Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Poor Get Poorer: How Ryan's Budgets Would Affect Ours
Yahoo Finance from The Atlantic ^ | August 13, 2012 | Derek Thompson

Posted on 08/13/2012 12:45:27 PM PDT by facedown

There are many different ways to talk about Paul Ryan's Roadmap, but maybe the most useful is to imagine how his budget affects your budget. How much more money would you keep under his broad tax plan? How much more would you have to save to pay for health care. And for the low-income, whom -- as we'll see -- bear the brunt of Ryan's cuts: How alone would they be in Ryan's America?

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dnctalkingpoints; election; lies; obamunism; pravdamedia; romneyryan; thebiglie
They're panicking out there. Yahoo is going full tilt and it's three months out yet.

The article isn't even worth reading - it's just the usual lies and liberal gibberish. But this one's got, wait for it, graphs!

The headline is the main point for posting.

1 posted on 08/13/2012 12:45:36 PM PDT by facedown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: facedown

The key SHOULD BE: How much of YOUR OWN MONEY do you get to keep, vs. “How much of Other People’s Money will you be cut off from?”


2 posted on 08/13/2012 12:51:18 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Yahoo is the worst. It is as reactionary as CNN and even more automatic with the propoganda


3 posted on 08/13/2012 12:52:52 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Isn’t there a mandatory BARF alert that goes with this sort of thing?


4 posted on 08/13/2012 12:56:02 PM PDT by DaiHuy (One Big Assed Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
The choice is not about the extent to which current and prospective recipients of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to receive benefits. The choice is about whether they will receive them at all. Under Ryan's plan, they will probably continue to do so. If we retain them in their current form, which appears to be Obama's option, they will certainly bankrupt the government sooner than most people expect and therefore cease to be payable at all.

Ryan wants to address the problem. Democrats want to kick the can down the road and demagogue it to attain victory in one more election.

5 posted on 08/13/2012 12:56:34 PM PDT by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

The party is over. The handouts are done. We are broke. The Americans who work can no longer carry those that do not plus 12 million illegals. If you taxed the evil rich 90 percent it would not put a dent in our debt The belt has got to be e tightened and the freefall spending has got to stop.


6 posted on 08/13/2012 12:57:45 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

“How much more would you have to save to pay for health care.”

You mean health care isn’t “free?” People have to pay for it? And to save, too? Oh gosh; they might have to get a job! Or worse, work toward a goal to enable them to improve their lives!

“And for the low-income, whom — as we’ll see — bear the brunt of Ryan’s cuts.”

You mean poor people have to pay for stuff? They don’t get to sit around and have things handed to them? And, does this mean they can’t sit on the sofa and stuff themselves with Twinkies any more? My gosh, they actually might have to take care of themselves! Why, it’s too much to ask that they live healthy, you know...that “diet and exercise” thing.

It’s all so unfair!

/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/


7 posted on 08/13/2012 12:58:49 PM PDT by henkster (We're the slaves of the phony leaders...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Wow, the comments are worth reading though. The vast majority of them slam the article, the author of the article, and/or obastard. Not what I’ve come to expect from most Yahoo commenters!


8 posted on 08/13/2012 1:10:01 PM PDT by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Wait, what do you mean "the usual lies". Are the following lies? if so why?

"Medicaid spending would be shaved by about a third"

Is that true or not? If it's true, unless Ryan shows us how to cut Medicaid by a third while delivering the same or better care, then that's a valid reason not to vote for him. He's cutting the program that helps the poorest of the poor. This is why the GOP got kicked out of Congress the last time they had control.

"Ryan believes that his budget could unlock spectacular growth and increase lower-income wages. And it might! But most of what we know about the the impact of technology, emerging markets, and offshoring suggests that gaping inequality is a side-effect of global capitalism more than progressive government. As a result, this budget would have a very predictable outcome: It would make poor families poorer, under the banner of fiscal responsibility."

I couldn't care less about "inequality". But unemployment is "a side effect of global capitalism more than a progressive government." I'm not as optimistic that Ryan's budget will produce massive growth. You have to fix the globalism that's destroyed our industries. Fail to do that, and I agree with the article. Ryan focuses on the wrong thing at the wrong time and ends up making us poorer as a result.

