Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Monday's The Ed Show that cuts to Medicaid would mean a "death sentence for a whole lot of people all over this country."
"Let's be very clear, a lot of people don't understand this," he said, "This year alone, we're going to be losing 45,000 people who die because they don't get to a doctor when they should. If Medicaid is significantly cut, that number will increase significantly."
Sanders also pushed back against Republicans who claim that the $700 billion being reallocated from Medicare was "robbed" from seniors. Romney made the claim on Sunday—the same day that RNC Chair Reince Priebus accused Obama of having "blood on his hands" for that very reason.
Senator Sanders explained that the Affordable Care Act did not cut benefits for seniors but instead made how those benefits are dispersed "more efficient." Earlier on Monday, Lean Forward reported that the $700 billion came out of payments to "some hospitals, private insurers, and on prescription drugs as a way to control costs on the country's burgeoning health care bill."
Of Ryan's Medicare plan, Sanders said, "Everyone understands that they are destroying Medicare as it is currently constituted."
Leave a Comment:
How outrageous!
Oh oh oh! And you haven't even heard the dentists drill! Coming soon to an open mouth near you! Open WIDE! :( )
What righty FAILS to understand is today's senior DO NOT want to know that their grand-kids will get screwed in the future and not have what the seniors have worked their entire lifetimes to achieve.
In other words grandma doesn't want to throw the grand-kids under the bus.
lol- I find it really funny that just several days ago, people on the left blogs- like John in Texeas, etc, were complaining about the GOP using fear mongering as a tactic and denying Team Obama uses it. I would suppose that at this time- their defense is to say Sanders isn't a Democrat.
I would be more interested in having Ed have Erskine Bowles on here to talk about Ryan. He has an interesting take on him that you can all look up for yourselves- and this coming from a Democratic insider...
You do know Ryan was a part of Simpson-Bowles? You do know Ryan voted AGAINST Simpson-Bowles, no?
There is a difference between GOP doom and gloom if the country doesn't do what they want, that is fear mongering when reality is GOP reforms produce the doom and gloom on purpose, telling people that the GOP are a disaster looking for a place to happen is not fear mongering, its a fact. All the GOP have ever produced since Hoover is disasters, the only one who managed to not screw up the economy was DDE. That is the GOP track record, that is not the democrats fault, you righties are so stupid you think Carter should have fixed Nixon/Fords economic disasters in 4 years when it took 8 years to create the disasters. You are doing the same with Obama, then try to blame Obama for being a Carter, truth is like Carter you righties expect democrats to cure all the countries ills in 4 years or less. Unlike Carter Obama has 34 years of GOP economic screw ups to fix, whereas Carter only had Nixons deficits to fix, since Reagan that has been the only thing the GOP has produced record deficits then they run out on paying their bills. That you try to push that GOP failures will work this time because you picked new faces to use them is laughable it isn't the people at fault it is the GOP policies that are designed for 1 purpose, to make the already wealthy more wealthy while preventing anyone from achieving wealth that doesn't already have wealth. So what you are doing is voting to keep yourself poor with the stupid ideal hard work will make you rich because a doddering old fool played on your greed. Which is why democrats call you stupid people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_f20ZDBj5k&feature=related
A great question is to ask righties which States voted Carter in to office
So what happens if nothing is done and we leave it along?
HR, Once you've made (I think) $106,000 in a year, you stop paying SS. Why not just raise the cap? How much more revenue would be generated if the cap was raised to $250,000??
If we did that wouldnt we have to raise the cap on the amount being paid out as well?
It's too bad Simpson Bowles couldn't be passed. It was a true bi-partiisan effort- possibly the last one ever. I think the Dems voted 7-4 for it, and GOP voted 4-3 for it. Bowles, though, was very impressed with Ryan's integrity and ability. That is something that isn't found often in these times.
jason- I can answer your question- obviously, the wrong states voted for Carter. The right states voted for Ford.
No. If it's possible to change Medicare into a voucher system, why would we have to raise the cap on the amount being paid out?? Think about it. Congress can do anything they want too as long as they get enough votes.
Rusty-2589429 said "jason- I can answer your question- obviously, the wrong states voted for Carter. The right states voted for Ford."
----------------------------------------------------------------
So true, IF we could just get those same States that voted for carter to vote correctly this time.
The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 53–46, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it.
but failed a vote on December 3 with 11 of 18 votes in favor, with a supermajority of 14 votes needed to formally endorse the blueprint
So stinking typical of today's repub party, cry whine and bitch about stuff not getting done, yet both votes had a MAJORITY.
Paul Ryan voted NO
Jason- I trying to figure out what point you are trying to make. It appears that your only goal here is to jab at Republicans for voting against it. Well, Dems voted against it as well. And both sides voted for it.
When pointing blame- let's guess what the outcome would havee been had been if Obama would have done a full court press for it, as he did with the bailouts, stimulus, etc. I would suggest that when the voting was occuring, Obama was largely silent on it. Could you shed light on if he actually pushed behind the scenes for it?
May surprise you but I am not on the team and cannot get behind the scenes. Why is it you think the PPACA is not made up from both parties?
Because it wasn't. 'twas written in dead of night by Reid and company. Remember, Pelosi wasn't even involved. She wanted to hurry up and vote so she could see what was in it.
Didn't figure you had any knowledge of Obama trying to push the bill behind the scenes. I don't believe it ever happened- Obama didn't lobby for it.
But it actually was, as most of the ideas and now laws are republican ideas proposed by republicans. Now if you are saying republicans have switched their opinion on things that is fair, but the basics of the PPACA is republican made.
Jason - just a question- why didn't the democrats jump all over the republican proposal for health care when the GOP proposed them? As you say, most of the concepts had previously been proposed by GOP. Are you saying if the democrats of the nineties hadn't beed stupid or stubborn, that we could have had Obama type health care 18 years ago? Does that make them idiots?
The reason dems didn't jump all over them is b/c it gave federal money to private insurance. In case you have not noticed many liberals are pissed that federal money goes to corporate ceo's pocket via the mandate. Interesting how you feel only dem POTUS should do it without any republican backing it, if repubs care one bit about health care for Americans they would have done something besides propose things that less than 20 years later they say they things THEY proposed are now unconstitutional and destrying America, are you saying repubs want to destroy America?
You have decided to interpret what I think without any knowledge. I admire your desire to stereotype me, but you've missed on several points. I've been on here often, and have given my opinion and potential solutions- you seem to ignore them.
That said, I do find it interesting that libs nowadays have huge praise for everything Obama, including Obamacare. They follow it with the fact that Obamacare was built on a package they flat out rejected under bill Clinton, and assume it speaks poorly of the GOP. Yet, it seems if Obamacare is a "big effing deal" as your #2 hero says, then why wasn't your #3&4 heros, bill and Hillary, smart enough to jump on it like a bass on a lure in 1993? What was wrong with it then? Or were you folks right then, and it was a pos?
So for Dems who claim it was a GOP idea, and the GOP is two faced for rejecting it now, I might give them (you) a mirror. You rejected the b/c it was a GOP idea, but now love it b/c it is Obama's idea.
You have decided to interpret what I think without any knowledge.
Not really. You told me what you thought. I didn't need to interpret it.
You said Obamacare was stuffed with GOP ideas- I didn't interpret that. Only asked, if that was true- then why didn't the Democrats jump all over it when they proposed it in the first place? And- if that is true- then can't liberals be angry at the Democrats for waiting almost 20 years to get these proposals in place.
