The Big Lie: Ryan Hates Medicare

[anvi]

Well, Politico, I can only suggest that you go around to all the conservative states in the country, and ask their governors and legislatures' majority leaders if they want their states to flip eight-tenths of the bill to maintain current service levels for public education, the highway system, health care reimbursement costs and public housing, and see what they tell you.  Ask them also, if they are unwilling to raise state tax rates or impose state sales taxes to the requisite amounts that would maintain 80% of current service levels, how many public schools they will have to close, how many highways they will have to allow to deteriorate, how many poor and elderly people they will have to dump off of the roles and kick out of what remains of public housing, in order to meet their budget priorities, in order to meet state budget priorities.  See if they report these figures to you with a smile.  Actually, better yet, you should ask Governor Romney if he favored these ideas during his term in Massachusetts, and how much of the federal money he determined wasn't needed to run his state and so duly returned to me, a hardworking taxpayer, in reimbursement.  If you respond with the refrain you've used before on this topic, namely that discretionary spending levels should return to what they were under Clinton, please keep in mind 1.) that Ryan wants levels much lower than those, and 2.) that in 1996, the U.S. population was 265 million, while today it is around 310 million (an increase of 15%), and consider that more people are going to school, driving on the roads and using healthcare now, and that the population, in each of our sovereign states, will continue to increase as inflation continues to slowly rise.  Thanks.

You also say utterly contradictory things about research.  You say the federal government is "utterly incapable of doing anything but more harm then good" when it comes to research  and then go on to extol defense and NASA, both of which are programs of the very big government you decry.  Would you support, for example, eliminating the submission of NIH grants to research projects entirely (it's already been cut up by two-thirds in the past couple of decades--so why not just gut the whole thing)?  Would you be willing on that same note, since you believe in the independent innovative potential of American private industry, to kill the tax breaks and expensing of research expenditures the feds give to our pharma companies?

But then, none of this is about having a serious policy discussion, is it?  It's about repeating the phrases "big government," "robbing Peter to pay Paul," "innovation of the states" and so on ad infinitum as if their repetition alone will make them more compelling in the absence of considering actual problems.  Never mind shilling for the Romney campaign; in another day, in another place, you'd have made a truly legendary member of the Red Guards.

[Politico]

Well, Politico, I can only suggest that you go around to all the conservative states in the country, and ask their governors and legislatures' majority leaders if they want their states to flip eight-tenths of the bill to maintain current service levels for public education, the highway system, health care reimbursement costs and public housing, and see what they tell you.

The vast majority will say, "No, we don't; we'd rather cut many of these services, starting with federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind." And what is my response? "Then let's get to work."

States will have representatives who give the public the combination of taxes/spending they want, or they will lose re-election. The public will get precisely what they want. Obviously there will be an adjustment period, but afterward America will be much freer and healthier.

You also say utterly contradictory things about research.  You say the federal government is "utterly incapable of doing anything but more harm then good" when it comes to research

I was speaking of primary and secondary education.

 

and then go on to extol defense and NASA, both of which are programs of the very big government you decry.

I am not opposed to all forms of government intervention. On the contrary, I am a huge supporter of defense, including R&D spending in that realm. R&D defense spending has helped pave the way for various technologies that have improved our standard of living and security (e.g., the Internet, touchscreen technologies, GPS, etc.).
  

Would you support, for example, eliminating the submission of NIH grants to research projects entirely (it's already been cut up by two-thirds in the past couple of decades--so why not just gut the whole thing)?

The NIH does a lot of good, but I am sure there are ways to make it more efficient.

 

Would you be willing on that same note, since you believe in the independent innovative potential of American private industry, to kill the tax breaks and expensing of research expenditures the feds give to our pharma companies?

We need incentives that promote R&D in pharmaceutical companies. Socialized medicine is not such an incentive. Patent protections for a limited time and tax breaks are such incentives.

in another day, in another place, you'd have made a truly legendary member of the Red Guards [Continental Army].

Fixed.

[Senator Snowstalker]

An obnoxious troll posing as serious while spouting idiotic hyperbole? Two can play at that game.

Romney and the Republican Super PACs have been following the Rove/Goebbels handbook to a T: race-baiting (see the welfare ad), taking out-of-context statements and blowing them out of proportion ("you didn't build that"), and of course, repeating lies like these until they're accepted as fact by half the country.

[Politico]

Romney and the Republican Super PACs have been following the Rove/Goebbels handbook to a T: race-baiting (see the welfare ad),

It's not race-baiting. Most people on welfare are white.

taking out-of-context statements and blowing them out of proportion ("you didn't build that"),

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Yeah, most people on welfare are white. But what does the average American picture a welfare family as? A single black mother with multiple children.

Also, that second part of your post is going straight to the Deluge.

[Politico]

Yeah, most people on welfare are white. But what does the average American picture a welfare family as? A single black mother with multiple children.

If so, that's their problem and their mistake. Team Romney has nothing to do with it.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Exactly. Republicans have been doing it since Nixon.

[Gravis Marketing]

An obnoxious troll posing as serious while spouting idiotic hyperbole? Two can play at that game.

Romney and the Republican Super PACs have been following the Rove/Goebbels handbook to a T: race-baiting (see the welfare ad), taking out-of-context statements and blowing them out of proportion ("you didn't build that"), and of course, repeating lies like these until they're accepted as fact by half the country.

I sustained a lengthy conversation with politico the other day solely by cutting and pasting pablum from the Obama Biden web site. Because it was functionally the same as his posts, he didn't notice.

[Politico]

An obnoxious troll posing as serious while spouting idiotic hyperbole? Two can play at that game.

Romney and the Republican Super PACs have been following the Rove/Goebbels handbook to a T: race-baiting (see the welfare ad), taking out-of-context statements and blowing them out of proportion ("you didn't build that"), and of course, repeating lies like these until they're accepted as fact by half the country.

I sustained a lengthy conversation with politico the other day solely by cutting and pasting pablum from the Obama Biden web site. Because it was functionally the same as his posts, he didn't notice.

Oh, I noticed. What you've failed to notice is the increasing failure of the Obama/Biden talking points.

Hope? Nope.

[Cobbler]

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

Anyone who saw the full quote can realize that he was talking about them not building the roads and stuff like that. It is selective ignorance to say that he was saying that they didn't build their business. I don't believe Obama hates markets or entrepreneurship, and I don't think he's given any indication that he does. He has said that he wants to go back to Clinton rates for the taxes on the top bracket, but that is hardly the same as "wanting to take from successful people to give to unsuccessful people".

[Progressive Realist]

Romney and the Republican Super PACs have been following the Rove/Goebbels handbook to a T: race-baiting (see the welfare ad),

It's not race-baiting. Most people on welfare are white.

taking out-of-context statements and blowing them out of proportion ("you didn't build that"),

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

Oh look, it's this talking point again.

[Politico]

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

Anyone who saw the full quote can realize that he was talking about them not building the roads and stuff like that. It is selective ignorance to say that he was saying that they didn't build their business. I don't believe Obama hates markets or entrepreneurship, and I don't think he's given any indication that he does. He has said that he wants to go back to Clinton rates for the taxes on the top bracket, but that is hardly the same as "wanting to take from successful people to give to unsuccessful people".

You just need to read what some of the Obama supporters on here believe in order to see what the ultimate end game is for the Democrats of the 21st Century. It's a very different party from the one of the Clinton/Gore era. Trust me, if given the opportunity they will not stop at just raising the rates back to the levels of the 1990s.

[Cobbler]

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

Anyone who saw the full quote can realize that he was talking about them not building the roads and stuff like that. It is selective ignorance to say that he was saying that they didn't build their business. I don't believe Obama hates markets or entrepreneurship, and I don't think he's given any indication that he does. He has said that he wants to go back to Clinton rates for the taxes on the top bracket, but that is hardly the same as "wanting to take from successful people to give to unsuccessful people".

You just need to read what some of the Obama supporters on here believe in order to see what the ultimate end game is for the Democrats of the 21st Century. It's a very different party from the one of the Clinton/Gore era. Trust me, if given the opportunity they will not stop at just raising the rates back to the levels of the 1990s.

The Obama supporters on here are not working for the Obama campaign. A lot of them are further to the left than the President has been in this first term. Obama has cut taxes. He could just let the whole Bush tax cuts expire, but he only wants the top bracket to. I think Romney would be a better President than Obama too, but I don't pretend that Obama has been some left wing ideologue. On the contrary, I think he's governed in the Clinton/Gore mold.

[Lief]

Politico, do you really want to play the "let's attribute the views of a candidate's supporters to the candidate himself" game?

[Politico]

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

Anyone who saw the full quote can realize that he was talking about them not building the roads and stuff like that. It is selective ignorance to say that he was saying that they didn't build their business. I don't believe Obama hates markets or entrepreneurship, and I don't think he's given any indication that he does. He has said that he wants to go back to Clinton rates for the taxes on the top bracket, but that is hardly the same as "wanting to take from successful people to give to unsuccessful people".

