Politfact is a nice idea but it has lost it's credibility a long time ago, and this is one example.

First off, one has to be naive to believe that the party which opposed Medicare from the second the ink was drying on the bill would want to "save" it.

Second, what rational mind would believe that Ryan's plan fixes or saves it. Essentially it replaces the Medicare program with coupons.

It's hilarious actually if it weren't so cruel and evil. So seniors would have to go on the open market to buy health insurance. The only problem is by then, the GOP would have eliminated Obamacare and the provision that insurance companies could deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Well guess what kids. Being elderly IS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION!.

So here's the cruel trick and how it "saves" Medicare." Seniors are being given coupons to buy something, they cannot buy.

Wouldn't be nice if the GOP would stop screwing with us and actually come up with programs that are beneficial to the general population? No wonder they have to suppress voting.

@Keith.... If ones 'benchmark' for healthcare spending is the EU socialized medicine model, then Medicare appears to be the problem. With Medicare, the entire US population>67 is covered and we spend 3X to 5X, per person on Medicare, than the same age groups in the UK,Sweden, Germany, or Spain.
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/images/200912/20091213health_care_costs_elderly_412.gif?cmpid=relatedarticle

@Jay Sykes --That graph really needs some explanation. Does the 'we' cover just government spending or include the private supplemental health insurance policies that seniors who can afford it buy? Does part of that spending on the elderly include the cost of pharmaceuticals which in the US are very expensive?

And, perhaps, does the high cost of medical care for the elderly reflect the result of the inefficient health delivery during pre-Medicare years, which can result in expensive chronic illnesses that might have been prevented under a universal system?

Keith Schmitz<<<Second, what rational mind would believe that Ryan's plan fixes or saves it. Essentially it replaces the Medicare program with coupons.>>>

Actually, it would not affect any existing seniors. Only future ones. In addition, several of Obama's advisers on the Affordable Health Care Act actually say it will work. If you read the Tribune article, you will see one or two of them acknowledging such.

In addition, the program would only broaden the already tested and successful program that has been in effect since 2006 that covers drugs. Now it would cover health care. Competition has kept costs in the drug program below projections ever since it was introduced.

The second aspect is one that Dems have actually been begging for.....That is, until Ryan proposed it. The system uses what you call vouchers that cover EVERYTHING for the average senior. However, the bill introduces MEANS TESTING, which would require those who are more wealthy to buy additional coverage, some of the cost of which would also be paid by the government with money saved from the program. Again, the general concept has already been tested.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-medicare-0405-jm-20120405,0,3031715.story

@Keith

Also, there are no "cuts." There is only a reduction in the rate of increase.

@Luke -- I know the current plan is to leave the fee for service for those over 55 at this moment. (I have a friend who is 54, and he is very worried.) But how long will today's workers continue to be willing to pay at the same FICA rates in the knowledge that they will be getting much less for their contribution? I already see the resentment of young people complaining about how 'their' tax dollars will have to support the retirement of the Boomers. (As if we didn't pay in for our entire working lives to support either ourselves or the generation that came before US.)

How familiar are you with Medicare Part D and its coverage? It's confusing, and it far from covers everything. My mother had to change a medication she was taking because it was no longer covered and would have been prohibitively expensive for her. Do we want to have to make decisions about what kind of medical care will be covered too?

The problem (and not the only one) of the Ryan plan is it does nothing about costs http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/20/ryans-medicare-plan/.

Jay, the reason why our costs for elderly health care is much higher than in Europe is because it is end of life care that is among the most costly in this country, and any attempt to do something like Europe has been demagogued on the right. Remember Santorum's howled about the elderly having to wear bracelets in the Netherlands, which drew a scathing rebuke from the Dutch government?

Remember death panels? And of course remember the Teri Schiavo circus, which of course led to turning of vast numbers of independent voters because they thought the GOP was out of their tree.

So Jay, if you want any kind of solution of this problem, better find some other shiny object to attract the attention of your troglodyte friends on the right (Sarah Palin, Chuck Grassley, etc) off of this topic.

@Randy... The graph represents per capita spending(every dollar spent/population by age). Depending on the stats you want to believe, the 65+ US population represents 48% - 60% of all dollars spent on healthcare.
So, if Medicare could spend just like EU socialized medicine, for the 65+ population that they currently provide medical coverage, the total dollars the US spends on Medical Care would decrease by about 36%.

