The unofficial Obama and Romney VP speculation thread

[Pelado]

The recent propagation of scare tactics about Congressman Ryan’s Social Security ideas is a prototypical case in point. Earlier this week, a press release was issued, touting a study of the “plan” and decrying the “deep cuts” it would allegedly make in Social Security benefits. Already this line has been picked up in press coverage, with the Washington Post printing a story under the sensational headline, “Republican Rep. Ryan’s Plan would Cut Benefits for High Earners,” (The print edition of the Post was even more careless, entitling its story, “GOP Social Security Plan Would Cut Benefits for Higher Earners.”) The Post article came complete with a graphic appearing to show benefits for a mid-range (roughly $43,000) earner shrinking roughly 20% by 2050.

These descriptions are misleading in the extreme...

Charles Blahous serves as one of the two public trustees for the Social Security and Medicare programs. He is also the author of Social Security: The Unfinished Work.

http://www.economics21.org/commentar...rity-proposals

[Moliere]

I'm waiting to hear Calicoug's plan to fix the deficit, SS, Medicare issue.....

Of course, maybe he's like all Dems and doesn't see borrowing money to pay for 40% of expenditures as a problem...?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I mentioned Paul Krugman earlier in this thread, of course this post doesn't really fit in the thread, but oh well.

Krugman recently mentioned that Japan was growing quite nicely as a result of the tsunami. Fits well with he said shortly after 9/11 about the WTC coming down and how cleaning up everything and rebuilding would produce a solid boost to the economy.

It's quite simple in my mind then. We just need to tear shit up, rebuild it and we can have perpetual 4% increases in GDP.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'm waiting to hear Calicoug's plan to fix the deficit, SS, Medicare issue.....

Of course, maybe he's like all Dems and doesn't see borrowing money to pay for 40% of expenditures as a problem...?

There was a story that Michael Lewis wrote about Greece in Vanity Fair a 2-3 years ago. It dealt with the breakdown of their economy and society and the point was that the economy had evolved from people providing goods and services in the private sector to a huge portion of the population angling to get the most money out of government. There were always the producers, and to an increasingly lesser extent there are still producers in Greece today, but as they've continued to be preyed upon, they're leaving the country. What's left is the rabble angling for more and more government benefits.

So, we've seen the end game of the welfare state and the famous quote from Margaret Thatcher comes to mind -- "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."

Cali calls attempts at reforming medicare a joke and his main reasoning is that it's inhumane to force those that use it the most to pay more when they're least capable of doing so. It's a narrow view of things, because he completely fails to look at the other side of it. Namely, since medicare became an entitlement and because those who receive the care don't pay for it and have no self-interest in containing their costs, medical costs have spiraled out of control. Medicare hasn't played the only role in this happening and I'm not going to say that correlation=causation, but I think it combined with the attitude that people have towards health insurance in this country has played a huge role in this happening. We're left with the choice of either socializing the whole damn thing to control the costs (which, quite honestly, might be better than our current untenable system) or we introduce market forces into health care that trims the fat out of it (the staff doctor's offices that has to deal with billing insurance and medicare, defensive medicine, requiring those who receive the medical care to have some skin in the game). The former may very well lower the quality of medical care, the latter is not without its problems -- but the current system is totally unsustainable.

But people like Cali and the Dems in general look at this, like they do all other things, through a voting constituency prism. Different voting constituencies contend for a limited amount of resources. Giving the most government resources to a majority of people in these constituencies is how they win elections. So any reform at medicare, SS, etc. is merely an effort to take shit away from seniors and poor people and that's inhumane.

This works fine until you can longer afford it and then you continue to spend until it gets to the point where you can't borrow anymore. The United States isn't Greece. We have the reserve currency, we're rich in natural resources, we produce food and manufactured products and we have the best creative class of people in the world. That said, California is rich in natural resources, makes stuff and is the home of Silicon Valley and look what's happening there. Even with the advantages the United States has, it doesn't mean that it can't decline and that can and will happen when entitlements get to the point where it saps too much of the economy away better wealth-creating uses.

[calicoug]

I'm waiting to hear Calicoug's plan to fix the deficit, SS, Medicare issue.....

Of course, maybe he's like all Dems and doesn't see borrowing money to pay for 40% of expenditures as a problem...?

SS is easy. You just have to pick one of many options to go with. You can increase the income level at which SS taxes are paid, you can means test, you can increase the age for eligibility, etc. It's just deciding which path makes the most sense. For me, I favor the first in the list.

For the deficit, it's only an issue to me in the long term. Deficit spending is critical during a recession. Countercyclical economic policy works best. Ask Europe how austerity is working to get them out of their slump. Long term, the deficit is likely to fix itself if we do almost nothing. The Bush tax cuts would be repealed automatically, the economy will eventually pick up more steam (increasing tax revenues), the troops are coming home from Afghanistan and already mostly home from Iraq, etc. Those items alone erase the deficit and then some. There are lots of things we can do to speed it up and we should do them.

Medicare is more complex, but Obama's health plan is a good start. You can't fix Medicare until the entire health system is on better footing.

[calicoug]

You can't defend anything you've said. I took the quotes directly from his webpage on his roadmap. Maybe it is roadmap 2.0. What's your point? That you are arguing about an old roadmap and not the one that is currently under discussion?

My point is that whether or not he has revised his roadmap to version 2.0 or not, he in fact did make all of the proposals I have outlined and in fact got the House to support them in a vote. That's some pretty heavy baggage to carry for a potential VP nominee, not to mention it is utterly and totally unserious as a proposal.

[Jacob]

Long term, the deficit is likely to fix itself if we do almost nothing. The Bush tax cuts would be repealed automatically, the economy will eventually pick up more steam (increasing tax revenues), the troops are coming home from Afghanistan and already mostly home from Iraq, etc. Those items alone erase the deficit and then some. There are lots of things we can do to speed it up and we should do them.

Deficits will fix themselves. That's ingenious. Surely you have some analysis to support this fantasy? The CBO doesn't. But maybe some think tank? Politician? The President's proposed budget? No? Really?

Since Medicare, SS and entitlement, and not anything you mentioned are driving future spending. How is it exactly that doing nothing with resolve the problem?

[Jacob]

Medicare is more complex, but Obama's health plan is a good start. You can't fix Medicare until the entire health system is on better footing.

Obamacare is a good start at what? Not reducing health care spending. Nobody thinks that. Nobody that has been paying attention.

[calicoug]

Obamacare is a good start at what? Not reducing health care spending. Nobody thinks that. Nobody that has been paying attention.

You may want to pay more attention. Romney might want to also- he helped fashion this thing (and his reforms seem to be helping in Mass.).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...re-is-working/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/he...pagewanted=all

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Blog...ost-Curve.aspx



People who pay attention like what they see.

[calicoug]

Deficits will fix themselves. That's ingenious. Surely you have some analysis to support this fantasy? The CBO doesn't. But maybe some think tank? Politician? The President's proposed budget? No? Really?

Since Medicare, SS and entitlement, and not anything you mentioned are driving future spending. How is it exactly that doing nothing with resolve the problem?

I think you are confusing yourself. You asked about the deficit, not the debt. The deficit will fix itself. The debt requires structural changes.

[LA Ute]

Why are we debating health care reform in a thread about Romney's possible V.P. picks?

[calicoug]

Why are we debating health care reform in a thread about Romney's possible V.P. picks?

Good point.

PLEASE pick Ryan. See above for why.

[Mormon Red Death]

Rumors of Michigan Govenor Rick Snyder as Romney's running mate. The only thing I don't like about that is that Snyder wouldn't be governor of Michigan anymore. The state is actually turning around with him at the helm.

[Mormon Red Death]

Medicare is more complex, but Obama's health plan is a good start. You can't fix Medicare until the entire health system is on better footing.

So we keep waiting for Medicare to fix itself?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Rumors of Michigan Govenor Rick Snyder as Romney's running mate. The only thing I don't like about that is that Snyder wouldn't be governor of Michigan anymore. The state is actually turning around with him at the helm.

If Marco Rubio is acceptable after being in the Senate for less than two years, then Snyder should be acceptable.

Snyder makes a lot of sense because he has been a good governor and he would be the anti-Palin pick. I'm skeptical whether a VP pick ever puts specific states in play, but perhaps the memories of Romney's father with some of the 65+ crowd combined the current Gov being the running mate would actually give Romney a shot in the state.

I always find it interesting that Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota elect GOP governors, like them, and then give the GOP the cold shoulder in presidential elections. I suppose I'm looking at limited sample set, it's easy to see why they wouldn't go for Bush. But shouldn't Romney appeal to these states like Pawlenty, Snyder, Thompson and Walker have appealed to them? (the recall is turning into a disaster for the Dems in Wisconsin btw).