View Full Version : Thoughts on Ryan as VP?
Yossarian
8-11-12, 10:04am
Whose votes does this swing (either way)?
This may move me from a likely Romney voter to actually providing some support since I view Ryan as one of the few politicians who has actually done anything to try and come up with ways to fix the budget.
It will be interesting to see how they repackage him - draconian budgets and dumping Medicare for vouchers are probably not the best platforms for an election year.
I don't know why anyone would think a platform of destroying Medicare was a boffo selling point for a veep, but by Republican standards, he's a good choice.
SteveinMN
8-11-12, 11:01am
Ryan is a great sell to the "I can take care of myself; you should, too" crowd. Destroying Medicare and slashing budgets matters little if you're the type of person who believes you'll never get old and sick, are willing to work at two or three jobs to make a living wage, are not a minority where you live, and don't know anyone among your family or friends who is disabled or in desperate need of psychological help. There are legions out there who believe that about themselves.
iris lily
8-11-12, 11:48am
I know, I was PUMPED about this choice! Ryan is synonymous with fiscal restraint. Only Rubio would have been an equally good choice. They both represent young conservative common-sense guys plus Ryan is a Midwesterner, always a plus in my book. Way to go Mitt! I can see Romney putting Ryan on Capitol Hill to monitor, shape, and influence Congressional spending. Slap those sanctimonious MF's around, Paul! Pushing for responsible spending should be the VP's sole job, forget gadding about on diplomatic junkets.
As far as slashing Medicare, the changes he proposes do not affect those over 55 years old. Granny is not involved but SteveinMN please continue to have as the picture in your head pushing granny over the cliff if that's what makes you happy.
In order for there to BE a MEdicare program for the 30 years olds something's gotta happen. But I am as skeptical about his social engineering for our 30-years- into- the- future scene as I am about anyone else's plan. Paul Ryan has no crystal ball. But he is touching the thrid rail and someone has got to do it, take charge of that monstor for his own generation.
Unless something changes, most of us will be over 55 eventually, with the concomitant health concerns. Having to choose between medical care and a roof over your head isn't something I'd wish on anyone--even the dog-eat-dog crowd. I get the image of Granny on an ice floe, but there are fewer of those left..better get yours while you can.
I was a little surprised Rubio didn't get the nod, but I do think Ryan is a great choice. The media is playing up his lack of foreign policy experience. Along the lines of what Iris said, I would like to see him in 4 years still not having any foreign policy experience! Stay home and hawk the hell out of Congress. I think he can be a major influence helping get our budget back under control. And he's smart enough to turn his mic off.
Ryan is a great sell to the "I can take care of myself; you should, too" crowd. Destroying Medicare and slashing budgets matters little if you're the type of person who believes you'll never get old and sick, are willing to work at two or three jobs to make a living wage, are not a minority where you live, and don't know anyone among your family or friends who is disabled or in desperate need of psychological help. There are legions out there who believe that about themselves.
I think it's worse than that - the trick with vouchers is you generally have to have money to use them. Kind of like the high risk insurance pools some states have - available, but expensive. It's a handout which restricts itself to those with the money to use it.
I think he's a wonderful choice and am a little surprised that the sustainability crowd can't seem to appreciate his efforts to make social programs sustainable for the long haul, choosing instead to demonize the effort.
I'm also excited about his choice because now the opposing campaign will be forced to address the issues of the day rather than trying to make the opposing candidate out to be a felonious, dog hating, woman hating, non tax paying, evil capitalist. The Obama administration has been scared of Paul Ryan for the past several years as a result of his efforts to repair the country's current economic outlook and future liabilities. He will certainly change their focus, hopefully in a beneficial way.
The upcoming Presidential and Vice Presidential debates are going to be very enlightening, and entertaining as well.
The Storyteller
8-11-12, 2:17pm
Says two things to me...
One, trying to get some excitement with the Tea Party and the rest of the base that Romney doesn't bring.
Two, throwing in the towel for this election and setting sights on the next with a candidate with a future.
That's just my hip shot analysis, mind you, so I could be wrong. I stopped paying attention to this race the moment it was apparent Romney was going to be the nominee. He doesn't have a shot in the world of being president.
This is actually from an article on Japan today but it illustrates the problem so many countries face. Interesting to see that even though our projected percent of population being elderly is lower than many other countries, our spending is as crazy as theirs.
http://s.wsj.net/media/JBLOAT0812charts5.jpg
loosechickens
8-11-12, 2:47pm
I have been doing SO well in my summer plan to severely limit my internet time, so have successfully been able to break my "Simple Living Forum addiction".....well, until today.....just had to come in and see what all of you thought of the Republican VP choice......was pretty much as predicted, given our various proclivities. Looks like both the Republicans AND the Democrats are happy.....something very hard to achieve, hahahaha.
I found Nate Silver's analysis to be kind of spot on to my own thoughts, and since he can detail them so much better than I can, here's the link. Lots here for Republicans to cheer, and lots of potholes that might be fallen into. Pop up some popcorn, this is going to be interesting.......
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/#more-33035
let the campaign truly begin.......
I've missed all you guys, BUT, have also read almost dozens of books since I broke the internet addiction, and re-acquainted myself with "real life" for a change........
Skimmed over all that has happened here in the past month since my last trip here.....lots of good stuff in the simple living departments, same-oh, same-oh on all the political stuff.....we really ARE a predictable bunch, hahahahaha.......
we are here in southern CA, enjoying our first real heat wave of the summer, after lovely weather for weeks and weeks.......it's 97 degrees in the motorhome, but I'm trying to help out the power company, who is doing their level best to prevent any rolling blackouts since the San Onofre nuclear plant is down, plus another plant offline now just in the past few days......doing our part to conserve (although having the pool to jump into periodically makes it a LOT easier, and not having to wear clothes even more so)......
I'm off again........just had to put my (well, Nate Silver's) two cents in.........chew over his thoughts.....I'll come back and see what you think. I found stuff in there for the Republicans to cheer, but stuff for the Dems to cheer as well.....we live in interesting times.
I know, I was PUMPED about this choice! Ryan is synonymous with fiscal restraint.
To me, fiscal restraint means figuring out how to pay with real money for whatever you buy. It does not mean being a cheap *&@$ that never spends any money on anything -- or at least the stuff privileged people don't think they need. Or treating one's buddies and campaign contributors royally and telling the poor folks to eat cake.
So can we assume that Ryan's synonymousness with fiscal restraint includes making sure there's money to pay for what we say we want to have, even if that means -- gasp -- increasing taxes or -- warfare! -- means-testing benefit recipients? Or will he merely wield a machete?
I'm all for the former. I agree there's money that's poorly spent*. Clearly, sustainability is critical. But the right-wing version of "sustainability" and "fiscal restraint" appears to be whacking at social-program funding and infrastructure maintenance and then declaring that it's a lost cause anyway. Odd how not much time is spent similarly evaluating weapons programs and corporate-welfare benefits.
So what kind of restraint does Ryan display?
* I don't think you should get Social Security if you make enough money, no matter how much you've paid into the system. I think we need to take a serious look at our environmental policy, because without a good one, we're toast anyway. I think we should figure out why, with 5% of the world's population, we have (and pay a lot for) 25% of the world's incarcerated. Or why we pay the highest medical costs anywhere but have some of the worst outcomes. I don't think we should pay farmers to grow crops for liquor and tobacco and then spend millions more trying to ward customers away from their use. There are plenty of places to save money. People just have to want to look.
I think he's a wonderful choice and am a little surprised that the sustainability crowd can't seem to appreciate his efforts to make social programs sustainable for the long haul, choosing instead to demonize the effort.
Not demonizing, just wary. Vouchers seem to be a good way to provide the same benefit to everyone, but do it in such a way that only those better off can really take advantage of it. If sustainable is the only factor of concern, though, it would probably work.
I have been doing SO well in my summer plan to severely limit my internet time, so have successfully been able to break my "Simple Living Forum addiction".....well, until today.....just had to come in and see what all of you thought of the Republican VP choice......was pretty much as predicted, given our various proclivities. Looks like both the Republicans AND the Democrats are happy.....something very hard to achieve, hahahaha.
I found Nate Silver's analysis to be kind of spot on to my own thoughts, and since he can detail them so much better than I can, here's the link. Lots here for Republicans to cheer, and lots of potholes that might be fallen into. Pop up some popcorn, this is going to be interesting.......
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/#more-33035
let the campaign truly begin.......
I've missed all you guys, BUT, have also read almost dozens of books since I broke the internet addiction, and re-acquainted myself with "real life" for a change........
Skimmed over all that has happened here in the past month since my last trip here.....lots of good stuff in the simple living departments, same-oh, same-oh on all the political stuff.....we really ARE a predictable bunch, hahahahaha.......
we are here in southern CA, enjoying our first real heat wave of the summer, after lovely weather for weeks and weeks.......it's 97 degrees in the motorhome, but I'm trying to help out the power company, who is doing their level best to prevent any rolling blackouts since the San Onofre nuclear plant is down, plus another plant offline now just in the past few days......doing our part to conserve (although having the pool to jump into periodically makes it a LOT easier, and not having to wear clothes even more so)......
I'm off again........just had to put my (well, Nate Silver's) two cents in.........chew over his thoughts.....I'll come back and see what you think. I found stuff in there for the Republicans to cheer, but stuff for the Dems to cheer as well.....we live in interesting times.
Join me in the very cool and lovely public library down here by the beach (where it's still very hot). Will be heading off northward soon as it's going to get even hotter here next month! Plus Gary (AKA Simply Gib) is off on another bicycle trip down the coast of Oregon and Northern Calif and keeps sending me photos of all the cool, green, misty redwood forests and beautiful coastline. Talk about gloating!! Anyways, hope you post more often LC, your insight is sorely missed.
As for Ryan...er, eye candy for the ladies (along with Mitt) but, as other's have pointed out, his ideas of "fiscal restraint" and mine aren't the same. Lots of other areas for restraint and downsizing then Medicare or Medicaid or reduction of services for the elderly, sick or poor.
I'm indifferent. A bit intrigued by that he voted for TARP, his sometimes-supportive comments on LGBT, and how that will all affect potential supporters, but otherwise unmoved. I've never thought it a great feat to put forth a swell recovery plan that gets 62% of its savings from gutting programs for the poor and elderly in order to spare the defense budget, so I don't see the economic savant everyone else does, apparently. But hey, it's still grand to live in a democracy where we get to vote for the people who most closely match our own goals and values. Onward!
...
So can we assume that Ryan's synonymousness with fiscal restraint includes making sure there's money to pay for what we say we want to have, even if that means -- gasp -- increasing taxes or -- warfare! -- means-testing benefit recipients? ...
I would be amenable to either of those as annoying as they are.
edited for grammar doh
If anything, I think standing Ryan next to Romney will show him to be even more of the empty, arrogant, entitled fluff he is as he flits from 'position' to 'position' to please whoever happens to be standing in front of him at the time. Ryan IS a man of convictions...pretty scary, mean spirited, and bleak convictions if you aren't one of the chosen few, but convictions none the less. Romney, quite obviously, has none. His choice of Ryan actually says a lot about his character, and how he would govern. As usual, he fairly easily bends to whomever pushes the hardest, in this case the far far right. It will be interesting to see how this plays with the vast majority of the electorate, right and left, who are pretty much down the middle.
Whew! Thank goodness Ryan's plan doesn't affect anyone over 55 cause, you know, grandma is perfectly willing to sell her kids, who are all in their early 50's, down the river! Yeah, that'll make them vote for ya!
gimmethesimplelife
8-11-12, 7:03pm
I have been doing SO well in my summer plan to severely limit my internet time, so have successfully been able to break my "Simple Living Forum addiction".....well, until today.....just had to come in and see what all of you thought of the Republican VP choice......was pretty much as predicted, given our various proclivities. Looks like both the Republicans AND the Democrats are happy.....something very hard to achieve, hahahaha.
I found Nate Silver's analysis to be kind of spot on to my own thoughts, and since he can detail them so much better than I can, here's the link. Lots here for Republicans to cheer, and lots of potholes that might be fallen into. Pop up some popcorn, this is going to be interesting.......
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/#more-33035
let the campaign truly begin.......
I've missed all you guys, BUT, have also read almost dozens of books since I broke the internet addiction, and re-acquainted myself with "real life" for a change........
Skimmed over all that has happened here in the past month since my last trip here.....lots of good stuff in the simple living departments, same-oh, same-oh on all the political stuff.....we really ARE a predictable bunch, hahahahaha.......
we are here in southern CA, enjoying our first real heat wave of the summer, after lovely weather for weeks and weeks.......it's 97 degrees in the motorhome, but I'm trying to help out the power company, who is doing their level best to prevent any rolling blackouts since the San Onofre nuclear plant is down, plus another plant offline now just in the past few days......doing our part to conserve (although having the pool to jump into periodically makes it a LOT easier, and not having to wear clothes even more so)......
