Jump to content

Clockwork: White House, Democrats Demonize and Distort Ryan Budget


KirtFalcon

Recommended Posts

Guy Benson

Political Editor, Townhall.com

 

Mar 20, 2012 01:02 PM EST

 

To the surprise of nobody, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has announced that President Obama cannot and will not support the budget set forth by Rep. Paul Ryan earlier today. To underscore how much they dislike it, White House released a scathing statement on the proposal:

 

The House budget once again fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility. It would shower the wealthiest few Americans with an average tax cut of at least $150,000, while preserving taxpayer giveaways to oil companies and breaks for Wall Street hedge fund managers. What’s worse is that all of these tax breaks would be paid for by undermining Medicare and the very things we need to grow our economy and the middle class – things like education, basic research, and new sources of energy. And instead of strengthening Medicare, the House budget would end Medicare as we know it, turning the guarantee of retirement security into a voucher that will shift higher and higher costs to seniors over time.

The House economic plan draws on the same wrong-headed theory that led to the worst recession of our lifetimes and contributed to the erosion of middle-class security over the last decade. And the President believes we cannot return to a failed theory that didn’t lead to the growth of jobs, incomes, or the economy. That’s why he put forward a balanced approach that reduces the deficit by over $4 trillion. It’s an approach that asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share, makes tough cuts to programs we can’t afford, and strengthens Medicare with reforms that would reduce overpayments to drug companies, improve the quality of care, and protect Medicare’s commitment to America’s seniors.

 

Every last one of these claims was predictable. Several were so predictable, in fact, that I pre-butted them in this morning's primer on Ryan's budget. Nevertheless, let's address them one-by-one, just for kicks (and because we're going to be responding to the same tired refrains for the next few months):

 

 

(1) Ryan's budget "fails the test of fairness, balance, and shared responsibility." First of all, Senate Democrats' plan fails the test of existing. Second, Ryan's tax reforms are based on a simplification concept endorsed by Obama's own fiscal commission, which the president chose to ignore. Ryan's proposed top marginal income tax rate of 25 percent is viewed as "fair" by more than 6 in 10 Americans. Under Ryan's plan, the wealthy would see a slew of tax deductions, loopholes, and goodies reduced or eliminated in exhange for lower, flatter, predictable rates. They would also receive less government assistance on entitlement programs (the Medicare plan would prioritize lower income and less healthy future seniors). There's your "shared sacrifice," in addition to the fact that the top ten percent of wage earners already pay ~70 percent of all income taxes in this country, while the bottom 49.5 percent contribute zero in that category. Oh, and "the rich" include millions of small businesses, 80 percent of which file taxes as individuals. Raising taxes on "the rich" raises taxes on small businesses -- a horrible idea at any time, but especially in a weak economy with high unemployment. Finally, the White House's criticism of Ryan's budget for failing a "balance" test particularly rich, considering that Ryan's budget balances and Obama's never does.

 

(2) Altogether, now: Basic arithmetic "ends Medicare as we know it" within 12 years, according to its own trustees. It contains nearly $40 Trillion in unfunded future promises. Medicare as we know it is going down no matter what. The choice is whether to save it on our own terms, or just let it burn and leave future seniors to twist in the wind. Ryan's plan protects current and soon-to-be seniors (everyone born before 1958) from any changes, but does make changes for younger workers. If younger workers don't like those changes, they'd better prefer heavy austerity rationing, far less access to doctors (as they increasingly accept new Medicare patients due to horrid government reimbursement rates), or just no Medicare at all. That's the alternative to the Ryan/Wyden bipartisan vision, not some sunny utopia where the current fee-for-service model can meet everyone's needs forever. That's anti-reality and anti-math.

 

(3) Funny, I didn't realize serious attempts at reforming the key drivers of our unsustainable debt is what "led to" the current downturn. news to me. I could have sworn it was the housing crisis, which was fueled by subprime mortgages, which the federal government forced banks to hand out like candy. Republicans objected, Democrats cried racism, allowing these risky loans to be bundled and sold as financial instruments, thus infecting our Wall Street institutions and broader economy. Ryan's plan ends bailouts to and winds down two of the worst culprits in the meltdown: Fannie and Freddie. This argument from the White House is unusually lazy, stupid and dishonest -- even by their standards.

