jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (84 posts)

The Lie of the Year:Reoublicans Want to End Medicare

  1. umbertoobrian profile image61
    umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago

    Democrats are chanting without conscience or honesty that Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan will destroy Medicare, while hiding that Obama's plan cuts $700 billion from it.  This is the lie of the year according to Politifact.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ed-end-me/

    (Hard to type with work gloves on - please forgive the typo)

    1. Don W profile image85
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Regardless of the fact that the link goes to something from 2011, what's the point of criticising dishonesty, then being economical with the truth yourself?

      In July 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote to John Boehner after he requested an estimate of the revenue effects of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

      They said: "repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period."

      So the Affordable Care Act saves an estimated $716 billion, and reduces net federal spending by $711 billion. That's not from a pundit, commentator, political analyst, or year old article on the web. It's from the letter itself. You can read it too if you like. Here it is.

      That $700 billion saving does not come from changes in benefits or coverage, but reductions in payments to insurers, hospitals, drug companies etc. and would extend the life of Medicare to at least 2024. Romney's proposed reversal of the savings would make the trust fund insolvent by 2016.

      Moreover, reversing those savings would have no impact on benefits or coverage. It would simply mean Medicare pays more money to insurers, hospitals and drug companies. Nice if you are an insurer, hospital or drug company.

      So when does a $716 billion cost saving become a 'cut'? When it's politically expedient to characterise it as such. And when is reducing federal spending something the Republicans are against? When it's achieved by anyone called Obama. And when is it Okay to chant the same old refrain "without conscience or honesty"? Apparently when it is you doing the chanting.

      1. Barbara Kay profile image83
        Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don, I'd really like to see you write a hub on this. I'll share it on Facebook if you do. I'd like some people there to see it.

    2. Don W profile image85
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Also, 6 days ago that site also fact-checked the claim made by Mitt Romney that Barack Obama robs Medicare of more than $700 billion to pay for the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. The result: Mostly false. Read it here:

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ry-rob-me/

      1. umbertoobrian profile image61
        umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I did read it at the time.  I am unconcerned with Romney's disagreement with Obama since the totality of Obama's current policies, future policy plans and off hand (off prompter) comments speak to a general hostility toward business, business owners, stock and bond holders are a palpable threat to global prosperity - not just American prosperity.

        From the redistirbutionist comments to "Joe, the Plumber,"  to the "we can't set our thermostats at 72 degrees" in front of the Brandenburg Gate; from the attacks on every conceivable employment sector from Big Insurance, Pharma, Medicine, Oil, Coal to the advice that granny should take the pill; from the attack on Las Vegas vacationers to "you didn't build that - he has displayed a callous disregard for Americans, their interests, their jobs, their employers, their churches and their lives.

        It is no wonder unemployment is intractable, food stamp rolls are swelling and people are abandoning any hope of finding employment.  The many middle class workers who were or are employed by corporations, oil companies, jet manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, medical device manufacturers are all suffering, either real privation or uncertainty about the future, because Barrack Hussein Obama has decided that he will do for the whole economy what has been done to GM.

        A minor conflation over Barrack's attempt to destroy private medical care in America means very little in the grand scheme of things.  Wait until we are waiting in line for potatoes and listening to the dear leader tell us why potato farmers are so greedy. How he needs to seize those farms so we can all be equal to the rich potato farmer before telling us all how a great and over weening, massive government is the solution to all our worries.

        1. Don W profile image85
          Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your comment is so loaded with inaccuracies, I wouldn't know where to start. You have mostly given opinion with no factual information at all. Your references to "Joe the plumber", "72 degrees", "you didn't build that" are little more than rehashes of conservative propaganda and is disappointing. The rest of your comment is made up of baseless assertions.

          I'm all for people expressing their opinions. I do it plenty. But I dislike when opinions are touted as the truth, with no supporting factual information. Are the President's economic policies a "palpable threat to global prosperity"? Unless you can demonstrate that with facts it's just your opinion. Yet you say it as if it's the absolute truth. And your assertion that the President is trying to "destroy private medical care" is a complete falsehood. This is why I found that, out 35 Republican/ Conservative statements fact-checked on Politifact.com, just 1 was found to be true (actually it was half true).

