News Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

[Pythagorean]

No problem though we should probably use my full username to avoid confusion with the very different Ryan being discussed in this thread

Done.

 

[russ_watters]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Or a less extreme characterization would be to say his political actions are aligned with his party. [shrug]

 

[russ_watters]

About fiscal practices:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Also from the linked link:

Ryan's plan was also useful in part because it prompted President Obama to show some cards of his own. Obama's big deficit speech last week was a meaningful step in the direction of liberalfiscal honesty and represented a breakthrough for him in two big ways. It was the first time the president has seriously confronted our long-term fiscal problem with meaningful specifics. And it was the first time he has put forth a coherent vision of government's role.

So basically, that's a liberal saying that before Ryan put forth his plan, Obama wasn't being fiscally honest.

 

[russ_watters]

He's Catholic and has managed to gain the disaproval of the Catholic bishops.

I feel like you are wanting to imply that's a bad thing... I thought you were saying before that he's heavily religion-driven?

Based on how unpopular Ryan's proposed budgets cuts are, especially Medicare, It appears that Romney might regret his VP pick.

To all, RE the [un]popularity of the Ryan Budget:
The problem with budget talk is this: For several generations, we've been feeding the economy with debt. Giving people free money is very popular, regardless of how bad of an idea it is. To correct that, not only do you need to stop giving people free money, but you need to get younger people to pay back the money given to people who are now retired or dead. So people would much rather just pretend there aren't any problems or hope they die before the check comes due than make any attempt to right the ship. As we've seen in Europe, people prefer to stubbornly fly their economic plane straight into the ground than try to pull up.

That was Obama's plan. Stimulus makes people happy, so let's do more. Taxing the rich makes the 99% happy even if it doesn't do much for the budget, so let's try to do that. But for God's sake, don't talk about SS and Medicare or mention the rapidly growing debt.

Then Ryan comes along and starts making budgets that actually address some of the core problems, which then forces Obama to respond. Ryan put issues on the table people (Obama) would rather not touch with a 10-foot pole. Were they well developed or workable in the form he submitted? Popular? Perhaps not, but I'd much rather have someone in office who would engage the issues than ignore them.

My fear is that telling people they can no longer have free money will always be so unpopular we'll fly our economy into the ground right next to Europe's. My hope is that people [still] embrace the ideals of true fiscal conservativism and give Ryan and Romney a chance to reinstate them.

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

Equally easy to just say let's slash the military's budget. Harder to admit that either way, we just don't have the money anymore to keep giving so much of it away.

 

[Pythagorean]

Or a less extreme characterization would be to say his political actions are aligned with his party.

There's no reason to deny any two stable consenting adults the right to marriage or adoption besides religious conviction, especially based on sex discrimination. This is a fundamentalist position.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue. Romney and Ryan (and their voters) are going to be left behind when Obama is re-elected.

 

[Evo]

I feel like you are wanting to imply that's a bad thing... I thought you were saying before that he's heavily religion-driven?

He is, that's why it's funny, or sad, depending on how you feel about it, that he managed to unintentionally upset his own church. Oooops, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

There's no reason to deny any two stable consenting adults the right to marriage or adoption besides religious conviction, especially based on sex discrimination. This is a fundamentalist position.

I'm not sure that first part is true, but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

Again, your propaganda characterization isn't helpful here. Just because you don't agree with a view doesn't make it "bizarre" unless you are simply unable to comprehend views that differ from your own.

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

See, when Obama was running and it was pointed out that his voting record was the most liberal in the House, people in this forum scoffed that it was meaningless -- he was just following the party mainstream. But once in office, he loaded-up a heavily liberal legislative agenda. But while Ryan's voting record is solidly conservative, he strikes me as mostly a one-trick pony: economics only. It is the only thing he's made a name for himself doing. Which I very much like. I think if Ryan doesn't shill for the Christian Right during the campaign, Democrats will have a tough time making the claim that he's a shill for the Christian Right stick, regardless of his voting record.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue.

Er, if we're past this issue, then that means it won't even come up in the election, which means it couldn't hurt them.

 

[Pythagorean]

but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

That was actually my argument about your characterization of Ryan. Your argument is essentially calling everyone in the mainstream republican party a "fundamentalist", by extension. The only unfalsifiable arguments used to protest homosexuality are fundamentalist ones. Social and scientific arguments have shown repeatedly that gays make just as fit of parents as straight parents (in some domains, they actually are shown to have slightly better outcomes).

