Paul Ryan at AARP - Silence and Boos

It's hilarious that the Romney campaign has completely alienated its voting base - old white people.

he looks like a college kid

I am wondering ...

Why are people on Medicare "all for" ObamaCare?
What does ObamaCare do to make Medicare better (or worse) ?
What was wrong with Medicare before ObamaCare ?

I thought AARP was slanted to Left Wing agendas ?

I wonder if the "crowd" had planted disruptors ?

Originally posted by xuenchen
I am wondering ...

Why are people on Medicare "all for" ObamaCare?
What does ObamaCare do to make Medicare better (or worse) ?
What was wrong with Medicare before ObamaCare ?

I thought AARP was slanted to Left Wing agendas ?

I wonder if the "crowd" had planted disruptors ?

I wonder if you're continuing to stir, mate. AARP tend to be very well informed about the fine details of Medicare, as it's hellishly important to them. Mr Ryan walked into an ambush all of his own making. What a moron.

Originally posted by Monger
It's hilarious that the Romney campaign has completely alienated its voting base - old white people.

I suspect that the Romney Unit's campaign is going to plumb a lot of depths...

reply to post by timetothink


I don't think you have the whole picture. The Greenspan Commission recommended that an additional 1 cent per dollar (it had been 12 cents per dollar, it went up to 13 cents per dollar, half from the employee, half from the employer) be collected so that a SURPLUS would accumulate to accommodate the baby boom bubble. The idea was that there would be several trillion to draw on when the boomers retired. They started taking out the extra money immediately.

Now it had been customary in the past to put any surplus from social security withholdings into the general fund (i.e. what the federal government collects through other taxes, like the income tax. That surplus was relatively insignificant. But with the increased withholdings resulting in a bigger surplus to protect the boomers when they retired, the thought was that this practice would stop. What was the point in collecting more money if it was just going to be spent? It wouldn't be there when we needed it.

And there were attempts to stop it. The problem was it helped to obscure the TRUE deficit, because money borrowed from the fund was, incredibly, not actually classified as "borrowed" money. So we have the Reagan tax cuts, resulting in much larger deficits than Jimmy Carter ever had, and the surplus was used to help finance those. The deficits, in general, just got bigger and bigger, and every penny of the surplus was spent.

Clinton comes along and the deficit starts going down, until finally we have a supposed "surplus." But the much of the surplus in SS was still being spent, except for one year, when none was spent.

Then the Bush tax cuts nailed the lid on the coffin -- this after Bush promised not to raid Social Security. And these were years that the surplus was the largest, because the boomers were in their 40s, 50s and early 60s and at the peak of their earning potential. Finally, Obama comes along, and there is no longer a surplus. There was supposed to be a 2.7 TRILLION dollar surplus. Gone. Spent. Frankly, mostly on tax cuts for the rich (the top rate was 70 percent for the richest people in 1981. It's 34 percent now).

So does spending the surplus get fingered as the problem? No. It's greedy seniors. Those selfish people (who paid in to the fund all their lives). It's the programs themselves, not all the money that was taken from them and is no longer there.

Those of us who raised the alarm about this all the way back in the 1980s and 90s were dismissed by right wing politicians as being somewhat laughable alarmists because, "the money is simply being replaced by T-bills. T-bills are the most reliable investment in the world! There's no way the money won't be paid back."

The problem is not that we overspent. We under-taxed. The problem is that it takes zero political courage to oppose a tax increase, and almost none to be for a tax cut. And we have a republican party with a majority of members who have taken a pledge to a man, Grover Norquist, to never raise taxes. It doesn't matter what's right for America, they are duty bound to a single man on tax issues.

So it's no wonder the seniors booed.

Originally posted by xuenchen
I wonder if the "crowd" had planted disruptors ?

Ya, and all the Lies Ryan said at the GOP, were dubbed in too I guess.

Team Romney is pathetic...

First it was :
REPEAL obamacare for the GOP primaries

Towards the end when it was more obvious he was going to win it, it turned into:
REPLACE obamacare

Then when it was Romney vs Obama it became:
I'm OK with parts of obamacare

And now his VP is still going around the country telling people they will:
REPEAL obamacare?

Whats next?
Obamacare for ALL and Obamacare for NONE?

The AARP is doing a dandy job of laying a snow job on it's members. A % tore their cards up after Obamacare passed with Pelosi and her ridiculous 'gotta pass it to see whats in it'. They were the wise ones and the AARP is like so many others. Great folks until politics came to drive everything they USED TO stand for.

Well, I see the budget and I see the Baby Boomer retirement and I see the Baby Boomer Medical combining to to take trillions in the future. Pensions by Government program and Government backed accounts just go deeper and deeper.

yet the AARP has the audacity to make it sound like voting for one over the other will make a dime's worth of difference for their particular piece of the nightmare that is our fiscal future. Sorry older folk....I'm not far from being one myself....but the numbers say the benefits are getting a BIG BIG axe and nothing but reinventing the very concept of money itself can prevent that....no matter who takes the office and then who gets the mess in 2016.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


AARP is just another arm of the democratic Party. This article has all the dirty details, howntheybwill profit from Obama care, how they are the largest lobby, howntheybstick their noses in tons of things that have nothing to do with seniors and how their CEO made over $700,000 a year........non profit my arse.

