Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I would call you an idiot, but that would be an insult to idiots.

This is not the case. My wife is 53. This would also affect her in 10 or 12 years not 30. She has been working and paying in since she was 18 and the Ryan plan makes her nervous.

Dennis D on September 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

It “makes her nervous”? You should be a hell of a lot more nervous if nothing is done with Medicare. Try finding a doctor today that will take Medicare. That’s going to get much worse because little Bammie is stealing from Medicare to fund Obamacare, and millions more will be going to doctors expecting to get Medicare-level rates with their Obamacare card.

Medicare’s not worth a damn if no doctor will take it.

A more meanigful comparison would be net jobs. The most meaningful comparison is the percentage of the population of the proper age range that is fully employed.

This add has been arround for about two weeks. It never gets answered.

The truth is that Bush was very bad and Obama is terrible.

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM

You are in the habit of using words without knowing their meaning, nonsensical and rant being just two of them. Like I said, if you don’t understant the point and the references within the post, that’s not my problem.

I think old people need to keep or get a JOB!

Simply repeating your question does not reduce its inanity. Perhaps if you were specific, such as, “Do you have a solution to X”? whatever X may be. If you didn’t understand the point of the post and the references within, that’s not my problem.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Here is your hysterical and nonsensical post (of which I was being polite giving it the status of a complaint rather than a mental illness breakdown):

Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, the greatest entitlement expansion in decades.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

RYAN IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE

and the sheep swallow it whole

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So I asked you a rational question of “what’s your solution” to the above hysterical rant. I can see how you’d confuse a sedate and benign question of “what’s your solution” to the above because it isn’t the equivalent of setting my hair on fire and running into traffic, but okay.

Continue on, blowhard. You are quick to complain, extremely slow to actually produce a useful answer/solution.

ALL taxation is a form of wealth transfer. However, we can’t simply do away with all taxes. Despite what libertarians would sometimes have us believe, there does have to be government in some form. The Constitution does, you know, specify things that the federal government is allowed to do.

So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have taxes for some things while arguing against taxes for other things. There is no inherent hypocrisy there. Now, whether NASA should be a part of that role of government is up for legitimate debate. But simply saying “you don’t want to tax me for x, so you can’t think it’s okay to tax me for y” is absurd.

Shump on September 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Oh, and FYI, since you’re confused about libertarianism, libertarians favor there being a government. Anarchists do not. True, anarchism is the logical conclusion for libertarianism, but it doesn’t change the fact that libertarians believe there should be a government in place.

You have two generations of people who were forced to pay into this system a substantial amount of their earnings. They were forced to pay into it even if they voted for candidates that did not get elected who promised to either make the system solvent or eliminate the system. When you include employer contributions (which could have been salary instead), that’s 15% of peoples’ earnings that could have contributed to a substantial nest egg. Just eliminating the system in one fell swoop and leaving those people with nothing would be criminal given the persistent assurances that those benefits would be there when they retired.

AZfederalist on September 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

It was criminal to take their money to begin with. It is no less criminal to take money from others’ in order to give it to the first group. So try again: Give me a good reason why it can’t be eliminated at once that doesn’t involve seizing more money from people.

… and I want to make this perfectly clear to you troll, so that you know my position:

How dare you judge me and what I have or have not done when you have no idea who or what I have supported during my working career and political life.

I DO not have to look at your life to JUDGE its accomplishments on these programs. They are clear. They still exist and you are demanding that some other SUCKER pay for your failure to FIX a problem that has been well known since the INCEPTION of SOCIAL SECURITY in the 1930s. Those who passed it knew it was unsustainable, as was written in their journals which were made public post death.

You have no clue and your judgmentalism is beneath contempt. Your assumptions of what I have voted for and supported are complete and utter bullshiite. My position is based upon the principled position that once you have implemented something, promised something, and then extorted money from people to pay for those promises, you don’t just suddenly say, “Never mind, we didn’t mean it, good luck on your own!”

Very commnedable of you. So what you are saying is the people who had the power to vote for something else are demanding that people who never had the power of the vote, or are just getting the power of the vote are responsible for paying for the policies that your group vote accomplished? Once you promised YOURSELF money from other people’s pockets, it belongs to you? You call me contemptable? It does not matter what your votes were, they failed. You should have used your free speech and convinced people.

Your self-righteous attitude reeks of the same smugness we get from the liberal trolls. I’ve pretty much spent my time scrolling over your endless Paulian rants; I’ll be scrolling that much more quickly in the future. Your post above demonstrates that you have not only no viable candidate, you have no soul.

AZfederalist on September 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

My Paulian rants? what kind of reading comprehension do you have? I am not a libertarian in any way the word is used these days. Your dependence on government and demand that other people who have no responsibility at all towards you pay for that dependence is certainly a LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE troll.

ALL taxation is a form of wealth transfer. However, we can’t simply do away with all taxes. Despite what libertarians would sometimes have us believe, there does have to be government in some form. The Constitution does, you know, specify things that the federal government is allowed to do.

