Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:There is no fundamental difference Player.

One big difference is that this was just ONE point that Ryan mis-stated.

Night Strike wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Ryan's plan calls for replacing the current program with a program that will provide SOME seniors with vouchers to buy insurance. The biggest problem is there is absolutely no gaurantee that those vouchers will actually buy anything.

Its easy to forget that Medicare was instituted precisely because insurance companies would not provide insurance for older, less healthy Americans.

BigBallinStalin wrote: Which just leaves us where we began: Romney/Ryan want to do more of their deficit reduction by cutting social services while Obama wants to do more of his deficit reduction through raising taxes. Deciding whose plan makes more sense requires making judgments about whether Romney/Ryan will ultimately pay for their tax cuts. But deciding who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion just requires looking at who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion. And at the moment, that’s both Obama and the Republican budget.

This is only HALF of the problem. By cutting social services, Romney is essentially claiming that the middle class and poor are the ones to blame for the rising deficit, for the poor state or our economy. All those protections people have, from OSHA to even poorly enforced environmental regulations are just "onorous burdens", no matter how much harm they prevent. His "solution" is to cut even more from the most wealthy. (he talks of "changing the tax systems.. but note that for Ryan, this includes things like the Mortgage deduction for people buying houses, not fancy lunches with clients.. or a lot of the complicated tax games only those with a LOT of money are able to play).

Obama is almost as beholden to the wealthy, but at least will keep social services. I have less confidence in his ability to cut the deficit, BUT... when people at the bottom have more money in their pockets, it moves the economy forward far faster than putting money into the coffers of those at the top. Also, though a pittance, Obama IS supporting alternative energy -- instead of pretending that plopping down a few more rigs, or creating a huge and dangerous pipeline from Canada will somehow create more oil (instead of just increase its withdrawel, ultimately decreasing the supply even more quickly).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Ryan's plan calls for replacing the current program with a program that will provide SOME seniours with vouchers to buy insurance. The biggest problem is there is absolutely no gaurantee that those vouchers will actually buy anything.

Its easy to forget that Medicare was instituted precisely because insurance companies would not provide insurance for older, less healthy Americans.

It's also easy to forget that these arbitrary ages were chosen when people relatively rarely lived past them. Today, it's almost a guarantee that every person will live a minimum of 10 years (and maybe as long as 30 years) past that age, yet the age has barely been adjusted since the program started. And in the meantime, they're no longer paying in and are taking out way more than they paid in during their working days.

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is only HALF of the problem. By cutting social services, Romney is essentially claiming that the middle class and poor are the ones to blame for the rising deficit, for the poor state or our economy.

Actually, it's the fault of the politicians who promised governmental handouts in order to buy votes but then instituted a system that was designed to go bankrupt unless you kept having more workers than the previous generation. If you want to reform an upside-down budget, you have to address the areas that cover 1/2 to 2/3 of the spending. You can't just ignore them in the name of going after "the rich".

I'd like to buy some votes. PACs to the rescue!


--Andy

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is only HALF of the problem. By cutting social services, Romney is essentially claiming that the middle class and poor are the ones to blame for the rising deficit, for the poor state or our economy.

Actually, it's the fault of the politicians who promised governmental handouts in order to buy votes but then instituted a system that was designed to go bankrupt unless you kept having more workers than the previous generation. If you want to reform an upside-down budget, you have to address the areas that cover 1/2 to 2/3 of the spending. You can't just ignore them in the name of going after "the rich".

That's a nice story as long as you're averting your eyes from the military.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is only HALF of the problem. By cutting social services, Romney is essentially claiming that the middle class and poor are the ones to blame for the rising deficit, for the poor state or our economy.

Actually, it's the fault of the politicians who promised governmental handouts in order to buy votes but then instituted a system that was designed to go bankrupt unless you kept having more workers than the previous generation. If you want to reform an upside-down budget, you have to address the areas that cover 1/2 to 2/3 of the spending. You can't just ignore them in the name of going after "the rich".

That's a nice story as long as you're averting your eyes from the military.

I have always stated that there needs to be cuts made to the military.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Ryan's plan calls for replacing the current program with a program that will provide SOME seniours with vouchers to buy insurance. The biggest problem is there is absolutely no gaurantee that those vouchers will actually buy anything.

Its easy to forget that Medicare was instituted precisely because insurance companies would not provide insurance for older, less healthy Americans.

It's also easy to forget that these arbitrary ages were chosen when people relatively rarely lived past them. Today, it's almost a guarantee that every person will live a minimum of 10 years (and maybe as long as 30 years) past that age, yet the age has barely been adjusted since the program started. And in the meantime, they're no longer paying in and are taking out way more than they paid in during their working days.