I'm off again........just had to put my (well, Nate Silver's) two cents in.........chew over his thoughts.....I'll come back and see what you think. I found stuff in there for the Republicans to cheer, but stuff for the Dems to cheer as well.....we live in interesting times.Loosechickens, hi! Good to see you here.....it's been awhile. Have been to Los Algodones twice since I last saw your pixels here and I think of you every time I go. You were so right about the place! Sorry to be so extremely off topic but my excuse is I don't see you around here much these days. Glad you're doing fine, too.....Rob
It pays to read the details of Ryan's fiscal "plan": http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08krugman.html
When reporters talk about polls being conducted, how many people actually are actually contacted since many fewer people have landline phones? Do pollsters dial cellphones? Does that not distort the results to the ridiculous?
gimmethesimplelife
8-11-12, 9:35pm
Unless something changes, most of us will be over 55 eventually, with the concomitant health concerns. Having to choose between medical care and a roof over your head isn't something I'd wish on anyone--even the dog-eat-dog crowd. I get the image of Granny on an ice floe, but there are fewer of those left..better get yours while you can.I'm 45 now and I'm thinking if RomneyRyan get into office, the clock is really ticking on this citizenship for me.....Just don't think this (or any other for that matter) country is worth being in a position where the choices are roof over head or medical care.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-11-12, 9:40pm
If anything, I think standing Ryan next to Romney will show him to be even more of the empty, arrogant, entitled fluff he is as he flits from 'position' to 'position' to please whoever happens to be standing in front of him at the time. Ryan IS a man of convictions...pretty scary, mean spirited, and bleak convictions if you aren't one of the chosen few, but convictions none the less. Romney, quite obviously, has none. His choice of Ryan actually says a lot about his character, and how he would govern. As usual, he fairly easily bends to whomever pushes the hardest, in this case the far far right. It will be interesting to see how this plays with the vast majority of the electorate, right and left, who are pretty much down the middle.
Whew! Thank goodness Ryan's plan doesn't affect anyone over 55 cause, you know, grandma is perfectly willing to sell her kids, who are all in their early 50's, down the river! Yeah, that'll make them vote for ya!I do think Ryan was a good choice for the Republican VP - as much as I am not a Republican, I still think this was a bright choice. Reason being - it's like drawing a line in the sand and attempting to differentiate the Republican party from the Democrat party. Both have been HUGE spenders - Obama AND Bush - but choosing Ryan with his budget plan and the buzz around that does seem to be a fair attempt at differentiation for those willing to not think the consequences through. And I even like Paul Ryan in the sense that I agree with him to a point - this spending IS unsustainable and something DOES have to be done. I just don't agree with his road to get to a better place. Rob
I could (probably should) have jumped ship right after I retired, when I still had marketable skills and wasn't so old as to be undesirable. Have you taken Canada's qualification quiz? That might be place to start.
Another reason for me to tune out the rhetoric & volunteer for the Obama campaign. I detest Rep. Ryan's budget proposals, especially privatizing the big M's. I was surprised by Romney's choice, and no one he chose would have changed my mind about him.
gimmethesimplelife
8-11-12, 10:13pm
Says two things to me...
One, trying to get some excitement with the Tea Party and the rest of the base that Romney doesn't bring.
Two, throwing in the towel for this election and setting sights on the next with a candidate with a future.
That's just my hip shot analysis, mind you, so I could be wrong. I stopped paying attention to this race the moment it was apparent Romney was going to be the nominee. He doesn't have a shot in the world of being president.Just curious, why do you think Romney doesn't have much chance at winning? My take - being an Obama supporter but not as thrilled with him as I was four years ago - is that this is going to be major political theater, very fifty fifty, very very very close, lots of nasty mud flying from both sides, and just a downer for those in general who feel disconnected from the process to begin with - that would be many of us is my take. Rob
morning girl
8-11-12, 10:51pm
I am not impressed. I am very close to retirement and his proposals for Medicare are unacceptable. My other opinion is that Romney's team has written off the West Coast. Why else would he make this major announcement at 6AM on a Saturday.
My other opinion is that Romney's team has written off the West Coast. Why else would he make this major announcement at 6AM on a Saturday.
To give you something nice to wake up to?
gimmethesimplelife
8-11-12, 11:09pm
To give you something nice to wake up to?LOL this board reflects society, political divisions and all.....Rob
Word is (the pundits) this choice doesn't quite rise to the level of Hail Mary pass. Quite.
I could (probably should) have jumped ship right after I retired, when I still had marketable skills and wasn't so old as to be undesirable. Have you taken Canada's qualification quiz? That might be place to start.
Canada's skilled worker immigrant program is closed for new applicants, as of a few weeks ago.
Historically, how significant is the VP choice in a Presidential race?
SteveinMN
8-12-12, 12:33pm
Historically, how significant is the VP choice in a Presidential race?
redfox, the 538 Blog post loosechickens provided (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...an/#more-33035 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/#more-33035)) discusses that.
I've always liked Ryan. He seems willing to take the unpopular position when everyone around him is equivocating. It seems clear that government spending can't continue on its present course even if we double or triple taxes on whoever we care to define as the undeserving rich. I'm not sure realism is an effective political strategy, however.
I'm not sure realism is an effective political strategy, however.
I agree.
People would rather hear that increasing taxes on anyone making over $200K per year, or families making over $250K per year will put us back on the right track to sustainability. Nevermind the fact that it would only add $70B a year to an annual deficit of $1T or more.
Also, nevermind that we are projected to increase welfare spending over the next decade to approximately $1.3T per year (that's one third of the budget for those keeping score) and that all other social spending (about $2.1T) takes up pretty much all the remainder.
Under current Democrat plans, the variance between revenues and social spending as a percentage of GDP through the year 2080 are as follows:
869
I think it's high time someone started pointing these things out and making plans to keep the current systems from imploding.
ApatheticNoMore
8-12-12, 1:39pm
People would rather hear that increasing taxes on anyone making over $200K per year, or families making over $250K per year will put us back on the right track to sustainability. Nevermind the fact that it would only add $70B a year to an annual deficit of $1T or more.
Anyone actually serious about using tax increases to solve the deficit argues for repeal of the entire of the Bush tax cuts. Not just some over 200k nonsense. That shows how much taxes could really bring in (tax rates that were already in existence before Bush). Doing so would bring in 3.7 trillion over 10 years. While that's not enough, it's not insignificant, it's not some silly 70 billion a year. An argument that taxes may not be the *entire* solution so therefore taxes should be none of the solution is just silly on the face of it. So lets not even bother with 3.7 trillion over 10 years, lets just leave it on the table right? You can maybe add in an additional $175 billion a year if you get rid of Obama's payroll tax cuts.
I read an interesting point that the Bush tax cuts actually cost us more than this as they increased the deficit on which we are now paying interest. Makes sense, but it is all so much sunk cost in terms of future policy.
I regard of course the entire system as unsustainable in deeper ways than just the budget (although sure taken as an isolated phenomena and as if it was the only phenomena the budget is unsustainable). But I'm extrapolating further, perhaps on more uncertain ground (but the environmental unsustainability is becoming obvious just in terms of water use etc.) than just bean counting will take one.
People would rather hear that increasing taxes on anyone making over $200K per year, or families making over $250K per year will put us back on the right track to sustainability.
Well, it's a start. It's not exactly like rich people were streaming out of the country on trains, planes, and ships when the income-tax rate was at pre-Bush-tax-cut levels.
But we're not going to get out of the current mess by just repealing a few income-tax cuts or even completely eliminating benefits to the poor/disabled/elderly (of which there probably will be only more in the future). We really need to look at everything, including sacred cows like military bases outside the U.S., corporate/farm subsidies, local TIF, and "entitlement" social spending. Unfortunately, Ryan's plan doesn't even touch on most of those areas.
ApatheticNoMore
8-12-12, 4:48pm
Canada's skilled worker immigrant program is closed for new applicants, as of a few weeks ago.
There's no easy way out of this country especially to some rich English speaking country. Latin America sounds far and away the most promising. Learn spanish.
gimmethesimplelife
8-12-12, 4:57pm
There's no easy way out of this country especially to some rich English speaking country. Latin America sounds far and away the most promising. Learn spanish.I couldn't agree with you more! This is what I have discovered personally in my comparion shopping for countries to move to so I don't have to work until I drop dead.....I am jokingly now among those who know me in Phoenix referring to Spanish as the language of not working until you drop dead....Some good bets from what I have discovered would be Chile and Uruguay, and maybe Argentina, but keep in mind Argentina has become quite corrupt since the recession of 2001. Also perhaps Ecuador and Peru, but both can have safety issues.....however both have growing populations of ex pats fleeing working until they drop dead, willing to make some sacrifices to have control of their time and to some degree their lives. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-12-12, 5:03pm
Canada's skilled worker immigrant program is closed for new applicants, as of a few weeks ago.Iris Lilly, true that, I heard this somewhere recently. For me this is no big loss as I am thinking of the developing world anyway - to me it is far more interesting in many ways and is some ways is more human - an example would be the concept of time in much of the developing world vs. in the US - or to be fair, in Canada or Western Europe also. Personally for me, it does take a little getting used to but I much prefer a different concept of time than the one I deal with in the US.....Rob
The Nordic countries are quite nice too.
It's a fascinating country right now. I'm not sure if the division CAN be healed???
I stopped paying attention to this race the moment it was apparent Romney was going to be the nominee. He doesn't have a shot in the world of being president.
And I just don't see how Mr. Obama could be reelected unless Romney completely and totally shoots himself in the foot somehow. At least we know one of us will be right.
I'm 45 now and I'm thinking if RomneyRyan get into office, the clock is really ticking on this citizenship for me.....Just don't think this (or any other for that matter) country is worth being in a position where the choices are roof over head or medical care.....Rob
I don't see ever giving up my citizenship because I love living here, but if anything would make me think about it its possible that would be another four years with the current administration. Guess we just reflect the country at large, huh Rob?
The Nordic countries are quite nice too.
I am of Danish Heritage - but it is way too cold there -- too many smelly cheeses, and fish eating! Though "our" family still owns the farm - after over 200 years!
I am of Danish Heritage - but it is way too cold there -- too many smelly cheeses, and fish eating! Though "our" family still owns the farm - after over 200 years!
Can I take your place? I love cold weather and stinky cheese. :) Well, I do live in MN. I guess that's close enough. Danish summers are probably nicer though (read: cooler).
I'm not sure if the division CAN be healed???
I think there are lots of people on both sides of the divide who have great interest in making sure it isn't healed. I find that, and them, sickening.
One of the things that took me a while to adjust to after moving to phoenix was the slower, casual, southern lifestyle. But now I like it better and the Midwest seems too stoic.
flowerseverywhere
8-12-12, 10:54pm
what about those on the fence?
I have no qualms that our economy is in the toilet. We have to figure out how to turn it around. Maybe Ryan can figure this complicated issue out.
but I still can't sign on to the anti-abortion platform. Because woman are left to care for the children while men waltz away. I wish there was never a need for abortion but the need has existed since almost the beginning of time. Tell me what the solution is to the problem of women getting pregnant. sometimes unwillingly.
what about those on the fence?
There are, I think, quite a few of us on that fence. Fiscal conservative/social liberal pretty well describes me and most of the people I know. Maybe I just live in a cocoon, but everywhere I go I seem to run into folks with similar thoughts. I couldn't care less about party affiliation, but wouldn't mind a little more recognition from one party or the other.
I think there are lots of people on both sides of the divide who have great interest in making sure it isn't healed. I find that, and them, sickening.
Sadly bae, I can only agree with you.
There are, I think, quite a few of us on that fence. Fiscal conservative/social liberal pretty well describes me and most of the people I know. Maybe I just live in a cocoon, but everywhere I go I seem to run into folks with similar thoughts. I couldn't care less about party affiliation, but wouldn't mind a little more recognition from one party or the other.
Sadly bae, I can only agree with you.
Agreed, agreed, agreed.
And I'm long past the "If X is elected, I'm outta here" threat. I survived the Reagan/Bush years politically, I can survive anything. I'd love to see a candidate that was committed to radically reforming our social programs, rather than eliminating them. And one that had the cojones to stand up to the Pentagon, and to Big Industry and its abuses. One that, I dunno, rewarded "job creators" for actually creating American jobs, rather than just for earning & consuming. But whatever happens, our resilience and mettle will be tested in the coming years, so we keep on working on our self-sufficiency and our community-building. Life is good.
Anyone actually serious about using tax increases to solve the deficit argues for repeal of the entire of the Bush tax cuts. Not just some over 200k nonsense. That shows how much taxes could really bring in (tax rates that were already in existence before Bush).
Actually, tax rates are not a good indicator of revenue. In 1960, with upper end tax rates of 90%, the United States collected tax revenues equal to about 18.5% of the country's Gross Domestic Product. In 2007, 5 years after the "Bush Tax Cuts", the United States still collected tax revenues equal to about 18.5%.
In 2012, without any significant changes to the tax policies in place in 2007, the percentage is projected to be around 16% after enjoying a consistent average of 18.3% since the 1960's.
A couple of things to ask yourself;
What value did the 90% tax rate of 1960 bring to the US Economy that the 35% rate of 2007 didn't?
