Paul Ryan "OMG"

[finehoe]

Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security?

Would George Washington approve of today's global empire "defense" apparatus?

Did ya read the article?

Yes.  SS has evolved to have somewhat different characteristics than what Roosevelt may have envisioned.  So what?  Our military has evolved to have vastly different characteristics than our first commander-in-chief envisioned.  I don't hear conservatives using that as a rationale to gut defense spending.

[BridgeTroll]

Gutting Social security?  You mean stop gutting social security... I think.  On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side?  it should work both ways dont ya think?

[finehoe]

Gutting Social security?  You mean stop gutting social security... I think.  On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side?  it should work both ways dont ya think?

So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of its enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time?  Is that your point?  I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".

[avonjax]

Gutting Social security?  You mean stop gutting social security... I think.  On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side?  it should work both ways dont ya think?

Your side wants to kill all your perceived enemies - real or not - by engorging the Military Industrial Complex with endless tax dollars.
Oh yeah, and your draconian plans to gut Medicare, Medicaid and SS proves your indifference toward killing your fellow citizens who are worse off than you.
The only safe people in your society are the well off and the embryo.
GOP=The Killing Party.

[finehoe]

[avonjax]

Gutting Social security?  You mean stop gutting social security... I think.  On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side?  it should work both ways dont ya think?

So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of is enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time?  Is that your point?  I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".

No he only means Defense spending should NEVER be cut. To hell with people in need or the elderly.
Only programs that benefit humans should be reformed and have reduced spending.
Aren't these the same people who justify being armed to the teeth to protect them from the boogie man government who also want that same government to be armed enough to take down the world?

[BridgeTroll]

Gutting Social security?  You mean stop gutting social security... I think.  On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side?  it should work both ways dont ya think?

So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of its enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time?  Is that your point?  I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".

Given your statement regarding President Washington and and the size and commitment of our current military you seem to be saying that the concept of defense has morphed from the founders concept...

Likewise... You seem to admit and endorse the changes in Social security... that Roosevelt... according to the article... probably would not approve of.

If Defense should be cut/reformed/reduced... using that argument... should SS also? (not that I endorse cutting or reducing SS.)

[BridgeTroll]

Gutting Social security?  You mean stop gutting social security... I think.  On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side?  it should work both ways dont ya think?

So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of is enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time?  Is that your point?  I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".

No he only means Defense spending should NEVER be cut. To hell with people in need or the elderly.
Only programs that benefit humans should be reformed and have reduced spending.
Aren't these the same people who justify being armed to the teeth to protect them from the boogie man government who also want that same government to be armed enough to take down the world?

AJ... I do not tell everyone what you mean... or say... please do not put words(or bumper stickers) in my mouth.

Thank you.

[finehoe]

If Defense should be cut/reformed/reduced... using that argument... should SS also?

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote.  You posted an article from faux-economist hack Samuelson that implies that since SS differs from what Roosevelt may have envisioned, that somehow that in itself is a justification for making changes to the program.  I'm saying that if that is the criteria we use, then we should apply it to defense as well.  Nothing about a cut in one must necessarily equal a cut in the other.

[avonjax]

Gotta love the fact-free drivel from the Right:

"Politifact's assertion that it is a lie to say "Republicans voted to end Medicare" -- and that this is the most important lie of the year -- suffers from some basic flaws: Republicans did, in fact, vote to end Medicare; and Politifact overlooked actual lies that have had and continue to have a profound and debilitating effect on the nation's attempts to come out of lingering economic troubles.

Politifact's "Lie of the Year" announcement provides little in the way of actual evidence that the claim is a lie, instead referring readers to previous efforts for its substantive case, such as it is. The weakness of Politifact's ruling that the House GOP budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) did not "end Medicare" can be seen in its April 20, 2011, explanation:

One of the its major features is dramatically restructuring Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for those 65 and older. Right now, Medicare pays doctors and hospitals set fees for the care beneficiaries receive. [...] In 2022 [under the GOP plan] new beneficiaries would receive "premium support," which means they would buy plans from private insurance companies with financial assistance from the government. [...]the Republican plan would be a huge change to the current program, and seniors would have to pay more for their health plans if it becomes law. [...] Both Republicans and Democrats would no doubt agree that Ryan's plan for Medicare is a dramatic change of course. But we don't agree with the ad's contention that the proposal ends Medicare.

So, according to Politifact, the House Republican plan constitutes a "dramatic restructuring" of Medicare, a "huge change to the current program," and a "dramatic change of course" by ending the direct payment of fees for service and replacing it with a voucher program. In its "Lie of the Year" write-up, Politifact again concedes the GOP plan "dramatically changed the program [for people currently under age 55] by privatizing it and providing government subsidies." That's ending Medicare, just as replacing the armed services with government vouchers for private bodyguards would be ending the U.S. military. As Igor Volsky wrote earlier this month, "closing the traditional fee-for-service program, and forcing seniors to enroll in new private coverage, ends Medicare by eliminating everything that has defined the program for the last 46 years."

But Politifact concluded in April that "we don't agree [...] that the proposal ends Medicare." That should set off some alarm bells: As fact-checks go, "we don't agree" is remarkably weak tea. As justification for naming something the "Lie of the Year," it's an embarrassment.

Paul Krugman and Dan Kennedy and Steve Benen and Jonathan Cohn and Jonathan Chait and Matthew Yglesias and David Weigel, among countless others, have debunked Politifact's ruling, which holds that as long as something called "Medicare" has something to do with health care for the elderly, it's a lie to say the program has ended, no matter how "dramatic" the "change of course" has been. Even Robert VerBruggen of the conservative National Review has written that Politifact "does not make a good case" and that the Democratic claim does not "rise to the level of 'lie,' much less 'Lie of the Year.'"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/20/politifacts-flawed-lie-of-the-year-selection-on/185549

Media Matters? Really?

See, the thing is that nowhere in Media Matters or Kennedy or Krugman's, etc., debunking of the Ryan plan do they offer the Democrats' alternative. Why? Because there is no Democrats' alternative. They have no plan to fix SS or Medicare. Along with that, the Democratic led Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,200 days. Their only "plan" to fix anything is to:

1. Shoot down any Republican plan with fear-mongering.
2. Blame the Republicans for the problem.
3. Offer no other option to fixing the system other than raising taxes as that is the Democrats' M.O. for everything.

At least Paul Ryan offers a plan and crunches the numbers instead of pointing the finger across the aisle and shouting that we should raise taxes on the rich*

(*at a time when 49.5% of Americans pay no income tax at all and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 14% above the world average.)

If you didn't want the Republican's to be blamed for everything you shouldn't have allowed the obstructionist Tea Party to contaminate  your party. I know you guys can't stand it, but not all the country agree with you. The "right" has become a party looking for a dictatorship. Their way or the highway. Like it or not a land of political, social and economically diverse citizens need compromise not dogmatism by one side, right or left.
Don't give me the "Obama had a democrat controlled Congress the first two years" garbage. Instead of cramming crap down your throat like the right wants to do at least he was aware not all American's are alike or agree or want just "one way."
And again don't give me any crap about healthcare reform. This has been something that other presidents have "hidden under their blankies with their teddy bears," so at least Obama had the boldness to take action and do something. Of course it is horribly watered down and was watered down to appease the right. Then the idiots voted against it anyway.
"The Tea Party." The worst thing to happen to politics in my lifetime.

[BridgeTroll]

If Defense should be cut/reformed/reduced... using that argument... should SS also?

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote.  You posted an article from faux-economist hack Samuelson that implies that since SS differs from what Roosevelt may have envisioned, that somehow that in itself is a justification for making changes to the program.  I'm saying that if that is the criteria we use, then we should apply it to defense as well.  Nothing about a cut in one must necessarily equal a cut in the other.

Sounds like a compromise in the making...  

I'm saying that if that is the criteria we use, then we should apply it to defense as well.

I have no problem with that.  Also... I do not think Samuelson is saying "that in itself is a justification for making changes to the program."

You also say that "SS has evolved to have somewhat different characteristics than what Roosevelt may have envisioned."  Since that in fact is the case then it may be time for some more evolution...

With favorable demographics, contradictions were bearable. Early Social Security beneficiaries received huge windfalls. A one-earner couple with average wages retiring at 65 in 1960 received lifetime benefits equal to nearly 14 times their payroll taxes, even if those taxes had been saved and invested (which they weren’t), calculate Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute.

But now, demographics are unfriendly. In 1960, there were five workers per recipient; today, there are three, and by 2025 the ratio will approach two. Roosevelt’s fear has materialized. Paying all benefits requires higher taxes, cuts in other programs or large deficits. Indeed, the burden has increased, because it now includes Medicare, which is also viewed as an entitlement.

[Jameson]

Media Matters? Really?

Yes really.

See, the thing is that nowhere in Media Matters or Kennedy or Krugman's, etc., debunking of the Ryan plan do they offer the Democrats' alternative.

Did you bother to read it?  It isn't about "debunking the Ryan plan" it's about debunking the ridiculous assumption that his plan doesn't end medicare as we currently know it.  See, there is a difference.

At least Paul Ryan offers a plan and crunches the numbers instead of pointing the finger across the aisle and shouting that we should raise taxes on the rich*

But Ryan’s budget doesn’t do that â€" it isn’t any kind of solution to budget deficits at all â€" unless it does what its own numbers inescapably say it will do and completely eliminates the entire federal government except for the military, Social Security, and health programs. If he really does, contrary to what his budget says, want to keep “infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports” along with veterans’ programs, the FBI, the border patrol, and all the other things that the federal government does now â€" well, then the deficits remain. And that’s not to mention that Ryan and Mitt Romney also support an entirely unrealistic tax “reform” plan that amounts to huge, specified tax rate cuts that would help the rich and vague, unspecified plans to end many tax credits and deductions, something that’s very unlikely to actually happen since those provisions are extremely popular.  Ryan’s budget leaves all the pain until after the election â€" pain that’s only necessary in order to achieve the low tax rates, especially on the rich, that Ryan and other Republicans deem essential. Either Ryan’s fiscal vision really would dramatically cut government, or his numbers don’t add up. In short, Ryan is a fraud

(*at a time when 49.5% of Americans pay no income tax at all and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 14% above the world average.)

The fact that you would trot this tired and easily refuted wingnut talking point out shows you really haven't given much thought to the issue, you are only mindlessly repeating what your plutocratic puppet-masters want you to say.

Wanna know why half of Americans don't pay INCOME tax? 
Here:  http://rt.com/usa/news/half-poor-america-poverty-909/

So I'm a puppet?

Let me inform you that I'm voting for neither one of those two idiots.

I'm placing my vote for Gary Johnson.

His track record speaks for itself. His policies actually work.

Will he win? Probably not. But he's who I believe in. And a vote for actual "change" has to start somewhere.

As for your poverty issue, what is the solution? The big bad "rich" people pay even more taxes to support the poor? Why can't they give that money to charities that support the poor? Politicians and Gov't. employees are going to get paid the same whether or not they actually help the poor or not. Whereas a charity has more of a vested interest and wants to succeed in helping the poor. At what point do the Democrats actually come up with a responsible solution to a problem instead of the regurgitated "let's raise taxes" mantra of the Left?

The older I get, the more it becomes clear to me that the majority of people in this world fall into two categories in regards to Gov't.:

Those who want limited Gov't. intrusion into their lives and more emphasis on personal responsibility.
-OR-
Those who have a feeling of entitlement as though the Gov't. "owes" them something for merely being born and believe that Gov't. is the answer to every problem.

And yet it is amazing to me that so many people favor the latter when we can simply look across the pond to Europe right now at France, Spain, Greece, Italy, etc., and see that it doesn't work.

(Side note: I'm still waiting for an example of the Democrats' proposal to fix SS or Medicare.)

[Dog Walker]

Social Security and Medicare don't need "fixing".  They have just had their funding drained by Congressional spending on four unnecessary wars in the past fifty years.  Absent the spending on them SS and Medicare would be doing just fine.

Fix the cause of the problem, not the symptom.

[finehoe]

I'm still waiting for an example of the Democrats' proposal to fix SS or Medicare.

Obama’s Medicare reform plan isn’t that hard to find. It’s largely in Title III of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The basic strategy has three components: First, figure out what “quality” in health care is. Second, figure out how to pay for quality rather than paying for volume. Third, make it easier for Medicare to quickly update itself to reflect both advances in knowledge about what quality is and how to pay for it.

And so, in Title III, you’ll find dozens of different efforts to achieve these goals. The most famous of them is Section 3403, which establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). But there’s also Section 3021, which creates the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and Section 3025, which cuts hospital reimbursements if too many of their patients are readmitted, and Section 3001, which establishes value-based purchasing for hospital services, and Section 3015, which collects data on quality, and Section 3502, which advances the medical home model.

Some of the efforts are outside Title III. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is actually in Title VI of the law. And then there are the subsequent reforms the administration has proposed to save more money. Those can be found on pages 33-37 of the president’s 2013 budget proposal. They include expanding IPAB’s mandate such that it can change Medicare’s benefit package and setting a growth cap on Medicare of GDP+0.5 percentage points â€" which is, by the way, the same growth cap that Rep. Paul Ryan imposes in the latest iteration of his budget.

[finehoe]

The older I get, the more it becomes clear to me that the majority of people in this world fall into two categories in regards to Gov't.:

Those who want limited Gov't. intrusion into their lives and more emphasis on personal responsibility.
-OR-
Those who have a feeling of entitlement as though the Gov't. "owes" them something for merely being born and believe that Gov't. is the answer to every problem.

This is just standard teabag boilerplate.  Few people look on the role of government is such a simplistic, bifurcated way.