Lie of the year, 2011 yeah it's democrats

[Quantum Windbag]

Most of those who said the Ryan Medicare plan ended Medicare said that it ended Medicare as we know it.

Replacing the current system with a mandatory voucher system that requires seniors to buy coverage from private companies is in no way 'Medicare as we know it'.

Not a lie. The absolute truth.

If you change one word of the Medicare legislation, then it's no longer "Medicare as we know it." All you've said is that you've changed Medicare. It's pretty hard to change Medicare to make it solvent without changing Medicare. The phrase is so elastic that it's meaningless. It's just a cheap propaganda ploy.

BTW, Obama already "ended Medicare as we know it" with his Obamacare legislation.

I'll give you one thing: liberals are geniuses when it comes to conjuring up sleazy talking points designed to fool the gullible.

Medicare eligible seniors have never been required to buy their healthcare coverage from a private insurance company. That alone ends Medicare as we know it. That is a far cry from adjusting taxes or benefits within the current structure of Medicare.

And, btw, if most conservatives were consistent, they'd consider the Ryan plan unconstitutional.

Obamacare ended Medicare as we know it, I didn't see you screaming about that.

 

[bripat9643]

The central concept behind Medicare is to provide the elderly with medical care.

Indeed, and under the GOP budget the government would no longer do that (read: it ends Medicare). Hence the "savings."

Horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Medicare eligible seniors have never been required to buy their healthcare coverage from a private insurance company. That alone ends Medicare as we know it. That is a far cry from adjusting taxes or benefits within the current structure of Medicare.

Pure idiocy. With any change proposed, you can claim Medicare eligible seniors were never required to do 'X,' 'Y' or 'Z.' The only difference is you object to one change, and not another. However, the reality is that the only change you wouldn't object to is increasing taxes. You and the rest of your fellow turds will scream bloody murder if any Republican proposes cutting benefits.

The claim that the Ryan plan abolishes Medicare "as we know it" is pure demagoguery.

And, btw, if most conservatives were consistent, they'd consider the Ryan plan unconstitutional.

How on Earth could anyone credibly claim the Ryan plan is unconstitutional?

 

[The T]

Medicare eligible seniors have never been required to buy their healthcare coverage from a private insurance company. That alone ends Medicare as we know it. That is a far cry from adjusting taxes or benefits within the current structure of Medicare.

Pure idiocy. With any change proposed, you can claim Medicare eligible seniors were never required to do 'X,' 'Y' or 'Z.' The only difference is you object to one change, and not another. However, the reality is that the only change you wouldn't object to is increasing taxes. You and the rest of your fellow turds will scream bloody murder if any Republican proposes cutting benefits.

The claim that the Ryan plan abolishes Medicare "as we know it" is pure demagoguery.

And, btw, if most conservatives were consistent, they'd consider the Ryan plan unconstitutional.

How on Earth could anyone credibly claim the Ryan plan is unconstitutional?

The only reason he says it's UnConstitutional is that he thinks because it's LAW it cannot be changed or repealed.

Truth is? Even the moochers sooner or later or going to have to bite the bullet. They are going to see what it is like for the rest of us, and it has to happen.

Present course is unsustainable especially as those paying taxes are becoming fewer as the private sector shrinks.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

Color me shocked that nobody can answer this question.

It's easy.....

Something you're overlooking is most countries have the rich and the poor and little in between.

We, on the other hand, have a Middle Class.

It's a sin to covet. If you're hate someone for their possessions you're giving in to one of the primal sins of mankind. Envy, bigotry, and hate for your neighbor.

It doesn't matter what country you live in, somebody will always have more than you. The difference that any immigrant will tell you if you care to ask them is that at least in America you have a chance to raise yourself out of poverty and become well to do. In most other countries if you're not born rich you have no chance of ever being rich. We have hope whereas in a Socialist society you must accept the life you've been dealt.

I hope that answers the question.

It does not.

It's a beautiful and hopeful post about one mans morality that happens to be well in line with adjusted social norms for this moment in history, but it does not answer the question of whether or not an economy can be successfully judged as dysfunctional with one glance at the distribution of wealth curve.

I say it can. I am also of the opinion that the goal should be a nice smooth bell curve that describes a robust middle class.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

Color me shocked that nobody can answer this question.

There are plenty of answers. If you don't believe me, try living in an economy where there wealth is spread evenly and see what happens.

Nobody said anything about 'spreading wealth', evenly or otherwise. The question is all about using the distribution of wealth curve as a gauge of how healthy our economy is. That and the opinion that I and some others hold that seeing it skewed toward the wealthy like ours is means that our economy has the 'check engine' light on. The other side of that opinion is that the goal should be to pursue policies that push the gauge into a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve.

I'm getting a lot of indications of opinions that the current skew we have toward a favored wealthy class means that our 'gauge' shows a good and healthy economy, but I've yet to hear a reason for that widely held opinion that's deeper than "God Bless America".



It's a bit of a conundrum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Medicare eligible seniors have never been required to buy their healthcare coverage from a private insurance company. That alone ends Medicare as we know it. That is a far cry from adjusting taxes or benefits within the current structure of Medicare.

Pure idiocy. With any change proposed, you can claim Medicare eligible seniors were never required to do 'X,' 'Y' or 'Z.' The only difference is you object to one change, and not another. However, the reality is that the only change you wouldn't object to is increasing taxes. You and the rest of your fellow turds will scream bloody murder if any Republican proposes cutting benefits.

The claim that the Ryan plan abolishes Medicare "as we know it" is pure demagoguery.

If we replaced the income tax system with a national sales tax, would that be ending the income tax as we know it?

And, btw, if most conservatives were consistent, they'd consider the Ryan plan unconstitutional.

How on Earth could anyone credibly claim the Ryan plan is unconstitutional?

The Ryan plan requires Americans to buy private insurance. That's what people called unconstitutional in so-called Obamacare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you change one word of the Medicare legislation, then it's no longer "Medicare as we know it." All you've said is that you've changed Medicare. It's pretty hard to change Medicare to make it solvent without changing Medicare. The phrase is so elastic that it's meaningless. It's just a cheap propaganda ploy.

BTW, Obama already "ended Medicare as we know it" with his Obamacare legislation.

I'll give you one thing: liberals are geniuses when it comes to conjuring up sleazy talking points designed to fool the gullible.

Medicare eligible seniors have never been required to buy their healthcare coverage from a private insurance company. That alone ends Medicare as we know it. That is a far cry from adjusting taxes or benefits within the current structure of Medicare.

And, btw, if most conservatives were consistent, they'd consider the Ryan plan unconstitutional.

Obamacare ended Medicare as we know it, I didn't see you screaming about that.

No it didn't. So-called Obamacare actually de-privatized Medicare to an extent by cutting SUBSIDIES to Medicare Advantage providers - PRIVATE INSURERS .

 

[AVG-JOE]

ROFL! Watch the drone cluck like a chicken when the logical conclusion of his idiocy is pointed out!

What the hell is the "balanced distribution of wealth?" What makes it "balanced?" IF some having more than others is bad, then you must support the kind of economy that the citizens of N. Korea enjoy.



You don't understand a thing about mathematics or statistics, do you? If income resembled a bell curve, that wouldn't mean the wealthy wouldn't get a much larger chunk of it than the rest of us. The rich will always have a larger chunk than the rest of us. That's an inherent feature of wealth. To be wealthy means you have a larger chunk of the national income than the rest of the population.



ROFL! According to your definition of the term "skewed," it would be impossible to have a distribution that wasn't skewed. You define "skewed" to mean some people earn more than other people. The only way to eliminate "skew" is to eliminate wealthy people.

I said NOTHING about how adjustments can or should be made to change the distribution of wealth curve in an economy - I simply stated that when the gauge is skewed toward the wealthy like ours is, the 'check engine' light is on and adjustments need to be made to bring it back in line with a smooth and symmetric bell curve.

The first step toward fixing the problem is admitting we have one.

A class of very wealthy people is as much a sign of a healthy economy as is a class of folks who just can't seem to drag themselves out of the gutter because they're THAT broken, or because they've given up on themselves. BUT - in between those classes at the extremes should be a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people.

The best way to eliminate the skew in OUR, semi-free market economy, is a tax code that is fair through simplicity, a public budget that's balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

O.k., NOW I've made a statement of opinion* as to HOW to make adjustments in the curve (gauge). If you accept the concept that the distribution of wealth curve is just a gauge of economic fairness and performance, and you're ready to move on to an adult conversation about HOW best to affect the curve, I'm listening. What do you think of fair taxes, a balanced budget law and transparency in politics?

* Please don't make yourself out to be a fool for calling my opinion a lie. Just give me your opinion, and we'll see if we can agree on anything but our disagreements.

Bell curve? Seriously?

Can you provide a single example form any point in history where wealth was ever distributed on a smooth and symmetrical bell curve?

Your entire premise is false, therefore any attempt to address it on its merits requires me to assume that white is left and that up is yesterday. Rich people always have more than poor people, that is what makes them rich.

My premise CAN'T be false - it's my opinion. And a smooth bell curve does have Rich Man and Poor Man both represented. A smooth bell curve on the distribution of wealth graph also describes a very robust middle class and tapered pathways gradually leading from the middle to both both of those extremes, depending on education, skill, effort and luck.

It's a great gauge.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Color me shocked that nobody can answer this question.

There are plenty of answers. If you don't believe me, try living in an economy where there wealth is spread evenly and see what happens.

Nobody said anything about 'spreading wealth', evenly or otherwise. The question is all about using the distribution of wealth curve as a gauge of how healthy our economy is. That and the opinion that I and some others hold that seeing it skewed toward the wealthy like ours is means that our economy has the 'check engine' light on. The other side of that opinion is that the goal should be to pursue policies that push the gauge into a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve.

I'm getting a lot of indications of opinions that the current skew we have toward a favored wealthy class means that our 'gauge' shows a good and healthy economy, but I've yet to hear a reason for that widely held opinion that's deeper than "God Bless America".



It's a bit of a conundrum.

There is no conundrum. My position is that, as long as wealth is not concentrated in the hands of people who keep it, the economy is fine. Your is that, even if the people who are rich change all the time, it is bad if rich people are more than a certain percentage above the poor people. My position is standard economic theory, and the general consensus of economists, yours is political. I have nothing to prove, you have to prove the impossible.

Good luck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Medicare eligible seniors have never been required to buy their healthcare coverage from a private insurance company. That alone ends Medicare as we know it. That is a far cry from adjusting taxes or benefits within the current structure of Medicare.

And, btw, if most conservatives were consistent, they'd consider the Ryan plan unconstitutional.

Obamacare ended Medicare as we know it, I didn't see you screaming about that.

No it didn't. So-called Obamacare actually de-privatized Medicare to an extent by cutting SUBSIDIES to Medicare Advantage providers - PRIVATE INSURERS .

Really?

Declaring that the Medicare budget could not grow without limit, and actually taking $500,000,000 from it to pay for other programs, is not changing it as we know it? How about applying the new standards of only paying for things that help most people, not whatever the doctor decides will help the patient? is that a substantial change to Medicare?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said NOTHING about how adjustments can or should be made to change the distribution of wealth curve in an economy - I simply stated that when the gauge is skewed toward the wealthy like ours is, the 'check engine' light is on and adjustments need to be made to bring it back in line with a smooth and symmetric bell curve.

The first step toward fixing the problem is admitting we have one.

A class of very wealthy people is as much a sign of a healthy economy as is a class of folks who just can't seem to drag themselves out of the gutter because they're THAT broken, or because they've given up on themselves. BUT - in between those classes at the extremes should be a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people.

The best way to eliminate the skew in OUR, semi-free market economy, is a tax code that is fair through simplicity, a public budget that's balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

O.k., NOW I've made a statement of opinion* as to HOW to make adjustments in the curve (gauge). If you accept the concept that the distribution of wealth curve is just a gauge of economic fairness and performance, and you're ready to move on to an adult conversation about HOW best to affect the curve, I'm listening. What do you think of fair taxes, a balanced budget law and transparency in politics?

* Please don't make yourself out to be a fool for calling my opinion a lie. Just give me your opinion, and we'll see if we can agree on anything but our disagreements.

Bell curve? Seriously?

Can you provide a single example form any point in history where wealth was ever distributed on a smooth and symmetrical bell curve?

Your entire premise is false, therefore any attempt to address it on its merits requires me to assume that white is left and that up is yesterday. Rich people always have more than poor people, that is what makes them rich.

My premise CAN'T be false - it's my opinion. And a smooth bell curve does have Rich Man and Poor Man both represented. A smooth bell curve on the distribution of wealth graph also describes a very robust middle class and tapered pathways gradually leading from the middle to both both of those extremes, depending on education, skill, effort and luck.

It's a great gauge.

You are trying to present an argument in support of your opinion, the premise that argument is based on is false.

Do you, or do you not, have an example of a smooth bell curve for the distribution in wealth from history? Simple yes or no, has it even happened?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Bell curve? Seriously?

Can you provide a single example form any point in history where wealth was ever distributed on a smooth and symmetrical bell curve?

Your entire premise is false, therefore any attempt to address it on its merits requires me to assume that white is left and that up is yesterday. Rich people always have more than poor people, that is what makes them rich.

My premise CAN'T be false - it's my opinion. And a smooth bell curve does have Rich Man and Poor Man both represented. A smooth bell curve on the distribution of wealth graph also describes a very robust middle class and tapered pathways gradually leading from the middle to both both of those extremes, depending on education, skill, effort and luck.

It's a great gauge.

You are trying to present an argument in support of your opinion, the premise that argument is based on is false.

Do you, or do you not, have an example of a smooth bell curve for the distribution in wealth from history? Simple yes or no, has it even happened?

The only history that matters going forward is that which we are creating in this moment we call now. What difference does it make if history has seen an idea before? At one point in the time-line, 'America' as a concept lay only in the minds of some liberal thinkers.

History isn't there to justify ideas, if that were true the status quo would never be questioned. Ideas are what make history possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My premise CAN'T be false - it's my opinion. And a smooth bell curve does have Rich Man and Poor Man both represented. A smooth bell curve on the distribution of wealth graph also describes a very robust middle class and tapered pathways gradually leading from the middle to both both of those extremes, depending on education, skill, effort and luck.

It's a great gauge.

You are trying to present an argument in support of your opinion, the premise that argument is based on is false.

Do you, or do you not, have an example of a smooth bell curve for the distribution in wealth from history? Simple yes or no, has it even happened?

The only history that matters going forward is that which we are creating in this moment we call now. What difference does it make if history has seen an idea before? At one point in the time-line, 'America' as a concept lay only in the minds of some liberal thinkers.

History isn't there to justify ideas, if that were true the status quo would never be questioned. Ideas are what make history possible.

Wrong. You said, and I quote,

I said NOTHING about how adjustments can or should be made to change the distribution of wealth curve in an economy - I simply stated that when the gauge is skewed toward the wealthy like ours is, the 'check engine' light is on and adjustments need to be made to bring it back in line with a smooth and symmetric bell curve.

I asked you to provide an example from history, and now you are saying the only thing that matters is the future. Does that mean you, personally, no longer want to bring the wealth distribution back to the way it was when we had a pretty bell curve, or does it mean you do not want to admit you are living in a fantasy world, and the real world never had a bell curve?

Like I said earlier, your premise is false, and the sooner you admit it the sooner it will be possible to actually educate you about why wealth inequality, as it actually exists in the US, is not the problem you think it is. Then we can examine other facts and theories and determine if it is a problem at all, whether it indicates a healthy economy, or an unhealthy one, and why a lack of income mobility is what economists really point to as bad for the economy.

 

[bripat9643]

If we replaced the income tax system with a national sales tax, would that be ending the income tax as we know it?

Yes, but then we would no longer be taxing incomes, would we? Congress changes the income tax laws every year, but did anyone ever claim they were "abolishing the income tax as we know it?"

How on Earth could anyone credibly claim the Ryan plan is unconstitutional?

The Ryan plan requires Americans to buy private insurance. That's what people called unconstitutional in so-called Obamacare.

Nope. It doesn't require them to buy anything. It gives them a voucher they can use to buy insurance with if they so choose. They can throw the voucher in the trash if they don't want to buy insurance.

 

[The Rabbi]

Color me shocked that nobody can answer this question.

There are plenty of answers. If you don't believe me, try living in an economy where there wealth is spread evenly and see what happens.

Nobody said anything about 'spreading wealth', evenly or otherwise. The question is all about using the distribution of wealth curve as a gauge of how healthy our economy is. That and the opinion that I and some others hold that seeing it skewed toward the wealthy like ours is means that our economy has the 'check engine' light on. The other side of that opinion is that the goal should be to pursue policies that push the gauge into a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve.

I'm getting a lot of indications of opinions that the current skew we have toward a favored wealthy class means that our 'gauge' shows a good and healthy economy, but I've yet to hear a reason for that widely held opinion that's deeper than "God Bless America".