Since revenue as a percentage of GDP hasn't fluctuated more than a few percentage points over the past 70 years (excepting WWII), do you think that all this political posturing and class envy is worthwhile?
Why are revenues lower in 2012 than 2007? What has changed?
I believe an honest appraisal of the historical record might lead a free thinker to answer;
None
No
The lack of economic activity.
While imposing higher tax rates on the rich may be personally satisfying to some, it is not the answer to the problem. Until we place our focus in the right direction, we shouldn't be surprised at more of the same.
If that mythical, viable candidate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal also happens to be a flat tax advocate, well, s/he might just get my vote. I'd also like to ride a unicorn someday.
ApatheticNoMore
8-13-12, 4:09pm
And I'm long past the "If X is elected, I'm outta here" threat. I survived the Reagan/Bush years politically, I can survive anything.
I'll survive as well likely. It mostly, like most everything else in the world, boils down to having money ... That's a bit of a copout though.
If that mythical, viable candidate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal also happens to be a flat tax advocate, well, s/he might just get my vote. I'd also like to ride a unicorn someday.
S/he would be entirely unelectable. But a girl can dream. As Austin Powers says, "Well I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now is it?"
pug and Gregg, did you vote for/caucus for Ron Paul? If not, whynot?
I don't know that he is a flat taxer but neither do I think that's beyond the realm of possible for libertarians.
ApatheticNoMore
8-13-12, 4:52pm
pug and Gregg, did you vote for/caucus for Ron Paul? If not, whynot?
I don't know that he is a flat taxer but neither do I think that's beyond the realm of possible for libertarians.
I had the same thought. If you want a libertarian that's the closest you're *ever* likely to get. Is his past perfectly squeaky clean? No, but then whose is .... If he had won the primaries he very well could have won the Presidency. He is so heads and shoulders above all the corporatism mascarading as libertarianism that it's just not even comparable, apples and oranges.
pug and Gregg, did you vote for/caucus for Ron Paul? If not, whynot?
I did. I even went to the state convention as a delegate for Paul, and was on the state slate for Paul delegates to the national convention. Even though he's not perfect, he's more-than-a-bit better than the "mainstream" choices we have.
At the convention, it was quite educational to see the games played by the well-funded, well-organized Romney camp to keep Paul's supporters excluded.
pug and Gregg, did you vote for/caucus for Ron Paul?
I did not simply because I am registered independent ("non-partisan" here in Nebraska) and so was not eligible to vote in our Republican primaries. Ron Paul is, however, the only national candidate to receive a campaign contribution from me and, although I have myriad excuses for not doing more, I did manage to carry a sign and hand out propaganda at the convention. If we had open primaries Ron Paul may have carried it on the crossover Democratic vote alone! :devil:
It's funny talking about GDP because, when I mentioned the issue of the growing deficit during the Bush administration with a conservative co-worker, he snapped, "well, it's still a low percentage compared to the GDP!" Another reason why I don't like the GDP as the only measure to use.
Here's some alternatives: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/alternatives-to-the-gdp/
If that mythical, viable candidate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal also happens to be a flat tax advocate, well, s/he might just get my vote. I'd also like to ride a unicorn someday.
And don't forget the flying pigs :-)!
Well, the more I know about Ryan, the less I like his ideology politically and economically. I think like Palin was to MacCain, Ryan may be Mitts downfall as he is too far right for many of us moderates (i.e. fence sitters :-)!) and cause many of us to lean just tad bit more left then we did before Ryan was named V.P. candidate - giving Obama our votes.
As for me, I'll stick with Obama as I can't get the image of a the "Batman (Batmitt) and His Boy Wonder, Robin (Rybin)" giving the old "KERPOWIE" to Medicare et al out of my head :-)!
As for me, I'll stick with Obama as I can't get the image of a the "Batman (Batmitt) and His Boy Wonder, Robin (Rybin)" giving the old "KERPOWIE" to Medicare et al out of my head :-)!
That's interesting. I believe that under the Ryan plan, seniors could opt out of Medicare and get the same benefit that our Congress is afforded. I guess that really would change Medicare as we know it.
That's interesting. I believe that under the Ryan plan, seniors could opt out of Medicare and get the same benefit that our Congress is afforded. I guess that really would change Medicare as we know it.
My understanding (based on network TV so it's possible I'm wrong :-)!) is that he wants to eliminate medicare at the federal level and adopt a voucher system which gives a set amount, less than was needed, to the states and they would make up the difference. And of course there is the 10/25 tax plan which many middle and lower income people would find very unfair.
My understanding (based on network TV so it's possible I'm wrong :-)!) is that he wants to eliminate medicare at the federal level and adopt a voucher system which gives a set amount, less than was needed, to the states and they would make up the difference. And of course there is the 10/25 tax plan which many middle and lower income people would find very unfair.
I truly believe networks are in the business of telling you what to believe. Here's a Business Insider review you might not see on any of the network TV shows.
Excerpt:
What would change under Ryan's plan?
For those who become eligible after 2023, Ryan's plan would make two major changes:
The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months every year until it reached 67 in 2033.
Medicare beneficiaries would get voucher payments to buy private insurance plans. Medicare enrollees would choose among competing private insurance plans, offered on a new Medicare Exchange similar to the insurance exchange now offered to federal workers, including members of Congress. The plans offered through the exchange would be required to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and would be prohibited from charging discriminatory rates based on age and health condition. They would also be required to meet a minimum standard of coverage. The vouchers would go directly from the government to the insurance company.
Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, seniors could also opt for the traditional "fee-for-service" Medicare plan, in which healthcare coverage is administered by the government, rather than a private insurer. But the amount that government pays for healthcare — whether in the form of vouchers or fee-for-service payments — remains the same.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-romney-medicare-plans-budget-2012-8#ixzz23Y0oSKBx
Thanks Alan - Yes I did read something similair that the vouchers were given to individuals to buy their own private medical insurance (I made a mistake saying it went to the states - that was for Medicaid not medicare, which I read would be cut greatly (along with food stamp programs) under the Ryan plan). I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference. Great if you are a high earning senior, but that's not always the case - especially for divorced women who may have spent much of their lives as homemakers rather thenin the paid work force, or low income workers who never were able to save much thru out their lives. And with the loss or reduction of many of the other entitlement programs Ryan advocates and more taxpayer money going to military spending instead, along with higher taxes for the lower income brackets (i.e. seniors in many cases) I can see where people would have a problem with Ryan. But I'll read/watch more (something other then Fox :devil:) and try to learn more before judging. But, you know me, I'm an advocate of universal healthcare (but not a fan of Obamacare - although it's better than nothing IMHO) and some very basic and stringently given entitlement programs, so I doubt I will be onboard the BatMitt and Rybin plan :-)!
ApatheticNoMore
8-14-12, 3:52pm
Sometimes I think one way or other, that in the end almost noone is going to be able to afford healthcare anyway. 90% of the populace wont' have it
The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months every year until it reached 67 in 2033.
I've not yet figured out how exactly one is supposed to afford healthcare up until that age. Through employers? Hmm one becomes age discriminated against for employment *LONG* before that age. I can see it. I myself don't see many older people employed at the companies I work for! 50 something is OLD for the workplace (as in try to look as young as you can and stay employed old!). Save up that much? When premiums keep increasing because they increase every year even for people of the same age and because they increase as you get older. Sounds very difficult. Self-employment, yea that one *might* work ...
Medicare beneficiaries would get voucher payments to buy private insurance plans. Medicare enrollees would choose among competing private insurance plans, offered on a new Medicare Exchange similar to the insurance exchange now offered to federal workers, including members of Congress. The plans offered through the exchange would be required to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and would be prohibited from charging discriminatory rates based on age and health condition. They would also be required to meet a minimum standard of coverage. The vouchers would go directly from the government to the insurance company.
sounds expensive and this is for the people over 67. I've honestly never understood why corporatism (and there is way too much government money in this plan for it to be a free market) is prefered to just socialism, except well for the corporations benefitting. You still have government control ultimately, you just have a corporate middle man. Now cynical conspiracy minded me thinks programs that benefit corporations are the only one's that can survive the onslaught. Not those that just benefit people. So medicare part D or whatever the drug care one is, yea that will stay, lots of pharm companies need to be made rich. But a very pure efficient government program like Social Security, how are corporations directly benefitting? (a little Keynsianism spending maybe, but really they AREN'T directly benefitting!) Therefore that one needs to get the axe. Cynical, so cynical ...
Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, seniors could also opt for the traditional "fee-for-service" Medicare plan, in which healthcare coverage is administered by the government, rather than a private insurer. But the amount that government pays for healthcare — whether in the form of vouchers or fee-for-service payments — remains the same.
more of less than now?
I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference.
don't all vouchers ultimately increase cost? Such is my thinking. That they just basically raise the price point where supply and demand intersect. Too simplistic? Too neo-classical? :)
I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference....
Ahh, you didn't follow the link to read more did you?
How much would the voucher be for?
Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, the cost of the voucher would be determined by a competitive bidding process. The amount the government pays would be decided based on the second-least expensive plan or fee-for service option. If individuals opt for a more expensive plan, they would have to pay the difference in premiums out of pocket. Alternatively, individuals who opt for a cheaper plan would get a rebate.
The individual vouchers would also be adjusted to account for the health and income status of the beneficiary (i.e. sicker, poorer Medicare recipients get more money).
As a failsafe, Ryan's plan would also impose a spending cap requiring that per capita growth not exceed nominal GDP growth plus 0.5%
from the article:
How much would the plan save?
According to a CBO analysis of Ryan's 2013 budget, average Medicare spending for new enrollees in 2050 would be between 35% and 45% below what it would be under the current program. The analysis found that possible consequences of the dramatically lower spending could include higher out-of-pocket healthcare costs for seniors; reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; and less investment in new, high-cost technologies
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-romney-medicare-plans-budget-2012-8#ixzz23YWw2WZC
I'm guessing the increased efficiency of health care delivery will be due to the fact that fewer people will actually be able to seek health care.:(
I'm guessing the increased efficiency of health care delivery will be due to the fact that fewer people will actually be able to seek health care.:(
Perhaps you could enlighten us on how this will differ from the President's plan to 'redistribute' $711B from Medicare to Obamacare. Will it have an affect on Medicare premiums or will we simply stop taking on new people when the money runs out?
I honestly haven't seen any discussion on this point anywhere in the media.
The biggest part of the voucher thing I don't understand is how are they changing private insurance to make that work? There are people now in their 40's who could not get a private insurer to offer them a plan on any terms, much less being in their 60's and 70's. No health insurance company wants to touch later life/end of life care, which is one of the main reasons Medicare came into being in the first place.
Are they going force them to offer plans or what? I don't see any opportunity for "savings through competition" here. I see a big shift from Medicare funded care to ER funded care, though - at least until the dump the ER mandate as well.
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 8:06pm
I've read of this Ryan plan for Medicare and I have just one question.....How much longer until leaving the US due to the health care system (among other reasons) is no longer considered radical by some? I'm thinking if and when this gets implemented, really, there will not be much to keep many here who think it through.....Just my two cents. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 8:10pm
I also wonder, why doesn't the US government start offering us buyouts? For those of us willing to leave for whatever reason, why not give us some token money for our new lives elsewhere in exchange for getting us off future Medicare rolls? Maybe a nice chunk more money for getting us off future SS rolls? Just an idea.....Would not be surprised if the days comes down the road when this idea is floated around publicly. Will take more time though, for this to happen, I think.....Rob
The biggest part of the voucher thing I don't understand is how are they changing private insurance to make that work? There are people now in their 40's who could not get a private insurer to offer them a plan on any terms, much less being in their 60's and 70's. No health insurance company wants to touch later life/end of life care, which is one of the main reasons Medicare came into being in the first place.
Are they going force them to offer plans or what? I don't see any opportunity for "savings through competition" here. I see a big shift from Medicare funded care to ER funded care, though - at least until the dump the ER mandate as well.
+1, creaker. First they tried to get their hands on our Social Security money by "privatizing" it - imagine if that had actually happened where most people would be now, post 2008.
Now, despite several generations of the for-profit/private health insurance debacle, they want to get their hands on Medicare money to privatize that and make it for-profit. No thanks.
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 8:27pm
+1, creaker. First they tried to get their hands on our Social Security money by "privatizing" it - imagine if that had actually happened where most people would be now, post 2008.
Now, despite several generations of the for-profit/private health insurance debacle, they want to get their hands on Medicare money to privatize that and make it for-profit. No thanks.+1
Perhaps you could enlighten us on how this will differ from the President's plan to 'redistribute' $711B from Medicare to Obamacare. Will it have an affect on Medicare premiums or will we simply stop taking on new people when the money runs out?
I honestly haven't seen any discussion on this point anywhere in the media.
Because it's a bogus discussion, that's why. The shift in money doesn't affect any medicare benefits, period. No one is being tossed off the cliff here. It's more an adjustment to include, instead of exclude. The Ryan plan, however, shifts all the cost onto the elderly. It sounds pretty to say they will have a CHOICE IN PLANS just like congress. But it's not like congress health care plan. Not at all, in funding or execution. They only want you to think it is, to lull some into a false sense of security.
