His health care proposal includes the reality of him working for $3 an hour in a Catholic-run hospital in which nobody was ever turned away. Does such a scenario exist currently? No. But it's not impossible, and it's not like it never happened. He doesn't think the federal government is evil, your reading of everything he says is off. Substitute "inefficient" for "evil," and you're much closer. The man has a great understanding of economics and has been studying it the past 30 years. He predicted the dot com bubble, as well as the housing crisis, and there is video evidence to prove it, so when he's referencing prices adjusting, it's likely rooted in the same sound economic theory that has made him absolutely correct on very bold predictions he has made while people from a Keynesian viewpoint laughed in his face. Yes, it's speculation. Let me ask you, was there any speculation involved when you made this statement?
"It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that."
Or did you poll everyone in the country? You didn't just make that up did you? And am I reading this correctly, or does your statement, speculative as it may be re-inforce the idea that more than half of us don't want to pay into this system? If so, why should we? Why not keep it around for those who want it, and not ask others who don't want it to have to pay into a system they have agreed not to use? It's about CHOICE. I don't see what's wrong with that.
And I don't know what it says on his website word for word, but if you listen to what he has to say as recently as this morning, neither Medicaid and Medicare, nor any form of healthcare for children are on the chopping block as part of his plan to balance the budget over 3 years, cutting a total of 1 trillion dollars. There is an opt-out of Social Security for people under 25. This is what he will be campaigning on for the presidency. So no, he's not about removing the social safety nets in place:
Say what you want about his beliefs, but he is an honest man, and will attempt to stick to this program the best he can.
...But, he's going to cut the FEDERAL Department of Education. We've had this discussion before, and he probably lost you right there. Despite ending the wars and occupations, end the drug war, saving trillions, and NOT messing with the current health care system, I bet he still would not have your vote. I'd understand if Obama was a true liberal, but since he isn't, I can't see how anyone who is in search of an honest person running for office who holds dear both the classical liberal and conservative ideas maximizing freedom for everyone wouldn't be high on everyone's list. If Paul's presidency would let businesses run rampant, why isn't he KILLING everyone in donations, especially now that corporate donors are totally legit again? His campaign is doing great with donations, from tons of donors, meaning they're all small, and from people-- not companies.
Watch those links and tell me that he doesn't have good ideas, and isn't in many ways more "liberal" than Obama.
You make a better case for Ron Paul than Ron Paul does.
In a way I made up my less than half would pay into Medicare, but it's based on paying attention to what people do with their money. Only slightly over half of Americans have individual investments in stocks, mutual funds, 401k, or IRA. I suppose there are a few the are exclusively bonds or just put it in a savings account (??). This suggests the rest of the country is spending all the money that comes in, or nothing is coming in. It's highly unlikely that the latter group of people is going to opt out of Medicare and then take the difference in their paycheck and put it into a retirement medical plan that they wont use for forty years. They are going to spend the difference. Other evidence that supports my claim is when you read about tax rebates, federal or state. Most of the money is spent or goes toward debt, and the minority save it. Also, there is a large group of people that aren't even paying attention to their paycheck. Many think they have been paying higher taxes in the last two years, when in fact, the opposite is true. They've been paying less in federal income tax. In conclusion, you would wind up with a huge group of 70 year olds with no insurance, either from not saving or just not having the money in the first place. My vision of that doesn't look pretty.
Other options for people's retirements, savings, and personal health plans: money-making real estate (this is part of my retirement plan), precious metals (another part of my retirement plan, used as a store of value / hedge against inflation), private health insurance (my current plan), which, whether an employer offers it or not is still reasonably affordable, and HSAs (health savings accounts, explicitly for medical expenditures. I still have to set one up). I'm sure there are a lot of other options out there as well that I'm not thinking of or maybe don't even know about. Saving money in bank accounts is worthless because all-knowing central bank of this country is STILL attempting to facilitate spending by keeping their discount rate at a record low. This means banks are in a better position than ever to dole out cheap money (although whether they are doing this or not is arguable) and offering almost NOTHING for CDs, money markets and otherwise. Spending and not saving right now is actual government policy. Anyone who would lock up their money for any length of time making 1-2% in a CD right now is not acting wisely. And guess what, almost no one is, and they have decided correctly for themselves on that account.