9 posted on 08/13/2012 1:10:35 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

We have the wealthiest ‘poor’ on the planet...........


10 posted on 08/13/2012 1:22:58 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: p. henry
People are forgetting that the GIGANTIC number of people born at the beginning of the Baby Boom generation between 1945 and 1950 are now starting to hit retirement age. Because of that, the demands on Social Security and Medicare are going to spike through the roof, and that could hasten the financial demise of these two entitlement programs.

Rep. Ryan recognizes this, and has already laid out a framework of plans to keep Social Security and Medicare from being wiped out as more and more of Baby Boom generation enters retirement age.

11 posted on 08/13/2012 1:34:26 PM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: facedown

you know what? I dont give a $h!t - no one is poor on account of ANYTHING I HAVE DONE

So it is not my problem, and I will choose to ‘help’ the poor IN MY OWN WAY, and NOT by giving money to corrupt government bureaucrats to give away to their cronies and thief friends.


12 posted on 08/13/2012 1:49:36 PM PDT by Mr. K ("The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum [of good]")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
You have to fix the globalism

Suggestions?

13 posted on 08/13/2012 1:50:29 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
"Suggestions?" (on how to fix the globalism


14 posted on 08/13/2012 1:56:48 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: facedown

How many billions of dollars did Yahoo lose in refusing to sell when everyone on the planet knew they were holding out past their value?

Companies full of idiots aren’t really in a position to offer economic advice.


15 posted on 08/13/2012 2:00:14 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (OWS = The Great American Snivel War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
but maybe the most useful is to imagine how his budget affects your budget.

OK. Let's do that. I blow $10,000 on a credit card to supplement my income for a couple months and live like a King. Then the bill comes due. Do I tighten my belt and start paying down the debt, or do I ignore that debt and get another credit card to blow another $10,000?

16 posted on 08/13/2012 2:04:45 PM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

17 posted on 08/13/2012 2:08:27 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Derek Thompson spoke about Democratic Party goals for spending on education, innovation and infrastructure and the Republican House’s plan to cut spending


18 posted on 08/13/2012 2:09:25 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Derek Thompson

@DKThomp

Senior editor & business writer @theatlantic. 90% NYC; 10% DC. Lemme know if you want that breakdown in a graph.

Nyc · http://www.theatlantic.com/derek-thompson/

http://es.twitter.com/DKThomp

Derek Thompson @ DKThomp

Ryan’s philosophy that we are richer without govt dependence is functionally a plan to make poor ppl poorer http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/the-poor-get-poorer-how-ryans-budgets-would-affect-ours/261043/

3hDerek Thompson @DKThomp

‘The less you benefit from Ryan’s tax cuts, the more you would potentially suffer from his spending cuts’ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/the-poor-get-poorer-how-ryans-budgets-would-affect-ours/261043/

16hDerek Thompson@DKThomp

Reminder: Ryan cuts taxes by $10 trillion compared to current law over 10 yrs (Obama by about $4.5 trillion) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T12-0075.pdf

11 AugDerek Thompson@DKThomp

RT @mollyesque Will Romney be able to run away from the Ryan budget? Based on convos w voters today, I don’t think so http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/why-romney-cant-run-away-from-ryans-budget-/261031/


19 posted on 08/13/2012 2:13:57 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Derek Thompson

20 posted on 08/13/2012 2:14:57 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Sweet. The hates and lies have begun already.

Someone I work with...a big shot in the institution fired off a mass email entitled “13 things you should know about the Paul Ryan budget” or some such crap.

Essentially the same thing. Hate.

I can’t refute or respond, or I could lose my job.

True story.


21 posted on 08/13/2012 2:23:26 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
Yahoo is the worst. It is as reactionary as CNN and even more automatic with the propoganda.

The new boss at Yahoo is some young woman who came from Google. I am certain her politics influences how they "cover" news...just like Google.

22 posted on 08/13/2012 2:28:45 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All; facedown
Why are they talking about Ryan's budgets? Romney's the top of the ticket. He has his own budget plan.

