News Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

[CAC1001]

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.

Regarding Factcheck, if the private plans cost a person more then traditional Medicare, then that person could stay with or switch back to traditional Medicare. Regarding the details, I agree, Ryan needs to spell out the details.

Here were the sections of my original post where I countered the article:

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).

The way he words it, he is making it sound as if Ryan's plan is to completely change Medicare where you either must accept the wholly new changes whether you like it or not. I said that's his opinion because that is not what the plan calls for. He says Ryan would "slash" funding for Medicaid and "likely" do so for most of the other safety net programs. I said that all of that is his opinion and he is wording it in an inflammatory manner. I do not see anywhere in Ryan's plan where he's calling to "slash" Medicaid. He is proposing to fix it (i.e. make sure it can continue doing what it does). Nor do I see him talking about gutting programs like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and so forth. For example, regarding the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program ("food stamps" today), one point he makes is that states receive money for this program based on how many people they enroll on the program, and a problem is that the states have no incentive to make sure such people receiving the program are working or looking for work and that there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse as a result.

Now even if one disagrees with his reform proposals, there's a huge difference between saying that he will just slash this and that as if he's some far-right radical that wants to get rid of all the programs regardless of who gets hurt, versus just saying that his reforms will not work the way he intends. The opposite would be like those who say Obama just wants to spend the country into oblivion versus saying his spending and economic policies are not going to work the way he thinks.

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.

He said Ryan would end the current Medicare system for future retirees. That is not true. He would create an alternative, which people could choose, or they could remain with the ordinary fee-for-service version of Medicare. He would not "replace" the current system (as in you have no choice but to use the new variant).

So I'm not sure how the link I provided doesn't contradict the article.

 

[mheslep]

In this part from Gleckman:

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.

So far as I can see the "abolish most other safety net programs" part is utterly without support. The first "other" program to my mind would be Social Security, which the Ryan plan leaves untouched (unfortunately, as it too is going broke):

The proposal does not involve changes to Social Security.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf

As for the Medicare part:

Medicare
Starting in 2022, the proposal would convert the current Medicare system to a system
of premium support payments and would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare:
...
o The payment for 65-year-olds in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, on average, which is approximately the same dollar amount as projected net federal spending per capita for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare (that is, the program’s outlays minus receipts from the premiums enrollees pay for Part B and Part D, expressed on a per capita basis) under current law in that year. People who become eligible for Medicare in 2023 and subsequent years would receive a payment that was larger than $8,000 by an amount that reflected the increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) and the age of the enrollee. The premium support payments would increase in each year after initial eligibility by an amount that reflected both the increase in the CPI-U and the fact that enrollees in Medicare tend to be less healthy and require more costly health care as they age.

The difference is, as I understand it, that one would go out with the $8K in hand to buy your own healthcare from the same suppliers used by federal employees now, which may or may not be less expensive (net) than that supplied by Medicare currently. The alternative, leave Medicare alone to keep growing at current rates, would be the more likely scheme to actually "end Medicare as we know it", because the spending is unsustainable with the current revenue level or any practical increase in revenue from more taxes.

 

[SixNein]

I didn't say any such thing.

However: You're arguing against your point by posting a Krugman article!
Increased social spending -> increased debt ->bankrupcy.

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

Social spending is a liberal idea is it not?

Krugman is a widely read economist. I'm starting to wonder why we train economists because nobody listens to them.

Europe is a different animal all together, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate on it. They have currency issues there because independent nations share the same coin. So Germany tugs the currency in one direction, and small countries tug it in another. The trick for them is how to restart those small economies despite the higher value currency.

 

[mheslep]

... I do not see anywhere in Ryan's plan where he's calling to "slash" Medicaid. He is proposing to fix it (i.e. make sure it can continue doing what it does). ...

He gives the Medicaid money to the states

Medicaid
The proposal would modify Medicaid as follows:

o Starting in 2013, the federal share of all Medicaid payments would be converted
into block grants to be allocated to the states. The total dollar amount of the block
grants would increase annually with population growth and with growth in the CPI-U.

There have been some waivers granted in the past to allow this to happen previously in at least on state (Rhode Island) with conflicting reports on cost savings.

 

[Evo]

Regarding Factcheck, if the private plans cost a person more then traditional Medicare, then that person could stay with or switch back to traditional Medicare. Regarding the details, I agree, Ryan needs to spell out the details.

I think this is where people are getting confused. People going on medicare in 2023 have the option of private or medicare, but NOT the Medicare we have now. It will be the new voucher-based medicare.

