Today's GOP

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...The biggest failing of the GOP, IMHO, is that after many years of this kind of negative campaigning, they've yet to find away to effectively respond to it...

While I agree with a number of your points and found your post informative, this deserves to called out as BS. For the most part, the negative campaigning we're experiencing now was largely developed by the Atwaters and Roves of the GOP (Willie Horton, McCain's black love child in SC, swiftboating, Obama as Muslim/Kenyan/Soci@list ...).

For better or worse, what's occurring this time is that Obama's team has chosen to fight fire with fire (or slime with slime, as it were) and the GOP has rarely been on the receiving end of the kind of negativity that they themselves pioneered and routinely use in campaigns.

Calling on Romney to release his tax records is pretty much fair game compared to the items I cited parenthetically above, and is an effective proxy for the conversation about the fairness of our tax structure, particularly when the Ryan budget would reportedly result in Romney paying 0.82% income tax if enacted.

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

You go ahead and make your eligibility date 67, and plan on your spouse having to pay more in premiums for her health care after you are gone (most likley she will outlive you, I hope u both live a long time). If you are under 55 why would you short change yourself?

Because, ice, folks are making these decisions TODAY, and doing quite well with them. Unfortunately, Medicare, even with its current cost structure, is paid for in part with deficit spending. Medicare is becoming the largest driving in annual deficit spending. You can blame whomever you want about how it got there, but once we get past the politics of playing the blame game, placing blame must start to taking a back seat to addressing the structure of the program.

And no, i don't think that a fix is spending an increasing share of the budget on it, or raising taxes to make up the budget shortfall. Medicare spending is growing at a rate of 10 - 12% per year, which will increase the spending required annually under Medicare by a commensurate amount. I don't think the money is there if we continue to look at 2% growth on average in GDP, to increase Medicare funding to make it sustainable.

I'm 50 this year, so I'd be below the threshold that would face no changes to the current system. That gives me about 15 - 17 years to make other plans, and I'm fine with that. Hell, I'm also in favor of phasing out the other unsustainable program - Social Security. Just give me the option of staying in Social Security and continuing to pay Soc Sec taxes, or agree to take no money out of Soc Sec when I retire in exchange for phasing out my future Soc Sec tax liability over a period of the next 5 years. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat, and I suspect a number of folks would.

I say that just to give you some perspective on my take on all this, but also to suggest that I am fine with some form or reform to reduce the cost of the current Medicare system so that it is sustainable. Make it sustainable so that there may be a level of benefits left for future grandparents that doesn't crush their future grandchildren with debt.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

I think the 65-67 age thing is really a moot point and just a suggestion at
this point. We need SOMEONE in charge of the checkbook and Ryan appears
to be the only one willing to take on that challenge. We have to live within
our means now that we are in this world economy so some things will have to
be cut including military spending. If someone is healthy and 65 years old
with a job and insurance why would he think about quiting anyway?
If he's sick and disabled he's covered any way right? I doubt that will ever
pass but just the fact that someone is willing to have some ideas about
fiscal responsibiliy shows promise. Something we have none of at the moment.

Ryan voted for every military spending increase during the Bush years and voted for both wars and the Bush tax cuts. He is not a fiscal conservative.
Ask any one who is 65 or older whether it is a moot point. Once again the GOP is scaring you about some vague notion about a government checkbook that has to be balanced and asking to give up your Medicare in return. That is what is wrong with the GOP...your post speaks volumes.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

While I agree with a number of your points and found your post informative, this deserves to called out as BS. For the most part, the negative campaigning we're experiencing now was largely developed by the Atwaters and Roves of the GOP (Willie Horton, McCain's black love child in SC, swiftboating, Obama as Muslim/Kenyan/Soci@list ...).

And yet for years we've had the unending refrain from the left that republicans want dirty air and dirty water (even though Nixon gave us the EPA), that republicans want to starve children and make grandma eat dog food. Republicans have wanted to destroy Medicare according to the left all the way back to the Newt Gingrich years in the House. Republicans want to hurt seniors and make them choose between eating and paying their rent as a matter of policy.

My point is, again, we continue to get sucked into all this crap. It keeps us fighting with each other, and while we're not watching the political class continues to hock the country to the Chinese to pay bills that we can't afford.

[merrylander]

Neither side has been shy about invective and it gets bloody boring after a while. The comments about Medicare C and D are a poor joke if I may say so. Medicare B costs each of us $96.50 per month. With each of us having supplemental policies the yearly bill is over $11,000. Take that out of the average SS payment and there is not a lot left, and cat food is not that cheap either.

I worked until age 73, was forced to take SS at 65, forced to take minimum withdrawal from my 401k at 70 and 1/2. Would to God my tax rate had been only 13%.

This country has its collective head so far up its rear end they can see their tonsils. Our greatest resource is our citizens, should we not husband that resource? Instead we put the profits of Big Pharma and Healthcare companies ahead of our citizenry.

If it were not for the honour of a good company that has fully funded my pension we would be up the proverbial creek looking for a paddle.

