Paul Ryan Collected Social Security Survivors Benefits. Pug Hypocrisy Marches on.
Lisa Lisa
Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x321001
321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
received survivor benefits when his father died.
excerpt:
"One day as a 16 year old, Ryan came upon the lifeless body of his
father. Paul Ryan, Sr. had died of a heart attack at age 55, leaving
the Janesville Craig High School 10th grader, his three older brothers
and sisters and his mother alone. It was Paul who told the family of
his father’s death.
With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security
benefits until age 18, which he put away for college. To make ends
meet, Paul’s mother returned to school to study interior design. His
siblings were off at college. Ryan remembers this difficult time
bringing him and his mother closer."
http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol19No2/Schneider19.2.html
321007, Hypocrisy is the core Republicon Family Value
Posted by SpiralHawk on Tue Feb-01-11 11:05 AM
"More more more for me, none for you. Sneer."
- Republicons
321021, Another member of the "I got mine; to Hell with you" crowd.
Posted by KansDem on Tue Feb-01-11 11:07 AM
Wexford
> Go back to previous topic
> Forum Name General Discussion
> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>
> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
> of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
> received survivor benefits when his father died.
>
> excerpt:
>
> "One day as a 16 year old, Ryan came upon the lifeless body of his
> father. Paul Ryan, Sr. had died of a heart attack at age 55, leaving
> the Janesville Craig High School 10th grader, his three older brothers
> and sisters and his mother alone. It was Paul who told the family of
> his father’s death.
>
> With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security
> benefits until age 18, which he put away for college. To make ends
> meet, Paul’s mother returned to school to study interior design. His
> siblings were off at college. Ryan remembers this difficult time
> bringing him and his mother closer."
Did I actually read "to make ends meet, Paul's mother returned to
school to study interior design?????" I have read boloney, malarky and
steaming bullshit in my day, but this brings it all to a new level.
Republicans are utterly shameless assholes.
Nickname unavailable
he is a thief, like all conservatives/libertarians/fascist are. this
is just a small piece of the craps life's work.
conservative/libertarian/fascist/republican/tea party nut cases, and
other assorted cranks, pass the paul ryan budget:AKA the destroy the
american middle class act:It relies on stiff cuts for the poor/
disabled/elderly/children:yet lavishes wealthy parasites with more tax
cuts
PLUTOCRACY:1. Government by the wealthy. 2. A wealthy class that
controls a government.
definition of tapeworm economics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/paul-ryan-budget-proposal-vote_n_849800.html
Paul Ryan Budget Proposal Passes House Vote
By ANDREW TAYLOR 04/15/11 02:26 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- The House has passed a Republican budget blueprint
proposing to fundamentally overhaul Medicare for future beneficiaries
while combating out-of-control budget deficits. It would impose sharp
spending cuts on social safety net programs like food stamps and
Medicaid.
The GOP proposal passed 235-193, with every Democrat voting "no." The
nonbinding plan lays out a fiscal vision cutting $6.2 trillion over 10
years from the budget submitted by President Barack Obama.
It calls for transforming Medicare from a program in which the
government directly pays medical bills into a voucher-like system that
subsidizes purchases of private insurance plans. People 55 and over
would remain in the current system, but younger workers would receive
subsidies that would steadily lose value over time.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further
information. AP's earlier story is below.
A bold but politically risky plan to cut trillions of dollars from the
federal budget steamed toward a party-line House vote Friday, as
insurgent Republicans rallied behind the idea of fundamentally
reshaping the government's role in health care for the elderly and the
poor.
The GOP plan proposes a federal budget totaling $3.5 trillion next
year, while promising more than $6 trillion in accumulated spending
cuts over the next decade compared with the budget that President
Barack Obama offered in February. It relies on stiff cuts to domestic
agency accounts, food stamps and the Medicaid health care program for
the poor and disabled.
The GOP's solution to unsustainable deficits that presently require
the government to borrow more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends
is to relentlessly attack the spending side of the ledger while
leaving Bush-era revenue levels intact. It calls for tax reform that
would lower the top income tax rates for corporations and individuals
by cleaning out a tax code cluttered with tax breaks and preferences,
but parts company with Obama and the findings of a bipartisan deficit
commission, who propose devoting about $100 billion a year in new
revenues to easing the deficit.
The Republican plan "disavows the relentless government spending,
taxing and borrowing that are leading America, right at this moment,
toward a debt-fueled economic crisis," according to the document.
Democrats and many budget experts say this spending-cuts-only approach
is fundamentally unfair, targeting social safety net programs like
Medicaid and food stamps while leaving in place a tax system they say
bestows too many benefits on the wealthy.
ADVERTISEMENT
Republicans shied away from tackling Social Security shortfalls,
steering clear of a political minefield.
But their budget plan calls for transforming Medicare from a program
in which the government directly pays medical bills into a voucher-
like system that subsidizes purchases of private insurance plans.
People 55 and over would remain in the current system, but younger
workers would receive subsidies that would steadily lose value over
time.
"The changes being proposed would not affect one senior citizen in
America, not one. Anyone 55 years and older will not be affected by
any of these changes," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "But
if you're 54 and younger, those Americans understand that if we don't
make changes, the programs won't be there."
Virtually every budget expert in Washington agrees that projected
Medicare cost increases are unsustainable, but the GOP initiative –
attacked by Democrats as ending Medicare's guarantee as we know it –
has launched a major-league Washington imbroglio.
The primary author of the GOP plan is unfazed by the Democratic
attacks.
"The biggest threat to Medicare is the status quo and the people
defending it," House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told
The Associated Press on Thursday.
Democrats countered with official estimates showing the GOP plan would
provide vouchers whose value would steadily erode.
"They end the Medicare guarantee," said top Budget Committee Democrat
Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. "They force seniors to leave the
Medicare program and go into the private insurance market where costs
continue to rise day in and day out."
The House began debate on the measure Thursday and continued Friday
with the easy defeat of two liberal budget alternatives. In a tricky
vote Friday, a plan offered by the conservative Republican Policy
Committee failed, 136-119, in a tally which most Democrats withheld
their votes. The Democratic strategy was to force some Republicans to
vote against the conservative plan, which was being "scored" by anti-
tax groups like the Club for Growth, which supports economic
conservatives in GOP primary races. Had the conservative plan actually
passed, it would have derailed the underlying GOP budget.
The GOP plan isn't actual legislation. Instead, under the arcane and
decidedly imperfect congressional budget process, the measure sketches
out a nonbinding blueprint each year for running the government. The
resolution doesn't require the president's signature, but it does set
the framework for changes to spending or tax policy in follow-up
legislation.
The most immediate impact of the GOP plan would be to cut the $1
trillion-plus budget for appropriated programs next year by $30
billion, following on $38 billion in cuts just adopted. That would
return domestic agency accounts below levels when George W. Bush left
office.
Friday's voting comes on the heels of final congressional action on a
long-overdue plan to wrap up the 2011 budget year. That measure claims
$38 billion in savings but just $20 billion to $25 billion in lower
deficits because illusory spending cuts comprise a big portion of the
measure.
The Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to produce its alternative
plan as the Budget Committee chairman, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and
other members of Obama's independent fiscal commission pursue a
bipartisan "grand bargain" blending big spending curbs with new
revenues flowing from a simplified tax code.
The budget deficit is projected at an enormous $1.6 trillion this
year, but more ominously, current projections show an even worse
mismatch as the baby boom generation retires and Medicare costs
consume an ever-growing share of the budget. But there's a standoff
between House Republicans and Obama over the president's plan to raise
taxes on upper-income people.
For the long term, Ryan's 10-year plan still can't claim a balanced
budget by the end of the decade because of promises to not increase
taxes or change Medicare and Social Security benefits for people 55
and over.
But eventually annual deficits are projected to fall to the $400
billion range, enough to stabilize the nation's finances and prevent a
European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps, Ryan
says.
The GOP plan seeks to cut $5.8 trillion from the budget. But that
amount is inflated because, like Obama, the Ryan plan underestimates
the likely costs of military operations overseas to produce $1
trillion in iffy spending cuts.
The GOP measure also comes after Obama on Wednesday promised stiffer
deficit curbs than contained in his February budget.
Obama proposed reducing deficits by $4 trillion over 12 years, with $3
trillion coming from spending reductions and $1 trillion from
additional revenue. He would leave Medicare and Medicaid intact but
with new cost controls.
But after Ryan asked the White House budget office for more details,
he was pointed to a news release.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=25615
'Not free of blame': Paul Ryan's role in the meltdown
Roger Bybee on Friday 04/10/2009
Rep. Paul Ryan has consistently backed deregulatory policies favored
by the financial industry. These policies set the stage for the sub-
prime housing debacle, which in turn toppled major Wall Street banks
that had invested heavily in "derivatives" that were supposed to
divide up the risk of the sub-prime mortgages.
In 1999, Ryan voted for the repeal of Depression-era legislation meant
to minimize the risk undertaken by commercial banks. He backed the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that allowed commercial banks to engage in much
riskier investment banking and insurance.
In 2000, Ryan voted for the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization
Act, which blocked federal regulation of derivatives. A once-obscure
stock-market maneuver, derivatives became a popular means of
speculating on the future financial health of specific assets.
Many investors steered clear, with billionaire Warren Buffett bluntly
describing derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction." But
major banks on Wall Street bought billions of derivatives on sub-prime
housing mortgages. Ryan, in November 2007, also opposed imposing new
regulations on the then-burgeoning sub-prime mortgage industry.
When the bubble in housing prices popped, the banks were stuck with
vast losses. The Wall Street crash soon followed, along with the
economic catastrophe that hit Ryan's district hard.
To counter damage caused by their role in keeping the sub-prime
mortgage industry and Wall Street deregulated, Ryan and other Budget
Committee Republicans issued a Jan. 8 analysis called "Roots of the
Crisis," almost entirely devoted to obscure government policies with
no specific mention of the Wall Street bankers who lost hundreds of
billions while rewarding themselves with $18.4 billion in bonuses.
The harshest criticism by Ryan and his GOP colleagues on the Budget
Committee was contained in a single, remarkably tepid phrase: "The
financial crisis that unfolded this year had numerous causes, and Wall
Street is not free of blame."
Why the kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry? In an analysis
called "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America,"
the watchdog groups Essential Information and Consumer Education
Foundation note that Wall Street has over the last decade "showered
Washington with over $1.7 billion in what are prettily described as
'campaign contributions' and...another $3.4 billion on lobbyists whose
job it was to press for deregulation."
In return, the banks were able to "get rid of many of the reforms
enacted after the Great Depression and to operate, for most of the
last 10 years, without any effective rules or constraints whatsoever."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Ryan's largest set of
contributions from 1998 to 2008 came from the financial, real estate
and insurance sector, clocking in at $1,555,321. While Ryan claimed
that the bank bailout "sucks," he nonetheless voted for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/why-is-paul-ryans-budget-trying-to-dismantle-financial-reform/
Rortybomb
Why is Paul Ryan’s Budget Trying to Dismantle Financial Reform?
Posted in Uncategorized by Mike on April 6, 2011
The budget Paul Ryan released yesterday has huge cuts that are likely
to fall on the poorest Americans while offering all kinds of bonuses
to the top 1%. Others will be talking about how it eliminates Medicare
and Medicaid. I want to talk about how it dismantles one of the few
regulations put on Wall Street post-crisis.
Recap: Living Wills
Let’s back up with a high-level overview. During the financial crisis
of 2008 regulators found that they were lacking necessary legal powers
for unwinding and resolving large financial institutions. We can
debate whether they actually lacked these powers, but they had an
argument that they didn’t have them which was more than enough for
them to shirk from having to do anything. They also found that when
they went to collapsing institutions like Lehman, there was little
prep done at the firm by either regulators or staff for what it would
mean to unwind itself, so the only option was to send it flying into
bankruptcy in the most awkward way or do an extensive bailout. These
were the options.
How to solve it? Give regulators the powers they need, and then make a
very public showing of prepping firms for resolution when they fail.
Have records of “living wills”, so it is clear that no firm is too big
to fail. It’s not enough to say “We’ll never bail anyone out again.”
We need to do a few simple things to make sure a crisis or a failure
goes more smoothly. Seems fair, right?
Well a funny thing happened on the way to writing living wills. Wall
Street has decided that they can’t be bothered and are lobbying
against it. From Bloomberg, March 24th, 2011, Banks, Insurers Resist
U.S. ‘Funeral Plan’ Crisis Breakup Rules:
Lobby groups including the American Bankers Association are voicing
concern to regulators in a series of comment letters seeking to limit
the impact of the new rules. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and New York-based
insurer MetLife Inc. have discussed so-called resolution, or the
unwinding process, with FDIC officials….
Since November, representatives from companies including JPMorgan,
Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Fidelity
Investments, BlackRock Inc., Barclays Plc, Credit Suisse Group AG and
Deutsche Bank AG have met with Fed or Treasury Department officials to
discuss issues related to systemic risk, according to records released
by regulators.
A living will is an “enormous burden” that puts banks on a course
“that differs dramatically from the way they currently look at their
business,” said Mark Tenhundfeld, senior vice president at the
American Bankers Association.
So here’s a sensible, necessary (but not sufficient) part of taking
down a large, failing financial reform. Wall Street hates it because
it requires work, and it requires them to think of their business as
something that could in fact fail. Who can they turn to?
Republican Budget
Cue Paul Ryan and the new Republican budget. Pat Garofalo at Wonkroom
finds the following in the new budget:
Although the bill is dubbed “Wall Street Reform,” it actually
intensifies the problem of too-big-to-fail by giving large,
interconnected financial institutions advantages that small firms will
not enjoy. While the authors of Dodd-Frank went to great lengths to
denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) now has the authority
to access taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of
large, “systemically significant” financial institutions. CBO’s
expected cost for this new authority is $26 billion, although CBO
Director Douglas Elmendorf recently testified that “the cost of the
program will depend on future economic and financial events that are
inherently unpredictable.” In other words, another large-scale
financial crisis in which creditors are guaranteed to get government
bailouts would cost taxpayers much, much more. This budget would end
the regime now enshrined into law that paves the way for future
bailouts.
Wall Street really likes the status quo. Resolution authority requires
a series of actions, from having to make funeral plans, to being
subject to prompt corrective action, that begin to make it credible to
resolve firms and move us away from the status quo.
These are not radical proposals. Here’s the Squam Lake Working Group
on the topic. This is a group that includes Greg Mankiw, John Cochrane
and Frederic Mishkin, so a fairly conservative bunch. Their
recommendation:
We endorse legislation that would give authorities the necessary
powers to effect an orderly reso- lution. As part of this authority,
every large complex financial institution should be required to create
its own rapid resolution plans, which would be subject to periodic
regulatory scrutiny. These “living wills” would help authorities
anticipate and address the difficulties that might arise in a
resolution. Required levels of capital should depend in part on what
the living wills imply about the time re- quired to close an
institution. This will create an incentive for financial institutions
to make their or- ganizational and contractual structures simpler and
easier to dismantle.
The GOP’s budget is far more radical than people like Greg Mankiw see
as the role of regulation for the financial sector. There are problems
with resolution authority that need to be addressed, particularly its
international components. But the idea that the legal structure of
summer 2008 is ideal – the idea that “let’s do it over, but mean it
this time” is the strategy, is horrific.
Remember – Paul Ryan voted for TARP. And now he wants to say “no
problems here” and simply set the dial back. What more could Wall
Street want – someone who votes for bailouts in TARP and then fights
any and all accountability and reform mechanisms after the fact? In a
budget that skews so strongly towards the top 1% it’s telling that it
tries to break apart one of the few mechanisms for holding Wall Street
accountable post-crisis.
Christopher Helms
> Forum Name General Discussion
> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>
> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
> of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
> received survivor benefits when his father died.
>
> excerpt:
>
> "One day as a 16 year old, Ryan came upon the lifeless body of his
> father. Paul Ryan, Sr. had died of a heart attack at age 55, leaving
> the Janesville Craig High School 10th grader, his three older brothers
> and sisters and his mother alone. It was Paul who told the family of
> his father’s death.
>
> With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security
> benefits until age 18, which he put away for college. To make ends
> meet, Paul’s mother returned to school to study interior design. His
> siblings were off at college. Ryan remembers this difficult time
> bringing him and his mother closer."
>
> http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol19No2/Schneider19.2.html
> 321007, Hypocrisy is the core Republicon Family Value
> Posted by SpiralHawk on Tue Feb-01-11 11:05 AM
>
> "More more more for me, none for you. Sneer."
>
> - Republicons
> 321021, Another member of the "I got mine; to Hell with you" crowd.
> Posted by KansDem on Tue Feb-01-11 11:07 AM
Too bad Paul Ryan didn't have a god fearin' conservative government
telling him to take his sorrow and shove it up his ass like the one
Ryan desperately wants to impose on everyone.
Phlip
> Did I actually read "to make ends meet, Paul's mother returned to
> school to study interior design?????" I have read boloney, malarky and
> steaming bullshit in my day, but this brings it all to a new level.
> Republicans are utterly shameless assholes.
What, she put shoes on, went on birth control, and left the kitchen?
And Ryan calls himself a "rugged individualist". Tsk tsk tsk.
pyjamarama
> Go back to previous topic
> Forum Name General Discussion
> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>
> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
> of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
> received survivor benefits when his father died.
His father paid into it for over 30 years, you dumb twat...
Why as a 15-year old WOULDN'T he have accepted it?
Was it against the law?
Jesus H. Christ, you left-wingers are total morons...
obama's ill-conceived, failed policies drive US credit ratings into
the negative for the first time since the attack on Pearl Harbor and
you're whining about THIS shit?
And you still wonder why the American electorate gave you the
"shellacking" of a lifetime just a few months ago?
You shouldn't.
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
> On Apr 18, 9:06 pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Go back to previous topic
>> Forum Name General Discussion
>> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
>> Topic
>> URLhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=view_all&...
>> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits Posted by
>> jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>>
>> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent of
>> private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing) received
>> survivor benefits when his father died.
>
> His father paid into it for over 30 years, you dumb twat...
>
> Why as a 15-year old WOULDN'T he have accepted it?
>
> Was it against the law?
>
> Jesus H. Christ, you left-wingers are total morons...
Where would your little Ryan boy be now WITHOUT that social safety net?
Oh, probably dead of AIDs by age 23, forgotten even by his pimp.
>
> obama's ill-conceived, failed policies drive US credit ratings into the
> negative for the first time since the attack on Pearl Harbor and you're
> whining about THIS shit?
>
> And you still wonder why the American electorate gave you the
> "shellacking" of a lifetime just a few months ago?
>
> You shouldn't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> excerpt:
>>
>> "One day as a 16 year old, Ryan came upon the lifeless body of his
>> father. Paul Ryan, Sr. had died of a heart attack at age 55, leaving
>> the Janesville Craig High School 10th grader, his three older brothers
>> and sisters and his mother alone. It was Paul who told the family of
>> his father’s death.
>>
>> With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security
>> benefits until age 18, which he put away for college. To make ends
>> meet, Paul’s mother returned to school to study interior design. His
>> siblings were off at college. Ryan remembers this difficult time
>> bringing him and his mother closer."
>>
>> http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol19No2/Schneider19.2.html 321007,
>> Hypocrisy is the core Republicon Family Value Posted by SpiralHawk on
>> Tue Feb-01-11 11:05 AM
>>
>> "More more more for me, none for you. Sneer."
>>
>> - Republicons
>> 321021, Another member of the "I got mine; to Hell with you" crowd.
>> Posted by KansDem on Tue Feb-01-11 11:07 AM
--
Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
January 21, 2010
--
Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
January 21, 2010
First Post
<pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 18, 9:06 pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Go back to previous topic
>> Forum Name General Discussion
>> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
>> Topic URLhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&...
>> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
>> Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>>
>> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
>> of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
>> received survivor benefits when his father died.
>
>His father paid into it for over 30 years, you dumb twat...
>
>Why as a 15-year old WOULDN'T he have accepted it?
>
>Was it against the law?
>
>Jesus H. Christ, you left-wingers are total morons...
>
>obama's ill-conceived, failed policies drive US credit ratings into
>the negative for the first time since the attack on Pearl Harbor and
>you're whining about THIS shit?
>
>And you still wonder why the American electorate gave you the
>"shellacking" of a lifetime just a few months ago?
>
>You shouldn't.
What is really frightening is that her post clearly cemonstrates the
true hatred that is the progressive left. They talk of caring so much
for "the kids", for example, yet they become the most cold blooded ,
ruthless, heartless beings one can imagine when it comes to a child
they view as being of the enemy.
If Ryan had not received a dime in Social Security and instead become
a ward of the state, little Lisa would no doubt be ridiculing him for
being a stinking orphan.
As is typical, in her little liberal mind, one must either be totally
against government and all social services or totally dependant upon
government and all social services and there can never be any
deviation in either line of thought.
Apparently the basic liberal mind is not capable of comprehending in
terms of anything other than black and white or "all or nothing".
BTW, I don't recall Ryan ever saying anything negative regarding SSI
death benefits to surviving children. So the silly assed attempt to
somehow imply him to be a hypocrite for accepting the benefits falls
flat on it's face as well.
Nickname unavailable
> On Apr 18, 9:06 pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Go back to previous topic
> > Forum Name General Discussion
> > Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> > Topic URLhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&...
> > 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> > Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>
> > Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
> > of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
> > received survivor benefits when his father died.
>
> His father paid into it for over 30 years, you dumb twat...
>
> Why as a 15-year old WOULDN'T he have accepted it?
>
> Was it against the law?
>
> Jesus H. Christ, you left-wingers are total morons...
>
> obama's ill-conceived, failed policies drive US credit ratings into
> the negative for the first time since the attack on Pearl Harbor and
> you're whining about THIS shit?
>
> And you still wonder why the American electorate gave you the
> "shellacking" of a lifetime just a few months ago?
>
keep your hands off my medicare paul ryan you republican thief:before
Medicare was enacted in 1965, Most senior citizens had no health
coverage before Medicare because insurance companies refused to sell
it to them
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/are-seniors-paying-attent_b_850438.html
Wendell Potter
Former insurance company executive; author
GET UPDATES FROM WENDELL POTTER
Are Seniors Paying Attention to Paul Ryan's Plan for Medicare?
Posted: 04/18/11 10:15 AM ET
Tea Party members who railed against health care reform because of the
spin they were sold about how "Obamacare" would affect Medicare played
a big role in returning the House of Representatives to Republican
control.
I'm betting that many of them, if they're paying attention to what
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., wants to do to the Medicare program, are
having some serious buyer's remorse. If Democrats are wise, they're
already drafting a strategy to remind Medicare beneficiaries,
including card-carrying Tea Party members, just how fooled they were
into thinking that Republicans were the protectors of the government-
run program they hold so dear.
As a speaker at an especially contentious town hall meeting during the
summer of 2009, I saw firsthand just how many senior citizens were
snookered about how reform legislation would alter Medicare. Shortly
after I testified before Congress about how the insurance industry was
conducting a behind-the-scenes campaign to influence public opinion
about reform, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., invited me to share my
perspective as a former insurance industry insider at his Sept. 3,
2009, town hall meeting at Montclair State University.
More than 1,000 people had crammed into the school's auditorium, not
so much to hear the speakers as to express their opinions. Reform
opponents were on one side of the auditorium, and reform advocates
were on the other side. I had to shout just to be heard above the
insults the groups were hurling at each other. Many of the reform
opponents were carrying signs that read, "Hands Off My Medicare!" They
clearly had bought the lie that the Democrats planned to dismantle the
program.
There was no doubt in my mind that the insurance industry was the
original source of that lie. While insurers liked the part of reform
that would require all Americans not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid
to buy coverage from them, they did not like the provision that would
eliminate the overpayments the federal government has been paying
private insurers for years to participate in the Medicare Advantage
program, which was created when Republicans controlled both chambers
of Congress in the late 1990s.
A little history: A provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
written primarily by the insurance industry and backed by House
Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, gave
Medicare beneficiaries the option of getting their benefits through
private insurers. Republicans envisioned this as the first step toward
the total privatization of Medicare.
The problem was that insurers were reluctant to jump in unless they
could be assured of a substantial profit. To get them to market
Medicare Advantage plans, the government agreed to give them a big
bonus. As a result, we the taxpayers now pay private insurers 14
percent more than the per-patient cost of the traditional Medicare
program. These overpayments have contributed significantly to the
record profits insurance companies have been posting in recent years,
even though only 22 percent of people eligible for Medicare have
bought what they're selling.
The insurers were not able to keep the Democrat-controlled Congress of
2010 from eliminating those bonuses when they passed the Affordable
Care Act. The law will indeed reduce future Medicare spending -- not
benefits -- by an estimated $500 million over the next 10 years in a
variety of ways, one of which is to stop overpaying insurers. This
means that they will not get an extra $136 billion that they -- and
their shareholders -- had been counting on, and they're really bummed
about that.
Knowing they fare much better when the GOP is running things on
Capitol Hill, they devoted millions of the premium dollars we paid
them to help elect more Republicans to Congress.
The insurers funneled millions of dollars to their business allies and
front groups in an effort to convince the American public that the
Democrats wanted to cut Medicare benefits. Not only is that not true,
the new law actually adds an important new benefit and greatly
improves another. For the first time, Medicare now pays for preventive
care. And the law closes the hated "doughnut hole" in the Medicare
prescription drug program.
But thanks to the success of the insurer-funded misinformation
campaign, many seniors went to the polls last November convinced that
the Democrats not only had created death panels in the Medicare
program, they had also slashed their benefits.
The insurance industry funneled $86 million to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce to pay for TV ads that charged that the new law would "cut
Medicare." Also joining in on the campaign of lies was the 60 Plus
Association, a group that, according to the Washington Post, AARP and
other sources, has received the lion's share of its funding over the
years from the pharmaceutical industry and other special interests.
The 60 Plus Association ran TV ads in numerous congressional districts
last fall against Democrats who had voted for the reform law. The ads
were amazingly effective. Most of the Democrats they targeted lost.
The irony, of course, is that the GOP had no intention of preserving
Medicare as seniors have known it since it was created more than 45
years ago. Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit -- which was approved by
the House last week -- would complete the privatization of Medicare
that insurers and their Republican allies have been plotting for
years.
Ryan wants to give Medicare beneficiaries a voucher they can use to
get coverage from a private insurance company. Initially, the vouchers
would enable beneficiaries to get coverage comparable to what they
have today. But the value of the vouchers would diminish over time.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 65-year-olds would be
paying 68 percent of their Medicare coverage costs by 2030, compared
with 25 percent today.
What this means is that almost all Medicare beneficiaries would
eventually be woefully underinsured, just as an estimated 25 million
younger Americans already are and just as most of the nation's elderly
-- the ones who could afford coverage at all -- were before Medicare
was enacted in 1965. (Most senior citizens had no health coverage
before Medicare because insurance companies refused to sell it to
them. That's why it was so urgently needed.)
Ryan's plan is a losing proposition for just about every American who
lives long enough to qualify for Medicare benefits, but it is the
business model that insurance firms have been dreaming of for years.
It would enable them to reap profits that would make their earnings
today pale by comparison.
If Democrats have any hope of keeping control of the Senate and
regaining the House, they better be able to explain what's really
going on in ways that even the Tea Party seniors will understand. If I
were a Democratic strategist, I would be ordering enough "Hands Off My
Medicare" signs to blanket the country.
This also was published by the Center for Public Integrity.
Larry Hewitt
She would have gotten survivor's benefits, as would all of Ryan's minor
siblings. That could amount to several thousand dollars a month.
Ryan would also have been eligible for survivor's benefits until age 22
or graduation, whichever came first, and undoubtedly got government
guaranteed loans (2 years of SSA and a widow in school cannot pay
tuition) , grants, or scholarships.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
Bwahahaha.
All we want is for the rules Ryan is proposing apply to him.
> As is typical, in her little liberal mind, one must either be totally
> against government and all social services or totally dependant upon
> government and all social services and there can never be any
> deviation in either line of thought.
> Apparently the basic liberal mind is not capable of comprehending in
> terms of anything other than black and white or "all or nothing".
>
> BTW, I don't recall Ryan ever saying anything negative regarding SSI
> death benefits to surviving children. So the silly assed attempt to
> somehow imply him to be a hypocrite for accepting the benefits falls
> flat on it's face as well.
>
He wants to kill the whole program. He does not separate out retirement,
disability, and survivors.
Larry
Phlip
> What is really frightening is that her post clearly cemonstrates the
> true hatred that is the progressive left.
Paul's budget would ensure that any child in his situation would have
much higher risks.
Tell us who hates, dude.
First Post
wrote:
Care to cite chapter and verse where his budget is going to do
anything to surviving children? Where it cuts those SS benefits to
surviving children?
If not then you are simply blowing smoke out of your ass as usual.
Lisa Lisa
> On 4/18/2011 11:25 PM, First Post wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:50:15 -0700 (PDT), pyjamarama
Ryan would love to go after Social Security wholesale, but is afraid
of the political consequences. He learned from Bush's example---Bush
spent lots of political capital trying to voucherize SS, and he
failed. Ryan probably figures Medicare is easier game.
He's a one-man Republican death panel.
Lisa
Nickname unavailable
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
it clearly cuts medicare/medicaid.
pyjamarama
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:50:15 -0700, pyjamarama wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 9:06 pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Go back to previous topic
> >> Forum Name General Discussion
> >> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> >> Topic
> >> URLhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
> az=view_all&...
> >> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits Posted by
> >> jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>
> >> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent of
> >> private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing) received
> >> survivor benefits when his father died.
>
> > His father paid into it for over 30 years, you dumb twat...
>
> > Why as a 15-year old WOULDN'T he have accepted it?
>
> > Was it against the law?
>
> > Jesus H. Christ, you left-wingers are total morons...
Zepp unleashes his "humanitarian" streak again...
>
> Where would your little Ryan boy be now WITHOUT that social safety net?
> Oh, probably dead of AIDs by age 23, forgotten even by his pimp.
This from the depraved asshole who gloats over women and children
killed by tornadoes....
You never cease to disgust, zepp...
Go slither back under your rock.
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
I love watching dirtbags pretend to feel moral outrage.
You're hilarious!
Stan de SD
> Go back to previous topic
> Forum Name General Discussion
> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>
> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
> of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
> received survivor benefits when his father died.
>
> excerpt:
>
> "One day as a 16 year old, Ryan came upon the lifeless body of his
> father. Paul Ryan, Sr. had died of a heart attack at age 55, leaving
> the Janesville Craig High School 10th grader, his three older brothers
> and sisters and his mother alone. It was Paul who told the family of
> his father’s death.
>
> With his father’s passing, young Paul collected Social Security
> benefits until age 18, which he put away for college. To make ends
> meet, Paul’s mother returned to school to study interior design. His
> siblings were off at college. Ryan remembers this difficult time
> bringing him and his mother closer."
So apparently Paul Ryan Jr. met the "means testing" criteria, and
collected SS for exactly what it was originally intended: to help
those who were GENUINE unfortunate victims of circumstance some
assistance so they didn't wind out on the street, until such time as
they can make it on their own. The while idea of "public assistance"
was to help people who were "down and out" get on their feet, not to
enable an entire entitlement subculture. So why do you label him a
"hypocrite", other than the fact that you are a hateful, irrational
human being?
Stan de SD
I have long submitted that liberals suffer from rampant narcissism and
borderline sociopathic behavior. In their small minds, they have been
anointed to run the world because of their mistaken idea that they are
somehow morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us. In
their world view, the "worst people in the world" (to paraphrase their
rabid loopy fellow traveler Olbermann) are NOT murderers, dictators,
child molestors, or terrorists, but anyone who dares criticize them or
interfere with their agenda - in other words conservatives,
Republicans, Tea Party types, libertarians, and the like. If you want
to see the personification of evil, watch them abuse some poor person
who says they would rather try to make it on their own than seek
government assistance. To them, such a statement is a personal attack
and a refutation of their raison d'etre...
Stan de SD
> On Apr 18, 9:06 pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Go back to previous topic
> > Forum Name General Discussion
> > Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> > Topic URLhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&...
> > 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> > Posted by jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
>
> > Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent
> > of private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing)
> > received survivor benefits when his father died.
>
> His father paid into it for over 30 years, you dumb twat...
>
> Why as a 15-year old WOULDN'T he have accepted it?
>
> Was it against the law?
>
> Jesus H. Christ, you left-wingers are total morons...
True, but we knew that already...
Stan de SD
> On 4/18/2011 11:25 PM, First Post wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:50:15 -0700 (PDT), pyjamarama
The rules DID apply to him. JFC, dude, he was a minor whose father
dropped dead when he was a teenager, not some lifetime welfare
parasite or some public workers collecting SS and retirement while
working a part-time "consulting" job and double-dipping the system.
You lefties have some real issues dealing with reality. Ever consider
seeing a shrink?
Larry Hewitt
And Ryan is now advocating ending the program that he used in a crisis
to keep his future bright.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
He wants to CHANGE THE RULES, so the next generation won't have the
safety net he used t/
Larry
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
Not exactly. His budget proposal doesn't touch Social Security.
He's trying to blow up Medicare instead.
First Post
Geez. Why don;t you try coming up with something other than your pure
unsubstantiated horse shit?
Show us a quote from Ryan saying he wants to axe SS all together.
Show us any lines in any bill he has ever put forth that does what you
claim.
The fact of the matter is that the two of you are bald faced liars.
Prove me wrong asshole and show us the proof of your tripe instead of
your erroneous "because I said so" bullshit.
You claim that he has publically stated that he wants to end social
security benefits for everyone. So prove it bitch.
It's straight forward. Prove your ignorant talking points or be
labeled a liar. Plain and simple.
Phlip
> Geez. Why don;t you try coming up with something other than your pure
> unsubstantiated horse shit?
Ryan: Let's slash social services and give the money to the extreme
rich!
Liberals: You hypocrite! You used social services when you were a kid!
You: But Ryan doesn't want to slash the SAME social services!
Good luck winning a logic contest with THAT one...
First Post
wrote:
>On Apr 19, 3:46 pm, First Post <Progressives...@Invalid.org> wrote:
Cutting services equates to eliminating SS in your pissant sized brain
does it? And would you care to provide the cite showing where Ryan
actually said that he wanted to kill SS and give the money to the rich
as you falsely claim he said above?
It appears the only thing you dolts are good at is jumping to the
wildest possible conclusion imaginable and even then your only retort
is to just lie, and lie badly.
So either show where Ryan specifically wants to destroy SS as opposed
to revamp it so it will still be around after 2035 or simply look like
a babbling fool trying to pull inuendos and imagined conversations
that never happened out of your ass.
Lisa Lisa
The Pugs have hated SS and the entire New Deal since the very hour it
was created.
You don't know shit about American history. And yes, they would have
considered Ryan to be a leech.
Lisa
Larry Hewitt
Ryan has left dismantling SSA til after Medicare, but still has it as a
priority. SSA will still be running a significant surplus in 15 years,
and he needs it top make his budget numbers work.
Larry
Larry
>
>
>
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/11/09/paul-ryan-wants-to-privatize-
social-security/
Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to explain
how America could possibly benefit from that, given that nearly all
private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative overhead, and a
one in three failure rate.
Phlip
> how America could possibly benefit from that, given that nearly all
> private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative overhead, and a
> one in three failure rate.
Garsh! Maaaybe if the administrative overhead were LOWER ... then
MAAAYBE the success rate could be...
Naaaw, I can even think it.
RichTravsky
>
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:50:15 -0700, pyjamarama wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 9:06Â pm, Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Go back to previous topic
> >> Forum Name General Discussion
> >> Topic subject Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits
> >> Topic
> >> URLhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
> az=view_all&...
> >> 321001, Paul Ryan Received Social Security Survivor Benefits Posted by
> >> jtown1123 on Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
> >>
> >> Another hypocrite. Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan (proponent of
> >> private accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing) received
> >> survivor benefits when his father died.
> >
> > His father paid into it for over 30 years, you dumb twat...
> >
> > Why as a 15-year old WOULDN'T he have accepted it?
> >
> > Was it against the law?
> >
> > Jesus H. Christ, you left-wingers are total morons...
>
Well put.
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:32:17 +0000 (UTC), "5979 Dead, 1122 since
> 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>
>>> And Ryan is now advocating ending the program that he used in a crisis
>>> to keep his future bright.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>Not exactly. His budget proposal doesn't touch Social Security.
>>
>>He's trying to blow up Medicare instead.
>
> Neut Gingrich laid out the ongoing fiscal/financial disaster in his
> GOPAC lectures (C-SPAN aired) in the 90's
>
> He "envisioned" the only way for republicans to affect a major national
> change (For political gain)--was to "starve the federal government" so
> that it had no choice but to eliminate most of the federal programs
> they/he hated.
>
> The much used mantra: "who is better able to spend your money, you or
> the government" was written on a chalkboard in that lecture. He
> explained in general terms why "people IN states, retaining money" would
> allow political power to be enhanced--to benefit Republican strategy
>
> Unfunded war was probably not (at least hope not) considered, but the
> effect ended up the same.
>
> Look at the policies now being enacted in STATES.
Yeah. It all goes back to Grover Norquist, who wanted to starve
government to the point where he could "drown it in the bathtub"
The inspired part was claiming they were doing it so Americans could be
free. As if the government could just vanish, and there wouldn't be a
power vacuum for the people working to destroy government to exploit.
>
>
>
>
>>=============================================================
>
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Kurtis T. Nicklas of 1293
> Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
>
> <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>I don't pay much attention to him these days, but I'd wager he's not
>>happy.
>
> You sure as shit paid attention when you got caught making all those
> late-night hang-up phone calls, didn't ya, Nickkkkers?
>
> CLICK ! ! !
Nickname unavailable
snicker, correct:) we have social security, because the private
sector pensions have a very high failure rate.
Nickname unavailable
on top of that, lets look at the example he used "drown it in the
bathtub" its something that sociopaths would use. in germany, one of
the reasons why experts figure it was so easy to kill those who were
different in germany during the 1930's-40's, was because by the late
1800's, drowning unwanted children for various reasons became
acceptable in german society.
we know that conservatives/libertarians/fascists are sociopaths. bush
jr. loved to torture animals. loved to put people to death in texas.
Stan de SD
You do understand that there's a serious liability problem right now
and that the current SS plan is unsustainable, don't you?
How long do you think there will be ANY Social Security if it
continually pays our more than is received in payments?
Stan de SD
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. One more example
of the hysteria of the Left in action...
Stan de SD
> On Apr 19, 3:46 pm, First Post <Progressives...@Invalid.org> wrote:
>
> > Geez. Why don;t you try coming up with something other than your pure
> > unsubstantiated horse shit?
>
> Ryan: Let's slash social services a
You mean he supported defunding various welfare state and public
assistance programs - not quite the same thing.
> and give the money to the extreme rich!
Oh really? He "gave" money to the "extreme rich"? Sources and cites?
> Liberals: You hypocrite! You used social services when you were a kid!
>
> You: But Ryan doesn't want to slash the SAME social services!
>
> Good luck winning a logic contest with THAT one...
As with most foaming hysterical liberals, you have NO ability to
differentiate between legitimate use and abuse of a given benefit.
Stan de SD
It would put incoming SS payments out of the reach of politicians who
want to spend it now to buy votes, in the hopes that somebody down the
road will figure out how to replace that money. That alone is an
excellent reason to privatize it as quickly as possible...
Stan de SD
Sources and cites?
Stan de SD
Really? Based on whose numbers?
Lisa Lisa
Thanks for advertising your stupidity, Stupid. By the way, did you
realize that Ronald Reagan thought
Medicare was a threat to American freedom and paved the way for
dictatorship? Yeah, he did...
Republican heroes are rabid haters.
Lisa
Steve
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to explain
>how America could possibly benefit from that, given that nearly all
>private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative overhead, and a
>one in three failure rate.
>
>
..and still, on average, produce more income that SS. Of course that
won't work for leftists who are generally too
lazy and irresponsible to put aside the money to invest.
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
Of course, if you happen to be enrolled in one of those 33% of plans that
fail, the income produced is, in Republican parlance, "not intended to
provide actual income".
And with a 20% administrative overhead, you have to ask -- only you won't
-- just WHO those funds are producing income for.
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
> unsubstantiated horse shit?
> > Show us a quote from Ryan saying he wants to axe SS all together. Show
> > us any lines in any bill he has ever put forth that does what you
> > claim. The fact of the matter is that the two of you are bald faced
> > liars. Prove me wrong asshole and show us the proof of your tripe
> > instead of your erroneous "because I said so" bullshit. You claim that
> > he has publically stated that he wants to end social security benefits
> > for everyone. So prove it bitch. It's straight forward. Prove your
> > ignorant talking points or be labeled a liar. Plain and simple.
>
> http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/11/09/paul-ryan-wants-to-privatize-
> social-security/
>
> Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to explain
> how America could possibly benefit from that,
It would put incoming SS payments out of the reach of politicians who want
to spend it now to buy votes, in the hopes that somebody down the road
will figure out how to replace that money. That alone is an excellent
reason to privatize it as quickly as possible...
z-Now all you have to do is show how that is happening NOW. You can't,
of course.
So: huge administrative overhead, with the same people who nearly
destroyed the world economy two years ago.
Tell us what the rest of us gain from that.
Nickname unavailable
you would not know what a real source or cite is, if your life
depended on it. only a idiot oblivious to reality, would even question
my statement.
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:48:19 +0000 (UTC), "5979 Dead, 1122 since
>
>
> >Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to explain
> >how America could possibly benefit from that, given that nearly all
> >private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative overhead, and a
> >one in three failure rate.
>
> ..and still, on average, produce more income that SS. Of course that
> won't work for leftists who are generally too
> lazy and irresponsible to put aside the money to invest.
is this the steve libertarian i have sparred with in the past. i do
hope so. guess what, we are getting a say in your
pay::::::::::::))))))))))))))))))) its time for you to move to
china:)))))))))))))))
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
thanks for the site. you wanna bet that the idiot conservative/
libertarian/fascist will even respond after showing him what most sane
americans already know?
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:24:07 -0400, Steve wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:48:19 +0000 (UTC), "5979 Dead, 1122 since
> > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >>Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to explain
> >>how America could possibly benefit from that, given that nearly all
> >>private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative overhead, and a
> >>one in three failure rate.
>
> > ..and still, on average, produce more income that SS. Of course that
> > won't work for leftists who are generally too lazy and irresponsible to
> > put aside the money to invest.
>
> Of course, if you happen to be enrolled in one of those 33% of plans that
> fail, the income produced is, in Republican parlance, "not intended to
> provide actual income".
>
> And with a 20% administrative overhead, you have to ask -- only you won't
> -- just WHO those funds are producing income for.
>
steve(if he is the same one, and he sure quacks like him) does not
want us to have any say at all in any of his doings. he is a super
libertarian, much like his brethren central europeans in the 1930's,
who we know who they were:)
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
> On Apr 20, 9:05 am, "5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:24:07 -0400, Steve wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:48:19 +0000 (UTC), "5979 Dead, 1122 since
>> > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to
>> >>explain how America could possibly benefit from that, given that
>> >>nearly all private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative
>> >>overhead, and a one in three failure rate.
>>
>> > ..and still, on average, produce more income that SS. Of course that
>> > won't work for leftists who are generally too lazy and irresponsible
>> > to put aside the money to invest.
>>
>> Of course, if you happen to be enrolled in one of those 33% of plans
>> that fail, the income produced is, in Republican parlance, "not
>> intended to provide actual income".
>>
>> And with a 20% administrative overhead, you have to ask -- only you
>> won't -- just WHO those funds are producing income for.
>>
>>
>
>
> steve(if he is the same one, and he sure quacks like him) does not
> want us to have any say at all in any of his doings. he is a super
> libertarian, much like his brethren central europeans in the 1930's, who
> we know who they were:)
>
this one is a fraud who likes to pretend he is rich and powerful and so
makes the types of noises he fancies rich and powerful people would
make.
5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09
If he follows his normal approach, he'll pretend not to see it and go
right on making the same false claim.
He isn't here to discuss. He's here to propagandize.
Larry Hewitt
So?
Its not serious enough to force it to be dismantled.
A large majority of Americans are amenable, if not ecstatic, to raising
the salary cap for paying FICA and raising the retirement age as high
as 68.
That will solve the problem for this century and beyond.
Why do you want to throw the baby out with the bath water?
Why do repugs want to (steal* the FICA taxes of millions of workers that
were promised to fund retirement and disability just so the filthy rich
leech class can have a tax break?
(you do realize that one effect of ending SSA would be the sudden influx
of new general taxes and the elimination of a large portion of the debt,
much of which is caused by tax breaks and financial shenanigans of the
rich??)
Larry
Larry Hewitt
CBO, etc.
Larry
Lee Curtis
>
> The fact of the matter is that the two of you are bald faced liars.
> Prove me wrong asshole and show us the proof of your tripe instead of
> your erroneous "because I said so" bullshit.
As long as you are demanding proof maybe you
could start supplying some?
"Clinton wiped out around 100,000 Serbs with your approval
and applause."
First Post, Mar 25 2011
Nickname unavailable
i thought it was him. he is a KOCH sucker:)
Nickname unavailable
same with no surrender, a hired KOCK sucker.
Steve
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:24:07 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:48:19 +0000 (UTC), "5979 Dead, 1122 since
>> 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to explain
>>>how America could possibly benefit from that, given that nearly all
>>>private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative overhead, and a
>>>one in three failure rate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ..and still, on average, produce more income that SS. Of course that
>> won't work for leftists who are generally too lazy and irresponsible to
>> put aside the money to invest.
>
>Of course, if you happen to be enrolled in one of those 33% of plans that
>fail, the income produced is, in Republican parlance, "not intended to
>provide actual income".
Your claim of a 33% failure rate is bullshit, and probably the
overhead figure too. I'm pretty sure it came from one of the far
leftyloon blog sites. It's not like anyone believes anything YOU say,
Triple-chin. You've been proven to be liar. Not as bad as Shook, but
a liar still.
Steve
Poor Zeppy is letting his envy show again.
Steve
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Apr 20, 9:05 am, "5979 Dead, 1122 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:24:07 -0400, Steve wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:48:19 +0000 (UTC), "5979 Dead, 1122 since
>> > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I leave it to you to explain
>> >>how America could possibly benefit from that, given that nearly all
>> >>private pension funds have at least a 20% administrative overhead, and a
>> >>one in three failure rate.
>>
>> > ..and still, on average, produce more income that SS. Of course that
>> > won't work for leftists who are generally too lazy and irresponsible to
>> > put aside the money to invest.
>>
>> Of course, if you happen to be enrolled in one of those 33% of plans that
>> fail, the income produced is, in Republican parlance, "not intended to
>> provide actual income".
>>
>> And with a 20% administrative overhead, you have to ask -- only you won't
>> -- just WHO those funds are producing income for.
>>
>
>
>
> steve(if he is the same one, and he sure quacks like him) does not
>want us to have any say at all in any of his doings.
You certainly have that right, Dummy. Why would I want YOU to have
any say in any of my "doings?"
Steve
Guess what, Dummy? They only way you effect me at all is through a
little of my entertainment. That's because you're it.
Wexford
> On Apr 18, 7:05 pm,Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Did I actually read "to make ends meet, Paul's mother returned to
> > school to study interior design?????" I have read boloney, malarky and
> > steaming bullshit in my day, but this brings it all to a new level.
> > Republicans are utterly shameless assholes.
>
> What, she put shoes on, went on birth control, and left the kitchen?
>
> And Ryan calls himself a "rugged individualist". Tsk tsk tsk.
One of my friends in college went on to medical school after
graduation. Although he had some loans and aid, his father, who owned
a gas station and who worked 12 hours per day for not very much money,
couldn't send him to school and make ends meet. His mother, who was an
intelligent and well-read lady, went to work in a factory -- the only
work she could find -- and did piece work for five years. He made it
through medical school and later in life bought his parents a new
home. He also repaid all his loans. He's a committed Liberal Democrat,
by the way. He runs a no-charge dermatology clinic in N Philadelphia
(his daughter is also a doctor, now in practice with him) two days per
week. Three days per week he has a dermatology practice in a rich New
Jersey town. I never once heard him cry about anything or complain.
His mother is still alive and still an intelligent, rather funny
person, avidly interested in current events. She's proud of what she
did and has no martyr complex about it. Pugs are a sorry clutch of
shamelessly self-pitying bastards. Nixon cried about his dog, Dole
wept because, well, he was Bob Dole and a wounded veteran. Boehner
weeps at everything. Gingrich used to sob into the bosom of his
mistress when anyone criticized him.
Nickname unavailable
snicker, after that drubbing i gave you over CEO pay, snicker, and
now we see the sec is instituting rules that we can have a say in your
pay, oh how yummy:)
Nickname unavailable
we need to have a say in your doings. as we all know, conservatives/
libertarians/fascists are sociopaths, and we must keep tabs on you.
Steve
Drubbing??? Are you forgetting to take your meds?
...and as for my pay or any other aspect of my life, you'll never have
any say, loser.
Steve
<LOL> I doubt you have the mental capacity to run your own life.
as we all know, conservatives/
>libertarians/fascists are sociopaths, and we must keep tabs on you.
>
We all know that leftists are a bunch of ignorant, bed wetting cowards
who need a nanny government to act as their mommy.