Romney Taps Rep. Paul Ryan as Running Mate Ahead of VA Tour - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News...

Full story: NBC29 Charlottesville

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidential running mate on Saturday, turning to the architect of a conservative and intensely controversial long-term budget plan to remake Medicare and cut trillions in federal spending.
Comments
101 - 120 of 189 Comments Last updated Aug 14, 2012
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Aug 12, 2012
 
heh wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help but think many jobs would have been lost anyway.
It's not just ipads but parts to everything we use which are made cheaper abroad. We wouldn't be able to sell American made ones abroad as our labor make them too expensive. This has been true for all western countries, save for technologically advanced industries or high value products where labor is less a relative cost.
Conversely Apple, GM, Walmart would not be successful if not for imported cheap goods.
Wasn't one reason NAFTA and other free trade agreements were struck because protectionism and resulting tariff wars were interfering with our companies selling abroad?
http://larouchepac.com/node/13962
It was, but it wasn't applied equally, and the standard of living rose. It also gave everyone cheap stuff, but it also took entry level manufacturing jobs away from US Americans. In the short term, it was great, in the long term it's been devistating.
.
Great link, we could all learn from that; thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Aug 12, 2012
 
Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
Taken by immigrants because American's won't do them! Too many seem to think that they have to be an executive and refuse to work any jobs that involve labor. I believe there are jobs that are not being filled because the parasites won't work if it's "hard work." When is the last time you were in a hotel and the maid wasn't Mexican?
Well, since that's not true:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first...

Have you tried saying, India, China, Vietnam, or Indonesia?
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Oh please. You are losing the debate and you are smart but you see one person smarter than you so back out of the debate by claiming I am stupid. It's okay. I have yet to see ONE person as smart as I am and I have yet to lose one debate, so I don't blame you for backing out. But, you're a lot, lot smarter than most everyone else, so keep posting and just be glad that once in a while there's someone smarter than you.
Austerity measures shrink the economy, but what the alternative? It's a bunch of overpaid, overly entitled fat folks taking to the streets cause the government of Greece or Spain can only give them $5K a year retirede at 50 instead of 10K a year retired at 50. Boo hoo, what suffering, the inhumanity of all of it.
Here's your socialist model. 100 million Hispanics on welfare, high school dropouts in gangs and in prison, 140 million tea party nuts on SS and Medicare and a bunch of government pensions too, and about 10,000 decent, smart young people working and inventing everything and pay all the taxes. You think they will stay here? Nope. the U.S. is going full on third world ONLY because welfare programs exist. That's what created the majority race Hispanics on welfare. That is exactly what took the country third world, and if that is important or some big thing, that is hardly patriotic.
Libertarianism is patriotic in that it does not believe in being a military empire nor in giving people money from the government. It does not allow the nation to get into debt. And what was it our Founding Fathers worried about?? Debt, central banks, the bankers, and not being a military empire. I've read Ron Paul's books. I have a damned good idea what going Libertarian would do and it is very patriotic. yes, men mad up gods, religions. Been going on since the first civilizations. People make up gods to deal with fear of death and natural disaster, etc., then they kill each other over their gods. Hardly makes them smart, hardly makes the masses worth giving them all welfare and entitlements. People should have to prove they contribute to others and to the Earth itself in order to justify their existence. That is patriotic, demanding people of a nation be something, do something, stand for something. Life is not really about everyone spending money, buying crap. Human life is NOT important unless people do constructive things, and since there's like 6.5 billion too many humans now and most are born utterly self-centered, it is nonsense to claim they are important or entitled to anything. They most certainly are NOT entitled to destroy the air, soil, water, oceans, and kill off the plants and animals. It's not only not important it's critical that less of them exist so that the plant can survive.
Pam, I think there is a lot of exaggeration in this post. It can be discussed rationally, but it's hard to do so when there's so little factual content. It really ought to be toned down.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
I worked for 40 years and had the government take out money for all those years. I had not choice. I would have preferred to invested what they demanded that I pay. Now, the government keeps interest rates low, so that any money that I did save is not earning anything. The government is doing all in its power to keep "baby boomers" poor and unable to take care of themselves. We paid our share. Let's start with those that have not worked nor paid anything into ss or for that matter in taxes. Entitlements? I don't see it that way. I see it that the government has stolen from me.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/viewart/20...
You could have saved or invested 10 percent of your income while you were working. All of you people spend every cent you get buying stuff for yourselves and most of you go into debt too just to buy stuff, no one saves 10 percent or buys stocks or bought rental properties, everyone is like a little kid and spends all of their money, and if the government didn't force you all to pay something into SS, you would all be fat broke when you retire.

