Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It's a play off of the Ryan Gosling hey girl meme, which works well because Paul Ryan has voted against women's reproductive rights, health care, equal pay, and a host of other issues.
whembly wrote: Okay, you got me there... from a macro-economic standpoint, government spending could (not always) have a positive impact. What I'm trying to articulate is that all to often "government intervention" is the go-to tool to attempt to address these concerns.
I'm not sure there's much of a debate to be had here. I mean, right now there's little doubt that government spending would grow GDP given the present state of the economy. And while it is true that such spending is only a short term solution, a cyclical downturn in the economy is only a short term problem.
And all of that aside, no matter what stage of economic activity you are when you set a Federal Budget you need to factor in the impact of spending changes on total tax revenue. Ryan didn't, and that leaves his budget as something of a Fisher Price budget.
It's still a more substantive declaration of his political ideas than most any other congressman has managed to produce, mind you, which says a lot about the state of modern politics.
I guess I was excited about even having a defined "budget"... that way, we can have an honest discussion about it, rather than just passing "continuing resolutions" all the time. At least we have an idea of what he intends to engage Congress with. Remember, they'll pick it apart and add crap to it, just like any other bill. The merits of his plan is fair game, but I can pretty much guarantee you that what you see will NOT be the one Romeny will sign.
True... I hadn't thought about it much since that was speculated.
And to be fair I'm speculating as well. I have no idea if Rubio was offered it.
Wouldn't surprise me either way.
Right... but it's all about "context". If a plain jane/joe politician said this, it wouldn't be on anyone's radar. But coming from someone who "coined" the following phrases (and I'm paraphrasing):
"... you didn't build that..."
"...we have the spread the wealth around"
"...etc..."
And let me pre-empt anyone. I don't hate Obama... I don't think he's "working to destroy America"... he truly believes in these kind of things and he's been consistent (I'm not being snarky... in a politician, that's admirable).
Sure, but it has to be recognised each of the above lines has been grossly misrepresented by Romney and his team. That isn't a dig at Romney, as every campaign distorts stuff said by the other side. But it does mean none of the above should used to draw an honest description of Obama's political positions.
True... it's gutter politics... and the sad thing is... it works. Just look at the Atkins snafu.
I think we're getting there.
I admire your optimism.
I have to be sometimes... we Missourians are cynical by nature. We are the "Show Me" state (that's our motto).
That's the disconnect I have with you.. we don't have universal healthcare. Basic healthcare isn't a "right" (whether is should be, that's a different discussion) It's a service oriented industry. This is what we have (the ACA bill doesn't really change that... might mitigate it... ).
So... through combination of bad luck, poor planning, and/or gak hits the fan... yes, medical bills can bankrupt you. At least you have a mechanism to discharge the debt.
If we didn't have that mechanism, then yes, you'd have an argument as it'll be no different that indentured slavery.
You're honestly okay with a system where a person can lose everything they had because they got sick and they either didn't have insurance or their insurance wasn't enough for that problem?
You can't plan ahead for these kind of things. That's why you *could* file for bankruptcy when the feth hits the fan.
Keep in mind, if that Harvard study is right (not sure if it's been peer reviewed yet)... the 0.0017% of the population had to file for bankruptcy due to these bills.
Exactly how many hundreds of thousands of people does it have to be before its a problem?
It's a problem... bankruptcy is a tool that we all can use to get us back on our feet. I should know, I'm halfway done with mine.
CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Not when those price controls are geared towards paying less for drugs and identifying treatments that aren't needed.
Did you know Ryan's budget has the same measures in it? Exactly the same price controls, point for point. Yet Romney and Ryan are out there claiming Obama's price controls will hurt them. Its bizarre.
Hmmmm... I've read both and I didn't get the same sense that they were the same mechanism. I've got some re-reading to do.
With other issues... I'd agree with you. See that website I posted previous showing how pull parties are pulling away from each other. But with respect to the HCR bill.
WE. DONT. WANT. IT. Not in it's current iteration...
In Missouri, we passed a non-binding resolution two years ago rejecting the current HCR bill. It passed with 71% approval... that is unheard of on a single-issue platform.
http://kcur.org/post/proposition-c-passes
And yet if you poll the general population on each part of the bill a majority supports each part. But if you ask about HCR they sink it.
I don't just blame Republicans for how they attacked this thing. The Democrats showed a unique combination of incompetence and cowardice that only they can deliver. In the end HCR is unpopular because no-one ever really stood up and argued for it. Obama and a core of Democrats threw it at their party, made it their issue, and then they all stuffed around among themselves until they were backed into a position where they'd be more politically hurt by passing the bill than they would be dropping it.
Throughout no-one actually stood in front of the public and argued for the strong points in the bill.
I agree with your assessment here. A better approach is to look at one piece of the puzzle and address there, instead of the whole package that no one really knows what to do.
Do you know that this bill is so complicated that HealthCare organizations had to hire more legal counsels to navigate this? It's asinine.
Interesting about your system...
We vote every 2 years for Rep and 4 for Senator/Prez... ultimately, the responsibility falls on the voters... and most voters don't take the time to research.
We vote every 3 years for our Federal Government (although possibly earlier, as there are no fixed terms, if a government feels it cannot function under the present set up, or feels there is political advantage in an early election they can dissolve parliament and go to election).
It's weird, because we focus on our leaders as much as you do, but we don't actually vote for them. We just vote for our local member, and they all get individually elected same as your House of Reps guys. And then whoever leads the party that has a majority in that house (we call it the Lower House) becomes Prime Minister, which is broadly the same as your Prime Minister.
The weird bit is that because all the focus is on the leaders, people are often entirely unaware of who their local member is. Even though that's the only person they actually voted for.
Interesting... at least we voted for the Prez.
Huh... interesting. And THANKS! I need to travel more... I'm just an ignorant mid-westerner.
Travel is always good, though having been to America I admit I understand a lot more why you guys don't travel that much, there is a hell of a lot to see there.
Heh... I've been to Paris, France and St. Thomas UVI... that's the extent of my "travels" outside of USA.
Denver, CO is cool city as my folks live in the mountains somewhere .
My Dad lived in Alaska for years... that place is surreal.
I would LOVE, LOVE to visit Australia and New Zealand (I'm a Tolkien nerd).
And thank YOU for this discussion.
Thanks. I don't know if you'd know who biccat was, as he was probably before your time, but this has been loads more fun than talking to that guy
He's around Dakka...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Question about Paul Ryan. Can someone give me the background on the "Hey Girl" part of the meme?
I'm guessing that he looks at dudes with those same puppy dog eyes and then feels shameful about it and so he overcompensates by putting on the ultra-conservative dog and pony show sthick...
Barring that, I'd bet money there is a waitress or hooker in some nowhere town that aborted his child and is living well off the "shut up and go away" money he payed her.
He is a time bomb ticking...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/24 13:16:35
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
I'm guessing that he looks at dudes with those same puppy dog eyes and then feels shameful about it and so he overcompensates by putting on the ultra-conservative dog and pony show sthick...
Barring that, I'd bet money their is a waitress or hooker in some nowhere town that aborted his child and is living well off the "shut up and dissapear" money he payed her.
He is a time bomb ticking...
OR and here's a twist. He could just be a really nice guy who smiles a lot because he's happy. He even smiles at Wasserman while he grinds her face in her own inability to win any argument about anything ever. Then they made her the DNC chair...
But I digress. That twist though: it's in your knickers.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
I think I'd put Ryan ahead of Romney in the all-unimportant "who would you rather have a beer with" category. I doubt I'd have much in common with Ryan, but it'd probably be a pleasant enough conversation, if a little dull. He'd probably have a Miller, and I wouldn't remember much of what we talked about, although I wouldn't walk away disliking the guy.
If Mitt even drinks, I imagine that it would be some kind of odd choice. Like a Zima or something. Our conversation would be halting and awkward, and I'd be the one to get up and leave early. Really not feeling it from him.
