Gone Fishing

I’ll be back in a few days.  Meanwhile, carry on, gentlemen.

 

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Gone Fishing

  1. UTF – Got you on the Medicaid spending. Let’s discuss assistance, but first can we define each type? i.e. The difference between Social Security and S.S.I. or the difference between Medicare and Medicaid or even the different sources of revenue used to pay for each.

  2. Well, NON, I’m no economist or a financial numbers cruncher, so not much
    I can offer on revenue of the programs. I’m sure its out there, and that is
    another of my handicaps, that is, I am not computer research friendly, lol.

    It seems to me that Medicare and Medicaid have been developed
    because of the abscnece of a national health care system for all. With Medicare we pay into it with our every pay check or if we are in business in
    our quarterly report. We have sort of “i9nvested” our money for a futue protection when we no longer work. I have paid into Medicare for 45 years.
    Medicaid is a health care program for people below a certain income
    level. It is a grant of money to the States, I believe, to cover doctor visits,
    lab procedures, hospitalizations, and pharmacy up to 5 scripts per
    month. Our taxes pay for Medicaid; a pay check deduction is a direct
    pay for our individual health care upon retirement, medicare.

    The revenue for the programs is our paycheck directly to Medicare, while
    Medicare is funded indirectly from federal tax receipts and decided by
    the Budget Committees of both Houses of Congress. Ryan, as GOP
    Chairman of the House Budget Committee has put these programs
    front and center, as his plan would end Medicaid and increase the
    cost to seniors for Medicare by changing it to a voucher program and then
    the seniors would have to go out and purchase private insurance on
    their own at a time when their expenses for health care are exploding
    because of age. The voucher wont come close to covering the
    medical expenses of seniors.

    OK? Now, what is your point that your trying to make?

      1. Yes, we’re getting there.

        Social Security and Medicare are both programs that are funded. That is, we have paid for them over our working lives by payroll deductions that are matched 100% by our employer.

        Medicaid and the new Medicare prescription plan are both non-funded programs meaning the cost for them comes directly out of revenue collected by the Federal Government. This unfunded prescription plan, put into place by George Bush, is the bulk of the new debt added to the Federal debt. AND, as you already probably know, the “yearly deficit” is different then the “running debt”. President Obama has actually lowered the “yearly deficit”, just not as fast as he wanted due to that pesky Great Recession and some filibustering Senate Republicans.

        But unlike Social Security and Medicare, you don’t have to be of a certain age to receive the benefits. Like S.S.I. (Social Security Insurance), eligibility for these programs is based mostly on need.

        And you have made the most important point of this discussion, all of these will be less used (cost less) with the implementation of The Affordable Health Care Act. This 716 billion dollar cost to Medicare being tossed around by the Romney camp pure hogwash. It is estimated that the Medicare system will SAVE approximately 716 billion dollars because of more efficient operating procedures with The Affordable Health Care Act.

        By the way, the “Ryan” Medicare plan would adversely affect people 55 and over. And it would totally screw over most people under 55. (Don’t give a crap about the generation(s) below you, then go ahead and support the Romney/Ryan screw-over.)

  3. Sam Gerson in the Washington Post writes the following about Obama:

    “Email Print 26
    Comments Share

    WASHINGTON — In the innocent, bygone days of February, President Obama told NBC News that the campaign would get negative against him, but provided this assurance: “I think that you will be able to see how we conduct ourselves in the campaign. I think it will be consistent with how I conducted myself in 2008 and hopefully how I have conducted myself as president of the United States.”

    Not since Gary Hart urged reporters to follow him around because “they’d be very bored” has an assurance been more of an indictment. The Obama campaign has targeted and intimidated Republican donors on an Internet enemies list. It has engaged in the juvenile mockery of Mitt Romney’s singing. It has suggested, without evidence, that Romney may have committed the felony of falsifying FEC documents. It has speculated, without proof, that Romney has avoided paying taxes. When Joe Biden engages in racially charged hyperbole, he is awkwardly but accurately reflecting the spirit of the 2012 Obama campaign.

    But the most vivid accusation (made by a closely associated PAC and embraced by the campaign itself) is that Romney’s ruthless business practices were responsible for the closing of a firm, the loss of a couple’s health insurance, and thus the death of a woman from cancer. Except that Romney wasn’t connected to the closing of the firm, the woman continued to have health insurance from another source, and her cancer was diagnosed five years after the plant shut down.

    Which represents the crossing of an ethical line. If the conduct of the Obama campaign team were universalized, candidates would no longer require any evidence to accuse one another of complicity in a death. To accept this as a new political norm would be to define defamation down.

    Obama’s defenders assure us that everyone does it. But not everyone does this. It is one thing to exploit a misstatement; another to exploit a tragedy. It is one thing to mischaracterize a federal waiver; another to accuse an opponent of being the Angel of Death.

    For the Obama campaign, this is not an aberration; it is a culmination. The demonization of Romney is a main element of its strategy, pursued by Obama’s closest associates and former employees, not by loosely affiliated partisan groups. Deniability is not even remotely plausible but it doesn’t remotely matter. Even when exposed, the Obama campaign never retracts, never apologizes — convinced that the news cycle will quickly erase inconvenient memories.

    It seems to be working, at least for the moment. Obama’s recent polling gains are mainly explainable by Romney’s rising negatives, particularly among independents. Even as political journalists point out distortions by the Obama campaign, they tend to praise its boldness, coordination and momentum. And each new controversy succeeds in distracting attention from Obama’s economic stewardship.

    There is, however, some collateral damage. Obama increased the turnout of young voters in 2008 by more than 2 million over the previous election. But the level of trust by young people in public institutions, including the presidency, has been declining. Youth interest in politics has waned. Some of this is a function of understandable economic discontent. But apart from the most partisan, what young voters have had their sights and spirits lifted by the current campaign? Having introduced a generation to political idealism, Obama seems intent on taking it back.

    Ronald Reagan expressed distrust of government while paradoxically improving its image and standing. Obama has placed boundless faith in government while trust in public institutions has declined to all-time lows. It is the legacy of Obama’s liberalism: expanding the state while helping discredit the political process.

    The Obama campaign is veering toward antinomianism. Since it regards its own motives as pure, it feels it can dispense with the normal rules of accuracy, civility and decency. So we get the political methods of Spiro Agnew combined with the moral self-regard of Woodrow Wilson. It is not an attractive mixture.

    Speaking in Canton, Ohio, a week before the 2008 election, Obama said, “Some of you may be cynical and fed up with politics. A lot of you may be disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what has been asked of Americans throughout our history. I ask you to believe.”

    I am admittedly a sucker for rhetorical idealism. But it can’t be a small thing, a typical thing, a trivial thing, to ask for belief and then betray it.”

    I have written about Obama’s failures and have repeated denials from
    M_R that Obama is a failed President. I have said over and over again
    that Obama’s rhetoric does not match his actions. I have been accused of
    becoming fundamentalist. Now, here is an opinion by Gerson that seems to justify what I have been writting. Moreover, the Washington Post is no GOP or fundamentalist news organization…

    1. STATEMENT: “…that Romney may have committed the felony of falsifying FEC documents.”
      HUH?: Romney did say he was not affiliated with Bain after 1999, but the 2002 document clearly shows him signing as the person in charge. In fact, his 2010 Federal Tax Return shows him still having ownership in Bain. And if it was in a “Blind Trust”, it wouldn’t show up on his tax return.

      STATEMENT: “Except that Romney wasn’t connected to the closing of the firm, the woman continued to have health insurance from another source, and her cancer was diagnosed five years after the plant shut down.”
      HUH?: Bain’s M.O. has been to leverage (borrow on) the company’s assets, pay themselves outrageous returns (often over 400%), then spin the company off. Unable to carry the gargantuan debt burden, the company goes out of business. And when many companies go out of business, the Feds will cover the pension, but not the health insurance. And like me, she might have had crummy insurance.

      And for the record and as I have stated before, I am was not a fan of the antics employed by the Obama Campaign in 2008. HOWEVER, in 2012, the Romney camp has basically forced him into this type of behavior. And even though the hasn’t released his older tax returns (why?), it is close to being technically correct he didn’t pay much tax on his “Income”. The majority of his tax was on capital gains*.

      * Say you buy into the Muckraker Widget Works (MWW). It makes a ton of money, but doesn’t pay very high dividends. After a year, you sell you stock and make a pile of dough. You pay your own tax rate on the dividends (income), but pay a much lower rate on capital gains. The I.R.S. frowns on this, but this is what everybody is complaining about.

    1. By the time that happens, I’ll be in “Real Estate”, if you know what I mean. I need a few more years enjoying the spoils of my life.

          1. Not necessarily so. In 1974 and 1976, the Dems owned every bit of
            D.C., Congress and the White House in 1976. Big Business and the rich
            then went to work, and in 8 years Big Business was the top dog. AND,
            there was no real crisis to aid Big Business in doing it. They did it with
            organization, money, and cooperation. Oh, and a man who knew how
            to lead, Ronald Reagan.

  4. President Obama is accused of doing so much bad stuff it’s become very obvious he took office much earlier than January 20, 2009.

  5. NoN, I see you’re still cheerleading failure as if the last 4 years never happened while, at the same time trying to scare yourself into thinking that a businessman’s plan would be worse for the economy than some “historic” clown that was elected…and has spent 4 years scaring businesses into a stagnant position because NOTHING Obama says that is pro-economic growth is written in stone nor, valid a day later when he addresses a leftist crowd.
    The democrats haven’t created a budget in 4 years…and ALL of them shot down Obama’s insane proposal for one while he’s spent 2 to 1 every dollar Bush did in 8 years…in under 4 years with ZERO positive of results.

    The true measure of Obama’s “historic” term is measured in the FACT that his entire campaign is avoiding his record like a case of herpes and his numbnut moonbat support base’s entire focus is based on the “worry” that Romney was successfull in…EARNING money!

    Typical liberal crap…avoid the mention of failed policies…because success is something worthy of scorn!
    Never mind that Romney’s business success rate runs at the 85% level while Obama’s presidency is in the negatives where prosperity is concerned!
    Because in liberal land…success IS failure!
    War is peace
    Freedom is slavery
    Night is day
    Rights are wrong
    Common sense is nonsense

    If you were voting for Obama based on his record…you’d be running from it faster than HE is!

    1. Rewatch the Ryan video about how Obama shut down the GM plant. And this time, pay closer attention to the dates of the newscasts.

  6. Just for clarification, because some people aren’t very bright, I give you the following:

    “The democrats haven’t created a budget in 4 years.”
    – This is a popular point made by certain local officials and parroted by the “followers” is aimed at the lower shallower end of the intelligence pool. These representatives of the shallow end puff their chests out and make all kinds of ridiculous claims hoping somebody will believe them. I myself blame our education system. Why don’t these people, who can vote, understand how our political system is structured? OK, pay attention children or stop making dumb comments here!

    1. The President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Typically, Presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February.

    2. The next step is the drafting of a budget resolution. The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget are responsible for drafting budget resolutions.

    3. Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions.

    And now the sticking point….
    4. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

    Note that the Federal Budget fiscal years (FY):
    •FY 2009 is from October 1 2008 through September 30 2009.
    •FY 2010 is from October 1 2009 through September 30 2010.
    NOT: FY 2011 is from October 1 2010 through September 30 2011.
    NOT:FY 2012 is from October 1 2011 through September 30 2012.
    NOT:FY 2013 is from October 1 2012 through September 30 2013.

    Some interesting talking points for the knowledge challenged:

    1. President Obama had absolutely no control over the ballooning Federal Deficit which was adding to the Federal Debt during his first year in office (2009).

    2. In 2010 the Republicans took control of the U.S. House which convened in January 2011. When Congress recessed September 30, 2010, they had not approved the 2011 Federal Budget. Beginning in 2011, the Republican controlled House started making up budgets that were obviously not going to be approved by the Senate. And because the Democrats lost the filibuster-proof Senate in 2010 elections, any bill up for a vote in the Democratic controlled Senate was guaranteed a bill killing Republican filibuster.

    3. Spending cuts and revenue cuts are the rallying points of the Republicans in Congress. They must have slept through that day in math class, because that makes the deficit increase which causes the Federal Debt to spiral up further.

    4. Because they left without approving a budget, beginning in September 2010, Congress has passed a series of continuing resolutions to fund the government.

    And that is the myth you hear about the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED Senate not passing a budget (or other bills) in 3 years.

    INTERESTING SIDE POINT: The largest line item in the Federal Budget is defense spending. Think that could be why the warrior wannabe Seppettes are always whining about cuts to the defense budget?

    (There was some other erroneous information stated in the preceding post, but let’s have that fun later.)

  7. And now, more…..

    There has been something troubling me. I don’t understand why Israel gets the biggest chunk of U.S. Foreign Aid. I don’t understand how they can threaten Iran, then run behind the U.S. for protection. I don’t want to start anymore wars in the Middle East.

    For years (decades?), Israel has been treating Republican Officials to trips to Israel and calling them “fact finding” trips. Just, how many facts are there? And why do they all have to go halfway around the world to find them?

    Well, it’s finally making news here:
    “Kansas congressman Yoder apologizes for swimming nude in Sea of Galilee”

    This Republican Congressman was there with his family and 29 other Republican politicians, their staff and families.
    “The trip, said to have been open only to those 18 and over, was sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation…”
    “The foundation, a charity, says its mission is to provide grants for educational programs and conferences and to “help educate political leaders and influentials about the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship through first-hand experiences in Israel.” The foundation is connected with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is connected with many conservatives in Congress.”

    I suppose it is to help them* form U.S. Foreign Policy. Thanks for the input, but no thanks, lately our foreign policy in the Middle East sucks.

    * I noticed that too. Not sure if the “them” refers to our officials or the Israelis.

  8. You wrote, NON, “By the way, the “Ryan” Medicare plan would adversely affect people 55 and over. And it would totally screw over most people under 55.”

    Well, that is good verbage, but you have not filled in the details aout how 55+ and <55 are screwed….I would like to have the factual reasons for that
    being the case…Can you help out?