 

(4) President Obama's "balanced approach" raises taxes on families and small businesses by nearly $2 trillion over ten years, yet still adds $11 Trillion to the gross debt over that time horizon. Under Obama's plan, our grand total of national debt at the end of 2022 would be roughly $26 Trillion. Keep in mind that gross US debt hit 100 percent of GDP last summer. The CBO says Obama's budget adds over $3 Trillion in annual deficits compared to the Ryan plan. It intentionally fails to deal with entitlements and, I repeat, it never balances. On the looming debt crisis, Obama's Treasury Secretary described his boss' "balanced" approach accurately:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_f20ZDBj5k

 

 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking on behalf of the Obama White House, to Rep. Paul Ryan: "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

 

 

According to Team Obama, this is what a responsible, balanced approach looks like (for reference, Ryan's plan is in green, Obama's, appropriately, is in red):

 

032012obaamvsryan-300x244.jpg

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/03/20/clockwork_white_house_democrats_blast_ryan_budget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do you guys fall for this stuff. It happens on both sides. When Obama and the dems come out with something, the republicans do the same thing. This happens 20 times a yr from both sides. This is nothing new. I don't know why you get your blood pressure up over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do you guys fall for this stuff. It happens on both sides. When Obama and the dems come out with something, the republicans do the same thing. This happens 20 times a yr from both sides. This is nothing new. I don't know why you get your blood pressure up over this.

 

 

Fall for what? It's pretty simple, really. Geithner and Obama have no plan to actually fix the debt\deficit problem. All they are concerned with is the next few years and then they will be long gone and it will be up to someone else to actually provide the leadership and guts to adress the spending problems and the massive debt they have racked up. At leasst Paul Ryan has a plan to stop the fiscal madness and begin to address the debt.

 

The first thing that needs to be done is fix the budgeting\spending process. The automatic across the board 6-8% increases need to stop. Obamacare must be repealed and replaced with a free market reform that cuts the red tape and gets the government out of it. Paul Ryan's budget proposal would be a good start. Obama and the liberal democrats have shown no interest in fixing the debt\deficit problem ... just continuing to kick the can down the road. Ryan has a real plan to at least begin to address the spending problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fall for what? It's pretty simple, really. Geithner and Obama have no plan to actually fix the debt\deficit problem. All they are concerned with is the next few years and then they will be long gone and it will be up to someone else to actually provide the leadership and guts to adress the spending problems and the massive debt they have racked up. At leasst Paul Ryan has a plan to stop the fiscal madness and begin to address the debt.

 

The first thing that needs to be done is fix the budgeting\spending process. The automatic across the board 6-8% increases need to stop. Obamacare must be repealed and replaced with a free market reform that cuts the red tape and gets the government out of it. Paul Ryan's budget proposal would be a good start. Obama and the liberal democrats have shown no interest in fising the debt\deficit problem ... just continuing to kick the can down the road. Ryan has a real plan to at least begin to address the spending problems.

 

 

good point. But there is no way Obama care is going to be repealed. There is not enough votes. Besides, republicans like Obama care any way, because the individual mandate is their idea. And once Obama care is in place, the people are not going to want it repealed. Just like Medicaid,foodstamps, etc. Once people start getting something from the gov for free (or what appears to be free), they always want it.

 

just look at the first time Ryan put out a budget. When it look like there was going to be cuts to entitlements, republicans immediately back tracked on it.

 

This is not going to be popular with many on this board but the only way to fix the budget with this group in Congress is to put in the Simpson-Bowles plan or put in the plan that Congress used in the late 90's (which raised taxes on the rich and cuts in other areas). I don't agree with it, but its the only way you are going to please both parties. Compromise is the only way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point. But there is no way Obama care is going to be repealed. There is not enough votes. Besides, republicans like Obama care any way, because the individual mandate is their idea. And once Obama care is in place, the people are not going to want it repealed. Just like Medicaid,foodstamps, etc. Once people start getting something from the gov for free (or what appears to be free), they always want it.