I'd still love to hear anyone answer questions like these. I've read quite a few on here, Suzette for one, often make that statement. She never answers those pertinent questions.
Also seem to not be able to answer the question "have I stopped beating my wife?" That neither shows I am married nor have I beaten anyone.
you are right bernie :(
"Make no mistake about it -- these Republicans don't believe in Medicare," Obama
campaign senior adviser David Axelrod told
CBS This Morning on Monday. "They want to turn it into a voucher program.
And slowly, all the burden is going to shift to seniors themselves. And that is
not an answer to entitlement reform."
Republicans answer by pointing to the $716
billion in cuts to Medicare that Mr. Obama's own health care plan enacted.
They also pat themselves on the back for putting out specific proposals. A web
video the Republican National Committee released Monday features Ryan
telling a crowd that Democrats "have refused to make difficult decision because
they are more worried about their next election than they are about the next
generation." By contrast, he says, "We won't duck the tough issues; we will
lead."
What's in the Ryan plan?
Ryan, who since 2011 has served as chairman of the House Budget Committee,
has led with a controversial
budget plan that would turn Medicare into what's called a "premium support"
plan -- in other words, instead of paying for the benefits a senior uses, the
government offers a senior a predefined amount of money to spend in a health
insurance exchange.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57492342/why-the-fuss-over-paul-ryans-medicare-plan/
CBS News) Mitt Romney has notoriously avoided sharing specific policy proposals
on the campaign trail, but his new running mate, Paul Ryan, has been notoriously
specific about the way he wants to alter Medicare.
Ryan's plan, encapsulated in the 2013 House GOP budget, gives a defined
picture of how Republicans want to diverge from the health care policies of the
Obama administration. Beyond that, it gives tangible evidence of the "different
visions" that President Obama and Mitt Romney purport to represent.
Both Democrats and Republicans have made attempts at reforming Medicare, the
popular, federally-run health care program for seniors. And with each attempt,
Democrats and Republicans use the issue
against one another, charging that the other side is throwing seniors under
the bus.
Bernie is right in not being a democrat.
Ryan's proposed changes to Medicare don't even affect those already on Medicare nor does it change Medicare for those 55 years or older that will be eligible for Medicare in the next few years. The Left lies so much it hard to believe any thing they say.
Once they start dismantling it, it won't be long until it will be a thing of the past. Same thing with Soc Sec. Reps have wanted to get rid of them since the day they were created. Obviously you, and the rest of the right-wingers on this board are the only ones that refuse to see that.
Correct no change for seniors today, BUT these seniors today CARE about the future generations and do not want them to go through what the generation before them went through.
In other words the seniors today are no where near as greedy as the Ryan plan. They actualy care about what happenes to their future generations.
Tea Party To Push Paul Ryan Medicare Plan In Town Halls
begin in January 2013.
RISKS FOR REPUBLICANS
The gambit poses risks for Republicans in swing states including Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which FreedomWorks is targeting.
At stake is the support of senior citizens, a powerful bloc of swing voters who broadly oppose the Ryan plan and could punish its supporters in Congress if Republicans fail to turn the debate in their favor, according to analysts.
The Ryan plan -- which the House approved in April but which went nowhere in the Democratic-led Senate -- would preserve Medicare for current beneficiaries but transform it for future retirees from a system that provides guaranteed benefits to one that gives the elderly financial assistance to buy private insurance.
Polls point to broad public support for preserving Medicare in the deficit debate, with majorities favoring higher taxes for the wealthy over program cuts.
Still, a June CBS poll showed that nearly 60 percent of Americans know little about the changes proposed by the Ryan plan, suggesting that many voters have yet to form an opinion.
FreedomWorks faces a daunting challenge from Democrats and progressive groups including the coalition Health Care for America Now, which pushed for healthcare reform in 2010 and intends to defend that new law and Medicare against Republican attacks through the 2012 election.
"Each side is going to try to scare the hell out of seniors. And they're going to do that because it works. It motivates seniors to get to the polls," said Michael Cannon, a health policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Kibbe, whose group is led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and claims 800,000 volunteers nationwide, says Republicans lost in New York because they abandoned the Medicare debate to Democrats.
Republican lawmakers now need to come out swinging before the same thing happens elsewhere, he says.
"If they don't do that, we won't win this debate," Kibbe told Reuters. "You can't move a legislative initiative unless you've vetted it through the political season."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/tea-party-medicare-paul-ryan_n_917347.html
MJB, You are confusing Democrat practices with those of the Republicans. The Democrats are the ones that continue to attempt to build their Utopian society one piece at a time. Look how much these so called social programs have expanded from their original size and purpose. You are right at least as far as I am concerned, Social Security should be abolished in my opinion. People should be allowed to keep and invest their own money. I would have over two hundred K in the bank if the Government didn't force me to contribute to these programs for the past 45 years. And when you really think about the programs, a large component is Charity, an individual responsibility, not a Government funtion. I would love to see them gone.
You MIGHT have 200K if you controlled it yourself or depending on if it was invested or not, you could have lost your shirt along with all the others that thought the stock market was the way to go in 2008. SS has been a good deal for a lot of people for a very long time. There are people that SAY and THINK they would save the money, but emergencies come up or you let it slide for a month because you want to buy a new TV and first think you know, retirement age is here and you don't have doodly squat. Not everyone has fiscal discipline. It's a fact of human nature. That's why SS was started. Too many people in dire straits from the depression.
Most from depression have passed. All that were adults. Inasmuch as that was reason for social security per you, then the reason for it has passed. Or do you which to change your story now and claim SS is needed because we have developed people to depend upon it?
It is needed to keep people from dying. Would think a pro life person would care about people dying. Unless you are admitting that you want the country to be in a depression again, with old people dying in the streets.
Jason- it was in regard to a statement about Social Security from MJB- if the reason from SS has passed- just wondering if she is suggesting SS be stopped?
Also have you stopped beating your wife?
Jason- have you ever written anything that actually is your own thinking? I have a theory that people who curse a lot just have a limited vocabulary. People who make up silly names for others are just thought challenged- whether it is Obummer or Robme- that's just stupid people who can't really think for themselves. Then, I see someone like you- once you are challenged- you like to turn to just goofiness. I find you amusing. At htis point- if I were to stoop to your level, I would ask you if your mother had any kids who weren't brain dead- but alas, I'm not on your level.
You have a good point, those who simply call others names are not making a good point.
"have you ever written anything that actually is your own thinking"
" I have a theory that people who curse a lot just have a limited vocabulary"
"that's just stupid people who can't really think for themselves."
Lol- transference works better if it is relevant and pertinent. Otherwise, it seems desperate and somewhat goofy. Nice try.
The only Death Sentence Romney and Ryan will be responsible for is the Death of the Progressive Movement in the United States of America. The people have had enough of the radical socialist agenda promoted by less than 10% of the population.
Ubetcha, would REALLY hate to have a tiny group of people dominate the political discourse.
Please explain how a system that has enabled a 58% growth in wealth of the top 1% of wage earners in this country can be called "socialist".
deckbose, LOL! DOW was around 7500 under Bush, now over 13,000 in the Obama administration. Socialism at work!!! Oh, yeah!
Your avatar is funny; I have a Bose system on my deck! The best! Made in the USA!
