Tags: 2nd Congressional District, campaign 2012, debates, jim langevin, michael riley, u.s. house
Ugh, this debate was just painful, on both sides. I would say that RI deserves better if they were both not so typical of the district. The monetary policy bit probably bothered me the most, Riley has thought about it, but gets it wrong, Langevin apparently doesn’t even know what it is.
On another point, am I the only one that hears the “skills gap” argument and hears “you would have jobs if you weren’t so dumb?” Because that’s what that argument amounts to, that and a blanket exoneration of RI policy makers.
[...] You can watch the full 60-minute debate here. [...]
[...] a link to WPRI’s debate, to compare and contrast. VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)Related [...]
disappointed in Ted Nesi and his lack of understanding in economics as well as shoddy reporting
here’s how he characterized my position on Social Security and medicare which I made clear there are no proposals including mine that would affect anyone currently over 55….
Riley said lawmakers need to make changes to Medicare and Social Security because the population is aging, and said he disagrees with politicians from both parties who say they won’t touch current seniors. He described raising the age and Ryan’s proposed voucher program as “viable alternatives” for Medicare.
very questionable reporting
I’ve made a correction to the story after reviewing the tape of the debate; I misunderstood your critique of Democrats’ and Republicans’ failure to fix Medicare as including their failure to consider changes for those 55 and older.
For those who are interested, here is a transcript of the exchange:
NESI: Mr. Riley, Paul Ryan has proposed – the vice-presidential candidate – converting Medicare to a voucher program for Americans who are now 55 and younger. Would you support that?
RILEY: Well, the term “voucher program” is interesting. What it is is actually a defined contribution program. But let’s get back to what was just said in that interchange there on raising the age in Social Security.
RILEY: Medicare. People are getting older. Right? We have a lot more people entering the system that don’t have the means, and we’re supporting way more people that are out there. We’ve gotta do something. I mean we just can’t pretend this isn’t going on. Both sides tell everyone it’s 55 or older – your [Langevin's] side, my side – we’re not going to touch them. Right? I mean that’s what we’re all saying.
So now what we are saying is, what are we going to do about people who are under? We do have to look at other ideas. Paul Ryan has brought up another idea in his defined-contribution plan. I don’t have a problem with that. And I don’t have a problem with raising the age. Both of those things are viable alternatives. As you said, everything should be on the table. Everything should be on the table. Simpson-Bowles had a lot of things on the table that discussed all of these issues.
And that’s what good people, bipartisans, do. They don’t run away from the idea that these things should be fixed. Tim Geithner is on the board of trustees of this, and he has called this a looming disaster your [Langevin's] entire term in office, since 2000 – not him, especially, but the trustees have been calling these looming disasters. We’ve done nothing about it. Republicans and Democrats are to blame. Why are we putting all these seniors at risk? Why are we putting the next generation at risk? Let’s get something done.
[...] Related: Watch the full WPRI 12 2nd District debate: Langevin vs. Riley (Oct. 9) Tags: 2nd Congressional District, campaign 2012, jim langevin, michael [...]
All content © Copyright 2000 – 2013 WPRI. All Rights Reserved.