Ryan's response to Obama's speech

[Kathianne]

Ryan's response to Obama's speech on the 'budget':


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e-cyIlM8ZwE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e-cyIlM8ZwE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Joe Steel]

Ryan went to school, got a job in the family business, worked for a few politicians and they got himself elected. If he were a Democrat, Republicans would be hammering him for being an insider elitist but, because he's their elitist, Republicans love him. They think every crackpot thing he says is revealed truth.

[Kathianne]

Ryan went to school, got a job in the family business, worked for a few politicians and they got himself elected. If he were a Democrat, Republicans would be hammering him for being an insider elitist but, because he's their elitist, Republicans love him. They think every crackpot thing he says is revealed truth.

So you agree with what he said, you just think he and his supporters are not likeable?

[Joe Steel]

So you agree with what he said, you just think he and his supporters are not likeable?

Ryan is wrong about everything. If he gave me the time, I'd check my watch. His Path to Poverty is filled with distortions and deceit. Why would I believe anything he said about it or anything related to it?

[Missileman]

Ryan is wrong about everything. If he gave me the time, I'd check my watch. His Path to Poverty is filled with distortions and deceit. Why would I believe anything he said about it or anything related to it?

I suppose you believe the Liar-in-Chief's plan to reduce the debt by spending more is really going to reduce our debt.

[Joe Steel]

I suppose you believe the Liar-in-Chief's plan to reduce the debt by spending more is really going to reduce our debt.

Liar-in-Chief?

Boehner?

I'm not sure he said anything about spending to reduce the debt.

[Missileman]

Liar-in-Chief?

Boehner?

I'm not sure he said anything about spending to reduce the debt.

That's right chicken shit...dodge the question.

[Little-Acorn]

That's right chicken shit...dodge the question.

little joe has dodged every question you and Kathianne have asked. A common pattern for him. Are you surprised?

[Missileman]

little joe has dodged every question you and Kathianne have asked. A common pattern for him. Are you surprised?

Not really...but I continue to HOPE that he might CHANGE as his hero has suggested. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Ryan is wrong about everything. If he gave me the time, I'd check my watch. His Path to Poverty is filled with distortions and deceit. Why would I believe anything he said about it or anything related to it?

You do realize you added nothing but partisan talking points?

[logroller]

It was good, not great, speech, but I think he earned some PR points for sure. I appreciate sincerity, even when, perhaps especially when, its tough to hear. My only critique would be the "poisoning wells" bit, it just seemed ackward. I assume he was playing off a piece of Obama's speech bout "building bridges"(but i don't know this for sure). IMO, he should avoid metaphors and stick to the straight- forward, tell it how it is role-- I think it creates far more value, both publically and politically.

[Joe Steel]

That's right chicken shit...dodge the question.

Try again, dumbass. No such position exists.

[fj1200]

Ryan is wrong about everything. If he gave me the time, I'd check my watch. His Path to Poverty is filled with distortions and deceit. Why would I believe anything he said about it or anything related to it?

How so? Point-by-point please.

[jimnyc]

How so? Point-by-point please.

fj, meet steel joe, troll extraordinaire. You will NEVER get such a reply from him. Rhetoric, whining and exaggerations, but never facts.

[fj1200]

fj, meet steel joe, troll extraordinaire. You will NEVER get such a reply from him. Rhetoric, whining and exaggerations, but never facts.

I know, just my effort at the dialectic.

[Joe Steel]

You do realize you added nothing but partisan talking points?

Do you realize Ryan's Folly is nothing but partisan talking points? I've been trudging through it for days and have found at any given point I almost can predict the next sentence. It's the same old extremist ideology and rightwing sophistry we've heard for years.

[fj1200]

Such as?

[Joe Steel]

How so? Point-by-point please.

For instance, Medicare. Ryan says "(s)ave Medicare for current and future generations..." but he wants to replace the current arrangement with vouchers which aren't indexed for inflation. The initial value won't buy anywhere near the coverage seniors get now and certainly won't get any better. That doesn't "save" Medicare in any substantive sense. It guts it. It makes Medicare a hollow shell. It throws seniors into the private market which already has been proven to be hostile. We wouldn't have had Medicare in the first place if the private market worked for seniors.

[Joe Steel]

How so? Point-by-point please.