I don't get the warm fuzzies from Obama either, but he'd probably pick a solid Goose Island brew, and be engaging enough when talking sports. As long as he doesn't slip into semi-surly lecturing professorial mode, he'd be fine.
Biden would be the most fun to have a beer with by a wide margin. He's that crazy uncle who tells you all the funny stories. Delaware guy that he is, he'd probably pick something from Dogfish Head with a highish alcohol content and start buying rounds. All the laughing and carrying on would attract a small crowd at the bar. The more I think about this, the more Biden wins in a rout.
Yeah, I can see that being true. Obama is intense compared to the others, so you'd have to really hope to catch him in a relaxed state to have a good beer with him. But Biden... does anyone really take him seriously anymore? Not even democrats seem to at this point...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/24 15:46:38
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Which is funny, because Biden is a pretty subversive and astute politicain. I think he just plays up the old, crazy Uncle thing for the people; but he is porbably a pretty smooth background operator.
Of course, I have very little to base this on.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
gorgon wrote: I think I'd put Ryan ahead of Romney in the all-unimportant "who would you rather have a beer with" category. I doubt I'd have much in common with Ryan, but it'd probably be a pleasant enough conversation, if a little dull. He'd probably have a Miller, and I wouldn't remember much of what we talked about, although I wouldn't walk away disliking the guy.
Well, seeing as Romney can't have a beer Ryan wins by process of elimination.
I don't get the warm fuzzies from Obama either, but he'd probably pick a solid Goose Island brew, and be engaging enough when talking sports. As long as he doesn't slip into semi-surly lecturing professorial mode, he'd be fine.
I've actually met him a couple times in a semi-private setting*. He's a nice guy, and reminds me of several people I went to college with (Mind, I went to college with lots of future academics.), but I can definitely see how others might be put off by him.
*He used to play basketball at the health club I managed.
Biden would be the most fun to have a beer with by a wide margin. He's that crazy uncle who tells you all the funny stories. Delaware guy that he is, he'd probably pick something from Dogfish Head with a highish alcohol content and start buying rounds. All the laughing and carrying on would attract a small crowd at the bar. The more I think about this, the more Biden wins in a rout.
Biden doesn't drink, though he would still be a fun guy to be around.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I thought Mormons couldn't drink alcohol That's one black mark against Romney! /sarcasm
Biden seems like a fun guy to hang out with... even though I have no idea what he really stands for. But, you gotta admit, you can't be where he's at if you weren't good with people.
And what's with that pinkie?
Disclaimer: My g'pa does this... and he's is about as manly, old school, alpha dude you can get.
gorgon wrote: I think I'd put Ryan ahead of Romney in the all-unimportant "who would you rather have a beer with" category. I doubt I'd have much in common with Ryan, but it'd probably be a pleasant enough conversation, if a little dull. He'd probably have a Miller, and I wouldn't remember much of what we talked about, although I wouldn't walk away disliking the guy.
Well, seeing as Romney can't have a beer Ryan wins by process of elimination.
Well, it's a hypothetical. He could still have an O'Douls, if that's still around. Besides, there are plenty of Muslims who drink and plenty of Catholics who get it on for reasons other than procreation.
Biden would be the most fun to have a beer with by a wide margin. He's that crazy uncle who tells you all the funny stories. Delaware guy that he is, he'd probably pick something from Dogfish Head with a highish alcohol content and start buying rounds. All the laughing and carrying on would attract a small crowd at the bar. The more I think about this, the more Biden wins in a rout.
Biden doesn't drink, though he would still be a fun guy to be around.
And I believe I know why, now that I think about it for a second. Bad comment on my part. Carry on.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
You're missing my point man. I've already provided them in that other thread.
Anytime any government needs to control cost (one way is price control), services are impacted. That's all I'm saying.... meaning that, you may have to wait, or get that service elsewere, or pay higher co-pay, etc...
You can't just cut re-imbursement and expect the institution to NOT respond to it.
Besides... wrong thread, I'm done discussing this here.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
You're missing my point man. I've already provided them in that other thread.
