We ask you to vote on the following, which affects only people under 55 on the future of entitlement programs you pay into.
Fact: There are fewer dollars from taxes going into a theoretical program than are taken out, by about a 2 to 1 ratio. One could, for instance, have a tough time justifing paying in $100,000 and drawing out $200,000. Does that make sense?
You as a citizen can now vote on how to handle this. Which do you vote for?
___ 1. Pay more into the program so it will have financial integrity by having enough funds to cover costs. Keep payouts the same with no changes.
___ 2. Reduce the payouts, so people are inadequately covered.
___ 3. Not pay in any more, nor reduce any payouts, and let future generations make up the difference for us, plus cover their own costs
___ 4. Not changing pay-ins or adequate coverage, but reallocating the benefits to the poor by giving reduced or no benefits to those who are at various levels of higher income, who can afford to pay more for their own care.
What are your choices? Note that you could make a choice to combine some of them, such as paying in more plus also allocating benefits differently. (There is another choice also: to have a later age for coverage to start.)
You choose. Let your Congressman know what you will accept.
It is up to you, the Citizens, to responsibly understand the choices and then to actually make them. So you are hereby asked what your choice is.
The Rational NonPolitician
The next blog is how to pay for the benefits, without reducing them at all.
(I would recommend also that a polling organization take a statistically valid poll as to the choices once one has been informed.)
Consider also reading from the site:Medicare, section called Which Of These Would You Support, If You Think It Out?
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Guarantees to those over 55 - Be clear!
One of the key lies that are believed out there, even supported rather ignorantly by an ad by AARP (amazingly enough - what is going on?), is that older people's Social Security and Medicare benefits would be affected by any proposed changes.
The Republican Party should, without talking about anything else (in order to not confuse people with more than one subject), individually across the spectrum say "we guarantee that there will be no changes for people 55 or over, period. Please let us know if there is any question about that?"
Doubt on this is the key issue that is causing alienation of the senior citizens to the Republican Party. Correct it, stomp it out, make it absolutely clear and completely known!
Then, see the next blog on "choices" on how people under 55 will be covered - and make this point clear.
The Rational NonPolitician
If the "third rail" (Social Security and Medicare) is not dealt with that will be the height of irresponsibility. I understand why the Democrats will not address the issue as it has caused Ryan immense problems, as the only responsible person to make a concrete proposal. (In the railroad, the third rail, if touched, electrocutes one.)
The Republican Party should, without talking about anything else (in order to not confuse people with more than one subject), individually across the spectrum say "we guarantee that there will be no changes for people 55 or over, period. Please let us know if there is any question about that?"
Doubt on this is the key issue that is causing alienation of the senior citizens to the Republican Party. Correct it, stomp it out, make it absolutely clear and completely known!
Then, see the next blog on "choices" on how people under 55 will be covered - and make this point clear.
The Rational NonPolitician
If the "third rail" (Social Security and Medicare) is not dealt with that will be the height of irresponsibility. I understand why the Democrats will not address the issue as it has caused Ryan immense problems, as the only responsible person to make a concrete proposal. (In the railroad, the third rail, if touched, electrocutes one.)
Mr. Obama, will you stand up against such lies?
Scenario in a Presidential Election Debate, Romney to Obama:
"Mr. Obama, please allow me to finish this and then I request the courtesy of a reply.
Mr. Obama, do you understand that if a consulting firm is going in to save firms that layoffs may be required to save the company - and that that is what will save thousands of jobs that would have been lost otherwise if the company had gone out of business?
If you do, then will you stand still for the lie that I was a destroyer of jobs, when actually there were many jobs saved?
In the name of ethics and decency, are you willing to call off the dogs and to speak out publicly to tell your supporters to cease and desist in this lie?"
Make sense?
Yours for standing for ethics and decency,
The Rational NonPolitician
"Mr. Obama, please allow me to finish this and then I request the courtesy of a reply.
Mr. Obama, do you understand that if a consulting firm is going in to save firms that layoffs may be required to save the company - and that that is what will save thousands of jobs that would have been lost otherwise if the company had gone out of business?
If you do, then will you stand still for the lie that I was a destroyer of jobs, when actually there were many jobs saved?
In the name of ethics and decency, are you willing to call off the dogs and to speak out publicly to tell your supporters to cease and desist in this lie?"
Make sense?
Yours for standing for ethics and decency,
The Rational NonPolitician
Conduct a campaign consistent with American greatness
“My campaign will be a campaign of American greatness.”
[I recognize that we can campaign on division and attack, but, the speaker of the above continues, saying what follows.]
“I believe instead we need to draw together, that we need campaigns and leaders who will draw on the greatness of the American spirit, as opposed to people who will divide us, and look for scapegoats, and demonize fellow Americans, or find a street that’s responsible for our problems.”
Now, that's what I call an adult message. I believe Romney when he said it, as I saw him immediately pull a negative ad re: Perry that his campaign people put out.
So, Mr. Obama, are you willing to make a pledge to do the same and to pull all lies and false negatives immediately and to discourage them? Or will you do what is politically expedient?
The Rational NonPolitician
P. S. Mr. Obama, I think you would be reelected for sure if you stepped up to acting as an adult, letting go of the divisive speech and half truths (where the essential other side is omitted). And then you could be a President that I could have some rational confidence in...
[I recognize that we can campaign on division and attack, but, the speaker of the above continues, saying what follows.]
“I believe instead we need to draw together, that we need campaigns and leaders who will draw on the greatness of the American spirit, as opposed to people who will divide us, and look for scapegoats, and demonize fellow Americans, or find a street that’s responsible for our problems.”
Now, that's what I call an adult message. I believe Romney when he said it, as I saw him immediately pull a negative ad re: Perry that his campaign people put out.
So, Mr. Obama, are you willing to make a pledge to do the same and to pull all lies and false negatives immediately and to discourage them? Or will you do what is politically expedient?
The Rational NonPolitician
P. S. Mr. Obama, I think you would be reelected for sure if you stepped up to acting as an adult, letting go of the divisive speech and half truths (where the essential other side is omitted). And then you could be a President that I could have some rational confidence in...
"Occupy" movement - where is the limit on hurting other people?
I wrote about "Occupiers Of Wall Street - Listening - And Educating" on October 18th.
Yes, they are expressing their free speech rights, but does that include hurting others and running up big bills?
They are asking for benefits and compassion, yet hurting businesses and costing them and the cities hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They even shut down the Port of Oakland, depriving fellow "99%ers" from their daily wages.
Yes, there must be listened to and there must be free speech, but we must draw the line at other people being hurt and the damage that is being caused.
I believe that a true leader is needed here, who will be the compassionate but wise adult in the room. We should have a President who steps up to the plate, even if there is political advantage for him in repeating his 1% against the 99% theme and inciting voters to go to him.
He has an ethical choice here:
To do what is best for the nation or
To do what is best for his election
A full blown speech and "talking to" is merited here - one that does not exploit the politics but encourages solution and cooperation. The President has been light on both, although he advocated them in his campaign speeches, as is pointed out in the chronicling of the President's moves in Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men.
Such a speech would express compassion (a good thing to show to be reelected) and understanding, laying out their concerns and pointing out that particular races, creeds, and types should not be blamed but that the system has to be fixed to support what works. And then he needs to lay out what will be done and can be done, calling on them to seek positive solutions and to be responsible for producing results as productive citizens operating without blame.
Is there an adult in the room? Will we draw a line between where someone can flail their arms and where they are hitting us in the nose (beyond the boundary of no harm)?
Will we begin to have an adult conversation that is absolutely necessary and will lead us further to creating a strong America, with each citizen stepping up to pitch in? If so, we can have a great future. If not, then...
I hope there is a rational choice made here.
The Rational NonPolitician
(www.thenonpolitician.homestead.com )
I voted for Obama (see the site for why) and I had hoped he would do what he said he would do. But now all fact finding points to his not following through on his promises plus being unable to govern nor to have the perspective to be able to make the right choices. Unfortunately, "on the job training" is not effective for a President.
Yes, they are expressing their free speech rights, but does that include hurting others and running up big bills?
They are asking for benefits and compassion, yet hurting businesses and costing them and the cities hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They even shut down the Port of Oakland, depriving fellow "99%ers" from their daily wages.
Yes, there must be listened to and there must be free speech, but we must draw the line at other people being hurt and the damage that is being caused.
I believe that a true leader is needed here, who will be the compassionate but wise adult in the room. We should have a President who steps up to the plate, even if there is political advantage for him in repeating his 1% against the 99% theme and inciting voters to go to him.
He has an ethical choice here:
To do what is best for the nation or
To do what is best for his election
A full blown speech and "talking to" is merited here - one that does not exploit the politics but encourages solution and cooperation. The President has been light on both, although he advocated them in his campaign speeches, as is pointed out in the chronicling of the President's moves in Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men.
Such a speech would express compassion (a good thing to show to be reelected) and understanding, laying out their concerns and pointing out that particular races, creeds, and types should not be blamed but that the system has to be fixed to support what works. And then he needs to lay out what will be done and can be done, calling on them to seek positive solutions and to be responsible for producing results as productive citizens operating without blame.
Is there an adult in the room? Will we draw a line between where someone can flail their arms and where they are hitting us in the nose (beyond the boundary of no harm)?
Will we begin to have an adult conversation that is absolutely necessary and will lead us further to creating a strong America, with each citizen stepping up to pitch in? If so, we can have a great future. If not, then...
I hope there is a rational choice made here.
The Rational NonPolitician
(www.thenonpolitician.homestead.com )
I voted for Obama (see the site for why) and I had hoped he would do what he said he would do. But now all fact finding points to his not following through on his promises plus being unable to govern nor to have the perspective to be able to make the right choices. Unfortunately, "on the job training" is not effective for a President.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Are Gay Civil Unions or Marriage Inevitable?
Yes, they are inevitable.
According to a recent Gallup Survey 53% of Americans favor legal gay marriage. And as younger people become voters this percentage will increase.
So, those opposing gay marriage would best rationally just accept that gay unions with the equivalent of full marriage rights are inevitable - and being righteous about it will do anyone any good - I think Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, and the Dalai Lama would agree that righteousness and make wrong are not "right" acts.
The best that can be accomplished is to protect the term "marriage" for those who extremely value it as being a unique family unit. I think the majority of Americans do not have the right to trod on others - especially since there is another way to give equal rights to gay people.
The rational choice is to have a legal name such as civil unions for the gay person's full rights and to leave intact the term marriage for the traditional meaning, not changing the definition nor imposing the majority's will on others.
So, give up opposing such unions for gay people.
And, for others, please consider honoring others' beliefs and even holy values by giving them the respect of keeping intact the meaning of the family value of marriage.
This involves only a small compromise on both sides and accomplishes creating a greater good overall for the people involved - and that is what ethics is. And Ethics is how we should run our country and our lives. (Read Ethics.)
Will rationality prevail? Will you support rationality? What do you think about all of this?
Let's just be settled on this and accept the inevitable in a gracious way while being respectful of others...and let's get on with the key matters that will determine our future, creating an America of strong values and great effectiveness for producing financial abundance and benefit for all...and for creating greater happiness and health.
The Rational NonPolitician
According to a recent Gallup Survey 53% of Americans favor legal gay marriage. And as younger people become voters this percentage will increase.
So, those opposing gay marriage would best rationally just accept that gay unions with the equivalent of full marriage rights are inevitable - and being righteous about it will do anyone any good - I think Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, and the Dalai Lama would agree that righteousness and make wrong are not "right" acts.
The best that can be accomplished is to protect the term "marriage" for those who extremely value it as being a unique family unit. I think the majority of Americans do not have the right to trod on others - especially since there is another way to give equal rights to gay people.
The rational choice is to have a legal name such as civil unions for the gay person's full rights and to leave intact the term marriage for the traditional meaning, not changing the definition nor imposing the majority's will on others.
So, give up opposing such unions for gay people.
And, for others, please consider honoring others' beliefs and even holy values by giving them the respect of keeping intact the meaning of the family value of marriage.
This involves only a small compromise on both sides and accomplishes creating a greater good overall for the people involved - and that is what ethics is. And Ethics is how we should run our country and our lives. (Read Ethics.)
Will rationality prevail? Will you support rationality? What do you think about all of this?
Let's just be settled on this and accept the inevitable in a gracious way while being respectful of others...and let's get on with the key matters that will determine our future, creating an America of strong values and great effectiveness for producing financial abundance and benefit for all...and for creating greater happiness and health.
The Rational NonPolitician
Are abortion rights endangered?
It would appear from all the data that those who are concerned with abortion rights being taken away have nothing to worry about.
AND it is also true that those who do not want the federal government to pay for abortions have nothing to worry about.
These are areas of intense emotional importance to many people. That's just fine.
But it is not fine for politicians to exploit this nor for anybody to not look at the facts and stick to rational discussion of it - neither should be acceptable if we want a well functioning society.
Nancy Pelosi flunks the objectivity, fact-based, rational test. She accuses the Republicans of wanting to deny care to women who need abortions where there life is threatened, that they will be left to die on the hospital room floor. It is not true by any reasonable interpretation of the actual words in the Protect Life Act recently passed in the House 251 to 172. The exaggerative language is readily apparent to any discriminating thinker.
On Sep. 9, 2009, President Obama told Congress that under his legislation, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” The new proposed law only codifies his executive order, as executive orders can be changed at any time.
(See the contents, summary or full text: Act - and judge for yourself.)
A March Pew Research Center poll shows that 54 percent of Americans surveyed support the right to a legal abortion in all or most cases. As more and more young people enter adulthood, this is likely to increase, as that age group strongly favors abortion rights. The Right To Choose will stay in place, so it is not wise for the "other side" to do battle against it - any temporary restriction would be overridden by popular movement.
About 2/3 of Americans are against federal funding of abortions. That, too, appears to be irreversible.
In both cases, it is wisest to now focus attention on what we can change, while saying a version of the Serenity Prayer.
Or, like the old song says, but in regard to these two issues: "Don't worry, be happy...".
Instead, focus on which candidate for President can actually run the country effectively to create a strong America for the future.
The Rational NonPolitician
AND it is also true that those who do not want the federal government to pay for abortions have nothing to worry about.
These are areas of intense emotional importance to many people. That's just fine.
But it is not fine for politicians to exploit this nor for anybody to not look at the facts and stick to rational discussion of it - neither should be acceptable if we want a well functioning society.
Nancy Pelosi flunks the objectivity, fact-based, rational test. She accuses the Republicans of wanting to deny care to women who need abortions where there life is threatened, that they will be left to die on the hospital room floor. It is not true by any reasonable interpretation of the actual words in the Protect Life Act recently passed in the House 251 to 172. The exaggerative language is readily apparent to any discriminating thinker.
On Sep. 9, 2009, President Obama told Congress that under his legislation, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” The new proposed law only codifies his executive order, as executive orders can be changed at any time.
(See the contents, summary or full text: Act - and judge for yourself.)
A March Pew Research Center poll shows that 54 percent of Americans surveyed support the right to a legal abortion in all or most cases. As more and more young people enter adulthood, this is likely to increase, as that age group strongly favors abortion rights. The Right To Choose will stay in place, so it is not wise for the "other side" to do battle against it - any temporary restriction would be overridden by popular movement.
About 2/3 of Americans are against federal funding of abortions. That, too, appears to be irreversible.
In both cases, it is wisest to now focus attention on what we can change, while saying a version of the Serenity Prayer.
Or, like the old song says, but in regard to these two issues: "Don't worry, be happy...".
Instead, focus on which candidate for President can actually run the country effectively to create a strong America for the future.
The Rational NonPolitician
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)