From your Factcheck link

Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have their choice of insurance plans — private and traditional — on a new Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to the plan of their choice.

That's the problem.

 

[SixNein]

Back to Paul Ryan...

Ryan's plan for the new medicare is to slowly kill it.

According to the cbpp

The CBO report also reveals that the vouchers, or "defined contribution amounts," that Ryan would provide to seniors to buy coverage from private insurance companies in lieu of current Medicare coverage would be adjusted each year only by the general inflation rate. For more than 30 years, health care costs per beneficiary in the United States have been rising about two percentage points per year faster than GDP growth per capita. The Rivlin-Ryan plan of last fall would have provided vouchers that rise with GDP per capita plus one percentage point. But because they would be adjusted only for overall inflation, the vouchers under Ryan's new plan would rise about two percentage points per year less than the Rivlin-Ryan vouchers and about three percentage points per year less than the rate at which health care costs have been growing. Over time, the impact on beneficiaries would be huge, as CBO documents.

oh and

Moreover, CBO estimates that the total health care costs attributable to Medicare beneficiaries would be considerably higher under the private insurance plans they would purchase under the Ryan plan than under a continuation of traditional Medicare, because private plans have higher administrative expenses and higher payment rates for providers. Since the Ryan proposal would reduce the federal government's contribution for beneficiaries' health care costs even as it caused total costs to increase, beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending would rise dramatically.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3453

As far as his overall budget... Weisberg says...

His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009. With numbers like that, Ryan is more an anarchist-libertarian than honest conservative.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/04/the_ryan_reaction.html

 

[mheslep]

Can we all agree that as some point in the future it will become impossible to continue Medicare as it exists now, with any tax rate. Ryan's been making this point better than most.

 

[mheslep]

Back to Paul Ryan...

Ryan's plan for the new medicare is to slowly kill it.

According to the CBO ...

No, that's according to the summary from the left wing think tank cbpp.

 

[SixNein]

No, that's according to the summary from the left wing think tank cbpp.

Your right

here is the CBO Report

Total spending would grow in subsequent years with nominal growth in per capita GDP plus 0.5 percentage points per year, and with an adjustment for the health status and number of beneficiaries who entered the program in 2023 or later.

Now compare that to the growth rates of health-care. And not to mention profit from the privatization of medicare.

The implications of that substantial cut in spending relative to the other policy scenarios are unclear, because they would depend on both the specific policies that were implemented to generate that spending amount and the ways in which the nation’s health care and health insurance systems reacted to those policies. Possible consequences include the same kinds of effects noted for the baseline and alternative fiscal scenarios—reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; less investment in new, high-cost technologies; or some combination of those outcomes. In addition, beneficiaries might face higher costs, which could in turn reinforce some of the other effects. At least some of those effects would of necessity be a great deal stronger than under the baseline scenario or alternative fiscal scenario because spending would be so much lower. However, as with the other scenarios, CBO does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects for the specified path of Medicare spending.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf

 

[SixNein]

Can we all agree that as some point in the future it will become impossible to continue Medicare as it exists now, with any tax rate. Ryan's been making this point better than most.

Maybe..
1. There is a great deal of uncertainty projecting so far out into the future.
2. An alternative root is to look at the health-care system itself instead of the insurance of it.

One question I have is how much consideration have you guys given to the effects of cutting medicare. It's more then just a safety net to the elderly. It's also a huge subsidy to the health-care system itself.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

Actually marriage has not remained unchanged, it has significantly changed in purpose throughout history. In some respects use of the same term in an argument is an equivocation fallacy. This link is UK focused but some of it applies to other countries too and illustrates the point.

IMO if one is arguing for the traditional institution of marriage to be consistent one should be pro-forced marriage and anti-divorce. I'm not saying this specifically of you Russ but a lot of people I see who take the position of defending marriage for non-religious purposes don't realize they are defending a very narrow and recent version of marriage.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

Since I didn't mention the AMT it does sound silly to attribute an opinion about it to me, yes.

I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.

Krugman is a widely read economist. I'm starting to wonder why we train economists because nobody listens to them.

Uh huh...you do realize Ryan is an economist, right?

 

[russ_watters]

But besides that, your argument doesn't even approach whether gay couples should adopt or not.

That's because it isn't even relevant so I'm not arguing it.

You're saying that parents should raise their kids.

No, I'm not.

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.

Clearly. And knowing the situation she left vs the one she arrived in, I'm reasonably certain she's better off. But you're not following me at all here, so I'll return to the point using stats:

You are claiming that one year after public opinion flip-flopped on the issue (according to Evo's link):
1. What was the majority opinion, but is now merely held by 45% of the population is now "absurd"...
2. ...and "fundamentalist".