You dumb ass people talk about how independent you all are, but you too dumb to save any money or invest in for your retirements. I know men who bought real estate and now they make $300,000 a year retired. I know guys who come here from Ireland and buy up old homes and rebuild them themselves and rent them out. You people are dumb and dependent people. You are not the strong, smart, independent men like I am used to being around. If you're fat broke when you retire, then you were really bad with your money and you're not a rugged individualist, you're a fat dumbed down consumeraholic.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Aug 12, 2012
 
So if the government doesn't give the baby boomers money and government health care, they can't take care of themselves cause they spent all of their money?? Wha, wha, poor them. They need big daddy government to take care of them for 30 years of their lives. Wha, wha, poor them.
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>You could have saved or invested 10 percent of your income while you were working. All of you people spend every cent you get buying stuff for yourselves and most of you go into debt too just to buy stuff, no one saves 10 percent or buys stocks or bought rental properties, everyone is like a little kid and spends all of their money, and if the government didn't force you all to pay something into SS, you would all be fat broke when you retire.
You dumb **** people talk about how independent you all are, but you too dumb to save any money or invest in for your retirements. I know men who bought real estate and now they make $300,000 a year retired. I know guys who come here from Ireland and buy up old homes and rebuild them themselves and rent them out. You people are dumb and dependent people. You are not the strong, smart, independent men like I am used to being around. If you're fat broke when you retire, then you were really bad with your money and you're not a rugged individualist, you're a fat dumbed down consumeraholic.
While I agree with your message, to an extent; I don't agree with your delivery. Not all are the same, whether through environment or genetic determinants, each one’s ability and psyche are dynamic. Treating each individual as if they’re generic would be a grave error, and is the trait of those who are social justice apologists.
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pamela wrote:
So if the government doesn't give the baby boomers money and government health care, they can't take care of themselves cause they spent all of their money?? Wha, wha, poor them. They need big daddy government to take care of them for 30 years of their lives. Wha, wha, poor them.
You do understand that they paid into the system, and what the The Social Security Amendments of 1983 was, right?
Blah

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Aug 12, 2012
 
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>You could have saved or invested 10 percent of your income while you were working. All of you people spend every cent you get buying stuff for yourselves and most of you go into debt too just to buy stuff, no one saves 10 percent or buys stocks or bought rental properties, everyone is like a little kid and spends all of their money, and if the government didn't force you all to pay something into SS, you would all be fat broke when you retire.
You dumb **** people talk about how independent you all are, but you too dumb to save any money or invest in for your retirements. I know men who bought real estate and now they make $300,000 a year retired. I know guys who come here from Ireland and buy up old homes and rebuild them themselves and rent them out. You people are dumb and dependent people. You are not the strong, smart, independent men like I am used to being around. If you're fat broke when you retire, then you were really bad with your money and you're not a rugged individualist, you're a fat dumbed down consumeraholic.
You lost all respect and credibility, even though you make great points about saving, when you rant about "All of you people" and "You dub **** people". You don't have a clue about the experiences of each individual person. Know it all's like you are what keeps us from making rational and effective changes for the future.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Aug 12, 2012
 
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>While I agree with your message, to an extent; I don't agree with your delivery. Not all are the same, whether through environment or genetic determinants, each one’s ability and psyche are dynamic. Treating each individual as if they’re generic would be a grave error, and is the trait of those who are social justice apologists.
The point is the tea party people claim to be independent, rugged individualists who can take care of themselves. Their whole message is get off of the government, take care of yourselves, make it on your own. They see themselves as strong, smart people who are not on the government, but in reality they spent all of their money and they are all counting on the government to take care of them retired.

This is a group of people who are really ONLY after the entitlements for themselves. They all have very low IQs, they are dependent people, dependent on Fox News to tell them what to think, dependent on the government to live retired. They feel entitled to free rest homes from the government, medical care from the government, pensions from the government, so they are actually socialists by their demands and by what they live on. But they are soooooooo dumb that they repeat the stuff from Fox about "make it on your own, no government health care." But they all want government health care and they are NOT the smart strong people who can really make it on their own and live without SS and Medicare. I know men who make a lot of money and who don't need SS or Medicare. All of this rhetoric from the Tea Party - they are describing the rich smart men I know from world class cities. These tea party people are nothing like that. they have NO education, no money, and they are looking for government money. It's a totally phony deal. they have probably never even met anyone who can live retired without SS. It shows how dependent SS and Medicare made people. It turned the old people into this country into spend thrifts and dependent people. Those tea party people are the very socialists and dependent people that they claim to hate so much.

You can't both need to live on the government and live on a bunch of government pensions, and at same time claim to hate those who live on the government and claim to hate socialism. They can't be on Medicare and claim to hate government health care both at the same time.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Aug 12, 2012
 
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>You do understand that they paid into the system, and what the The Social Security Amendments of 1983 was, right?
they get 20-30 times more out of Medicare than they ever paid in, and they get a lot more out of SS than they ever paid in. That's how we got the $120 TRILLION in unfunded promises in SS and Medicare. If the government paid out what it promsied to give the baby boomers in SS and Medicare, it would pay out $120 TRILLION more than the baby boomers paid in. So that would be $120 TRILLION of welfare.

They always make it up that they would have invested that money themselves so much better and that they would be so rich. they just make that up. They could all have invested another ten percent themselves, yet not one of them did so.

The point is if you let those greedy people get $120 trillion more out of SS and Medicare than they paid in, and had the government continued to let them pile into rest homes for free too by hiding their assets, we would all be paying a 40 percent national sales tax to pay for this stuff. How many of you want to be taxed to death to pay for this stuff????
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Aug 12, 2012
 
Blah wrote:
<quoted text>
You lost all respect and credibility, even though you make great points about saving, when you rant about "All of you people" and "You dub **** people". You don't have a clue about the experiences of each individual person. Know it all's like you are what keeps us from making rational and effective changes for the future.
I am talking about the Tea Party. I know exactly what they are like, how they think, who they are, how they live. I could write a book about it. So when I say "all of you" I mean all of the Tea Party people. They are not mostly old people for no reason. They are old people trying to end all government spending except for SS and Medicar and any government pensions that they would get. Being selfish and greedy is the problem, not my pointing it out.

You have all of these old people thowing young people under the bus. There is no socieity, no working together. It's old wealthy people who want the government health care and the government money and they are throwing their kids and grandkids under the bus for them to be able to get government money.

Have any of you seen ONE old tea party person stand up for social security and medicare for everyone under 55?????????? NOT ONE. This is only about greed for money. They are the problem - greed and selfishness is the problem.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Aug 12, 2012
 
It is exactly the same situation as those state pensions. Those state retirees keep saying they have contracts, there is nothing we can do about it, and so they had to reject 300,000 poor young people from community colleges because of budget cuts here in CA in order to keep paying big fat pensions to state retirees. We have them around out necks taxwise, austerity measures, and the tea party does the same thing. They say the same thing, that they paid in, they are entitled, and if you let them, they too will have us paying big new taxes to pay for this crap they want from the government - and all the while they will still be going on and on and on about how independent they are and how them living on the govenrment makes them so strong and they are taking care of themselves. They think living off of the government means that they are taking care of themselves cause they paid in, and that other people who live off of the government are dependent, but them living off the government supposedly makes them somehow independent. These people are lying to themselves. It's a big made up story for them to try to justify why they are the most entitled to get the tax money.

Anne Coulter said that in 5 more years SS and Medicare will be using up 97 percent of the federal budget. If that money was money that workers paid into those programs, those programs would be self-sufficient, they would not be using up 97 percent of the federal budget. that shows how much of it is welfare.