The other thing we have in over abundance is middlemen - DearGod, must there be a bloody middleman for everything, it's a bloody wonder two people can make love in private without a bloody middleman.

Religion? Frankly my dears I don't give a damn, the church left us years ago with their sole attention to their own survival rather than teaching what Jesus asked. Now we simply know that where two or more are gathered in His name, there He is also. Christmas? Well it was a pagan festival that the church pre-empted for its own purpose so I don't know what the complaints are about.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

And yet for years we've had the unending refrain from the left that republicans want dirty air and dirty water (even though Nixon gave us the EPA), that republicans want to starve children and make grandma eat dog food. Republicans have wanted to destroy Medicare according to the left all the way back to the Newt Gingrich years in the House. Republicans want to hurt seniors and make them choose between eating and paying their rent as a matter of policy.

My point is, again, we continue to get sucked into all this crap. It keeps us fighting with each other, and while we're not watching the political class continues to hock the country to the Chinese to pay bills that we can't afford.

All of those assertions have a kernel of truth to them, unlike McCain's lovechild, Obama as Muslim/foreigner, Vince Foster's "murder," and the Swiftboat allegations. Accordingly, I would characterize most of those Dem assertions as hyperbole, rather than outright lying. Plenty of seniors do indeed have to choose which drugs to give up in order to eat and pay rent, for example.

Am I happy with the current state of affairs WRT political campaigns? No. However, the umbrage of Romney's campaign about Obama's attack ads (when his in the GOP primary were just as bad) and the GOP's history of outright fabrication of some pretty hostile stuff makes the "outrage" of Romney and his operatives ring a bit hollow.

[d-ray657]

Whell, it's interesting to see you use a lefty term in your post - "moneyed interests." And I'm not really gigging you there. You have pointed out that there is some anger all along the political spectrum. Clearly some of that anger comes from the perception that the politicians don't have our interests at heart, but are for sale to the highest bidder.

The question is what do we do about it? If you can use a lefty term, maybe I should consider an idea originally emanating from the right - term limits. I can see advantages and disadvantages, but it would at least remove some of the attention of the elected representatives of constantly campaigning for re-election.

Regards,

D-Ray

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

Because, ice, folks are making these decisions TODAY, and doing quite well with them. Unfortunately, Medicare, even with its current cost structure, is paid for in part with deficit spending. Medicare is becoming the largest driving in annual deficit spending. You can blame whomever you want about how it got there, but once we get past the politics of playing the blame game, placing blame must start to taking a back seat to addressing the structure of the program.

And no, i don't think that a fix is spending an increasing share of the budget on it, or raising taxes to make up the budget shortfall. Medicare spending is growing at a rate of 10 - 12% per year, which will increase the spending required annually under Medicare by a commensurate amount. I don't think the money is there if we continue to look at 2% growth on average in GDP, to increase Medicare funding to make it sustainable.

I'm 50 this year, so I'd be below the threshold that would face no changes to the current system. That gives me about 15 - 17 years to make other plans, and I'm fine with that. Hell, I'm also in favor of phasing out the other unsustainable program - Social Security. Just give me the option of staying in Social Security and continuing to pay Soc Sec taxes, or agree to take no money out of Soc Sec when I retire in exchange for phasing out my future Soc Sec tax liability over a period of the next 5 years. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat, and I suspect a number of folks would.

I say that just to give you some perspective on my take on all this, but also to suggest that I am fine with some form or reform to reduce the cost of the current Medicare system so that it is sustainable. Make it sustainable so that there may be a level of benefits left for future grandparents that doesn't crush their future grandchildren with debt.

15 -17 years? The future is unwritten...just do not get sick or die right now brother thats all I am telling you....perhaps you are wealthy enough to get by without SS and that is great. But for the vast majority of folks that is the only income they are going to have when they are old.

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

15 -17 years? The future is unwritten...just do not get sick or die right now brother thats all I am telling you....perhaps you are wealthy enough to get by without SS and that is great. But for the vast majority of folks that is the only income they are going to have when they are old.

I can't live my life being afraid of the future or things I can't control. And it increasingly appears that unsustainable government solutions should't assuage anyone's fears either.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Whell, it's interesting to see you use a lefty term in your post - "moneyed interests." And I'm not really gigging you there. You have pointed out that there is some anger all along the political spectrum. Clearly some of that anger comes from the perception that the politicians don't have our interests at heart, but are for sale to the highest bidder.

The question is what do we do about it? If you can use a lefty term, maybe I should consider an idea originally emanating from the right - term limits. I can see advantages and disadvantages, but it would at least remove some of the attention of the elected representatives of constantly campaigning for re-election.

Regards,

D-Ray

Case in point; Watch the Tea Party backed Republicans. These guys were supposed to be going to Washingiton to straighten out the GOP and take on the Dems.....Change the way Washington works, etc., etc..............

Are they refusing congreesional perks and privledges? Are they refusing lobbyist and Superpac money and favors? Huh?

Oh, my how we have taken to doing as the Romans do, once we have entered into Rome.................

Dave