I'm simply saying that you're being unreasonable to call it (Ryan) that. It isn't true or reasonable that everyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist...and I hope for your sake all of your opinions are majority held opinions!

...and what does it say about Obama that he recently flipped on the issue?

 

[SixNein]

Since I didn't mention the AMT it does sound silly to attribute an opinion about it to me, yes.

I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth. Uh huh...you do realize Ryan is an economist, right?

I used your exact logic. The only difference is the name of the tax and who pays it. Poor people pay federal taxes, state taxes, and local taxes. The methods used to get the money is different for rich and poor primarily because the nature of their incomes is different. The argument that conservatives make on the income tax is logically inconsistent.

Paul Ryan isn't approaching the budget from an economic viewpoint; instead, he is approaching it from what looks like a libertarian viewpoint that reflects his tea party base. His plan is to essentially eliminate everything but military. In addition, his comments on monetary policy is also a reflection of his tea party base. He would have the fed raising interest rates right now...!

If he was approaching this from an economic perspective, he wouldn't have been the key figure derailing the Simpson-Bowles plan.

His plan isn't about deficits; instead, its about a libertarian vision of government that strongly reflects his tea party base.

 

[Vanadium 50]

His plan is to essentially eliminate everything but military.

Under the Ryan plan, in 2013 the military is 15.7%. In 2022 it has fallen to 13.2%.

There are reasons not to like Ryan and reasons not to like the Ryan budget. Heck, I don't like the Ryan budget. But if we are going to criticize it, it needs to be criticized based on the truth

 

[Pythagorean]

You are claiming that one year after public opinion flip-flopped on the issue (according to Evo's link):
1. What was the majority opinion, but is now merely held by 45% of the population is now "absurd"...
2. ...and "fundamentalist".

Flip flop is going back and forth on an issue; here the US has steadily moved towards acceptance. They've been moving that way for a long time now. This is a typical pattern that's happened several times with several similar issues. Here you can see the pattern:

http://i.imgur.com/iF4aS.gif

The republican party is the home of fundamentalism. And I didn't call the one issue fundamentalist: I called a batch of issues fundamentalist. They are the leading issues that define fundamentalist positions: anti-homosexual, anti-separatist, pro-life. All positions Ryan votes on.

Fundamentalist isn't a bad word. If you really believe these things, then you should be proud of "conserving the fundamentals".

 

[Oltz]

Pro-Life and voting to not publicly fund it are not the same thing. Anti-Homosexual and voting against gay marriage at a national level are not the same thing.

For instance I personally do not give a crap about gay marriage I do think it should be decided at the state level and that the feds have no business being involved so I would vote against it at a federal level. States issue marriage licensees states grant the power to preform marriages.

We are still a union of states that can and do govern independently that is the entire point of this nation you are free to move to a state if the one you are in becomes a place you do not want to be (see exodus of California) The federal government is supposed to legislate things that affect interstate maters and international matters.

What you do and who you do it with and what you want to be called has no national significance.

Social issues IMO do not belong in national debates and AFAIK gay marriage has been voted down every time it has come up for vote in if I remember correctly 23 states?

Neither you nor I know why Ryan voted the way he did. I would vote for gay marriage if I were in a state legislature but against it as a congressman does that make me a fundamentalist?

I would vote for birth control coverage and against mandatory abortion coverage does that make me pro life?

We need to stop spending 1.5T more a year then we bring in the reason this is a big deal now is because in another few years greater than 50% of the population will have a Net negative tax burden and it will be impossible to reverse the momentum until it hits a wall.

""The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

- Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes I agree. However, Ryan didn't just vote against gay marriage at the national level and he didn't just vote against publicly funding abortion. He has a whole voting trend. I included a link that gives his full record on the issues.

here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

and some articles that highlight his stance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/paul-ryans-solid-antiabortion-credentials/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/paul-ryan-gay-rights_b_1768962.html

 

[Oltz]

Yes I agree. However, Ryan didn't just vote against gay marriage at the national level and he didn't just vote against publicly funding abortion. He has a whole voting trend. I included a link that gives his full record on the issues.

here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

and some articles that highlight his stance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/paul-ryans-solid-antiabortion-credentials/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/paul-ryan-gay-rights_b_1768962.html

I agree with all of his abortion votes and disagree with several of his "civil rights" votes that does not change the fact that social issues do not belong in congress at all for them to even be voting on. I do not support constitutionally defining or banning marriage of any kind.

What do you think of his stances on policy that actually affect all Americans and not a particular group i.e. the things that congress is supposed to do Budget/taxes foreign affairs and interstate regulation?

For instance I do not like his support of bailouts but I do like a consumption tax on business instead of a profit tax this eliminates many ways for companies to avoid paying taxes.

If it was up to me no industry would be subsidized and bankruptcy is a natural part of the business cycle in many industries.

So getting past his social issues votes where are you actually on Ryan?

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, firstly, I think those voting trends of his imply and underlying social control. I don't belong to either of the groups, but the fact that Ryan thinks feds should regulate social behavior like that is scary to me, and threatening to all Americans. It's about precedence, not about the particular issues.

I don't think I'm well informed enough about economic structure to make judgments about it, really. I'm disappointed by the bailouts too (as I was with Obama) but I assume the "too big to fail" philosophy is true. The financial sector cleverly embedded themselves into policy making and made it so that destruction of their profits would be harmful to the nation. I'm not excusing their actions, but it may be viewed as suicidal to not bail them out. The financial sector has always had Washington by the balls, regardless of party affiliation.

I do read, and I see criticisms about Ryan's economic plans, and I'm sure we could present all the arguments from both sides and go through the whole song and dance here, but it wouldn't change anything: logical arguments can have false premises and invalid arguments can be made without me noticing (given my ignorance of economics).

So my vote can only judge on social issues. How that relates to economy is the question of who gets taxed and how liberal federal spending on social programs is (so social and economic are, of course, tied together in the end).

Trickle-down effects has not appeared to work and deregulation has obviously caused many of the problems with financial sectors that we face nowadays. But one can cause the same amount of damage with regulation if they make clever and complicated policies, so ideology isn't really a way to solve things.

Have you ever heard of "Century of the Self" It's an excellent documentary about the political and marketing changes that came following Sigmund Freud's psychological analysis (in fact, his children and grand children become heavily involved in the application of his findings to industry and politics). The problem being that people always vote on confirmation bias, so democracy sates the masses emotionally, but allows status quo to continue as it always has.

If you were to hold a gun to my head and make me voice an opinion, it would be this:

If Ryan wants to sell us another trickle-down package and keep trying to deregulate the financial sector that brought us where we are, then I don't think that's healthy for the US as a whole.

 

[SixNein]

Under the Ryan plan, in 2013 the military is 15.7%. In 2022 it has fallen to 13.2%.

There are reasons not to like Ryan and reasons not to like the Ryan budget. Heck, I don't like the Ryan budget. But if we are going to criticize it, it needs to be criticized based on the truth

Please source the truth for me.

From the Cato Institute...
http://wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net/800873/blog/wp-content/uploads/budgetchart.png

And in his "Path to Prosperity", he talks a great deal about how the military is his priority...
http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

And as the CBO noted...

Other mandatory spending and defense and nondefense discretionary spending would decline sharply as a share of GDP—from 12½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 5¾ percent in 2030 and 3¾ percent in 2050—compared with about 8 percent of GDP in 2050 under CBO’s two scenarios.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf

Mind you that includes everything from veteran's benefits, foreign aid, and even roads and highways.

Maybe the cato is too liberal...

The plan also waived the current-law Budget Control Act sequester and in its stead increased defense spending by roughly $700 billion over ten years, relative to current law, while reducing annually appropriated non-defense spending by roughly $800 billion.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dean-clancy/ryans-roadmap-budget-resources-for-activists-repor

 

[AlephZero]

For instance I personally do not give a crap about gay marriage I do think it should be decided at the state level and that the feds have no business being involved so I would vote against it at a federal level. States issue marriage licensees states grant the power to preform marriages.

There seems to be a fundamental problem with that. Suppose state A grants gay marriages but state B does not. If a couple get married in state A and then move to live in state B, are they still married? If not, what are the consequences (e.g. financial arrangements, the legal status of dependents etc?). If they are still effectively married, what exactly is state B not recognizing?

It makes sense to me that the states should have autonomy over things relating to the geography of that particular state, but that doesn't include personal relationships IMO.

 

[Evo]

Interesting article on Paul Ryan's stance on restriciting women's reproductive rights .

Paul Ryan's Extreme Anti-Choice Views

Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

Paul Ryan - At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.

Ryan may not be able to bring himself to acknowledge women at all, but as Scott Lemieux at the American Prospect notes, Ryan does believe that fertilized eggs deserve 14th Amendment protections, even though the amendment specifically notes that one must be "born" to be a person. However, Ryan has voted directly against legislation—the Lilly Ledbetter Act—that was crafted to ensure those 14th Amendment rights for women. Taking his statements and voting record as a whole, it's hard not to conclude that Paul Ryan quite literally believes that fertilized eggs deserve more rights than women.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...zed_eggs_deserve_more_rights_than_women_.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

Please source the truth for me.

Your own Path to Prosperity Link.

2013: Outlays $3.53T (P.88), Defense $556B (page 96, but matches your slide)
2022: Outlays $4.89T (P.88), Defense $644B.

 

[Oltz]

There seems to be a fundamental problem with that. Suppose state A grants gay marriages but state B does not. If a couple get married in state A and then move to live in state B, are they still married? If not, what are the consequences (e.g. financial arrangements, the legal status of dependents etc?). If they are still effectively married, what exactly is state B not recognizing?

It makes sense to me that the states should have autonomy over things relating to the geography of that particular state, but that doesn't include personal relationships IMO.

Each state would have to decide if they had reciprocity with each other state just like with teaching certificates or any other state license and a couple would need to consider that before moving. We had to consider what states my wife's teaching certification was good in before deciding to accept a transfer and promotion for me I imagine it would be similar for no traditional married couples. (several states would have actually required her as a music teacher to go back and take 2 additional algebra classes before she could teach)

This still IMO is off topic as the VP does not set national rules regarding recognition of marriage.

Thanks for the answer Pythagorean.

 

[Oltz]

Take a look at pages 60 and 61 from the "path to prosperity" link

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

Close loopholes high rates and many tax breaks favor those with money to exploit them a lower rate system with no breaks can increase revenue.

As has been mentioned in many conversations on this blog the era of incredibly high top bracket tax rates also had even more loopholes and as a function of GDP generated the same amount of revenue for the government to work with.

This is not "trickle" down its streamlining its not about breaks for the rich the Ryan plan literally removes those loopholes and favorable rules for those with accountants to use them. While nearly everyone sees a reduced rate.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

We are still a union of states that can and do govern independently that is the entire point of this nation you are free to move to a state if the one you are in becomes a place you do not want to be (see exodus of California) The federal government is supposed to legislate things that affect interstate maters and international matters.

Where do you stand on civil rights? As they aren't a federal government issue by your proposal here.

 

[Oltz]

Where do you stand on civil rights? As they aren't a federal government issue by your proposal here.

To me civil rights like all other rights are pretty well covered in the Bill of Rights but I see all "men" as born (created) equal...

The civil rights movement was more then a social issue and I think we can all see that voting rights for minorities and the opposite sex are things that really should have been assumed from the beginning.

By the way I would like to see the federal government recognize civil unions for joint filling federal taxes. Any insurance company would have to respect the rules of the state they operate in until we allow them to compete across state lines then they would need to obey some federally recognized legal union.

Again I am fine with gay marriage.

IMO I think a good percent of the people who have a problem with it actually just do not think it should be called marriage to them it is like calling a spoon a fork. Forks have tines spoons have no tines. Marriage has opposite sexes. IMO

Bad analogy I know but the acceptance of civil unions is much larger then the acceptance of "marriage" and IMO the reason is the context of the terms.

If gay rights is about fair treatment in tax and insurance law then civil unions should be acceptable.

From this link http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

"Do you think gay and lesbian couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?"


.
Should Should not Unsure
% % %
2/4-8/10 66 31 3

Here are some quotes for support from the corresponding candidates:

Obama
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Aug 2007

My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

Oct 2007
My bold

One of Obama�s pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: �I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.� However, Obama also declared, �Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.� At the same time, Obama has strongly supported civil unions, arguing that it is a way to protect equal rights without taking the politically risky approach of gay marriage.

Romney

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Civil_Rights.htm

Sep 2002

All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.

 

[Evo]

To me civil rights like all other rights are pretty well covered in the Bill of Rights but I see all "men" as born (created) equal...

The civil rights movement was more then a social issue and I think we can all see that voting rights for minorities and the opposite sex are things that really should have been assumed from the beginning.

By the way I would like to see the federal government recognize civil unions for joint filling federal taxes. Any insurance company would have to respect the rules of the state they operate in until we allow them to compete across state lines then they would need to obey some federally recognized legal union.

Again I am fine with gay marriage.

IMO I think a good percent of the people who have a problem with it actually just do not think it should be called marriage to them it is like calling a spoon a fork. Forks have tines spoons have no tines. Marriage has opposite sexes. IMO

Bad analogy I know but the acceptance of civil unions is much larger then the acceptance of "marriage" and IMO the reason is the context of the terms.

If gay rights is about fair treatment in tax and insurance law then civil unions should be acceptable.

From this link http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

"Do you think gay and lesbian couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?"


.
Should Should not Unsure
% % %
2/4-8/10 66 31 3

Here are some quotes for support from the corresponding candidates:

Obama
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Aug 2007


Oct 2007
My bold


Romney

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Civil_Rights.htm

Sep 2002

Here is the most up to date information, please make sure to do a search to make sure what you post is accurate. Romney is against gay marriageg/civil unions. Obama is for. I don't know what kind of point you were trying to make with a 2 year old poll on civil unions and then ancient quotes.

(CBS News) FORT LUPTON, Colo. - Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Wednesday said he unequivocally opposes "marriage between people of the same gender," drawing a contrast to President Obama's "evolving" position on the issue.

Later, in the afternoon, Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News that he now supports same-sex marriage.

Romney was asked Wednesday morning about the failure of a ballot measure that would have allowed same-sex civil unions in Colorado. In an interview with Denver-based KDVR-TV, he said, "I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," Romney said. "My view is the domestic-partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57431100-503544/romney-affirms-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/

 

[Oltz]

The point I was trying to make is that the "against it just for the context of the word marriage" argument exists and that deciding these things at state levels is not a knew concept. regardless of both of them flip flopping they both had the same stance at one point or another that gay marriage is not a federal issue and that the rights of a union should be recognized for legal and tax benefits.

When we are talking about votes Ryan cast in 1999 quotes from 2007 seem recent. The poll was the first result for my Google search about support for union's being higher then "marriage" 66% support is significant IMO.

 

[Evo]

When we are talking about votes Ryan cast in 1999 quotes from 2007 seem recent. The poll was the first result for my Google search about support for union's being higher then "marriage" 66% support is significant IMO.

It depends, if how Ryan voted in 1999 is still what he believes, then that is still relevant. We all need to be careful and be sure we double check old sources to make sure they are still relevant.

 

[mheslep]

... Romney is against gay marriageg/civil unions.

As Romney says in the quote he supports basic legal and financial rights like hospital visitation. As I understand it, in most cases civil unions grant exactly these benefits but do not go beyond, though some states are now blurring the lines between civil unions and marriage.

Obama is for.

As of May this year.

 

[Evo]

As Romney says in the quote he supports basic legal and financial rights like hospital visitation.

Which makes his opposition even more ridiculous, as it's about his religious beliefs, IMO.

As of May this year.

Yes, that's what my link said, it's dated May 9th.

 

[Pythagorean]

As of May this year.

I suppose you should know the history of the Gallup polls to understand why Obama's choice to wait for populous is justified.

There were basically two prevailing philosophies in the early 20th century: that people were basically rational and that people were basically irrational. Around this time, Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays had brought ideas from Freud's work to America. He had initially been using the word "Propaganda" but the term became unpopular, so he changed the word to "public relations". His first acts were actually for the tobacco companies. He also got common man into stock trading (probably prematurely). He worked for Lehman Bros at one point... but he eventually moved on to politics (under Calvin Coolidge) to engineer the "pancake breakfast". Freud and Bernays were both of the opinion that people were basically irrational and needed to be controlled.

Then the market crash came. This was a disturbing event and Bernays wasn't able to control it, despite all his PR work. He tried to reduce panic, but to no avail. In response to the crash, Hitler turned to socialism. He agreed with Bernays that people were basically irrational. He believed business needed to be controlled by the state.

In the US, the response we were split: Roosevelt started the New Deal... he believed that the market shouldn't be completely free, but he believed that people were basically rational, so he had Gallup develop the polls so that Americans could participate in government action.

Of course, big business didn't like this; they had Bernays though. They had a whole new way of making capitalism work with democracy utilizing Freud's discoveries (in fact, you wouldn't know about Freud except for that Bernays made his ideas popular, using his PR stunts to import and popularize Freud's book). Bernays and big business (including Lehman Bros, GMC, Chevrolet, and tobacco companies) would wage a PR war against FDR.

But that's a whole 'nother discussion. The point is that the polls aren't something that you, as a politician, just look at and say "that's nice". If you value the whole meaning of democracy, you actually try to integrate the public's opinion into your policy-making. That's the point of the Gallup polls. That's was FDR's vision: that people were basically rational and could take part in politics by sharing their opinion with politicians.

If you've been paying attention to the polls on gay rights, American voters have steadily moved towards accepting and even fighting for them. We've just recently crossed the 50% mark and there's no reason to believe that we will go back. This is the trend of civil rights, from slavery to women's suffrage, to black segregation. We never go backwards. If you watch the polls over time, it's really quite clear.

So Obama not only made the right call for a win in 2012, he made a call that respects the political authority of the public.

 

[SixNein]

To me civil rights like all other rights are pretty well covered in the Bill of Rights but I see all "men" as born (created) equal...

Again I am fine with gay marriage.

Marriage has opposite sexes. IMO

Don't get too tied up in your contradictions.

Marriage is another example of religious dogma. There are zillions of religions and all of them have some kind of marriage ritual. Who is to deny Gay people their rights to religion? And in a government setting, marriage is defined without the religious aspect. So just calling their union something different is discrimination.

In fact, Gays should just invent a religion. It would nip this whole movement against them in the bud.

 

[Oltz]

Don't get too tied up in your contradictions.

Marriage is another example of religious dogma. There are zillions of religions and all of them have some kind of marriage ritual. Who is to deny Gay people their rights to religion? And in a government setting, marriage is defined without the religious aspect. So just calling their union something different is discrimination.

In fact, Gays should just invent a religion. It would nip this whole movement against them in the bud.

In an attempt to be clear I put IMO at the start and end of the section not realizing it made it look like a contradiction. The " marriage has opposite sexes" was completing the analogy that is well not very good.

As in that section is my opinion about how some people think...Establishing a religion is not a bad idea tho

 

[SixNein]

In an attempt to be clear I put IMO at the start and end of the section not realizing it made it look like a contradiction. The " marriage has opposite sexes" was completing the analogy that is well not very good.

As in that section is my opinion about how some people think...Establishing a religion is not a bad idea tho

The real heart of the matter is that they are also denied religious freedom. Maybe some gays are Christians but have a different interpretation. Maybe some belong to a different religion. Either way, it's clear that they have no right to religion.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

It's not true that Obama was ignoring the situation with Medicare and SS funding. A more accurate representation would be that he recognized the importance but couldn't successfully sell his plan to Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ecurity-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_print.html

Ryan is among a small group of Republicans that I don't particularly dislike. But I think his choice will prove to be risky in Florida, where I expect the Dems will use the Mediscare tactic effectively. Romney can not afford to lose Florida. If he does, it's virtually curtains for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[mheslep]

It's not true that Obama was ignoring the situation with Medicare and SS funding. A more accurate representation would be that he recognized the importance but couldn't successfully sell his plan to Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ecurity-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_print.html

Gokul, to the extent that "ignored" means Obama submitted no public plan on Medicare or Social Security reform Russ is correct. If you attempt a search for any publicly released plan, written or oral, directly from the White House it will end in frustration. Yes one can find any number of third hand, *unsourced* accounts such as that WaPo story that say Obama was going to make a deal to cut entitlements, etc, but so what? The spectacle of the unnamed connected making leaks to the press about policy that the WH would not back up makes the whole thing just that much more phony to my mind.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, to the extent that "ignored" means Obama submitted no public plan on Medicare or Social Security reform Russ is correct. If you attempt a search for any publicly released plan, written or oral, directly from the White House it will end in frustration. Yes one can find any number of third hand, *unsourced* accounts such as that WaPo story that say Obama was going to make a deal to cut entitlements, etc, but so what? The spectacle of the unnamed connected making leaks to the press about policy that the WH would not back up makes the whole thing just that much more phony to my mind.

How about if I show you a speech where Obama says "if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it"? Would you consider that as evidence that Obama wasn't completely ignoring the problem?Here's more specific details from more unnamed sources (with subsequent comment from real people) that you should feel free to consider phony: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...l-goes-over-with-dems-like-a-lead-balloon.php

House Democrats, it turns out, aren’t big on President Barack Obama offering to work with Republicans to raise the Medicare eligibility age up a couple years as part of a larger debt-reduction package.

Sam Stein reported that five sources said Obama offered an increase in the Medicare eligibility age — from 65 to 67 — in exchange for Republicans moving on increasing tax revenues.

 

[JonDE]

In an attempt to be clear I put IMO at the start and end of the section not realizing it made it look like a contradiction. The " marriage has opposite sexes" was completing the analogy that is well not very good.

As in that section is my opinion about how some people think...Establishing a religion is not a bad idea tho

Actually they kind of already do have one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Faeries

The religious excuse for not allowing gay marriage is a very flawed one IMO. There is no law against straight atheists from being married. Has every church, cathedral, mosque, synagogue come out and said they would not marry gays? The answer is no. Lots of information here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessi...hristian_churches#Episcopal_Church_of_the_USA
Then there is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ions_on_homosexuality#United_Church_of_Christ

In July 2005, the 25th General Synod [59] encouraged congregations to affirm "equal marriage rights for all", and to consider "wedding policies that do not discriminate based on the gender of the couple." The resolution also encouraged congregations to support legislation permitting civil same-sex marriage rights.

So what you see is DOMA, is not protecting churches, but rather, it is setting rules by which they must follow.

 

[Pythagorean]

In fact, in Alaska, I can have my atheist physics professor marry me and my girlfriend (which is the plan). Anybody can act as the marriage commissioner in Alaska, even nonresidents and non-citizens.

 

[mheslep]

How about if I show you a speech where Obama says "if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it"? Would you consider that as evidence that Obama wasn't completely ignoring the problem?


Here's more specific details from more unnamed sources (with subsequent comment from real people) that you should feel free to consider phony: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...l-goes-over-with-dems-like-a-lead-balloon.php

Of course the President is aware of the problem. He is ignoring his responsibility to actually do *anything* about it.

 

[SixNein]

Of course the President is aware of the problem. He is ignoring his responsibility to actually do *anything* about it.

Medicare is the 3rd rail and all the politicians know it.

WASHINGTON — GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's new promise to restore the Medicare cuts made by President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law could backfire if he's elected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/mitt-romney-medicare-cuts_n_1788517.html

 

[ThinkToday]

In fact, in Alaska, I can have my atheist physics professor marry me and my girlfriend (which is the plan). Anybody can act as the marriage commissioner in Alaska, even nonresidents and non-citizens.

http://courts.alaska.gov/comm.htm

Kind of interesting approach. I did notice a couple of things.

"6.If the marriage is not performed on the date stated in the order, a new marriage commissioner appointment order must be obtained." That seems like a bit of a hassle, if the planned date doesn't work out.

"The presiding judge in each judicial district may, if the public interest requires, appoint one or more suitable persons as marriage commissioners." Sounds like it's not automatic. i.e. "if the public interest requires" sure sounds like the judge can opt out if he/she can do it.

In any event, it looks like a great idea for those that don't want a church wedding or a wedding at the courthouse. Good luck!

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah I've never seen that practiced. It's been hassle free for all of my friends, so far, to be married by one of our other friends.

 

[SixNein]

Medicare is the 3rd rail and all the politicians know it.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/mitt-romney-medicare-cuts_n_1788517.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ryan-explains-why-medicare-cuts-were-house-budget-172943914.html

haha now Paul Ryan is distancing himself from those cuts to Medicare.

After all, he needs more then the tea party now.

 

[ApplePion]

I'm going to guess that it is a guy named Paul Ryan.

OK, OK, I cheated.

 

[BobG]

Paul Ryan seems like too good a candidate to waste as a VP.

I wonder if he beats the Republican VP curse. Of the 11 politicians that have been the Republican Vice President or Vice President nominee from 1960 onward, only two have ever won another election. Any other election, period!

In contrast, of the 11 politicians that have been a Democratic Vice President or Vice President nominee from 1960 onward, only three have never won at least some other election. Even Eagleton, a two week VP candidate, went on to a successful political career. Then again, the shocking end to Ferraro's and Edward's political careers would make one think they were the ones with the curse!

1960 Republican VP nominee: Henry Cabot Lodge. Actually, he just never cared to run for another political office. No real curse there.

1964: Miller (I don't remember his first name). Immediately faded into obscurity.

1968, 1972: Spiro Agnew. A man of convictions, he never ran for office again. Unfortunately his convictions were criminal; not ideological.

1973: Gerald Ford. At least he won a nomination primary, but never won another election.

1974: Nelson Rockefeller. Didn't even get to run for VP again. Later tried unsuccessfully for a Presidential nomination, but never won any election again.

1976: Bob Dole. He not only beat the curse, but later was the Republican Presidential nominee - 20 years later!

1980, 1984: George HW Bush. Definitely beat the curse. The curse is dead!

1988,1992: Dan Quayle. The curse is back? Or just a really weak VP choice?

1996: Jack Kemp. The curse is definitely back. Kemp should have been a future GOP nominee.

2000, 2004: Dick Cheney. Given his health problems, he wouldn't have run for future office curse or no curse.

2008: Sarah Palin. The curse is replaced by comedy?

 

[Vanadium 50]

William Miller. He eventually appeared in a "Do you know me?" commercial for American Express. And Agnew wasn't convicted - he pled no contest. The media explained this unusual plea as "I didn't do it and promise not to do it again."