Some do still work past it, but your general point is true. The ages probably do need to be adjusted for the longer mortality rate.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is only HALF of the problem. By cutting social services, Romney is essentially claiming that the middle class and poor are the ones to blame for the rising deficit, for the poor state or our economy.

Actually, it's the fault of the politicians who promised governmental handouts in order to buy votes but then instituted a system that was designed to go bankrupt unless you kept having more workers than the previous generation. If you want to reform an upside-down budget, you have to address the areas that cover 1/2 to 2/3 of the spending. You can't just ignore them in the name of going after "the rich".

That's a nice story as long as you're averting your eyes from the military.

I have always stated that there needs to be cuts made to the military.

Yes, you have, I will agree. But most in your party are not interested.

Forget the age adjustment.

Increase NASA's budget.

Terraform Mars.

Send people to go live there.

"Your planet, your problems"

Mars Is a Harsh Mistress?

Hars is a marsh mistress.

-rd

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is only HALF of the problem. By cutting social services, Romney is essentially claiming that the middle class and poor are the ones to blame for the rising deficit, for the poor state or our economy.

Actually, it's the fault of the politicians who promised governmental handouts in order to buy votes

The system worked just fine until Reagan decided that all that money "just sitting there" should be used so he could balance his books.

Night Strike wrote:but then instituted a system that was designed to go bankrupt unless you kept having more workers than the previous generation. If you want to reform an upside-down budget, you have to address the areas that cover 1/2 to 2/3 of the spending. You can't just ignore them in the name of going after "the rich".

LOL.. yeah, just forget about all the protest, the fights, the marches that had to happen before the politicians would just magically listen to real people.

NOPE.. you want us to go back to the days when folks like Rockefeller could just buy police forces.

Yep, those poor deprived rich people. Their coffers keep growing, America goes down the tubes economically (with some restoration due to the stimulus, other reviled Obama policies).. but you still think the answer is to give the wealthy more tax breaks!

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Ryan's plan calls for replacing the current program with a program that will provide SOME seniours with vouchers to buy insurance. The biggest problem is there is absolutely no gaurantee that those vouchers will actually buy anything.

Its easy to forget that Medicare was instituted precisely because insurance companies would not provide insurance for older, less healthy Americans.

It's also easy to forget that these arbitrary ages were chosen when people relatively rarely lived past them. Today, it's almost a guarantee that every person will live a minimum of 10 years (and maybe as long as 30 years) past that age, yet the age has barely been adjusted since the program started. And in the meantime, they're no longer paying in and are taking out way more than they paid in during their working days.

Yeah, gee, those GREEDY seniors.. how dare they expect to be cared for in their old age. Its not like they actually did anything for any of us, is it
The ones we really need to worry about are those poor rich people who are being asked to pay a few percent more in taxes (never mind that they have, as a whole, seen gains unlike anything seen since the turn of the century).

That's right. Don't worry about the 50% of the country not chipping in shit, but getting tons of freebies. worry about the 1% who pay 35% of all the bills....and don't worry about the rich saying "FU you greedy pigs. If you aren't happy with the trillion dollars we pay in, then I'm leaving America, and you won't get another penny from me"

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Ryan's plan calls for replacing the current program with a program that will provide SOME seniours with vouchers to buy insurance. The biggest problem is there is absolutely no gaurantee that those vouchers will actually buy anything.

Its easy to forget that Medicare was instituted precisely because insurance companies would not provide insurance for older, less healthy Americans.

It's also easy to forget that these arbitrary ages were chosen when people relatively rarely lived past them. Today, it's almost a guarantee that every person will live a minimum of 10 years (and maybe as long as 30 years) past that age, yet the age has barely been adjusted since the program started. And in the meantime, they're no longer paying in and are taking out way more than they paid in during their working days.

Some do still work past it, but your general point is true. The ages probably do need to be adjusted for the longer mortality rate.

Adjusted how? Social Security is already being adjusted for age. When it comes to Medicare, insurance companies are just not covering people. Sure, the companies will be happy to take this added payment Ryan proposes, but there is nothing in his plan about making the insurance companies provide any kind of coverage.

Ryan's plan is not a real plan to fix Medicare, its a slight of hand pretending to fix what he plans to destroy.

Phatscotty wrote:That's right. Don't worry about the 50% of the country not chipping in shit, but getting tons of freebies. worry about the 1% who pay 35% of all the bills....and don't worry about the rich saying "FU you greedy pigs. If you aren't happy with the trillion dollars we pay in, then I'm leaving America, and you won't get another penny from me"

Lol- as if you're part of the 1%. You're welcome to crash on my couch in the UK when you leave.

Phatscotty wrote:That's right. Don't worry about the 50% of the country not chipping in shit, but getting tons of freebies.