Deckbose, Government take over of the Auto Industry, transferring ownership from the Stockholders and rightful owners to Unions. Government mandates to banks to make loans to people that can't pay them back, followed by Government Bailouts. Redistribution of Wealth Policies that tax the successful to fund the failures. Obama's "Hope and Change" has given us uncertainty, despair, and fear.
India, What would you call a form of goverment to takes control of private sector business and higher education system, limits private business based on the religious beliefs of the owner, seizes money from the wealthy and redistributes it to others. The Left is going over the top with its complete lack of tolerence for those with opposing views.
I would say simply that you are wrong; it is the other way around. The right-wing is trying to destroy this country. You are incorrect in what you say about the private sector and business and the class warfare. Look at the charts: the money has gone to the upper 1% for nearly 30 yrs. as working classes struggle to get by. Education has been priced out of sight for the average American. That i all since Reagan and the GOP took control.
I am convinced of this. I trust Obama completely. Romney is a liar and Ryan is an extreme ideologue whose policies are immoral and dangerous. Sorry, that's it. I believe the facts show that to be true.
2ez4u2c, I don't understand how you could look at the facts, all the charts, etc. and see the opposite of what they say! How is that?
India, I agree about the cost of higher education, but then again who runs the system, Liberals. Liberal policies always end up costing us more. I don't understand how any one could trust Obama. Obama completely discarded 200 years of Law during the GM and Chrysler bailout. Never in the history of the country has the Government stepped in and changed bankruptcy practices. Obama took the holdings of the Stockholders and gave them to the Union. You may be comfortable with a Government that perceives itself as being all powerful with the ability to take any thing from any one without a legal basis, I am not.
Obama and his cronies at Solyndra, Beacon, Sunpower, and ERN-1 ripped off the tax payers for over a billion dollars, and you you trust Obama completely. Obama cut 0ver 700 billion from Medicare and you trust him completely. Obama and the Democrats proposed cutting 12 billion from unemployment benefits, and you trust hiom completely. Obama will allow the taxes for every one, including the Middle Class, to be significantly increased and you trust him completely. Obama passed Obamacare only by buying votes and backdoor deals and you trust him completely. Obama refuses to release his college transcripts and thesis, but you trust him completely.
You blind faith in Obama is dangerous.
You simply have it wrong. I do not know where you got those ideas about Obama but honestly, they are incorrect. I have to put you on ignore now. I am sorry.
He did not get into Harvard nor head the Harvard Law Review with anything but excellent grades. The president is a brilliant man, a real intellectual. This is TRUE!
What is dangerous is the Ryan budget. Especially so to you, ez. They will rob the poor and the working class to insure the wealthy stay wealthy. THIS IS THEIR AGENDA! Ryan is a paid (well paid) puppet of the Koch brothers, that is why Romney risked picking him: FOR THE MONEY! Koch money.
India,
Curious, and that is strictly it, but how do you know about Obama's grades? The only reason I'm asking is because I was reading one of those vitriolic, fingerpointing exchanges, part of which delved into the issue of grades, and the policy of the university or college to seal them.
Nothing more than that.
F&B666
Well since black guys can just waltz into Harvard and become the leader of the Harvard Law Review, these people who say Obama faked or whatever with his grades must be true. What's that it is not so easy for ANY student to get that position?, ah ha then Obama had excellent grades.
Jason,
A very simple question, posed to India. Sarcasm not needed.
F&B666
Let me ask then, how did Obama make Harvard Law Review President if he did not have great grades? Did the same people who planted his birth certificate also make sure he got that position solely on the idea that one day he will steal an election and rule the world?
If you all are so convinced that this is all a big lie, why do you bother tuning in to the Ed Show? And you know, that's all you Republicans know how to do, run around calling everyone who disagrees with you, liars. Romney & Ryan are going to have to do better than that if you expect to win this election.
When Romney picked Ryan as VP, I was excited for a moment, thinking perhaps that here was a person of integrity on the Republican ticket for a change. I was quickly disenchanted when Ryan joined Romney in his big lie about Pres Obama discarding welfare's work requirement and just happily giving out welfare checks for layabouts. Only someone who hates Pres Obama, or is incredibly stupid, would believe such a baldfaced lie.
You might want to review these posts and see if the tendency to call dissenters liars is really a market that is cornered y republicans. You can start with a post or two of mine.
And regarding politicians and their propensity to lie, all I'll say, and it it NOT a justification, is 'Cosi fan tutte'.
Have a nice day.
F&B666
The real question we all need to ask ourselves is what direction do we want this country to move?
A) In a direction where the few rich control everything and everyone else struggles to have enough to live comfortable after we retire. Do we really want to have a world where the few super wealthy are in charge just because they got lucky in obtaining their wealth? Does wealth make you a more intelligent person? So, in the view of those at the top, we just do not do enough to be wealthy and we do not deserve it unless we are willing to throw those below into the abyss.
B) In a direction where everyone can get a quality education, build a business that is privately held without vulture capitalists sucking away your life's work, and not have to worry about going bankrupt if we get sick. How about a society that actually wants people to grow and learn? How about a society that does not pit the rich against the poor, but encourages the rich to be more a part of the community by shedding wealth for the advancement of society instead of worrying about being the richest in the world. Does wealth actually make you happy just because you can buy all this stuff and travel all over and be lazy in actually truly contributing toward the POSITIVE future of this country and world? Yes, there are a few that give, but not enough. When you die, can you take all that money with you?
We need to really consider the direction of humanity. We need to consider the things we do today and how they will affect the country and world tomorrow. Is money the only thing that is important in this world or is life the most important thing? Let's test that, What is more important, LIFE or MONEY? This is the fundamental question EVERYONE must ask themselves. Should the world be based on money or life? What we do in our lives is more important than money. What we do for others, how we take advantage of others and if we choose to kill for money. Killing for money can take different forms, such as sucking away the livelihoods of people so a few can become wealthy and if you are intelligent, you should be able to build that long list.
One good one is,...do all of you know that diesel exhaust causes lung cancer? So why is that not banned since all of us are forced to breath it all the time?
Time for you weak, pathetic humans to decide whether you want to maintain a group of greedy fossil fuel barons instead of developing energy sources like hydrogen, fusion, or solar to their full extent.
It is time to make the choice of investment into our future or austerity and suffering. We have become weak in thinking in this country and so many simply believe that the people who have gotten lucky deserve more. How much does any one person deserve? What, the sky is the limit? How about how many guns should one person be able to have to defend themselves? This is no different than collecting money and money actually has more power over more people than a few guns. I can only shoot one or two guns at once, but money can do far more damage than that. Greed does even more damage. When will you people grow up and learn? We have all become slaves, because if you do not have enough money, you cannot live. I do not just mean living biologically, I mean living and enjoying life, the only one you have.
So MONEY is more important than LIFE in the eyes of most people.
Is that why you vote republican? Is that why you choose those with lots of money over those that actually want to improve the lives of the poor and middle class? Do you really think those in power now or want to be in power really worry about your well being? No, they are thinking mostly about themselves just like YOU. It is time we get people in power that are not concerned about money or power, but concerned about the FUTURE of humanity. The super rich man running does NOT care about YOU. The people in power now do NOT care about YOU. Realize this fact and grow.
The BOX was a good movie depicting humanity and what should be done to those that value money over life. Putting people out of work to increase a CEO's pay or increasing share value is the same as putting money over life. You people still have not learned that money is intrinsically valued and the real value in this world is the people.
Tod, Good post. You just enumerated a few of the reasons I am voting for and supporting President Obama.