There's no way the Atlantic would be anything but a Democrat shill and that's where this came from.

23 posted on 08/13/2012 3:12:52 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Election night is 85 days away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
It is time to hold the line. The MSM will attack Romney-Ryan from here on out.

We have 49% of working Americans not paying income taxes. 1/3 of Americans, plus a bunch of wetbacks, are receiving welfare. This is the tipping point.

We need to figure out how to keep Obama’s people from showing up at the polls. I suggest a huge expenditure on malt liquor and crack the two days prior to the election.

24 posted on 08/13/2012 5:10:54 PM PDT by ConservativeInPA (The truth hurts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeInPA

“By contrast, half of those making between $20,000 and $30,000 would get no tax cut at all.”

BECAUSE THEY DON’T PAY ANY TAXES NOW!!!!!And the author knows that!!Some much of the “news” is just unadulterated propaganda.


25 posted on 08/13/2012 5:37:02 PM PDT by oldernittany
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Typical Fauxtlantic poseur douchebag overtweeting about his fantasy man LeBron James...


26 posted on 08/13/2012 5:52:32 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

“I can’t refute or respond, or I could lose my job.”

You cant.

You could create an anonymous hotmail account and use it to complain about the political bias at your work and how it represents a hostile work environment. And refute the BS.


27 posted on 08/13/2012 6:28:09 PM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: p. henry

Typically government dependents of an overwhelmingly powerful nation do not accept cuts in their benefits until their military is no longer able to coerce those benefits from other nations.
Many Americans seem aware that that is the situation we are headed for.

Wheter enough I don’t know. It’s in the media’s interest to convince it’s consumers the gravy train runs for ever so the information that the current source of those goodies is empty is bring suppressed ny them.


28 posted on 08/13/2012 6:32:22 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

“Medicaid spending would be shaved by about a third”

Thats just tinkering around the edges.

It’s past time everyone pays their own way in this world or quit taking up space on the planet!!!!


29 posted on 08/13/2012 6:35:21 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

? How would I do that?


30 posted on 08/13/2012 6:59:07 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Well, speaking as someone who for many years has contemplated creating a small manufacturing business (and the jobs that would in turn create), but has always decided against doing so, please consider the following.

First, your suggestions do not address the main reasons I choose “no”. I decline because I have watched (and in one case participated in as a fairly high level employee) other businesses with far more resources than I could attain in a reasonable time frame be literally strangled by excessive gov’t regulations and oversight, litigation & other legal costs (no matter how conscientious and diligent the owners / managers were). Add in taxes & related costs. This doesn’t even address the “headache factor”. And it does not fully address the fact that IF I am successful, most of what I’ve earned will be taken away. At some point, unless one is young and can create a great deal of success in a short time frame, it is not worth it. We have gone well past that point, IMHO.

Now as for tariffs, I am generally inclined to say that if the above things did not so tilt the playing field, tariffs would be a minor issue at most. If the playing field were remotely level regarding taxes, litigation, regulations, and such, and if intellectual property was properly protected, then let others do what they are efficient at, and I’ll use my good ‘ol American ingenuity to find an area where I can excel. With a few exceptions, my view is that high tariffs do not level the playing field, they twist it. Usually this is to the disadvantage of the consumer.

Turning to in my own case, if I did start my mfg. business, higher import tariffs would destroy any chance of my success. The vendors I would depend on no longer exist in the U.S., and they are not coming back, either. Not for a small start up, or even a bunch of small start ups, given the present business climate as described above. This is true in area after area after area...

Now, if you want to increase tariffs by, say, 5%, and use that money to greatly step up incoming inspections, investigations of whether foreign suppliers are gross polluters, and so on, I’d go along with some of that.

Turning to the requirement that all military parts be made in the U.S., that sounds good, but again it is not efficient. Perhaps it should apply to final assemblies, and certainly it should apply if there are immediate security concerns, where we literally need to keep a secret or an advantage. However, in general I think it would be better to simply require military vendors to guarantee deliveries for some time well into the future. If it is determined at any point that they cannot, they will be parachuted with life preservers and short knives into shark infested waters 200 miles from land. I would add that supplies and sources of certain rare materials and such should be maintained as “essential” National Security assets. Possibly in rare cases they would need to be specified or even subsidized to maintain U.S. production. Neodymium, as in neodymium magnets, comes to mind. However, this is a detail. One size fits all regulations usually do more harm than good.

