Speculation is abound that Mitt's Veep might come in the form of a General. A four star one at that. Would it be a slam dunk if he gets David Petraeus?
Maybe if they flip that ticket and make Mitt the VEEP.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 07, 2012, 02:40:28 PM
Maybe if they flip that ticket and make Mitt the VEEP.
Or ask him to bounce and bring in Ron Reagan Jr...the name would take the election.
Quote from: DolfanBob on August 07, 2012, 02:36:16 PM
Would it be a slam dunk if he gets David Petraeus?
Rock me General Petraeus.
(http://i.thestar.com/images/15/77/ac6b809e454e87ef8a1bf65ec469.jpeg)
Political Junkie is predicting Rob Portman due to massive changes on Wikipedia.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Rob_Portman,_official_portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg/220px-Rob_Portman,_official_portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg)
QuoteRobert Jones "Rob" Portman is an American attorney and the junior United States Senator from Ohio. Portman, a member of the Republican Party, succeeded retiring Senator George Voinovich in 2010
Please. Betrayus? Bring him on!
Not so fast! I think Vermin Supreme still has a chance at the spot.
(http://www.hahanice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/vermin-supreme-2.jpg)
Though he's a bit eccentric, he still has Joe Biden beat in a debate!
Aside from Rob. They are talking about New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte.
Also Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
Quote from: DolfanBob on August 08, 2012, 01:31:39 PM
Aside from Rob. They are talking about New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte.
Also Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
. . .and Tim Pawlenty is also running strong according to the report I just ran. In fact he has more edits than Rob.
...and our own governess.
Two birds with one stone :-)
Dang! I don't know where that article got it's info, but Paul Ryan seems to have everyone beat, especially today!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&offset=&limit=250&action=history
Quote from: patric on August 08, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
...and our own governess.
Two birds with one stone :-)
Sorry, Nothing. She's had like two edits in the past few days.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 08, 2012, 01:46:13 PM
Sorry, Nothing. She's had like two edits in the past few days.
Her handlers probably get it mixed up with wikileaks.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 08, 2012, 01:45:12 PM
Dang! I don't know where that article got it's info, but Paul Ryan seems to have everyone beat, especially today!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&offset=&limit=250&action=history
Personally I hope against Ryan. Don't get me wrong I think Ryan is the kind of guy he needs, but I think he is far more effective as a congressmen than as a VP. Romney and Ryan are cut from the same mold in that they are not afraid to make the tough decision. Romney is willing to close down companies that should be closed down and Ryan is willing to make cuts that are extremely unpopular because they need to be cut. If no one is there to make those decisions, America will just continue on this unsustainable spending binge by the federal government that will lead to who knows what. That is why I think Romney is a better candidate for Pres because the country needs someone who is able/willing to make the unpopular decisions. That is one trait that is for certain about Obama is that every single thing he does is for political expediency (except golfing). It is nearly impossible to judge what he really believes because it will change like/as the polls change.
Quote from: erfalf on August 10, 2012, 11:22:04 AM
Personally I hope against Ryan. Don't get me wrong I think Ryan is the kind of guy he needs, but I think he is far more effective as a congressmen than as a VP. Romney and Ryan are cut from the same mold in that they are not afraid to make the tough decision. Romney is willing to close down companies that should be closed down and Ryan is willing to make cuts that are extremely unpopular because they need to be cut.
You really need to read up on how companies like Bain make money. It's not how you think they do.
I think it will be Paul Ryan.
Money is everything with these national republicans. They want to dramatically reduce government (except for military) spending and have no problem killing programs as long as they cut budgets.
Paul is the perfect guy to explain how they want to destroy America.
Revisionist history.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/242789-wikipedia-locks-down-pages-of-vp-contenders-after-excessive-edits
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 10, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
They want to dramatically reduce government (except for military) spending and have no problem killing programs as long as they cut budgets.
Cutting the size of government is just an excuse for these guys. It's all about reducing taxes on their donors and cutting law enforcement as it applies to their donors. They don't even bother to make the numbers add up because they know that few people will bother to check and those that do will be dismissed as left wingers, no matter their political persuasion.
As you noted, they are perfectly happy with larger government, as long as it's larger in the areas they want it to be larger in. It's perfectly OK to run deficits, as long as those deficits are funding their donors. They couldn't possibly be more transparent about it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mitt-romney-says-hell-announce-running-mate-saturday-morning-20120810,0,4049428.story
I'm sure they'll announce it right in the middle of the Mexico-Brasil gold medal game.... damn you Romney...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186884/Mitt-Romney-set-Paul-Ryan-running-mate-Republican-prepares-make-announcement-Saturday-morning-Virginia.html
Tweet I just saw:
QuoteRight now, Obama is watching video of Paul Ryan dismantling Tim Geithner, while Joe Biden asks for help assembling his Happy Meal toy.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 10, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
I think it will be Paul Ryan.
Money is everything with these national republicans. They want to dramatically reduce government (except for military) spending and have no problem killing programs as long as they cut budgets.
Paul is the perfect guy to explain how they want to destroy America.
The Romney camp is going to announce that Paul Ryan is their pick for VP later today, according to news reports. Good pick, Michael!
I don't know a lot about him, other than he's a libertarian like his father and that his draconian budget ideas will appeal to the tea party types that don't really trust Romney.
He introduced Ryan as the next president. Then he said he makes mistakes. Not a shining moment for the intro.
Quote from: Townsend on August 11, 2012, 10:29:41 AM
He introduced Ryan as the next president. Then he said he makes mistakes. Not a shining moment for the intro.
I thought I heard him say that. The TV was on but I wasn't really paying attention.
He must have been off teleprompter. :D
Quote from: Townsend on August 11, 2012, 10:29:41 AM
He introduced Ryan as the next president. Then he said he makes mistakes. Not a shining moment for the intro.
Yeah I saw that. Pretty dumb. Here's the video.
Edited. Then crazy Joe.
Now Obama has a very specific right wing plan to run against. Game over. This was the pick Obama was hoping for. One of Romney's strength's so far was that he had distanced himself from his actions when he was governor to the right and really hadn't put any new concrete plans into place for Obama to argue against. Now there is real meat for the Obama team to go after. A lot of real meat.
Ryan's budget plan guts Medicare and Medicaid making medical care far more expensive for the poor, disabled and elderly and guts other programs for the poor. At the same time he cuts corporate taxes and the top end personal tax rate from 35% to 25% and pays for it by removing middle class tax exemptions effectively raising taxes on the middle class. No mention however of closing loopholes in corporate taxes that already lower our world leading (on paper) tax rates on corporations down to one the lowest effective tax rates in the developed world.
His plan basically removes benefits for the poor, disabled and retired and gives more money to the rich and corporations and pays for it by raising taxes on the middle class. None other than Newt Gingrich called the plan "right-wing social engineering"
Romney will come to regret this pick, it's telling that this late in the campaign he's still having to shore up his right wing base. This leaves him no way to pivot to the middle to pick up those moderate swing voters. He's already 9-10 points down, this isn't going to help in the long run.
Quote from: guido911 on August 11, 2012, 02:01:34 PM
Here is Ryan vs. Obama:
why didn't we get Obama's response?
Go google for it. And I would add that Ryan didn't "destroy" anyone despite the title of the video. It was just information.
Haha. Anybody who requires his town hall meetings be PPV events because he wants to make sure the questions he'll be asked are softball questions deserves to the be Veep nod. Look what we got in 2008 from the Repubs.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/rotfl.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
It's a similar pick to Palin. Done to shore up the base when that's not what Romney needs when he's already well behind. It's dissimilar in that Ryan does not seem like an idiot but probably just as harmful with his positions on popular programs.
Quote from: Ed W on August 11, 2012, 07:02:24 AM
that his draconian budget ideas will appeal to the tea party types that don't really trust Romney.
This is what all the media is reporting, but I don't get it. Ryan's budget plan isn't any less fanciful than Romney's. Neither add up. Romney should have had mondo credibility with the so-called budget hawks.
I was actually surprised when I read that Ryan was the pick this morning. Why would they make the same mistake twice in a row? I can only imagine than they're not actually serious about wanting to win. The Republicans do a lot better with the electorate (nationally, anyway) when they're in the opposition. They probably know damn well that their proposals will not break us out of this economic funk, so better to have Obama in the White House and Boehner in control of the House where he can prevent anything that could possibly be viewed as a success by Obama making it through. If they get Romney in, they have to start taking responsibility for their lack of action.
Oh well, further demonstrations of the unseriousness of the current crop of Republicans can only lead to their increasing marginalization. Unfortunately, we'll have to deal with more Tea Party BS during their death throes. Hopefully the party that emerges from the ashes is actually more interested in our country than their donors and their ideology.
Quote from: nathanm on August 11, 2012, 05:36:28 PM
Why would they make the same mistake twice in a row? I can only imagine than they're not actually serious about wanting to win. The Republicans do a lot better with the electorate (nationally, anyway) when they're in the opposition....
Remember that as the circular firing squad formed after McCain's loss one criticism was that he hadn't been conservative enough. Never mind his disastrous pick for VP. The Republican party is split between the far right tea party jihadists and the more moderate country club elitists. It's an uneasy alliance because the tea party will not permit any compromise. The monied elite needs them to get elected, particularly in the primaries, but their scorched earth policies toward both the Democrats and more moderate Republicans make governing extremely difficult.
While we have fundamental differences regarding policy, both Democrats and Republicans want to see that our government actually works. The tea party, on the other hand, is perfectly willing to make it all come crashing down unless they get precisely what they want - without any compromises whatsoever. They're better organized than the bomb-throwing anarchists of a century ago, but the end result is the same.
Quote from: swake on August 11, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
It's a similar pick to Palin. Done to shore up the base when that's not what Romney needs when he's already well behind. It's dissimilar in that Ryan does not seem like an idiot but probably just as harmful with his positions on popular programs.
Seems like there was some rule that your VP cant be smarter than your president, or something...
Dont think Bush 2 followed that one, either. ;D
QuoteFrom: David Axelrod
Date: August 11, 2012
Subject: Video: Get to know Paul Ryan
Friend --
This morning, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan stood on a platform in Norfolk, Virginia, and introduced themselves to the country as "America's Comeback Team."
"Go Back Team" would be more appropriate -- because a Romney-Ryan administration is the definition of a fast track back to the failed, top-down economic policies of the past.
In Ryan, Romney has selected a running mate best known for designing the extreme GOP budget that would end Medicare as we know it, and -- just like Romney's plan -- actually raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for an additional $250,000 tax break for millionaires and billionaires. As a leader of the House Republicans and a Tea Party favorite, Congressman Ryan has led the relentless, intensely ideological battle for these kinds of budget-busting policies that punish seniors and the middle class.
Today, Romney doubled down on those policies.
But most Americans don't know Paul Ryan. In the coming days, the other side will spend a lot of time trying to define Romney's choice and what it says about his candidacy -- so we put together a brand-new website on Romney-Ryan with everything you need to know.
Check it out, watch the video, and then show your support for President Obama and Vice President Biden by sharing it with friends and family.
If their records are any indication of how they'd govern, it's not looking good (unless you're a right-wing conservative in the top 5 percent of income-earners and NOT a woman or a worker counting on Medicare in your future).
This isn't a matter of opinion:
-- As an architect of the extreme GOP budget, Ryan will be Romney's biggest advocate for his plan to give more tax breaks to millionaires, paid for by $2,000 in higher taxes on middle-class families with kids.
-- The Ryan plan, which Romney said is "an excellent piece of work, and very much needed," calls for deep cuts in education -- from college scholarships to Head Start -- critical scientific research, and clean energy investments, all to help pay for those tax cuts.
-- Ryan authored the original plan to convert Medicare into a voucher program, costing seniors an additional $6,000 or more each year.
-- Ryan talks tough on balancing the budget, but his own plan would fail to do that for a generation. The burden of balancing any Ryan budget falls squarely on the backs of seniors and middle-class families -- while no one at the top is asked to pay even a dollar more.
-- Both Romney and Ryan are severely conservative, threatening to take us backward on women's issues and civil rights. Ryan cosponsored a bill that would ban common forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and abortions even in cases of rape or incest. He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, voted against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.
On so many issues, Paul Ryan, like Mitt Romney, has taken extreme positions that are out of touch with the values most Americans share.
It's our job, especially in these first few days and weeks, to make sure voters get the facts on his record, and a clear picture as to what a Romney-Ryan administration would look like for regular people, when the slogans fade away and the real policy decisions they'd face as president and vice president are on the table.
Check out the new video and site on Romney-Ryan:
http://my.barackobama.com/Go-Back-Team
Thanks for everything.
Big day.
David
P.S. -- We are 87 days out from Election Day. This campaign is relying on people like you to help build it in the time we've got left. Chip in to support the Obama-Biden campaign today.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-camp-video-get-to-know-paul-ryan-131825.html
Goldwater II coming to a tv near you Nov. 6, 2012!
Yes but his Wife is from Oklahoma. And who doesn't like a pair of dogs named Boomer and Sooner.
That's got V.P. written all over it.
Quote from: nathanm on August 11, 2012, 05:36:28 PM
If they get Romney in, they have to start taking responsibility for their lack of action.
Nah, just take a cue from the present occupant of the White House; blame Obama and the Democratic held Senate.
From a political perspective it is not the same as Palin at all. Ryan may represent a strong, vocal part of the party but he is capable and bankable. He'll maintain liason with those donors and leaders.
As far as Ryan's views and actions, they are anathema to mine. But Romney didn't stumble here.
Interesting that Romney required multiple years of tax returns from his potential VP candidates.
I'm gonna put this choice in the "be careful what you wish for" category. On both sides...
The ironic part is that issuing Medicare vouchers to buy "market based" private insurance has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a reality if Romney wins and Obamacare is repealed.
Conversely, I could see the voucher idea used as a political compromise years from now, but ONLY if Obamacare is left largely intact and private insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate based on age and pre-existing conditions...
Ryan is a career politician, not a businessman... who embraces the same type of Jack Kemp-style conservatism that touts massive tax cuts for the wealthy which will magically jump start the economy.... and uses deficit reduction as an excuse to privatize everything from Medicare and Social Security to Student loans.... in theory, supply-side Reaganomics... in practice, a tax giveaway to the wealthy and socialized tax credits for corporations that benefit from privatization, financed by robbing the poor and middle-class...
Paul Ryan is the epitome of a born-on-third-base-and-thinks-he-hit-a-triple child of privilege and an "I got mine, screw you" child of capitalist entitlement...
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/paul_ryan_randian_poseur/
QuotePaul Ryan was born into a well-to-do Janesville, Wisc. family, part of the so-called "Irish mafia" that's run the city's construction industry since the 19th century. When his lawyer father died young, sadly, the high-school aged Ryan received Social Security survivor benefits. But they didn't go directly to supporting his family; by his own account, he banked them for college. He went to Miami University of Ohio, paying twice as much tuition as an Ohio resident would have; the in-state University of Wisconsin system (which I attended) apparently wasn't good enough for Ryan. After his government-subsidized out-of-state education, the pride of Janesville left college and went to work for government, where he's spent his entire career, first serving Republican legislators and then in his own Congressional seat, with occasional stints at his family-owned construction business when he needed a job (reportedly he also drove an Oscar Mayer Wiener Mobile for a while).
Ironically, Ryan came to national attention trying to dismantle the very program that helped him go to the college of his choice, pushing an even more radical version of President Bush's Social Security privatization plan, which failed. He has since become the scourge of the welfare state, a man wholly supported by government who preaches against the evils of government support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...guys like Ryan (and his Irish Catholic GOP confrere Pat Buchanan) somehow become the political face of the white working class when they never spent a day in that class in their life. Their only tether to it is their remarkable ability to tap into the economic anxiety of working class whites and steer it toward paranoia that their troubles are the fault of "other" people – the slackers and the moochers, Ayn Rand's famous "parasites."
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/Screen%20shot%202012-08-11%20at%208.54.42%20AM.png)
Quote from: AquaMan on August 12, 2012, 12:53:31 PM
From a political perspective it is not the same as Palin at all.
I disagree. There is a minor difference in that Ryan actually has some experience in Washington, but he's an equally radical choice for an equally floundering campaign. Who wants to take odds on Romney suspending his campaign later in the year? :P
I like the official campaign poster.
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/423444_3465940287318_51104610_n.jpg)
Quote from: swake on August 10, 2012, 01:59:23 PM
You really need to read up on how companies like Bain make money. It's not how you think they do.
Worked in Private Equity. Please illuminate.
Can't wait to see the VP debate. That at the very least should be entertaining.
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 09:21:20 AM
Can't wait to see the VP debate. That at the very least should be entertaining.
(http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/products/MLB11199797.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 09:07:05 AM
I like the official campaign poster.
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/423444_3465940287318_51104610_n.jpg)
Is that to placate the folks that believe dinosaurs and humans lived side by side 6,000 or so years ago?
Violence and Teabagger/GOPeer's go hand in hand...macho jingoism. Seems to have worked so far. :D
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/200781_468477536503899_1036509197_n.jpg)
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 09:17:43 AM
Worked in Private Equity. Please illuminate.
Here's a good article:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki
Quote from: swake on August 13, 2012, 11:44:40 AM
Here's a good article:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki
TOO MANY CROOKS!
Rush Limbaugh: Paul Ryan is 'us'http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79674.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79674.html)
QuotePaul Ryan is a true conservative whose presence on the GOP ticket is good for Mitt Romney, good for the Republican Party and good for substantive debate, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio talk show Monday.
"We now have somebody on the ticket who's us," Limbaugh said. "[Somebody] who can explain all of this, who believes all of this in his heart, in his soul, and he can do it with optimism and a smile on his face."
The talk show host said Ryan, the wonky chair of the House Budget committee, will force a new election narrative centered on policy and ideology. That will generate further scrutiny of President Barack Obama's record, he said.
"When the vice president starts dismantling the president of the United States and his policies and his ideas and what they have wrought, that's something they're going to have to react to," Limbaugh said. "They're going to have to come back at some point with some substance and when they do that, they don't have substance on their side. When they do that, that brings Obama's record to the fore."
After unveiling the Ryan pick, Romney himself appeared more energized and on-message at campaign events, Limbaugh said. He praised the presumptive GOP nominee, who struggled in the primaries to win over some of the more conservative elements of the base.
"The pick signals a decision was made somewhere that...we're going to go head-first, going to take it straight to them and we're going to win or we're going to lose [but we are going to] articulate exactly what we believe," Limbaugh said.
He added later, "The presence of Paul on stage with Romney has elevated Romney...Romney's a new guy."
I wonder who is Romney's "us".
Quote from: swake on August 13, 2012, 11:44:40 AM
Here's a good article:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki
So PE firms (according to the article) make an extremely leveraged investment, give themselves dividends that covered the investment that were paid for with the firm taking on additional debt, and that is how they made out like bandits? Sounds to me like they covered their donkey in case of losses, which is far from making boat loads of money. Wasserstein paid $82M cash (before leverage, $230M total) for Harry and David and paid itself dividends of $82.6M and $19M. That still leaves a net loss of $128.4M in debt that was unpaid. Now, if someone can show how PE firms get to have their debt wiped out in bankruptcy along with the company they invested in, they just had a loss of 157% on that one investment, plus interest. Please explain where I am wrong on this.
The real hucksters are investment banks who are collecting far too great of zero risk fees on the whole thing (both sides of every transaction no less).
What people don't understand is what the true function of Private Equity. While there are LBO and takeovers, often times PE is used as a bank more or less. They provide liquidity to companies that need and often can't get it anywhere else. If PE firms operate within the bounds of the laws, more power to them. If you don't like the laws, change the laws, don't curse the companies that operate within their bounds.
Paul Ryan on Social Issues: Where Does He Stand?http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/paul-ryan-social-issues-stand/story?id=16994248#.UCk8PZ1lTYg (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/paul-ryan-social-issues-stand/story?id=16994248#.UCk8PZ1lTYg)
QuoteMitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate set off weekend-long debates about the young Wisconsin rep's fiscal policies, but less was said about his stance on social issues. Where does Romney's running mate stand on such issues as abortion and gun rights?
Abortion
Ryan is firmly against abortion rights. He has an 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest anti-abortion rights organization. He co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a bill that would define human life as beginning at conception.
President Obama tweeted earlier today: "Make sure the women in your life know: Paul Ryan supports banning all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest."
Ryan, however, has said that he was willing to disagree, "with mutual respect," with others on the issue.
Gay Rights
Ryan's record on gay rights is mixed, and gay rights is one issue on which Ryan and Romney disagree somewhat. Ryan's said he's anti-same-sex marriage, and he's voted against adoption rights for same-sex couples.
Romney has said he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.
But Ryan did break with his party to vote for the Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Romney has said that he would not support that legislation at the federal level, saying those decisions should be made by the states.
Guns
An avid outdoorsman who hunts, Ryan has received an "A" record from the National Rifle Association for his stance and voting record on gun rights. In the past, Ryan has voted "yes" on the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill, which would prohibit "misuse" lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and "no" on the 72 Background Check Amendment, which would increase the required background check time period for purchasing a gun from 24 hours to 72 hours.
Immigration
Ryan voted against the Dream Act, legislation that would offer a route to citizenship to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and had gone to college here. On his congressional website, Ryan said that the legislation "attempts to treat a symptom, rather than the root cause, of our current problem." Ryan favors placing a priority on securing the border, "developing a more secure employee verification system" and working on creating "an enforceable guest worker program."
Quote from: AquaMan on August 12, 2012, 12:53:31 PM
From a political perspective it is not the same as Palin at all. Ryan may represent a strong, vocal part of the party but he is capable and bankable. He'll maintain liason with those donors and leaders.
As far as Ryan's views and actions, they are anathema to mine. But Romney didn't stumble here.
Interesting that Romney required multiple years of tax returns from his potential VP candidates.
It was a great pick. I can't believe that Mitt was able to make both Republicans and Democrats happy with this one move. Probably the first time they've agreed on anything for a long time.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg9qhtDdbF1qgnsnbo1_250.gif)
I find it entertaining that the left has taken to demonizing PE. It's a great example. It wouldn't matter what industry Romney achieved great success with, it would be necessary for Democrats to tear it down. The sad thing is that there is no effort to build their own candidate up? Their politics seems to revolve around trash talk.
Ryan worked for Oscar Myer, a company that will soon be accused of cruelty to animals.
My cousin owns a PE/VC firm. He views it as the ultimate way to give back. He was a very successful in the software industry. He retired, and rather than let his money sit around, he formed a PE/VC firm and now he "rescues good businesses from bad management." He saves jobs, creates prosperity, and helps individuals realize their dreams. I can't think of a better way to use wealth. It's like helping addicts get clean. Sure, some will relapse, but you can't blame the PE firm for that.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 12:59:14 PM
My cousin owns a PE/VC firm. He views it as the ultimate way to give back. He was a very successful in the software industry. He retired, and rather than let his money sit around, he formed a PE/VC firm and now he "rescues good businesses from bad management." He saves jobs, creates prosperity, and helps individuals realize their dreams. I can't think of a better way to use wealth. It's like helping addicts get clean. Sure, some will relapse, but you can't blame the PE firm for that.
What you fail to understand is that the rules are different for folks that operate on the scale that Romney did. And VC is vastly different than neo-LBO shops like Bain. You're comparing a diesel generator to a semi truck. Some commonality, but one tells you little about the other.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 12:59:14 PM
I find it entertaining that the left has taken to demonizing PE. It's a great example. It wouldn't matter what industry Romney achieved great success with, it would be necessary for Democrats to tear it down. The sad thing is that there is no effort to build their own candidate up? Their politics seems to revolve around trash talk.
Ryan worked for Oscar Myer, a company that will soon be accused of cruelty to animals.
My cousin owns a PE/VC firm. He views it as the ultimate way to give back. He was a very successful in the software industry. He retired, and rather than let his money sit around, he formed a PE/VC firm and now he "rescues good businesses from bad management." He saves jobs, creates prosperity, and helps individuals realize their dreams. I can't think of a better way to use wealth. It's like helping addicts get clean. Sure, some will relapse, but you can't blame the PE firm for that.
That's the interesting thing about VC in particular. There are no banker VCs. They are all former execs or founders of companies similar to the ones they invest in. All but KPCB.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 01:04:10 PM
What you fail to understand is that the rules are different for folks that operate on the scale that Romney did. And VC is vastly different than neo-LBO shops like Bain. You're comparing a diesel generator to a semi truck. Some commonality, but one tells you little about the other.
The only rules that are different are that they have the resources to do deals that you and I could never dream. You are just trying to denegrate something that many people know very little about. It is easy to do. Just through out some " they just don't understand you" or "tax cheats" and people will believe you.
Paul Ryan's Wife Janna's Resume, Life Before Politics & Family Historyhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-s-wife-janna-s-resume-life-before-politics-family-history.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-s-wife-janna-s-resume-life-before-politics-family-history.html)
QuoteShe may be a new to the national political scene, but Janna Ryan already seems comfortable with the spotlight. Eleanor Clift on the potential second lady's high-powered first career, family politics, and down-home image.
For a newcomer to the national stage, Janna Christine Little Ryan comes across as remarkably poised and confident, with a winning smile and a fashionably windswept look—in short, what's known in the business as a natural.
And no wonder; politics were in her DNA long before she met and married Rep. Paul Ryan, at the time in his first term in Congress and considered one of the Capitol's most eligible bachelors.
They dated for a year until they were wed in 2000. Janna Little had been comfortably settled into a career track as a high-powered attorney and lobbyist for Price Waterhouse Coopers in Arlington, Va. A graduate of the prestigious women's college Wellesley, she had a résumé reflecting the leadership skills instilled by her education and in her upbringing as the eldest of three daughters whose mother had blazed the path both to Wellesley and law school.
The couple married in Janna's hometown in Oklahoma, and without missing a beat, or so it seems, she adopted as home her new husband's congressional district in Janesville, Wisc. Three children followed in quick succession, a girl and two boys, and the family lives in what is described as a Civil War-era home with six bedrooms and eight bathrooms. A stay-at-home mother who, a neighbor told USA Today, attended a recent "porch party" showing off the cute sandals she'd gotten at Goodwill for $2, Janna appears as down-home and unpretentious as her husband, who sleeps in his office weekdays when he's in Washington.
News reports describe Janna as quiet, gracious, and comfortable with being in the background, but her smooth debut as a potential second lady suggests someone who understands and is at ease with public life. Her first cousin is Oklahoma Rep. David Boren, a Democrat, who said in a statement Saturday that he and Janna "grew up together and I couldn't be more proud of my cousin. Like my late mother after whom she is named, Janna is a wonderful parent to their children and will be Paul's strongest supporter on the campaign trail."
Janna's grandfather, Reuel W. Little, a lawyer and rancher, was the American Party's candidate for governor in 1970. The Oklahoman reported on its political blog that the American Party was organized as a third party to support the presidential candidacy of Alabama's then-segregationist governor George Wallace, and that Little was instrumental in the party's founding in Oklahoma in the 1960s. He died in 1993 at age 92.
Third-party politics are not unusual in fiercely independent Western states like Oklahoma, and Janna, 43, would have no firsthand memory of her grandfather's foray into elective politics.
A more likely and powerful role model is her late mother, Prudence Little, who graduated from Wellesley with honors and was first in her class at the University of Oklahoma law school. Janna was the eldest of three daughters, and soon after the birth of the youngest, Little was diagnosed with melanoma, the first of what would turn out to be four cancer diagnoses over 35 years. She died in 2010 at age 68, amid tributes to the grace and courage she showed in living her life, practicing law, raising her daughters, and serving on numerous boards and charitable causes despite the health challenges she faced.
A devout Catholic, Janna Little Ryan will have her faith to help her withstand the scrutiny and the criticism that is inevitable over the next four months, and perhaps the next four years. Her husband has been in Congress for almost 14 years, but it's only been the last two years, since he introduced what's been dubbed the Ryan budget, that he's become a lightning rod. If her role is to help him weather the storm, she's clearly up to the task.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 01:04:10 PM
What you fail to understand is that the rules are different for folks that operate on the scale that Romney did.
I don't "fail to understand". Bain operates on a far grander scale, with a more complex service offering, and answers to stockholders. They, however, play by the same rules and operate under the same laws. What they do is necessary and noble.
They are the mechanics.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 01:16:06 PM
I don't "fail to understand". Bain operates on a far grander scale, with a more complex service offering, and answers to stockholders. They, however, play by the same rules and operate under the same laws. What they do is necessary and noble.
They are the mechanics.
Having an understanding of PE cannot be gained from reading the newspaper (written by people who have little if any clue on how PE works).
Read the descriptions of the deals. They don't work like VC does. They don't work like small fry PE does. They're not on the hook for the debt beyond what they put in, and if they can get cash out before it becomes plainly obvious the business is going into bankruptcy, it can't be clawed back. The wonder of limited liability. Absolutely necessary for our economic system to function, but abused to the ends of the privileged. The small fry has to personally guarantee the debt used to buy the target company, so he or she is most decidedly not operating on the same playing field.
Even if it goes to zero at some point after they've gotten their actual contribution back, they don't actually lose anything on a cash basis, but they "lose" whatever value the equity stake had when they bought it. Since the dividends through which they get their money back are capital gains, the capital losses can offset real income from other deals. Yes, they have lost the opportunity to see a gigantic return from selling the company or taking it public or what have you, but on a cash basis they've lost nothing. The loans are secured by the purchased company, not by the PE firm, so they don't take a hit there.
The banks don't give a smile because they sold the debt on to some other schmuck long before it had time to blow up.
A real disaster is when they lose the small slice they put in to begin with, but that's pretty hard to do if they do even the smallest bit of due diligence.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 01:35:57 PM
Read the descriptions of the deals. They don't work like VC does. They don't work like small fry PE does. They're not on the hook for the debt beyond what they put in, and if they can get cash out before it becomes plainly obvious the business is going into bankruptcy, it can't be clawed back. The wonder of limited liability. Absolutely necessary for our economic system to function, but abused to the ends of the privileged. The small fry has to personally guarantee the debt used to buy the target company, so he or she is most decidedly not operating on the same playing field.
Look, I've worked for both VC and LBO firms and let me tell you, they both can loose money with the best of them. There is not some magic formula that only big PE plays by where they make money on every single deal. TRUST ME ON THIS!
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on August 12, 2012, 05:54:37 PM
Paul Ryan is the epitome of a born-on-third-base-and-thinks-he-hit-a-triple child of privilege and an "I got mine, screw you" child of capitalist entitlement...
Thanks for that! Love it.
Truthiness!
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 01:47:11 PM
There is not some magic formula that only big PE plays by where they make money on every single deal. TRUST ME ON THIS!
I'm telling you there is. You wouldn't know about it because you didn't work for a firm so advantaged. Small companies have to have guarantors of their debt. Big ones don't. If you can't get yourself into deals that large, you don't get the special treatment. Would that it be so; my income would be much larger this year.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 01:53:00 PM
I'm telling you there is. You wouldn't know about it because you didn't work for a firm so advantaged. Small companies have to have guarantors of their debt. Big ones don't. If you can't get yourself into deals that large, you don't get the special treatment. Would that it be so; my income would be much larger this year.
I worked for the second largest PE firm in all of Texas. I do know. I did the books.
Trust me, they did plenty of deals where they lost plenty of money.
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 01:58:39 PM
I worked for the second largest PE firm in all of Texas. I do know. I did the books.
Trust me, they did plenty of deals where they lost plenty of money.
You know you can't win this, right?
It's Nate, he's smarter than everyone. In his world everything is so complex that no one but him can understand it.
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 01:58:39 PM
I worked for the second largest PE firm in all of Texas. I do know. I did the books.
So you're saying that they were liable for the debt used to acquire the companies they purchased?
Of course they lose money on an accounting basis if a deal goes to zero. The equity stake had value. However, GAAP basis is not tax basis is not cash basis. It's perfectly possible to have a massive accounting and tax loss on a deal but still come out ahead on a cash basis if you're not liable for the acquisition debt.
Ok, I was wrong, the firm I worked for was not the second larges in Texas, it was the second largest in the DFW metro, largest in Dallas and one of the 50 largest in the world. I think I have a clue about it. That's for sure.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 02:01:37 PM
In his world everything is so complex that no one but him can understand it.
If it couldn't be understood, I wouldn't bother talking about it.
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 02:03:01 PM
Ok, I was wrong, the firm I worked for was not the second larges in Texas, it was the second largest in the DFW metro, largest in Dallas and one of the 50 largest in the world. I think I have a clue about it. That's for sure.
You didn't answer the question.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 02:02:50 PM
So you're saying that they were liable for the debt used to acquire the companies they purchased?
Of course they lose money on an accounting basis if a deal goes to zero. The equity stake had value. However, GAAP basis is not tax basis is not cash basis. It's perfectly possible to have a massive accounting and tax loss on a deal but still come out ahead on a cash basis if you're not liable for the acquisition debt.
Maybe in government accounting. I understand the difference. I do tax/accounting for a living. But more than a few bad deals will sink any fund. And cash flow schedules within a fund include servicing debt. They are not above paying back loans.
You want PE to be so bad so bad that you ignore not only laws but the fact that lenders want to be paid back, no matter who the borrower. Don't pay back a couple of loans in PE and you never borrow again.
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
You want PE to be so bad so bad that you ignore not only laws
Limited liability, ever heard of it? Whatever the lender may think, they're not entitled to the PE firm's money without a guarantee. Romney deals place the debt on the books of the acquired company. Lenders are too interested in the fees they can extract to not go find some schmucks to buy the debt, at least when you're dealing with the TBTF crowd.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 02:13:39 PM
Limited liability, ever heard of it? Whatever the lender may think, they're not entitled to the PE firm's money without a guarantee. Romney deals place the debt on the books of the acquired company. Lenders are too interested in the fees they can extract to not go find some schmucks to buy the debt, at least when you're dealing with the TBTF crowd.
So you're saying that lenders are so stupid, they will just lend millions to people with no guarantee/lien whatsoever.
Generally a PE firm will set up an LLC to make each deal. Let's say we set up AA, LLC to do an LBO of American Airlines (obviously this is hypothetical). The LLC borrows $3 for every $1 invested and buys AA for $40. AA goes under (well this may not be hypothetical), but not after AA, LLC received $20 in dividends. You are correct that the lender has no rights to any of PE firms other assets, however, there will be a claw back of some sort. PE firms can't just go along burning bridges on every deal that goes bad. It doesn't work like that. They will get as much money as they can.
Pretty much every "home run" investment involves adding significant value to an acquired company.
Again, there is no magic formula for PE firms to make money when the target sells for less than they paid for it. That's not to say that a PE firm can't make money when a company goes out of business. Of course the only way that happens is if the real assets are worth more than the purchase price, which rarely happens anymore due to extreme competition in the PE field that keep prices closer to real value. There are no more easy bets.
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 02:21:52 PM
So you're saying that lenders are so stupid, they will just lend millions to people with no guarantee/lien whatsoever.
Have you forgotten the global financial crisis precipitated by risky lending that we're still suffering from to this day? Of course they will. It's not their money any more than it's Romney's money that gets invested. They're only on the hook for a small part, and even that they hedge away with a CDS that is more than paid for by their fees on the deal. Not only is it in the lender's interest as a company, it's in the interest of the person that gets the bonus for doing the deal.
You presume much more long term thinking than evidence would indicate is appropriate.
Quote from: erfalf
You are correct that the lender has no rights to any of PE firms other assets, however, there will be a claw back of some sort.
Yes, a claw back in the form of the acquired company's assets, unless I'm mistaken. Keep your eye on the ball. The cash basis is what's important here. Nobody's saying it's
impossible to lose (cash) money on a deal like that, only that it's set up to make it a lot easier for the lenders to take the losses than the PE firm.
I saw several dozen people let go (RIFd) from my company in the years after two different PEs took over the company. That's all I need to know about them.
Quote from: Hoss on August 13, 2012, 03:59:48 PM
I saw several dozen people let go (RIFd) from my company in the years after two different PEs took over the company. That's all I need to know about them.
Why did they take over the company?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 04:11:57 PM
Why did they take over the company?
Why does any company take over another? We were never told why; only that it happened.
Tax Shelters and You..."Sorry boss?"
What Ryan doesn't mention is that in exchange, he wants to zero out capital gains tax. I believe that would make Romney's 2010 rate somewhere under 1% (he had some speaking fees which would have been taxed as earned income). Not so bad a deal after all, boss?
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 04:22:09 PM
What Ryan doesn't mention is that in exchange, he wants to zero out capital gains tax. I believe that would make Romney's 2010 rate somewhere under 1% (he had some speaking fees which would have been taxed as earned income). Not so bad a deal after all, boss?
Youtube never tells me these things.
VIDEO: Paul Ryan Is Interrupted By Hecklers During First Solo Appearancehttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/13/158715314/video-paul-ryan-is-interrupted-by-hecklers-during-first-solo-appearance?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120813 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/13/158715314/video-paul-ryan-is-interrupted-by-hecklers-during-first-solo-appearance?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120813)
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/08/13/150259289_13109255_custom.jpg?t=1344889571&s=3)
QuoteTwo days after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney introduced him as his running mate, Paul Ryan made his first solo appearance at the Iowa State Fair, today.
It's a grand tradition in Des Moines where candidates stand on a "soapbox" and get a microphone and 20 minutes to say whatever they like.
According to The Des Moines Register, Ryan fired up a crowd of thousands with an "intense 12-minute speech." But he was also interrupted by hecklers.
BuzzFeed recounts the moment:
"Ryan had barely begun speaking when a woman shouted, "Are you going to cut Medicare?"
"Two women rushed the stage, and one was apparently arrested by three Iowa State Patrolmen after getting on stage with a banner.
"'Woah...hey...alright...she must not be from Iowa,' said a dumbfounded Ryan as the woman got on stage."
A year ago this summer, Romney took that same stage and he was heckled as well. It was then that Romney delivered the line, "Corporations are people, my friend."
Ryan continued with his stump speech after the interruption.
"One thing we've got to get straight is we're not growing this economy like we need to," he said according to the Register. "We're not creating jobs like we can in America and that is why Mitt Romney and I have a plan for a stronger middle class."
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 04:22:09 PM
What Ryan doesn't mention is that in exchange, he wants to zero out capital gains tax. I believe that would make Romney's 2010 rate somewhere under 1% (he had some speaking fees which would have been taxed as earned income). Not so bad a deal after all, boss?
I didn't know that. I want 0 capital gains tax too! Sure would make me invest a hell of a lot more. I wonder what impact that would have on markets, you know with everyone turning cash reserves back into investment?
Sounds horrible. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 04:35:08 PM
Sounds horrible. ;)
It's a great plan if you don't think government has to be paid for. Not much of one if your plan is to balance the budget, however.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 04:37:44 PM
It's a great plan if you don't think government has to be paid for. Not much of one if your plan is to balance the budget, however.
But if the economy. . . never mind!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 04:11:57 PM
Why did they take over the company?
To do a "Chainsaw Al" on it.
Balancing the budget must go hand in hand with printing more money. Kinda like not flooding the engine, choke control.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/12/voting-record-analysis-finds-paul-ryan-most-extreme-vp-nominee-in-a-century/
There's an extremist running on the GOP/Teabagger ticket....it won't help. He may be a prick but he's no hatchet man. :)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 04:44:05 PM
But if the economy. . . never mind!
When people are willing to lend to the government at negative real interest, it's pretty hard to argue that lowering capital gains tax will somehow get them to spend their money on other things. We've already showered them with tax incentives. Is there any problem in your world that cannot be solved by lower taxes?
Besides, didn't Romney zero out his capital gains in 2010 with loss carry forwards? Hard to reduce the rates any further...
After watching several excruciating minutes of television last night, may I suggest we suspend use of the word "extreme". Was Ryan this extreme 3 days ago? I mean for goodness sake, he is going to have even less power as a VP than he would on the budget committee in the house.
Oh, that and I didn't realize that Romney co-authored Ryan's budget a few years ago. Who knew?
If the shoe fits... His voting record is as conservative as Michelle Bachmann's. His social views definitely qualify as extreme.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 08:23:14 AM
After watching several excruciating minutes of television last night, may I suggest we suspend use of the word "extreme". Was Ryan this extreme 3 days ago? I mean for goodness sake, he is going to have even less power as a VP than he would on the budget committee in the house.
Oh, that and I didn't realize that Romney co-authored Ryan's budget a few years ago. Who knew?
If VP is so inconsequential, why does the right go after Biden so strongly?
I listened in horror as Ryan spoke on a call in show to Glenn Beck, and explained how he was working hard to frame Progressives as a cancer on America. He says this disease emanated from Germany, progressed through Madison, WI (the university) settling in the Liberal movement in America.
He was able to cement his status as a propagandist deluxe while slandering higher education, foreigners, and patriotic Americans with differing political views all with one motion. Classic republican.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 08:23:14 AM
Oh, that and I didn't realize that Romney co-authored Ryan's budget a few years ago. Who knew?
No one? At least not until the Wikipedia entries were updated maybe? Not sure.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 14, 2012, 09:46:46 AM
If VP is so inconsequential, why does the right go after Biden so strongly?
I listened in horror as Ryan spoke on a call in show to Glenn Beck, and explained how he was working hard to frame Progressives as a cancer on America. He says this disease emanated from Germany, progressed through Madison, WI (the university) settling in the Liberal movement in America.
He was able to cement his status as a propagandist deluxe while slandering higher education, foreigners, and patriotic Americans with differing political views all with one motion. Classic republican politician.
If you had listened to Beck for any length of time, you'd know he has been focusing on what we call progressiveness for quit some time. And it is true that deeds done by progressives have been some of the most horrific in history. Yet they are never labeled radical.
Quote from: Townsend on August 14, 2012, 09:51:58 AM
No one? At least not until the Wikipedia entries were updated maybe? Not sure.
I'm just regurgitating what I heard on television yesterday. The Ryan plan from a few years back is now to be known as the "Romney/Ryan Plan" apparently.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
If the shoe fits... His voting record is as conservative as Michelle Bachmann's. His social views definitely qualify as extreme.
So is it that conservatives are inherently radical or that he is in particular radical.
And what social views of his are radical?
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 10:07:37 AM
If you had listened to Beck for any length of time, you'd know he has been focusing on what we call progressiveness for quit some time. And it is true that deeds done by progressives have been some of the most horrific in history. Yet they are never labeled radical.
Because they were our founding fathers.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 10:08:27 AM
The Ryan plan from a few years back is now to be known as the "Romney/Ryan Plan" apparently.
"Me and Ryan goes together like peas and carrots."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sHPcq2U-kho/T_3DKvSIV1I/AAAAAAAAL9E/styRPiHfjmI/s1600/romney%2Bgump.jpg)
Quote from: AquaMan on August 14, 2012, 10:10:33 AM
Because they were our founding fathers.
No, they were not. The Progressives in America had there hey day well over a century after that.
QuoteMitt Romney's Pick of Paul Ryan: Bold Doesn't Always Work
by Peter Beinart Aug 13, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Romney's Ryan pick is meant to shake up the race, excite conservatives, rouse a jaded media, and save the day. But American politics is littered with bold and improbable decisions that didn't work out well.
Why did Mitt Romney choose Paul Ryan? Movies. In action movies, the climactic scene often goes something like this: The bad guys have captured the hero. He's bound and gagged thousands of miles from civilization as the final minutes tick away until the detonation of the super-thermo-subatomic death ray that will kill both him and half of humanity. In desperation, he hatches a wildly improbable escape plan, mutters to himself, "This is just crazy enough to work," and saves the planet.
In real life things rarely work out that way. In real life you rarely hear stories of people on the verge of bankruptcy who put their last remaining dollars on a 100-to-1 shot at the track and end up living happily ever after as a result. A big part of the reason people go to the movies, in fact, is to escape the unpleasant reality that in real life people in bad circumstances who hatch bold and improbable plans often ended up making things worse.
Which brings us to the Ryan pick. The argument that Romney needed to shake up the race makes sense. He was getting killed on Bain and tax returns; independents were deciding they didn't much like him; right-wing bigmouths were starting to mutiny. Choosing Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty wouldn't have changed that storyline. To the contrary, it would have confirmed Romney's image as cautious, dull, and perhaps even resigned to defeat.
The Ryan pick, by contrast, was guaranteed to excite conservatives. And it was likely to elicit a positive reception from the mainstream press too, at least initially, because the mainstream press is deeply biased against things it considers boring, which the Ryan selection is not.
But American politics is littered with bold and improbable decisions that don't work out very well. Jimmy Carter's decision to demand his entire cabinet's resignation, seclude himself in the woods, and then deliver a speech decrying America's spiritual collapse was bold. So was candidate Walter Mondale's decision to declare that he'd raise taxes in 1984. Geraldine Ferraro was a bold vice-presidential pick; so was Dan Quayle; so was Sarah Palin. It was bold for Ronald Reagan to try to win over the Iranian regime by selling them weapons and then divert the money to Nicaragua's contras. It was bold for Bill Clinton to put his wife in charge of health-care reform. It was bold when Al Gore invaded George W. Bush's space in their third presidential debate. The Iraq War was very, very bold.
Not all high-risk political ventures fail, of course. (Obama's strike against Osama bin Laden worked out pretty well.) But with this one, the chances of failure look pretty good. Mitt Romney has now tied his presidential fortunes to Paul Ryan's budget plan. He may say he doesn't endorse all the plan's specifics, but as a matter of political reality, he already has. Politically, Ryan's budget plan is what defines him. It's why conservatives wanted him on the ticket. Now, some Republicans are saying that regardless of whether you agree with all the details in Ryan's plan, what matters is that he's put one forward while Obama hasn't. But that's too meta.
Voters aren't going to reward Romney and Ryan for their boldness in putting forward a plan any more than they rewarded Mondale for his boldness in proposing to raise taxes. They're going to decide whether they like what they know of the plan and in particular what they know of Ryan's plans for Medicare.
In the last couple of days, conservatives have urged the Romney campaign not to duck the Medicare fight, but instead to act aggressively to turn it to their advantage. But the argument over cutting Medicare didn't begin last Saturday. It's been going on for decades, with Republicans almost always on the losing side.
Ideologues are forever convincing themselves that if only they can find aggressive and articulate spokespeople, they can convince the public to believe things it didn't believe previously, but they're usually wrong. Barack Obama, a fairly persuasive guy, couldn't convince Americans to support closing Guantanamo Bay or paying higher energy bills to combat global warming. And the Romney-Ryan duo is unlikely to convince most Americans to support dramatically changing (and likely imperiling) Medicare because when it comes to Medicare, most Americans just don't share the priorities of the Republican right.
The first big difference is this: what keeps Paul Ryan and his Tea Party backers awake at night is the nation's debt. (This didn't keep Ryan from backing that vast, unpaid-for new government program called the Iraq War, but that's another column.) According to the Pew Research Center, 84 percent of Republicans call the reducing budget deficit a "top priority." That's only 6 points lower than the percentage who call "strengthening the nation's economy" a top priority and 7 points higher than the percentage who assign top-priority status to "improving the job situation." Among Republicans, in other words, America's fiscal plight is as worrying as its economic plight, or at least they're considered pretty much the same thing.
This helps explain the enthusiasm for Ryan, a guy more associated with rethinking budgets than creating jobs. The problem is that while swing voters also care about the budget deficit, they don't care as much as Republicans. Among independents, according to Pew, "strengthening the economy" outpolls "reducing the budget deficit" by 22 points. "Improving the job situation" outpolls it by 19 points. The message is clear: While Republicans seem to assume that anything that cuts the deficit—even if it causes pain—is good for the economy, most other Americans don't.
What's more, even when it comes to cutting the deficit, most Americans don't believe in doing it exclusively through tax cuts. According to Pew, in fact, even a majority of rank-and-file Republicans prefer cutting the deficit through both tax hikes and spending cuts than doing so through spending cuts alone. And when asked about Medicare spending, Americans want it to go up by a factor of more than 3 to 1. It's not that most Americans could never stomach any cuts in, or changes to, Medicare, but given how much they value the program, they consider such changes a last resort. And they suspect that right-wing Republicans, given their ideological antipathy to federal domestic spending, consider such cuts a first resort instead.
It's hard to blame Romney's advisers for gambling on Ryan. Yes, turning the campaign into a referendum on Medicare cuts doesn't bring the greatest odds of success. But if you believe Romney was on a losing trajectory already, what was there to lose? Except maybe the House and Senate.
and!:
"
In short, Mr. Ryan's plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn't pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation's fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all
David A. Stockman, who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, is the author of the forthcoming book "The Great Deformation: How Crony Capitalism Corrupts Free Markets and Democracy."
Goldwater II
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 10:20:13 AM
No, they were not. The Progressives in America had there hey day well over a century after that.
Uh, yes they were. They considered themselves "the enlightened". Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible that removed all of the miracles/magic. You can buy this book on Amazon for $18.00. You can buy a whole slew of books on Amazon but I'm sure you won't because that might make Beck consider you to be progressive.
The head of President Obama's Blue-ribbon Deficite Reduction Committee seems to think otherwise.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 14, 2012, 10:38:04 AM
Uh, yes they were. They considered themselves "the enlightened". Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible that removed all of the miracles/magic. You can buy this book on Amazon for $18.00. You can buy a whole slew of books on Amazon but I'm sure you won't because that might make Beck consider you to be progressive.
Me thinks you don't know what the progressive movement was about. :D
Hint: It was about government as a means to promote social and economic equality. It promoted redistribution.
If you have read any of Mr. Jefferson's writings you would find that he is diabolically apposed to that.
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
The head of President Obama's Blue-ribbon Deficite Reduction Committee seems to think otherwise.
All Paul is doing is removing benefits and giving all the money to the rich.
Keep pushing the lie.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 10:42:27 AM
Me thinks you don't know what the progressive movement was about. :D
Hint: It was about government as a means to promote social and economic equality. It promoted redistribution.
If you have read any of Mr. Jefferson's writings you would find that he is diabolically apposed to that.
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
I agree. What we call Progressives are not what the founders were. And the founders were a collection of many different view points for that matter.
The fact that you can equate modern and historic progressives to the founders who believed certain rights could not be taken away by any government or man is quit comical as well, considering progressive dogma.
Progressives as we know them came to prominence during Theodore Roosevelt.
Funny I actually saw an article saying a similar thing because if the founders were conservative we would still be pledging allegiance to the king. Yikes.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 14, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
All Paul is doing is removing benefits and giving all the money to the rich.
Keep pushing the lie.
Did you read it? All he is doing is providing the younger generation with a stable plan that offers a degree of choice and forces competition in the marketplace. It was originally written with Democrat Alice Rivlin, and Democrat Ron Wyden. It was a by-partisan plan to shore up Medicare and preserve it, because the path it is on is unsustainable. Sure, it was bold, because it had to be. The can had been kicked so far down the road by previous administrations that any plan to develop a sustainable system would mean reinventing Medicare as we know it.
Coverage for existing seniors doesn't change in the plan. Younger generations will transition to private insurers of their choice paid through a voucher program. Much of the savings comes from the elimination of thousands of bureaucrats review nurses and coding specialists that make up the current Medicare leviathan. Additional savings come from insurance companies competing for contracts. Additional quality of care benefits come from physicians being unburdened of much of the medicare billing processes. It kills so many birds with a single stone that I don't know where to start.
Which is what I feel the solution should be centered around for health care reform. It isn't the actual care that needs reforming, it is the paying for it. Currently it looks like this:
Patient - Insurance - Health Care Provider
It needs to look like this:
Patient - Health Care Provider
|
|
Insurance
If patients were in charge of actually paying for things, my guess is that prices would not skyrocket they way they have. It would actually create price competition between health providers.
Obviously the solution is much much bigger than that, but that in my opinion is the best start. And that is what Ryan is doing with Medicare.
Funny some might say that continuing down the path that leads toward the cliff would be .... wait for it ... "radical". Couldn't help it. Ok, that's the last time I'll use that word this year when describing people.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 10:55:17 AM
Much of the savings comes from the elimination of thousands of bureaucrats review nurses and coding specialists that make up the current Medicare leviathan.
And substituting private insurance companies that whine about having to make a MLR of 80 percent. And that have been proven, see Medicare Advantage, to have higher cost. Medicare's structure is not the problem. The problem is that health care costs are already significantly higher than in any other country and continuing to increase at a rate far outpacing inflation. That is the problem that needs to be solved. The only thing Ryan's plan does is push the cost off the government's books. That's not solving the problem, that's sweeping it under the rug. How cowardly can you guys get?
You're reduced to ignoring problems rather than solving them. It's a damn shame.
I'm a little surprised no televangelists have made the news freaking out about a Mormon/Catholic ticket.
Have I missed any? The freaking out I mean.
Have any of the folks formally running for GOP presidential candidate admitted to said freaking? The ones who said God told them to run? Have any of them said, "Oops, I heard God wrong."?
Quote from: Townsend on August 14, 2012, 11:18:28 AM
I'm a little surprised no televangelists have made the news freaking out about a Mormon/Catholic ticket.
Let's all hope that religion type ain't an issue. We are better than that.
This race has real differences in vision and plan for America. Those details should be discussed, not what church you go to.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 14, 2012, 11:24:58 AM
Let's all hope that religion type ain't an issue. We are better than that.
This race has real differences in vision and plan for America. Those details should be discussed, not what church you go to.
You'd think so, yeah.
Didn't work that way last time. Never works that way in Oklahoma.
I guess it depends whose religion....mine is free speech:
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 11:02:05 AM
And substituting private insurance companies that whine about having to make a MLR of 80 percent. And that have been proven, see Medicare Advantage, to have higher cost. Medicare's structure is not the problem. The problem is that health care costs are already significantly higher than in any other country and continuing to increase at a rate far outpacing inflation. That is the problem that needs to be solved. The only thing Ryan's plan does is push the cost off the government's books. That's not solving the problem, that's sweeping it under the rug. How cowardly can you guys get?
You're reduced to ignoring problems rather than solving them. It's a damn shame.
Fewer companies competing for business. Monopolistic practices. Collusion between big employers, big clinics, and big insurers. All of that combined with a bureaucracy that has grown so big and powerful that the right hand can't even see the left. The Government books are half of the problem. Your physician cannot operate outside of a large clinic or support group any more because they have to have a medical billing expert on staff just to code medicare patients. That's why many are now refusing to accept medicare. A. It doesn't pay enough, and B. It costs a significant amount to manage.
The big clinics have it easy because they get to distribute the administrative cost over all of their fees. They can treat medicare patients at a loss, and make you pay for it by ordering a damn CT scan every time you have a headache or hangnail. Medicare is the problem at the foundation of skyrocketing healthcare costs. By removing healthcare from free market forces like competition, you force prices up. To combat that you continue to layer on levels of bureaucracy and regulation in an attempt to control prices, and that forces up the cost of administration on both sides of the fence.
Additionally, if you think that medicare patients are viewed or treated the same as insurance patients, you have a lot to learn (I worked in a hospital for 7 years, and drove an ambulance for 3). Each bandage, needle, procedure, consultation, sponge bath, aspirin, meal, and vital recording has to be coded individually, and appropriately and is subject to audit. Medicare coding is very different from standard medical coding and billing. It's a nightmare. Because the margins are so low and the administration so high, healthcare providers do their best to provide only the very minimum they can get away with. If you are old enough to be on Medicare, the first question you are going to receive is if you carry any supplemental plan. If you don't, your expectations shouldn't be to high.
The medicare approved formulary sucks and covers only the cheapest pharmacology. Most of the intelligent seniors on Medicare carry a supplement plan just to cover the cost of better drugs. Sure the drugs on the formulary will do the job, but perhaps grandma would like to take a beta blocker that doesn't cause incontinence. $150 a month extra? Medicare would rather just have grandma wear a diaper.
The current medicare system is turning our seniors into second class citizens. It has to be fixed, we can't just ignore it. Sure, we probably can't help the quality of Medicare for those already receiving or close to receiving it, but we can transition away from the downward spiral of care and escalating cost that we have now.
Everyone keeps proposing that we just put a bandage on medicare. It's the most devastating expenditure we currently face. Ryan and his Democrat colleagues were the first brave enough to tackle the problem with a reasonable, workable, well scoring (CBO) plan to preserve medicare and transition it away from disaster. The current administration will either just kick the can again or offer another bandage. Well if it's a bandage that you want, the medicare code is A4465, or Q4050, and sometimes 99070, then depending on the size it could fall under A6448, A6449 or A6450, you could also use 92071 or 92072 if they are for home use.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 12:53:11 PM
The current medicare system is turning our seniors into second class citizens. It has to be fixed, we can't just ignore it. Sure, we probably can't help the quality of Medicare for those already receiving or close to receiving it, but we can transition away from the downward spiral of care and escalating cost that we have now.
And yet, now that at least a beginning has been made, you are still against it! Versus the absolute refusal to even start doing anything that has been the hallmark of the RWRE since Reagan. Ignoring it has been and still IS the official stated policy of the Republican party, as most recently evidenced by the candidates now (as in currently) running for office of President and VP. Just can't get away from that reality.
Maybe this start isn't optimal - one big factor affecting one's opinion may be how many kids you have going to be 18 soon, who now get to stay on your insurance until 26 if need be. Or whether you ever change jobs and can't get insurance for a year (or more) due to "pre-existing conditions". Or whether you insurance recently cancelled you just because you actually made a claim against that policy you have been paying on for many years.
But hey, if one lives in a perfect world...why would one care??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2012, 01:10:44 PM
And yet, now that at least a beginning has been made, you are still against it! Versus the absolute refusal to even start doing anything that has been the hallmark of the RWRE since Reagan. Ignoring it has been and still IS the official stated policy of the Republican party, as most recently evidenced by the candidates now (as in currently) running for office of President and VP. Just can't get away from that reality.
Maybe this start isn't optimal - one big factor affecting one's opinion may be how many kids you have going to be 18 soon, who now get to stay on your insurance until 26 if need be. Or whether you ever change jobs and can't get insurance for a year (or more) due to "pre-existing conditions". Or whether you insurance recently cancelled you just because you actually made a claim against that policy you have been paying on for many years.
But hey, if one lives in a perfect world...why would one care??
Huh? Your posts are getting rather Shadowy. Could just be the buzz from your other thread.
What am I against? Obamacare? Hell, yeah! The point of Obamacare is to be transitional until a single payer platform can be passed. We all know that. Basically making the entire healthcare system a giant Medicare. It's insanity, but some people really believe that giant government bureaucracies can produce a better product.
I like this. It's president Obama attempting to make a point, er, uh, about understanding Ryan's plan. I like it when he states that the Ryan plan would keep voucher and reimbursements flat, and Ryan corrects him, that they would be tied to medical inflationary rates, then he continues to disagree with Ryan's plan and implies that rates would be flat again. This is the intellectual deficit within the administration that we have to deal with.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 12:53:11 PM
they have to have a medical billing expert on staff just to code medicare patients.
You speak as if this is not true of private insurers, who refuse to standardize. If you want to replace something, you should at least replace it with something that works better. It should also preferably be cheaper, which you deftly handwave away. If the private market is so great at this, why has it produced crappy results for so long? Before you say Obamacare, remember that the problem has been ongoing for several decades now.
Also, before you go on about doctors not accepting Medicare, you might want to think of the doctors who don't accept private insurance, either.
The problem isn't government, the problem is cost. I might buy that the problem was government if we weren't far ahead of every other country regardless of whether their healthcare is socialized partially, fully, or not at all. There's no there there, but your response to everything is privatize, deregulate, and cut taxes. While those things may make your bits tingle, they aren't actually solutions to the problem we're talking about right now, which is the overall cost of healthcare driving Medicare costs into the stratosphere.
If you have a problem with Medicare coding, feel free to propose a solution to that. Every bit of efficiency helps. You're just ignoring 30 years of history if you think private insurers are somehow going to solve that problem by themselves. They've had plenty of time, but have yet to make anything more than the most weak of moves in that direction. Once the benefits you claim will arise in the private market actually materialize, it would be more appropriate to discuss privatizing Medicare. As it is, you're yelling that one system is broken and saying that we need to dump everybody into one that's even more broken by almost every measure, including patient satisfaction.
P.S. It's strange that you fault the government program for not being gold plated. Supplemental insurance is only affordable because Medicare already covers all the big ticket stuff. Besides, private insurance doesn't cover everything, either. Most people who go bankrupt due to medical bills actually have insurance.
Edited to add: I just saw your claim that doctors order unnecessary procedures to make up for Medicare patients. That's freakin' rich. You do realize that you could simply decline to have the CT if you're concerned about the cost and don't think it's medically necessary.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 02:34:19 PM
You speak as if this is not true of private insurers, who refuse to standardize. If you want to replace something, you should at least replace it with something that works better. It should also preferably be cheaper, which you deftly handwave away. If the private market is so great at this, why has it produced crappy results for so long? Before you say Obamacare, remember that the problem has been ongoing for several decades now.
In 1945 the ability for insurance companies to compete became limited. Each state was given the authority and requirement to regulate the insurance industry separately. Insurance providers were made exempt from federal anti-trust laws. This meant that they were bound to offer differing programs in each state and free from the competitive pressures that existed nationally. Over decades as state regulations grew, only a handful of insurers survived in each state. They could name their price, and as prices grew, more and more employers began offer medical plans as a employee bonus, taking more and more of the individual choice out of the market, and again allowing this small number of companies to set prices far above market.
In the 60's Medicare comes into play and physicians, as well as seniors are thrilled. The plan is a simple reimbursement system listing procedures supplies and reimbursement rates. It was based on current medical costs and fees. You know where this goes from here. . . The bureaucracy grew as did the regulations, and responsibilities put on medical practices. Code books went from a printed 40 page billing manual to phone book sized volumes. Physicians hired administrative people, actual degree programs in Medicare Billing became available, and reimbursement rates under medicare remained lower than market rates.
In the meantime insurance companies are finding ways to cut corners. They have nothing to worry about because they've sewn up deals with the big hospitals and big employers, legislators, and pharma. Insurers have doctors locked down into one plan or another, so if patients (or their companies) change insurance, the patient runs the risk of losing their doctor. Insurance companies have their own formularies patterned after medicare systems binding patients to specific drugs.
By limiting competition, we increase cost. By burdening providers, we increase cost. By taking healthcare decisions away from the individual, we further limit competition, and therefore increase cost.
You can't blame the insurance companies any more than you can blame an invasive species introduced into an ecosystem without competition. Government intervention gave birth to the disaster. Again, the remedy is simple, but some people don't want to hear simple solutions. Markets are organic, and when we forget that we court the law of unintended consequences.
Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock
It's really not just a "government is the problem" thing. But it is.
Government spending and regulation cause dislocation. Dislocation causes chaos in markets. We say medical care is expensive, but we don't really know, because the true price is not what the cost is now. Right now we have prices that rely heavily on government boards that dictate the rates, and everybody just prices accordingly.
I pointed out in a post above that I think the first priority should be getting insurance (private or public) out from in between the doctor and patient. Want to eliminate paper work by doctor's offices, make the patient do it. Why is it the doctor's responsibility anyways, it's not their money. Like I've said ad nausea, insurance is a financial tool. And it is a financial tool for the patient, not the doctor.
I really am not particularly adverse to subsidizing those that need assistance purchasing health insurance due to job loss/injury/whatever. But make it just that. It takes far less bureaucracy to just cut some checks to people that need it. Instead the federal government seems to want to create more and more jobs for itself when there were simpler far more efficient solutions staring them right in the face. Let's say instead of what we have now, we had a standard subsidy based on income/employment kind of like unemployment of something. It pays $200 (or whatever) per month. I would bet my lunch that private insurers (if allowed) would start offering plans close to that amount. Probably a no frills plan only covering catastrophic events, but that's fine. Why should they have all the bells and whistles when all we as a society want is to not have to cover the catastrophes.
Nathan, I appreciate all your input, but I have yet to hear any real solutions besides government involvement. While we likely will never agree, did it ever occur to those on the left that there may be more than one way to skin a cat?
Interestingly, in that entire screed on why the insurance industry is not to blame for its problems, you failed to articulate why it is they cannot control costs. They are perfectly capable of doing so, so why don't they do it? Wouldn't the one that managed to be cheapest and still provide the best care get more business? That there are few does not mean they are not free to compete. Interestingly, they do.
Explain to me how turning Medicare into a voucher system fixes the private system. How about you fix that before throwing the highest cost people into the already highest cost system we have. Medicare has a better MLR, so you're proposing we either spend more to get people the same level of care or make seniors make up the difference.
Again, nobody is forcing the private insurance companies to be arcane and waste money on bureaucracy. They seem to do that just fine on their own, even in the face of competition.
erfalf, we know what the costs are. The insurer sends you an EOB detailing what was paid for what services. Your employer sends your insurer a check (or you do). The doctor knows what his costs are, the insurer his. Many insurance companies are public, and therefore have open books. Studies clearly show that prices paid per procedure are much higher here than they are anywhere else in the world for no better care on average, and often worse care. Insurers have dismal MLRs, doctors order more procedures, care is less standardized here, there's a long list of reasons why it's expensive. Whacking Medicare doesn't change any of it, so all you're doing is pushing the cost off the government's books, not actually fixing the problem.
Edited to add: It has occurred to me. After all, Obamacare's solution of making everyone buy insurance, with premium support for the poor, (which you oddly seem to promote as a solution) is different than what I would prefer to have seen, which is a public option forced to compete with private insurers in a functional market. Unfortunately, the Republican plan on offer of rolling back Obamacare without any replacement for the components which are projected to provide some cost containment doesn't actually solve any problems. It takes us back to the system that was so broken the country was clamoring for reform of some kind. The cart comes after the horse, not before.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 01:25:44 PM
Huh? Your posts are getting rather Shadowy. Could just be the buzz from your other thread.
What am I against? Obamacare? Hell, yeah! The point of Obamacare is to be transitional until a single payer platform can be passed. We all know that. Basically making the entire healthcare system a giant Medicare. It's insanity, but some people really believe that giant government bureaucracies can produce a better product.
Not at all...
It is only insanity that the Republicans have been advocating the same thing that is now in place - at least mouthing the noises - but have completely and absolutely avoided actually doing anything about it. They have had decades. And did nothing. In the same way the actual healthcare system has done nothing to solve the cost issues. So, we are stuck with a government intervention that could possibly be done outside in better fashion - BUT WAS NOT!!
Of course this is transitional - everything the government does is transitional (except for the great resource giveaways from our national properties through obsolete mining and forestry laws). It will change and it should change. That is called progress. That is what progressive does for a system.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 03:57:54 PM
Interestingly, in that entire screed on why the insurance industry is not to blame for its problems, you failed to articulate why it is they cannot control costs.
It's like talking to a brick wall. Costs are controlled through competition. They are not established from some "farcical aquatic ceremony" nor are they efficiently established in a board room. They are developed through competitive pressure. Supply, demand, scarcity, and competition. Without that the "they" have no incentive to "control costs" anywhere but up.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 04:41:58 PM
It's like talking to a brick wall. Costs are controlled through competition. They are not established from some "farcical aquatic ceremony" nor are they efficiently established in a board room. They are developed through competitive pressure. Supply, demand, scarcity, and competition. Without that the "they" have no incentive to "control costs" anywhere but up.
He's right. The only one that should be responsible for controlling costs are the consumers, you and I. And as it stands there is little or no involvement by the consumer in the price discovery of medical care. And yes we may know the price today of care, but that is not necessarily what the cost is. There is a difference. Econ 101.
Why do you not think that what we have proposed would not work? I can tell you that the opposite has never worked, ever. And it will never work, ever. If you want the quality of care that we are accustomed to anyways.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 03:57:54 PM
erfalf, we know what the costs are. The insurer sends you an EOB detailing what was paid for what services. Your employer sends your insurer a check (or you do). The doctor knows what his costs are, the insurer his.
Insurers get their payout rates from government payout rates. Doctors price accordingly. This is not natural price discovery.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 03:57:54 PM
Many insurance companies are public, and therefore have open books. Studies clearly show that prices paid per procedure are much higher here than they are anywhere else in the world for no better care on average, and often worse care. Insurers have dismal MLRs, doctors order more procedures, care is less standardized here, there's a long list of reasons why it's expensive. Whacking Medicare doesn't change any of it, so all you're doing is pushing the cost off the government's books, not actually fixing the problem.
Forcing customers to take responsibility will decrease the bad care providers. Not instantly, but eventually. If you can show how this wouldn't work, by all means go ahead.
Just like if you gave families the money to shop for their own schooling, many schools would either close down or be forced to improve in order to keep enrollment at sustainable levels.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 04:41:58 PM
It's like talking to a brick wall. Costs are controlled through competition. They are not established from some "farcical aquatic ceremony" nor are they efficiently established in a board room. They are developed through competitive pressure. Supply, demand, scarcity, and competition. Without that the "they" have no incentive to "control costs" anywhere but up.
Where you completely derail is that you are talking about a capitalist system. What we have is a capitalistic monopoly system. Capitalistic Monopolism.
Subtle terminology difference, but huge practical difference.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 04:41:58 PM
It's like talking to a brick wall. Costs are controlled through competition. They are not established from some "farcical aquatic ceremony" nor are they efficiently established in a board room. They are developed through competitive pressure. Supply, demand, scarcity, and competition. Without that the "they" have no incentive to "control costs" anywhere but up.
Name one state that has only one health insurer. Then perhaps you can present one or more specific action items. Not platitudes like "relax regulations," but which specific regulations? Why do the multiple insurers not compete on price?
erfalf, consumers are clearly already responsible for the cost, it drives them into bankruptcy despite being insured! And doctors are free to not accept private insurance if they don't like the rates. They have the option of doing fee for service if they like. Maybe you can clear something up for me. If doctors are getting squeezed so hard, how is it we have the highest cost system in the world even on a per procedure basis? Where is the extra money going for a hip replacement or heart surgery? The insurance companies? If not, is it simply vanishing?
The privatization push would make a lot more sense if the private market was better than the existing system by any metric at all other than ideology. It's more expensive, despite apparently always using Medicare's bargain basement rates. Beneficiaries on average are more highly satisfied with Medicare than with private insurers. Improve the private market first.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 06:16:04 PM
erfalf, consumers are clearly already responsible for the cost, it drives them into bankruptcy despite being insured! And doctors are free to not accept private insurance if they don't like the rates. They have the option of doing fee for service if they like. Maybe you can clear something up for me. If doctors are getting squeezed so hard, how is it we have the highest cost system in the world even on a per procedure basis? Where is the extra money going for a hip replacement or heart surgery? The insurance companies? If not, is it simply vanishing?
First, we have the most expensive system because it is the best system. Second, we have the highest rates, because we medicare actuaries keep increasing the reimbursement rates every single year. It's not just one thing.
Also, there are doctors that do not accept insurance, and guess what, they charge dramatically less than those that do accept it. Coincidence?
Look, I'm not saying what I am advocating is the only way to do it. I am just saying it is better than single payer'ish type of system. It is (from the progressive dictionary) the fairest system on the planet. Sending the decision making capability out to millions of people instead of hundreds is always a good thing for the consumer.
It's funny that virtually no one on this board would trust the government to run anything yet you believe that if they implement your idea (whatever that is) they will somehow come to and get it together. Fat chance. Government is by design inefficient. It was intentionally set up that way not to keep it from being responsive, but to keep it from being ruled by a mob. That is why government and the economy are like oil and water.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 06:16:04 PM
The privatization push would make a lot more sense if the private market was better than the existing system by any metric at all other than ideology. It's more expensive, despite apparently always using Medicare's bargain basement rates. Beneficiaries on average are more highly satisfied with Medicare than with private insurers. Improve the private market first.
Are you saying medicare customers are more pleased with their services than those that have private insurance? If so, where do you find this, and by how much are they more pleased?
First, what we have, while not 100% private, is the best system on the planet. No other system on the planet provides the consumer with the services they desire as efficiently and as free (to choose) as this one. Second, what we (Gaspar and myself) are advocating is not some never tried system. It has been tried (in other economic situations, which is what this is) and has succeeded virtually every time it has been tried. Capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) is the system by which freedom is achieved most efficiently. What the health care industry needs is a little capitalism.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 06:49:00 PM
First, we have the most expensive system because it is the best system. Second, we have the highest rates, because we medicare actuaries keep increasing the reimbursement rates every single year. It's not just one thing.
Weren't you just saying that Medicare squeezes doctors? You can't have it both ways. Either Medicare is too stingy or it's not.
Quote
Look, I'm not saying what I am advocating is the only way to do it. I am just saying it is better than single payer'ish type of system. It is (from the progressive dictionary) the fairest system on the planet. Sending the decision making capability out to millions of people instead of hundreds is always a good thing for the consumer.
I suppose if you define fairness as rationing access based on one's financial means, then yes, it is quite fair. (Emergency care isn't generally rationed, but that's the most expensive time to treat a problem)
Quote
It's funny that virtually no one on this board would trust the government to run anything yet you believe that if they implement your idea (whatever that is) they will somehow come to and get it together. Fat chance. Government is by design inefficient. It was intentionally set up that way not to keep it from being responsive, but to keep it from being ruled by a mob. That is why government and the economy are like oil and water.
I'm not arguing for single payer healthcare. I'm arguing against the dismantling of Medicare when the only alternative is a system we both agree is dysfunctional.
Quote
Are you saying medicare customers are more pleased with their services than those that have private insurance? If so, where do you find this, and by how much are they more pleased?
Yes. I'm saying that Medicare beneficiaries are on average happier with their package than the average beneficiary of private health insurance. Look it up. You want satisfaction surveys. Even within Medicare, traditional Medicare rates more highly than Advantage, despite Advantage costing more. Satisfaction is not complete, but it is not by any means that in the private market, either.
Quote
First, what we have, while not 100% private, is the best system on the planet. No other system on the planet provides the consumer with the services they desire as efficiently and as free (to choose) as this one.
It's mathematically impossible that our system is the most efficient. It costs more to do any procedure here than it does anywhere else in the world and our outcomes are no better than our (economic) near neighbors. The most efficient system would have the lowest prices for a given quality. Simple economics. Freedom of choice is a matter of opinion. Many insurance plans have woefully small networks and have no coverage for non-emergency out of network services. The individual gets to pick their doctor even over in NHS-land. The difference there is that they're all covered the same. Only the source of the rationing changes. But that's irrelevant, I'm not arguing for an NHS-style system here.
I wanted a public option. That is a GSE that sells health insurance. What better to liven up the market than a little competition, after all?
Quote
What the health care industry needs is a little capitalism.
The health care system is already run mainly by capitalists. You keep repeating this mantra, not realizing that is what we already have. If you have the solution, have at it. Reform the insurance industry. When it's been declared a raging success by all because it reduced costs and increased efficiency, forever (or at least for a while) banishing the drag on our economy that is the present healthcare system, I'll be right with you in turning the insurance industry loose on Medicare. I am, quite honestly, more interested in solutions that work than anything else.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 10:07:37 AM
....And it is true that deeds done by progressives have been some of the most horrific in history. Yet they are never labeled radical.
You mean things like child labor laws, anti-trust legislation, clean foods and beverages, social security, medicare, medicaid, and the clean air act? Those horrific bits of progressive legislation?
Quote from: Ed W on August 14, 2012, 07:08:45 PM
You mean things like child labor laws, anti-trust legislation, clean foods and beverages, social security, medicare, medicaid, and the clean air act? Those horrific bits of progressive legislation?
Eugenics, 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve...
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 07:33:09 PM
Eugenics, 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve...
You do realize that Lincoln levied the first income tax...a Republican?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2012, 05:02:04 PM
Where you completely derail is that you are talking about a capitalist system.
What Tulsa really needs is a (real) trolley system. A trolley system that ran on a short enough headway that people would willingly leave their cars in a park-and-ride lot or maybe not need a car at all.
QuoteSubtle terminology difference, but huge practical difference.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 06:49:00 PM
First, we have the most expensive system because it is the best system. Second, we have the highest rates, because we medicare actuaries keep increasing the reimbursement rates every single year. It's not just one thing.
Also, there are doctors that do not accept insurance, and guess what, they charge dramatically less than those that do accept it. Coincidence?
It's funny that virtually no one on this board would trust the government to run anything yet you believe that if they implement your idea (whatever that is) they will somehow come to and get it together. Fat chance. Government is by design inefficient. It was intentionally set up that way not to keep it from being responsive, but to keep it from being ruled by a mob. That is why government and the economy are like oil and water.
First, what we have, while not 100% private, is the best system on the planet. No other system on the planet provides the consumer with the services they desire as efficiently and as free (to choose) as this one. Second, what we (Gaspar and myself) are advocating is not some never tried system. It has been tried (in other economic situations, which is what this is) and has succeeded virtually every time it has been tried. Capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) is the system by which freedom is achieved most efficiently. What the health care industry needs is a little capitalism.
What planet are you living on? It sure ain't planet Earth. In actual fact, we are right about #38 on THIS planet!
As for non-insurance doctors being cheaper...well, that isn't the United States of America. And certainly isn't Oklahoma.
You related to Gaspar??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2012, 09:14:47 PM
What planet are you living on? It sure ain't planet Earth. In actual fact, we are right about #38 on THIS planet!
As for non-insurance doctors being cheaper...well, that isn't the United States of America. And certainly isn't Oklahoma.
You related to Gaspar??
And maybe Shadows too?
Where do people find these pics?
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/wUpaXRjgkoG_KAx3jWM1KQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0yODg7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/video/video.abcnewsplus.com/593e0ef219244f93eafd98f7c6093682)
I like the expression of the guy on the right.
Quote from: Hoss on August 14, 2012, 07:48:43 PM
You do realize that Lincoln levied the first income tax...a Republican?
To pay for the civil war, yes. And now Republican's can claim Lincoln? I thought he was too non-racial for that.
But it was the socialist & Populist parties that were pushing for an income tax the most.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2012, 09:14:47 PM
What planet are you living on? It sure ain't planet Earth. In actual fact, we are right about #38 on THIS planet!
As for non-insurance doctors being cheaper...well, that isn't the United States of America. And certainly isn't Oklahoma.
You related to Gaspar??
Well, the non-insurance Dr. in town here charges significantly less. And I've seen similar tales on the television in other cities.
The WHO (where we were #38 in 2000, last time published) believes that universal health coverage should be the goal of every country. I imagine we would not finish toward the top of that list...EVER!
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 08:30:15 AM
The WHO (where we were #38 in 2000, last time published) believes that universal health coverage should be the goal of every country. I imagine we would not finish toward the top of that list...EVER!
And that is the sad part - you actually believe that coverage for everyone is a bad thing. Just wait until you hit 26 and aren't on Mommy and Daddy's insurance anymore, and Burger King won't have a plan you can afford. And then there is that pesky broken arm from the skateboarding incident at Woodland Hills. Also does damage to your rotator cuff, requiring a $50,000 surgery that you just can't quite afford. So they put a couple stitches in it and send you home, telling you that you will be ok in a few months - do some exercises - nothing to worry about - you really don't need to move your arm up more than even with your shoulder anyway... it's just one of those evolutionary artifacts that you will never miss.
BIG surprise time...Huge!!
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 08:27:22 AM
To pay for the civil war, yes. And now Republican's can claim Lincoln? I thought he was too non-racial for that.
But it was the socialist & Populist parties that were pushing for an income tax the most.
So, are you saying it was better NOT to pay for the wars we are just emerging from?? Leave the trillions in debt due to unfunded wars?
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 08:27:22 AM
To pay for the civil war, yes. And now Republican's can claim Lincoln? I thought he was too non-racial for that.
But it was the socialist & Populist parties that were pushing for an income tax the most.
My point exactly. Progressive THEN and progressive NOW aren't necessarily the same thing.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PM
Weren't you just saying that Medicare squeezes doctors? You can't have it both ways. Either Medicare is too stingy or it's not.
I said Medicare sets the prices, doctors price accordingly. No squeezing, just unreal prices. The natural price discovery is never allowed to happen.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PMI suppose if you define fairness as rationing access based on one's financial means, then yes, it is quite fair. (Emergency care isn't generally rationed, but that's the most expensive time to treat a problem)
Yes I do define it that way, since health care services are not a right, nor should they be. I'm sure you disagree, but why should a service that another provides be considered a right? You have no right to have your car fixed by a mechanic that doesn't want to.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PMI'm not arguing for single payer healthcare. I'm arguing against the dismantling of Medicare when the only alternative is a system we both agree is dysfunctional.
I think what we are saying is that Medicare is already dysfunctional. The head honchos have already put a due date on the whole thing, 2033 I believe. Some parts are already underwater. While that is over 20 years away, I don't think sitting on our hands waiting is a solution.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PM
Yes. I'm saying that Medicare beneficiaries are on average happier with their package than the average beneficiary of private health insurance. Look it up. You want satisfaction surveys. Even within Medicare, traditional Medicare rates more highly than Advantage, despite Advantage costing more. Satisfaction is not complete, but it is not by any means that in the private market, either.
Um, yes, a program where the premium is withheld from your SS check and costs little more out of pocket for most of the users is probably going to be pretty popular. Let's see the comparison between Medicare and a private insurance firm that has infinite resources and let's see how it turns out.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PM
It's mathematically impossible that our system is the most efficient. It costs more to do any procedure here than it does anywhere else in the world and our outcomes are no better than our (economic) near neighbors. The most efficient system would have the lowest prices for a given quality. Simple economics.
Um, no. Low cost does not equal efficiency. When I say efficiency, I mean that patients can go to doctors and get procedures with little to no dictation from any other entities besides the patient and doctor.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PM
Freedom of choice is a matter of opinion. Many insurance plans have woefully small networks and have no coverage for non-emergency out of network services. The individual gets to pick their doctor even over in NHS-land. The difference there is that they're all covered the same. Only the source of the rationing changes. But that's irrelevant, I'm not arguing for an NHS-style system here.
You keep mixing insurance and health care choices. People in the U.S. have ultimate choice in what health care provider they choose. Insurance only comes in to the payment for said services. Don't mix the two up.
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PM
I wanted a public option. That is a GSE that sells health insurance. What better to liven up the market than a little competition, after all?
Out of curiosity, do you want a public option that is solvent, or like Medicare?
Quote from: nathanm on August 14, 2012, 07:04:31 PM
The health care system is already run mainly by capitalists. You keep repeating this mantra, not realizing that is what we already have. If you have the solution, have at it. Reform the insurance industry. When it's been declared a raging success by all because it reduced costs and increased efficiency, forever (or at least for a while) banishing the drag on our economy that is the present healthcare system, I'll be right with you in turning the insurance industry loose on Medicare. I am, quite honestly, more interested in solutions that work than anything else.
Except the only solution you offer, is one we already have. If you think that what we have as a health care system right now is truly capitalistic, you are gravely mistaken. There is no true price discover any more due to the federal government.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2012, 08:37:09 AM
And that is the sad part - you actually believe that coverage for everyone is a bad thing. Just wait until you hit 26 and aren't on Mommy and Daddy's insurance anymore, and Burger King won't have a plan you can afford. And then there is that pesky broken arm from the skateboarding incident at Woodland Hills. Also does damage to your rotator cuff, requiring a $50,000 surgery that you just can't quite afford. So they put a couple stitches in it and send you home, telling you that you will be ok in a few months - do some exercises - nothing to worry about - you really don't need to move your arm up more than even with your shoulder anyway... it's just one of those evolutionary artifacts that you will never miss.
BIG surprise time...Huge!!
Responsibility much? It is not the federal government's responsibility to make everyone's life easy.
OOPS! Joe Joe stuck his foot in his mouth. Or better yet should have.
"They're gonna put y'all back in chains"
Quote from: Hoss on August 15, 2012, 08:44:25 AM
My point exactly. Progressive THEN and progressive NOW aren't necessarily the same thing.
We were just having a discussion about the Progressive Movement. Historical.
Although the abortion industry has some creepy similarities to some of the goals of the movement.
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 08:50:28 AM
Responsibility much? It is not the federal government's responsibility to make everyone's life easy.
Ahhhh...the voice of privilege...
It IS the governments responsibility to level the playing field and prevent certain organizations from running roughshod over the weaker members of our society. This is where your premise becomes wet toilet paper and falls apart like mush.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2012, 08:53:21 AM
Ahhhh...the voice of privilege...
It IS the governments responsibility to level the playing field and prevent certain organizations from running roughshod over the weaker members of our society.
I guess I have the voice of privilege, but I am working my donkey off just to make ends meet. So whatever.
It is the government's responsibility to protect you from others. Not to force others to provide you services at an affordable price. There is a difference.
As much as I dislike him. Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" opened my eyes to a lot of what you are talking about.
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 08:55:31 AM
I guess I have the voice of privilege, but I am working my donkey off just to make ends meet. So whatever.
It is the government's responsibility to protect you from others. Not to force others to provide you services at an affordable price. There is a difference.
Are you still on parent's insurance? Or are you living what you preach and working your donkey off as the "rugged individualist" without the safety net?
Actually, protecting you from others does include that as part of the package. Did you ever complain about the cost of a college class (I'm assuming you went...). How about the price of a book? And while paying for that credit hour, did you appreciate the subsidy you were receiving either from the state, or the endowments the private university has - depending on whether you went public or private?
Or did you do the "rugged individualist" thing that you are promoting and just pay the entire cost yourself?? (Probably double to triple the per credit hour charge.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2012, 09:04:06 AM
Are you still on parent's insurance? Or are you living what you preach and working your donkey off as the "rugged individualist" without the safety net?
Actually, protecting you from others does include that as part of the package. Did you ever complain about the cost of a college class (I'm assuming you went...). How about the price of a book? And while paying for that credit hour, did you appreciate the subsidy you were receiving either from the state, or the endowments the private university has - depending on whether you went public or private?
Or did you do the "rugged individualist" thing that you are promoting and just pay the entire cost yourself?? (Probably double to triple the per credit hour charge.)
Thanks for the patronizing tone, but yes, I am 30, I am on my own if you want to call it that. And have had my own insurance since I was 19. And yes, I went to a state school (the best one...go pokes). But because I take advantage of the subsidies/freebies/whatever you want to call them does not make me agree with them. It just means I'm not an idiot.
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 08:49:17 AM
I said Medicare sets the prices, doctors price accordingly. No squeezing, just unreal prices. The natural price discovery is never allowed to happen.
pancakes. You still can't keep your story straight. Either Medicare sets the price for procedures covered by Medicare or doctors set the price. Which is it?
Besides, I don't know about you, but I have different prices for different clients. The ones that have regular work for me get a much better deal. This does not mean that price discovery isn't working in the market. It means bigger buyers get bigger discounts. The point being that the discounts I offer some clients do not in any way prevent me from negotiating whatever deal I like with any other clients that may be interested in my services. So yes, since Medicare essentially dictates pricing
for Medicare patients by saying take it or leave it, Medicare reimbursements are not necessarily at market rate (in reality, many services leave a hefty profit margin for the doctor compared to insurance company negotiated rates, while others do not, it's a total package), that does nothing to stop insurers and doctors from negotiating on their own. Nor does it stop doctors, as Gaspar loves to point out, from not dealing with any insurance at all and just letting you handle any paperwork that may be necessary if you are insured.
Medicare is only 21% of the health care market. Why is the other 79% non functional if the problem is a lack of market-based reforms?
Quote
Yes I do define it that way, since health care services are not a right, nor should they be. I'm sure you disagree, but why should a service that another provides be considered a right? You have no right to have your car fixed by a mechanic that doesn't want to.
So poor people should be left to die in the street if they can't pay? Or do you prefer the current system, where they're not left to die in the street and we all get to pay for their crazy expensive care that could have been prevented by 5 minutes of a doctor's time and an $5 antibiotic scrip. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.
QuoteI think what we are saying is that Medicare is already dysfunctional. The head honchos have already put a due date on the whole thing, 2033 I believe. Some parts are already underwater. While that is over 20 years away, I don't think sitting on our hands waiting is a solution.
Please fix the private insurance market so that we have that option when the time comes. Instead you complain about how Medicare somehow is breaking the system, but without explaining how.
QuoteUm, yes, a program where the premium is withheld from your SS check and costs little more out of pocket for most of the users is probably going to be pretty popular. Let's see the comparison between Medicare and a private insurance firm that has infinite resources and let's see how it turns out.
You clearly have no conception of how Medicare actually works. It has required coinsurance payments. Not surprising. Everyone who has actually used it loves it, while folks who haven't all hate it. It's really weird how that works. Moreover, Medicare Advantage plans, which generally cover more stuff, are rated less favorably than the normal Medicare Part A/B.
Quote
Um, no. Low cost does not equal efficiency. When I say efficiency, I mean that patients can go to doctors and get procedures with little to no dictation from any other entities besides the patient and doctor.
Read an economics textbook so you understand what efficiency actually is. A system that is less expensive for a given standard of care is by definition more efficient. Unfortunately for us, most countries have health care systems that are more efficient than ours. That's OK in and of itself. Efficiency isn't everything. I would be totally fine with having a less efficient system if we actually had better patient satisfaction. Ideologically driven capitalists may feel otherwise, of course.
To address the point you made that had nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency, read your insurance plan documents and see what things you need to get pre-approved for. You'll likely be very surprised if you think you don't have to get permission beforehand for many procedures. Sure, maybe you've got a great PPO plan and can go see that cardiologist without bothering your GP about it. Then you can get ready for a long discussion with your insurance company as to whether or not you actually need that stent. You act as if our system is somehow different than the others. It's not, at least in that regard, we just have more sets of rules and more people writing and paying the bills.
Quote
You keep mixing insurance and health care choices. People in the U.S. have ultimate choice in what health care provider they choose. Insurance only comes in to the payment for said services. Don't mix the two up.
And in Canada (and the UK, and Germany, and France, and basically every other country in the world) they have the same choice. There is nothing exceptional here in that regard. And given that most people's access to health care is mediated by their health insurer, it's perfectly fair to bring them into the discussion of choice.
Quote
Out of curiosity, do you want a public option that is solvent, or like Medicare?
I prefer solvency. Solvency wouldn't be an issue if health care costs (not price, costs) weren't growing at twice or more the rate of inflation and hadn't been doing so since before I was born. (Insurance premiums have risen even faster than overall spending..go figure)
Quote
Except the only solution you offer, is one we already have. If you think that what we have as a health care system right now is truly capitalistic, you are gravely mistaken. There is no true price discover any more due to the federal government.
The only solution you offer is to make people's care worse without any actual plan for making the system you're throwing them into any better. Where are the action items? All you've thrown out there so far are ideological platitudes.
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 09:08:53 AM
Thanks for the patronizing tone, but yes, I am 30, I am on my own if you want to call it that. And have had my own insurance since I was 19. And yes, I went to a state school (the best one...go pokes). But because I take advantage of the subsidies/freebies/whatever you want to call them does not make me agree with them. It just means I'm not an idiot.
May not be an idiot, but certainly don't live your "convictions". Wouldn't that be considered hypocritical?
And yes, you did show extraordinarily good sense in going to OSU! "GO POKES!!" is how it should be written, though.
Actually, the argument you should have made and should be making NOW is that the subsidies/freebies/etc you enjoyed are part of what is called the social contract. It encompasses a shared risk/benefit element where you actually ARE now paying for those things now, in a distributed fashion by your state income taxes. And will continue to do so as a resident of this state. (Assuming you stay employed, of course).
And if you ever get to the point (may be there now, even) where your taxes end up exceeding what benefit you derived, then you are subsidizing someone else, in exactly the same fashion I subsidized YOU a few years ago, and I was previously subsidized by someone before that. But then you also get the benefit of the contribution made by that person when they get out and find work, to maintain infrastructure, and hopefully build a better overall society. (And yeah, I know how this kind of falls apart when the Oklahoma legislature and Mary Fallin gets involved...)
That person you (and I) are subsidizing today is more likely to have a better job, earn more money, pay more taxes, and be less of a burden on society (us). Hopefully leading to a reduced societal cost, since they won't have to be boxed up in prison for whatever reason that might have occurred without the opportunities you and I help provide through that education. It is NOT a case of do we get to pay none or a lot. It IS a case of do we get to pay some or a whole lot more.
Health insurance is exactly the same. If everyone participates, then you and I don't have 40% of our hospital/doctor/medicine bills paying for others who are not insured - we get a benefit - reduced subsidies to others. That is what the people you are listening to on Fox don't want you to understand.
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 08:49:17 AM
You keep mixing insurance and health care choices. People in the U.S. have ultimate choice in what health care provider they choose. Insurance only comes in to the payment for said services. Don't mix the two up.
You really need to look around you. A lot. Maybe YOU are lucky enough for that to be true. MOST are not!!
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AMSo yes, since Medicare essentially dictates pricing for Medicare patients by saying take it or leave it, Medicare reimbursements are not necessarily at market rate (in reality, many services leave a hefty profit margin for the doctor compared to insurance company negotiated rates, while others do not, it's a total package), that does nothing to stop insurers and doctors from negotiating on their own. Nor does it stop doctors, as Gaspar loves to point out, from not dealing with any insurance at all and just letting you handle any paperwork that may be necessary if you are insured.
Yes, you finally nailed it. Medicare is not allowing true price discovery. My bet is that it is more than likely higher than what it would be if true price discovery actually took place.
And how you price your services is fair. You price them, people either come or they don't and you adjust accordingly. That's capitalism. And it's fair. No one has to use your services. They decide for themselves if this is a good value.
Medicare sets reimbursement rates. Insurance companies more or less piggy back off of that to set there rates as well. So doctors that I have talked to just price a little higher than that. So that when they get reimbursed, they just write off the difference.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AMMedicare is only 21% of the health care market. Why is the other 79% non functional if the problem is a lack of market-based reforms?
If Medicare is functional in your book because it takes out more than it takes in, then fine I guess. But I wouldn't call it that. Unfortunately the private market doesn't have that luxury.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AMSo poor people should be left to die in the street if they can't pay? Or do you prefer the current system, where they're not left to die in the street and we all get to pay for their crazy expensive care that could have been prevented by 5 minutes of a doctor's time and an $5 antibiotic scrip. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.
Enough with the guilt/scare tactics. You and I both don't want ill for other people. But, I realize we live in America where it is not others responsibility to take care of everyone else. As it sits, the only two solutions are for us to pay for everyone else. Or let people fend for themselves. There will always be takers.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AM
Please fix the private insurance market so that we have that option when the time comes. Instead you complain about how Medicare somehow is breaking the system, but without explaining how.
How about we fix Medicare first, you know the one that is broke.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AM
You clearly have no conception of how Medicare actually works. It has required coinsurance payments. Not surprising. Everyone who has actually used it loves it, while folks who haven't all hate it. It's really weird how that works. Moreover, Medicare Advantage plans, which generally cover more stuff, are rated less favorably than the normal Medicare Part A/B.
You're right, I'm not an expert on Medicare, but I know that any insurance system that pays out far more than it takes in is probably going to be more popular than one that doesn't. This is by definition an unfair playing field.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AMRead an economics textbook so you understand what efficiency actually is. A system that is less expensive for a given standard of care is by definition more efficient. Unfortunately for us, most countries have health care systems that are more efficient than ours. That's OK in and of itself. Efficiency isn't everything. I would be totally fine with having a less efficient system if we actually had better patient satisfaction. Ideologically driven capitalists may feel otherwise, of course.
But cost is not the only determinant of efficiency. If cost is hindering the production of goods or services, then yes. But I don't think that is the case in the U.S. There still seem to be plenty of patients for the amount of doctors that we have. Actually when you think about how much we spend on health care (more than anyone else), the U.S. is the most efficient at providing health care services in the world. Supply = Demand.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AMTo address the point you made that had nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency, read your insurance plan documents and see what things you need to get pre-approved for. You'll likely be very surprised if you think you don't have to get permission beforehand for many procedures. Sure, maybe you've got a great PPO plan and can go see that cardiologist without bothering your GP about it. Then you can get ready for a long discussion with your insurance company as to whether or not you actually need that stent. You act as if our system is somehow different than the others. It's not, at least in that regard, we just have more sets of rules and more people writing and paying the bills.
And in Canada (and the UK, and Germany, and France, and basically every other country in the world) they have the same choice. There is nothing exceptional here in that regard. And given that most people's access to health care is mediated by their health insurer, it's perfectly fair to bring them into the discussion of choice.
I don't know about the European countries, but in Canada, they more or less have minimal choices. What doctors they can go to, when, where and if they can have certain procedures done. I fail to see how this is really any better than what we currently have in terms of delivering health care services.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AMI prefer solvency. Solvency wouldn't be an issue if health care costs (not price, costs) weren't growing at twice or more the rate of inflation and hadn't been doing so since before I was born. (Insurance premiums have risen even faster than overall spending..go figure).
So do you blame health insurance companies or doctors (or something else) for the rise in health care service costs?
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 09:18:26 AM
The only solution you offer is to make people's care worse without any actual plan for making the system you're throwing them into any better. Where are the action items? All you've thrown out there so far are ideological platitudes.
The solution I offer is to allow market forces to price things accordingly. Hardly some ideological platitude.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2012, 09:24:42 AM
May not be an idiot, but certainly don't live your "convictions". Wouldn't that be considered hypocritical?
Oh come on, seriously? Besides, my convictions are to take care of my family by pretty much any means necessary. If it means using a system that is perfectly legal, then yes, I will do it. It is called responsibilities. There are plenty of people on Social Security that think it is not the best system, but they use it. It doesn't mean they are hypocritical. They're just living their life.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2012, 09:24:42 AMAnd yes, you did show extraordinarily good sense in going to OSU! "GO POKES!!" is how it should be written, though.
Truly a grave mistake on my part. ;)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2012, 09:24:42 AM
Actually, the argument you should have made and should be making NOW is that the subsidies/freebies/etc you enjoyed are part of what is called the social contract. It encompasses a shared risk/benefit element where you actually ARE now paying for those things now, in a distributed fashion by your state income taxes. And will continue to do so as a resident of this state. (Assuming you stay employed, of course).
And if you ever get to the point (may be there now, even) where your taxes end up exceeding what benefit you derived, then you are subsidizing someone else, in exactly the same fashion I subsidized YOU a few years ago, and I was previously subsidized by someone before that. But then you also get the benefit of the contribution made by that person when they get out and find work, to maintain infrastructure, and hopefully build a better overall society. (And yeah, I know how this kind of falls apart when the Oklahoma legislature and Mary Fallin gets involved...)
That person you (and I) are subsidizing today is more likely to have a better job, earn more money, pay more taxes, and be less of a burden on society (us). Hopefully leading to a reduced societal cost, since they won't have to be boxed up in prison for whatever reason that might have occurred without the opportunities you and I help provide through that education. It is NOT a case of do we get to pay none or a lot. It IS a case of do we get to pay some or a whole lot more.
Health insurance is exactly the same. If everyone participates, then you and I don't have 40% of our hospital/doctor/medicine bills paying for others who are not insured - we get a benefit - reduced subsidies to others. That is what the people you are listening to on Fox don't want you to understand.
There will always be "takers" and they will never be able to pay to share the cost.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 10:45:17 AM
I agree. What we call Progressives are not what the founders were. And the founders were a collection of many different view points for that matter.
The fact that you can equate modern and historic progressives to the founders who believed certain rights could not be taken away by any government or man is quit comical as well, considering progressive dogma.
Progressives as we know them came to prominence during Theodore Roosevelt.
Funny I actually saw an article saying a similar thing because if the founders were conservative we would still be pledging allegiance to the king. Yikes.
Sorry, I've been away for training for a few days.
You guys (Gas and Erfalf) are hung up on semantics and phrases rather than what they refer to. And that comes from idiots like Beck who, after having succeeded in demonizing the word "Liberal" were astounded to see it morph into "Progressive", so they play whack a mole till all of this nonsense borne of humanism is stamped out.
Yes, Roosevelt's era was the time of the "Progressive Movement" which succeeded in changing the dominance of business interests over the people during that time. Conservatives didn't care for the progressives then, labeling them muckrackers, revolutionaries, traitors and fought them like conservatives fight progressivism today. Yesterday's demon liberal/progressives are todays heroes.
This same group of Beck-ians are busy re-writing what our founding fathers were about so that now there exists two histories for the same group. I was told recently that Washington was a Baptist and that all the founding fathers were Christians! Strange.
The founding fathers were quite radical in their day, yet their radicalism was progressive in nature. But we wouldn't dare call them radicals because of the current pejorative nature of the word. That is to say, they favored progressing with the writings and philosophy of the day by the likes of John Locke and others. They espoused that certain rights were inalienable to humans regardless of what the state, the church or the King forced upon them. That was far from conservative thinking and was quite radical. Radical enough that the King would hang you and the church would ex-communicate you for repeating these thoughts.
Quote from: erfalf on August 15, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Yes, you finally nailed it. Medicare is not allowing true price discovery. My bet is that it is more than likely higher than what it would be if true price discovery actually took place.
I'm confused. You said Medicare was squeezing doctors. As in forcing them to accept a lower price for their work than they would like. Now you're saying that the doctors would lower their prices were it not for Medicare? This makes no sense at all.
Quote
They decide for themselves if this is a good value.
What's the value of your arm?
Medicare sets reimbursement rates. Insurance companies more or less piggy back off of that to set there rates as well. So doctors that I have talked to just price a little higher than that. So that when they get reimbursed, they just write off the difference.
Quote
If Medicare is functional in your book because it takes out more than it takes in, then fine I guess. But I wouldn't call it that. Unfortunately the private market doesn't have that luxury.
Medicare serves the oldest and most medically expensive part of our population. Expecting it to turn a profit is ludicrous. I prefer the more important measure, which is that Medicare is more efficient than the private insurers. A dollar spent on Medicare buys more (and better) care than a dollar spent at Aetna or whomever.
Quote
How about we fix Medicare first, you know the one that is broke.
Broke only because the private system that it buys care from is broken. You yourself agree that private system is broken. The numbers show it's more expensive. Why on god's green earth would you want to take people from one, less expensive, broken system and put them in another, more expensive, broken system? Why not make a system that actually works first?
We both agree that medical care costs too much. You seem to think the solution is to shift the cost from one pocket to another. I think the solution is to get a handle on the costs.
Quote
But cost is not the only determinant of efficiency. If cost is hindering the production of goods or services, then yes. But I don't think that is the case in the U.S. There still seem to be plenty of patients for the amount of doctors that we have. Actually when you think about how much we spend on health care (more than anyone else), the U.S. is the most efficient at providing health care services in the world. Supply = Demand.
Yeah, about that textbook..
We spend more, but get less care per dollar. This is a fact. The implication with regard to efficiency is obvious.
Quote
I don't know about the European countries, but in Canada, they more or less have minimal choices. What doctors they can go to, when, where and if they can have certain procedures done. I fail to see how this is really any better than what we currently have in terms of delivering health care services.
That's not actually true any more than it is for you if you chose an HMO plan. The difference being that all the doctors in your province are in your network. It varies by province, though, so I'm not completely sure on the details.
Quote
The solution I offer is to allow market forces to price things accordingly. Hardly some ideological platitude.
It is an ideological platitude when you can't or won't explain what exactly prevents market forces from operating in the 75% of the market that is not Medicare. Insurance companies are free agents. They are required to offer certain levels of coverage and keep certain levels of reserves to pay claims, and now under Obamacare, required to spend a certain amount of the premium dollars on health care, but there is absolutely nothing preventing them from bargaining for lower prices, thus allowing them to hold premium increases down and gain business. Gaspar has refused to name a state that has only one health insurer because no such state exists. There is competition, but it's not working. Your solution, as I've heard it so far, is to do what we're doing now, only with more hope attached.
I thought this thread was about Romney's pick for Veep.
How old is Paul Ryan? 18?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 15, 2012, 03:33:13 PM
I thought this thread was about Romney's pick for Veep.
How old is Paul Ryan? 18?
Mentally, physically, or emotionally? (3, 40-something, 4)
It looks as if President Obama's attack on Ryan's budget has caused him to step in it again, and is becoming damaging to his party. It's also becoming far too difficult for the major networks to softball the President and his surrogates.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/
I'm having a really hard time criticizing the main stream media lately. CNN, CBS, and even MSNBC are shying away from the party line, and beginning to offer actual analysis. I guess it goes to prove that you can BS some of the people some of the time, but if you try to BS all of the people all of the time you look foolish. I have to admire Wolf for actually reading the Ryan budget and not letting little Debbie get away with shoveling crap.
She is a babbling idiot.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
She is a babbling idiot.
I freekin love her!
Her and Biden are awesome!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2012, 09:41:19 AM
I freekin love her!
Her and Biden are awesome!
Faced with facts she just keeps on cobbling her own little reality to keep the old folks scared.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 09:51:08 AM
Faced with facts she just keeps on cobbling her own little reality to keep the old folks scared.
It's all they got. President Obama did the same thing here, even when confronted by Ryan himself.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2012, 09:02:27 AM
It looks as if President Obama's attack on Ryan's budget has caused him to step in it again, and is becoming damaging to his party. It's also becoming far too difficult for the major networks to softball the President and his surrogates.
This is a bunch of crap that doesn't even reflect reality. Obama's "cuts" are paid for by reductions in cost growth. Romney's cuts are paid for by nothing. Obama's cuts go towards Medicaid, which some seniors require as a supplement to Medicare. Romney's cuts go to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. Romney wants to increase the deficit, Obama doesn't. Go figure. We're living in freakin' bizarro world.
Nate, Obama's current cuts, and he himself referred to them as cuts, go to fund Obamacare. Ryan's plan makes no cuts to current medicare recipients or future recipients over the age of 55. After that it provides an option to younger folks to enter into a voucher program at the exact same expenditure level as current medicare, but far less expensive to maintain. The voucher rates are adjusted to medical inflation rates. The vouchers engage private insurance providers and re-introduce competition. That's the last time I'm going to explain it. You sound like one of the above videos.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2012, 03:22:51 PM
Nate, Obama's current cuts, and he himself referred to them as cuts, go to fund Obamacare. Ryan's plan makes no cuts to current medicare recipients or future recipients over the age of 55. After that it provides an option to younger folks to enter into a voucher program at the exact same expenditure level as current medicare, but far less expensive to maintain. The voucher rates are adjusted to medical inflation rates. The vouchers engage private insurance providers and re-introduce competition. That's the last time I'm going to explain it. You sound like one of the above videos.
First, Obamacare does not cut benefits. It cuts payments to providers when/if they fail to meet performance targets regarding quality and efficacy of care. I suspect you already knew that.
Secondly, if we are spending the same amount of money on Medicare, there are by definition no savings in Ryan's plan. Try again.
Thirdly, there is already competition in the health care market. Why do you and erfalf insist on denying that?
Soledad O'Brien takes John Sununu to the woodshed over this $716 billion dollar number.
http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2012/08/14/25948/cnn-startingpoint-20120814-soledadsununu
Harhar...
John worries too much about money. Wasn't he the one spending exorbitant numbers on personal trips while he was Chief of Staff?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2012, 09:41:19 AM
I freekin love her!
Her and Biden are awesome!
(http://teacheru.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/i-am-joe.jpg)
Wow, Sununu straight up lied when he said that current law cuts benefits to Medicare beneficiaries. It's hard to watch over all the whining, but it is good to see an interviewer at least attempting to force factual answers. It's interesting how any analysis that bothers to point out that the numbers don't add up is somehow "Democratic" analysis in Sununu's world. As if it's anyone's fault but their own that the math simply doesn't work.
It's also interesting that what he's complaining about, a phase out of Medicare Advantage if the insurers don't get their act together and get costs in line with the rest of Medicare, is exactly the kind of accountability and budget cutting Republicans say they want. They complain about anything that actually cuts the deficit (Obamacare, impending military cuts) while bleating about it, and their plans, as written, will either increase taxes on the poor and middle class or increase the deficit beyond current projections.
Ryan's plan counts on growth to finally balance the budget in 2050! Twenty. Fifty. Shooting for the moon, there.
One other funny thing about Medicare Advantage. People's overall satisfaction with it is worse than standard Medicare and people on Advantage plans are more likely to be unable to afford needed care. And it costs more. That's what we can expect with Vouchercare, only with more of the premium dollar being paid out of the senior's income.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2012, 10:43:29 PM
(http://teacheru.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/i-am-joe.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/527866_470005496351103_960382449_n.jpg)
Hippie critic web site sez it all Guido....you are a warrior in the culture war. Too bad you know nil about economics and success.
I just keep wondering how it is Mitt got over $100 million in a Roth IRA?? Without some serious lying and cheating....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2012, 01:17:58 PM
I just keep wondering how it is Mitt got over $100 million in a Roth IRA?? Without some serious lying and cheating....
I'm sure it's perfectly reasonable to value an investment that will result in very large
future income at zero before the payments begin. You know, like if you won the lottery and it were going to be a couple of months before they started paying out on the annuity? You never know, the lottery might go bankrupt before paying you the first payment.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 01:43:34 PM
I'm sure it's perfectly reasonable to value an investment that will result in very large future income at zero before the payments begin. You know, like if you won the lottery and it were going to be a couple of months before they started paying out on the annuity? You never know, the lottery might go bankrupt before paying you the first payment.
Or something...
Yeah, he did the magical waving of hands on that one. At $5,000 per year, for the time a Roth has been available for anyone, it would not have worked if every penny had been put into Apple when it was $1.00 a share until now.
Lying and cheating. Well, at least he is the complementary bookend to Ryan. I have become very disillusioned with him, after having some modest hope.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2012, 01:49:58 PM
Or something...
No, that's the only remotely plausible explanation I've seen other than rank tax fraud. Presumably some of his carried interest went into the IRA and some into the kids' trust accounts and a smidge was kept outside the trusts and retirement accounts. S'ok, though. Eliminate the capital gains tax and he won't ever have to worry about it again. Poor guy never paid less than 13%. A great American Patriot, that one.
First, how do you know it is a Roth. Never heard that. Second, it has been explained several places (see one below) how a balance of BETWEEN $25M and $100M could end up in an IRA. There is a limit on how much an individual can put in there, but the employee isn't the only contributor. The employer is allowed to make contributions as well. And the articles also describe how the IRS allows for valuations that could have made Bain's investments valued extremely low when he put them in. If that's the case, he will pay even more taxes (on income) than he had put investments in at a higher valuation. If it is not a Roth (which is extremely unlikely), then he will pay taxes on this income, it is just deferred. He is not avoiding taxes, he is just deferring when he pays it.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/10/mitt-romney-ira-unlikely-centerpiece-wealth-and-tax-avoidance/snjZMpnYF8bbTG3HUMtflO/story.html
http://truthout.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11684-did-romney-possibly-commit-fraud-on-his-2009-taxes-but-received-amnesty
I told you in a separate thread the way RMoney arrogantly proclaimed he's never "done anything wrong" (as opposed to unethical) indicated to me he had been audited and granted a stay but was still felonious.
Quote
Did Romney Possibly Commit Fraud on His Income Taxes, But Received Amnesty?
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
In a brilliant critique of an NBC interview with a defiant Ann Romney who disdainfully refused to release any further family income taxes, Lawrence O'Donnell raises the interesting prospect that the real smoking gun may be that the GOP presidential candidate committed a felony by sequestering taxable income offshore.
This is speculation, of course, because as Ann Romney has said, she and Mitt won't release more income taxes because it will provide the public with "ammunition." Of course, as O'Donell points out, there is only ammunition if there are improprieties.
Beyond Harry Reid's claim of informed knowledge that that Romneys have paid no income taxes for a period of ten years in the recent past, the most compelling possible scenario is that in 2008 many of the nation's 1% paid little or no income tax because they took large capital gain losses as offsets against capital gain profits due to the crash of Wall Street. Romney quite possibly, given his inclusion in the plutocracy, was among those who paid no income tax.
But, as O'Donnell pointed out, the year 2009 even looms larger on the horizon. (Remember that Romney has only released a 2010 income tax return with the vague offering to release his 2011 income taxes at some undesignated point in the future.) Given that most of Americans paid their taxes by August 15th, the indefinite delay in sharing his 2011 income taxes raises the question of why he just won't release his 2009 IRS filing, which is completed.
Here may be the answer: Romney may have taken advantage of a 2009 IRS amnesty period to disclose income hidden in offshore accounts but subject to US taxation. The amnesty offer allowed such persons to escape potential criminal prosecution for tax evasion.
Here is an example of what happened to one person who banked taxable income in offshore accounts to avoid paying US taxes, according to a law firm that specializes in such cases. It is entitled, "Additional Criminal Prosecutions for Undeclared Offshore Accounts.":
This week, Anton Ginzburg, another taxpayer with a non-compliant account at UBS, plead guilty in a Federal Court in New York to criminally concealing his account and failing to disclose the account on the required FBAR form. This taxpayer faces a jail sentence of up to five years and a fine of approximately $1.5 million, constituting fifty percent (50%) of the value of the account during 2007. In fact, the law allows the government to impose a 50% penalty for every year that the account was non-compliant, although the pattern in recent criminal prosecutions is that if the defendant enters a guilty plea, the government imposes a 50% penalty for one year.
This potential jail sentence and monetary fine stands in contrast to taxpayers who voluntarily disclose their foreign accounts. A proper voluntary disclosure would avoid a criminal prosecution and jail time, and the fine would be capped at twenty five percent rather than fifty percent.
Indeed, even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) information web page on the amnesty (which was re-instituted for part of 2011) notes: "Taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts or entities should make a voluntary disclosure because it enables them to become compliant, avoid substantial civil penalties and generally eliminate the risk of criminal prosecution."
More explicity, according to the IRS:
Possible criminal charges related to tax returns include tax evasion (26 U.S.C.§ 7201), filing a false return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) and failure to file an income tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7203). The failure to file an FBAR and the filing of a false FBAR are both violations that are subject to criminal penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5322.
A person convicted of tax evasion is subject to a prison term of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000. Filing a false return subjects a person to a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to $250,000. A person who fails to file a tax return is subject to a prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to $100,000. Failing to file an FBAR subjects a person to a prison term of up to ten years and criminal penalties of up to $500,000.
This is addition to the civil penalties, including fines.
No one can do other than hypothesize that Mitt Romney might have taken advantage of the 2009 amnesty to report previously undisclosed foreign bank accounts and interest earning. But if he did, he would have on the one hand committed a felony, but then had it expunged by participating in the 2009 program.
And that is possibly why we are still awaiting the 2011 Romney income tax returns, even though his 2009 returns are complete and ready for public review. It would be hard, as O'Donnel notes, to win the presidency when you have committed a potential felony, even if you escaped possible prosecution because of a special IRS pardon for past behavior.
If this theory is incorrect and unfair to the Romney, all Mitt has to do is release his 2009 returns to prove the contrary.
That's what this country needs....a liar who can be read so easily. At least Cheney/Bush were "good" at it.
O'Donnell is into the innuendo game now. Great journalism!
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 17, 2012, 03:13:41 PM
http://truthout.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11684-did-romney-possibly-commit-fraud-on-his-2009-taxes-but-received-amnesty
I told you in a separate thread the way RMoney arrogantly proclaimed he's never "done anything wrong" (as opposed to unethical) indicated to me he had been audited and granted a stay but was still felonious.
That's what this country needs....a liar who can be read so easily. At least Cheney/Bush were "good" at it.
If the author has to rely on O'Donnell as his expert witness, well, I'll just leave it at that.
Are there any sources other than Beck or the Fox braintrust you guys find believable?
I heard that same supposition on a radio show travelling between here and OKC. Sorry, can't remember the show. Heck, I even saw it on an internet blog. The thing is, he invites these suppositions because, even though he required his VP candidates to give him three years, he doesn't think he needs to. Something is there and until he divulges the stink remains.
My gosh. If what he says is true he could slay his enemies in one motion. Show the returns and humiliate them.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 17, 2012, 06:37:36 PM
Are there any sources other than Beck or the Fox braintrust you guys find believable?
Of course not. Just like the left has their favorite sources that the right has absolutely no confidence in believing.
Partisan enough?
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 09:16:42 PM
Of course not. Just like the left has their favorite sources that the right has absolutely no confidence in believing.
Partisan enough?
I don't believe you Red. I think there are sources that are believable by both sides even thought they say things you don't want to hear. If not, then each side cancels each other out and what is left is your own deductions from fact.
You're pretty good about making deductions from facts. What deduction do you draw from a guy who previously lied to the public when he refused to show his tax forms when he ran for governor of Massachusetts. A guy who expects his VP candidates to show more tax returns than he does and who refuses to make the issue disappear by simply affirming his truthfulness with the release of a couple more years?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 17, 2012, 09:30:44 PM
I don't believe you Red.
Your choice.
QuoteI think there are sources that are believable by both sides even thought they say things you don't want to hear. If not, then each side cancels each other out and what is left is your own deductions from fact.
Unfortunately, I believe that is where we are. The posts I see on TNF are so partisan that I am losing interest in even trying to engage in conversation.
QuoteYou're pretty good about making deductions from facts.
Thank you
QuoteWhat deduction do you draw from a guy who previously lied to the public when he refused to show his tax forms when he ran for governor of Massachusetts.
I don't have proof of lies or not.
QuoteA guy who expects his VP candidates to show more tax returns than he does and who refuses to make the issue disappear by simply affirming his truthfulness with the release of a couple more years?
I can accept a difference between public disclosure and private disclosure
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 02:56:22 PM
First, how do you know it is a Roth. Never heard that. Second, it has been explained several places (see one below) how a balance of BETWEEN $25M and $100M could end up in an IRA. There is a limit on how much an individual can put in there, but the employee isn't the only contributor. The employer is allowed to make contributions as well. And the articles also describe how the IRS allows for valuations that could have made Bain's investments valued extremely low when he put them in. If that's the case, he will pay even more taxes (on income) than he had put investments in at a higher valuation. If it is not a Roth (which is extremely unlikely), then he will pay taxes on this income, it is just deferred. He is not avoiding taxes, he is just deferring when he pays it.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/10/mitt-romney-ira-unlikely-centerpiece-wealth-and-tax-avoidance/snjZMpnYF8bbTG3HUMtflO/story.html
Probably not a Roth - conclusion I jumped to based on very sloppy descriptions of being a tax free IRA that I have heard.
True, others can contribute, but the limit is still $30,000 per year max by all parties involved. And then to have us believe that he was able to turn several hundred thousand dollars (10 years or so at 30k) into even $20 million?? You find that plausible at all??
Would be much like Baby Bush's returns when he "bought" the Texas Rangers for a few hundred thousand using money he "borrowed" from good buddies, then sold for about $250 million in 1998. Bush's share was over 15 million. Somewhere in the range of 2500 percent return on money invested for about 10 years. Not quite as good as Romney's, but hey, Mitt is the better "businessman".
Oh, and the original loan - forgiven, so he didn't even have to pay that back. Plus a whole bunch of other convoluted dealings with buddies that got them some pretty sweet stuff, too. Not bad being governor, so you can give your buddies a "hand up, not a handout"....
And as stated earlier, Romney is counting on the capital gains going to zero, so he won't have to pay any.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
No big surprise.
And again, as always - out of context so can be warped and twisted....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2012, 10:14:03 PM
And again, as always - out of context so can be warped and twisted....
You are one of the TNF posters that I have some respect for on almost any subject EXCEPT politics. Spin away.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 10:18:25 PM
You are one of the TNF posters that I have some respect for on almost any subject EXCEPT politics. Spin away.
Here - I fix it for you - complete context....
conclusion I jumped to based on very sloppy descriptions of being a tax free IRA that I have heard.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2012, 10:21:19 PM
Here - I fix it for you - complete context....
conclusion I jumped to based on very sloppy descriptions of being a tax free IRA that I have heard.
For someone who prides himself on his English language expertise, why did you not say "fixed" instead of "fix"? That's NOT a typo.
Why would any rational person jump to conclusions based on sloppy descriptions? You disappoint me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 10:28:25 PM
For someone who prides himself on his English language expertise, why did you not say "fixed" instead of "fix"? That's NOT a typo.
Why would any rational person jump to conclusions based on sloppy descriptions? You disappoint me.
I fix - as in "I can has Cheezburger"
http://cheezburger.com/6491206912
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2012, 10:37:51 PM
I fix - as in "I can has Cheezburger"
http://cheezburger.com/6491206912
?
Mrs. Whatshername would turn over in her grave.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 10:49:24 PM
?
Mrs. Whatshername would turn over in her grave.
I said about a month or so ago you had no humor. ;D
Quote from: Hoss on August 17, 2012, 11:02:30 PM
I said about a month or so ago you had no humor. ;D
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 11:04:45 PM
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Then obviously the LOLCATs are missed upon you. I've found it funny. For over five years now.
Oh, one more thing. Opinions aren't wrong. :D Just as your assessment of my opinion isn't wrong from your point of view.
Quote from: Hoss on August 17, 2012, 11:08:47 PM
Oh, one more thing. Opinions aren't wrong. :D Just as your assessment of my opinion isn't wrong from your point of view.
Whatever.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 02:56:22 PM
it is just deferred. He is not avoiding taxes, he is just deferring when he pays it.
Deferring taxes is avoiding tax, that's why you do it. Rather than the government getting the benefit of the present value of the income tax that would otherwise be due, they only get the discounted future value. It's a trade that can be worth a lot depending on your time horizon.
And yes, the IRS does allow abusively low valuations of certain types of assets when they're put into an IRA or trust. It should have been valued at the NPV of the future income the investment represents since there is no defined market value. Instead, the lack of a defined market value (arguably, the IRS lets people get away with this) means it can be valued at zero or close to zero, even though there's no way in hell Romney would sell his carried interest for that price.
Abusive valuation of assets is nothing new. Over the last 30 years or so, quite a few non-profit health insurers have gone private, somehow making their former director/new CEOs very rich in a very short span of time. That's really easy to do when you buy a health insurer for $120,000 and take it public with a $250,000,000 valuation a couple of months later after making no real changes to the business. Even Warren Buffet used a scam like this to enrich himself, and he was already a freakin' billionaire. a**hole.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 11:47:38 PM
Rather than the government getting the benefit of the present value of the income tax that would otherwise be due, they only get the discounted future value.
The government will also get taxes on the earnings of that tax deferred money that would not have earned anything had it been paid in tax.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 09:54:28 PM
I don't have proof of lies or not.
I can accept a difference between public disclosure and private disclosure
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/08/08/romney-hid-his-returns-in-2002-mass-governors-race-too/
As George Will said about Mitt Romney's refusal to release his tax returns, "The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them." Last week we learned that whatever it is he is hiding may not be new.
Rachel Maddow and her producers did a little digging and found that, in 2002, when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney was equally adamant that he would not release his tax returns. A key issue then was Romney's eligibility to serve as governor. Massachusetts law requires that in order to serve as governor, candidates must have resided in the state for the previous seven consecutive years. Because Romney had lived in Utah full time while he ran the 2002 winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, it seemed obvious he did not meet that requirement.
One way to tell for sure would be to see which state, Massachusetts or Utah, Romney listed as his primary residence on his IRS forms. Romney and his adviser, Eric "Etch-A-Sketch" Fernhstrom vehemently denied that Romney had filed as a full-time resident of Utah. It was later revealed they were lying — Romney had amended his returns to change his claim of full-time residency in Utah to full-time residency in Massachusetts — retroactively.
Link to the Rachel Maddow show if you want more details (oh go ahead, I link to Fox commentators sometimes!). It seems that Romney was also offered just what you think is acceptable, a private disclosure of the address portion only, and still refused it because it didn't match his public statements.
And this...http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/48497159#48497159
At 8 minutes into the report, Mitt, on video, accuses his Democratic opponent in the Mass. governor race of not releasing her husband's tax returns, even though he had refused to release his, and asking her "What do you have to hide?"
This is familiar territory for Mitt.
Quote from: Hoss on August 17, 2012, 11:02:30 PM
I said about a month or so ago you had no humor. ;D
If you like cheezburger, you might like this, too. Found it right after he started it a few years ago. Clever.
http://www.xkcd.com/
I like # 1093.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
If you like cheezburger, you might like this, too. Found it right after he started it a few years ago. Clever.
http://www.xkcd.com/
I like # 1093.
#670 (for engineers)
Oh, little johnny tables. ;D
Quote from: AquaMan on August 18, 2012, 03:36:28 PM
#670 (for engineers)
He's got a lot for engineers. ( 730).
Really have to start at 1 to get the full experience. When you have a quiet day with nothing else to do.
I've always wondered if #26 was doable....just seems like a practical thing to do with (for?) a cat.
Lyin' Ryan strikes again. This time he's blaming Obama for the closing of the GM plant in Janesville even though the closure was announced before Obama had even been elected and effected before he took office. Oops. Try again?
Quote from: nathanm on August 19, 2012, 05:33:50 PM
Lyin' Ryan strikes again. This time he's blaming Obama for the closing of the GM plant in Janesville even though the closure was announced before Obama had even been elected and effected before he took office. Oops. Try again?
So both campaigns suffer from lapses in timelines when it comes to peddling their bullshit.
Really conan?
Ryan is got clearly lying and and you say that? No examples. Just partisan "Your side has can't read a calendar, either."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 19, 2012, 09:38:59 PM
Really conan?
Ryan is got clearly lying and and you say that? No examples. Just partisan "Your side has can't read a calendar, either."
I thought it was cute.
You didn't give a free pass to the Obama campaign for lying with the GST steel ads?
I believe that was a SuperPAC ad, not the candidate's own words. Ryan still hasn't apologized for lying about his asking for stimulus money. The best he could do is say his office shouldn't have done that. Of course, it turns out that back in 2002 he was on the House floor asking for stimulus money. I guess he forgot that, too. (I don't blame him, that was a decade ago!) Not to mention that he was for Ayn Rand before he was against her. I thought he was supposed to be less of a flip-flopper than Mitt.
Sadly, his numbers don't add up any more than Mitt's do and he can't seem to make up his mind any better than Mitt does, so what was the point of bringing him in?
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 11:47:38 PM
Deferring taxes is avoiding tax, that's why you do it. Rather than the government getting the benefit of the present value of the income tax that would otherwise be due, they only get the discounted future value. It's a trade that can be worth a lot depending on your time horizon.
That would only be true if the value of the assets never increased. As reality generally goes though, the value of the assets skyrocket and the government more than makes up for the deferred collection. It is not avoidance. You cannot avoid the tax code, you can just follow it. And as it sits, you can decide when you want to pay some forms of taxes.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 11:47:38 PM
And yes, the IRS does allow abusively low valuations of certain types of assets when they're put into an IRA or trust. It should have been valued at the NPV of the future income the investment represents since there is no defined market value. Instead, the lack of a defined market value (arguably, the IRS lets people get away with this) means it can be valued at zero or close to zero, even though there's no way in hell Romney would sell his carried interest for that price.
Ever worked in PE. No? Evaluating the future cash flows of some businesses is in line with betting at the craps table. Why else do PE firms buy companies? They need cash. If the companies knew their own cash flows and it was sustainable, they wouldn't be bought by PE firms. There are several instances of hostile takeovers, but they are far and few between because they are so incredibly costly.
Valuing private companies is incredibly difficult. Generally they are valued at cost or the most recent round of financing, which happen pretty far apart. And many times the cost has little relationship with the actual value of the enterprise. It's tough, that is why they are lenient. They are lenient, because either way they are going to get their money. If the firm goes belly up, the PE firm takes a far smaller loss. If they make boat loads of money, they pay taxes on every dime of income.
Ironically, the accounting standards boards are all trying to force PE firms to value their investments more fairly for investors statements. Pretty much all that it has accomplished is to create an extremely non-linear income pattern. It makes investors far more crazy than the more conservative method that was employed previously.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/579857_432803540094157_2130534212_n.jpg)
lol
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 20, 2012, 10:06:46 AM
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/579857_432803540094157_2130534212_n.jpg)
lol
Can we get through one day without some form of religious ridicule from you?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 20, 2012, 10:43:23 AM
Can we get through one day without some form of religious ridicule from you?
I heard someone (much older than myself) just noting the other day that the field this years consists of two Catholics, one Mormon, and whatever Obama is. Not that long ago it was pretty risky just to run as an open Catholic.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 20, 2012, 10:43:23 AM
Can we get through one day without some form of religious ridicule from you?
For once, something we are in agreement on. Except for maybe Oklahoma's crazy liquor/ beer laws. We agree there also I believe.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 10:46:19 AM
I heard someone (much older than myself) just noting the other day that the field this years consists of two Catholics, one Mormon, and whatever Obama is. Not that long ago it was pretty risky just to run as an open Catholic.
I'm guessing you believe he's something other than what he's stated then? Wonder what that might be?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Hoss on August 20, 2012, 10:58:33 AM
I'm guessing you believe he's something other than what he's stated then? Wonder what that might be?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
This person doesn't think Obama is particularly religious at all. He thinks he chose a church that would be beneficial to him personally, and not in a faith/religion type of way.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 10:59:34 AM
This person doesn't think Obama is particularly religious at all. He thinks he chose a church that would be beneficial to him personally, and not in a faith/religion type of way.
and...AND...where's that durn-burned birth certificate?
"you best redneckognize me"
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 11:01:57 AM
and...AND...where's that durn-burned birth certificate?
If you say so.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 10:46:19 AM
I heard someone (much older than myself) just noting the other day that the field this years consists of two Catholics, one Mormon, and whatever Obama is. Not that long ago it was pretty risky just to run as an open Catholic.
I think he's Christian according to this: https://www.facebook.com/v/454938764526356
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 10:59:34 AM
This person doesn't think Obama is particularly religious at all. He thinks he chose a church that would be beneficial to him personally, and not in a faith/religion type of way.
Does anyone choose a church that goes against them personally?
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 10:59:34 AM
This person doesn't think Obama is particularly religious at all. He thinks he chose a church that would be beneficial to him personally, and not in a faith/religion type of way.
You just want to show disrespect for President Obama and quote an anonymous "friend" saying "whatever religion Obama is."
There is no controversy. Barack Obama was baptized as an adult twenty five years ago in the United Church of Christ and is a practicing Christian. Period.
Don't be ignorant.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 20, 2012, 02:21:25 PM
You just want to show disrespect for President Obama and quote an anonymous "friend" saying "whatever religion Obama is."
There is no controversy. Barack Obama was baptized as an adult twenty five years ago in the United Church of Christ and is a practicing Christian. Period.
Don't be ignorant.
Nonsense. Where's his baptism papers?
;)
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Gaspar on August 20, 2012, 10:43:23 AM
Can we get through one day without some form of religious ridicule from you?
one day s/b one week....lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmeWcIQFVUY
It's not my fault if everyone's so fearful of atheists and devil's like me. :D
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 20, 2012, 02:41:45 PM
one day s/b one week....lol
It's not my fault if everyone's so fearful of atheists and devil's like me. :D
No one here telling atheist jokes.
What makes this nation beautiful is it's spectrum of people, their diversity in beliefs and philosophies, and everything that can add to the feast.
Shalom, Namaste, Salam Aleikum, Wai, God Bless, Dude!
Live for something, or live for nothing, it's your individual choice and it should be honored.
Nobody is afraid of an atheist. You just want persecution.
Stop talking about other people's religions.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 20, 2012, 02:59:31 PM
Nobody is afraid of an atheist. You just want persecution.
Stop talking about other people's religions.
Oh sweet Jesus...I forgot I was living in Dumbf#@kistan and these are things we don't discuss here.
Quote
An Oklahoma high school valedictorian who used the word "hell" in her graduation speech in May has yet to receive her diploma.
Kaitlin Nootbaar graduated from Prague High School with a 4.0 grade point average, her father, David Nootbaar, told KFOR-TV. But school administrators told him that Kaitlin would have to submit a written apology in order to get her diploma.
"We went to the office and asked for the diploma and the principal said, 'Your diploma is right here but you're not getting it. Close the door, we have a problem,'" David Nootbaar told the network.
"She worked so hard to stay at the top of her class," he said. "This is not right."
In her speech—inspired by a similar address in "Eclipse: The Twilight Saga"—Kaitlin recounted how annoying it is to be constantly asked what she wants to do as graduation approached. "How the hell do I know?" she said, according to her father. "I've changed my mind so many times."
In the version she submitted to the school for approval, "hell" was "heck." But in the version she delivered at graduation, "hell" it was.
The school declined to comment. "This matter is confidential and we cannot publicly say anything about it," Prague schools Superintendent Rick Martin said in a statement to KFOR.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/valedictorian- denied-diploma-speech-hell-134805221.html
Give her the damn diploma!
(http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=89907522dd021684af582ab74d2a6326)
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 20, 2012, 03:06:29 PM
Give her the damn diploma!
Hell No!
Ahhh sh!t, now I have to go to the principal's office.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 08:34:07 AM
That would only be true if the value of the assets never increased. As reality generally goes though, the value of the assets skyrocket and the government more than makes up for the deferred collection. It is not avoidance. You cannot avoid the tax code, you can just follow it. And as it sits, you can decide when you want to pay some forms of taxes.
Okie dokie. You can deny the whole point of tax deferred retirement accounts and the tax advice given by some of the best regarded tax attorneys in the region if you like. After all, there's no way that deferring taxes could possibly transfer downside risk to the government and no way you can out-earn your original tax. IRAs, why does anyone use them?
Quote from: nathanm on August 20, 2012, 03:08:31 PM
Okie dokie. You can deny the whole point of tax deferred retirement accounts and the tax advice given by some of the best regarded tax attorneys in the region if you like. After all, there's no way that deferring taxes could possibly transfer downside risk to the government and no way you can out-earn your original tax.
There is a risk. But the risk isn't on the government, it's not their money.
Quote from: nathanm on August 20, 2012, 03:08:31 PMIRAs, why does anyone use them?
To manage cash flow.
And for gosh sakes, are people not allowed to have opinions anymore. Or just only opinions that don't criticize the sincerity of this President? When did this become so sacrosanct?
Besides, saying Obama is a Christian because he was Baptizedis like saying bush was a genius because he went to Yale. One does not necessarily lead to the other.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 03:20:16 PM
And for gosh sakes, are people not allowed to have opinions anymore. Or just only opinions that don't criticize the sincerity of this President? When did this become so sacrosanct?
Besides, saying Obama is a Christian because he was Baptizedis like saying bush was a genius because he went to Yale. One does not necessarily lead to the other.
He said he was a Christian.
I don't actually give a smile but since Ryan says he's a Catholic and ol' whats'is-face says he's a Mormon, that means they're not?
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 03:25:32 PM
He said he was a Christian.
I don't actually give a smile but since Ryan says he's a Catholic and ol' whats'is-face says he's a Mormon, that means they're not?
Biden says he's smart, so does Bush?
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 03:26:23 PM
Biden says he's smart, so does Bush?
So intellect is a faith?
If I tell you I'm a member of a particular religion you will disagree?
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 03:31:03 PM
So intellect is a faith?
No politicians are politicians. Why should I be required to take them at their word when I have been lied to repeatedly? My wife sure as hell would not.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 03:31:50 PM
No politicians are politicians. Why should I be required to take them at their word when I have been lied to repeatedly? My wife sure as hell would not.
Do you believe Ryan is a Catholic?
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 03:32:44 PM
Do you believe Ryan is a Catholic?
I honestly don't have as much info on Ryan as I do with Obama. Obama has been in the spotlight far longer and I have had more time to form an opinion. Obama has done little to prove to me that he is a Christian (or at least a member of a Christian church), but I don't rule it out. I don't think he is a muslim or whatever, although he was exposed to it far more than most Americans. I actually didn't know Ryan was a Catholic until my friend mentioned it this weekend. I assumed he was a protestant of some kind.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
I honestly don't have as much info on Ryan as I do with Obama. Obama has been in the spotlight far longer and I have had more time to form an opinion. Obama has done little to prove to me that he is a Christian (or at least a member of a Christian church), but I don't rule it out. I don't think he is a muslim or whatever, although he was exposed to it far more than most Americans. I actually didn't know Ryan was a Catholic until my friend mentioned it this weekend. I assumed he was a protestant of some kind.
I'm going to let you stop right about here...
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 03:38:13 PM
I'm going to let you stop right about here...
While intellect and faith are obviously different, they are both personal traits. Others can try to measure it, but it really un-measurable. It will not stop people (including you) from forming opinions about those traits though.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 03:39:44 PM
While intellect and faith are obviously different, they are both personal traits.
So someone can have a Unitarian trait?
QuoteOthers can try to measure it, but it really un-measurable.
IQ
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 03:48:39 PM
IQ
Just one indication of intelligence (whatever that means), which as you know is far more complex than any test could ever measure. Same as faith is far too complex for someone to concoct a device to measure.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 04:03:21 PM
Just one indication of intelligence (whatever that means), which as you know is far more complex than any test could ever measure. Same as faith is far too complex for someone to concoct a device to measure.
But not a measure?
And so there can be a Unitarian trait?
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 04:26:45 PM
But not a measure?
And so there can be a Unitarian trait?
You're taking my words literally(all fair) but I think you know what I mean. IQ and religion/faith are not something that is measured like weight or height. Those are quantitative measures. The others are qualitative.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 03:16:26 PM
There is a risk. But the risk isn't on the government, it's not their money.
It would be if the taxes were paid on time like it is for us working stiffs. There is risk to the government by letting the taxpayer defer their payment into the future. The gain may be erased by then. Yes, the taxpayer also bears risk on the part that would have been left over after tax was paid, but they have still successfully shifted some (exactly how much depends on the tax rate that would apply to the income, of course) of the risk to the government.
That's the whole point of tax deferred investments.
Quote from: nathanm on August 20, 2012, 04:58:43 PM
It would be if the taxes were paid on time like it is for us working stiffs. There is risk to the government by letting the taxpayer defer their payment into the future. The gain may be erased by then. Yes, the taxpayer also bears risk on the part that would have been left over after tax was paid, but they have still successfully shifted some (exactly how much depends on the tax rate that would apply to the income, of course) of the risk to the government.
That's the whole point of tax deferred investments.
You can defer taxes as well. Heck, I am able to, through my company's retirement account. There are limits, and I am in the unfortunate position of not owning a PE firm, but hey, I'm not complaining. If you don't like the way the tax code works, that fine, complain about it. But don't go around saying things aren't fair or certain people are cheating the government when they aren't doing anything of the kind.
I know it can be parsed differently, but I tend to believe that income is mine, and I pay a portion of it in taxes. It seems like you think the government has first right to your money, and it allows you and I to keep some of it.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 04:37:21 PM
You're taking my words literally(all fair) but I think you know what I mean. IQ and religion/faith are not something that is measured like weight or height. Those are quantitative measures. The others are qualitative.
OK, so here's a question. If I were to come up to you and profess that I was baptized a Christian, would you require proof of it before you would believe it? Or would that be only if my name wasn't "Christian sounding"...
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 05:06:42 PM
You can defer taxes as well. Heck, I am able to, through my company's retirement account. There are limits, and I am in the unfortunate position of not owning a PE firm, but hey, I'm not complaining. If you don't like the way the tax code works, that fine, complain about it. But don't go around saying things aren't fair or certain people are cheating the government when they aren't doing anything of the kind.
Romney's IRA may not be illegal, but it's still cheating the government. The limits exist for a reason. Good for him that he found a loophole, but it's illustrative of the problem with the tax code. The rules are different if you're clever or if you've got enough money to hire a clever accountant. Sort of like how laws in Tennessee sometimes apply only to "the largest city in a county whose population was at least 500,000 as of the 2000 Census", only less obviously stated.
Quote
I know it can be parsed differently, but I tend to believe that income is mine, and I pay a portion of it in taxes. It seems like you think the government has first right to your money, and it allows you and I to keep some of it.
Yes, your income is yours, aside from the part of it that is taxed. That part is not.
Quote from: Hoss on August 20, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
OK, so here's a question. If I were to come up to you and profess that I was baptized a Christian, would you require proof of it before you would believe it? Or would that be only if my name wasn't "Christian sounding"...
Initially, or after I have have observed you for the better part of five years?
Quote from: nathanm on August 20, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
Romney's IRA may not be illegal, but it's still cheating the government. The limits exist for a reason. Good for him that he found a loophole, but it's illustrative of the problem with the tax code. The rules are different if you're clever or if you've got enough money to hire a clever accountant. Sort of like how laws in Tennessee sometimes apply only to "the largest city in a county whose population was at least 500,000 as of the 2000 Census", only less obviously stated.
But why do you have to use the word cheating the government (I know why :) ) when it couldn't be further from the truth. If he is operating within the boundaries of the law, he is not cheating anyone, especially the government, you know the one that made those rules. It is one thing to call out rules for being unfair but it is something else entirely to accuse someone who acts within the law a cheat or thief.
Quote from: nathanm on August 20, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
Yes, your income is yours, aside from the part of it that is taxed. That part is not.
Good enough for me. Just the way you worded some things made it sound otherwise. The government does not have claim on money just because it feels like it though. They have to set up the rules, and we operate within them, and we get punished if we don't. That's the way the game is played.
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 06:04:56 PM
Initially, or after I have have observed you for the better part of five years?
Seriously? So if I were to come up to you and tell you that I was baptized, then you watched me for five years and decided that I wasn't Christian based on your assessment of my actions, would that make me any more or less a Christian?
You typify many Christians.
Judge not lest ye be judged. That was something my grandparents instilled in me at a young age. Just because I don't go to church or Sunday School every week doesn't mean I'm not a Christian...or better yet a man of faith. I don't need to attend church to have a relationship with my higher power.
What shows you that our current President isn't a Christian? His name? After watching him for five years? Does a sitting president need to have an omnipresent relationship with a church in order to be a religious or faithful President?
Wow.
That's quite a fancy noose you've constructed for yourself mr. erfalf.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 20, 2012, 07:26:40 PM
That's quite a fancy noose you've constructed for yourself mr. erfalf.
Youth, no sense of history, and a lack of worldly experience. Probably a product of private religious school.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 20, 2012, 07:26:40 PM
That's quite a fancy noose you've constructed for yourself mr. erfalf.
I gave him an out.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 20, 2012, 02:50:30 PM
No one here telling atheist jokes.
What makes this nation beautiful is it's spectrum of people, their diversity in beliefs and philosophies, and everything that can add to the feast.
Shalom, Namaste, Salam Aleikum, Wai, God Bless, Dude!
Live for something, or live for nothing, it's your individual choice and it should be honored.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Why did the Rationalist cross the road?
To be sure to see both sides...
How does a girl Rationalist have her hair done?
In Big Bangs....
Catholics are against abortions.
Catholics are against homosexuals.
But, I can't think of anyone who has less abortions than homosexuals! (George Carlin)
Ok, that last one wasn't an atheist joke, but I just had to throw it in...
Quote from: Hoss on August 20, 2012, 06:34:16 PM
Seriously? So if I were to come up to you and tell you that I was baptized, then you watched me for five years and decided that I wasn't Christian based on your assessment of my actions, would that make me any more or less a Christian?
You typify many Christians.
Judge not lest ye be judged. That was something my grandparents instilled in me at a young age. Just because I don't go to church or Sunday School every week doesn't mean I'm not a Christian...or better yet a man of faith. I don't need to attend church to have a relationship with my higher power.
What shows you that our current President isn't a Christian? His name? After watching him for five years? Does a sitting president need to have an omnipresent relationship with a church in order to be a religious or faithful President?
Wow.
This is always what happens when Christians are critical of anything, or when someone is loosing an argument to Christians. That exact quote is pulled up because you know that the opposition will cower in fear out of fear of being a hypocrite. But, it's BS. For you to come on here and say not to judge is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Or is it that only I am not to judge.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 20, 2012, 11:20:30 PM
Youth, no sense of history, and a lack of worldly experience. Probably a product of private religious school.
Again, am only I not to judge?
What if I say I am a history major that has toured the world and went to public schools?
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 06:22:50 AM
This is always what happens when Christians are critical of anything, or when someone is loosing an argument to Christians. That exact quote is pulled up because you know that the opposition will cower in fear out of fear of being a hypocrite. But, it's BS. For you to come on here and say not to judge is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Or is it that only I am not to judge.
You must be incredibly dizzy after typing that out. Especially since you didn't answer my question.
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 06:24:38 AM
What if I say I am a history major
You would have my sympathy.
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 06:24:38 AM
Again, am only I not to judge?
What if I say I am a history major that has toured the world and went to public schools?
I would take you at face value until proved otherwise.
You guys care to drop the ad hominems and stick to the topic? It's getting mighty old.
Quote from: Hoss on August 21, 2012, 06:47:54 AM
You must be incredibly dizzy after typing that out. Especially since you didn't answer my question.
• Cancelled 2009 National Day of Prayer, however he seemed to reinstate it after that didn't go over well.
• Didn't fill the religious freedom ambassador positions in the state department for the better part of two years, only after outside pressure did he do this.
• He nominated three abortion supporters to be US ambassadors to the Vatican (seriously?). After pressure from the Vatican, he chose more appropriate ambassadors.
• Seems to want any indication of Christian beliefs not included in any public displays.
• Whether intentionally or unintentional, he thinks our national motto is "E pluribus Unum", when it is "In God we Trust". Unfortunately the contractors at the Visitor Center had the same problem.
• Reversed health care conscience clause established by Bush.
• The "cling to guns and religion" thing, like that's only something knuckly dragging Oklahomans do.
• Not only does he advocate for abortion, he personally advocated for the extermination of babies that survived abortions.
• Seems to protect virtually everyone else from free speech except religious organizations.
• No religious references during Thanksgiving speeches.
• Seems to have a knack for leaving out the "by our creator" phrase when reciting the Declaration.
• He converted to Christianity (according to his autobiographies (2)) sometime around 1987-88 AND sometime in the 1990s.
• Dumped his prior church due to political pressure (I doubt anyone could make me do the same if I was as close to the pastor as he claimed to be).
Why would he do all these things if he were decidedly (and not conveniently) a Christian? He is a politician first, maybe a Christian distant second. I believe that if he felt he needed to be atheist to win the election, it would be done. Funny thing is I care little if the President is or is not a Christian. I do care that he is honest with me. That is what I want the President to be. He can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Morman, I don't care. But what I know about this President, is that everything is fair game when it comes to political gain.
It is funny that the post that spawned this, the part about Obama was actually an afterthought of the main point. The main point being that a couple of Catholics and a Morman are running. At no point in history have we had a field like this. But you zero in on something that was (as I'm sure you know) supposed to be just a funny little line. Regardless of its sincerity, you interpret it as an attack on your guy.
Sorry Conan, I had this whole thing typed out before you posted that. But that's my point, and I'm sticking to it (like guns and religion ;))
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
• Cancelled 2009 National Day of Prayer, however he seemed to reinstate it after that didn't go over well.
• Didn't fill the religious freedom ambassador positions in the state department for the better part of two years, only after outside pressure did he do this.
• He nominated three abortion supporters to be US ambassadors to the Vatican (seriously?). After pressure from the Vatican, he chose more appropriate ambassadors.
• Seems to want any indication of Christian beliefs not included in any public displays.
• Whether intentionally or unintentional, he thinks our national motto is "E pluribus Unum", when it is "In God we Trust". Unfortunately the contractors at the Visitor Center had the same problem.
• Reversed health care conscience clause established by Bush.
• The "cling to guns and religion" thing, like that's only something knuckly dragging Oklahomans do.
• Not only does he advocate for abortion, he personally advocated for the extermination of babies that survived abortions.
• Seems to protect virtually everyone else from free speech except religious organizations.
• No religious references during Thanksgiving speeches.
• Seems to have a knack for leaving out the "by our creator" phrase when reciting the Declaration.
• He converted to Christianity (according to his autobiographies (2)) sometime around 1987-88 AND sometime in the 1990s.
• Dumped his prior church due to political pressure (I doubt anyone could make me do the same if I was as close to the pastor as he claimed to be).
Why would he do all these things if he were decidedly (and not conveniently) a Christian? He is a politician first, maybe a Christian distant second. I believe that if he felt he needed to be atheist to win the election, it would be done. Funny thing is I care little if the President is or is not a Christian. I do care that he is honest with me. That is what I want the President to be. He can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Morman, I don't care. But what I know about this President, is that everything is fair game when it comes to political gain.
It is funny that the post that spawned this, the part about Obama was actually an afterthought of the main point. The main point being that a couple of Catholics and a Morman are running. At no point in history have we had a field like this. But you zero in on something that was (as I'm sure you know) supposed to be just a funny little line. Regardless of its sincerity, you interpret it as an attack on your guy.
Sorry Conan, I had this whole thing typed out before you posted that. But that's my point, and I'm sticking to it (like guns and religion ;))
Note all the 'seems to' in your references. And I'll leave it at that. That makes it personal opinion. We all know what is said about those.
And C, I'd like to for you to point out the ad-hominems in here by me. If you are indeed inferring that I'm using them.
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 06:22:50 AM
This is always what happens when Christians are critical of anything, or when someone is loosing an argument to Christians. That exact quote is pulled up because you know that the opposition will cower in fear out of fear of being a hypocrite. But, it's BS. For you to come on here and say not to judge is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Or is it that only I am not to judge.
Here's whats BS. When Christians decide they are more Christian than other Christians and pre-suppose what happens to all Christians.
I am Christian, since I was 16, and I can't recognize any of the things you're saying as particularly Christian in nature. I am critical of everything yet I don't fear people disagreeing with me and I never feel its because of my faith. My behaviors don't necessarily represent my Christian beliefs.
You sound pretty intelligent about tax matters....
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
• Cancelled 2009 National Day of Prayer, however he seemed to reinstate it after that didn't go over well.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush only held events once each in their terms. No controversy at all. Obama skipped it and you hyper-partisans scream he is Muslim and hates Christians.
Barack Obama has now held an event in three of his fours years as President.
But according to erfalf, we must continue to spread misinformation.
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
Funny thing is I care little if the President is or is not a Christian. I do care that he is honest with me. That is what I want the President to be. He can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Morman, I don't care.
Liar. You are the one who keeps bringing up religion.
Who gives a sh!t if the president lights a candle, says a prayer or blesses a biscuit!
His job is to be the chief executive of the country.
His faith, or lack thereof belongs to him, not you!
Approve or disapprove of him, but do so based on his performance at his job, not what direction he turns when he prays!
The discussion of the candidates religion simply offers another convenient smoke screen to move people away from discussing the MOST important issue. . .
THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 10:35:38 AM
The discussion of the candidates religion simply offers another convenient smoke screen to move people away from discussing the MOST important issue. . .
THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND MORAL TURPITUDE
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 10:35:38 AM
The discussion of the candidates religion simply offers another convenient smoke screen to move people away from discussing the MOST important issue. . .
THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES
Have patience. The party conventions are coming up.
The Ryan budget will be quite the topic in both conventions.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
Liar. You are the one who keeps bringing up religion.
I hold that distinction...proudly. If you think a President's religious ideals have nothing to do with their governing, bs.
Erlaf, I will not take your atheist jokes as a personal affront.
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 06:24:38 AM
Again, am only I not to judge?
What if I say I am a history major that has toured the world and went to public schools?
We would know better from direct past experience.
Well, maybe the public schools part....
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 11:01:42 AM
Have patience. The party conventions are coming up.
The Ryan budget will be quite the topic in both conventions.
I'd like to see that at the DNC, but I doubt we will. Reason being that it will offer too many targets for the other side. For three years the President has proposed his own budget framework and for three years his own party has rejected it. If he chooses to make the convention about budget, republicans are going to celebrate that and the media will have little ammunition to defend him with.
The Ryan budget was a by-partisan creation that passed the house, only to die in the Senate. It was praised by Obama's own Deficit Reduction Committee, who as we know he choose to ignore. It represents one of several budgets offered and passed by the house. Every budget offered has been flatly denied passage by Democrats who understand the cuts necessary, but fear for their careers if they pass them.
Any discussion of the budget or the economy will be dangerous at the DNC. I assume they will stick to social issues, education, and additional spending in green energy initiatives. They need to buy votes, and to do so they need to make people think they are getting something for nothing. College loan forgiveness, mortgage buyout and assistance, and the touting of the healthcare refunds many Americans are now receiving will be a focus.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 12:29:23 PM
The Ryan budget was a by-partisan creation
You mean with Rivlin?
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2012, 12:53:27 PM
You mean with Rivlin?
No, Ron Wyden. Rivlin was part of the initial discussion of the voucher plan but they had a difference on whether the voucher plan would be an option or not. She also wanted the voucher amounts to grow at a faster pace than Medical expense estimates to make them more appealing. Her ideas were still better than the status quo but wouldn't' have the same impact on decreasing the deficit.
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/wydenryan.pdf
Edit: Kinda funny, and worth mentioning, I attempted to get the text of WydenRyan from Wikipedia, under "The Path to Prosperity" the same source I've used to find it before, but it's been scrubbed. So I looked at the edits and apparently there is a war going on with thousands of deletions and additions a day being made to the post. Someone really doesn't want the public to have access to information on Paul Ryan's budget.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 12:29:23 PM
Any discussion of the budget or the economy will be dangerous at the DNC.
You must think that only republicans think about the economy.
You really need to get out more.
The Ryan budget has some very painful cuts in it. Many people will not want those to happen. It is also a clear change for taxes on the richest and the middle class. Many people will not like that either.
The Ryan budget will be used against any republican running for federal office.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 01:35:57 PM
You must think that only republicans think about the economy.
You really need to get out more.
The Ryan budget has some very painful cuts in it. Many people will not want those to happen. It is also a clear change for taxes on the richest and the middle class. Many people will not like that either.
The Ryan budget will be used against any republican running for federal office.
You may be right, but we'll have to wait and see. At this point, no reasonable budget offering will be without "painful cuts."
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 01:25:57 PM
No, Ron Wyden.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-17/paul-ryans-peculiar-definition-of-bipartisanship (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-17/paul-ryans-peculiar-definition-of-bipartisanship)
QuoteAfter Rivlin-Ryan failed, Ryan continued to look for Democrats who would support his plan. Eventually he found Wyden, who has a reputation of teaming up with Republicans on ambitious legislation. In December 2011, they worked together on a blueprint for reforming Medicare. Ryan-Wyden wasn't a bill, but a white paper—a set of principles the two men endorsed.
But what ultimately came out months later in Ryan's next budget didn't look to Wyden like what he'd signed on for. In the 2012 budget, Ryan agreed to keep traditional Medicare as an option. In the white paper, Ryan had agreed to Wyden's demand that if Medicare costs exceeded an agreed-upon cap, the costs would be covered by insurance providers—not beneficiaries. Ryan's budget cut the cap in half—and lost the guarantee. Wyden made his opposition known: He voted against the budget (which also repealed the Affordable Care Act entirely), which he argued shifted costs onto the most vulnerable, and let Ryan know that the new budget was not the same as Ryan-Wyden.
Brendan Buck, a Romney spokesman, says in an e-mail exchange that the differences between his plan with Ryan and Wyden's, were "negligible." Wyden didn't think so: The senator, who typically avoids divisive comments, accused Romney of "talking nonsense" about his work with Ryan.
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2012, 02:24:38 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-17/paul-ryans-peculiar-definition-of-bipartisanship (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-17/paul-ryans-peculiar-definition-of-bipartisanship)
Congratulations, it's an election year and now every Democrat from Obama on down who initially showed admiration for Ryan's work are now figuring out ways to walk back their previous statements and figure out ways to hide their past agreements.
Ryan is an evil evil man with an evil budget that starves old people and kills kills kills!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 02:27:47 PM
Congratulations, it's an election year and now every Democrat from Obama on down who initially showed admiration for Ryan's work are now figuring out ways to walk back their previous statements and figure out ways to hide their past agreements.
Ryan is an evil evil man with an evil budget that starves old people and kills kills kills!
Congratulations yourself. You've chosen an opinion and no matter what is placed in front of you, you'll stick with that opinion, even when proven wrong.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush only held events once each in their terms. No controversy at all. Obama skipped it and you hyper-partisans scream he is Muslim and hates Christians.
Barack Obama has now held an event in three of his fours years as President.
But according to erfalf, we must continue to spread misinformation.
Not only did I not compare him to anyone else, I did not lie. He did not have an event in 2009. Prove me wrong.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 21, 2012, 11:10:36 AM
I hold that distinction...proudly. If you think a President's religious ideals have nothing to do with their governing, bs.
Erlaf, I will not take your atheist jokes as a personal affront.
I'm such a bad joker apparently I did not realize I made an atheist joke. If I did, no offense meant.
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2012, 02:29:31 PM
Congratulations yourself. You've chosen an opinion and no matter what is placed in front of you, you'll stick with that opinion, even when proven wrong.
Yet, in spite of the fact that he has been shown to be bipartisan, many believe Ryan to be such a right wing ideologue. Like Gas said, he has been complemented by many on the left prior to his nomination, even those employed by this administration, including those that worked extremely close with him on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. You know, the one Obama created then ignored.
And Gas, don't you know, only Dems are allowed to change their minds about legislation they themselves create or vote for, (
edit) or had any remote connection to whatsoever.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 01:35:57 PM
You must think that only republicans think about the economy.
You really need to get out more.
The Ryan budget has some very painful cuts in it. Many people will not want those to happen. It is also a clear change for taxes on the richest and the middle class. Many people will not like that either.
The Ryan budget will be used against any republican running for federal office.
Dims would think this way instead of promoting the fact that the financial markets and their indexes are at the highest point since before the collapse that occurred under the GOP leadership in 2008.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 21, 2012, 03:18:11 PM
Dims would think this way instead of promoting the fact that the financial markets and their indexes are at the highest point since before the collapse that occurred under the GOP leadership in 2008.
But how do you in one hand deride big business/wall street and then in the other celebrate big business/wall street?
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 03:15:10 PM
Yet, in spite of the fact that he has been shown to be bipartisan,
Where?
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2012, 03:22:24 PM
Where?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444233104577593020329310652.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-ron-wyden_n_1768495.html
Look the guy wanted to end Medicare and one point all together, but he compromised to get support from the Dems. He hasn't completely got there yet, but he is trying, which is more than I can say about many others.
The thing that Wyden didn't like was that Ryan included a provision to basically end the ACA.
Quote from: erfalf on August 21, 2012, 03:33:53 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444233104577593020329310652.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-ron-wyden_n_1768495.html
Look the guy wanted to end Medicare and one point all together, but he compromised to get support from the Dems. He hasn't completely got there yet, but he is trying, which is more than I can say about many others.
The thing that Wyden didn't like was that Ryan included a provision to basically end the ACA.
So nothing bipartisan there then.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 21, 2012, 03:18:11 PM
Dims would think this way instead of promoting the fact that the financial markets and their indexes are at the highest point since before the collapse that occurred under the GOP leadership in 2008.
Unfortunately clown there is a problem with that. With GDP growth low and no jobs growth, that's simply an indicator of increasing Wall Street wealth. Hardly something that the constituency of the left is interested in celebrating. In fact, this is the egg that birthed the OWS movement.
Without exception, everything that President Obama promised his supporters from an economic standpoint has resulted in failure or worse, the opposite result. Therefore the safe path would be to focus on social issues or blame. Since blame has worn thin over the past 3+ years, I still feel he will focus on anything but the economy.
Other than the bit about economic growth being better now than it was after the 2001 recession, Obama does have a record of nothing but shame to run on regarding the economy. That may be what they call damning with faint praise, but it's better than the Republicans managed. :-*
Other facts that might be interesting include the fact that Ryan's budget plan that was passed by the House does not in fact repeal Obamacare entirely. It keeps the cuts to Medicare payments to providers. Otherwise he'd have another $700 billion to make up over the next ten years. Not that his budget balances in 10 years, anyway. He's counting on growth after 2022 to finally bring the budget into balance in 2040ish.
Also, Gaspar, it was easy to give Ryan accolades for being willing to tackle the tough problems when the news media wasn't actually reporting on what was included in his budget. Now that they are, it's a lot harder. His proposals have always been unserious, though. IIRC, precisely zero of his budget plans actually reduce the deficit inside of 10 years.
Edited to add: Oh, I forgot to mention some other interesting Romney news. He recently mentioned that he would like to keep the overall share of the tax burden for each income quintile the same in perpetuity. Sounds great, right? Sure, unless you can do some simple math. The top quintile has been growing its income much faster than the other four. For their share of the income tax burden to remain the same, their rates must decline relative to the other quintiles. Oops. Apparently Romney is for ever-decreasing tax rates on the top fifth and ever-increasing tax rates on the left. Or he can't do math. Or he misspoke..again.