Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (60437)	4/21/2008 8:50:38 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541787

Means testing is one to start. Means testing what? Aerospace contracts? Debt instruments? Welfare? I assume you mean SS and Medicare? Maybe agricultural subsidies? Re Medicare, since they first started testing it I've made a few posts on the topic. If you can judge from the response to my posts, there's not much interest in the topic. As for the amount of money, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of savings there. Means testing seems to be more political than fiscal. Means testing of Part B will save under two billion. Not that we shouldn't bother for that, only that it's not a lot of money. My posting on the subject to date has mostly been about the abuse of the word, "wealthy," to describe the 1.6 million old souls who are means tested. I have a hard time accepting an $80K income as the determinant of "wealthy," particularly given that a nursing home would eat up the whole income after taxes. Ergo anyone in a nursing home but not on Medicaid is, by definition, wealthy. Boggles my mind. If they made nursing homes tax deductible, I'd have less problem with the labeling. Of course, if they raised the threshold to something actually approximating wealth, they would save even less money.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (60437)	4/21/2008 10:29:49 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541787

<<<A leader is needed. Just imagine if Barack had come out and said that John McCain did not want a 100 year war in Iraq. And that Barack would partake in that slander. What a change. But no - he got down and dirty. It was a huge opportunity lost.>>> Barack is not the problem, but his lack of understanding does not help. All this gridlock and dirty politics started with Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and the Conservative Revolution. Karl Rove was given the opportunity to fine tune dirty politics. The Clintons have a proven track record to reverse that process.