Because Ryan tackled Biden head on when pressured on the issue of tax loopholes and how he plans to balance the budget when they want to add 2 trillion dollars to military spending that their current tax plan will not be able to save enough money to account for. Even the moderator tried to ask Ryan how they were going to work that out but he dodged the issue at every turn. This article is so biased it hurts. I hate both of them but to say Biden was the one doing the emotional pandering and not Ryan is asinine.
Originally Posted by Nexus75
Of course it is; it's the Wall Street Journal, an obviously conservative rag. However, I will give WSJ limited points for not being as wholly and nakedly biased as say the likes of Forbes or Investor's Business Daily, both of which compete with Fox for printing the most blatant right-wing propaganda.
The best, most telling poll concerning the debate's 'winner' thus far has got to be CBS' poll of undecideds which put Biden at a decisive lead; 50% to 31%. A 19% difference among undecideds is huge. CNN's poll in the meanwhile put Ryan barely ahead with a smaller, Republican leaning sample size (381) that was effectively even given that Ryan's lead was not greater than the statistical margin of error. CNBC's poll has flipped back and forth between Ryan and Biden leading, typically with a narrow 1-5% difference.
On the subject of the Ryan/Romney plan, it's a complete crock to anyone who:
A: Recognizes that the claimed revenue neutrality of the plan (in that it doesn't add to the debt/deficit beyond current spending) _depends_ on substantial tax revenue increases. Romney has admitted this.
B: Recognizes that there is no strong, clear and verified correlation between lower tax rates and economic or tax revenue growth in balance (considering all notable studies examining the relationship).
C: Recognizes the contemporary history of the Bush tax cuts which failed to result in any meaningful and demonstrable increase of revenues that would justify its 1.8+ trillion (and counting) cost in lost revenues. Conservatives like to point to the period of 2003-7, but that's absolutely ridiculous for obvious reasons; namely because one of the biggest and easily the most destructive bubble America has ever known was occurring at the time.
In summation, it's an absurd plan that predominantly means to improve the lot of the rich, and stick it to the poor and middle class when the irresponsibly projected tax revenue increases ultimately do not materialize.