VP Picks 2012

[Frank Newgent]

It's OK to have participated in what you (Ryan) characterize as a Ponzi scheme if the circumstances are unsual?

Sure, let's explore this. First thing is, you post the exact circumstances under which he received social security, and then you post your opinion as to why it wasn't justified.

Then I'll comment. Otherwise, you've framed the issue inaccurately and are a mere propagandist, to boot, one with a subject which is likely to backfire.

He received survivor's benefits. I've no problem with that... both my parents were dead by the age at which Ryan suffered his father's death, and I collected (in all likelyhood) more than he ever did in such benefits.

That money came in mighty handy.

However, I am not a long-time Washington politician who has characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and working to undo the system from which I personally benefited.

To do such a thing while having reaped for years the benefits of such a system seems odd to me.

 

[SezMe]

You mean, the deficiencies of the Bamster shouldn't be allowed in a vice president?

Uh, uh, uh. Don't change the subject. We're on Ryan here, not Obama.

 

[mhaze]

He received survivor's benefits. I've no problem with that... both my parents were dead by the age at which Ryan suffered his father's death, and I collected (in all likelyhood) more than he ever did in such benefits.

That money came in mighty handy.

However, I am not a long-time Washington politician who has characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and working to undo the system from which I personally benefited.

To do such a thing while having reaped for years the benefits of such a system seems odd to me.

But his collecting SS (IIRC) was when he was 16, and discovered his father dead of a massive heart attack at age 53. Frank if you have experienced a similar thing, then you know more than I. I just thought it necessary to point out the time sequences here.

He didn't call SS a Ponzi scheme and then collect, rather, he was the beneficiary of it as a child, and decades later, described it as a Ponzi scheme.

I don't think anyone has claimed that people don't benefit from money given to them through SS. Does having received it, even at a critical juncture, means that one should be thereafter indebted and loyal to the system?

I guess at that I'd say YES if it was to an individual that helped me out, but NO if it was to some impersonal bureaucratic system.

 

[mhaze]

Uh, uh, uh. Don't change the subject. We're on Ryan here, not Obama.

Well, is the bar for the VP higher, or lower, than for POTUS? Seems a reasonable question.

Here's Ryan. Whatever his background is or is not, he seems quite informed and competent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNKfbO_PvkI

 

[Alan]

A running mate needs to be able to be a suitable President. The differences between the competencies of a President and a Vice President should be as small as possible, non-existent if possible.

 

[SezMe]

Well, is the bar for the VP higher, or lower, than for POTUS? Seems a reasonable question.

It is. The answer is that there should be no difference. Obama's qualifications are off topic.

 

[mhaze]

It is. The answer is that there should be no difference. Obama's qualifications are off topic.

Fine. I, too, would like a higher bar for Republican candidates than Democratic.

Wait a second....

 

[Frank Newgent]

He received survivor's benefits. I've no problem with that... both my parents were dead by the age at which Ryan suffered his father's death, and I collected (in all likelyhood) more than he ever did in such benefits.

That money came in mighty handy.

However, I am not a long-time Washington politician who has characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and working to undo the system from which I personally benefited.

To do such a thing while having reaped for years the benefits of such a system seems odd to me.

But his collecting SS (IIRC) was when he was 16, and discovered his father dead of a massive heart attack at age 53. Frank if you have experienced a similar thing, then you know more than I. I just thought it necessary to point out the time sequences here.

He didn't call SS a Ponzi scheme and then collect, rather, he was the beneficiary of it as a child, and decades later, described it as a Ponzi scheme.

I don't think anyone has claimed that people don't benefit from money given to them through SS. Does having received it, even at a critical juncture, means that one should be thereafter indebted and loyal to the system?

I guess at that I'd say YES if it was to an individual that helped me out, but NO if it was to some impersonal bureaucratic system.

Seriously... shouldn't Ryan's father have been responsible enough to have banked sufficient funds for his son's college? Was there no life insurance policy?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

My father didn't have a life insurance policy when he died in my teens. And no, he wasn't responsible. Does it matter?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Are you a government hack populist working to undo programs from which you personally benefited?

 

[mhaze]

Seriously... shouldn't Ryan's father have been responsible enough to have banked sufficient funds for his son's college? Was there no life insurance policy?

