must be one who is walking around with his hand out

@Dan Vitek -- Nope. I never had my hand out. I'm just one of those people struggling to get by on my own and seeing my livelihood affected by the giant Hoovering of all the money to the top. You know -- the vanishing middle class?

Which translation of the bible does it say to "give more to the rich and remove help from the poor"? Did Ayn Rand do a translation after "the fountainhead" and "Atlas shrugged"?

Classy, Dan...implying people who read the Bible are "bums".

Americans will find out soon enough that the Ryan Plan changes NOTHING for seniors over 55 and that Democrats are lying. Democrats are unwilling to tell the truth on this.This will be their downfall.

NOBAMA2012!

Two things, Keith Best: I have a friend who is 54, paid the double FICA his entire life, only to face reduced Medicare -- and he'll need it.

Second, I can't see the generation of younger workers being content to go on paying the double FICA needed to support the current Boomers over 55 for very long, given that they faced inferior benefits themselves. I give it three years or less before we start seeing a move to change things for the over 55s who were assured nothing would change. Maybe even less considering the short memories of the electorate.

@Randy...What do you mean by 'double FICA'?

The majority of Americans don't want changes to Social Security or Medicare, poll after poll have shown unilateral support for these social investments. Paul Ryan has his Congressional pension and health plan; Social Security/Medicare in any form is just seasoning on the sauce for him. It's unthinkable to gut these programs in an era where pensions are a dinosaur and so many are forced to rely on the stock market for their retirement. And we all know what happened there.

Ayn Rand was an atheist with no respect for God. Paul Ryan is her biggest fan, it is no surprise that his ideas are godless and inhumane.

@Jay Sykes -- I'm sure you remember how the FICA payroll tax used to be 3.5% for and employee, matched by the employer to make roughly 7%. Around 1980, that changed, doubled to prepare for the eventual retirement of the Baby Boomers. It generated huge surpluses, which allowed for lower income taxes.

I can't imagine today's younger workers being happy to continue with that rate, which will be necessary to maintain the benefits promised to those over 55, when they won't be getting the same promised benefits. We'll start hearing talk of 'greedy geezers' and more entitlement reform for the sake of the younger generation, playing on the resentment generated.

@Bren -

Please provide your source showing that Ryan's congressional SS and Medicare plans are different than any other Americans.

According to DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, members of Congress have the same SS and Medicare as everyone else does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrltAkTf38

Are the Democrats LYING about this? If so, why are the Democrats LYING about this? Why do you support LIARS?

Just to educate you Randy, the only ones that pay double the FICA, are those that are self employed. Here is how it broke down from 1980 until 2011:

Employee = 6.2% Soc. Security and 1.45% Medicare, total deduction 7.65%
Employer = 6.2% Soc. Security and 1.45% Medicare, total deduction 7.65%

In 2011 and 2012, set to expire in 2013, here are the deductions:

Employee = 4.2% Soc. Security and 1.45% Medicare, total 5.65%
Employer = 6.2% Soc. Security and 1.45% Medicare, total 7.65%

So again, just to review. Unless you are self employed, you never have or never will pay double FICA. Not in 1980, not today and not ever.

The fact is, if you have ever actuall read Pathway to Progress or the Road Map for America, MEdicare is and never was subject to be eliminated as it exists today or ever. Competitve plans will become available, just like Congress, who can choose healthcare from a myriad of options. If anything, unlike what Bren says, it is leveling the playing field between our elected officials and the public at large.

So either your friend, and quite frankly, the Democratic Party, are intentionally lying to the American people, or they are just not reading the plans. Either way, it will be exposed in the next 3 months.

@Brian Dey -- Please read carefully. I started out my working career in 1971 paying 3.5% FICA. My employer matched it. Around 1980, that doubled to 7% for both of us. When I became self-employed, I had the joy of paying a full 15% of my net income in self-employment tax, even though my AGI left me with no federal income tax liability. That's paying quadruple. For those lucky enough to make more at self-employment, 50% of self-employment tax is tax deductible on your income tax, meaning the ones who get hit hardest of all are the low-income self-employed.

The average worker still pays twice as much FICA as the average worker did in 1971. At least they will once the short-sighted cuts to the employee FICA expire. I know those cuts were meant to be a 'poor man's' tax break, but they play right into the hands of people who insist that the programs are facing insolvency and must be 'reformed'.

What am I misreading Randy? You paid no more than anyone else that is self-employed. The percentages I quoted speak to that and you would have to explain to me better how you paid more than anyone else. The max for self imployed, or for that matter, the minimum, as it is a flat percentage is 15.3% of your net income.

What may be the case is that S-Corporation owners only pay 15.3% of the net gross salary they are paid by the S-Corp, while as a true self-employed person's salary is their net income. It might have been better for you to file as an S-Corporation.

"What am I misreading Randy?"

You are misreading the fact that every person who worked from 1980 to 2010 has paid double the FICA that a person working from. say 1940 to 1980. That is what I meant by 'double FICA'. It isn't about being self-employed or not. It's about steps that were taken in 1980 to prepare for the retirement of the Boomers. I don't see anything about lowering these rates -- just the benefits, eventually.

lois magney i am ashamed of our congress and don't think of them being americans since they decided that when their man didn't win to be president they decided to stop everything he is trying to do to get us out of the hole the republicans had put us in and the senior and middle class people are struggling while the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes pass the notch program , and veto the mexican treaty and start working for the people that put you in office and get rid of those who have been in congress so many years and getting rich off the working class people. let them pay for their own health insurance like the rest of us.

@lois -

"while the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes"

The top 1% already shoulder 45% of the overall federal income tax burden and 30% of the FICA and FUTA tax burdens. The top 10% shoulder nearly 68% of the federal income tax burden and 57% of the FICA and FUTA tax burdens. That means that the bottom 90% are only paying 32% of all the federal income taxes and 43% of all the FICA and FUTA taxes currently collected.

