It is kind of sad when the VP candidate has more of a plan on the economy than you do.
I think Romneys plan was to pick a VP the Tea Party would want to have as president and then promise them "if you vote for me even though you don't like me, you will get the tea party favorite as the presidential candidate after my terms are over"
The MittsVP application confirmed it, and that's an official campaign thing.
The guy wants to fund the entire US government, INCLUDING defense, social security, medicare, etc, with 565 billion.
Today, after massive amounts of cuts that have caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, we're at 12.5% of gdp, or roughly 2 trillion. Almost all of which is not discretionary spending. Discretionary spending maks up about a third of the total budget, and of that, most of it is security or military related.
Even if discretionary spending was wiped out entirely-- including defunding the entire US miltiary-- you'd still not get a budget as low as Paul Ryan wants. But he's not touching defense spending, and he's not gonna increase taxes. So his suggested budget is pretty much mathematically impossible.
And in placating the frothy mouthers in the tea party, he's solidified an electoral team that is far to the right and alienates middle of the road voters and the moderates in the GOP.
After the London Olympics debacle, I don't rate Romney at all. I never rated him before, but I rate him even less now if that makes sense
This is not a bitter Brit being offended by Romney's comments, instead it's a realisation that if Romney can't even handle a simple trip to London, what's he going to do when a real crisis pops up?
Romney has picked somebody as running mate that is only going to entrench the divide in American politics. Obama by comparison, always gives off the image that he is willing to compromise. For undecided voters fed up with a lack of action in congress, this will give Obama a few million votes.
And best off all, Romney has picked somebody who has vowed to cut the budget, but still maintain defence spending at current levels. As Doctor Evil once said: Right....
Well, I just spent ten minutes reading about the bloke, and I can inform you all that he is an absolute ball bag of a man.. complete with draconian-abortion legislation.
On the plus side, I've got money on Obama winning, so its fething great news for me.
hotsauceman1 wrote:ISnt this the guy ho tried to ban birth control?
Yeah kinda, he co-sponsored a “personhood” amendment, an extreme anti-abortion measure which declared that a fertilized fething egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.”
This would basically outlaw abortion and some contraception.
What a feth. Why do women even go out with guys like that? How do they ever get a date!?
hotsauceman1 wrote:ISnt this the guy ho tried to ban birth control?
Yeah kinda, he co-sponsored a “personhood” amendment, an extreme anti-abortion measure which declared that a fertilized fething egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.”
This would basically outlaw abortion and some contraception.
What a feth. Why do women even go out with guys like that? How do they ever get a date!?
hotsauceman1 wrote:ISnt this the guy ho tried to ban birth control?
Yeah kinda, he co-sponsored a “personhood” amendment, an extreme anti-abortion measure which declared that a fertilized fething egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.”
This would basically outlaw abortion and some contraception.
What a feth. Why do women even go out with guys like that? How do they ever get a date!?
So if that's the case, can a mother evict the child?
IN THE polarised world of American politics, achieving bipartisan agreement on any topic is a rare feat nowadays. So perhaps it's worth celebrating the fact that, had it been put to a vote, the pick of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running-mate likely would've gained support from both parties. Less encouraging is the prospect that both sides will now use Mr Ryan, and his controversial budget plan, to further divide the electorate.
The momentum behind Mr Ryan's candidacy had picked up steam in the past week. Editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard and National Review had urged Mr Romney to select the representative from Wisconsin in order to clear up his own ideological fuzziness and clarify the stakes of the election.
The choice certainly does that. Nothing has defined the Republican agenda more than Mr Ryan's budget proposal, which aims to slash the deficit in the near term and bring the budget into balance by around 2040. Noble goals both, but in order to achieve these ends, the Congressional Budget Office says the plan would decimate nearly all government programmes except for Social Security, health care and defence by 2050.
This is unlikely to squelch the caricature of Mr Romney as a heartless elitist. While programmes for the poor would be cut, the "path to prosperity", as Mr Ryan's plan is titled, is paved with tax cuts for businesses and individuals. The plan would also transform Medicare into a voucher system aimed at controlling costs. Democratic attack dogs are salivating. The new ticket will undoubtedly face charges of "ending Medicare as we know it", an attack that was successfully field-tested in an upstate New York House race last year.
With the pick, Mr Romney has shored up his base. But conservatives already seemed rather motivated to boot Barack Obama from office. Will Mr Ryan cost him a share of the centre, just as Sarah Palin did John McCain? Mr Ryan is a different political animal—more substantive and less vitriolic—but coming from the House he is associated with a specific form of conservatism that is all about insurgency, purity and Washington dysfunction. Remember, it was Mr Ryan's polarising budget plan that attempted to scupper an earlier bipartisan deal.
Conservatives are rejoicing. They welcome an honest fight over entitlement reform and the budget. In a contest of personalities, Barack Obama would likely defeat Mr Romney. The poor economy doesn't seem to be taking a toll on the incumbent. But the Republicans feel they have the upper hand if the election is seen as a choice between two divergent views of the role and size of government. Democrats, of course, feel the same way.
Regardless of the merits of Mr Ryan's views, his willingness to deal in the details is admirable. In this way, Mr Romney's pick is a boon to the campaign. Over the next four months, America will have a serious argument about fiscal and governing philosophy. Pity the demagoguery that will accompany the debate.
I think this was a poor choice. In my armchair analysis, I think his unfavorables are too high (especially among the elderly, who are very likely to vote!), and delivering Wisconsin - a swing state he may have won anyway, with merely 10 electoral votes - isn't worth it. If he wanted a Tea Party candidate, I think Rubio would have done better in all arenas. My last analysis was that Obama would win but it would be a very tough race. I'm even more inclined to believe that.
Ouze wrote:I think this was a poor choice. In my armchair analysis, I think his unfavorables are too high (especially among the elderly, who are very likely to vote!), and delivering Wisconsin - a swing state he may have won anyway, with merely 10 electoral votes - isn't worth it. If he wanted a Tea Party candidate, I think Rubio would have done better in all arenas. My last analysis was that Obama would win but it would be a very tough race. I'm even more inclined to believe that.
Agreed... Rubio would've been better for Romney. I guess that the Romney campaign felt they needed help from the indie/tea partiers (Ryan is a Tea Party rock star).
Ouze wrote:If he wanted a Tea Party candidate, I think Rubio would have done better in all arenas.
Rubio also has the more interesting name. Just say it a few times out loud and let it fill the air with it's comforting, dulcet sound. Ruuuuuubbbbiiiiiooooo. I thought he was great in Hook.
Melissia wrote:Selecting Paul Ryan opens up a huge amount of attacks on Romney now, involving Paul Ryan's disgusting budget plan.
eh... at least he has a plan.
Name someone else who put out "ideas" into the conversation. What he advocated may never come to exact fruitation, but he at least he got people talking about it.
And we do need to talk about it in our lifetime... the status quo can't stay. So, cuts/raise taxes must happen soon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:This fellow seems to be a few drinks short of a good night...
Browsing thru twitter and message forums, a lot of the wimminz. were talking about "how good looking" Ryan is...
Just because he has a plan doesn't mean his plan is actually worthy of consideration. A stupid plan is worse than no plan at all.
whembly wrote:And we do need to talk about it in our lifetime... the status quo can't stay. So, cuts/raise taxes must happen soon.
The guy plans on cutting taxes for the richest and for corporations, raising taxes for most anyone on the lower end of the middle class or in the working class, and cutting the budget by 75% even though he isn't going to touch defense spending, which will continue to grow in his budget.
This isn't "talking about it", this is political posturing to score points.
hotsauceman1 wrote:ISnt this the guy ho tried to ban birth control?
Yeah kinda, he co-sponsored a “personhood” amendment, an extreme anti-abortion measure which declared that a fertilized fething egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.”
This would basically outlaw abortion and some contraception.
What a feth. Why do women even go out with guys like that? How do they ever get a date!?
Women who believe the same thing I suppose. I'm not terribly surprised by his support of the sanctity of life; he is a Catholic after all. He has also gone on the record to say Republicans need to stop trying to push social issues and agree to disagree. He still votes his beliefs but he doesn't go out and evangelize them; which is how I prefer my pro-life politicians. The most concerning aspect of the fetal personhood bill was that it would have outlawed invitro fertilization.
Chowderhead wrote:Or he could go with Biden again, who was a damned good choice.
In that he really doesn't bother anyone? Uncle Joe is a fairly bland politician. I doubt Hillary would run on a ticket with Barry. I get the impression the Clintons HATE him.
Ouze wrote:I think this was a poor choice. In my armchair analysis, I think his unfavorables are too high (especially among the elderly, who are very likely to vote!), and delivering Wisconsin - a swing state he may have won anyway, with merely 10 electoral votes - isn't worth it. If he wanted a Tea Party candidate, I think Rubio would have done better in all arenas. My last analysis was that Obama would win but it would be a very tough race. I'm even more inclined to believe that.
The issue with Rubio is that nominating him opens a Senate seat that won't otherwise be open for contention until 2016. Moreover, the GOP already needs to make up ground in the Senate, whereas they hold the majority in the House. I think this fact alone overcomes any possible advantages that Rubio brings to the table. After all, the Republicans don't really need to win this Presidential election. In fact they're almost better served by shoring up their position in Congress, while spending another 4 years attempting to tar the Democrat brand; meaning they'll have an easier time getting a candidate they actually want into the 2016 election.
Its also possible that Rubio was offered the nomination, but chose to turn it down as there is an argument to be made that Senators have an easier time running for the Oval Office than VPs because they're free from any potential taint of the outgoing Administration. Again, possibly aiming for a bid in 2016 or 2020.
As to Ryan: anyone who can read Ayn Rand without denting a wall several times is unworthy of my respect. However, he is good in front of a camera, certainly better than Biden who basically got a free pass against Palin. That said, statistically VP choice has little impact on candidate approval, usually no more than 1-2 points. But then, this cycle, that may be enough.
I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?
•The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.
•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
•The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
•The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015
Just because he has a plan doesn't mean his plan is actually worthy of consideration. A stupid plan is worse than no plan at all.
whembly wrote:And we do need to talk about it in our lifetime... the status quo can't stay. So, cuts/raise taxes must happen soon.
The guy plans on cutting taxes for the richest and for corporations, raising taxes for most anyone on the lower end of the middle class or in the working class, and cutting the budget by 75% even though he isn't going to touch defense spending, which will continue to grow in his budget.
This isn't "talking about it", this is political posturing to score points.
Caveat... that poll is old and no one was paying attention to politics back then...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?
•The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.
•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
•The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
•The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015
Jihadin wrote:I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?
The major problem with it is that its a pipe-dream. For example, he's basically pledging to cut the federal budget in half within 2 years (any budget he proposes wouldn't take effect until 2013), that's never going to happen. Especially if he wants to avoid defense cuts.
Its going to happen as we go back to a peace time army. No denying it. It'll be a "good attempt" on his part to avoid the cuts in defense but unless we're going to go to war with China or Iran in the future....
edit
Besides the Defense cuts will limit our options in South China Sea Limit our response incase Iran tries to close the Straight of Homuz. Basically let other nations handle their affairs instead of us playing world police
•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
His voucher system deoesn't scale with cost, and, with no plan on how to reduce cost, that means that the yearly cost to plan owners will increase by thousands over the next few decades.
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
And a resulting increase in tax paid for anyone making under 40k.
•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
Yes, and that's why it doesn't work. Defense spending is going to keep rising while the budget shrinks, causing there to bel e ss and less money for everything else.
You posted Jenna Jamison supported Romney. A porn star. Yes I read the article. So either you posted to get a shock or saying porn stars supports Romney in a negative way. I could care less As for Clint supporting Romney. I could care less
I think Ryan will be good. We can poke holes in his budget cut plan but perhaps it is better than adding 10% to the total deficit annually.
The part that disgusts me is the pay for everything under the sun on tomorrow's dollars.
I would be happy if the country would cut all the spending including the defense budget. We can stop being the policeman of the world and let other nations form a consensus. Then they can't bitch and moan about unilateral actions by the US.
The basic arguement is going to be bread and games - the Obama plan and austerity - the Romney plan.
Personnally while I agree with cutting up the credit cards, I have trust that Americans will make the easy choice and continue the bread and games plan.
A moderate Republican supports a moderate Republican*? My god, what are the odds?
*Not as moderate as he was as Governor, but running for national office has a way of making some candidates contort their political stances. I think a lot of people would have liked the Governor of Mass Romney better then Presidential Candidate Romney, but to get to that point he had to jump through so many Republican hoops that former was killed by the latter.
I don't read the New Yorker lol Only time I actually read the paper is when I'm deployed and have to deal with US Army Times. I can't even watch CNN anymore
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
And a resulting increase in tax paid for anyone making under 40k
Well, I'd imagine that most companies don't pay anything like that much tax now, regardless of how much they are supposed to pay...
Ouze wrote:I think this was a poor choice. In my armchair analysis, I think his unfavorables are too high (especially among the elderly, who are very likely to vote!), and delivering Wisconsin - a swing state he may have won anyway, with merely 10 electoral votes - isn't worth it. If he wanted a Tea Party candidate, I think Rubio would have done better in all arenas. My last analysis was that Obama would win but it would be a very tough race. I'm even more inclined to believe that.
The issue with Rubio is that nominating him opens a Senate seat that won't otherwise be open for contention until 2016. Moreover, the GOP already needs to make up ground in the Senate, whereas they hold the majority in the House. I think this fact alone overcomes any possible advantages that Rubio brings to the table. After all, the Republicans don't really need to win this Presidential election. In fact they're almost better served by shoring up their position in Congress, while spending another 4 years attempting to tar the Democrat brand; meaning they'll have an easier time getting a candidate they actually want into the 2016 election.
Its also possible that Rubio was offered the nomination, but chose to turn it down as there is an argument to be made that Senators have an easier time running for the Oval Office than VPs because they're free from any potential taint of the outgoing Administration. Again, possibly aiming for a bid in 2016 or 2020.
As to Ryan: anyone who can read Ayn Rand without denting a wall several times is unworthy of my respect. However, he is good in front of a camera, certainly better than Biden who basically got a free pass against Palin. That said, statistically VP choice has little impact on candidate approval, usually no more than 1-2 points. But then, this cycle, that may be enough.
This will energize both parties, it's certainly conservative credit for Romney since Ryan is a much less tainted star and scores well with hardcores. The dudes reviled by everyone with common sense though so this isn't going to get more moderates in Romneys corners.
ShumaGorath wrote:This will energize both parties, it's certainly conservative credit for Romney since Ryan is a much less tainted star and scores well with hardcores. The dudes reviled by everyone with common sense though so this isn't going to get more moderates in Romneys corners.
The thing is... there's no VP pick that the Dems won't demonize...
So... what should've he done?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Whenever I hear Paul Ryan I think of Andrew Ryan.
Jihadin wrote:I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?
•The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.
•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
•The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
•The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015
Everything sounds nice when it's written by a supporter and placed onto a propaganda website, gives no actual information, and is condensed into little bullet points without context.
The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
Like this for instance. Without context that sounds nice, but in context they're actually receiving less and worse care under this plan then they are now. They will receive more than others without greater health risks, but the bullet points never actually state that everyone gets less.
Like the Defense Budget cut. Its going to happen regardless of what they do. No justification to maintain full strength combat units (plus brigades mainly)
ShumaGorath wrote:This will energize both parties, it's certainly conservative credit for Romney since Ryan is a much less tainted star and scores well with hardcores. The dudes reviled by everyone with common sense though so this isn't going to get more moderates in Romneys corners.
The thing is... there's no VP pick that the Dems won't demonize...
So... what should've he done?
I don't think this was a wrong move. Romneys adoption of a middle road candidate might have grabbed him a portion of the undecideds, but what he needs right now is to not be the "last resort" candidate for the republican party. When the majority of republican voters will vote for him because they "have to" rather than because he inspires the cause it can cause a low turnout. He's probably hedged the bet that increasing loyalist turnout via a hardcore VP pick would net him more votes than playing to moderacy and trying to capture more of the vanishing center.
Unfortunately Paul Ryan is really easy to attack since his plan is horse gak and no one not on a conservative payroll that knows anything about simple mathematics thinks it's anything other than the teaparties wishlist of ideological cuts.
ShumaGorath wrote:This will energize both parties, it's certainly conservative credit for Romney since Ryan is a much less tainted star and scores well with hardcores. The dudes reviled by everyone with common sense though so this isn't going to get more moderates in Romneys corners.
The thing is... there's no VP pick that the Dems won't demonize...
So... what should've he done?
I don't think this was a wrong move. Romneys adoption of a middle road candidate might have grabbed him a portion of the undecideds, but what he needs right now is to not be the "last resort" candidate for the republican party. When the majority of republican voters will vote for him because they "have to" rather than because he inspires the cause it can cause a low turnout. He's probably hedged the bet that increasing loyalist turnout via a hardcore VP pick would net him more votes than playing to moderacy and trying to capture more of the vanishing center.
Unfortunately Paul Ryan is really easy to attack since his plan is horse gak and no one not on a conservative payroll that knows anything about simple mathematics thinks it's anything other than the teaparties wishlist of ideological cuts.
I'm anxious to see what the seniors think of Paul Ryan now as VP...
Last year, during the budget battle, the Seniors FAVORED Paul's plan (which boggles mind).
* Currently serving seventh term as a member of Congress.
* Ryan was little known outside Janesville when he ran for
Congress in 1998 at age 28. He captured 57 percent of the vote.
* Ryan's first budget plan, which he called "Roadmap for
America's Future," was released in 2010.
* Early in his career as a representative to Congress, Ryan
held office hours in an old truck he converted into an office.
