E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd explains how the Obama campaign will take on the Romney-Ryan ticket.
From the moment Mitt Romney announced House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, the campaign debate has been full of charges and countercharges over some of the congressman's proposals on Medicare and the budget.
What are the facts? Here’s a guide to Ryan’s budget and his ideas for remaking Medicare.
If you are 65 years old or older and now receiving Medicare benefits, would Ryan’s Medicare proposal affect you? If so, how would it affect you?
No – if you’re receiving Medicare benefits now, Ryan’s proposal would not affect you.
His plan would gradually increase Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67. But his phased-in increase in eligibility age wouldn’t start until 2023, 11 years from now.
Also starting in 2023, Ryan’s proposal would do away with Medicare’s open-ended payment system which now covers most medical costs for seniors. Ryan would limit Medicare spending for those born in 1958 and later, that is, people who turn 65 in 2023 or later.
People who turn 65 in 2023 or later years would get payments from the federal government to help them purchase private insurance; the payments would be higher for low-income people and lower for high-income people; they’d also be higher for sicker people and lower for healthier people.
The payments could grow over time no faster than the nominal annual growth rate in per capita Gross Domestic Product, plus 0.5 percentage points, but they might not keep pace with the increase in the cost of medical care.
Democrats have been on the offensive ever since Paul Ryan was announced as Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick. Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., responds to attacks from the left over Ryan's budget plan.
So Ryan’s proposal would not have any effect on seniors, that is, on people who are now receiving Medicare?
His Medicare proposal would not affect today’s seniors.
But – and this is a crucial point – Ryan’s proposal for another federal program – Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor – would have an impact on those seniors who rely on Medicaid to help pay for nursing home care.
As the Kaiser Family Foundation has noted, “Medicaid is the nation’s largest source of coverage for long-term care, covering more than two-thirds of all nursing home residents” and the elderly and disabled “account for roughly two‐thirds of (Medicaid) spending.”
Ryan proposes to convert the federal portion of Medicaid into grants to each state, allowing each to tailor its Medicaid program to its own population’s needs.
The federal payments to the states would be indexed both to the inflation rate and to the growth in state population. But overall federal outlays on Medicaid would be cut by roughly one-fifth over ten years.
According to an assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the spending path as designed by the Ryan’s plan might allow states to “improve the efficiency” of Medicaid in delivering health care to low-income people. But “even with significant efficiency gains,” states would need to increase their spending on Medicaid, CBO said, (and perhaps raise taxes in order to do that) or “make considerable cutbacks” in Medicaid.
“Cutbacks might involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid” or lower payments to health care providers, “or increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries – all of which would reduce access to care.”
If you are 45 years old how would Ryan’s Medicare proposal affect you?
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd is joined by Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs to discuss Mitt Romney's running mate and his stance on Medicare.
Since Ryan’s proposal, if enacted, would limit Medicare spending for those born in 1958 and later, a person who is 45 years old today would – once he or she became eligible for Medicare – receive benefits that would be less generous or less comprehensive than those now enjoyed by today’s Medicare recipients.
And since Ryan wants to gradually increase the age at which people are eligible for Medicare, a 45-year-old would need to wait longer to get covered by Medicare.
If Ryan’s Medicare plan became law, then starting in 2023, the CBO said, “Most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.”
What’s Ryan’s argument for treating future retirees – those born in 1958 and later – less generously than today’s Medicare recipients?
Ryan says the future costs for Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable and will lead to tax and debt burdens that will be unbearable.
“We need to preempt and avert a debt crisis” which would force immediate cuts in Medicare and other programs, he told NBC’s David Gregory last year on Meet the Press. “And the way we propose to do that is do it on our terms and prevent people who are currently retired and people about to retire from having severe disruptions in their lives.”
Republicans have charged that President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul is now cutting Medicare spending by more than $700 billion. Obama, not Ryan, is the one hurting seniors, they say. Is this true and if so, are Obama’s Medicare “cuts” similar to or different from Ryan’s proposed reductions in future Medicare spending?
According to the CBO, if Obama’s health care law were repealed, then $711 billion in reductions in Medicare spending over the 2013–2022 period would not occur.
Even Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday referred to “the $700 billion cuts in Medicare that the president achieved through health care reform.” She said these cuts are “taking subsidies away from insurance companies, taking rebates away from prescription drug companies.”
But that’s not where all of the cost savings will come from: a significant portion of the $711 billion will come from curbing payments to hospitals and other health care providers. Other cuts may be ordered by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an outside group mandated by the Affordable Care Act.
In contrast to Ryan’s future reductions (starting in 2023) Obama’s reductions in Medicare spending are taking place now – at least the Affordable Care Act orders them to occur and the CBO assumes they will occur.
But it is too soon to judge whether these reductions are providing the same level of care to seniors as before, but simply providing it more efficiently, or whether some seniors are getting (or will get) inferior care as a result of these reductions.
Republican national chairman Reince Priebus said on Meet the Press that Mitt Romney “appreciates and admires the work and the ideas that Paul Ryan has done. But Mitt Romney has his own plan” to reform Medicare. What is that plan?
As presented on Romney’s campaign web site, his proposal – although not fully detailed – includes most of the same ideas Ryan has proposed: not changing benefits for anyone now retired or close to retirement. But for future retirees, he would change Medicare from an open-ended payment system into one in which future beneficiaries would get a payment from the government to buy insurance coverage.
Romney’s proposal says, “If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
Is Ryan’s budget plan, which was OK’d by the House last March, now in effect?
No, it isn’t. The House approved Ryan’s fiscal year 2013 budget resolution in March by a vote of 228 to 191, with no Democrats voting for the proposal and 10 Republicans voting against it. But the Senate has not adopted any budget resolution for FY 2013, which begins on Oct. 1. So in the coming fiscal year, as in the current fiscal year, Congress will operate without any budget. But spending will of course continue.
Apart from turning Medicaid over to the states and redesigning Medicare for future retirees, what else would Ryan’s FY 2013 budget proposal do?
It would cut overall spending by about 12 percent over the ten-year budget window, as compared to the spending plan proposed by Obama; it would cut cumulative deficits by more than 50 percent. Among other things it would limit federal aid to college students and concentrate it on lower income students.
Does Ryan want to cut taxes for rich people, as Democrats charge, and if so by how much?
His FY 2013 budget proposal seeks to have only two income tax rates: 10 percent and 25 percent. The current top income tax rate is 35 percent – so this rate reduction could mean a tax cut for some people -- but Ryan also says he wants to “broaden the tax base” and get rid of “the burdensome tangle of loopholes that distort economic activity” by abolishing many tax breaks. He hasn’t specified which ones he’d seek to eliminate.
Leave a Comment:
mikeSanJacinto says…
But Bo-1925019 correctly reminds us that
So whereRthejobsBoehner aptly warns
And BrianJ concludes that
So, when you put that all together you get...
LATE BREAKING NEWS UPDATE ...........
Steve Baker-338532 says…
Cogito Ergo Sum 1 confirms
and Zardoz8238 informs us that the The Romney Ryan Express is
So there you have it folks. Officially verified confirmed reports that ...
The truth brought to you by all our intrepid reporters!
Contempt you never spell thing right or get things right. Oh and Ryan used a social program of social security to pay for college and he is willing to sell his mother out. LOL
Contempt. Your one liners are meaningless. Your failure Romney is DONE
So Bruce, how do you explain Obama taking $700B out of Medicare to 'distribute' to others? WHAT should the elderly think about that? The Medicare Trustee's have said the program will be BROKE in 9-12 years!!! So what does Obama say to do???? NOTHING! Just RAISE TAXES on everyone through the payroll tax. The Dems are right, Ryan's plan will change Medicare AS WE KNOW IT! Guess what...that's what needs to be done in order to save the program for our children. And finally, Dems' trying to 'scare' the elderly won't work...people over 55 don't even have to worry about the debate. So keep your comments about the Tea Party and Republicans to yourself. The only thing the Tea Party supports is lower taxes, states rights, and smaller government. If you want to disagree on policy, fine. but let's have the debate on a policy level.
ContemptMe,
So if she's on medicare it shows that even the very wealthy go for our "welfare"? The wealthy suck every penny they can out of govt. just like everyone else tries to. Main difference is that they know how to suck BIG.
If you like the government to tack on $12+ of U.S. debt/citizen on you each and every day of the year because of inaction on rising U.S. debt then keep President Obama. If you want that $12 to start decreasing and maybe reach negative numbers then vote for Romney/Ryan who want to balance the out-of-control U.S. budget.
NJ John, go back and read the whole article it explains it all there.
Obamacare makes medicare more efficient and the savings produced will reduce the deficit by 200 billion over 10 years.