How much more do you want the wealthy to shoulder? What's fair in lois' world?

"pass the notch program , and veto the mexican treaty"

Not sure what you're talking about here.

"let them pay for their own health insurance like the rest of us."

According to DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, members of Congress have the same plan as everyone else. Is she lying to us? Why is she lying to us? How can you support a party that permits lying to the people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrltAkTf38

Not for even bigger losers...a fiscal dolt, and a woman hater?

It's going to be 4 more years. Get used to it.

Forget Biden. I have no doubt Romney would hold his own or win in a debate against Obama, but Ryan would just destroy him.

Ryan is demonic. It's very hard to believe that he's a main stream candidate.Strip the middle class and the poor and give it to the rich.Ann Rand is his idol.He forces his aides to read her books.The end days are very close

@Bob Fraser -

Demonic, the end days - that's the best you've got? Do you base your vote on realities or propaganda and rhetoric?

That's the same doom and gloom crap that you guys on the left were feeding us about Walker's budget, remember? None of the doom and gloom has come to fruition, has it? And Walker is still our Governor!

Romney / Ryan will be our next President and Vice President because people have seen through the lies of the doom and gloom that you perpetuate!

Sure ain't jobs !

The right wing has no idea of what is in store for them, and that's pretty damned cool.

Nick Poulos, if you read the book or saw the movie Atlas Shrugged, it is clear that what happens in the story is happening right now under the Obama administration. After almost 4 years, Obama can't blame George Bush anymore.

America has been suffering from Obama and the Democrats Socialist bull crap for four years. You would have to be stupid or a democrat not to recognize failure when you see it or experience it.

Are they not synoymous Tom; stupid/democrat?

Yes stupid and democrat are synonymous.

@Nick -

Ben Bernanke is following Greenspan's model to the proverbial 't,' so how can you support someone like Obama, who has allowed Bernanke to keep his position in the Federal Reserve if you're as anti-Greenspan as you claim to be?

HYPOCRITE!!!

@Nick,

Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Like George Orwell's 1'984', 'Atlas Shrugged' is happening right now, right here, in this America.

As to Paul Ryan being 'extreme right', ha! He's establishment GOP at best.

But the fun part is, even as I type this, liberals and progressives across America are packing their bags and getting ready to attend President Obama's concession speech. 20 bucks says that when he loses, and he will, the race card will be played, or the xenophobe card will be played. You libs do so love your victimhood. You wear it like a badge of honor.

November 2012. For Whom the Bell Tolls, indeed.

@Donald -

Under Obama, it feels more like Lucas' THX 1138!

It took FDR 3 full terms to get American back on its feet after the Great Depression, with a willing Congress and Supreme Ct.
I find it absolutely asinine that anyone thinks they have the solution to the Great Recession in less than 4 years. Instant economic gratification is a lurid desire. And Obama must work with the obstructionist Republicans in Congress and, for the most part, the Supreme Court.

@Dirk -

WWII pulled America out of the Great Depression - not FDR.

"I find it absolutely asinine that anyone thinks they have the solution to the Great Recession in less than 4 years."

So then, you think that Obama is asinine, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0

So, how can you honestly support someone that you feel is asinine?

Nick Thank you for that post

@Hoffa - I am up here in the Northwoods enjoying it while we still have it. The only internet connection is dial-up, so videos on your youtube schtick are nearly impossible. I can really agree with President Obama that high-speed internet connections should now be a public utility, like the old REA for electricity. As I cannot see your videos, lets just say everyone in Congress and many political know-it-alls critics like you were/are asinine also in believing a few policy changes could pull us out of the Great Recession abyss to Great Prosperity so quickly, and we have to remember the Republicans in Congress openly committed to not supporting and obstructing Pres. Obama on everything. Who would have thought your beloved GM would be saved, and that we never had that double-dip recession.

Hoffa - You are blind to those that helped before. FDR kept us together in our worst moments, including the Great Depression followed by WWII. Stop being a hard-arse and just feel a little respect and gratitude for those helping give you what you had today. You did not arise from the cave, a great country was there when you were born. But I do not think you are capable of feelings like that. Just negativity.

@Dirk -

Did Obama need to save GM by making back room, behind closed door deals with his buddies in the UAW? Why couldn't it have simply been a straight up interest bearing loan with a repayment schedule, just as Bush had originally set up the bailout to be and just like Carter successfully did it for Chrysler under Iacocca back in '79? Under the Carter/Bush plan, the taxpayers would have fully recovered all of their money plus interest. Under Obama's shady deal, the taxpayers stand to lose out on billions. And didn't Obama promise to be more open and transparent with his administration, closing the White House doors to lobbyists and crony capitalists?

While Hoffa approves of the auto bailouts, he does not approve of the way in which Obama handled them, which was a complete opposite of what he had promised during his campaign and at a loss to taxpayers. Why aren't you upset at Obama for lying to you?

Finally, my grandparents and parents worked hard and contributed to building the great system that we enjoy. I'm thankful for everything that they and others have done, but nothing was ever given to any of them or Hoffa - as something given has no value. We have rightfully earned everything that we've received and paid more than our fair share in contributing to the system, and never taking anything from that system!

"You libs do so love your victimhood. You wear it like a badge of honor."

I schooled you on this last time, Donny. "Victimhood" is one of the basic tenants of the modern Conservative movement. The big bad media is out to get you, imaginary Socialists, Communists, and other '"ists" are out to get you...your "very way of life" is being threatened, etc, etc.

You need to feel victimized, so you can paint yourself as saviors. The two go hand in hand, Danny.

No Hoffa, things were given to you, and people died in war protecting them. The Founding Fathers, the Constitution, this bountiful land, a great educational system, businesses, infrastructure to drive you Cadillac on, under, and over, the dollar and economic system that allowed you to buy a Cadillac, etc.
The Tea Party statements that they did everything entirely on their own and owe nothing to anybody makes them, and you, sound like a know-it-all, pompous bully.

