[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Maybe my fears of the overthrow of the Republican party by extremists is unfounded…
[/quote]
Nope, we took over. Pro-life is a plank of the party.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
There’s also a lot at stake with regard to Medicare and Social Security. Hard choices need to be made regarding these and it’s going to require cuts to benefits. But that’s not going to happen with either candidate. So again, it’s down again to who I think will do the least amount of social damage to America. Maybe my fears of the overthrow of the Republican party by extremists is unfounded and maybe I’m missing the big picture. But if I’m not then it scares me. [quote]
I’d be interested to see what people feel should be cut out of these programs for benefits.
Having my spouse on SSID and medicare (she is disabled) I can tell you from experience that the benefits are not that great. If it wasn’t for my career and insurance I’m not sure how her and her kids would have afforded a place to live.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
I’d be interested to see what people feel should be cut out of these programs for benefits.
Having my spouse on SSID and medicare (she is disabled) I can tell you from experience that the benefits are not that great. If it wasn’t for my career and insurance I’m not sure how her and her kids would have afforded a place to live.[/quote]
We either need to cut what our health care costs or we need to cut benefits. We aren’t going to address what our health care costs so it comes down to benefits themselves. To answer your question, I’m not really sure what to cut but medicare / medicaid is %23 of our budget and SSID is %20. If we’re hoping to balance the budget without touching those then we are deluded.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
I’d be interested to see what people feel should be cut out of these programs for benefits.
Having my spouse on SSID and medicare (she is disabled) I can tell you from experience that the benefits are not that great. If it wasn’t for my career and insurance I’m not sure how her and her kids would have afforded a place to live.[/quote]
We either need to cut what our health care costs or we need to cut benefits. We aren’t going to address what our health care costs so it comes down to benefits themselves. To answer your question, I’m not really sure what to cut but medicare / medicaid is %23 of our budget and SSID is %20. If we’re hoping to balance the budget without touching those then we are deluded.
james
[/quote]
Agree.
And pandering to our bases about cutting insignificant parts of the budget gets us absolutely nowhere.
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Maybe my fears of the overthrow of the Republican party by extremists is unfounded…
[/quote]
Nope, we took over. Pro-life is a plank of the party.
[/quote]
But there are ways to address this issue without involving religion at all, and at some ends, not even making abortion illegal.
The right has to be creative and be ready for a “long-haul” approach, but they can effect that change without an assult on those that see killing a child as a “right”, or appearing to “shove religion down people’s throat”. They are going to need the votes of those that don’t want to see RVW reversed. (Not that it is as easy as that, but…)
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
I’d be interested to see what people feel should be cut out of these programs for benefits.
Having my spouse on SSID and medicare (she is disabled) I can tell you from experience that the benefits are not that great. If it wasn’t for my career and insurance I’m not sure how her and her kids would have afforded a place to live.[/quote]
We either need to cut what our health care costs or we need to cut benefits. We aren’t going to address what our health care costs so it comes down to benefits themselves. To answer your question, I’m not really sure what to cut but medicare / medicaid is %23 of our budget and SSID is %20. If we’re hoping to balance the budget without touching those then we are deluded.
james
[/quote]
Agree.
And pandering to our bases about cutting insignificant parts of the budget gets us absolutely nowhere.
Mufasa[/quote]
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending
Assuming this is right info, we could cut defense to 0 and still run a deficit, so a lot of the talking points from both sides go out the window. (Not to mention the millions of jobs that would be lost in America if defense is cut.)
We have to cut it all, everything must be trimmed. And a huge help would be to get everyone working. We need to find a way to get low skilled labor working and paying taxes while keeping prices down.
But why is “pro-life” even a political stance? It’s a moral one but the federal government shouldn’t have the power to tell someone whether they can or can’t have an abortion. At some point the government needs to back off of telling us what we can or can’t do. You can’t have small government on the one hand and a war on drugs, abortion, immigration, terror, etc on the other.
james
But Beans, not everyone is going to work and employment is cyclical. At what unemployment rate (and this is a real question) does the math work for us to have the benefits we do and be able to run a balanced budget?
And that info is correct. It has to be SS and Medicare/Medicaid that are cut. We have run a surplus in our SS budget previously so it’s masked our spending to some extent. That budget is going away and it’s really going to get ugly and unsustainable.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
But why is “pro-life” even a political stance? It’s a moral one but the federal government shouldn’t have the power to tell someone whether they can or can’t have an abortion.
james [/quote]
This is sort of what I’m getting at. There is a way to push that ideal, and effect change without making it political. It is hard and long road, and will take effort and understanding to the demographic landscape.
But here is the thing. The government has the right to tell someone they cannot walk into a delivery room and kill a newborn baby, so therefore they have the right to tell someone they can’t kill that same baby in the womb.
But anyway, the real answer is to try and change the perseption of the people from one where abortion is a “right” to a perseption to where abortion is the last thing anyone would think of doing. This involves sex education, parental responsibility, economic policy and institutions outside of government set up to help mothers faced with difficult times.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
But Beans, not everyone is going to work and employment is cyclical. At what unemployment rate (and this is a real question) does the math work for us to have the benefits we do and be able to run a balanced budget? [/quote]
I would say it depends on wages.
We could just raise the FICA rates and kick the can down the road a couple decades in hopes that when the babyboomers die the population shifts back to more workers than old people…
[quote]And that info is correct. It has to be SS and Medicare/Medicaid that are cut. We have run a surplus in our SS budget previously so it’s masked our spending to some extent. That budget is going away and it’s really going to get ugly and unsustainable.
james[/quote]
This is part of the reason we need to address costs. Like you said AHA didn’t do that… We are dead in the water right now.
Just a heads-up, guys.
Abortion threads are some of the longest and most heated on “PWI”.
If this thread turns into yet another one; you may as well forget the original topic and close it.
Mufasa
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
But why is “pro-life” even a political stance? It’s a moral one but the federal government shouldn’t have the power to tell someone whether they can or can’t have an abortion.
james [/quote]
This is sort of what I’m getting at. There is a way to push that ideal, and effect change without making it political. It is hard and long road, and will take effort and understanding to the demographic landscape.
But here is the thing. The government has the right to tell someone they cannot walk into a delivery room and kill a newborn baby, so therefore they have the right to tell someone they can’t kill that same baby in the womb.
But anyway, the real answer is to try and change the perseption of the people from one where abortion is a “right” to a perseption to where abortion is the last thing anyone would think of doing. This involves sex education, parental responsibility, economic policy and institutions outside of government set up to help mothers faced with difficult times.[/quote]
What I’m saying is simiply outlawing abortion is a lazy way out. And the agruement that it is the first step in the path isn’t totally sound either.
Because when it comes down to it, you can’t punish the mother, she is punished enough if she choose that route. So you have to punish the doctor or no one. This doesn’t solve the problem. Sort of like the war on drugs. Making them illegal on its own doesn’t solve the problem.
We have to shift the landscape of the electorate. And bringing religion into the fold only opens the pro-life people up to be hammered on that.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just a heads-up, guys.
Abortion threads are some of the longest and most heated on “PWI”.
If this thread turns into yet another one; you may as well forget the original topic and close it.
Mufasa[/quote]
Good point.
I won’t respond about it here any longer but will if it is moved to another thread.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]sandos wrote:
Romney is going to win and while there may be a recount here or there, I’m predicting 290 Electoral votes at least. [/quote]
sandos:
I’m predicting another winner of an Avatar! (LOL!)
Who is that?
Mufasa[/quote]
I got that pic from the Figure Athlete gallery on the site. You can get there via the bottom of the homepage
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m throwing my hat in the ring and I am going to say it is not going to be as close as people think.
I think it goes Romney at least 52% -48%. The only caveat to this I think is if Romney botches the 3rd debate. If he blows it for some reason, any reason, then Obama squeaks in.[/quote]
I’ll do you one better. I am guaranteeing a Romney win and I’m predicting AT LEAST a hundred electoral vote win, maybe as high as 150.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
obama has to turn it tonight or he is a one termer[/quote]
I think his closing statement is more important than tonight.
Most American’s can’t point out where Ohio is on a map, let alone Libya or Iran. Foreign Policy just isn’t an everyday American’s concern.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
obama has to turn it tonight or he is a one termer[/quote]
Barring some miracle, I think he’s that anyway.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
obama has to turn it tonight or he is a one termer[/quote]
Barring some miracle, I think he’s that anyway.
Mufasa[/quote]
Tell me Mufasa do you think the Obama people will have an October surprise? Some of my predictions have come to fruition, some not so much. But I predict that if team Obama feels that they are going to lose they’ll pull something.
Why not if you feel you’ve lost anyway what can it hurt?
Your thoughts?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
obama has to turn it tonight or he is a one termer[/quote]
Barring some miracle, I think he’s that anyway.
Mufasa[/quote]
Tell me Mufasa do you think the Obama people will have an October surprise? Some of my predictions have come to fruition, some not so much. But I predict that if team Obama feels that they are going to lose they’ll pull something.
Why not if you feel you’ve lost anyway what can it hurt?
Your thoughts?[/quote]
Zeb: what kind of surprise do you think they could have up their sleeve? I’m actually curious. Other than some kind of (extremely ill-advised) sudden bombing campaign in the Middle East, I don’t see the administration as having much immediate control over the kinds of issues that are at the forefront of the election.