The Republicans AREN'T shutting gov't down; ONLY Dems can do that.

[Article 15]

Meanwhile the spending cuts in the "historical" compromise amount to like 3% of the deficit.

Stop pointing fingers, dummies ... neither party is serious.

Paul Ryan is serious. He's a Republican and a CONSERVATIVE.

That man is an ideologue, IMO, and I'm not buying his privatization plan. No thanks.

Personally, I think the base for any real compromise on a budget cutting plan should start with the GOP putting forward $100 billion in defense cuts and the DNC putting forward $100 billion in social spending cuts. Seems like a fair start but that's just me pulling that outta my ass.

 

[WillowTree]

No.

What I am saying is that if they DON'T accept it, then THAT is why the government shut down. NOT because the GOP House didn't do it's job. If the gov't shuts down, it's because the Dems did so.

Don't like what the GOP House proposed? Don't lose the house in 2010. But they did. The Dem's forced Obamacare, now they suffer the blowback.

But we must be sure we know the reality of the situation.

So, because Dems lost the House, they should bend to the will of the majority Repubs? That's your argument? By that logic, since Dems control the Senate and the White House, Repubs should bend to their will, and pass whatever Senate Dems and Obama want, no questions asked. Man, you come up with the stupidest threads. Seriously, put down the bottle. You make no sense. Either that or take a civics class.

This is pretty funny coming from somebody who I bet supported the Fleebaggers in WI.

meowenstein is a moron, and a hack, and he'll call you badd shit and stuff.. but he ain't too damn smart..

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Republicans AREN'T shutting gov't down; ONLY Dems can do that.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

 

[Zander]

Meanwhile the spending cuts in the "historical" compromise amount to like 3% of the deficit.

Stop pointing fingers, dummies ... neither party is serious.

Paul Ryan is serious. He's a Republican and a CONSERVATIVE.

That man is an ideologue, IMO, and I'm not buying his privatization plan. No thanks.

Personally, I think the base for any real compromise on a budget cutting plan should start with the GOP putting forward $100 billion in defense cuts and the DNC putting forward $100 billion in social spending cuts. Seems like a fair start but that's just me pulling that outta my ass.

You can dream, but I wouldn't count on it. I expect defense spending to come down too, but not with the Dummy in Chief committing us to another war in Libya.

At any rate, The GOP is going to pass Ryan's austerity budget whether you like it or not. The Moron on the oval office reminded us a few years ago as he rammed Obamacare through on Christmas eve in the dark of night: "Elections, um, er ah, I um ah er , dahaaa, Elections, have um,,er ah,, Con, consequences. We, um, err, ah, um, won.

Yes Mr Obama, elections do have consequences.

 

[Article 15]

Paul Ryan is serious. He's a Republican and a CONSERVATIVE.

That man is an ideologue, IMO, and I'm not buying his privatization plan. No thanks.

Personally, I think the base for any real compromise on a budget cutting plan should start with the GOP putting forward $100 billion in defense cuts and the DNC putting forward $100 billion in social spending cuts. Seems like a fair start but that's just me pulling that outta my ass.

You can dream, but I wouldn't count on it. I expect defense spending to come down too, but not with the Dummy in Chief committing us to another war in Libya.

At any rate, The GOP is going to pass Ryan's austerity budget whether you like it or not. The Moron on the oval office reminded us a few years ago as he rammed Obamacare through on Christmas eve in the dark of night: "Elections, um, er ah, I um ah er , dahaaa, Elections, have um,,er ah,, Con, consequences. We, um, err, ah, um, won.

Yes Mr Obama, elections do have consequences.

The GOP can pass whatever they want in the House. Elections have consequences but the Senate didn't dissolve and the POTUS didn't lose the veto pen last November.

 

[Zander]

That man is an ideologue, IMO, and I'm not buying his privatization plan. No thanks.

Personally, I think the base for any real compromise on a budget cutting plan should start with the GOP putting forward $100 billion in defense cuts and the DNC putting forward $100 billion in social spending cuts. Seems like a fair start but that's just me pulling that outta my ass.

You can dream, but I wouldn't count on it. I expect defense spending to come down too, but not with the Dummy in Chief committing us to another war in Libya.

At any rate, The GOP is going to pass Ryan's austerity budget whether you like it or not. The Moron on the oval office reminded us a few years ago as he rammed Obamacare through on Christmas eve in the dark of night: "Elections, um, er ah, I um ah er , dahaaa, Elections, have um,,er ah,, Con, consequences. We, um, err, ah, um, won.

