CNBC: Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit

[OldLady]

Columns like this are so irresponsible, the authors ought to be "disbarred" or shot. They take an off-hand remark of an obvious fact and extrapolate it into a diabolical plan to - basically - kill babies and old people.

The real question is, what kind of a moron would take this seriously? A Democrat moron...obviously.

Ryan's dead serious. This isn't just vapors. But you're right that what Ryan wants is not what Ryan necessarily gets.

 

[OldLady]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Man. Are you ever going to be disappointed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

Damn. You are such a commie!

 

[Rocko]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

To be fair welfare isn’t really a driver of the debt or deficit. We need to make changes to ss, but not a complete overhaul of the system like Ryan wants.

 

[Rocko]

I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits

 

[Norman]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Never going to happen. 51 GOP senators I can guarantee Murkowski,Collins will NOT vote for it. I doubt President Trump would even sign it. SS is NOT a fucking entitlement its something MILLIONS of people worked for and they deserve it. I can't stand that son of a bitch Ryan.

Except politicians spent the money, and now the people who weren't even around to vote for it have to pay.

 

[Papageorgio]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This will not happen before the midterms as it will be met with fierce opposition and backlash by the electorate. There will be a political price for these cuts and a heavy one.

Midterms hell. It won't happen until after the Boomers die off. We want what's ours.

Social Security and Medicare are both Ponzi schemes, some generation SOON is going to get screwed big time, and it will be after the Boomers (think voting bloc) die off.
Thank you dumbacrats.

Yes, i have been paying for SS since i was 14. I am about to be 32 and i fear i wont be getting any of it when i get to the appropriate age to receive it.
Its bullshit.
I wish i could opt out of it. That extra money would be great going into my personal retirement plan..

You won’t see shit.

Government should let you take your 7% Social Security tax and invest it yourself, but it’s not for you. They money you are “investing” is immediately paid out to others.

There is no investment of your specific Social Security tax dollars for your retirement.

 

[nat4900]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

 

[danielpalos]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

We need to cut our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, first.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits

I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.

How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?

 

[NightFox]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

It's not a "choice" when you all you do is cater to your WANTS without regard for the COSTS, choices involve sacrificing one thing for another thing (opportunity cost), what we're currently doing is satisfying current wants without regard to the future consequences, out in the real world that's commonly known as being IRRESPONSIBLE and RECKLESS. As far as the "well being" of individuals, that's the responsibility of the individual, Government's responsibility should begin and end with the protection of the life, liberty and property of those individuals.

Personally I have no problem with drastically reducing military expenditures along with every other federal expenditure to the point where Washington is stuffed back in the cage the founders intended it to live in, specifically having only the authority and responsibilities explicitly granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Rocko]

I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits

I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.

How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?

I think we’re taxed enough already

 

[OldLady]

Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare.

From what I've read about the basic idea, converting Medicare to a premium support program entails;

Instead of paying out for expenses as they arise like Medicare does now, eligible retirees would receive a voucher to go out to the private market and purchase whatever private health insurance they wanted (paying any premiums over and above the voucher out of their own pockets), this caps annual Federal Medicare expenditures at # of beneficiaries * voucher face value versus the far more open ended program that we have now.

Obamacare on the other hand dictates the specifics of the insurance that can be purchased, how it can be purchased, includes penalties for failure to purchase and adds subsides based on income qualifications and carrier subsidies on the other end of the transaction to protect private insurers from market risk. All that's FAR more intrusive into the transaction and FAR less cost controlled than just handing someone a voucher and essentially saying "here, go buy what you want with this".

Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

Apparently some people don't understand the concept of SCARCITY, time to get with the program before all this faux "compassion" ends up strangling the goose that laid the golden egg, bad stuff happens, you want to help mitigate it? PRIVATE charities are the answer because we need to stop trying to run the federal government like it's a charity with infinite resources.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program.

It means you accrue assets in a private account instead of accruing obligations against the incomes of future tax payers in the general fund, not to mention if structured correctly unused SS assets can be transferred FORWARD to future generations instead of transferring wealth BACKWARDS to current ones.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me.

Yeah that's why I give him some credit, the boat of the welfare state needs to be sunk and a new, much smaller & cheaper one built in its place.

Thank you for explaining, NightFox. I wanted to ask, but I so rarely get my questions answered, I didn't bother.
I don't agree with your rationalizations, but it is good to know how the argument goes.

 

[NightFox]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

It's in the preamble which is just a general statement of purpose, the specifics contained in the Constitution define the explicit authority and responsibilities of the federal government to achieve that purpose not to mention that its the GENERAL welfare not the SPECIFIC welfare of select groups of individuals at the expense of others.

 

[Disir]

The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security

Because nobody is about doing the right thing.

The good news is that we can now watch the GOP implode.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

We need to cut our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, first.

We don’t need to do anything first

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits

I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.

How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?

I think we’re taxed enough already

You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.

Got it.

 

[OldLady]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

It's not a "choice" when you all you do is cater to your WANTS without regard for the COSTS, choices involve sacrificing one thing for another thing (opportunity cost), what we're currently doing is satisfying current wants without regard to the future consequences, out in the real world that's commonly known as being IRRESPONSIBLE and RECKLESS. As far as the "well being" of individuals, that's the responsibility of the individual, Government's responsibility should begin and end with the protection of the life, liberty and property of those individuals.

Personally I have no problem with drastically reducing military expenditures along with every other federal expenditure to the point where Washington is stuffed back in the cage the founders intended it to live in, specifically having only the authority and responsibilities explicitly granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.

Guns or butter.....I vote butter.