@Keith... Yes, we need to continue to evolve our views on 'end of life' decisions; science can't just keep attempting to prolong life at unlimited cost with limited benefits. I'm very sure I do not want to boot the family/nurse/doctor/religious adviser out of the room and just leave it in the hands of a bureaucrat.

Rand1949 <<<But how long will today's workers continue to be willing to pay at the same FICA rates in the knowledge that they will be getting much less for their contribution? >>>

That's exactly the point. With the present plan, there is no solution. Ryan's plan stops costs from rising at the same rate and keeps expenses down. The present plan just charges ahead and hopes someone in the future will find the money to pay for all those who are alive, in addition to those who have already died with their part put on the wrong side of the balance.

@Keith Schmitz<<<The problem (and not the only one) of the Ryan plan is it does nothing about costs>>>

You keep making comments that indicate that you have not actually read the articles I posted. Not only does the plan control costs, but contrary to the link you posted, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WORKS! How so? Because, as the article delineates, since 2006 the prescription portion of the present plan has had its costs fall below even the predicted levels by doing exactly what Ryan wants to be done with the medical portion.

I'm not saying that a lot more can't be done to improve the plan. However, I'm saying that there is a solution. And, in fact, it is more fair to the poor and more heavy-handed to the rich than anything the liberals have yet to put forth. (Yes, I am aware that there are a few liberals that back the Ryan plan.)

@Keith -- You're right. The Ryan plan does nothing to contain costs. It just shifts those costs to people at a stage in their lives where they will be unable to absorb them unless they are financially well-off.

@Randy<<<The Ryan plan does nothing to contain costs. It just shifts those costs to people at a stage in their lives where they will be unable to absorb them unless they are financially well-off.>>>

Other than mere assertion, why do you claim this?

@Luke -- My assertion is common sense. The 'free market' in medical insurance worked so well that we needed Medicare in the first place, and insurance costs have not exactly gone down since then. Neither have physician and hospital costs.

Does the Ryan plan address the high cost of medical care that requires a person to carry medical insurance or face ruin? No, it doesn't. It just give people one size fits all vouchers to go out and find insurance if they can. If they can't, they'll have to make up the difference between the vouchers and the cost of insurance with their Social Security checks.

The Ryan plan saves the government money. It doesn't save individuals money.

@Randy

One more time......... Try to read the following paragraph, which is an excerpt from the article, before commenting. Then read the article in its entirety and try to take it all in. You are objecting to things that don't apply to the plan being proposed.

Behold the excerpt:

"Hmm. Guaranteed coverage. Help to pay for a government-set level of care. Private sector competition. And traditional Medicare as an option for people who today are under 55. What's so scary?"

Don't you understand, Randy, that TRADITIONAL MEDICARE is still an option under the plan? Don't you see, Randy, that competition and means testing are being introduced into the plan, yet only means testing is something that you won't be able to opt out of. Do you liberals (assuming you are one) not want the rich to pay more so that the poor can get more?

The irony is that there are uneducated people like Jason Patzfahl saying that this proposal is a tax cut for the rich! Not only does it not address taxes, but it takes from the rich and gives to the poor. And the POOR CAN TOTALLY OPT O U T! But not the rich.

FYI: I am related to union members. They are taxpayers too, just like the rest of us. And yes, they worry about the taxes they (and the rest of us) pay.

Versus what you laid here, coherency.

and the birth certificate ? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CCVp7-7rdoM

Isn't it hyperbole to point to Grothman's claim about single parent abuse and try to apply it to Ryan as the 'child of a single parent'?

...and it seems a bit hypocritical to use hyperbole when labeling the 'other guys' as the "The Party Of Hypocrisy And Hyperbole".

I think you are comparing apples to blacks who are known to have this countries highest rate of single family households. I can say more about the black crime rate but hopefully you get my point! If you call this suburbia you better move.

Good! Less coverage means more people will have to work and actually support themselves instead of having me do that for them when it comes time to see the Dr. We all have problems but I do not believe the saying "I am my brothers keeper" meant to let them rob me into poverty.

@Archie -- What about the minimum wage workers whose employers don't provide health insurance coverage? You can't buy private health insurance on minimum wage. It's the actual working poor at the higher end of the Medicaid income spectrum who will be bumped off.

Your advice to 'get a job' is both shortsighted and cruel.

Yes that was shortsighted and cruel, my apologies. Are there really any working class poor on medicaid? If they work what are the qualifications to be accepted into medicaid?

@Archie -- I daresay there are. I think the qualifications are a household income no more than 150% or the poverty limit. It might be a little different whether you're talking about BardgCare Core or BadgerCare Plus, and if you have a minor child.

I would definitely have qualified had those programs existed back in 1992-1995 when i was employed full time at a job that provided no benefits at all and I was earning an average of $13 - $14 thousand a year.

@Archie: Do you realize that Wal-Mart/Sams Club & Aurora have tens of thousands of workers employed by them that qualify for BadgerCare?

Does anyone see the irony in having those who are elderly or disabled or ill, those who have the least capacity to earn, have the greatest need to earn to afford the care they need?

Or do you @Archie, agree with the "Let 'em die" approach proposed by the GOP's Paul at a primary rally, er, debate?

I find it incredibly ironic. My family and I were foot-soldiers in the march to the prosperity of trickle-down. We did everything right -- went to school, got married, had our one child in our thirties, saved diligently for retirement in addition to the FICA. Then we got downsized and 'streamlined'. Can't find work in your chosen field? You swallow your pride and take what you can get, only to find that benefits aren't what they used to be. It's all about profit for the upper levels, you know. To be told to act like 'adults' and take responsibility for our own healthcare (and that includes overpriced insurance against a catastrophic illness) seems like the final slap in the face. On what?

Now, when retirement is finally within reach, we're being told our needs will be too expensive, and folks like Archie just repeat the old 'get a job' mantra.

Is there solid science behind climate change?

The only true science is medical and even some medical science is pure conjecture...which is where "climate change" lies. In a vast pile of scientific made-up data. No one, absolutely no one can say why the earth does what it does much less predict our climate and all that changes and anyone who knows doesn`t know crap.

The GOP used to be the party of land conservation. As I have written before, Abraham Lincoln was the first president to set aside national parkland. Theodore Roosevelt saved this country's greatest natural and historic treasures from developers and souvenir hunters by creating national parks. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.

This current generation of Tea/ALEC/GOP legislators want to drill on national parkland and gut the EPA. Hard to believe.

So glad someone sees the need to bring up Climate Change ,there are so many issues being bantered about ,but the fact that mankind is altering it's Planet at a rather alarming rate and no one seems to deem it important to talk about is Ludicrous and a bit insane. Politics will seem insignificant in the near future when we start to witness mass migrations of people who are now living in scorched out areas with little water,or a world were all its trees are dying due to to much ozone and other pollutes. Any way thank for bring it up.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/ Take your time lots of those so called facts all you deniers are looking for ,unless all those Corporate oil barons making billions are the honest ones and all those Really smart Science people like all over the world are in on some huge mind bending scam (right)

Perhaps if ANY of the 'gloom and doom' predictions made by the global warming zealots had come even close to being true, people could accept the idea that man is causing climate change.

The way I see it, global warming/climate change is nothing more than a political tool used by the dems to fear monger people into voting for them. Back in the 1970's, the government wanted to put soot on the ice caps (to help them absorb more heat from the sun and melt) because 'global cooling' was going to kill us all. Call me a 'radical idiot and coward' if you must, but your 'science' just doesn't seem to match up with reality.

Dung, see the link to NASA below. Do yourself a favor and refute each of the points of evidence listed, before expecting to be taken seriously.

By NASA's own admission, it seems that there are only two facts that aren't in dispute:

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands."

While these facts aren't disputed, neither of these facts provide indisputable evidence that man-made climate change is happening.

The 'Uncertainties' link on the site you provided indicates that science is far from understanding what is going on in the area of climate change. To me, that indicates that the science behind global climate change really isn't all that solid.

Respectfully, then, you don't understand the scientific process. Of course there are areas of uncertainty, but the mechanism of human-caused climate change is well understood (as you admit) and accepted. That's a far cry from your suggestion that global warming is "nothing more than a political tool used by the dems to fear monger." The uncertainties that you point to are just that - an admission of the impossibility of certitude about the exact nature and magnitude of the effects. However, they do not support - in fact, they strongly refute - your suggestion that climate change is some kind of conspiracy.

In the face of the single greatest threat to the habitability of planet Earth in human history, your decision to ignore the broad consensus about the problem, and to suggest that the science isn't reliable enough to prompt any change in human activities, amounts to treason against humanity. And yes, I put anyone careless enough to support the Republican party in the same category, since they cater to the fearful small-mindedness of people who just can't grasp the enormity of the problem.

Ask yourself - why do Republicans need so much convincing about this issue, when they happily jump on board with baseless and ridiculous notions like birtherism and voodoo economics?

And then ask, on which side of the climate change "debate" are there more powerful, wealthy interests? And which party likes to cater to those? Which party asserts that corporations are people?

Why do you chuckleheads make this a "conservative" or "Republican" thing. Do tell, have all that you whackos suggested or forced down the throats of our government that have ruined small businesses and our economy done any good?! If so quit bitchin` and go build a house. If not then shut up already!

Yes, CO2 concentrations are related to temperature, but the mechanism is not acting as that relationship would predict on the scale of climate change. CO2 is a rather minor greenhouse gas, things like water vapor have a much stronger effect on temperature. The claim is being made that atmospheric CO2 levels are at the highest they have ever been, yet the temperatures aren't. Why is that? Over the history of the earth, we have had conditions with a much colder global climate, and conditions with much hotter global climate.

The extremist nature of the climate change predictions that never seem to come true, along with the involvement of Al Gore is the indication that the idea of climate change is more of a conspiracy that solid science.

@ CowDung,

Okay, so you're saying that NASA has it wrong, you have it right, and climate change is a conspiracy. And this is because the signs of climate change that are observable (shrinking Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers, droughts, extreme weather, sea level rise, ocean acidification, increasing ocean temperatures) aren't extreme enough for you.

So, what kind of evidence would convince you? Be specific.

Which of those items listed have not happened before?

It's pretty obvious that we've had climate changes in the past and will likely have climate changes in the future. Where is the evidence that humans are suddenly doing something new and different with the climate?

Where's the evidence?

Give me a break. Record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (undisputed) a clear mechanism whereby higher CO2 concentration raises average temperatures and affects the climate (undisputed), a clear correlation between the use of fossil fuels and the increase in CO2 (undisputed) and no better-supported alternative explanation for the increase (undisputed).

So since you're someone who has difficulty with the kind of reasoning that the rest of us use on a daily basis, it's up to you to say what evidence would convince you.

Wait... I think I know what it is. You're waiting for the Republican party to tell you what to think. Once Ron Paul says it, then it will be the unassailable gospel truth. Is that about right?

How clear is that mechanism really? If we have record levels of CO2, shouldn't we have record high temperatures as well?

The fact that we do not have record high temperatures to go along with the record high CO2 levels seems to cast doubt on the idea that we are causing global warming...

It should also be noted that a rise in temperatures can cause an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2...

Okay, last chance before I write you off as hopelessly confused. What evidence would convince you that climate change is a real threat to humanity, and is likely being caused by human activities?

Let's start with seeing record high temperatures to go along with the record high CO2 levels (like I mentioned in my last post).

@CowDung...I'm disappointed with you on this thread. I know a little of your background and I am surprised that you would take the position that we aren't experiencing some kind of climate change. I know you have been trained in the scientific method I think you also know that climatology is perhaps one of the most complex disciplines. What I know is that in the discipline of meteorology, it has too many variables and it is impossible to single out just one or some that will lead us to be able to conclusively determine the depth of change and direction of change. However, the current evidence would be an good indicator that we are in the process of change. By the law of averages, we should be entering into the cooling cycle of this current interglacial period.

With the current evidence of climate change, including global warming; it is time to accept the premise from the available evidence and begin reducing our carbon footprint. I know you have fairly young children and it would be a shame to sacrifice their future by not taking the necessary action now.

Lyle:

There's Climate Change and there's climate change. The complexity of climatology is one of the reasons why we can doubt that humanity's collective CO2 footprint is indeed having a significant effect on the global climate. The window of time is just too short to establish a causation. The next few years will be telling as we should be seeing a period of cooling. If we see the cooling, then it seems that the natural temperature cycle is what we are seeing. If the cooling fails to materialize, then it is an indication that something bad is happening.

@ CowDung,

Fair enough. You want to wait until your house is on fire.

I'm sure you'll get the proof you seek soon enough; 2011 was one of the warmest years on record. I'm sure that when we have the hottest recorded global temperatures, you'll be apologizing furiously to future generations and renouncing all of this climate change denier foolishness.

1° in warming will start my house on fire?!?! Crap stop driving your car today!

Well, none of those scientists must work at NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Of course, I bet you think that the moon landing was faked, so NASA doesn't have any credibility in your book.

Wasn't it NASA that left out the temp data from Siberia to make the planet look warmer. Probably an innocent error...

Hmm, seems to me you are only citing what you have read and surely can lay no claim to anything other than that nor am I the one trying to reason with anyone or offer up some concocted so called proof and on a blog no less. I just do not like "know it all" liberals.

Ahh, now you hurt my feelings...I have lived for 53 years on this planet, I smoke , drink and swear , my thoughts are clear because I think for myself. Do I read crap to impress or argue ? No. I just live life. I have seen two industries that I love and profit from get washed down the tubes by so called ideologues such as yourself who have called for change and regulation. I have seen my cowering government come to their defense and ruin this economy based on what I believe to be junk science and have seen no proof otherwise(nor have you). You can throw all your new found knowledge wherever you please but you would be best served by experiencing the ramifications that new found knowledge has burdened this once beautiful Country is beset with. I can read but the best source of knowledge I have is experience. Can you say that. I love to see liberals with their panties in a bunch is why I respond to your stupidity. I was just pa-rousing the patch when your blurb popped up. I am as responsible as one will ever find and accuracy is what you make of it , I can shoot a crow from one hundred yards away. You try that one liberal then see how ya feel.

@ Archie,

OK, just as long as we both agree that you're not really even trying to make sense.

ME: "Who is a credible source, in your mind?"
YOU: "I can shoot a crow."

You have my sympathies, my friend; 53 years old is pretty young to be going senile.

Typical liberal mindset..."let me take what I believe to be what makes me sound superior". Are you really that ignorant of people? Is that what you feel makes you smart? Your argument is lame and made up , there I hope that makes you sound more intelligent. It is the lack of true intelligence in so many young people that boggles my mind and if what I believe in is a form of senility I would rather go crazy than live my life in stupidity trying to win some made-up argument I have only read about. As for credibility, as soon as you have some then perhaps you will be as sharp as I at 53 than you are at 15 now. I did not mean to insult your stupidity only your liberal thoughtlessness.

Archie, I'm not the one making incorrect assumptions about the person I'm arguing with. Your inability to think clearly points to the main reason why, when I'm hiring people, I'm seldom inclined to hire an "experienced" (read: old and set in his ways) person over someone with less experience, but who demonstrates good critical thinking and a willingness to learn. The world is changing, and getting more complicated, and dudes of a certain age have a hard time keeping up.

Taoist:

Are you publicly admitting that you routinely engage in the practice of age discrimination as an employer?

"when I'm hiring people, I'm seldom inclined to hire an "experienced" (read: old and set in his ways) person over someone with less experience, but who demonstrates good critical thinking and a willingness to learn. The world is changing, and getting more complicated, and dudes of a certain age have a hard time keeping up."

@Archie....I find it curious why you would spend so much time assaulting those that you perceive as being your intellectual superiors. Those attacks just confirm their intellect and further diminishes yours. If the only knowledge that is of any worth is that gained through experience, then humanity would be set back to our hunter-gatherer roots. It's for all our benefit that there are curious people who want to know. Your continued derision of intellect detracts from the blog site. Many people of various opinions are able to meet here in an exchange that is not afforded elsewhere.

I truly doubt you own a business much less hire , that is of course working out of moms basement and having your little sister run to the post office constitutes " owning a business " then you are the man. Hmm been so long since I worked for anyone else I have no idea what people call business today perhaps sending out literature on all this harm climate change brings is considered business or being a
"blogger" is a business. From what I have seen today some of you are real professionals. Only hope someday it pays and you will get off assistance.

@ CowDung,

I'm sure you'd like to spin it that way, because you're such a huge fan of labor regulations.

However, if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I was describing the results of a history of hiring, rather than expressing a rationale that guides individual decisions. In fact, I don't hire without a fairly lengthy temp-to-hire period, during which an individual's willingness and ability to learn new things is under scrutiny. If someone demonstrates that they have those qualities, regardless of age, then they tend to be hired. My hiring record supports this, and has resulted in hires of people of all ages.

However, some people walk into an interview or a temp assignment with the attitude of "I have all of this experience, so I know more than you about your business and I'm best qualified for the job." What I would like to say in those situations (although I don't) is, "No, actually, were qualified for your OLD job. This is a different place, and this is a different time."

A lot of older people are too rigid and prideful to hear that, and consequently they don't do well in the training period. However, that's not necessarily a function of age. Plenty of older people are trainable and open minded. And I would never say that experience in other jobs or roles isn't an asset - it often is. However, if you can't swallow your pride and learn new skills and practices, then none of that experience does anyone any good.

Nice try, though.

My apologies Lyle if I do not follow blog etiquette and for the sense that I think anyone is superior. What I have learned from blogging(if that is a word) is that what I perceive as truth and is contested and somewhat ridiculed by a daily participant is blogging an opinion yet myself being a one timer on this blog must bow to that contention and ridicule. Is that how blogging works?

@Taoist Crocodile-- "Your inability to think clearly points to the main reason why, when I'm hiring people, I'm seldom inclined to hire an "experienced" (read: old and set in his ways) person over someone with less experience, but who demonstrates good critical thinking and a willingness to learn. The world is changing, and getting more complicated, and dudes of a certain age have a hard time keeping up."

That's kind of demoralizing to learn. My family ran into that after the loss of a professional job when we were both in our forties. Younger applicants tended to get hired, and it only gets worse the older we become.

Now, personally, I think the ability to think rationally and learn new ways is a function of intelligence rather than age. Archie was probably a hidebound ditto-head at age twenty-one.

Actually, CowDung, I'm kind of offended by your lack of respect for me as a job creator, so I'm going to get up from my desk and go fire an old lady. Look what you made me do!

@Archie -- " I can shoot a crow from one hundred yards away. You try that one liberal then see how ya feel."

I'm not sure i could do that anymore. I used to be a pretty good shot for a Liberal. But I know how it would make me feel. I hate killing things for no reason, so it would make me feel pretty bad.

Taoist:

Having the attitude that 'experienced' is equal to 'old and set in his ways' sounds like age discrimination to me. Doesn't really matter if your history of hiring brought you to that conclusion or not.

I don't see it as any different than being seldom inclined to hire women because your history of hiring has taught you that women employees tend to have babies and quit their jobs...

Ditto head, what the heck is that. At twenty-one we were getting trim and gay bashing, sorry to all the gays.

@Randy,

I agree with that (see my elaboration above). In fact, one of my most valuable employees was hired just before her 50th birthday (she volunteered that, I didn't ask), and she's working in a role (IT) that is usually expected to be the domain of younger people. Similarly, one of my other key people was hired at age 20, and is constantly impressing our customers with her professionalism.

As I said, experience is important, but it's important for an older candidate or applicant to emphasize continuing learning, new certifications, and new skills. Otherwise, trainability might be seen as a potential issue, eve for true professionals. In the case of a salesperson, someone might have great interpersonal skills, but if they also have an inability/resistance to use the company's CRM system, then they're not going to be a good fit.

@Archie...Your several posts that others are stupid or diminished because they have a different perspective is not supportable. It is also not supportable to have others deride you because you hold a different perspective from them. The only blog etiquette is that we try not to personalize attacks. To attack ideology and opinion is all fair game and if you can back it up with resources, all the better.

You need to remember everyone has life experience, some positive, some negative. In comparison to my life and experience, it is only meaningful to me and yours to you. There is no reason to discount either.

Oh, for crying out loud CowDung, quit being such a drama queen. The irony of you lecturing me about workplace fairness is just too much for anyone to take. I guess you're probably a big supporter of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, right?

No lecture, just an observation Taoist...

Well, volcanoes erupting isn't medical science, and you said that "the only true science is medical," so volcanoes erupting isn't science, by your definition. QED.

You're just arguing with yourself, and failing miserably at it. Here, start with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

I can see from all your references you have only algore and the internet to thank for all your higher learning. Pretty sad set of achievements there slick. Blogging must be the life of a true loser, no wonder I have never gotten into it. Well can`t say I tried but I will leave it to the pro losers who have only the internet to fulfill their manhood. Sorry for you disability Mr. T. hopefully you overcome it someday.

Archie - FYI - When Lyle says "The only blog etiquette is that we try not to personalize attacks." What he really means is he will personalize attacks when it is convenient for him - which means in liberal speak he has nothingto offer so he'll try the lowest common form of ridicule. And don't get me started with Schmitz.

