Romney opens 5 point lead over Obama

[UConn James]

It's being reported that during a speech today, Obama decided to bring up Romney driving with a dog on his roof.

 

Seriously.

 

If he keeps this up, not even conner will show his face.

 

Did he say that before or after throwing Fido on the grill?

 

You know the reason Obama took so long on deciding which type of dog to get? He wanted to see which breed had the tenderest flesh.

 

Wow. You would've thought the Dems would drop that story like a hot potato. But here they are, picking it up again.

 

BTW, considering that you can actually see my dog smile as he leans out the window while I'm driving, he would f---ing LOVE being in a secured crate on top of the car.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Could you please expand on "but the fundamental problem is the people below 55 that have paid into medicare for years, seem like they will LOSE what they have paid for." ?I would prefer facts for you to make your case, not your perceptions.Thank you

Stop being obtuse, you've demonstrated you're far smarter than this in my brief posting history. Regardless of age, if you've worked in America you have forcibly paid into an "insurance pool" your entire working life based on the promise and guarantee that you would receive a benefit at the age of 65. Now the promise and guarantee of that benefit has been removed, but the money spent on them is gone.

 

This has nothing to do with my positions on Medicare, or if I think the Ryan Plan is a good thing, but rather is based on the premise that good arguments aren't made by handwaving away inconvenient facts.

Edited August 14, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

as reported by csmonitor.com

According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, President Obama has widened his lead over rival Mitt Romney. He’s now six points ahead (49 to 43 percent nationwide),

 

why is it that the Rasmussen polls show the republicans as 3 to 5 points better top polling facilities?

[WorldTraveller]

as reported by csmonitor.com

According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, President Obama has widened his lead over rival Mitt Romney. He’s now six points ahead (49 to 43 percent nationwide),

 

why is it that the Rasmussen polls show the republicans as 3 to 5 points better top polling facilities?

 

Maybe because they use LV, and btw Gallup has Romney up by 2 as well.

[Adam]

Stop being obtuse, you've demonstrated you're far smarter than this in my brief posting history. Regardless of age, if you've worked in America you have forcibly paid into an "insurance pool" your entire working life based on the promise and guarantee that you would receive a benefit at the age of 65. Now the promise and guarantee of that benefit has been removed, but the money spent on them is gone.

 

This has nothing to do with my positions on Medicare, or if I think the Ryan Plan is a good thing, but rather is based on the premise that good arguments aren't made by handwaving away inconvenient facts.

That's kind of what I said

[Oxrock]

It's being reported that during a speech today, Obama decided to bring up Romney driving with a dog on his roof.

 

Seriously.

 

If he keeps this up, not even conner will show his face.

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's kind of what I said

It's exactly what you said. I'm agreeing with you.

[WorldTraveller]

Stop being obtuse, you've demonstrated you're far smarter than this in my brief posting history. Regardless of age, if you've worked in America you have forcibly paid into an "insurance pool" your entire working life based on the promise and guarantee that you would receive a benefit at the age of 65. Now the promise and guarantee of that benefit has been removed, but the money spent on them is gone.

 

This has nothing to do with my positions on Medicare, or if I think the Ryan Plan is a good thing, but rather is based on the premise that good arguments aren't made by handwaving away inconvenient facts.

 

Tell me how the promise and guarantee of the benefit has been removed? Considering that everyone has the option to opt into the premium support or remain in existing Medicare, and lets not go with the "obtuse" bit, specially considering that you are wrong on the facts.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Tell me how the promise and guarantee of the benefit has been removed? Considering that everyone has the option to opt into the premium support or remain in existing Medicare, and lets not go with the "obtuse" bit, specially considering that you are wrong on the facts.

The proposed opt-in voucher system is not the same as the existing system.

 

I'm in favor of the Ryan Plan, but you can't handwave away the changes it makes to the existing system.

Edited August 14, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[John Adams]

Pandering to exactly what base in March 2012, well before he was on the Veep radar?

 

Are you saying that you can't have a base unless you're on a presidential ticket?

 

Sorry Magox that my criticisms of someone I'm going to vote for, and that you adore, are hard for you to swallow. Your boys aren't perfect--just better than the alternative. And at least they are focused on the economy and cutting spending. But although I know you'll continue to have a tough time handling it, I'll be happy to keep pointing out their idiocy as it arises.

 

Everyone is in love with Ryan as the amazing spending cutter but why he is not also cutting defense--where waste is rampant? Again, I hope he's pandering and not stupid enough to miss the waste in defense. If you don't think he's doing that to maintain support of his party base, what's your explanation for why he's cutting everywhere but there? You think it's something other than pandering?