But, you know, people over 55 aren't actually senile, or addled, as Ryan thinks. First of all, they aren't quite as easily fooled as Romney/Ryan think, and second, they aren't really as willing to sell their kids (in their early 50's and 40's) down the river as Romney/Ryan hoped they would be. If it's such a great plan, why wait 15 years? Why not implement it now? If people who are 65+ can't come up with the extra income now, what makes them think those who reach 65+ in 15 years will be able to? I'm still thinking an 80 year old can't just go out and make the extra bucks necessary to pay for that hip replacement, or the pacemaker, or the handful of meds they need to get through the day. There are only so many greeter jobs at Walmart you know! And I've never seen a greeter in a wheelchair.
Yeah, Ryan was the perfect pick for Romney. They both share that self important, greedy entitled arrogance of the "I got mine, to hell with you" crowd.
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 8:34pm
I remember four years ago when Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's VP, there was a thread here about her. If I remember the jist of it was that she came across as being quite snarky and catty and perhaps not all that together or bright. (and yes, there were a few here who liked her, too.....). My point is that the Paul Ryan choice seems a lot more threatening/important/laden with intense issues.....With Palin we were not talking about radical entitlement reform that threatens the future of many due to offshoring, outsourcing, and the overall lack of jobs.....Some of those who would be threatened also were not in dire straits yet back in 2008. This Paul Ryan choice does seem fraught wth unpleasant future circumstances for the lower social classes in the US, and unfortunately, the number in the lower social classes seems to keep growing and growing. Methinks some major drama may be coming down the pike if this duo gets elected. Rob PS I also want to state that I although I support Obama still, I am not as thrilled with him as I once was.....
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 8:39pm
Because it's a bogus discussion, that's why. The shift in money doesn't affect any medicare benefits, period. No one is being tossed off the cliff here. It's more an adjustment to include, instead of exclude. The Ryan plan, however, shifts all the cost onto the elderly. It sounds pretty to say they will have a CHOICE IN PLANS just like congress. But it's not like congress health care plan. Not at all, in funding or execution. They only want you to think it is, to lull some into a false sense of security.
But, you know, people over 55 aren't actually senile, or addled, as Ryan thinks. First of all, they aren't quite as easily fooled as Romney/Ryan think, and second, they aren't really as willing to sell their kids (in their early 50's and 40's) down the river as Romney/Ryan hoped they would be. If it's such a great plan, why wait 15 years? Why not implement it now? If people who are 65+ can't come up with the extra income now, what makes them think those who reach 65+ in 15 years will be able to? I'm still thinking an 80 year old can't just go out and make the extra bucks necessary to pay for that hip replacement, or the pacemaker, or the handful of meds they need to get through the day. There are only so many greeter jobs at Walmart you know! And I've never seen a greeter in a wheelchair.
Yeah, Ryan was the perfect pick for Romney. They both share that self important, greedy entitled arrogance of the "I got mine, to hell with you" crowd.+1 You said it much better than I could.....
Because it's a bogus discussion, that's why. The shift in money doesn't affect any medicare benefits, period.
I was hoping you'd give some detail rather than hyperbole. Let me ask again. How will taking one third of the medicare budget away not affect benefits or the number of people who can be covered?
The problem is, everyone paying attention knows that the growth in social service spending is unsustainable in the long run, and yet the politicians refuse to do the right thing and make changes which will help the long term viability of the programs so many have been indoctrinated into depending upon.
And, too many of our citizens are more than willing to push the can down the road for their children and grandchildren to deal with. But that's beside the point of my question to you.
I'm really looking forward to a detailed explanation of how taking one third of a programs funding is "an adjustment to include, instead of exclude".
loosechickens
8-14-12, 9:11pm
from CNBC:
"Ryan’s budget makes the same $700 billion in Medicare cuts as the Obama plan. CNBC's Scott Cohn explains:
“The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – does cut the growth of Medicare by $700 billion over 10 years. But benefits to seniors actually increase under Obamacare, which reduces payments to providers in exchange for more people covered by insurance. What’s more, the Ryan plan – approved by the House – cuts Medicare spending every bit as much as Obamacare does. In fact, it incorporates the very same budget projections, even as it repeals Obamacare. That’s what you call having it both ways.”
================================================== =============
The difference between the two is that Obamacare takes those savings and plows them right back into the Medicare program, and the Ryan/Romney plan makes those SAME cuts, yet adds nothing back into Medicare from them, and uses the savings instead for other purposes (tax reductions to the top 1%?)
That’s what you call having it both ways.”
Thanks for making my point for me loosechickens. While we can speculate until the cats come home about whether or not lowering payouts to healthcare providers will be a net positive over the opposing plan, the basics are the same. I think you know as well as I do that the premises of any given legislation usually turns out to only that, a premise that never comes about.
I guess you'll be one of the first to find out beginning January 1st if the President is re-elected.
I'm still wondering why one is evil and the other is not.
loosechickens
8-14-12, 9:32pm
Alan, read for comprehension, and look at exactly what Obamacare DOES with those savings. And then look that the Romney/Ryan folks' budget ALSO incorporates those same cuts, yet their intention is to kill Obamacare, so those savings will not be rolled back into the Medicare program, but will be used for other purposes. (They have to pay for all those tax bennies for the richest of the rich some way).
One way......cuts are made and the money saved is rolled back into even better care for seniors. the other plan makes the SAME cuts, yets parcels out the savings to the fattest of the fat cats.......
DUH.......bye....end of my internet time for today.....carry on....
Alan, read for comprehension, and look at exactly what Obamacare DOES with those savings. And then look that the Romney/Ryan folks' budget ALSO incorporates those same cuts, yet their intention is to kill Obamacare, so those savings will not be rolled back into the Medicare program, but will be used for other purposes. (They have to pay for all those tax bennies for the richest of the rich some way).
One way......cuts are made and the money saved is rolled back into even better care for seniors. the other plan makes the SAME cuts, yets parcels out the savings to the fattest of the fat cats.......
DUH.......bye....end of my internet time for today.....carry on....
Same old loosie I see. Glad to see you back by the way.
Just so you know, I do read for comprehension. That's why I recognize hyperbole when I see it and as you know, I'm more interested in facts than speculation and rhetoric.
Enjoy your evening and hurry back when you can find the time.
...How much longer until leaving the US due to the health care system (among other reasons) is no longer considered radical by some?
Why does that matter to you, why not leave now?
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 10:02pm
Why does that matter to you, why not leave now?Hi Iris Lilly! Let me clarify if I may - I'm not talking about myself here - I'm talking about people in general who may not have thought along these lines before. Or maybe they have. I am talking of those who would be negatively impacted were the Paul Ryan budget for Medicare to be implemented. Certainly under this scenario, there would be a least some vocalizing it may be best to part ways with the US.....And I'm not talking of wealthy people like the co-founder of Facebook fleeing to Singapore, I'm talking average struggling people thinking it may be best to leave to hold on to what they have.....Rob
Rob - your theory is that other countries will gladly open their arms to fleeing Americans intending to sponge off their superior national healthcare systems? I've looked into moving to quite a few of these countries, they aren't all that keen if you can't pay the freight.
Us "rich" people of course are not allowed to leave the USA *now*, without paying punitive taxes to the Federal government. Sort of tells you how the government sees the whole citizen vs. subject issue these days, eh?
iris lily
8-14-12, 10:12pm
Rob - your theory is that other countries will gladly open their arms to fleeing Americans intending to sponge off their superior national healthcare systems? I've looked into moving to quite a few of these countries, they aren't all that keen if you can't pay the freight...
I've been thinking the same thing, but I wish those who want to be the guinea pigs well in their experiment. I don't envision a large movement of Americans moving to countries and not working. That's the key, getting work.
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 10:14pm
Rob - your theory is that other countries will gladly open their arms to fleeing Americans intending to sponge off their superior national healthcare systems? I've looked into moving to quite a few of these countries, they aren't all that keen if you can't pay the freight.
Us "rich" people of course are not allowed to leave the USA *now*, without paying punitive taxes to the Federal government. Sort of tells you how the government sees the whole citizen vs. subject issue these days, eh?Bae, FWIW, I'm not talking of sponging off any other country. Please let me give you an example. My mother used to date a man who has a small military pension from being with the National Guard a number of years and a small social security check. He is now 64, and found himself at the age of 62 being priced out of the United States. So he fled to Cambodia - quite radical on the surface but it's apparently quite easy to be there legally long term AND GET THIS - he recently paid cash for a hernia operation - $800....yes that's not a typo. For myself I am thinking more along the lines of Uruguay or Chile or Argentina. All three have permanent residency options that are easy to achieve - though this can change, I will give you that - and all three have much less expensive health care than in the US - though not quite as cheap as Cambodia. So that gives you some general idea of what I am getting at.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 10:18pm
Rob - your theory is that other countries will gladly open their arms to fleeing Americans intending to sponge off their superior national healthcare systems? I've looked into moving to quite a few of these countries, they aren't all that keen if you can't pay the freight.
Us "rich" people of course are not allowed to leave the USA *now*, without paying punitive taxes to the Federal government. Sort of tells you how the government sees the whole citizen vs. subject issue these days, eh?I am not even talking of giving up the passport, or even the citizenship per se, just getting off the soil. And if I had to pay punitive taxes to do so, with my laughable asset base, I would be coming out ahead the first time I got sick - assuming ObamaCare is not all it's cracked up to be? Really for people in my financial situation, leaving could be the very best thing, as it has been for my mother's ex boyfriend.....He did keep the passport and the citizenship BTW. Rob
For myself I am thinking more along the lines of Uruguay or Chile or Argentina.
I think you are barking up the right tree there, in truth.
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 10:28pm
I think you are barking up the right tree there, in truth.Thanks Bae....I appreciate that. I have been researching this for a number of years. I'm not just disgruntled and posting to vent, I have been thinking for a number of years that life in the US in many ways is unsustainable. So I have been looking into options for the future.....Rob
The biggest problem with Ryan as VP candidate is that because Romney has refused to define his own position on the reforming entitlements to balance the budget, Ryan's budget became Romney's de facto budget when he chose Ryan.
Had Romney presented a plan for a budget, tax cuts/revenue and budget cuts early and specifically, the media could have examined it, questioned him on it and so when Ryan was appointed The Ryan Plan would have been moot because the only important plan would have been the one belonging to the guy at the top of the ticket.
Instead the guy at the top of the ticket has stated that he wholly endorses Ryan's plan and not presented his own. So, when Ryan's plan pushes Granny off a cliff, everyone knows that would happen with Romney as president because Romney's plan is Ryan's plan.
He and his camp really poorly planned this one.
ApatheticNoMore
8-14-12, 10:58pm
I think if one is young working for a country that is likely to have retirement benefits is a rational choice compared to working for one that may dump them at any minute (probably after you've already paid into them your whole life ...). It's better to get out young and start paying into a different system in a country that believes in taking care of old people. But people get tied down to places and thus make decisions on less rational economic and more emotional human factors. And so they don't. I think that a young person weighing the full factors may very well see the better life (including the possibility of retirement in old age) is elsewhere. Of course that's based on so many assumptions of other things staying the same. Let climate change get bad enough and none of this matters. And so there's so many shadows in the future, like climate change, to pop up like specks in eye and cloud all vision of the long term future. As in: yes, if we're not all toast by then, then I'll be glad to have a government check in my old age ... (and I'll be twice as glad that we aren't all toast by then!)
I don't envision a large movement of Americans moving to countries and not working. That's the key, getting work.
Kind of the key to staying put as well, doncha' think?
SteveinMN
8-15-12, 10:34am
Farmer: "I'm cutting back on watering my plants. They need to learn how to grow on their own."
I think the only other country that believes officially that starving makes anything grow stronger is North Korea. Seriously, does this make sense to people?
You don't make a chair smaller by cutting one leg. Sure, that qualifies in technical terms, but it really only makes the chair unusable. So what is the point of doing it? Health care reform has to mean more than just whacking seniors and the disabled with "vouchers" for private insurance that no company will want to offer. We must include tort reform, so no jury goes on a bender awarding ridiculous financial damages to people when doctors guess wrong. We must include a review of the regulations in the health care industry to understand if the cost of compliance (which we all pay for once the service or product is offered) is worth what we're spending on it.
And we must have a frank realistic discussion of Plan B. So Medicare goes to vouchers and those vouchers will not pay for insurance or treatment for a senior's illness. Then what? Should they run a Kickstarter campaign? Pass the hat at the shopping mall? Turn to palliative care and all the morphine the senior can consume until it's time for him or her to go? What can or should be done about the lack of universal preventive care in the U.S.? Don't worry about it until the high blood pressure causes a stroke? Then what? Who cares for a stroke victim who cannot function by himself/herself? Family? In a two-wage-earner family and with the increasing amount of lower-paid service jobs, where is the money for that? Should we take a functional person out of the workforce (dinging our consumer-driven economy)? Ship the stroke victim off to a nursing home (which gets paid ... how?)?