          There's too much nonsense being spread by people who are seemingly ignorant of the facts. There are independent sources that can give unbiased accounts of whether certain statements are true or not. I humbly suggest you find them and use them. They aren't perfect, but they are a useful tool in cutting through the propaganda, and damn right lies. Evidence suggests most of the falsehoods are being spread by the Republican camp. I really hope you try to buck that trend. Unfortunately at the moment you seem to be one of those doing the spreading.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You apparently haven't noticed that the "redistribution" since Reagan has been one way only from the middle class and poor to the ultra rich like Romney.

    3. bgamall profile image85
      bgamallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, the Republicans want to replace medicare with vouchers that will result in huge bills for the seniors as the vouchers lose value. Ryan lied about accepting government stimulus. He is lying now about his change of heart towards medicare. He wants to kill it or kill seniors while giving the money to people who will blow housing bubbles.

      1. umbertoobrian profile image61
        umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ryan's own mother depends on the Medicare Democrat refuse to preserve through rational and effective reforms.  The often and intentionally mislabeled Widen/Ryan plan - Widen being the DEMOCRAT Senate sponsor of the plan- mirrors a BIPARTISAN plan offered by DEMOCRAT Senator John Breaux and Republican, humanitarian and surgeon, Senator Bill First.

        The whole language of killing makes rational discussion impossible.  It is just further evidence of how liberals are lost, have lost, will lose, are losing their minds and are losers.

        November is going to be HUGE!!

        1. bgamall profile image85
          bgamallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, the Republicans won't have 60 votes in the senate no matter what happens and vouchers would never happen over the Dems objections.

          You are wasting time with this stupid stuff Umbertoobrian. You will be old some day and if you aren't wealthy, you are going to be screwed by the Republicans.

          1. umbertoobrian profile image61
            umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Doubtful but if I were being screwed by the Republicans I doubt that I would feel it having already been so thoroughly wallowed out by liberals my whole life.

            1. bgamall profile image85
              bgamallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, don't worry, you will feel it. The Republicans want supply side housing bubbles and want to wind down the GSE's so the TBTF banks will be able to offer GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES on all loans. Think of the next bubble Ryan can blow. And Ryan's bubble was in his 6 trillion dollar budget.

              Think about it, you will likely get screwed far worse by the Republicans, although the Dems could do better.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's absolutely true that Ryan would absolutely destroy Medicare for people under 55. The only reason he isn't proposing to end it for people over 55 is that he knows it would sink the GOP ship. He and other GOPers whine about saddling our children and grandchildren with the national debt, but he proposes to screw them out of Medicare with a sleazy voucher program and herding them into the hands of the parasitic health insurance companies. Ryan has repeatedly proposed privatizing Social Security, although his latest proposal is for partial privatization. Keeping up with his latest lies is a full time job.

      1. umbertoobrian profile image61
        umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I wish the GOP had destroyed Medicare when I first started working so that squandered income could have been mine to deposit in a health savings account.  38 years too late for me.  Glad Medicare will no longer plunder my children's and grandchildren's incomes.  Small price to pay for their freedom from socialist ideas.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Last Sunday,Rachael Maddow was asked about this on one of the morning shows.  She was asked to defend the position, she actually looked like that was the first time she was hearing about Obama's cuts.  I do not think America has woken up to this fact yet either.

  3. 0
    Mtbailzposted 4 years ago via iphone

    This is the case but what does this say about conservatives running for office? They have been running on a platform for the last half decade about cutting entitlement programs, and now they don't want to act on their words. Wonder why. Maybe because they know it's political suicide. It seems the just want the election in the bag, no matter what they have to say.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Providing individuals with a choice, is if nothing else, is a plan.

      At least they have one!

      1. 0
        Mtbailzposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        They can't keep their heads straight. Last year it was lets cut entitlement programs and now Romney changes that because it  hurt his chances in November. Some leadership there. He's definitely trying to pull a fast one on American voters.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ryan has a plan, it is on the table!

          http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/p … ty2013.pdf

          Agree with it or not, at least it is available for scrutiny.

          1. 0
            Mtbailzposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yea he has a plan. But it's not the one Romney's talking about. That's my point. Keep telling me things I know; it gets us nowhere. I'm asking you now to tell me how Romney can try to pull this fast one on American citizens.

            1. umbertoobrian profile image61
              umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It doesn't matter what the plan is now - plans do not matter - legislation does.  Which Congress is willing to take on the responsibility to reform Medicare to save it.  The Democrat Congress that hasn't passed a  budget since 2009 or The Republican Congress that contains reformers like Ryan and Rubio?

              1. 0
                Mtbailzposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ironically that's when the republicans took office; interesting.

                1. umbertoobrian profile image61
                  umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There is a problem with your timeline.

              2. 2besure profile image83
                2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Didn't pass a budget, or couldn't?

                1. umbertoobrian profile image61
                  umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Didn't, they have been offered and voted on.  They were offered and voted on when Democrats had a fillibuster proof Senate and did not pass. 

                  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … d-budgets/

                  1. habee profile image91
                    habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This still amazes me. The Dems want to blame the Reps for blocking a budget, when the Dems controlled both houses. Really, shouldn't our government have a budget? I have to have one - even for my household expenditures.

    2. umbertoobrian profile image61
      umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this



      That is the lie, it is the lie of the last 30 years.  Reforming Social Security and Medicare has been characterized as cutting for decades by Democrats who buy the votes of Seniors by the fears amplified by THE LIE.  The more Seniors  get their news on line the more diminished is Democrat power.

  4. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Republicans are too shrewd and deceitful to candidly admit that they want to kill Medicare and Social Security, and your title for this forum is a sham. 

    Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney detest any social contract because it short circuits their Darwinian economic fixations of "self-realiance" and more money and power for the already rich.

    The fact is that Ryan wants to end Medicare by first transforming it into a voucher system that ends the guarantee of healthcare that Medicare now provides into a limited liability or a form of privatization.  After this is accomplished, killing it completely will be easier and then it's on to the full privatization of Social security. 


    http://columbian.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2012/08/15/08-16_Ax_Editorial_cartoon_Paul_Ryan_and_self_reliance_t640.jpg?a6ea3ebd4438a44b86d2e9c39ecf7613005fe067

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/255227_10150975120850493_1941843553_n.jpg

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this





      I do not think Ayn Rand is capable of doing much in the way of detesting anything?

      lol

    2. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The title for this thread is correct, according to FactCheck, Politifact, and the WaPo.

      It amazes me that so many intelligent people are in the dark about this. My best friend, a smart liberal, told me she's worried about Ryan because her Medicare will end if he and Mitt win. She's 65, by the way. When I explained to her that those over 55 wouldn't be affected, and that even those under 55 will still have a choice of traditional Medicare, her response was, "Are you sure? They haven't explained that on MSNBC." Duh! That's why you have to use A LOT of different sources for news.

      1. umbertoobrian profile image61
        umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Marco Rubio, another very conservative Republican, darling of conservatives everywhere and cut from the same bolt of cloth as Ryan, speaks articulately about saving Social Security and Medicare.  These programs, upon which many people have planned their later years, will fail unless major reforms are adopted.  Democrats have offered no viable reforms.  They talk about bigger taxes for "The RIch" but even if you confiscate every penny of wealth and income held by the top 2% (it was 1% but I have noticed the slide on the slope to 2% now) there still would not be enough to save SS/MC because Baby Boomers are retiring and there aren't enough workers paying in to off set that explosion.

      2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I stand corrected; *THE* (not "your") title of this is forum is a sham because it diverts attention from the real issues regarding the relationship between right-wing ideologues and the social contract of governments.

        1. umbertoobrian profile image61
          umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As opposed to "left-wing"(what ever that really means) ideologues shouting about chaining blacks and businesses not being built by their owners because of roads and bridges -  what ever that craziness means.

    3. umbertoobrian profile image61
      umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Politifacts 2011 head line not mine.
      Lie of the Year 2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'
      By Bill Adair, Angie Drobnic Holan

    4. umbertoobrian profile image61
      umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this



      you missed a syllable

      Oh yeah, Ayn Rand has been dead for a while.

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ayn Rand is oh so alive and well in these rapacious demagogues!

        https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/293100_399226506810227_2013199643_n.jpg

        1. umbertoobrian profile image61
          umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You mean these Billionaires?

