Ryan and Seniors

[pepper11]

What is with the narrative that Ryan hurts with Seniors?  Seniors (well, at least those >55) are the only people NOT affected by Ryan's Medicare plan.

The new Rasmussen poll seems to dispute the Senior narrative. Ryan has a  39/25 favorability overall and a 52/29 favorability among seniors.

[TJ in Oregon]

That's probably part of why Romney picked Ryan: the type of voter who would be turned off by Ryan was probably already turned off by Romney in the first place.

[Brittain33]

Probably because Republicans swept 2010 by attacking Obama for cutting Medicare and not spending more on seniors and now they've nominated someone who wants to cut Medicare (admittedly, grandfathering in the current Republican electorate with existing spending) and privatize social security.

[krazen1211]

The liberal theory is that they can continue to spend into oblivion and screech at anyone who tries to (barely) cut back on their inflated levels of spending.

They of course stomp their feet and call people names and shout the word draconian.

Perhaps the people will choose the union busters like they did in 2010.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

What is with the narrative that Ryan hurts with Seniors?  Seniors (well, at least those >55) are the only people NOT affected by Ryan's Medicare plan.

Do you think Seniors are THAT greedy. If their children and grandchildren have been paying into Medicare, and then some guy decides that it should become a voucher program and they won't get what they paid for, do you really think theyll say "It doesn't effect me so I don't care"?

The new Rasmussen poll seems to dispute the Senior narrative. Ryan has a  39/25 favorability overall and a 52/29 favorability among seniors.

And what was the wording of he question? Rasmussen has been known to do loaded questions.

[Brittain33]

The other reason for this is, of course, Kathy Hochul.

[krazen1211]

What is with the narrative that Ryan hurts with Seniors?  Seniors (well, at least those >55) are the only people NOT affected by Ryan's Medicare plan.

Do you think Seniors are THAT greedy. If their children and grandchildren have been paying into Medicare, and then some guy decides that it should become a voucher program and they won't get what they paid for, do you really think theyll say "It doesn't effect me so I don't care"?

The new Rasmussen poll seems to dispute the Senior narrative. Ryan has a  39/25 favorability overall and a 52/29 favorability among seniors.

And what was the wording of he question? Rasmussen has been known to do loaded questions.

Mathematically everyone gets out of medicare far more dollars than they pay in Medicare payroll tax. That's the problem.

[Lief 🗽]

The liberal theory is that they can continue to spend into oblivion and screech at anyone who tries to (barely) cut back on their inflated levels of spending.

They of course stomp their feet and call people names and shout the word draconian.

Perhaps the people will choose the union busters like they did in 2010.

And the Republican theory is that we can cut trillions of dollars of taxes for the rich, dismantle the safety net, and somehow things will be okay.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What is with the narrative that Ryan hurts with Seniors?  Seniors (well, at least those >55) are the only people NOT affected by Ryan's Medicare plan.

Do you think Seniors are THAT greedy.

Never underestimate the selfish nature of any human being. The Right has perfected the art of stoking a voters worst instincts by coming to the understanding that voters are, largely, awful and stupid people that barely have an attention span, in a way that the Left has not come to terms with. That approach to wanting to drown Medicare can absolutely be successful, and I say that with envy.

[pepper11]

What is with the narrative that Ryan hurts with Seniors?  Seniors (well, at least those >55) are the only people NOT affected by Ryan's Medicare plan.

Do you think Seniors are THAT greedy. If their children and grandchildren have been paying into Medicare, and then some guy decides that it should become a voucher program and they won't get what they paid for, do you really think theyll say "It doesn't effect me so I don't care"?

The new Rasmussen poll seems to dispute the Senior narrative. Ryan has a  39/25 favorability overall and a 52/29 favorability among seniors.

And what was the wording of he question? Rasmussen has been known to do loaded questions.

I am not saying they are greedy. All I know is the prevailing narrative is that Ryan's weakness would be with seniors.  And logically, that just doesn't make sense.

As for the Rasmussen poll. No idea of the wording. Nate Silver listed a 39/33 favorability average.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The liberal theory is that they can continue to spend into oblivion and screech at anyone who tries to (barely) cut back on their inflated levels of spending.

Are you aware that it's Democrats who have had the balanced budgets, and not Republicans. Democrats want to cut the deficit. We just don't think, and pretty much EVERY economist agrees, that cutting everything with no revenue is crazy and impossible to sustain. Look at Europe. The GOP plan is, "Hey Europes doing great right now. Our Unemployment Rate is 8 Percent and theirs is 11 percent, but if we cut enough, we can get right up there with them."

They of course stomp their feet and call people names and shout the word draconian.

Republicans of course stomp their feet and yell "socialism", when a bi-partisan proposal for a balanced plan to cut the deficit, Simpson-Bowles, comes to a vote. They vote for it in committe, but them vote against it saying "we can't raise taxes on the job creators". The middle class are the job creators.
[/quote]

Perhaps the people will choose the union busters like they did in 2010.

Please tell me how Unioms have hindered job growth?

[Rhodie]

The liberal theory is that they can continue to spend into oblivion and screech at anyone who tries to (barely) cut back on their inflated levels of spending.

Are you aware that it's Democrats who have had the balanced budgets, and not Republicans. Democrats want to cut the deficit. We just don't think, and pretty much EVERY economist agrees, that cutting everything with no revenue is crazy and impossible to sustain. Look at Europe. The GOP plan is, "Hey Europes doing great right now. Our Unemployment Rate is 8 Percent and theirs is 11 percent, but if we cut enough, we can get right up there with them."

They of course stomp their feet and call people names and shout the word draconian.

Republicans of course stomp their feet and yell "socialism", when a bi-partisan proposal for a balanced plan to cut the deficit, Simpson-Bowles, comes to a vote. They vote for it in committe, but them vote against it saying "we can't raise taxes on the job creators". The middle class are the job creators.

Perhaps the people will choose the union busters like they did in 2010.

Please tell me how Unioms have hindered job growth?
[/quote]

Because higher wages=fewer jobs.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I am not saying they are greedy. All I know is the prevailing narrative is that Ryan's weakness would be with seniors.  And logically, that just doesn't make sense.

As for the Rasmussen poll. No idea of the wording. Nate Silver listed a 39/33 favorability average.

I take Nate's word for it. He's the most unbiased guy in political news.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yep, higher minimum wages and bigger union membership is a huge drag on jobs and the economy. Just ask Canada!

[pepper11]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama did not support Simpson-Bowles.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The liberal theory is that they can continue to spend into oblivion and screech at anyone who tries to (barely) cut back on their inflated levels of spending.

Are you aware that it's Democrats who have had the balanced budgets, and not Republicans. Democrats want to cut the deficit. We just don't think, and pretty much EVERY economist agrees, that cutting everything with no revenue is crazy and impossible to sustain. Look at Europe. The GOP plan is, "Hey Europes doing great right now. Our Unemployment Rate is 8 Percent and theirs is 11 percent, but if we cut enough, we can get right up there with them."

They of course stomp their feet and call people names and shout the word draconian.

Republicans of course stomp their feet and yell "socialism", when a bi-partisan proposal for a balanced plan to cut the deficit, Simpson-Bowles, comes to a vote. They vote for it in committe, but them vote against it saying "we can't raise taxes on the job creators". The middle class are the job creators.

Perhaps the people will choose the union busters like they did in 2010.

Please tell me how Unions have hindered job growth?

Because higher wages=fewer jobs.
[/quote]
So it's better to have a minimum wage job, than to have a job that pays fairly. Don't get me wrong though, Union concerns should be balanced with business concerns. But I think all out Union Busting is a little too radical.

[krazen1211]

The liberal theory is that they can continue to spend into oblivion and screech at anyone who tries to (barely) cut back on their inflated levels of spending.

