Paul Ryan flip-flops on Ayn Rand: "“I reject her philosophy”

[Dot Com]

why he throw Rand under the bus like that?

 

[bripat9643]

No it's not a Ponzi scheme.

They are not paying current retirees with current revenues because they don't have any choice.?

Yes they are paying current retirees with current revenues.

They could as easily redeem securities in the Trust Fund, pay retirees with that, and then use current incoming revenues to buy new securities and replace the ones they took out of the Trust Fund.

The only way those securities can be redeemed is with current revenues. Who do you think is on the hook for them, the tooth fairy? The taxpayers are the ones on the hook.

Ponzi schemes pay older investors with new money because they don't have any other money.

That describes SSI perfectly. You have to be terminally naive not to understand that.

 

[SniperFire]

This is a BS thread, by the way.

Ryan obviously respects Rand's sovereignty of the individual v. the State - along the lines of the inalienable rights as describe by our Founders.

What he rejects is her atheism.

 

[bripat9643]

There is a Trust Fund it consists of US treasury securities, as it always has..

From the perspective of the taxpayer, those securities are absolutely worthless because the taxpayers are the party obligated to pay them.

The Trust Fund is in US treasuries for in order to generate INTEREST INCOME. The idiots who want it to be stuck in a 'lockbox' somewhere under a mattress don't have a clue as to how one grows the value of an investment over time.

They don't generate any income whatsoever. You don't earn interest money by loaning money to yourself.

 

[clevergirl]

As a Christian who admires Ayn Rand I am in complete agreement with Ryan's position on her epistemology.


“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan told National Review on Thursday. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”

Note the wording there. “If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas.” Here is a list of things Ryan is NOT saying:

1. He thinks Ayn Rand is wrong about economics.

2. He thinks Ayn Rand is wrong about politics.

3. He thinks Ayn Rand is wrong about ethics.

4. He thinks Ayn Rand is right about religion.

He is simply saying he rejects Rand’s epistemological claims, which is a very specific subset of philosophy. And indeed, many people (including and especially Roman Catholics like Paul Ryan) would reject that part of her philosophy in favor of Aquinas.

 

[Dot Com]

This is a BS thread, by the way.

Ryan obviously respects Rand's sovereignty of the individual v. the State - along the lines of the inalienable rights as describe by our Founders.

What he rejects is her atheism.

not according to his own words

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview.

his budget says otherwise though

 

[SniperFire]

This is a BS thread, by the way.

Ryan obviously respects Rand's sovereignty of the individual v. the State - along the lines of the inalienable rights as describe by our Founders.

What he rejects is her atheism.

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy.

swiiiing and a miss. strike one.

 

[SniperFire]

As a Christian who admires Ayn Rand I am in complete agreement with Ryan's position on her epistemology.


“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan told National Review on Thursday. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”

Note the wording there. “If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas.” Here is a list of things Ryan is NOT saying:

1. He thinks Ayn Rand is wrong about economics.

2. He thinks Ayn Rand is wrong about politics.

3. He thinks Ayn Rand is wrong about ethics.

4. He thinks Ayn Rand is right about religion.

He is simply saying he rejects Rand’s epistemological claims, which is a very specific subset of philosophy. And indeed, many people (including and especially Roman Catholics like Paul Ryan) would reject that part of her philosophy in favor of Aquinas.

They know what Ryan actually meant. But Liberals lie.

 

[Dot Com]

he didn't say "religious philosophy" he said "philosophy" which would mean all of the Randian screed. Swing & a miss SniperFire

 

[clevergirl]

Where Paul Ryan AND Christianity must part with Rand's philosophical realism- is her atheism. The very idea that to reject ones atheistic epistemology is equal to a rejection of their entire philosophical treatise is idiotic... Do the atheistic liberals on here reject all of what the self proclaimed Christian Obama believes because they reject his Christian epistemology?


Ayn Rand's Originality Pt 4: Epistemology
Neil Parille continues his exploration of Ayn Rand's much vaunted originality as a philosopher.

Epistemological Realism

Ayn Rand is an epistemological realist. She believes that the mind perceives the external world, a world of individual entities. Orthodox Objectivist Allan Gotthelf explains that Rand is a “direct” realist. We are directly aware of people, trees, cars and the like. (Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand, p. 54.)

Gotthelf discusses the most common objection to direct realism: the problem of seemingly false perceptions. The classic example is perceiving a stick in water as bent when it is straight. Doesn’t this prove that we are not in contact with entities “as they really are”? Gotthelf responds that perceptions don’t deceive us because perceptions must be interpreted by the mind. The mind, applying reason to concepts, determines whether judgments are correct. (Id., pp. 54-55.) Frederick Wilhelmsen said the same thing years before. “[P]erceptions always represent what is perceived. Falsity results from faulty judgments made about perception.” (Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality, p. 31.)


read more

 

[Truthmatters]

SOLO Credo | SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists


hes a randian

 

[clevergirl]

he didn't say "religious philosophy" he said "philosophy" which would mean all of the Randian screed. Swing & a miss SniperFire

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan told National Review on Thursday. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”


The FACT that he linked her epistemology to her atheism is a pretty clear indication he was speaking to her religious philosophy... When he claimed his epistemology aligned his thinking to Thomas Aquinas, he cinched the religious relevance.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As much as I hate to agree with Sniperfire, he is essentially correct.

Any money you pay into social security is used to pay for the expenses of the retired now. Any money you receive after age 65 will be money taken from those workers younger than you. It is by design and definition a Ponzi Scheme.



And as far as their "promise" goes, that promise is only as good as the legislators who uphold it. Eventually, that promise WILL be broken and an entire generation will be screwed.

Ponzi scheme? No, it isn't...

Social Security Online - HISTORY, Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security

Yes it is a Ponzi scheme. It fits the definition to a 'T.'

Anyone who swallows propaganda from the SSA administration is too stupid to bother arguing with.

Yeah......you Di$ciple$ O' BU$HCO Propaganda surely do have quite the bragging-rights!!!!

*

 

[Greenbeard]

He doesn't reject her ethics? This is the underlying premise of his life and political philosophy?

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”

To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed [read: God]. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

I assumed he took the opposite path and believed in an afterlife and in a god that was somehow responsible for the moral fabric of reality.

Granted his actions don't suggest that but I hadn't previously seen Ryan acolytes attempting to affirm his dedication to Objectivist ethics.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes it is. Even your link admits it.

Sure he changes the words around to pretend its something else...but in the end, at its most basic core, its a ponzi scheme.

The problem youre having is the negative connatation implied by the term "Ponzi Scheme". As long as there are enough of the younger generation paying into the scheme the older generation can be paid out of it.

Scheme does not neccessarily mean scam.

Actually, yes it does mean it's a scam. It's a means for greedy geezers to loot their children and grandchildren.

......With minimal capital-gain$ taxes.......yeah, we've heard.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is a BS thread, by the way.

Ryan obviously respects Rand's sovereignty of the individual v. the State - along the lines of the inalienable rights as describe by our Founders.

"Ayn Rand, of course, was a kind of politicized L. Ron Hubbard—a novelist-philosopher who inspired a cult of acolytes who deem her the greatest human being who ever lived.

The enduring heart of Rand’s totalistic philosophy was Marxism flipped upside down. Rand viewed the capitalists, not the workers, as the producers of all wealth, and the workers, not the capitalists, as useless parasites."

Ryan's Truths!!!!!​

​

 

[Vidi]

This is a BS thread, by the way.

Ryan obviously respects Rand's sovereignty of the individual v. the State - along the lines of the inalienable rights as describe by our Founders.

What he rejects is her atheism.

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy.

swiiiing and a miss. strike one.

Then what IS his world view? The Altruism championed by Jesus Christ? His budget would suggest not.

 

[clevergirl]

swiiiing and a miss. strike one.

Then what IS his world view? The Altruism championed by Jesus Christ? His budget would suggest not.

It is ridiculous to assume that Ryan's insistence on government reform is somehow inconsistent with his belief in Christ. Christ did not expect the Roman government to take care of the poor- Indeed, his directions were always for the Church- not the State. The wealth of the Church is to be used to spread the Gospel and bring relief to the her members and aid the poor. He never intended a "war on poverty" to be preached or attempted- as He states: "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me."

Do you really believe in separation of Church and State- or only when you can attempt to use it to a ridiculous end?

3While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5“For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8“She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9“Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, we all know the trust fund is no longer a trust fund and was looted decades ago. But it can just as easily be said that the SS liability is funded by foreign debt, or Federal Reserve debt, considering payroll taxes are not actually being parked in the trust fund anymore.

The point is, I don't care where it's coming from. It's being robbed from me my entire life, when I'd just as soon opt out and take NOTHING they have to offer me. But they've taken plenty so far, and I'm going to gladly accept it back when and if it's offered to me.

So is everyone else. There's not a person in existence, whether they agree with SS or not, who isn't going to accept their benefits at retirement.

There is a Trust Fund it consists of US treasury securities, as it always has.

These are IOU's. The money does not exist. The money has been spent on other kool stuff and replaced with said IOUs.

When the debt ceiling was not certain to be raised last year, Obama pointed out the SS checks would not be going out.

How would you invest SS funds so that you wouldn't effectively hold IOU's?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it's not a Ponzi scheme.

They are not paying current retirees with current revenues because they don't have any choice.?

Yes they are paying current retirees with current revenues.

They could as easily redeem securities in the Trust Fund, pay retirees with that, and then use current incoming revenues to buy new securities and replace the ones they took out of the Trust Fund.

The only way those securities can be redeemed is with current revenues. Who do you think is on the hook for them, the tooth fairy? The taxpayers are the ones on the hook.

Ponzi schemes pay older investors with new money because they don't have any other money.

That describes SSI perfectly. You have to be terminally naive not to understand that.

US treasuries are redeemed all the time. What do you think money market accounts do with their cash? What do you think pension funds all across this country do with their cash? When an American buys a T-bond, for the interest, where do you think the $1000 went? Where do you think it comes from when the bond matures?

You are way out of your depth.