What Is Obama's Long-Term Plan to Rival the Romney/Ryan Plan?

[Politico]

Romney/Ryan have a plan to get the nation back to fiscal health while maintaining obligations towards Social Security and Medicare, including maintaining the solvency of the programs for those who are under 55 years of age. Does Obama have a long-term plan, or does he simply plan on kicking the can down the road while becoming the presidential version of Gray Davis (i.e., going incredibly negative and somehow winning re-election despite a majority of voters disapproving of his job performance; subsequently doing nothing for the rest of his political career)?

Is this America's choice again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3AwIrLQSE

[Politico]

Obama has no plan to actually solve a problem.  This is evidenced by his first term in office, where you would have a real hard time thinking of a problem solved by BO's administration.  

In all fairness, Obamacare is an attempt to help more poor people gain healthcare access. Of course, the tradeoff Obama chose amounts to rationing Medicare for current seniors who paid into the system for decades. If you ask me, Obamacare is a bum deal for seniors who worked their entire life. It is a good deal for people who choose not to work because they think the world owes them a living, but why should seniors see their Medicare rationed in order to fund Obamacare?

[Politico]

Romney/Ryan have a plan to get the nation back to fiscal health while maintaining obligations towards Social Security and Medicare

No, they don't.

Absolutely. It is a Democratic myth that Paul Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it.
Paul Ryan even voted for Medicare Part D. The Democratic lies are a diversion from the fact that Obamacare takes resources from Medicare and shifts them towards poor people. Obama Hood: Take from seniors and give to the poor AKA robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Paul Ryan cares about America's seniors. Go ask anybody in his hometown. Ryan does have a major problem with this president's desire to kick the can down the road rather than solving the nation's fiscal problems. America does not need the presidential version of Gray Davis.

[Politico]

Haha, only one post in this thead is visible to me - Lief's.

So both you and Lief concede that Obama has no long-term plan for America?

Democrats are just supporting another Gray Davis again.

[Politico]

The details offered so far in the Ryan plan -- the tax cuts he's described in some detail, the proposed changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the virtual elimination of all federal spending on anything except those three programs and defense --

That is precisely what the Romney/Ryan plan will do. It will maintain obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, defense, law/order and basic infrastructure. Anything that can be pushed onto the states will be pushed onto the states, and the states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. I've been saying for months that Romney is going to do exactly this while reforming the tax code.

This election is a debate about the type of America we want to have. Romney/Ryan have offered a plan for the long-term that champions free enterprise, strong defense, maintaining obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, and providing law/order. Obama and Co. only offer lies and attacks out of the Gray Davis 2002 playbook. Obama has no plan for the future. His plan is to kick the can down the road. His plan amounts to massive tax hikes down the road to fund worthless government boondoggles that only special interests want.

[Politico]

The details offered so far in the Ryan plan -- the tax cuts he's described in some detail, the proposed changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the virtual elimination of all federal spending on anything except those three programs and defense --

That is precisely what the Romney/Ryan plan will do. It will maintain obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, defense, law/order and basic infrastructure. Anything that can be pushed onto the states will be pushed onto the states, and the states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. I've been saying for months that Romney is going to do exactly this while reforming the tax code.

This election is a debate about the type of America we want to have. Romney/Ryan have offered a plan for the long-term that champions free enterprise, strong defense, maintaining obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, and providing law/order. Obama and Co. only offer lies and attacks out of the Gray Davis 2002 playbook. Obama has no plan for the future. His plan is to kick the can down the road. His plan amounts to massive tax hikes down the road to fund worthless government boondoggles that most everybody does not want.

So, where do you think Ryan would eliminate tax loopholes? And how much revenue would he raise in that way?

Tax rates are going to be cut across the board, so most of the loopholes eliminated (and there will be many, although details will be ironed out after the election) will simply offset the rate reduction. The simplification of the tax code will lower accounting costs for individuals and businesses, further reducing costs associated with taxes for those who utilize loopholes/accountants.

The funny part is that the overwhelming majority of loophole/exemption eliminations will only apply to the wealthiest Americans, but Democrats will lie about that.

By the way, you have a red avatar. Can you please tell us about Obama's long-term plan for America? With all of the red avatars on here you would think that at least one person on here could explain Obama's long-term plan or admit that he does not have one.

[Politico]

Democratic Rhetoric

Your point is duly noted. Does Obama have a plan for the long-term or does he just plan on kicking the can down the road?

If Romney loses, at least we can remind everybody in four years that we had a plan for America's long-term while Democrats wallow in their support of the presidential version of Gray Davis.

[Politico]

Obama has a plan and he will implement it when the economy is not in danger of falling back into recession thanks to draconian cuts.

