The more people get to know this tool, the more they will shrink in horror. Sure, Paul Ryan loved SS after his dad died, but now? Meh. He wants to turn it over to the banksters to control. The same banksters tax payers had to bail out.
Ryan's latest budget proposal ( the wonk has had several) would slash federal spending by 5.3 trillion over 10 years. His bare bones cuts hit everyone but the uber weathy... air traffic control, Centers for Disease Control, the FBI . Medicaid would shrivel by 800 billion over ten years. Medicare gets a coupon indexed to inflation. That math does not work out no matter how he spins it. Defense is spared. No surprise there. Willard thinks it needs even more money to piss off.
Obama rightfully calls this vision ' social Darwinism'... a system that rewards the strong but ignores the needy. It also smacks of his love affair with Ayn Rand where " selfishness is a virture".
Why Paul Ryan hates social security ...
Mark In Irvine
2012/08/18 20:31:45
When he was 16, he
found his 55-year-old father dead in bed of a heart attack.[12] His
grandfather and great-grandfather had had fatal heart attacks at ages 57 and 59
respectively, inspiring Ryan's later interest in health and exercise.[10] After
his father's death, Ryan's grandmother, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease, moved in with his family and he helped
care for her.[12] His
father's death provided Ryan with Social Security survivor's benefits until
his 18th birthday, which he saved to pay for his college education.[16][17][18]
found his 55-year-old father dead in bed of a heart attack.[12] His
grandfather and great-grandfather had had fatal heart attacks at ages 57 and 59
respectively, inspiring Ryan's later interest in health and exercise.[10] After
his father's death, Ryan's grandmother, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease, moved in with his family and he helped
care for her.[12] His
father's death provided Ryan with Social Security survivor's benefits until
his 18th birthday, which he saved to pay for his college education.[16][17][18]
Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_ryan
Top Opinion
-
Rebel Yell 2012/08/18 21:43:30
Get the facts please:
http://paulryan.house.gov/iss...
and in case you go to Medicare:
http://paulryan.house.gov/new...
"A central factor in the looming financial crunch is the fact that our society is aging."
This isn't true at all. The average life expectancy of a retiree is up fractionally versus the cost. The central factor is that the first 40 years of workers didn't pay the full cost of the system. In 1983, the system reached insolvency at which point it had embedded 40 years of promises and not a penny to pay them with.
Ryan and the rest of DC wants to blame aging because they isn't something that they could stop. They rarely mention the fact that for roughly 40 years Congress was giving its constituents dollars of benefits for dimes of cost.
The outcome of the real problem is that Social Security is a terrible investment. So DC';s solution to that problem is to make it a worse investment.
But, let's revisit your quote :
"how silly...there will always be SS and Medicare, but changes have to be made and soon! "
The Trustees have said that there is a 20.5 trillion dollar shortfall. That means that the system has roughly $9 of promises for every $1 of asset. This is anything but silly. The Trustees have urged immediate attention.
Ryan's plan - when he had one - largely said that our children will pay the price. He used the nonsense about us living longer and the prattle about how there are too many workers to retirees to justify it. He isn't trying to fix Social Security, he is trying to justify mugging our children. It isn't a longterm solution. It is a shortterm illusion for workers todya that they will get something in the future.
It is noise. Yes we are living longer, but note how he positions it. He is talking about life expectancy. The number #1 in increasing life expectancy is decreasing infant mortality. So he is either a fool or a politician trying to fool you. No matter the measure - increases life expectancy that track to Social Security have no k...
But, let's revisit your quote :
"how silly...there will always be SS and Medicare, but changes have to be made and soon! "
The Trustees have said that there is a 20.5 trillion dollar shortfall. That means that the system has roughly $9 of promises for every $1 of asset. This is anything but silly. The Trustees have urged immediate attention.
Ryan's plan - when he had one - largely said that our children will pay the price. He used the nonsense about us living longer and the prattle about how there are too many workers to retirees to justify it. He isn't trying to fix Social Security, he is trying to justify mugging our children. It isn't a longterm solution. It is a shortterm illusion for workers todya that they will get something in the future.
