Anonymous wrote:
WTF is the point in picking Ryan is they aren't going with his plan? Do they think his steely blue eyes will get them votes?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious that democrats are thrilled about the Ryan pick because now they think the campaign will be all about the Ryan Plan. However, no one seems to have noticed that he, at least, has a plan, as opposed to Obama. Obama has nothing but unfunded Obamacare that the majority of Americans hate (as recent polls show) and an economy that completely is in the toilet and no Obama Plan for getting it out of there. Ryan will be able clearly articluate his vision and when there's no other plan to compare it to or better altenative on the table, they will recognize that reasonable reforms are essential to getting the economy back on track.

Ryan has a plan, but Romney is distancing himself from it. Romney doesn't have a plan. So, do you have a "Plan B".

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious that democrats are thrilled about the Ryan pick because now they think the campaign will be all about the Ryan Plan. However, no one seems to have noticed that he, at least, has a plan, as opposed to Obama. Obama has nothing but unfunded Obamacare that the majority of Americans hate (as recent polls show) and an economy that completely is in the toilet and no Obama Plan for getting it out of there. Ryan will be able clearly articluate his vision and when there's no other plan to compare it to or better altenative on the table, they will recognize that reasonable reforms are essential to getting the economy back on track.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While all these programs mean well they are very inefficient and don't end up meeting their end goals.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A pick that shows he is serious about the economy.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 45 and there is no way I will vote myself a $200,000 medical bill. That what the Ryan plan is.

Yes, better that other taxpayers pay it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.