Yes Mr Obama, elections do have consequences.

The GOP can pass whatever they want in the House. Elections have consequences but the Senate didn't dissolve and the POTUS didn't lose the veto pen last November.

He will soon.....2012 is not so far away. The dope in Chief is going the way of his idol, Jimmy Carter.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Meanwhile the spending cuts in the "historical" compromise amount to like 3% of the deficit.

Stop pointing fingers, dummies ... neither party is serious.

Paul Ryan is serious. He's a Republican and a CONSERVATIVE.

....And, a little-late to the "game".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8fq23HwyY&feature=related]YouTube - Barney Frank vs. Paul Ryan[/ame]​

 

[Article 15]

You can dream, but I wouldn't count on it. I expect defense spending to come down too, but not with the Dummy in Chief committing us to another war in Libya.

At any rate, The GOP is going to pass Ryan's austerity budget whether you like it or not. The Moron on the oval office reminded us a few years ago as he rammed Obamacare through on Christmas eve in the dark of night: "Elections, um, er ah, I um ah er , dahaaa, Elections, have um,,er ah,, Con, consequences. We, um, err, ah, um, won.

Yes Mr Obama, elections do have consequences.

The GOP can pass whatever they want in the House. Elections have consequences but the Senate didn't dissolve and the POTUS didn't lose the veto pen last November.

He will soon.....2012 is not so far away. The dope in Chief is going the way of his idol, Jimmy Carter.

Maybe he loses in 2012 but I wouldn't bet on it.

IMO, you better hope a real contender presents themselves.

Personally, I think Mani is right ... it's four more years then President Brown.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

obama's like the kid that waited till sunday night to start a term paper due monday morning... actually, i was that kid too.
but i'm not PRESIDENT....

i'm "AN IDEA MAN"... and i "GET THE BIG PICTUE"

.....And, Ryan is a "self-made man", right??

"Ryan's father died when Paul was only 16. Using the Social Security survivors benefits he received until his 18th birthday, he paid for his education at Miami University in Ohio, where he completed a bachelor's degree in economics and political science in 1992."

Ryan: I Got MINE!!​

 

[Zander]

This was just the opening salvo in a series of massive budget cuts to come. The next battle starts in 2 short weeks when the debt ceiling will need to be raised. Conservatives will demand severe austerity measures in exchange for raising the debt limit. Mr Obama, the credit card is canceled. Elections have consequences.

 

[Zander]

The GOP can pass whatever they want in the House. Elections have consequences but the Senate didn't dissolve and the POTUS didn't lose the veto pen last November.

He will soon.....2012 is not so far away. The dope in Chief is going the way of his idol, Jimmy Carter.

Maybe he loses in 2012 but I wouldn't bet on it.

IMO, you better hope a real contender presents themselves.

Personally, I think Mani is right ... it's four more years then President Brown.

A real contender like say ....an unknown senator with no experience?

 

[Article 15]

He will soon.....2012 is not so far away. The dope in Chief is going the way of his idol, Jimmy Carter.

Maybe he loses in 2012 but I wouldn't bet on it.

IMO, you better hope a real contender presents themselves.

Personally, I think Mani is right ... it's four more years then President Brown.

A real contender like say ....an unknown senator with no experience?

It's gonna have to be that or something else if you want to win.

 

[Toro]

Meanwhile the spending cuts in the "historical" compromise amount to like 3% of the deficit.

Stop pointing fingers, dummies ... neither party is serious.

Paul Ryan is serious. He's a Republican and a CONSERVATIVE.

Didn't he vote for Medicare part D?

 

[American Horse]

Meanwhile the spending cuts in the "historical" compromise amount to like 3% of the deficit.

Stop pointing fingers, dummies ... neither party is serious.

Paul Ryan is serious. He's a Republican and a CONSERVATIVE.

Didn't he vote for Medicare part D?

I believe he did; it's one of the best designed and most cost effective programs relating to health care., worthy of emulating. His budget proposal re-shapes Medicare to the same format as Part D, and that is a good thing. Have you informed yourself on that matter?

 

[American Horse]

Here's the transcript of the interview of Ryan on Fox News Sunday April 3 conducted by Chris Wallace; this is an important interview because he goes into some detail about how Medicare, to save it, will be changed to function like Part D Medicare which he calls "the prescription drug plan"

WALLACE: OK, let's talk about entitlements. You would cut spending for Medicare by turning it into a voucher system after 2021, which means anyone under 55 would not be affected by this. But a voucher system where seniors would get government money to buy private health insurance.