For instance, Social Security. Ryan says "Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in future benefits." That's just not so. A small increase in the SS tax fixes it forever. No "reform" is necessary.

[fj1200]

For instance, Medicare. Ryan says "(s)ave Medicare for current and future generations..." but he wants to replace the current arrangement with vouchers which aren't indexed for inflation. The initial value won't buy anywhere near the coverage seniors get now and certainly won't get any better. That doesn't "save" Medicare in any substantive sense. It guts it. It makes Medicare a hollow shell. It throws seniors into the private market which already has been proven to be hostile. We wouldn't have had Medicare in the first place if the private market worked for seniors.

It does save it, you just don't like the changes that are necessary to sustain it. I happen to believe vouchers are a better system than what we have now, it gives power to the consumer to purchase the plan that is best for them. Government should not be in the role of health care provider because they can't match the efficiency that the private market provides.

You make false assumptions and indefensible conclusions based on your bias.

[fj1200]

For instance, Social Security. Ryan says "Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in future benefits." That's just not so. A small increase in the SS tax fixes it forever. No "reform" is necessary.

You already agreed with Ryan's premise by favoring an increase in the SS tax. All you need to do is investigate the unfunded liabilities in SS to see the scope of the problem. The unseen costs of SS since inception have rippled through the economy by placing government in the role of retirement funder rather than providing a safety net. I disagree with your "solution" of increasing an already regressive anti-employment tax.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ryan went to school, got a job in the family business, worked for a few politicians and they got himself elected. If he were a Democrat, Republicans would be hammering him for being an insider elitist but, because he's their elitist, Republicans love him. They think every crackpot thing he says is revealed truth.

When you cant attack the message, attack the messanger. Law 101

Even a liar tells the truth once in a while, the truth is the truth is the truth, whether it comes from the mouth of a liar or an honest man.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ryan is wrong about everything. If he gave me the time, I'd check my watch. His Path to Poverty is filled with distortions and deceit. Why would I believe anything he said about it or anything related to it?

How about it? Give us one, just one thing specifically he spoke about that you disagree with and give us the actual factual , not emotional, reasons for why he is wrong.

If you choose to call a man a liar, you need to back it up, or you become the liar

[Joe Steel]

I happen to believe vouchers are a better system than what we have now, it gives power to the consumer to purchase the plan that is best for them.

Even though they won't be able to purchase anywhere near as much healthcare as they need?

[Joe Steel]

You already agreed with Ryan's premise by favoring an increase in the SS tax.

Nonsense. The tax increase has been around for years.



All you need to do is investigate the unfunded liabilities in SS to see the scope of the problem.

That's not necessary. Every year, the Trustees provide a 75 year analysis of SS. That's all that's necessary and it says the SS problem is minor.

[fj1200]

Even though they won't be able to purchase anywhere near as much healthcare as they need?

I reject your premise that government should be in the position to provide every health care "need" but then I presume we'll never agree on that. Point being that Medicare has been over-promised and is one of the legs that is crushing our future budget; can we agree on those points?

What needs to happen is to remove government as the provider of all and towards a sustainable role of provider of a safety net. IMO that would be basic health coverage for retirees where they are able to purchase higher levels if they choose. Consumers making educated choices on spending their own health care dollars will lead to better decisions overall. You would be for more choice wouldn't you?

And that doesn't count removing rampant Medicare fraud in an instant. ;)

[fj1200]

Nonsense. The tax increase has been around for years.

We're not talking about the '83 changes, you proposed another SS tax increase, did you forget already?


That's not necessary. Every year, the Trustees provide a 75 year analysis of SS. That's all that's necessary and it says the SS problem is minor.

So you're vote is to kick the can down the road? I'm not surprised. The fundamental problem is too few workers supporting too many retirees, that needs to change and you're nowhere near addressing it. And you can forget the "SS trust fund" because it's already been spent.

[Joe Steel]

What needs to happen is to remove government as the provider of all and towards a sustainable role of provider of a safety net. IMO that would be basic health coverage for retirees where they are able to purchase higher levels if they choose. Consumers making educated choices on spending their own health care dollars will lead to better decisions overall. You would be for more choice wouldn't you?


No.

Markets don't work.

Seniors cannot buy the healthcare they need with the resources they have. In the absence of Medicare, they would spend all their money and either die or would become dependent on the government anyway.

[Joe Steel]

We're not talking about the '83 changes, you proposed another SS tax increase, did you forget already?

No.

Analysts who understand SS have proposed a small increase to the SS portion of FICA, less that two points, within recent years.



So you're vote is to kick the can down the road? I'm not surprised. The fundamental problem is too few workers supporting too many retirees, that needs to change and you're nowhere near addressing it.

The demographic change was far greater between the early '50s and the late '60s. It didn't hurt SS because of productivity increases. The current demographic problem won't hurt SS either for the same reason.


And you can forget the "SS trust fund" because it's already been spent.

Utter nonsense. Not a penny of the trust fund has been spent. It's crammed full of US Treasury securities, the safest investment in the world.

[fj1200]

No.

Markets don't work.

:laugh: Now you're just being obstinate.


Seniors cannot buy the healthcare they need with the resources they have. In the absence of Medicare, they would spend all their money and either die or would become dependent on the government anyway.

:rolleyes: That's the point of the vouchers. Are you paying attention to the underlying issues?

[Missileman]

And that doesn't count removing rampant Medicare fraud in an instant. ;)

Why isn't anyone calling Obama derelict if as he claims, he can eliminate Medicare fraud, but as yet hasn't done so? WTF is he waiting for...an election?

[fj1200]

No.

Analysts who understand SS have proposed a small increase to the SS portion of FICA, less that two points, within recent years.

The point is you agree with Ryan's posit of reform being necessary, you're trying to weasel out of that. You're solution is a tax hike which I already stated was a poorly thought out solution, it's regressive, a job killer, and it offers no long term solution other than the typical "let's raise taxes" blather.


The demographic change was far greater between the early '50s and the late '60s. It didn't hurt SS because of productivity increases. The current demographic problem won't hurt SS either for the same reason.

You're denying the true demographic causes, besides SS was far different back then.


Utter nonsense. Not a penny of the trust fund has been spent. It's crammed full of US Treasury securities, the safest investment in the world.

:laugh: Now I know you're being obstinate, do you know what makes up the Federal debt and how it's broken down? Your statements would suggest "no."

[fj1200]

Why isn't anyone calling Obama derelict if as he claims, he can eliminate Medicare fraud, but as yet hasn't done so? WTF is he waiting for...an election?

Medicare was just fraud waiting to happen. It was unwittingly established that way from the beginning.

[Joe Steel]

Now you're just being obstinate.

If markets worked, we wouldn't have Medicare. Seniors could fund their health care from their own resources.



That's the point of the vouchers. Are you paying attention to the underlying issues?

Apparently, you're not.

The vouchers would be pathetically inadequate to start and, because they will not be adjusted, they will become even more so as health prices increased.

[Missileman]

Medicare was just fraud waiting to happen. It was unwittingly established that way from the beginning.

The question is why haven't they eliminated this years or last years fraud if they're indeed capable. Frankly, I find the claim as hollow as Little Joe's skull.

[Joe Steel]

The point is you agree with Ryan's posit of reform being necessary, you're trying to weasel out of that. You're solution is a tax hike which I already stated was a poorly thought out solution, it's regressive, a job killer, and it offers no long term solution other than the typical "let's raise taxes" blather.

No the point is, you're unversed in the SS issue. Analysts have been aware of a minor funding problem for a few years. Extremists are trying to distort and misrepresent the issue to destroy SS. A small increase will fix SS forever.


You're denying the true demographic causes, besides SS was far different back then.

I'm denying the problem exists because it doesn't.


Now I know you're being obstinate, do you know what makes up the Federal debt and how it's broken down? Your statements would suggest "no."

What has that to do with anything? SS owns US Treasuries just as most well-planned retirement arrangements do.

[fj1200]

If markets worked, we wouldn't have Medicare. Seniors could fund their health care from their own resources.

The markets weren't allowed to work, Medicare has completely supplanted what was there.
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/RxDrugPlan.html

Myth #4: Many seniors did not have access to health care before Medicare was enacted.

Fact: This is probably the biggest myth surrounding Medicare. Prior to the enactment of Medicare, there was already a government program to cover low- income seniors.5 Nearly five years before Medicare was created, on September 13, 1960, President Eisenhower signed into law the "Medical Assistance for the Aged" program, commonly known as the Kerr-Mills law.6 The program extended coverage to 70 percent of the approximately 17 million American seniors,7 even though 54 percent already had health insurance coverage.


