• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers"

Re: Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers"

Checkerboard Strangler said:
If you PAY INTO an old age pension system, it's an INSURANCE program, not an entitlement. It has nothing to do with my dislike of anything. Words have meanings, you can look this stuff up.
Click to expand...

No problem.

An entitlement is a government program guaranteeing access to some benefit by members of a specific group and based on established rights or by legislation. So is SS an entitlement? Absolutely it is.

A pension is a fund into which a sum of money is added during an employee's employment years, and from which payments are drawn to support the person's retirement from work in the form of periodic payments. So is SS a pension? Yes, it's a pension too.

If it works like an insurance policy, it is one.
Click to expand...

It doesn't.


Checkerboard Strangler said:
Adjusting the top income cap is the recommended fix for Social Security.
Click to expand...

Changing the cap gradually and increasing benefits correspondingly (as has historically been done) does nothing to solve its funding problems, just inflation proofs them. To address the funding problems by adjusting the cap you'd have to raise it dramatically or even eliminate the cap without raising benefits correspondingly. This turns the program into welfare instead of a pension. This would accomplish long-term solvency, but it should come with a corresponding earnings history-based benefit cut to the older pensioners who benefited from an inadequate cap for years.
 
Last edited:
imyoda said:
Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers" - Yahoo News
Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers"

“On Wednesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) spoke to a group of congressional interns on Capitol Hill. But the remarks he made were intended for a national audience — a grand public reflection on what he perceives to be a decline in the state of American political discourse, which he linked to the rise of Donald Trump without mentioning him by name.
Ryan argued that how we speak to each other matters, especially in times of extreme polarization. He lamented how the young interns in the audience were too young to remember when politicians "disagreed without being disagreeable."

Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee and the most powerful Republican in Congress, offered what amounted to an apology for his own past statements:

There was a time that I would talk about a difference between "makers" and "takers" in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized something. I realized that I was wrong. "Takers" wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, trying to take care of her family. Most people don't want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn't castigate a large group of Americans just to make a point………”

A man of honor in my book……and more of what represents the party’s values than the 2 jerks now vying for the GOP nominee for the Presidency
Click to expand...

Ok, they paid other folks to attempt to ruin opponents, is that any better?

Politics have been dirty throughout the entire history of the United States. There's an excellent book by William Safire called "Scandalmonger" which details just how dirty politics were during the first few presidencies and I encourage you to read if you ever lament the current state of political discourse. :coffeepap
 
Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers"
Click to expand...

if he did apologize, i don't believe him, because i doubt that he believes him.
 
Why is the media trying to make Paul Ryan's apology about Trump?
 
tres borrachos said:
Good for him. It sounded pretty sincere to me. He's right too - labeling a whole group of Americans is very wrong, no matter who is doing it and no matter which side is doing it. I'm glad he did this. I wish he was one of the nominees in Trump's place.
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan is obviously lying. Remember, his first three budget proposals included tax increases for the poor and tax cuts for the rich. He just got caught in his own "47%" type of comment and is trying to walk it back. Surely you aren't this easily fooled?
 
Re: Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers"

Checkerboard Strangler said:
If you PAY INTO an old age pension system, it's an INSURANCE program, not an entitlement.
It has nothing to do with my dislike of anything. Words have meanings, you can look this stuff up.
If it works like an insurance policy, it is one.
And actuaries make adjustments to insurance programs all the time.
Adjusting the top income cap is the recommended fix for Social Security.
YOUR dislike of that fact is actually the problem.
Click to expand...
It's a pyramid scheme.
 
Helix said:
if he did apologize, i don't believe him, because i doubt that he believes him.
Click to expand...

Idk, his negative income tax proposal could be really good at countering how public benefits taper off.

Paul Ryan has been saying better things more recently and that's not something i'm prepared to hold against him. As he solidifies his positions more, he will have the opportunity to show his true colors. Admissions of fault by politicians are hard to come by in this climate and it could very well be that Paul Ryan cares a great deal about Americans.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Ahhhh, yup.
Haven't seen anything to reflect this momentous personality overlay adjustment, therefore I am chalking it up to Ryan's finely tuned sense of political expediency and nothing more, not a jot, not a tittle. Furthermore, Ryan has not indicated any intention to steer away from other false Republican canards, such as the misconception that Social Security is an entitlement.
Therefore in my book he's still intent on destroying the social safety net and even killing off self-sufficient old age pension insurance programs which do not contribute to either deficit nor debt.

His lips are moving, therefore the man is lying.
Click to expand...

To be fair, actually, social security and medicare are entitlements. That's how the word 'entitlement' came to be defined- to describe benefits that you are genuinely entitled to.

More recently, that definition has been reversed to insult people who collect such rightly deserved benefits.
 
Helix said:
if he did apologize, i don't believe him, because i doubt that he believes him.
Click to expand...