 

just look at the first time Ryan put out a budget. When it look like there was going to be cuts to entitlements, republicans immediately back tracked on it.

 

This is not going to be popular with many on this board but the only way to fix the budget with this group in Congress is to put in the Simpson-Bowles plan or put in the plan that Congress used in the late 90's (which raised taxes on the rich and cuts in other areas). I don't agree with it, but its the only way you are going to please both parties. Compromise is the only way.

 

 

Yes, Obamacare is going by the wayside, one way or the other. Either the Supreme court will end it soon, or a Republican President will grant a blanket waiver for all states, Romney already said he would do that. As far as votes, you seem to forget how the democrats passed it in the first place? They "deemed" it passed without actually voting on it. It would not take 60 votes to repeal it, it could be done with the reconcilliation process. One way or another it will be overturned.

 

The Simpson-Bowles plan will never happen. There is no way to tax the rich enough to even put a dent in the over spending problem. If you taxed them at 100%, it wouldn't solve the entitlement spending problem. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem! The whole budegeting\spending process must be reformed to stop the automatic 6-8% increases each year. We are never going to tax our way out of this spending\debt problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul Issues Statement on Latest House GOP Budget Plan

 

“If Republicans really want to win in November, they will have to draw a clear distinction between themselves and Obama’s disastrous agenda”

 

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Congressman and 2012 GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement today regarding the latest budget proposal by the House Republican leadership. See comments below.

 

“Today, the House Republican leadership released a budget meant to be an alternative to President Obama’s budget plan, which was filled with more debt, more deficits, and more taxing and spending. Unfortunately, the House Republican proposal doesn’t go far enough to address the extreme fiscal problems we face as a nation.

 

“The House GOP’s budget proposal does not balance the budget until the year 2040, and it adds billions to our already exploding deficits. In fact, this budget doesn’t actually ‘cut’ any spending. It only reduces assumed increases in spending – essentially playing the same game the Washington establishment has played for years with our hard-earned money.

 

“As Sen. Jim DeMint recently noted: “This idea that we have to look 30 years out to balance the budget is not only unnecessary, but it’s improbable. We cannot continue to spend at our current rate for 10 more years, much less 20 or 30 more years.”

 

“What is really disappointing is that the GOP budget assumes that the federal government should continue to do everything, or at least almost everything, it is currently doing. We will never have a balanced federal budget, low taxes, economic prosperity, and individual liberty unless Congress stops trying to run the world, run the economy, and run our lives.

 

“If Republicans really want to win in November, they will have to draw a clear distinction between themselves and Obama’s disastrous agenda. And producing a budget that does not seriously address our nation’s debt crisis will not distinguish them at all in the eyes of the American people.

 

“Americans are looking for serious solutions, not more of same. In order to reject the status quo, lawmakers in Congress must act boldly and decisively on fiscal matters by adopting measures like those found in my own ‘Plan to Restore America.’ My plan actually cuts $1 trillion in spending in one year, and it sets the stage for serious reforms in entitlements while preserving benefits for seniors and the dependent. My plan also eliminates five unconstitutional cabinet departments, including the departments of Education and Energy. Additionally, my plan reduces the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, makes permanent the Bush-era tax cuts, and ends taxes on individual savings and repatriated capital. And it would balance the budget in only three years.

 

“This is what a serious budget proposal looks like. Any proposal that doesn’t cut real spending and adds to the deficit isn’t one that will get us out of this mess and back on track.

 

“Of the five men seeking the office of President, I am the only one who has offered a serious plan with real cuts and a real path to economic prosperity.”

While I agree with what Paul has said, the problem is this. There's more involved here than just his opinion. We don't want the libs slamming their projects down our throat, they don't want us slamming it down their throats. We/they have to compromise and bring the debt down. That's what our political process is all about. It works VERY slowly... unfortunately.

 

Any time the government goes mucking about with one thing or another, it distorts or changes something else.