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

See, when Obama was running and it was pointed out that his voting record was the most liberal in the House, people in this forum scoffed that it was meaningless -- he was just following the party mainstream. But once in office, he loaded-up a heavily liberal legislative agenda. But while Ryan's voting record is solidly conservative, he strikes me as mostly a one-trick pony: economics only. It is the only thing he's made a name for himself doing. Which I very much like. I think if Ryan doesn't shill for the Christian Right during the campaign, Democrats will have a tough time making the claim that he's a shill for the Christian Right stick, regardless of his voting record.

Saying what you don't like about John and Jane to make Joe look better is a persuasive tactic, not a reasonable argument. It's particularly disturbing that you want to accuse others of propaganda in the same post that you demonstrate this behavior.

Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

I don't know what any of the candidates will do once they're on the other side of the vote. They're all liars, and with increasing frequency near election time.

 

[lisab]

I'm not sure that first part is true, but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

Maybe not everyone, but how many does it take to make a difference? I agree that ~20 years ago, Pythagorean's sentiment would be absurd. But consider a question you asked in that post:

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

The very fact that someone like Palin made it as far as she did is astounding to me, and it indicates that the fundamentalists have penetrated the mainstream Republican ranks far further than I imagined was possible.

While I see the point you're making, and I don't fully disagree with it, I just don't trust the Republican party of 2012. It makes me nervous that so many seem to want to use political means to further a fundamentalist agenda, and that they can get so close to doing it.

 

[mheslep]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)

Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?

the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these [PPACA] bills. ...

 

[mheslep]

Let me add to this list:

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-...

http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/

So he's not much of a fiscal conservative either.

As compared to who? Democratic leadership, Pelosi, Reed, Obama?

 

[russ_watters]

That was actually my argument about your characterization of Ryan. Your argument is essentially calling everyone in the mainstream republican party a "fundamentalist", by extension.

No, that's your argument! What the heck?!

The only unfalsifiable arguments used to protest homosexuality are fundamentalist ones. Social and scientific arguments have shown repeatedly that gays make just as fit of parents as straight parents (in some domains, they actually are shown to have slightly better outcomes).

Well:

I agree that ~20 years ago, Pythagorean's sentiment would be absurd.

This is exactly my point. Near as I can tell, for 20,000 years of human cultural development, it was taken for granted that that the biological mom and dad should be the parents. That view has nothing whatsoever to do with religion*. Now you [Pythagorean] think that in 20 years that view can completely flip to being the absurd one? That's just plain not reasonable. The traditional view doesn't have to be right for it to be reasonable to be skeptical of such a radical change. It is certainly not reasonable to label that view as being strictly a religious fundamentalist view and therefore anyone who holds it as being a religious fundamentalist.

*So why is this issue so connected to religion? Because religious people are the ones who care. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Saying what you don't like about John and Jane to make Joe look better is a persuasive tactic, not a reasonable argument. It's particularly disturbing that you want to accuse others of propaganda in the same post that you demonstrate this behavior.

I don't think you know what propaganda is. I didn't use inflammatory language, you did, and the example I used were not cherry-picked to show contrast where it doesn't exist, they were about the most relevant examples possible (the last Repub VP candidate and the last Democratic Presidential candidate).

I don't know what any of the candidates will do once they're on the other side of the vote. They're all liars, and with increasing frequency near election time.

Well ok, then -- there really isn't much to discuss then is there? If they're all liars, you can simply choose to believe whatever you want, regardless of if has any connection to reality.

 

[mheslep]

...Social and scientific arguments have shown repeatedly that gays make just as fit of parents as straight parents (in some domains, they actually are shown to have slightly better outcomes)...

There is at least one published paper in a respected journal and well informed opinion to the contrary.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, you guys worrying about the fundamentalists of the right are being paranoid. You sound like the folks claiming Obama was going to turn America socialist in 2008. The political left tote out this argument about the Republicans and religion every single time, and it doesn't happen. It didn't happen back when it had a greater chance of happening, when the country was more socially conservative.