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over his dramatic Damascene conversion, but I won't believe it till I see a change in his actions.
 
imyoda said:
Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers" - Yahoo News
Paul Ryan Apologizes for Calling Poor People "Takers"

“On Wednesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) spoke to a group of congressional interns on Capitol Hill. But the remarks he made were intended for a national audience — a grand public reflection on what he perceives to be a decline in the state of American political discourse, which he linked to the rise of Donald Trump without mentioning him by name.
Ryan argued that how we speak to each other matters, especially in times of extreme polarization. He lamented how the young interns in the audience were too young to remember when politicians "disagreed without being disagreeable."

Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee and the most powerful Republican in Congress, offered what amounted to an apology for his own past statements:

There was a time that I would talk about a difference between "makers" and "takers" in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized something. I realized that I was wrong. "Takers" wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, trying to take care of her family. Most people don't want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn't castigate a large group of Americans just to make a point………”

A man of honor in my book……and more of what represents the party’s values than the 2 jerks now vying for the GOP nominee for the Presidency
Click to expand...

I am not a big Paul Ryan fan these days, however he undeniably has a point with at least a segment of the poor. That segment is the one that is content to remain poor and sustained on the government dole. I have the greatest respect for those able bodied poor who work themselves out of poverty as many have. I have very little respect for those who are simply content to let themselves be taken care of by the taxpayers for the duration of their adult lives.
 
Paul Ryan should apologize for being Paul Ryan.

:lol:
 
Absentglare said:
Idk, his negative income tax proposal could be really good at countering how public benefits taper off.

Paul Ryan has been saying better things more recently and that's not something i'm prepared to hold against him. As he solidifies his positions more, he will have the opportunity to show his true colors. Admissions of fault by politicians are hard to come by in this climate and it could very well be that Paul Ryan cares a great deal about Americans.
Click to expand...

he wants to privatize Medicare, and that's too much for me to ever support him. i support expanding Medicare into a single payer system for all, not just the elderly.

as for his "makers / takers" thing, i just read the quote in the OP more thoroughly, which i should have done initially. maybe he's had a change of heart; maybe not. impossible for me to determine, so i'll admit that i shouldn't have jumped the gun and assumed the worst in this case.
 
Helix said:
he wants to privatize Medicare, and that's too much for me to ever support him. i support expanding Medicare into a single payer system for all, not just the elderly.
Click to expand...

Medicare is already a single payer system. And it functions horribly for a system that seniors paid into for their entire working career. That's why it's recipients are expected to fork out on average at least a couple more hundred dollars per month just to make it function as well as private healthcare. and you want that system for everyone? I know I have asked you the following multiple times, however, if the US government cannot effectively run the single payer system they already have for seniors, what gives you faith that they could run such a system for every American? Like it or not, the US government has a very poor track record regarding single payer healthcare. Medicare is not the only example. Look at how much trouble they are having making the Veterans Healthcare system work.
 
ObamacareFail said:
That's why it's recipients are expected to fork out on average at least a couple more hundred dollars per month just to make it function as well as private healthcare.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that you would you expect an insurer catering only to those aged 65+ (and select groups like those experiencing end stage renal disease) should fork out as much on a per member per month basis for medical services as an insurer catering to young and working age people?
 
Last edited:
If people don't want to be called takers all they have to do is not be one. If a good percentage of the population didn't support using the public treasury as a personal bank account then maybe people like myself wouldn't have people to call takers. Just a thought.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Medicare is already a single payer system. And it functions horribly for a system that seniors paid into for their entire working career. That's why it's recipients are expected to fork out on average at least a couple more hundred dollars per month just to make it function as well as private healthcare. and you want that system for everyone? I know I have asked you the following multiple times, however, if the US government cannot effectively run the single payer system they already have for seniors, what gives you faith that they could run such a system for every American? Like it or not, the US government has a very poor track record regarding single payer healthcare. Medicare is not the only example. Look at how much trouble they are having making the Veterans Healthcare system work.
Click to expand...

yes, i'd much prefer something similar to the Canadian system. expanding Medicare to cover everyone is the best way to get there.
 
Henrin said:
If people don't want to be called takers all they have to do is not be one. If a good percentage of the population didn't support using the public treasury as a personal bank account then maybe people like myself wouldn't have people to call takers. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not sure what Ryan is apologizing for. That a person like the woman in his example falls on hard times and lives off the stolen property of her neighbors doesn't excuse her from being labeled a taker. Don't like the label of 'taker?' Don't take.
 
Absentglare said:
To be fair, actually, social security and medicare are entitlements. That's how the word 'entitlement' came to be defined- to describe benefits that you are genuinely entitled to.

More recently, that definition has been reversed to insult people who collect such rightly deserved benefits.
Click to expand...

