Ryan gets booed at AARP

[Anonymous]

Apparently the verdict is in. Even after exempting current retirees from the major changes to his plan, retirees give him the thumbs down.

Link is here: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14015076-ryan-gets-boos-at-aarp-conference?lite but I think the picture says it all:



No I take it back. The lastest Wisconsin poll says it all: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0920/Why-Obama-is-pulling-ahead-in-the-battleground-state-of-Wisconsin Don't expect much mileage out of this VP candidate.

[Anonymous]

AARP is aligned with the Dems. This is not a surprise.

[Anonymous]

As he should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AARP is aligned with the Dems. This is not a surprise.

AARP is aligned with seniors. If that makes them Dems, then the GOP is in a world of hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AARP is aligned with the Dems. This is not a surprise.

AARP is aligned with seniors. If that makes them Dems, then the GOP is in a world of hurt.

old people are aligned with the dems? what age bracket then votes GOP?

[Anonymous]

Not everywhere. The retirees/seniors in Florida (like my parents and their friends) frequently vote Republican. This year may change because of the Ryan effect, but my parents have lived in Florida for 29 years and for at least the last 16 years, most of their friends have voted pretty conservatively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AARP is aligned with the Dems. This is not a surprise.

AARP is aligned with seniors. If that makes them Dems, then the GOP is in a world of hurt.

old people are aligned with the dems? what age bracket then votes GOP?

Of course it is not true, and that's my point. The earlier poster wants to say that AARP is in the tank for Dems. No, in fact they vigorously represent seniors. And therefore their opinion of Ryan and his plan are very revealing.

[Anonymous]

Of course they are in the tank for the dems, they strongly supported Obamacare, which ironically strips 700+ billion from Medicare. I can't wait for this whole house of cards to come down under the dems control. How long can a 1.6 trillion yearly deficit continue? Ryan is one of the few realists that at least has a plan to right the ship. Of course anyone who proposes cutting entitlements is going to be booed. Reality sucks.

[Anonymous]

PP, Ryan's plan also strips the same amount from Medicare. He blasts Obama for it, but does the same in his budget, putting that $ into tax cuts. Obama's $ is plowed into closing donut hole and providing preventative care for seniors.

Where were you on DCUM ten years ago when Bush spent all the surplus, then started running us into the red with his botched war in Afghanistan and his war of choice in Iraq?

[Anonymous]

That is the old Ryan plan. The new one returns the money to medicare. I agree that Bush let spending run out of control, no doubt about it. But it should also be noted that treasury receipts under Bush, and under the current Bush tax rates were the highest in history. This is because a vibrant economy and high employment, which was the case for the majority of the Bush years is the primary generator of tax revenue, not the marginal rates on the upper 2%. Obama has failed miserably at growing the economy and increasing employment.

Picking up on your comment of running us into the red, where is your outrage for Obama's 5 trillion added to the deficit in his 3.5 years? BTW, Afghnistan is Obamas war, he is the one who doubled down and saw only failure. But I am sure you give him a pass on that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is the old Ryan plan. The new one returns the money to medicare. I agree that Bush let spending run out of control, no doubt about it. But it should also be noted that treasury receipts under Bush, and under the current Bush tax rates were the highest in history. This is because a vibrant economy and high employment, which was the case for the majority of the Bush years is the primary generator of tax revenue, not the marginal rates on the upper 2%. Obama has failed miserably at growing the economy and increasing employment.

Picking up on your comment of running us into the red, where is your outrage for Obama's 5 trillion added to the deficit in his 3.5 years? BTW, Afghnistan is Obamas war, he is the one who doubled down and saw only failure. But I am sure you give him a pass on that too.

This bolded comment makes no sense whatsoever. The GDP under Obama had already exceeded Bush's high watermark by Q3 2010. So your statement is patently false.

Facts are stubborn things.

[Anonymous]

under the current Bush tax rates were the highest in history

That is also false. Where are you getting your information? Wait, let me guess...

[Anonymous]

Im actually impressed that he dared to go to an aarp event.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, I don't think Obama had the military invade Afghanistan without sufficient troops. Bush Cheney et al did that. The war was had been going on for nearly eight years when Obama was inaugurated. Did you forget that?

[Anonymous]

Federal receipts in each of Bush's last three years exceed any year under Obama. Are you saying there is no correlation between tax receipts and economic vitality? The delta becomes even greater when you consider state and local taxes. The drop in housing value and sales (second generation home sales are not a component of GDP) alone resulted in a substantial decrease in local real estate taxes and transactional home sale taxes. Offset of taxable income through losses in real estate, investment income also decreases federal revenue. This is not measured through GDP, but clearly investment windfall creates significant tax revenue. So there are a number of taxable events that occur outside of those measure by GDP. The point is, to increase the government's revenue, grow the economy. In this regard he President has failed.