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

I don't think the goal is to literally take away money from such people, it's to re-work such programs over a period of time with new features to make them sustainable (as some of them are flat-out not sustainable). Ryan's plan for Medicare for example would be completely optional, as in people can try it, but if they don't like it, switch back to their regular Medicare. It is a myth being perpetuated by the Democrats that the Ryan Medicare plan will require people to switch to it regardless. It is as much a myth as the Republican claim that Obama's own Affordable Care Act cuts $500 billion out of Medicare.

Remarkable to me, and troubling, that Ryan proposes no taxes on capital gains, interest, or dividends:

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan

Ah...I see what Romney sees in the guy .

Depends on how you look at it. America's capital gains tax rates, prior to the Bush tax cuts, were pretty unfavorable (many other countries were lower or had none). When you take into account the individual state capital gains tax rates, it is even higher. Now theoretically, dividend taxes and a capital gains tax are double taxes, because the company paying the dividends already has been taxed or the item appreciating in value already had taxes paid on it to purchase it.

However, in practice, that isn't always the case because many businesses can exploit lots of loopholes to ultimately pay nothing in tax. However, if one is able to lower rates but close up loads of the loopholes, then it can lead to an increase in revenues. Under Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for example, when the top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 70% to 28%, thousands of loopholes were closed. Prior to it, higher-earning people actually could pay less in taxes with the 70% top marginal rate because of all the loopholes.

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)

Is that really fundamentalist though, as you're then requiring taxpayers who don't believe in abortion to also fund it? He didn't vote to ban abortion. And abortion is covered I believe for women who are victims of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Again, you are dealing with human life here. Stem cell research is fine, embryonic stem cell research, I can see some people being uneasy about. Remember, "embryo" refers to a human life from the moment of conception up to nine weeks, or 63 days. A functioning, albeit rudimentary, heart, starts beating in an embryo at 22 days with it's own blood. A lot of people I think, when they think "embryo" are thinking of something that is just a couple of cells or something, but it's a little more complex then that.

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Agree here.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

And Obama and many Democrats hold some bizarre and unreasonable positions as well. Until a politician comes along who is inbetween, all one can do is vote for politicians from both sides of the isle to create a balance.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue. Romney and Ryan (and their voters) are going to be left behind when Obama is re-elected.

While the U.S. is progressing, I don't know if it has progressed past the issue yet. We will know it has progressed when a politician can openly support LGBTQ issues wholeheartedly and openly and still be able to win the popular vote. Obama had to pretend during the election that he was anti-gay marriage. That was because it was seen that a greater number of the population is against gay marriage then for it and it thus would hurt him in the election.

Also, if the U.S. has progressed so much on this issue, why do gay marriage initiatives keep failing in the states they're held in? The only states with legal gay marriage have gotten there via the courts or legislature, but none by popular vote.

 

[Evo]

Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?

The difference here is that Obama believes in women's rights.

He adheres to similarly conservative stances on other major issues.

For example, Ryan opposes abortion, believing life begins at conception. He defines legal marriage as between a man and a woman, and voted against ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that banned openly gay and lesbian service members.

An avid hunter, he hailed a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a sweeping ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. (Who hunts with handguns?)

Paul Ryan: I'm a policy person

The race to define Paul Ryan is on

Ryan stumps, heckled at Iowa fair

Explain it to me: Ryan's Medicare plan On foreign policy, the 42-year-old Ryan expresses the conservative view that America's unique founding principle of God-given equal rights for all -- referred to as American exceptionalism -- makes it the rightful and necessary country to exert influence and leadership in the world.

"A world without U.S. leadership will be a more chaotic place, a place where we have less influence, and a place where our citizens face more dangers and fewer opportunities," he said in last year's speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society.

Foreign policy shaped by budget battles

To no one's surprise, Ryan calls for repeal of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, both on fiscal and social grounds.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/13/politics/ryan-issues/index.html

 

[russ_watters]

The very fact that someone like Palin made it as far as she did is astounding to me, and it indicates that the fundamentalists have penetrated the mainstream Republican ranks far further than I imagined was possible.

That is also exactly my point, except that I think the contrast with the current ticket means that should have been written in the past tense. It is early so we'll have to wait and see, but at face value, the contrast between Palin and Ryan implies to me a significant shift in the power-base (loss of power of the Christian Right) of the Republican party.

Also, since I am a Republican, I'm not quite so cynical: McCain was always considered The Maverick and as a result I think he felt he needed to have a running-mate that appealed to the Christian right. Yeah, that's the definition of pandering, but I still believed that McCain himself was still The Maverick. I saw quite a contrast between McCain and Palin, whereas it looks to me like Romney and Ryan are birds of a feather. They seem to me to be all about economics, with neither carrying any sort of religious torch.