 

And a Constitutional amendment to define marriage? I don't care if it was to open the definition of marriage to men and women, men and men, and women and women--it's stupid, and yes, that's the word I'll choose when it fits. Again, sorry if that rankles you.

 

Take the blinders off.

 

Y'know, in the real world, this kind of stuff is pinned on homophobes, not someone endlessly fighting for acceptance of gay rights. It's like a black person complaining about racism before calling their friends "niggas."

 

Wrong. I was pointing out how much Magox loves them. I wasn't insulting his or their sexuality. Dolt.

[WorldTraveller]

The proposed opt-in voucher system is not the same as the existing system.

 

I'm in favor of the Ryan Plan, but you can't handwave away the changes it makes to the existing system.

 

Same, no? But it can be the same if you choose for it to be? Absolutely. So the suggestion that it will be "removed" is false.

 

Are you saying that you can't have a base unless you're on a presidential ticket?

 

Sorry Magox that my criticisms of someone I'm going to vote for, and that you adore, are hard for you to swallow. Your boys aren't perfect--just better than the alternative. And at least they are focused on the economy and cutting spending. But although I know you'll continue to have a tough time handling it, I'll be happy to keep pointing out their idiocy as it arises.

 

Everyone is in love with Ryan as the amazing spending cutter but why he is not also cutting defense--where waste is rampant? Again, I hope he's pandering and not stupid enough to miss the waste in defense. If you don't think he's doing that to maintain support of his party base, what's your explanation for why he's cutting everywhere but there? You think it's something other than pandering?

 

And a Constitutional amendment to define marriage? I don't care if it was to open the definition of marriage to men and women, men and men, and women and women--it's stupid, and yes, that's the word I'll choose when it fits. Again, sorry if that rankles you.

 

Take the blinders off.

 

 

 

Wrong. I was pointing out how much Magox loves them. I wasn't insulting his or their sexuality. Dolt.

 

There is an argument out there that supports a strong defense and it ties into the economy, and I don't mean defense contracts either. Do I agree with it? Not particularly, but they do and I respect that and I don't take it as "senseless" or "pandering"In regards to the social issue, I will have to look that one up, and if that's the case, then yeah, I don't like it. However that doesn't change one iota how I view the man from a fiscal conservative POV. Also, it doesn't impact how I see him in other view either, because I know he's not some sort of social crusader.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Same, no? But it can be the same if you choose for it to be? Absolutely. So the suggestion that it will be "removed" is false.

 

 

 

There is an argument out there that supports a strong defense and it ties into the economy, and I don't mean defense contracts either. Do I agree with it? Not particularly, but they do and I respect that and I don't take it as "senseless" or "pandering"In regards to the social issue, I will have to look that one up, and if that's the case, then yeah, I don't like it. However that doesn't change one iota how I view the man from a fiscal conservative POV. Also, it doesn't impact how I see him in other view either, because I know he's not some sort of social crusader.

No, it can't "be the same" because there are costs above those covered by the voucher system which must be paid out of pocket or by privately owned insurance.

[Taro T]

Are you saying that you can't have a base unless you're on a presidential ticket?

 

Sorry Magox that my criticisms of someone I'm going to vote for, and that you adore, are hard for you to swallow. Your boys aren't perfect--just better than the alternative. And at least they are focused on the economy and cutting spending. But although I know you'll continue to have a tough time handling it, I'll be happy to keep pointing out their idiocy as it arises.

 

Everyone is in love with Ryan as the amazing spending cutter but why he is not also cutting defense--where waste is rampant? Again, I hope he's pandering and not stupid enough to miss the waste in defense. If you don't think he's doing that to maintain support of his party base, what's your explanation for why he's cutting everywhere but there? You think it's something other than pandering?

 

And a Constitutional amendment to define marriage? I don't care if it was to open the definition of marriage to men and women, men and men, and women and women--it's stupid, and yes, that's the word I'll choose when it fits. Again, sorry if that rankles you.

 

Take the blinders off.

 

 

 

Wrong. I was pointing out how much Magox loves them. I wasn't insulting his or their sexuality. Dolt.

Could be pandering. Could also be a realization that D's will demand cuts from Defense in any plan that actually gets worked out. Gives Romney some room to move and a chance for D's to say 'yeah, they got most everything they wanted, but at least we took some of their goodies away.' Because somehow I don't see Romney dropping a 'back of the bus' comment on the D's in budget negotiations if he does win the election.

 

My guess is that it's a little of both.

