Paul Ryan!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatbeer

At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

---

The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters.

---

He's hurt by it because thats the angle of the lefts attack. But were not talking about what has been done, we're talking about what is happening now. Poll numbers can not reflect anything but the past, and in my opinion the Democrats are only hurting themselves. His tax records will be very similar to those he's already released, the left will have fun with that and it's to close to the election to allow that. The left asked for his tax records, he released them, and ever since the momentum from that ended the left has been asking for more daily. His dad released several years when he ran for president and if he ended up becoming president I might care. Why doesn't Warren Buffet pay his secretary a fair wage?

Not releasing them at this point will not make one reasonable voter assume he doesn't pay taxes, the lefts spin might sway a few undecideds. I think when we ignore the charitable givings we're left with two choices. Lobby the heck out of Obama to ban charitable givings from lowering taxes, or admit your to partisan for your opinion to mean anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Pig, no one knows what's in you head or heart but you, that's not the point. If one wants to be taken seriously, one should characterize issues and ideas fairly and accurately. The only reason I wrote something on the thread at all (because I'm just here for baseball and find these squabbles ineffective and only yielding resentment towards a poster that I/you might otherwise very much enjoy reading post about baseball. It colors one's view of that poster) is because the distortions and mischaracterizations in your post and others' deserve to be challenged. You say the GOP has left you? Fine. But don't say: you like Huntsman as a GOP candidate, that the GOP campaigns against women's rights ("war on women" garbage) because you think you have a right to make someone else pay for your contraceptives, use the phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy" and "trickle down economics" (a term coined by democrats to deride Reagan's policies in the 80's, when you say were a big republican) -- and expect us to believe you were ever a staunch "moderate" republican. If you don't want the government in you bedroom (and I don't) then don't have government/taxpayers pay for things that go on in your bedroom, okay? But uttering this makes one in a campaign against women? Come on. I've got to believe you are better than this, and by better I don't mean that you should believe something other than you believe, but at least try be fair. You would be the first person I've ever met to have said such things and claim to have been a GOP member.

---

Trans-vaginal ultrasounds. If you don't think that's a declaration of war on women and their rights, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Equal pay laws are being demolished across the country. Whenever and wherever they can, the GOP is creeping in on contraceptive laws. Places like Georgia are trying to pass bills that make abortion after 20 weeks illegal, even if the child is stillborn. You may not think that's a war on women but it sure comes off that way to me.

I also used the term "extend tax cuts for the wealthy", which is 100% true. Bush cut taxes, now we're talking about extending them. The term "job creators" is a re-packaged version of trickle down economics that is being sold to the American public by portions of the GOP (not all, just some). I'm basically calling it out for what it is, that's all. It's an economic theory I think is complete and utter crap.

The thing is that I'm not a GOP member. Haven't been for almost 15 years (again, registered Libertarian). But I voted Republican far more often than I voted Democrat. I tolerated the GOP on social issues when I agreed with their fiscal policy. Then came Bush, a President who spent money like a drunken Democrat in Atlantic City. He also brought an exaggerated view on social policies with him. He was essentially a hybrid Democrat/Republican that was the worst of both worlds to me. Thankfully, he's gone... But in his place rose a crop of even more socially radical Republicans, the Tea Party, with great ideas such as "let's teach creationism in a science class, even though it's not science" and they riled up the GOP base so much that they ran several moderate Republicans (and Democrats) out of Congress. Instead of coming toward the middle on social issues and focusing on the economy, the GOP has drifted to the extremes... I still agree with them on some fiscal issues but those things are so overwhelmed by how much I disagree with the party on social issues that I can no longer vote for most Republicans in good conscience. Now, it's Voter ID laws, which are the most blatant attempt to rig the polls that I've ever seen. Voter fraud isn't a problem in this country and the small amount of fraud that happens isn't going to be fixed by these asinine laws. Most of these laws don't even cover absentee balloting, which is the easiest way to commit voter fraud (still not a problem, though). Absentee voting also happens to be a traditionally Republican voting block... It's just sickening. And the public is buying into it. Democracy is supposed to be an inclusive process god damn it, not something that parties are able to use to their own benefit by twisting laws around. In itself, Voter ID laws are almost enough to prevent me from checking a single (R) on my ballot this November. That's how much it repulses me.