I am also a Catholic, and do not approve of the Draconian cuts to the poor which the Romney/Ryan camp want to make in their budget policy.
George Bush's failed policies threw 8 million people out of work. One in five children in this country live in poverty and depend on food stamps to have a decent meal. These two sons of privilege want , amazingly, to take this away from them! How can they possibly be supported by anyone who claims to be a Christian? Their entire focus is on making the rich richer and doing it on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Basically, it is a doubling down on the Bush policies which got us here in the first place.
Well, that didn't work before and we are living with the results. It certainly won't work now. The policies of these two wealthy men will never harm them, but make them wealthier. They are immune from the severe consequences of their platform. The many poor and uninsured who will die from lack of health care are clearly not the donors they rely on, and so they do not matter.
How can anyone support this? I will never understand.
Thanks India. You are too kind.
I agree with you, I cannot understand where these people learned values and morals.
In some ways, I can understand certain issues like those people that abuse the system and are truly lazy. This is simply a problem with how they categorize those in need. I wish our welfare system would set a few rules in place that would encourage people to volunteer their time helping others if they cannot find a job while on "temporary" aid. Our system should require those physically and mentally able to go to school, work, or volunteer time. I myself do not understand why some people just do not want to work or do something to better themselves.
I was on food stamps while attending college, as soon as I graduated with a BS in physics I cancelled the food stamps because I found a job. I was not complacent with living on welfare when I have the ability to do more. I would like to see less complacency and more determination to grow, learn and make a positive contribution to society in some way. I do not want to drop the welfare system, because it helped me when I was in need. I just do not like to see those that are fully capable of working or doing something finding reasons to do nothing.
Where I live, I see many people on food stamps and state Medicaid. Many abuse this and sock it to us taxpayers. One example is a young couple that I know around 24 years old with 4 kids which they pawn off to everyone else to watch so they can party. The man just cannot hold a job. The female just does not want to work and goes to the emergency room at least once per week to get a prescription of Vicodin or Xanax. Now the husband does the same thing. They got into subsidized housing and pay only $50 per month for everything. They brag that they keep the air conditioning at 65 degrees even in the 100+ weather we had because they only have to pay $50 per month regardless of how much they use. We pay the rest for them. They get over $1200 per month in food stamps(link card). They own 2 new vans. They sell their food stamps for cash. So many wrongs. This is what I think many people do not like about the welfare system. When a few abuse a system it makes the whole system look bad and costs us a tremendous amount. We need some rules in that system to stop this kind of abuse.
I believe people need some help from time to time to help them get off of their feet and those that are truly disabled need support, but abuse needs to be stopped. How do we do that and not hurt those that truly need the help?
I cannot stop someone from being just plain lazy, they need some incentive. How do we address this problem? Believe me, I have given this a lot of thought, probably too much.
I consider what these kids are doing as a form of greed, addiction and selfishness too.
This is not Obama's fault, it is the fault of our society in general.
Sanders is a total moron.
Dude needs to head back to the Green Mountain state and suck syrup out of the maple trees.
Bernie's great! You're the one that needs to go somewhere and suck something.
Bernie is one of the few who tell it straight and has more common sense than the entire GOP put together.
Hi, I am a Tea Party person. I hate it when people just simply call others names, & that Sanders sure is a total moron.
Every time he opens his pie hole, dude slobbers all over him self.
Runs around beating his drum about being an independent, yet votes with the democrats on everything.
No cow man stop projecting. He votes with democrats because he see's and understands something you don't, the GOP are bad for we the people. Now go back to your closet with you Sarah picture like a good little boy.
So every time you open you pie hole nothing comes out but your ignorance and immaturity. Ho, you are beating your drum for what?????
most of your post here are tagged of no value. Yet you keep beating it anyway. As long as you do. Bernie is OK with the rest of us. Your are just sorry you don't have a stump to stand on.
Ryans plan will not effect me , however it will effect my brother who is just young enough to be affected by it . It will effect my children and my grandchild.
Frankly that is more important to me then how it will effect me personally.
It is unfortunate that the battle cry is that it wont effect anyone over 55 so we should all just buy into it , lets forget about our families , they will fend for themselves , we are the selfish current beneficiaries of what we actually paid for .
aster, I agree, it will not affect me either, but I have a very sick daughter-in-law who literally could die if these two sons of privilege get into office. She was a hard worker who lived a clean life and was stricken by a rare illness. No one can afford what it takes to keep her functioning. She relies on disability and medicaid to stay alive. She is uninsurable now that she has a pre-existing condition.
Romney/Ryan want to repeal Obamacare. If they do, she could die. Sadly, they will never even know her name or care that she is gone.
We will, though.
aster: Its just a ploy to end coverage and the end around run to end all social programs that ensure we all have the same rights as those who have wealth and control to make us pay more for things that we all wish we had if we had money to make so we can live without fear of a unforeseen health problem. That would take our live savings and property away because of it. But we can't expect a bunch of spoiled rich kids to ever understand that. They haven't anything better to do than torment and get their jollies off. Die and rot in hell along with Cheney. Mark my words! The day is coming.
look Aster Medicare is going bankrupt it will be no more in 12 years it wont be there for your brother or children if nothing is done about it and that's Obama plan is to do nothing
I need to ask would you rather have something there for your brother and children even if its different then what it is today or have nothing
trf the GOP started that talking point 3 minutes after medicare started and have been repeating every election cycle since. Funny how you try to make scarey predictions of a future of doom and gloom while ignoring that the doom and gloom is what the GOP are trying to make happen. What don't you get trf if a republican says reform what they really are saying is get rid of the program.
What TRFjr fails to understand is that not all people are so selfish that the only thing they care about is their own interests. Some are actually capable of thinking of others, like today's seniors who care about their family members.
The idea that Medicare will be gone in 12 years is simply a right wing talking point, designed to be a self full filling prophecy. Americans are more caring than that, and in 2012 we will see that at the voting booths.
Jason Williams, Thanks for the good comments. Yes, it has been a talking point for years and those minor adjustments needed to keep it solvent are being blocked by the GOP who have hated this effective and efficient program for decades! I have to believe that seniors and the AARP will fight this insanity as hard as possible.
Those who say it will not affect seniors currently on Medicare are also mistaken. It will cost more. Something few can afford. They will still be on it, but it will be more expensive for them. Many have children in the 50-55 age group whose lives have been hurt by unemployment and the housing problem. They have been unable to save and will be ill prepared for retirement without Soc. Sec. and Medicare.
I could be wrong, but I think seniors care for their grown children, also! They don't want to see their lives destroyed so millionaires can get richer!
Don't be fooled by the populist talk about Ryan. He was raised in wealth, his wife is wealthy (just inherited 5 million dollars), and he is as out of touch (well, almost) as Romney.
Few, if any, surpass Romney, who acts like the man who fell to Earth.
Yes, and if it's so good and such a GREAT idea, why not start it RIGHT away? Why can't the "already" seniors get to enjoy this "masterpiece"??
Oh, that's right. They NEED those votes in order to even START more of their Republican devastation! Haven't we put up with enough already with Bush's follies?? How many times do the Republicans need proof that their "trickle down" method simply does NOT work. How about your super-wealthy 2% EARNING some of their wealth, instead of just stealing it from the poor and the elderly?? Bush's unbudgeted bills would get paid off LOTS faster if those multi-millionaires would pay THEIR SHARE of those bills and maintenance of our country! Cheapskates!!
Whats the Obama plan I have heard Ryans but im not familar with Obamas plan? We are being told if we do nothing medicare will be broke in 15 years. I realy would like to see a plan opposed to Ryans so I can decide which one I like the best.
Obama has chosen to fix the bathtub, drain the water and keep the baby. Ryan says lets contract out for a new bathtub and lose the bathtub, bath water, and baby.
To make Jason's analogy a little more accurate, Obama saved the baby, then presented the baby with some very large bills as she matures into a young lady. She will be lucky enough to pay for a whole bunch of people.
If this is true what Bernie said how many has Obama already killed with him stealing over 700 billion from Medicare. And how many more are going to die in 12 years when Medicare goes bankrupt because Obama refuses to do anything about it
At least it went into the ACA. Ryan's plan would take it and give it to those already monetarily overburdened.
TRFjr, Your facts are wrong. Get them right, unless that is why you are here: to lie about Obama.
so tell me what am i lying about ? is it a lie that Medicare will be bankrupt in 12 years
Or is it a lie that Obama cut 700 billion from medicare
And please don't link some propaganda from some loony liberal website why don't you link from lets say the CBO
Oh you cant use the information from the CBO because they will show what i said is true
Stop lying. That's my advice, and all I care to say to you. Look up what cuts and why Obama made them and if they actually do any harm. Use what little brain you have, that hasn't been tainted by right wing propaganda. If possible.
You're on ignore. I refuse to listen to any more of your lies.
Yes, it is a lie that Medicare will be bankrupt in 12 years.
TRFjr the 700 billion came from Drug company and Insurance company. Ryan has the same plan to take the 700 billion but will give to the rich for tax break. Obama toke the money and give it to people how need it. TRFjr I know your want to support the Drug and Insurance company and not the people who need it.
This "$700 billion in cuts" you keep quoting is the exact same figure as in the Ryan plan. You do realize that, right? The difference is, the ACA cuts the money from the provider end, from doctors, hospitals and prescription drug companies, rather than the patients' end, as Ryan's plan proposes.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/30/414090/fact-check-ryan-demagogues-health-reform-misrepresents-premium-support-proposal-in-fox-news-sunday-appearance/?mobile=nc
"FACT: The CBO says that one part of Medicare — Part A or hospital insurance — will become “insolvent,” not bankrupt. Dedicated revenues will not be sufficient to pay all of its bills and the hospital fund will meet about 90 percent of its commitments, rather than the full 100 percent. In the succeeding years that shortfall will slowly widen and then contract, so that in 2085, Medicare could pay out 88 percent of its obligations, the program’s trustees conclude. The savings in the ACA — lowering annual payment updates to providers — has actually extended the life of the trust fund by nine years."
Insolvent, not bankrupt. Whew! Glad we got that straightened out.
That thing about projecting the situation in 2085: Does anyone here really want to put stock on that?
And I posted some other source that, I kid you not, argues it is inaccurate to babble about unfunded liabilities because congress can always raise taxes. Anyone wants to peruse that one, let me know. I'll find it.
F&B666
in·sol·vent
adjective
1.
not solvent; unable to satisfy creditors or discharge liabilities, either because liabilities exceed assets or because of inability to pay debts as they mature.
2.
pertaining to bankrupt persons or bankruptcy.
FairandBalance666 you are an Idiot
trf sticking your fingers and yelling the same garbage louder and louder just shows that you have no intention of debating the issue, you just want to bully others into agreeing with your stupidity. That is not going to happen, people are tired of adults acting like 4 year olds.
TRF,
I think you misunderstood. I was agreeing with you. I was mocking the repudiation in the thinkprogress link. I thought it a joke that the distinction was made between 'insolvent' and 'bankrupt'. And the bit about projections through 2085 I found absolutely foolish. I do, in fact, think medicare has turned out, like other government (under) funded so-called good ideas, to be a farce. I ended my post with a reference to another piece where the phrase 'unfunded liability' was termed inaccurate for the reason I posted. Now, that I found, was rather idiotic.
F&B666
Comment put in wrong place so is irrelevant.
Maerzie,
Reference to my comment? If so, how is the minor issue of misplacement so important as to render it irrelevant?
If not in reference to a comment of mine, sorry about that.
F&B666
I spend zero minutes of my life reading any talking points, so I didn't know the medicare bankrupt argument. But, a quick google will bring up the trustees report, headed by Obama's Human services secretary, a Kathleen Sebelius, seems to indicate that a 2016 date for it being broke isn't accurate, but the report suggests 2024 would be accurate. It would seem to me that this may or may not be true, as governmental accounting is funny sometimes (remember, Obamacare is cost neutral-lol)- but it seems if you argue it isn't true, you are in effect labeling Obama's team as a liar.
By the way, Tim Geithner was also part of the trustee report that claimed it Would be bankrupt by 2024. I guess you libs like Jason are calling some very high ranking Obama officials liars.
The 2012 trustee report is out there for all to see. People like India should read it before calling people liars. It's in the report.
Oh boy looks like death panels are back.
Oh they are, But not for the poor! The FFF are coming to take them away!
That we, in the richest country in the world, should even be having this conversation, says a great deal is wrong with America's system of government!
Every other country in the industrial world has health care for their people. Our candidate, in the GOP, in 2012, wants to win and take away what little crumbs of Help Obama was able to provide for people.
And many are cheering them on. This is insane.
Americans talk about American exceptionalism. Some of us, who have seen other countries, and how they care for their sick, do not see that phrase in a positive light. America is the exception to civilized countries having affordable health care. Here, money and power rule. The people's voices are just not being heard.
37th in math is exceptionalism.
India maybe we should look at who ARE the RICH and what they think. 63% of them said TAX ME yet the GOP said its not what the people want! To me that's NOT representation though legislation. But only goes to show that they are owned by corporate greed. An any fool should see that. But we gotta have those trolls who will never see the truth will think its better until its the end of their own idea until its to their demise......So run and hide in your TAX shelter until its to late to run. So have your fun because the day of reckoning has come.
PS India your one of the coolest gals on this blog!
xxx ooo,
#12.4 "63% of them said TAX ME"
Assuming your 63% number is correct, you left out the rest, I think.
India LeCarre
#12.2 "little crumbs of Help"
ACA alone is probably about $2T. Little crumbs? BTW, Obama the King didn't 'give' anything. It was his Congress, 58 Ds and 2Is, that did the taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less.
"many are cheering"
Well, sure, I suspect many of those who are recipients of that largesse are quite happy.
F&B666
F&B666
xxxooo....wow, thanks! I don't know how to make those little hearts or I would.
Back at ya! XXXOOO
I'd agree those who will get coverage are very happy about that. Why would someone not want to see a person get better?
Jason,
I agree, those who get coverage are or will be happy. Especially so if it's with other people's money. Your question? Gee, not exactly a subtle setup. On what would you base the possibility that someone wouldn't want to see a person get better? The better question to ask is what are the downsides of providing handouts. Yes, there are positives, but please, don't ignore the negatives. But again, that's merely my view.
F&B666
So, I feel better about my coverage since someone else pays for it, and I care less about my coverage when I earn it. Is that you take on us poor people?
Down sides are corruption and fraud, when people work together to help fix those areas, the system will work much better. Going by your words, what you think is the down side is people will simply do nothing and get a flu shot and a meal for nothing at all. That will happen and again addressing that issue specifically will help the entire system. How much will that happen is another question, my guess is you think that number is higher than I think.
Fair and Balanced666 said "Obama the King didn't 'give' anything. It was his Congress, 58 Ds and 2Is, that did the taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less." ----- From that I get that you have a problem making sure the least of us have enough basic living needs met, since that would "take" from those who have enough of these basic living needs met.
Jason,
Social programs are a tight rope. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. There are those who need help, and those who don't. There is the risk that for even some of those who receive assistance, it may foster complacency, that their situation is tolerable as is. How easy is it, do you think, to ensure thes VAST amounts of money are distributed the way they should be? That includes food stamps, welfare, unemployment, the whole ball of wax. Since it is off-topic, subsidizing certain aspects of labor and manufacturing is another matter, but that can be tabled.
"So, I feel better about my coverage since someone else pays for it, and I care less about my coverage when I earn it. Is that you take on us poor people?"
No. My point was that, of course, those who get coverage would be happy about that. That's a total no-brainer. Care less when I earn it? I have no idea as to your basis for reading that into what I posted.
'us poor people?' Jason, when I was younger, I knew what it was like to have to use food stamps. I often suffered the stares at the supermarket checkout line. For what it's worth, my sibs and I were all young, and my father suffered from a really crummy, debilitating illness that rendered him unable to work. We all worked hard in school, and though none of us are rich, we all pay our way. I don't have any idea as to the cirmcumstances that surround the situation of those who today are 'poor', whatever the metrics. Yourself included, judging from your post. You're your own best judge of how responsible you are for your set of circumstance.
Your second paragraph suggests we may not be that far off on general views. Gee, it might even be an indicator that neither of us are evil extremists. By the way, I don't consider myself financially rich, but then, that depends on the definition. I'll clarify that we're aren't close to the '1%'. But then, neither are we in the lower 50%.
Re the redistribution of wealth thing, no, I don't have a problem, in concept. It's the execution that I find problematic. If nothing else, if it is mis-executed long enough, it would be a killing of the goose scenario, and that helps no one. The first issue, and I alluded to the difficulty it earlier, is how to determine who 'deserves' (a really loaded word) the help. My simple view is that getting our economy out of this rut would go a lot farther than just churning up the money people have earned and moving it around.
Drifting a bit off-topi, I also have a big, big problem with pandering and demagoguery. That quasi-amnesty thing about deportation, where it will be held up for a bit? That's a good example. I don't know that deportation is necessarily a correct course of action to take, but I'm convinced the motivation was vote-based. And likewise with the class warfare issue, and as I stated, we're not in the rich category. It's more a matter of principle.
OK, I'll step off the soapbox.
Have a nice day.
F&B666
those who get coverage are or will be happy. Especially so if it's with other people's money - Care less when I earn it?
-----------------------------------------
You are telling me that I am more happy to get coverage for free instead of paying for it. I said that was completely backwards, I feel better providing my own insurance. So yes since I care MORE when others pay, that means I care less when I pay myself.
Also, OK not us poor people, poor people like me and middle class incomes that are 1/1000000th of a banker CEO pay.
Jason,
Nope. Not talking about you. It was a generalization: anyone who can not afford, and does not have coverage, would clearly be happy to get it for free. I suppose most would rather be able to get it by having a job and being able to afford it. I don't know that, obviously, but I would bet it. Feeling better by paying your own way is very commendable, and I don't want to sound patronizing.
My 'us poor people' was apostrophied solely for the purpose of leading in to my bit about (corny it might sound) 'been there, done that.' Nothing more than that.
I didn't know buying health insurance from a private company was using other peoples money. I though you righies were all for privatization of everything. I guess that is only when it helps you. Same BS, differant day Just like you believe Social Security is an "entitlement". Guess what. I paid into a retirement plan. Why shouldn't I be able to collect when the time comes? I paid into a medical plan. Why shouldn't I be able to collect whrn the time comes? Why can't you righties ever use some common sence and quit being the "me, me, me, self centered, I got mine, screw you" clowns?
Larry,
Are there any provisions in the ACA that you know of that provide a subsidy to those who can't afford an expenditure? I don't know too many righties, to use your term, who are for privatizing everything. If I'm a 'righty' in your view, I can say you think incorrectly. Social security is an 'entitlement'? No, actually I view it as something I've been paying for for years, for me or my wife. Mismanagement of it by our central government for many, many years should not void the contract.
You should be able to collect into a retirement plan into which you paid.
You would be better served to lighten up with the insults, but that's just my opinion.
F&B666
Yes there are subsidies to help people who make less than 4 times the poverty rate.
I've been calling Ryan's Plan a "Republican Death Panel," for a couple of years.
Because it IS!
And the IPAB provision is . . . . ?
Indeed so..
4th Reich has been in the works for some time...But Hitler was only one man.
xxxooo, Well, perhaps now that there are two.........the odds of success are greater?
We have a real fight on our hands. I do believe we will win, though. I don't believe these trolls are anything more than an extremist minority.
India LeCarre,
"two?" Are you comparing Rep. Ryan to Hitler? And your friend xxx ooo with his '4th Reich?
And you refer to those with a differing view as trolls, and extremist?
Sad. Head-shakingly sad.
Indeed just trolls in the penthouse.
Yes, 666, I see you as extremely dangerous to America. You and all your right-wing peers.
I think YOUR policies are what is sad. Immoral, sad, and dangerous for this country.
No, I do not compare Romney to Hitler. Hitler was in a class of his own. A true evil genius. Romney is no genius. His policies, however, have the peculiar strain of social Darwinism that are eerily close to those of the third reich. I do not think we will see another holocaust, though. My husband had relatives who died in Auschwitz. Others sent to work camps. I know too much about it to think it could happen here.
I dislike what your avatar implies, as well. I think that is sad, and sick.
Hey INDIA, 2 word's that get lost in the translation of the "CUT" in Medicare are PROVIDER and BENIFICIARY, Benificiary's dont lose anything.
Hi Sarge, Yes, things do tend to get lost in the translation! That's for sure!
India,
I don't think your idea of exactly what policies I espouse is accurate, but then, I would be the only one to know, just as I have no way of really knowing what's on your mind, much as you may express it here. You might find (I certainly don't blame you for not really wanting to bother) that if you caught some of my other posts, I've said I don't have the answers, and that many issues involve tough calls, INCLUDING those with the potential to provide help when needed.
I am truly sorry to hear about your Auschwitz connection. My father, as a WWII POW, saw poor human beings hanging from ropes in one of those brutal, vicious camps, some distance from his military POW camp. An awful vision, even today. And I know people, today, very intimately involved with the Holocaust. Ranks up there as one of the basest testimonies of man's inhumanity to man. So at least we have one thing in common, even if by the barest of threads.
The 666 thing? I browsed thru the blogs on the MSNBC site and decided to join in. I know that blogs can include vicious, stupid, silly, or insenstive material, even the garbage that the administrators allow to stand, but MSNBC honestly struck me as particularly vitriolic, from both extremes, but with a decidedly liberal bent. So many of thes posts, from both sides, are such a waste of time and effort. And with so many negative references to FNC, the bane of many liberal friend I know, I decided on my display name as a joke. There. The secret is out. I'm so terrible.
You know, recently, on another web site I occasionally frequent, which sadly contains some of the same childish, or hate-filled, or insulting content, someone psoted that he had just lost a close friend, and related how that tragedy shocked him back to reality and what is important. He went on to implore participants to at least take a break and limit the discussions to just that, discussions, devoid of the name-calling, derogation, unfounded acusations of lies, all of the junk. A rather well-timed and well worded suggestion. More like a plea. The worst that should happen is agreeing to disagree.