Bottomline, what people choose to do with their own money should be their own business, just like their health and what they choose put into / do with their own body. Yes, I realize that in a society with governance that taxes are necessary, and I'm not arguing for no taxation. But people's health and retirements are personal issues that need to be decided for themselves. No one should be of the belief that a group of people in Washington know exactly what to do with other people's money when it comes to their retirement, medical treatment, or little else, especially when they have proven that they cannot spend this money with any frugality. Social Security is robbed from everyday to blow people up overseas among other things. It's not like anyone's money in that system is sitting in an account un-touched with their names on it, ready for them to cash in. It's beyond broken and anyone who understands how special interests co-opt government power works could have easily predicted this to be the scenario. But again, these programs exist, and if you believe it to be the system for you, then by all means, you pay into it. I personally feel there are several other ways I could be making that money working for me now, or finding better ways to save it for a rainy day than to have it forcefully taken from me to put it in an account that is being taken from daily and diluted by inflation. Where is the government program that is going to save us from government mis-managing most of what it does? I'd be all for it if I didn't believe it was going to be a complete failure by further complicating things and costing way too much money. My advice to everyone would be to start planning like there isn't going to be a social security, medicare, or medicaid in the future-- that's right, I believe there is no guarantee for these guaranteed programs. Again, I do not doubt the intentions of them as being well-meaning, but the ship is sinking-- those who want to stay on board should be welcome to do so, and those who want to jump off should be allowed that right.
I know, Mike... and it sickens me about just how inconsistent he is on top of all that!!! I mean, he's got this other idea about ending unneccessary wars and foreign occupations that would make you think that he doesn't want people to die in the street, or be blown up in the street either. What is it, Ron? Do you want people to die in the street or not? Long live calloused libertarianism!
don't forget his endorsement of heroin. This guy is all over the map
So, what does it say about the Republican Party that Paul only receives about 8% of support while Romney and Cain are at roughly 24% and Perry is at 13%?
As I would say to my uber-conservative stepfather: what the fuck is wrong with your party?
First, it isn't my party just want to make that clear.
second, I couldn't say it better if I tried. I have no idea what is wrong with "republicans"
Somewhere, somehow social conservatism and fiscal conservatism became synonymous and I blame the moral majority. They have ruined the concept of fiscal conservatism for so many that may have embraced it otherwise because they hate social conservatism more. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative...I wish it was the main stream of the party...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You make a better case for Ron Paul than Ron Paul does.
In a way I made up my less than half would pay into Medicare, but it's based on paying attention to what people do with their money. Only slightly over half of Americans have individual investments in stocks, mutual funds, 401k, or IRA. I suppose there are a few the are exclusively bonds or just put it in a savings account (??). This suggests the rest of the country is spending all the money that comes in, or nothing is coming in. It's highly unlikely that the latter group of people is going to opt out of Medicare and then take the difference in their paycheck and put it into a retirement medical plan that they wont use for forty years. They are going to spend the difference. Other evidence that supports my claim is when you read about tax rebates, federal or state. Most of the money is spent or goes toward debt, and the minority save it. Also, there is a large group of people that aren't even paying attention to their paycheck. Many think they have been paying higher taxes in the last two years, when in fact, the opposite is true. They've been paying less in federal income tax. In conclusion, you would wind up with a huge group of 70 year olds with no insurance, either from not saving or just not having the money in the first place. My vision of that doesn't look pretty.
Other options for people's retirements, savings, and personal health plans: money-making real estate (this is part of my retirement plan), precious metals (another part of my retirement plan, used as a store of value / hedge against inflation), private health insurance (my current plan), which, whether an employer offers it or not is still reasonably affordable, and HSAs (health savings accounts, explicitly for medical expenditures. I still have to set one up). I'm sure there are a lot of other options out there as well that I'm not thinking of or maybe don't even know about. Saving money in bank accounts is worthless because all-knowing central bank of this country is STILL attempting to facilitate spending by keeping their discount rate at a record low. This means banks are in a better position than ever to dole out cheap money (although whether they are doing this or not is arguable) and offering almost NOTHING for CDs, money markets and otherwise. Spending and not saving right now is actual government policy. Anyone who would lock up their money for any length of time making 1-2% in a CD right now is not acting wisely. And guess what, almost no one is, and they have decided correctly for themselves on that account.
