Paul Ryan's Response to Obama's Speech Yesterday

[Article 15]

Nobody is attempting to dismantle them.

Under Ryan's proposal, will CHIP receive a dime of funding after 2013? (no) Under Ryan's proposal, will the defined public health insurance benefit known as Medicare exist for those who are not grandfathered in? (no) Under Ryan's proposal, will Medicaid cease to be a federal match for state dollars spent on health services but instead be a significantly smaller (in total) lump sum given to states annually, virtually guaranteeing significant losses of coverage? (yes)

To save you time, I've provided the answers for you.

The Republicans should take justifiable offense because they aren't trying to eliminate them. They are trying to reform and preserve for future generations.

Now I'm starting to take justifiable offense. How long are you going to continue pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining?

Both Medicare and Medicaid will continue to exist. I'm not the one pissing on your leg. It's your own urine you feel running down it.

Will there still be a Medicare deduction from my paycheck every two weeks?

 

[edthecynic]

And Obama's "plan" is to cut 4 trillion off the debt in 12 years.

So let's explain this.

When Obama took office our debt was 10 trillion. In 2 years he pumped it up to 14 trillion and now he wants to take 12 years to do nothing but bring us back to where he started.

Yeah that's progress.

12 trillion of the 14 trillion came from 3 GOP presidents, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The remaining 2 trillion came from all the other presidents, including Obama, in the history of this great country combined. So now we are supposed believe that the Party of "deficits don't matter" suddenly believes that deficits DO matter, for any reason other than for political purposes, is ridiculous!!!!

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

Deficits can largely take care of themselves if we have GROWTH.....hell even sorry-ass Clinton was able to "get rid" of the deficit.....(many thanks to a Reagan afterglow and a budget conscious Republican Congress)...

St Ronnie and his "afterglow" were long gone when Clinton became president.
Reagan's "afterglow" was nearly tripling the national debt followed by Bush I doubling it in his four years and leaving a recession to Clinton and left us paying interest on their debt to this day. Clinton ended the deficit and the Bush I recession by raising taxes on the rich without a single GOP vote and now the same GOP want to glom onto and take credit for Clinton's success. That was until the first Bush II recession, and suddenly it was the dot com bubble that got rid of the deficit in the Clinton years.

So are you now attributing the dot com bubble to the Reagan "afterglow" and a budget conscious Republican Congress? The same "budget conscious" GOP congress that ran up deficits every year of the Bush regime!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

however nobody would be "required".....or else be fined or go to jail....like with Obamacare...

You gotta love CON$ervative rationalizations! Fining people who don't get private health insurance justifies CON$ lying that Obama end private health insurance.

You never got the real picture did you? Private health insurance would end because companies would find it was cheaper if they just paid the fines and let people go get Obamacare...

OR else the companies found that they had big probs with their unions who found out they liked their company plans much better than Obamacare.....and made their companies get "exceptions" to the Obamacare rules......let's see....there are over 100 "exceptions" already.....

But "Obamacare" requires the individual to get PRIVATE health insurance if their company doesn't provide it!!!

So by CON$ervative "logic" requiring people to get private health insurance and giving exemptions that allow people to keep the private health insurance that they already have and like will end private health insurance.

 

[mnbasketball]

"Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope, is not change, it is partisanship." You can tell in the video Ryan is truly pissed off and downright offended by Obama's antics.

All Republicans need to follow Ryan's lead and act that way - downright offended. Republicans on the Hill need to take justified offense at what the Democrats are claiming Republicans want to do. It's disingenuous and downright disgusting. This isn't about taking health care away from anyone, it's about fixing these programs now so that they don't swallow our debt in the future. As Ryan says, it's about saving these programs so that they can be maintained. Delaying action with rhetoric about killing Grandma and hating children is not a solution.

