The Thurston Mittens the 3rd Veep Megathread

[Ed Anger]

Ugh. Longface.

[CountDeMoney]

I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry.  Kerry's accomplished a hell of a lot more for the public good in his life than Mittens and his dancing horse ever will.

[Martinus]

I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry.  Kerry's accomplished a hell of a lot more for the public good in his life than Mittens and his dancing horse ever will.

I'm speaking purely from an outsider's perspective - I have not heard of Kerry before he decided to run and he was this totally boring, uncharismatic white guy running against a deeply polarizing incumbent president.

[Phillip V]

More father-son spin from the media: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-dont-mind-their-contrasts.html

[CountDeMoney]

Romney didn't chose a Vice Presidential candidate, he chose a Senior Executive Vice President.

[Razgovory]

I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry.  Kerry's accomplished a hell of a lot more for the public good in his life than Mittens and his dancing horse ever will.

Romney accomplished a lot.  He just doesn't want to admit to it.

[alfred russel]

Well, I don't know about the US but at least here, the economy is traditionally considered the conservatives' forte by the general public (even those who vote left wing), whereas the left is better on social and human rights stuff.

But yeah it reminds to be seen whether Romney will be another Kerry or not.

I think he is another Kerry, maybe even worse than Kerry, but then the incumbent is probably a bit weaker than in 2004.

Marty, a main reason that Ryan is so polarizing is he proposed a reform to senior medical care to fix the budget. Right now, once you turn 65 the government will basically cover your medical expenses. Since our health care costs are exploding, this is blowing a big hole through federal spending. Ryan came up with a plan that rather than the government paying for senior medical care, it will give seniors the funding instead, which will grow at roughly the rate of inflation. Which is great for the budget, but if you are elderly means you can no longer be certain of having medical coverage (the funding may not cover your needs). This is unpopular with everyone, but especially the elderly, and Florida is a state filled with the elderly.

[Sheilbh]

There are other states with lots of elderly where this could be a problem too, Iowa and Pennsylvania for example.

[Martinus]

More father-son spin from the media: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-dont-mind-their-contrasts.html

This picture could use a caption contest.

"Howard, are there two Republicans at our table or have I forgotten my pills again?"

[CountDeMoney]

There are other states with lots of elderly where this could be a problem too, Iowa and Pennsylvania for example.

Well, the GOPtards on the talking head shows are stressing that it won't affect anybody currently over 55.  So that leaves the 54-and-under crowd to convince how it'll be good to pay for their own healthcare.  Pretty sure that's a bigger demographic.

[Neil]

There are suckers in the under-55 crowd.  People actually bought the idea of health savings accounts, after all.  And then there's the 'USA!  USA!' crowd, who don't give any thought as to why private insurers would want to provide affordable coverage for low-income seniors.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally, this thread highlights the risk with Ryan. He's more charming, more popular (with the base at least), more charismatic and has a clearer set of beliefs than Romney. All told that sort of threatens to destabilise the campaign.

I still think it's the first interesting thing Romney's done and one of the better picks he could've made.

[The Minsky Moment]

As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries. 

Whose salaries do you propose reducing?  When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a  lot more like Sparta than Versailles.   The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel.  When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions.  The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector. 

If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity.  So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.

It also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign.

I don't agree but it's besides the point.  Sensible or not, it doesn't change to scope of the problem.

[CountDeMoney]

When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a  lot more like Sparta than Versailles.   The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel.  When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions.  The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector. 

But see, that's OK, because they're union, and are sitting on a king's ransom of benefits that private sector employees can only dream about.

[Phillip V]

As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries. 

Whose salaries do you propose reducing?  When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a  lot more like Sparta than Versailles.   The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel.  When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions.  The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector. 

If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity.  So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.

It also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign.

I don't agree but it's besides the point.  Sensible or not, it doesn't change to scope of the problem.

What were their salaries?