Apparently, you're not.

The vouchers would be pathetically inadequate to start and, because they will not be adjusted, they will become even more so as health prices increased.

:rolleyes: Please google unfunded mandates for me as they relate to Medicare.

[fj1200]

The question is why haven't they eliminated this years or last years fraud if they're indeed capable. Frankly, I find the claim as hollow as Little Joe's skull.

Seems like a simple change but that requires massive changes in Medicare methodology.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml


Once the crooked companies get hold of the patient lists, usually stolen from doctors' offices or hospitals, they begin running up all sorts of outlandish charges and submit them to Medicare for payment, knowing full well that the agency is required by law to pay the claims within 15 to 30 days, and that it has only enough auditors to check a tiny fraction of the charges to see if they are legitimate.

[fj1200]

No the point is, you're unversed in the SS issue. Analysts have been aware of a minor funding problem for a few years. Extremists are trying to distort and misrepresent the issue to destroy SS. A small increase will fix SS forever.

That's your argument? Just claim the other side is "unversed," can't lose that way. Your own extremist rhetoric of "destroy SS" is sad and misguided.


I'm denying the problem exists because it doesn't.

I'll just assume you know you've lost the argument because you offer little in response.


What has that to do with anything? SS owns US Treasuries just as most well-planned retirement arrangements do.

It's the entire essence; there is nothing there.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why isn't anyone calling Obama derelict if as he claims, he can eliminate Medicare fraud, but as yet hasn't done so? WTF is he waiting for...an election?

Even though he hasn't, I believe if anyone can, he can, you know what they say, it takes a con to catch a con

[Joe Steel]

The markets weren't allowed to work, Medicare has completely supplanted what was there.

Although relying on markets to be a tool of public policy is foolish, they're always the first choice in America. However, when it comes to healthcare, they're just so bad even the stooges in the US Congress have to supplement them.

By-the-way, Kerr-Mills was a precursor to Medicaid not Medicare.

[fj1200]

Although relying on markets to be a tool of public policy is foolish, they're always the first choice in America. However, when it comes to healthcare, they're just so bad even the stooges in the US Congress have to supplement them.

The US relies on the markets for virtually everything and is the primary reason for our position in the world so you're statement borders on balderdash. Your "stooges" statement also goes to the degree that they will meddle in the private lives of private citizens when either not necessary or will go far beyond what is necessary. If poor people are not able to cover their own health care then the solution is to create a program that will cover them NOT to create an entitlement solution to cover those who are completely self sufficient.


By-the-way, Kerr-Mills was a precursor to Medicaid not Medicare.

Doesn't matter, the reference stat was prior to Kerr-Mills and refuted your statement that seniors were not covered by insurance.

[Joe Steel]

The US relies on the markets for virtually everything and is the primary reason for our position in the world...

That's right. The US relies on markets for health care. As a result we're #1 in health care spending and #37 health care outcomes.

"...so you're statement borders on balderdash."


Doesn't matter, the reference stat was prior to Kerr-Mills and refuted your statement that seniors were not covered by insurance.

That's absurd. The care was available only to the very poor if their state joined the program.

[fj1200]

That's right. The US relies on markets for health care. As a result we're #1 in health care spending and #37 health care outcomes.

"...so you're statement borders on balderdash."

Yes, balderdash. To say we have anything close to free market health care in this country is disingenuous. It's fun how you blame the markets while pointing out that their is no market for senior health care. Have it both ways much? You also conveniently ignore how health care has been influenced negatively by poor government policy... but I would expect that from you.

And when your study uses underlying comparisons that are not apples to apples, such as infant mortality and life expectancy, then your study holds little water.


That's absurd. The care was available only to the very poor if their state joined the program.

Keep up, it wasn't about Kerr-Mills it was about insurance coverage for seniors prior to government intervention.

[LuvRPgrl]

Although relying on markets to be a tool of public policy is foolish, they're always the first choice in America. However, when it comes to healthcare, they're just so bad even the stooges in the US Congress have to supplement them.

By-the-way, Kerr-Mills was a precursor to Medicaid not Medicare.

And yet, despite all of the socialism implemented and degradation of real free market policies, we remain number uno.
Of course the factual correlation that is occuring with implementation of non free market policies, and our overall decline, is lost on you, the truly delusional.