Bottomline, what people choose to do with their own money should be their own business, just like their health and what they choose put into / do with their own body. Yes, I realize that in a society with governance that taxes are necessary, and I'm not arguing for no taxation. But people's health and retirements are personal issues that need to be decided for themselves. No one should be of the belief that a group of people in Washington know exactly what to do with other people's money when it comes to their retirement, medical treatment, or little else, especially when they have proven that they cannot spend this money with any frugality. Social Security is robbed from everyday to blow people up overseas among other things. It's not like anyone's money in that system is sitting in an account un-touched with their names on it, ready for them to cash in. It's beyond broken and anyone who understands how special interests co-opt government power works could have easily predicted this to be the scenario. But again, these programs exist, and if you believe it to be the system for you, then by all means, you pay into it. I personally feel there are several other ways I could be making that money working for me now, or finding better ways to save it for a rainy day than to have it forcefully taken from me to put it in an account that is being taken from daily and diluted by inflation. Where is the government program that is going to save us from government mis-managing most of what it does? I'd be all for it if I didn't believe it was going to be a complete failure by further complicating things and costing way too much money. My advice to everyone would be to start planning like there isn't going to be a social security, medicare, or medicaid in the future-- that's right, I believe there is no guarantee for these guaranteed programs. Again, I do not doubt the intentions of them as being well-meaning, but the ship is sinking-- those who want to stay on board should be welcome to do so, and those who want to jump off should be allowed that right.
My point is less about the right or wrong of being able to opt out or not, but what it will be like if people are given the option to opt out. All these people might boldly express their individual liberty, but what you'll end up with is millions of old, uninsured people who need a lot of expensive health care. That sounds like a shit storm to me.
So, what does it say about the Republican Party that Paul only receives about 8% of support while Romney and Cain are at roughly 24% and Perry is at 13%?
As I would say to my uber-conservative stepfather: what the fuck is wrong with your party?
First, it isn't my party just want to make that clear.
second, I couldn't say it better if I tried. I have no idea what is wrong with "republicans"
Somewhere, somehow social conservatism and fiscal conservatism became synonymous and I blame the moral majority. They have ruined the concept of fiscal conservatism for so many that may have embraced it otherwise because they hate social conservatism more. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative...I wish it was the main stream of the party...
I know; the "your" was a general "your." I forgot to add Jon Huntsman. Here is an articulate, intelligent, pragmatic individual, and he gets no support, but someone like Bachman can win the Iowa SP, and someone like Perry once had over 30% in support. Oh wait, Huntsman is a moderate...he might as well be a liberal.
And, the party still won't get fully behind the one person who, in my opinion, is guaranteed to beat Obama: Romney.
The party's been hijacked.
And yes, socially liberal and fiscally conservative would be a good platform for the 21st century. And the person who is running on that platform gets 8% in support. Hilarious......and scary.
Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
...
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"
not being a smart ass, but do you have any examples of multi-billionaires paying less than a family of four?
Your example, true or not, is just another reason that the tax code needs to be simplified and changed. Another reason why the feds should get no more money from anyone until they get their house in order
I don't agree with Cosmo's portrayal, but I suppose it's theoretically possible for a billionaire (multi or otherwise) to pay less Federal Income Tax (which is all this 47% speaks to) than a family making 20k. Billionaire(ism) is based on wealth, not income, so a retired billionaire might pay alot of 1099DIV or INT tax but not pay any Federal Income Tax. It's a meaningless example, since the likelihood that that billionaire is paying less overall tax to the Federal Treasury than the 20k/year family is laughably infintessimal.
You make a better case for Ron Paul than Ron Paul does.
In a way I made up my less than half would pay into Medicare, but it's based on paying attention to what people do with their money. Only slightly over half of Americans have individual investments in stocks, mutual funds, 401k, or IRA. I suppose there are a few the are exclusively bonds or just put it in a savings account (??). This suggests the rest of the country is spending all the money that comes in, or nothing is coming in. It's highly unlikely that the latter group of people is going to opt out of Medicare and then take the difference in their paycheck and put it into a retirement medical plan that they wont use for forty years. They are going to spend the difference. Other evidence that supports my claim is when you read about tax rebates, federal or state. Most of the money is spent or goes toward debt, and the minority save it. Also, there is a large group of people that aren't even paying attention to their paycheck. Many think they have been paying higher taxes in the last two years, when in fact, the opposite is true. They've been paying less in federal income tax. In conclusion, you would wind up with a huge group of 70 year olds with no insurance, either from not saving or just not having the money in the first place. My vision of that doesn't look pretty.
