That's precious . . . you good liberals will all gather and perform a rain dance, and money will pour from the skies!!! I'm so proud of you FD . . . you obviously worked very hard to find an objective source to support your response. Thanks for participating. Here's a trophy for you . . . Thbbft!
Let's call it a half-truth, in that he benefitted from the program. That he wants to strand the needy without benefits is a total, unequivocal, outlandish, liberal lie.
I already differentiated with the word needy . . . that's clarification enough. Are adjectives beyond your comprehension?
Paul Ryan only received deceased parental benefits from Social Security until the age of 18. If you’re going to jump on the guy, you should at least know what you’re talking about. As regards lifetime pension and free medical care, I presume you refer to his having served in Congress. My answer is no. My opinion is that all congresspersons - Paul Ryan, AOC, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer all should enjoy exactly the same benefits that we, the citizenry enjoy . . . The same deductions from their paychecks and the same benefits. If they want more, they should put more from their paychecks into private retirement accounts and / or buy supplemental insurance. For them to participate in an entirely different system insulates them from any bad decisions they make with the systems the rest of us must participate in.
lifetime pension and medical from his time being a politician. this shouldn't need to be explained. Since you answered no, you just confirmed you also he agree he's a hypocritical jerk.
Show me Ryan's proposal(s) to deny deceased parental benefits to minor children FD, and I'll acknowledge the hypocrisy. If not, then you've painted yourself a liar.
Paul Ryan was never a traditional fiscal hawk in the mold of old school Republicans. His fondness for slashing the social safety net while cutting taxes for the rich wasn’t just a matter of dollars and cents. An acolyte of Ayn Rand’s ‘philosophy of selfishness,’ Ryan’s disdain for the poor or anyone who relied on federal benefits to survive was deeply ideological. “He… justified his agenda in moral terms, speaking frequently about ‘makers’ (i.e., people who work and earn good incomes) and ‘takers’ (i.e., lazy people who subsist on government assistance).” – Huffington Post, 4/11/18
Once again, the One-Line Wonder can’t come up with the answers he purports to have. Well, if you can’t point to Ryan's proposal(s) to deny deceased parental benefits to minor children FD, maybe you can get credibility-laden Huffpo to do it for you? What you regurgitated above certainly doesn’t do that.
I remember this CPAC moment and the story. It's not that the story wasn't true. It's that it was being incorrectly framed and that Paul Ryan never actually met anyone involved in the story. That young man was real but he was making the point that our society stigmatizes assistance for the poor and that we need to find ways to remove that poor. As a grown up he became an activist for free lunch. Paul Ryan took the story and pretended that he had a personal connection to the people involved and that the point of the story is that the little boy should have just starved instead of receiving a free school lunch. It's pretty disgusting
Yeah, and you blew right past my relevant statement, "For them to participate in an entirely different system insulates them from any bad decisions they make with the systems the rest of us must participate in." For not changing their system to be the same as ours, they're all hypocritical jerks.