Once known as the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP is one of the most powerful political lobbies in Washington. It spent $21 million last year building up its close ties to Democrats in Congress and exerting massive political influence in Washington, D.C., and state capitals. It takes in tens of millions of dollars in federal grants annually as a registered nonprofit charity and its for-profit corporation makes millions of dollars licensing the AARP brand name. AARP reported revenue of over $1 billion and assets of $994 million in 2008.

What really brings in revenue is the money AARP gets by licensing out its well-known name to for-profit companies, such as health insurers.

That means AARP is a player in the health insurance industry — a fact that complicates its support for the Obama healthcare overhaul that many critics say will harm AARP members.

And I guess the left doesn't mind outsources as long as they are on their side:

AARP’s new CEO is Barry Rand. A longtime Xerox executive, Rand was subsequently chairman and CEO of Avis and Equitant, a global provider of “outsourced management services.” Rand, who is also chairman of the board of trustees of Howard University, gave the maximum allowed contribution to Obama in 2008 before he was tapped to run AARP.

AARP’s role in the healthcare debate is complicated by the fact that it is an insurance broker. The organization is not itself an insurer, but it funnels its membership list to for-profit insurance companies, and in exchange collects hundreds of millions of dollars annually in royalties.

Obama care is a huge money make for AARP, so if Romney repeals it, wow will they lose a lot.

In 2008, AARP brought in $1.14 billion in revenue. Only $249 million—less than a quarter of the group’s total revenue—was from membership dues. The overwhelming majority of AARP’s 2008 income—$653 million—came from “royalties” according to the organization’s tax returns. The royalties came from several different product lines. AARP-branded health-related offerings brought in about $425 million, while financial products and services generated about $205 million.

www.humanevents.com...

Don't take my word forit...read the info yourself.....

themoderatevoice.com...’s-partisan-liberal-agenda/

Read this article also on there lib agenda.

• Opposition to the balanced budget amendment • Support for continuation of the estate tax, often called the “death tax”. Conservapedia claims that AARP’s rationale is a liberal wealth redistribution scheme to “help reduce the concentration of wealth” • Support of the CHIP children’s health program and AARP’s opposition to the Bush veto of expanding the program • Support of Health Care Reform, including sponsoring “listening sessions” on the issue. The listening sessions were subsequently cancelled. • Numerous instances of supporting and sponsoring LGBT activities, including gay sensitivity training and gay pride events • Opposition to Social Security reform that included private retirement accounts and opposition to Medicare reform. The Moderate Voice (s.tt...) Read more at themoderatevoice.com...’s-partisan-liberal-agenda/#VkhslXpBQQdpiyUW.99

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Tardacus

 

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

it doesn`t matter what they turned it into,it wasn`t conceived or designed to be used that way.
It was conceived and designed to be a self sustaining trust Fund.

The Social Security Act of 1935
Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account.

(2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.
(c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.
(d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.
(e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.

Pay particular attention to sections (d) and (e)


www.ssa.gov...

reply to post by Tardacus


It is not now nor ever was a trust fund under the law.

You need to read it.

In 1937, the Social Security Act was declared unconstitutional because, according to the federal Appellate Court, it was using public funds for private purposes, as a "trust fund" and as "insurance" - Davis v. Boston, 89 F2d 368. The court declared that as an excise tax, which it claimed to be, it could not be imposed on wages since an excise may be placed only on articles of consumption. (This case reversed a lower court's ruling in 17 F. Supp 97, which decided that it was valid as an excise tax). A month later, the Supreme Court, in both Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 and in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 US 548, decided on the same day that the Appellate Court was wrong without explaining why the Appellate Court was wrong. The Supreme Court found that the Appellate Court was wrong to claim that there is a Trust Fund or insurance. THERE IS NO TRUST FUND AND IT IS NOT INSURANCE. The Supreme Court refused to face the question of whether Social Security was an excise tax. They declared: "We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open."

usa-the-republic.com...

Not a trust fund or insurance because:

As further proof that there is no Trust Fund or insurance: In 1980 the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Nestor determined that Social Security remains constitutional because there has never been a promise to pay benefits. Again I repeat: SOCIAL SECURITY REMAINS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUST FUND AND IT IS NOT INSURANCE AND THERE IS NO PROMISE TO PAY BENEFITS.

reply to post by buster2010


Nope, not all jobs do all that. BUT: you do have a choice in what you work in, for all your life, right?

Romney and Ryan both have two of the most weasel like faces I've ever seen. This 'aura' alone has alienated it's ignorant voting base. Although, voting for appears as a moot point for most observant people. Now it's also for those who aren't observant.

Originally posted by Tardacus
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.

old folks in USA = real americans. - Another factor.

100 bazillion with pitchforks and torches heading for the white house and Capitol Hill, oh yes!

January 15, 2017

AARP now accepts 50 year olds. ($$Greed$$) Now that Seniors have experienced how ObamaScrew has taken $500 million from Medicare, their tune has changed. You'll not see them mass booing Paul Ryan or Donald Trump during the current ObamaCare repeal/replace process.