Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize So...

Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security

There are 2024 comments on the Fox News story from Aug 19, 2012, titled Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security. In it, Fox News reports that:

FILE: Aug. 18, 2012: Vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan speaks to a crowd at Lake Sumter Landing Market Square in The Villages, Fla.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

Since: Jan 10

Las Vegas, NV

#1283 Sep 20, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>They were forced to continue the policy for the reason I stated that a half completed mission could easily have culminated with a new Iraqi leader who would have made Saddam look harmless in comparison. I am sure that Obama would have exited Iraq much earlier had it been safe to do so. He had no choice but to complete what Bush misguidedly started in Iraq.
I am not so sure that a democracy in Iraq makes us any more secure as Iraq is dominated by the more radical Shi'ites who someday may elect somebody far worse than Sodamn Insane...I meant Saddam Hussein. Papa Bush was wise to leave Saddam in power after the Gulf War early in his term. Saddam did serve a useful purpose in keeping the more radical Muslims in their place.
This November, I would vote for neither. My plans are to leave the ballot blank for president or vote 3rd party while I vote for the remaining races on the ballot. I see the race as Romnitwit vs. Obamanation.
Saddam was a heavy handed, brutal dictator. He gassed his own people remember? Stuffed his opponents into plastic spreaders. that's a hell of a way to keep the peace. So, yes. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And staying until the area is stable is/was right also.

Iraq as a democracy -- time will tell.

A little gut check. Stand on your principles and vote accordingly. Failing to vote takes away your right to complain.

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#1284 Sep 20, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam was a heavy handed, brutal dictator. He gassed his own people remember? Stuffed his opponents into plastic spreaders. that's a hell of a way to keep the peace. So, yes. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And staying until the area is stable is/was right also.
Iraq as a democracy -- time will tell.
A little gut check. Stand on your principles and vote accordingly. Failing to vote takes away your right to complain.
Democracies can degenerate in to a vote by the deer and the wolves as to what is on the menu. I am aware of Saddam's atrocities. I am also aware of the trillions spent on Iraq directly and indirectly not to mention the body counts and the fact that the democracy does have the potential to be far more anti-American that Saddam could ever hope to be. Don't be disappointed if there is little or no gratitude shown to the U.S. in the future by the Iraqis, much the same as the Taliban got U.S. aid to help send the Soviets leaving the country with their tails between their legs and showed their gratitude by harboring Bin-Laden and other violent terrorists. And don't forget that Shi'ites who dominate Iraq tend to be more radical than the Sunnis.

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#1285 Sep 20, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam was a heavy handed, brutal dictator. He gassed his own people remember? Stuffed his opponents into plastic spreaders. that's a hell of a way to keep the peace. So, yes. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And staying until the area is stable is/was right also.
Iraq as a democracy -- time will tell.
A little gut check. Stand on your principles and vote accordingly. Failing to vote takes away your right to complain.
I fully intend to vote for every office up for election...except president. Standing on my principles precludes me from voting for either of those fools for president as in choose your poison.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1286 Sep 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
The 25 worst of the worst leech states in the United States.
The number beside the state is the amount of money they TAKE from those that MAKE money for every dollar they contribute in taxes.
For those that are interesting the RED and the BLUE by each state is how those states would vote today for president.
Iowa 1.10 - BLUE
Nebraska 1.10 - RED
Wyoming 1.11 - RED
Kansas 1.12 - RED
Arizona 1.19 - RED
Idaho 1.21 - RED
Tennessee 1.27 - RED
Maryland 1.30 - BLUE
Missouri 1.32 - RED
S. Carolina 1.35 - RED
Oklahoma 1.36 RED
Arkansas 1.41 - RED
Maine 1.41 - BLUE
Hawaii 1.44 - BLUE
Montana 1.47 - RED
Kentucky 1.51 - RED
Virginia 1.51 - BLUE
S. Dakota 1.53 - RED
Alabama 1.66 - RED
N. Dakota 1.68 - RED
W. Virginia 1.76 - RED
Louisiana 1.78 - RED
Alaska 1.84 - RED
Mississippi 2.02 - RED
New Mexico 2.02 - BLUE
Yes, as John Stewart's show IIRC said at the GOPOX convention, why don't we treat the USA as a CORPORATION?

