New Board

For refugees from MyWay and Tek Board II, and for anyone else wishing to participate.


    Paul Ryan

    Share
    avatar
    JJRobinson

    Posts : 521
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 70
    Location : Texas

    Paul Ryan

    Post  JJRobinson on Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:58 am

    SM...What is your take on Paul Ryan for another term as Speaker..?
    avatar
    sinister_midget
    Admin

    Posts : 1888
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 64
    Location : Home

    Re: Paul Ryan

    Post  sinister_midget on Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:22 pm

    He wouldn't be at the top of my list. But the sorts of people who I'd prefer undoubtedly wouldn't get the votes. I think his biggest problem is he tries to be a nice guy and let's the crony clan run him over. I detect the kind of person who could be talked into conservative ideas, but only if conservatives can be louder than good ol' boys, and that's tough to do. I think he sees that a little bit, too. In other words, I don't think he's particularly effective, but I don't see him as a problem all by himself. His only real fault is he lets the wrong people talk him into stuff.

    If he decides there's a mandate to undo most of Obama's damage, to drop the amnesty idea as a first choice policy, to start talking to the conservatives in the House instead of ignoring or marginalizing them, and at least tries to help Trump do some of what needs to be done, I can live with him as a compromise. He can always be removed, even if not a direct removal but a forced resignation. Like happened to Boehner and Gingrich (though for different reasons). If he continues trying to keep going the way he has, he'll need to go. But I think the threat of a real challenge to his district - even one as small is it was - is enough to energize him some in the right direction. I hope so, anyway.

    I see McConnell as a bigger problem. He's the guy still standing who surrendered to Emperor Barry without so much as a whimper or a pretense that there was a fight to be had. He's the one that took impeachment off the table. He's the one that actively fought against the election of conservatives because he doesn't like them. He's the one who surrendered constitutional powers and budgeting to Barry Hussein. Yes, he did those hand-in-hand with Boehner. But Boehner is gone. McConnell's making nice noises these days. But I fear that's all they are, nice noises. Maybe he can become the first Majority Leader of the Senate to be forced to resign if he doesn't straighten up, like real quick.

    BTW I mentioned amnesty above. I don't really have a problem with that. Just so long as it's not first (needs to be around dead last), is limited (nobody who has committed a felony or a variety of misdemeanors since arriving, a cutoff on how long they've been here to preclude letting a guy who slipped across yesterday or last week stick around, can be investigated to confirm there's no criminal background and/or ties to terrorists - something that would leave out a lot of Syrians, for instance), enforces existing laws (fine employers daily for each illegal employed, for just one example, but also catching, holding and returning illegals instead of smiling at them as they walk in), and only comes up for discussion after the border is totally secure, then I'd be more open to the possibility. We're a long way off from that right now, though.

    That's my opinion. And I'm stickin' to it. Until I don't.
    avatar
    JJRobinson

    Posts : 521
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 70
    Location : Texas

    Re: Paul Ryan

    Post  JJRobinson on Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:27 pm

    Thanks...I always enjoy the way you think things thru...About Ryan, I heard that he has his sights on getting rid of Medicare...How can he possibly do that, since we paid for it out of our paychecks..?
    avatar
    sinister_midget
    Admin

    Posts : 1888
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 64
    Location : Home

    Re: Paul Ryan

    Post  sinister_midget on Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:17 pm

    The problem with it is we didn't pay for it. Medicare gets paid out for current recipients with current payroll taxes. You don't invest in Medicare (you don't really invest in SocSec either, but that's the lie they've been telling since it was started). If you work, you pay for the Medicare of somebody. If you're on it and you work, you pay for part of your own. As you earn.

    I hadn't heard that one about Ryan. But if he was going to do it, you can bet there'd be something in its place. At the very worst, and I even doubt this, it would be phased out over time, not totally dropped. But I'm betting he has a different idea if that's really what he wants.

    He'd still have to get it through enough of the House to pass, same with the Senate, and signed by Trump. I don't think he could get a total closure or an obvious mess all through that.

    Trust me, the last thing any of those guys, in either party, wants to do is get seniors all worked up. (Ask Dan "Post Office" Rostenkowski about that since he was accosted by seniors when he got out of his limo one time over the subject of changes to Medicare they didn't like.) The single, most reliable voting block there is is senior citizens.

    But also beware of AARP. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing. They may tell you something that's not true or only half true, but it will be more about what's in it for them than what's really going on.

