they will miss something.
I think he reminds me most of high school English class where the teacher picked someone to read his essay aloud to the class, and he knows the subject matter and work so well he just sort of drones through it, oblivious to the people in the class who are not paying attention.
Not everyone is a rockstar public speaker, and Ryan has a lot of other talents.
But, for these things, the GOP needs to wise up and start picking people who are rockstar public speakers. It’s not like they don’t have a handful of those in their ranks now. Bachmann. West. Palin. I am sure you can think of more.
This was an okay, forgettable performance that doesn’t leave anything to make fun of…unlike Bobby Jindal’s complete disaster in 2009. That will not be forgotten for a very long time.
I still can’t remember who delivered the Republicans’ response in 2010. In 2012, I won’t remember that Paul Ryan gave the response this year.
Sometimes I think the GOP’s goal with these things is just to play it as safe and forgettable as possible. When they take risks on someone, like Jindal, they look foolish more often than not because they are taking risks on the wrong people.
Jindal was picked because he’s Indian, and GOP consultants said the GOP should have an ethnic person deliver the first response to the exotic Obama in 2009, and look how that turned out.
Stop listening to these consultants, dummies, and start picking people who use every moment on television to sock Obama right in the face. Like Bachmann, West, and Palin do. There is a reason these people are so popular with such a large cross section of the country…and it’s partly because they are so damn interesting and memorable.
AND all three know how to sit in front of a camera and captivate people they can’t see and will never meet. That’s a rare gift, which the GOP sadly never seems to properly appreciate.
CONTRAST: Look how much better Paul Ryan does when he’s speaking extemporaneously, without a TelePrompTer and he’s not reading into the camera.
His voice has emotion and passion in it. He’s quick with facts that hit hard and home fast. He’s engaging and lively.
Where was THIS Paul Ryan last night?
Honestly, I know exactly what happened here. Paul Ryan was coached by the Cocktail Party’s consultants.
These people always tell people to tone it down, to be subdued, to speak in lullaby tones and monotones. I honestly believe these people work for the Democrats and are double agents. They tend to take the standout, unique, hardhitting Republicans and turn them into milquetoast soggy sandwiches.
I don’t think that’s who Paul Ryan is at heart, but it’s sure as cucumber and mayonnaise who he looked like last night.
Unlike, below, where he’s consultant-free and speaking for himself.
Even if it’s 9am when you are reading this and your body insists you need waffles, pop some Orville Reddenbacher and then come back to your screen.
This is a great video to start your day with. It’s what Republicans should do day in and day out from now until 2012.
No more soggy cucumber and mayonnaise Mittens Romney approved sandwiches.