Paul Ryan at AARP - Silence and Boos

Paul Ryan Booed By AARP Crowd For Promising To Repeal ‘Obamacare’

Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)was not well received at a gathering held by the American Association of Retired Persons on Friday. After Ryan said the first step to strengthening Medicare is to repeal President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the crowd erupted into boos.

Twitter is buzzing;

Shushannah Walshe ‏@shushwalshe
Huge chant of "No!" When Paul Ryan says he wants to repeal Obamacare.

kirsten powers ‏@kirstenpowers10
Paul Ryan getting booed at AARP for saying Obamcare shld be repealed

Alex Moe ‏@AlexNBCNews
Loud boos for Ryan at AARP when he says: "The first step to a stronger Medicare is to repeal Obamacare" #decision2012
Retweeted by Josh Marshall

Rebecca Kaplan ‏@Rebecca_CBSNJ
This is without a doubt the most unfriendly audience Ryan has spoken to as VP candidate. Audience alterantes between silence and boos. Retweeted by Markos Moulitsas

(courtesy of DU)

you`ll never get elected if you make the old folks mad

there`s like about 100 bazillion aging baby boomers, that`s a lot of votes.

HAHA MIXED REACTION!

Wow why is this not on FOX news!

THIS IS HILARIOUS...keep on smilling Paul keep on selling...like a good business man!

You don't have to take my word for it...these crap sandwiches we are going to force feed you taste great! I have never ate them myself and never will, but you my mixed reaction (WHOLE AUDIENCE BOOS) WILL!

It's actually refreshing to see politicians talk to audiences that don't necessarily agree with them.

I get sick of hearing ever single statement cheered for by partisan audiences.

I'd like to see a lot more of this from both sides.

Do they draw straws for whose turn it is?

Are the Republicans trying to piss off every possible demographic that's out there in the US electorate? Who haven't they annoyed recently?

reply to post by Tardacus


The selfish seniors booed when he talked about protecting the future for younger generations....disgraceful, maybe they should taken better care of their finances instead of depending on the government and a ponzi scheme.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Are the Republicans trying to piss off every possible demographic that's out there in the US electorate? Who haven't they annoyed recently?

The top one percent? That's about all that's left.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Tardacus

 

The selfish seniors booed when he talked about protecting the future for younger generations....disgraceful, maybe they should taken better care of their finances instead of depending on the government and a ponzi scheme.

This may come as a shock to you but not all jobs pay enough to raise a family and pay the bills and have money left over to play the stock market. I guess it's their fault not to have inherited millions like Romney and Ryan huh? It's not the seniors fault Bush used social security as a piggy bank for the wars he started.

The Medicare fact wars: Checking Obama and Ryan’s AARP speeches

Score:

Ryan: False Claims

Obama: Misleading

I'd say it's even on this one.

They should both be boo'd

reply to post by buster2010


Social security was set up as a ponzi scheme from the beginning, not Bush's fault.

You cant keep giving people more money than they put in, doesn't work.

There was a time when people used their money for necessities and saved for the future before tvs, vacations etc. It's called personal responsibility.

Social Security was supposed to help, not your sole retirement.

My husband is a cop, I don't work...we saved money for the future, I won't be getting any SS.

Federal workers don't get ss.

Younger generations are putting money into a system now and that money is being used for seniors...the first ones in get the goodies, the last ones in get screwed.....ponzi scheme.

I'm sure Ryan knew he was in for a tough audience - since his partner Mitts has described this demographic as the 47% of non-federal income tax payers who are "moochers" and see themselves as "victims" and feel they are "entitled to health care and food, etc.".

What earned him the biggest boos are the errant lies he is telling about the $716 billion both sides are claiming in cuts from Medicare. Obama's cut, however, is a reduction in future industry profits (due to Obamacare), in other words a savings. Ryan's cuts come after forcing seniors to switch over to the voucher system and coupons - and worse, on top of the $716 billion the Romney/Ryan plan would cut to the insurance industry payments to seniors, it takes an additional $200 billion out of the benefits side to pay for this "vouchercare".

reply to post by timetothink


But Bush did raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for other things. Remember the 2000 and 2004 Democratic campaign slogans to put Social Security in a "lockbox" - to prevent it from being raided by greedy Congress and a willing Bush admin? Well, Dems lost those elections and the Social Security trust fund was indeed raided.

Alone, Social Security is well-funded and will remain solvent for generations. It is NOT part of the federal budget, and it does not contribute ONE DIME to the National Debt or Deficit.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Tardacus

 

The selfish seniors booed when he talked about protecting the future for younger generations....disgraceful, maybe they should taken better care of their finances instead of depending on the government and a ponzi scheme.

Believe it or not there was a time not so long ago when people actually trusted the government and the government actually did do what they promised to do.
When the baby boomers were growing and raising families and working hard, they were told that all their social security with holdings would be there for them when they retired, they had no reason not to trust the government.

It`s only been within the last 15-20 years that the government has become increasingly openly hostile to it`s citizens and started to blatantly lie to them and rob them. before that the lies and thievery were on a much smaller scale and much more subtle.