The real test of a Tea Partier's independence and resolve would be to drop the "Rambo" Repub into a deep wilderness with nothing.

Here, here!

Enjoying your comments BD...so greatful to live in a nation where we can express our opinions freely...makes me even more proud to have served over 20 years.

That beig said, I am democrat leaning independent voter, Charasmatic as Ryan maybe, he can't save Romney from himself!

...by the way a few comments above you spelled [synoymous] incorrectly...its synonymous. But elect more Republicans and cut more education, RIGHT!!

Hey look I make spelling errors on these things all the time...but when you are calling out Dems as being stupid, make sure you don't leave the door open for insults.

Fast and Furois and Solyndara were started under the Bush admin..

Go USA, On Wisconsin!!

Pow. That's gonna leave a mark.

@Charles Stevenson -

You need to do your homework better, or at least try expanding your sources beyond the Daily Kos.

The Bush equivalent of Fast & Furious, Operation Wide Receiver and other probes, were all discontinued under Bush before Obama ever took office. Fast & Furious was originally and officially commissioned on October 26, 2009, at the insistence and full discretion of the Obama administration - thus F&F is all Obama.

And as far as Solyndra goes - yes, the Bush DOE did award grants and loan guarantees to alternative energy companies. But Solyndra had just submitted its application and was in the early stages of review when the Bush administration had ended. Even Obama's own people in the DOE said "this deal is NOT ready for prime time." But after a few trips to the White House by some major campaign bundlers/donors, the loan guarantee was miraculously approved on March 20, 2009. Didn't Obama promise to close the White House to lobbyists and the like and be transparent? I didn't see any of those closed door meetings on C-SPAN, did you? Obama owns Solyndra!

If you're going to rip people for mere spelling errors, then you best be sure that everything you've asserted is 100% as well, or end up looking like an ass!

@Dirk -

So, when the nation confirms its conservative majority in November, are you guys going to go all blue fist again like you did over Governor Walker?

Hoffa - More than one way to define a "conservative". A true conservative does not like risk and change, and wants to conserve the status quo, even if it is less than perfect, hence the term "conservative.' Romney/Ryan seems like a bold plunge into a grand and theoretical experiment. I just don't know. You see, the Dow is up near a record high, corporations have plenty of cash, we are slowly and steadily pulling out of Iraq and Afganistan, Obama is much more respected around the world than Bush was, Romney is the definition of faux paus abroad, Obama is not messing with my retirement security, I like my Social Security and Medicare, etc. etc.

Hmm, think I will just be conservative and go with what we already have. The devil known vs. the devil unknown and all that. Yes, maybe I am even ultra-conservative in wanting to keep on the current course and not change horses in the middle of the recovery, and give Obama a chance to finish out the recovery from the Great Recession.

@Dirk -

I'm talking about fiscal conservatism. Apparently, you have no problem with sustaining multi-trillion dollar deficits and an ever increasing debt, just so long as you get your share, who gives an f about future generations, right? In Dirk's world, he'll stick his grandchildren with a $500,000 individual public debt burden before they're even born.

Sorry Dirk, but Hoffa finds that to be very SELFISH!!!

Hoffa - More demonizing and jumping to conclusions. I am also a fiscal conservative. Let's cut the military budget, and tax the uber-wealthy more. The Tea Party needs to be less selfish and militaristic.

@Dirk -

That makes a lot of sense - let's cut the one thing that the federal government is actually constitutionally responsible for - national defense. While Hoffa agrees that the defense budget could be cut, it, along with veterans benefits, is the last place that we should go looking for cuts.

Fiscal conservatism is about allowing people to spend as much of their own money as possible, whether one is rich or poor. It also doesn't punish financial success simply because one has achieved it.

The Paul Ryan intro as running mate seems to have been scripted by SNL.

Considering that the 'Military vessel' is the USS WISCONSIN, it seemed an appropriate backdrop for announcing a Congressman from WISCONSIN as runningmate...

And as someone who holding the purse strings to the defense budget, Paul Ryan has always voted the way the General's wanted, unlike Obama, who has cut defense spending, almost joyously, pulled out of Iraq before the General's suggested and is doing the same thing in Afghanistan.

And Dirk, Obama did the same thing in his intro of Biden.

We outspend the next 26 countries combined, and 25 of them are allies. This is costing us big time and is not sustainable.

Dey - "Paul Ryan has always voted the way the General's wanted". That is damning to most of America right there. Ryan is voting for every expensive military adventure around the world, and proposing cutting benefits to the most needy in America, as well as the middle class. Bring the money home!

Brittany- So Obama had nothing to do with it, but one Congressman is. Wow, I didn't know Ryan already had that much power.

@Dirk -

Why should the uber-wealthy have to pay more into SS and medicare? They already pay 60% of the federal income and payroll tax burden. How much more would be fair in Dirk's world?

@JRH -- Why should the working poor have to pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxation than the uber-wealthy?

And you know that the reason the uber-wealthy pay 60% of the federal income tax is because they have 90% of the money.

@Randy1949 -

You're confusing capital gains and income taxation. The uber-wealthy pay a substantially higher percentage of their earned income in total taxation than what you call the working poor does - you know this!

In order to invest, you must have either first earned that money or borrowed it from an entity that has already paid income taxes on that money. The cap gains tax is a secondary level of taxation, thus doesn't it make sense that this money would be taxed at a lower rate? Just because certain people have figured out how to play the market better than you is no reason to be envious or jealous is it?

If you sold your house, would you prefer to pay an earned income tax on any capital gain realized, or is a lower rate of taxation fair because the money you used to buy/pay for your house was already taxed once at the earned income tax rate?

And you know that 50% of the people aren't shouldering any federal tax burden with 100M Americans currently receiving some form of government assistance, exclusive of SS and Medicare. Why shouldn't EVERYONE have some skin in the game, as everyone benefits from the system? The people who take the most from the system aren't contributing anything to the system - is that fair?

