Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"...while Republicans have been clamoring to make this election a false dichotomy between the private sector and the public sector, Paul Ryan — heir to a private fortune made by building public highways — is a gaping pothole in that plan. Paul Ryan is a living, breathing GOP example of how public infrastructure and private entrepreneurship work hand-in-hand."
First it's laughable that the Salon writer goes back to the Ryan family history in the 1800's in the effort to try to discredit him. I guess it is true that the left is really going into desperation mode.
Generally this is a phony attack. A couple years ago in WA state we had a tea party candidate for US Senate named Clint Didier, a former football player who is now a farmer in Eastern WA. He was against farm subsidies, but under the system he was eligible, and so he collected them. The left screamed that he was a big hypocrite. He calmly responded that he didn't like the rules, that he would vote to overturn them, but that he had to operate within the rules. Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey did a column about the attack, utterly dismantling it and exposing it as phony. Opinion | In defense of Clint Didier | Seattle Times Newspaper
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Generally this is a phony attack. A couple years ago in WA state we had a tea party candidate for US Senate named Clint Didier, a former football player who is now a farmer in Eastern WA. He was against farm subsidies, but under the system he was eligible, and so he collected them. The left screamed that he was a big hypocrite. He calmly responded that he didn't like the rules, that he would vote to overturn them, but that he had to operate within the rules. Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey did a column about the attack, utterly dismantling it and exposing it as phony. Opinion | In defense of Clint Didier | Seattle Times Newspaper
Because the rules said he had to take the susbidy he was opposed to, right?
If Paul Ryan's ideas were in place, his father would probably have been putting the money he put into SS into a private account and some would have likely been transferred to him (or inheritied by him) upon his father's death.
You people are really grasping at straws here....his father paid into Social Security. This was money to which his father was entitled. Someone should get the $$$.
Only those under 55 and this is so that the program will exist rather than collapse.
Are you familiar with exponents? Or that you must have a productive base to pay for benefits, but once you have more people drawing than working, the pool of $$ will dry up?
Probably not. Do you suggest will depend on dollar trees? Or rainbows and unicorns?
This seems to be a difficult concept for people from both parties to grasp.
The same logic applies to defense spending as well...
Here's the the deal, Paul Ryan has directly benefited from government programs specifically designed to help people in need.
Now he wants to slam the door in other people's faces. Many people find that hypocritical to say the least.
Could you cite chapter and verse of the Ryan plan that "slam[s] the door in ... people's faces?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.