I believe you raise some very valid concerns, but fail to see (or perhaps see, but do not express here) the underlying mechanic. Many people would probably opt out of medicare without sufficiently planning for the future. They'd continue to run up cc debt and buy things they think they need but really only want. But this attitude is a symptom of the "gov't will take care of me" culture (among other things -- there is no one single driver) that has been being ingrained in us since, I suppose, FDR's New Deal. Continuing to provide those entitlements only serves to reinforce the cycle. Conceptually it's akin to the bank bailouts -- financial institutions have less motivation to price risk appropriately when they know that rich Uncle Treasury will always be there to give them a hand when they make a whoopsie. Likewise, individuals have less reason (and, since it's been going on so long, I'd also say less ability) to price the long-term risk of their own personal financial decisions.
Side note -- I don't know if anyone said anything about "dying in the street" per se, but Cosmo mentioned people "suffering and dying" so that may have been what prompted Vinny and Mike's tongue-in-cheek posts.
You make a better case for Ron Paul than Ron Paul does.
In a way I made up my less than half would pay into Medicare, but it's based on paying attention to what people do with their money. Only slightly over half of Americans have individual investments in stocks, mutual funds, 401k, or IRA. I suppose there are a few the are exclusively bonds or just put it in a savings account (??). This suggests the rest of the country is spending all the money that comes in, or nothing is coming in. It's highly unlikely that the latter group of people is going to opt out of Medicare and then take the difference in their paycheck and put it into a retirement medical plan that they wont use for forty years. They are going to spend the difference. Other evidence that supports my claim is when you read about tax rebates, federal or state. Most of the money is spent or goes toward debt, and the minority save it. Also, there is a large group of people that aren't even paying attention to their paycheck. Many think they have been paying higher taxes in the last two years, when in fact, the opposite is true. They've been paying less in federal income tax. In conclusion, you would wind up with a huge group of 70 year olds with no insurance, either from not saving or just not having the money in the first place. My vision of that doesn't look pretty.
I believe you raise some very valid concerns, but fail to see (or perhaps see, but do not express here) the underlying mechanic. Many people would probably opt out of medicare without sufficiently planning for the future. They'd continue to run up cc debt and buy things they think they need but really only want. But this attitude is a symptom of the "gov't will take care of me" culture (among other things -- there is no one single driver) that has been being ingrained in us since, I suppose, FDR's New Deal. Continuing to provide those entitlements only serves to reinforce the cycle. Conceptually it's akin to the bank bailouts -- financial institutions have less motivation to price risk appropriately when they know that rich Uncle Treasury will always be there to give them a hand when they make a whoopsie. Likewise, individuals have less reason (and, since it's been going on so long, I'd also say less ability) to price the long-term risk of their own personal financial decisions.
Side note -- I don't know if anyone said anything about "dying in the street" per se, but Cosmo mentioned people "suffering and dying" so that may have been what prompted Vinny and Mike's tongue-in-cheek posts.
I believe you raise some very valid concerns, but fail to see (or perhaps see, but do not express here) the underlying mechanic. Many people would probably opt out of medicare without sufficiently planning for the future. They'd continue to run up cc debt and buy things they think they need but really only want. But this attitude is a symptom of the "gov't will take care of me" culture (among other things -- there is no one single driver) that has been being ingrained in us since, I suppose, FDR's New Deal. Continuing to provide those entitlements only serves to reinforce the cycle. Conceptually it's akin to the bank bailouts -- financial institutions have less motivation to price risk appropriately when they know that rich Uncle Treasury will always be there to give them a hand when they make a whoopsie. Likewise, individuals have less reason (and, since it's been going on so long, I'd also say less ability) to price the long-term risk of their own personal financial decisions.
Side note -- I don't know if anyone said anything about "dying in the street" per se, but Cosmo mentioned people "suffering and dying" so that may have been what prompted Vinny and Mike's tongue-in-cheek posts.
what's wrong with planning on receiving Social Security when I am eligible...you make that sound like a bad thing...I've been paying into that system...so what's the issue with receiving it...?
and you make assumptions that people "continue to run up cc debt and buy things they think they need but really only want"...and if they do, so what...that's on them...
interesting how you try to link the two...
anyway, I'll play...let's get rid of Social Security...you know, since it leads people to make bad financial choices and leads to a "cycle" that you don't seem to care for...so lets phase it out...
then fast forward 25 years, Social Security is a thing of the past and we are living in this Utopia...and that lazy bum 70 year old is broke...I guess you're all for tossing him/her into the street...you know since they didn't "plan"....Happy days here were come...