Perhaps if so many people weren't gaming the system, if there wasn't so much crony capitalism in DC, and if the feds didn't spend as much as they do, everyone could be paying lower taxes!

Again - how much of the burden should the top 10% be carrying?

What's fair in Randy's world?

Randy and Dirk- Just so you know, the uber-rich already pay more in Medicare tax as income is unlimited, un like Social Security which is income capped. And guess what, they receive no more benefits than you or I do.

Hoffa, I know you object to progressive taxation on principle. FYI, the last time anyone in my family sold land or a capital asset, the tax was 35%. I do understand the difference between capital gains and earned income, but as you can see, the system has been rigged to favor those who have been able to amass enough wealth to not engage in working for a living.

What's fair in my world? Not to have a working family trying to live on less than $20K so that a mega-millionaire can keep more of the millions ha has in capital gains income. For a person making less than $50K a year to pay a higher percentage of it in taxes than the mega-millionaire.

You speak of how 50% of Americans don't pay taxes. I would really like to know how to get in on that sweet deal, because I pay taxes out the wazoo

@Randy1949 -

Although I've exposed you to Hoffa's proposed federal tax plan several times before, you've apparently never looked at.

Federal Sales Tax (applicable to ALL transactions): 1.85%

Federal Income Tax (applicable to all gross income and eliminates income adjustment - deductions, exemptions, itemized write-offs, loop holes, eit credits, etc., except in limited circumstances as is necessary to facilitate fairness):

$0 - $75,000 - 8%
$75k - $150k - 10.5%
$150k - $225k - 13%
$225k+ - 15%

Federal Cap Gains Tax (short & long term, bracket neutral): 18%

Federal Corp Profit Tax Non-Manufacturing (offset only by legitimate losses for up to 3 years carried forward): 18%

Federal Corp Profit Tax Manufacturing (offset only by legitimate losses for up to 3 years carried forward): 15%

FICA and FUTA Taxes: reform to opt-in programs and set rates accordingly.

All other federal taxes, with the exception of the federal excise taxes on petro fuels, alcohol, and tobacco products and trade tariffs/taxes with unfair trading nations, will be eliminated.

Notice the progressive element? Hoffa just doesn't believe that anyone's combined federal, state, and local tax burden should ever exceed 35% of a person's earnings over the course of a year, no matter how they are derived. Also note that Hoffa taxes cap gains, interest, and dividends more than labor derived income.

You never gave a percentage - how much of the burden should the top 10% shoulder?

"You never gave a percentage - how much of the burden should the top 10% shoulder?"

Equal to the percentage of the country's wealth that they hold (or receive in a year). Seems fair to me.

@Randy1949 -

Well, you've previously asserted that:

"...because they have 90% of the money."

So, apparently you think that fairness would be the top 10% shouldering 90% of the total tax burden in this country. Well, your tax plan fails right off the bat, as 1) the top 10% doesn't earn enough in a year to shoulder 90% of the burden at current spending levels - not even close; 2) your tax plan would cause the top 10% to flee the country; and 3) your tax plan would effectively kill the job market in this country.

Apparently, Randy thinks it's fair for a lot of people to ride on the backs of a few.

"Well, your tax plan fails right off the bat, as 1) the top 10% doesn't earn enough in a year to shoulder 90% of the burden at current spending levels - not even close;"

And the rest of us, who have and make the remaining ten percent have the wherewithal to pay a higher share of the tax burden from our piddly earnings?

"Apparently, Randy thinks it's fair for a lot of people to ride on the backs of a few."

I think you have that backwards, JRH. A whole lot of people like me should lose up to 30% of our income so that Anne Romney can have another dancing horse?

@Randy1949 -

So basically, you feel it's fundamentally unfair for anyone to be uber-wealthy unless everyone can be uber-wealthy, or at least have their basic needs met at the expense of those who are uber-wealthy, right?

Isn't that a very Marxist view? Trying to make everyone fundamentally economically equal?

So, how rich is too rich before it becomes unfair to Randy? A net worth of $500k? $1M? $5M? $10M? What's the number Randy?

Hoffa - SS and Medicare with no cap. Payback time to hard-working, loyal Americans, many who have literally worked themselves to death with occupational accidents and disease, not counting stress induced illnesses from sociopathic bosses and extremely overpaid CEOs.

@Dirk -

There isn't a cap on the Medicare payroll tax. And why should the wealthy be forced to make up for the shortfall in SS? They're already paying for a disproportional share of the program - again, how much of the burden do you want them to shoulder?

No one forced anyone to "work[] themselves to death with occupational accidents and disease, not counting stress induced illnesses from sociopathic bosses," did they? If people don't like their working conditions, they can quit and get a different job or go into business for themselves - that's the great thing about America!

Hoffa - I know there is no cap on Medicare contributions, but that may disappear given the Tea Party's "let's be fair to the bloated rich" campaign. Why wouldn't Romney/Ryan think putting a cap on Medicare contributions is a wonderful present to their contributors? The rich do get benefits with being Americans beyond getting, to them, a piddly little $3000.00 Social Security check each month, or their heart surgery mostly paid for with Medicare. They get a huge country, great democracy, stable government, hard-working , educated workforce, excellent colleges, world-class cities, great infrastructure, massive military, and all of nature's best, including four coasts (counting the Great Lakes), majestic mountain ranges, national parks, pristine lakes, beautiful countryside, etc.
Frankly, the Tea Party does not appreciate what they have. They cannot look beyond that wallet in that pocket hanging off their arse. Yes, the funders of the Tea Party rose to the top economically, but sank to the bottom in character and understanding that they had a superior environment in which to succeed.

@Dirk -

I couldn't find capping the Medicare payroll tax anywhere in Romney's plan. Could you provide a citation for us? Oh, wait, I see, we're now basing the discussion on possibilities and speculation! Oh boy!

