Official VP Debate Thread

The actual plan that Romney and Ryan are running on (smartly) stays far, far, far away from privatization altogether.
Click to expand...

This is not true, unless you want to now change back the meaning of "privatization" to what it was originally. You've been squealing this "privatization" whine for years, when it has ALWAYS been a voluntary contributable amount of SS in private investment accounts. The thing Romney/Ryan are proposing is the same thing Republicans have supported and endorsed for years, but now you seem to want to change "privatization" back and make it as it has meant all along, and claim they aren't proposing it. Fine... they're not, but no one ever was! Not total and complete privatization of all Social Security. This is a case of liberals creating a "flip flop" by changing word meanings of their rhetoric in mid-argument.

Pathetic and desperate.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
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
Click to expand...

his response, which was repeatedly ignored, was that they would cooperate with Democrats in choosing the details......meanwhile I notice that, like Biden, you weren't able to answer the questions I pointed out......
 
Yet Ryan voted for every unpaid for increase in spending during the Bush/Cheney years and ran up trillions in debt. From what I heard last night not much has changed there....
 
Dixie said:
This is not true, unless you want to now change back the meaning of "privatization" to what it was originally. You've been squealing this "privatization" whine for years, when it has ALWAYS been a voluntary contributable amount of SS in private investment accounts. The thing Romney/Ryan are proposing is the same thing Republicans have supported and endorsed for years, but now you seem to want to change "privatization" back and make it as it has meant all along, and claim they aren't proposing it. Fine... they're not, but no one ever was! Not total and complete privatization of all Social Security. This is a case of liberals creating a "flip flop" by changing word meanings of their rhetoric in mid-argument.

Pathetic and desperate.
Click to expand...


You should probably read the Romney campaign's ideas about Social Security. You don't seem familiar with them. I think you might be disappointed.
 
Dung, you never answered who you thought would win the Warren-Brown Senate race. I'm out of the loop out here but according to Intrade Warren has a solid lead.
 
cawacko said:
Dung, you never answered who you thought would win the Warren-Brown Senate race. I'm out of the loop out here but according to Intrade Warren has a solid lead.
Click to expand...

Thought I answered that one. Warren will win barring something drastically bad happening. The bad thing for Brown is that the better Romney does the worse he'll do. Massachusetts is solidly Democratic and the fear of Republican control of the White House, House and Senate will push people to Warren.
 
On issues that varied from Libya, Iran and Afghanistan to taxes, debt, Medicare and Social Security, Biden blunted the Romney-Ryan assault on the Obama-Biden record, point for point, spin for spin, and threw in some counter-punches of his own.


Among the highlights: Biden was at his most ferocious in defending Social Security and Medicare, partly to clean up some damage Obama did by sounding too conciliatory the previous week, especially on Social Security.


Biden, responding to a question from moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC, highlighted the differences between the two campaigns on what may be the government's most popular program.


"With regard to Social Security, we will not privatize it," Biden said, recalling President George W. Bush's unsuccessful attempt to offer future recipients the option of investing in the stock market in 2005. The more Bush promoted it the more unpopular it became. It never reached the floor of Congress. "If we had listened to Romney, Gov. Romney and the congressman during the Bush years," Biden said, "Imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market."


Ryan was compelled to assure viewers that his earlier support for Bush's changes in Social Security are "not what Mitt Romney's proposing."


Biden's most memorable moment may have been in his response to Ryan's use of a favorite Republican talking point, the failure of Obama's economic stimulus to produce more jobs.


"I love my friend here," Biden said before announcing that Ryan had sent two letters requesting stimulus money for companies in his home state of Wisconsin, letters that said the stimulus would "create growth and jobs."


Ryan acknowledged the letters as part of "what we do" to service his constituents.


This gave Biden a chance to extend a cordial assurance that "Any letter you send me, I'll entertain."


To which Ryan replied just as cordially, "I appreciate that, Joe."


See? We can all get along.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1014-page-20121014,0,6771979.column
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Thought I answered that one. Warren will win barring something drastically bad happening. The bad thing for Brown is that the better Romney does the worse he'll do. Massachusetts is solidly Democratic and the fear of Republican control of the White House, House and Senate will push people to Warren.
Click to expand...

If you responded previously then I missed it so my apologies for that.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You should probably read the Romney campaign's ideas about Social Security. You don't seem familiar with them. I think you might be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with them, and it's what Republicans have pretty much proposed all along, a multi-faceted long term approach to reform, including the option for younger workers to invest a portion of their SS. The legislation he will receive to sign, will have "privatization" included if we go by the definition you have memed into existence through your rhetoric... a portion of your SS will be available for voluntary investment. As a matter of fact, this will be a key aspect to reforming so that upper-scale income workers can provide for their own retirement and not depend on SS. It is YOU, Turdbrains, who does not understand the Romney plan.

You want to buy into propaganda from DailyKos and HuffPo, and left-wing blogophants that 'Romney doesn't mention this on his website...myeah myeah myeah!' But the deal is, he doesn't HAVE to! CONGRESS does this, when they forge the legislation on Capitol Hill... kinda like they did with Obamacare! Anyone who comprehends ANY Republican/Conservative plans for SS reform over the past 20 years, knows that this so-called "privatization" is a key element to the whole thing, and has been the main sticking point with power-hungry liberals who want their greedy hands on every single penny. Without it, real solvency and reform can't be realized, we already know this, Mitt Romney doesn't have to spell it out. Did Obama give us all the details and aspects of the 2,000+ pages of Obamacare that no one read?
 
Dixie said:
I am familiar with them, and it's what Republicans have pretty much proposed all along, a multi-faceted long term approach to reform, including the option for younger workers to invest a portion of their SS. The legislation he will receive to sign, will have "privatization" included if we go by the definition you have memed into existence through your rhetoric... a portion of your SS will be available for voluntary investment. As a matter of fact, this will be a key aspect to reforming so that upper-scale income workers can provide for their own retirement and not depend on SS. It is YOU, Turdbrains, who does not understand the Romney plan.

You want to buy into propaganda from DailyKos and HuffPo, and left-wing blogophants that 'Romney doesn't mention this on his website...myeah myeah myeah!' But the deal is, he doesn't HAVE to! CONGRESS does this, when they forge the legislation on Capitol Hill... kinda like they did with Obamacare! Anyone who comprehends ANY Republican/Conservative plans for SS reform over the past 20 years, knows that this so-called "privatization" is a key element to the whole thing, and has been the main sticking point with power-hungry liberals who want their greedy hands on every single penny. Without it, real solvency and reform can't be realized, we already know this, Mitt Romney doesn't have to spell it out. Did Obama give us all the details and aspects of the 2,000+ pages of Obamacare that no one read?
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that Romney would pursue privatization, but that's not what he's proposing in the campaign. And for good reason.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I don't disagree that Romney would pursue privatization, but that's not what he's proposing in the campaign. And for good reason.
Click to expand...

The president can't really "pursue" anything, he depends on Congress to give him something he can sign. What he is proposing on the campaign trail, is a comprehensive approach which has been proposed all along by Republicans, which does include partial privatization. Without this aspect, there is no real plan that will reform SS. He hasn't detailed specifics because he can't tell you what's in a bill that hasn't been written or passed Congress yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top