Until the party eschews its crazy, radical side, I don't see how I can vote for a GOP Presidential candidate, even a moderate like Romney (who, in a vacuum, I don't believe would be a bad President, though I really don't like how much he's in bed with the banking industry). He's going to be pressured on all sides to start doing things I really disagree with and if Congress stays under GOP control, it makes it easier for the nutjobs to start railroading insane social bills through Congress and getting them on to Mitt's desk.

Thankfully, I believe most of the country agrees with me. I don't see Romney winning this election and given the current state of the GOP, I think that's a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life.

---

What you continue to do is lump "lazy" with "needy". It's your insistence on this that muddles the issue. People with disabilities, the elderly, children - these are people we can and should help. That we should provide for. The lazy should be given, to use your words, a "chance" not a "pass". You use a lot of language that masks what you're really saying - I'm all for programs that give people a "chance" but what they do now is offer a "pass" - that's the problem. People on the left, much like you have in this thread, immediately resort to the "don't shoot the poor bunny routine" anytime any reform effort is made. You immediately throw out these absurd "people dying in the streets" nonsense to mask a larger point -

The system is rife with fraud. Not because we don't put enough money into it - but because we EXPECT people will continue to fail and need us. And that we're ok giving them a "pass" if it avoids these silly worst-case scenarios you keep bringing up. If we give people a mile's worth of slack to be lazy - it isn't too shocking that they take every damn bit of that mile.

Quote:

---

We should fight for the efficacy of Medicare and Social Security, not weaken the basis of their premise; in my view, as an intellectual, as try-hard, as an earner, we must care for people that cannot (or refuse to) care for themselves and pay for it with our hard won dollars; we must not cheapen care to save ourselves a buck we probably don't need.

---

There cannot be efficacy in programs like Medicaid and financial aid - they were built on liberal ideas. They HAVE to be reformed. Of course businesses will seek to profit from systems like this if we basically stamp the fundamental method of the program as "We'll pay for anything! Just send in the paperwork!"

Health care needs to change to a single payer, but many of the programs Ryan attacks - NEED to change. I work with medicaid every day, I know how much the disabled need it. I also know what a friggin joke it is for what it pays for. It can, and should, be reformed. Just because our intentions are good doesn't bless any strategy we take to fulfill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life.

---

What you continue to do is lump "lazy" with "needy". It's your insistence on this that muddles the issue. People with disabilities, the elderly, children - these are people we can and should help. That we should provide for. The lazy should be given, to use your words, a "chance" not a "pass". You use a lot of language that masks what you're really saying - I'm all for programs that give people a "chance" but what they do now is offer a "pass" - that's the problem. People on the left, much like you have in this thread, immediately resort to the "don't shoot the poor bunny routine" anytime any reform effort is made. You immediately throw out these absurd "people dying in the streets" nonsense to mask a larger point -

The system is rife with fraud. Not because we don't put enough money into it - but because we EXPECT people will continue to fail and need us. And that we're ok giving them a "pass" if it avoids these silly worst-case scenarios you keep bringing up. If we give people a mile's worth of slack to be lazy - it isn't too shocking that they take every damn bit of that mile.

---

Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatbeer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatbeer

At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

---

The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters.

---

He's hurt by it because thats the angle of the lefts attack. But were not talking about what has been done, we're talking about what is happening now. Poll numbers can not reflect anything but the past, and in my opinion the Democrats are only hurting themselves. His tax records will be very similar to those he's already released, the left will have fun with that and it's to close to the election to allow that. The left asked for his tax records, he released them, and ever since the momentum from that ended the left has been asking for more daily. His dad released several years when he ran for president and if he ended up becoming president I might care. Why doesn't Warren Buffet pay his secretary a fair wage?

Not releasing them at this point will not make one reasonable voter assume he doesn't pay taxes, the lefts spin might sway a few undecideds. I think when we ignore the charitable givings we're left with two choices. Lobby the heck out of Obama to ban charitable givings from lowering taxes, or admit your to partisan for your opinion to mean anything.