          George Soros, Charles Ergen, Vance K. Opperman, Daniel Abraham, Warren Buffett, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Robert F.X. Sillerman, George Lucas, Alice Walton, Paul Allen, Sumner Redstone, Bill Gates, William Barron Hilton, Eric Schmidt, William Randolph Hearst III, Marc Benioff, Anthony Pritzker, Ray Milton Dolby, Charles Schwab, Robert Kraft, Gordon P. Getty II, Steven Spielberg,Oprah Winfrey, Steven Ballmer, Ralph Lauren, Jeff Bezos, Henry Samueli.

          Do you mean these corporations?

          Evergreen Energy-received $5.3 million in “stimulus” funds
          Amonix Inc.-received $5.9 million from the “stimulus”
          Beacon Power Corp-a $43 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.
          Ener1 Electric-receiving a $118.5 million grant from the U.S. government.

          AND many many more

          Or do you mean these corporations?

          Fannie Mae cited for failing to stop robo-signing
          http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-23/b … age-giants

          Freddie Mac posts 2nd quarter profit, will not need federal aid without repaying multiple bailouts and paying rich officers big salaries
          http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l … 0683.story

          Another bailout for a Giant Corporation
          http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa … _11_b.html

          Is that what you meant??

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No I mean these billionaires, the ALEC billionaires and the many undisclosed ones that Rich Citizen's United made possible.

            https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-EomaaFjo4eE/TWk1x0gHrjI/AAAAAAAABzM/L674LtWFbLQ/Koch+Cato.png


            Through ALEC, Global Corporations Are Scheming to Rewrite YOUR Rights and Boost THEIR Revenue
            http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed


            http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/thumb/c/c6/ALEC_101_Exposed_1.png/1200px-ALEC_101_Exposed_1.png

            http://alecexposed.org/w/images/5/5b/AL … osed_1.pdf

            1. umbertoobrian profile image61
              umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7030397_f248.jpg

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                HAHAHA!  That poster comes from "Cracker.Com" I see—how appropriate!

                1. umbertoobrian profile image61
                  umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cracked.com - cracker is an offensive slur, but it reveals.

                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Only if you're a <racial slur snipped>!

                    <definition of the racial slur>:   

                    Originally the white slave driver because he would "crack" the whip, hence the noun <racial slur snipped>.

                    "Yo homey pick the cotton faster cuz here comes ole Mr.<racial slur snipped> with his whip!"

    5. umbertoobrian profile image61
      umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ryan doesn't cut anymore from Medicare than Obama does.

  5. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    The odds are that Medicare will be modified, negatively. That would count as a cut unless they find a pot of money somewhere to prop it up.  Regardless of who is in office at the time--either it will be changed or it will go bankrupt.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Very true, if we could all agree on this simple fact, perhaps the discussion could be more realistic.

    2. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Correct!

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/423488_473756762635307_354422836_n.jpg

        1. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you don't think Medicare needs to be reformed?

          I don't think 70-92% tax is fair for anyone to pay. How would you like to work hard and then the government take almost all of your earnings? I have no problem with raising taxes on the rich, but not to that extreme. I also think EVERYONE shoukd pay income taxes - regardless of income, even if they pay just $10 a year. That way, everyone has a vested interest in how the government spends OUR money.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Medicare can always be made more efficient and anything can be refined and improved over time, but Romney and Ryan are out to destroy what is already working well.

            The real problem is  for-profit healthcare and the medical-industrial complex that learns very rapidly how to game any system.

            And the answer to your question is NO, I don't think billionaires work hard—especially like a coal-miner or a teacher or a waitress works hard. 

            Your "billionaires" (along with their representatives) are refusing to go back to the tax rates of the Clinton era at 39%—not even close to 70 or 92%.  It's their money, their accountants, lobbyists, lawyers and bankers who work hard to keep them from paying anything . . . ala The Mittster.

            https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/309027_469290676422585_1247597950_n.jpg

            The middle class doesn't have a fair shot, Habbee and I sense that you know it as well as many reasonable people on the right.

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I said I don't have a problem with higher taxes on the uber rich. You suggested 70-92% in your link, and I don't agree with that.