Are you aware that it's Democrats who have had the balanced budgets, and not Republicans. Democrats want to cut the deficit. We just don't think, and pretty much EVERY economist agrees, that cutting everything with no revenue is crazy and impossible to sustain. Look at Europe. The GOP plan is, "Hey Europes doing great right now. Our Unemployment Rate is 8 Percent and theirs is 11 percent, but if we cut enough, we can get right up there with them."

They of course stomp their feet and call people names and shout the word draconian.

Republicans of course stomp their feet and yell "socialism", when a bi-partisan proposal for a balanced plan to cut the deficit, Simpson-Bowles, comes to a vote. They vote for it in committe, but them vote against it saying "we can't raise taxes on the job creators". The middle class are the job creators.

Perhaps the people will choose the union busters like they did in 2010.

Please tell me how Unioms have hindered job growth?
[/quote]

Not this Democrat. He's borrowed roughly $5.3 trillion thus far to pay for the so called 'social safety net' and whatever priorities he concocted in his own head. That's why of course the Democrats have no budget except to borrow money and give it to their voting base.


These public sector unions take trillions of dollars from the people and funnel it back into their own coffers where they can eat like pigs. Turns out that you can't borrow an additional $5.3 trillion at the state/local level legally and that comes out of the pockets of the middle class.

And, well, it turns out that people like money in their pocket more than they like money in someone else's pocket. Go figure!

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama did not support Simpson-Bowles.

He was going to come out in support for it but Kent Conrad and Erskine Bowles told him that if he stayed out of it, there'd be more chance that Republicans would go along with it. They knew that what ever he was for, they'd be against.

[krazen1211]

Because higher wages=fewer jobs.

To the extent that some jobs have been created since January 2009, they've been lower wages than the jobs that existed before. Go figure.

[Brittain33]

This is a discussion about Ryan and seniors, not the same unions bad unions good conversation had a million times before.

[ajb]

Here's a lengthy quote which suggests why the Ryan budget may in fact have negative implications for those who are already receiving Medicare. Food for thought.

"In addition, while the plan says that it retains traditional Medicare as an option, that option may not last.  Under the proposal, private plans could tailor their benefit packages to attract healthier beneficiaries and deter sicker ones.  Most health analysts expect that healthier beneficiaries would disproportionately enroll in private plans while less healthy ones — who cost more to serve — would stay in traditional Medicare.  While Chairman Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden, with whom Ryan has collaborated on the general approach reflected in the premium-support proposal, have said that it would adjust the payments to private plans and to traditional Medicare to compensate for differences in the health of enrollees, this “risk adjustment” process is highly imperfect; risk adjustment has been able to capture only part of the differences in costs across health plans that stem from differences in enrollees’ health.  Consequently, traditional Medicare would likely find itself compensated only partially for its higher-cost enrollees, forcing it to raise its premiums to make up the difference.  The higher premiums, in turn, could lead more and more of its healthier enrollees to leave traditional Medicare for private plans.  Over time, traditional Medicare could become less financially viable, and eventually it could unravel, because it would be competing on an un-level playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result.

To be sure, Chairman Ryan says the proposal would not affect people now 55 and older, but that’s not likely an accurate prediction.  As fewer new beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare when they reached the age of eligibility, the population in traditional Medicare would gradually become older, sicker, and fewer in number — and hence more expensive per person to cover.  And as the size of the Medicare population shrank, administrative costs would rise relative to benefit payments.  In addition, with fewer enrollees, traditional Medicare’s power to demand lower payment rates from providers would erode, and providers would have less incentive to participate in the program.  As a result, people now 55 and older might well face higher premiums and cost sharing for traditional Medicare, a more limited choice of providers, or both."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3712

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All I can give is anecdotal evidence.  My elderly mother's first thought about Ryan when she heard about him being the Veep is that he's the guy who wants to cut Medicare, and she's a fairly solid Republican.