    1. Glad you asked. I will do a little more research to make sure all the facts I present are correct. Stay tuned.

  9. GOP says why continue to give out benefits for being lazy and just wanting
    to collect all they can from those who work and pay taxes. They say
    programs need to be cut for the long term stability of the country. That
    means spending less on government handouts.

    1. More controlled and/or more efficient “handouts” would make (almost) everyone happier.

      1. P.S. For whatever reasons, I seem to be in contact with more than my share of people living on the edge (welfare, homeless shelters, etc.). And the thing I am most surprised by is that the government agencies do one hell of a better job than the churches in doling out assistance efficiently.

  10. Well, it seems like our fearless leader must have found a great “fishing
    hole”…what a time to be frolicing as the GOP implodes with nude
    swimming in God’s Sea, the Sea of Galilee, and the new biological science
    that the GOP Culture of Life committee, that is, Ryan-Akin says that a
    woman’s body can terminate an illegal rape.

    Then, we wake up to the news today that 2,000 American military have
    been killed in Afghanistan in Mr. Obama’s Afghan War. I’m sure M_R
    will never address this foolish loss of life and U.S. treasury by his black
    President, Mr. Obama. So, this week is just perfect to be at the ole fishing
    hole enjoying the life of the idle rich and letting all this daily news sail
    right on over one’s head.

  11. Wow, NON, Sepp really turned your crank. And, I may add, excellently
    done. I always thought that Sepp added some spice to the blog.

    1. I wouldn’t mind them so much if they would just stop and consider the facts presented to them. If they still hold the same convictions, fine. Just so long as those convictions are based on fact.

      I do get disgusted and worn out by them. The irony that the government changes they support would actually hurt them and enrich me makes me what to just throw in the towel and say “You get the government you deserve.”

      1. A thought just occurred to me. Aren’t the Seppettes the very group we are always trying to reach with the truth?

  12. Wednesday break for humor:

    Wilson’s Nails

    Wilson runs a nail factory and decides his business needs a bit of advertising. He has a chat with a friend who works in marketing and he offers to make a TV ad for Wilson’s Nails.

    “Give me a week,” says the friend, “and I’ll be back with a tape.”

    A week goes by and the marketing executive comes to see Wilson. He puts a cassette in the video and presses play. A Roman soldier is busy nailing Jesus to the cross. He turns to face the camera and says with a grin “Use Wilson’s Nails, they’ll hold anything.”

    Wilson goes mad shouting: “What is the matter with you? They’ll never show that on TV. Give it another try, but no more Romans crucifying Jesus!”

    Another week goes by and the marketing man comes back to see Wilson with another tape. He puts it in the machine and hits play. This time the camera pans out from a Roman standing with his arms folded to show Jesus on the cross. The Roman looks up at him and says ‘Wilson’s Nails, they’ll hold anything’.

    Wilson is beside himself. “You don’t understand: I don’t want anything with Jesus on the cross! Now listen, I’ll give you one last chance. Come back in a week with an advertisement that I can broadcast.”

    A week passes and Wilson waits impatiently. The marketing executive arrives and puts on the new video. A naked man with long hair, gasping for breath, is running across a field. About a dozen Roman soldiers come over the hill, hot on his trail. One of them turns to camera and says ‘If only we had used Wilson’s Nails!’.

    (If I have to put up with all that crap from the “Book of Fables”, I’m at least going to have a little fun with it!)

  13. “trying to reach with the truth?”

    I wrote some time ago about that pattern, NON. If they believe that they
    have the “truth”, an opposing viewpoint cannot be considered truthful.

    The idea that they can sit down and debate reasonably is just not possible.
    They become ideologues. It becomes very hard to change such a “mind”.
    The actual facts will not change them. And, when it gets connected to the church and the religious teachings it is even less likely that they can see
    the other side. And, they are in like minded group and simply re-enforce
    one another and don’t want to go out of that group. Facts, data, reason
    has no effect on them…Moreover, they cannot identify with the person or
    problem. These people are outsiders to them…There experiences have not let them developing a caring attitude about any one outside their group. They are not part of their identity. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed. The result is then we end up shouting at each other; each side
    digs in. If our minds lose its rationality no amount of facts or data or
    evidence which is then being presented by a person outside the group, a
    stranger if you will, will allow the truth to change anyone’s mind…

    The Akin Affair illustrates this very well. He used a wrong word, he says, but his heart knows what is right. And we ee that that he he is receiving support from the group that he identifies with, the evangelicals and the Family Research group.

    1. Wow, you certainly hit the nail(s) on the head. Your lead off statement says it all: “If they believe that they have the “truth”, an opposing viewpoint cannot be considered truthful.”

  14. I try, NON, lol…Hope it is helpful..BTW still waiting on your response to my
    query of 8-21 concerning Medicare coverage of RR over and under age 55.
    It will be very helpful; hope you havent forgotten about it….

Comments are closed.