In other words, this ad captures the essence of the campaign if you replace Reaganomics with Romneynomics and Mondalenomics with Obamanomics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3AwIrLQSE

[Politico]

Democratic Rhetoric

Your point is duly noted. Does Obama have a plan for the long-term or does he just plan on kicking the can down the road?

If Romney loses, at least we can remind everybody in four years that we had a plan for America's long-term while Democrats wallow in their support of the presidential version of Gray Davis.

Two Words: SIMPSON-BOWLES

Two words describe the Simpson-Bowles plan: MORE TAXES

Is Obama ready to double-down on this?

[Politico]

Obama has a plan and he will implement it when the economy is not in danger of falling back into recession thanks to draconian cuts.

This actually means his plan is to do nothing for 4 more years....at which point the next recession will be upon us or close to it based on the typical length of the US business cycle.

Bingo.

Obama simply plans on kicking the can down the road while being the presidential version of Gray Davis. No thank you!

The nation needs to get serious before it's too late! Romney/Ryan offers a serious plan for the future. We are still waiting for a serious commitment from Obama.

If we win, we get to turn America around. If Democrats win, they're stuck with the presidential version of Gray Davis. Either way, Democrats lose.

[Politico]

Democratic Rhetoric

Your point is duly noted. Does Obama have a plan for the long-term or does he just plan on kicking the can down the road?

If Romney loses, at least we can remind everybody in four years that we had a plan for America's long-term while Democrats wallow in their support of the presidential version of Gray Davis.

Two Words: SIMPSON-BOWLES

Two words describe the Simpson-Bowles plan: MORE TAXES

Is Obama ready to double-down on this?

Five more words to describe the Simpson-Bowles plan: LONG TERM BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION

Romney/Ryan does that without raising taxes.

Romney/Ryan: Cut taxes, cut spending, restore growth, create incentives for jobs

Obama/Biden: Raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes

Easy choice for America to make. Hope you're braced for a 1980-style loss. Even if you somehow dupe America, you're stuck with another Gray Davis except this time in the White House.

[Politico]

Obama has a plan and he will implement it when the economy is not in danger of falling back into recession thanks to draconian cuts.

In other words, this ad captures the essence of the campaign if you replace Reaganomics with Romneynomics and Mondalenomics with Obamanomics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3AwIrLQSE

Obama is actually a very large tax cutter, in terms of the legislation he has signed.

I presume his plan is here.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf



The plan is of course to simply borrow $600 billion per year into perpetuity, or at least 6 years beyond his hypothetical second term. As a result he will accumulate $2.8 trillion in debt in his second term.

Yep.

Obama is kicking the can down the road RIGHT NOW. He is either going to raise taxes or simply kick the can down the road. He has no serious plan to get America back on track. He has a bureaucratic budget plan in the form of Simpson-Bowles that raises taxes, and he will not even commit to that. He will not commit to a long-term plan, unlike Romney/Ryan. All Obama/Biden offer is attacks and lies. It reminds me a lot of the 2002 Gray Davis campaign.

[Politico]

And SHORT TERM STIMULUS

This is one of the biggest lies ever told. Short term stimulus merely leads some pigs squealing for more short term stimulus.

Yep. And other little piggies are happy to retreat to the Ritz Carlton in return for rewarding their special interest masters.

[Politico]

So are we getting a commitment from Democrats on here to PRESSURE the Obama/Biden campaign to fully endorse and commit to Simpson/Bowles? Or are Democrats satisfied with kicking the can down the road, which is the current plan of Obama/Biden?

I prefer Romney/Ryan, but Simpson/Bowles is infinitely preferable to the current trajectory of Obama/Biden.

Romney/Ryan is now committed to spending their political capital on tax reform and their long-term plan. America wants to hear what plan the Obama/Biden team is going to spend their political capital on if they win.

[Politico]

So are we getting a commitment from Democrats on here to PRESSURE the Obama/Biden campaign to fully endorse and commit to Simpson/Bowles? Or are Democrats satisfied with kicking the can down the road, which is the current plan of Obama/Biden?

I prefer Romney/Ryan, but Simpson/Bowles is infinitely preferable to the current trajectory of Obama/Biden.

We'll commit to that if you commit to coming up with some new disgraced politician to unfairly compare the President to.

Gray Davis was not disgraced and is actually a good guy just like Barack Obama, whom I like as a person. That did not make up for the fact that he simply had no plan for the future. He had to run a scorched-earth campaign to win re-election, which barely worked. But then he had nothing he could do for the future because he had no plan to deal with some serious fiscal issues and the special interests he was beholden to. Barack Obama is simply Gray Davis all over again except on a higher level (obviously a recall is not an option this time around).

[Politico]

Well he obviously want to cut military spending which is what we should do. We should also use means-testing for Medicare and Social Security, rather than privatizing and couponing both. Also, Politico, don't just spew your Reagan talking points since we know how good Reagan [Tip O'Neill and Co.] was at eliminating the deficit and paying down the national debt

Fixed.