It's a bit of a conundrum.

Cuba has a far more even distribution of wealth than we do. Russia's is far more skewed than ours is. The bottom line is, in a free society wealth distribution doesn't matter at all.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You are trying to present an argument in support of your opinion, the premise that argument is based on is false.

Do you, or do you not, have an example of a smooth bell curve for the distribution in wealth from history? Simple yes or no, has it even happened?

The only history that matters going forward is that which we are creating in this moment we call now. What difference does it make if history has seen an idea before? At one point in the time-line, 'America' as a concept lay only in the minds of some liberal thinkers.

History isn't there to justify ideas, if that were true the status quo would never be questioned. Ideas are what make history possible.

Wrong. You said, and I quote,

I said NOTHING about how adjustments can or should be made to change the distribution of wealth curve in an economy - I simply stated that when the gauge is skewed toward the wealthy like ours is, the 'check engine' light is on and adjustments need to be made to bring it back in line with a smooth and symmetric bell curve.

I asked you to provide an example from history, and now you are saying the only thing that matters is the future. Does that mean you, personally, no longer want to bring the wealth distribution back to the way it was when we had a pretty bell curve, or does it mean you do not want to admit you are living in a fantasy world, and the real world never had a bell curve?

Like I said earlier, your premise is false, and the sooner you admit it the sooner it will be possible to actually educate you about why wealth inequality, as it actually exists in the US, is not the problem you think it is. Then we can examine other facts and theories and determine if it is a problem at all, whether it indicates a healthy economy, or an unhealthy one, and why a lack of income mobility is what economists really point to as bad for the economy.

My premise can NOT be false. It is MY HUMBLE OPINION that seeing a smooth, symmetric bell curve in the distribution of wealth graph would beat the living hell out of the graph our economy currently presents.

I simply believe that a distribution of wealth graph that shows a smooth and symmetrical bell curve describes an economy that is fair and balanced, with a robust middle class, where most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people. All I'm asking is for those who disagree with me to tell me why they believe a distribution of wealth graph like our current one, that describes a small group in control of most of the nations wealth, is better.

This is NOT a rocket science question!

Stop asking me to prove how my beliefs can work from a historical point of view, and simply tell me why you think an economy with a favored class in control of most of the wealth is a good thing. I just don't see it. Educate me.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There are plenty of answers. If you don't believe me, try living in an economy where there wealth is spread evenly and see what happens.

Nobody said anything about 'spreading wealth', evenly or otherwise. The question is all about using the distribution of wealth curve as a gauge of how healthy our economy is. That and the opinion that I and some others hold that seeing it skewed toward the wealthy like ours is means that our economy has the 'check engine' light on. The other side of that opinion is that the goal should be to pursue policies that push the gauge into a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve.

I'm getting a lot of indications of opinions that the current skew we have toward a favored wealthy class means that our 'gauge' shows a good and healthy economy, but I've yet to hear a reason for that widely held opinion that's deeper than "God Bless America".



It's a bit of a conundrum.

Cuba has a far more even distribution of wealth than we do. Russia's is far more skewed than ours is. The bottom line is, in a free society wealth distribution doesn't matter at all.

Cuba's distribution of wealth graph shows ONE family in control of just about everything. It's one of THE most skewed distribution of wealth graphs on the planet. Try again.

You have also just helped to establish a direct correlation between nations with distribution of wealth graphs skewed toward a favored class and reductions in freedoms for their societies. Kudos.

 

[007]

Just about anything that Obama has said in the last year would qualify for lie of the year.

Except for, "I'm going on vacation," and "I'm going golfing."

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Nope. It doesn't require them to buy anything. It gives them a voucher they can use to buy insurance with if they so choose. They can throw the voucher in the trash if they don't want to buy insurance.

But the voucher represents their payroll taxes. If they don't use the voucher to buy the private insurance,

they effectively lose the payroll taxes they've been required to pay in all their working lives.

That means, simply, that the government takes your money, paycheck by paycheck, and then replaces it with a voucher that forces you to buy private insurance,

or forfeit that money.

That is exactly the same as requiring you to buy private insurance (under Obamacare) or pay a penalty...

...so the question is, why aren't the same people who said that was unconstitutional saying it about Ryancare?