who just said "Medicare should be the promise that it made to our current seniors period end of story.""?

10 posts / 0 new

Paul Ryan.

Saturday.

I don't think another candidate has ever so blatantly misrepresented his own proposals before.

And the media seems to be taking it all in.

Amazing.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

Think about it.

It only has to be a 'promise', and it's only 'current seniors', the kids are not alright.

And Medicare made its own promise, so he can't be blamed for how badly he'll clusterfucc the system if elected.

He was quite clear.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

Think about it.

It only has to be a 'promise', and it's only 'current seniors', the kids are not alright.

And Medicare made its own promise, so he can't be blamed for how badly he'll clusterfucc the system if elected.

He was quite clear.

Your right! He said 'current' didn't he? He really is a slimy bastard.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I wish that Ryan was the opponent of Medicare and Social Security that totalitarian progressives make him out to be. Alas, he has pretty much the same views as progressives as to the role of government in a free society.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:

Paul Ryan.

Saturday.

I don't think another candidate has ever so blatantly misrepresented his own proposals before.

And the media seems to be taking it all in.

Amazing.

http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8520

It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today) - So Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives

Seems you are the one that is confused.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote LysanderSpooner:I wish that Ryan was the opponent of Medicare and Social Security that totalitarian progressives make him out to be.

What is a "totalitarian progressive"? The idiocy behind seriously combining those terms is unbearable. The definition of "progressive" is in direct opposition to totalitarianism. They cannot co-exist. You cannot combine them as a singularity. It makes no sense on any level.

Quote LysanderSpooner:Alas, he has pretty much the same views as progressives as to the role of government in a free society.

Again, what? If Paul Ryan has "pretty much the same views as progressives," and progressives are "totalitarian," then that would mean that Paul Ryan has totalitarian views. According to this blatant lack of logic, it is implied that Paul Ryan is either a totalitarian progressive dictator, or that progressives want limited government in a free society just like Paul Ryan.

Do you see how the two are perfectly opposed? Which is it? This makes no sense.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm

Cap, the divide and voucherize is a recipe to end SS and put us at the mercy of Wall St. They really want that public money, boy do they! They pay these sleazeballs well to misrepresent reality and scare us into thinking we cannot run our own SS without them. Try David Korten, Agenda for a New Economy: Or Why We Don't Need Wall St.

If what you are looking for is a solid, straightforward ideologically free approach to SS, you would have to allow for the context in which the program came to being. Conservatives who hate the whole idea made the idea of a government guarantee out of the general fund to much like European Socialism the scare factor that made packaging sensible social policy in America required that it be "insurance" rather than a civil benefit. While more important to our national security than our foreign wars, caring for our seniors and children continues to be short of funds while killing others never lacks for money.

I would prefer a flat out guarantee that children and seniors eat and have healthcare, and I would even extend that to everyone of all ages. Just make sure that the vulnerable are covered and that nobody's health disaster has to be an economic disaster too. Take it out of the general fund instead of the "payroll tax," and get healthcare funding and insurance out of employment and back to being citizens. There are also taxes we collect from resident non-citizens and visitors.

No, I do not trust Wall St. and I do not think that anyone ought to have to be good at investing to be able to have a secure retirement and assurance of healthcare. I am not prepared to cover the bets of those who think they are financial geniuses, so they always have the right to play with money above the basic investment to get those add-on goodies others might not be able to afford. But that is really about add-ons, not access to what patients need medically.

LS, on Paul Ryan, I think you are correct in seeing him as a Big Government Conservative Snake. He is oily, but he dresses well for tv and acts far better than the Stiff Ken Doll. His vaunted "conservative" budget is a farce and his posing is unctious. He has an appearance of gravity and profundity that covers the vapid hot air inside the package. He is tremendously self-assured, far beyond his merit. This is why his charisma/pathology is fascinating. He is charming, but so was Eden's snake.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

What don't you understand about this sentence. It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today)

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote Capital1:
Quote Dr. Econ:

Paul Ryan.

Saturday.

I don't think another candidate has ever so blatantly misrepresented his own proposals before.

And the media seems to be taking it all in.

Amazing.

http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8520

It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today) - So Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives

Seems you are the one that is confused.

Not at all. It's just a slimy thing to do.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:

What don't you understand about this sentence. It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today)

It preserves the Medicare program for those currently "enrolled", not those currently( and for the last 30 plus years)"paying" into it who are 54 and younger today. So there's no objections to the fact that people such as myself have been paying into it our entire working lives but won't receive the same benefits as those that we payed for?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system