It would be great to see such requests have an effect, on all of us, wouldn't it?
Hope you enjoyed your evening.
Mitt Romney's False Welfare Reform Attack Ads
"Let's be very clear, a lot of people don't understand this," he said"
Hmmm, maybe we should 'pass it so we can see what's in it'?
F&B666
MAYBE, you should worry about all the fLoUrIdE in the drinking water.
LOL, Jason, I think they were actually still worried about that in some little FL town as recently as last year! (Those communists! Putting Fluoride in people's water, um, um um...!).
Fair and balanced 666 : Go munch on a damn moon pie. That's GOOD for your teeth! Eat lots of moon pies and Little Debbie cakes! Be careful of the tainted water!
Jason and India,
Actually, I think Flouride in the water is a good thing. That said, what's next on your adultlike retorts list.
let's talk about something else, after all, it's not the economy, stupid.
F&B666
Dan "I gush and coo about Bill Clinton all the time" Rather
even though she's a member of the evil rich
FOR STARTERS
Jason,
The first line was a reference to former speaker Pelosi, for whom I have little respect, referring to the ACA.
The second, re Dan Rather, is my characterization of a news person with whom I became highly disenchanted when he ceased reporting it, in an unbiased manner. Far from it, he did not try to hide the fact that he supported the liberal perspective, which he is entitled to do, but not to the point where the news was editorialized to the avantage of one political party. He was no Walter Cronkite, a liberal in private but a very, very good newscaster in public. I don't know if you were familiar with him.
I don't understand why you list the evil rich line. I utilized that because it is my view that the rich, i.e., the 1 percenters, are often explicitly or implicitly portrayed as selfish, greedy individuals.
I judge your post is your view of what you consider childish comments from me. OK. Maybe, to a point. But I won't dwell on it.
Later.
I utilized that because it is my view that the rich, i.e., the 1 percenters, are often explicitly or implicitly portrayed as selfish, greedy individuals.
---------------------
So you must make sure this gets propelled? Got it, so you propel something even though you admit you do not know it to be true.
If the shoe fits the rich will buy it. Overall the rich have become rich by greed and selfishness, and they show this trait when the beg for more tax breaks. What gets twisted is people propel the idea that since some of these 1% folks are really bad people then they all are, but who is saying they all are? The people who propel that all 1% folks are the same are repubs, they will tell us that all liberals think that all 1% folks are "explicitly or implicitly portrayed as selfish, greedy individuals" but the liberals do not say that. Best example was this one teabagger comes in sayin Obama is a 1%'ers all you libs hate hahahahahahahahaha. To which I replied "So you finally admit Obama is a job creator"
8.3% unemployment, 16 Trillion in debt.
'Kay, let's talk about something else, after all, it's not the economy, stupid.
F&B666
I SEE THE DEVIL IS WITH US. Lol
Haven't you heard? You lose in the end! You have but a short time to spread your filthy lies!
And he is back with the same spam he was posting before.
Indeed, India. After all, what's more important but to win? But please, both of you. I merely posted two numbers. Both are approximations, but I think they fall in the 'close-enough' category. Prithee, which of those are a lie, and why?
The third item in my post, "it's not the economy, stupid", was a play on the mantra pervading the ether in the campaign of 1992. It served, I think, to help replace Bush with Clinton, even though Mr. Comma-but himself, Dan "I gush and coo about Bill Clinton all the time" Rather, very quickly admitted, AFTER the election, that it was true, the economy had turned the corner, and for quite some time.
But I digress. The play is intended to highlight the apparent attempt by the Obama campaign to turn the conversation away from what just might be considered two, umm, rather important factors, the more important being the number of people that are out of work, compared to the smaller number that was supposed to be the goal of that 'bipartisan' bill, also known as ARRA. Yep, that one.
Have a nice day.
F&B666
666 I plan to have a nice day. I must go to mass and after that dinner and a ball game. Perhaps you know that today is a Holy Day of obligation. They claim the devil knows his scripture! LOL
I know where the phrase comes from. I was around in 1992. I did not like Bill Clinton then and am not overly fond of him now. Surprise! Surprise! He had the morals of an alley cat.
I still voted Democrat, however.
In answer to your question, many things are more important than winning. Doing the thing you believe to be right is much more important, IMO.
India,
The Feast of the Assumption is on August 15. Although, possible your church accommodates working people by having mass the day before as well as the day of, much as my church, also Catholic, has service on Saturday evening and allows that as the fulfilment for the Sunday obligation. But then, I might be the devil, so I guess you are entitled to think I know those facts for that reason.
I'm not perfect, by any stretch. Neither are all my posts. But then, I throw out two simple facts, innuendo-loaded, to be sure, but facts none the less, and I am branded a liar? Tell you what, I'll review my posts, and you review yours. Many on this site could use a little bit of that.
Glad you went to church. More ought to do that. Does a body good.
The Romney -Ryan ticket should be increasingly hilarious! Obviously, they BOTH think they understand finances (at least their OWN!), but they can't seem to get a handle on understanding human beings and REAL life! I think the presidency incorporates MUCH more than only finances, and they can HIRE a brainiac to do that calculating. Neither one is grasping the "WHOLE" picture, and neither one knows an IOTA about foreign policy. What a disastrous combination! But, Romney got his pick, IN SPITE OF the fact that NOBODY ELSE agreed with him, which means he is a stubborn non-thinker who won't take advice from wiser people. NOT good! Ryan's plan (the Republican trend) also SHOUTS that they are AGAINST family planning, AGAINST abortion, but then, their "solution?" is the antithesis of what they PRETEND they abhor! Cutting Medicaid will have children and elderly dropping like flies!! Is it just MORE FUN to kill people more slowly and more painfully by cutting out their food and their healthcare?? I guess that's it! Republicans just need to SEE people suffer. Sadism! They obviously get their jollies that way. Thinking ahead is against their principles!
I can't even wish a horrible disease on this miscreant because he has the best health care in the world as a congressman of the United States , and they will have his ass cured before the other shoe drops. You are the worst of the worst representing this country . It's just to bad we can't socialize your behavior , I would hope that you will stand in judgement of God someday but people like you make me think and wonder if there really could be a God , oh well for now we can only hope you lose the election and find yourself some helpless animal to sneak up on in the hills of Wisconsin and off him or her with your shotgun .
Fair to say, then, that you don't like Representative Ryan?
I see F & B believes as soon a President Obama was sworn in, all the damage done by GWB ended. He believes the unemployment rate should have dropped to 0 instantly. He doesn't knoe the President can't write bills or pass bills. He believes the President is a dictater and can just make it happen. He doesn't see where the do nothing congress has hurt the recovery prosess. YEP, we've heard it all before under a differant name.
Morning everybody.
larry,
No, not an accurate depiction. I was under no delusion that the good ship USS United States would be course-corrected in the blink of an eye. The 8.3% number was merely a reminder of what Obama said re the Stimulus Bill. It didn't happen. Period. I am quite aware that presidents do not write bills, i.e., legislate. I've gone to the trouble of highlighting the distinction between the executive and legislative branches of our government numerous times. It speaks a bit toward both the extent of responsibility when things are not great and to the assumption of credit when things are favorable.