[Politico]

The details offered so far in the Ryan plan -- the tax cuts he's described in some detail, the proposed changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the virtual elimination of all federal spending on anything except those three programs and defense --

That is precisely what the Romney/Ryan plan will do. It will maintain obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, defense, law/order and basic infrastructure. Anything that can be pushed onto the states will be pushed onto the states, and the states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. I've been saying for months that Romney is going to do exactly this while reforming the tax code.

This election is a debate about the type of America we want to have. Romney/Ryan have offered a plan for the long-term that champions free enterprise, strong defense, maintaining obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, and providing law/order. Obama and Co. only offer lies and attacks out of the Gray Davis 2002 playbook. Obama has no plan for the future. His plan is to kick the can down the road. His plan amounts to massive tax hikes down the road to fund worthless government boondoggles that most everybody does not want.

So, where do you think Ryan would eliminate tax loopholes? And how much revenue would he raise in that way?

Tax rates are going to be cut across the board, so most of the loopholes eliminated (and there will be many, although details will be ironed out after the election) will simply offset the rate reduction. The simplification of the tax code will lower accounting costs for individuals and businesses, further reducing costs associated with taxes for those who utilize loopholes/accountants.

The funny part is that the overwhelming majority of loophole/exemption eliminations will only apply to the wealthiest Americans, but Democrats will lie about that.

By the way, you have a red avatar. Can you please tell us about Obama's long-term plan for America? With all of the red avatars on here you would think that at least one person on here could explain Obama's long-term plan or admit that he does not have one.

If you don't like the Tax Policy Center's numbers, give me your own. But be aware that they say that Romney's tax plan would reduce revenue by $360 billion a year, which would require cutting the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the charitable contributions deduction, the EITC and child tax credit, and other tax credits and deductions, by in the neighborhood of 65%. And Romney's plan merely wants to keep the maximum tax rate for capital gains at 15%, where Ryan actually wants to eliminate taxation of capital gains altogether, so it's clear that Ryan's plans would require even bigger cuts to those deductions.
Like I said, if you or Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney don't like those figures (from a think tank that the Romney campaign itself has frequently cited, mind you), any of you would be perfectly free to present alternative figures, and then we could all discuss whose figures looked most accurate. But if nobody on the Republican side is willing to provide numbers on this front, well, how do you expect the rest of us to take you guys seriously?
And what right, then, do you have to complain that the other guy doesn't have a plan, when your guy clearly doesn't have a plan?

Any and all "revenue losses" will be offset by the combination of spending cuts, elimination of loopholes/exemptions (that right now are largely only applicable to the well-off), and pushing any possible spending back onto the states for them to decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Obviously the details will be worked out after the election. Ryan-Wyden is merely a draft to give some indication.

In short, Romney/Ryan is actually going to walk the walk when it comes to this commitment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM

Obama has discarded the Clinton Doctrine and embraced Big Government while kicking the can down the road. Romney will not kick the can down the road. Romney will end the era of Big Government.

The fundamental choice of this election is Romney's efficient, well-managed, decentralized government versus Obama's inefficient, bureaucratic Big Government. Do we want America to be American, or do we want it to become like Europe? Do we want an America of growth and opportunity, or an America of stagnation and class warfare?

[Politico]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Is this a concession that if Obama is re-elected he will be as inept as Gray Davis was in 2003?

The Democrats are bent on turning America into California: A land of lost opportunities.

[Politico]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Shouldn't a guy who has been running for/actually president (for 5.5 years) have a plan at some point?  regardless of the house's composition.    

That's not how the modern Democrat sees it. They care about gay marriage and gun control rather than maintaining the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Romney/Ryan offer solutions for the real problems facing us today, tomorrow, and far into the future.
Obama/Biden offer divisive culture war rhetoric and kicking the can down the road.

[Politico]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Obama has no plan for the future. Romney does. That's a clear contrast. Part of the reason why Romney chose Ryan is because Ryan is one of the few people in Washington who does NOT want to kick the can down the road. Kicking the can down the road is the road to poverty for America's seniors.

[Politico]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Their's some truth to this. But the Ryan Medicare plan is also "Robin Hood" in a sense- it steals from generations X, Y and Z so as to sustain traditional Medicare for the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.

Not necessarily. If Romney/Ryan transform the federal government into the type of small government that is committed to just a few things (i.e., SS/Medicare, defense, law/order, basic infrastructure) rather than continuing the era of Big Government, it may be possible to get our fiscal house in order in such a way to maintain obligations towards Medicare for every American alive today, tomorrow and one hundred years from now. Obviously the trade-off is cutting other programs and shifting as much spending as possible onto the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Such a decentralized approach will lead to lots of experimentation among the states. Who knows what kind of progress and innovations will ensue as a result. Obviously people will be able to vote with their feet, too.

