2012 Election Paul Ryan vs Obama Healthcare Policy

[redsox90]

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/12/158640909/ryan-adds-stark-choice-on-health-care-to-gop-ticket



Curious to get a medical students perspective on the upcoming presidential election.

Romney recently named Paul Ryan as his running mate. The stark contrast of Ryan's health care policy to the Obama administration's will be an interesting developing story in the election and should bring issues concerning healthcare, medicare, to the forefront of the race.

Any thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TAWS]

Election is meaningless for health-care. Republicans will never get 60 seats in Senate to dictate health policy. The Affordable Health Care Act is here to stay.

 

[FSU2013]

Election is meaningless for health-care. Republicans will never get 60 seats in Senate to dictate health policy. The Affordable Health Care Act is here to stay.

Never say never.

 

[TAWS]

Never say never.

Since the Senate was created in 1776, republicans have never had a filibuster proof majority.

 

[Neurodoc32]

Election is meaningless for health-care. Republicans will never get 60 seats in Senate to dictate health policy. The Affordable Health Care Act is here to stay.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself

 

[Kevin Baker]

Why are we talking about the VP? He's a figurehead... at best. There's no power there. Let's pay attention to the president.

Romney's plan is what Obama's was built on. I don't see much of a difference in them apart from talking points that will end after the election.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Romney basically takes a backseat to Ryan now. Ryan is the GOP darling while Romney was the last person standing after that godawful primary campaign. There's no question that Ryan will have more power than any prior VP in history, save for maybe Cheney.

Anyways, this is a moot point since the Ryan VP nomination basically sinks Romney's boat. Ryan is responsible for two disasterously unpopular measures. The privatization of SS and the elimination of Medicare. Romney has basically written off Florida, with it's huge elderly voting block that breaks something like 70% against these two policies. Without Florida, Romney literally has a 1% chance of winning this election. He'd need to sweep Penn, Mich, Ohio and Wisc, where Obama already has leads of 3-7% in each of those states.

 

[mimelim]

Since the Senate was created in 1776, republicans have never had a filibuster proof majority.

Just an fyi the Constitution wasn't adopted until 1787 and the US Senate first gathered two year later.






This post has nothing to do with the thread and diminishes nothing from your point, just correcting meaningless dates.

 

[Dave89]

This is all moot, because we all know that Ryan pushes grandmothers in wheelchairs off cliffs. Seriously, the Democrats told me so!

 

[FSU2013]

This is all moot, because we all know that Ryan pushes grandmothers in wheelchairs off cliffs. Seriously, the Democrats told me so!

Combine that with someone who causes people to die of cancer, lol.

 

[Dave89]

Combine that with someone who causes people to die of cancer, lol.

It's like they don't even try anymore.

 

[matchb0x]

This is all moot, because we all know that Ryan pushes grandmothers in wheelchairs off cliffs. Seriously, the Democrats told me so!

The only realistic solution to adjusting for the upcoming 'baby boomer' load on medicare. More grannies over a cliff=less medicare spending, IT'S FOOLPROOF!

 

[PrideNeverDie]

Romney basically takes a backseat to Ryan now. Ryan is the GOP darling while Romney was the last person standing after that godawful primary campaign. There's no question that Ryan will have more power than any prior VP in history, save for maybe Cheney.

Anyways, this is a moot point since the Ryan VP nomination basically sinks Romney's boat. Ryan is responsible for two disasterously unpopular measures. The privatization of SS and the elimination of Medicare. Romney has basically written off Florida, with it's huge elderly voting block that breaks something like 70% against these two policies. Without Florida, Romney literally has a 1% chance of winning this election. He'd need to sweep Penn, Mich, Ohio and Wisc, where Obama already has leads of 3-7% in each of those states.

which is why everyone is wondering why Ryan was picked to be the running mate for Romney. i wonder what the GOP are counting on for the next election.

 

[Mass Effect]

Why are we talking about the VP?

Because some will vote for or against a ticket based on the VP (see Sarah Palin). Romney needed the base and so he chose the darling of the base.

