• 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 Not Running

GDViking said:
And his college was paid for from SS money from his father's death.
Click to expand...

But his other dream was to dismantle Social Security - - because : Ayn Rand !!! (who strangely enough, collected Social Security even while lambasting its existence)
 
Perotista said:
If only we had a viable third party running for congress, that third party would win.
Click to expand...

If third party people will JUST STOP running the same tired old gambit of exclusively seeking the White House for a while and COMMIT to doing the GENERATIONAL work at the bottom FIRST, putting in people at the local, city, county, state legislature level and then seek posts in both chambers in Congress, THEN they can realistically float a presidential candidate with a real chance of success, and support!

But we've never seen a third party of any kind do that in this country, EVER.
To date, with no exceptions that I can think of in my lifetime, third parties have only served ONE PURPOSE, to act as spoilers who help Republicans by siphoning off would be Democrat voters.
 
GDViking said:
And become a multi millionaire on government pay, how does that work?!?
Click to expand...

The massive increase in Ryan’s bottom line didn’t come through exploiting his position for personal gain, the way in which most people think congressmen make money. Instead, he made his money the old fashioned way: he married into it.

*In 2000, Ryan married Janna Little, a former congressional staffer turned Washington lobbyist who hails from a wealthy family of Oklahoma trial lawyers that is also related to the state’s Boren political dynasty. Ryan’s 2000 financial disclosure reflects the newlyweds’ joining of assets. Ryan’s average net worth increased from $345,007 to $1.186 million.*

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1774346
 
GDViking said:
And his college was paid for from SS money from his father's death.
Click to expand...

2 years of Social Security survivors benefits would hardly pay for college, probably not even a year of college.
 
haymarket said:
A most insightful post. Well done!!! I love the line about deserting the USS Trumpism.

I wonder how many other GOP members will join Ryan in the next few weeks. It looks like that record of 65 vacated seats you mentioned could be in serious threat of being broken. Lets hope so.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many will be joining Ryan or that Ryan joined the rest. This year has all the feel, the earmarks and trends of 2010, only in reverse. There is however, one huge difference. 2010 was the results of angry Americans opposing policy or legislation. In particular, the ACA. Obama was still well liked as an individual, although his approval numbers dropped, he was still above 50% in favorability.

This year it isn't so much policy that is driving the upcoming blue wave, especially among independents. It is Trump himself, in particular his raunchy persona. This may sound like a cliche, but among the non-affiliated, independents, we have a president who doesn't act presidential. Now that sounds like a really small thing, but it has become a huge driving force. If one checked Trump favorable/unfavorable rating among independents at the end of January 2017, just days after he was inaugurated, they showed a 44/24 favorable/unfavorable. Today independents stand at 37/51 favorable/unfavorable. That a drop of 7 points among favorable and a huge 27 point rise in the unfavorable. History has shown one usually doesn't vote for someone you dislike. The exception is like in 2016 when the majority of independents didn't like either major party candidate. Trump won independents 46-42 with 12% voting third party. He won them because 70% of independents disliked Hillary vs. 57% who disliked Trump. Trump won because he was the candidate least disliked of the two. Not that he was wanted, he wasn't. He was the candidate independent's wanted to lose the least.

That why I said usually people don't vote for someone they dislike. They may dislike both candidates and end up choose the lesser disliked. It's like this November, as of the moment 54% of independents really dislike the Democratic congressional critters, but 59% really disliked the Republicans in congress. The Democrats may waltz to control of the house, not because they are wanted or the people want them in control, they don't. The people want the Republicans less. Watch the Democrats get the big head and think most Americans now want them. It's kind of like a choice between arsenic and cyanide. Only cyanide has a worst reputation, so we vote for arsenic.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
If third party people will JUST STOP running the same tired old gambit of exclusively seeking the White House for a while and COMMIT to doing the GENERATIONAL work at the bottom FIRST, putting in people at the local, city, county, state legislature level and then seek posts in both chambers in Congress, THEN they can realistically float a presidential candidate with a real chance of success, and support!

But we've never seen a third party of any kind do that in this country, EVER.
To date, with no exceptions that I can think of in my lifetime, third parties have only served ONE PURPOSE, to act as spoilers who help Republicans by siphoning off would be Democrat voters.
Click to expand...

I agree, it has to be bottom to top beginning with local elections. Mayors, county commissions, state legislatures. Just running someone for president is a waste of time and accomplishes nothing. Third parties work both ways. Not just against the Democrats.

Exit polls of those who voted third party in 2016 showed that if only Clinton and Trump was on the ballot, no third party candidate. 19% would have voted Trump, 15% Clinton and the rest wouldn't have voted. So if one believes the CNN exit polls, third party candidates in 2016 took more votes from Trump than Clinton.

But in 2000 it was the opposite, Bush II benefited from the third party vote. In 1992 it was Bill Clinton who benefited. So it all depends.
 
tres borrachos said:
What are you talking about? Are you calling Ryan a liar?
Click to expand...

*When he was 16, Ryan found his 55-year-old father lying dead in bed of a heart attack. ............ From the time of his father's death until his 18th birthday, Ryan received Social Security survivors benefits, which were saved for his college education.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
 
Perotista said:
If my numbers are right, Ryan becomes the 40th incumbent Republican House member not to seek re-election. That sets a record for the republican party for the highest number of House Republicans not seeking reelection. At last count there were 17 Democrats who decided not to run for reelection this cycle. That total of 57 is the second highest number of open seats in history. The record by both parties is 65 open seats or those House members not seeking reelection set in 1992.

From what I have been reading is dissatisfaction with President Trump, along with Trump supporters keying in to defeat them since they weren't 100% supporters of Trump has lead to this record number. You can throw in the fact that the Republicans most likely will become the minority party after the midterms. Kind of like rats leaving a sinking ship, the USS Trumpism.

One must also take into account the Democrats are energized like never before. They want to get out and vote against Trump. Plus independent voter support of Republicans has been in the decline since last year and are moving towards the Democratic congressional candidates. The writing is on the wall.

This move of independents toward the Democratic Congressional candidates isn't because they like or want a Democratic congress. It is a movement against Trump and his obnoxious, uncouth, egotistical style of behavior and governing. Only 4% of all independents view the Democratic congressional delegation very favorable, 18% somewhat favorable. Very definitely Democrats in congress aren't liked by the more or less non-partisan or the non-affiliated. But the GOP is much worst, only 2% of independents view the Republican congress as very favorable, 14% somewhat favorable. If only we had a viable third party running for congress, that third party would win. Democrats will win in November because they are the least loathed party. Now that is something to be proud of, isn't it? At least among independents, average Americans, the center, center right and center left.

The overall dislike of Trump by most Americans, those who aren't avid Trumpers is raising it ugly head.
Click to expand...

Wow, pero. This post should win an award. One of the most spot on summations of the current environment I've seen in ages. Well done. You hit every nail on the head, and didn't come close to one of your fingers even once.
 
hanger4 said:
*When he was 16, Ryan found his 55-year-old father lying dead in bed of a heart attack. ............ From the time of his father's death until his 18th birthday, Ryan received Social Security survivors benefits, which were saved for his college education.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
Click to expand...

I know that entire story already. I asked you what you were talking about. Are you calling Ryan a liar? He's the one who made the claim - repeatedly, through his entire career. He collected SS from the time his father died, and saved it and used it towards his tuition at Miami of Ohio.
 
Goodbye ****-weasel!

Thx :)
 
tres borrachos said:
I know that entire story already. I asked you what you were talking about. Are you calling Ryan a liar? He's the one who made the claim - repeatedly, through his entire career. He collected SS from the time his father died, and saved it and used it towards his tuition at Miami of Ohio.
Click to expand...

Try reading the statement I was initially responding to. Also did Ryan claim the SSSB paid for all his college ??
 
hanger4 said:
Try reading the statement I was initially responding to. Also did Ryan claim the SSSB paid for all his college ??
Click to expand...

No, Ryan never claimed SS paid for "all of his college", and I never said he did. Perhaps you may want to do some research to see what Ryan has said for the last 2 decades about how his father's SS benefits helped him to pay for his time at Miami.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, Ryan never claimed SS paid for "all of his college", and I never said he did. Perhaps you may want to do some research to see what Ryan has said for the last 2 decades about how his father's SS benefits helped him to pay for his time at Miami.
Click to expand...

Here is the quote I responded to;

GDViking said:
And his college was paid for from SS money from his father's death.
Click to expand...

Obviously his college wasn't paid for by just his 2 years of SSSB, most especially at U of Miami.
 
hanger4 said:
Here is the quote I responded to;



Obviously his college wasn't paid for by just his 2 years of SSSB, most especially at U of Miami.
Click to expand...

His college was in large part paid for by SS, and Ryan has made that clear for decades. You wasted everyone's time for no reason.
 
Jesse Booth said:
History will pay just as little attention to him as it has the previous 53 House Speakers. Try to name just one of them without looking up a list.
Click to expand...

Boner
Pelosi
Gingrich
Tipp O'neil (Spelling?)
Hastert

Granted, I can only go to O'neil and that was around the mid-70's. Have no idea of any of them before that. And I'm sure I missed one or two between the ones I named.
 
tres borrachos said:
His college was in large part paid for by SS, and Ryan has made that clear for decades. You wasted everyone's time for no reason.
Click to expand...

You're the only one wasting time, I corrected GDViking's statement and you have yet to refute my correction. 2 years of SSSB will not pay for ones college education, maybe a year. You know that, I know that and GDViking knows that.
 
hanger4 said:
You're the only one wasting time, I corrected GDViking's statement and you have yet to refute my correction. 2 years of SSSB will not pay for ones college education, maybe a year. You know that, I know that and GDViking knows that.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea of the following:

1. What the cost was of Miami University for Speaker Ryan
2. How much Ryan in fact received in SS benefits for the 6 years he collected them

And until you do, you are discussing nothing. Your assumptions are not facts. Please remember that.
 
tres borrachos said:
You have absolutely no idea of the following:

1. What the cost was of Miami University for Speaker Ryan
2. How much Ryan in fact received in SS benefits for the 6 years he collected them

And until you do, you are discussing nothing. Your assumptions are not facts. Please remember that.
Click to expand...

Well, I can give numbers from my experience.
My dad died when I was 17 in 1982. Reagan just reformed SS and I was only allowed to get survivor benefits until I was 18, not 21 (thanks, Ronnie). I think I got about $600/mo. That’s about $7200/yr.

http://publicaffairs.illinois.edu/surveys/tuition_fee_tracking.xls

Tuition at UIUC at that time was roughly $1800/yr. that means one year of SS would have paid for four years of tuition there. Miami had similar rates for in state tuition (Miami of Ohio is not, as commonly believed, a private school), non resident was more, but that can always be brought down by scholarships, etc.

http://miamioh.edu/_files/documents/oir/fbook/13-14/tuition/1980-2013.pdf


Now my dad was not in the max bracket for SS payments until about the end of his life, when he owned a company and was given a pretty generous salary ($60k, if I remember..a salary I didnt exceed as a practicing pharmacist until the late 90s!) so Ryan may have gotten even higher benefits.

This all being said, Ryan is a charlatan of the first order, and his Randian obsession demonstrates just how awful his grasp of economics and policy always was. He represented the worst of the GOP - a guy who seemed to be with it and really smart, but realistically an empty shell.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, I can give numbers from my experience.
My dad died when I was 17 in 1982. Reagan just reformed SS and I was only allowed to get survivor benefits until I was 18, not 21 (thanks, Ronnie). I think I got about $600/mo. That’s about $7200/yr.

http://publicaffairs.illinois.edu/surveys/tuition_fee_tracking.xls

Tuition at UIUC at that time was roughly $1800/yr. that means one year of SS would have paid for four years of tuition there. Miami had similar rates for in state tuition (Miami of Ohio is not, as commonly believed, a private school), non resident was more, but that can always be brought down by scholarships, etc.

http://miamioh.edu/_files/documents/oir/fbook/13-14/tuition/1980-2013.pdf


Now my dad was not in the max bracket for SS payments until about the end of his life, when he owned a company and was given a pretty generous salary ($60k, if I remember..a salary I didnt exceed as a practicing pharmacist until the late 90s!) so Ryan may have gotten even higher benefits.

This all being said, Ryan is a charlatan of the first order, and his Randian obsession demonstrates just how awful his grasp of economics and policy always was. He represented the worst of the GOP - a guy who seemed to be with it and really smart, but realistically an empty shell.
Click to expand...

Yup, my numbers weren't much different. I think I was getting about $800 a month, and I know my freshman year in college was well under $10,000 a year. And sadly, my mother didn't need it (but she took it because they wouldn't stop sending it). Not sure what my father specifically paid but he was the CFO of a Fortune 50 company and for the times, it was still large. The SS donations at the time were small, even in the days of high tax brackets. The money came back, which is why I've always said the math didn't work.

That aside, I agree that it was shameful of Ryan to want to cut SS when he himself saw the value, and actually admitted to the value, it brought to his life.
 
calamity said:
I take it you're not buying his "I want to spend more time with my family" excuse?
Click to expand...

I am willing to accept that he was being honest and such considerations are indeed an important factor for him.

Among other things that he did NOT want to talk about.
 
Mycroft said:
Tom Donohue is crying.
Click to expand...

and here I thought you were going to apologize for your earlier snide post (#12) mocking this thread.


Seems to me I heard this some weeks ago...and Ryan came out and denied it.

shrug...sorry, but I don't care enough to look up that previous report. Besides, they both are sourced by unnamed people who supposedly know something. In other words...rumors.
Click to expand...


I should have known better. :doh:roll:
 
haymarket said:
and here I thought you were going to apologize for your earlier snide post (#12) mocking this thread.





I should have known better. :doh:roll:
Click to expand...

I don't apologize for not trusting unnamed sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom