News Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

[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.

 

[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.