X+Y=Screwed

#1

VolsNSkinsFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
15,813
Likes
3,974
#1
Why The Screwed Generation Is Turning To Paul Ryan - The Daily Beast

Unfortunately, the future looks as bleak for today’s young people. No amount of coddling by their well-provided-for Boomer parents can save Generation Y and the Millennials from the dire economic conditions they face, including criminal levels of educational debt. Pensions have gone the way of the horse and buggy. You want to retire with health-care benefits, as both my professor parents did? Good luck. As the 1994 movie turned Gen-X mantra has it: Reality Bites.

Generation X chronicler Jeff Gordinier, has written that Gen-Xers suffer from “athazagoraphobia”—“an abnormal and persistent fear of being forgotten or ignored.” Except it’s not really a phobia; it’s been reality for a long time. Maybe that is about to change.

Enter Ryan. While Democrats attack his Medicare plan as “radical” and portray him as pushing granny off the cliff, young people don’t seem to be buying this caricature. Or maybe “radical” is what they want.

Hope the baby boomers enjoy the ride because we are the ones who will be left holding the bag

Generation Screwed - The Daily Beast
 
#2
#2
Generation screwed, LOL

I agree with this notion that it spurned political action, but I'd say it did more for Ron Paul than it will Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan doesn't offer anything fiscally that will save generations X & Y.
 
#3
#3
Generation screwed, LOL

I agree with this notion that it spurned political action, but I'd say it did more for Ron Paul than it will Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan doesn't offer anything fiscally that will save generations X & Y.

What has it gotten Ron Paul really other than some name recognition?
 
#5
#5
Ryan still has quite a few votes to answer to before declaring himself a staunch fiscal conservative. Add in his vote for NDAA and I'm not really getting the tingle up my leg
 
#8
#8
Ryan still has quite a few votes to answer to before declaring himself a staunch fiscal conservative. Add in his vote for NDAA and I'm not really getting the tingle up my leg

+1. People just need to look at his voting record and go from there.
 
#10
#10
I would even add, if we are able to retire. I don't see it happening for me...

retirement in the US has become some sort of glorified Euro model of elderly freeloading. Screw that. Retire if can afford it. Otherwise, work and you'll live longer.
 
#11
#11
are Gen X and Y going to get Social Security or Medicare? I am paying for it every paycheck, but its not going to be there when we retire.

dismissing a valid point is expected from an ostrich type like yourself.


Of course its valid to say that both programs need restructuring, although the "its not going to be there when I retire" statement is false. Studies show it will be there, the issue is whether the benefit will be as fully projected now, or will it be reduced. I recall seeing projections along the lines of something like 75 % of the benefit would still be available.

No one is saying we don't need to address these issues. Of course we do.

But it is a falsehood to say that Ryan's plan fixes these problems any more than does the ACA. The difference is, the ACA is not touted as fixing these problems, whereas the Ryan plan is promoted as resolving these problems, and it doesn't.

I appreciate the fact that Ryan wants to at least begin an earnest debate about it. But what is really lurking behind the debate, even as he and Romney frame it, is who pays?

And when I say "pay," I mean what combination of cuts in these programs, combined with taxation policy, will get us to a reasonable and manageable level of debt? It simply cannot be ignored that Romney and Ryan, holding true to their constituents, would place the larger part of the burden on the poor and the working middle class, exempting the investor class from paying for it with their gains on income or business, whereas Obama and the Democrats would place a larger part of the burden on the upper class.

This is the debate we've had for decades, basically since the1930's, and both sides characterize it in a way that they think makes their position more palatable.

That's why I said you can quote Daily Beast, I can quote Kos, and its just a matter of the terminology both use totry to make their position look better.
 
#12
#12
I don't care what some worthless projections might say. The program is wholly unaffordable as constructed, if we don't find a way to stop talking in terms like reduced deficits and actually address spending.

I know you have this bent that revenues are the problem, but the heart of the problem is our proclivity for spending beyond our means. It gives congressional incumbents a huge advantage and they're using it at every waking minute.
 
#13
#13
I don't care what some worthless projections might say. The program is wholly unaffordable as constructed, if we don't find a way to stop talking in terms like reduced deficits and actually address spending.

I know you have this bent that revenues are the problem, but the heart of the problem is our proclivity for spending beyond our means. It gives congressional incumbents a huge advantage and they're using it at every waking minute.


Quit telling me what I'm saying.

I agree that spending has been a problem for a long time.

I believe that the revenue issue has been a problem for a shorter period of time and that things like the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible, added to the problem, and didn't work at all.

Moving forward, I agree that BOTH spending and revenues are a problem. No one I know of says that increasing taxes is the sole solution. But a lot of people seem to think that cutting spending, by itself, is the complete solution.
 
#16
#16
How so?

There must be 100 posts by me on here agreeing that reducing spending is a key component of any program to reduce the deficit.

These wars are pretty damn expensive. All the military bases and (hundreds of) million dollar embassies.

We can start by getting thousands of military members back home and Tell the military industrials complex to **** off.

Way too much being spend in military $$$ and not defense $$$.
 
#17
#17
are Gen X and Y going to get Social Security or Medicare? I am paying for it every paycheck, but its not going to be there when we retire.

Exactly.

My grandmother (old school southern Dem.) has finally figured it out. You give them all this money through your work years and by the time you need to draw it they are taking it out of what your kids and grandkids are currently paying in. If you are paying in to SS (at my age) right now its basically a tax.
 
#20
#20
Quit telling me what I'm saying.

I agree that spending has been a problem for a long time.

I believe that the revenue issue has been a problem for a shorter period of time and that things like the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible, added to the problem, and didn't work at all.

Moving forward, I agree that BOTH spending and revenues are a problem. No one I know of says that increasing taxes is the sole solution. But a lot of people seem to think that cutting spending, by itself, is the complete solution.
No, talking revenues is absolutely avoiding the problem and it has long been the tack of the left. Blame the wealthy for paying too little, ask them to do a "little more" so we can all have our milk and cookies.

The bottom line is that regardless of the tax structure, receipts stay relatively steady as a % of GDP, so the bottom line is that we have to spend in some relationship to GDP and find a way to maximize the economy, regardless where the burden is placed. The silly argument about Bush cuts for the wealthy being a cost is misplaced leftist dogma implying a right to more from the wealthy. I don't care how it's been sold, that is a garbage approach to the world, but has become standardized thinking because it supports populist voting.

The vast majority of the high earners in this country pay one helluva lot more than everyone else and we're trying to call them unpatriotic when they make the effort to minimize the tax burden left by overspending and freeloading. Acting as if the Bush tax breaks eliminated the massive burden still upon the wealthy in this country is absurd. We've actually steadily increased the number of net tax negative folks to an enormous degree and pointed to the wealthy as the problem. The true culprit is more competitive markets eroding the bottom end of our labor market, but nobody wants to begin to address the root of that problem, because it would imply that we've pissed away enormous money to unions in education and pissed away more to labor unions in bloating labor pricing.
 
#21
#21
These wars are pretty damn expensive. All the military bases and (hundreds of) million dollar embassies.

We can start by getting thousands of military members back home and Tell the military industrials complex to **** off.

Way too much being spend in military $$$ and not defense $$$.

I'm willing to cut defense and all entitlements by 50% tomorrow. You game?
 
#22
#22
What has it gotten Ron Paul really other than some name recognition?

Nothing much. But he was able to make his mark. He got his audit the fed bill through, and created an incredible following that's up to others to foment from here. In a generation or two he may be forgotten, but he may also be known as the father of a very important political movement.

He accomplished a ton for an "outsider".
 
#23
#23
Nothing much. But he was able to make his mark. He got his audit the fed bill through, and created an incredible following that's up to others to foment from here. In a generation or two he may be forgotten, but he may also be known as the father of a very important political movement.

He accomplished a ton for an "outsider".

outsider, in congress?
 
#24
#24
Quit telling me what I'm saying.

I agree that spending has been a problem for a long time.

I believe that the revenue issue has been a problem for a shorter period of time and that things like the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible, added to the problem, and didn't work at all.

Moving forward, I agree that BOTH spending and revenues are a problem. No one I know of says that increasing taxes is the sole solution. But a lot of people seem to think that cutting spending, by itself, is the complete solution.

Lets fix the long time problem (which we both agree is spending) and see where we are before we give the same entity more money.
If we agree we have a spending problem (which is a D and R issue) why do we want to cut spending but give them more money? Unless its a political wedge to separate the classes and pit one against the other for votes it makes no sense.
 

VN Store



Back
Top