 

Let's face it...if ten of us got in a group, and we had the U.S.'s budget in hand, and someone told us, okay, cut whatever. Do you seriously believe all of us would cut the same things once we got into it and actually all agreed to it? That's just ten folks... imagine when it gets to the House, Congress, and then the Pres...not as easy as Paul makes it sound. And maybe it should be, but it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as votes, you seem to forget how the democrats passed it in the first place? They "deemed" it passed without actually voting on it. It would not take 60 votes to repeal it, it could be done with the reconcilliation process.

I agree (if the Supreme Court doesn't save the republicans the need to repeal it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point. But there is no way Obama care is going to be repealed. There is not enough votes. Besides, republicans like Obama care any way, because the individual mandate is their idea. And once Obama care is in place, the people are not going to want it repealed. Just like Medicaid,foodstamps, etc. Once people start getting something from the gov for free (or what appears to be free), they always want it.

 

just look at the first time Ryan put out a budget. When it look like there was going to be cuts to entitlements, republicans immediately back tracked on it.

 

This is not going to be popular with many on this board but the only way to fix the budget with this group in Congress is to put in the Simpson-Bowles plan or put in the plan that Congress used in the late 90's (which raised taxes on the rich and cuts in other areas). I don't agree with it, but its the only way you are going to please both parties. Compromise is the only way.

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but I agree that if Obamacare does come to fruition there will not be any turning back for the reasons you stated. I disagree, however, that Obamacare cannot be repealed. The November elections will hopefully take care of that by adding a few votes against the program's implementation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Obamacare is going by the wayside, one way or the other. Either the Supreme court will end it soon, or a Republican President will grant a blanket waiver for all states, Romney already said he would do that. As far as votes, you seem to forget how the democrats passed it in the first place? They "deemed" it passed without actually voting on it. It would not take 60 votes to repeal it, it could be done with the reconcilliation process. One way or another it will be overturned.

 

The Simpson-Bowles plan will never happen. There is no way to tax the rich enough to even put a dent in the over spending problem. If you taxed them at 100%, it wouldn't solve the entitlement spending problem. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem! The whole budegeting\spending process must be reformed to stop the automatic 6-8% increases each year. We are never going to tax our way out of this spending\debt problem.

 

 

Well Im not too sure about that.

1.You guys must first win the Whitehouse. So far, thats not looking so good. Mitt is trailing in most polls. BUT.... that could change.

 

2.Even if Mitt won the Whitehouse, he would have to have at least 50 Republican senators. Thats going to be an uphill climb, because Scott Brown, Snowe, and the seat in Nevada are probably going to go Dem. BUT..... that could change.

 

3.Many disagree that you can use reconciliation process to repeal the bill. (although there are some who say you can)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/repealing-health-reform-via-reconciliation-not-so-fast/2011/10/14/gIQAkoYljL_blog.html

 

 

You seem so sure that you can do this. You must first accomplish #1 and #2 on my list before you can even have this discussion.

 

Your best hope is for the Supreme court to make this illegal. The ironic thing, is that if the Supreme court says this is illegal, then Romney care would also be illegal too. Just a thought.

 

Question, what is your suggestion for health care in this country is Obama care is overturned? How do we control rising cost and the strain the uninsured put on the health care system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but I agree that if Obamacare does come to fruition there will not be any turning back for the reasons you stated. I disagree, however, that Obamacare cannot be repealed. The November elections will hopefully take care of that by adding a few votes against the program's implementation.

 

 

well, I guess it could be repealed, but republicans must keep house, win senate,and take Whitehouse to do it. That is going to be a tall task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Simpson-Bowles plan will never happen. There is no way to tax the rich enough to even put a dent in the over spending problem. If you taxed them at 100%, it wouldn't solve the entitlement spending problem. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem! The whole budegeting\spending process must be reformed to stop the automatic 6-8% increases each year. We are never going to tax our way out of this spending\debt problem.

 

 

You have a good point. The problem is that congress (both parties) is not going to cut entitlement spending, and military spending. These are 2 of the biggest wasteful spending areas in the budget. And then there is health care. The Dems took the republican idea for health care with the individual mandate. But now all of a sudden, they are against it. So now what do we do. Health care spending is the biggest portion of our budget. Obama/Romney/Republican Care is flawed but its at least an attempt to do something about the health care system.