It's very easy for people of means and opportunity -- who, typically, have not been subject to discrimination beyond being "too young" and who have not yet had the pleasure of joining the "sandwich generation" -- to declare that they don't need help and to not understand why others would, either. I'm not pointing fingers at people in this forum; I have no idea of age, ethnicity, or financial means unless people volunteer it and I can't assume. I just find it interesting that the people making the most noise about not having government do certain things are either the Romneys and Limbaughs and Kochs of the world who have theirs and then some, or the Bachmanns and Ryans and and Boehners who merely spread hypocrisy discussing why government should do less even though feeding at the public trough is about the only career they've ever had.
And we must have a frank realistic discussion of Plan B. So Medicare goes to vouchers and those vouchers will not pay for insurance or treatment for a senior's illness. Then what? Should they run a Kickstarter campaign? Pass the hat at the shopping mall? Turn to palliative care and all the morphine the senior can consume until it's time for him or her to go? What can or should be done about the lack of universal preventive care in the U.S.? Don't worry about it until the high blood pressure causes a stroke? Then what? Who cares for a stroke victim who cannot function by himself/herself? Family? In a two-wage-earner family and with the increasing amount of lower-paid service jobs, where is the money for that? Should we take a functional person out of the workforce (dinging our consumer-driven economy)? Ship the stroke victim off to a nursing home (which gets paid ... how?)?
Basically, they'll do what everyone else without insurance does - when it's bad enough, go to the ER. And the costs will be recouped from paying customers. Which will quickly make it unaffordable for businesses to offer healthcare insurance as a benefit, and make healthcare costs rise much faster than those vouchers will be allowed to.
And the only fix for this would be to repeal the ER mandate and just let those who can't pay die in the streets.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 11:48am
I've been thinking the same thing, but I wish those who want to be the guinea pigs well in their experiment. I don't envision a large movement of Americans moving to countries and not working. That's the key, getting work.Or starting up some kind of business, which makes getting permanent residency much easier in many of the countries I am considering, and with much less money than you would need to get into a first world country. Or taking an online business of some kind with you, already established and up and running.....There is more than one way to accomplish getting out Iris.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 11:51am
Basically, they'll do what everyone else without insurance does - when it's bad enough, go to the ER. And the costs will be recouped from paying customers. Which will quickly make it unaffordable for businesses to offer healthcare insurance as a benefit, and make healthcare costs rise much faster than those vouchers will be allowed to.
And the only fix for this would be to repeal the ER mandate and just let those who can't pay die in the streets.And this is one of the big reasons I want out of the United States - I don't have any faith or trust that the ER mandate won't be repealed and I don't want to die so that the 1% can continue to be so wealthy. America is not worth this to me - nor is any other country, for that matter. Rob
And this is one of the big reasons I want out of the United States - I don't have any faith or trust that the ER mandate won't be repealed and I don't want to die so that the 1% can continue to be so wealthy. America is not worth this to me - nor is any other country, for that matter. Rob
Just out of curiosity, what keeps you here now?
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 12:01pm
Just out of curiosity, what keeps you here now?Basically family, some debts I want to get paid off before I leave (I want to leave cleanly and ethically), and finishing selling off my clutter and some loose odds and ends. Also I am going to be the executor of an estate when a friend of our family passes on - if it is fairly soon - and I don't want to just waltz off on this - unless things get much worse in a hurry. The family involved has been very good to my mom and I don't want to just walk off on them like I said - but maybe a lot of this could be done via the Internet and Skype though? Something to think about.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 12:08pm
Basically, they'll do what everyone else without insurance does - when it's bad enough, go to the ER. And the costs will be recouped from paying customers. Which will quickly make it unaffordable for businesses to offer healthcare insurance as a benefit, and make healthcare costs rise much faster than those vouchers will be allowed to.
And the only fix for this would be to repeal the ER mandate and just let those who can't pay die in the streets.I reallly wonder.....And I know this sounds like a radical idea to some.....Why doesn't the US government consider giving buyouts to those willing to leave to get us off future Medicare and Social Security rolls? I would leap pretty fast as this point depending on the amount involved.....I am aware that perhaps at this point not many would but if things continue to deteriorate, this could be a viable option for some, I think....Although not very good PR, just think of the International headlines, Americans offered lump sum to get lost or something along those lines.....I guess this idea is not going to happen soon if at all. Rob
I reallly wonder.....And I know this sounds like a radical idea to some.....Why doesn't the US government consider giving buyouts to those willing to leave to get us off future Medicare and Social Security rolls? I would leap pretty fast as this point depending on the amount involved.....I am aware that perhaps at this point not many would but if things continue to deteriorate, this could be a viable option for some, I think....Although not very good PR, just think of the International headlines, Americans offered lump sum to get lost or something along those lines.....I guess this idea is not going to happen soon if at all. Rob
I think that would stir up a great big old pot of love it or leave it, don't let the door hit you in the ass patriotism. In truth Rob I would probably feel some of that myself. I know what you're saying and on the surface it makes some sense, but paying anyone to leave is not something I can see getting any popular support at all. I'm guessing a little bit here, but I think a whole lot of Americans would feel that we should all stick it out together and keep working to find solutions. If you want to leave before then, fine, but don't be sticking your hand out as you leave if you're not going to be here through the hard part. And if you leave you needn't bother keeping that US passport, either. But that's just a guess...
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 1:25pm
I think that would stir up a great big old pot of love it or leave it, don't let the door hit you in the ass patriotism. In truth Rob I would probably feel some of that myself. I know what you're saying and on the surface it makes some sense, but paying anyone to leave is not something I can see getting any popular support at all. I'm guessing a little bit here, but I think a whole lot of Americans would feel that we should all stick it out together and keep working to find solutions. If you want to leave before then, fine, but don't be sticking your hand out as you leave if you're not going to be here through the hard part. And if you leave you needn't bother keeping that US passport, either. But that's just a guess...I think you're more than likely right, that among many this kind of patriotism would be stirred up. Amazing to me. I only meant this as an idea to get some folks off the entitlement rolls - win for the US - and for those who are interested, a new life elsewhere - a potential win for such folks. And yes I would agree if such money were ever handed out, turning in the passport is fair, I don't have a problem with that. I think I have a different view of citizenship/nationality/loyalty to any one country as I was raised to believe that citizenship boils down to what's the tax rate, does it include socialized medicine, and essentially, how equitable is society as a whole? Different from how many are raised, I'll grant that. Mostly I was raised by a single mother whose first memory was the Americans and British bombing her city every night - she was born in Salzburg, Austria, in 1942. Her first memory is off people screaming because the bomb sirens were going off and bombs were going off not far away and she had not yet made it to the bomb shelter under her apartment building. Kind of makes you think of things very differently I think and I feel blessed that I don't view these issues the way most do. But that's my take on it and I realize that this is controversial to many. Rob
I reallly wonder.....And I know this sounds like a radical idea to some.....Why doesn't the US government consider giving buyouts to those willing to leave to get us off future Medicare and Social Security rolls? I would leap pretty fast as this point depending on the amount involved.....
Would you be willing to retire your share of the national debt at the same time?
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 3:03pm
Would you be willing to retire your share of the national debt at the same time?hmmmmm......good question....and a fair one. My share of the national debt I am afraid would dwaft any money the govemment would give me to get off the entitlement rolls. So I have a hard time with this one. On the one hand, I don' t deny that you have a point, and on the other, it seems as if there are countries that meet my criteria WITHOUT the necc of nightmare debt loads - at least not as bad as ours is in the US. Or not as bad on a per-capita basis either. So to answer, yes and no. Some of it depends also on how much I would get paid to say au reviour vs. how much the projection is that my leaving would save the US. Rob
Reminds me of the immortal words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you.....", aww, nevermind.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times. That so many people bow at the altar of big government, expecting to be rewarded for voting for the right people, gladly accepting and promoting reliance on others, then threatening to leave (with hopes of even being paid to do so) if their desires aren't met.
Perhaps a more appropriate quote would be:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
The good thing is (getting back on topic), I think Paul Ryan brings the right combination of attitude, conviction and beliefs to forestall de Tocqueville's proclamation, at least for the short term.
Reminds me of the immortal words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you.....", aww, nevermind.
Isn't that the uncomfortable calculus at the heart of the YMOYL-style simple-living though?
1 - minimize expenses, save a lot
2 - invest in low-risk, non-taxable instruments
3 - retire early, kick back
4 - let those poor suckers who insist on working forever pick up the tab for your healthcare, your roads, your national defense, and all those other wonderful services. You've done your time.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 4:31pm
Isn't that the uncomfortable calculus at the heart of the YMOYL-style simple-living though?
1 - minimize expenses, save a lot
2 - invest in low-risk, non-taxable instruments -
3 - retire early, kick back
4 - let those poor suckers who insist on working forever pick up the tab for your healthcare, your roads, your national defense, and all those other wonderful services. You've done your time.Not necc in my case Bae.....my goal is to leave, go somewhere where healthcare is very cheap and pay cash for what I need, probably start a business and actually contribute something.....in my case your post doesn't really apply - perhaps for others, though.....Rob
I'm not criticising the approach, Rob. Heck, it's what I've done myself.
I hate the thought of the fruits of my labor being taken and used to kill innocent people in far off lands, while profiting vast soulless entities that despoil the Earth. The most I can manage to do at this point in time is to participate as little as possible.
So to answer, yes and no. Some of it depends also on how much I would get paid to say au reviour vs. how much the projection is that my leaving would save the US. Rob
So you would want some consideration for removing yourself as a liability from the national balance sheet. Wouldn’t it be fairer to compensate the receiving country rather than you for assuming the new liability you would create for them? And if you’re making the move to obtain a richer package of entitlements, wouldn’t it be fair for them to ask you to pay them for the step-up in the present value of the future government benefits you’re pursuing?
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 4:42pm
Reminds me of the immortal words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you.....", aww, nevermind.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times. That so many people bow at the altar of big government, expecting to be rewarded for voting for the right people, gladly accepting and promoting reliance on others, then threatening to leave (with hopes of even being paid to do so) if their desires aren't met.
Perhaps a more appropriate quote would be:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
The good thing is (getting back on topic), I think Paul Ryan brings the right combination of attitude, conviction and beliefs to forestall de Tocqueville's proclamation, at least for the short term.Alan, I get that we are not going to agree here and I am fine with this.....I just have one question for you and I am very curious as to your answer.....
Given how employers treat employees in the US these days, is it not fair to apply the same critical eye/standards/personal requirements to your citizenship these days? If you don't agree fine, but could you explain to me why not? I have never understood why citizenship should be exempt from market forces such as these.
Also if I may, I am not threatening to leave. I merely bring up the suggestion as a win-win for those interested in leaving. Please note benefits to the US in such persons being taken off entitlement rolls permanenty - so the harm to any party would be? (Sorry I just exceeded my one question lol.) Rob
PS And to top all things off and also get back to topic, I don't completely disagree with Paul Ryan, either. I do agree with him that all this spending is unsustainable and that something does need to be done. I just don't agree with his road map to get somewhere sustainable.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 4:44pm
I'm not criticising the approach, Rob. Heck, it's what I've done myself.
I hate the thought of the fruits of my labor being taken and used to kill innocent people in far off lands, while profiting vast soulless entities that despoil the Earth. The most I can manage to do at this point in time is to participate as little as possible.Wow Bae, I am amazed.....I find myself agreeing with you 100%! Which just goes to show there can be common ground amongst all kinds of different people. A very hopeful thing IMHO. Rob
It does raise some interesting angles. With this logic we probably would be better off paying very young children to leave because it will be a while before they can contribute. Get them out before they attend a public school, drive on a public road, go to public parks, use money, collect entitlements, go to court, suffer a natural disaster... As for their parents it may be a little trickier establishing what's fair.
If someone had been a fairly high earner for 30 or 40 years they would have paid in quite a bit so woud logically be entitled, so to speak, to a rebate if they were giving up future benefits. Someone who had only been working for 10 or 15 years at lower paying jobs is probably behind in their payments.