Anytime any government needs to control cost (one way is price control), services are impacted. That's all I'm saying.... meaning that, you may have to wait, or get that service elsewere, or pay higher co-pay, etc...
You can't just cut re-imbursement and expect the institution to NOT respond to it.
Besides... wrong thread, I'm done discussing this here.
Ya don't seem to get it. You have not cited ANYTHING of value. Every single citation you have made (I know 'cause I read 'em) has been little more than "Joe-The-GOP's-Submissive's Blog"
In Canada, we do not curb the health care costs. It is by far the biggest chunk of our federal budget, every single year, and we are fine with that.
I don't care where you discuss it, but when you do please refrain from intentionally repeating falsehoods.
Once more, with feeling: Canada does not ration healthcare.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/24 23:55:20
Every Dakkanaught gets a 4+ Pinch of Salt save.
When you suffer a Falling Sky hit, roll a D6 - on a 4+ the hit is ignored as per the Pinch of Salt save. On a 1-3 panic insues - you automatically fail common sense tests for the next 2 weeks and get +7 to your negativity stat. -Praxiss
SHould have kept it on the photochop thread.....now the perception is the Romney/Ryan Green Elephant Chapter is the savior of mankind.....actually the US.....
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Come on Gamer...some of the 40K players keep insisting that their vanilla SM chapter are married to some Sister of Battles.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
I mean sex sells but come own GOP
Sarah Palin isn't unattractive per se, but "hot" is a vast overstatement.
They recruited from the Dutch Female Field Hockey Team
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Everybody going to stop on that pic for a good....30 sec's
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
I mean sex sells but come own GOP
Sarah Palin isn't unattractive per se, but "hot" is a vast overstatement.
I dont think shes anything special but name me a hotter female politician in american history. or the rest of the world for the matter. I mean i dont remember too many pornos being made for Indira Gandhi.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
You're missing my point man. I've already provided them in that other thread.
Anytime any government needs to control cost (one way is price control), services are impacted. That's all I'm saying.... meaning that, you may have to wait, or get that service elsewere, or pay higher co-pay, etc...
You can't just cut re-imbursement and expect the institution to NOT respond to it.
Besides... wrong thread, I'm done discussing this here.
Ya don't seem to get it. You have not cited ANYTHING of value. Every single citation you have made (I know 'cause I read 'em) has been little more than "Joe-The-GOP's-Submissive's Blog"
In Canada, we do not curb the health care costs. It is by far the biggest chunk of our federal budget, every single year, and we are fine with that.
I don't care where you discuss it, but when you do please refrain from intentionally repeating falsehoods.
Once more, with feeling: Canada does not ration healthcare.
Do you not understand what the word "rationing" even mean?
In this thread, I'm NOT arguing if the Canadian single payor is superior/lacking to US system... so, stop jumping down my throat in this... jeez... take a chill pill... m'kay?
EVERY healthcare system ration care!!! Rationing for some reason is a dirty word in politics, but it's ALWAYS been there.
Rationing is no more rare in a for-profit system than it is in a publicly-funded one... the only difference is the method of rationing we choose to use. The Canadian solution is to provide services up to a certain level with some barriers to access, such as waiting times(ps, what's up with the refugee cuts, which is another form of rationing). The American solution is to curtail the number of people who are able to access any level of care.
The Canadian model are notorious for long wait times compared to those in the US. But generally, this model covers the majority of health care needs.
The American model are notorious for knocking people of rolls, access for the poor, insurance won't cover certain pre-existing condition, etc... but, this system ensures that everyone who can get care gets it quickly and to the extent they want/can pay for.
These solutions have different effects, and for reasons of both on ethical and personal/economic outcomes, the Canadian model is often argued as superior. Conversely, due to the for-profit system in the American model, we are consistently pushing the technological/medical advances.
So both systems have great qualities as well as some worts... there IS no perfect system.
So... here's an olive branch...
If you want to discuss this further... start up another thread.
This is about Romney/Ryan and in the spirit of this thread:
