Paul Ryan

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Game, notice he never says that the ACA isn't taking over $700 billion out of Medicare. It is, and the "savings" he mentions just seconds later are the funds taken from Medicare.

Ok, lets go a little more mainstream with it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...medicare-cuts/

"Those Medicare savings -achieved through reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse, not benefit cuts – appear in the House Republicans’ FY 2013 budget, which Ryan authored."

That's exactly what he's saying in the video. Republicans are being misleading, Oh, and their comeback? At the end of the ABC article? "He’s used it to pay for Obamacare, a risky, unproven federal government takeover of health care" Ok so Romney/Ryan won't use the 700 billion to pay for Obamacare, understood... and "And if I’m President of the United States, we’re putting the $716 billion back” Excelent word play, but lies non the less... unless his meaning is 'back' into the governments pockets to pay for his own plan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...are-cuts-says/

I'm not even going to quote that one, you should read it. But to Sum it up, there's two facts here (as reported by non partasian sources:

1) The Ryan plan supports and protects the same 700 billion in "cuts" or "savings" (or whatever you want to call it) that Obama's plan does.
2) Ryan is accusing of Obama for "robbing" those funds to pay for Obamacare, but in Ryan's plan he's also "robbing" those funds to pay for his own plan.

So this whole 700 billion dollar "arguement" is all smoke and mirrors. Romney, Ryan, and Obama (aka the corporatist party) all support these changes. Instead of being misleading and focusing on the 700 billion cut, they should have an honest debate about where the funds are going.. aka 'Obamacare' vs 'Romneyryancare'

[Professor S]

Game, when you're right you're right. I fell for the same thing I blame a lot of the Obama attacks for: calling reductions in future spending "cuts".

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-...re-falsehoods/

As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)

And it assumes they actually happen. There’s good reason to think that some of those reductions won’t be implemented. The law calls for cuts in the future growth of reimbursement payments to hospitals and other health care providers — that accounts for $219 billion of the Medicare savings in the law. But Congress has consistently overridden similar scheduled cuts in payments to doctors.

Once I read the actual facts it doesn't make me like the ACA any more, to be honest.

By the way, I recommend FactCheck.org. It's from the University of PA and I find it to be much more even handed than PolitiFact, which is run my a newspaper.

[TheGame]

So the Joker convinced Batman of something finally. LOL

And yeah, I love FactCheck.org - Now that the debates and elections are coming up that site is likely going to be pumping out a lot more articles.

From a political standpoint, the republicans would have been better off picking someone who's on the same intellectual level as Ryan, but with the same track record of a Sarah Palin (or even Obama). All of these harsh claims against Obama are going to bite them in the ass when the truth comes out. Ryan's financial plans are a gold mine for information on cuts that Obama can use to sway voters.

I'm on the side that thinks that this will be a train wreck when push comes to shove. (Unless some type of financial meltdown happens mid election, which is very possible)

As annoying as it is, having a strong opinion on how to fix things and having it well documented works against you. Unfortunatly all of Obama's policy changes from his 2008 campaign he won't have to answer for since he followed the corporatist agenda. What's Romney going to say? "Why didn't you raise taxes on the top 5% like you promised? Why are you focusing on spending instead? Why did you make a health care mandate instead of making the public option??"

Since Obama turned into Mitt in his first 4 years in office, they can't even use the main issue that liberals/progressives have against him as a weapon.

Anyway I'm just ranting now lol

[Professor S]

to be honest, I think both sides are making some pretty outrageous claims. So far the Obama camp has accused Romney of being a felon, not paying taxes for a decade (with no evidence), and murdering someone's wife with cancer. Neither side is coming off well. As for Romney, I have no idea what his campaign is up to. He's running away from his past, and a past I would have emphasized. Overall his work at Bain was stellar, and while some companies were closed, the vast majority were saved and grown. He seems unable or unwilling to push his success. Instead he lets Pres. Obama define his time there.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

to be honest, I think both sides are making some pretty outrageous claims. So far the Obama camp has accused Romney of being a felon, not paying taxes for a decade (with no evidence), and murdering someone's wife with cancer.

I don't think it really compares. Republicans have been a lot more vicious and telling blatant lies. (700 billion from Medicare and no work requirement for welfare? Yeah ok) But that's how the party has always been, and it works. You tell the same lie/misleading info enough and it sticks.

As for being a felon, that was out of Obama's camp and we can argue about how valid that is. It's not like this is some cornerstone that the Obama camp is running on. You think if the republicans even had a half-reason to believe Obama was a felon they'd do anything less than harp all over it?

As for not paying taxes for a decade... why is he hiding his records? It's not like the whole birther movement, where they're requesting the president provide something that has never been asked of a president before and implying that the President of the United States isn't even an American. These records have been made public for decades and Romney chose to hide it for some reason. Romney's camp already admitted that the Obama camp can use the records against them if released. That should speak volumes by itself.

As for the murder thing.. that was an ad that was ran once and wasn't approved by Obama. They are some conspiracy theories behind it, but it is what it is.

The Republicans are strong and clear in their foul play. They're throwing fastballs right at democrat’s heads and the dems are dodging it.. while dems lob soft balls a little inside and the republicans are screaming for help. I mean, just look at the language from the "Did Obama cut Medicare" video. You don't see any of that kind of language from the left.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I don't think it really compares. Republicans have been a lot more vicious and telling blatant lies. (700 billion from Medicare and no work requirement for welfare? Yeah ok) But that's how the party has always been, and it works. You tell the same lie/misleading info enough and it sticks.

Game, the problem is there is at least a kernel of truth in both of the claims by Republicans. Dems are taking $700+ million out of future medicare spending, and they ARE allowing states to remove work requirements from welfare as long as they meet certain goals (which could easily be met by improvements by the economy and have nothing to do with welfare programs themselves).

As for being a felon, that was out of Obama's camp and we can argue about how valid that is. It's not like this is some cornerstone that the Obama camp is running on. You think if the republicans even had a half-reason to believe Obama was a felon they'd do anything less than harp all over it?

That is some weak sauce right there. By that logic the Republicans could tie Obama to domestic terror because he went to dinner with the leader of the Weather Underground.

As for not paying taxes for a decade... why is he hiding his records? It's not like the whole birther movement, where they're requesting the president provide something that has never been asked of a president before and implying that the President of the United States isn't even an American. These records have been made public for decades and Romney chose to hide it for some reason. Romney's camp already admitted that the Obama camp can use the records against them if released. That should speak volumes by itself.

He's hiding them to avoid the inevitable class warfare attacks because Romney, admittedly, paid about 13-15% in taxes because he doesn't earn an income, only capital gains. His tax rate is a red herring, and you know it. All it does is create the opportunity for more ad hominem attacks that distract from real issues.

As for the murder thing.. that was an ad that was ran once and wasn't approved by Obama. They are some conspiracy theories behind it, but it is what it is.

Sorry, but I call bullshit. I still runs daily on Youtube and other media (I saw it this morning), and the subject as discussed by the Obama camp with the PAC that ran it.

The Republicans are strong and clear in their foul play. They're throwing fastballs right at democrat’s heads and the dems are dodging it.. while dems lob soft balls a little inside and the republicans are screaming for help. I mean, just look at the language from the "Did Obama cut Medicare" video. You don't see any of that kind of language from the left.

Really? Really?? Excuse me while I watch Paul Ryan throw an old woman off a cliff again...

I don't mean to be partisan here. Both sides are guilty of advertising that stretches the truth, or breaks it completely, but to say the Republicans are somehow uniquely guilty of this in this election cycle isn't accurate, IMO.

[TheGame]

Prof,

You're right there is a kernel o truth, but they twist it into something way more vicious and extreme than it really is. People who take what they say litterally think Obama is guting the life out of Medicare and trying to give out more welfare to lazy people... You and I know that's just misrepresenting what is actually happening, but your average guy who just kicks back and watches Fox news doesn't know.

And Republicans DID tie him to domestic terror... LMAO. That doesn't change the fact that Romney misrepresented himself.

As for the taxes... I know he has his reasons to hide it, but he should just be upfront about it. That expectation comes with the territory. Just have it out in the open, explain it.. boom issue dead. He's getting exactly what he has coming by him hiding the records. (And I notice you didn't comment on the birther thing, which was 1000x worse...)

And the ad was only ran on TV once.. idk about youtube or anything.. but in the end Obama didn't approve the ad. But of course, that's an example of the inside lobed soft ball. An ad that indirectly makes romney responsible for someone not being able to afford their healthcare (and that isn't even approved by Obama) turns into "OMG OBAMA ACCUSED ROMNEY OF MURDER".

I don't mean to be partisan here. Both sides are guilty of advertising that stretches the truth, or breaks it completely, but to say the Republicans are somehow uniquely guilty of this in this election cycle isn't accurate, IMO.

The Republican party is the strong/aggressive party, the Democratic party is the weak/passive party. To me it's not equal. I don't think the end result of getting Obama or Romney into office is going to make a difference, because they're both corporatists and both going to continue to lead the country down the wrong path.

If you want me to go back to youtube and drag some stuff up I can. Democrats don't use that kinda alarming/hateful langage. On the issues where it counts, I'm not even saying what side is right or wrong... but c'mon you have to admit that it's not even.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

The Republican party is the strong/aggressive party, the Democratic party is the weak/passive party.

You and I have completely different perspectives on this. I doubt we'll find agreement.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You and I have completely different perspectives on this. I doubt we'll find agreement.