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I suggested no such thing; it's a fact of a previous era when American Capitalism was not as rapacious and certainly wasn't anti-government.  It was meant as a contrasting comparison to what American Capitalism and the American wealthy have become. 

                But thanks for following up—you have the integrity and grit to be honest so many here lack.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Medicare AND healthcare need to be reformed. Ryan's proposal wouldn't do much to reduce health care costs. It would merely shift future increases onto people eligible for Medicare in the future.

            1. umbertoobrian profile image61
              umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Have you noticed how market economies work?  The more competitive the market the more downward pressure there is on prices.  Subjecting medical care, insurance and price fixed, Medicare, to market forces will lower costs.

        2. umbertoobrian profile image61
          umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          1950s and 60s

          1 - Income Tax regulations have been continually revised since the 92% income tax rate was created following WWII. Few people actually paid that rate via loopholes.  Those loopholes have all disappeared.  If you raise the rate to 92% the means by which some protected their income from that rate are long gone.  People will not just make money to have it taken by government.  They will adjust their behavior - ask the French who are ready to move anywhere to avoid a 75% tax rate.

          2 - In 1946, the highest-bracket rate was cut to 86.45% tax receipts were 17.7% of GDP.  In 1952, the highest rate was 92%,  receipts were 19% .  In 1964 the rate o 77%receipts were 17.6%
               In 1982, the top rate was 50% tax receipts were 19.2% of GDP. The top rate 28% in 1988, and tax receipts  18.2% of GDP.
              The highest tax receipt years since the end of WWII were from 1998 - 2000 averaging in excess of 19.9% of GDP at the same time the top income tax rate was 39.6%   HOW is that possible if 92% was such a brilliant rate????

          SO WE MOVE FORWARD BY MOVING BACKWARD??

          3 - The Government has never backed away from giant spending projects just some are more successful than others.

          $30 million to help Pakistani Mango farmers
          $120 million in retirement and disability benefits to federal employees who have died.
          $100,000 for a celebrity chef show in Indonesia
          $10 million for Pakistani Sesame Street
          $550,000 for "Rockin' the Kremlin
          $702,558 to bring television to Vietnamese villages

          The interstate highway system(a defense priority set by Eisenhower) cost $425 Billion - modest compared to Obamacare's projected $1.76 trillion price tag

          The Apollo Project cost $25.4 Billion in 1969 dollars.  In 2011 dollars that is $389 Billion - even more modest than Obamacare's $1.76 trillion.

          Arpanet was a defense project that eventually gave rise to the internet well after the 1960s and into that crazy Reagan Era of low tax rates.

          And Speaking of that crazy Reagan watched the slow collapse of communism culminating in the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 - that isn't the 1960s

          4 - Educational spending per capita was far less than it is today.  In fact, education spending per capita doubled (adjusted for inflation) from 1970 to 2003.  The Department of Education did not exist when America's educational system was the envy of the World, being created under the previous disaster - Jimmy Carter. (It was a research department for 1 year between 1867 and 68)  American education hasn't been the same since.

          Japan spend much less and crowds more children into classrooms yet routinely embarrasses American schools.  In fact, the worst performing public school districts tend to be the ones who spend the most per capita.  Some of the best performing schools spend the least.
          http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/05/school … hools.html


          5 - Economic growth in the 1950s(if we are to believe liberals - the envy of the world) was an average 2.4%.  A full percentage point lower than the low taxers Reagan and Clinton.

          6- The Average American household in the 1950s could have easily been without the comforts we associate with even lower income households after those crazy Reagan years.  Color television was not common.  Not ever house hold had television, let alone several.  Some people who had good factory jobs still might not have a telephone or refrigerators.  Icemen still delivered in the 1950s.  Many families had no car, most had only one.  If one wanted to live by 1950s standards, it would require little economic effort.  Today, despite the percentage said to live in poverty, 85% of Americans have cell phones - a luxury item less than 15 years ago.

          How do we know that the 1950s and 60s wouldn't have been even better(that is if you believe they were so great to begin with - I don't) if the government hadn't taken so much in taxes?

  6. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/551243_10151116352478491_896633144_n.jpg

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/540207_509768092374077_2077038082_n.jpg

  7. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Romney, Ryan Descend Into Medicare Gibberish

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/ro … =422741176

  8. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Paul Ryan, while on Fox News’ Brit Hume, indicated that he and Romney don’t actually know…well, anything, about how the proposed budget(s) will work. They “haven’t run the numbers.”

    Here is the interview:

    http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/cl … ryanbudget


    First, Mitt Romney has been going around telling everyone that, if elected, he intends to balance the federal budget by the end of his second term, or shortly thereafter. Ryan says that they don’t know when Romney’s plan will balance the budget. If Ryan is right, then what is Romney basing that claim on?

    Second, the narrative that Ryan has cultivated among the press is that he’s a budget wonk who understands fiscal issues and is allergic to deficits (this despite having voted for all the Bush-era policies that saddled us with high debt and ballooning deficits). Embracing the Romney budget and then saying that he doesn’t know when it will balance because the campaign “hasn’t run the numbers” runs counter to his reputation as a Serious Fiscal Hawk.

    Third, as Ezra Klein of the Washington Postdetailed yesterday, the Romney campaign’s rhetoric about their budget goals butts up hard against fiscal realities. The campaign argues that their budget will cut spending to 20 percent of GDP by 2016. That’s unlikely enough, but they’ve also announced that cuts to Medicare are off the table. As Klein put it, Romney’s stated goal of balancing the budget in 8-10 years is “a fantasy, and it will never happen.” Ryan’s remarks yesterday would seem to confirm that.


    Fourth, how can you claim to have a budget and also to have not “run the numbers?” Isn’t that all a budget is? Numbers that have been run?

  9. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Your Election is being Bought by 47 Billionaires (and they are Buying War, Climate Change)

    The Public Interest Group Education Fund and the NGO Demos released a study in early August on the financing of the presidential campaign.

    They found that nearly 60% of the almost quarter of a billion dollars raised by Super PACs from individuals derived from just 47 people, who gave at least $1 million each (obviously some gave much more).

    47 people. That’s democracy?

    Of these 47, the most generous (or greedy) are Sheldon Adelson and his wife, who gave $36 million themselves. Since the total known amount from individuals is $240 million, some 15 percent of the individual contributions, or one-sixth, are coming from one family.

    http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/08/superpacs3.jpg

    Some 94% of these funds came from a little more than a thousand donors, each of whom gave $10,000 or more (47 clearly gave a million or more).

    There are also super pacs funded by corporations, not just individuals! And there are anonymous donors.

    The Super Pacs are turning this presidential election into a toxic slamming match beyond anything seen in the recent past.

    These extremely wealthy and arrogant people are not giving this money for their health. They are expecting something for it.

    The Koch brothers want to kill green energy and preserve the value of their petroleum.

    Sheldon Adelson and his wife want Mitt Romney to start a war with Iran on behalf of Israel. (Adelson when in Israel is a major backer of far rightwing Likud Party PM Binyamin Netanyahu).

    If you put your politicians up for sale, as the US does (alone in this among industrialized democracies), then someone will buy them– and it won’t be you; you can’t afford them.

    After Nicolas Sarkozy lost the presidency in France, SWAT teams went into his house looking for evidence that he had received $50,000 illicitly from the L’oreal heiress. $50,000? Our politicians get that in their sleep; and it wouldn’t be illegal!

    http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/your-el … t=FaceBook

    1. umbertoobrian profile image61
      umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Labor unions have routinely spent millions during national elections to elect Democrats.  Requiring absolute openness about who contributes what all the way down to the penny is the only way to decrease corruption.  If one feels contributions from successful business men are corrupting than vote for the other candidate.  If one feels that labor unions are corrupting, the same course should be followed. 

      i don't care at all about how the French run their own internal affairs.  They will sink or rise as they wish.

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah right,  don't destroy my narrative, it's those dirty unions!

        https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/375762_452328228131778_451730869_n.jpg

        This is what he really said:

        https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549487_10150975446335493_2085529807_n.jpg

        1. umbertoobrian profile image61
          umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Reactionary.  Free association in the work place is fine.  Using dues for politics is unethical and illegal.

          http://www.congressionalresearch.com/97 … l+Analysis
          http://www.teamster.net/topic/59145-tea … tion-blog/
          http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0232.htm

          Your Reagan quote is correct and your own words an over reaction.  Unions do, indeed, use funds for elections.  How is that differnt than businesses that do so?  Nothing was said about "those dirty unions."  Those are your words.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The curtain has been pulled back on your ideological scam and you know it.

            https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/547094_463962053638217_973845009_n.jpg

            1. umbertoobrian profile image61
              umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              non sequitor

  10. Barbara Kay profile image83
    Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago

    Sorry, but I agree with bgamall. You need to look into this more umbertoobrian. The vouchers are going to be too small to even come close to buying private insurance.

    1. umbertoobrian profile image61
      umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No one is compelled to leave Medicare.

      And so what if they are too small?  Those most likely to take advantage of the voucher system are those who are able to make up the shortfall

      Why does anyone believe that insurance prices are etched in stone?

        The only thing that keeps prices frozen at a  high level is no competition, government created shortages or government imposed prices.

        How is ending Medicare as we know it a bad thing?

      It is a corrupt, inefficient system that is driving doctors away from serving medicare patients.  It will soon be over loaded with baby boomers and whose money will liberals confiscate to shore it up.  Medicare, like every other government program is a miserable substitute for a private market based alternate.

      Time to let go of the phony FDR/LBJ dual scams of Soc. Sec. and Medicare.  Making significant changes to SS/Medicare will save them, albeit not unchanged but that is better than the hand sitting liberals who would let it burn.

      And where does the Paul Ryan wants to kill granny lunacy come from?  That is hideous, over blown and hateful rhetoric too often repeated.  And liberals like to characterize conservatives as intemperate.  It is becoming increasingly obvious that the melt down is happening on the left.

      My how they will shriek in November.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you sure?

      The 'vouchers' are going to be more than what Medicare currently spends per person.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just looking in my state, somebody about to hit retirement age can get a private plan for $472 a month(there are cheaper and more expensive options).

        $472*12 =$5664

        Deductible $2500

        OOP Max $3000

        Total, worst case scenario = $11,164($11,000 is the base voucher payment)

        Best case scenario = $5664 spent, and at least $5,000 put into an HSA for future use.

        1. mio cid profile image64
          mio cidposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I live in nj and health insurance for me and my wife would cost about 1500 per month, there is no way we can afford it.thank god there is help for the kids because otherwise we couldn't even afford health insurance for them.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You and your wife, under the new plan, would get at least $22,000 for insurance. I'm sure you could get insurance for the two of you for $22k.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you're a certain age, then it might be all good, but talking about your kids and their future, consider this.

            http://prospect.org/article/medicare-myths-debunked

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I love how that article touts government price ceilings like they are a good thing.

              It's like electrical companies. In areas where public electric is privatized, prices generally increase about 20%. The reason is the government had established an artificial price ceiling. Since the government didn't charge what it cost to provide the power, maintenance and upgrade projects went unfunded. Now we face huge amounts of investment into our power infrastructure to get it properly maintained and updated, and consumers are having to pay for that now.

              Same with medicare. The government says 'Well, I know you charge $100 to do X, but we'll only pay you $75'.

              Some doctors just don't deal with it(they have bills to pay). Some deal with it, but the effect is that the public price ceiling drives up prices for the private side of health-care, because someone has to pay the bills.

        2. Barbara Kay profile image83
          Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxon, I wish we could get health insurance that cheap here. Keep in mind that people with certain health conditions pay more in some states.

          It would cost the average senior $6500 more per year.
          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … 15136.html

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Keep in mind that the payout is adjusted for income and risk. People who have certain conditions would have a larger 'voucher', as would the poorer people.

            Your link doesn't provide any substantiation for that claim, and I can't find that figure in their analysis of his plan. I read through the entire summary for Medicare and didn't see anything like that.

            1. Barbara Kay profile image83
              Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Presently our healtcare costs over $1800 a month for myself and my husband. We don't have a $2500 deductable though. It is $250 per person. My sister and husband have their own business and they checked everywhere and the cheapest they could find was $1200 a month for both of them and that was with a $5000 deductable for both of them. This is in
              Michigan. I think it varies by state.

              And yes, you are right. I need to do some more reading about it, but from all I've heard so far, vouchers will make seniors have higher cost. The average person isn't going to have enough to retire on already is my worry.

  11. bn9900 profile image84
    bn9900posted 4 years ago

    Barbara-you thank Obama for all your trouble, he's ruined this country, and if reelected, you can kiss any kind of decent healthcare goodbye.  If he had the brains he's have written a bill that would require caps on the costs of medicare.

    1. Barbara Kay profile image83
      Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      bn9900m, Why have so many Republicans forgotten that when George Bush left office we were heading for the worst depression in history? Obama prevented that from happening. Have Republicans forgotten all of that or what?????

      1. umbertoobrian profile image61
        umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did he?  How many people are long term unemployed and fallen off the unemployment roles?  How many more people are on food stamps than before?  Where is the recovery? Were we headed to a Depression?

        It is easy to claim that something that did not happen would have happened if another separate thing did or did not happen.  The Chicago Cubs would have won the World Series except they took a pass on some key player.

        If only they had done things differently some unknown outcome would have occurred.  Flawed reasoning, but lets run with it.  After 3 years what has been done that is substantially different than what GWB had already done?  GWB signed TARP, bailed our several banks, made loans to bail out GM and Chrysler, had massive deficits.

        What has Obama done but continue or expand on the Bush record.  Bush signed a big bi-partisan Medicare expansion.  Obama signed a re-authorization of Bush tax cuts.  Bush accepted big deficit budgets from the Democrats.  Obama accepted even bigger deficits. 

        I wonder what Obama has done that actually makes him different than Bush.

        1. Barbara Kay profile image83
          Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This part of the country is doing better because he bailed out the auto industry. I don't know anyone at this moment that is laid off. Back then everyone was losing their job in the Midwest. Things are better now by far.

          I will admit that jobs are getting away with paying lower wages and the food stamp program isn't available for most college students anymore.

          For the Midwest, he did improve things from 2008 though. By the way, it wasn't Bush that bailed out the auto industry. It was Obama and at the time all the Republicans were having fits about it.

          This is my end of the discussion, because so many people are Republican or Democrat. I vote for who stands up for what I think is right. I've voted both ways.

          1. umbertoobrian profile image61
            umbertoobrianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            GM is still in trouble - will Obama get blame for that.

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/0 … 86389.html
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhi … tcy-again/

            Bush did bail out GM and Chrysler - but it is no surprise how few know what the Democrat news media doesn't tell them.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/busin … wanted=all

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7791999.stm

            http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca … ls_out.php

            The real rebirth in the American auto industry was Ford - not a recipient of the Bush bail out.

            1. Barbara Kay profile image83
              Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They didn't even ask for the money until December 2008. The bill wasn't passed until February 19th, 2009 under the Obama administration.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/busin … r=3&hp

                The bailout started under Bush, even though the funds weren't dispersed fully until Obama took office.

                However, the bailout didn't save GM/Chrysler. They took billions of dollars, and continued to operate at a loss. Then they filed bankruptcy. Nobody should be congratulated for giving them money, they should have gone through bankruptcy originally, according to Romney's suggestion.

                It's hilarious, people criticize Romney for, in 2008, suggesting that GM go through bankruptcy. Critics say he didn't care and wanted it to fail...

                Then, under Obama, GM goes through bankruptcy... and he is somehow the 'savior' of the auto industry.

                GM alone is absconding with anywhere between $50 billion and $75 billion total in taxpayer dollars, that will never be repaid. The way the auto industry was handled was ridiculous, and nothing short of robbery from every American.

                1. bn9900 profile image84
                  bn9900posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  He isn't the savior of anything

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Now there's a novel approach. Did you get this from Rush Limbaugh?
          We've gotta present Romney as completely new and different (he's not).
          So we gotta try something new in our Anybody But Obama attacks.
          I know! Let's say Obama is just like Bush!
          Really.
          You guys were doing great  with Obama as socialist in chief.
          Unless your revisionist history now sees Bush as a socialist, as well?
          roll

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Romney =/= Bush

            Plain and simple. Look at his history as governor. Look at his campaign platform. Look at how he approached the auto industry(he was against the bailout Bush started).

            Romney = Bush is just a lie to try to extend 'It's all Bush's fault'.

 
working