RYAN: That's actually not accurate, and there's been some leaks that are not -- my road map does do a voucher program, which means the money goes to the person and they go out and buy insurance.

WALLACE: Right. You're not—

RYAN: That's not what we're proposing.

Our reforms are along the line of what I proposed with Alice Rivlin, the Democrat from the Clinton administration in the fiscal commission, which is a premium support system. That's very different from a voucher.

Premium support is exactly the system I as a member of Congress and all federal employees have. It works like the Medicare prescription drug benefit, similar to Medicare Advantage today, which means Medicare puts a list of plans out there that compete against each other for your business, and seniors pick the plan of their choosing, and then Medicare subsidizes that plan. It doesn't go to the person, into the marketplace. It goes to the plan. More for the poor, more for people who get sick, and we don't give as much money to people who are wealthy.

Doing that saves Medicare. It doesn't apply to anybody. Those who are 55 or above keep their Medicare exactly as is it today, but the problem is the biggest driver of our debt is Medicare. It has trillions, tens of trillions of dollars of unpaid promises.

We want to keep these promises. Meaning, we want to fulfill the mission of health retirement security for future seniors, and so we will be proposing a premium support system like the Rivlin-Ryan plan, which is identical to the system I as a member of Congress and all federal employees have.

WALLACE: Obviously, I am at a disadvantage, because I haven't seen the plan, but the CBO did an analysis of the Ryan-Rivlin plan, and it said that it would -- the effect of the plan would be to shift more of the burden of health care costs out of their own pockets to seniors.

RYAN: Right, so for wealthy seniors especially. It also did not say these are vouchers. These are premium support, and there's a big difference here with that. It said that we're going to protect people who are low-income. We are going to protect people as their health condition gets worse. If you get sicker, you'll have more so that you can have -- your rates stabilize. No more premium increases.

The key is this. There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay in its current path. Even Obamacare acknowledges that. So we should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable.

Medicare itself, literally, crowds out all other government spending at the end of the day. We can't sustain that. We have got to get Medicare solvent.

Rick Foster, the chief actuary, came to the Budget Committee just the other day and said, one of the best things we can do to save Medicare, one of the best things we can do to bend that cost curve and help inflation is to go to the kind of system we are proposing.

WALLACE: Now, Medicaid -- and I'd better ask because I'm only -- I'm basing this on the reports, the reports are that you're going to save $1 trillion over 10 years on Medicaid. True?

RYAN: No. Those numbers are different as well. You'll see our specific numbers

WALLACE: Block grants for the states?

RYAN: You will -- we propose block grants to the states.
We've had so much testimony from so many different governors saying give us the freedom to customize our Medicaid programs, to tailor for our unique populations in our states. We want to get governors freedom to do that --

WALLACE: But critics say --

RYAN: -- and we will be proposing block grants --

WALLACE: But critics say you're not reforming, that you're cutting. That's you're actually going to be cutting. By giving these block grants, you're going to be cutting health care services to the poor and the disabled.

RYAN: Let me say this one thing, Medicare and Medicaid spending will go up every single year under our budget. They don't just go up as much as they're going right now, because they're growing at unsustainable rates.

Three programs alone, Medicare, Medicaid especially, and social security, take over all government revenues by the time my children are my age. When my kids are my age, who are six, seven and nine years old, at that time when they're raising their children, three programs crowd out every other federal priority. They can't keep growing at the pace that they're growing at now.

So, yes, we do increase and grow Medicare, Medicaid spending but albeit not at -- at the pace they're growing at because they're completely unsustainable. And that's why we're (INAUDIBLE) them with key reforms that are proven to stretch that Medicare, Medicaid dollar farther.

 

[Toro]

Paul Ryan is serious. He's a Republican and a CONSERVATIVE.

Didn't he vote for Medicare part D?

I believe he did; it's one of the best designed and most cost effective programs relating to health care., worthy of emulating. His budget proposal re-shapes Medicare to the same format as Part D, and that is a good thing. Have you informed yourself on that matter?

Yabut ...

... how is one a conservative if one voted for the largest government program since LBJ? I mean, he could have voted "No," right? Wouldn't a conservative have voted "No" for a brand spanking-new government program that costs the taxpayer $60,000,000,000 a year now and $150,000,000,000 in 10 years that cost the taxpayers $0 when it didn't exist?

 

[American Horse]

Didn't he vote for Medicare part D?

I believe he did; it's one of the best designed and most cost effective programs relating to health care., worthy of emulating. His budget proposal re-shapes Medicare to the same format as Part D, and that is a good thing. Have you informed yourself on that matter?

Yabut ...

... how is one a conservative if one voted for the largest government program since LBJ? I mean, he could have voted "No," right? Wouldn't a conservative have voted "No" for a brand spanking-new government program that costs the taxpayer $60,000,000,000 a year now and $150,000,000,000 in 10 years that cost the taxpayers $0 when it didn't exist?

I think he saw it or some other version of it as being inevitable; If the Republicans hadn't passed it the Democrats would've, and by passing it they were able to include free market features in it, which the Ds resisted.

Does it really increase costs to the treasury to the extent you say?
Arent people able to reduce their medical and hospital costs through pharmaceutical treatments?
And the cost of the Part D program has come in under original projections each year.
It's not a zero-sum-game. Some people see the cost of the military as a dead expense, but if we had no military how much more dangerous would the world be for commerce and financial freedom? Stable economies need stable social conditions.
A productive economy needs physically productive individuals in their workforce. Costwise, I think it's probably a wash.

 

[Toro]

Does it really increase costs to the treasury to the extent you say?
Arent people able to reduce their medical and hospital costs through pharmaceutical treatments?
And the cost of the Part D program has come in under original projections each year.
It's not a zero-sum-game. Some people see the cost of the military as a dead expense, but if we had no military how much more dangerous would the world be for commerce and financial freedom? Stable economies need stable social conditions.
A productive economy needs physically productive individuals in their workforce. Costwise, I think it's probably a wash.

Healthcare costs have grown at about the same pace since part D was passed as they have in the past, adjusted for the state of economy, at least that I'm aware, though maybe Greenbeard can correct me on that. So the initial answer would be appear to be "no," it hasn't reduced costs, and it appears that the costs have been shifted from the private sector to the public sector. I haven't seen anyone state that this would net net reduce costs for the government.

But again, it is an expansion of government into people's lives, regardless if the costs came in above or below projections. Nationalizing a chunk of the healthcare system doesn't seem to be a tenant of modern American conservatism.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

So, because Dems lost the House, they should bend to the will of the majority Repubs? That's your argument? By that logic, since Dems control the Senate and the White House, Repubs should bend to their will, and pass whatever Senate Dems and Obama want, no questions asked. Man, you come up with the stupidest threads. Seriously, put down the bottle. You make no sense. Either that or take a civics class.

This is pretty funny coming from somebody who I bet supported the Fleebaggers in WI.

meowenstein is a moron, and a hack, and he'll call you badd shit and stuff.. but he ain't too damn smart..

And you're a genius, right? That much is very clear from the above post. You really showed me, huh? Anyway, since your buddy can't figure it out, maybe you can. Where in the Constitution does it say that one house of congress controls the agenda and gets everything they want?

 

[Flopper]

I'm baffled at how people can't grasp this.

It's the job of the HOUSE to pass a budget. That includes GOP and Dem members of the House. Thats the consequence of losing the House, which the Dem's did.

So, the JOB of the House is to propose a budget. They did that.

The gov't ONLY shuts down if the DEMOCRAT Senate and White House don't pass it. It's on their lap. If the gov't shuts down, its because the Dem's allowed it to. But the GOP House did it's job and proposed a budget (BTW, it's a 2011 budget that the DEM HOUSE was supposed to pass in 2010 but never did).

So if the Dem's don't like the GOP House budget, guess what? They should've passed it in 2010 LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO when the House was theirs, as it's the job of the House to do budget.

Dems didn't do that. They waited. GOP took the House. Now the House does budget. House proposed it. Only Dems can allow the gov't to shutdown.

Not quite. Obama sent the 2011 President's Budget, aka Presidents Budget Request to Congress in Feb of 2010 as required by law. His budget goes to the House and Senate Budget Resolution Committees. Each committee will review the Presidents budgets cutting and adding as they see fit. The two committees or their representatives meet to reconcile their differences. Once both committees reach agreement, the budget resolution bill is voted on by both houses. Once both houses pass the bill, it is law and we have budget. It can not be vetoed by the President.