I'm pretty sure you're both wrong if either one of you thinks either party is passive and weak.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I'm pretty sure you're both wrong if either one of you thinks either party is passive and weak.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

To me the whole situation with health care reform proves it. You give the other party (who had NO SAY at the time) concession after concession after concession until the bill turned into something the republican party was trying to push in the mid 90's... just to get 0 votes.... I consider that weak. I've never seen a more epic failure in leadership.

When Bush was pres, he'd basically scare the other party into doing what he wanted. "You don't vote for this you don't want to protect the country" and "You don't vote for this and the whole economy will crash and we'll blame you"... weak.

Sorry, I can't follow you two on this one. Give me some examples of when the democrats pushed the republicans into getting exactly what they want... maybe I'm closed minded...

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I'm pretty sure you're both wrong if either one of you thinks either party is passive and weak.

Oh, I don't think either is weak. The Republicans have done an effective job of trying to shape policy while only having 1/3 of government under their influence since 2010. They can't really create policy, but they can block what they disagree with. Meanwhile the Democrats spent a great deal of political capital from 2008 - 2010 to pass some of the farthest reaching regulatory reforms and entitlements since the Great Society of the 1960's.

I don't think the Republicans are weak, but to say the Dems are weak is insane, IMO. If anything they are more united and focused than the Republicans (mainly due to the divergent interests of tea party organizations, and in the influence of the Libertarian wing).

[Bond]

I'd say both parties are equally strong, but exercise "strength" in different ways. Seems rather cut and dry.

[TheGame]

None of you guys are even going to try to back up your statements and answer my question? lol

To me, political strength/weakness is based on the fear that the opposition party has. Have the republicans ever been too scared to vote against a democratic bill because of the political ramifications it may have in the last 15 years? (No) How about the democrats, have they been scared? (Yes) Heck, the Democrats were SCARED when they were in power to pass their OWN agenda that happened to be POPULAR at the time.

Hate to harp on it, but back to the healthcare bill... if they would have created something strong that would have benifitted the middle and lower class more, they could have forced republicans to vote for it. But instead they "worked" with the republican party to make it into something weak enough with enough unpopular ideas that the whole Republican party could vote against it on a united front. To me that was pure 100% weak.

But like I said.. maybe I'm closed minded. But since nobody is giving any specific examples I'm going to just assume I'm right.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Hate to harp on it, but back to the healthcare bill... if they would have created something strong that would have benefited the middle and lower class more, they could have forced republicans to vote for it. But instead they "worked" with the republican party to make it into something weak enough with enough unpopular ideas that the whole Republican party could vote against it on a united front. To me that was pure 100% weak.

This is your recollection of events surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Funny, I didn't think abuse of the reconciliation procedure to avoid filibuster was an example of Democrats bending backwards to bring in Republicans...

Honestly, reading your version of the passage of the bill is a work of revisionist history that was created by those who still live in an alternate dimension where the American people want government run, single-payer healthcare. The truth is they want "free" healthcare, but only if they can keep the care level and choices they have now. As has been proven by fact checkers, they can't even do what with the ACA.

The Democrats are not victims or weak. They created that plan to make the American people more comfortable, not Republicans. They knew they would be fought tooth and nail to the end because as Paul Ryan pointed out in the summit, the two parties simply have two different visions of what America is and should be.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

This is your recollection of events surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Funny, I didn't think abuse of the reconciliation procedure to avoid filibuster was an example of Democrats bending backwards to bring in Republicans...

By the time the bill was put up for vote, it was so weak and filled with consessions for the right wing that democrats had issues bringing their own party on board in the house. You're right, how the bill was passed was the democratic party (at least the senate and executive office) being united and 'strong', but how the bill came to be after over a year of trying to work with the republicans was WEAK.

Honestly, reading your version of the passage of the bill is a work of revisionist history that was created by those who still live in an alternate dimension where the American people want government run, single-payer healthcare. The truth is they want "free" healthcare, but only if they can keep the care level and choices they have now. As has been proven by fact checkers, they can't even do what with the ACA.

The Democrats are not victims or weak. They created that plan to make the American people more comfortable, not Republicans. They knew they would be fought tooth and nail to the end because as Paul Ryan pointed out in the summit, the two parties simply have two different visions of what America is and should be.

Americans voted the president/party into power that ran on having a public option, or 'at least' a single payer system. Generally speaking, americans do NOT like the idea of the mandate. How can you even pretend that's revisionist history? Or better yet, how does a MANDATE make the american people more comfortable than a public option?

And keep in mind, the most unpopular idea in the whole bill (cough THE MANDATE) has been supported by republicans for longer than I've been alive. In the mid 90's the republican party was trying to push something similar to the affordable care act to counter what Clinton was trying to push. And don't get me started on Romney.

The way the right wing tries to make it sound, is like the left didn't give any consessions and just shoved the bill down everyone's throats.. when this bill is way more "republican" than candidate Obama ran on. Fox news and the right wing are the revisionists. (And now they run adds like they don't support a mandate, hilarious)