@Ima Hippee...You're one of the worst offenders for personalizing attacks and this goes back all the way when you started commenting last year. A great deal of what you write gives the conservative right a bad image.

It's possible to do both - to pay attention to what's going on on a local level, while also standing up for intellectual honesty. As an example of the latter, I'll point out that climate science isn't something that "no one can truly agree on." Rather, it's a matter of fact and basic reasoning, and reasonable people can agree on it.

Perhaps it is because it has to be approved before it is finalized.

I've got the same crap. Moderating to protect Tammy

Cuz I don't like it.

Actually it's a first-time pre-approval process for posting on Waukesha Patch (where I surmise the article originated). Haven't encountered that before as I am accustomed to being "approved of" wherever I go. ;

Read this while you wait. Approved by CNN.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/07/in-defense-of-paul-ryans-medicare-plan/

@Tom Barrett -- " In concept, it's similar to the defined contribution plans most Americans now depend on for retirement: The government would provide a set dollar payment towards your health care premium, and you'd cover the balance of your health care costs, just as most Americans need to take extra savings from their paychecks for retirement."

That overlooks the fact that most retirees don't have anywhere near the income they had while working. Where is this 'extra money' supposed to come from? And what is this nonsense about shopping around? You have no choice when you collapse and an ambulance is taking you to the nearest ER. The only 'choice' you will have is how decent an insurance plan you can afford. It may be bare bones and you may be left uncovered.

Approved!

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/10/paul-ryan-a-dozen-democrats-have-told-me-they-support-my-plan-with-ron-wyden-to-reform-medicare/

Please don't read that link.

Democrat-
1) Euphemism for "Communist" in the United States.

2) Someone who believes that Saddam Hussein had more of a right to live than an unborn baby.

3) Someone who does not personally give money to the disadvantaged, but forces other people to do so.

4) Someone who defended Bill Clinton when he attacked Iraq in 1998, but criticized George W. Bush for doing the same thing in 2003.

5) In the United States, someone who has never heard of the Constitution.

I think you're mistaken about which politicians had handlers.

Yet another Right-wing know-nothing joins us.

Once again the leftists cannot dispute anything, just hurl insults. The unions provided the bus that took the 14 cowards to their resort hotel in Illinois. Their union handlers in Washington sent them their talking points, feel free to look it up. When confronted with questions the ducked into cars or fled into seclusion with Bill Ayers' and Obama's friends in Chicago. Again, I want taxation with representation, not taxation by union decree and corruption. Sooner or later you will realize the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Please reference Greece.

@BABS....You obviously don't understand politics very well. As far as socialism, you don't have a clue. Most of the most successful nations in the world are social democracies. You can't compare Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland to the current conditions we have in the U.S..We are not going the way of the aforementioned nations. Their condition is a result of being over leveraged and got caught in the Euro meltdown due to the global recession. You need to do a great deal more reading, maybe starting with last twelve months of the Economist.

@BABS -- 'Union handlers', 'cowards', 'Ayers', 'Obama', 'socialism', 'Greece'. You missed a few buzzwords, but I can't bring them to mind right now.

I think you have taxation with representation now -- reverse Robin Hood. We're working to change that.

Hey Randy19149,

You call me out for using buzz words like somehow you caught me in a lie. No where do you dispute the fact that the 14 Senators were taking orders directly from their union bosses in Washington.

As far as your Robin Hood statement. I think you better take a hard look at the King Edwards within your own leftist party. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, John Kerry and the list goes on. The progressive movement has elitism and control at the core of its ideological mission statement. Pelosi's little gavel walk before the health care vote is proof enough. Top it off with Biden's custard stand melt down here in Wisconsin. Kerry's yacht? Al Gore raking in millions off legislation packed with green technology subsidies that he helped push through, the list goes on and on.

Please resume the name calling since alternative view points cannot be tolerated within your socialist Utopia.

Dear Lyle Ruble,

If you do not see the danger in devaluing your currency, spending beyond your means and over taxing people that are already struggling to make ends meet, then all I have to say is good luck. Socialism eventually leads to economic collapse and tyranny. I personally do not want to grant the government that much control over my life.

@BABS....You're making broad statements based on conjecture only. You're willing to support sovereign individual principles at the expense of your own self interest. Absolute individuality is anarchistic at best. Are you willing to reject communal sovereignty, which assures our very survival? We live in a complex world where one size doesn't fit all. Some functions are better served through individual action while others are better served through communal action. We only have clean potable water, effective sewer systems and good waste handling because of communal action. Our very commerce is based on the road system and energy production accomplished through communal action. Very few could afford the current level of essential services if done individuality. I think you would be wise to review your positions and think about them a little more in depth.

@BABS -- I gave your remark about union bosses from Washington controlling the Wisconsin 14 all the respect it deserved. So I ignored it.

I think Robin Hood supposedly did his thing during the time of Prince John, not any one of the Edwards, and ironically, the poor folk of England were being taxed to death to support a foreign war their monarch had unwisely entered into. Sound familiar?

When you speak of taxing people who are barely making ends meet, don't you get it? People barely making ends meet pay extra tax when people who are doing very well indeed get tax breaks because they are rich and politically powerful. If you think Ryan and his ilk are going to make your life any better, think again.

Yes Randy1949, I know the left has a tendency to ignore the unethical behavior of their own. Saul Alinsky at work. It was widely reported that the 14 were given the party talking points by their union handlers in Washington and Chicago.

I will not even bother to debate the details of a fable that I have not read or seen on film since I was a child. If Edward is not correct then it should be changed to Obama.

Do not preach to me about taxation. When you see what the newly elected Marxist county board has in store for Dane county you will get clear picture of what Falk and company want for the whole state. The county board, based on a union decree, will be forcing through a wheel tax and are working towards increasing property taxes to the highest levels possible. The elitist left looking out for the common man again, correct? No just the far left insuring "cradle to grave" entitlements for a select few. Where have we seen that before? I know Eastern Europe during the past century. The past year and a half in Wisconsin has had nothing to do with the progressive movement caring about people. It has been all about power. So all you drum pounding, can rattling, fist shaking activists have been nothing more than pawns for a select few that want to protect their power. The fact that your movement welcomed the support of a number of communist and hard core socialist groups is proof enough that your ideology is based off tyranny. No thank you, I want no part if it.

@BABS....I just read your response to Randy. You are certainly naive and misinformed. The reaction of the left was to the coup d'etat that Walker and the Republicans perpetrated. You are right, it is all about power and the whole issue surrounding busting the unions has been a pure power move by Walker and his supporters. Every single agency and government branch was placed in the hands of the radical right. Those opposing Walker's coup had only one choice, to go to the streets. I am not stupid enough to not recognize that cuts to government spending were needed, but on the same token, using budget cuts as an excuse, Walker and the Republican legislature committed serious acts of overreach. By restricting public employees from meaningful collective bargaining, it was done solely to shut off the unions bankrolling Democratic candidates; and the name of the game is money. By cutting off a significant source to the Democrats, the Republicans would go into each election with a tremendous advantage.

I am not a believer in giant conspiracy theories on either the left or the right. Your idea of leftest elites is highly misplaced. If you are referring to the academic intelligentsia, there is a certain element of truth to this group having a greater understanding of the issues and projections for the future. Normally they are not closely related to politics, but definitely do think the democratic socialism is a better path to a free and just society.

Actually, BABS, the 'fable' (leaving Robin Hood out of it) is an important piece of history, since it was the heavy-handed governance of Prince John and King Richard using England as a cash cow that inspired the writing of the Magna Carta. But I paid attention in school and have educated myself further in the years since.

I'm sure that nonsense about the Wisconsin 14 was widely reported on Fox and the sort of websites that heavily feature eagles and flags.

What cradle to grave entitlements are you talking about? And who are the 'select few'? The 400 individuals who have as much collected wealth as all the rest of us?

Not to mention, Lyle, that Walker's cuts to government spending simply kicked the problem downhill, meaning either higher property taxes or new sources of revenue (like the wheel tax) and user fees at the local level.

That must be why Checkers and Popeye's are both packed on the first of each month.

I'm not sure what putting ALEC out of business will accomplish. All special interest groups lobby/write legislation. They have no intention of ceasing their lobbing efforts;they will just pop up as 'Better Reforms Exchange Network'(BREN). Just like Bob points out, McD's -Wet Salty French Fry Finger- brought us all the 'Seven Dollar Salad', but they still sell mountains and mountains of the Big MAC.

ALEC is that group all about corporations paying in to what ever party is most likely to leave their corporations free of regulation? Lobbyists? So in the end I am sure that all these corporations will still be eating at that table.