While I see the point you're making, and I don't fully disagree with it, I just don't trust the Republican party of 2012.

No doubt: Obama supporters don't trust the Republican ticket and Republicans don't trust the Obama ticket. I'm not nearly as cynical as Pythagorean to think they are all just liars, but certainly it is so early in the race for both sides that we don't yet really know what the key issues are for them.

 

[Evo]

I don't think the goal is to literally take away money from such people, it's to re-work such programs over a period of time with new features to make them sustainable (as some of them are flat-out not sustainable). Ryan's plan for Medicare for example would be completely optional, as in people can try it, but if they don't like it, switch back to their regular Medicare. It is a myth being perpetuated by the Democrats that the Ryan Medicare plan will require people to switch to it regardless. It is as much a myth as the Republican claim that Obama's own Affordable Care Act cuts $500 billion out of Medicare.

Well, read this about Ryan's "plan".

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, would fundamentally remake federal health and long-term care services for the frail elderly and adults with disabilities. He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.

It is fair to say that no major party candidate for national office in a half-century would do more to change the way seniors and those with disabilities get care than Ryan. Here is some of what he’d do:

Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.

The government subsidy level would grow more slowly than the growth of medical costs. As a result, if health costs don’t slow, seniors would end up paying a much larger share of their health expenses than they do now. Today, the federal government pays about 70 percent of Medicare costs while seniors themselves pay about 30 percent. In one version of Ryan’s plan, seniors would pay 70 percent.

Continued...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-would-slash-federal-senior-services/

And where does the financial burden fall for seniors lucky enough to have children? On the children.

But of course if you are rich, as you would be if you weren't a deadbeat leech on society (IMO), this wouldn't affect you.

 

[rootX]

I would like to see which economists are backing Ryan's plan.

It seems bit too ambitious and controversial among many economists as I read on a liberal website.

 

[russ_watters]

Evo; I'm willing to listen to alternative solutions to the Medicare funding issue -- ignoring it, as Obama did, though, does not impress me.

 

[Evo]

Evo; I'm willing to listen to alternative solutions to the Medicare funding issue -- ignoring it, as Obama did, though, does not impress me.

There has to be a sane approach, the rich need to pay a fair share of the tax burden, not be given more tax loopholes and lower taxes. We discussed this before, the rich have ways to "legally" evade taxes. Let's get rid of those laws. I'm watching tv, so I'm just typing between commercials.

Russ, I admire you, you're a cut above when it comes to political arguments. I'll be glad to read more of your posts.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't mean you had to come up with the idea -- unless Obama is shopping around for a new Veep!

 

[CAC1001]

Well, read this about Ryan's "plan".

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, would fundamentally remake federal health and long-term care services for the frail elderly and adults with disabilities.

Restructuring federal health and long-term care services is something that is necessary to save them. However, doing so doesn't mean just coming up with a new experimental plan and forcing everyone to adopt it, it means making the new changes optional, and seeing how they work out.

He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.

That's his (IMO inflammatory) opinion. And remember, the Vice President does not have absolute power. Republicans do not have a problem with safety net programs. The Democratic party wants the general public to think they do, as they want to scare them. The Democrats are the ones who are allowing programs like Medicare to just go straight over a cliff (same with the federal debt), not proposing any kind of reforms for it. Reform does not mean repeal and it doesn't have to be mandatory at all even (a truly good reform will become popular on its own as word would spread).

It is fair to say that no major party candidate for national office in a half-century would do more to change the way seniors and those with disabilities get care than Ryan.

He says this like it's a bad thing.

Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.

Ryan and Romney have both made it explicit that they will never support any Medicare reform program that makes it where people cannot keep their conventional Medicare should they choose to. From a strict political standpoint even, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this.

And where does the financial burden fall for seniors lucky enough to have children? On the children.

That's only if the program was mandatory and didn't work out well.

But of course if you are rich, as you would be if you weren't a deadbeat leech on society (IMO), this wouldn't affect you.

You sound like you've fallen hook, line, and sinker for how the Democrats want you to perceive the Republican party as opposed to what it is actually proposing.

 

[Evo]

Restructuring federal health and long-term care services is something that is necessary to save them. However, doing so doesn't mean just coming up with a new experimental plan and forcing everyone to adopt it, it means making the new changes optional, and seeing how they work out.



That's his (IMO inflammatory) opinion. And remember, the Vice President does not have absolute power. Republicans do not have a problem with safety net programs. The Democratic party wants the general public to think they do, as they want to scare them. The Democrats are the ones who are allowing programs like Medicare to just go straight over a cliff (same with the federal debt), not proposing any kind of reforms for it. Reform does not mean repeal and it doesn't have to be mandatory at all even (a truly good reform will become popular on its own as word would spread).



He says this like it's a bad thing.



Ryan and Romney have both made it explicit that they will never support any Medicare reform program that makes it where people cannot keep their conventional Medicare should they choose to. From a strict political standpoint even, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this.



That's only if the program was mandatory and didn't work out well.



You sound like you've fallen hook, line, and sinker for how the Democrats want you to perceive the Republican party as opposed to what it is actually proposing.

Do you have a version of his plan that contradicts the information in that article? If you do, please post it.

 

[russ_watters]

Ryan has the lowest initial poll numbers since Quayle:

In a nationwide survey taken Sunday, 39% of registered voters call Republican contender Mitt Romney's selection of Ryan "excellent" or "pretty good" while 45% rate it as "only fair" or "poor." Sixteen percent have no opinion.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-13/ryan-romney-poll/57038326/1

What does this tell us? No one had heard of Palin.

 

[CAC1001]

There has to be a sane approach, the rich need to pay a fair share of the tax burden, not be given more tax loopholes and lower taxes. We discussed this before, the rich have ways to "legally" evade taxes. Let's get rid of those laws. I'm watching tv, so I'm just typing between commercials.

A few things:

1) Who is calling for more loopholes? The goal, if taxes are lowered, is to close a lot of the loopholes as was done under Reagan.

2) Depending on how one looks at it, the rich already do pay their fair share, as they pay the majority of the bill. It is much of the poor and middle-class that pay nothing in federal income taxes, and are subsidized to a degree right now.

IMO, everyone needs to be paying something into the system.

 

[CAC1001]

Do you have a version of his plan that contradicts the information in that article? If you do, please post it.

The current version of his plan contradicts the information in the article. I believe his plan has always contradicted the information claimed in the article regarding seniors not having a choice in the matter as it implies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57491634/romney-ryan-together-on-60-minutes-tonight/

 

[Evo]

We only accept, mainstream, well known sources without a strict bias. Although there are known biases in well known sources, they can't specifically list themselves as "conservative or liberal".

 

[Pythagorean]

Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?

A single stance on one issue is not an ideology. Notice I listed a handful of social stances that fundamentalists take as a package (pro-life and discrimination against homosexuals are the main two).

There is at least one published paper in a respected journal and well informed opinion to the contrary.

That one study (and one is never enough anyway, especially when multiple studies show the opposite) has come under a lot of fire. It's not what I would consider well respected or well informed. Not only is the scientific robustness of the paper called into question by social scientists, but the actual conclusions of such a study would not be exactly as they've been made out. Intentionally ignoring demographics and then utilizing the results of intentionally ignored demographics is the most suspect thing you can do in social sciences:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ost-scientifically-robust-study-in-the-world/

And Obama and many Democrats hold some bizarre and unreasonable positions as well. Until a politician comes along who is inbetween, all one can do is vote for politicians from both sides of the isle to create a balance.

Again, I don't see the point of saying Obama/Dems do it too. It didn't work in Kindergarden either. But you won't get any argument from me that unreasonable positions exist in the democratic party.

In the same vein, just blindly voting for people from both sides could just as easily lead to immovable conflict (there is balance in no progress, I suppose...). In fact, I think polarization in the US mostly only benefits government employees... not so much the citizens.

 

[Evo]

The current version of his plan contradicts the information in the article. I believe his plan has always contradicted the information claimed in the article regarding seniors not having a choice in the matter as it implies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57491634/romney-ryan-together-on-60-minutes-tonight/

This doesn't show his plan, can you link to his plan?

Thanks!

 

[SixNein]

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

Before any policy is considered financial or otherwise, we should stop to ask if its just. The purpose of our government is to serve the people. The largest problem I see in our government today is the complete failure to consider if a policy is just. Politicians rarely even mention the poor class today; instead, they talk only of the rich and middle class.