* Ryan was the legislative director for Sen. Sam Brownback
of Kansas, 1995-1997.
Personal
* Born and raised in the community of Janesville; Ryan is a
fifth-generation Wisconsin native.
* Ryan moonlighted on Capitol Hill as a waiter at the Tortilla Coast
restaurant and as a fitness trainer at Washington Sport and Health
Club.
* One of Ryan's summer jobs in college was as an Oscar Mayer
salesman in Minnesota, peddling turkey bacon and a new line
called "Lunchables" to supermarkets.
* Ryan worked as a marketing consultant for his family's construction business before being elected to Congress. The company -- Ryan Incorporated Central -- began as an earthmoving business created by his great-grandfather in 1884.
* Ryan's hobbies include hunting and fishing. He is a bowhunter and belongs to his hometown's archery association - the Janesville Bowmen.
* For fun, Ryan noodles catfish, catching them barehanded with a fist down their throats.
* Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine and Led Zeppelin
Anybody who says they have a plan for the budget, and starts it with taking an option completely off the table, is a fluke in my opinion. That is my beef with the majority of politicians. You cannot pretend to be serious about budget cuts and then have sacred cows.
And it is a sad thing when the VP candidate has more actual plans than Romney, who says "I have a plan" but never actually gives any kind of details.
feeder wrote:How does he listen to RATM? Does he not pay attention to the lyrics?
You can like the music but, not agree with the lyrics!
Oh. I can't do that. If I don't like the message, then I don't care how cool it sounds.
RATM (other than being the height of hypocrisy) actually speaks a lot to rands message. They rail against the military industrial complex, government surveillance, and government intrusion. RATM is somewhat teaparty friendly when you divorce it from it's republican owners. A lot of RATM lovers are libertarians or tea partiers (which is a sign that they're ideologies are dumb).
d-usa wrote:Anybody who says they have a plan for the budget, and starts it with taking an option completely off the table, is a fluke in my opinion. That is my beef with the majority of politicians. You cannot pretend to be serious about budget cuts and then have sacred cows.
And it is a sad thing when the VP candidate has more actual plans than Romney, who says "I have a plan" but never actually gives any kind of details.
Romney has no plan... You mean like "Hope and Change?"
d-usa wrote:Anybody who says they have a plan for the budget, and starts it with taking an option completely off the table, is a fluke in my opinion. That is my beef with the majority of politicians. You cannot pretend to be serious about budget cuts and then have sacred cows.
And it is a sad thing when the VP candidate has more actual plans than Romney, who says "I have a plan" but never actually gives any kind of details.
Romney has no plan... You mean like "Hope and Change?"
You seem to be confusing motto's with plans. Romney has not given any actual plans, when asked "how do you plan to do x" he just replies "I have a plan". He often says what he wants to do, but never really says how he plans to do it.
Ryan has plans and actually is able to state how he thinks he will make his plans happen.
It is sad when the base is more excited about the veep than they ever were about Romney.
For Romney? Probably Ryan. As I said, ideally you don't want to expose any additional Senate seats to elections, and its questionable as to whether or not your could convince a Senator with any political upside to run with you*. He also has the advantage of shoring up Romney's conservative credentials, while also strengthening the perception that a Romney Administration would be very business oriented.
My second choice would probably have been Jeb Bush, due to his popularity in Florida and public criticism of Obama. Though its questionable as to whether or not he would be seen as sufficiently conservative, though the ability to campaign well in Florida largely mitigates that. I also don't really see his name being a huge drag on the campaign, though it might be a tough sell in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Third choice would be Hunstman. He's probably the best suited to the job, but not the best suited to actually helping his ticket get the job.
*Due to his age and length of tenure, Biden was never going to rise higher than VP.
Chris Christie is too fat to get elected. In my opinion, modern Americans are too image conscious to elect an obese president.
That is hilarious.
Other than his stance on gay marriage, I rather like Chris Christie for the most part. One of the few republicans that does not come off as a mean spirited jack wagon.
Jihadin wrote:I would have avoided Jeb for another four yrs. The "Bush" stigma bit comes to mind
Maybe, but historically VPs don't have a huge effect on the overall popular vote. They can, however, be important in certain states and Florida is a good place to have a selective advantage.
For Romney? Probably Ryan. As I said, ideally you don't want to expose any additional Senate seats to elections, and its questionable as to whether or not your could convince a Senator with any political upside to run with you*. He also has the advantage of shoring up Romney's conservative credentials, while also strengthening the perception that a Romney Administration would be very business oriented.
My second choice would probably have been Jeb Bush, due to his popularity in Florida and public criticism of Obama. Though its questionable as to whether or not he would be seen as sufficiently conservative, though the ability to campaign well in Florida largely mitigates that. I also don't really see his name being a huge drag on the campaign, though it might be a tough sell in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Third choice would be Hunstman. He's probably the best suited to the job, but not the best suited to actually helping his ticket get the job.
*Due to his age and length of tenure, Biden was never going to rise higher than VP.
Only other person that would have made sense was Rubio, only quality he has over Paul Ryan is that he could bring in more of the Hispanic vote which Romney's current poll numbers are about 25%. Past several elections the Republican candidate needs 35+ percent of the Hispanic vote.
I don't see Paul Ryan bringing in a large percent of Hispanic voters to the polls, but he does energize the base with his values and is articulate (no Palinisms). This could be more of an alley-oop for Paul Ryan in 2016.
Curious to see if this pick with energize the Left as the VP pick of 2008 did?
Paul Ryan's plan for government aid for college students is not exactly popular.
And not sure about Senior Citizens.
They hate that socialism but love their social Security and Medicare.
Either way, solid pick for Romney, helps his dry mop personality and a strong conservative foundation for the future.
Jihadin wrote:I would have avoided Jeb for another four yrs. The "Bush" stigma bit comes to mind
"Bush Fatigue" is what Jeb cited as the reason he didn't run. There was literally zero chance he would attach himself to any of this cycles candidates. But he did say on CBS Morning he may have missed his opportunity. He is a youngish guy though if Mitt loses 2016 is likely to be a Bush ticket.
The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
Jihadin wrote:I would have avoided Jeb for another four yrs. The "Bush" stigma bit comes to mind
"Bush Fatigue" is what Jeb cited as the reason he didn't run. There was literally zero chance he would attach himself to any of this cycles candidates. But he did say on CBS Morning he may have missed his opportunity. He is a youngish guy though if Mitt loses 2016 is likely to be a Bush ticket.
Won't happen. Even in 2016, that name will still resonate. I think that family name is burned and finished on a national scale for an entire generation. Every Democrat would be licking their lips and sharpening their knives, just hoping that the GOP is foolish enough to cough up such an easy target on a national campaign.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
He will say whatever is politically expedient, being more politician than preacher.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
That's the problem with mixing your religion with politics. Eventually you will have to compromise one of your convictions.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
That's the problem with mixing your religion with politics. Eventually you will have to compromise one of your convictions.
That is best part about not being Christian/Religious
If someone gives me the "aren't you suppose to be Christian" argument.
Nope.
Use to people I was a Satanist to get a reaction out of them when I worked at price chopper.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
That's the problem with mixing your religion with politics. Eventually you will have to compromise one of your convictions.
That is best part about not being Christian/Religious
I don't think the problem is being religious, the problem is mixing your politics and your religion.
d-usa wrote:I don't think the problem is being religious, the problem is mixing your politics and your religion.
Well, you could always plead innocence/ignorance when you're religious, citing the reasoning as faith and closed mindedness. Judging by the history of some politicians, it often works. I doubt many of them are religious at all, but it gives them the option of making up stories or excuses when they need to.
d-usa wrote:Just bugs me that some people can go from
"Don't vote for the Christian because he might not be a Christian"
to
"We know we have been saying they are cults for the last 50+ years, but you should vote for the non-Christians. They are cool now."
Don't bother trying to make sense out of it, they're stuck in their own little world where they think arguments, popularity, money, and winning will solve problems and make the world a better place.
d-usa wrote:Just bugs me that some people can go from
"Don't vote for the Christian because he might not be a Christian"
to
"We know we have been saying they are cults for the last 50+ years, but you should vote for the non-Christians. They are cool now."
It is fairly interesting, and rather complicated, as it touches on a whole bunch of subjects. One of the main ones being that there is a certain sense in which Muslims are often viewed as being anti-Christian as opposed to mere non-Christians. Another is that "Christian" in the most powerful political sense (in the US) is as often as not a euphemism for "conservative", meaning that when faced with two non-Christians the conservative one will often be viewed as closer to being Christian.
Racism may also be a factor, but I think had Obama spent his whole life in the US his skin color would be much less important (note Herman Cain's popularity). The real issue is a sort of mild xenophobia due to his international youth coupled with an elite education, and liberal political positions.
Jihadin wrote:I agree. Ryan was a possible candidate in 2016. I see him actualy breaking away from Romney and picking up Christie as VP.
I don't think Christie would take a VP spot, he has no reason to move from Governor for so little. New Jersey does have term limits, no more than two consecutive, but Christie's second term would end in 2018. This also means that his first term would end in 2014, leaving him out of politics for 2 years* unless he could secure a House seat; which is unlikely given the timing.
He would be better off running against Ryan in 2016, assuming such a scenario comes to pass. Though depending on how the primaries turned out he could still end up in the VP slot.
Honestly, though, I like Christie as a Presidential candidate. He has a good historical balance of positions on many issues that make him an intriguing prospect. The problem is that so did McCain, and we saw how that turned out.
*Not a huge issue if you're running for President, but its hard to pick up a VP nomination if you're not in the news. Unless, of course, the field is very weak (read: 2008 for the Democrats); which it won't be for the GOP in '16.
“Romney is above all else a problem-solver, a doer and a fixer. Ryan, likewise, is a policy maven who has since 2007 been trying to advance budget, tax and health-care reforms, moving the Republican Party to become the champion of market-based reform. Ryan is a smart man, certainly the smartest in Congress, with an eye for detail and a facility with numbers. Romney prizes brains, precision and the ability to wield numbers. Ryan uses a scalpel, not a sledge hammer in skewering his opposition; Romney likewise uses piles of data to slay his competitors (as he did in the Florida and Arizona GOP primary debates). Ryan is personally and professionally disciplined, a straight arrow with a gee-whiz brand of optimism. Romney is as well. . . . The left will be effusive about the opportunity to renew Mediscare. But the Ryan team has been fighting that fight for some time and is perfectly willing to engage President Obama, who has heckled but not lead on entitlement reform. Who better than Ryan to take on the president while Romney sails above the fray?”
“Ryan wants to have an adult conversation with America about the looming insolvency of the welfare state, and he has a serious plan to fix it. . . . I suspect Ryan is one of the few Republicans Obama genuinely fears; after all, Ryan schooled Obama in Obama’s faux-’health care summit’ early last year. (Obama does not look pleased in the video.) David Brooks reports, by the way, that Obama never picks up the phone to try to talk with Ryan. Ryan is not simply fearless about the issues, he also gets the larger picture, and can talk about the larger picture.”
"Mediscare"??? Is that the throw granny off the cliff ad?
whembly wrote: Who better than Ryan to take on the president while Romney sails above the fray?”
There is one obvious reason why that won't work.
Obama v. Ryan is even ground, roughly. Romney v. Biden is about the same. And it looks bad for Romney. You cannot bow out of competition and hope to win.
Also, there's this which really gets at how much VPs matter.
“Romney is above all else a problem-solver, a doer and a fixer. Ryan, likewise, is a policy maven who has since 2007 been trying to advance budget, tax and health-care reforms, moving the Republican Party to become the champion of market-based reform. Ryan is a smart man, certainly the smartest in Congress, with an eye for detail and a facility with numbers. Romney prizes brains, precision and the ability to wield numbers. Ryan uses a scalpel, not a sledge hammer in skewering his opposition; Romney likewise uses piles of data to slay his competitors (as he did in the Florida and Arizona GOP primary debates). Ryan is personally and professionally disciplined, a straight arrow with a gee-whiz brand of optimism. Romney is as well. . . . The left will be effusive about the opportunity to renew Mediscare. But the Ryan team has been fighting that fight for some time and is perfectly willing to engage President Obama, who has heckled but not lead on entitlement reform. Who better than Ryan to take on the president while Romney sails above the fray?”
“Ryan wants to have an adult conversation with America about the looming insolvency of the welfare state, and he has a serious plan to fix it. . . . I suspect Ryan is one of the few Republicans Obama genuinely fears; after all, Ryan schooled Obama in Obama’s faux-’health care summit’ early last year. (Obama does not look pleased in the video.) David Brooks reports, by the way, that Obama never picks up the phone to try to talk with Ryan. Ryan is not simply fearless about the issues, he also gets the larger picture, and can talk about the larger picture.”
"Mediscare"??? Is that the throw granny off the cliff ad?
They called Ryan a policy "maven"? Either that blogger is not aware of what "maven" means, or else they are not aware that you cannot call someone an expert in a field when they put forth mathematically impossible suggestions to that field.
Also, you are aware that blogs are not actually news sources, right?
come debate time, it won't matter who is his sidekick. His whole story about his home, his unreal wealth and his wife's horse being better cared for than the 99% will keep O Bummer in office.
in modern politics, we lose either way in the end. the banks run the world, so our only hope is to fight them. make your business cash only, spend only cash, take away the power from these bastards. It should have been obvious long ago that when EVERYONE gives a group their money that that group will become very very powerful. For fething sake, liquor stores in Oregon are state run and regulated, but the banks are all privately owned.
Jihadin wrote:I would have avoided Jeb for another four yrs. The "Bush" stigma bit comes to mind
"Bush Fatigue" is what Jeb cited as the reason he didn't run. There was literally zero chance he would attach himself to any of this cycles candidates. But he did say on CBS Morning he may have missed his opportunity. He is a youngish guy though if Mitt loses 2016 is likely to be a Bush ticket.
Won't happen. Even in 2016, that name will still resonate. I think that family name is burned and finished on a national scale for an entire generation. Every Democrat would be licking their lips and sharpening their knives, just hoping that the GOP is foolish enough to cough up such an easy target on a national campaign.
You couldn't be more wrong. Jeb has name recognition and a record to stand on.
* For fun, Ryan noodles catfish, catching them barehanded with a fist down their throats.
Gotta. Say. That is totally bad ass.
The problem is that so did McCain, and we saw how that turned out.
Honestly I don't think that was McCain's problem. McCain got screwed by a combination of his age, Palin's stupidity, and the aptly timed economic recession. He was gaining ground on Obama all summer in polls. Then the recession hit and it was over for him cause everyone blamed Bush and the Republicans which gave Obama and the Democrats the boost they needed to get the White House and the Senate. EDIT: And Obama is a charismatic guy, comparatively young (and looks even younger), family man. What's not to like?
That is the problem. It is a double edged sword, and enough to probably keep him from winning, though I wouldn't completely rule it out.
IDK. People may hate George but there's still a lot of Americans who love him. Jeb is imo a much more articulate man and more charismatic than his brother. He could capitalize on enduring popularity for Bush in the Republican blocks and win over moderates if he says the right things in the right ways.
That is the problem. It is a double edged sword, and enough to probably keep him from winning, though I wouldn't completely rule it out.
IDK. People may hate George but there's still a lot of Americans who love him. Jeb is imo a much more articulate man and more charismatic than his brother. He could capitalize on enduring popularity for Bush in the Republican blocks and win over moderates if he says the right things in the right ways.
Which is why I wouldn't rule it out. It is hard to say how much effect time will have between then and now, as well as any unforeseen events that might alleviate or exacerbate the issue.
LordofHats wrote:
Honestly I don't think that was McCain's problem. McCain got screwed by a combination of his age, Palin's stupidity, and the aptly timed economic recession.
Spoken as though national issues were not candidate problems.
Ryan was chosen to help 'increase' the pull on conservatives. Remember the quote Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line?
Romney did not need to do this in order to get the Republicans to vote for him. They may have had to close their eyes and felt sick when they made the vote, but they still would have cast it for Romney.
What the Ryan VP choice has done is push away the moderates.
There seems to be a lot of moderate Republicans that are pissed at the choice of Ryan, thinking that it was forced on Romney to try to bring him more in line with the extreme right of the party.
The problem is that extremists have a very hard time winning general elections.
There is a reason Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul don't win the primaries. It's because they would never be electable - even though both of them have some excellent (and no so excellent) ideas.
So by shifting hard to the right, the Republican ticket is alienating moderates. Ryan's extreme plan to cut taxes for the rich, major cuts to social nets, and renovation (or could be described as removal) of medicare make him a unappealing option for moderates.
Mitt Romney requested "several" years of tax returns from his potential running mates, a senior adviser to the candidate said Saturday, suggesting that those considered for the ticket may have been required to reveal more financial documents that the candidate himself
It seems to be that Romney is treating his tax returns very badly.
Its pretty obvious that he has something to hide. IMHO he should just stand up and say 'of course I did not pay as much in taxes, I used the system. We should overhaul it'. By trying to avoid the question, he's putting doubt in voters minds.
On a cartoonish level, I kinda appreciate what is looking to be a "human shield" strategy on the matter. It's just gonna look worse when Ryan releases a decade if tax returns and Romney still doesn't.
I think ya'll are underestimating what this does forindependents.
Republicans will vote for Romney.
Dems wont.
It's all about the indies.
In the past, Ryan had great favorables with the indies.... but, how the feth does the Seniors like him so much? (can't wrap my head around that).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Well, all of those statements are true. I wish they went more in to why vouchers hurt the elderly, but for a commercial they're pressed for time...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, this image of Ryan reminds me of a meme... damn if I can remember which one though.