---

1. Warren Buffet's secretary makes more than a fair wage, that has been well documented.
2. The issue is not if Romney paid taxes but the ethics behind how he filed taxes. There is a murkiness to his dealings. Through all the years of running for office there is all the information on Pelosi and Reid if you go digging. Disclosure is out there.

Can someone explain to me why anyone who makes under $250K should support 'The Ryan Plan?' http://abcnews.go.com/Business/paul-...3#.UCopecXZGrg

Part of the issue in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and the like are the people managing these programs and assisting those who are on them. You force organizations that help those who rely on these programs to pay below-average wages, based on their funding, to someone and continue to put restrictions on who they can hire, requiring more and more specified and extensive education for those below average wages. Many states now require a master's degree to work in mental health, for instance. Those jobs, even in the best case scenario, top out around $50K per year. Not that $50K is anything to snort at, but for that to be the ceiling of a job that requires a master's degree of college costs shows little societal value placed on the work done, and therefore, those in the job probably aren't going to feel bad about helping their clients get whatever they can from the system. Not saying it's right, but it's a cyclical thing. You want the best effort, you pay for that effort. You don't pay for it, you don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Part of the issue in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and the like are the people managing these programs and assisting those who are on them. You force organizations that help those who rely on these programs to pay below-average wages, based on their funding, to someone and continue to put restrictions on who they can hire, requiring more and more specified and extensive education for those below average wages. Many states now require a master's degree to work in mental health, for instance. Those jobs, even in the best case scenario, top out around $50K per year. Not that $50K is anything to snort at, but for that to be the ceiling of a job that requires a master's degree of college costs shows little societal value placed on the work done, and therefore, those in the job probably aren't going to feel bad about helping their clients get whatever they can from the system. Not saying it's right, but it's a cyclical thing. You want the best effort, you pay for that effort. You don't pay for it, you don't get it.

---

Same problem with teachers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...7.html?hp=t1_3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musk21

Can someone explain to me why anyone who makes under $250K should support 'The Ryan Plan?' http://abcnews.go.com/Business/paul-...3#.UCopecXZGrg

---

I would say from reading posts on other places many people view many of the entitlement programs as money for people who do nothing. They are mad about that. They get nothing. While I agree with the sentiment, I do not agree with their solution.
It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations. From what I could gather from various sources, more is spent on corporate welfare than those who could otherwise work. It may even well be true that more has been lost due to people defrauding the government from medicare scams and military waste than is spent on welfare for those who can work. But again, despite the claim made that corporations are people too, it is easier to arouse the base for a dislike of tangible people. Sometime in their lives it seems like everyone has seen or heard of someone paying for their groceries with EBT and getting into a new Cadillac. Arouse hate for the obvious cheater, each and every one of them receiving benefits is one. So the belief, IMO, is that the Ryan plan will fix that. They do not pay attention to the rest. If they believe in trickle down economics claiming the same worked for Reagan and the Bush tax cuts then, IMO, they listen to too many media talking heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Part of the issue in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and the like are the people managing these programs and assisting those who are on them. You force organizations that help those who rely on these programs to pay below-average wages, based on their funding, to someone and continue to put restrictions on who they can hire, requiring more and more specified and extensive education for those below average wages. Many states now require a master's degree to work in mental health, for instance. Those jobs, even in the best case scenario, top out around $50K per year. Not that $50K is anything to snort at, but for that to be the ceiling of a job that requires a master's degree of college costs shows little societal value placed on the work done, and therefore, those in the job probably aren't going to feel bad about helping their clients get whatever they can from the system. Not saying it's right, but it's a cyclical thing. You want the best effort, you pay for that effort. You don't pay for it, you don't get it.

---

Same problem with teachers.

---

True, but in most states, teachers have established unions to work on their behalf. Not entirely all-encompassing, I understand, but still...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".

---

Well, you know that you and I generally see pretty eye-to-eye on these issues. If you ever want to start our own political party, hit me up. But yes, it sounds like something worth trying. To me there are a couple key components of any plan: 1) that we offer job skills and ways of creating earning power 2) That the system does not encourage people to stay on it. Your plan seems to do that - the nitty gritty is where these things always get difficult.

