Paul Ryan Poll

[Hauldren Collider]

Wow. Virginia's budget is like 40 billion, I think. That sounds like Fairfax County's budget.

[regexcellent]

Wow. Virginia's budget is like 85 billion, I think. That sounds like Fairfax County's budget.

FTFY. Quick google result: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/04/virg...billion-budget

[kentonio]

I mean the entire budget. It is only 5.6 billion.

This would explain why in a recent study Mississippi had the highest death rate in the US, more than 30 times the average.

[giblets]

Mississippi is like a third world country. That's why expecting them to have healthcare that they only have to pay 10% of the cost for is unfair.

[DinoDoc]

Mississippi is like a third world country. That's why expecting them to have healthcare that they only have to pay 10% of the cost for is unfair.

Snide remarks aside. Does this statement change the validity of the statement that state's taking advantage of the option the Court left open to them are doing it for fiscal reasons?

[giblets]

Snide remarks aside. Does this statement change the validity of the statement that state's taking advantage of the option the Court left open to them are doing it for fiscal reasons?

The fiscal problems are the product of a dominant ideology, so no. Even the state of Mississippi should have more than $5 billion at its disposal.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see why they should have to abide by a 'one-size-fits-all' plan. What works for New York city, clearly does not work for Mississippi.

[DinoDoc]

The fiscal problems are the product of a dominant ideology, so no.

What ideology is common among the states rejecting the expansion that isn't there among the red states expected to accept the Medicaid expansion?

[giblets]

What ideology is common among the states rejecting the expansion that isn't there among the red states expected to accept the Medicaid expansion?

I don't know which states have and haven't decided to **** over the poor.

[Japher]

I think anyone wanting to run for public office, senate or higher, at the state and federal level should be required to take and pass history, economic, statistics, decision making, and conflict resolution courses. Especially the economic courses. We think because some idiot got themselves elected by his delegate that he is qualified, what the hell does "qualified" many any more? And who is the voting group that elected them?

First question: What is qualified?

Well, we seem to mean they are qualified if they have done it before or have the theory (given via education) to apply whatever it is we want them to do. This is a stupid definition. The only way some is qualified to something is if they had the theory, practiced it after acquiring the theory, and did so successfully. I liken it to The Elves and The Shoemaker by the Bros. Grimm. The guy falls asleep, elves make him shoes, he sells shoes. Now, did the shoes get made because he fell asleep? A man of action would say no, but the leader would notice that unless the Shoemaker slept AND supplied the means the elves wouldn't have done the work, and thus no shoes. We want a leader, we elect leaders, so why do we require them to know how to make shoes? We should be requiring them to supply means and sleep. They should be qualified in project and program management, building relations, and deligating those who are qualified to the tasks. It's a what ability, not a how; knowing what needs to be done and not necessarily how.

Second question: Who is electing them?

I don't do polls, I'm lazy and don't understand them. What I do know is that most of the people my age I know don't vote, and if they do they don't vote seriously. I think the younger crowd votes because they seem to have a poor work ethic, and if they can use needing to vote as an excuse to get out of work then they will and probably do. Old people also vote, but mainly because they have nothing better to do than to complain about things, and that is basically all that goes on on FOX NEWS... which they all love. So, we have uneducated, lazy youth and old whinny people voting and selecting are leaders who will gain "experience" that we think will qualify them to lead. This is not good as you will generally get a tie between whoever looks the best and/or promises to fix the most things, and really, what does fixing things have to do with politics? Most politicians who offer to fix things are feeding you lines. Creating consensus does not mean creating good legislation; great, we may all think universal health care is an awesome idea, you'd have to be nuts not to want it, but is it feasible? As an engineer I see a lot of people "fixing" things when a) they aren't broke or b) they are really fixing symptoms and not the problem.

I do not think limiting the voters to intelligent middle-aged people is the right answer, because the public as a whole needs to be represented. However, I do think it might be a good idea to try and capture a greater band of those being represented on a state by state basis. I wonder if districts should be a thing of the past. If in this modern-internet age if we could select representives on a different basis other than where they happen to live. What about representatives based on age, geneder, social status, occupation, financial well-being (well this one seems to follow district lines)? I think if we were able to identify a better way to "district", one that doesn't recognize physical location other than maybe state, we could have a better cross-sectional representation of the public.

There's my 2 cents; better identify what skill we require our leaders to have AND redistrict w/o boarders to allow for better representation of populous at the federal level

[DinoDoc]

I don't know which states have and haven't decided to **** over the poor.

Then what was the point of your uninformed rant?

[giblets]

Then what was the point of your uninformed rant?

You don't seem to know what a rant is. And I don't need to present a list of states that have and haven't agreed to expand Medicaid in order to provide a perfectly good explanation for why Mississippians decided to let poor people die.

[DinoDoc]

You don't seem to know what a rant is. And I don't need to present a list of states that have and haven't agreed to expand Medicaid in order to provide a perfectly good explanation for why Mississippians decided to let poor people die.

You still haven't provided a more compelling one to counter the simple math of the situation. Your thesis seems to be based more on your own knee jerk reactions than anything of substance.

[giblets]

You still haven't provided a more compelling one to counter the simple math of the situation. Your thesis seems to be based more on your own knee jerk reactions than anything of substance.

Yeah, it's the "simple math" that taxes can't be raised a little bit

[DinoDoc]

Yeah, it's the "simple math" that taxes can't be raised a little bit

All you've provided to the discussion thus far is merely sound and fury signifying nothing. If you can't back your position with anything other than snide comments, knee jerk reactions, and smilies, be silent and let the adults speak.