Close the border? Well, that depends on exactly what you mean, but in terms of stopping illegals, reducing the demand for their services here (jobs), and reducing the other incentives for them to come here (ie., gov’t benefits), would be more effective. Deport the illegals? Same thing. Deprive them of income & benefits, and they will leave, for the most part. Set up positive citizen and legal alien identification and truly severe penalties for employers who employ illegals, and I.D. counterfeiters: After a few “examples” the employment side of the problem will fix itself.

H-1b’s? We may no longer be a country who wants to draw the “poor and huddled masses”, but we WANT the best and brightest from other countries to come here. Give them incentives to stay, too. They are a powerful asset. Get this U.S. economy on track, and an excess of H-1b visas will cease to be a problem.

Glass-Steagall? Perhaps, but I would like to see a serious debate from both sides on these pages.


31 posted on 08/13/2012 9:47:15 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
...unless Ryan shows us how to cut Medicaid by a third while delivering the same or better care, then that's a valid reason not to vote for him.

Well, we had that (good quality care at 2/3 the cost) not very long ago, and a lot less cost than that, even just 10 years ago. What's the CORE reason for the change? Gov't plowing ever more money in, and at the same time manipulating the system to make ever more people dependent on gov't help.

It is true to some extent that the insurance companies have been opportunistic in this situation, but they are NOT the source of the blood in the water.

Of course, the statement (at least as it pertains to Medicaid recipients) "that's a valid reason not to vote for him." is true for those recipients in the short term. It is also a fundamental flaw of democracy. As Jefferson said (paraphrasal), "Once the people discover that they can (in effect) vote themselves $$ from the public treasury, that Democracy is doomed."

He's cutting the program that helps the poorest of the poor. This is why the GOP got kicked out of Congress the last time they had control.

Now, THAT is complete baloney. The GOP got kicked out partially because of a war that had become unpopular, and partially because they became no better than the rest of Congress / forgot why we sent them there. The GOP by and largely participated willingly in the creation of an ever growing % of the people, especially middle class people, dependent on the gov't in one way or another, and notwithstanding, in general became just as disliked as the rest of Congress. That in turn was exacerbated by the majority of the media, and the seeming helplessness of the GOP in getting out any kind of effective arguments, especially when it came to "uh, maybe we are spending too much..." For most voters, it becomes "I don't like any of them, so I'll vote for the ones who will help ME the most." The very poor always go that way - the difference was in the middle class.

But unemployment is "a side effect of global capitalism more than a progressive government."

You actually believe this Yahoo crap? It's more nonsense, or, should I say, more propaganda for the masses. Look around, what big states are in the worst shape? Illinois. California. New York. Now just what do they have in common that Texas does not have (so much of)? This is not to say that socialism can never work, economically speaking. Germany has done well, but they have a long history of something like it (they never really had a free-wheeling democracy like ours in place.) And, Germans have an incredible, stubborn work ethic that goes way back. Their productivity during WW2, until the very end, even though virtually every able-bodied man was at the front(s), and the country was bombed from one end to the other, was amazing. But, socially and politically, the freedom lovers left & came here, and the rest of the country is not only relatively homogenous, it basically IS on the other side of the planet.

Ryan focuses on the wrong thing at the wrong time and ends up making us poorer as a result.

"Us"? Well, I can sympathize - I was laid off and then losing money for over 1-1/2 years trying to start a small business (not manufacturing). It got pretty tough. Worse, if you are self-employed and then the business fails, there is no unemployment compensation. (Luckily, the business started doing well enough to get us by B4 I ran out of my rainy day and retirement savings, but if it were to fail now, we'd be in deep doo-doo.) Look, sometimes choices have to be made. Even if you are right about "globalism", the decline of the U.S. manufacturing base occurred over decades, and cannot be quickly reversed. In the meantime the country is going bankrupt. Basically, we can go with something like Ryan's plan for Medicaid, and other changes, or we can go belly up. Which do you prefer?