In that case, we get rid of all of these red states because they have bad ROI. They are losing propositions so we should ditch them by selling them off or, heck, just disowning them.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1287 Sep 21, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam was a heavy handed, brutal dictator. He gassed his own people remember? Stuffed his opponents into plastic spreaders. that's a hell of a way to keep the peace. So, yes. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And staying until the area is stable is/was right also.
Iraq as a democracy -- time will tell.
A little gut check. Stand on your principles and vote accordingly. Failing to vote takes away your right to complain.
So now you rightwingers want to be the world's police on a credit card?

What kind of bad corporate management are you advocating? No wonder the GOPOX cannot government themselves out of a paper bag.
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#1288 Sep 21, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you rightwingers want to be the world's police on a credit card?
What kind of bad corporate management are you advocating? No wonder the GOPOX cannot government themselves out of a paper bag.
Six years of Dem power and there seems to be very little difference in foreign interventions. In fact its worse. Removing dictators and hard liners with no idea what to replace them with. I believe officially they are calling it Democracy. But it is for other reasons. Freedom begins at home. And what we have elected and their unelected officials rule the roost. Its always one party versus the other and the politician we don't like and it is old. What we need is a tea party. A new one not interfered with by anyone. A confederation of men and women with like minded ideas but not etched in stone. Freedom and a common sense approach to foreign affairs is a good start. Domestically, our personal issues put on the back burner until we get out of this mess we are in. This is not going to get done with both parties we have. They answer to others first. Then they answer to their special interests. Then they answer to the people. The Repubs, if elected will give a couple crumbs back to more of the middle class then the progressives. Got nothing from Obama. A lot of people have lost a lot of their wealth. That does not usually portend well for those in power. At best, there will be marginal improvement in our economy and we will limp on a few more years if lucky. That is because the real structural changes needed will not be made. Social security is a just one chip out of many. Just cutting the corruption of the government would save us a massive amount of money. But there are lot of people sucking on that tit and most feel no guilt about it. We had our chance to elect people with at least some integrity and ideas. But they were destroyed. Even laughed at. When I see a cop kicking and tasering a pregnant woman at a protest for example, I laugh to. We love it. Admit it.
Swamp Fox

Savannah, GA

#1289 Sep 21, 2012
Paul Ryan does NOT want to "Fix" Social Security, Paul Ryan wants to ABOLISH Social Security just as Ryan's Guru Ayn Rand wanted to ABOLISH Social Security.
Paul Ryan's Billionaire Backers, the Koch Brothers also want to ABOLISH Social Security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi ...

The Republican Billionaire Koch Brothers Bankroll the Republican Tea Party. I think you need to take a look at what they want for their money.
Notice that one of the Koch Brothers ran for the office of Vice President of the USA on the Libertarian Party Ticket in 1980, so his comments are a matter of public record.

Koch advocated the Abolition of Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, the CIA, the FBI, the FDA, the EPA, the DOE, and Public Schools, just to name a few Gov't Agencies and Departments that he wanted Abolished.
Dang, no wonder Tea Party Texas Governor Rick Perry couldn't remember which agencies he wanted to get rid of for his Koch Brother Bosses.

Note; That the Billionaire Koch Brothers want to Abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance, and they have wanted those programs abolished since,(At Least 1980) 1980 when David Koch ran for Vice President, and publicly called for the abolition of these programs. Koch's position on these programs are a matter of Public Record.
Ayn Rand also wanted to Abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance.
Ayn Rand and David Koch did not want to "fix" these programs, they want them Abolished.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1290 Sep 21, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the modern form of liberalism "mjjcpa" refers to:
1. Liberals do not believe in the greatness of the human spirit. They believe in the greatest of Gov't.
2. Liberals never accept personal responsibility for their actions.
3. Liberals enjoy all things paid for by others.
4. Liberals endorse all forms of dangerous and destructive behavior.
5. Liberals expect others to do things they would never do themselves.
1. False
2. False
3. False
4. False
5. False

At least you are consistent.

Just a note on #3.

Out of the 50 states about 20 are makers and the other 30 are takers. Out of the 30 Taker states about 22 are RED. Of the 20 Maker States the vast majority are BLUE. THe 20 mostly Blue states subsidize the 30 mostly RED states.

The two richest Americans support Democrats and higher taxes for themselves......not you.

The 10 richest Representatives are mostly Democrats.
The 10 Richest Senators are mostly Democrats.

They also support higher taxes on themselves......not you.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1291 Sep 21, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the modern form of liberalism "mjjcpa" refers to:
1. Liberals do not believe in the greatness of the human spirit. They believe in the greatest of Gov't.
2. Liberals never accept personal responsibility for their actions.
3. Liberals enjoy all things paid for by others.
4. Liberals endorse all forms of dangerous and destructive behavior.
5. Liberals expect others to do things they would never do themselves.
BTW: Do you even know if Nevada is a taker or maker state?

Since: Apr 12

Englewood, CO

#1292 Sep 21, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps "foreign student" on the transcript could be a potential problem. Maybe a Constitutional question? We don't know. If Romney is breaking the law, that IRS has his records and can prosecute.
Bite me lib. Your boy is in deep doo-doo. You best find a job and pay your own bills.
Thats sdvise you should take yourself. I have never been unemployeed and have always paid my own way. What is Mittler hiding? That doesn't bother you in the least? He may or may not have broken the law, but why doesn't he want anyone seeing his financial records? His father had no problem doing so.. Whats he up to? Where are his loyalties? You bitch about Obama's bith certificate and college transcripts yet when your guy who is doing at a minimum the same thing, its is ok? Says alot about the Retardican party as a whole.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1293 Sep 21, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam was a heavy handed, brutal dictator. He gassed his own people remember? Stuffed his opponents into plastic spreaders. that's a hell of a way to keep the peace. So, yes. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And staying until the area is stable is/was right also.
Iraq as a democracy -- time will tell.
A little gut check. Stand on your principles and vote accordingly. Failing to vote takes away your right to complain.
First, America should be concerned with what was and is best for America. Not what is best for Iraq.(Didn't you post something about liberals having their nose in other people's business?)

Second, the "democracy" that replaced Saddam is friendlier with Iran than they were us. Saddam would have gladly have taken out Iran's nuclear capability, the new "democracy" supports their efforts.

Finally, there have been many more people killed in the 10 years since Saddam left than in the 10 years before he left. Something for you to consider.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1294 Sep 21, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam was a heavy handed, brutal dictator. He gassed his own people remember? Stuffed his opponents into plastic spreaders. that's a hell of a way to keep the peace. So, yes. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And staying until the area is stable is/was right also.
Iraq as a democracy -- time will tell.
A little gut check. Stand on your principles and vote accordingly. Failing to vote takes away your right to complain.
There are a lot of countries that have dictators, there are lots of places on Earth were people are being murdered, held in prisions, etc., and it is not one country's responsibility to fix all of it. You all want lower taxes but you also want to have a military empire and to spend almost a trillion dollars a year just on military spending. If you want to go into this country and that country and bomb it to death and take out rulers and place new ones in power, etc., then you need to pay a lot more in taxes.

And, the whole entire point here, which why doesn't anyone get it is beyond me, is that oil is now $110 a barrel. Hello??? It was always about $20 a barrel. Imagine the U.S. trying to manufacture, trying to create new jobs with oil being $150 or more a barrel. It can't be done, and oil has gone up dramatically because all of the cheap oil is just about gone, and Iraq has ten percent of the remaining world's oil, and because we invaded Iraq, today the oil companies have control over nationalized oil, over oil in an OPEC country. The oil companies were about to go out of business because cheap oil is running out, they don't get big new oil finds, and most of the world's oil is controlled now by the OPEC countries, so while the big, huge field in Saudi Arabia peaked, Bush attacked Iraq and secured that oil for Exxon and BP. People need to wake up. The Iraq was was an invasion of a country to take control of it's oil for American and British oil companies.

It would be the same as the U.S. bombing the crap out of Venezuela and taking control of its oil for the majors (for the private oil companies), rather than the people of the nation continuing to own their own oil. That's what Bush did in Iraq.

And, god knows, he probably cut a deal with the Saudis to do 9/11 to us as that was the only way Americans would agree to a war in Iraq.