So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have taxes for some things while arguing against taxes for other things. There is no inherent hypocrisy there. Now, whether NASA should be a part of that role of government is up for legitimate debate. But simply saying “you don’t want to tax me for x, so you can’t think it’s okay to tax me for y” is absurd.

Shump on September 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

1. Why can we not do away with all taxes?

2. Why does there have to be government in some form?

3. The Constitution is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

And yes, there is hypocrisy in arguing against taxes for one thing but being in favor of taxation for another, especially when the reason given is opposition to wealth transfers.

So why can’t you just eliminate it? Give me a good reason that doesn’t involve seizing more money from people.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You have two generations of people who were forced to pay into this system a substantial amount of their earnings. They were forced to pay into it even if they voted for candidates that did not get elected who promised to either make the system solvent or eliminate the system. When you include employer contributions (which could have been salary instead), that’s 15% of peoples’ earnings that could have contributed to a substantial nest egg. Just eliminating the system in one fell swoop and leaving those people with nothing would be criminal given the persistent assurances that those benefits would be there when they retired.

I want to make this perfectly clear so you know my position.

I do not see you as a victim. I do not see 80 year olds as victims. What I see are the very people who are the criminals who voted for ever increasing wealth transfers from younger people to older ones. I grew up in the 80′s with Reagan on the TV. I never imagined there would be money in those accounts to pay for me, and I still do not. I do not count myself as a victim, even if I get nothing in return for the money I paid in TAXES. More than 24 years of them. I work to get rid of them, for 20 of those 24 years. I have written presidents and congressmen on them.

It is you and the current elderly who are the criminals in this, not victims.

astonerii on September 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

… and I want to make this perfectly clear to you troll, so that you know my position:

How dare you judge me and what I have or have not done when you have no idea who or what I have supported during my working career and political life. You have no clue and your judgmentalism is beneath contempt. Your assumptions of what I have voted for and supported are complete and utter bullshiite. My position is based upon the principled position that once you have implemented something, promised something, and then extorted money from people to pay for those promises, you don’t just suddenly say, “Never mind, we didn’t mean it, good luck on your own!”

Your self-righteous attitude reeks of the same smugness we get from the liberal trolls. I’ve pretty much spent my time scrolling over your endless Paulian rants; I’ll be scrolling that much more quickly in the future. Your post above demonstrates that you have not only no viable candidate, you have no soul.

So it’s totally uncool to seize people’s property for Medicare through coercion and force, but it’s totallly cool to seize people’s property for NASA through coercion and force. one transfer of wealth is uncool, but another transfer of wealth is cool.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

ALL taxation is a form of wealth transfer. However, we can’t simply do away with all taxes. Despite what libertarians would sometimes have us believe, there does have to be government in some form. The Constitution does, you know, specify things that the federal government is allowed to do.

So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have taxes for some things while arguing against taxes for other things. There is no inherent hypocrisy there. Now, whether NASA should be a part of that role of government is up for legitimate debate. But simply saying “you don’t want to tax me for x, so you can’t think it’s okay to tax me for y” is absurd.

The Boomer demographics are the death knell of the M&Ms, SSA and the rest of the ‘entitlements’.

If we try really, really hard, cut the rest of the federal government to the bone, get rid of the tax incentives for insurance, block grant out half the M&M money for the States to use and then decrease that over a few years, allow an opt-out for SSA and to put taxation of investment gains out of the reach of the federal government and kill the retirement age completely… that we just might be able to do. If we get rid of other major pieces of the government as well, along with the banking laws involving quasi-federal agencies being in mortgages… cut these off completely along with a number of other agencies that are doing things that States can do better. None of the ‘entitlements’ can be ‘guaranteed’ to those currently IN THEM without major structural reform and getting the federal government out of these areas completely. Get rid of the nice words that lie to the American people about these programs and make them pure taxing and spending problems. They are not piggybanks, lock boxes, or any form of ‘investment’ because they are not real property just promises of spending from future taxation.

Charities, State and local governments are the ones that need to worry about these things, not the US federal government.

Demographics and the rate of increase in life expectancy are outstripping old 20th century and 19th century ideas of ‘retirement’ and even ‘frail old age’. Look at the huge strides of medicine in just the last 20 years and one can see that this is true. The next gen of medical advances will be built upon those, and approaching aging as a disease… a treatable condition that can be slowed, perhaps halted or even reversed. In any of those scenarios the idea of ‘entitlements’ or even of ‘school age’ or having a ‘biological clock’ fly out the window. Time to cut the ties to the old ways of thinking and start to ask ourselves how we can give our children the tools to deal with a life that may require 6, 8 or 10 different careers and constant self-education, and medicine that is no longer tied to doctors, surgeons or anything we have grown accustomed to just because it was what we grew up with. These Progressive notions are tied to a dead past of an expected and relatively short life… time to get with the 21st century where these things aren’t going to be the expectation any more. Weaning ourselves from these programs isn’t just fiscally responsible, isn’t just returning liberty back to the individual and the lowest forms of government, but they will be made obsolete by the things we create.

This means, unfortunately, that we may never get rid of the Baby Boomers.

But we might be able to move off-planet and leave the most backwards looking of them behind.

Do you have something to offer in the form of a solution? Since you think such a question is “inane” and you haven’t bothered to offer such as of yet, I’ll take that as a “no”.

Just another blowhard. Thanks for confirming it.

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Simply repeating your question does not reduce its inanity. Perhaps if you were specific, such as, “Do you have a solution to X”? whatever X may be. If you didn’t understand the point of the post and the references within, that’s not my problem.

*sad face* How come you don’t want to answer my question, Mr. Dante? You have plenty of criticism, but no practical or useful suggestions. Why is that?

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Because your question is inane.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM

So is your constant hectoring without even a sniff of a solution.

It’s easy to criticize. Do you have something to offer in the form of a solution? Since you think such a question is “inane” and you haven’t bothered to offer such as of yet, I’ll take that as a “no”.

Just another blowhard. Thanks for confirming it.

But the Ryan plan is not on the table here. The Romney plan allows a choice. Choice is good. If they make the new plan attractive enough, your wife can choose it. If not she can stay with the one now.

So it is a win/win for her. What is there to fear in that?

petunia on September 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Oh, wonderful, benevolent Romney! You will “allow” us to have a choice in your great wisdom and mercy!

“President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want!”

*sad face* How come you don’t want to answer my question, Mr. Dante? You have plenty of criticism, but no practical or useful suggestions. Why is that?

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Because your question is inane.

I would prefer the ad if it were truthful. Rubio ended it with ” when we retire in 30 years”. This is not the case. My wife is 53. This would also affect her in 10 or 12 years not 30. She has been working and paying in since she was 18 and the Ryan plan makes her nervous.

Dennis D on September 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

But the Ryan plan is not on the table here. The Romney plan allows a choice. Choice is good. If they make the new plan attractive enough, your wife can choose it. If not she can stay with the one now.

So it is a win/win for her. What is there to fear in that?

I want to make this perfectly clear so you know my position.

I do not see you as a victim. I do not see 80 year olds as victims. What I see are the very people who are the criminals who voted for ever increasing wealth transfers from younger people to older ones. I grew up in the 80′s with Reagan on the TV. I never imagined there would be money in those accounts to pay for me, and I still do not. I do not count myself as a victim, even if I get nothing in return for the money I paid in TAXES. More than 24 years of them. I work to get rid of them, for 20 of those 24 years. I have written presidents and congressmen on them.

It is you and the current elderly who are the criminals in this, not victims.

astonerii on September 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

So it’s totally uncool to seize people’s property for Medicare through coercion and force, but it’s totallly cool to seize people’s property for NASA through coercion and force. one transfer of wealth is uncool, but another transfer of wealth is cool.

Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, the greatest entitlement expansion in decades.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

RYAN IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE

and the sheep swallow it whole

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM

And what’s your practical and guaranteed solution, sunshine?

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM
Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

*sad face* How come you don’t want to answer my question, Mr. Dante? You have plenty of criticism, but no practical or useful suggestions. Why is that?

AZfederalist on September 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I want to make this perfectly clear so you know my position.

I do not see you as a victim. I do not see 80 year olds as victims. What I see are the very people who are the criminals who voted for ever increasing wealth transfers from younger people to older ones. I grew up in the 80′s with Reagan on the TV. I never imagined there would be money in those accounts to pay for me, and I still do not. I do not count myself as a victim, even if I get nothing in return for the money I paid in TAXES. More than 24 years of them. I work to get rid of them, for 20 of those 24 years. I have written presidents and congressmen on them.

It is you and the current elderly who are the criminals in this, not victims.

I think this is going to be very effective.

I think the campaign has a good plan to take Florida

But I am still worried about Ohio. I hear it tends to go Republican at the last minute… and that some people are very comfortable we will take it.

But the polls….

I hope the coal ads will swing it.

Some good news. Yesterday I was on a chat with a campaign worker in Iowa who told us that the internal campaign polling in Iowa says Mitt is up 3 points in Iowa.

Here’s hoping WI and Iowa are like minded this year.

There was a nice write up about this concerted effort to surpress Republican enthusiasm online. Obamas record
Cant be defended with facts and figures, so alternative means are employed…we’ll see how they do.

I’ll disagree with you on this. Space is an important aspect of our future. Having the government pave the way and keep it safe from enemy action is highly important. From manned missions to actual colony building, which feeds the nations character of explorers, these are things the government should be doing.

Based on your argument against NASA I can imagine the Lousiana purchase and Stewards Folly both would have been anethama to your world view. I do not share that aspect of your world view. You should maybe reconsider. NASA is NOT bankrupting the nation.

astonerii on September 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Ok, for argument’s sake, let’s accept as true your pronouncement that “Space is an important aspect of our future.”

That in no way whatsoever means that because it’s an important aspect of our future, government must be involved.

My position has nothing to do with bankrupting the nation.