32 posted on 08/13/2012 11:22:37 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
...unless Ryan shows us how to cut Medicaid by a third while delivering the same or better care, then that's a valid reason not to vote for him.

Well, we had that (good quality care at 2/3 the cost) not very long ago, and a lot less cost than that, even just 10 years ago. What's the CORE reason for the change? Gov't plowing ever more money in, and at the same time manipulating the system to make ever more people dependent on gov't help.

It is true to some extent that the insurance companies have been opportunistic in this situation, but they are NOT the source of the blood in the water.

Of course, the statement (at least as it pertains to Medicaid recipients) "that's a valid reason not to vote for him." is true for those recipients in the short term. It is also a fundamental flaw of democracy. As Jefferson said (paraphrasal), "Once the people discover that they can (in effect) vote themselves $$ from the public treasury, that Democracy is doomed."

He's cutting the program that helps the poorest of the poor. This is why the GOP got kicked out of Congress the last time they had control.

Now, THAT is complete baloney. The GOP got kicked out partially because of a war that had become unpopular, and partially because they became no better than the rest of Congress / forgot why we sent them there. The GOP by and largely participated willingly in the creation of an ever growing % of the people, especially middle class people, dependent on the gov't in one way or another, and notwithstanding, in general became just as disliked as the rest of Congress. That in turn was exacerbated by the majority of the media, and the seeming helplessness of the GOP in getting out any kind of effective arguments, especially when it came to "uh, maybe we are spending too much..." For most voters, it becomes "I don't like any of them, so I'll vote for the ones who will help ME the most." The very poor always go that way - the difference was in the middle class.

But unemployment is "a side effect of global capitalism more than a progressive government."

You actually believe this Yahoo crap? It's more nonsense, or, should I say, more propaganda for the masses. Look around, what big states are in the worst shape? Illinois. California. New York. Now just what do they have in common that Texas does not have (so much of)? This is not to say that socialism can never work, economically speaking. Germany has done well, but they have a long history of something like it (they never really had a free-wheeling democracy like ours in place.) And, Germans have an incredible, stubborn work ethic that goes way back. Their productivity during WW2, until the very end, even though virtually every able-bodied man was at the front(s), and the country was bombed from one end to the other, was amazing. But, socially and politically, the freedom lovers left & came here, and the rest of the country is not only relatively homogenous, it basically IS on the other side of the planet.

Ryan focuses on the wrong thing at the wrong time and ends up making us poorer as a result.

"Us"? Well, I can sympathize - I was laid off and then losing money for over 1-1/2 years trying to start a small business (not manufacturing). It got pretty tough. Worse, if you are self-employed and then the business fails, there is no unemployment compensation. (Luckily, the business started doing well enough to get us by B4 I ran out of my rainy day and retirement savings, but if it were to fail now, we'd be in deep doo-doo.) Look, sometimes choices have to be made. Even if you are right about "globalism", the decline of the U.S. manufacturing base occurred over decades, and cannot be quickly reversed. In the meantime the country is going bankrupt. Basically, we can go with something like Ryan's plan for Medicaid, and other changes, or we can go belly up. Which do you prefer?

33 posted on 08/13/2012 11:23:06 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
...unless Ryan shows us how to cut Medicaid by a third while delivering the same or better care, then that's a valid reason not to vote for him.

Well, we had that (good quality care at 2/3 the cost) not very long ago, and a lot less cost than that, even just 10 years ago. What's the CORE reason for the change? Gov't plowing ever more money in, and at the same time manipulating the system to make ever more people dependent on gov't help.

It is true to some extent that the insurance companies have been opportunistic in this situation, but they are NOT the source of the blood in the water.

Of course, the statement (at least as it pertains to Medicaid recipients) "that's a valid reason not to vote for him." is true for those recipients in the short term. It is also a fundamental flaw of democracy. As Jefferson said (paraphrasal), "Once the people discover that they can (in effect) vote themselves $$ from the public treasury, that Democracy is doomed."