You just need to read what some of the Obama supporters on here believe in order to see what the ultimate end game is for the Democrats of the 21st Century. It's a very different party from the one of the Clinton/Gore era. Trust me, if given the opportunity they will not stop at just raising the rates back to the levels of the 1990s.

The Obama supporters on here are not working for the Obama campaign. A lot of them are further to the left than the President has been in this first term. Obama has cut taxes. He could just let the whole Bush tax cuts expire, but he only wants the top bracket to. I think Romney would be a better President than Obama too, but I don't pretend that Obama has been some left wing ideologue. On the contrary, I think he's governed in the Clinton/Gore mold.

The problem is that I am not talking about just the Obama supporters on here, or the rank-and-file Democrats even. The majority of people behind the Clinton/Gore machine were people who respected free enterprise with moderate social views. The majority of people behind the Obama machine are to the left of Ted Kennedy. They are merely constrained right now by political realities. Their short-term goal is letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Their long-term goal is returning tax rates to Jimmy Carter levels to fund Ted Kennedy social policies, George McGovern military policies, and Michael Dukakis crime policies. Just look at how these people treat Lieberman, one of the key architects of the Clinton/Gore-style Democrat.

[Cobbler]

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

Anyone who saw the full quote can realize that he was talking about them not building the roads and stuff like that. It is selective ignorance to say that he was saying that they didn't build their business. I don't believe Obama hates markets or entrepreneurship, and I don't think he's given any indication that he does. He has said that he wants to go back to Clinton rates for the taxes on the top bracket, but that is hardly the same as "wanting to take from successful people to give to unsuccessful people".

You just need to read what some of the Obama supporters on here believe in order to see what the ultimate end game is for the Democrats of the 21st Century. It's a very different party from the one of the Clinton/Gore era. Trust me, if given the opportunity they will not stop at just raising the rates back to the levels of the 1990s.

The Obama supporters on here are not working for the Obama campaign. A lot of them are further to the left than the President has been in this first term. Obama has cut taxes. He could just let the whole Bush tax cuts expire, but he only wants the top bracket to. I think Romney would be a better President than Obama too, but I don't pretend that Obama has been some left wing ideologue. On the contrary, I think he's governed in the Clinton/Gore mold.

The problem is that I am not talking about just the Obama supporters on here, or the rank-and-file Democrats even. The majority of people behind the Clinton/Gore machine were people who respected free enterprise with moderate social views. The majority of people behind the Obama machine are to the left of Ted Kennedy. They are merely constrained right now by political realities. Their short-term goal is letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Their long-term goal is returning tax rates to Jimmy Carter levels to fund Ted Kennedy social policies, George McGovern military policies, and Michael Dukakis crime policies. Just look at how these people treat Lieberman, one of the key architects of the Clinton/Gore-style Democrat.

Do you actually have any evidence of this?

I'm assuming you don't.

As for the dislike for Lieberman, its because he is a neoconservative hawk. It has nothing to do with him being some sort of Clinton/Gore moderate.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

- Medicare will go bankrupt in 2024 if we continue Obama's policy of kicking the can down the road.
- Ryan has never proposed changing anything for those who are retired or nearing retirement.

These two are incompatible. Ryan's plan proposes no changes for seniors 55 and older. The earliest his plan could realistically be implemented is 2014(2013 being the first legislative year with Romney as Pres). That means no cuts in Medicare expenditures until 2024(at the earliest).

You're saying the marginal reduction in Medicare expenditure for the first years worth of retirees into the new system would be enough to avert bankruptcy that year? Based on what, the oh-so reliable CBO estimates? LOL. Medicare depends on payroll revenue- all it would take is lower then expected payroll revenue(or higher then expected Medicare expenditure) and we would see bankruptcy that year.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

The majority of people behind the Clinton/Gore machine were people who respected free enterprise with moderate social views. The majority of people behind the Obama machine are to the left of Ted Kennedy. They are merely constrained right now by political realities. Their short-term goal is letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Their long-term goal is returning tax rates to Jimmy Carter levels to fund Ted Kennedy social policies, George McGovern military policies, and Michael Dukakis crime policies. Just look at how these people treat Lieberman, one of the key architects of the Clinton/Gore-style Democrat.

What? Obama took a mostly old guard Clintonites into his administration.

As for moderate social views?... compare Clinton's immediate executive order regarding gays in the military(and this in  1993, when gays-in-the-military was as extreme as gay marriage was in 2000-2004) to Obama's drawn out process of first setting up a review board, then going through congress(and this in the 2009-2010 period, when repealing DADT was overwhelmingly popular). I'll want some basis for the allegation that Obama's admin is more socially radical in the context of 2009-2013 then Clinton's was in the context of 1993-1997.

[Politico]

The majority of people behind the Clinton/Gore machine were people who respected free enterprise with moderate social views. The majority of people behind the Obama machine are to the left of Ted Kennedy. They are merely constrained right now by political realities. Their short-term goal is letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Their long-term goal is returning tax rates to Jimmy Carter levels to fund Ted Kennedy social policies, George McGovern military policies, and Michael Dukakis crime policies. Just look at how these people treat Lieberman, one of the key architects of the Clinton/Gore-style Democrat.

What? Obama took a mostly old guard Clintonites into his administration.

With regards to foreign policy, yes. His domestic policy team? Not so much. His campaign team, especially the social media crew and so forth? HELL NO. Those guys are largely Dean 2004 transplants who learned their lesson in 2004.

As for moderate social views?... compare Clinton's immediate executive order regarding gays in the military(and this in  1993, when gays-in-the-military was as extreme as gay marriage was in 2000-2004) to Obama's drawn out process of first setting up a review board, then going through congress(and this in the 2009-2010 period, when repealing DADT was overwhelmingly popular). I'll want some basis for the allegation that Obama's admin is more socially radical in the context of 2009-2013 then Clinton's was in the context of 1993-1997.

Let's see: Clinton reformed welfare, signed and praised the Defense of Marriage Act, implemented the Don't Ask/Don't Tell compromise, pushed school uniforms, did not go Gore's way on the environment, was tough on crime, etc. Quite moderate record overall. Most of his team was very much of the moderate flavor with regards to social issues (Hell, Dick Morris is one of the more right-wing folks around). They were not Ted Kennedy.

[Politico]

The president has been overwhelmingly clear: He dislikes entrepreneurship and free markets, and believes Big Government should take from successful people and give to unsuccessful people rather than having an environment that produces growth for everybody.

Anyone who saw the full quote can realize that he was talking about them not building the roads and stuff like that. It is selective ignorance to say that he was saying that they didn't build their business. I don't believe Obama hates markets or entrepreneurship, and I don't think he's given any indication that he does. He has said that he wants to go back to Clinton rates for the taxes on the top bracket, but that is hardly the same as "wanting to take from successful people to give to unsuccessful people".

You just need to read what some of the Obama supporters on here believe in order to see what the ultimate end game is for the Democrats of the 21st Century. It's a very different party from the one of the Clinton/Gore era. Trust me, if given the opportunity they will not stop at just raising the rates back to the levels of the 1990s.

The Obama supporters on here are not working for the Obama campaign. A lot of them are further to the left than the President has been in this first term. Obama has cut taxes. He could just let the whole Bush tax cuts expire, but he only wants the top bracket to. I think Romney would be a better President than Obama too, but I don't pretend that Obama has been some left wing ideologue. On the contrary, I think he's governed in the Clinton/Gore mold.

The problem is that I am not talking about just the Obama supporters on here, or the rank-and-file Democrats even. The majority of people behind the Clinton/Gore machine were people who respected free enterprise with moderate social views. The majority of people behind the Obama machine are to the left of Ted Kennedy. They are merely constrained right now by political realities. Their short-term goal is letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Their long-term goal is returning tax rates to Jimmy Carter levels to fund Ted Kennedy social policies, George McGovern military policies, and Michael Dukakis crime policies. Just look at how these people treat Lieberman, one of the key architects of the Clinton/Gore-style Democrat.

Do you actually have any evidence of this?

I'm assuming you don't.

Oh, I could spend time digging up background information, but it would be a waste of time. Just go read some of Howard Dean's more controversial comments from late 2003 if you want a taste of what a lot of the Obama crew really believes in.

As for the dislike for Lieberman, its because he is a neoconservative hawk. It has nothing to do with him being some sort of Clinton/Gore moderate.

That is what pushes them over the edge, but they would give Lieberman leeway if were a radical liberal on other issues rather than being a moderate.

[Politico]

- Medicare will go bankrupt in 2024 if we continue Obama's policy of kicking the can down the road.
- Ryan has never proposed changing anything for those who are retired or nearing retirement.