[IDBillzFan]

Wrong. I was pointing out how much Magox loves them. I wasn't insulting his or their sexuality. Dolt.

 

Oh, my bad. So what SOUNDED like a hypocritical homophobe who hates faggots and needs to get it out of his system by using unnecessarily rude gay-sex comments to make a point that could have otherwise been made without such rudeness was ACTUALLY just you making a point about a guy by demeaning him using unnecessarily rude gay-sex comments usually used by homophobes who hate faggots.

 

It's hard to see how I missed that.

[Koko78]

It's being reported that during a speech today, Obama decided to bring up Romney driving with a dog on his roof.

 

Seriously.

 

If he keeps this up, not even conner will show his face.

 

Did he give the dog cancer or use it as a tax write-off prior to putting it on the roof?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I get that (although I wasn't familiar with this terminology) although I'm not sure that one is more desirable than the other. Auto-bailouts could be seen as a payback to his union buddies or simply transferring power to unions, which socialists seem to love when they can't get the full force of the government involved. In the case of ACA I see that as an attempt to send us towards socialized medicine rather than an end in itself. But let's be honest, nationalizing any of these industries at this stage of the game is political suicide. It's incremental and he's taking much longer strides than any of his liberal predecessors since LBJ.

 

At this point we're discussing taxonomy more than anything. Either way, based on the previously mentioned reasons, that his desired end-game is socialistic. We can debate whether it falls under a tight definition of socialism or some other system of top-down government run economy, but either way, his "solution" is always more federal government control. And the notion of the "moderates" who scoff at the idea that he's a socialist, that he's a center-left moderate who believes in free-market economics with common sense government safe-guards, is absurd and there is little to support their theory.

This is all speculative, and I refuse to deal in the emotional claptrap of a bias driven narration. The bare facts are that the Obama administration has diverted more funds into the hands of large corporate interests and directed more Supply-Side deficit spending than all of his predecessors combined.

 

And truth be told? While horrid to contemplate, if forced to make a choice, I'd likely choose a socialist economy over a neo-mercantilist for no other reason than in a socialist economy the corporate looters are at least forced to pay for the infrastructure, while both actively work to strip away the wealth of the population.

Edited August 14, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Adam]

Same, no? But it can be the same if you choose for it to be? Absolutely. So the suggestion that it will be "removed" is false.

 

 

 

There is an argument out there that supports a strong defense and it ties into the economy, and I don't mean defense contracts either. Do I agree with it? Not particularly, but they do and I respect that and I don't take it as "senseless" or "pandering"In regards to the social issue, I will have to look that one up, and if that's the case, then yeah, I don't like it. However that doesn't change one iota how I view the man from a fiscal conservative POV. Also, it doesn't impact how I see him in other view either, because I know he's not some sort of social crusader.

Neither side is a social crusader, because all they care about is the November election.

 

Our military spending is one of the most wasteful things in recorded history- and that is not saying that it is not important to have a very strong military.

[WorldTraveller]

Neither side is a social crusader, because all they care about is the November election.

 

Our military spending is one of the most wasteful things in recorded history- and that is not saying that it is not important to have a very strong military.

 

That's your opinion.

 

No, it can't "be the same" because there are costs above those covered by the voucher system which must be paid out of pocket or by privately owned insurance.

 

Well, yes it is the same. You are going based on your assumptions, not based on what is proposed. So let's acknowledge first that.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well, yes it is the same. You are going based on your assumptions, not based on what is proposed. So let's acknowledge first that.

 

http://en.wikipedia....h_to_Prosperity

• Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.
  

• After 2022, the current Medicare program ends for all people who have not already enrolled. People already enrolled in the current Medicare program prior to 2022 would continue to receive the program. New enrollees after 2022 would be entitled to a voucher to help them purchase private health insurance.
  

• The voucher payments to enrollees would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. The wealthiest 2% of enrollees would receive 30 percent of the premium support amount described above; the next 6% would receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining 92% the income distribution would receive the full premium support amount described above.
  

Edited August 14, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[WorldTraveller]

"After the plan failed to get a single Democratic vote, Ryan made key changes, working with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat. The revised plan gives seniors a choice between the current system and the voucher program, and it would not affect people who are over 55. The cost to the average Medicare patient are less than his previous plan, an average of $800."

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...as-on-medicare/

 

 

"Choice between current system and the voucher program"

 

The only change for those choosing the existing program is the age which goes up to 67. So if you are referring to that, which you weren't then you could make an argument.

Edited August 14, 2012 by WorldTraveller