He's cutting the program that helps the poorest of the poor. This is why the GOP got kicked out of Congress the last time they had control.

Now, THAT is complete baloney. The GOP got kicked out partially because of a war that had become unpopular, and partially because they became no better than the rest of Congress / forgot why we sent them there. The GOP by and largely participated willingly in the creation of an ever growing % of the people, especially middle class people, dependent on the gov't in one way or another, and notwithstanding, in general became just as disliked as the rest of Congress. That in turn was exacerbated by the majority of the media, and the seeming helplessness of the GOP in getting out any kind of effective arguments, especially when it came to "uh, maybe we are spending too much..." For most voters, it becomes "I don't like any of them, so I'll vote for the ones who will help ME the most." The very poor always go that way - the difference was in the middle class.

But unemployment is "a side effect of global capitalism more than a progressive government."

You actually believe this Yahoo crap? It's more nonsense, or, should I say, more propaganda for the masses. Look around, what big states are in the worst shape? Illinois. California. New York. Now just what do they have in common that Texas does not have (so much of)? This is not to say that socialism can never work, economically speaking. Germany has done well, but they have a long history of something like it (they never really had a free-wheeling democracy like ours in place.) And, Germans have an incredible, stubborn work ethic that goes way back. Their productivity during WW2, until the very end, even though virtually every able-bodied man was at the front(s), and the country was bombed from one end to the other, was amazing. But, socially and politically, the freedom lovers left & came here, and the rest of the country is not only relatively homogenous, it basically IS on the other side of the planet.

Ryan focuses on the wrong thing at the wrong time and ends up making us poorer as a result.

"Us"? Well, I can sympathize - I was laid off and then losing money for over 1-1/2 years trying to start a small business (not manufacturing). It got pretty tough. Worse, if you are self-employed and then the business fails, there is no unemployment compensation. (Luckily, the business started doing well enough to get us by B4 I ran out of my rainy day and retirement savings, but if it were to fail now, we'd be in deep doo-doo.) Look, sometimes choices have to be made. Even if you are right about "globalism", the decline of the U.S. manufacturing base occurred over decades, and cannot be quickly reversed. In the meantime the country is going bankrupt. Basically, we can go with something like Ryan's plan for Medicaid, and other changes, or we can go belly up. Which do you prefer?

34 posted on 08/13/2012 11:23:14 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
...unless Ryan shows us how to cut Medicaid by a third while delivering the same or better care, then that's a valid reason not to vote for him.

Well, we had that (good quality care at 2/3 the cost) not very long ago, and a lot less cost than that, even just 10 years ago. What's the CORE reason for the change? Gov't plowing ever more money in, and at the same time manipulating the system to make ever more people dependent on gov't help.

It is true to some extent that the insurance companies have been opportunistic in this situation, but they are NOT the source of the blood in the water.

Of course, the statement (at least as it pertains to Medicaid recipients) "that's a valid reason not to vote for him." is true for those recipients in the short term. It is also a fundamental flaw of democracy. As Jefferson said (paraphrasal), "Once the people discover that they can (in effect) vote themselves $$ from the public treasury, that Democracy is doomed."

He's cutting the program that helps the poorest of the poor. This is why the GOP got kicked out of Congress the last time they had control.

Now, THAT is complete baloney. The GOP got kicked out partially because of a war that had become unpopular, and partially because they became no better than the rest of Congress / forgot why we sent them there. The GOP by and largely participated willingly in the creation of an ever growing % of the people, especially middle class people, dependent on the gov't in one way or another, and notwithstanding, in general became just as disliked as the rest of Congress. That in turn was exacerbated by the majority of the media, and the seeming helplessness of the GOP in getting out any kind of effective arguments, especially when it came to "uh, maybe we are spending too much..." For most voters, it becomes "I don't like any of them, so I'll vote for the ones who will help ME the most." The very poor always go that way - the difference was in the middle class.

But unemployment is "a side effect of global capitalism more than a progressive government."