"By picking Paul Ryan, Romney has decisively broken from Obama’s policy path. The selection of Ryan means Romney is no longer running as Obama-lite. He’s bet that the guys in no-man’s-land don’t want Government Cheese. They want a real job. They want a real future. They want to be citizens of the greatest country on earth again."
As James Carville coined: "It's the economy stupid!"
They want to be citizens of the greatest country on earth again.
For certain values of "greatest country on Earth" that exclude having a black guy as President, and include the rich paying as little in taxes as possible.
1. “Romney has no ideas.” Actually, he and Ryan have the new policy ideas. Tons of them. If you doubt it, wait for the vice-presidential debate.
2. “Romney is excessively cautious.” Tim Pawlenty would have been the cautious pick. Ryan is young and vibrant and stands ready to battle for conservative ideas.
3. “The media are really important.” If Romney thought the mainstream media were critical, he’d duck the Mediscare fight. The pick is one that reflects confidence in the conservative agenda.
4. “Romney and the right are at war.” Sure, conservative activists and Romney have their issues, but if they can bond over Ryan you see how small the differences actually are.
5. “Romney’s campaign can’t execute.” They really did keep this a secret until late Friday night. Kudos to Romney, Beth Myers and those in the know who didn’t spill the beans.
6. “It is dumb to lead on entitlement reform.” By showing political courage Ryan won over his party, advanced his own career and may wind up a heartbeat away from the presidency. If his plans are passed and implemented, he’ll be a historic figure.
7. “Romney doesn’t believe in anything.” In choosing Ryan over less ideological figures Romney showed that he in fact cares about ideas, is determined to fix our fiscal problems and is devoted to free markets. Ryan in that sense validates Romney’s core beliefs.
8. “Pawlenty would be rewarded for being a devoted surrogate.” I’m certain his efforts were appreciated, but in the end cream rises to the top, and Pawlenty proved in the presidential primary to be a mediocre pol. He’ll make a great Cabinet member, however.
9. “There was no need for Obama to switch vice presidents.” I have three words for that: Vice Presidential Debate. Joe Biden will need smelling salts.
10. “Republicans are scary.” Romney-Ryan is one of the more suburban-friendly, nice-guy tickets to come along in ages. Ryan will be demonized in the media, but his aw-shucks demeanor and braininess will win over some swing voters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
They want to be citizens of the greatest country on earth again.
For certain values of "greatest country on Earth" that exclude having a black guy as President, and include the rich paying as little in taxes as possible.
What? Who says this?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh wow... didn't think of this...
For once, we have someone who will be competent to be President of the Senate. What does this have to do with Ryan and the VP pick? That is because the VP is also the President of the Senate. So main job of the VP isn’t to be a “heartbeat away from the Presidency,” but to lead the Senate. The office of the President of the Senate has been largely maligned through US history, and its duties have been largely cooped by the Senate Majority Leader. So the question is, would Paul Ryan be the man that will insist in taking leadership in the Senate or will he, like every VPs before him, just sit back in the shadows so as to not rock the boat?
Um... isn't the only thing that Prez of Senate does is to break any ties? Or, is there something more here? As in, could the VP set the agenda? (*doing research now*)
Ouze wrote:Or a reliable pollster, for that matter.
You want more reliable then the most accurate pollster for the 2004 and 2008 elections?
CNN is the only other major organization that has done a favorability poll recently and they have Ryan with a large margin of favorable over unfavorable. The only real remarkable thing about these polls is the large number of people who have no opinion. I'll admit I'm one of them, I know very little of the man, not nearly enough to for a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:Or a reliable pollster, for that matter.
I thought he's one of the best? Right up there with Gallup?
Rasmussen has a slight reputation of being right wing friendly, so of course he's going to automatically attack them.
whembly wrote:They want a real future. They want to be citizens of the greatest country on earth again"
They're moving to Canada? Wha?
You know, this joke is often tossed out there, but its surprisingly hard to pick up and move to Canada.
While I have rarely met any Canadains who did not like and welcome Americans, after having a 6 month contract in Canada, I can tell you that getting up there to work and live can be a real bit**. You better have a good skillset and job to go up there -- and don't lose them or you will be exported faster than Viagra from Ireland.
Simply put, you just can't pick up and move to Canada because you dislike US politics one way or the other. Your odds are much better moving to Mexico.
Edit : I know you were not saying "then move to Canada, or I would move to Canada." I'm just tossing it out there as a point.
Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.
djones520 wrote:
You want more reliable then the most accurate pollster for the 2004 and 2008 elections?
Rasmussen is well known in the political science community for its tendency to post divergent results early in any election cycle, and subsequently close the gap with other polls in order to maintain its reputation.
But by all means, please continue, it makes my job easier when the electorate doesn't understand numbers.
How can they sit there with a straight face and say that a person who went to Washington straight out of college is a "reluctand Washington outsider"...
Chowderhead wrote:So, from what I can tell, this guy's a male Palin?
He's a hard line conservative (of the 'tiny government no matter the cost variety', as opposed to the 'crazy religious/family values nuttiness of Palin), and he's been drafted as VP to boost support among the fringe of conservatives for a relatively middle of the road presidential candidate, but that's where the similarities stop.
Palin was utterly vacuous, and had absolutely nothing to say of any value at the Federal level. On the other hand Ryan is at the centre of Republican debate right now. He's smart enough to belong in the big leagues, which makes him very different to Palin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Selecting Paul Ryan opens up a huge amount of attacks on Romney now, involving Paul Ryan's disgusting budget plan.
Sort of. I mean Palin was about as unqualified as a person could be, and yet the attacks on her didn't really move the polls all that much. It was only really her grossly unprofessional behaviour behind the scenes that really hurt the campaign.
It's always a bit of a stretch to claim a presidential option is bad because of the guy who would get the job if the main man died.
The ground both sides have to make about this isn't in Ryan himself, but what his selection shows about Romney, because the voter impression of Romney is still very vague. Democrats could improve enthusiasm in their base by using the selection of Ryan to show the kind of pro-business, anti-small guy government Romney will run. Funnily enough I think the Republicans will use this selection to prove the same things...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Agreed... Rubio would've been better for Romney. I guess that the Romney campaign felt they needed help from the indie/tea partiers (Ryan is a Tea Party rock star).
What? Rubio is the Tea Party darling. To the extent the Tea Party has a leader its Rubio.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Oh, an fox news doesn't count as news.
It also isn't a fox.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I don't think this was a wrong move. Romneys adoption of a middle road candidate might have grabbed him a portion of the undecideds, but what he needs right now is to not be the "last resort" candidate for the republican party. When the majority of republican voters will vote for him because they "have to" rather than because he inspires the cause it can cause a low turnout. He's probably hedged the bet that increasing loyalist turnout via a hardcore VP pick would net him more votes than playing to moderacy and trying to capture more of the vanishing center.
Unfortunately Paul Ryan is really easy to attack since his plan is horse gak and no one not on a conservative payroll that knows anything about simple mathematics thinks it's anything other than the teaparties wishlist of ideological cuts.
That sums up the whole thing rather well.
The only point I'd add is that while attacking Ryan over his budget might be easy, it's also unlikely to be make much difference. I mean, attacks on Palin made little real difference because ultimately she isn't the President, so attacks on Ryan's budget are unlikely to matter much more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:How does he listen to RATM? Does he not pay attention to the lyrics?
Republicans also spend a lot of time talking about how much they like Bruce Springsteen, while ignoring everything his music is about. It's kind of weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DAaddict wrote:Romney has no plan... You mean like "Hope and Change?"
It's more that Romney has opted not to release any meaningful details about his plans, because he figures general disatisfaction with the economy will be enough to get him over the line. Which is fair enough, Obama did much the same in 2008 and it worked (if anything Obama probably talked a little too much, and gave the Republican press wing stuff that could attack).
But it now seems the Romney campaign is changing that up a little, by going for a candidate with a little more substance behind him. It tells you something about where the Romney campaign feels they are at that they'd pick a guy like Ryan, offering a little more substance but also opening themselves up to attack. It tells you Romney feels without changing things up he is unlikely to capture the votes needed in key states to really threaten in this election.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
I've said for a while now involving religion in politics is bad, in part because it corrupts the political process slightly more than it was before, but mostly because it corrupts the religious body utterly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:I think ya'll are underestimating what this does forindependents.
Republicans will vote for Romney.
Dems wont.
It's all about the indies.
In the past, Ryan had great favorables with the indies.... but, how the feth does the Seniors like him so much? (can't wrap my head around that).
It really, really isn't about the independants. Their numbers are assumed to be far greater than they are, and they hardly turn up to vote anyway. I mean think about it, if you're disaffected enough to be unsure which of these guys is the better choice right now, are you really going to make the effort to vote?
What it is all about is convincing your own side to get out on election day and vote. Either because they're actually enthusiastic about your candidate, or because they're terrified of the other guy.
Picking Ryan is about trying to get Tea Party elements to be enthusiastic about Romney, but the downside is that gives the Obama campaign a little ammunition to make Democrats terrified of Romney.
sebster wrote: It really, really isn't about the independants. Their numbers are assumed to be far greater than they are, and they hardly turn up to vote anyway. I mean think about it, if you're disaffected enough to be unsure which of these guys is the better choice right now, are you really going to make the effort to vote?
What it is all about is convincing your own side to get out on election day and vote. Either because they're actually enthusiastic about your candidate, or because they're terrified of the other guy.
Picking Ryan is about trying to get Tea Party elements to be enthusiastic about Romney, but the downside is that gives the Obama campaign a little ammunition to make Democrats terrified of Romney.
First, my $0.02 -- I like the pick for Romney because it changes the conversation, which was going nowhere for him the last month or two. The race will take a more ideological tone now, which I think will help motivate the righties in the GOP. Of course, it's hard to say that Romney has been a small government guy through his career, but he's remade himself enough times now that it may not matter anymore.
Looking at an electoral map, Wisconsin is obviously now in play for the GOP, although Romney can probably kiss PA and FL goodbye. Too many retirees there who'll freak about Ryan's desire to mess with Medicare, etc. Not sure if OH is in the same category or not.
Like you said, I think this calcifies the race somewhat, and now we'll probably see a close one with most states going to the usual parties. And I guess that's not the worst strategy by the Romney camp. It was becoming apparent Romney wasn't going to win in a landslide or sway a bunch of purple/blueish states based on the power of his ideas. So you might as well just lock down the usual red states, kiss the usual blue states goodbye, and hope for something to break late in the race or on election day.
I still think Obama's organization (which is shaping up to be fearsome at this point) is going to win out, but I also think the voter ID laws passed in some states will have some impact. Those were absolutely passed to help GOP candidates, and I think they probably will.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Ryan and Christie 2016 lol
Chris Christie is too fat to get elected. In my opinion, modern Americans are too image conscious to elect an obese president.
He's also kind of a loud-mouthed bully. All you have to do is show some of those videos of him berating his constituents, and he'll lose whole states where things like manners count. In NY, NJ, parts of PA, etc. he can get away with that stuff. Personally, I think he's a clown.
1) Paul Ryan is a joke. His budget proposals never took into account the damage reducing the government would have, laying off hundreds of thousands if not millions of people does hurt the economy.
2) Romney was in a tight spot. T Paw or Portman are boring white guys who give him nothing. Other candidates who are otherwise attractive and young were likely to not want it, Rubio and Jindal especially, since Obama will win in November and being a failed VP candidate is likely to be a death sentence for one's political ambitions in this day and age.
3) Ryan was at least somewhat exciting and helps smooth things over the insane right wing base of the party. It's not an accident that he chose Ryan after his campaign pissed off the Tea Party.
4) Instead of having this election continue to be about the economy and veiled racism ("Believe in America"? "Make America great again"? "Take back our country"?), Romney instead chose to make this election about Medicare and Medicaid, tax cuts for the wealthy, and raising taxes on lower income Americans.
5) Mitt Romney had a disastrous trip abroad and decided to nominate a guy as VP who has no experience with foreign affairs.
6) What should I buy when I win my bet with biccat over the election? I'm thinking about picking up some Ork stuff, but I'm not sure.
TheHammer wrote:1) Paul Ryan is a joke. His budget proposals never took into account the damage reducing the government would have, laying off hundreds of thousands if not millions of people does hurt the economy.
What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?
2) Romney was in a tight spot. T Paw or Portman are boring white guys who give him nothing. Other candidates who are otherwise attractive and young were likely to not want it, Rubio and Jindal especially, since Obama will win in November and being a failed VP candidate is likely to be a death sentence for one's political ambitions in this day and age.
You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
3) Ryan was at least somewhat exciting and helps smooth things over the insane right wing base of the party. It's not an accident that he chose Ryan after his campaign pissed off the Tea Party.
There some truth to this...
4) Instead of having this election continue to be about the economy and veiled racism ("Believe in America"? "Make America great again"? "Take back our country"?), Romney instead chose to make this election about Medicare and Medicaid, tax cuts for the wealthy, and raising taxes on lower income Americans.
Uh... no... it's about a different vision. Instead of talking about Romney a taxcheat/murder/gutter stuff, he's FORCING a conversation on what vision does the American people want from their government. It's a shame that Romney couldn't do it himself as he needed a VP pick to save him. But, honestly, could ANYONE change the narrative by himself. Give credit to Romney here... Ryan is a respected fighter.
5) Mitt Romney had a disastrous trip abroad and decided to nominate a guy as VP who has no experience with foreign affairs.
whembly wrote:You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
No, its a political pick. I know this because I've seen a lot of political picks in my time.
Also, great secret, Mitt Romney is a politician running for President.
whembly wrote:You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
No, its a political pick. I know this because I've seen a lot of political picks in my time.
Also, great secret, Mitt Romney is a politician running for President.
I thought that said T'Pau. I was thinking "dude Vulcans aren't real. You'll only get the trekkie fans."
Why is this important? Erskine Bowles has a long pedigree as a Democratic budget thinker — and presidential adviser. When Barack Obama needed to pick the co-chair for his deficit committee, which he roundly ignored in the end, he chose Bowles to represent his side on the panel. Bowles served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and earlier ran the Small Business Administration for Clinton. Ezra Klein predicted on Friday that Bowles would be the front-runner for Tim Geithner’s job at Treasury if Obama wins a second term. Bowles stated:
“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.
And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.
The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
No, its a political pick. I know this because I've seen a lot of political picks in my time.
Also, great secret, Mitt Romney is a politician running for President.
Eh... I disagree... if he wanted to maximize his chances, he'd go for Rubio.
With Ryan, he hurt his chances...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
I thought that said T'Pau. I was thinking "dude Vulcans aren't real. You'll only get the trekkie fans."
Reminds me when I go drunk so bad, I was warning that we needed to ally with the Vulcans so that we can take down Darth Vader and the Empire...
whembly wrote:
Eh... I disagree... if he wanted to maximize his chances, he'd go for Rubio.
Who has absolutely no reason to accept the nomination because, at his age, its a step down. In 2020 Rubio will still be south of 50.
Also, he's a Senator, Ryan is a Congressman. Congressmen are easy to replace, Senators are not. You can't just think about getting elected, you have to think about what you'll do after.
whembly wrote:
Eh... I disagree... if he wanted to maximize his chances, he'd go for Rubio.
Who has absolutely no reason to accept the nomination because, at his age, its a step down. In 2020 Rubio will still be south of 50.
Also, he's a Senator, Ryan is a Congressman. Congressmen are easy to replace, Senators are not. You can't just think about getting elected, you have to think about what you'll do after.
Hmmm.. I see what you're saying. Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP? Good point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Including if you fail.
Ah... a failed VP run with Rubio would be bad for him...
But, in Ryan's case, at least it elevates his profile.
whembly wrote:Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP?
I think its a case of "I have a shot at the big chair, whether or not you win."
Though I would also guess that the larger GOP didn't really push* Rubio to take a nomination.
*There is no way in hell he wasn't asked.
Good points...
Just heard this... I think I heard this right...
Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
whembly wrote:
What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?
No, don't be ridiculous. Just don't expect those HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that are laid off by these cuts to then find work elsewhere. They won't, and this will create a huge drag on the economy.
You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
This IS a political pick. Romney doesn't pander to the right wing base enough, and boy do those guys want to be pandered to, and picking Paul Ryan goes a long way towards shoring up his base. He'll still lose, though.
Uh... no... it's about a different vision. Instead of talking about Romney a taxcheat/murder/gutter stuff, he's FORCING a conversation on what vision does the American people want from their government. It's a shame that Romney couldn't do it himself as he needed a VP pick to save him. But, honestly, could ANYONE change the narrative by himself. Give credit to Romney here... Ryan is a respected fighter.
Talk about vision all you want, but it's a crap argument.
I don't blame President Obama for being negative on Romney. Romney is willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, which oftentimes means pandering to crowds and being vague in policy proposals. What is President Obama supposed to campaign against? Romney's 59 point plan to economic recovery? Romney's platitudes about American greatness? Give me a break. Romney says little and mostly runs on his resume', and it turns out that the only thing his resume' has that isn't totally awful is his "saving" the Olympics.
His trip was a disaster. It made him look small, ignorant, and petty.
And "Mediscare" is a bs word invented by donkey-caves. If we're going to have this be a "campaign about ideas" than maybe we can talk about Medicare and what each party wants to do with it.
You know how I know the "Mediscare" argument is total bs? If it wasn't all crap the Republicans would not make such a big point of telling every old person that their plans won't affect those that currently receive Medicare. They say this all the time, and if what they were doing about Medicare didn't basically destroy it than why would they make sure to say that over and over and over again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP?
I think its a case of "I have a shot at the big chair, whether or not you win."
Though I would also guess that the larger GOP didn't really push* Rubio to take a nomination.