Comments
Other options for people's retirements, savings, and personal health plans: money-making real estate (this is part of my retirement plan), precious metals (another part of my retirement plan, used as a store of value / hedge against inflation), private health insurance (my current plan), which, whether an employer offers it or not is still reasonably affordable, and HSAs (health savings accounts, explicitly for medical expenditures. I still have to set one up). I'm sure there are a lot of other options out there as well that I'm not thinking of or maybe don't even know about. Saving money in bank accounts is worthless because all-knowing central bank of this country is STILL attempting to facilitate spending by keeping their discount rate at a record low. This means banks are in a better position than ever to dole out cheap money (although whether they are doing this or not is arguable) and offering almost NOTHING for CDs, money markets and otherwise. Spending and not saving right now is actual government policy. Anyone who would lock up their money for any length of time making 1-2% in a CD right now is not acting wisely. And guess what, almost no one is, and they have decided correctly for themselves on that account.
Bottomline, what people choose to do with their own money should be their own business, just like their health and what they choose put into / do with their own body. Yes, I realize that in a society with governance that taxes are necessary, and I'm not arguing for no taxation. But people's health and retirements are personal issues that need to be decided for themselves. No one should be of the belief that a group of people in Washington know exactly what to do with other people's money when it comes to their retirement, medical treatment, or little else, especially when they have proven that they cannot spend this money with any frugality. Social Security is robbed from everyday to blow people up overseas among other things. It's not like anyone's money in that system is sitting in an account un-touched with their names on it, ready for them to cash in. It's beyond broken and anyone who understands how special interests co-opt government power works could have easily predicted this to be the scenario. But again, these programs exist, and if you believe it to be the system for you, then by all means, you pay into it. I personally feel there are several other ways I could be making that money working for me now, or finding better ways to save it for a rainy day than to have it forcefully taken from me to put it in an account that is being taken from daily and diluted by inflation. Where is the government program that is going to save us from government mis-managing most of what it does? I'd be all for it if I didn't believe it was going to be a complete failure by further complicating things and costing way too much money. My advice to everyone would be to start planning like there isn't going to be a social security, medicare, or medicaid in the future-- that's right, I believe there is no guarantee for these guaranteed programs. Again, I do not doubt the intentions of them as being well-meaning, but the ship is sinking-- those who want to stay on board should be welcome to do so, and those who want to jump off should be allowed that right.
First, it isn't my party
second, I couldn't say it better if I tried. I have no idea what is wrong with "republicans"
Somewhere, somehow social conservatism and fiscal conservatism became synonymous and I blame the moral majority. They have ruined the concept of fiscal conservatism for so many that may have embraced it otherwise because they hate social conservatism more. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative...I wish it was the main stream of the party...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
My point is less about the right or wrong of being able to opt out or not, but what it will be like if people are given the option to opt out. All these people might boldly express their individual liberty, but what you'll end up with is millions of old, uninsured people who need a lot of expensive health care. That sounds like a shit storm to me.
I know; the "your" was a general "your." I forgot to add Jon Huntsman. Here is an articulate, intelligent, pragmatic individual, and he gets no support, but someone like Bachman can win the Iowa SP, and someone like Perry once had over 30% in support. Oh wait, Huntsman is a moderate...he might as well be a liberal.
And, the party still won't get fully behind the one person who, in my opinion, is guaranteed to beat Obama: Romney.
The party's been hijacked.
And yes, socially liberal and fiscally conservative would be a good platform for the 21st century. And the person who is running on that platform gets 8% in support. Hilarious......and scary.
Side note -- I don't know if anyone said anything about "dying in the street" per se, but Cosmo mentioned people "suffering and dying" so that may have been what prompted Vinny and Mike's tongue-in-cheek posts.
Well said.
what's wrong with planning on receiving Social Security when I am eligible...you make that sound like a bad thing...I've been paying into that system...so what's the issue with receiving it...?
and you make assumptions that people "continue to run up cc debt and buy things they think they need but really only want"...and if they do, so what...that's on them...
interesting how you try to link the two...
anyway, I'll play...let's get rid of Social Security...you know, since it leads people to make bad financial choices and leads to a "cycle" that you don't seem to care for...so lets phase it out...
then fast forward 25 years, Social Security is a thing of the past and we are living in this Utopia...and that lazy bum 70 year old is broke...I guess you're all for tossing him/her into the street...you know since they didn't "plan"....Happy days here were come...