There is one simple way to get close to figuring out an average. The 2012 budget is $3.729 trillion. According to the population clock there are 314 million people in this country today. Divide it up and you get $11,875.80 each. That is what each person's share of this year's federal budget is. If someone wants to apply for a rebate upon permanently relocating we could add up their share of the budget for all the years they've been living here (the share of the debt LDAHL mentioned should be included) and then subtract what they paid in. If you have a credit, you get a check. Way oversimplified to be sure, but I still doubt many of the people in line would get checks.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 4:55pm
So you would want some consideration for removing yourself as a liability from the national balance sheet. Wouldn’t it be fairer to compensate the receiving country rather than you for assuming the new liability you would create for them? And if you’re making the move to obtain a richer package of entitlements, wouldn’t it be fair for them to ask you to pay them for the step-up in the present value of the future government benefits you’re pursuing?If you have followed my posts you would see - sorry this is starting to sound sarcastic and such is not my intention - my goal is to emigrate somewhere with cheap health care perhaps in Latin America and pay cash for what I need or perhaps buy my own much less less less expensive insurance. What I would get out of this is removal from what I consider to be a healthcare system that is all about money and not people. Also a slower pace of life and perhaps a little more meaning, though I do think one can search for that here also. I would start some kind of business and pay into another system, so I would expect whatever benefits due to me in said country for doing so, which of course I would have researched in advance. I plan on paying INTO another system, not just being a liabilty. But your idea does intrigue me - if said money for my goodbye were to be paid to government X and never cross my hands - fine - as long as it applies to the monies I need to bring in with me to obtain a legal business visa in country X. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
8-15-12, 5:00pm
Maybe it's just a sign of the times. That so many people bow at the altar of big government, expecting to be rewarded for voting for the right people
It's no more an expectation than anything, it's a hope that old age programs will be there when we are old, no more or less irrational that the hope that the 401k won't tank.
gladly accepting and promoting reliance on others
Everyone relies on others. I guess maybe the ideal of a person not relying on others would be single (of course), have thier own health insurance, not take any help from family ever (not for education, not in hard times), never take a government loan, etc. etc.. They are unlikely to ever be as sucessful in this economy as those who work with others toward their goals because the gains accessible to the average person will actually accrue to those who can best maximize opportunities (sometimes to those who exploit others but I don't condone that) and not to those who can be the purest most unsoiled examples of individual self-sufficiency but ... thems are the breaks. By the way I'm a pretty good example of self-sufficiency :)
then threatening to leave (with hopes of even being paid to do so) if their desires aren't met.
threatening is an expression of disgust with the policies, just leaving might be out of nothing more nor less than rational self-interest.
Perhaps a more appropriate quote would be:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
an interesting theory and a very poor map of current american reality. A few social programs exist which serve the majority, and they probably won't survive unless they also produce corporate kickback (any programs which don't produce corporate kickback are precisely those under attack!), but much is also done to benefit a select few. Who? Every Homeland Security profiteer out there, Blackwater, the banks that were propped up by government policy, the government coverering up for BP etc. etc.
The good thing is (getting back on topic), I think Paul Ryan brings the right combination of attitude, conviction and beliefs to forestall de Tocqueville's proclamation, at least for the short term.
what prediction, descent into dictatorship? Where does Paul Ryan even stand on civil liberties issues? Oh wait those have nothing to do with dictatorship, the real causes of dictatorship are mostly Medicare and Social Security, obviously (sarcasm). I think a way way stronger case can be made that the descent into dictatorship is caused by EMPIRE, and currently a very clear case can be made that the civil liberties violations are DIRECT assaults.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 5:05pm
It does raise some interesting angles. With this logic we probably would be better off paying very young children to leave because it will be a while before they can contribute. Get them out before they attend a public school, drive on a public road, go to public parks, use money, collect entitlements, go to court, suffer a natural disaster... As for their parents it may be a little trickier establishing what's fair.
If someone had been a fairly high earner for 30 or 40 years they would have paid in quite a bit so woud logically be entitled, so to speak, to a rebate if they were giving up future benefits. Someone who had only been working for 10 or 15 years at lower paying jobs is probably behind in their payments.
There is one simple way to get close to figuring out an average. The 2012 budget is $3.729 trillion. According to the population clock there are 314 million people in this country today. Divide it up and you get $11,875.80 each. That is what each person's share of this year's federal budget is. If someone wants to apply for a rebate upon permanently relocating we could add up their share of the budget for all the years they've been living here (the share of the debt LDAHL mentioned should be included) and then subtract what they paid in. If you have a credit, you get a check. Way oversimplified to be sure, but I still doubt many of the people in line would get checks.Maybe you have a point about the young leaving.....I read last year a survey that 40% of recent college graduates would leave the US if an opportunity came up to do so. Given what young people in the US face today, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some takers of a check to say goodbye. Rob
But your idea does intrigue me - if said money for my goodbye were to be paid to government X and never cross my hands - fine - as long as it applies to the monies I need to bring in with me to obtain a legal business visa in country X. Rob
Might be an interesting way to clear off some of what the Latin American countries owe us for their share of the UN peacekeeper missions.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 5:10pm
It's no more an expectation than anything, it's a hope that old age programs will be there when we are old, no more or less irrational that the hope that the 401k won't tank.
Everyone relies on others. I guess maybe the ideal of a person not relying on others would be single (of course), have thier own health insurance, not take any help from family ever (not for education, not in hard times), never take a government loan, etc. etc.. They are unlikely to ever be as sucessful in this economy as those who work with others toward their goals because the gains accessible to the average person will actually accrue to those who can best maximize opportunities (sometimes to those who exploit others but I don't condone that) and not to those who can be the purest most unsoiled examples of individual self-sufficiency but ... thems are the breaks. By the way I'm a pretty good example of self-sufficiency :)
threatening is an expression of disgust with the policies, just leaving might be out of nothing more nor less than rational self-interest.
an interesting theory and a very poor map of current american reality. A few social programs exist which serve the majority, and they probably won't survive unless they also produce corporate kickback (any programs which don't produce corporate kickback are precisely those under attack!), but much is also done to benefit a select few. Who? Every Homeland Security profiteer out there, Blackwater, the banks that were propped up by government policy, the government coverering up for BP etc. etc.
what prediction, descent into dictatorship? Where does Paul Ryan even stand on civil liberties issues? Oh wait those have nothing to do with dictatorship, the real causes of dictatorship are mostly Medicare and Social Security, obviously (sarcasm). I think a way way stronger case can be made that the descent into dictatorship is caused by EMPIRE, and currently a very clear case can be made that the civil liberties violations are DIRECT assaults.Thank you, ANM! I consider my wishes to leave very much rational self interest.....Thank you for not seeing it as a threat when no threat was made. I am taking off for an appointment right now but wll look over the rest of your post when I return. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
8-15-12, 5:12pm
If you have followed my posts you would see - sorry this is starting to sound sarcastic and such is not my intention - my goal is to emigrate somewhere with cheap health care perhaps in Latin America and pay cash for what I need or perhaps buy my own much less less less expensive insurance.
it wouldn't surpise me if ironically those countries probably have much purer free-market health care system than the U.S. does. This U.S. insurance system which you are supposed to be so proud and patriotic to have. The U.S. is one giant kick-back machine. But ocassionally it throws the majority a bone like some old age programs - that must be stopped! (sarcasm)
It does raise some interesting angles. With this logic we probably would be better off paying very young children to leave because it will be a while before they can contribute. Get them out before they attend a public school, drive on a public road, go to public parks, use money, collect entitlements, go to court, suffer a natural disaster... As for their parents it may be a little trickier establishing what's fair.
If someone had been a fairly high earner for 30 or 40 years they would have paid in quite a bit so woud logically be entitled, so to speak, to a rebate if they were giving up future benefits. Someone who had only been working for 10 or 15 years at lower paying jobs is probably behind in their payments.
There is one simple way to get close to figuring out an average. The 2012 budget is $3.729 trillion. According to the population clock there are 314 million people in this country today. Divide it up and you get $11,875.80 each. That is what each person's share of this year's federal budget is. If someone wants to apply for a rebate upon permanently relocating we could add up their share of the budget for all the years they've been living here (the share of the debt LDAHL mentioned should be included) and then subtract what they paid in. If you have a credit, you get a check. Way oversimplified to be sure, but I still doubt many of the people in line would get checks.
Sort of a "Modest Proposal" for the 21st century? If we monetize citizenship, there's no reason we can't include a buyout clause for a citizen's net equity share of the social capital.
Maybe you have a point about the young leaving.....I read last year a survey that 40% of recent college graduates would leave the US if an opportunity came up to do so. Given what young people in the US face today, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some takers of a check to say goodbye. Rob
I'm sure, but that is WAY too old. To be viable we need to get kids out of the country by age 2 or 3. Much after that they start costing the country money. Recent college grads are (financially) the worst of the worst. They've consumed the resources of society their whole lives, but most have never put anything back in the coffers. For your program to be fair to everyone who writes the checks you either get out at age 3 or age 63.
If I'm going to pay someone to not consume shared resources here in the US (including those that belong to the future) I will buy you some extra insulation for your house. I breathe in less pollution and you can take the money you saved on utilities and buy better insurance. I don't want to get into a tit for tat dance that pays you to move next door and consume the neighbor's resources.
BTW: not taking your proposal as a threat Rob. I respect looking out for one's self interest and wish you the best (on this so far theoretical journey), I just don't want to pay you to do it.
This U.S. insurance system which you are supposed to be so proud and patriotic to have.
Why would someone feel "proud and patriotic" about our insurance system? Given the amount of government involvement in regulating healthcare and insurance, it is hardly a free market, or even a transparent one. The current system is about as un-American as you can get.
Sort of a "Modest Proposal" for the 21st century? If we monetize citizenship, there's no reason we can't include a buyout clause for a citizen's net equity share of the social capital.
I have a very good friend who decided to move to the USA permanently. He had to write a substantial check to the government of his own country to buy-out the education and other services his wife and he had received. Seems they wanted to see ROI.
AMEN bae.
And to clarify, by "the current system" I was referring to today's semi-pre-Obamacare system, since Obamacare hasn't really kicked in yet. I don't expect Obamacare to substantially improve things.
I have a very good friend who decided to move to the USA permanently. He had to write a substantial check to the government of his own country to buy-out the education and other services his wife and he had received. Seems they wanted to see ROI.
I think many countries take a more practical view than we do of the immigration/emigration transaction.
We also extend citizenship to foreign nationals who serve in our military. I suppose you could consider that to be a sort of sweat equity.
ApatheticNoMore
8-15-12, 5:58pm
Why would someone feel "proud and patriotic" about our insurance system? Given the amount of government involvement in regulating healthcare and insurance, it is hardly a free market, or even a transparent one. The current system is about as un-American as you can get.
I think I was making the same point although rather sarcastically.
Rob wants to leave the country > The main reason he wants to leave is because he can't afford health care in the existing system> a system of socialized medicine, if we had one would probably work better, but we don't have one > Rob gets attacked for wanting to take advantage of other countries socialized medical system, but in fact he doesn't even want to do anything of the sort (or maybe he'd like to but he isn't able to at any rate as it is very difficult to get into those countries). He really just wants to move to a country where medical care is actually affordable out of pocket. Oh that's so horrible (sarcasm).
He really just wants to move to a country where medical care is actually affordable out of pocket.
It might prove interesting to look at why medical care is affordable in those places.
He really just wants to move to a country where medical care is actually affordable out of pocket. Oh that's so horrible (sarcasm).
I don't think anyone had any problem with that part. The discussion is more centered around Rob's idea that someone would basically be paid to leave. The idea is that by leaving you will not cost the US taxpayers any money at a later date and so could receive a buyout of sorts based on those anticipated savings. That's what led into the talk around monetizing citizenship, which may not be as outlandish as it might sound.
It might prove interesting to look at why medical care is affordable in those places.
Affordable to us - I think in those places medical care is not so affordable to most of the people living there.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 9:37pm
It might prove interesting to look at why medical care is affordable in those places.Once again, I couldn't agree with you more, Bae. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 9:43pm
Affordable to us - I think in those places medical care is not so affordable to most of the people living there.Yes and no. The countries I am looking at do have a system of socialized medicine in place HOWEVER just getting there with a business visa does not get you on it and it takes time to get on it, and in the case of Chile and Uruguay, citizenship (theirs) to get on it. Hence the math assuming cash payments for health care services or perhaps private insurance. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 9:49pm
[QUOTE=gimmethesimplelife;96169]Yes and no. The countries I am looking at do have a system of socialized medicine in place HOWEVER just getting there with a business visa does not get you on it and it takes time to get on it, and in the case of Chile and Uruguay, citizenship (theirs) to get on it. Hence the math assuming cash payments for health care services or perhaps private insurance. But that doesn't answer your question. For the locals, they will be able to access at least basic health care fairly cheaply due to socialized medicine - were they to pay in their currency on what they make, it would be quite nightmarishly expensive for most, just like healthcare here often is without insurance. The difference is that due to socialized medicine, the locals have access to basic healthcare many in the US lack, and for me even without this access, having US dollars to convert makes the costs much saner. Rob
I don't think anyone had any problem with that part. The discussion is more centered around Rob's idea that someone would basically be paid to leave. The idea is that by leaving you will not cost the US taxpayers any money at a later date and so could receive a buyout of sorts based on those anticipated savings. That's what led into the talk around monetizing citizenship, which may not be as outlandish as it might sound.
I agree that Rob's idea is an interesting one and don't personally have a problem with it per se.* I agree that at first glance recent college grads would have the deepest 'negative' citizenship balance sheet since they'd had the benefit of education, etc up to that point with little meaningful contribution back to society. On the other hand, though, I don't think you can do a straight line amortization of the rest of the person's life. Beyond the fairly constant benefits we all receive throughout our lives of things like public roads, police forces, fire departments, libraries, etc, the main benefits an average person who is successfully working/self-supporting for their adult life, are the old age benefits of social security and medicare. Social security is again a stable payout for the person's entire retired lifespan. Medicare, however, is not. Everything I've ever read is that the average person consumes an enormous portion of their lifetime healthcare services during the last 2 years of their life. It doesn't matter if they die at 20, 50 or 92. With that in mind I think that a major component of calculating one's citizen balance sheet would have to include accounting for the US not having to be responsible for that person's last 2 years of health care. If they leave at 20 it'll be a small component of their overall citizen balance sheet. If they leave at some point after retirement age (and are currently healthy, not in the middle of consuming their final 2 year's healthcare services) it'll be almost the entire amount of their balance sheet and would presumably be a quite large positive factor.
*At this point in my life I'm not likely to immigrate elsewhere to build a new career/life. If anything becoming an ex-pat would be a decision at retirement to move somewhere with a lower cost of living where my lifetime of savings could hopefully support me in my remaining years. However, if I were a recent college grad and had an exciting opportunity or at least saw a potential opportunity to move to another country and start my adult life then absolutely I'd consider it. I don't see that as any different from the countless people who have moved to America over the centuries because they thought they'd have more opportunity here. My maternal ancesters didn't move to Kansas from Germany in the 1800s because they hated being German. They moved because they believed they could have a better life here. I imagine that the opportunities for an eager entrepreneurial person in a developing country in Asia or Latin America today are amazing. A go getter who wants to take a chance, move there and try to establish him or herself and build some sort of business could probably create a very rewarding life and at the same time be a benefit to their new country as they help grow that country's economy.
iris lily
8-16-12, 12:19am
Yes and no. The countries I am looking at do have a system of socialized medicine in place HOWEVER just getting there with a business visa does not get you on it and it takes time to get on it, and in the case of Chile and Uruguay, citizenship (theirs) to get on it. Hence the math assuming cash payments for health care services or perhaps private insurance. Rob
I don't mean this to be snarky towards you, but given the number of times liberals here on this board have bemoaned the idea of limiting social services to citizens here in this country, I wonder why you'd be interested in moving to a country that is so selfish with its resources? I mean, limiting public health care to only those with citizens papers? So, do they turn down non-citizens and non-insured in Emergency Rooms in hospitals?
Please note that I find that policy to be reasonable. Do you?
Let them die in the streets Iris. Sounds like the ideas of a typical conservative.
Let them die in the streets Iris. Sounds like the ideas of a typical conservative.
http://jeffersoncountygop.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/reagan-there-you-go-again.jpg
Ahh, Saint Ronald. A President who was practically a Leftist compared to some of the current wanna-bes...
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 8:53am
I don't mean this to be snarky towards you, but given the number of times liberals here on this board have bemoaned the idea of limiting social services to citizens here in this country, I wonder why you'd be interested in moving to a country that is so selfish with its resources? I mean, limiting public health care to only those with citizens papers? So, do they turn down non-citizens and non-insured in Emergency Rooms in hospitals?
Please note that I find that policy to be reasonable. Do you?Actually Iris, in Argentina anyone can get healthcare covered, even tourists, and I understand this is true in Britian too - but Britian has had recent heavy cutbacks in social services so this may no longer be the case. But to answer your question, (don't be shocked, ok?), I don't think it's wrong to limit healthcare to those who are citizens or a least permanent residents making some kind of contribution to the system, exceptions being disabled persons, mentally ill persons, and children under acceptable working age, and those over working age. I also think if one is able to pay cash for services there should be no turning down of services in ER rooms. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 8:57am
Let them die in the streets Iris. Sounds like the ideas of a typical conservative.I don't think ALL conservatives buy into this kind of thinking at this kind of a level - but the idea of ones who do at the leadership helm of this country for at least four years - I don't know if I am up to dealing with that again, I really don't. I'd better sign up for Rosetta Stone and build up the Spanish skills.....Rob
Ahh, Saint Ronald. A President who was practically a Leftist compared to some of the current wanna-bes...
Jonah Goldberg has noted this phenomenon of liberals seeing the good in prominent conservatives after they are safely dead:
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/02/04/liberal_bouquets_for_dead_conservatives/page/full/
The only good conservative is a dead conservative.
That, in a nutshell, describes the age-old tradition of liberals suddenly discovering that once-reviled conservatives were OK after all. It's just we-the-living who are hateful ogres, troglodytes and moperers.
Over the last decade or so, as the giants of the founding generation of modern American conservatism have died, each has been rehabilitated into a gentleman-statesman of a bygone era of conservative decency and open-mindedness.
I don't think ALL conservatives buy into this kind of thinking at this kind of a level - but the idea of ones who do at the leadership helm of this country for at least four years - I don't know if I am up to dealing with that again, I really don't. I'd better sign up for Rosetta Stone and build up the Spanish skills.....Rob
You know I'm always impressed with the ability many people have of buying into a meme, regardless of facts. To me it shows a single minded determination that could lead to great things, if applied properly.
We've seen a lot of talk in this thread about the Ryan budget plan and it's effect on Medicare. So many have expressed the Democrat talking point that it will "gut" or "destroy" Medicare. And why not? It's what they hear out of the Obama campaign and all of the associated talking heads, and they've been at it for a long time. Long enough for Politifact to go over the matter, point by point, and declare it the Lie Of The Year in 2011 (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/).
I find this politics of fear approach disheartening, not because it is waged, but because it works. I think the country deserves better.
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 9:21am
You know I'm always impressed with the ability many people have of buying into a meme, regardless of facts. To me it shows a single minded determination that could lead to great things, if applied properly.
We've seen a lot of talk in this thread about the Ryan budget plan and it's effect on Medicare. So many have expressed the Democrat talking point that it will "gut" or "destroy" Medicare. And why not? It's what they hear out of the Obama campaign and all of the associated talking heads, and they've been at it for a long time. Long enough for Politifact to go over the matter, point by point, and declare it the Lie Of The Year in 2011 (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/).
I find this politics of fear approach disheartening, not because it is waged, but because it works. I think the country deserves better.The problem with what you have posted here is that the fear approach works so well pretty much due to the inequalities of wealth in the US and the lack of upward mobility or job security these days. USA Today recently ran an article to the effect that if you want upward mobility, you are better off in Sweden or the other Nordic countries as that famed upward movement with hard work is not happening here like it used to. Many realize this and there is a great deal of anger out there about so many issues - jobs being offshored, outsourced, health care being so inaccessable and unaffordable to so many, no job security, constantly rising costs but wages going nowhere - point being in this climate, fear works Alan. I myself have been afraid of the US for some time now. I seriously doubt I will ever really be able to trust this system again - hence the wish to leave. Like anything else, it's cetainly not for everybody. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 9:25am
Really? The die in the streets slap again? How original. Seriously Rob, do you know what the policy for emergency treatment is in Uruguay or any of the other places you're looking at? We'd be very interested to hear how they handle it.Uruguay and Chile and Argentina all have socialized medicine, and in Argentina anyone can get health care, this includes foreign tourists, free of charge. If you are not a citizen of Chile or Uruguay, health insurance is much cheaper there than it is here but I will admit I don't know if they pull that pre-existing condition nightmare that insurance companies here love so much. I need to look into this STAT. Rob
Not directing this part at Rob: I have met plenty of people over the years that bemoan the lack of opportunity in the US, that tell me how it is impossible to break out of your class, that see greener grass in other pastures. For every one of those people I've also met someone who had an idea and ran with it. They left the whining about the playing field not being perfectly level behind and actually stood up and DID something about it. Some failed, some succeeded, some became fantastically rich. Most of the ones who failed, including me (several times), went on to try again because that is their nature. Almost all of the ones who succeeded were the ones who failed at the first few attempts.
It's not the political climate that truly limits us. There are amazing success stories that came out of Stalin's Russia and Aristide's Haiti and any number of other places so oppressive that you wonder how it would even be possible. Hardly comparable to the US. Fear imposes limits, but not fear of what a government will do. Government actions only require strategy to work with. Limits are contained in that 6" space between your ears, but to admit that means dealing with the prickly issue of personal responsibility. Falling short of our goals might be more our fault than the government's. Ouch.
Ok Rob since you are carring the torch in this conversation, let me ask you this... If you had no financial limitations and could afford both the best health insurance available and the best health care for things not covered by insurance would you still be looking at Uruguay/Argentina/Chile? And #2, have you actually ever been down there?
"And Ryan" is an anagram of Ayn Rand. Coincidence? I think not... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/light_skin/vampire.gif
All this worry about Ryan, is no one worried that Biden is actually that heartbeat away from being President.
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 11:12am
Not directing this part at Rob: I have met plenty of people over the years that bemoan the lack of opportunity in the US, that tell me how it is impossible to break out of your class, that see greener grass in other pastures. For every one of those people I've also met someone who had an idea and ran with it. They left the whining about the playing field not being perfectly level behind and actually stood up and DID something about it. Some failed, some succeeded, some became fantastically rich. Most of the ones who failed, including me (several times), went on to try again because that is their nature. Almost all of the ones who succeeded were the ones who failed at the first few attempts.
It's not the political climate that truly limits us. There are amazing success stories that came out of Stalin's Russia and Aristide's Haiti and any number of other places so oppressive that you wonder how it would even be possible. Hardly comparable to the US. Fear imposes limits, but not fear of what a government will do. Government actions only require strategy to work with. Limits are contained in that 6" space between your ears, but to admit that means dealing with the prickly issue of personal responsibility. Falling short of our goals might be more our fault than the government's. Ouch.
Ok Rob since you are carring the torch in this conversation, let me ask you this... If you had no financial limitations and could afford both the best health insurance available and the best health care for things not covered by insurance would you still be looking at Uruguay/Argentina/Chile? And #2, have you actually ever been down there?I have been to Argentina once years ago yes.....and this was before their collapse I will admit. I understand the landscape has changed there is some ways but they have still retained their committment to health care for all. Interesting question about if there were no financial limitations - if I won the lottery tomorrow, I would still want to leave, yes, because of what I have experienced getting to that point. Had I never had these experiences, of course my viewpoint would be different and I would want to stay. I do believe a lot of this citizenship boils down to social class - that one dawned on me back in my college days, like in 1987. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 11:13am
All this worry about Ryan, is no one worried that Biden is actually that heartbeat away from being President.I see issues with BOTH actually......not thrilled with the idea of either getting to the top slot. Rob
...if I won the lottery tomorrow, I would still want to leave, yes, because of what I have experienced getting to that point.
Fair enough Rob. It's interesting to see that perspective. We have such an issue with millions of people trying to come here every year because they view the US as a place with opportunities they can't get elsewhere (I do, too) that sometimes we forget there are other perspectives and other experiences. Thanks for the reminder.
iris lily
8-16-12, 11:31am
Fair enough Rob. It's interesting to see that perspective. We have such an issue with millions of people trying to come here every year because they view the US as a place with opportunities they can't get elsewhere (I do, too) that sometimes we forget there are other perspectives and other experiences. Thanks for the reminder.
Agreed, Rob's points have been interesting. The recently departed Zoebird also found reasons, business reasons, to leave here and go to a place where she saw better opportunity. I think that is great, really! Go for it, and I mean that sincerely.
I see issues with BOTH actually......not thrilled with the idea of either getting to the top slot. Rob
Imagine the uproar we'd hear if Ryan uttered anything like Biden's "put ya'll back in chains" remark, or his history lesson about FDR addressing the nation on television after Pearl Harbor.
Imagine the uproar we'd hear if Ryan uttered anything like Biden's "put ya'll back in chains" remark, or his history lesson about FDR addressing the nation on television after Pearl Harbor.
If Ryan would say something like that Peggy would be screaming that he was a racist. But Biden's got a D after his title so its ok.
ApatheticNoMore
8-16-12, 11:44am
Not directing this part at Rob: I have met plenty of people over the years that bemoan the lack of opportunity in the US, that tell me how it is impossible to break out of your class, that see greener grass in other pastures. For every one of those people I've also met someone who had an idea and ran with it.
Yea but you can also I think spend your whole life trying to fit into a place you're not a good fit for.
I'm thinking of moving too. But not out of the country, just further south for the milder winters. Good luck if you do chose to move Rob, keep us posted. I have thought about moving out of the country from time to time. My kids may have to if things continue the way things are, but then when the USA goes bankrupt I'm not sure where else would be much better.
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 12:04pm
Yea but you can also I think spend your whole life trying to fit into a place you're not a good fit for.You know, APN, I think you may have really hit on something here - I'm not really a good fit here. Maybe this is noone's fault, maybe it just is. Certainly the way I see things in general and my general take on life goes against the grain of the mainstream. To get in line with the general purpose of this board, maybe it would make my life simpler in some ways to find a better fit.....Rob
Ahh, you didn't follow the link to read more did you?
Guilty!! I'll read more and become better informed before passing judgement. And try to catch up on this thread - 16 pages in just one missed day - WOW!! A;lmost as exciting as the gun debate :-)!
We haven't had a good abortion debate for a while... Or salad spinners. Always a page turner when we talk about whirling lettuce!
Always a page turner when we talk about whirling lettuce!
Heretic!
Lettuce must be hand-dried by all-natural-fiber cloths woven under the light of the waning moon by The Faithful.
Heretic!
Lettuce must be hand-dried by all-natural-fiber cloths woven under the light of the waning moon by The Faithful.
Well I am a salad spinner virgin - have never once used or been soiled by using that unGodly contrapation so am pure as the extra-virgin olive oil that goes on my wet, dank unspun lettuce!
Spartana please, this is a family friendly environment. Is it hot in here or is it just me?
Lettuce must be hand-dried by all-natural-fiber cloths woven under the light of the waning moon by The Faithful.
Au contraire, mon ami. The world spins round and round. Salad forks at dawn or oysters on your dock?
All this worry about Ryan, is no one worried that Biden is actually that heartbeat away from being President.
nope
Spartana please, this is a family friendly environment. Is it hot in here or is it just me?
Well if I add "wilting" does that make it better :-)! Someday I may actually try a salad spinner to see what all the fuss is about. Probably about the same time as pigs fly, some place very hot freezes over, and I decide to get a job again.
Heretic!
Lettuce must be hand-dried by all-natural-fiber cloths woven under the light of the waning moon by The Faithful.
Excuse me...you DO mean organic, heirloom lettuce lovingly grown in poop from free range chickens? Right?
If Ryan would say something like that Peggy would be screaming that he was a racist. But Biden's got a D after his title so its ok.
:laff:
Ha ha...you HAVE noticed I don't jump in here every time Romney makes a gaffe....and there HAVE been a lot of them! There is just too many real, important things to talk about to waste time on misspeaks.
Also, I have the rather odd habit (i know) of actually LISTENING to the WHOLE sentence, and the WHOLE paragraph, whichever side is speaking. Admittedly it would be more fun to take any number of Romneys gaffes or partial sentences or misspeaks, and create a 'controversy', but that wouldn't be totally honest, would it.;) Who do you think I am? Fox News?
ApatheticNoMore
8-16-12, 3:47pm
Excuse me...you DO mean organic, heirloom lettuce lovingly grown in poop from free range chickens? Right?
The lettuce also grows better if sung to, strictly operatic pieces for my lettuce.
Affordable to us - I think in those places medical care is not so affordable to most of the people living there.
One plus! Robs friend's $800 hernia surgury in Mexico would be affordable to us from the USA, but would that be considered afordable for most low-income Mexicans? Also, how much does the governement of Mexico (or any other country with lower out-of-pocket medical costs) substidize healthcare in their country? With, I'm assuming, their citizens tax dollars. My sister lived in New Zealand for over a year and went to the doctor for something. It was very inexpensive for her. However it was inexpensive for her because the taxpaying citizens of New Zealand were paying a large portion of their income towards the system.
Of course other countries generally have a lower cost of living so therefore their medicsal care is going to cost less even if not subsidized by taxes. Sounds to me that is what Rob is looking for. I read that India has a whole sub-culture of medical workers, hospitals and doctors that just provide cash-only medical services for foreigners. And while those medical services would be much too expensive for the average Indian, they are very inexpensive to most foreigners from the west.
Originally Posted by SteveinMN http://www.simplelivingforum.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?p=96216#post96216) Ahh, Saint Ronald. A President who was practically a Leftist compared to some of the current wanna-bes...
Jonah Goldberg has noted this phenomenon of liberals seeing the good in prominent conservatives after they are safely dead:
[snip] (http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/02/04/liberal_bouquets_for_dead_conservatives/page/full/)Over the last decade or so, as the giants of the founding generation of modern American conservatism have died, each has been rehabilitated into a gentleman-statesman of a bygone era of conservative decency and open-mindedness.
Oops. I forgot the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tag on that one.
Sorry, no warm fuzzies for Ronnie here. I will give him credit for being a better communicator than White House inhabitants like Bush43, Quayle, and (yes) Biden. I will give him credit for being able to quickly alter the national conversation from "should we cut?" to "how much should we cut?" Beyond that, though, I absolutely believe America's slide into becoming a banana republic started on his watch, and that GOP fealty to their vision of what Reagan stood for has screw^h^h^h^h^h messed up the country since. The issue of abortion aside, at least Ronnie stayed out of people's bedrooms. And he was realistic enough to realize that life as we knew it would not end because he authorized a tax increase. In today's Republican party, Reagan -- as he was -- would be a RINO, having failed to display the evangelical extremism that politicians like Bachmann and Perry muster and not being able to sign on to Grover Norquist's country-killing tax pledge.
All this worry about Ryan, is no one worried that Biden is actually that heartbeat away from being President.
Aside from occasional bouts of foot-in-mouth disease (also suffered by George W. Bush and Dan Quayle), what's the beef with Biden?
if things continue the way things are, but then when the USA goes bankrupt I'm not sure where else would be much better.
Down in our hidey-hole with the rest of us crazy-armed-tin-foil-hat-wearing-waiting-for-the-mutant-zombie-hoardes looneys? Bring cake!!
Down in our hidey-hole with the rest of us crazy-armed-tin-foil-hat-wearing-waiting-for-the-mutant-zombie-hoardes looneys? Bring cake!!
Heck, I'll almost be happy the day the ferry to the mainland stops running. Life will be good.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4gIpPtFo7EQ/TqTYN71VRWI/AAAAAAAAD74/Od8a668GiKA/s576/IMG_0060.JPG
gimmethesimplelife
8-16-12, 4:31pm
One plus! Robs friend's $800 hernia surgury in Mexico would be affordable to us from the USA, but would that be considered afordable for most low-income Mexicans? Also, how much does the governement of Mexico (or any other country with lower out-of-pocket medical costs) substidize healthcare in their country? With, I'm assuming, their citizens tax dollars. My sister lived in New Zealand for over a year and went to the doctor for something. It was very inexpensive for her. However it was inexpensive for her because the taxpaying citizens of New Zealand were paying a large portion of their income towards the system.
Of course other countries generally have a lower cost of living so therefore their medicsal care is going to cost less even if not subsidized by taxes. Sounds to me that is what Rob is looking for. I read that India has a whole sub-culture of medical workers, hospitals and doctors that just provide cash-only medical services for foreigners. And while those medical services would be much too expensive for the average Indian, they are very inexpensive to most foreigners from the west.The $800 hernia operation was in Cambodia, not Mexico. Mexico is not quite that cheap.....I wish it was but it's not. Mexico does have socialized medicine BTW - the only real problem is that you have to be in the formal economy to get it - so all those people hawking goods at you on street corners - they don't qualify.
And India does have great health care available for foreigners who can pay cash. I am reading a book now called State of the Heart about a couple who went to India for the husband's open heart surgery. They had very good things to say about the experience and encourage others to offshore their health care too. India sounds absolutely fascinating but it's very hard to stay on legally long term. Rob
The $800 hernia operation was in Cambodia, not Mexico. Mexico is not quite that cheap.....I wish it was but it's not. Mexico does have socialized medicine BTW - the only real problem is that you have to be in the formal economy to get it - so all those people hawking goods at you on street corners - they don't qualify.
And India does have great health care available for foreigners who can pay cash. I am reading a book now called State of the Heart about a couple who went to India for the husband's open heart surgery. They had very good things to say about the experience and encourage others to offshore their health care too. India sounds absolutely fascinating but it's very hard to stay on legally long term. Rob
I've also been interested in moving out of the country at some point even though I am able to use the VA for medical care cheap or free. But the cost of living overall in many places is so much cheaper that my quality of life, both financially as well as from a lifestyle perspective, may be better. One of the books that inspired me to retire early was called "Cashing in on the American Dream: How to Retire at 35" by Paul and Vicky Terhorst. They got rid of everything and became travellers, living for long periods of time in low-cost counties like Thailand, etc... eventually settling down in Argentina. They had good jobs and a large saving accounts to live off so didn't need to work (making that transition MUCH easier for them) but much of their advise may work for those who need to work. For me, as a female, I do have to many consideration about living in a foreign place that males usually don't have to deal with. Everything from safety issues (is it safe to walk alone at night, drive or travel by train or bus long distances, etc...) to social issues like how must I dress and behave? Will I be accepted in the culture if I don't abide by certain gender-roles/rules? Lots of little things that can be big things over the long term. I know you may have those same issues in a forgein country being a gay man as many places aren't as enlightened as the USA - well, parts of the USA :-)!
Au contraire, mon ami. The world spins round and round. Salad forks at dawn or oysters on your dock?
Gregg, I'm telling Mrs. M on you. Since she is the informal resident leader of the anti-salad-spinner contingent I'm sure she'd like to hear of this transgression...
flowerseverywhere
8-17-12, 8:00am
I thought this article would be of interest
http://news.yahoo.com/presented-letters-ryan-admits-requesting-stimulus-cash-234025910--abc-news-politics.html
Apparently Ryan was hypercritical of the stimulus however requested some of it.
I imagine these types of articles and accusations are going to be a daily occurance for both candidates and their inner circles.
Gregg, I'm telling Mrs. M on you. Since she is the informal resident leader of the anti-salad-spinner contingent I'm sure she'd like to hear of this transgression...
The spinnies are going underground. All she'll find are shadows at Bed, Bath & Beyond. (Pay close attention to the 'beyond'...)
Perhaps one of the most damning things about Ryan, and actually there are many, is his bill for 'Personhood'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-personhood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
This is a bill that would criminalize abortion, for any reason...ANY reason, as well as some forms of birth control. IUD This is the far far right push to give rights to a fertilized egg! He wants to defund planed parenthood, as well as drastically cut spending for aid to single mothers and poor kids. What a prince, huh?! Oh, and to just make sure the punch to the jaw is coupled with a kick in the gut, he of course will repeal Obamacare, as well as destroy medicare and medicaid.
But, never worry, the very wealthy will get a tax break, as in NO tax for capitol gains, so, it's all good!;)
The spinnies are going underground. All she'll find are shadows at Bed, Bath & Beyond. (Pay close attention to the 'beyond'...)
Yeah, they are going to have to pry my spinner from my cold, dead, but rather dry, and remarkably unwrinkled hands!:)
This is a bill that would criminalize abortion, for any reason...ANY reason, as well as some forms of birth control. IUD This is the far far right push to give rights to a fertilized egg!
The aspect of this that usually gets short shrift in this argument is that this includes the LIFE OF THE MOTHER! I'm a bleeding heart liberal and anti-abortion. So I can kind of understand the arguments for personhood and rape and incest--although personhood is pushing it too far for me. I believe an implanted fetus shouldn't be killed because of the circumstances of its fertilization.
But LIFE OF THE MOTHER? The mother should DIE rather than the fetus? Why is the fetus' life MORE valuable than that of its mother? To me, this is utterly absurd and smacks of nothing less than misogyny. I wonder what those personhood proponents would argue if the fetus was only female?
The mother should DIE rather than the fetus?
Actually it would often be both - if the fetus is not viable it will die along with the mother.
Ezra Klein makes the argument that Ryan's rise to prominence has largely been the result of the Obama Administration's effort to create a villain they could oppose in the media.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/obama-s-evolution-on-paul-ryan-and-his-budget.html
Ezra Klein makes the argument that Ryan's rise to prominence has largely been the result of the Obama Administration's effort to create a villain they could oppose in the media.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/obama-s-evolution-on-paul-ryan-and-his-budget.html
You mean there weren't enough righty villains already? Talk about a zombie army!
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/zomby.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/zomby.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/zomby.gif
You mean there weren't enough righty villains already? Talk about a zombie army!
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/zomby.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/zomby.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/zomby.gif
When your record is lamentable, your signature policies unpopular and your ideas threadbare, there can never be enough villains. With little worth defending, attack is the only viable strategy. You need villains in the past like the baneful Bush to excuse your current failures. You need a pantheon of plutocratic malefactors like the carcinogenic Romney or the wheelchair-shoving Ryan to convince the gullible that there are even worse choices than yourself.
I love your characterization of the Republican slate: "plutocratic malefactors" sums it up. Of course, as one of your "gullibles," I choose to believe President Obama's record is only "lamentable" because he has to deal with an obstructionist Republican Congress loyal only to unelected titular party head Grover Norquist, whose one and only goal is to keep him from obtaining a second term. Pity.
ETA: For anyone who doesn't know, Norquist requires Republican operatives to sign a pledge never to raise taxes--on pain of being excommunicated or worse, I guess. Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson summed him up thus to Slate: “a mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep . . . the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home.”
...as one of your "gullibles," I choose to believe President Obama's record is only "lamentable" because he has to deal with an obstructionist Republican Congress loyal only to unelected titular party head Grover Norquist, whose one and only goal is to keep him from obtaining a second term.
The perfect villan, aye? Since Norquist can't be voted out of office the left must feel like they found the holy grail.
I think most of us on the left would just like to go back to a time when it only took 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate and people on both sides of the aisle were willing to work with each other for the good of this once-great country.
I think most of us on the left would just like to go back to a time when it only took 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate and people on both sides of the aisle were willing to work with each other for the good of this once-great country.
+1
The perfect villan, aye? Since Norquist can't be voted out of office the left must feel like they found the holy grail.
Since Norquist can't be voted out, the left wonders why all the elected republicans swear an oath to HIM before they even take office, and why anyone would vote for a representative who answers FIRST to an unelected lobbyist?
I think most of us on the left would just like to go back to a time when it only took 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate and people on both sides of the aisle were willing to work with each other for the good of this once-great country.
+2. I may not agree with the "conservative" approach in general, but working together to address the country's problems are far preferable to parties holding tantrums to get their way.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.