*There is no way in hell he wasn't asked.
Good points...
Just heard this... I think I heard this right...
Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
What's wrong with sharing prosperity?
I bet you have not realized that the ideology spewed by these folks is the same exact ideology and economic platform that lead to child labor, The Jungle, and all the other horrors of the late 19th / early 20th century. :(
sebster wrote:That sums up the whole thing rather well.
The only point I'd add is that while attacking Ryan over his budget might be easy, it's also unlikely to be make much difference. I mean, attacks on Palin made little real difference because ultimately she isn't the President, so attacks on Ryan's budget are unlikely to matter much more.
I'd argue that the Ryan budget is a real and common talking point and has a much greater effect on the personal lives of the democrats (and to a large extent republicans) voter bases. Where Palin was a hollywood sideshow, that in a lot of ways worked to her credit. It's hard to base a vote around someone you don't take seriously and believe would be sidelined. Palin never did or said anything substantial, she just sort of parroted slogans and talked about hockey. Ryan and his budget are taken seriously as the role models of conservative deficit hawks and he is much more an enemy of the democrat party than even Romney himself. Romney can and will be overshadowed in this election cycle by his VP and I can't think of a time in my life when that has happened before. I suspect ryan will become inextricably linked to the elections primary issues (taxes and the economy) in a way that will be significantly more meaningful than VP choices in recent history.
In a lot of ways Ryan himself is an election cycle issue. He's the mascot for teaparty policy where Palin was the mascot for teaparty theatrics. Americans to an extent simply ignore theatrics in modern times. A "plan" that is actually outlined and detailed can be significantly more damaging.
I'd also wager that the Ryan Plan would do better politically if he didn't also include massive tax cuts for the wealthy and for incorporated individuals (haha, saying this makes me sad).
Seriously, Americans are a lot of things but they aren't half as craven and mean spirited as people make them out to be, and I don't think they are largely in favor of cutting benefits for the weak so that we can give the wealthy tax cuts.
Then again, we get a lot of commentators that talk about Paul Ryan's "bravery" since he's so willing to do that. Weird, where I grew up we wouldn't call someone who was a bully that.
whembly wrote:
What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?
No, don't be ridiculous. Just don't expect those HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that are laid off by these cuts to then find work elsewhere. They won't, and this will create a huge drag on the economy.
If R/R wins... who will be laid off? But, if there's excess here ( I think there is ), yeah, there will be a drag.
You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
This IS a political pick. Romney doesn't pander to the right wing base enough, and boy do those guys want to be pandered to, and picking Paul Ryan goes a long way towards shoring up his base. He'll still lose, though.
Rubio would've been a much better choice to rally the base...
Uh... no... it's about a different vision. Instead of talking about Romney a taxcheat/murder/gutter stuff, he's FORCING a conversation on what vision does the American people want from their government. It's a shame that Romney couldn't do it himself as he needed a VP pick to save him. But, honestly, could ANYONE change the narrative by himself. Give credit to Romney here... Ryan is a respected fighter.
Talk about vision all you want, but it's a crap argument.
Why? THATS part of the political process! You've got two camps.. we THINK we know what they stand for, but they still need to sell it.
I don't blame President Obama for being negative on Romney. Romney is willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, which oftentimes means pandering to crowds and being vague in policy proposals. What is President Obama supposed to campaign against? Romney's 59 point plan to economic recovery? Romney's platitudes about American greatness? Give me a break. Romney says little and mostly runs on his resume', and it turns out that the only thing his resume' has that isn't totally awful is his "saving" the Olympics.
Romney does have issues... (who doesn't?), but it's Romney vs Obama... take your pick.
His trip was a disaster. It made him look small, ignorant, and petty.
I disagree... I thought it was a wash...
And "Mediscare" is a bs word invented by donkey-caves. If we're going to have this be a "campaign about ideas" than maybe we can talk about Medicare and what each party wants to do with it.
I agree!
You know how I know the "Mediscare" argument is total bs? If it wasn't all crap the Republicans would not make such a big point of telling every old person that their plans won't affect those that currently receive Medicare. They say this all the time, and if what they were doing about Medicare didn't basically destroy it than why would they make sure to say that over and over and over again?
Which horse's mouth did you get this?
I don't know about you, but you missed this part for 60 minute:
Romney answered critics who say Ryan’s Medicare plan will hurt the ticket’s chances, especially in Florida.
“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney said.
“What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, “We’re going to give you a bigger choice.” In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”
Ryan added, “My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida. Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms. That have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:Is this a case of "I can do more for our cause" by staying in a contested Senate, than running for VP?
I think its a case of "I have a shot at the big chair, whether or not you win."
Though I would also guess that the larger GOP didn't really push* Rubio to take a nomination.
*There is no way in hell he wasn't asked.
Good points...
Just heard this... I think I heard this right...
Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
What's wrong with sharing prosperity?
I bet you have not realized that the ideology spewed by these folks is the same exact ideology and economic platform that lead to child labor, The Jungle, and all the other horrors of the late 19th / early 20th century. :(
Well, let's just see how the campaign of "cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Pell Grants, Food Stamps, Headstart, and taxes for the wealthy" does.
I don't think Americans are bullies or like bullies.
And thats why we can't have a serious discussion about the budget, deficits, or pretty much anything. The candidate that makes that mistake is instantly destroyed by the other side as being EEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!! Doesn't matter which side, or which issue.
Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.
People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.
Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!
Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.
TheHammer wrote:Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!
Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.
And my point is made. Thanks for helping out so quickly!
Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.
People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.
His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.
Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.
People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.
His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.
Did I say otherwise? I'm stating we can't have the discussion, else we'll get posts like have been noted.
TheHammer wrote:Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!
Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.
And my point is made. Thanks for helping out so quickly!
Can we have at least an honesty debate? (not gunna happen tho)
Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.
People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.
His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.
Did I say otherwise? I'm stating we can't have the discussion, else we'll get posts like have been noted.
Your couching your plea for a discussion in a defense of something designed to squelch discussion by being a demagogues manifesto. What you're doing isn't well concealed. A call for moderation can't be made in defense of extremism. That's extremism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
TheHammer wrote:Oh no, I have bombastically attacked the glorious ideas of slashing benefits to the poor and weak in our society so that we may cut the taxes for the wealthy!
Yes, it is rhetoric that is stopping us from having serious conversations about serious issues. It has nothing to do with one side offering limp wristed defenses of the status quo while the other side goes further and further off the deep end in wanting to bring us back to the Gilded Age.
And my point is made. Thanks for helping out so quickly!
Can we have at least an honesty debate? (not gunna happen tho)
Most of the people in this thread don't know enough to be capable of having one on this topic. The U.S. budget is a truly vast and complicated thing. This is a sub forum in a tiny plastic man game forum.
Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.
People decry the decline of "ideas" campaigns and then elect people who do nothing but run attack dog gotcha campaigns in reality.
His budget was already a bombastic political ploy. Stop cherishing the wolf, it was designed specifically to be a political football, not a reasonable or meaningful addition to the discussion. That budget is and always has been nothing but hot air for blowhards.
Did I say otherwise? I'm stating we can't have the discussion, else we'll get posts like have been noted.
Your couching your plea for a discussion in a defense of something designed to squelch discussion by being a demagogues manifesto. What you're doing isn't well concealed. A call for moderation can't be made in defense of extremism. That's extremism.
No. You're letting your bias get in the way of your vision again. I'm saying lets argue the merits of the issue for once, at least a little bit.
Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.
Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.
Melissia wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not intending to sound like you take Ryan's budget seriously.
It wasn't intended to be a budget that would pass. It a political move to score points with tea party voters, nothing more. At least that's what I'm assuming. The Republican party as a whole would likely see that budget as a bit of a nightmare to promote, even with their traditional belief in Trickle-Down Economics-- the last thing they want to do is alienate elderly voters.
Nope. I'm saying we can't even have the discussion because the bombastic attacks come instantly, as have already occurred.
... you mean, like Paul Ryan's "budget" itself?
Sure (if Romney doesn't put out a budget plan in which case nope), but you have to then put up the Democrat's plan, which would be the Obama budget. Which one's better? Why? Why not? first person to say Nazi or Commie loses. FIGHT !
Most of the people in this thread don't know enough to be capable of having one on this topic. The U.S. budget is a truly vast and complicated thing. This is a sub forum in a tiny plastic man game forum.
Good points...
But, this is what I see...
We've got a wonderful group with diverse backgrounds in this "tiny plastic-man game" sub-forum.
It really is an interesting discussion and that I'd like to think we all can learn something.
But, back on topic...
A democrat on the ranking budget committee Erskine Bowles said this of Ryan:
“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.
And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.
The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”
Now... I know that's one man's opinion... but, interesting nonethenless...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Sure, but you have to then put up the Democrat's plan, which would be the Obama budget.
Which one's better? Why? Why not? first person to say Nazi or Commie loses. FIGHT !
It's almost as if you have nothing to contribute to any political discussions besides half truths and trolling!
But, here, I'll give you a serious bit of conversation about debt, deficits, entitlements, and the economy:
We face several issues right now. Our economy has shrunk in real terms and in personal terms. Individuals now work harder (productivity is higher than ever) and longer for less. It takes more education, more work, and longer hours just to get by.
There are many programs that have sheltered many groups in this country from literally dying, or otherwise being adversely affected by the economic climate. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, subsidized housing, and lots of other programs have saved millions of lives and helped many million more escape poverty.
We must also acknowledge that two of these programs, Social Security and Medicare, have been hugely successful and are becoming victims of their own success. One need only look at people living longer, living better in old age, and otherwise having a higher quality of life for many more years into the future to see how these have been successful. Conservatives oftentimes point out that Medicare projections by the government have been off, and they're right: but it's because the government never expected Medicare to be as successful as it was and to result in people living even longer than expected, which in turn makes Medicare more costly.
All the same, medical expenses for the elderly are rising and unless addresses will negatively impact our economy. We must address Medicare spending.
First of all, Ryan's plan is terrible. Giving vouchers to seniors to pay for private medical insurance is insane. It's literally stupid. How does a health insurance company insure an 80 year old man with diabetes and make a profit? It's impossible. It can't be done. This is a clear cut example of where the marketplace and profit motive is not capable of providing for a very serious public good. Dogmatically saying it can because you read Atlas Shrugged does not change reality.
One of the fixes, and one of the things the weak Democratic Party never talks about, is in the Affordable Care Act. By providing for medical care to individuals before they go onto Medicare means that they will enter old age more healthy than before. Too many seniors could not afford to get routine check ups, preventative measures, and otherwise essential medical care before entering Medicare and when they do finally enter Medicare they do so costing the system much more than they otherwise should. The Affordable Care Act will help people better take care of themselves and will help offset some of the costs of Medicare because people will literally be healthier.
Next, we must acknowledge the successes of Medicare. It's a successful program and successful programs should be paid for and not destroyed because of their success. Raising taxes to pay for this program, and that of Social Security since individuals don't pay into it after a certain point, will go towards better funding the program.
Lastly, and this is the crappy thing no one will ever talk about: at a certain point we reach diminishing returns with Medicare. The majority of healthcare costs come in the last 6 months of a person's life. At a certain point we throw good money after bad and Medicare can be better maintained and funded so that it can have the most benefit for the dollar. I believe that having deductibles come into effect at a certain point for certain treatments at a certain point in a person's life will help lower costs for Medicare.
The rest of our budget can be talked about in 3 other areas: Military spending, welfare, and infrastructure.
Military spending should be cut. We're spending too much for too little and don't need it. Yes, we can destroy the planet a hundred times over. No, we don't need to do it 101 times over. Military spending adds very little back to the economy and there's only so much protection we need.
Welfare is important. We have endemic poverty in many parts of the nation and the solution is not to just throw people off of government entitlements. I find it bizarre that the Republican Party exists as the party that yells at President Obama for high unemployment but yet thinks people on welfare should just go find a job. The amount of cognitive dissonance is dizzying. Until we have a country where low skill / low education work can provide for a stable life I don't think we can blame people for being on welfare.
Infrastructure is also hugely important. Roads, education, research, and all other areas should be increased dramatically. We can only grow ourselves out of our fiscal hole and that takes investment.
Next, trade is never talked about. We are losing our blue collar middle class. We can not be a nation of computer programmers. We must make sure there are middle class jobs for the everyman that graduates highschool and wants to work hard but is otherwise not exceptional. That means bringing back manufacturing from abroad. By opening trade so completely we are trying to compete with what basically amounts to slave labor. We can't do that, nor should we have to. By restricting trade with those that do not value the environment or worker's rights we can bring back many jobs.
Lastly, we need to refocus our tax code on labor and not capital investment. We must raise the taxes on investment income and on incomes above $250,000. No, that will not solve the deficit but it will take some positive steps in doing so. By keeping taxes low on the working class, by giving them better jobs, by investing in infrastructure, and by otherwise bringing up the quality of life of the working class through work and guaranteeing certain economic rights we can provide enough demand to keep the investment class profitable. Right now our big problem is consumption, and we must understand that lowering taxes on suppliers and investors will not create additional demand in a marketplace swamped with supply.
But, yes, we can have a serious conversation about all these issues. It just involves not being awful about it.
Until those on the right want to concede that we can balance the budget on the backs of the weakest in our society while giving tax cuts to the wealthy I will continue calling them what they are: petty bullies waging class war on the working class.
Whats the Obama plan? All I know is he cut Medicare by $700bn to fund Obamacare. Thats not a lot of information to go on. is the Obama budget gong to restore that or what? What deficit are we looking at under the Romney plan vs. the Obama plan?
What is the duty of taxpayer vis a vis the federal government? Aka, what are the boundaries the federal govenrment should have in regard to spending and requirements to help others with taxpayer money?
What is the duty of the federal government to provide some semblance of a balanced budget? How much spending per GDP is too much?
Frazzled wrote:And thats why we can't have a serious discussion about the budget, deficits, or pretty much anything. The candidate that makes that mistake is instantly destroyed by the other side as being EEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!! Doesn't matter which side, or which issue.
It doesn't inspire confidence in our nation's ability to actually address its challenges and issues. Look at health care. Every so many years there's a consensus that something needs to be done. Then when someone tries to do something, in leaps the other party and 1000 special interests declaring it to be evil.
From what I've read, I'd probably have issues with aspects of the Ryan plan. Seems like more velvet glove treatment of the rich at the expense of everyone else. The middle class has taken umpteen gut punches over the last 30 years, and they don't need any more of those.
But it's a serious proposal that actually attempts to do something, and it took some political courage to draft it. So I respect it and think it's worthy of serious discussion. Not that I think the campaign will shake out that way. The Dems will be quick play the evil card and hang the Medicare cuts around Romney's neck, and Romney probably won't stand firmly in favor of the Ryan plan, just because he hasn't shown much of a backbone. And thus the chance for some substantive discussion will die on the vine.
Still, Ryan was probably Romney's best possible choice just because his campaign was going less than nowhere in recent weeks.
whembly wrote:If R/R wins... who will be laid off? But, if there's excess here ( I think there is ), yeah, there will be a drag.
The short version? Everyone not in the department of defense. As well as eliminating EVERYTHING else in the government.
Ryan wants to decrease the Federal budget to 560ish Billion WITHOUT reducing military spending. In 2011, the DoD was budgeted 550 billion. I imagine most of the remaining 10 billion will be paying for the white house, congress, their salaries, and all their benefits (members past and present included). There might just be enough left to pay for the supreme court, but the whole network of federal courts? Forgetaboutit.
So, NASA, the state department, the FBI, the CIA, department of the interior, Homeland Security, the Fed, the mint, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, EVERYTHING ELSE doesn't just get cut down, it gets eliminated ENTIRELY. No more national parks, no OSHA, no federal prisons... in short, any nonmilitary function of the Federal govermnet GOES AWAY under the Ryan plan.
If that doesn't qualify as 'a bad plan' I'd hesitate to hear what DOES!
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong (they then fail once they hit the publics eyes).
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.
Again whats the Obama plan?
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.
Again whats the Obama plan?
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.
Again whats the Obama plan?
Plans are incidental and fairly irrelevant since congress and the senate won't let anything through. Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public, they're negotiated behind closed doors where they belong.
Again, whats the Obama plan?
Realistic plans with compromises and actual mathematics used aren't presented to the public.
I'm in the public Frazzled. So are you. All you get to have is ideology and bunk while trying to parse meaning between the lines. It's about all the American electorate deserves, it's fethed itself proper by being idiotic. My generation is reaping what yours has sewn while you try to distance yourself from the monster of a country you made.
Frazzled: As for which one's better, the Obama plan. Cutting the budget by 75% while leaving programs such as defense-- which will continue to grow-- is a bad idea in general. IT's far too sudden of a cut, and will put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people out of a job while also reducing the social security net for those who don't have a job, resulting in a massive hit to the economy which simply does not have the growth in jobs necessary to sustain continued public cuts. All without any increase in revenue-- in fact, he gladly decreases government revenue by a drastic amount, so the end result will not actually reduce the national debt, but will instead likely increase it.
Obama's plan, meanwhile, provides a smaller cut to the government, and a small increase in taxation to the very rich-- those whose incomes have risen dramatically while everyone else's have stagnated-- and will actually work to reduce the deficit without demolishing necessary government programs. His plan also leaves open cuts to the military, which is not a bad thing. Effectively, Obama's plan is more of a classic conservative plan, while Ryan's plan is a trumped up neocon nightmare that was never intended to be passed.
I'm in the public Frazzled. So are you. All you get to have is ideology and bunk while trying to parse meaning between the lines. It's about all the American electorate deserves, it's fethed itself proper by being idiotic. My generation is reaping what yours has sewn while you try to distance yourself from the monster of a country you made.