Just an fyi the Constitution wasn't adopted until 1787 and the US Senate first gathered two year later.

And cloture, the rule that allows for a filibuster-proof majority wasn't adopted until the 1900s.

 

[Perrotfish]

Why are we talking about the VP? He's a figurehead... at best. There's no power there. Let's pay attention to the president.

Romney's plan is what Obama's was built on. I don't see much of a difference in them apart from talking points that will end after the election.

Since the start of this campaign Romney has said his plan for national healthcare reform is.the Ryan plan. I don't think anyone believed him, considering what is did in MA, but this VP pick really doubles down on that assertion and makes Ryan's plan seem much more like a real debate point.

 

[SoundofSilver]

CBO estimates predict by 2025, all revenues into the federal government will only be able to cover medicare, social security, and interest on the national debt. Every other department (including defense) will have to be funded through debt. That is obviously not sustainable and will fiscally ruin this country.

I respect Ryan for at least having the courage to talk about reforming the entitlement programs so they actually have a chance to survive. If nothing is done, if we continue to ignore this issue, draconian cuts will be forced. These programs will implode.

Why don't we take the responsible approach and at least have a debate about how we can solve these problems before it's too late instead of painting the only guy with ideas as an extremist (his plans aren't even "extreme", anybody 55 and older isn't affected). The real extremist (or should I say cowardly) position is doing nothing and letting these programs self-destruct.

/end rant

 

[surftheiop]

Seems to me this VP pick is Romney admitting he doesnt have much chance with independents/undecideds and therefore is just choosing a VP he thinks will get the best turn out possible from the right wing, and is banking on democrats to be somewhat apathetic and not turn out to vote. Although a VP pick like this will probably motivate a lot of the left to show up as well, so who knows what the net effect actually is.

 

[FSU2013]

Seems to me this VP pick is Romney admitting he doesnt have much chance with independents/undecideds and therefore is just choosing a VP he thinks will get the best turn out possible from the right wing, and is banking on democrats to be somewhat apathetic and not turn out to vote. Although a VP pick like this will probably motivate a lot of the left to show up as well, so who knows what the net effect actually is.

I don't know that your assessment of independent/undecided voters is accurate. First off, undecided voters, if they vote, tend to vote for the party that is not the incumbent. Second, I think the pick is intended to move right. In addition to energizing the base, it makes a clear distinction between the two platforms. Obama et al. is quite far left while the Romney/Ryan ticket is quite far right. Instead of moving to the middle and blurring the distinction, he made a calculated decision to allow the American people to better understand the difference. If he (Romney) clearly articulates his goals, this election can hopefully get past smear campaigning. I think the hope is that the electorate will be better informed on what fiscal conservatives propose and enough undecided voters will make the decision to go with fiscally conservative values.

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't know that your assessment of independent/undecided voters is accurate. First off, undecided voters, if they vote, tend to vote for the party that is not the incumbent. Second, I think the pick is intended to move right. In addition to energizing the base, it makes a clear distinction between the two platforms. Obama et al. is quite far left while the Romney/Ryan ticket is quite far right. Instead of moving to the middle and blurring the distinction, he made a calculated decision to allow the American people to better understand the difference. If he (Romney) clearly articulates his goals, this election can hopefully get past smear campaigning. I think the hope is that the electorate will be better informed on what fiscal conservatives propose and enough undecided voters will make the decision to go with fiscally conservative values.

You have more optimism than me.

 

[FSU2013]

You have more optimism than me.

It says you're from Chicago, home of dirty politics....I see why you would be more cynical, lol.

 

[Bane]

CBO estimates predict by 2025, all revenues into the federal government will only be able to cover medicare, social security, and interest on the national debt. Every other department (including defense) will have to be funded through debt. That is obviously not sustainable and will fiscally ruin this country.

I respect Ryan for at least having the courage to talk about reforming the entitlement programs so they actually have a chance to survive. If nothing is done, if we continue to ignore this issue, draconian cuts will be forced. These programs will implode.

Why don't we take the responsible approach and at least have a debate about how we can solve these problems before it's too late instead of painting the only guy with ideas as an extremist (his plans aren't even "extreme", anybody 55 and older isn't affected). The real extremist (or should I say cowardly) position is doing nothing and letting these programs self-destruct.

/end rant

Calm down, doctor. Now's not the time for fear. That comes later.

 

[KinasePro]

Why don't we take the responsible approach and at least have a debate about how we can solve these problems before it's too late instead of painting the only guy with ideas as an extremist (his plans aren't even "extreme", anybody 55 and older isn't affected). The real extremist (or should I say cowardly) position is doing nothing and letting these programs self-destruct.

This is the million dollar question. All hot button issues in this country devolve into herp derp once the media gets a hold of the narrative, and the result is an almost entirely misinformed electorate. Just look at the gay marriage debate this month...People would rather picket/support a fast food joint than discuss whether federal govt has any business "marrying" anyone to begin with, which is the real debate. #nofaithinourcountry'sfuture

 

[NickNaylor]

This is the million dollar question. All hot button issues in this country devolve into herp derp once the media gets a hold of the narrative, and the result is an almost entirely misinformed electorate. Just look at the gay marriage debate this month...People would rather picket/support a fast food joint than discuss whether federal govt has any business "marrying" anyone to begin with, which is the real debate. #nofaithinourcountry'sfuture

Yup, completely agree.

 

[KinasePro]

I really like the libertarian idea of taking the government out of marriage. I don't believe we need a body if law governing monogamous pair bonding. Let's be honest, though, that isn't the 'real' debate. The government has been involved in marriage for centuries before this country came into existence, no one yet really thinks that's going to change, and the real debate is very reasonably about who should and should not be allowed to be married under the law. Until libertarians can convince people that their idea is a real and viable alternative (say by actually implementing it in a tea party heavy state) their plan will always remain a very theoretical sideshow.

It's true that no one thinks its going to change, and that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Bold and drastic policies are practically impossible to enact or even debate in our current political climate.

But re: those arguing who should be allowed to get married, I think this is still missing the point. We live in a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the government's current idea of marriage is exactly that. It's pretty bizarre if you think about it, even in the case of heterosexuals. For a government that is allegedly separate from the church, why are they incentivizing sacrements? There might as well be tax breaks for the baptized and communing. The most realistic fix is to grant federal incentives and civil unions to any monogamous pair, but remove all incentives from "marriage" and allow religious groups to define it as they see fit.

 

[NickNaylor]

It's true that no one thinks its going to change, and that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Bold and drastic policies are practically impossible to enact or even debate in our current political climate.

But re: those arguing who should be allowed to get married, I think this is still missing the point. We live in a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the government's current idea of marriage is exactly that. It's pretty bizarre if you think about it, even in the case of heterosexuals. For a government that is allegedly separate from the church, why are they incentivizing sacrements? There might as well be tax breaks for the baptized and communing. The most realistic fix is to grant federal incentives and civil unions to any monogamous pair, but remove all incentives from "marriage" and allow religious groups to define it as they see fit.

The government does have a legitimate interest in marriage, though: by giving people incentives to get married and have children, the tax base is broadened (at least in theory). This topic is filled with semantic issues, but at the root of it the government wants more taxes, and one way of increasing revenues is by growing the base. Homosexual couples cannot procreate and, therefore, cannot grow the base (I'm ignoring the option of adopting from abroad here). Whether that's a good argument or not, who knows, but it IS one. All that said, I suspect most elected officials don't use that as a rationale for their position and instead are pandering, bigoted *****s.

 

[circulus vitios]

Some highlights on the warmongering jesus freak (source: ontheissues.org)

Abortion

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)

Budget & Economy

Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)

Civil Rights

Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Education

Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)

Energy & Oil

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)

Health Care

Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)

Homeland Security

Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)

Tax Reform

Road Map: simplified two-level flat tax. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

Technology

Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

War & Peace

Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes. (May 2011)
Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program. (Apr 2009)

Sounds like a reasonable candidate.