Fortunately, we don't have to speculate about Obama, do we. His own people in the DOE stated that Solyndra wasn't ready for prime time. After a few visits to the White House, which Obama promised to close to lobbyists and crony capitalism, by a major campaign bundler/donor, behind closed doors so it wasn't transparent or available on C-SPAN 3 as Obama had promised, the loan guarantee was miraculously approved! Funny how that works, isn't it?

Yeah, I'd definitely base my vote on speculation as opposed to the cold hard facts!

Hoffa - There are big surprises awaiting America if Romney wins, perhaps like capping Medicare for the wealthy.. That is the way the Tea Party works now, look at Walker's "bold" moves right after he was elected. Winning to the Tea Party means total mandate to get their way in any ruthless manner.

@Brittany -

Could you explain how voting for Romney / Ryan is "voting against their best interests."

Perhaps America is finally waking up and actually gives a damn about their children instead of just looking out for themselves in the now. Kicking the can down the road for our children to deal with, the Democratic plan, sure seems mighty selfish to Hoffa!

Hoffa - Keep on looking out for the best interests of the uber-wealthy. I just love it when some huge yacht or 500 hp speedboat comes by real fast and nearly swamps my Jon boat with the kids in it. Symbolic of where we 99% view the uber-wealthy.

@Dirk -

Your personal hatred, jealousy, and envy are showing!

Hoffa - I do not aspire to a yacht so I can swamp the lower classes in my wake. I just want them to have some consideration. Your constant fawning over the plight of the uber-rich reminds me of Botticelli's illustration of Dante's Inferno showing suck-ups grovelling in excrement in the second pit of the eighth circle.

the only people who dont like Ryan are welfare people or goverment employs that have been living off the back of the working people Obma has been a pox on this county ,his plan is to blame everybody for the mess he made of the the U.S.A.

@Kathy -

You're right - we don't just like Ryan and Walker - hard working taxpayers LOVE THEM!!!

"the only people who dont (sic) like Ryan are welfare people or goverment (sic) employs (sic) that have been living off the back of the working people"

And how much time has Ryan spent in the private sector?

@Schmitzy -

Ryan has spent about as much time in the private sector as both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have - what's your point exactly?

Michael - By and large, progressives are surprised and overjoyed with Mr. Ryan being picked. He has put himself sitting there with that goofy look and hard to understand math above the dunk tank. What a target.

@Dirk -

Is third grade level math really that hard for progressives to understand?

Hoffa - Frankly, your math exercise on this blog at 4:13pm above was probably ignored by most readers, if not all. More numbers hocus pocus to make the rich richer. The same for Ryan, he is not exactly looking out for anyone but the wealthy, so his numbers will just support that. Bad math by Wall Street got us into the Great Recession.

@Dirk -

You've demonstrated your point about progressives not being able to understand a third grade math level brilliantly!

Here's what progressive math ends up getting us:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/09/ca_city_spends_1b_to_borrow_100m_286954.html

sparky - Yes, the Republicans have targeted the Veterans for benefits reductions while they continue to urge America to brandish its sword worldwide. It is so like the corporations that want to reduce workers' benefits while urging the workers to more and more sacrifice of health, home, and family in longer and more stressful hours so the CEO can get richer.

And Obama and the Dems have proposed cuts to veterans benefits as well:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-obama-wants-cut-veterans-benefi/

http://www.topix.com/forum/louisville/T6KDDMIKJVEOIILLO

As you've said, usually these ideas are dumped before going to a vote.

So what's the point exactly?

Hoffa - The truth-o-meter in politifact is a half-true rating. Obama proposes raising some fees. Obama actually proposed increasing the vets budget 10% for 2012.
Joe Davis, director of public affairs for Veterans of Foreign Wars, said Obama "has been consistent in statement and action on protecting the Department of Veterans Affairs budget."
Hoffa - Just because you buy your 1970's Mafia clothes at the Salvation Army, that does not make you a Veteran.

@Dirk -

Oh, I get it now! When we don't want to refer to them as cuts to benefits, we refer to them as being increases in fess - that's some pretty slick word-smithing all right!

Did your partisan bias cause you to miss the point - that both parties have proposed cutting Veteran's benefits. But rarely do such plans actual make it to a vote in Congress. So, what's the point of pointing the finger on this one exactly? Both are equally as guilty.

Jealous of Hoffa for dressing dapper like Don Draper, hey ;-)

I invite the reader, if there are any that have not moved on at this point, to follow Hoffa's links. The VFW likes Obama, and we will see in other links they are fearful of Ryan, the tax ax murderer, with his tremendous cuts. This is another reason I do not think Ryan is going to gore all the oxen, and still plow ahead to a win. Romney is already distancing himself.
Not Dan Draper, but your pseudo-style seems to be John Belushi in Blues Bros., but not that good looking nor in such good shape. My favorite mobster is "Milwaukee Phil" Alderisio due to the local connection and I have a hearsay story about him from when I worked in Chicago, not fit for Patch. As far as I can tell, he was never around THE Jimmy Hoffa.

@Dirk -

The real criminal gangsters were the Kennedy's - Johnny and Bobby!

Only if you were really into 2008.

Edlund - "Real Hope-Real Change" for who? Real Dismal-Real Screw Job for the 99%.

@Gutzmiller
I'm thinking of the debt generation to start with. You know, the college kids. The one's waving their cell phones in 2008 as Barack Obama told them to text their friends. The one's who graduated with mountains of debt, no meaningful jobs. The one's who inherited a national debt they didn't create but will be paying forever because this Presidency failed them - 4 years later.

Edlund - And these "debt generation" kids are now going for Romney/Ryan? Give them credit, they are not naive about who will ultimately benefit if Romney/Ryan wins. And they know who got them to their present economic state. It started before Obama.

@Dirk -

Greedy consumerism is what got us to where we are today.