 

So... Since neither party is willing to make cuts, the only solution is more revenue. Only way to get more revenue is to close corporate loopholes (something both parties agree with) and raise taxes. Now who should get the tax hikes. The 99% or the rich? I know which one the 99% is going to pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a good point. The problem is that congress (both parties) is not going to cut entitlement spending, and military spending. These are 2 of the biggest wasteful spending areas in the budget. And then there is health care. The Dems took the republican idea for health care with the individual mandate. But now all of a sudden, they are against it. So now what do we do. Health care spending is the biggest portion of our budget. Obama/Romney/Republican Care is flawed but its at least an attempt to do something about the health care system.

 

So... Since neither party is willing to make cuts, the only solution is more revenue. Only way to get more revenue is to close corporate loopholes (something both parties agree with) and raise taxes. Now who should get the tax hikes. The 99% or the rich? I know which one the 99% is going to pick.

 

 

Did you see my other post on the spending trajectory and the debt problem? There isn't enough "more revenue" to resolve the deficit\debt problem. Whether they want to or not, both parties will have to dramatically cut spending or our country will go bankrupt and our economy will totally collapse. It's not going to be a choice any longer before too many more years. Politicians on both sides, including Obama and the rest of the liberals refuse to face the facts and continue to kick the can down the road ... we are running out of road soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Im not too sure about that.

1.You guys must first win the Whitehouse. So far, thats not looking so good. Mitt is trailing in most polls. BUT.... that could change.

 

2.Even if Mitt won the Whitehouse, he would have to have at least 50 Republican senators. Thats going to be an uphill climb, because Scott Brown, Snowe, and the seat in Nevada are probably going to go Dem. BUT..... that could change.

 

3.Many disagree that you can use reconciliation process to repeal the bill. (although there are some who say you can)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/repealing-health-reform-via-reconciliation-not-so-fast/2011/10/14/gIQAkoYljL_blog.html

 

 

You seem so sure that you can do this. You must first accomplish #1 and #2 on my list before you can even have this discussion.

 

Your best hope is for the Supreme court to make this illegal. The ironic thing, is that if the Supreme court says this is illegal, then Romney care would also be illegal too. Just a thought.

 

Question, what is your suggestion for health care in this country is Obama care is overturned? How do we control rising cost and the strain the uninsured put on the health care system.

I have to say, your comment of "you guys" seems a little odd to me...

 

And Romneycare versus Obamacare is totally different. State versus federal - one's an orange, the other is an apple. Citizens of Massachusetts could change that. Guess they chose not to.

 

The uninsured make a choice to be uninsured. I thought you were leaning libertarian? The feds shouldn't worry about the uninsured period. If I could buy my health insurance over in say Georgia where it's cheaper, then why can't I do that... but we can't... which is one reason why insurance is sky high. (not the only obviously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I guess it could be repealed, but republicans must keep house, win senate,and take Whitehouse to do it. That is going to be a tall task.

That's the same kind of talk the democrats were using before the Republicans took back the house during the last congressional elections. If gas is $5 per gallon at election time and if things get worse in Afghanistan, that could sour independents on Obama even further. It takes the independent vote for anyone to win the presidency, and I can't imagine those voters going Obama's way again. Even when Reagan wiped out Carter the media had the race as a toss-up before the election proved otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now who should get the tax hikes. The 99% or the rich? I know which one the 99% is going to pick.

Unless the Occupy Wall Street protesters work a full-time job, pay taxes, and respect public property, I won't identify with them, any more than I can identify with the top 1% of wage earners (who pay the majority of the taxes in this country already). Also, since around 50% of Americans don't even pay income taxes, the "49% versus the 1%" would be more accurate a slogan for the occupy wall street movement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point. But there is no way Obama care is going to be repealed. There is not enough votes. Besides, republicans like Obama care any way, because the individual mandate is their idea. And once Obama care is in place, the people are not going to want it repealed. Just like Medicaid,foodstamps, etc. Once people start getting something from the gov for free (or what appears to be free), they always want it.

 

just look at the first time Ryan put out a budget. When it look like there was going to be cuts to entitlements, republicans immediately back tracked on it.