Thats pretty hostile. Have a cookie and some milk. There, better now? Now as I was saying, whats the Obama Plan?
Melissia wrote:Frazzled: As for which one's better, the Obama plan. Cutting the budget by 75% while leaving programs such as defense-- which will continue to grow-- is a bad idea in general. IT's far too sudden of a cut, and will put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people out of a job while also reducing the social security net for those who don't have a job, resulting in a massive hit to the economy which simply does not have the growth in jobs necessary to sustain continued public cuts.
Obama doesn't really have a fiscal plan as presented for the next post election cycle. Just talking points. No plan he could present to the American people that actually addresses our nations budgetary issues could play well in the public. Americans by in large don't know or understand the systemic issues in this economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Thats pretty hostile. Have a cookie and some milk. There, better now? Now as I was saying, whats the Obama Plan?
Obama doesn't really have a fiscal plan as presented for the next post election cycle. Just talking points. No plan he could present to the American people that actually addresses our nations budgetary issues could play well in the public. Americans by in large don't know or understand the systemic issues in this economy.
The Ryan Plan, if nothing else, let's us actually talk about one of the core differences between the Democrats and Republicans.
The Republicans believe you can cut your way out of debt, and that the debts themselves won't negatively impact the economy for some reason (Ayn Rand? Von Hayek?).
The Democrats believe that we must grow our way out of debt, but that they are also willing to have some cuts in addition to any items that exist to inspire growth.
Stop moving the goal post, Frazzled. You wanted a serious adult discussion, so have one.
Melissia wrote:Frazzled: As for which one's better, the Obama plan. Cutting the budget by 75% while leaving programs such as defense-- which will continue to grow-- is a bad idea in general. IT's far too sudden of a cut, and will put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people out of a job while also reducing the social security net for those who don't have a job, resulting in a massive hit to the economy which simply does not have the growth in jobs necessary to sustain continued public cuts. All without any increase in revenue-- in fact, he gladly decreases government revenue by a drastic amount, so the end result will not actually reduce the national debt, but will instead likely increase it.
Obama's plan, meanwhile, provides a smaller cut to the government, and a small increase in taxation to the very rich-- those whose incomes have risen dramatically while everyone else's have stagnated-- and will actually work to reduce the deficit without demolishing necessary government programs. His plan also leaves open cuts to the military, which is not a bad thing. Effectively, Obama's plan is more of a classic conservative plan, while Ryan's plan is a trumped up neocon nightmare that was never intended to be passed.
Whats the Obama plan? How big of a deficit? When is the budget balanced? Who's axe gets gored under the Obama plan (besides Medicare).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote:Exactly, Melissia.
The Ryan Plan, if nothing else, let's us actually talk about one of the core differences between the Democrats and Republicans.
The Republicans believe you can cut your way out of debt, and that the debts themselves won't negatively impact the economy for some reason (Ayn Rand? Von Hayek?).
The Democrats believe that we must grow our way out of debt, but that they are also willing to have some cuts in addition to any items that exist to inspire growth.
Stop moving the goal post, Frazzled. You wanted a serious adult discussion, so have one.
Who's moving the goal post? I've asked for very few things, things that any candidate should have on tap, immediately.
1. Whats their plan?
2. How big are the deficits? When does the budget balance?
3. Who's axe gets gored?
Frazzled wrote:Whats the Obama plan? How big of a deficit? When is the budget balanced? Who's axe gets gored under the Obama plan (besides Medicare).
You have a really bad memory, don't you?
Obama's budget plan was introduced shortly before Ryan's, both were talked about at the same time, in comparison to each other in fact. I'm not going to babysit you-- edited by Reds8n
It sure is... I blame it on my mid-western dry sense of humor
It's almost as if you have nothing to contribute to any political discussions besides half truths and trolling!
Same can be said about you... but, let's try debating some.
But, here, I'll give you a serious bit of conversation about debt, deficits, entitlements, and the economy:
Right on! Whacha got?
We face several issues right now. Our economy has shrunk in real terms and in personal terms. Individuals now work harder (productivity is higher than ever) and longer for less. It takes more education, more work, and longer hours just to get by.
I agree! very astute description... that's the nature of the "tough" economy that we faced where we're hovering around 8% unemployment, 15% unemployment+under employed.
There are many programs that have sheltered many groups in this country from literally dying, or otherwise being adversely affected by the economic climate. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, subsidized housing, and lots of other programs have saved millions of lives and helped many million more escape poverty.
True... I agree with you here. These programs FAR exceeded their original intent.
We must also acknowledge that two of these programs, Social Security and Medicare, have been hugely successful and are becoming victims of their own success. One need only look at people living longer, living better in old age, and otherwise having a higher quality of life for many more years into the future to see how these have been successful. Conservatives oftentimes point out that Medicare projections by the government have been off, and they're right: but it's because the government never expected Medicare to be as successful as it was and to result in people living even longer than expected, which in turn makes Medicare more costly.
because a wealthy nation such as ours will ALWAYS choose to fund these entitlement programs. Voters typically will vote for whomever will maintain the status quo. However, Medicare goes backrupt by 2024 (that's 12 yrs away!) in it's current iteration and ObamaCare does NOTHING to address that. These programs are simply unsustainable. So, we need to have an adult conversation in addressing this NOW... because if we don't, it'll be a disaster when the $$$ runs out. An example of this is R/R's goal:
“What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, “We’re going to give you a bigger choice.” In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”
That's having an adult converstation... the next phase is HOW they plan to achieve this?
All the same, medical expenses for the elderly are rising and unless addresses will negatively impact our economy. We must address Medicare spending.
Agreed... lets do the kitchen sink principle....
First of all, Ryan's plan is terrible. Giving vouchers to seniors to pay for private medical insurance is insane. It's literally stupid. How does a health insurance company insure an 80 year old man with diabetes and make a profit? It's impossible. It can't be done. This is a clear cut example of where the marketplace and profit motive is not capable of providing for a very serious public good. Dogmatically saying it can because you read Atlas Shrugged does not change reality.
See frazzle's post above...
I'd say it's a good START... as it'll only impact those younger than 55 years of age. those 55 or older keep the same system. Ironically, the Cons criticized his plan when he wouldn't let those over age 55 have the OPTION of using the voucher system.
One of the fixes, and one of the things the weak Democratic Party never talks about, is in the Affordable Care Act. By providing for medical care to individuals before they go onto Medicare means that they will enter old age more healthy than before. Too many seniors could not afford to get routine check ups, preventative measures, and otherwise essential medical care before entering Medicare and when they do finally enter Medicare they do so costing the system much more than they otherwise should. The Affordable Care Act will help people better take care of themselves and will help offset some of the costs of Medicare because people will literally be healthier.
I gotta find this analysis I saw... while that is one of the good things about the ACA, the folks still NEED to GO to the doctor for preventative care. There's an analsys that basically said, "most people who don't go thru preventative care still won't go even if its cheaper/free"... (but, this is another topic *need to find that link*)
Next, we must acknowledge the successes of Medicare. It's a successful program and successful programs should be paid for and not destroyed because of their success. Raising taxes to pay for this program, and that of Social Security since individuals don't pay into it after a certain point, will go towards better funding the program.
That's one option... you do know that no matter what the tax rate is, it still won't be enough to cover everything promised? These entitlements MUST be re-calibrated and I believe that we need to look at EVERYTHING... things at tax rates (up or down), like current regulation (ie, FDA approvals), like who CMS is ran, like tort reform... EVERYTHING. There is no one silver bullet.
Lastly, and this is the crappy thing no one will ever talk about: at a certain point we reach diminishing returns with Medicare. The majority of healthcare costs come in the last 6 months of a person's life. At a certain point we throw good money after bad and Medicare can be better maintained and funded so that it can have the most benefit for the dollar. I believe that having deductibles come into effect at a certain point for certain treatments at a certain point in a person's life will help lower costs for Medicare.
Ya know... I like this... but, this benefits the haves/haves not.
The rest of our budget can be talked about in 3 other areas: Military spending, welfare, and infrastructure.
Military spending should be cut. We're spending too much for too little and don't need it. Yes, we can destroy the planet a hundred times over. No, we don't need to do it 101 times over. Military spending adds very little back to the economy and there's only so much protection we need.
I agree... we have too many toys.
If anything, the emphasis needs to be on Naval and Infantry.
Welfare is important. We have endemic poverty in many parts of the nation and the solution is not to just throw people off of government entitlements. I find it bizarre that the Republican Party exists as the party that yells at President Obama for high unemployment but yet thinks people on welfare should just go find a job. The amount of cognitive dissonance is dizzying. Until we have a country where low skill / low education work can provide for a stable life I don't think we can blame people for being on welfare.
The problem that the Rep have is their messaging... it pigeon-hole them into the common stereotypes when any attempt to talk about welfare reform.
Look... we do need welfare for those that truly needs it. The problem is that it is taken advantage of...
I remember that there was an analysis in Alabama that you were better off being on Fed/State welfare UNLESS your made more than $32k/year. This is a problem and in encourage these folks not to do better.
Infrastructure is also hugely important. Roads, education, research, and all other areas should be increased dramatically. We can only grow ourselves out of our fiscal hole and that takes investment.
Right... no prob here... see the Tennesse Valley Association... that was pretty cool. Or, the Hover Dam and the Federal Highways.
But... it's gotten stupid lately... Solyndra? Bridge-to-NoWhere? Giving Reseach $$ to Brazil so that THEY can drill for oil? Giving $$ to Egypt? We are pissing away $$$.
Next, trade is never talked about. We are losing our blue collar middle class. We can not be a nation of computer programmers. We must make sure there are middle class jobs for the everyman that graduates highschool and wants to work hard but is otherwise not exceptional. That means bringing back manufacturing from abroad. By opening trade so completely we are trying to compete with what basically amounts to slave labor. We can't do that, nor should we have to. By restricting trade with those that do not value the environment or worker's rights we can bring back many jobs.
Hrmph... no complaints here...
Just hope folks realize that if we start Trade Wars (aka, China, Mexico)... your Walmart goods won't be as cheap anymore.
Lastly, we need to refocus our tax code on labor and not capital investment.
Disagree... both needs to be addressed. We have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world now. THAT is why some jobs are done overseas...
We must raise the taxes on investment income and on incomes above $250,000. No, that will not solve the deficit but it will take some positive steps in doing so. By keeping taxes low on the working class, by giving them better jobs, by investing in infrastructure, and by otherwise bringing up the quality of life of the working class through work and guaranteeing certain economic rights we can provide enough demand to keep the investment class profitable.
I sort of agree... I've been advocating for flat tax rate, but that'll never happen...
What I'd like to see if to FIRST, get read of all deductions. ALL OF IT.
Right now our big problem is consumption, and we must understand that lowering taxes on suppliers and investors will not create additional demand in a marketplace swamped with supply.
Eh... that's part of the problem. One of the biggest problem is that businesses (large and small) are sitting on gak-ton of money. It's because they're so uncertain about the future. When you have this... there's no future planning, no future growth, no future investments. We are in a rut.
The "movement" of that cash is what kicks the economy in gear...
But, yes, we can have a serious conversation about all these issues. It just involves not being awful about it.
I agree. Thanks for taking the time.
Until those on the right want to concede that we can balance the budget on the backs of the weakest in our society while giving tax cuts to the wealthy I will continue calling them what they are: petty bullies waging class war on the working class.
Until those on the left want to concede that we can balance the budget on real reform across all levels of government (ie, reduce govt involvment), we can get something done.
Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.
Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?
Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.
So you actually think Obama could actually come up with something WORSE than eliminating 90% of Federal govenmental functions, INCLUDING Federal courts and law enforcement?
Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.
Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?
Give me a compare and contrast. Whats the Obama plan? Puts some $ to it.
So you actually think Obama could actually come up with something WORSE than eliminating 90% of Federal govenmental functions, INCLUDING Federal courts and law enforcement?
So much for adult discussions.
Sorry, I saw the House's budget. Show me the plan you're talking about that drops government spending to half a trillion.
whembly wrote:If R/R wins... who will be laid off? But, if there's excess here ( I think there is ), yeah, there will be a drag.
The short version? Everyone not in the department of defense. As well as eliminating EVERYTHING else in the government.
Eh... Defense needs to be cut... it's TOO BIG. We can cut it down while maintaining a 1st rate force in the world... but, it's gonna take realistic plan to do that w/o impacting current operations.
Such as, do we need the JSF? Do we need that many submarines? The big toys... they need to be cut.
Ryan wants to decrease the Federal budget to 560ish Billion WITHOUT reducing military spending. In 2011, the DoD was budgeted 550 billion. I imagine most of the remaining 10 billion will be paying for the white house, congress, their salaries, and all their benefits (members past and present included). There might just be enough left to pay for the supreme court, but the whole network of federal courts? Forgetaboutit.
You need to read the whole plan and the context. You know that automatic cut that's coming to the defense. He wants to DELAY that so that a more effective plan can be actualized. The Generals already testified (and head of DoD) that these cuts would be a disaster in its current iteration.
So, NASA, the state department, the FBI, the CIA, department of the interior, Homeland Security, the Fed, the mint, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, EVERYTHING ELSE doesn't just get cut down, it gets eliminated ENTIRELY. No more national parks, no OSHA, no federal prisons... in short, any nonmilitary function of the Federal govermnet GOES AWAY under the Ryan plan.
I don't see that anywhere in his plans... care to provide a source?
But, here's my take... ALL of these department needs to be reviewed and have fat trimmed. Also... OSHA and EPA. Yeah, dissolve them.
If that doesn't qualify as 'a bad plan' I'd hesitate to hear what DOES!
A bad plan is believing that all we need to do is raise taxes on the wealthy and thinking that'll cover the gap.
And as far as raising taxes... doncha know that'll change peoples habit? The FEDS never get what they've forecasted when taxes are raised.
But, in any event... it's gonna take an overhaul of govt spending across the boardand raising taxes on EVERYONE (middleclass and weathy)to balance the budget.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:
So you actually think Obama could actually come up with something WORSE than eliminating 90% of Federal govenmental functions, INCLUDING Federal courts and law enforcement?
So much for adult discussions.
WHERE are you getting this information that Ryan want's to eleminate 90% of Federal Govt functions? Where? Source please.
TheHammer wrote:I apologize, whembly, I was not calling you a troll. I disagree with you, but you've at least try to be constructive and talk about ideas.
No problemo.
Hey... I could be bat-gak wrong... but, I'm not afraid of discussing things.
writein candidate. Vote for Frazzled on the Wiener Dog Party ticket. My VP candidate Rodney T'Shanker will take a bite out of his competition in the debates. Literally.
Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.
Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?
Yeah the Ryan plan doesn't call for any cuts to the national parks system and the Fed is self funded so it can't be cut in any budget until and unless it stops making money on its security investments. Beyond that I just dismissed your analysis because those are to me glaring errors.
Why is this important? Erskine Bowles has a long pedigree as a Democratic budget thinker — and presidential adviser. When Barack Obama needed to pick the co-chair for his deficit committee, which he roundly ignored in the end, he chose Bowles to represent his side on the panel. Bowles served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and earlier ran the Small Business Administration for Clinton. Ezra Klein predicted on Friday that Bowles would be the front-runner for Tim Geithner’s job at Treasury if Obama wins a second term. Bowles stated:
“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.
And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.
The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”
Wow. That guy is so far up Paul Ryan's ass I hope he bought him dinner first.
@Frazzled: I don't know what Obama's budget includes. However, Ryan's budget is so bad that I believe you are making an error in assuming that any publicized budget is better than no publicized budget. Compared to the budget Ryan proposed, short of cancelling all government programs and allocating those funds toward roving posses of rapist clowns, Obama can't not have a better budget.
I realize that so far I've used some colourful editorialization here, but putting that aside, let me be completely serious: Paul Ryan's proposed budget will plunge your country into Mad Max times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:*Freeeeedom means the immediate annexation of Canada, Mexico, and Tahiti. All your handy vacation spots and maple deliciousness are belong to us!!!
Last time y'all tried this, the White House was razed.
Why is this important? Erskine Bowles has a long pedigree as a Democratic budget thinker — and presidential adviser. When Barack Obama needed to pick the co-chair for his deficit committee, which he roundly ignored in the end, he chose Bowles to represent his side on the panel. Bowles served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and earlier ran the Small Business Administration for Clinton. Ezra Klein predicted on Friday that Bowles would be the front-runner for Tim Geithner’s job at Treasury if Obama wins a second term. Bowles stated:
“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.
And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.
The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”
Wow. That guy is so far up Paul Ryan's ass I hope he bought him dinner first
Uh... Bowles is a Democrat from Oregon ( a very liberal region ). He's was Clinton's Chief of Staff for cripes sakes... My point was that he's respected in both aisles.
@Frazzled: I don't know what Obama's budget includes. However, Ryan's budget is so bad that I believe you are making an error in assuming that any publicized budget is better than no publicized budget. Compared to the budget Ryan proposed, short of cancelling all government programs and allocating those funds toward roving posses of rapist clowns, Obama can't not have a better budget.
I realize that so far I've used some colourful editorialization here, but putting that aside, let me be completely serious: Paul Ryan's proposed budget will plunge your country into Mad Max times.
whembly wrote:Uh... Bowles is a Democrat from Oregon ( a very liberal region ). He's was Clinton's Chief of Staff for cripes sakes... My point was that he's respected in both aisles.
And my point was that Bowles is so far up Paul Ryan's ass that I hope he bought him dinner first. I don't understand how party lines comes into play, outside of a Romeo & Juliet allegory.
Tell me which one of his ideas will bring us to Mad Max times???
Having nothing but blank pages beyond his empty rhetoric on page 7 isn't a great start.
I should note: I'm a pretty staunch defender of government regulation for the private sector, and in favour of single-payer universal health care, so I'm diametrically opposed to most of his budget cuts, as I view the privatization of public services with loathing and contempt, as services provided by the private sector represent a conflict of interest: the conflict between the private sector's goal of maximizing their profit whilst being expected to provide a service that can only be viewed as an expenditure on their books.
Anyway, I'll start with his rhetoric: -The 1.9 trillion tax increase under Obama will only apply to the very rich. And feth those guys. In the 1940s they were paying 94% and still lived like kings. How much better does someone need to eat?
-Ryan claims to "reduce debt as a share of the economy ... reforming the drivers of the debt", yet also says there will be no reduction to defense spending, implying he has no understanding the defense spending accounts for the majority of the debt.
-I won't defend Obamacare as anything other than being better than what you had before it. Obamacare is a bad policy, but it's better than nothing. Basically the equivalent of going to the vet because you can't afford to go to the hospital. However, any health care system that creates a conflict of interest as is common in the private sector between the well-being of the patient and the profit of the company should be completely removed from the table for obvious reasons.
whembly wrote:Uh... Bowles is a Democrat from Oregon ( a very liberal region ). He's was Clinton's Chief of Staff for cripes sakes... My point was that he's respected in both aisles.
And my point was that Bowles is so far up Paul Ryan's ass that I hope he bought him dinner first. I don't understand how party lines comes into play, outside of a Romeo & Juliet allegory.
Uh... Democrats vs Republicans are like Hetfield and McCoys...
Tell me which one of his ideas will bring us to Mad Max times???
Having nothing but blank pages beyond his empty rhetoric on page 7 isn't a great start.
I should note: I'm a pretty staunch defender of government regulation for the private sector, and in favour of single-payer universal health care, so I'm diametrically opposed to most of his budget cuts, as I view the privatization of public services with loathing and contempt, as services provided by the private sector represent a conflict of interest: the conflict between the private sector's goal of maximizing their profit whilst being expected to provide a service that can only be viewed as an expenditure on their books.
Whoa... don't take this the wrong way... but... I'm glad you live in Canada. Stay THERE!
Those views run contrary to most Americans.
Or... move to San Francisco... you'll fit in there.
whembly wrote:Whoa... don't take this the wrong way... but... I'm glad you live in Canada. Stay THERE!
Those views run contrary to most Americans.
Or... move to San Francisco... you'll fit in there.
The San Francisco quip I can only assume is a strange attack on my sexuality (Kinsey 0 heterosexual, if that at all matters), which I assume comes from some twisted idea you have that there is a direct association between homosexuality and increased health care, beyond the tertiary notion that homosexuals are statistically more likely to identify as being progressive, and therefore more likely to be in favour of universal health care. However, by that virtue one could also claim that homosexuals are statistically less likely to vote against their own interests because they are less likely to be swayed by foolish propaganda such as considering socialist policies to be an antithesis of a foolish notion of what it means to be a "Red-Blooded Real 'Merican".
In any case, please be careful with loaded statements like the San Fransisco bit.
As to the rest, I absolutely do not take it the wrong way: a xenophobic statement endorsing the patriarchal status quo by implying that new ideas which do not conform to the current moral majority are not desired and should stay away so as to remove any possibility of progressive social change.
At least, that is what you said. What you meant to say, however, was likely "please do not take offense to this, but... stay THERE!", in which case you have nothing to worry about. I am neither offended nor would I ever have any intention to immigrate to any country without real universal health care.
whembly wrote:Whoa... don't take this the wrong way... but... I'm glad you live in Canada. Stay THERE!
Those views run contrary to most Americans.
Or... move to San Francisco... you'll fit in there.
The San Francisco quip I can only assume is a strange attack on my sexuality (Kinsey 0 heterosexual, if that at all matters), which I assume comes from some twisted idea you have that there is a direct association between homosexuality and increased health care, beyond the tertiary notion that homosexuals are statistically more likely to identify as being progressive, and therefore more likely to be in favour of universal health care. However, by that virtue one could also claim that homosexuals are statistically less likely to vote against their own interests because they are less likely to be swayed by foolish propaganda such as considering socialist policies to be an antithesis of a foolish notion of what it means to be a "Red-Blooded Real 'Merican".
In any case, please be careful with loaded statements like the San Fransisco bit.
I knew I walked into that one...
Just implying that what you believe in from your previous post... you'd fit it with their politics. That's all...
Fyi... I have a gay friend... and he's a chick magnet! Got me numerous um... opportunities with the fairer sex, if you get my drift.
As to the rest, I absolutely do not take it the wrong way: a xenophobic statement endorsing the patriarchal status quo by implying that new ideas which do not conform to the current moral majority are not desired and should stay away so as to remove any possibility of progressive social change.
O.o Yah... that's one way to put it. I'm against full blown "progressive social change".
At least, that is what you said. What you meant to say, however, was likely "please do not take offense to this, but... stay THERE!", in which case you have nothing to worry about. I am neither offended nor would I ever have any intention to immigrate to any country without real universal health care.
Cool... I like debating you...
So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
We don't. Depending on income we have:
-The best care on the planet for extreme upper class wealth levels. -Roughly middle of the road for western countries care for median wage earners. -One of the worst care rates in the west for low income earners.
It's a system built by the rich for the rich and benefits the rich. We also pay three times as much per capita for the system than the next highest spender. We don't have the best system by a long shot, arguably we have the worst systems in the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
I'll do it. What do you do in healthcare? Is it every job in every hospital? Is it aggregate performance tracking? Are you a comparative analyst? Do you own a sizeable practice? If it's not one of these than you're personal experience doesn't really trump collected data from every hospital in the country aggregated by thosuands of people with the same results being found tens of thousands of times. It's nice that you can wave a flag though.
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
Because sometimes the extremely rich in Canada don't want to have to wait for the heart transplant patients to be cared for before getting their ingrown toenails looked after. So they go down to your neck o' the woods, where triage is based on how fat your wallet is, and not on actual need.
Your 'migrate down for healthcare' example is anecdotal, I'm afraid. And while I'm not gonna be on much longer, I'll happily engage in that debate with you. The numbers are not on your side, I'm afraid. But hey, if you wanna start some jingoistic chants of "We're number thirty-seven! We're number thirty-seven!", well, go ahead.
And since I already know what your counterpoint to this tired argument is, I shall pre-empt you:
You cannot invalidate the WHO's rankings with the criticism that "the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior", as that is exactly why they are there: to rank the health care available to everybody, not just the rich. Health care isn't like the olympics: you don't win a medal because you've got one guy that's the best. You have to look at the entire population. And when you do that, the USA fails hard with the private health care system.
So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
We don't. Depending on income we have:
-The best care on the planet for extreme upper class wealth levels.
-Roughly middle of the road for western countries care for median wage earners.
-One of the worst care rates in the west for low income earners.
Any studies you'd care to support this?
It's a system built by the rich for the rich and benefits the rich. We also pay three times as much per capita for the system than the next highest spender. We don't have the best system by a long shot, arguably we have the worst systems in the world.
Wow... a really loaded statement that indict just about everything we do in healthcare.
While it's true we pay the highest per captia for the system than the next highest spender... you wanna know why? (take a guess)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
I'll do it. What do you do in healthcare? Is it every job in every hospital? Is it aggregate performance tracking? Are you a comparative analyst? Do you own a sizeable practice? If it's not one of these than you're personal experience doesn't really trump collected data from every hospital in the country aggregated by thosuands of people with the same results being found tens of thousands of times. It's nice that you can wave a flag though.
Where's your source supporting this?
FYI... I've been in the industry for over 15 years and I have interest in policy affecting Healthcare. Currently, I'm in IT working with informatic teams preparing for ACA's Meaningful Use regulatory requirements.
I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.
Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.
By only beef with this (and its sort goes against what I'm trying to say), is that NO ONE Nation aggregates the data the same way.. so, comparing statistics from one country vs another is practically useless... ( )
My sister works for a Clinical Research firm conducting research in multiple countries, and this is a major challenge for them in acquiring the necessary data for their research (it's why she makes the big bucks).
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
azazel the cat wrote:Because sometimes the extremely rich in Canada don't want to have to wait for the heart transplant patients to be cared for before getting their ingrown toenails looked after. So they go down to your neck o' the woods, where triage is based on how fat your wallet is, and not on actual need.
Your 'migrate down for healthcare' example is anecdotal, I'm afraid. And while I'm not gonna be on much longer, I'll happily engage in that debate with you. The numbers are not on your side, I'm afraid. But hey, if you wanna start some jingoistic chants of "We're number thirty-seven! We're number thirty-seven!", well, go ahead.
And since I already know what your counterpoint to this tired argument is, I shall pre-empt you:
You cannot invalidate the WHO's rankings with the criticism that "the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior", as that is exactly why they are there: to rank the health care available to everybody, not just the rich. Health care isn't like the olympics: you don't win a medal because you've got one guy that's the best. You have to look at the entire population. And when you do that, the USA fails hard with the private health care system.
Okay... I'm a data geek... I'm curious how WHO came up with these rankings, I wanna do some research before commenting on that ranking.
I want to reiterate something I mentioned before... comparing statistics from one region to another is almost futile, because it's so easy to skew data.
And let me say something here... Major US Hospital Systems are typically NOT ran purely with "for profit" mentality. In fact, that's impossible since most hospitals are a "non-for-profit" entity.
Case in point. The place where I work... over 50% of the ED patients who walked in the door DO NOT PAY ANYTHING. Is that a problem... eh, maybe... becuase SOME of the visit are patients who COULD get insurance, but chose not to...
So what this does, is transfers the cost (or it's attempted) to those folks who are paying for their hospital visits.
Remember, I didn't say it's a perfect system... but, it's one of the better ones.
That's why that Ryan plan resonate with me... get the GOVERNMENT OUT of Healthcare.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
The quest for half decent queso?
Okay... that's funny... buuuuuut, the BEST mexican foodie I've ever had, was in Anchorage, AK....
whembly wrote:I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.
Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.
So I'll end this with a reasonably concise coup de grace for you:
My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.
You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.
Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.
Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.
Find it yourself or pay me. I'll give you what two seconds of typing will give. I'm not here to educate people who don't want to learn. It's in french since the article contributor was probably french. If you don't trust outside sources and just want what the goubbaments got then https://www.cia.gov/index.html try to find it in that puzzle. No one thinks we do a good job. Not even us. It's just people who need to believe in american exceptionalism who still cling to notions that our healthcare system is great.
Wow... a really loaded statement that indict just about everything we do in healthcare.
Yes. It is. It does. It's also true. There is a business aspect to modern healthcare that I suspect you know blissfully little about.
While it's true we pay the highest per captia for the system than the next highest spender... you wanna know why? (take a guess)
Because the health insurance system is a logically flawed middle man that produces graft and corruption as a side effect to introducing a moneylender whose primary profit motivator is to provide for cheap care and charge as much as possible. Health insurance has no logical purpose in a modern healthcare system and is one of the primary motivators for our current systems ballooning costs.
If you're trying to infer that it's because we have superior care that doesn't really survive basic inspection of foreign populations. Japan and germany for instance pay a fraction what we do and have significantly healthier populations with much more effective treatment rates in regards to chronic and acute illnesses and injuries.
whembly wrote:I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.
Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.
So I'll end this with a reasonably concise coup de grace for you:
My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.
You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.
Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.
Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.
This is so wrong...
*sigh*
I really wanna articulate why this is wrong, because it goes MUCH deeper than that...
Lemme give you some personal experience.
1) I donated a kidney to my sister-in-law.
2) sis and her hubby were still in college and were NOT on their parent's plan.
3) sis was able to get Medicaid and Medicare (how this happen, I could never figure out) to pay for procedure and hospital cost
4) transplant coordinator worked with Pharmaceutical companies to get 6 month-ish rebates from some meds
5) ME... gak, I never saw a bill for anything, so honestly, I have no idea who paid what for MY services... but, it happened.
So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
As Shuma stated, we pay a GAK-TON into healthcare. Regulation and Legal implications DRIVES up the cost. The Administrative architecture is so byzatine, it's assinine.
There's enough money spent into the system... but the system needs to be overhauled to be more efficient. It does not need to be replaced with a different system.
Since it seems we are focusing on three countries;
Life Expectancy:
Canada: 80.54 UK: 79.58 US: 77.97
Infant Mortality (deaths per 1000 births):
UK: 5 Canada: 5 US: 7
Under-5 mortality (deaths under age 5 per 1000 births):
UK: 6 Canada: 6 US: 8
Adult mortality (deahts between 15-60 years of age per 1000 people).
UK: 79 Canada: 75 US: 111
The "I work in healthcare" is a nice excuse, but I figured you didn't actually work with sick people or at a delivery-of-care point. There are a lot of people here working in healthcare, myself included. I have worked in prehospital medicine, emergency rooms, for-profit hospitals, non-profit hospitals, and a hospital that is run by the federal government. I will just let you guess which hospital is my favorite.
I honestly think that anybody who says "the United States has the best healthcare system" has either never been sick or has been privilidged enough to afford getting sick.
Sweet emprah... you using THIS to support your claim that our healthcare SUX!
Man... you really need to look at any large statistical analysis with truck full of salt. Unless you can ensure that the data gathering are using the same methodolgy, you need to be careful when looking at charts like these.
Here's something I know: In some countries... the death of preemie babies are NOT counted as actual death (wierd, I know). Whereas here, in US, that does count.
There are numerous way the data can be skewed.
But, having said that... could it be, just maybe that the 10yr difference to avg lifespan between #1 vs U.S.of A. is attributed to our obese lifestyle? And that effectively 50% of the population are clinically obese?
Find it yourself or pay me. I'll give you what two seconds of typing will give. I'm not here to educate people who don't want to learn.
Um... I'm having this conversation and I'm asking questions. You think I'm wrong... why? That's all I'm asking.
It's in french since the article contributor was probably french. If you don't trust outside sources and just want what the goubbaments got then https://www.cia.gov/index.html try to find it in that puzzle. No one thinks we do a good job. Not even us. It's just people who need to believe in american exceptionalism who still cling to notions that our healthcare system is great.
And I believe that there's a segment of the American population who believes that no matter what we do, it isn't good enough...
Wow... a really loaded statement that indict just about everything we do in healthcare.
Yes. It is. It does. It's also true. There is a business aspect to modern healthcare that I suspect you know blissfully little about.
Really... care to enlighten me? I've worked with the Patient Accounting department, so I think I know where some of the numbers come from.
While it's true we pay the highest per captia for the system than the next highest spender... you wanna know why? (take a guess)
Because the health insurance system is a logically flawed middle man that produces graft and corruption as a side effect to introducing a moneylender whose primary profit motivator is to provide for cheap care and charge as much as possible. Health insurance has no logical purpose in a modern healthcare system and is one of the primary motivators for our current systems ballooning costs.
I didn't say it's perfect... I'm just defending the system a little bit...
The Health Insurance industry needs to be recalibrated... the whole system is a bit FUBAR, but I think you're directing your IRE too much in the insurance co... their hands are so tied it's not even funny.
If you're trying to infer that it's because we have superior care that doesn't really survive basic inspection of foreign populations. Japan and germany for instance pay a fraction what we do and have significantly healthier populations with much more effective treatment rates in regards to chronic and acute illnesses and injuries.
Me thinking you think the grass is greener over there... eh?
If I ever get an illness that is expensive to care for then I'm using my right of return and booking it to Israel, or I'll try to find a job in the UK and go join family their, otherwise I have a very high chance of dying from the disease or will go into bankruptcy. Any healthcare system were you would rather flee the country then be treated under it is probably a bad system.
d-usa wrote:Since it seems we are focusing on three countries;
Life Expectancy:
Canada: 80.54
UK: 79.58
US: 77.97
Infant Mortality (deaths per 1000 births):
UK: 5
Canada: 5
US: 7
Under-5 mortality (deaths under age 5 per 1000 births):
UK: 6
Canada: 6
US: 8
Adult mortality (deahts between 15-60 years of age per 1000 people).
UK: 79
Canada: 75
US: 111
Don't get me started on statistics again...
The "I work in healthcare" is a nice excuse, but I figured you didn't actually work with sick people or at a delivery-of-care point. There are a lot of people here working in healthcare, myself included. I have worked in prehospital medicine, emergency rooms, for-profit hospitals, non-profit hospitals, and a hospital that is run by the federal government. I will just let you guess which hospital is my favorite.
Which is your favorite? Just asking....
I honestly think that anybody who says "the United States has the best healthcare system" has either never been sick or has been privilidged enough to afford getting sick.
Right... we kill all poor people... never knew that... must have wool of my eyes and I don't know nuthin.
Either that or it is just pure patriotism-talk.
Do you find ANY redeeming qualities with our healthcare system... anything at all?
How 'bout this...
THE underlining argument is really about ACCESS... right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:If I ever get an illness that is expensive to care for then I'm using my right of return and booking it to Israel, or I'll try to find a job in the UK and go join family their, otherwise I have a very high chance of dying from the disease or will go into bankruptcy. Any healthcare system were you would rather flee the country then be treated under it is probably a bad system.
Why is everyone saying you can't get care?
Was there someone you know who was denied coverage?
Um... I'm having this conversation and I'm asking questions. You think I'm wrong... why? That's all I'm asking.
You have google and you're holding a position that is indefensible with a minimal amount of research. You're also not debating anything anyone posts, just how their sources are biased or misrepresented. You have no interest in learning, you have every interest in being right in the beliefs you already have. This is a waste of time, and it's one that I'm not going to bother with. Maybe dogma or sebster or killkrazy or.. Anyone who actually has the heart to care about exceptionalist healthcare nutters can dive on this. That part of my soul was burnt out last year.