    In the 90s the Republicans wanted to have seniors pay a little more for their own care. It wasn't significant, but it would have cost about another few percent for each procedure or visit (can't remember which, or if it was both). AARP told seniors that it was a threat, that they'd lose coverage, that they'd have to eat dog food, that they'd be left to die if they couldn't afford to pay and all sorts of other crap. (I think this was the thing Rostenkowski was accosted over.) It was 85% lie, but it was 100% defeated. A couple of months later AARP raised costs of their coverage to the same seniors by about the same amount it was estimated the change would have cost them. In other words, AARP made up a load of BS because they wanted to bill more and assumed they'd lose some people and some money if both things happened.

    AARP was also one of the biggest backers of Obamacare. Why? They looked at what was being written, helped write parts of it, lobbied for it, made commercials in its favor, sent out mailings extolling all of the wonderful things it would mean to seniors, and assured themselves Obamacare would be worth billions to them over 10 years.
    avatar
    JJRobinson

    Posts : 521
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 70
    Location : Texas

    Re: Paul Ryan

    Post  JJRobinson on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:48 am

    So we don't really invest in SS !...Wow, I been lead on all these years...I guess I don't really understand it...AARP has been a joke for years....I try to steer folks away from it when they mention it...To me, they have always been Shysters...And being for obumacare was one of the worst...


    Trump surprised me for wanting to keep certian parts of obumacare....I reckon he read it, and I kinda agree with him...I am kinda wondering about the 26 year old kids, tho...
    avatar
    sinister_midget
    Admin

    Posts : 1888
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 64
    Location : Home

    Re: Paul Ryan

    Post  sinister_midget on Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:40 am

    SS was created the way it was as a ruse. You can draw it at 65. At the time life expectancy was 65. You could get it earlier at a "reduced rate."

    Its one big tear-jerker plank (also a lie) was that it would help support widows who had no income and their money dried up when their husbands died or were killed. Yes, they did a little of that. But that was to support the big lie, which was putting a tax on us that they could spend and it was for a "good cause" that we wouldn't object to.

    The shell game let them take in a lot more than they paid out so they could spend it. Even if you took an early retirement, that retirement was reduced and there were more than enough people forced to pay it to cover that. Those people would have to wait more than 40 years to draw it themselves. So life was good for the spenders.

    But it started with no money. If people were going to get it and they never paid into it, where did that money come from? The same place it comes from now: current workers. That alone exposes the hoax.

    They also added in the idea (another lie) that your employer "pays into your retirement." No they don't You do. If the employer didn't pay that, you could receive it. (That would mean they'd also take it away from you for "retirement" and you might get mighty upset, so they designed to look like you aren't paying it all even though you do.) That's all a part of the cost of employing you. Every mandate on them to keep you around costs them money. Every cent they pay to have you working for them reduces the amount they could pay you. On average a worker gets around 40% in pay of what it costs the employer to have the employee work for them. Most of the other 60% makes its way into government hands in one form or another, or is used for hiring bookkeepers and bean counters to make sure employers don't mess up and get gigantic fines for what may be small mistakes.


    Yes, you pay into the program with an expectancy to get something back. But when you go to get it, there's nothing there until somebody works to put it there so you can get it (that is, until recently when a large chunk of it started coming from regular taxes). It's been that way from the beginning.

    What's worse is, if people would have been allowed to keep it all and invest it as they saw fit, many would be better off. Of course, most wouldn't invest it. Or they'd put it into bad deals. But rules and mandates could have addressed that. Being forced into one of a variety of options would have been better than the current mess. It could have been more like the system Chile set up that did very, very well compared to Social Security. The main reason not to do it, though, was it put the money out of the reach of they guys writing the IOUs, and we can't have that.

    In 1981 Galveston County in Texas pulled out and started their own plan. (In 1983 the federal government changed the law so nobody else could do that.) The structure is different, so there's no direct comparison since options for receiving it are altered, it's dependent on how much and how long a worker stayed in the workforce, etc. But for a lot of people it does them better than Social Security. For some it's not as good. More importantly, it shows that there were other ideas, some better, some worse.


    Once upon a time there was a "surplus." Except there wasn't. There was/is/will be a bunch of IOUs. Congress has been spending the money since it was collected from the very first payroll deduction. Bill Clinton promised a "lockbox" so the money couldn't be touched. Well, the "lockbox" wasn't needed for money. It was needed for the IOUs perhaps. But those weren't being bothered anyway.

    We're at the point where they can't get enough workers to pay for current recipients. (Mostly because there are so many people retired and so few people born in recent decades to pay in to support retirees. It's been heavily influenced by this stellar economy we've been living with under Barack Obama. You may have heard of him and his awesome economic recovery. It's also been made worse by their wink-and-nod approach to handing out SSI to "handicapped" people. Parents have been known to have their kids act up like they have a mental problem. They get "evaluated" by an "expert" who determines they're "handicapped" in some fashion, an evaluator that also happens to work for the Social Security Administration and only has a job if "handicapped" people are evaluated by them. Then the families of these kids who are "handicapped" today, even though they were normal yesterday, start getting SSI. It all comes from the same pot of non-existent money.) The "surplus" stopped being talked about as soon as the amount of money supposedly in the "trust" (remember, it was all IOUs anyway) was more than arrived in taxes. But that's only because it was never really there to begin with. You may or may not have noticed that they talked about a "surplus" regularly in the 90s. (They most likely got it from the same place Bubba kept finding trillions of dollars in "budget surpluses" at the time - a place I wouldn't want to touch on him that surely doesn't smell too nice.) They even went so far as to mention the mythical "surplus" was drying up by 2020 (or maybe it was 2032) and they'd have to dig into general funds. That was what the subject of Bubba's "lockbox" was all about. Republicans (rightly) talked about the Democrats spending it. In response, Slick Willie promised to lock "it" away so it couldn't be touched. The "it" he was talking about, though, was the IOUs, not money. Because there wasn't any money. Anyway, around the beginning of this century all mention of a "surplus" stopped. That's because they were already to the point all that was left was the IOUs that they're never going to make good. Instead of the system going broke later on, it was broke already. They've been taking from general funds for close to 10 years. All of this adds up to one of the many reasons they want illegal immigrants to stick around to help pay for it. (That might work if they chose to keep the productive ones and send the drains back, but we can't "discriminate" against the invaders of our country and choose only those who abide by laws and add something to the nation instead of sucking it away.) They sometimes accidentally allude to illegals helping to keep things like Social Security alive, but other liberals run over and stuff a sock in the mouths of people saying that pretty quickly. The last thing they want is for people to put 2 and 2 together and figure out they've been had for 3/4 of a century.

    They've called Social Security an "investment" so you and I won't gripe about it because we feel we're contributing to our own futures. But the truth is, it's going to collapse eventually because it was a lie from the very first time it was mentioned. Think Obamacare as explained by FDR.

    Collapse is inevitable. Eventually there's going to be nothing in the budget except payments for Social Security.

    Medicare is worse. I won't go too deeply into it now. But it was "guaranteed" to be no more than $9 billion by 1990 when they came up with it. It was over $100 billion and growing fast that year. In 2014 it was $505 billion. And they aren't even paying doctors enough to recoup costs (meaning they have to raise costs on everybody else to make it up). Some doctors have dropped out, and many more are on the verge of doing so. Cutting payments to doctors who are quitting it because the reimbursements are being cut is how they "hold down costs" on the program.

    Between the two of them, they used up 28% of the total 2014 budget. Social Security was 24%. In a few more years Medicare will be tied, and combined they'll be more than 60% of the entire budget. Maybe as high as 75% by the time they're equal in the budget.

    This is how economies collapse. Not blaming the people who fall for the lies. I blame the government people (nearly always leftists) who promise the moon to make themselves rich and powerful and adored, then leave the mess for somebody in the future to clean it up. They almost always know they're lying. But they also know they won't have to answer for it later.

    It's like Obamacare was supposed to do. Except Obamacare was deliberately designed to fail since they assumed it would be left in the hands of Democrats who would "fix it" long enough that all hell would break loose on anybody trying to get rid of it a few more years down the road. As it turned out happened with Social Security and Medicare. But in the case of Obamacare they came up with it at a time when Democrats have been getting smashed in elections. (The one exception being Obama himself when he was on the ballot. Even then Democrats other than him didn't do so well.) Its doom was created because they didn't follow the usual formula like they did with the aforementioned programs. That's to start small, build slowly, weave it into the fabric, then let political assassinations begin against anybody who tries to undo it even though failure of the program is guaranteed.

      Current date/time is Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:53 pm