 

This is not going to be popular with many on this board but the only way to fix the budget with this group in Congress is to put in the Simpson-Bowles plan or put in the plan that Congress used in the late 90's (which raised taxes on the rich and cuts in other areas). I don't agree with it, but its the only way you are going to please both parties. Compromise is the only way.

 

We have enough votes, all you need is a 5-4 vote with the Supreme Court. Obama Care is not going to be free, when are people like you going to get that out of their head ? Unless you are below the poverty line it you won't even get a discount. Even if you are under the poverty line, under many circumstances that's all you will get is a discount, only the extremely poor will get it for FREE.

 

All I know is the budget needs to be reduced, and the only one's trying to do so are the Republicans. These entitlement programs are draining our economy and is the reason that our credit rating dropped. The way I see it, big Government needs to reduce itself. The sad thing is many of our politicians don't think about the future of America, they only care about votes. What's the easiest way to buy votes, and it's with other people's money. Many rights that America think that they are entitled to are not in the Constitution, and in my opinion many of them are unconstitutional. Healthcare, retirement, free/reduced housing, food stamps, unemployment benefits, transportation are not rights.

 

I'm just glad I won't be around when the U.S. does implode on itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but I agree that if Obamacare does come to fruition there will not be any turning back for the reasons you stated. I disagree, however, that Obamacare cannot be repealed. The November elections will hopefully take care of that by adding a few votes against the program's implementation.

 

There are not enough seats up for grabs in the upcoming election to accomplish that. It would taken until 2014 to do that, when Obamacare goes into full swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, your comment of "you guys" seems a little odd to me...

 

And Romneycare versus Obamacare is totally different. State versus federal - one's an orange, the other is an apple. Citizens of Massachusetts could change that. Guess they chose not to.

 

The uninsured make a choice to be uninsured. I thought you were leaning libertarian? The feds shouldn't worry about the uninsured period. If I could buy my health insurance over in say Georgia where it's cheaper, then why can't I do that... but we can't... which is one reason why insurance is sky high. (not the only obviously)

 

... not to mention polls show upwards of 65% of Americans want Obamacare repealed. Cost estimates have doubled and it's been a disaster by any measurement and the worst parts of it won't be enacted until after 2014. Hopefully, the supreme Court will put it out of it's misery. It's really the best thing that could happen for Obama's legacy ... he just doesn't know it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Friend of Liberty,

 

 

Our deficits are soaring out of control. President Obama has proposed a "budget" that will allow a 1.3 trillion-dollar deficit. And Republicans are hardly better, with their budget never, ever balancing.

 

- Rand Paul

 

 

Paul Ryan has by far the best plan to start us back on the track of fiscal responsibility, at least it's a good start ... and Ron Paul is still a foreign policy loon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The massive deficit spending didn't start overnight, and it's not going to stop all at one time either. That's reality. You are kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to wave a magic wand and stop all the deficit spending. Like I said, Paul Ryan's plan is far and away the best start anyone has come up with. Any deficit\debt plan has to be a spending reduction plan. Raising taxes to try and match the spending is like giving crack to a heroine addict. They would only use any increased revenues to continue the spending spree and try and maintain the out of control deficit spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see my other post on the spending trajectory and the debt problem? There isn't enough "more revenue" to resolve the deficit\debt problem. Whether they want to or not, both parties will have to dramatically cut spending or our country will go bankrupt and our economy will totally collapse. It's not going to be a choice any longer before too many more years. Politicians on both sides, including Obama and the rest of the liberals refuse to face the facts and continue to kick the can down the road ... we are running out of road soon!

 

I agree with you. But the problem is that neither party is willing to make the big cuts. Even with Paul Ryan plan, we are still in debt. Now his plan is better than the dems, but its still does not solve the problem.

 

In the late 90's, Clinton and the Republicans came up with a plan that had us with a budget surplus. It didn't take yrs to do that. And unfortunately to do that, it took both cuts and increase in revenue. Now we can raise taxes on rich, or cut corporate loopholes. Either way, its going to take both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, your comment of "you guys" seems a little odd to me...