 

[big study]

Never say never.

It is the case. The plan is here to stay unfortunately, we have been on the slippery slope of socialized medicine since Medicaid was invented. We are now try to figure out how to fund it for future generations. I hope Romney and Ryan can develop better ideas then the robin hood approach of stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

 

[odysseus88]

It is the case. The plan is here to stay unfortunately, we have been on the slippery slope of socialized medicine since Medicaid was invented. We are now try to figure out how to fund it for future generations. I hope Romney and Ryan can develop better ideas then the robin hood approach of stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

I wish we had socialized grammar education in this country.

 

[odysseus88]

Some highlights on the warmongering jesus freak (source: ontheissues.org)

Sounds like a reasonable candidate.

Yah I never understand the people who attend their rallies. Do they all have healthcare coverage? Have none of their relatives been denied health care because of "pre-exisiting" conditions? Do they breathe a different source of air than the rest of us? Do they not stand to benefit from stem cell therapies? Do they buy the baloney of Bush era tax cuts helping the country? In any case, I look forward to November.

 

[duckie99]

Why are we talking about the VP? He's a figurehead... at best. There's no power there. Let's pay attention to the president.

Romney's plan is what Obama's was built on. I don't see much of a difference in them apart from talking points that will end after the election.

I agree that at the end of the day people vote for the president and not the vice-president. Ryan is running on Romney's platform and will support a President Romney's policies. So essentially what Ryan has done in the past with regards to his budget plan is not pertinent to the election. Ryan will give ideas to a President Romney but Romney would be the ultimate decider.

Romney is running totally against Obama's health care law. Obama will say he modeled it after Romney as talking point. Regardless Romney has been against Obama's health care law from the beginning. This is all just talking points though.

In the end the election will not come down to health care but President Obama's record on all things including most importantly the economy. People will decide essentially if they are better off now and want the country to continue down the same track with Obama. If they answer yes and like the way the country is headed they'll vote Obama. If not they'll vote Romney.

The President has many unpopular policies, including health care. The economy is much worse than before. The country is in massive debt. The USA is disrespected on a foreign national level. Romney has proven himself in the past to be a successful businessman and governor. I think Romney has the edge and once he starts running ads full steam in the next month and after a couple debates the polls will be showing a clear Romney lead.

Will this mean the end of Obamacare? Honestly there are some good things there but so many things I disagree with. The law could potentially be defunded and not enforced and efforts to remove it I think would prove successful if the GOP gets about 58 seats in the Senate (which I think is realistic).

 

[duckie99]

This is the million dollar question. All hot button issues in this country devolve into herp derp once the media gets a hold of the narrative, and the result is an almost entirely misinformed electorate. Just look at the gay marriage debate this month...People would rather picket/support a fast food joint than discuss whether federal govt has any business "marrying" anyone to begin with, which is the real debate. #nofaithinourcountry'sfuture

lol the government should just grant a "union" license and I honestly think people on all sides would stop caring. Homosexuals want to get "married" to simply show everyone else that their lifestyle is "normal". People opposed to that idea mainly do it on religious grounds saying marriage is based in the Bible between a man and a women endorsed by God. The government could simply get out of the way completely by granting a "union" license to any couple that applies. If a church somewhere wants to "marry" a gay couple then who cares.

People can argue about the social aspect all they want but the government can't change that and could remove itself from the discussion. It's not like marriage means a whole lot these days anyway...

 

[FSU2013]

Some highlights on the warmongering jesus freak (source: ontheissues.org)

Sounds like a reasonable candidate.

Yah! Someone who disagrees with me is stupid!!!!!

I love your attitude towards healthy political debate.

 

[Dave89]

Some highlights on the warmongering jesus freak (source: ontheissues.org)

Sounds like a reasonable candidate.

The perennially tolerant Left amuses me yet again.

 

[Dave89]

I wish we had socialized grammar education in this country.

Oops - we do. Look how well that turned out.

 

[odysseus88]

I agree that at the end of the day people vote for the president and not the vice-president. Ryan is running on Romney's platform and will support a President Romney's policies. So essentially what Ryan has done in the past with regards to his budget plan is not pertinent to the election. Ryan will give ideas to a President Romney but Romney would be the ultimate decider.

Romney is running totally against Obama's health care law. Obama will say he modeled it after Romney as talking point. Regardless Romney has been against Obama's health care law from the beginning. This is all just talking points though.

In the end the election will not come down to health care but President Obama's record on all things including most importantly the economy. People will decide essentially if they are better off now and want the country to continue down the same track with Obama. If they answer yes and like the way the country is headed they'll vote Obama. If not they'll vote Romney.

The President has many unpopular policies, including health care. The economy is much worse than before. The country is in massive debt. The USA is disrespected on a foreign national level. Romney has proven himself in the past to be a successful businessman and governor. I think Romney has the edge and once he starts running ads full steam in the next month and after a couple debates the polls will be showing a clear Romney lead.

Will this mean the end of Obamacare? Honestly there are some good things there but so many things I disagree with. The law could potentially be defunded and not enforced and efforts to remove it I think would prove successful if the GOP gets about 58 seats in the Senate (which I think is realistic).

For the sake of substance, I'm curious as to what you don't like about the healthcare law and what Romney/Ryan propose regarding healthcare that you do like. Be specific and don't use any Fox News mad gab words.

 

[RT to MD]

CBO estimates predict by 2025, all revenues into the federal government will only be able to cover medicare, social security, and interest on the national debt. Every other department (including defense) will have to be funded through debt. That is obviously not sustainable and will fiscally ruin this country.

I respect Ryan for at least having the courage to talk about reforming the entitlement programs so they actually have a chance to survive. If nothing is done, if we continue to ignore this issue, draconian cuts will be forced. These programs will implode.

Why don't we take the responsible approach and at least have a debate about how we can solve these problems before it's too late instead of painting the only guy with ideas as an extremist (his plans aren't even "extreme", anybody 55 and older isn't affected). The real extremist (or should I say cowardly) position is doing nothing and letting these programs self-destruct.

/end rant

I'm going to have to agree here-- medicare and social security are unsustainable. Expanding medicare when we have a $16 trillion deficit and a $1 trillion/year budget deficit is absolutely ridiculous. Please, if you're reading this, please take a moment to truly understand the debt the US has accrued, and ask yourself if the way to help American people is by bankrupting them in 10 years.

I wish it were possible to help everyone, but you cannot continue to spend what you don't have and with an income that isn't able to pay the bills. I wish a candidate supported greater insurance scrutiny and reform, but that's not what is offered at the moment. The two offers: expand medicare to many millions more with money the US doesn't have, or shrink the current medicare recipients and start decreasing spending. Obviously, decreasing spending is necessary, but all the other issues by Republicans (which I am regretfully tied with) are old-fashioned, holier-than-thou, non-progressive, and feed the rich.

I really can't stand my lack of option when it comes to having good leaders for this country. It is truly depressing. Good luck to all who vote this year-- whichever party/candidate you choose. Either way, I see the US venturing further into darker times.

 

[eHombre]

I don't know that your assessment of independent/undecided voters is accurate. First off, undecided voters, if they vote, tend to vote for the party that is not the incumbent. Second, I think the pick is intended to move right. In addition to energizing the base, it makes a clear distinction between the two platforms. Obama et al. is quite far left while the Romney/Ryan ticket is quite far right. Instead of moving to the middle and blurring the distinction, he made a calculated decision to allow the American people to better understand the difference. If he (Romney) clearly articulates his goals, this election can hopefully get past smear campaigning. I think the hope is that the electorate will be better informed on what fiscal conservatives propose and enough undecided voters will make the decision to go with fiscally conservative values.

