The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Changing it might as well be ending it. The beauty of the current system is its simplicity. It keeps the administrative costs down well below those of private sector retirement plans, it makes sure everyone has something, it isn't subject to the fluctuations of the market or to financial crises, etc.

Eh? You are so attached to the system the way it is that you are not even open to changing it? You are just fine with running a giant ponzi scheme?

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm impressed by the precision of your language.

 

Hey I found a blog to think for me!

 

http://www.aafp.org/online/etc/medialib/aa...raph-111510.pdf

 

Only 71.4% are accepting new medicare patients, versus 82.6% accepting new patients. That means about 1 in 6ish doctors who is taking new patients, isn't taking medicare patients.

[southsider2k5]

So how on Earth are people supposed to have health care in your world? The government shouldn't provide it, that's socialism. Your employer providing it for you is "Socialization of personal responsibility." The only way left is to rely on the individual market, where being old or sick is a pre-existing condition and they don't want you.

 

There is a massive different between regulating care and giving it.

[Balta1701]

There is a massive different between regulating care and giving it.

That doesn't answer my question.

[Balta1701]

Eh? You are so attached to the system the way it is that you are not even open to changing it? You are just fine with running a giant ponzi scheme?

Yes. 100%. Insult it all you want, it works.

[southsider2k5]

That doesn't answer my question.

 

Your question is faulty. It assumes that there is either all government or no government.

[southsider2k5]

Yes. 100%. Insult it all you want, it works.

 

Just ask Bernie Madoff!

[Balta1701]

Your question is faulty. It assumes that there is either all government or no government.

But every single variety of moderate amount of regulation involved you oppose! Minimum coverage levels, health care tied to employers through tax credits, no rejection for pre-existing conditions, etc.

[Balta1701]

Just ask Bernie Madoff!

Like I said, insult it all you want. It's the best, most stable, most secure, most cost-effective retirement system available in this country.

[StrangeSox]

Ugh. I hate the assumption that just because someone gives you a job, it makes them responsible for you and your entire family from cradle to crave.

 

I wouldn't be adverse to moving away from the employer-based health care model. The problem is that individual health insurance is laughably unaffordable to most people, so that leaves the only option as single-payer.

 

That's not an "abusive power structure", that is the socialization of personal responsibility.

Yes, it's absolutely an abusive power structure. You've even said so yourself, just not quite in those words. Any time someone says "just be thankful you have a job" or "$8.50/hr is better than nothing! (while the owners still make millions)" or points out how terrible businesses will treat employees because hey, unemployment is scary in this market and whatcha going to do but suck it up and keeping working for the profit of others it reinforces this claim.

[StrangeSox]

Eh? You are so attached to the system the way it is that you are not even open to changing it? You are just fine with running a giant ponzi scheme?

 

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea is to turn SS into a "low-risk" privatized retirement account.

[NorthSideSox72]

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea is to turn SS into a "low-risk" privatized retirement account.

In part, yes. I also think that the disability segment of SS needs to be wholly seperate, and do what it is supposed to do - be an insurance policy. I don't believe that retirement protection and disability coverage should be intertwined. SS-Disability should be a straight up tax, no cap, all pay the same small rate, into a cash account for paying out disability. Just like an insurance policy.

 

The retirement side, peoples' money goes into an account that purchases US-issued and high grade corporate debt instruments, or some other combination of relatively low risk vehicles, possibly with some choice given to consumers.

 

The problem on that retirement side, which I have acknowledged before, is the unwind. I think that model will work quite well, but getting to that point is the hard part.

 

Also, no more IOU's from the SS funds for general funds.

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

This might be better placed in the Libya thread.

 

Belongs in here too. Shows the GOP fighting the corrupt, warmonger, Obama regime. Very important.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't think this one will play well.

“I should tell my story,” Mr. Romney said. “I’m also unemployed.”

 

He chuckled. The eight people gathered around him, who had just finished talking about strategies of finding employment in a slow-to-recover economy, joined him in laughter.

 

“Are you on LinkedIn?” one of the men asked.

 

“I’m networking,” Mr. Romney replied. “I have my sight on a particular job.”

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think this one will play well.

 

Yeah, sounds like the people in attendance were really pissed and didn't care for his disrespectful joke.

[mr_genius]

Clueless Obama blames ATM for high unemployment.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/16...test=latestnews

 

"There's some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers," Obama said after being asked about a report that shows businesses were spending 2 percent more on employees since the recession officially ended, but 26 percent more on equipment .

 

"You see it when you go to a bank and ... you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate," the president said.

 

computers have been around a long time, Mr.President.

Edited June 18, 2011 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

That was kind of his point. The ATM was just an example.

[mr_genius]

That was kind of his point. The ATM was just an example.

 

Not really. It's like when people thought cars would increase unemployment. No more horseshoe makers!!!

 

But sure, when all the new US jobs get off-shored, unemployment goes up. Durr. Obama cannot put 2 and 2 together. He is very stupid.

 

I mean, the dude just green lighted a massive increase in L1 outsourcing visas for bribe money. How can you defend that?

Edited June 19, 2011 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Not really. It's like when people thought cars would increase unemployment. No more horseshoe makers!!!

 

But sure, when all the new US jobs get off-shored, unemployment goes up. Durr. Obama cannot put 2 and 2 together. He is very stupid.

 

I mean, the dude just green lighted a massive increase in L1 outsourcing visas for bribe money. How can you defend that?

Dude, "shipping jobs offshore is good" has been the economic mantra since Reagan.

[mr_genius]

Dude, "shipping jobs offshore is good" has been the economic mantra since Reagan.

 

This may surprise you Balta, but Reagan was considered a 'protectionist' by the Wall Street Journal and Neo-cons in general.

[Balta1701]

This may surprise you Balta, but Reagan was considered a 'protectionist' by the Wall Street Journal and Neo-cons in general.

And every President since then has been more in favor of "free trade" than his predecessor.

 

It makes a ton of money for wall street and hurts the average worker unless the economy can make up the jobs. Therefore everyone in Congress and the media loves it.

[mr_genius]

And every President since then has been more in favor of "free trade" than his predecessor.

 

very true

[Jenksismyhero]

Not really sure where to put this, but since i'll rant about it, I guess the Rep thread is as good as any:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/6090804-417/cha-ki...-residents.html

 

CHA actually had some balls for a second and considered drug tests for public housing tenants and applicants. Of course they gave in. I'm still not sure why the majority doesn't win this argument. The unreasonable search and seizure argument is bulls***, as these people choose to receive public aid just like other people choose to take a job (like being a cop) that requires drug tests. I'm fine not including recreational drugs like pot, but meth, heroin, crack, etc. why not?

 

[StrangeSox]

Not really sure where to put this, but since i'll rant about it, I guess the Rep thread is as good as any:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/6090804-417/cha-ki...-residents.html

 

CHA actually had some balls for a second and considered drug tests for public housing tenants and applicants. Of course they gave in. I'm still not sure why the majority doesn't win this argument. The unreasonable search and seizure argument is bulls***, as these people choose to receive public aid just like other people choose to take a job (like being a cop) that requires drug tests. I'm fine not including recreational drugs like pot, but meth, heroin, crack, etc. why not?

 

Well, s&s is not a bulls*** argument and it's not equivalent to taking a public sector job.

 

But it really addresses a non-issue. Drug use for people on public aid isn't statistically significantly higher than the population at large, so off the bat it stigmatizes them as "likely drug users." Second, it's really expensive to do this. It's going to cost a lot more money than it saves. Third, what's the end result? "You're addicted to heroin, sorry, out in the streets with ya"

 

I struggle to see it as anything more than further punitive "war on drugs" crap.

 

eta: I guess you'd be cool with mandatory drug testing for your mortgage deduction, right? Since it's basically the same thing, the government paying for part of your housing costs?

Edited June 22, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Well, s&s is not a bulls*** argument and it's not equivalent to taking a public sector job.

 

But it really addresses a non-issue. Drug use for people on public aid isn't statistically significantly higher than the population at large, so off the bat it stigmatizes them as "likely drug users." Second, it's really expensive to do this. It's going to cost a lot more money than it saves. Third, what's the end result? "You're addicted to heroin, sorry, out in the streets with ya"

 

I struggle to see it as anything more than further punitive "war on drugs" crap.

 

eta: I guess you'd be cool with mandatory drug testing for your mortgage deduction, right? Since it's basically the same thing, the government paying for part of your housing costs?

 

In the grand big picture, I would much rather see ways of having people have certain responsibilities for receiving government aid. For example, getting a pell grant? You need to put in a set amount of community service. We have plenty of projects that need to be done around this country, and we are giving this money away anyway, why not require people who are able bodied/minded, and free of time commitments to "pay back" some of that money. To your eta, yes, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring a drug test to get a mortgage, let alone the deduction. I'm guessing the rate of foreclosure is higher among drug users anyway, so that ends up being a wasted payment (and directly taxpayers money) in those cases.