How many of you want to use up 97 percent of the budget on entitlements for the tea party and only have 3 percent left for all other government spending? Do you want to pay taxes ONLY for old people to live off of the government? Really??
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>The point is the tea party people claim to be independent, rugged individualists who can take care of themselves. Their whole message is get off of the government, take care of yourselves, make it on your own. They see themselves as strong, smart people who are not on the government, but in reality they spent all of their money and they are all counting on the government to take care of them retired.
This is a group of people who are really ONLY after the entitlements for themselves. They all have very low IQs, they are dependent people, dependent on Fox News to tell them what to think, dependent on the government to live retired. They feel entitled to free rest homes from the government, medical care from the government, pensions from the government, so they are actually socialists by their demands and by what they live on. But they are soooooooo dumb that they repeat the stuff from Fox about "make it on your own, no government health care." But they all want government health care and they are NOT the smart strong people who can really make it on their own and live without SS and Medicare. I know men who make a lot of money and who don't need SS or Medicare. All of this rhetoric from the Tea Party - they are describing the rich smart men I know from world class cities. These tea party people are nothing like that. they have NO education, no money, and they are looking for government money. It's a totally phony deal. they have probably never even met anyone who can live retired without SS. It shows how dependent SS and Medicare made people. It turned the old people into this country into spend thrifts and dependent people. Those tea party people are the very socialists and dependent people that they claim to hate so much.
You can't both need to live on the government and live on a bunch of government pensions, and at same time claim to hate those who live on the government and claim to hate socialism. They can't be on Medicare and claim to hate government health care both at the same time.
Again, using generic terms or generalizations doesn't endear you to those that you're trying to convince. First off, Tea Partiests are just as dynamic as those who are on either side of the spectrum. It's easy to decipher from your posts that you would agree with the Tea Party's core principles.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/about/
I would agree, though, if you were to criticize the Tea Party for choosing representation that is not congruent to those principles.
more pay

Palmyra, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I've saved 12% of every penny I've ever earned. 30 years of 12% to myself. I don't plan on claiming my social security until I am forced to at 72. Why am I forced to?

I think R & R is going to dismantle social security as we know it for all 54 years old or less. I look forward to getting mine and my employer's share to invest my way.
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
Aug 12, 2012
 
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>they get 20-30 times more out of Medicare than they ever paid in, and they get a lot more out of SS than they ever paid in. That's how we got the $120 TRILLION in unfunded promises in SS and Medicare. If the government paid out what it promsied to give the baby boomers in SS and Medicare, it would pay out $120 TRILLION more than the baby boomers paid in. So that would be $120 TRILLION of welfare.
They always make it up that they would have invested that money themselves so much better and that they would be so rich. they just make that up. They could all have invested another ten percent themselves, yet not one of them did so.
The point is if you let those greedy people get $120 trillion more out of SS and Medicare than they paid in, and had the government continued to let them pile into rest homes for free too by hiding their assets, we would all be paying a 40 percent national sales tax to pay for this stuff. How many of you want to be taxed to death to pay for this stuff????
C
.
an you cite that with a credible link?
That's not always true, I've lost more than 6 digets in my 401K and am now just recovering. My old man lost more than 7 digets in Bush's last year alone (5 years after he retired).(Hopefully he's recoverting). Having said all that, when one is living pay check to pay check, having to purchase insurance and retirement may be an added burden.
.
Again, a credible link would be helpful. I googled it and only got three hits, two blogs an a half true from politifact florida.
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Aug 12, 2012
 
Pamela wrote:
It is exactly the same situation as those state pensions. Those state retirees keep saying they have contracts, there is nothing we can do about it, and so they had to reject 300,000 poor young people from community colleges because of budget cuts here in CA in order to keep paying big fat pensions to state retirees. We have them around out necks taxwise, austerity measures, and the tea party does the same thing. They say the same thing, that they paid in, they are entitled, and if you let them, they too will have us paying big new taxes to pay for this crap they want from the government - and all the while they will still be going on and on and on about how independent they are and how them living on the govenrment makes them so strong and they are taking care of themselves. They think living off of the government means that they are taking care of themselves cause they paid in, and that other people who live off of the government are dependent, but them living off the government supposedly makes them somehow independent. These people are lying to themselves. It's a big made up story for them to try to justify why they are the most entitled to get the tax money.
Anne Coulter said that in 5 more years SS and Medicare will be using up 97 percent of the federal budget. If that money was money that workers paid into those programs, those programs would be self-sufficient, they would not be using up 97 percent of the federal budget. that shows how much of it is welfare.
How many of you want to use up 97 percent of the budget on entitlements for the tea party and only have 3 percent left for all other government spending? Do you want to pay taxes ONLY for old people to live off of the government? Really??
To be fair, out in California you have prop 218, prop 38 and prop 55. Which means, in order for any government in California to raise taxes, it must win general support. It also means that any social programs (in this case educational and state recreation) must be funded. So everyone votes down tax increases and everyone votes for social programs. Where do you people think the money comes from? It's not like it's Mana from heaven.
.
There are some abuses in the pension system, but can't you see a parallel between the contractual obligation that those employees signed on to, and the exectives whose banks got bailed out and still received their bonuses?
.
As far as the 300,000 poor people that can't go to community college, that's really isn't asymmetric with your stance, now is it?
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Aug 12, 2012
 
*its *manna *executives
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Aug 12, 2012
 
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Have any of you seen ONE old tea party person stand up for social security and medicare for everyone under 55?????????? NOT ONE. This is only about greed for money. They are the problem - greed and selfishness is the problem.
Perhaps that's because that's not what it was designed for?
Dude

Montpelier, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Aug 12, 2012
 
Pamela wrote:
It is exactly the same situation as those state pensions. Those state retirees keep saying they have contracts, there is nothing we can do about it, and so they had to reject 300,000 poor young people from community colleges because of budget cuts here in CA in order to keep paying big fat pensions to state retirees. We have them around out necks taxwise, austerity measures, and the tea party does the same thing. They say the same thing, that they paid in, they are entitled, and if you let them, they too will have us paying big new taxes to pay for this crap they want from the government - and all the while they will still be going on and on and on about how independent they are and how them living on the govenrment makes them so strong and they are taking care of themselves. They think living off of the government means that they are taking care of themselves cause they paid in, and that other people who live off of the government are dependent, but them living off the government supposedly makes them somehow independent. These people are lying to themselves. It's a big made up story for them to try to justify why they are the most entitled to get the tax money.
Anne Coulter said that in 5 more years SS and Medicare will be using up 97 percent of the federal budget. If that money was money that workers paid into those programs, those programs would be self-sufficient, they would not be using up 97 percent of the federal budget. that shows how much of it is welfare.
How many of you want to use up 97 percent of the budget on entitlements for the tea party and only have 3 percent left for all other government spending? Do you want to pay taxes ONLY for old people to live off of the government? Really??
Oh, and Ann Coulter also said that Jews needed to be perfected. I wouldn't put much faith in what she has to say. Especially since you were just chastising Fox News and that is her main platform.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Aug 12, 2012
 
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, out in California you have prop 218, prop 38 and prop 55. Which means, in order for any government in California to raise taxes, it must win general support. It also means that any social programs (in this case educational and state recreation) must be funded. So everyone votes down tax increases and everyone votes for social programs. Where do you people think the money comes from? It's not like it's Mana from heaven.
.
There are some abuses in the pension system, but can't you see a parallel between the contractual obligation that those employees signed on to, and the exectives whose banks got bailed out and still received their bonuses?
.
As far as the 300,000 poor people that can't go to community college, that's really isn't asymmetric with your stance, now is it?
There is no point in paying old people big, giant pensions and refusing to educate poor young people because those young people have to pay for those old people's pensions. The old people want to keep slitting young people's throats so they can keep getting big government pensions and big government entitlements. they are cutting off the hand that feeds them. Young people pay into SS and Medicare, pay income taxes, property taxes. You refuse to educate them, you render them unemployable, there won't be any pensions or any SS or any Medicare in a few more years.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••