I like the take by Fareed Zakaria (Who I have a great deal of respect for btw):

In the United States, however, if you are born into poverty, you are highly likely to have malnutrition, childhood sicknesses and a bad education. The dirty little secret about the U.S. welfare state is that it spends very little on the poor — who don’t vote much — lavishing attention instead on the middle class. The result is clear. A student interviewed by Opportunity Nation, a bipartisan group founded to address these issues, put it succinctly, “The ZIP code you’re born in shouldn’t determine your destiny, but too often it does.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ard-mobility/2011/11/09/gIQAegpS6M_story.html

 

[CAC1001]

We only accept, mainstream, well known sources without a strict bias. Although there are known biases in well known sources, they can't specifically list themselves as "conservative or liberal".

Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, that's your argument! What the heck?!

All I said was that homosexual discrimination, forcing God into political ceremony, and pro-life are positions aligned with fundamentalism. They are all based in religious doctrine, not in social stability.

You're the one that said these are standard conservative principles (which I disagree with).

Well: This is exactly my point. Near as I can tell, for 20,000 years of /human cultural development, it was taken for granted that that the biological mom and dad should be the parents. That view has nothing whatsoever to do with religion*.

Now you [Pythagorean] think that in 20 years that view can completely flip to being the absurd one? That's just plain not reasonable. The traditional view doesn't have to be right for it to be reasonable to be skeptical of such a radical change. It is certainly not reasonable to label that view as being strictly a religious fundamentalist view and therefore anyone who holds it as being a religious fundamentalist.

So your argument has nothing to do with the sexuality. According to your argument, straight parents shouldn't even be able to adopt. Do you know how absurd it sounds in the first place, let alone not even hitting the mark of what we're talking about?

Just think about your argument for a little bit... (preferably before you post it next time).

This may help in your next formulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic )

 

[CAC1001]

This doesn't show his plan, can you link to his plan?

Thanks!

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.

 

[Pythagorean]

Part of me suspects that Obama is just giving another industry job security... :/

 

[Evo]

Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.

You claimed the Forbes article was wrong. I asked you to post Ryan's plan that shows that the article was wrong and instead you are just posting opinion pieces.

Please post Ryan's PLAN and point out where the Forbes article was wrong. I don't know what part of my request you don't get. I don't want opinion pieces.

 

[Evo]

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.

What the heck does this have to do with the proposed changes that we are discussing?

Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.

The government subsidy level would grow more slowly than the growth of medical costs. As a result, if health costs don’t slow, seniors would end up paying a much larger share of their health expenses than they do now. Today, the federal government pays about 70 percent of Medicare costs while seniors themselves pay about 30 percent. In one version of Ryan’s plan, seniors would pay 70 percent.

Come on, stick with the topic, follow through on it. I know you can do it. Post Ryan's plan and show me where the above isn't true as you claimed.

 

[russ_watters]

Before any policy is considered financial or otherwise, we should stop to ask if its just. The purpose of our government is to serve the people. The largest problem I see in our government today is the complete failure to consider if a policy is just. Politicians rarely even mention the poor class today; instead, they talk only of the rich and middle class.

Perhaps that's because we've moved past helping the poor and have moved on to helping the middle class? When 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, we're well beyond being able to talk about how tax policy affects the poor.

I like the take by Fareed Zakaria (Who I have a great deal of respect for btw):

-1:

Fareed Zakaria Suspended For Plagiarism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html

I never liked him anyway. Too much of a popular ideologue masquerading as a reporter. Your particular chosen quote contains some clear nonsense: Malnutrition? Virtually nonexistent in the US. I suppose "highly likely" is subjective, but I would have put it over 50% (of the poor). Instead, our malnutrition rate is less than 2.5%, which would be <15% of our poor. Perhaps he misspelled "unlikely"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG

 

[russ_watters]

2) Depending on how one looks at it, the rich already do pay their fair share, as they pay the majority of the bill. It is much of the poor and middle-class that pay nothing in federal income taxes, and are subsidized to a degree right now.

IMO, everyone needs to be paying something into the system.

Everyone of course believes everyone should pay "their fair share". But there is a lot of disagreement about what "fair" is. Me personally, I don't think everyone should pay federal income tax. I think the poor should be exempt. So that leaves around 30% of the population (47% who pay nothing minus ~17% who are poor) who pay nothing but should pay something.