1) There's no historical pattern to how undecided voters break with respect to incumbent/non-incumbent.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/do-presidential-polls-break-toward-challengers/

2) Pres. Obama's health care platform, rather than "far-left", is based on ideas that were supported full-throatedly by conservatives as late as 2008 (the mandate itself was an idea proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank). The wholesale opposition to the ACA by the GOP is entirely political, driven by nothing more than a burning desire to deny Pres. Obama and Democrats a policy victory, without regard to our nation's well-being.

3) Romney/Ryan are not fiscal conservatives, since their deficit-exploding proposals show they don't give a damn about the deficit. Their primary objectives are to reduce taxes on the wealthy and to cut programs that help the poor and middle class. They pay lip service to deficit concerns with fantasy budget projections in order to distract the political commentariat.

President Obama has a much more credible deficit reduction plan that involves a mix of reduced spending via targeted budget cuts (like nixing the overpayments to private insurers in Medicare Part D) and, yes, slightly higher taxes on those who currently enjoy historically low tax rates on income and investment.

 

[Gut Shot]

CBO estimates predict by 2025, all revenues into the federal government will only be able to cover medicare, social security, and interest on the national debt. Every other department (including defense) will have to be funded through debt. That is obviously not sustainable and will fiscally ruin this country.

You are being a bit disingenuous. The CBO has one estimate (the alternative fiscal scenario) that draws this conclusion. It has another (the extended baseline scenario) that shows the deficit drops to a "sustainable" <1% of GDP without doing much of anything.

The CRFB has a nice little summary here.

 

[FSU2013]

1) There's no historical pattern to how undecided voters break with respect to incumbent/non-incumbent.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/do-presidential-polls-break-toward-challengers/

2) Pres. Obama's health care platform, rather than "far-left", is based on ideas that were supported full-throatedly by conservatives as late as 2008 (the mandate itself was an idea proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank). The wholesale opposition to the ACA by the GOP is entirely political, driven by nothing more than a burning desire to deny Pres. Obama and Democrats a policy victory, without regard to our nation's well-being.

3) Romney/Ryan are not fiscal conservatives, since their deficit-exploding proposals show they don't give a damn about the deficit. Their primary objectives are to reduce taxes on the wealthy and to cut programs that help the poor and middle class. They pay lip service to deficit concerns with fantasy budget projections in order to distract the political commentariat.

President Obama has a much more credible deficit reduction plan that involves a mix of reduced spending via targeted budget cuts (like nixing the overpayments to private insurers in Medicare Part D) and, yes, slightly higher taxes on those who currently enjoy historically low tax rates on income and investment.

1. First ofd, that was weak at best. After reading it, the writer basically said "it's a crapshoot." You certainly didn't refute my point - I didn't prove it, but you didn't refute it either.
2. It's really not worth arguing with anyone who doesn't think that socialized medicine is liberal. Just because a subset of conservatives have supported something doesn't mean it's conservative.
3. So first liberals try to bash Ryan for saying he's cutting everything and throwing granny off a cliff. Now he's a tax and spend liberal? Get your stories straight.

Under Obama there has been NO BUDGET!?!?! How is this even up for debate? Further, wasnt it Clintonwho said that you don't raise taxes in a poor economy?

 

[eHombre]

1. First ofd, that was weak at best. After reading it, the writer basically said "it's a crapshoot." You certainly didn't refute my point - I didn't prove it, but you didn't refute it either.
2. It's really not worth arguing with anyone who doesn't think that socialized medicine is liberal. Just because a subset of conservatives have supported something doesn't mean it's conservative.
3. So first liberals try to bash Ryan for saying he's cutting everything and throwing granny off a cliff. Now he's a tax and spend liberal? Get your stories straight.

Under Obama there has been NO BUDGET!?!?! How is this even up for debate? Further, wasnt it Clintonwho said that you don't raise taxes in a poor economy?

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see.

1) I said that there's no historical pattern to how undecideds vote; i.e., a crapshoot.