 

And Romneycare versus Obamacare is totally different. State versus federal - one's an orange, the other is an apple. Citizens of Massachusetts could change that. Guess they chose not to.

Its the same exact thing. Romney has said on many occasions that Romney care is a model the ENTIRE COUNTRY should use. That is exactly what Obama care is. It doesn't matter whether its state or federal. The fact is that he issued an individual mandate for insurance. The entire argument against Obama care is that its illegal because of the mandate. So why would you support a person that supports this. It doesn't matter at what level he supports its at. Illegal is Illegal. No matter at what level. You guys are against Roe v. Wade at all levels. Because you feel its murder. So even if it was overturned in Texas, you would still feel it was wrong if it was legal in Kansas. That's like saying I only robbed a state office building, not a federal office building. So its different. NO..... Because its still robbery. Whether its state or fed. Its not apples and oranges. Its a tangerine vs an orange.

 

The uninsured make a choice to be uninsured. I thought you were leaning libertarian? The feds shouldn't worry about the uninsured period. If I could buy my health insurance over in say Georgia where it's cheaper, then why can't I do that... but we can't... which is one reason why insurance is sky high. (not the only obviously)

1.I am not anything, but an independent. Im not boxed in to any political ideology. I agree with many ideas from various point of views.

 

2.I disagree that the uninsured make a choice to be uninsured. Its not that simple. There are many who work jobs that don't offer insurance. Some jobs don't offer insurance until after a 60-180 day probation is up. What if you get sick in that time frame. What if you are a kid, and you can't work and your parents don't put insurance on the family. Is that your choice? The world is not always black and white. Its various shades of gray.

 

3.The feds do have to worry about uninsured. Because its the fed that pays for the uninsured. When someone thats uninsured goes to the hospital, Its the fed (tax payers) who pick up the tab. Who do you think fund these free clinics and state hospitals? The fed. Healthcare is one of the largest expense in the federal budget. So to say the feds shouldn't worry is incorrect. The uninsured drive up healthcare cost for everyone. This is a national problem.

 

4.The theory that you should go across state lines for insurance to drive down the cost is very flawed. Let me give you a list of the Top health insurance companies as of 2011: http://health.usnews.com/health-plans/national-insurance-companies

Texas: #1 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, #2 United Health Care, #3 Pacificare, #4 Aetna, #5 Humana

Louisiana:#1 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, #2, Humana, #3 United Health Care

Oklahoma:#1 Blue Cross Blue Shield,#2 Communitycare,#3 Pacificare, #4 United Healthcare,#5 Aetna

New Mexico:#3 Blue Cross Blue Shield, #7 United Healthcare

Georgia:#1 Blue Cross Blue Shield,#4 United Healthcare

 

What you find is that the same exact insurance companies that operate in Texas, are the same companies that operate in the other states. Its going to basically be HCSC group (Blue Cross Blue Shield), United Healthcare, Humana, Aetna, Wellpoint and a few others that cover a very small proportion of the population. The prices are going to be the same or very close even when you cross the state lines, because its the same poeple that will be competing with themselves. Its not going to be different. Blue Cross Oklahoma is going to give you the same price as Blue Cross Texas because they are the same group. So this myth about going across state lines is flawed. Its just like gas prices. Yes it may vary a dime or so per state, but basically what you pay for gas in Texas, is what you pay for gas in Arkansas, because gas comes from the same Oil companies. And No matter the oil company, gas is still the same price. What you pay for gas at Shell, is basically the same price you pay for gas at Chevron, BP,and Exxon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the Occupy Wall Street protesters work a full-time job, pay taxes, and respect public property, I won't identify with them, any more than I can identify with the top 1% of wage earners (who pay the majority of the taxes in this country already). Also, since around 50% of Americans don't even pay income taxes, the "49% versus the 1%" would be more accurate a slogan for the occupy wall street movement.

 

 

my argument had nothing to do with the Wall street protesters. It was about who get the tax hike. Since no party is willing to make major cuts, its going to be a combo of cuts and taxes to fix the debt. No politician in america will raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k a yr. So who gets it. Its going to be the rich. That was my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...