---Nice way of putting it but it's not a technical definition.
Technically speaking, they are insurance programs.
They might indeed be entitlements because you ARE entitled to them but you're entitled to them because you've been paying your premiums.
When you see the commercials on late night TV for all those old age "final expenses" policies being sold by Alex Trebek, there isn't a all that much difference between the way they work and the way Social Security works, you pay into the system, it pays out at a certain age.

But anyway that is NOT the way the right is using the term "entitlements".
The right is using the term in a manner which suggests that Social Security is "free stuff" that the government was giving away in better times but can no longer afford.
They're trying to make an entire generation believe that it's unsustainable, when in reality all that's needed is an actuarial adjustment, an adjustment to the top income cap.

So I see no point in arguing semantics because I already agree that we are entitled to the program.
I don't agree with the nonsense theory that it's unsustainable, or that we're "taking something from others" unfairly.
The only reason the right wants to eliminate it is because they want us to give the money to their criminal friends on Wall Street, they HATE the fact that ANY government program works at all, it's driving them bat**** insane.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
---Nice way of putting it but it's not a technical definition.
Click to expand...

You have two political opposites, who disagree constantly, Absentglare and myself, educating you as to the meaning of entitlement. Social security is an entitlement.

Technically speaking, they are insurance programs.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. Sorry.

They might indeed be entitlements because you ARE entitled to them but you're entitled to them because you've been paying your premiums.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally wrong. They aren't premiums. You're as entitled to SS benefits as your are any other government entitlement.

When you see the commercials on late night TV for all those old age "final expenses" policies being sold by Alex Trebek, there isn't a all that much difference between the way they work and the way Social Security works
Click to expand...

Can't say I have any idea what the hell you're taking about with Alex Trebek but I can tell you that, yes, they most certainly are "all that much different."

They're trying to make an entire generation believe that it's unsustainable,
Click to expand...

The Social Security Board of Trustees informs us that it's unsustainable.

So I see no point in arguing semantics because I already agree that we are entitled to the program.
Click to expand...

It's not just semantics, it's the meaning of the word, but good for you that you're finally pulling your head back out of the sand.

I don't agree with the nonsense theory that it's unsustainable,
Click to expand...

That "nonsense theory" is established fact, published annually by the SS Trustees. Time for you to wake up.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
---Nice way of putting it but it's not a technical definition.
Technically speaking, they are insurance programs.
They might indeed be entitlements because you ARE entitled to them but you're entitled to them because you've been paying your premiums.
When you see the commercials on late night TV for all those old age "final expenses" policies being sold by Alex Trebek, there isn't a all that much difference between the way they work and the way Social Security works, you pay into the system, it pays out at a certain age.

But anyway that is NOT the way the right is using the term "entitlements".
The right is using the term in a manner which suggests that Social Security is "free stuff" that the government was giving away in better times but can no longer afford.
They're trying to make an entire generation believe that it's unsustainable, when in reality all that's needed is an actuarial adjustment, an adjustment to the top income cap.

So I see no point in arguing semantics because I already agree that we are entitled to the program.
I don't agree with the nonsense theory that it's unsustainable, or that we're "taking something from others" unfairly.
The only reason the right wants to eliminate it is because they want us to give the money to their criminal friends on Wall Street, they HATE the fact that ANY government program works at all, it's driving them bat**** insane.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the position, i'm just clarifying that they are real entitlements. The right wing has inverted the term- they probably complain about valley girls inverting the meaning of "literally" to be "figuratively," but they've done exactly that with the word "entitlements."
 
Greenbeard said:
Are you implying that you would you expect an insurer catering only to those aged 65+ (and select groups like those experiencing end stage renal disease) should fork out as much on a per member per month basis for medical services as an insurer catering to young and working age people?
Click to expand...

If not....what's the point? Workers pay into medicare all their adult working lives. When the time comes to take advantage of it, and so many of them will be living primarily off social security, they should not have to add a supplemtal private health insurance to make it work. It should at least work like Veterans Healthcare. I have that and do not have to purchase additional health insurance. I am charged co-payments for prescriptions and hospital stays, otherwise, everything is taken care of.
 
Helix said:
yes, i'd much prefer something similar to the Canadian system. expanding Medicare to cover everyone is the best way to get there.
Click to expand...

However you are still avoiding my main point. If we cannot trust the US government to effectively run medicare, the single payer system we already have for seniors, how can we trust them to run medicare that is expanded to cover everyone? Where does that faith come from? And the Canadian system would not work here. It would be too prohibitively expensive. Compared to the US, Canada is a sparsely populated nation. Our population is over 300 million.
 
JC Callender said:
Ok, they paid other folks to attempt to ruin opponents, is that any better?

Politics have been dirty throughout the entire history of the United States. There's an excellent book by William Safire called "Scandalmonger" which details just how dirty politics were during the first few presidencies and I encourage you to read if you ever lament the current state of political discourse. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


I see little in what you say has much of anything you offer......... Safire never wrote about anything we now face
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom