Paul Ryan it is...

[Jim in CT]

And here is the difference between the GOP ticket and the Democrat ticket..

Ryan reluctantly admits that social security and medicare need to be overhaules in order to be saved. Ryan shares the irrefutable datga to suggest that those programs will collapse under the weight of the Baby Boomers, and he proposes a specific plan to address it.

The Democratic response is a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff. That's not an exaggeration, that happened.

In the VP debate (which I cannot wait for) Ryan will calmy explain precisely why he believes what he believes. Biden will scream at the top of his lungs, bang the podium, throw papers in the air, accusing Paul Ryan oif wanting to kill old people, sell their organs in ebay, and split the profits with Wall Street fatcats.

I would love someone to ask Joe Biden just one wuestion..."Mr Vice President, you claim to be catholic, but you support abortion. Sir, is the Pope wrong on that topic"?

[spence]

I don't think Ryan brings that much to the ticket. Sure, he'll bring some additional conservative appeal but nothing for moderate voters outside of Wisconsin. Ryan is supposed to be the numbers guy but that's what I thought Romney was?

With how bad Romney did on his international test drive I'd have thought they'd look for someone with a little more diplomatic experience.

And Ryan's plan isn't going to resonate with the average voter. It makes massive supply side assumptions that are contradicted by even the last decade, and his plan for Medicare is terrible. Peg Federal contribution to inflation? That's just going to stratify the system and increase the cost of care...right back to where we started.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

I also did not know that Ryan is an avid fisherman and bowhunter.

It's an interesting choice. Removing political considerations, Ryan would have been my first choice. But you can't ignore political angles. Perhaps the Romney camp assumes they will win Florida anyway, and figure Ryan gives them a shot at Wisconsin?

Here's the next Obama commercial...telling everyone that "Romney", spelled differently, is...

Money (R).

Surprised they haven't used that against him yet.

From my perspective, it's nice to have an actual Catholic on the ticket, as opposed to the Kennedy-Biden crew who claim to be Catholic yet refuse to live as Catholics. Nothing harder to admire than a politician who goes to mass on Sunday, then on Monday tells Planned Parenthood how swell abortion is.

To believe in everything is to believe in nothing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

his plan for Medicare is terrible.

-spence

And Obama's plan for Medicare is......

Spence, maybe you don't like Rytan's plan. But pointing at Ryan and saying "see! He hates sick people!" isn't an alternate option...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think Ryan brings that much to the ticket. Sure, he'll bring some additional conservative appeal but nothing for moderate voters outside of Wisconsin. Ryan is supposed to be the numbers guy but that's what I thought Romney was?


-spence

By picking Ryan, the ticket is showing how serious it is about solving the debt crisis.
This resets the tone of the real issues, the economy and jobs.

Obama had his shot at" Hope and Change" and now it's time to look forward
to solving the real problems not trying to spend our way out of debt.
Ryan's plan of Cutting taxes and loopholes will lead to increased revenues.

Ryan is a young well educated guy with a lot of ideas for the future, father of 3, Cub Scout leader, hunter and fisherman, very well rounded.

While both parties are guilty, it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever.

Now we have the tickets, let's hear and debate the plans.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

While both parties are guilty, it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever.

Now we have the tickets, let's hear and debate the plans.

"While both parties are guilty..."

Agreed 100%...

"it's time for the President, the leader, to step up, show some class and set the right tone for the election. It's time to come up with concrete plans to solve the issues not showing wheelchairs going off a cliff or accusing others of cancer deaths or whatever."

That's the choice in this election. Romney/Ryan will offer th etough, but necessary, sacrifices to get u sback to financial stability (no one likes hearing that the well is dry, but when it's dry, it does no good to pretend otherwise).

Obama/Biden will attack Romney/Ryan for the horrible Draconian cuts they are proposing, and will do everythnig they can to demonize Romney/Ryan. Yet they will offer no alternatives, other than to say we can get $90 billion a year by taxing the uber-rich. Whoop-dee-do.

That's what this election comes down to. Are we ready to right the ship, or are we going to buy the be swayed by the guy who promises us more free stuff than the other guy.

If Obama offers specific solutions, I'm willing to listen. But from what I can see, his plan consists of (1) accusing the other side of hating poor people, and (2) more taxes and more spending. Earth to Obama...you cannot get out of a hole by digging your way out.

[CTSurfrat]

Love having Paul Ryan on the ticket! Maybe now we can seriously address the financial disaster we are facing with some honesty, though the left will claim that republicans hate old people, poor people sick people, want dirty air, dirty water etc....

In my humble opinion it comes down to a fundamental difference in the role we think government should play in our lives...one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. I will be voting for limited!

[scottw]

Romney can appeal to the moderates and independents and the current president has very little to offer those groups in terms of accomplishments or potential going forwrd, Ryan energizes the conservative base and he's very impressive....still trying to figure out why the current president picked Joe Biden aside from making him look really smart in comparison.....

maybe he listened to David Frum?

"Conservatives remain skeptical about Mitt Romney, but he is still the only candidate who even has a chance of winning the general election. The key is that Romney is the only candidate who can potentially appeal to moderates.

Even if there is no conservative enthusiasm, the underlying numbers still make Romney the best possible nominee. Because Democrats have a statistically smaller base, they need moderates more desperately than Republicans. If conservatives show up to the polls at the same rate as they did for McCain, Romney only needs modest gains among moderates to win the election."

Hey Romney, Don't Forget to Pander to Moderates - The Daily Beast

[Nebe]

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

In my humble opinion it comes down to a fundamental difference in the role we think government should play in our lives...one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. I will be voting for limited!

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that.

fortunately..."it" still has an active debate within "it's" ranks regarding the proper size, expanding role and limits of government....the other "they" don't seem to be having any such debate....sounds like he's chosing the "side" that might at least provide him hope

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

The Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution . . . follow the Constutution. We need a President, and a Congress, and a Supreme Court, that follows the Constitution. Without a foundation, without principals, without a Supreme Law, none of the above will be ruled. They will rule us and spend our money, and distribute our wealth, and create regulations upon regulations that put us in increasingly smaller boxes from which it will be increasingly more difficult to squeeze and wriggle out of. They are operating now without direction and ever growing power at the expense of our own. The system consumes neophyte congressman and spits them out as bureaucratic clones. New ones are outnumbered by the entrenched holders-on. The only ones who can make them bend to our will is We The People. But without a common principle of governance, but, instead with fragmented and opposing desires that are fed, or promised to be fed, to disparate groups with incoherent policies and "plans," we remain at the mercy of the bumbling and essentially lawless bureacracy.

The most difficult, and most essential task, now, for We The People, is to unite with common purpose to free us from the dependence on, and expectation of, a benevolent government to "fix" itself. It cannot be fixed if it thinks it is doing what is right and good. The unsolvable mess that you describe is ultimately of our own making. We allow it. We choose to remain ignorant of what a society, or country needs to exist, perpetuate, and flourish--a common foundation, a uniting principle. We refuse, in our case, to understand our own Constitution, preferring to leave it up to the politicians and judges. Our ignorance is their license.

[scottw]

this is pretty comical but i guess an indicator of where we're at, keep in mind Obama's proposed budgets have been laughable and the Senate Dems have failed to pass a budget since....well, a very long time...which some might consider extreme and radical since they are Constitutionally mandated to do so

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a
sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from
foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.
Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is
shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and
grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better. "

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It isn't one is limited, the other is cradle to grave. You may think the one side will limit government, but that isn't true; it will limit government is some ways, but mostly tilt things to its own benefit. It is ok with government setting up the economy in favor of particular industries; usually those that are in their funds. It fights for government subsidies of agriculture, but only for particular commodities, mostly those owned by conglomerates. It is interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that is more about their own bank accounts and those of their friends, than it is about the overall economy or driving down debt. They are ok with a system that taxes one type of income at a much lower rate than other types of income. They are good at convincing a substantial amount of the population that it is about limited government and freedom, I will give them that.

You are right. Each side has its interests that it panders to. In an ideal world i would get rid of all politicians and start over. The one change would be term limits. It used to be that individuals would serve for a limited time and then go back to provate life willingly as soon as possible.

It is all about limited government and freedom -that is our history, that is what has made America the greatest nation on earth.

I am by no means wealthy, but I still do believe in supply side economics. I never got a job from a poor person. I love how with liberals it is the horrible cruel mean conservatives that earned money in evil corporations that are so greedy and selfish. How the CEOs make so much and all the underlings get so little. However, they never complain about professional athletes makes 25k for an at bat and the poor schlep selling peanuts in the stands or the guy in the parking lot making 25K for a year. Or the actor making 25 million for a movie and the make up artists or camera guys making only a tiny fraction for their work on the film. I guess it is ok to be filthy rich and greedy if you hold the same liberals beliefs.

And if people think that Obama, Biden, Buffet and all the other so called "generous" liberals that want the rich to pay more than the 70% they already pay don't hire CPAs and financial planners to reduce their tax burden, then I have a bridge for sale!! They are always willing to be more than generaous with other peoples money.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution . . . follow the Constutution. We need a President, and a Congress, and a Supreme Court, that follows the Constitution. Without a foundation, without principals, without a Supreme Law, none of the above will be ruled. They will rule us and spend our money, and distribute our wealth, and create regulations upon regulations that put us in increasingly smaller boxes from which it will be increasingly more difficult to squeeze and wriggle out of. They are operating now without direction and ever growing power at the expense of our own. The system consumes neophyte congressman and spits them out as bureaucratic clones. New ones are outnumbered by the entrenched holders-on. The only ones who can make them bend to our will is We The People. But without a common principle of governance, but, instead with fragmented and opposing desires that are fed, or promised to be fed, to disparate groups with incoherent policies and "plans," we remain at the mercy of the bumbling and essentially lawless bureacracy.

The most difficult, and most essential task, now, for We The People, is to unite with common purpose to free us from the dependence on, and expectation of, a benevolent government to "fix" itself. It cannot be fixed if it thinks it is doing what is right and good. The unsolvable mess that you describe is ultimately of our own making. We allow it. We choose to remain ignorant of what a society, or country needs to exist, perpetuate, and flourish--a common foundation, a uniting principle. We refuse, in our case, to understand our own Constitution, preferring to leave it up to the politicians and judges. Our ignorance is their license.

Bingo.

I believe we have two additional problems.
Like Nebe said, the hard problems are pushed under the rug for the next guy. We have a bunch of representatives that once in, want to make a career of their office, forgetting they are supposed to be servants as the Founding Fathers envisioned.
We need true servants who are willing to follow the constitution make the tough choices and do what's best for the country, not for selfish reasons, not looking towards the next election.

Second we have a fractionated population where politicians pander most too the group they think will re-elect them. Our melting pot has unfortunatley ceased to melt.
Except for our armed services, who truly serve, Patriotism is fading away and it's up to our President and Representatives to make us one, lead by example and lead us back to being American's first.

[Raven]

Rythm and Blues

[scottw]

just reading around the vaious sites that would be considered "conservative" sites, the Ryan pick is very popular, if the conservative base was tepid about Romney as they were with McCain, this pick has provided a significant spark heading into the convention, and while Palin delivered some inspiration to a party that was desperate for some/any with McCain she was easily caricatured...I imagine that there are many in that moderate/independent block that regret taking a flyer on BO and many more are looking for a direction which includes some fiscal sanity which does not seem to be a concern for the current bunch....BO is in the unenviable position that McCain was last go round in that many will consider a vote for him to be a vote for more of the same and with the economy not likely to make any great gains and the country going in the "wrong direction" polls consisently around 60% for a very long time (62% latest RCP average and those favoring repeal of his signature legislation consistently around 50% and trailing Bush in terms of job approval at this point in his reelection effort ).....it's going to be interesting to watch the strategy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

"
i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems"

But Ryan has, courageously, done exactly that. His budget calls for Medicare savings in the multiple trillions of dollars.

What was the Democratic response? Did they offer an alternative plan to save the trillions that we need to save? No. They made a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff.

That's the choice in thsi election. Romney/Ryan are taklking about the best way to make the difficult but necessary cuts. Obama/Biden will try to make us fear them for that.

Eben, I agree, we are in thsi mess because both parties chose to ignore this problem for 40 years. But today, one party is addressing these issues, the other is not.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems, because for the past 20 years, each president has pushed the problems under the rug for the next guy... now the problems are so bad that they might possibly be unfixable...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems"

But Ryan has, courageously, done exactly that. His budget calls for Medicare savings in the multiple trillions of dollars.

What was the Democratic response? Did they offer an alternative plan to save the trillions that we need to save? No. They made a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff.

That's the choice in thsi election. Romney/Ryan are taklking about the best way to make the difficult but necessary cuts. Obama/Biden will try to make us fear them for that.

Eben, I agree, we are in thsi mess because both parties chose to ignore this problem for 40 years. But today, one party is addressing these issues, the other is not.

Jim - even though you sometimes give me a headache reading your posts you are spot on with this. Ryan IS the only one offering some kind of plan out. He stuck his neck WAY out and got pig piled on for it but he did have the testicular fortitude to do it. The Democratic party has NOT come up with a way out.

Ryan's plan is too austere for my tastes and would be watered down a bit but it is part of the way forward.

The LONGER we wait to implement something than the more austere it would be.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
i dont think we will ever see a politician bring concrete solid plans on how to fix our problems"

But Ryan has, courageously, done exactly that. His budget calls for Medicare savings in the multiple trillions of dollars.

Ryan has not presented any serious proposal to save Medicare trillions of dollars, if anything he's proposed a theory that shifting costs to seniors will decrease overall healthcare costs through competition.

But without insurance exchanges (as established by Obama) there's no way to manage risk which will likely result in what we had before the HCB, namely insurers seeking to game the system by avoiding it, something that would only get worse with less regulation.

The closest thing to a government subsidized system via private insurers (Medicare Advantage) I believe has RAISED costs 8%.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Ryan has not presented any serious proposal to save Medicare trillions of dollars, if anything he's proposed a theory that shifting costs to seniors will decrease overall healthcare costs through competition.

But without insurance exchanges (as established by Obama) there's no way to manage risk which will likely result in what we had before the HCB, namely insurers seeking to game the system by avoiding it, something that would only get worse with less regulation.

The closest thing to a government subsidized system via private insurers (Medicare Advantage) I believe has RAISED costs 8%.

-spence

Spence, I asked you what Obama/Biden have offered as a solution to Medicare. In true liberal fashion, instead of answering my question, you choose to insult Ryan.

Is Ryan's plan the best possible solution to save Medicare? Maybe not. But as of today (as JohnR said), he is the only elected official in Washington (that I know of) who had the intellectual honesty to say out loud that Medicare is broke and needs fixing.

In response, all Obama has done is insult Ryan. And you are doing the same.

Jim in CT: Spence, what is the Democratic plan to save Medicare

Spence: Ryan's plan is not serious.

See what I mean, Spence? You didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask you what you thought of Ryan's plan (because everyone on Earth knows what you think of it). I asked you what your party's plan is...and your party has no plan. All they can do, all you can do, is insult.

Do you never, ever get tired of that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The LONGER we wait to implement something than the more austere it would be.

John, the actuaries have been saying for FIFTY years that the Baby Boomers will destroy Medicare and Social security. And for 50 years, politicians haven't been honest enough to do anything about it.

I'm not saying Ryan's plan is necessarily the best solution. But as of the time I sit here and type this, NOONE on the other side is offering any alternatives, other than to keep kicking the can down the road. We can't afford to do that anymore.

Ryan admits this, even though he knews he'll get crucified. Obama and Biden also know this to be true, but they aren't honest/brave enough to say it out loud. We have serious problems that require serious, brave, honest leadership. Obama ain't remotely it.

"The Democratic party has NOT come up with a way out."

And what does that say about them? The lowest estimates for the shortfalls for SS and Medicare are at least $40 trillion. That's more than $130,000 for every living American. How can anyone take a party seriously, that doesn't have a plan to fix this? Anyone with half a brain admits this debt rises to the level of a genuine national security threat, and the Democratic plan is to make the other side too politically afraid to talk about it.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

John, the actuaries have been saying for FIFTY years that the Baby Boomers will destroy Medicare and Social security. And for 50 years, politicians haven't been honest enough to do anything about it.

Yup, I can remember hearing it way back in the 50"s when the Baby Boomers were
being born by the droves. No one, that I can remember, ever even tried to address
the problems except Bush's Soc Sec plan.
Ryan came up with both a budget and Medicare plan, but between the press not covering them, and the opposition poo pooing them, they really never saw the light of day. As mentioned above, each day we wait for a solution the more austere it will be if it can be salvaged at all.

We are going broke,this election has to be about who has the best solutions for paying down the debt, improving the economy, increasing jobs and coming up with solutions for Soc Sec and Medicare.
Overdue time to pay the piper.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

Ryan has not presented any serious proposal to save Medicare trillions of dollars, if anything he's proposed a theory that shifting costs to seniors will decrease overall healthcare costs through competition.