I have no idea, but I am unable to accept a criticism of a politician or anyone else based on his receiving SS at age 16 based on a sudden death of the family provider.

There are some "survivor's benefits" to SS which include payments for college, I knew people that got those while in college but have no real familiarity with them. Doesn't matter.

I know this is a sling-the-mud-around type of thread, but this one just won't work.

 

[A'isha]

I have no idea, but I am unable to accept a criticism of a politician or anyone else based on his receiving SS at age 16 based on a sudden death of the family provider.

There are some "survivor's benefits" to SS which include payments for college, I knew people that got those while in college but have no real familiarity with them. Doesn't matter.

I know this is a sling-the-mud-around type of thread, but this one just won't work.

No one is criticising Ryan for receiving SS at age 16 based on a sudden death of the family provider.

They're criticising Ryan for receiving SS at age 16 based on a sudden death of the family provider, and now as an adult working very hard to make sure no one else in the same position will be able to get the same thing.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Seriously... shouldn't Ryan's father have been responsible enough to have banked sufficient funds for his son's college? Was there no life insurance policy?

I have no idea, but I am unable to accept a criticism of a politician or anyone else based on his receiving SS at age 16 based on a sudden death of the family provider.

There are some "survivor's benefits" to SS which include payments for college, I knew people that got those while in college but have no real familiarity with them. Doesn't matter.

I know this is a sling-the-mud-around type of thread, but this one just won't work.

Receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider... from a Ponzi scheme. Ryan has since characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

His philosophy would deny anybody else receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider.

Seem odd to me.

 

[remirol]

Receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider... from a Ponzi scheme. Ryan has since characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

His philosophy would deny anybody else receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider.

Seem odd to me.

Seems like standard Randian/Libertarian "I got mine, screw everyone else" thinking to me. ...Oh, look, Ryan was a Randbot from a very young age. Who knew?

 

[hgc]

Seems like standard Randian/Libertarian "I got mine, screw everyone else" thinking to me. ...Oh, look, Ryan was a Randbot from a very young age. Who knew?

What Rand enthusiast didn't start as a teenager? They all did. Most grow out of it. For others, it takes until the political inconvenience of venerating a famous atheist forces a public disavowal -- as in the case of P. Ryan.

 

[mhaze]

Receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider... from a Ponzi scheme. Ryan has since characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

His philosophy would deny anybody else receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider.

Seem odd to me.

Is that even true, though? Are survivors' benefits cut under the Ryan plan?

Nope. Go read the plan.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider... from a Ponzi scheme. Ryan has since characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

His philosophy would deny anybody else receiving Social Security at age sixteen based on a sudden death of the family provider.

Seem odd to me.

Is that even true, though? Are survivors' benefits cut under the Ryan plan?

Nope. Go read the plan.

Do you have a link to one?

Found a reference to one 2005 Ryan SS plan... carrying such an outrageously high price tag that even the Bush administration called it "irresponsible."

 

[grunion]

Do you have a link to one?

Found a reference to one 2005 Ryan SS plan... carrying such an outrageously high price tag that even the Bush administration called it "irresponsible."

I've heard that quote about Ryan's plan to replace Medicaid with vouchers. Did Bush say that about his Social Security plan too? Goodness, what a child.

 

[mhaze]

Do you have a link to one?

Found a reference to one 2005 Ryan SS plan... carrying such an outrageously high price tag that even the Bush administration called it "irresponsible."

Not relevant.

Ryan's 2013 budget has no change to SS, but a requirement that the House and Senate submit plans to insure the continued health of SS.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I've heard that quote about Ryan's plan to replace Medicaid with vouchers. Did Bush say that about his Social Security plan too? Goodness, what a child.

Looked for the Medicaid quote and found this (from Peter Orszag).

According to CBO, Ryan’s plan would not reduce total health-care costs. Instead, it would increase the total, because more cost-sharing for consumers doesn’t do that much to constrain spending and because private plans have higher administrative costs and less negotiating leverage than the federal Medicare program.

You read that right: According to CBO, the Ryan Medicare plan would increase health-care spending. In 2030, total health- care spending for the typical beneficiary would be more than 40 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under existing Medicare.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-11/paul-ryan-is-thoughtful-handsome-and-misguided.html