These two are incompatible. Ryan's plan proposes no changes for seniors 55 and older. The earliest his plan could realistically be implemented is 2014(2013 being the first legislative year with Romney as Pres). That means no cuts in Medicare expenditures until 2024(at the earliest).

You're saying the marginal reduction in Medicare expenditure for the first years worth of retirees into the new system would be enough to avert bankruptcy that year? Based on what, the oh-so reliable CBO estimates? LOL. Medicare depends on payroll revenue- all it would take is lower then expected payroll revenue(or higher then expected Medicare expenditure) and we would see bankruptcy that year.

The secret is that we're gutting non-defense discretionary spending in order to have a sustainable deficit that eventually leads to a balanced budget down the road. Ensuring the solvency of Medicare is achievable with Romney/Ryan in the White House. With Obama kicking the can down the road from 2013-2017, and allowing Obamacare to dominate resources, Medicare will pretty much be screwed by some point in the '20s. Put it this way: It won't be the roaring '20s.

[patrick1]

It has been fascinating to see the right's rehabilitation of Clinton over the years. I despised him at the time so I guess I can include myself in this.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

- Medicare will go bankrupt in 2024 if we continue Obama's policy of kicking the can down the road.
- Ryan has never proposed changing anything for those who are retired or nearing retirement.

These two are incompatible. Ryan's plan proposes no changes for seniors 55 and older. The earliest his plan could realistically be implemented is 2014(2013 being the first legislative year with Romney as Pres). That means no cuts in Medicare expenditures until 2024(at the earliest).

You're saying the marginal reduction in Medicare expenditure for the first years worth of retirees into the new system would be enough to avert bankruptcy that year? Based on what, the oh-so reliable CBO estimates? LOL. Medicare depends on payroll revenue- all it would take is lower then expected payroll revenue(or higher then expected Medicare expenditure) and we would see bankruptcy that year.

The secret is that we're gutting non-defense discretionary spending in order to have a sustainable deficit that eventually leads to a balanced budget down the road. Ensuring the solvency of Medicare is achievable with Romney/Ryan in the White House. With Obama kicking the can down the road from 2013-2017, and allowing Obamacare to dominate resources, Medicare will pretty much be screwed by some point in the '20s. Put it this way: It won't be the roaring '20s.

That's not "making Medicare solvent", it's "papering over Medicare's insolvency with money from the rest of the budget."

It's been a constant of Medicare budget projections that they always massively underestimate Medicare expenditures- including with the Republican's Medicare part D. With increased life expectancies+new and more expensive medical innovations, the huge population of baby boomers on unaltered Medicare is virtually guaranteed to bankrupt Medicare, no matter how much you gut Medicare for those under 55 or curtail discretionary spending.

And that's with me accepting the highly unlikely assumptions that a)the discretionary cuts are succesfully passed through congress, b)aren't eaten up military expenditure in the name of confronting Russia, China and Iran, and c)Romney's proposed tax cuts(I know he says they'll be budget neutral due to tax credit reduction, but said tax credits are such sacred cows that I can't imagine congress cooperating).

[Politico]

With increased life expectancies+new and more expensive medical innovations, the huge population of baby boomers on unaltered Medicare is virtually guaranteed to bankrupt Medicare, no matter how much you gut Medicare for those under 55 or curtail discretionary spending.

Not if you shift Medicaid completely onto the states and make it voluntary. Furthermore, life expectancy projections may or may not pan out. America has never been more obese. It is possible, although not necessarily likely, that the Silent Generation (the last generation not affected by the obesity crisis) will be the generation with the highest life expectancy rates ever. It is very difficult to accurately predict what will happen with regards to life expectancy.

Anyway, making Medicaid a voluntary state program is a trade-off that will probably have to be made. America was fine before Medicaid and will be fine afterward. Charities will rise to fill much of the gap.

[President Marokai]

With increased life expectancies+new and more expensive medical innovations, the huge population of baby boomers on unaltered Medicare is virtually guaranteed to bankrupt Medicare, no matter how much you gut Medicare for those under 55 or curtail discretionary spending.

Not if you shift Medicaid completely onto the states and make it voluntary. Furthermore, life expectancy projections may or may not pan out. America has never been more obese. It is possible, although not necessarily likely, that the Silent Generation (the last generation not affected by the obesity crisis) will be the generation with the highest life expectancy rates ever.

Anyway, making Medicaid a voluntary state program is a trade-off that will probably have to be made. America was fine before Medicaid and will be fine afterward.

Perhaps the most sociopathic post I've seen on this site yet; and I read Krazen's posts.