Hoffa - You might remember when we were just starting the Afganistan and Iraq Wars, and your godlike hero, George W. Bush, who you rarely talk about now, said the most patriotic thing people could do is go out and spend, spend, spend. No sacrifices needed by Americans, just please go out and spend up a storm. Even then, that sure seemed so odd.

@Dirk -

When has Hoffa ever praised Bush, let alone hold him up as a "godlike hero?" Hoffa didn't even vote for Bush for-your-information. He voted third party / independent in both those elections.

Bush is history - you and Obama need to move on already. Never before in recent political history has an administration put so much blame on the prior administration for its own failures.

Once Reagan took office, he rarely if ever even mentioned Carter or his administration ever again. And he certainly didn't use the Carter administration as political capital in his re-election campaign, unlike the current clown occupying the White House.

BTW - greedy consumerism started long before Bush took office and no politician is to blame for this. The people who made poor consumerist choices and sold out their country with their wallets and the votes of their dollar bills are the ones to blame!

But it hurts you too much to point the finger in the mirror, doesn't it Dirk? Have you always purchased domestically assembled vehicles with domestically sourced components, with pride by the UAW? Or did you sell out your principles and the economy of your country? Be honest here Dirk?

Hoffa - You voted for Nader instead of Bush? You are all over the place politically.
So you are not really a die-hard Republican? Even old ladies are die-hard Republicans. What did you not like about Bush? Is there any documentation where you stated you did not like Bush?
You voted for Perot and so did I, therefore McBride thinks by your vote you are a loser type.
Bush was a two-term President. 9/11, Afganistan, Iraq, the Great Recession, etc.
No wonder you are now clammering to disassociate yourself, along with all the other super-right wingers. We won't let that slipping on by happen. The ultra-right often try to blame problems all the way back to Clinton, so there is a legacy that just does not evaporate..
I and most Americans do not call our President a clown. He was elected fair and square, and his election win is actually part of the Bush legacy.
I am blaming Bush in part for the consumerism push, certainly not the start of it, which goes back to post-WWII. I remember a speech where he said, in effect, the greatest contribution Americans could make to the war effort was to spend money.
My American cars include 2 Studebakers made in South Bend, IN, one a collector 1962 GT Hawk, a Plymouth Fury made in America, not sure where, a $60 1941 Chevrolet DeLuxe, a Chevrolet truck van made in Lordstown, Oh. a Ford F250 made in Minnesota, but yes, other cars which were made entirely in a foreign country or assembled in Indiana. What hay will do you make from that?

@Dirk -

Yes, Hoffa voted for Perot in the first Presidential election that Hoffa was qualified to vote in. And Hoffa still has his Perot campaign t-shirt! And yes, Hoffa voted for Nader twice - a big part of his platform was balancing the federal budget and trade fairness. Don't forget, Nader was the Reform Party's (started by Ross Perot) candidate in 2004 after Buchanan lost in 2000. And Hoffa still has his Nader campaign t-shirts! In retrospect, Hoffa should have voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000, as a registered member of the Reform Party, but was hoping to help Nader get enough votes to qualify for federal matching funds in the 2004 race.

Neither of the Bush's were very good fiscal conservatives in Hoffa's opinion. While they weren't good, they weren't necessarily bad either. Hoffa has always disliked the Patriot Act, NCLB, the TSA, etc. But Hoffa did like DADT.

I'm sorry that Hoffa doesn't have very much respect for President Obama, but he has shown very little respect for the American people - holding a taxpayer funded multi-million dollar Alice in Wonderland Party staged by Tim Burton and Johnny Depp while the nation is facing a crippling depression shows just how truly out-of-touch the man is! The part that Hoffa can't stand is that he claims not to be out-of-touch - that's a huge laugh! He LIED about hope and change and won't admit it!

Hoffa was talking about cars purchased in the last 30 years. If you bought foreign and non-UAW, then you're part of the problem. You voted against the economy of your country and it's working class families. It's that simple. Outsourcing doesn't occur because the fat-cat's at the top want to get rich - it happens because the consumers demand cheap products. Well, one way to make cheap products is to exploit labor, resources, the environment, the tax code, etc. Every time you purchase a foreign non-UAW car or crap made in China, the Philippines, Malaysia, etc. you're voting with your dollar against everything that you claim to stand for. You guys complain about people voting against their own self interests and yet you don't even realize how you're constantly doing it on a daily basis! It's the epitome of hypocrisy!

And why do a majority of people buy the cheaper goods made someplace else under exploited conditions vs the American union-labor made or fair trade nation product? Because you stretch your dollar further and acquire more material possession - in short, GREED! The power of the vote you make with your dollars is far more powerful than any vote you'll ever cast at a ballot box!

Well, Hoffa actually walks his talk Dirk, unlike you. Hoffa still owns and uses his Curtis Mathes television sets that were made in America. All of Hoffa's shoes and textiles are made in America, Canada, Italy, or Germany. And Hoffa has only purchased UAW domestic assembled with a high domestic part contents from a domestic company primary vehicles. Over 76% of the goods Hoffa purchases are made with pride in the USA and 16% are made in fair trade nations. Rarely does Hoffa ever purchase a product made under exploitational conditions.

Hoffa puts in a lot of work to assure that this is the case. And while Hoffa's dollar may not stretch as far as yours at the end of the day, at least Hoffa can sleep at night knowing that he hasn't betrayed his country the way a majority of others have. What's ironic is that a majority who are complaining about being out-of-work or underemployed now are the primary cause of their own ill-fated plight. It's really quite pathetic when you think about it, isn't it?