I'm also in favor of eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts -- yes, raising taxes -- in order to increase revenue. But just in case people aren't aware, that's a tax increase for everyone, not just the rich. Bush didn't just reduce taxes for the rich, he reduced them for everyone. Oh, and before taxes are raised, I'd want spending decreased by an equal amount. None of the shenanigans the Dems pulled on Reagan when he agreed made a similar deal, then the spending cuts didn't happen.

 

[CAC1001]

You claimed the Forbes article was wrong. I asked you to post Ryan's plan that shows that the article was wrong and instead you are just posting opinion pieces.

Please post Ryan's PLAN and point out where the Forbes article was wrong. I don't know what part of my request you don't get. I don't want opinion pieces.

Politifact is an opinion piece?? Also, how is the article you posted not an opinion piece?

What the heck does this have to do with the proposed changes that we are discussing?

Come on, stick with the topic, follow through on it. I know you can do it. Post Ryan's plan and show me where the above isn't true as you claimed.

I did post Ryan's plan (from my understanding of it, when people refer to the "Ryan plan" they are referring to the Medicare proposals outlined in the link I provided). Again, see page 52, where it says that for future retirees, they will have the option of choosing a traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan (and for current and soon-to-be recipients, nothing in Medicare changes for them). Page 53 mentions that low-income seniors, if costs grew faster than the limit set, would qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, which would pay for their out-of-pocket expenses. Those seniors that do not qualify for Medicaid but which are still under a certain income threshold would receive fully-funded accounts to offset any out-of-pocket expenses.

 

[russ_watters]

All I said was that homosexual discrimination, forcing God into political ceremony, and pro-life are positions aligned with fundamentalism. They are all based in religious doctrine, not in social stability.

I was talking about gay marriage/parenting only and I pointed out that it in and of itself has nothing to do with religion. It (heterosexual marriage/parenting) is a tradition that has existed essentially forever until recently.

You're the one that said these are standard conservative principles (which I disagree with).

I didn't say "standard conservative principles" -- it isn't important enough or old enough of an issue to be part of traditional conservativism. I merely said it was the mainstream view. And really, it is more than that. The Defense of Marriage act passed by about an 85% - 15% margin in 1996. And as someone pointed out, even in liberal states that held referrendums, gay marriage laws have not done well. You're essentially calling a large majority of the congress and Americans in general "religious fundamentalists" (even if their opinion has nothing to do with religion! ).

So your argument has nothing to do with the sexuality. According to your argument, straight parents shouldn't even be able to adopt. Do you know how absurd it sounds in the first place, let alone not even hitting the mark of what we're talking about?

Just think about your argument for a little bit... (preferably before you post it next time)

Wow. Are you not aware that gay marriage and gay adoption are relatively new concepts in human history? And FYI, my sister was adopted. That fact caused tension in my family. She's done well and certainly better than she would have with her single-mom biological mother, but certainly her situation is less ideal than mine (biological son of my parents). It's the reason I have a closer relationship with them than she does.

 

[mheslep]

Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.

Gleckman is not a Forbes staff writer but a blogger hosted by Forbes.

 

[Evo]

Politifact is an opinion piece?? Also, how is the article you posted not an opinion piece?

You claimed that the Forbes piece was wrong. I am waiting for you to post something that shows it's wrong. I never claimed the article wasn't an opinion piece.

Factcheck, from your link

It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare. And the CBO analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,000 more than he or she would for the year under traditional Medicare. The government subsidies would increase with the rate of inflation, which critics argued was not much when dealing with health costs that, for years, have risen much faster than the general inflation rate. Ryan did say that low-income beneficiaries would get more money from the government to help cover costs, but the details on how much and who would qualify were not yet fleshed out.

 

[JonDE]

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.

Of course. If they changed it for current or near retirement recipients they would lose much of the senior vote, those that are most likely to vote. So let's not fix it now, let's fix it in ten years, by which time it will probably need to be fixed again. Assuming that even if the law passed, that it would stay that way, which is a pretty big assumption.

So, let's not fix it now, let's fix it for the future, except we aren't really fixing it for the future, we just hope that it might last into the future, although there is no guarantee of that.

I believe this is the term, passing the buck, just really really subtle. If you really want to fix something, you have to fix it NOW.

