Official VP Debate Thread

Damocles said:
Again, 1% of the total of their SS. And what is amazing is that over a 40 year work cycle it would ensure they had a way better return than SS by itself. And you didn't "have" to do it. If you are afraid of the market, even such options as they would let you choose (which would have been very safe investments), then don't. Just take your SS and move on with your life. Stop trying to fit my life into your mold.
Click to expand...


Where is this 1% of the total of their SS coming from? Paul Ryan's plan allowed people to contribute the entirety of their share of SS taxes to private accounts and the investments weren't necessarily safe. I already corrected you once on this.

And one of the major problem with Ryan's plan was that it required huge transfers from the general fund over to Social Security to make up for the lost revenue coming in to Social Security. That would require lots of borrowing (or tax increases) which impact everyone. So it's not like private accounts don't impact people that elect to stay in SS.
 
Damocles said:
Again, 1% of the total of their SS. And what is amazing is that over a 40 year work cycle it would ensure they had a way better return than SS by itself. And you didn't "have" to do it. If you are afraid of the market, even such options as they would let you choose (which would have been very safe investments), then don't. Just take your SS and move on with your life. Stop trying to fit my life into your mold.
Click to expand...

Please provide a site for your claims, thanks.

Would you also limit the fees brokers would charge and also make it so government wouldn't have to make up for losses?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Where is this 1% of the total of their SS coming from? Paul Ryan's plan allowed people to contribute the entirety of their share of SS taxes to private accounts and the investments weren't necessarily safe. I already corrected you once on this.

And one of the major problem with Ryan's plan was that it required huge transfers from the general fund over to Social Security to make up for the lost revenue coming in to Social Security. That would require lots of borrowing (or tax increases) which impact everyone. So it's not like private accounts don't impact people that elect to stay in SS.
Click to expand...

If given a choice very few would elect to stay in Socialist inSecurity and that is what scares libtardiots. How would democraps get elected?
 
christiefan915 said:
Precious little from you guys on the actual substance of the debate... you know, the part that Ryan failed miserably.
Click to expand...

I disagree.....how about when Ryan pointed out that the folks complaining about details in his budget are they guys who didn't even present a budget for three years....

how about when Biden made a fool of himself by claiming nobody told them the embassy in Libya asked for more security?....

domestic or foreign policy, Biden demonstrated total ignorance......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I disagree.....how about when Ryan pointed out that the folks complaining about details in his budget are they guys who didn't even present a budget for three years....

how about when Biden made a fool of himself by claiming nobody told them the embassy in Libya asked for more security?....

domestic or foreign policy, Biden demonstrated total ignorance......
Click to expand...

How about when Ryan refused to answer the question about the 20%

RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent. You have refused -- and, again -- to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?


RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the...


RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the...


(CROSSTALK) BIDEN: That would -- that would be a first for the Republican Congress.


RADDATZ: Do you know exactly what you're doing?


RYAN: Look -- look at what Mitt Romney -- look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that.

What we're saying is, here's our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we're saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation...

And regarding the Libya security issue, how far up the chain did that letter go?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...-oct-11/story?id=17457175&page=7#.UHhbyaDaFn5
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I disagree.....how about when Ryan pointed out that the folks complaining about details in his budget are they guys who didn't even present a budget for three years....

how about when Biden made a fool of himself by claiming nobody told them the embassy in Libya asked for more security?....

domestic or foreign policy, Biden demonstrated total ignorance......
Click to expand...


Didn't present a budget for three years? That's just not true.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Where is this 1% of the total of their SS coming from? Paul Ryan's plan allowed people to contribute the entirety of their share of SS taxes to private accounts and the investments weren't necessarily safe. I already corrected you once on this.

And one of the major problem with Ryan's plan was that it required huge transfers from the general fund over to Social Security to make up for the lost revenue coming in to Social Security. That would require lots of borrowing (or tax increases) which impact everyone. So it's not like private accounts don't impact people that elect to stay in SS.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking of the plan people actually tried to pass under Bush.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Didn't present a budget for three years? That's just not true.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Senate leadership have simply elected not to vote for them. And there is no filibuster on budgets. The budgets are so bad they won't even bring it up for a vote. Rather than associate themselves with a horrible budget they'd rather simply not follow the law...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top