YouTube - Paul Ryan Expresses Disappointment At President's Irresponsible Lack of Leadership​

Taking something that is working and changing it to something that will only help those who don't need it is not making things better. Allowing the market to make the choice on who will benefit and at what price is pure BS, as we all know that they will do what is best for their profit structure and not for the people who are in need.

What will happen is those who can afford it will get vouchers and be able to use them, but most people will not have the cash available and won't use the voucher but will end up just doing without as they have to make choices on what they can afford.


The bottom line is health care is out of control as to cost/profits side of things. The only way to make it better is to take profit motive out of health, the voucher system is a bad idea that will send millions to an early death based on ability to pay.

Profit and greed are the problems, and offering up more to the open market to make profit off is not going to cut cost.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

12 trillion of the 14 trillion came from 3 GOP presidents, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The remaining 2 trillion came from all the other presidents, including Obama, in the history of this great country combined. So now we are supposed believe that the Party of "deficits don't matter" suddenly believes that deficits DO matter, for any reason other than for political purposes, is ridiculous!!!!

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

Deficits can largely take care of themselves if we have GROWTH.....hell even sorry-ass Clinton was able to "get rid" of the deficit.....(many thanks to a Reagan afterglow and a budget conscious Republican Congress)...

St Ronnie and his "afterglow" were long gone when Clinton became president.
Reagan's "afterglow" was nearly tripling the national debt followed by Bush I doubling it in his four years and leaving a recession to Clinton and left us paying interest on their debt to this day. Clinton ended the deficit and the Bush I recession by raising taxes on the rich without a single GOP vote and now the same GOP want to glom onto and take credit for Clinton's success. That was until the first Bush II recession, and suddenly it was the dot com bubble that got rid of the deficit in the Clinton years.

So are you now attributing the dot com bubble to the Reagan "afterglow" and a budget conscious Republican Congress? The same "budget conscious" GOP congress that ran up deficits every year of the Bush regime!!!!

Clinton may have raised taxes (after he promised NO taxes)....to supply more spending money.....what really helped more was the Repub Congress that reined in the excessive SPENDING....mainly through welfare reform...

as for the Reagan afterglow...

it's a fact. As the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research once declared, we lived in the "longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century" from 1982 to 1999 — one big boom, the NBER said, set off by Reagan.

RealClearMarkets - Articles - Reagan's Legacy: Our 25-Year Boom

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You gotta love CON$ervative rationalizations! Fining people who don't get private health insurance justifies CON$ lying that Obama end private health insurance.

You never got the real picture did you? Private health insurance would end because companies would find it was cheaper if they just paid the fines and let people go get Obamacare...

OR else the companies found that they had big probs with their unions who found out they liked their company plans much better than Obamacare.....and made their companies get "exceptions" to the Obamacare rules......let's see....there are over 100 "exceptions" already.....

But "Obamacare" requires the individual to get PRIVATE health insurance if their company doesn't provide it!!!

So by CON$ervative "logic" requiring people to get private health insurance and giving exemptions that allow people to keep the private health insurance that they already have and like will end private health insurance.

well then.....you shouldn't have any problem with the Ryan plan either....

 

[edthecynic]

Deficits can largely take care of themselves if we have GROWTH.....hell even sorry-ass Clinton was able to "get rid" of the deficit.....(many thanks to a Reagan afterglow and a budget conscious Republican Congress)...

St Ronnie and his "afterglow" were long gone when Clinton became president.
Reagan's "afterglow" was nearly tripling the national debt followed by Bush I doubling it in his four years and leaving a recession to Clinton and left us paying interest on their debt to this day. Clinton ended the deficit and the Bush I recession by raising taxes on the rich without a single GOP vote and now the same GOP want to glom onto and take credit for Clinton's success. That was until the first Bush II recession, and suddenly it was the dot com bubble that got rid of the deficit in the Clinton years.

So are you now attributing the dot com bubble to the Reagan "afterglow" and a budget conscious Republican Congress? The same "budget conscious" GOP congress that ran up deficits every year of the Bush regime!!!!

Clinton may have raised taxes (after he promised NO taxes)....to supply more spending money.....what really helped more was the Repub Congress that reined in the excessive SPENDING....mainly through welfare reform...

as for the Reagan afterglow...

it's a fact. As the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research once declared, we lived in the "longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century" from 1982 to 1999 — one big boom, the NBER said, set off by Reagan.

RealClearMarkets - Articles - Reagan's Legacy: Our 25-Year Boom

1982 was the Reagan Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, which came after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts. Starting at the end of 1982 Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years which gave an improving economy until the Bush I recession. Again the GOP tries to take credit for Clinton's success by attributing it to St Ronnie, who screwed up everything he touched.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

St Ronnie and his "afterglow" were long gone when Clinton became president.
Reagan's "afterglow" was nearly tripling the national debt followed by Bush I doubling it in his four years and leaving a recession to Clinton and left us paying interest on their debt to this day. Clinton ended the deficit and the Bush I recession by raising taxes on the rich without a single GOP vote and now the same GOP want to glom onto and take credit for Clinton's success. That was until the first Bush II recession, and suddenly it was the dot com bubble that got rid of the deficit in the Clinton years.

So are you now attributing the dot com bubble to the Reagan "afterglow" and a budget conscious Republican Congress? The same "budget conscious" GOP congress that ran up deficits every year of the Bush regime!!!!

Clinton may have raised taxes (after he promised NO taxes)....to supply more spending money.....what really helped more was the Repub Congress that reined in the excessive SPENDING....mainly through welfare reform...

as for the Reagan afterglow...

it's a fact. As the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research once declared, we lived in the "longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century" from 1982 to 1999 — one big boom, the NBER said, set off by Reagan.

RealClearMarkets - Articles - Reagan's Legacy: Our 25-Year Boom

1982 was the Reagan Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, which came after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts. Starting at the end of 1982 Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years which gave an improving economy until the Bush I recession. Again the GOP tries to take credit for Clinton's success by attributing it to St Ronnie, who screwed up everything he touched.

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....and Reagan was dealt with a spending congress....and Bush I said "read my lips..." but caved in to more taxes anyway...but despite the bumps the Reagan afterglow lasted till 1999...

If you still don't agree i'd like to see proof that it was Clinton's tax hike that charged up the economy...and paid off the deficit...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope, is not change, it is partisanship." You can tell in the video Ryan is truly pissed off and downright offended by Obama's antics.

All Republicans need to follow Ryan's lead and act that way - downright offended. Republicans on the Hill need to take justified offense at what the Democrats are claiming Republicans want to do.

YouTube - Paul Ryan Expresses Disappointment At President's Irresponsible Lack of Leadership​

"Hey.....Pauley......MAN UP!!!"

* * *
What a whiney-bunch o'.....

.....JUNIOR-HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS!!!!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah Ryan is a real gem.
All he's doing with his plan is taking programs that help the poor and elderly and cutting them and at the same time giving the savings to the wealthy and powerful.
In other words, the continuation of class warfare and the continuation of the growth of the wealth gap. He is Robin Hood to the monetary elite.
Plutocracy in action.

It's really too bad that there is no serious plan to compare it to from the other side. Of course they still haven't put together a budget for the year that is almost over.

Something beats nothing every time.

no the other side is getting no press:
Congressional Progressive Caucus : FY2012 Progressive Budget

yup....that's the real BO socialist agenda....

not getting press becuz BO is trying to move to the center for 2012...

 

[kiwiman127]

Yet another idiot who believes that cutting taxes to increase consumption will grow the economy.
Hey, moron. We've had two years of that kind of thinking and guess what? IT DOESNT FUCKING WORK.

You cut taxes to increase people's incentive to work harder and/or save more. Saving more enables an investment pool that is loaned to companies to start up or expand. People work harder because they can keep more of what they earn.
You don't grow the economy by sending people checks to buy new iPods. We've had three experiences with that and every one was a dismal failure.
Cripes. This country is toast if people haven't seen what a fraud and empty suit Obama is. His new budget (remember he propsoed one in February) starts saving money in five years. We have a spending problem NOW.

Still clueless as Obama, huh Rabbi?
I said I'd cut taxes for the middle class. Why do hate the middle class and have your nose up the top percentile's posterior?
Middle Class spending would jump start the economy more than giving the uber rich a tax cut that cuts their rate by half and eliminates the Capital Gains/Dividend tax who pocket the windfall.
Please stop being a reactionary and read the post before you go on one of your fanatical rants!
Thanks

No yuou've already posted that. And I responded as to why that doesn't work. Merely repeating your position is not arguing or defending it.
Middle class spending will not do anything. If it did we would be having a terrific economy right now as the gov't has pumped billions of dollars into all kinds of boondoggles.
Tax policy should stimulate at the margin, meaning that it changes people's incentives to work and invest. It is investments that spur the economy, not consumer spending. This has been shown time and time again.

Got anything from a non partisan resource to back up your claims?

Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Create Jobs?

Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Create Jobs? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

The answer is yes, but not as big as a tax cut for the middle class does.

 

[ba1614]

And Obama's "plan" is to cut 4 trillion off the debt in 12 years.

So let's explain this.

When Obama took office our debt was 10 trillion. In 2 years he pumped it up to 14 trillion and now he wants to take 12 years to do nothing but bring us back to where he started.

Yeah that's progress.

LOL, that's what is called Obamanomics, I guess, and that's assuming you believe he'll cut a dime. I don't.

 

[edthecynic]

Clinton may have raised taxes (after he promised NO taxes)....to supply more spending money.....what really helped more was the Repub Congress that reined in the excessive SPENDING....mainly through welfare reform...

as for the Reagan afterglow...

1982 was the Reagan Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, which came after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts. Starting at the end of 1982 Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years which gave an improving economy until the Bush I recession. Again the GOP tries to take credit for Clinton's success by attributing it to St Ronnie, who screwed up everything he touched.

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....

The effect of the Reagan tax cuts kicked in immediately. Loss of revenue and increasing deficits, 10.8% unemployment and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Reagan then changed course and made the largest tax increase in history and the economy immediately turned around.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And Obama's "plan" is to cut 4 trillion off the debt in 12 years.

So let's explain this.

When Obama took office our debt was 10 trillion. In 2 years he pumped it up to 14 trillion and now he wants to take 12 years to do nothing but bring us back to where he started.

Yeah that's progress.

LOL, that's what is called Obamanomics, I guess, and that's assuming you believe he'll cut a dime. I don't.

And dumb shits like Plasmaballs and the others all yell "hell yeah" in unison.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Who wouldn't be offended when someone, anyone implies that you want to harm old people and children?

How dumb would you have to be to think that that accusation is true?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Still clueless as Obama, huh Rabbi?
I said I'd cut taxes for the middle class. Why do hate the middle class and have your nose up the top percentile's posterior?
Middle Class spending would jump start the economy more than giving the uber rich a tax cut that cuts their rate by half and eliminates the Capital Gains/Dividend tax who pocket the windfall.
Please stop being a reactionary and read the post before you go on one of your fanatical rants!
Thanks

No yuou've already posted that. And I responded as to why that doesn't work. Merely repeating your position is not arguing or defending it.
Middle class spending will not do anything. If it did we would be having a terrific economy right now as the gov't has pumped billions of dollars into all kinds of boondoggles.
Tax policy should stimulate at the margin, meaning that it changes people's incentives to work and invest. It is investments that spur the economy, not consumer spending. This has been shown time and time again.

Got anything from a non partisan resource to back up your claims?

Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Create Jobs?

Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Create Jobs? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

The answer is yes, but not as big as a tax cut for the middle class does.

......BOTH, of which are BULLSHIT!!!!!​

"Real investment growth after the tax increases of 1993 was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001. The yearly growth rate after 1993 was 10.2 percent versus 2.8 percent for the first supply-side era beginning in 1981, and 2.7 percent in the period of the second supply-side era beginning in 2001."

The HOAX Called Reaganbushenomics​

 

[kiwiman127]

And Obama's "plan" is to cut 4 trillion off the debt in 12 years.

So let's explain this.

When Obama took office our debt was 10 trillion. In 2 years he pumped it up to 14 trillion and now he wants to take 12 years to do nothing but bring us back to where he started.

Yeah that's progress.

You are right and wrong.
When Obama was sworn in the National Debt was 10,626,877,048,913.08
But, the country was running on GWB's fiscal year budget until September 30th 2009. So on Obama's first day of his first budget the debt stood at 11,909,829,003,511.75.
And yes, Obama and the Dems pumped up that figure to where we are today, to roughly $14.3 trillion.
Since 2001 when GWB's first budget started the National Debt was 5.8 trillion. So between Bush and Bush on steroids (Obama) the debt has increased 8.5 trillion in just 10 years.
Please stop this train!

 

[kiwiman127]

Clinton may have raised taxes (after he promised NO taxes)....to supply more spending money.....what really helped more was the Repub Congress that reined in the excessive SPENDING....mainly through welfare reform...

as for the Reagan afterglow...

1982 was the Reagan Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, which came after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts. Starting at the end of 1982 Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years which gave an improving economy until the Bush I recession. Again the GOP tries to take credit for Clinton's success by attributing it to St Ronnie, who screwed up everything he touched.

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....and Reagan was dealt with a spending congress....and Bush I said "read my lips..." but caved in to more taxes anyway...but despite the bumps the Reagan afterglow lasted till 1999...

If you still don't agree i'd like to see proof that it was Clinton's tax hike that charged up the economy...and paid off the deficit...

Reagan had a spending congress but the Dems didn't have the numbers to be veto proof.
Just to clarify, I think Reagan did some really good things and he brought positiveness back to America. I just think his greatness is overstated and blown out of proportion.

 

[mnbasketball]

Who wouldn't be offended when someone, anyone implies that you want to harm old people and children?

How dumb would you have to be to think that that accusation is true?

you wouldn't be dumb, you would just have to realize that the rich don't think that having health care is a right and it should be tied to affordability of citizens ability to pay. We all know that if medicare was allowed to end that it would lead to a large portion of our population having to make choices to take care of their families and their needs vs paying for health care. Now there isn't a choice, it's provided and you can't make that choice. Under the Republicans it would once again become a choice which means that most likely a person will do without before they will spend what they have to spend, unless of course your one of the those who money isn't a problem and they would just take the money from the govt as part of the cost they could pay anyway.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Who wouldn't be offended when someone, anyone implies that you want to harm old people and children?

How dumb would you have to be to think that that accusation is true?

you wouldn't be dumb, lie you would just have to realize that the rich don't think that having health care is a right you don't have to be rich to know it's not a right. and it should be tied to affordability of citizens ability to pay. It is now. We all know that if medicare was allowed to end It's not ending, he wants to improve upon a broken system.that it would lead to a large portion of our population having to make choices to take care of their families and their needs vs paying for health care. that's been going on for decades. Now there isn't a choice, it's provided and you can't make that choice. Under the Republicans it would once again become a choice which means that most likely a person will do without before they will spend what they have to spend,so you are agains the freedom to choose? unless of course your one of the those who money isn't a problem and they would just take the money from the govt as part of the cost they could pay anyway.

What utter non-sense.

That was one very long line of lies.

that or

You are one of the people dumb enough to think that the GOP wants granny dead and babies in the street.

Simply an intolerable level of stewpudity.