 

[SixNein]

The problem with budget talk is this: For several generations, we've been feeding the economy with debt. Giving people free money is very popular, regardless of how bad of an idea it is. To correct that, not only do you need to stop giving people free money, but you need to get younger people to pay back the money given to people who are now retired or dead. So people would much rather just pretend there aren't any problems or hope they die before the check comes due than make any attempt to right the ship. As we've seen in Europe, people prefer to stubbornly fly their economic plane straight into the ground than try to pull up.

That was Obama's plan. Stimulus makes people happy, so let's do more. Taxing the rich makes the 99% happy even if it doesn't do much for the budget, so let's try to do that. But for God's sake, don't talk about SS and Medicare or mention the rapidly growing debt.

So your argument is essentially that liberals are responsible for our federal debt?

Our debt is primarily caused by the politicization of our tax system (and historical events), and in my opinion, the responsibility for taxes should be handed over to the fed so that its independent of politics. The fed would have actual experts working with the tax system instead of laymen who had a catchy political slogan and favors to perform.

In addition, our debt problem is being quite exaggerated. I would recommend a quick reading of...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html/

On a side note, I do not understand why you keep mentioning Europe. It's a different animal.

 

[Skrew]

Those who believe that gay marraige and gay adoption are supported by most of the american population are wholly mistaken. I suspect the country has reached its peak acceptance of gays and will start moving in the opposite direction. Those who support such policies have a tendency to reproduce less(or not at all).

 

[Evo]

Those who believe that gay marraige and gay adoption are supported by most of the american population are wholly mistaken.

You should check your facts before you post misinformation.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

 

[russ_watters]

So your argument is essentially that liberals are responsible for our federal debt?

I didn't say any such thing.

However:

In addition, our debt problem is being quite exaggerated. I would recommend a quick reading of...

You're arguing against your point by posting a Krugman article!

On a side note, I do not understand why you keep mentioning Europe. It's a different animal.

Increased social spending -> increased debt ->bankrupcy.

We're not there yet, but we're following their lead.

 

[Evo]

Let's try to keep the focus on Paul Ryan, we're all guilty of going off topic here.

 

[SixNein]

Perhaps that's because we've moved past helping the poor and have moved on to helping the middle class? When 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, we're well beyond being able to talk about how tax policy affects the poor.
-1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html

Let me use your logic. Only 5% of the population payed the Federal Alternative Minimum Tax in 2011; therefore, everyone else is just freeloading in America. We need to move beyond our focus on the freeloading middle class and focus instead on those who contribute "the rich."

Sounds silly doesn't it?

I never liked him anyway. Too much of a popular ideologue masquerading as a reporter. Your particular chosen quote contains some clear nonsense: Malnutrition? Virtually nonexistent in the US. I suppose "highly likely" is subjective, but I would have put it over 50% (of the poor). Instead, our malnutrition rate is less than 2.5%, which would be <15% of our poor. Perhaps he misspelled "unlikely"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0214.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

Wow. Are you not aware that gay marriage and gay adoption are relatively new concepts in human history?

That's not necessarily true (sans paperwork); it's only recent in monotheistic WASP culture that we've even considered homosexuality a negative thing (and even then, there were periods of tolerance; the ancient Greeks did not think of sexual orientation as a social identifier as Western societies have done for the last century.). Homosexuality and 'adoption' (sans paperwork) have existed all the way back into our evolutionary history and still exists in many animals. It's quite natural. As society developed, rules and cultural norms developed, and differently in different cultures. You were raised in a society that just happened to have a cultural rule that you mistook for being "how it is".

But besides that, your argument doesn't even approach whether gay couples should adopt or not. You're saying that parents should raise their kids. That's irrelevant (and coincidentally, also a blanket statement that's false. Some people are actually terrible parents, even to their biological parents).

The issue of homosexuals adopting is the same as straights adopting. The kids have already been left by their parents. Now the argument is whether for these kids that were already left by their biological parents would have negative outcomes if homosexuals raised them.

And FYI, my sister was adopted. That fact caused tension in my family. She's done well and certainly better than she would have with her single-mom biological mother, but certainly her situation is less ideal than mine (biological son of my parents). It's the reason I have a closer relationship with them than she does.

An anecdote ('proof by example' the way you're using it is yet another fallacy). You don't know whether she would have been worse off or better off with her biological parents. Furthermore, if the biological parents died, it's unlikely she'd be better off without any parents.

I shall now obey Evo's request.