Sources, data....

here's mine:

45% of Americans owe no income tax, but they DO pay other taxes, ranging from property and payroll taxes (particularly Medicare, social security, etc.).

Also, its not just the poor:

It's true that the vast majority of the 69 million households make less than $50,000 -- with very heavy representation among households making less than $30,000.

But nearly 5 million households in the group make somewhere between $50,000 and more than $1 million. The vast majority of that group -- 4.3 million -- make between $50,000 and $100,000. Another 485,000 make between $100,000 and $500,000. And the remaining 18,000 make $500,000 or more

AND.. why is it that these people make less than 20 thousand? Because they are "slouchers" Sure, a few are. The rest are working at low paying jobs so that the corporations they work for can show profits..

SOO.. if you really want to talk taxes, let's talk about the tax that you seem to think every last employer has a given right to demand of anyone to whom they deign to pay a paycheck. A LOT of those subsidies you rile so much are really subsidies that allow companies to pay workers piss poor and then pass on profits to their shareholders and top management.

ALSO -- that figure includes a fair number of wealthy folks.

... data from the IRS show that the tax bite on the very highest income taxpayers has fallen as their incomes have risen. In 2007, the top 400 individual tax returns had an average adjusted gross income of $345 million, up from $47 million in 1992. But their average tax rate was just 17%, down from 26% in 1992.

[quote="Phatscotty"]That's right. Don't worry about the 50% of the country not chipping in shit, but getting tons of freebies. worry about the 1% who pay 35% of all the bills....and don't worry about the rich saying "FU you greedy pigs. If you aren't happy with the trillion dollars we pay in, then I'm leaving America, and you won't get another penny from me"

To answer the comment above I would say "DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON THE WAY OUT."


http://www.ehow.com/info_8034082_averag ... mpany.html


I don't understand who the greedy pigs are. Is it the cashier at the local store who has to work two jobs just to make enough money to get by? Or is it the CEO of a Fortune company who makes 10.8 million a year or 344 time what the average American makes? How much is to much?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yep, those poor deprived rich people. Their coffers keep growing, America goes down the tubes economically (with some restoration due to the stimulus, other reviled Obama policies).. but you still think the answer is to give the wealthy more tax breaks!

I didn't know fighting against tax hikes was considered giving the wealthy more tax breaks. No wonder why conservatives always "lie", the definitions of words keep changing after they say them!!

PLAYER57832 wrote:When it comes to Medicare, insurance companies are just not covering people.

Because the government doesn't pay out the full costs of the care. If any other insurance stopped paying out what they are charged, the doctors would stop taking that insurance company. That's why they either don't take Medicare patients or charge more to people who have real insurance.

Evil Semp wrote:I don't understand who the greedy pigs are. Is it the cashier at the local store who has to work two jobs just to make enough money to get by? Or is it the CEO of a Fortune company who makes 10.8 million a year or 344 time what the average American makes? How much is to much?

Greed is wanting something you do not have. Greed is even worse when it's wanting to actually take what someone else has and keep it for yourself.

Evil Semp wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:That's right. Don't worry about the 50% of the country not chipping in shit, but getting tons of freebies. worry about the 1% who pay 35% of all the bills....and don't worry about the rich saying "FU you greedy pigs. If you aren't happy with the trillion dollars we pay in, then I'm leaving America, and you won't get another penny from me"

To answer the comment above I would say "DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON THE WAY OUT."


http://www.ehow.com/info_8034082_averag ... mpany.html


I don't understand who the greedy pigs are. Is it the cashier at the local store who has to work two jobs just to make enough money to get by? Or is it the CEO of a Fortune company who makes 10.8 million a year or 344 time what the average American makes? How much is to much?

Yes, I know your sentiments on the issue and I share them. But, on the other hand, they do butter a lot of people bread, not to mention all the people the super-rich employ. and they pay a lot of taxes too. I'm just saying the rich deserve some respect too.

the greedy pigs are the ones who want more of other peoples money, and won't even consider a spending cut or sacrifice anything for themselves.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yep, those poor deprived rich people. Their coffers keep growing, America goes down the tubes economically (with some restoration due to the stimulus, other reviled Obama policies).. but you still think the answer is to give the wealthy more tax breaks!

I didn't know fighting against tax hikes was considered giving the wealthy more tax breaks. No wonder why conservatives always "lie", the definitions of words keep changing after they say them!!

PLAYER57832 wrote:When it comes to Medicare, insurance companies are just not covering people.

Because the government doesn't pay out the full costs of the care. If any other insurance stopped paying out what they are charged, the doctors would stop taking that insurance company. That's why they either don't take Medicare patients or charge more to people who have real insurance.

This seems factually wrong from any source I'm seeing, can you provide a link?