Paul Ryan's position on economic issues

Originally posted by Valhall
Clinton put the first needed curtailments on welfare recipients, to use the program as a stop-gap assistance program until you could find a job, instead of how it has been abused as a way of life.

'nuff said.

edit on 8-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Are there no productive jobs people on welfare can handle? sitting in a factory pressing a button? theres a lot of starving people in america,,, to me life is 75 percent about eating,, why dont we create big farms for people on welfare to work on for food and money? take care of the biggest necessity,, because it seems if noone was on welfare our nation would have no problems..

Originally posted by ImaFungi
why dont we create big farms for people on welfare to work on for food and money? take care of the biggest necessity,, because it seems if noone was on welfare our nation would have no problems..

I believe that's called socialism. If you like to live in that type of country I can provide you a list of currently sustaining socialist countries. This list is short, and it depends on the integrity of the reports from the government of the country, but I do believe you can find some place that is currently operating that would suit your needs.

You're trying to find a government fix (a force actually) to make people have a productive output. The problem with your theory is that it only works for those willing to work...or pretend to work while they pretend to get paid.

You're talking about a socialist society. Only problem is...in America, we have a bunch of people who think "socialist society" means they will get as much as possible for nothing at all". That's not what you have in mind. Even though what you have in mind is totally different, what you have in mind is against the foundation of American society. We became a nation to break free from indentured servitude. I don't think we want to go back to it just because it is the only recourse to not starving. It's still owing your soul to the government store.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by ImaFungi
why dont we create big farms for people on welfare to work on for food and money? take care of the biggest necessity,, because it seems if noone was on welfare our nation would have no problems..

I believe that's called socialism. If you like to live in that type of country I can provide you a list of currently sustaining socialist countries. This list is short, and it depends on the integrity of the reports from the government of the country, but I do believe you can find some place that is currently operating that would suit your needs.

You're trying to find a government fix (a force actually) to make people have a productive output. The problem with your theory is that it only works for those willing to work...or pretend to work while they pretend to get paid.

You're talking about a socialist society. Only problem is...in America, we have a bunch of people who think "socialist society" means they will get as much as possible for nothing at all". That's not what you have in mind. Even though what you have in mind is totally different, what you have in mind is against the foundation of American society. We became a nation to break free from indentured servitude. I don't think we want to go back to it just because it is the only recourse to not starving. It's still owing your soul to the government store.

edit on 8-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

yes but i simply gave a solution,,, to the non stop complaining of the taxpayers who feel in servitude of the welfare state... to make you happy...... why doesnt some rich guy make a bunch of private farms and higher welfare recipiants to ween them off of welfare,, have a program where a lot of the food is sold for profit at supermarkets,, and some of the food goes to the workers a long with a pay ( even a little above minumum wage would be nice)

Originally posted by ImaFungi

yes but i simply gave a solution,,, to the non stop complaining of the taxpayers who feel in servitude of the welfare state... to make you happy...... why doesnt some rich guy make a bunch of private farms and higher welfare recipiants to ween them off of welfare,, have a program where a lot of the food is sold for profit at supermarkets,, and some of the food goes to the workers a long with a pay ( even a little above minumum wage would be nice)

So basically the concept is for a company to start work farms and pay people to pick food, right? Because things like large crops (wheat, corn, soy beans, etc.) are done with large equipment. We couldn't afford the food from the large crops if they were all hand picked. So we're talking about basically what happens in California (which means these farms already exist). Okay, so I haven't heard of a great exodus of welfare-recipients out of the LA or San Diego areas out to the avocado fields to do a hard day's work, have you?

No, they haven't headed out there to get a job.

So since we already have a working "test lab" that is proving that the people on entitlement programs won't opt to work instead of get a hand-out because it's too hard and not enough money (even if you raise to just above minimum wage - which again would cause your food source to become extremely expensive), it's too hard and dirty of work when it's easier just to take your little welfare card down to the Wally world and buy what you want. You get free cell phones, free healthcare coverage, and you get your car insurance paid for and your car repairs paid for and you don't have to do a thing! 'Cept maybe have another baby every once in a while to make sure the checks don't stop.

So where the farms already exist and the entitlement receivers are nearby, the experiment isn't working. Now you're talking about creating farms (which won't be next to Chicago, Detroit, etc. because the climates aren't right for the types of crops needing manual labor) and asking people in Chicago, Detroit, etc. "Hey, we'd like to ship you down to (fill in the blank that is 1500 miles away) so you can pick avocados, or lettuce, or (fill in the produce name)." That's like saying "death or cake?" to someone who is on an entitlement program being handed "free money" every month, right?

Another for instance....did you know that right now in America there is an extreme shortage of truck drivers? Let me say that again...WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TRUCK DRIVERS RIGHT NOW. By a LOT, by the way. So we have record unemployment, people on entitlement programs (most of those people have nothing to do with the job losses by the way), and truck driving positions sitting unfilled.

hmmm. Seems that enticement by producing jobs where you have to get off your ass and do something for money versus just wait until the first of the month and have it handed to you....don't work! You have to cut off the first of the month free money in order to MAKE people go find a job. Work or cake? As long as the cake is offered, they're going to eat cake!

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Valhall
Clinton put the first needed curtailments on welfare recipients, to use the program as a stop-gap assistance program until you could find a job, instead of how it has been abused as a way of life.

'nuff said.

edit on 8-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Are there no productive jobs people on welfare can handle? sitting in a factory pressing a button? theres a lot of starving people in america,,, to me life is 75 percent about eating,, why dont we create big farms for people on welfare to work on for food and money? take care of the biggest necessity,, because it seems if noone was on welfare our nation would have no problems..

The only problem with this is that half the country is in a drought, destroying corn and soybean crops. You can't put 'em to work if there aren't many crops to pick.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
He is the VP pick and he will just play the roll of backseat fodder as he runs around the country espousing the greatness of Romney's ideals.

He HAS to say Romney is wonderful ... he's a politician and all that. But if you think Ryan is going to be 'in the backseat' .. guess again. HE is the one that understands the economy and economics and HE is the one that is actually qualified ... Romney not so much.

Originally posted by Valhall
This guy is sincere and he's got what it takes. I think choosing him may have just won the election:

I agree that choice of Ryan was a VERY VERY good one. But I don't know if it will win Romney the election. For some reason people are ignoring the very high unemployment rate that has plaqued this country all through the Obama administration and they are ignoring all the lies Obama's been caught in etc etc. It's really strange ...

Electoral Map

The electoral map has Obama way ahead.
I'm looking forward to seeing it in the next few weeks after Ryan/Romney polls come in.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Valhall
This guy is sincere and he's got what it takes. I think choosing him may have just won the election:

I agree that choice of Ryan was a VERY VERY good one. But I don't know if it will win Romney the election. For some reason people are ignoring the very high unemployment rate that has plaqued this country all through the Obama administration and they are ignoring all the lies Obama's been caught in etc etc. It's really strange ...

Electoral Map

The electoral map has Obama way ahead.
I'm looking forward to seeing it in the next few weeks after Ryan/Romney polls come in.

110 toss ups! That's the part we've got to watch.

My personal take is no single party is going to be a panacea – ever.

What I don’t understand is all the floundering around about the economy.

Let’s see, let large corporate manufacturing bases move off shore and out of the country – check.

Continue to increase military spending and obligations abroad – check.

Allow massive bailouts of financial industries- check.

Scratch our heads in bewilderment and point accusatory fingers as to why the budget won’t balance and people don’t have jobs- check.

None of this was accomplished in its entirety nor were the full effects felt during a single administration, it’s been a process that has taken years.

And wonder why we have more people on unemployment and welfare and then have people proclaiming loudly that all those people are lazy and shiftless and even worthless and should not receive any kind of benefits from the government that allowed a large portion of our manufacturing base to move offshore… Yep, NAFTA and all that kind of corporate coddling have really helped the people, just not the majority of people. Personally, I don’t expect any miracles unless it is coming in the form of a religious deity!

Ryan to me, appears to be a way for the right to further align their players, (aka Walker, Koch Brothers etc.) to get their stakes in on the (literal) power grabs that are taking place. I think it’s leading to more consolidation and centralization of wealth and power. Par for the course IMHO.

reply to post by Valhall


Yeah, Clinton's welfare proposals were a very good thing.

Cradle to grave welfare was created under Nixon, but the bigger plan was began in the forties by the banks, who by controlling approval of mortgage lending, literally get to control where people live. Blacks were concentrated around sports arenas and airports and other chosen spots, and the welfare ghettos were socially engineered.

Just one of the many ways the bankers, who are the real PTB, control society and pit us against each other through control of the money supply.

reply to post by Valhall


This whole post sounds like it is taken out of some right wing propaganda book.

You cant get a job picking fruit in CA unless you recently crossed the border. Wages are so low, that only people who come from horribly oppressed circumstances are willing to work at those wages. Repub admins have purposely allowed illegals to enter the US at will, setting up programs so that the biggest welfare expense on the US goes to illegals, Medicaid.

Don't you believe in the laws of supply and demand? If there is a shortage of truckers then wages should rise.

What is really sad, is that in your welfare rant, you ignore the biggest welfare queens of them all, big corporations.

You mention truckers, well the shipping industry is heavily subsudized by the government. Through gas taxes we more than pay for the roads and the maintenance of these roads, yet they still charge us all those tolls, collected by private corporation on roads that we paid for in the first place. 95% of the cost of maintaining our roads is due to the damage caused by semi trucks.

That big hugely expensive US Navy, and the ports and the roads and the airports that allows big corporations to export our jobs, all paid for by the fed gov., and this Ryan you support wants your children to pay for it all.

It is truly pathetic how repub supporters have been completely brain washed into believing complete nonsense.

How can you support a politician whose plan is to enslave the US public to debt?

reply to post by Valhall


I am concerned about the modernization of the retirement age. It is very hard to go up against young nubile trainable young women to compete for a job position. It is rarely based on a persons ability but more about the whole health/image related thing. It is hard at 50, but going to look for another job at 70, 75? Who would you hire?