The bottomline: A continuation of the era of Big Government is going to lead to broken promises and dismal results, both of which will be magnified if Obama continues to kick the can down the road. Shifting towards a smaller, more efficient government may still lead to permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security, though.

[Politico]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Their's some truth to this. But the Ryan Medicare plan is also "Robin Hood" in a sense- it steals from generations X, Y and Z so as to sustain traditional Medicare for the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.

Not necessarily. If Romney/Ryan transform the federal government into the type of small government that is committed to just a few things (i.e., SS/Medicare, defense, law/order, basic infrastructure) rather than continuing the era of Big Government, it may be possible to get our fiscal house in order in such a way to maintain obligations towards Medicare for every American alive today, tomorrow and one hundred years from now. Obviously the trade-off is cutting other programs and shifting as much spending as possible onto the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not.

The bottomline: A continuation of the era of Big Government is going to lead to broken promises and dismal results, both of which will be magnified if Obama continues to kick the can down the road. Shifting towards a smaller, more efficient government may still lead to permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security, though.

It isn't "burdening" the next generations.  In most cases it is giving them a better deal and/or more options(choices).  Democrats hate choices (except the A word one).  They think a private social security account were you could easily get a 2-4% return compounded over your entire career (plus a transferable asset to your family) is worse than a 0.001% return from the government ponzi scheme.  They fear giving people the ability to choose one or the other because almost everyone is going to choose the one they oppose for stupid ideological reasons.  A medicare voucher for someone 20 years from now is the same thing.  A lot of benefits vs. very few negatives.        

Remember how Bush spoke like this in early 2005 and subsequently tanked in popularity? I agree with you, but this is not a winning message. Too many people are terrified of the words "privatize" and "choice" when they are associated with Medicare and Social Security even though you are right and I agree with you. With that said, I am of the opinion that the only politically viable option is gutting much of the rest of government to continue funding the current system rather than going this route. It will be difficult, but at least it is politically achievable.

[Politico]

We've gone six pages in this thread without mentioning once the Progressive Caucus's budget. Certainly it's too tax-heavy to be adopted by the current Obama administration, but the budget's as "far-left" as it's going to get.

So what? That does not mask the fact that Obama's "plan" amounts to kicking the can down the road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's a more pertinent question: Why the hell wouldn't seniors be scared of Obamacare rationing? Waiting on a list can lead to waiting too long (i.e., pain, suffering and/or death).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney/Ryan will ultimately have nothing to do with vouchers. When it is all said and done, preserving Medicare/Social Security will trump other forms of spending in the government. Many parts of the federal government will be gutted or shifted onto the states in order to maintain the permanent solvency of Medicare/Social Security.

[Politico]

So what? That does not mask the fact that Obama's "plan" amounts to kicking the can down the road.

What do you even mean here? There are three ways to maintain Medicare's solvency: cut benefits, control costs and/or increasing revenue. ACA focuses on the second and tax rises coupled with demand-side spending focuses on the third.

Obama's plan: Ignore the fact that Medicare is set to go bankrupt in 2024. Continue running $1+ trillion deficits for the next four years. It amounts to kicking the can down the road.

Obamacare takes nearly $700 billion from Medicare in order to provide subsidized coverage to poor people. It amounts to taking from seniors to give to the poor. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This is all just passing problems onto future presidents and generations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If R&D of $1 billion goes into developing a drug, why should that firm not enjoy a patent over their drug for a few years? If you take away the incentive to pour R&D costs into making new drugs, you will get a lot less new drugs in the future. That is a fact. Unfortunately, government bureaucrats are not known for developing groundbreaking drugs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shifting resources from Medicare to assist poor people is robbing Peter to pay Paul any way you try to analyze it. It does not solve a problem; it merely creates a host of other problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely not. I am in favor of ensuring the permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security. In order to achieve this end, the federal government must transfer a vast majority of its spending onto the states. The states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Innovation and experimentation will ensue, as will progress as a result of 50 states all trying different things with some things working and some things not.

[Politico]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Shouldn't a guy who has been running for/actually president (for 5.5 years) have a plan at some point?  regardless of the house's composition.    

That's not how the modern Democrat sees it. They care about gay marriage and gun control rather than maintaining the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Romney/Ryan offer solutions for the real problems facing us today, tomorrow, and far into the future.
Obama/Biden offer divisive culture war rhetoric and kicking the can down the road.

I'm not up for "debating" with a Romney infomercial.

If you want to play that game, I can cut and paste "Four more years!" as long as you can type up new posts. I'm with America's team of hope and hopeless change, not going back to the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

Fixed.

Romney has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush Administration, of course. Whereas Bush embraced and expanded Big Government, something Obama has continued to accelerate, Romney will walk the walk on this commitment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM