CNBC: Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit

[monkrules]

That's right. Screw the poor and middle class after all, that IS the American Way.

Close.

Screwing the poor and middle class is the Republican way...

 

[Spare_change]

That's right. Screw the poor and middle class after all, that IS the American Way.

As usual, LyinRayn is lying. Not to mention they're called "entitlements" because the recipients are entitled to them.

This bastard got where he is because of SocSec but its his long time dream to steal this money from those who earned SS and Medicare. The gop doesn't actually give a fuck about the deficit but what they do are about is taking advantage of this opportunity to screw over the elderly. Others on their hit list - the handicapped, veterans, children and their all time favorites to attack, women.

Interestingly, his hero Ayn Rand collected SS under a fake name, was in favor of abortion and was a nazi.

Done with your childish little rant??

How do YOU propose to cut the national debt?

We have a SPENDING problem ... you can only fix it by cutting spending. What's on YOUR hit list?

As I said, cut the War Department.

Imagine if the asshole criminals of the imperial capital were to place a moratorium on "defense" spending (really war making) for say 10 years. Then, use all those multiple trillions to help make America great.

There wouldn't BE an America to make great .... how would you propose to counter the threats we face every day?

BTW --- the Defense budget is -what? - $600 billion. What kind of impact will THAT have on the national debt?

Hint: None. It doesn't even cover the deficit.

 

[Spare_change]

Oh'lookie here...The poor and workers get fucked again while the rich get fatter!

I want to trim the fucking military about 200 billion dollars! And raise taxes on the 1%.

Chicken feed.

You clearly demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Go away, and let the adults handle it.

 

[Bush92]

That's kind of the point--if you don't realize that not all young families have $10,000 a year to put toward retirement and medical insurance after retirement,

Of course that doesn't rule out some form of tax payer funded supplements (in order to reach a minimum annual contribution amount) into those accounts for the poor .
​

​

No free rides for those that aren't poor (at or below the poverty line), if you're not willing to make sacrifices in the present for your own future financial security then you don't deserve to have any.

​

you are part of the problem.

Yeah; if you call advocating for the responsible management of finances, having the capacity for reason, thinking outside the unworkable status quo box and taking responsibility for ones own material well being "the problem".

What's you idea of being part of the solution? keep on ignoring reality until the bottom drops out?

Not understanding how more and more people actually live is part of the problem right now. I do appreciate the explanation, though.

"How more people live" is irrelevant, the numbers are what they are and failing to recognize that fact will only lead to "more people" living in an economic state that's materially WORSE than what they're living in today.

The signs are all around you (declining real wages, increasing structural unemployment, accelerating accumulation of personal and public debt and unfunded liabilities, etc..,etc..,), closing your eyes to them, stamping your feet and trying to pretend the status quo is hunky dory because you want to show how "compassionate" you are won't change the reality that our current system is a pathway to widespread economic misery and social unrest.

Gosh darn it, I'm speaking from experience. I was a pink collar single mom living in a high rent state for years and at the end of every month I had to decide which bill not to pay on time because a third of my check was going straight to a day care center and some days I didn't eat (my kid always did) and life fucking sucked but I was above the poverty line by something like $200 p/year (not that I would have ever used food stamps anyway but my mother forced me to look into it). The poverty line ain't much.
You can talk about personal responsibility all you want, but it ain't about "personal sacrifice," it's about surviving for a lot of people. Looking for quarters in the couch cushions to put enough gas in the tank to get to work. Take my word for it; you're looking at life through a different lens from me.

So where does my responsibility as a taxpayer intersect with your life? I have done same things in my life. Never expected government to coddle me. You struggled to make it...so do millions when they are young. Why are you special?

End our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; because nothing about the government should intersect with your life.

If helping the poor is illegal then the war on drugs is sure as fuck is also. End of fucking discussion.

Get high...”I care man”...Republicans are assholes. Good life.

 

[Reasonable]

 

[Claudette]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[NightFox]

For the record, I have never taken a dime for "assistance."

Congratulations for actually earning your own living....

I was just trying to explain what being too broke to invest in cushy retirement plans is like.

I know what being broke looks like, I also know what deciding not to be broke looks like, the difference between the two is taking responsibility for ones own choices and making the sacrifices necessary to get from point A to point B.

Whose talking about investing in "cushy" retirement plans? I'm talking about investing in your OWN FUTURE by deferring consumption in the present, you know like actually caring enough about yourself to take an active interest in bettering your own financial circumstances instead of expecting the rest of society to do it all for you.

I have read back through my posts and I can't see where I ever made excuses

LOL, you've done NOTHING but make excuses for why the status quo of the welfare state can't be changed, everything from "young families" not being able to afford to invest in their own futures to your own lil' personal sob story.

You certainly haven't done anything in the way of proposing alternative ideas that might lead to a equitable and financially sustainable system.

I'm sorry you're too thick headed to get what I was trying to tell you.

I understand you just fine it's the same ole' excuse milling trying to pose as "compassion" that's repeated around here hundreds of times a day.

I give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Ciao

.. enjoy your willful ignorance.

 

[J.E.D]

per-beneficiary Medicaid limits

Death panels

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh'lookie here...The poor and workers get fucked again while the rich get fatter!

I want to trim the fucking military about 200 billion dollars! And raise taxes on the 1%.

As compared to what, the middle-class getting fucked and government getting fatter?

 

[theHawk]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Well Dems have been screaming about the deficit. They should be all for cutting all entitlements.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tax cuts for the rich and medical care cuts for the poor and middle class.

We haven't seen this since every Republican administration after Eisenhower. Cons act in opposition to Christ. They walk on the poor and kneel to the rich. Anti-Christ.

Absolutely. We should be stealing money that other people make and killing babies at the same time. That's what Jesus wanted.

 

[jc456]

Here is a thought. Why not take all of the people that did not earn enough credits through their own work and are receiving benefits based on their spouses work credits and cut them. No?

Then it's all about privatizing it and making sure some people can charge money to make a profit off "taking care of it". Same shit; different day.

Dude, wtf? If the spouse earned them they get them. Now you’d like to cut benefits to the elderly? LOL

 

[jc456]

Done with your childish little rant??

How do YOU propose to cut the national debt?

We have a SPENDING problem ... you can only fix it by cutting spending. What's on YOUR hit list?

As I said, cut the War Department.

Imagine if the asshole criminals of the imperial capital were to place a moratorium on "defense" spending (really war making) for say 10 years. Then, use all those multiple trillions to help make America great.

We don't have a War Department!

Grow up!

LMFAO!!!

This where you and I part ways on most topics. You go stupid like a liberal and there is no bringing you back!

That is laughable, but sad too. Many Americans refuse to believe their country has become an imperial empire, with a military intervening everywhere around the world. Doing the bidding of the Oligarchy. How they can think this way is strange, since the truth is plain to see.

It’s good business to do security before the enemy comes in. Strategy and survival

 

[OldLady]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

 

[Disir]

Here is a thought. Why not take all of the people that did not earn enough credits through their own work and are receiving benefits based on their spouses work credits and cut them. No?

Then it's all about privatizing it and making sure some people can charge money to make a profit off "taking care of it". Same shit; different day.

Dude, wtf? If the spouse earned them they get them. Now you’d like to cut benefits to the elderly? LOL

No. Stay at homes.

 

[OldLady]

That's kind of the point--if you don't realize that not all young families have $10,000 a year to put toward retirement and medical insurance after retirement,

Of course that doesn't rule out some form of tax payer funded supplements (in order to reach a minimum annual contribution amount) into those accounts for the poor .
​

​

No free rides for those that aren't poor (at or below the poverty line), if you're not willing to make sacrifices in the present for your own future financial security then you don't deserve to have any.

​

you are part of the problem.

Yeah; if you call advocating for the responsible management of finances, having the capacity for reason, thinking outside the unworkable status quo box and taking responsibility for ones own material well being "the problem".

What's you idea of being part of the solution? keep on ignoring reality until the bottom drops out?

Not understanding how more and more people actually live is part of the problem right now. I do appreciate the explanation, though.

"How more people live" is irrelevant, the numbers are what they are and failing to recognize that fact will only lead to "more people" living in an economic state that's materially WORSE than what they're living in today.

The signs are all around you (declining real wages, increasing structural unemployment, accelerating accumulation of personal and public debt and unfunded liabilities, etc..,etc..,), closing your eyes to them, stamping your feet and trying to pretend the status quo is hunky dory because you want to show how "compassionate" you are won't change the reality that our current system is a pathway to widespread economic misery and social unrest.

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population? Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

 

[NightFox]

That's kind of the point--if you don't realize that not all young families have $10,000 a year to put toward retirement and medical insurance after retirement,

Of course that doesn't rule out some form of tax payer funded supplements (in order to reach a minimum annual contribution amount) into those accounts for the poor .
​

​

No free rides for those that aren't poor (at or below the poverty line), if you're not willing to make sacrifices in the present for your own future financial security then you don't deserve to have any.

​

you are part of the problem.

Yeah; if you call advocating for the responsible management of finances, having the capacity for reason, thinking outside the unworkable status quo box and taking responsibility for ones own material well being "the problem".

What's you idea of being part of the solution? keep on ignoring reality until the bottom drops out?

Not understanding how more and more people actually live is part of the problem right now. I do appreciate the explanation, though.

"How more people live" is irrelevant, the numbers are what they are and failing to recognize that fact will only lead to "more people" living in an economic state that's materially WORSE than what they're living in today.

The signs are all around you (declining real wages, increasing structural unemployment, accelerating accumulation of personal and public debt and unfunded liabilities, etc..,etc..,), closing your eyes to them, stamping your feet and trying to pretend the status quo is hunky dory because you want to show how "compassionate" you are won't change the reality that our current system is a pathway to widespread economic misery and social unrest.

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

 

[Disir]

Bam! There it is.

The deal is that these clowns so desperately want their mitts on that cash it is killing them.

 

[OldLady]

I have never taken a dime for "assistance."

How many times have you "worked" for the "government" in one form or another?

12 years. Well, if Job Corps counts, 15. So you call that "assistance?"

So you got a government job with preferential treatment because you were a single mom?

No. I got a college degree.

 

[TNHarley]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

Clinton got the debt under control? Please explain that.