And I'm in the same boat with contraceptives and sex education. One of my biggest fears is the rate of breeding among the uneducated vs. educated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations..

---

Or....you could join the sane opinion and hate both! I don't see why people think this has to be an either/or thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggentleben

True, but in most states, teachers have established unions to work on their behalf. Not entirely all-encompassing, I understand, but still...

---

Sometimes unions hold back the ability for people to be paid for their performance. Teaching is a perfect example of this - not that pay for performance is the way to go either, but we damn sure need to better hold people accountable. A lot of bad teachers collecting the same checks the good ones are.

As for your larger point - it's true that the substandard wages in social services hurt. The problem still stands that much of the funding that goes to these programs is horribly wasted - we overly regulate some ways these entities act but then we horribly ignore regulations on many of the cost controls. Which is really a double-pounding to many of the non-profits or social services organizations. The left-wing "blank check" approach to funding forces regulations, but since the "don't shoot the bunny!" argument prevent funding conversations - we over-regulate conduct instead to "ensure" that we're "getting our money's worth". It's horribly circular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations..

---

Or....you could join the sane opinion and hate both! I don't see why people think this has to be an either/or thing.

---

Far too many people I deal with are binary in their thinking. Many of the posts on this forum sound that way..

Yes you do have a sane opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations..

---

Or....you could join the sane opinion and hate both! I don't see why people think this has to be an either/or thing.

---

Far too many people I deal with are binary in their thinking. Many of the posts on this forum sound that way..

Yes you do have a sane opinion.

---

Amen to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggentleben

True, but in most states, teachers have established unions to work on their behalf. Not entirely all-encompassing, I understand, but still...

---

Sometimes unions hold back the ability for people to be paid for their performance. Teaching is a perfect example of this - not that pay for performance is the way to go either, but we damn sure need to better hold people accountable. A lot of bad teachers collecting the same checks the good ones are.

As for your larger point - it's true that the substandard wages in social services hurt. The problem still stands that much of the funding that goes to these programs is horribly wasted - we overly regulate some ways these entities act but then we horribly ignore regulations on many of the cost controls. Which is really a double-pounding to many of the non-profits or social services organizations. The left-wing "blank check" approach to funding forces regulations, but since the "don't shoot the bunny!" argument prevent funding conversations - we over-regulate conduct instead to "ensure" that we're "getting our money's worth". It's horribly circular.

---

I get the performance/union issue, but it'd be nice to move from one state to another, or even one town to another with consistent idea of what benefits for a job look like. $25K in my area of the world is a passable entry salary, but it'd never suffice in the Twin Cities. Of course, that doesn't state whether health insurance, vacation, etc. are provided in a standard way from one similar job to another. The other issue is that it's not the same on a federal level. What Nebraska's standards are for mental health care are different than South Dakota's or Minnesota's or Iowa's, and the proximity of those states says there are more than a few people who will move from one to the other in their lifetimes that are receiving mental health services. I work for a level of mental health services that exists only in 5 other states in the same level of intensity provided. It's ridiculous how fractured the system is on a national level and why truly helping those receiving services make honest efforts in change toward independent living is so difficult.

Social Security has offered some solid programs, but there's a tremendous fear out there because of what's known as the "cliff" where SSI benefits discontinue alongside income and where a person needs to be to make up for where they were $1 before the benefits discontinued. The amount is right around $1,200 per month of gross pay, nothing amazing, but a decent wage, and there are still some benefits provided at that point (along with medical coverage). Moving to $1,201 makes that salary the only thing they can use. That's just a for instance, and I completely grasp that someone could live decently off of $1200 per month, but it's an example of some of the stuff out there and where the holes in the system really are.

Ben - that just speaks again to the desperate need to reform. Reform doesn't have to mean cuts in dollars, but it may mean substantial changes from what people are currently comfortable with.

It's amazing how much the mainstream media is turning on Obama in the last few days. Probably because they know whats in Romneys tax returns and are sick of the Democrats trying to make that a story.

Watching Fox News again?