Don't get me started on statistics again...
Case in point. You are dismissing evidence because its contrary to what you believe, not because the evidence isn't relevant or meaningful. The backflips are so visible you could see them from the moon.
My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Um... I'm having this conversation and I'm asking questions. You think I'm wrong... why? That's all I'm asking.
You have google and you're holding a position that is indefensible with a minimal amount of research. You're also not debating anything anyone posts, just how their sources are biased or misrepresented.
You have no interest in learning, you have ever interest in being right in the beliefs you already have. This is a waste of time.
Don't get me started on statistics again...
Case in point. You are dismissing evidence because its contrary to what you believe, not because the evidence isn't relevant or meaningful. The backflips are so visible you could see them from the moon.
"What evidence" am I dismissing exactly? That CIA life expectancy chart? I've already gave a retort.
d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Since losing my insurance I've had three respiratory infections. One of which was somewhat severe. Had I attempted to get them treated I would have lost my car and apartment due to the outrageous cost of antibiotics and prescribed treatment (I ended up losing the apartment anyway!). The cost bubble insurance has created had made care inaccessible to the bottom wage earners in America without federal assistance. If you're banking on government assistance to take care of a third of a countries population in order to shore up a system that really only works for one twentieth of it then there is a major systemic problem.
My mother was denied chemotherapy as the insurance company viewed as an unnecessary and elective procedure, when I was injured in a motorcycle accident the insurance company refused to pay for physical therapy. If you honestly think that a lower to mid income family has good health care in the US then you are by far the most deluded person I have ever met, and I talked with Galbraith
d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Oh...right...that CAN'T happen here. (cancer rates? where did I state this?)
Didn't you ask for studies, and post your own statistics? But then you complain about statistics others post because statistics are "unreliable".
The "I work in healthcare" is a nice excuse, but I figured you didn't actually work with sick people or at a delivery-of-care point. There are a lot of people here working in healthcare, myself included. I have worked in prehospital medicine, emergency rooms, for-profit hospitals, non-profit hospitals, and a hospital that is run by the federal government. I will just let you guess which hospital is my favorite.
Which is your favorite? Just asking....
Federal, by far.
I honestly think that anybody who says "the United States has the best healthcare system" has either never been sick or has been privilidged enough to afford getting sick.
Right... we kill all poor people... never knew that... must have wool of my eyes and I don't know nuthin.
No we don't kill people, but we let a lot of people die because of the way our system works.
Either that or it is just pure patriotism-talk.
Do you find ANY redeeming qualities with our healthcare system... anything at all?
When you are actually sick enough to be almost dead, then the system is pretty good at getting you well enough again quickly to kick you out the door. If you can afford to play the game, then the system is good.
How 'bout this...
THE underlining argument is really about ACCESS... right?
Not just access. I have worked in hospitals for enough years to realize that it is the insurance companies that tell the doctors how to treat their patients and when they should be discharged. Not the other way around. The system is broken.
d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Oh...right...that CAN'T happen here. (cancer rates? where did I state this?)
BTW: Glad your bro is doing good.
I've got hundreds of stories like that here...
No, it cant. Though in that situation it is more to do with the complete lack of worker right in the US
Okay... I'm going to stop. This isn't the thread to discuss this (of tho it is OT, sorry Ouze).
Edit: @youbedead Never said that system was perfect, I'm just defensive when folks totally trash it. I believe we have some of the brightest, best professional/care in the world. I don't dispute that the ACCESS to certain healthcare can be better (sorry 'bout your mom) and I favor changes to increase access.
d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Oh...right...that CAN'T happen here.
Oh it can happen here, if you are lucky. But it is guaranteed to happen there.
(cancer rates? where did I state this?)
I thought it was this post:
whembly wrote:
I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.
Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.
By only beef with this (and its sort goes against what I'm trying to say), is that NO ONE Nation aggregates the data the same way.. so, comparing statistics from one country vs another is practically useless... ( )
But that post had some messed up quotes, so if it was a quote from somebody else I am sorry for misunderstanding
whembly wrote:Okay... I'm going to stop. This isn't the thread to discuss this (of tho it is OT, sorry Ouze).
Edit: @youbedead Never said that system was perfect, I'm just defensive when folks totally trash it. I believe we have some of the brightest, best professional/care in the world. I don't dispute that the ACCESS to certain healthcare can be better (sorry 'bout your mom) and I favor changes to increase access.
If a third of your populace can't receive treatment then you have a gakky health care system. Our care is easily the best in the world, except we only give that level of care to a select few. If I were rich then I would rather receive care in the US.
Eventually when I come out of government/military medical care. I for one will actually read the insurance policy and pick the one I would probaly most likely need. Not to be cold hearted or beating the preacher but do you all actually read your medical policy and long term plan the cost?
Jihadin wrote:Eventually when I come out of government/military medical care. I for one will actually read the insurance policy and pick the one I would probaly most likely need. Not to be cold hearted or beating the preacher but do you all actually read your medical policy and long term plan the cost?
Not to argue away the validity of your point, but I would think that for the majority of people that is not an option.
The majority of jobs will offer you one policy. Most likely it is not the one that is best for you but simply the one that cost your boss the least amount of money.
If you are lucky then you might have two, or maybe even three to pick from. But that is a rare event.
I had the very rare pleasure to pick from over a dozen health plans, so I had a range of premiums and whatnots to pick over. We did look over the plans pretty closely to see what they would cover and what they wouldn't. We ended up going with a mid-range plan because we are likely going to have children soon (so coverage of pre-natal care and care during pregnancy and childbirth was compared), we looked at our family history (strong history of cancer), and then looked over the supplemental insurances like dental and vision (I need new glasses on a yearly basis). My plan cost me an extra $100-$150 a month, but it covers more so I save at the end.
So it is nice when you can pick and compare like that, but many can't. And I would assume that way to many people that do have the option simply pick the cheapest.
I'm confused, are you trying to claim that the absence of an articulated Obama plan* makes the Ryan plan good by default? If that's the case, I'll just start proposing that, on the issue of giving dogma money, my plan is to have everyone give me all of theirs. If no one comes up with another plan, it must be a pretty good idea. Its fine though, I'll rule as a benevolent philosopher-king: booze and hookers for all!
*Of course, there is an articulated Obama plan. Note the whole budget debacle.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's about all the American electorate deserves, it's fethed itself proper by being idiotic.
To be fair, that's pretty much true of all democracies. Understanding politics and policy is a full time job, with an entire industry built around it. That most people don't understand either is roughly analogous to how most people don't understand how to rebuild an engine.
I'm confused, are you trying to claim that the absence of an articulated Obama plan* makes the Ryan plan good by default? If that's the case, I'll just start proposing that, on the issue of giving dogma money, my plan is to have everyone give me all of theirs. If no one comes up with another plan, it must be a pretty good idea. Its fine though, I'll rule as a benevolent philosopher-king: booze and hookers for all!
Sorry Frazzle! I'm writing in dogma for Prez.
*Of course, there is an articulated Obama plan. Note the whole budget debacle.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's about all the American electorate deserves, it's fethed itself proper by being idiotic.
To be fair, that's pretty much true of all democracies. Understanding politics and policy is a full time job, with an entire industry built around it. That most people don't understand either is roughly analogous to how most people don't understand how to rebuild an engine.
Ugh, gakky running mate for a gakky candidate who's one of two gakky options. And it really ticks me off parts of the media are branding this jerk as a libertarian!
There's no real option, no real choice, As Lewis Black said "The American political system is a bowl of gak looking at itself in the mirror". It doesn't matter if Obama gets another four years, or if Romney takes the office, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer and we'll all be completely screwed.
I think I'm leaving the presidential voting slot blank on this year's ballot then give a vote to either jerk on the card.
My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.
You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.
Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.
Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.
So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
I'm willing to accept this as your surrender.
This certainly doesn't sound like someone describing the "best health care in the world". Keep in mind, this entire debate sprun forth from you claiming that the USA has the best health care system in the world; however your own story and quoted statement indicates that even you do not believe this beyond hollow jingoism. So like I said: I accept your surrender, and I hope it has led to some introspection on your decisions regarding health care.
I have enjoyed our debate, but I believe I am done now.
Yeah, Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian. There isn't really a well known Libertarian in the country at the moment. No, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian either.
only applies to Americans younger than 55 years of age,
The democrats are lying when they say "Grandma will need to come live in your basement", but on the same token it will hit people full in the face in 10 years time if we remove medicare. It would be setting a time bomb into motion.
Why does medicare exist? Because no insurance company wants to ensure ages 65 and older (or younger people with disabilities). The premium that an insurance company would charge would be too high -- as its nearly a foregone conclusion that medical costs for someone 65 and older will be a net loss for the insurance company. To offset this, insurance companies would raise premiums across the board -- and especially so on the elderly.
This is the major flaw in the Ryan plan. The Ryan plan assumes that The Magical Hand of Free MarketTMwill lower insurance costs. They won't. If you want an example, look at the cost of gasoline. If The Magical Hand of Free MarketTM worked in that capacity, then gas companies would not be making a dollar for every three dollars in gas sold. They would be undercutting each other until they were working with razor thin profit margins.
The Ryan plan is a prime example of a theory that looks great on paper but is flawed in execution. While the Ryan plan would possibly decrease administrative costs of health care by passing it from a public system to a private system, the company is still owned by shareholders who will want to maximize profits.
Instead we should be tackling the root of the problem -- why our health care costs are so high. This would lower the cost of medicare (thus lowering our spending and decreasing our deficit) and would eventually lower the cost of health care to average citizens through insurance companies. This can be done by addressing labor costs of specialists and hospitals.
only applies to Americans younger than 55 years of age,
The democrats are lying when they say "Grandma will need to come live in your basement", but on the same token it will hit people full in the face in 10 years time if we remove medicare. It would be setting a time bomb into motion.
Why does medicare exist? Because no insurance company wants to ensure ages 65 and older (or younger people with disabilities). The premium that an insurance company would charge would be too high -- as its nearly a foregone conclusion that medical costs for someone 65 and older will be a net loss for the insurance company. To offset this, insurance companies would raise premiums across the board -- and especially so on the elderly.
This is the major flaw in the Ryan plan. The Ryan plan assumes that The Magical Hand of Free MarketTMwill lower insurance costs. They won't. If you want an example, look at the cost of gasoline. If The Magical Hand of Free MarketTM worked in that capacity, then gas companies would not be making a dollar for every three dollars in gas sold. They would be undercutting each other until they were working with razor thin profit margins.
The Ryan plan is a prime example of a theory that looks great on paper but is flawed in execution. While the Ryan plan would possibly decrease administrative costs of health care by passing it from a public system to a private system, the company is still owned by shareholders who will want to maximize profits.
Instead we should be tackling the root of the problem -- why our health care costs are so high. This would lower the cost of medicare (thus lowering our spending and decreasing our deficit) and would eventually lower the cost of health care to average citizens through insurance companies. This can be done by addressing labor costs of specialists and hospitals.
labmouse42 wrote:That would require a major overhaul by privatizing all health care professionals and institutions in the US.
It would also then require a forced restructure of health care professional labor costs.
While that would work, the backlash would be to much. Society tolerates only one change at a time.
They had the chance in 2009. They ed it with this horrible trash that was put in place. This is why people don't trust the government here to even be minimally competent.
Here that lefty treehuggers! You weren't being lefty treehugger enough!
I disagree. There was no way radical change would have passed the Senate.
Given the way a filibusterer works in today's congress, if even one democrat or independent decided that the change was to radical then it would have never passed.
Do you remember Ben Nelson and the "Cornhusker Kickback" he required to get on board. If the change was more radical, then others would have required kickbacks or not gotten on board at all.
If filibusters still required someone standing on a podium talking, like when the Louisiana senator Huey P Long who recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, they would end considerably faster.
labmouse42 wrote:I disagree. There was no way radical change would have passed the Senate.
Given the way a filibusterer works in today's congress, if even one democrat or independent decided that the change was to radical then it would have never passed.
Do you remember Ben Nelson and the "Cornhusker Kickback" he required to get on board. If the change was more radical, then others would have required kickbacks or not gotten on board at all.
If filibusters still required someone standing on a podium talking, like when the Louisiana senator Huey P Long who recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, they would end considerably faster.
Stangely we've maged to enact Social Security, oversaw Reconstruction and the constitutional amendments follwing the Civil War, oversaw the 1960s civil rights movement and legislation, Welfare, and Welfare reform with the exact same system.
Frazzled wrote:
Or just go to a Canadian style system that everyone has to use regardless of wealth.
Not how Canadian healthcare works.
I know how the Canadian system works. This would force all classes to use the same system. It would then of course be the best in the world. Enlightened self interest, its the gas!
labmouse42 wrote:That would require a major overhaul by privatizing all health care professionals and institutions in the US.
It would also then require a forced restructure of health care professional labor costs.
While that would work, the backlash would be to much. Society tolerates only one change at a time.
They had the chance in 2009. They ed it with this horrible trash that was put in place. This is why people don't trust the government here to even be minimally competent.
Here that lefty treehuggers! You weren't being lefty treehugger enough!
First: that's not privatization, the health care system already is private; that's socialization.
Second: Frazz, it's Hear that lefty socialisthippies! First thing I see on Dakka today and you have to kick start my inner grammar Nazi.
The real opportunity to socialize health care was in the 60's; we missed it. Now any solution will be late and expensive. If our collective vision of America's future involves healthcare as a right rather than a luxury we need to socialize the system now. There will probably remain a private system like the Catholic Health System and the Deaconess hospitals and similar religious care networks. For myself I would rather start making steps to killing Medicare/Medicade and putting the Healthcare system in nationalized hands, but hey what do I know about positive socialism: I'm just a Republican.
Frazzled wrote:Stangely we've maged to enact Social Security, oversaw Reconstruction and the constitutional amendments follwing the Civil War, oversaw the 1960s civil rights movement and legislation, Welfare, and Welfare reform with the exact same system.
Respectfully, we haven't used the same system. That was why I mentioned the filibuster.
Had we had the same filibuster system that we have today in place, I would suspect those changes would have either taken much longer to pass or not passed at all.
In the 60s, a senator would have to literally stand up and keep talking. When that was changed to a procedure, then a filibuster could be done indefinitely without needing to be at the podium. What was originally a way to be an ass about making your point was changed into a pure blocking mechanism.
Frazzled wrote:
I know how the Canadian system works.
No, you really don't. Canada still has private insurance, which means all classes do not use the same system. At least not in the sense you mean.
I SAID THAT. I said mdify so that everyone has to have the same system, no opt out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:That would require a major overhaul by privatizing all health care professionals and institutions in the US.
It would also then require a forced restructure of health care professional labor costs.
While that would work, the backlash would be to much. Society tolerates only one change at a time.
They had the chance in 2009. They ed it with this horrible trash that was put in place. This is why people don't trust the government here to even be minimally competent.
Here that lefty treehuggers! You weren't being lefty treehugger enough!
First: that's not privatization, the health care system already is private; that's socialization.
Second: Frazz, it's Hear that lefty socialisthippies! First thing I see on Dakka today and you have to kick start my inner grammar Nazi.
The real opportunity to socialize health care was in the 60's; we missed it. Now any solution will be late and expensive. If our collective vision of America's future involves healthcare as a right rather than a luxury we need to socialize the system now. There will probably remain a private system like the Catholic Health System and the Deaconess hospitals and similar religious care networks. For myself I would rather start making steps to killing Medicare/Medicade and putting the Healthcare system in nationalized hands, but hey what do I know about positive socialism: I'm just a Republican.
Again, look to the five best systms overall in the world, and the best parts of our system. Steal their ideas and integrate with our advantages. Voila.
Achieve that and your party will be elected for a decade. Obamacare aint that.
I wasn't suprised to hear that he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy and balance the budget with cuts to social programs. Wasn't suprised to hear he's a big believer in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. But opposed to abortion in all situations, including rape and incest, and even in cases that endanger an expectant mother's life? Wow.
Before Paul Ryan was pinned as an "extreme" and "radical" ideologue, Democrats actually kind of liked the guy.
Several clips of prominent Democrats -- including President Obama -- praising Ryan have surged through the Internet in the days since Mitt Romney tapped the Wisconsin congressman as his running mate. They once called his ideas "serious" and "honest," which is not what the Obama campaign and its affiliates are saying about him now.
Arguably the most robust praise came from Erskine Bowles, the White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton who recently co-chaired President Obama's deficit-reduction committee.
In a late 2011 talk at the University of North Carolina, Bowles told the audience "this guy is amazing."
"I always thought I was okay with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me, and he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere," Bowles said. "And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget."
Bowles went on to criticize the spending plans that had come out of the Obama White House.
North Carolina's News & Observer newspaper dug up the rest of that speech, finding that at one point, Bowles also called Ryan's controversial Medicare overhaul "a pretty radical change" that he'd rather avoid.
But in a March 29, 2012, PBS interview, Bowles said that Ryan's plan to offer government payments to buy private insurance should nevertheless remain an "option" going forward. He even said "you would want to consider" a newer version of the Ryan plan that lets people keep traditional Medicare as an alternative.
Bowles repeated his sentiment that Ryan is a "very smart, stable, honest, hardworking guy."
In 2010 on the same program, Bowles said: "I wish we had more people like Paul who are thinkers and do their homework."
Around the same time, Obama was similarly upbeat on Ryan's role in the Republican Party.
In 2010, Obama said at a Republican retreat that Ryan had "made a serious proposal" with his budget. Obama criticized the idea of giving "vouchers" for Medicare, but acknowledged the need to address the deficit spending that Medicare and Medicaid fuel.
Romney, though, is pointing most prominently to Ryan's work with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden to make the case that Ryan is more bipartisan than he's made out to be by Democrats.
Ryan and Wyden late last year drafted a new proposal for Medicare -- tweaking Ryan's old plan by offering seniors a choice between government-subsidized private insurance and regular Medicare.
"One of the things I like about Paul Ryan is he's demonstrated over his years there an ability to work across the aisle to find people who have common purpose who may disagree on some issues but find enough common ground to get things done," Romney said Monday. "And, for instance, him coming together with a plan to save Medicare for future generations, no change to current Medicare beneficiaries or people near retirement but for future beneficiaries, he and Sen. Wyden have come together. This is the kind of bipartisanship we need more of, not less."
In an interview this summer on a program called Medscape, Wyden discussed that proposal, saying: "It really starts from the proposition that no one would go out and buy a house without some idea of knowing what they're paying for.
"And much of what we're going to have to do with Medicare is to be sure that traditional Medicare with its purchasing power can be maintained, while at the same time we offer private sector choices, so that the two will strengthen each other. And in that sense, we recognize that much of the Medicare debate is not at all ideological," he said.
According to The Huffington Post, Wyden is pushing back on some of Romney's claims, particularly one that Wyden and Ryan helped "co-lead" a piece of legislation -- since they wrote a policy paper, not a bill.
Then there's the off-mic moment caught in 2011 between Clinton and Ryan backstage at an event.
In the cellphone footage, aired by ABC News at the time, Clinton said he hoped a recent Democratic congressional victory wouldn't be used "as an excuse to do nothing."
"My guess is it's going to sink into paralysis is what's going to happen," Ryan told the former president. "And you know the math. I mean, it's just we knew we were putting ourselves out there. But you've got to start this. You've got to get out there. You've got to get this thing moving."
Clinton opened the door, saying: "If you ever want to talk about it ..."
Whatever he was years ago, the Paul Ryan that Romney stood beside is a different person. Whatever his math skills, his social stances destroy any chance of his being good for the US.
labmouse42 wrote:I disagree. There was no way radical change would have passed the Senate.
Given the way a filibusterer works in today's congress, if even one democrat or independent decided that the change was to radical then it would have never passed.
Do you remember Ben Nelson and the "Cornhusker Kickback" he required to get on board. If the change was more radical, then others would have required kickbacks or not gotten on board at all.
If filibusters still required someone standing on a podium talking, like when the Louisiana senator Huey P Long who recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, they would end considerably faster.
Stangely we've maged to enact Social Security, oversaw Reconstruction and the constitutional amendments follwing the Civil War, oversaw the 1960s civil rights movement and legislation, Welfare, and Welfare reform with the exact same system.
No, we didn't. The system has changed fundamentally in those years. Senate and congressional procedure is in no way identical now to either of those times.
streamdragon wrote:Whatever he was years ago, the Paul Ryan that Romney stood beside is a different person. Whatever his math skills, his social stances destroy any chance of his being good for the US.
YEAH! Like years ago when he actually talked about his social stances and made them an issue. Before he shelved, and told other Republicans to shelve, social issues and "agree to disagree." Instead focusing on fiscal policy. That bastard, how dare he back off the hard line rhetoric and focus on things that actually have chance of changing.
It's cool though bro you should keep looking back and saying he's not the guy he was, then saying that the things he was concerned about then are the reason you don't think he's good for America now; it will probably make more sense if you don't say it like that though. It makes you look like you just repeat what other people say.
streamdragon wrote:Whatever he was years ago, the Paul Ryan that Romney stood beside is a different person. Whatever his math skills, his social stances destroy any chance of his being good for the US.
YEAH! Like years ago when he actually talked about his social stances and made them an issue. Before he shelved, and told other Republicans to shelve, social issues and "agree to disagree." Instead focusing on fiscal policy. That bastard, how dare he back off the hard line rhetoric and focus on things that actually have chance of changing.
Unless of course he is using fiscal policy to affect the social issues he stands for.
Why change laws and agencies you don't agree with if you can simply cut funding for them
Or like how Romney was ok with a health care program he advocated and got implemented in his state until he ran for national office, at which point he lambasted it. The idea that politicians don't change stances, and therefore never gain or lose support, seems a bit untenable, considering the vast number of examples even in recent history. IF you don't get elected you can't govern, and sometimes that means compromise and sometimes that means change. It isn't even endemic of politicians. I'm sure we all know people that we didn't like but changed of time, or did, and over time found them less appealing.
Jihadin wrote:I thought the policy of his health care program in his state was aimed at the 8% that was uninsured in his state..................
You do know that Obamacare is, essentially, Romneycare, yes? To criticize one is to criticize the other, and it is a bit of a problem for the man who was one of the key figures in developing the program, but has to run for office while bashing it.
Which isn't really the point. The idea that because someone liked someone else in the past means they have to like them now is a bit silly. The reasons why are certainly up for debate, but not the idea that it is possible to change ones mind. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the idea that people that liked Ryan in the past have to like him now, or are disingenuous for souring on him, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. We've all had people we liked and then later didn't, or didn't and then later did. Like anyone, Ryan is capable of changing and maybe in the past was more agreeable in some way or another. I'm sure there are also people who like him now that didn't like him in the past. There are probably quotes of people who support him now that said things before that were less than supportive.
Jihadin wrote:I thought the policy of his health care program in his state was aimed at the 8% that was uninsured in his state..................
You do know that Obamacare is, essentially, Romneycare, yes?
No... two different cases.
To criticize one is to criticize the other, and it is a bit of a problem for the man who was one of the key figures in developing the program, but has to run for office while bashing it.
Honestly, it is an albatross for Romney...
Lets keep it simple...
Romney was gov when the Mass. electorate WANTED this...
YEAH! Federalism is in the works!
Obamacare was so unpopular, it had to be passed in Congress via reconciliation (among other things)...
While it's bad optics from the Standpoint that Romney is now argues against Obamacare (from a "bad bill" perspective), he's been consistent.
I have yet to hear/see that Romney repudiated Romneycare in Mass.. (if he did, please show me... then he'd be hypocritical).
Which isn't really the point. The idea that because someone liked someone else in the past means they have to like them now is a bit silly. The reasons why are certainly up for debate, but not the idea that it is possible to change ones mind. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the idea that people that liked Ryan in the past have to like him now, or are disingenuous for souring on him, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. We've all had people we liked and then later didn't, or didn't and then later did. Like anyone, Ryan is capable of changing and maybe in the past was more agreeable in some way or another. I'm sure there are also people who like him now that didn't like him in the past. There are probably quotes of people who support him now that said things before that were less than supportive.
Yeah... I can agree with that. We're all allowed to have our own opinion and reserve the right to change it.
Frazzled wrote:
Or just go to a Canadian style system that everyone has to use regardless of wealth.
Not how Canadian healthcare works.
Actually, if you reduce Canadian healthcare down to a one-line description, then yes, that is how it works. Nobody is denied coverage in our health care system, and nobody is turned away because they are poor.
While we have the options to use private insurance, it really doesn't change anything of significance: private insurance is mostly with respect to dental coverage, and prescription drugs. Typically, private insurance is used more for travel to the USA (I won't set foot across the border without travel insurance).
Jihadin wrote:I thought the policy of his health care program in his state was aimed at the 8% that was uninsured in his state..................
You do know that Obamacare is, essentially, Romneycare, yes?
No... two different cases.
I guess if it keeps someone's cognitive dissonance at bay, a person can come up with whatever explanation they want.
Read my next statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote:Wasn't whembly the one who said a 56page bill was the same bill as a 2000 page one?
Same "bill" as in they both would achieve the same result.
That 2000 page bill "reads" like a campaign speech... Sessions just stripped that out leaving the actual numbers in place (you know, that actual law)
It was a gaky tactic by Sessions though (he's a politician, whatdoyouexpect?)... I'd just let 'em vote on the original 2000page bill and it still wouldn't have passed.
And just so that you know, Sessions CHALLENGED the dems to correct him and no one took him up for that.
Same "bill" as in they both would achieve the same result.
No. No not really.
That 2000 page bill "reads" like a campaign speech... Sessions just stripped that out leaving the actual numbers in place (you know, that actual law)
Produce the document and show me the comparison. Oh wait, you can't. You've never read it. The document is not 40 times smaller while containing the same information. I very much doubt the original document was in size 400 font.
Same "bill" as in they both would achieve the same result.
No. No not really.
Then why didn't anyone in congress correct Sen. Sessions when offered to correct it?
Lemme reiterate... he should've left it alone and made everyone vote on the 250page bill, not the stripped down version that he did.
That 2000 page bill "reads" like a campaign speech... Sessions just stripped that out leaving the actual numbers in place (you know, that actual law)
Produce the document and show me the comparison. Oh wait, you can't. You've never read it. The document is not 40 times smaller while containing the same information. I very much doubt the original document was in size 400 font.
Then why didn't anyone in congress correct Sen. Sessions when offered to correct it?
Because it was a bs waste of time political ploy so transparent you can't even picture what it looked like in your head.
Added the extra "0"... it's actually 250 pages.
I beg to differ... did YOU read it? Here it is:
The Budget also funds a jointly administered mathematics education initiative, with $30 million from the Department of Education and $30 million from the National Science Foundation to develop, validate, and scale up evidence-based approaches to improve student learning at the K-12 and undergraduate levels.
10 minutes of wrangling with adobe reader and 20 seconds of comparison later and this appears to be missing. The presidents budget was itemized, the republican budget wasn't. At best it was an index, but without a master document it's vague and worthless. This isn't even close to being the only item expenditure that didn't make it into the clipped document. The republicans weren't trying to pass a budget, they were trying to show that the presidents budget was fat and theirs was lean. It was a circus sideshow and a sign of the fundamental breakdown of the republican party as anything but a clown show.
I'm not actually sure how this happened...but somehow I read this thread as "Paypal is Romney's Running Mate." I'm less interested, knowing the real title.
whembly wrote:What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?
No. Just no.
Aggregate demand is impacted by the amount the government spends. There is just no doubting this. So when you talk about changes to the overall level of government spending you need to account for the drop in aggregate demand produced by a drop in government spending.
That's just how it is. Ryan's bill doesn't do that, and that means the actual impact of his bill is unknown.
Whether or not you want to say 'boo government' doesn't change the basics of economics.
You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
He's a politician picking a politician. Pretending it's anything else is just spin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
Success and economic growth being enjoyed by all is what you're supposed to pretend to believe in. You know that old Republican thing about a rising tide lifting all ships?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I'd argue that the Ryan budget is a real and common talking point and has a much greater effect on the personal lives of the democrats (and to a large extent republicans) voter bases. Where Palin was a hollywood sideshow, that in a lot of ways worked to her credit. It's hard to base a vote around someone you don't take seriously and believe would be sidelined. Palin never did or said anything substantial, she just sort of parroted slogans and talked about hockey. Ryan and his budget are taken seriously as the role models of conservative deficit hawks and he is much more an enemy of the democrat party than even Romney himself. Romney can and will be overshadowed in this election cycle by his VP and I can't think of a time in my life when that has happened before. I suspect ryan will become inextricably linked to the elections primary issues (taxes and the economy) in a way that will be significantly more meaningful than VP choices in recent history.
That's the challenge for Obama and his team. It can't just be 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas' but 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas and therefore the guy who picked him as VP and also the whole Republican idea of the way forward is bad'.
I just don't think its a given to go from the first to the second. You might be right, and Ryan might overshadow the actual Presidential candidate and in that case it'll be pretty easy, but at the end of the day despite the fuss right now he's still just the VP candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:And thats why we can't have a serious discussion about the budget, deficits, or pretty much anything. The candidate that makes that mistake is instantly destroyed by the other side as being EEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!! Doesn't matter which side, or which issue.
Remember that 'fix the budget' thread we had ages ago, where I was trying to point out that bringing the budget into surplus is easy if you have a free hand, but hard in reality because everything is piece of spending, every tax concession is someone's sacred cow?
Well, yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
Actually, in the US the biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses. So no, a lot of people don't make it work. Instead they get sick and go bankrupt because of it.
Regulation and Legal implications DRIVES up the cost. The Administrative architecture is so byzatine, it's assinine.
Yeah, because its a 50 year old reform of a 100 year old system. It's always going to end up a mess of competing interests all taking their own piece of the pie, coupled with a whole mess false economies.
The HCR bill sought to tackle a lot of those issues, by the way. It's why the CBO expects there to be a $500 million saving to medicare without a single drop in the standard of care provided.
It's why the HCR should be viewed as the first step to a many layered reform of US healthcare, to limit the amount taken by special interests, and continue to pull out all those false economies.
But the Republicans picked it as the issue they could hurt the Democrats on, and so its unlikely healthcare will be meaningfully touched by a government for a long time yet.
Not that I really blame the Republicans over this. Afterall, they went from the brink of oblivion back in to being legitimately considered for government in the course of a few months. But the idiots who let some inane soundbites about socialism convince them to ignore the actual substance of the HCR... those people should be fething ashamed of themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:No, we didn't. The system has changed fundamentally in those years. Senate and congressional procedure is in no way identical now to either of those times.
I think its less the procedures and more the culture within the two parties, and how that culture has impacted the electorate as a whole. It used to be that variation within the party was accepted, so you could be a Republican because you liked tax cuts and small government and a big army, but you could potentially think that it was a woman's right to choose if she wanted to have an abortion.
But now such variation from the party line is unacceptable, and it makes cross party compromise a whole lot harder.
It might be pointed out how artificial such groupings are - how could one's beliefs on the idea size of the armed forces control how likely they were to be for or against abortion? Except increasingly the US is shifting into two camps that follow one artificial grouping of beliefs or the other - it used to be that you could go into rural areas and find people who believed in socially conservative values, but find they'd often differ with Republicans over social programs and farm subsidies. But now those social conservatives are increasingly in favour of more right wing economics. Similarly you used to be able to find upper middle class urbanites who held all the socially acceptable views on social policies, but who didn't believe they should pay more tax to fund someone else's unemployment - but now those people are becoming more liberal economically.
Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
azazel the cat wrote:Typically, private insurance is used more for travel to the USA (I won't set foot across the border without travel insurance).
When I booked my travel insurance for the US I was surprised to find out it wasn't a list 1 cheap insurance company like if I'd gone to Europe. It was in the same group as Africa... not because there's any great risk of something happening like there is in Africa, but because if I did get hurt it'd cost a stupid amount of money compared to if I suffered a similar injury in Europe or here at home.
A few days later an Australian woman suffered an injury in the US and it became a national story here because she was uninsured and the bill was in excess of a million.
Here's the website for booking travel insurance, tool around with it to see how much more companies will charge you to go to the USA, because of the nutty cost of health insurance;
http://www.medibank.com.au/travel-insurance/default.aspx
I put in a trip for one person to the USA, for 15th July to 31 October, and it cost $615. The same trip to the UK was $260. They're both stable countries with no reputation for criminal preying on tourists, only difference there is the cost of treatment if you get hurt and that more than doubles the cost of coverage.
Denmark is $260 as well. Afghanistan cost the same as the USA. Afghanistan... all the extra risk of getting attacked or abducted or whatever, and it breaks even with the USA because of the cost of health coverage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
Ryan is a smart guy who earned himself a place at the centre of the Republican policy debate. I don't, and you may not, like his beliefs but that doesn't make him an idiot like Palin, who could only parrot concepts put forward by others (and not even that some of the time).
With Romney and Ryan at least we've got a pair of adults running for the presidency, unlike when Bush and Palin were on their respective tickets. They may be adults who want to sink a whole country on the mantra of balance the budget & no new taxes, but they're still adults.
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
The major difference is that Paul Ryan is actually very intelligent, and by all accounts fully capable of useful input on the state of the federal budget.
Whether or not that makes him a better, or worse, person than Sarah Palin is up to the individual.
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
The major difference is that Paul Ryan is actually very intelligent, and by all accounts fully capable of useful input on the state of the federal budget.
Whether or not that makes him a better, or worse, person than Sarah Palin is up to the individual.
You can be really smart, but that doesn't make you incapable of having dumb ideas.
What I was trying to get at is that Ryan's budget is useful to Paul Ryan, but not necessarily anyone else. As Shuma and others have been saying, its just a piece of political chicanery.
d-usa wrote:You can be really smart, but that doesn't make you incapable of having dumb ideas.
Sure, but then the correct attack is 'his ideas are dumb' not 'he is as dumb as Sarah Palin'. This is more than just a point of pedantry, because sooner or later people are going to see a fair bit of Ryan, and if all they've heard from Democrat pundits is 'he's dumb' and he comes out and shows a strong grasp of the numbers and quick rhetorical brain they're going to think the Democrat pundits were wrong.
But if they hear that Ryan's budget and therefore his ideas for the country are dangerous, ideological silliness that will only increase the gap between rich and poor... well that's something else entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:What I was trying to get at is that Ryan's budget is useful to Paul Ryan, but not necessarily anyone else. As Shuma and others have been saying, its just a piece of political chicanery.
Definitely. Ryan's budget took the guy from being a young congressmen with a fair bit of potential to an actual player in national politics. It was never a budget that was going to get passed, but a budget that marked his place in the political landscape. But it was also, I think, a genuine effort to actually start a debate on long term budget planning (which some Democrats including the President to some extent actually tried to take him up on, only for the presently partisan nature of congress to make impossible).
Limit our response incase Iran tries to close the Straight of Homuz. Basically let other nations handle their affairs instead of us playing world police
ed it with this horrible trash that was put in place. This is why people don't trust the government here to even be minimally competent. 