But without insurance exchanges (as established by Obama) there's no way to manage risk which will likely result in what we had before the HCB, namely insurers seeking to game the system by avoiding it, something that would only get worse with less regulation.

The closest thing to a government subsidized system via private insurers (Medicare Advantage) I believe has RAISED costs 8%.

-spence

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I asked you what Obama/Biden have offered as a solution to Medicare. In true liberal fashion, instead of answering my question, you choose to insult Ryan.

What Spence said is an insult? And you follow it with "in true liberal fashion"?

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

What Spence said is an insult? And you follow it with "in true liberal fashion"?

I doubt he even read my post.

Obama has laid out numerous proposals to bolster Medicare. From negotiation of drug prices, ending insurance over payments through Medicare Advantage, cost controls when rates increase faster than 1% of GDP, programs to improve accuracy of care and coordination to eliminate redundant services etc...

Does this represent a proposed "fix"? I don't think anyone could propose a real fix. A fundamental question is if you believe Medicare is a compact to ensure you'll have health care when at the end of your life you likely won't be able to afford it.

Don't forget as well that under it all is the HCB. From what I've read about the Ryan plan, there are numerous pieces of the Obama plan (like exchanges) that Ryan would need to reuse.

The GOP could be in a pickle when people get down to the details and realize there's more similarities under the covers.

-spence

[Fly Rod]

U all know that neither the Dems nor Repubs will ever cure medicare; medicaid; social as long as they R not included in the programs...take away their exemption from the above and the programs will be fixed.

go people...do not waste your day on something that UUU have no imput on...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I doubt he even read my post.

Obama has laid out numerous proposals to bolster Medicare. From negotiation of drug prices, ending insurance over payments through Medicare Advantage, cost controls when rates increase faster than 1% of GDP, programs to improve accuracy of care and coordination to eliminate redundant services etc...

Does this represent a proposed "fix"? I don't think anyone could propose a real fix. A fundamental question is if you believe Medicare is a compact to ensure you'll have health care when at the end of your life you likely won't be able to afford it.

Don't forget as well that under it all is the HCB. From what I've read about the Ryan plan, there are numerous pieces of the Obama plan (like exchanges) that Ryan would need to reuse.

The GOP could be in a pickle when people get down to the details and realize there's more similarities under the covers.

-spence

"I doubt he even read my post."

Sure I did. Unlike you, I read, and I answer the questions asked. You said Ryan's plan was not serious.

"Obama has laid out numerous proposals to bolster Medicare"

None of them have cause the actuaries to conclude that Medicare is in better financial shape than it was before....Ryan claims his plan addresses the long-term crisis that's coming.

"A fundamental question is if you believe Medicare is a compact to ensure you'll have health care when at the end of your life you likely won't be able to afford it."

No. here is the real question...if Medicare is in the red to the tune of $100,000 for each one of us, what do we do?

Spence, I don't pretend to have any answers here. But i do know that attacking the once-in-a-generation politician who admits we have a problem, is not itself a solution.

Again, you pose it as a touching, emotionsl, gut-wrenching scenario about medical care for those who need it. And of course, that's a big part of this. But you (and Obama) never, ever, ever address the underlying debt. So another question is, do we bankruypot the next generation to take care of Baby Boomers?

I don't know the answer. But unlike you, I (and Paul Ryan) are asking the question.

"The GOP could be in a pickle..."

$15 trillion in debt, another $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities. we're all in a pickle, Spence. The democrat plan is to bury their heads in the sand, only to emerge to say that Republicans hate poor people and old people. That's not my idea of decisive leadership. Obama's dodge-and-demonize approach works on a lot of people like you (and you're not stupid), that doesn't mean it's effective leadership.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

What Spence said is an insult? And you follow it with "in true liberal fashion"?

Zimmy, I asked Spence what Obama's alternative idea is to fix Medicare. That's a fair and simple question.

Spence's answer was that Ryan's plan sucks.

That's not remotely answering the question that I asked. But it is absolutely what liberals do, again and again. Do you recall the commercial showing Paul Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff? Zimmy, is that productive dialogue in your opinion?

[scottw]

I think I've located part of the problem

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read about the Ryan plan,

-spence

here's some reading Spence
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...on-yuval-levin

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

here's some reading Spence
Grasping the Medicare Distortion - Yuval Levin - National Review Online

Good piece