You actually believe this Yahoo crap? It's more nonsense, or, should I say, more propaganda for the masses. Look around, what big states are in the worst shape? Illinois. California. New York. Now just what do they have in common that Texas does not have (so much of)? This is not to say that socialism can never work, economically speaking. Germany has done well, but they have a long history of something like it (they never really had a free-wheeling democracy like ours in place.) And, Germans have an incredible, stubborn work ethic that goes way back. Their productivity during WW2, until the very end, even though virtually every able-bodied man was at the front(s), and the country was bombed from one end to the other, was amazing. But, socially and politically, the freedom lovers left & came here, and the rest of the country is not only relatively homogenous, it basically IS on the other side of the planet.

Ryan focuses on the wrong thing at the wrong time and ends up making us poorer as a result.

"Us"? Well, I can sympathize - I was laid off and then losing money for over 1-1/2 years trying to start a small business (not manufacturing). It got pretty tough. Worse, if you are self-employed and then the business fails, there is no unemployment compensation. (Luckily, the business started doing well enough to get us by B4 I ran out of my rainy day and retirement savings, but if it were to fail now, we'd be in deep doo-doo.) Look, sometimes choices have to be made. Even if you are right about "globalism", the decline of the U.S. manufacturing base occurred over decades, and cannot be quickly reversed. In the meantime the country is going bankrupt. Basically, we can go with something like Ryan's plan for Medicaid, and other changes, or we can go belly up. Which do you prefer?

35 posted on 08/13/2012 11:23:31 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.

Yikes, sorry about the multiple posts! I could not seem to leave the posting page. Mods, can you please delete all but one of those?


36 posted on 08/13/2012 11:26:27 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

You got my vote.


37 posted on 08/14/2012 4:08:54 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.
"Even if you are right about "globalism", the decline of the U.S. manufacturing base occurred over decades, and cannot be quickly reversed. In the meantime the country is going bankrupt. Basically, we can go with something like Ryan's plan for Medicaid, and other changes, or we can go belly up. Which do you prefer? "

Actually I think it can be reversed rather quickly. It takes labor to set up those plants. And if you put the rest of my recommendations in post 14 into effect, you can get unemployment down even faster.

And we won't go bankrupt if we get the economy back up. If we don't get the economy back up then cutting Medicaid isn't going to help. That's my biggest issue with Ryan, is he is focused on the wrong thing.

Go back and look at the deficit rates. What happened in 2008? The economic crisis. That's right. Then we started really spending. Tarp, stimulus, extended unemployment. Fix the economy all those go away while gov't revenues go up. Raise the tariffs, gov't revenues go up due to the tariffs, even before you start rebuilding your production base.

38 posted on 08/14/2012 8:09:04 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.
"Well, we had that (good quality care at 2/3 the cost) not very long ago, and a lot less cost than that, even just 10 years ago."

Perhaps, but there are a lot of reasons for cost changes, including additional regulations, technological changes, inflation, etc. I'm against any arbitrary cuts. A distinct "re-engineering" plan with clearly definable savings showing how is okay. But arbitrary cuts are stupid and will result in poor care.

A good redesign should automatically lower the cost without having adding additional limits to care.

""Once the people discover that they can (in effect) vote themselves $$ from the public treasury, that Democracy is doomed."

I don't think that statement applies to Medicaid. Care of the indigents was recognized as a civil duty of governments in western society as far back as the 1500's. There's a difference between care of the poor and voting yourself pork money.

The GOP got kicked out partially because of a war that had become unpopular, and partially because they became no better than the rest of Congress / forgot why we sent them there.

I'll grant you the unpopular war was part of it as was outspending the democrats. But the attempts to cut medicaid arbitrarily hurt them too.

"Us"?

Us = the nation. Focusing on entitlements and taxes instead of fixing the structural issues with the economy will make all of us poorer. The rich will be poorer, the poor will be poorer, the government will be poorer.

Fix the economy and some entitlements go away. Fix the economy and we can afford the entitlements we've committed to in the past. You're not fixing the economy by the things Paul Ryan is currently focused on. See post 14 for a starting list of what we need to do.

39 posted on 08/14/2012 10:17:31 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.
I actually created a business, a home health and hospice agency and ran it for 3 years. Didn't die because of regulations (they are a headache). Died because the dietician Medicare sent out to survey us gave us a completely unfair survey. Medicare had said that year they wanted to reduce the number of providers, and they went after smaller shops that didn't have the legal resources to fight them. So I've been there.

One point on regulations. The headache factor doesn't go away if you reduce taxes. Only if you eliminate them. And eventually industries move to automation so the regulations aren't as burdensome as you might imagine. Think payroll tax programs. Cutting payroll taxes does nothing for the headache factor. Eliminating payroll taxes would.

The headache factor is a lot more onerous on the very small business. It doesn't grow a lot as the business grows. I'm hiring people to take care of my Dad. Once again, I have to deal with the headache factor just like I was a small business, just to hire people in the home. So there is opportunity there.

Tariffs. The lack of tariffs makes overseas cheap labor more attractive. Our historical normal tariffs were 15%, at times they were up to 30%. Now they are 1%. Tariffs that low allow China to export their unemployment to us, take our jobs and manufacturing know how, and become our competitors. It's completely insane.

Tariffs would soak some of the Chinese profit for the benefit of our government, even as it returned jobs to our country. Instead of selling them debt, we'd be funding our government off of their goods.

Your argument that you can't start a business because all your suppliers are overseas is faulty. Doesn't make sense. If raw materials or parts are 50% of the product. You'd be paying tariffs on 50% not on 100%, which an overseas manufacturer would have to pay. It's still make sense to import the parts even if it's true they aren't coming back. The supplies certainly aren't coming back if we aren't going to even try to manufacture it here. This is a "we are too far gone to even try" argument, that I don't buy.

There would have to be some exceptions such as "rare earths" for the all military goods requirement. But we need a plan b for those anyway. Sounds like Obama is actively searching for alternative sources of rare earths. What da ya know, he is doing something right.

I disagree with you on the illegal employment side. We need both, prevention, deportation and enforcement on the employment side. Employment side alone is not going to work because by then too much money is involved. There's always going to be someone who turns a blind eye and allows dishonest illegal employer to run the legal employers out of business.

"H1b's...we WANT the best and brightest from other countries to come here."

True, but not while we got tons of unemployed. In many cases these people are not any more skilled than are own people, they are just cheaper.

Glas-Steagall. Debate is always good. You just had the former chairman of Citibank come out in favor of putting this regulation back in.

40 posted on 08/14/2012 12:28:56 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

It taks 5 minutes to get a new email account, and you can make the email account name anonymous.

Then you can use that email to send your emails to whomever in the company needs to know that you dont think the original email is appropriate.


41 posted on 08/14/2012 8:46:14 PM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: facedown

I would have came in to FR earlier and posted on this thread but my government bureaucrat failed to call me this morning to wake me and and I overslept.

Then since I missed my government wake up time I missed my getting my government breakfast voucher and decided to spend what little of my own money I have at McDonald’s for an Egg McMuffin.

I then got an email taxing me for eating it per the Michelle Obama “I Hate McDonald’s Tax”.

Sorry for my delay. But then again I’m having to ride a secret stationary bicycle in the hidden basement to just have the power to be a Freeper!!

Keep safe out there folks.


42 posted on 08/14/2012 8:58:10 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Democrats are dangerous and evil. Republicans are useless and useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.
Turning to in my own case, if I did start my mfg. business, higher import tariffs would destroy any chance of my success. The vendors I would depend on no longer exist in the U.S., and they are not coming back, either. Not for a small start up, or even a bunch of small start ups, given the present business climate as described above. This is true in area after area after area...

Hear, hear. If I hear one more underemployed IT desk jockey who has never run so much as a lemonade stand telling FR about how high tariffs are going to bring manufacturing jobs back from India and China, I am going to lose it. Millions of small business jobs depend on imports - they never seem to get that. Most manufacturing, on the other hand, will never come back to the USA until the factors you addressabout your post are rectified.

43 posted on 08/14/2012 9:07:20 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

I see. Not a bad idea, except the company is pretty small, only 250 or so employees. I am a “token” conservative, so it’d be pretty short work to figure out who sent it.


44 posted on 08/15/2012 4:12:13 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson