Anonymous wrote:The government shouldn't be in the healthcare, retirement and disability businesses.

I disagree 100%.

Health care is a public good and access to it should not be controlled by companies that operate for profit and think their fiduciary duty to shareholders trumps their moral duty to patients.

Vouchers for the elderly is a stupid idea. What private insurer wants to cover the aged? Telling people "here's a voucher, go buy your own insurance" when those people are in their 80s won't work because no company will want to insure someone in their 80s.

As for retirement, government's involvement has spared several generations of seniors from poverty. That's a good thing. Social Security was probably the best public policy ever. The problem is too may people don't understand it's only intended to be one leg of a stool for your retirement.

As for disability, shame on you for suggesting the disabled should be left without a safety net.

If you don't like government, there are a few places where you can live and experience your utopia. Start with Somalia. Not much government there. I hear you can find beachfront property near Mogadishu for cheap.

Anonymous wrote:A pick that shows he is serious about the economy.

Genuine question: What does Paul Ryan know about the economy? How is having Paul Ryan as vice president of the United States good for the economy?

The government shouldn't be in the healthcare, retirement and disability businesses.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone living in reality ( which is pretty much a thin minority) knows that Medicare and SS needs major cuts. It's not pretty and not fair, but a solvent economy is good for our children.

Here is reality -

Social Security is not that bad and can be tweaked. We are thirty years from even going negative. At that point, we are still taking in contributions. The program can go with minor tweaks and be cheaply saved.

You are correct. Medicare and Health Care in general is unsustainable. Obama proposed a solution. The republicans want to gut Medicare and leave the rest of the system in place.

We can afford SS and Health Care if we reduce defense spending from 8x the nearest country (we spend about 800B, China spends 100B) and/or we tax ourselves a little more (say back to the historical average - remember history- this country had a pretty good thing going back after WWII - say 1950s to early 2000s - taxes were not a problem back then and unemployment, lower defense budgets, and government spending was not a problem either. It sounds like you want to move away from that.

That is reality.

If you want to give up health care and social security for the middle class so the rich can have more billions, vote Ryan/Romney. If you think a good job, a social safety net that includes health care, and a modest retirement system for hardworking Americans is a good idea, vote Obama. I am going with Obama.

Your choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone living in reality ( which is pretty much a thin minority) knows that Medicare and SS needs major cuts. It's not pretty and not fair, but a solvent economy is good for our children.

45% of seniors would be living in poverty if it weren't for Social Security. Both programs need reform, but not cuts. And certainly not what Ryan has proposed.

If the programs aren't sustainable, no matter how well-intentioned and helpful, we have to make the needed cuts.

Ryan's plan doesn't solve the medicare issue. It caps the payments and leaves retirees to come up with the difference.

We need to fix the problem of spiraling medical costs, not just punt it to the retiree to figure out on their own. For the greatest nation on earth, we seem oddly incapable of doing that. Yet looking around, there are lots of other countries which have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone living in reality ( which is pretty much a thin minority) knows that Medicare and SS needs major cuts. It's not pretty and not fair, but a solvent economy is good for our children.

45% of seniors would be living in poverty if it weren't for Social Security. Both programs need reform, but not cuts. And certainly not what Ryan has proposed.

If the programs aren't sustainable, no matter how well-intentioned and helpful, we have to make the needed cuts.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone living in reality ( which is pretty much a thin minority) knows that Medicare and SS needs major cuts. It's not pretty and not fair, but a solvent economy is good for our children.

45% of seniors would be living in poverty if it weren't for Social Security. Both programs need reform, but not cuts. And certainly not what Ryan has proposed.

Conservatives Tea Party. Don't you recall the signs "keep you hands off my Medicare." Obama win Fl. Not even a fair fight

Anonymous



Anyone living in reality ( which is pretty much a thin minority) knows that Medicare and SS needs major cuts. It's not pretty and not fair, but a solvent economy is good for our children.

How is having a bunch of old folks starving and unable to pay their medical bills a solvent enomony? Just b/c you don't pay the medical bills does not mean the problem goes away. The republican need a big dose of reality.

Anyone living in reality ( which is pretty much a thin minority) knows that Medicare and SS needs major cuts. It's not pretty and not fair, but a solvent economy is good for our children.

jsteele wrote:...
So, Romney is not embracing the Ryan budget plan and is also not going to tell us what his plan is until he is serving as President. Is that really acceptable? Are people really prepared to wait until someone gets elected before he tells us what he is going to do?

As the article that Jeff linked to shows, the Dems will be attacking the" Romney-Ryan Budget". With all the Romney-Ryan bumper stickers we are sure to be seeing, it will be hard for the GOP to argue that the it's not the Romney-Ryan budget unless Romney gets specific about where he differs. But he can't do that without pissing off the right. Same old dilemma for Mitt.

And now he has a new fear, that he has given the right a choice of voting for him and having eight years of Mitt or staying home and looking forward to Ryan in 2016.

This is interesting:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-ryan-budget.php

What happens when "Mr. Not-Specific" picks "Mr. Specific" as his running mate? As we know, Romney has refused to get pinned down any anything, always trying to have things both ways. Ryan, on the other hand, has a very detailed budget plan. So, who wins. It looks like Mittens will still be Mittens. From Romney campaign talking points distributed to reporters following the VP presentation:

Does this mean Mitt Romney is adopting the Paul Ryan plan?

Gov. Romney applauds Paul Ryan for going in the right direction with his budget, and as president he will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance.

So, Romney is not embracing the Ryan budget plan and is also not going to tell us what his plan is until he is serving as President. Is that really acceptable? Are people really prepared to wait until someone gets elected before he tells us what he is going to do?

I think Mitt's big donors insisted on this pick to prime Ryan for 2016.

jsteele wrote:I like how Mittens introduced Ryan as "the Next President of the United States." It seems a lot of Republicans wish that were the case. One of the big stories in coming months will be how Romney avoids being overshadowed by his VP choice.

I think you're correct on all counts.

Anonymous wrote:Ryan was voted "Biggest Brown Noser" by his high school senior class.

Now think back to your own high school - would you vote for the "Biggest Brown Noser" from your senior class?

Doesn't bother me because I think most successful politicians have that tendency, whether or not they received the designated "honor."