Failed to mention a new '91 Ford Ranger made in Louisville. And as far as I know, any "foreign" cars I bought were also made and/or by union members, including the CAW in Canada.
I wonder if your absoule allegiance to the UAW has anything to do with the coincidence of your preferring big old bad-arse Cadillacs. There are many factors that go into buying a car, including safety, dependability, gas mileage, value, warranty, resale value, size, features, etc., as well as "Drive the Union Label". I am sure there must be Japanese that only buy Japanese cars, Germans that only buy German cars, etc., and therefore would not consider ever buying an American made car. It works both ways. International competition, if fair, only enhances a product like a vehicle.
As far a China goes, I will generally do without if I cannot find an American made product of any significance, or at least a non-Chinese product. That is nearly impossible today for some products, so buy used American or fix the old American product if feasible. But it can be a real pain stranded in your Studebaker along I-43 at 11pm!

Your wardrobe may really fit the 1970's at this point. Hence the Hoffa image.
Can't find anyone that wants to sing the praises of two-term Bush anymore, yet even Republicans liked the 90's with Clinton.

@Brittany -

Ryan's admitted that the Bush years were a personal and party disappointment. That's why the new plan is a reversion back to true fiscal conservatism. Did you not get the memo?

A LOT of Dems also voted in favor of the Iraq War, Prescription Drug Program, and they were the party that first supported TARP with the Republicans being the ones who killed the bill on its first vote in the House, lest you forget!

Let's be fair and honest here, shall we?

Maybe we ought to start asking ourselves why prescription drugs are so expensive in the first place that seniors would be spending thousands of dollars per year on them.

Brittany - You are a high-information voter! I love it when we get them on Patch. A breath of fresh air!

@Brittany -

Was the prescription drug plan not available for everyone to read for themselves before the election? I do believe it was. So how can you blame anyone for deception and deceit? And bigger co-pays mean that the taxpayer is saving money. And the plan does give seniors more individual choice over the medications that they receive, doesn't it? Seniors pay taxes too, so really it's somewhat of a wash for them, isn't it? Otherwise how would the government be paying for the additional expenses of all those prescription drugs?

Prescription drug use in this country as a whole has increased by over 1,600% since 1980! Are we really that much more ill and infirm that we as a society need to be so heavily medicated all the time?

And didn't Obama promise to close the doughnut hole as one of his 2008 campaign promises - so what happened? He had 2 years where it would have been relatively easy for him to do this, but he didn't!

So obviously, Obama's LIE proves that he's not the solution!

@JRH -- "Are we really that much more ill and infirm that we as a society need to be so heavily medicated all the time?"

Conditions that used to progress to expensive illnesses like heart disease and stroke are now being treated with drugs. Unfortunately, each newest, latest drug on the market is pretty expensive.

"And the plan does give seniors more individual choice over the medications that they receive, doesn't it? "

Not really. It depends on the plan, I think but often drugs that aren't generic aren't covered, and not all medications have a generic form. My mother had to switch medications because one she was taking had no generic form and it was simply too expensive.

@Randy1949 -

If people consumed proper diets and lived healthy and responsible lives, would heart disease and stroke be as large of issues today as you're claiming they are?

Wasn't the whole point behind the plan to open up the program to and encourage the use of generics, by giving seniors a wider variety of choices to choose from and encouraging them to shop around for the best deal possible?

Hoffa, we can't control our genetics. Even people who live a healthy lifestyle may find themselves with a tendency to high cholesterol or hypertension. My father suffered from heart disease despite being an avid bicyclist who would ride 100 miles on a weekend.

As for seniors shopping around for the best deal -- you don't know seniors very well, do you. They have a hard time using a TV remote much less making complex financial decisions.

@Randy1949 -

I'm guessing that the number of pure genetic cases is quite small in comparison, otherwise our species never would have survived to this point of our evolution.

As to seniors' habits, a good many appear to be able to go through the pain and bother of dragging an oxygen tank to a casino to smoke their Native American reservation purchased no tax cigs and play bingo!

Funny how that works, isn't it?

@Hoffa -- Nature cares much less about us once we've spawned and raised the children to relative independence. We really aren't designed to get old. There might be a slight genetic advantage to having Grams or Gramps around to pass on important information, but it isn't huge.

As for seniors at the casino with their oxygen tanks and cigs, don't look at me. I resent that group skewing the curve for 63 year olds so that I can't afford insurance myself.

@Brittany -

You really need to do your homework better. Obamacare phases out the doughnut hole over time, down to a 25% co-pay by 2020, but never completely closes it.

"Beginning in 2011, the law provides a 50 percent discount for drug spending in the donut hole. Gradually, the donut hole goes away, such that, by 2020, seniors will only be liable for 25 percent of their drug spending until they hit the upper threshold (where they’re liable for 5 percent)."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/23/why-closing-medicares-donut-hole-is-a-terrible-idea/

Obama's promise was to completely close the doughnut hole immediately. If 9 years to reach a 25% co-pay meets your definition of 'immediate' and 'completely closed,' then you have some mighty low expectations when it comes to promises!

Care to try again?

Hoffa, do not blame the President for the fact that if a horse goes through Congress it comes out a camel. Blame Congress.

@Randy1949 -

When Pelosi said that the House needed to pass the bill so that we could find out what was in it, I thought that at the very least Obama would have known what was in it before hand - but I guess I was wrong ;-p

@Randy.. It's called a Veto;a President need not accept a 'gift horse' or 'camel' of a bill;one signs for it,one owns it.

I agree. My daughter and I helped out at a soup kitchen, and I will never forget how quite a few of the people getting a free meal had more expensive cell phones than I did. Hmmm....... By the way I am commenting at midnight because I am just getting home from my 2nd job. NOBAMA 2012!!

Did Ryan's father have the option to opt out of FICA? I thought that the FICA tax was compulsory? Seeing as how it is, why would you not collect the benefits from a system that you were FORCED to pay into your entire working life?

Some, like Hoffa, would actually prefer to be treated like an adult by his government and manage his own money for retirement. Ryan's plan gives Hoffa that option. And for those that don't want to opt out, they can stay with the traditional system - what is so wrong with that?

@Brittany -

What's a fair price for medicines? Who gets to decide what a fair price is? On what standards is such a decision made? What's a fair profit to be realized from the development, approval, production, and sale of medicine?

I don't know, Hoffa. $30 per pill for an antibiotic seems a little steep, and I've had something like that prescribed to me once or twice. Doctors just don't think when they do it. The only meds I take daily are purposely 'dirt cheap', including one OTC alternative to Lipitor.

@Randy1949 -

Who set the price that you paid? What was the retail markup? What would have been a fair price for that medicine? Who should be able to determine that? Upon what standards? Who gets to decide the standards? Would the medicine even exist at the price level that you want it at?

@JRH & Randy... Would it be fair to compare pricing of 'generic' drugs available in Canada(price control healthcare model) v. USA to determine if a drug is priced correctly('fairly') in the USA.

FYI: the free market gives the USA significantly lower priced generics than found in Canada. The median price was 56% higher in Canada. The weighted average(based generic sales) is, on average, 37% higher in Canada. http://www.pdci.on.ca/pdf/generic%20pricing%20study%20final%20report.pdf

@Jay -

I honestly don't know what a fair price is. Without a decent profit motive, there's no incentive to develop, approve, and distribute new medicines. What would arbitrary caps on profit incentive do to innovation?

@JRH -- I have no idea who set the price or what the markup was. Kmart pharmacy is about as reasonable as you can get. I realize that research and development of a new drug can cost money, but enough to warrant $30 a pill in 1996? I paid it out of pocket too. I think doctors prescribe the most expensive because they assume everyone has a drug plan to cover prices like that.

@Brittany -

How exactly did many people, "through no fault of their own," lose "a great amount in their lifelong investments at the start of the recession in 2008?" Who's fault was it?

@ Hoffa -- It was not my fault that Wall Street and banks engaged in some very risky practices -- derivatives -- that blew up in their faces and caused a domino effect throughout the entire market. You can say it's an investor's fault for not having a crystal ball and knowing when to go to cash, but that's not realistic.

Neither was it my fault that real estate prices were driven up, mostly by greed, and that others used the mortgage market as an investment opportunity. I have no mortgage, do not consider my home to be an equity piggy bank, and have only been adversely affected by the whole bubble. The property tax assessor loved the bubble too. My taxes increased with every upward assessment and held steady even when my house and land lost 3/4 of its value.

@Randy1949 -

Again, Wall Street was merely the drug dealer. If there weren't people looking to take on loans that they realistically couldn't afford, or if those people never would have defaulted on their loans as they did, there would have respectively been no demand or a meltdown, correct? Demand is always more powerful than supply. But blame Wall Street because it plays into the whole class warfare theme of Obama and the DNC.

If anything, Wall Street gave people a chance at the American dream that otherwise wouldn't have ever had such an opportunity. Just because those people blew that chance, you point the finger at the greedy bankers?!?! Why not point the finger at the lowlifes who defaulted on the promises they made?

The market has never guaranteed a return Randy, you know this. Un-engaged, in-active, and lazy investors will always stand to lose in the end - you know this as well. But again, you blame Wall Street. If you don't accept the risk of loss, then don't invest - pretty simple, right? Buy an annuity, buy insurance, buy a municipal bond, etc. Wall Street doesn't have a monopoly on investment opportunities.

"My taxes increased with every upward assessment and held steady even when my house and land lost 3/4 of its value."

You knew or should have known how property taxes worked before you purchased your home or built it where you did and that property taxes could go up. Your tax problem is courtesy of your neighbors and local officials.

Hoffa, I neither took out a mortgage nor invested in other people's mortgages for profit. I wasn't the one who got the bright idea of bundling mortgages and selling them to other people after making what I knew were probably risky loans. In this case, it was the reckless practices of the human equivalent of sharks that affected the entire market. It's like a group of people living in a row of houses -- it only takes one irresponsible person to start a fire and then the whole row burns.

As you say, the market has never guaranteed a return. The treasury bills the SS Trust Fund are invested in do guarantee a return, so why are you so eager to change that? And i will ask you -- what would happen if we all decided not to invest in stocks?

As far as knowing how property taxes worked before 'I' bought inexpensive land out in the country and built a house, that's expecting a lot of prescience out of a two year old. Property taxes were reasonable until . . . wait for it . . . the Reagan years when income taxes were cut, federal revenue sharing was cut, and the burden got kicked on down to the local level.

@Randy1949 -

"it only takes one irresponsible person to start a fire and then the whole row burns."

So, the economic meltdown can be traced down to a single person??? Who was it?

"The treasury bills the SS Trust Fund are invested in do guarantee a return"

How do treasury bills generate the return that they guarantee? By compulsory taxation of the people. So in all reality, the investment income that the SS Fund generates really isn't an investment at all - it's just another form of taxation . You're directly paying for the interest that is being generated. It's unsustainable without 1) an ever increasing tax base; and/or 2) an ever increasing tax rate.

Pretend you're the government and that you setup a retirement fund with $20k in principle. Your sole source of income is from employment. You decide to borrow yourself money from the $20k fund at a 6% annual rate of return for the next five years. Where is your interest payment to yourself coming from - your wages. So are you really making any money off your so-called interest bearing loan to yourself, or is it just taking money out of one pocket and putting into the other?

"And i will ask you -- what would happen if we all decided not to invest in stocks?"

A world without any risk takers - we'd probably all eventually die. But such is a wholly unrealistic scenario - taking risk is a part of our survival instinct and a part of human nature.

@chris -

What does the color of their skin have to do with anything? A little racist, are we?

Ryan is rich? Bold statement.

Just because Ryan is a white male, I do not believe Romney is that comfortable with him.
Ryan will keep the Tea Party in the fold, but Romney's natural tendencies are right-CENTER. Romney will distance himself from Ryan, and he will even say he does not entirely agree with Ryan on his proposed cuts. Bad mix.