And who made $200 billion in Iraq on government contracts?? Former CEO and stock holder of Halibuton, Dick Cheney. That's war profiteering, and notice how Bush had two wars and big huge profits for the rich. And notice how he borrowed the money rather than taxing citizens to pay for it, so that no one would get mad about two wars. That was the ONLY way he could take control of the oil in an OPEC country. How about he didn't do any of that, instead he faced up to it that oil was running out and he spend that money on other forms of energy here?? That would have been the right thing to do.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1295 Sep 21, 2012
This whole argument that "conservatives" don't want to live off the government is a dead argument. There are 60 million people on social security and Medicare today and another 80 million baby boomers now beginning to go onto SS and Medicare. The estimated costs for the 80 million baby boomers to receive SS and Medicare is $120 TRILLION (with a T) more than they have paid into those two programs and most of those people are now voting Republican and claim to be fiscal conservatives and claim to make it on their own. Wanting $120 TRILLION in socialism is not being anti-socialism, it is not one bit fiscally conservative, it is NOT people making it on their own. It is people living on the government and being on government health care. And, these people are in the group of the 47 percent who do not pay federal taxes. So this phony argument that folks on SS and on Medicare not paying taxes and being on government money and on government health care somehow means OTHER people take money from the government is a nonstarter. SS and Medicare are THE drivers of the debt and were all the huge unfunded liabilities are, so this is where the cuts will have to be made, obviously. You can't have half the nation living on SS and Medicare and have those very people lying that they are somehow independent and not on the government and have them lying that they pay federal income taxes. This crazy talk cannot fly.

I have yet to see one person who claims to hate liberals and who claims to hate liberal policies who does not have their hands out for the liberals' socialist security and government Medicare monies. It's a totally phony deal.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1296 Sep 21, 2012
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama - 328
Romney - 191
Toss-Up - 19

“bar0ckalypse n0w”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#1297 Sep 21, 2012
WHITE HOUSE STORY ON LIBYA FALLS APART...

Clinton: Killings were 'terrorist attack'...

Libyan Official:'We Don't Have Enough Power' To Catch Killers...
Lil

Yorba Linda, CA

#1298 Sep 21, 2012
Ask Obama's own brother what he thinks of Obama. How can Obama handle a nation when he ignores the poverty of his own family? It speaks volumes.

Since: Jan 10

Las Vegas, NV

#1299 Sep 21, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>I fully intend to vote for every office up for election...except president. Standing on my principles precludes me from voting for either of those fools for president as in choose your poison.
You mean to tell me that of all the issues and all the positions neither Romney nor Obama appeal to you in any way? That's a rather narrow minded view. You can make a choice for your national, state and local elected officials, but not the President?

You need to grow up. Prioritize your interests, both for yourself and the nation. Research the candidate's positions. Be objective. Make a decision. Wimp.

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#1300 Sep 21, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean to tell me that of all the issues and all the positions neither Romney nor Obama appeal to you in any way? That's a rather narrow minded view. You can make a choice for your national, state and local elected officials, but not the President?
You need to grow up. Prioritize your interests, both for yourself and the nation. Research the candidate's positions. Be objective. Make a decision. Wimp.
Willard made a fool of himself in Europe and has made some amateurish missteps in his campaign. He left the governor's mansion in Massachusetts with a 36%popularity rating and has NO viable plan to even chip away at our deficit spending. Obama has done little to undo the damage by Dubya and on top of that seems to go out of his way to embrace any and all left wing causes. Sorry, they are both failures and not fit to vote for.

Since: Jan 10

Las Vegas, NV

#1301 Sep 21, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Willard made a fool of himself in Europe and has made some amateurish missteps in his campaign. He left the governor's mansion in Massachusetts with a 36%popularity rating and has NO viable plan to even chip away at our deficit spending. Obama has done little to undo the damage by Dubya and on top of that seems to go out of his way to embrace any and all left wing causes. Sorry, they are both failures and not fit to vote for.
If you lean in any way towards obama then don't vote.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1302 Sep 21, 2012
Get a load of Romney who did not take all of his fat deductions so he did not have a sub 10% tax rate on $13 MILLION of annual income.

No wonder he released the return on a Friday when he hoped no one was paying attention LOL.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Quivering Lip Lib... 70,964
News Senate panel divided over Pompeo for secretary ... 7 min Annie Oakly 7
News Will Trump Fire Rosenstein? It May Not Matter. 8 min Chilli J 20
News Ted Nugent says Parkland survivors are 'mushy b... 12 min javawhey 549
News Trump leaves open possibility of bailing on mee... 13 min Trump Flails Again 5
News If an assault weapons ban can't stop school sho... 14 min Chilli J 777
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 28 min Critical Eye 1,302