It is noise. Yes we are living longer, but note how he positions it. He is talking about life expectancy. The number #1 in increasing life expectancy is decreasing infant mortality. So he is either a fool or a politician trying to fool you. No matter the measure - increases life expectancy that track to Social Security have no kept pace with the costs.
I give you a hardtime because you underestimate this problem and then tell people to go to get facts from a political pulp-fiction. Neither party is going to fix Social Security because to do so they would have to admit that it is broken. It is up to you the voter to set your priorities so that they can't ignore the problem.
The biggest danger to Medicare is Obama, who is doing nothing to prevent the upcoming entitlement train wreck.
“Ryan’s is the first budget proposal that actually deals seriously with coming economic Armageddon we are facing,” “Instead of making whimsical promises of a ‘green economy’ saving the day, or believing that we need to spend more to reduce the deficit – as Joe Bidenhas said – Ryan’s plan actually addresses bloated government agencies and reduces spending by more than $5 trillion over 10 years.”
“Ryan’s plan does not destroy Medicare. But doing nothing will destroy it. And certainly stealing $700 billion from it to spend on different Obamacare functions will too,”
You can say that we only have two choices, and measure Ryan's plan against foolish. Or you can ask whether it is a sound plan, and measure it against common sense. I realize that common sense isn't currently an option, but if we don't demand better you will be stuck with the choice of dumb and dumber.
Again, I don't touch medicare. While Ryan is better than Obama on the issue, that is really a pretty low-standard. Ryan's commentary about Social Security is misleading. The problem with Social Security is jobs, wages, and the federal debt. Ryan doesn't even mention these.
DC wants you to think that some unnatural force of nature is responsible. People living longer is the problem. We have too many retirees. DC wants you to believe that it isn't responsible for the impending crisis. Actually DC is the cause of the problem. Politicians used the benefits to buy votes - and now we are arguing about who is going to pay for the votes that were bought.
Where is it that he mentions legacy costs : In 1983 Social Security reached insolvency. At that time, we had 40 years of promises baked into the system, and not a penny with which to pay them. We pa...
You can say that we only have two choices, and measure Ryan's plan against foolish. Or you can ask whether it is a sound plan, and measure it against common sense. I realize that common sense isn't currently an option, but if we don't demand better you will be stuck with the choice of dumb and dumber.
Again, I don't touch medicare. While Ryan is better than Obama on the issue, that is really a pretty low-standard. Ryan's commentary about Social Security is misleading. The problem with Social Security is jobs, wages, and the federal debt. Ryan doesn't even mention these.
DC wants you to think that some unnatural force of nature is responsible. People living longer is the problem. We have too many retirees. DC wants you to believe that it isn't responsible for the impending crisis. Actually DC is the cause of the problem. Politicians used the benefits to buy votes - and now we are arguing about who is going to pay for the votes that were bought.
Where is it that he mentions legacy costs : In 1983 Social Security reached insolvency. At that time, we had 40 years of promises baked into the system, and not a penny with which to pay them. We paid those promises by making newer bigger promises. Now those promises have to be kept. Every plan today makes the same mistakes that we did in 1983 - we are just kicking the can down the road.
You win. The dumbest question ever posed.
Did you miss the fact that Paul Ryan's latest plan does nothing about Social Security. His previous plan actually made the system bigger. Somehow you missed these facts in all of your wiki research.
Spend a little less time with MSNBC.
Better get a Moderate in the White House, Congress & Senate Sooner than Later for your Country's sake.
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer & remove the crabgrass from your lawns. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it" - P. J. O'Rourke
"The Reps are too conservative on the Poor & the Dems are too liberal on the Rich & the Middle Class gets screwed either way"
- Kozmo, not known to be original, sounds too True to be Good
======
Brilliant!!
"When I entered politics, I took the only downward turn you could take from from journalism" - Jim Hightower
Patrick Jake "P. J." O'Rourke (born November 14, 1947) is an American political satirist, journalist, writer, and author. O'Rourke is the H. L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and is a regular correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard, and frequent panelist on National Public Radio's game show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!.
James Allen "Jim" Hightower (born January 11, 1943) is an American syndicated columnist, liberal political activist, and author who served from 1983 to 1991 as the elected commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture.
Soon after Clinton was elected, Hightower became a critic of the president. He criticized Clinton for having accepted corporate soft money contributions, his support of NAFTA, his health care plan, and his refusal to crack down on "corporate welfare", as well as what Hightower viewed as inadequate efforts at fighting unemployment and poverty.
In 2000, he joined with talk show host Phil Donahue and actress Susan Sarandon to co-chair the presidential campaign of Ralph Nader. ...
"When I entered politics, I took the only downward turn you could take from from journalism" - Jim Hightower
Patrick Jake "P. J." O'Rourke (born November 14, 1947) is an American political satirist, journalist, writer, and author. O'Rourke is the H. L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and is a regular correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard, and frequent panelist on National Public Radio's game show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!.
James Allen "Jim" Hightower (born January 11, 1943) is an American syndicated columnist, liberal political activist, and author who served from 1983 to 1991 as the elected commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture.
Soon after Clinton was elected, Hightower became a critic of the president. He criticized Clinton for having accepted corporate soft money contributions, his support of NAFTA, his health care plan, and his refusal to crack down on "corporate welfare", as well as what Hightower viewed as inadequate efforts at fighting unemployment and poverty.
In 2000, he joined with talk show host Phil Donahue and actress Susan Sarandon to co-chair the presidential campaign of Ralph Nader. He also appeared at Nader's "super-rallies" and stumped across the country for him.
The "Doug Jones Average," a concept created by Jim Hightower, is the proposal that in order to check the true health of the American economy, it is less useful to look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average than it is to check up on how Doug Jones down the street is doing. If Doug Jones is on welfare, cannot feed his family, is blowing his savings, and is three weeks behind on his bills, the Doug Jones average is "down." If Doug just got a raise, can pay his bills and Doug and his family are looking into owning a nice but not too expensive house, the Doug Jones average is "up."
With him as Veep, I'd think they'd make a balanced pair.
Ryan's latest budget proposal ( the wonk has had several) would slash federal spending by 5.3 trillion over 10 years. His bare bones cuts hit everyone but the uber weathy... air traffic control, Centers for Disease Control, the FBI . Medicaid would shrivel by 800 billion over ten years. Medicare gets a coupon indexed to inflation. That math does not work out no matter how he spins it. Defense is spared. No surprise there. Willard thinks it needs even more money to piss off.
Obama rightfully calls this vision ' social Darwinism'... a system that rewards the strong but ignores the needy. It also smacks of his love affair with Ayn Rand where " selfishness is a virture".
(Market Fundamentalism, q.v.).
He seems to be the ONLY one in Congress that wants to deal with its impending default and do something to ensure that millions don't get stuck with the Dem solution,..... sorry, we ran out of money and can't pay what we owe.
He knows 0bie is a fraud just like the other 534 clowns that were there in 2008 and all who have taken seats since.
Seems as though Mr. Constitution would be all over that one.
His silence is deafening.
What date did he submit it as a bill?
When was it debated and voted on?
Where's his petition to the SCOTUS regarding 0bie's eligibility?
Fact is,... he hasn't done squat in the 3 decades hes been sucking down a paycheck and now he's off to happy trails and collecting even more for a few more years.
Ryans plan was equally bad largely because he included the whole guarantee to those 55 and over. His plan also included guarantees on private accounts. The only person who didn't do well was the person not old enough to vote today. We took that approach in 1983 and you see how well it worked.
Your comparison with Galveston is particularly flawed because all of the massive returns in Social Security were collected prior to to 1981. The fact that they were collected is why Social Security reached insolvency in 1983. Prior to 1980 retirees collected dollars for dimes of contribution.
If we go to a Galveston model, that will not fix the past. Social Security has a 20 trillion dollar shortfall (according to the SSA). The only way that migrating to a private model helps is if we bail-out on the past obligations. If you bail on the past obligations, SS doesn't have a problem. It collects an obscene amount of money.
His guarantee to those 55 and older make Social Security an obligation of the general fund. Those 54 and younger will pay income taxes to support Social Security rather than payroll taxes. Do you really care whether you lose a $1 of income tax or payroll tax? The difference that with income taxes you do not get any credit - it is purely a tax. So you will get robbed just from a different pocket.
The point is, the plan will be a combination of what he has already proposed, Romney's own ideas, and it will be thoroughly diced & sliced by a team of top notch economists before a final draft is drawn up.
No doubt, it will have to rely on eliminating some of the horrendous waste in Washington by scrapping overlapping agencies and social experiments gone bad.
A total of $17 Trillion has been flushed down the toilet since Johnson's Great Society and we're back behind square one. There is PLENTY of revenue coming in,... we just need to reverse the entitlement mentality that has been growing for 80 years.
One of the things that I don't like in any plan is connecting the elimination of waste to 'pay' for more Social Security. I think that waste should be eliminated - and not respent. Use the saving to paydown the debt or control the deficit, not to shore-up Social Security.
This is a historical document available on the SSA website. It will completely change your view about when and how the problem started. By the time LBJ arrived at the Whitehouse, the system was hopelessly underwater. This is testimony of the man who ran Social Security in 1944. At the time, he told Congress that payroll taxes needed to be more than tripled. Instead of raising taxes, Congress increased benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/aj...
That's, precisely the problem we have now. Why continue to put Band-Aids on a hemorrhage and expect a different result?
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. Check out our site. www.FixSSNow.Org. Long story short is : Social Security is closer to implosion than DC realizes. This isn't a demographic problem. It is an economic problem, stemming from jobs, wages, and the debt. Social Security is a major component of its own failure. In the net DC isn't trying to fix Social Security it is trying to convince someone to pay for it.
What does 1983 have to do with this?
The last major Social Security reform package was 1983 in which voters elected a Congress that perserved the system for them and raised taxes primarily on non-voters. I am guessing that you were a non-voter in 1983. I have a longer piece on this if you are interested.
We held meetings in barns out in the Thousand Oaks rural areas.
People made jokes then, that we were doing Social Security on a smaller scale. Of course, they all eventually collapsed because they were never designed for the late-comers to see a dime back from their initial investment.
The ONLY way SS could have worked, is if it was left the way originally sold.
It was a partial retirement so the worker them-self wasn't completely destitute in their golden years. Adding spouses and dependents, later adding disability, only guaranteed it would fail even sooner.
Generational CPTSD with a livid vivid memory.
Mainly, a PARTIAL - SUPPLEMENTAL - income for the WORKER themselves,.. the ones putting the $$ into the kitty.
Soon after passage, spouses & dependents were added, then SS disability followed.
One HUGE problem,... the number of people putting in didn't increase while the number of hands in the jar did.
Doesn't matter now,... fact is, it's unsustainable and never will be in its current form.
It was a dumb idea gone bad and people who have paid in will be getting royally screwed if the program isn't reformed NOW.
The bank bailout was a huge boondoggle of no benefit except to the banks--certainly not for those who still lost houses because the banks took the money but helped only themselves. You want to turn SS over to those same guys who did such a good job helping out those losing their homes?
And you must be dumber than originally diagnosed because you're repeating the same lies over again. Ryan has never said ONE word about not wanting people to collect what is owed them. Quite the opposite, in fact.
TARP has been the ONLY thing that has occurred over the past 4 years we actually got paid back,.. WITH INTEREST. How did the banks take anyone's money? People sign a legal document (called a mortgage) promising to make monthly payments until the loan is paid in full.
Funny thing, when you stop making those payments,... you go into foreclosure and if you still don't make good, you get evicted.
If you have any positive equity in the property, you may get something back after the sale and legal fees.
Why do you have a problem with people having a choice about where their retirement withholding's are kept? Should my kids keep having their deductions sent to the Feds with an empty promise they'll ever see a dime?
I'd much rather they have the option for those same funds to be put in a private account of their choice. The government's track record with other people's money isn't that good.
Look at the Post office and AMTRAK. Look at the $787 Billion porkuluis package,.... all spent on BS and the economy is worse off now than before.