2) How is Obamacare socialized medicine? It's not single-payer or Medicare-for-all. There's a weak insurance mandate and premium support for the purchase of private insurance. Nearly the entire Republican party supported this in the 90s. Even the Ryan plan for Medicare uses the same premium support mechanism to dump seniors into private insurance.

The problem with this approach for Medicare is that most seniors are expensive and essentially uninsurable, which is why government got into health insurance for seniors in the first place; also Ryan's premium support vouchers would sharply decrease in value over time, shifting more and more out-of-pocket costs to seniors who are on a fixed income.

3) Ryan indeed wants to cut everything except for defense spending, including many programs that seniors rely on (he only spares Social Security in his latest proposal because of the pushback he got from his 2010 privatization proposal). Furthermore, rather than plow these cost-cutting savings back into deficit reduction, Romney/Ryan insist on huge tax giveaways to the wealthy. The budgetary effect is a reverse-Robin Hood scheme wherein the poor and middle class subsidize the lifestyle of millionaires.

Even then the Romney-Ryan budget isn't balanced until well past 2040, since they backload all of the unpopular budget cuts. Since those cuts are drastic and unlikely to pass in the first place, it's all really an ideological fantasy budget that explodes the deficit. Therefore, Romney/Ryan are not fiscal conservatives.


Lastly, just because Republican partisanship has reached the point where they would never consider voting on Obama's budget proposals doesn't negate the fact that year after year he's produced one and sent it to Capitol Hill for their consideration.

 

[FSU2013]

Let me 1 call you stupid. 2 say that tax cuts are "giveaways" as opposed to allowing people to keep the money that they earned by working hard and are rightfully entitled to and 3 blame republicans while ignoring the fact that democrats controlled both house and senate for his first two years and still have senate.

That sum it up for the tldnr people?

 

[hrandani]

3 blame republicans while ignoring the fact that democrats controlled both house and senate for his first two years and still have senate.

Uhhh yeah. About that......

 

[eHombre]

Let me 1 call you stupid. 2 say that tax cuts are "giveaways" as opposed to allowing people to keep the money that they earned by working hard and are rightfully entitled to and 3 blame republicans while ignoring the fact that democrats controlled both house and senate for his first two years and still have senate.

That sum it up for the tldnr people?

You have added much to this discussion and have impressed us all with your willingness to defend your assertions and address the point at hand.

 

[FSU2013]

You have added much to this discussion and have impressed us all with your willingness to defend your assertions and address the point at hand.

Fine, I'll bite (even though I know better).

Your data stating that undecided voters do not have a historic trend is weak at best. Sure, it doesn't support my point, but I think to simply say "there, I proved you wrong" is terribly myopic. If you are half as smart as you think you are, you know that numbers can be easily manipulated. Even though you will obviously ignore anything I post, here's data to support my point:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/18/undecided_lean_to_insurgent_113883.html

Feel free to ignore it, but there are numbers to support my assertion.

Fundamentally conservative individuals support small government and states rights. Obamacare is neither small nor decentralized. To argue whether or not it is "socialized" is neither productive nor germane to the conversation. Even if I concede the tangential point that it may not be explicitly socialized, it is a huge government program spending boatloads of money at the federal level - a program that required politicians being literally bought off with specific state incentives. To say "look, there are a bunch of republicans that supported things like it" doesn't make it any more attractive.

Yes, Ryan's budget does shift financial burdens back to seniors. Where is the problem with that? All current seniors would have the same benefits, and those that would be affected would have time to plan accordingly. What's wrong with social responsibility? That is one of the most fundamental differences in Obama and Romney. Obama wants equality in outcomes while the right wants equality in opportunities.

You clearly bought into the class warfare theme. The thought that the government is supporting the lifestyle of millionaires is the furthest thing from the truth. Private property is private property. Period. The fact that we are taxed does not negate the fact that the property is entirely the right of the private citizen. There is nothing wrong with being well off or, God-forbid, rich. Politicians on the left are advancing the narrative that tax cuts on the wealthy are somehow giving something to them or, even worse, taking from the poor to give to the rich. A tax cut is simply not having the government confiscate something that was not theirs in the first place. The left seems to think that the entirety of your income (particularly if you are rich) is the government's property to spend and you should be thankful for getting the scraps. Excuse me for believing that I should keep what I earn regardless of whether or not the government thinks that I need it. When >50% of what you earn is taken by the government (federal, state, property, sales, etc), I think it's safe to say you are "paying your fair share."

You can't be serious when you say that "republican partisanship" is why Obama's budget didn't pass, right? Did a single republican vote for his "budget"? No. Wow, you must be right!?!?! It's the republicans fault!!! Oh wait, his budget was unanimously voted down....more than once.....to say that his "budget" was anything more than a political move is a joke. I would think at least one dem would have voted for it if it had any semblance being of a workable budget.

I realize you are likely going to respond (most likely with personal attacks), but I think I've made my point. I doubt either of use are going to come to an agreement. I respect that you disagree with me and you are entitled to your opinion. I acknowledge that the government is absolutely necessary for things like military, infrastructure and to ensure contracts are transparent and honored, but beyond that I don't think it has much utility. I want a small government, low taxes and personal liberties. I don't want the government to swoop in and save me if I screw up. I want to depend on myself. I realize that you may having a differing opinion that isn't wrong, it's not evil,and it's not stupid. But it's not wrong or evil or stupid to believe what I believe either.

 

[Omppu27]

yah i never understand the people who attend their rallies. Do they all have healthcare coverage? Have none of their relatives been denied health care because of "pre-exisiting" conditions? Do they breathe a different source of air than the rest of us? Do they not stand to benefit from stem cell therapies? Do they buy the baloney of bush era tax cuts helping the country? In any case, i look forward to november.

+1!!!!

 

[Neurodoc32]

Anyone even know the specifics of Ryanns plan for Medicare?
well anyone under 55 will remain or be grandfathered into Medicare as it stands today.
Then every one else under 55 will have several options once they become eligible for Medicare, they are as follows:
1. You can enrollnin Medicare as it stands today
2. You can take the govt voucher and shop around for whateever insurance plan you choose, here's the best part, if you find a plan that's cheaper than the amt of the voucher you can pocket the change, if the plan cost more than the voucher well then you have to pay the difference.

Lets try to have healthy debates without resorting to outright misinformation or ad hominem attacks

 

[TAWS]

Then every one else under 55 will have several options once they become eligible for Medicare, they are as follows:
1. You can enrollnin Medicare as it stands today
2. You can take the govt voucher and shop around for whateever insurance plan you choose, here's the best part, if you find a plan that's cheaper than the amt of the voucher you can pocket the change, if the plan cost more than the voucher well then you have to pay the difference.

No, people under 55 will NOT be able to enroll in Medicare as it stands today. The voucher program will not even come close to covering the cost of the plan....so it's ridiculousness to say that you get to keep what you don't spend of the voucher. Medicare starts to collapse and get more expensive if you remove people from the insured pool....which is what Ryan's plan does.

Here's an experiment: try getting a quote for health insurance as a 62 year old senior and get back to me.

 

[Dave89]

No, people under 55 will NOT be able to enroll in Medicare as it stands tdoay. The voucher program will not even come close to covering the cost of the plan....so it's ridiculousness to say that you get to keep what you don't spend of the voucher.

(edited) You don't understand the concepts of defined contribution and defined benefits, do you?

 

[FSU2013]

No, people under 55 will NOT be able to enroll in Medicare as it stands today. The voucher program will not even come close to covering the cost of the plan....so it's ridiculousness to say that you get to keep what you don't spend of the voucher. Medicare starts to collapse and get more expensive if you remove people from the insured pool....which is what Ryan's plan does.

Here's an experiment: try getting a quote for health insurance as a 62 year old senior and get back to me.

Medicare is a fundamentally insolvent program.

 

[Dave89]

Medicare is a fundamentally insolvent program.

It's striking how many government entitlements resemble - *GASP* - Ponzi schemes.