Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Paul Ryan
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.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
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.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Paul Ryan
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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)
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
Americans voted the president/party into power that ran on having a public option, or 'at least' a single payer system.
Pres. Obama didn't really run on health care reform at all. He ran on the economy with healthcare a minor part of their platform and virtually nonexistent in their campaign, and then once elected he basically ignored the economy and spent all their political capital on healthcare reform pretending it was an economic issue.
And just look at polls and you'll see that while people say they want free or single-payer healthcare, they don't want anything that comes with it when implemented. They want a free lunch, but once they find out they can't choose what they want to eat, they find it unpalatable. This isn't opinion, it's polled fact.
There really is no point in arguing about this because we have two very different recollections of what happened in the campaign and over his nearly 4 years as President. If you believe this administration has been conciliatory or compromising, there is literally nothing for us to debate.
So is it true that Ryan spent this entire speech telling lies at the last convention?
Well, it depends on your version of the truth, I guess, and how you define spending, etc. Also, it depends on whether or not you consider exaggerations and spin to be the same as lies.
Example Claim - The ACA guts over $700 million from Medicare.
The "Lie" Version: The ACA does NOT cut the current level of Medicare spending at all.
The "Truth" Version: The ACA DOES cut the planned growth in Medicare spending by the amount claimed.
Politicians, including this Administration, have often spoken about current and future spending interchangeably, depending on what benefits them.
The Affordable Care Act calls for a $716 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years, with most of that — about $415 billion — coming from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals through Medicare Part A. And Medicare Part A’s trust fund, as we’ve explained before, is in trouble financially. It’s set to be insolvent in 2024, even with these spending cuts. Without them, the trust fund wouldn’t be able to fully pay projected benefits in 2016, the Medicare trustees estimate.
Slightly off topic: Yes, the ACA plan to reduce costs in Medicare is to simply pay less for hospitals and doctors. I'm sure this will have no unintended consequences...
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 09-05-2012 at 11:53 AM.
Oh, and an example of people essentially "lying" about Ryan's "lies":
Claim: "Ryan's budget keeps the same cuts to Medicare Part A that Obamacare does, so Ryan is a hypocrite."
The first part of that statement is true...
BUT
... Ryan's plan puts the future funds directly into the Medicare trust fund to help shore it up (it is bleeding cash), as opposed to the Democrat plan that diverts the funds into the ACA. So if you're a senior, and Ryan states that the ACA "raids" funds from Medicare (healthcare for seniors) to fund the ACA (healthcare for all), it is technically true.
Quote:
Claim: “That $716 billion is exactly the same amount of Medicare savings, to the dollar, that Congressman Ryan had in his own budget.”
True. Even Ryan has admitted that his House budget proposal kept the Medicare savings in Obama’s health care law. The difference, Ryan said at the time, was that he would have used the savings entirely to strengthen the Medicare trust fund — not to pay for the other new benefits in the health care law.
[paraphrasing] Ryan says something like: "Obama said he wanted to keep the GM plan open, but look now it's closed and all these people are out of jobs."
He's obviously implying that Obama is the reason it closed, but it actually happened when Bush was in power. But if you break down his sentance, he's telling the truth... he's just leaving out information, and being misleading.
Reminds me of george bush and dick cheney talk on the war in Iraq. (When they weren't being idiots) they were saying how Saddam and Iraq is linked to terrorism, and would find a way to put 9-11 in the same sentance... but they avoided directly stating that Iraq caused 9-11. But there were strong implications.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
Re: Paul Ryan
Hybrid Mode