This isn`t an issue of selfishness or stupidity it`s an issue of trust in the government.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by buster2010

 

Social security was set up as a ponzi scheme from the beginning, not Bush's fault.

You cant keep giving people more money than they put in, doesn't work.

There was a time when people used their money for necessities and saved for the future before tvs, vacations etc. It's called personal responsibility.

Social Security was supposed to help, not your sole retirement.

My husband is a cop, I don't work...we saved money for the future, I won't be getting any SS.

Federal workers don't get ss.

Younger generations are putting money into a system now and that money is being used for seniors...the first ones in get the goodies, the last ones in get screwed.....ponzi scheme.

social security was set up as a trust fund and as such there would never come a time when people would take out more than they put in. it was only after the government started robbing it and turning it into a ponzi scheme that the problems started.

What a joke. AARP stands to make billions from Obamacare by selling supplemental insurance policies. Wait! AARP is a non-profit it can't make any money. Yeah right! Take a look at how much the people who run AARP pay themselves.

AARP Ways and Means Report

I think more research is needed on SS, the public is believing a bunch of myths partly created by Senior lobbying groups:

Much of the public is convinced that a perfidious Congress is rifling a “trust fund” where our Social Security taxes are “held in trust” to pay future benefits, that this is why Social Security is headed for trouble, and that all Congress has to do to fix Social Security is put this stolen money back. These beliefs crop up perennially in letters to editors.

This mentality is a serious obstacle to Social Security reform. If a looted trust fund is the problem, why bother overhauling Social Security? Just make Congress return the money. Yet this popular belief is utterly mistaken. There is no trust fund, and Congress is doing nothing wrong. What’s more, the source of this misunderstanding is the government’s own public-relations efforts to create support for Social Security.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created an “Old-Aged Reserve Account” in the Treasury and required that every year an amount determined sufficient to pay that year’s benefits was to be appropriated to it. Any of this money not needed for benefits was to be invested in federal debt (including unmarketable debt issued for this purpose) earning 3 percent interest, or other government-guaranteed debt.4

Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson stated that under Social Security, “There is no contract created by which any person becomes entitled as a matter of right to sue the United States or to maintain a claim for any particular sum of money. Not only is there no contract implied but it is expressly negatived, because it is provided in the act, section 1104, that it may be repealed, altered, or amended in any of its provisions at any time.”15

Despite the term “trust,” the Social Security system contains nothing that remotely resembles the common law trust. There is no segregation of assets, no equitable property rights, no private right of enforcement (all characteristics of the common law trust). It is merely a system of taxation and appropriation sprinkled with trust terms to hide its true nature.18

Moreover, Social Security’s Trust Fund does not operate as a trust fund does. Social Security revenues go into the Treasury’s general fund and are automatically credited to the Trust Fund in the form of Treasury bonds. The Treasury pays Social Security benefits and administrative outlays out of general revenue and debits the Trust Fund an equivalent value of bonds. Any leftover Social Security revenue finances general government operations, with an equivalent value of bonds remaining in the Trust Fund as Social Security’s “surplus;” to cover any revenue shortfalls.19

This is how a Treasury account, not a trust fund, works. And calling a Treasury account a “trust fund” to influence public opinion does not make it one. In all respects, then, Social Security’s Trust Fund is bogus.

But after the 1983 Social Security rescue, when Social Security revenues began exceeding outlays and sizable Trust Fund surpluses began accumulating, the charge of Congress’s stealing Social Security’s reserve money reappeared.21 Talk of Congress’s “raiding” or “dipping into” the Trust Fund to cover federal budget deficits continues to this day.22 Spending the Social Security surplus, no real reserve, nothing but worthless IOUs—the old reserve-fund controversy all over again. With one decisive difference: the emotional evocations of the phrase “trust fund.”

The New Dealers did not foresee that this phrase might some day work to weaken rather than strengthen faith in the government and in Social Security.

Lifting assets from a trust fund is a serious crime and a breach of faith and trust.

The more firmly people believe that the Social Security Trust Fund really is a trust fund, the angrier they will be at stories of Congress’s looting it, and the more they will be inclined to believe that this is the reason that Social Security’s financial prospects look shaky.

But as we have seen, there is no trust fund to be looted, only a Treasury account. And Congress is only doing what the Social Security law requires.

www.thefreemanonline.org...

Long article but worth reading, it is from a book written recently explaning how SS really works.

The propaganda about SS has really worked on people that research it for themselves.

reply to post by Tardacus


Read my above post , that is a lie, their is no trust fund.

Originally posted by buster2010
The top one percent? That's about all that's left.

At the rate they're going they'll be down to some old guy in Kentucky called Zeke, who thinks that the telephone wire near his house been tapped by J Edgar Hoover, Stalin and Lord Lucan.

Yeah, mmmmhuuumm, I watched that. Here's what is sad. That people WERE silent and/or booing. WHY AREN"T PEOPLE YIPPY CAYEEING? YOU KNOW WHY???? Cause they're freaking poor! BECAUSE they're under the thumb of "assistance". If being dependant on the government is your goal, then you've met it. If you have greater goals, good for you and well wishes. I think we should all have greater goals than being dependent on the government for our basic needs.