In point of fact, though, I do think there have been an instance or two where our current president has (probably within legal bounds) come rather close to behaving like a dictator. I also DO see where the president had a democratic majority for two years. I also recall the president saying 'something' abiout cutting the deficit (no, not the national debt, but the budget deficit) in half sometime during his administration, but that hasn't happened. And he most certainly had his congress. I also think it reprehensible, but gee, it is politics, to refer to raising the debt ceiling as not moral, when Bush was in office, and to 'evolve' when he is in office. And, we do have a debt that currently smells a lot like 16 Trillion. For those who would decry administrations of the other party for what happened on 'their watch', well, does not the same apply here? Or is it a matter Orwellian, you know, some animals are more equal than others? OK, how about if I just simply refer to that as another standard?
And, by the way, exactly when was the last federal budget passed, and why the lack of one since?
Heard it all before, but under a different name, have you? I would thank you for letting me say what I believe in or think, or, if you wish, to ask me.
Have a nice day, Larry.
In other words, repub figure since they do it, that dems must do it also, thus the paranoia of what the POTUS might do.
Last budget even close to good and last time USS America was on correct path was merely 13 years ago. I know what has happened since then, do you? You see if Obama had taken a surplus to a record deficit, I would be with you on what had happened, but that is not what happened, what happened was in early 2001 that budget was obliterated and we as a country have not recoved yet. Then in 2003 the budget was designed to fail for another 10 years, and here we sit. So I do say " For those who would decry administrations of the other party for what happened on 'their watch', well, does not the same apply here?"
Jason,
Sure, a couple of things happened at the end of and since the Clinton administration. The tech crash of 2000, and the 9/11 attack.
There's plenty of blame, and accusations of incompetency and stupidity, for both parties. Maybe this will help you understand my view: I would prefer if Obama, who had a shot but failed, in my opinion, were to be replaced by Romney. But absent that, if it were possible, I would settle for replacing everybody, every single politician, in congress (all 535) and in the WH (2, but only 1 really counts), with new bodies, and I would go so far as to say I wouldn't even care which party ends up with control of either branch.
That's about as nonpartisan a position as one could expect. More succinctly, 'A plague on both their houses'.
What say you?
inSane!
No, no, no, you fail to understand history, the budget was blown BEFORE 9/11/2001 with a 10 year sunset provision b/c there were not enough votes in the Senate. And surely you do not balme Clinton for 9/11/2001 but blame Obama for 9/24/2008?
I am in favor of a national referendom, the first ever, to demad term limits for ALL level of government, why is it there is only one pol that has a term limit, the POTUS? Could it be that the Congress doesn't want to vote themselves out of a job?
9/11 could have been prevented had GWB taken the advice of the Clinton administrations warning that OBL was determined to strike the US with commercial aircraft instead GWB said "you covered your ass son take a hike I'm busy cutting brush on my ranch".
inSane?
Jason,
The budget blown before comment might deserve a separate thread.
No, I can't say Clinton was to blame for 9/11, although whomitmay seems to assign blame to Bush because of failure to act. The financial crash of '08 had, in my opinion, many years in the leadup, and the responsibility can be laid at the feet of many politicians from both sides, bankers, lenders and borrowers. Blame Obama? No.
The term limits thing is an interesting point, another of those where there are pros and cons. Of course, you sort of hit the nail on the head re problems with Congress: will they pass any laws that are self-restrictive? Sure they will. Wanna buy a bridge?
Told ya, we aren't as far apart as you might think, even if it is in general terms.
whomitmay,
1. Source?
2. Water over the dam, and anyway, if OBL had been taken out, we'd most likely had someone else do something as despicable and cowardly, but . . . , am I wrong in thinking there was an opportunity to take out OBL during the Clinton years, but it was nixed because of the possibility of loss of innocent bystanders? Don't misunderstand, that could have been a tough call unless seen through the prism of hindsight?
Why give you a source you won't open. Guess you don't know how to Google, thats where we start when we look for stuff to debunk your right wing garbage. Typical lazy tea bagged republican always wanting others to do what they could do themselves. Totally wrong 1 Newts congress wouldn't approve of a military action against OBL who wasn't considered more then the money man behind terrorist cells in the 1990's nor was OBL wanted at that time. All those things came out after 9/11 about OBL being the master mind behind those attacks instead of just another money man.
whomitmay,
Try me. Give me a source. Bluff call time.
By the way, please go back to #16.3. I posted two numbers, and asked you and India to refute them with documentation, since you accused me of lieing. I'm still waiting.
Have a nice day.
SURE yall don't blame Clinton for 9/11/2001 and Obama for 9/24/2008
Still waiting for India LeCarre, whomitmay, and now, anyone, to tell me which of these is a lie, and why it is a lie:
U. S. official BLS unemployment: 8.3%
U. S. national debt: Just a touch under $16 trillion
F & B666
Jason- you are at least persistent in describing what others say in an inaccurate, but favorable to your side, position. Since you're interested in budgets, just how is Obama's working? Heck, I'm on the Audubon committee, and even we have an annual budget.
Ask Romney this Question: If the Ryan Plan for Medicare is so great for those under 55 years of age, why can't people over 55 participate? I mean it's a marvelous plan isn't it.
I think the 55 cutoff is to serve as a transition age to buffer the effect during the proposed changes to the plan. Not completely sure, but that's what I guess. Anything that would constitue a major change to either Medicare or OASDI should have some transition time, just to avoid 'system shock.' That's the way I see it, anyway.
Unless you're being sardonic . . . .
Johnnie . . . it has nothing to do with how great the potential new plan it has to do with conserving Medicare for more generations. It will be broke by 2030 which is only 15 years. Come wake up, things have to change. Also Paul Ryan has said if you are 55 and older you have a choice stay with the current plan or go to the one where you can shop around and find the best rate. No matter what if you have over $3 million in retirement accounts you should have to pay your own way. I say $3 million cause that amount if you retire at 65 that would be about $150K per year in withdrawals minus taxes. So that amount "should" be enough to live comfortably and have the money to afford a quality health plan at about $15k per year.
If a man makes love to one lesbian does that make him gay?
Nah, just makes him happy!
I wouldn't know for sure! would you?
whomi............heres one for ya
Bill Clintons Chief Of Staff says Paul Ryan "is amazing" Perhaps Erskin Bowels knows something Eddy & Maddow dont?
Know job?
Perhaps Bowles is mad since Ryan voted NO on the proposal.
I agree. Clinton himself said he loved the fact that Ryan is stepping out and trying to make a change. Bols said Ryans idea are not far off of his in restructuring the budget and country killing entitlements.
I can see people hording pills for when they won't be able to afford anything else. Why burden your family with hospital bills that no one will be able to afford except the very rich? This is a horrible thing if it comes to past.
Two point's to make, I live in Ryan's district, Why didn't HE come to His OWN hometown (Janesvile) with Romney??? Went to Waukesha. And who helped write up the Repub's Budget during Bush's 8 yr's in office. What did he do to offset the cost of the War in IRAQ and Afghanistan? Did RYAN forget about those 2 Item's,
Sarge, Obama was in senate for part of that period. And he said the afghan war was necessary. Could you further your point for us by referencing how Obama proposed to pay for the afghan war? Since you seem to think it is a very important item, I suspect you have Obama's proposals from 2004-2008 in you pocket.
I didn't think so. Figured you were more words that substance...
You think somewhere in the world of Rove/Koch they pushed for Ryan wth the thought "...Don't worry about Fla,we'll steal it anyway"?