On our terms???? What the @!$%#???? You want to avoid a debt crisis: first of all, don't sabotage a debt-ceiling extension that YOU supported in the past. Secondly, COMPROMISE with people across the aisle. To anybody who mentions Ron Wyden, since when is getting one opposite ideologue to agree with you is bipartisan??? This plan does NOTHING to avert a debt crisis; it may reduce the deficit by about half over 10 years, but it doesn't balance the budget until 2030 at the least. And by then anything can happen; God forbid that our creditors cut us off before then. This plan cuts taxes by $4.6 trillion and guts the entire safety net that has kept millions from falling into poverty.
First of all, Paul Ryan's plan does not save Medicare; it merely shifts the cost burden from the taxpayer to the elderly (so eventually everyone will get the boot). Secondly, what about us under 55??? What about us who have worked all our lives (or those who have yet to work) and paid our taxes diligently, and then are given a coupon that will grow as worthless as the continental dollar of the American Revolution??? Thirdly, what is with these old and ancient ideals that the stupid Tea Party is proposing??? States rights makes NO sense; why should individual states have more power than the government that holds them together??? Why should we keep cutting taxes so that the "dynamic growth" that has forever eluded us will come???? Why should we shrink government to the size of a bathtub and drown it???? What is the good of doing these things??? Every society that has prospered has had reasonable tax rates (not too low, not too high) and a powerful central government that plays a relatively big role in the economy and in society. What makes you think that the exact opposite will work????
And alright, I'll give you the policy debate of a lifetime. Explain to me how the Ryan budget will responsibly reduce the deficit without destroying the economy??? Here is my plan to balance the budget WITHOUT privatizing Medicare:
I. Reduce the debt by $14.32 trillion over 10 years.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Your forgot the most important thing....watch the economy come to a grinding, screeching halt when all the tax breaks end (and subsequent increases) hits the middle class.
TO: ContemptMe who wrote:
"Paul Ryan — heir to a private fortune made by building public highways — is a gaping pothole in that plan. Paul Ryan is a living, breathing GOP example of how public infrastructure and private entrepreneurship work hand-in-hand..." By Sally Kohn, Salon, Newsvine"
Being that Paul Ryan is an "heir to a private fortune" it is doubtful that his mother would have ever had to pay into social security in the first place, being that his mother is the current beneficiary of that "fortune" that Paul Ryan is in line to inherit.
If you have any proof to your wild assertion that "Paul Ryan's mother lives in Florida and is on MEDICARE!" I'd like to know where you got it from, or better yet, why did you make it up?
Obama/Biden 2012
"We want to make sure we preserve and protect Medicare," Romney claimed.
Congressman Paul Ryan is best known as the author of a budget so radical The New York Times called it "the most extreme budget plan passed by a House of Congress in modern times." With Mitt Romney's support, Ryan would end Medicare as we know it and slash the investments we need to keep our economy growing -- all while cutting taxes for those at the very top.
We find Mitt Romney GUILTY of lying to the American people. Case closed.
Until liberals began screaming about the Ryan plan, I was unaware that someone who becomes vice-president automatically gets any bill they support passed and signed into law. Here I thought it would still have to pass the house and senate before it could become law. But liberals are so sure this is a done deal if Romney wins. It is amazing what liberals think a vice-president can do, they must be so disappointed in Biden who has done nothing.
When a republican is incensed with democrat or a democrat is howling about a republican liar it seem to me it would be poetic justice if they would explode and rid the world of a hypocrite. They are all liars! Its election season.
Rick, congress has already voted and passed the Ryan plan. Romney says he supports the Romney Plan and many occasions. It is not a far stretch to say that should Ryan/Romney ticket get elected. People like myself will get vouchers to pay medical costs but oh yeah, Obama care will not be there anymore so insurance companies no longer have to provide health coverage to the elderly so the vouchers will be of littler worth, as we all know insurance companies don't insure sick people and the majority people who will be eligible for medicare waivers will not be a good bet for insurance companies to cover.
Here's the GOP plan for the poor and elderly: DIE!!!
ZOMBIES FOR ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!!
This looks like a good plan. To allow those 45 years old to start saving, this should be tied into health savings accounts.
What it does is guarrentee some level of insurance and and gives people incentive to be better prepared for retirement AND the ability to get even better insurance.
It seems the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate has already had an impact on the Obama administration. Anonymous sources with close ties to Senator Harry Reid have confirmed that Vice President Biden soiled his boxers when informed he would have to engage Ryan in the Vice Presidential debate. Apparently Biden’s aides were overcome when they detected the odor of real sh!t instead of his usual bullsh!t.
The sources further confirmed that when President Obama was informed of the mishap he immediately ordered the release of emergency stimulus funds to finance the expansion of laundromats and cleaners all across America in anticipation of the uncontrollable bowel movements liberals will succumb to as they witness the demise of their socialist dreams during the next three months.
I just did an on line search for health insurance. I'm currently 66 but in order for medicare not influence the price I said I was 60. The best I found with a $2500 deductible was $11,700 per year and that's age 60, not 65. So with the $6500 voucher from Ryan, I'm over 5 grand in the hole.
Unfortunately, those accounts will not cover the rising costs of healthcare because (A) your wages have barely increased in real terms since 1979, (B) the poor and the lower-middle class will not have enough in those savings accounts, and/or (C) healthcare costs will be far higher than what you save. Assuming that middle class wages barely rise like they have over the past 30 years, you will have to save a considerable portion of your revenue (or get other revenue streams, via increased contributions to 401ks or IRAs or just getting another job) in order to close the gap significantly. So unless you are middle class and/or have insurance, you're screwed.
Unfortunately, the cost of living will eventually catch up and prevent people from saving what they need to sustain themselves for retirement. I'm all for advocating savings; personally, I would create a sort of personal savings account that would serve as a supplement to Social Security and Medicare. I would do that while reforming the healthcare industry, replacing the current system with a single-payer system and have a sort of public option of state-run hospitals (like in the UK) or private, non-profit (and maybe for-profit) institutions.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Charlie, Ryan's plan won't affect you. Nonetheless, when it gets to the voucher implementation, lower incomes get more money than higher incomes.
I'm not crazy about adding 2 years for eligibility as I fall into that category, however, if it helps get the deficit under control for the kids of America its worth it.
Overall, sounds good Mr. Ryan.
Charlie: Your 65! You will never have to pay for health insurance.
If you are 65 years old or older and now receiving Medicare benefits, would Ryan's Medicare proposal affect you? If so, how would it affect you?
No – if you're receiving Medicare benefits now, Ryan's proposal would not affect you.
You can either have half the loaf or none of the loaf... Do you plan to live a long time? What are your options when Medicare goes bankrupt in 10 years?
Romney/Ryan 2012!!! LEADERSHIP FOR A CHANGE!!! Yeah Baby!!!
Bruce, I'm guessing you are not a lawyer...
So nobody is throwing grandma under a bus...
Romney/Ryan 2012!!! LEADERSHIP FOR A CHANGE!!! Yeah Baby!!!
P.S. Charlie, I'm one of those in the younger group (I look alot younger after I shave...) and I'm OK with it.... Be Happy!!!
Romney/Ryan 2012!!! LEADERSHIP FOR A CHANGE!!! Yeah Baby!!!
Oh, and Hi Gem!!!
Romney didnt lie. He is trying to preserve Medicare for those who will look for that benefit when they come of age. The present receivers will get no benefit cuts nor will their benefits be changed (unless they want to). Medicare will be broke in the 2020's so yes it needs to be changed. Atleast Ryan and Romney are proposing something. What has Obama done but take $700m from the coffers.
But it will affect me, and you, and everyone else under 55. Why do the Baby Boomers (who gave us Bush and screwed up our economy) get the lunch while everyone else gets the stick??? We all have to make sacrifices, but that doesn't mean we have to eliminate entire programs that can be save!
The Ryan plan won't even balance the budget until 2030 at the very least. And it reduces the deficit on the backs of our kids by denying them the benefits that we enjoyed. We need sacrifice, yes, but we do not need to do that by telling the poor, the middle class, and those under 55 to go @!$%# yourselves.
Maybe to you, but not to the more rational-minded people of America.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
At least Ryan has put forth a plan. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama just throw rocks at anything anyone proposes and tag it with "changes medicare as we know it" and "breaks our contract with our seniors". As you can see from the article, todays seniors are not affected.
If we stick with the Democrats, we'll wake up in about 15 years and find there is no Medicare as we knew it. And we'll really be in a bad spot because the Dems had no guts and just looked after their own political future rather than made the tough proposals and decisions. But they will be ok with their fortunes, pensions, and medicals plans they "earned" while we payed them to look out for our interests.
@ truth get your facts straight. Obama cut the $700 billion from insurance and drug companies. They were overcharging the system. That money didn't come from the people. These lying bastards have no shame.
Fred, nothing passes from one congress to another, and no plan can be approved by the house and not the senate. Really, are liberals that paranoid something might happen without the Democrats having any say in it? Maybe the Democrats could start with a plan, instead of just demonizing those that are proposed. Compromise starts with two competing plans, maybe that is a new idea for Democrats. After all the Democrats have controlled the House for 46 of the past 60 years, and 40 of the last 60 in the senate. Maybe all that control went to their heads, and they just don't know how to play nice together.
The only proof positive here is that you are letting someone else do your thinking for you and that you are falling for the party line without giving it any logical researched thought. Read what it is that Ryan's plan is for yourself and quit believing the lies you are being told simply because you haven't done your own independent thinking.
Ryan's plan will not effect anyone who is currently receiving benefits or those age 55 or older. Any real realizations of reduced benefits won't happen for 10 years and then there will be a voucher system set up to help recipients cover costs. Also, don't believe the obviously prejudiced and slanted point of view expressed here at MSN.com - they are not an unbiased or reliable source of truth! They are, in fact, a poor excuse for honest reporting.
Get the facts before you start going postal....knowledge will set you free!
Remember: fool you once shame on you...fool you twice, shame on you!
That's what obama is trying to do, make you twice the fool, don't let him.
It will take an intellectual like Al Sharpton reading this article slowly and pausing for qustions for most liberals to understand this.
You bring up Ryan's voting record....have you checked on obamas voting record while he was in the Senate - a real eye opener, too. But then again what would you expect from someone who was working at the first and only real job he ever had!
Freshieee,
The over 55's get a pass because they have all been downsized and are either unemployed or under-employed. Their health insurance costs nearly 1/3 of their newly down-sized salary at the place that does not offer health insurance. The house they bought and paid for in full is worth no more than a few thousand dollars more than they paid for it in 1982. Their 401(k) accounts lost as much as 1/3 of their value.
The newly over 55's get a pass because we've already been plucked. I'm sure they'll find a new scam for the younger generation.
Obama's voting record while a member of the senate can be summed up in one word, "present."
It's the Ryan / WIEDEN plan
Ron Wieden is a DEMOCRAT from OREGON who co-wrote the RYAN /WEIDEN plan..
I understand that kills the "evil republican theme" if a democrat from the MOST LIBERAL state in the US is a co-author.
Come on MSNBC stop shorting Ron Wieden.. GIVE THE OREGON DEMOCRAT THE CREDIT for being the CO-AUTHOR of this "ryan Medicare plan"
joshua w morris
For those who comment and repeat the claim that Obama cut Medicare by 700 million........Explain that if you can...........bet you are just repeating the Republican theme that says if you say it enough it will become true.
FYI: the 700 million Romney spews about is the amount removed from Medicare Advantage--a Medicare supplemental account..........THOSE accounts are subsidized plans in which the government pays private insurers to offer HMO benefits to Supplemental plans.............THAT is Socialism by the way and now Republicans are defending socialist benefits for insurance companies?
.
Romney's//Ryan's/Republicans ONLY intent is to KILL OFF the elderly and anyone they feel would be a burden to WEALTHY.
.
I'm voting for Obama and I approve Mr. Ryan's plan. As I understand it this will affect Americans in their mid 40's-so I'm fine with it. Vote Republican and let the Republican Party cut YOUR benefits-it's YOUR loss...........keep supporting the 1%-it's pretty obvious whose side they are on.......
Ryans plan has a democrat Senator as a sponsor. Ryan's plan does not affect current seniors and his plan has a safety net that covers you should you get cancer or other and do not have enough to cover. Ryan's plan has elements from the Clinton era medicare commission and Senator John Breaux's plan (democrat). Ryan's plan comes close to what the Congress has, not completely but close. What have the democrats proposed? Nothing. What has Obama done take 700 billion from medicare and put it in obamacare so he can pay for the illegal aliens health care. Education Ryan does not change any of the student loans, they stay as they are, he is just not increasing the funding by a large amount. Democrats will call this a cut in education because it stays the same. Once the true message gets out Obama can forget about reelection and Vladimir Putin can forget about the US gutting their missile defense because Obama will not be more flexible. On the sunday shows Rachel Maddow looked so stupid when she could not defend Obama taking 700 billion from medicare. All she could say was I am not running for President. Cutter admitted that Obama was taking 700 billion from medicare, and Axlerod nearly stroked trying to demonize Ryan. Wasserman-Schultz was caught saying she did not know what affiliation superpac Priorities Act was. Even when told Bill Burton (Obama campaign 2008) was in the pac, she still denied democrats had anything to do with it. Maybe republicans should put out an ad from their superpac, showing dead mexicans and border patrol agent Brian Terry and say it was Obama and holder who is responsible for these deaths. Since he used executive privilege to cover Holder maybe Obama knew all along. Sounds about as true as the Romney killed that guys wife who died from cancer. Once out too late to say oops.
TO: ContemptMe who wrote:
"Paul Ryan — heir to a private fortune made by building public highways — is a gaping pothole in that plan. Paul Ryan is a living, breathing GOP example of how public infrastructure and private entrepreneurship work hand-in-hand..." By Sally Kohn, Salon, Newsvine"
Being that Paul Ryan is an "heir to a private fortune" it is doubtful that his mother would have ever had to pay into social security in the first place, being that his mother is the current beneficiary of that "fortune" that Paul Ryan is in line to inherit.
If you have any proof to your wild assertion that "Paul Ryan's mother lives in Florida and is on MEDICARE!" I'd like to know where you got it from, or better yet, why did you make it up?
Obama/Biden 2012
I cannot overlook the method, of turning Medicare into a voucher program. I get that if I'm 55 it won't affect me, but what if I am 54, 53, 52,...and have been paying into this system for 40+ years...do you think I want the rug pulled out from me...? Don't think so. A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote to cut the throats of 98% of America to sacrifice to the filthy rich.
dumbass did you even read the article? why is it that all these leftist uneducated idiots get so worked up about other people that actually made something of their lives and are successful? everyone should send this moron a dollar so he will shut the f up
Ryan is nothing more than a Libertarian in a Republican Suit!!!! His Medicare ans Social Security Plan is nothing but a ploy to enrich a Mega-Corporation at the dearth of the Middle Class and those poor who are working at a minimum wage with no insurance coverage.
Once under the control of a Mega-Corporation you still would be required to make the normal payments or even higher payments until you retire. However, since this Mega-Corporation will not be required to follow the same rules, now in place, you may not be able to draw any of the benefits when you retire. Also SSI benefits may not apply to those now receiving such and to those in the future.
Another scenario may occur where our Military, Judicial System, etc. becomes a function of a Mega-Corporation as Libertarians occupy our White House and Congress. From indications Paul Ryan IS a Libertarian in Republican clothes. PS: I am not a Democrat or a Republican. My vote always goes to the LESSER EVIL Candidate or Nominee as an Independent Voter.
PS: I am now 71 but am on a State Medical Plan which forbids me to receive any Medicare benefits until I retire from my present job as a State Employee. At that time the State Insurance will become my Supplement Insurance automatically and my payment will be deducted from my Retirement Benefits which will be reduce significantly because of the length of time as an employee (22 year out of 28 year requirement which will soon be 23 year requirement out of a 34 year requirement for full benefits). No exceptions permitted. Real facts: no actual Retirement money from the State
Dave R-3877012: Your comment on:
- Record Deb: Please explain the increase spending in the Congressional\Industrial\Military Complex? Explain why a Republican\Tea Party Congressman MANDATED a Navel Vessel be built in his State which cost billions of dollars?
- record gas prices: Please explain how Obama has raised the prices of Petroleum products since most of the products are being exported at World Market Prices which affects prices here?
- rising food prices: Please explain how Obama is affecting food prices here when most of our produce is actually imported and a great amount of our produce is being exported? Explain why most prices are set and controlled by Mega-Corporations?
- record # of folks on welfare: Explain why this record is high? Could that number be high because of the recent and still occurring downsizing of many Corporations and small businesses rather than by Obama? Remember it took WWII to really bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression.
Take your dementia meds.
Bruce,
You choose to claim that Romney lies regarding wanting to preserve Medicare. Where's the proof?
On the other hand, there is definite proof that your boy Obama lies and has been a complete failure.
- Record Debt
- record gas prices
- rising food prices
- record # of folks on welfare
Are you asking the rest of your fellow (sane) americans to ignore the obvious and support Obama again?
I may not agree with everything in Ryan's plan, but at least he had the guts to propose a budget. What budget have the libs or Obama proposed?
The President's 2013 Budget is built around the idea that our country does best when everyone gets a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same rules.
Next dumb question, please.
Obama can't get his Dems to vote on his proposed budget - which is why Reid doesn't put it to the floor. First you have to propose a budget, then you have to get it passed, something he can't do even with a Dem majority in the Senate.
Bruce,
Translation for the rest of us:
- President's budget is built around increasing entitlements, punishing the achievers and making sure that socialism is alive and well in America.
With the state of this economy, I stopped believing in fancy slogans like "Play by the same rules" or "hope and change". Maybe you ought to face reality and admit these slogans don't accomplish anything.
Right, so a GOP house passes a GOP budget then expects DEM senate to agree to it? LMAO!
Dave,
Obama doesn't control gas prices and food prices, you DOLT! Food prices are rising because of the DROUGHT in the midwest. Gas prices are monopolized by the OIL RIGS. They set fire to their refineries to jack up prices..... If you think Obama plays with gas and food prices then maybe you should be riding a bike to work and growing your own f#$%ing food!
That's not translation Dave. That is right-wing bullschMITT spin.
The President's budget is such an economic albatross that not one (ZERO) democrat representative in the House would vote for it!
Dave Bruce just tore you up. Romney sucks
Dave, dal is correct!
Dave, If you really don't believe in playing "by the rules" then you are NOT an American. You are a traitor. Brave men and women died on the field of battle to preserve our rights, and to create an even playing field that would be fair for us all. Only traitors turns their backs on their sacrifice for those goals.
Pack your bags Dave, the Romney/Ryan - Pander Express is heading to Iran and there is a seat reserved for YOU!
That's a very good point. While it's nice Obama sent a budget - if he can't even get a single person in his party to vote in favor of it, it sounds like it wasn't even worth the time it took to hold the vote.
Dave R-3877012
first of all the definition of preserve is:Maintain (something) in its original or existing state. We all know that Ryan wants to issue Groupons to the elderly.
even though Obama spends less than any other president since Eisenhower, he has obligations left from Bush?GOP like Medicare Part D, 2 unpaid wars that went on the books, Bush mortgage + Bush mortgae interest.
we live in a free market economy so the gas prices have nothing to do with the president. we also live in a Global economy where China's and India's demand dictate the gas prices.
see gas prices since food prices relate to gas prices
and the number has been growing. For the past 10 years the only pople that have been BETTER off are the rich. While the Middle CLass, the Working Poor, and the Poor have seen either stagnant incomes or reduced incomes, prices of homes, electricity, food, heating oil, etc. have been going up.
You should ask youself, why the growing need for assistance - and please don't tell me people are getting lazy.
But the GOP/TP is preoccupied with vaginas and gays because those are the only bills they have been concentrating on since 2010.
Obama is delaying the Bush tax cuts expiring for the middle class for one year, and then everyone will have gotten a tax increase from Obama. One of many when you factor in the convoluted tax scheme to pay for ObamaCare. Obama has already raided Medicare to the tune of 700 billion, just think of what Obama can do when he has more flexibility after his last election.
Yet liberals are worried about the Ryan plan, that would have to pass both the house and senate before it could become law. Is it too much to suggest that maybe Democrats would offer a competing plan? Then maybe a budget, tax reform, social security reform, and paying down the debt. You know, all the things the Democrats promise every election.
You have the entire internet at your fingertips, yet refuse to look up the truth about your own claim. That is amazingly pitiful.
The budget you are talking was Obama's, BUT it was an old budget that was brought up for vote by the Republicans. They wanted another talking point so they brought up one of his old budgets that they knew nobody would vote for. Just so they can get the mindless parrots to start parroting that no one voted for it.
Now if you are real good, I just might bring a cracker for you next time Polly.
The President wasn't lying he just didn't know what he was doing... oops, what he was getting into.
Ron-1861300
Ron, the president doesn’t "pass" a budget. That’s Congress’ job. The president only gives a "wishlist" and then House and Senate have budget committees tasked with creating concurrent budget resolutions, using the president’s budget as a guide.
So actually, the Congress didn't pass Obama's propsal but it's the Congress that didn't do their job .
So when Romney claimed: "Through all of this, President Obama has failed to even pass a budget." he is 100% lying. He's lies are either deliberate or out of ignorance but they are still lies.
ozzwald
some people copy and paste crap because it fits their propaganda. As you pointed out, this vote on the Obama’s budget demanded by the Republicans was to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint. That was pure political theater.
Also, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Miss., introduced a budget amendment representing the president’s budget request and that is why the Dems voted against it because there were changes in it that they didn't agree with.
If anyone knows how the budget is passed, they wouldn't be writing what they do. But hey, the Republicans want to give out the Education Groupons as well because to them the less we know is the less we question.
Righty
Obama's budget was unrealistic. That is why every budget he has submitted has been rejected by EVERYONE in the House AND Senate!
Bayllie
The Democrats have never given a counter proposal.
And bayllie is tearing them all up!
With the FACTS!
bayllie
Ron, the president doesn’t "pass" a budget. That’s Congress’ job. The president only gives a "wishlist" and then House and Senate have budget committees tasked with creating concurrent budget resolutions, using the president’s budget as a guide.
So actually, the Congress didn't pass Obama's propsal but it's the Congress that didn't do their job .
So the Republican House did draft a plan and passed it. Where is that plan from the Democrat Senate? Why hasn't Harry Reid bringing the budget passed by the House to the Senate floor?
Sounds like Harry Reid and the Democrats didn't do their job!
Check the "Communist" Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget:
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The_CPC_FY2012_Budget.pdf
Reagan Adviser Bartlett: "Bush Is More Responsible" For "The Current Budget Deficit." In a June 12 post on the New York Times' Economix blog, former Reagan and George H. W. Bush adviser Bruce Bartlett called the Republican claim that "all increases in the debt or deficit" since his inauguration are President Obama's fault "is, of course, nonsense" because "[George W.] Bush is more responsible." From The New York Times:
Larry
If you believe the New York Times That is sad.
Actually if you go to the GAO and look at the figures yes all 6 trillion and counting is all Obama and his big government.
NH_Shellback
the president gives a propsal. the Republican Party introduces a budget amendment that they know the Dems will never agree on.Voila, you have an Obama budget that Dems didn't vote for, and viola, you have a talking point.
Senate Democrats don’t want to produce a budget since we all know the Republicans WILL NEVER PASS IT. It's kind of like voting on the Ryan plan or voting to repeal the ObamaCare - useless . The only reason Republicans want the Dems to put a budget forward is for theatrics.
Now, both sides are wrong because it's us who suffer. Both sides should sit down, compromise and come up with a budget. But if I had to bet who has a bigger fish to fry here by being the biggest obstructionist a-holes in our history, I would bet on the Republicans.
Never before, did bunch of members of one party meet together the day of the president's inauguration to concoct a plan to make him a 1-term president at all cost. THey didn't even give him a 24hrs to be a president, and that my friend, speaks volumes!
The GAO doesn't determine who created a deficit they merely determine what it is. The CBO does break down programs as to who created them and how/if they're paid for. Hard to deny an unfunded 300 billion a year drug plan or 400 billion a year in tax cuts are Obamas. Hard to call Reagan and Bush seniors top economic advisor a liberal.
Larry, it is also hard not to call the Bush era tax cuts Obama's, since he did not let them expire. Keeping them going makes Obama and the Democrats entirely complicit. But we know they were extended just for political reasons, makes for a good election year debate as it fits with the Obama campaign strategy of class warfare.
As for your prescription drug argument Larry. How does a projected cost of 1.2 trillion over the first decade translate into 300 billion per year? If Obama could take 700 billion out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare, it would appear the money is already there to fund prescription drugs.
bayllie - my bet on the " biggest obstructionist a-holes in our history" would be Harry Reid.
Here is a follow up for you Larry. How do liberals such as yourself and seeking sanity constantly ignore the facts?
Four years into full operation, President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program is coming in well below its projected cost, giving hope to backers of the new health insurance law that it, too, could beat budget expectations.
The numbers are stark and conclusive: In 2009, the government spent $60.8 billion on the drug benefit, or far less than the annual $111.2 billion cost projected just five years ago, after the program was enacted.
The lower cost - a result of slowing demand for prescription drugs, higher use of generic drugs and fewer people signing up - has surprised even some of the law’s most pessimistic critics.
The whole story is here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/bush-drug-plan-beats-cost-mark/?page=all
Now Larry should we address your 400 billion a year in tax cuts? For the top earners it was an 80 billion a year tax break, where does the other 320 billion you claim come from? Or are you suggesting the middle class should be paying an additional 320 billion per year in taxes? The Bush era tax cuts included closing loopholes, so the net paid is something you might just want to look into Larry, unless you are afraid the truth will inhibit the lies you tell.
.
Romney's/Ryan's/Republicans.......only intent with Medicare and Social Security.....is to KILL OFF the elderly....and anyone that may become a burden to the RICH.
.
Once again the Liberal lying media distort the facts of Ryans budget and his medicare plan
Runaway spending and deficits continue to grow unabated in part because any attempts to rein them in are relentlessly demagogued by defenders of big government. The latest example is the budget recently authored by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R–WI) and passed by the House of Representatives.
Most critics have failed to provide any credible alternative to the House budget. Yet that has not stopped them from relentlessly misrepresenting the House budget with the following myths.
Myth #1: The House budget recklessly cuts taxes by $4 trillion.
Fact: It cancels a future tax increase.
Critics charge that the House budget is not serious about deficit reduction because it includes a $4 trillion tax cut. This is patently false. The budget would keep tax rates at current levels. What critics call a $4 trillion “tax cut” is actually the cancellation of a $4 trillion tax increase that is currently scheduled to go into effect in 2013. Only in Washington is keeping tax rates at current levels considered a reckless tax cut. The House budget would leave tax revenues slightly above their 18 percent of GDP historical average.
Myth #2: The House budget increases the deficit by giving tax cuts to the rich.
Fact: The proposed change is a revenue-neutral tax reform plan that simplifies the tax code.
The House tax plan proposes reducing the top individual and
corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent—and this is fully paid for by eliminating extraneous tax deductions, exemptions, and loopholes that currently allow some wealthy individuals and businesses to escape their fair share of taxes. Because this plan raises the same amount of revenue year by year as does current policy, it is not a net tax cut. The President’s fiscal commission endorsed similar tax reforms because these reforms would make the tax code more efficient, fair, and pro-growth.
Myth #3: The House budget represents only minor deficit reduction.
Fact: It substantially reduces both short- and long-term budget deficits.
Critics claim that the House budget cuts just $1.7 trillion out of the 10-year deficit. As stated above, this measures the House budget against a baseline that already assumes $4 trillion in tax increases—which even President Obama largely opposes. Since the House budget is relatively revenue-neutral compared to current tax policies, the main deficit reduction consists of $5.8 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade. The savings include $1 trillion from phasing down overseas contingency operations, $1.6 trillion from non-defense discretionary spending, $2.2 trillion from repealing Obamacare and block-granting Medicaid, and $1 trillion from other entitlement and net interest savings .
Overall, the House budget would run $5.1 trillion in deficits over the next decade, compared to President Obama’s proposed $9.5 trillion in deficits.
And these savings grow immensely in future decades. The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) long-term baseline shows runaway spending driving the national debt to 95 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) within a decade and a staggering 344 percent by 2050.[1] By contrast, the House budget would quickly stabilize the debt around 70 percent of GDP before reducing it to just 10 percent by 2050.
Myth #4: The House budget exaggerates the long-term spending challenge.
Fact: The challenge is real and potentially calamitous.
Some suggest there is no long-term fiscal crisis. This is demonstrably false. The coming retirement of 77 million baby boomers is not a theoretical projection. Social Security is already in deficit, and the trust fund represents IOUs that must be redeemed by immediately raising taxes, cutting spending, or running additional deficits. Obamacare is projected to increase federal spending by trillions of dollars over the next few decades. Small reforms like eliminating corporate welfare, ending foreign aid, or repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for upper-income families would close merely a small fraction of the long-term debt.
In reality, the CBO estimates that the absence of fundamental entitlement reform would push the debt to levels that would create an economic catastrophe.[2]
Myth #5: The House budget balances the budget on the backs of seniors.
Fact: Current and near-retirees are exempt from reforms.
Much of the attention given to the House budget has focused on the effects on retirees. However, virtually none of the $5.8 trillion in spending reductions in the first decade would affect Social Security and Medicare. In fact, seniors would benefit from averting the large tax increases planned in current law and from tax reforms that lower their rates while closing unneeded loopholes. Those currently older than age 55 would be exempt from any future changes to their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Both the House and Obama proposals impose external spending caps on Medicare. But the House proposal aims to control costs primarily through intense market competition—not just deeper payment cuts for Medicare providers—while preserving and enhancing the right of seniors to choose health care options.Myth #6: The House budget would privatize Medicare and hand seniors vouchers.
Fact: Seniors would receive government support to purchase health insurance coverage on a tightly regulated government exchange system.
A “voucher” is usually a certificate of specified cash value that is redeemable for the purchase of goods or services. Under Ryan’s House budget plan, seniors would instead choose health plans and the government would make direct and adequate contributions to the premium cost of the plans of their choice. This “premium support” would go to Medicare-certified and -regulated plans that would compete in a Medicare “exchange,” which Ryan himself has described as “tightly regulated.”
In effect, this premium support system is broadly similar to the kind of system that Members of Congress and federal employees and retirees enjoy today in the widely popular and successful Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). As for “privatization,” virtually all participating Medicare doctors and hospitals (except public hospitals) are private, a quarter of all seniors are enrolled in private plans in Medicare Advantage, and 60 percent of seniors already purchase drug benefits through private plans in Medicare Part D. So, in effect, the House budget proposal extends the successful Part D financing model to the coverage of benefits under Parts A and B.[3]
Myth #7: Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance.
Fact: Medicare’s administrative burdens are hidden and they outweigh private-sector costs.
On paper, Medicare’s administrative costs compared to the private sector appear comparatively small: 2–3 percent of benefit expenditures. Even accounting for radically different patient profiles and functions of Medicare and private insurance, administrative costs per person under Medicare compared to private insurance plans shows that Medicare’s administrative costs exceed those of private health insurance.[4]
Furthermore, Medicare’s administrative costs do not include the enormous costs of provider compliance with massive Medicare red tape and paperwork. A 2001 PricewaterhouseCoopers study showed that for every hour spent treating a typical Medicare patient, hospital officials spent 30 minutes complying with Medicare paperwork.[5]
One administrative cost that is often overlooked is the tens of billions of dollars annually of Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse. In sheer volume, there is no comparable cost in the private sector or in the FEHBP. Private insurers have strong incentives to detect fraudulent claims, as undetected fraud hurts their bottom lines.
Myth #8: The House budget plan would end Medicare as we know it.
Fact: Obamacare ended Medicare as we know it.
Obamacare imposes record-breaking payment cuts for Medicare providers—plus an unprecedented hard cap on Medicare spending to be enforced by the newly created Independent Payments Advisory Board, an unelected board of bureaucrats empowered to lower provider payments to preordained levels indexed to inflation and economic growth. This will ensure rationing of care through provider payment cuts.[6]
Furthermore, under Section 3021 Congress tasks the new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation with transitioning from the current fee-for-service reimbursement system toward capitated or salary-based reimbursements. This would literally be the end of traditional Medicare fee for service “as we know it.”
Myth #9: The House budget plan would shift Medicaid costs to the states and hurt the poor.
Fact: Medicaid block grants would help states lower Medicaid costs and provide them with the flexibility to better serve the poor.
The House budget plan would remove the perverse incentives resulting from the open-ended federal reimbursement of state Medicaid spending. The block grant proposal would provide greater budget certainty at the federal and state levels. In addition, states would have greater flexibility and greater incentives to reduce costs. The proposal would also encourage states to spend their Medicaid dollars wisely and to consider innovative ways to deliver better care at lower costs.[7]
Myth #10: Most Medicare costs would continue to rise, and retirees would bear those costs with insufficient assistance.
Fact: Intense market competition would reduce costs and enable Medicare patients to secure value for their dollars.
Projecting far into the future, CBO predicts that under the House budget proposal the government’s share of retirees’ health care costs would decrease from currently about 70 percent to just 32 percent by 2030.[8] But that static analysis assumes that—despite a major change in economic incentives and intense market competition—health care costs will not be reduced. Behavioral responses to such powerful new economic incentives should not be ignored; experience with such changes proves otherwise
enough said
I just want to know one thing, Myth Romney and his VP Reckless Ryan, have said that they want to close tax loopholes and fix the tax code, so they can cut more taxes on the rich if they get elected, is one of those loopholes that closes the tax refund that homeowners receive on their home mortgage? Do people actually think that Myth and Reckless, who by the way, are both very very wealthy, care anything for the 99%. Who do you think will scream the loudest when the mortgage tax deduction disappears, it certainly won't be any of the 1%!!
How about:
1) Ending the break that higher-earners get on Medicare/Social Security taxes. Eliminate the CAP and tax all income, not just "Medicare/Social Security Wages."
2) Eliminate the mandate that requires you to buy private prescription drug coverage insurance the instant you become eligible for Medicare. This costs the government billions and exposes seniors who save taxpayer money to unlimited fines and penalties. The Tea Party hates mandates, but ignores this one.
Then I'll think the GOP is serious and not pandering.
Romney & Ryan "Hit The Road"
with
Bruce (and lil brother dal) - One liners won't cut it for you this time. Romney's pick of Paul Ryan forces the debate to the issues that the American people want some improvement on. LOWER the 8.2% - official (really 14.5%) unemployment, DO NOT allow the current administration to throw another 5.2 TRILLION borrowed-from-China dollars down the drain in the next four years. REPEAL the monstrosity known as the 'Affordable Care Act' (ie Obamacare), and move to save Medicare and Medicaid before they go broke. If you saw Meet the Press yesterday, you saw your soul sister, Rachel Madow getting her butt kicked (it was GREAT!!).
Bruce Dude you don't have to use extra big fonts and bold to get your point across.
ksw, I don't "have to" but I do like to. Besides, it's the default font when using the bullet option. Talk to newsvines if you want it changed. Not me.
jonny, I post a lot more than one liners. In fact, on other pages I get criticized because some think my comments are too long. I just can't win with you guys! AJust like Obama. You never give him a fair chance either!
Johnathan - you are too kind. The numbers you give are the federal numbers, not the Gallup numbers. Those are 1 - 3 points higher.
lololololol Your getting a "Bagger Attack" lolololol
.
The intentions of every Republican......is to make sure everyone over the age of 60 and is of the middle class.........to DIE OFF as quickly as possible.
Every REPUBLICAN is sworn to kill off Medicare and Social Security.
If you are a Republican over the age of 60....you might as well....kiss your ass goodbye.
.
This is all soooooooo funny it's side busting..... Boy, are the Obamabots running scared now..... For good reason I would say... Of course, Paul Ryan has a fiscally sound alternative Medicare Plan, he has been fighting Obama's out of control spending in Washington DC for the last how many years now!
However, it is not Ryan's medicare plan that is being presented to the US Voters it is the very sound very fiscal plan Mitt Romney has been stating all along... Or have you forgotten, it is Mitt Romney running for President, not Paul Ryan.
Why the Pro Obama Media and Obama Campaign heavy focus on Ryan's Medicare Plan, because, they can't sell the fight against Romney's; and Obama's out of control spending and dismal first term record can't stand scrutiny under the bright light of day ... Romney and Ryan are talking straight to the nation, laying our fiscally sound plans and not just asking, but demanding the nation to hold them accountable, if they fail.... All Obama has done is make excuses and consistently attempt to shift the blame for his wrong decisions, shortcomings and excessive spending. You may be satisfied by a projected 22+ Trillion Dollar National Debt by 2021 under Obama's projected budget, but, I'm not . Just who and how will this mind-boggling debt be paid? Not by you... by your grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on... Nice legacy your willing to leave your kids... Don't talk about prior administration debts, Obama has added more national debt to this nation (almost 7+ Trillion Dollars) than any former one term president (Republican or Democrat). AND with all that spending what do we have as a nation to show for it? NOTHING! Home Mortgages rising, high record breaking unemployment, excessive government control policies and a President who sues states on immigration issues, rather that adhering to the Constitution as his oath of office demanded. If you don't agree with a Constitutional Law you repeal or amend it. You don't ignore it and make your own rules as Obama has been doing ... Hide your head in the sand all you want.. But, truth and numbers don't lie...
Obama can't sell the campaign on his dismal presidential administration record; what better way to take the focus off his own shortcomings than pursue an attack on Ryan's former Medicare Plan that isn't even part of the campaign (and much better than anything Obama has, that's for sure).
People's eyes are opening to Obama's deceptive tactics and that noise your hear is just "Obama "blowin" in the wind"... Something he's become quite good at...
No wonder Obama and the Obamabots are boiling over... It's hard to handle the truth when it hits you squarely between the eyes isn't it....
80 Days and counting folks! "REAL FISCAL CHANGE IS BLOWING THIS WAY" and I am quite ready for a little "R & R" Romney/Ryan....
I think what is driving the left wingnuts crazy is they are afraid because Paul Ryan is an intelligent man and the incumbant VP - is dumb as a stump "Stupid" Joe Biden.
Both GOP and the DEMS are happy that this guy was picked!!! ;lololol Thank you GOP for picking someone that has been in office for over 6 years and did nothing!!! Thanks!!! Plus his great budget will be a hit all across America!!
The biggest thing to come out of the Ryan pick is that the response from the left is completely exposing their inability to understand the Ryan plan and in some cases are outright lying to the American people about it. There are many that do understand but will only try and drive the discussion away from the facts in their attempt to slander a man who is not afraid to look at this nation's problems square in the face. Some of the lefty comments are straight out lies, and others come from not being able to comprehend exactly what the Ryan plan does and why. Will we ever be able to get Obama in a debate where his false statements can be confronted with the truth? The left is panicking while trying to cover it up with smiles.
Ryan's bill does not affect those over 55 years of age. It also slowly changes things for those born after 1958, meaning it gives you time to plan for your retirement. The plan says after 2023, that it will provide vouchers giving more to the poor and less to the rich. It addresses the fact that Medicare and Medicaid will go bankrupt if nothing is done. And let's not forget Obamacare is cutting $711 billion from Medicare and no seniors are up in arms about this? From the CBO folks.
Ryan's bill cuts $700B from Medicare too. Nobody talks about that part.
What do they plan to do with all the people who will no longer be able to be in nursing homes due to the Medicaid cuts? Will we go back to asylums and poorhouses? Or will we just have a huge increase in the number of homeless?
Even if you planned out your retirement, you'd go bankrupt if you pay for medical bills. Ryan wants to kill the poor elderly.
Ryan's bill doesn't start cutting until 2023 - not immediately like Obamacare.
The Medicaid cuts are done by passing the money to the Sates to run - this way they can run it more efficiently and addressing the needs of their own States. Unlike today where the Federally ran Medicaide is more like one size fits all - that's a lot of Americans they are trying to address.
Contempt is just wrong. Never can get his right nonsense spin in line with his master the failure Romney
What a surprise, a lib trying to scare the elderly with lies.
What I think a lot of people are missing is, the planned entitlement spending levels in this country are not remotely sustainable. Even if we vote to "keep things as they are", things will change when countries stop lending money to the US. Even Obama's own budgets expect a $6 Trillion deficit in Medicare alone over the next 10 years - and it gets worse after that.
If you don't like the Ryan plan, then fine - propose a viable alternative. Just sticking our heads in the sand is not going to solve the problem.
as noted the ryan plan also cuts meidcare in terms of $$ as well -- frankly both of these cuts are to help restrain "growth in costs" -- which needs to be done.
Medicare needs some reform -- raise the tax, index it for for premiums for well to do - like myself, and other cost containment methods including very agressive "fraud programs"
being well versed in the healthcare industry and it's dynamics -- I'm still at a loss on how many older citizens will be able to actually "buy" health insurance at these ages for any reasonable amount -- so out of pocket expensese may well be so high -- many choice to do without and cruise into the ER as just the uninsured sick. Plus some folks could be denied insurance - although ACA makes this less likely if the rules stay in place about pre-exisitng condition
insurance is risk and acuturial pooling -- those greater than 65 are a very expensive "pool" and I'm afraid the "market" wil very likely "price" private sector insurance beyond many of the seniors in the future -- so the promise of not changing the current folks does nothing about this issue
It is one of the prime reasons medicare came into exist.. After work years and in the older years there simply was no "reasonable private health insurance to be had" not sure how the "ryan plan fixes this issue at at..
Ron, medicare is not an entitlement. I paid into social security and medicare for over thirty years. Ryan's plan will help ensure I don't see a penny.
I'm all for expanding the payroll tax maximums. How long has it been since the maximum income level has been bumped up?
trudat6445 :
First I need to say I am a liberal, who has enjoyed a pretty sucessful life this far, of which there are many. I would also be considered a senior. :)
The "elderly" today, are Boomers, and we truly don't "scare" much. We are not your typical "elderly" population. Most of us were pretty well educated; we were still afforded a very good education , as educating our young people at that time was a very high priority. Our country still understood that they were the future of America. . but educated Americans don't always " follow" as well as those who are not. . We "Boomers" remain more than able to make our own decisions and I'm pretty certain we will be doing exactly that, in record numbers once again, this November.
lpk,
Not completely positive where you were going with that, or if it was just meant to be a general statement, either way, not sounding like a partisan hack is a good thing.
Id love to be able to agree with you about the boomers not scaring, but that doesnt mean that isnt the same playbook tactic the dems are going to use this year and in every coming election. They love to lie to the elderly using scare-tactics. It's one of the reason i carry a disdain for libs, i hope, as educated and eloquent as you are, that you see that truth.
Heartlight
Ryan is currently limiting the increase to .5%. Yes, that will cut 700 Billion over 10 years. By getting private insureres to do the administering, that will also cut expensive government jobs AND private companies won't allow the 25% waste do to Fraud to continue. If enough fraud is eliminated, .5 % just might permit a normal inflationary increase to doctors, instead of cutting them.
Half of Obama's cut were cutting the amount paid for services from the previous year. Limiting the increase, though I think he has it too low given before the ACA the average cost increase for health insurance was about 13%.
When Washington talks about reducing the deficit by 4 trillion over the next 10 years, there are no cuts in that equation. All Washington does is reduce the proposed budget increases to make it look like they are reducing the deficit. When in fact all they are doing is keeping the deficit from being larger. Nothing Obama or the Democrats have proposed in this first term is any actual spending cuts. Actual meaning today. What we are spending today being cut. Not even considered, and nothing proposed for 10 years down the road is even required by a future congress to honor. It is all just smoke and mirrors and talking a good game. But delivering nothing.
You have to remember that Ryan's Medicare "vouchers" are similar to GOP education vouchers. If you cannot come up with the extra cash to use them, the GOP just gave you the sleeves out of their vest. The CBO estimates that almost half (42%) of Medicare that received Ryan vouchers would be unable to use them because their value was so low that they could not come up with the additional money necessary to "cash" (use) them. Basically it would end Medicare for the poor and lower middle class --- the people who need it the most.
Now it's Ryan-Ryan-Ryan. Rpmney can rest in the back ground and not answer questions. It's in Romney's blood, run and hide and let someone else do the dirty work. That sounds like a true Vietnam draft dodger that had his Daddy send him to France for Missionary work.
President Obama--2012
Draft dodger? Shall we begin to talk about the impeccable records of swiftboaters like Kerry?
A mark of a good leader is picking the right people who do a good job. Let's look at Obama's record of picking... A bunch of professors that need to go back to the classroom. Forget that, they should not be teaching our future. Put them on welfare and make room for the competent.
deb - Romney was reclassified as 1-A in '70 and subject to be drafted based ion the draft lottery, his number was #300 which was not called. You must have too easily fallen into that left wingnut lie.
Romney dodged the draft. He is a loser
It amuses me to no end how the right has the sack to bring up the Kerry Swiftboat crap. I have no idea what actually happened on any of the missions in question in his record, so I'll refrain from judging there.
What stunned me with that stuff was how the right could sit there and attack Kerry, who was actually deployed to Vietnam during his service, while ignoring that Bush, who was in the National Guard during the war:
A) never actually deployed to a war zone
and
B) Apparently hardly ever showed up the last two years of his 4 year stint, at least according to his records.
Let's not forget that former Texas Governor Barnes has admitted getting a few people into the Guard during that time (all rich folks with connections) so they could avoid actually having to see combat.
So Dave, why again are we attacking the guy who actually fought in Vietnam?
Uh Dal Old Joe our VP got 5 student deferments so what is your point.
Thanks NH
This is one charge I didn't chase down.
Romney never dodged the draft, he had deferments like most that have served in Washington. Romney also made himself eligible for the draft, but his lottery number was higher then those they drafted that year. So he slid by like many during the Vietnam era. There was just nothing like a two digit random sequence number to make your day, because you knew right then and there a trip to southeast Asia was in your future. Romney never dodged the draft, but why let the facts get in the way of liberal lies?
.
How will the REPUBLICAN PARTY pay their debts??????? They will immediately past the bill in December 2012 taxing all life insurance policy at the 50% rate for all policies under $50,000.00.
.
The more the discussion goes on, the more the lies from the left are exposed. Facts are:
The left is collapsing under the weight of failed policy and their very survival depends on causing fear by lying about the facts.
"It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft." - Mitt Romney
"Mitt Romney was caught in a decades-long lie about his active draft avoidance during the Vietnam War. Selective Service records show that Mitt Romney had four draft deferments (between academic deferments and his work with the Mormon church). That's one less deferment than Dick Cheney got. Interestingly, Mitt Romney was avoiding the draft while demonstrating in favor of it at Stanford."
'Nuff said. The Mittster hid behind the MOrman Church in France to avoid military service. Period. (Vietnam Vet 67-68)
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Mitt Romney Lied About his Vietnam Draft Deferments | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mitt-romney-lied-about-his-vietnam-draft-deferments-2941198.html#ixzz23YOFQOa5
Chris, I was drafted in 1967. I had friends that chose to go to college to get an education and I'm sure the threat of being drafted kept them going to school. Also had friends that avoided service using other means, such as a 4F health status. We have a President now who I guarantee you was raised not to ever think of being part of this nation's military and a Vice President that took 5-years of college exemptions. Did you ever serve Chris? I would like to see every American have to spend some time in the military, but avoiding the draft within the law has never been a crime.
Chris - You neglect to mention that when Mr Romney's student deferments ran out that he was reclassified as 1-A and eligible to be drafted based on the draft number selected in the draft lottery for his birth date. The number selected was #300 and he was not called to serve.
You also didn't mention that Joe Biden also had 5 deferments and never served. (Funny you chose to make a remark about Cheney instead). Speaking of draft dodgers, just how did Clinton avoid serving after he was drafted?
Yes, Lets think about this...as a former insurance agent. I can tell you that no matter how much money you are willing to pay and don't forget..you will be on a fixed budget..you won't find any private insure to cover you if you are sick or have a medical condition like say diabieties. They just won't do it.. so you will be the one stuck out in the cold. Again, the insurance companies will decide who dies and who lives...as long as you don't get sick.
The free-market will take care of it's self. No pesty gov't regulations and limit people's ability to sue corporations due suits being "frivolous" as repubs call them!
By the corps, for the corps and of the corps!
"Corporations are people"
thanks for that mitt!
Obamacare too will decide when there isn't enough money to cover everyone. There will be death panels, you can call them what you like, but there will be a committee deciding if an elderly person is worth spending money on.
proud your right spin is showing. Bring some cites
dal, "proud_hispanic" can't give factual citations for his "death panel" comment. There are none. Even the AARP says that death panels claims are false.
Further, Politifact called it "the lie of the year" in 2009. (source: http ://www .politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/ )
proud_hispanic has been listening to too much Sarah Palin and may not actually have done any research regarding PPACA.
Matthew
AARP is a corrupt and biased liberal organization and I will have nothing to do with them.
AARP has blocked the privatized choice of social security many times and I hope this time they get shot down so I can take control of my money and put in double digit gains.
Political fact is also biased.
john,
Can you disprove the Politifact statement on "death panels"?
And if you don't like Politifact being used as a fact checker, then consider trying http :// factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/
The bottom line is that Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable for one very simple reason: Health care costs are and have been since the 1960's skyrocketing all out of proportion to lives saved, improved quality of life, growth in GDP, or inflation. We're paying horrendously more but getting precious little additional benefit. Why:
1) Insurance companies take 20-35% off the top of every health care dollar and treat not a single patient, save not a single life, or provide not a shred of improved quality of life. They shuffle papers.
2) The for-profit medical system is riddled with waste. One example: This country has about 275,000 jobs. The problem is that we have college-degreed people counting pills. There is a requirement for consulting pharmacists (to assist physicians with things like dosages) and compounding pharmacists (to create specialzed drug mixes.) This accounts for fewer than 5,000 pharmacists needed for the whole for-profit medical system. Everything else pharmacists do can be done by computers (such as checking for bad combinations of drugs) or by pharmacy techs with less than six weeks training.
3) Physicians have a vocational school but want more money than a PhD. Many physicians have no university degree of any kind. Only a certificate from a medical "school." (Hint --- a PhD can teach in a medical school, but a physician cannot teach in a university or college.) Ordinary physicians start at about 250,000 a year fully booked cost. Specialists start upwards of $400,000. This is far out of line with their educational level or the skills required for the job.
4) Virtually every new drug is developed using taxpayer grant money. Ditto for medical devices, procedures, and even training of medical personnel including physicians. But the taxpayer has no way to recover the investment. This is critical to any suystainable medical system as Canada can currently bear witness. Why should the taxpayer pay to discover a drug that then gives a drug company an 8,000% profit? An easy trick is to to lower costs is to find where in India or China your particular drug is made and buy it from there. Not legal, but it lets you see how much drugs really cost.
The growth in medical costs is the primary issue facing both Medicare and Medicaid. The issue is not whether people whould receive the benefit, but rather why the benefit costs so much.
The Republicans say that free market forces should determine this. But every country in the world that has seriously addressed the issue has found that free market forces only enrich themselves.
Im not sure if Bruce understands what he just wrote but after reading it, I got a headache!! Everything in his post was taken from liberals without a shred of proof just rambles! The truth President Obama will be the first President in United States history to never sign a budget bill! This is because to sign a budget would mean you need to spend only what one is allowed to spend instead of the blank check politicians like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Frank etc...etc.. Their goal is to keep people poor so they can be the ones who throw bread at them as they walk into their lavish Mansions and look like saviors! Obama has no budget! He cant pass his socialists agendas with a budget plan! When will people wake up? You cant spend what you don't have and steal when you need it! Its not the rich people you should worry about, its those who are trying to take what they didnt earn or what is not theirs to take!
Beg to DIFFER with you but, regarding post #1
mikeSanJacinto
Steve Baker338532
and Cogito Ergo Sum 1
are definitely NOT liberals, and would really be pissed at you for saying they are.
And, I know exactly what I wrote in all the other comments I posted as well you arrogant ass.
It's YOU C.Cook who lacks the brainpower to comprehend them. That's why YOU GOT A HEADACHE!!!
Like I used to tell my patients: Take an aspirin and call me in the morning.
How are we gonna have a wall street social security voucher program when repubs want less govt regulations and oversight and limit the american people's ability to sue corporations "frivolous lawsuits" repubs call it.
I guess we are supposed to forget what just happened with wall street years ago???
2BadpPole:
Believe me - we haven't forgotten how libs like Barney Frank tried to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac despite all of their problems. Indeed, we're aware of what starting causing the financial collapse.
And now we have the administration attempting to resurrect forced lending to those who can't afford a mortgage?
Beleive me -- we don't forget about these failed liberal policies --- that's why we can't await to dump every liberal in November!
Thanks for the info dave
and hopefully seniors will put reason over social security checks that their mothers and grandparents received and the GI bill that the gov't provided after WWII.
Have you been to casinos in the last 20+ years??
2 things you don't F-WITHin America??
GUNS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS!
2badpole
What hapened with the financial sector in 2008 was a government goof by the way of Fannie and Freddie violating the rules set after the October 1929 crash.
That is when wall street and the commercial banks were separated and Fannie and Freddie bridged the gap during the Clinton Era to boost home ownership.
Yes the homeowners who signed and agreed to those 50% debt to income adjustable rate mortgages need to be held accountable for their stupid actions.
Mr Obama says he fundamentally disagrees with the Romney plan.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with trade being both free and fair.
Mr Obama fundamentally disagrees with balancing the budget.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with stopping deficit spending.
Mr Obama fundamentally disagree with eliminating the national debt
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with the principle that government should be limited
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with enforcing existing laws
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with allowing States to assist the federal government in enforcing our laws.
Mr Obama fundamentally disagrees with securing our borders.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with adopting immigration laws that bring the best and brightest to the US, but prefers open unchecked borders.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with opening up our energy resources, while expanding our energy resources into other areas.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with the US taking a leadership role in the world, but prefers that we a back seat to those seeking to take advantage of US.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with having a strong military.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with creating an atmosphere conducive to the growth of small businesses.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with extending the middle class tax rates beyond one year (only enough to get him past the election)
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with not shouldering our children and grandchildren with the burden of paying for massive debts and deficits.
Mr. Obama fundamentally disagrees with keeping us financially independent of countries like China.
Mr Obama fundamentally disagrees with making difficult choices now so that we don't have to face disastrous consequences later.
Mr Obama says we need to cut entitlements, but when any one proposes a plan to do so he fundamentally disagrees.
Etc...etc..
Now that we know what Mr. Obama means by" fundamental change", we fundamentally disagree with Mr. Obama being President any longer.
Cut and waste....yawn
Yes the Obama presidency has been a waste and now the voters are going to cut it out.
Yes Obama opposes as I'd imagine most would to follow Romneys plan to bring in 1,250,000 high tech workers because he claims a shortage of workers in these fields even though unemployment data indicates unemployed Americans in these fields are double what they were before the Bush economic collapse. Have several million American high tech workers died since 1999 or is Romney simply looking for cheaper labor? It's not enough having them slip across the border Romney wants' to give them plane fare and a green card at the airport. No president prior to Obama has done more to control our border.
Despite a lagging economy, the Obama administration has managed to surpass the Bush administration efforts to control the U.S. border. Here are the startling statistics:
Last year saw the highest number of people ever deported: 387,790, up from 116,782 in 2001 and 349,041 in 2008. Thus far this year, some 185,887 people have been deported, a record pace that, if maintained, will nearly double the number of deportations in 2010 to 604,133. The Administration has also doubled the number of agents assigned to the Border Enforcement Security Task Force and tripled intelligence analysts along the Southwest border.
(--TIME magazine, May 10, "Why GOP Senators Won't Play on Immigration Reform")
And I disagree with turning our backs on all the millions of good hard-working American citizens that got laid off from their jobs while Bush was still in offiice. I was one of them, but I just started a new job this year. Just speaking from experience. I got laid off due to Bush's Great Recession and lost everything that I worked so hard for. I used to have an enormous savings account, and it's all gone now. Your self-righteous opinion would change over night, heaven forbid it happened to you.
Sarah Palin was rated higher then Paul Ryan lolololololololololol She was seen as more ready for the President position then Paul Ryan lololololol Great pick mittens lolololol I see why the Conservative baggers are so mad lololol
Goodbye Medicare. Hello Huge taxes from Romney the failure
What do you think Obamacare is? It's the biggest tax on the middle class ever. That is what the SCOTUS said - it is constitutional because it's a tax.
And Romney wants to tax us MORE. Romneycare was a big tax on his state too but Romney loved it
As govenor of a Democratic state, he gave them what they wanted. A majority of American's did not and do not want Obamacare. It may be ok for a State to have a State ran healthcare system if that is what they want. But don't ram it down the throats of all Americans.
If Romney even gets close to suggesting he would, he's out!
But he will do the will of the people, unlke our current President.
Nothing like being a failure worth $250mil. Your envy is showing.
It's a good national model. Romney boasted that Congress and the President could learn a lot about health care reform from his Massachusetts plan during an interview with CNN in 2009, "I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans," he said "The fact that we were able to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they can learn from."
It's "ultimate conservatism." In 2007, Romney said that when the uninsured show up in emergency rooms and get free health care, that's a "form of socialism." By contrast, his health care law was conservative and inspired by the Heritage Foundation, something that is true and that the Heritage Foundation would probably like people to forget.
It's humane. When Romney left office in 2007, his staff erased his office's emails from a server computer in an attempt to wipe them from the public record. But earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal found a few survivors, including Romney's own early drafts of his April 2006 Journal op-ed about the passage of Romneycare. Romney used language that would surely irritate many conservatives, and it was toned down when eventually published. Nevertheless, Romney's original thoughts are preserved forever:
Bushs prescription drug plan costs almost as much per year as Obamacare. Where was your outrage when it was passed? At least Obama funded it unlike Bush.
Suddenly obamacare is funded? What planet are you on?
Not suddennly, always. You right wing nuts bitch about Obamas taxes he imposed as part of his plan as the biggest tax increase in history then say he doesn't pay for it. You need to grow a brain.
What do you think Obamacare is? It's the biggest tax on the middle class ever
Got any REAL data to back that up??
dal
medicare will be around and Obama is the one who is taxing the middle class, check the GAO and CBO
Charlie
The data is in the Obamatax 28 little taxes and some of it don't have anything to do with health care. why don't you read the bill.
Its hard to find some of those taxes becuase of the trial lawyer jargon which makes up two thirds of the 2700 garbage.
Ah those nasty little liberal lies:
Larry-367607 says "Bushs prescription drug plan costs almost as much per year as Obamacare. Where was your outrage when it was passed? At least Obama funded it unlike Bush."
Now the truth:
Four years into full operation, President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program is coming in well below its projected cost, giving hope to backers of the new health insurance law that it, too, could beat budget expectations.
The numbers are stark and conclusive: In 2009, the government spent $60.8 billion on the drug benefit, or far less than the annual $111.2 billion cost projected just five years ago, after the program was enacted.
The lower cost - a result of slowing demand for prescription drugs, higher use of generic drugs and fewer people signing up - has surprised even some of the law’s most pessimistic critics.
The full story is here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/bush-drug-plan-beats-cost-mark/?page=all
Obama cut 700 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, more then enough to fund the Bush era prescription drug plan. It is pretty sad when liberals like Larry don't think the government can come up with 60 billion a year to help seniors.
.
Any Republican will tell you: Just tax the hell out of the poor and the middle class. Their to stupid to know how to change the system.
.
Romneys tax cut plan would lower the top tax rate from 35% to 25% and eliminate, "unspecified" tax breaks. His tax plan would cost according to his numbers 500 billion a year so the unspecified tax breaks have to be substantial. Ryan previously when trying to draw up a similar tax proposal would eliminate the home mortgage deduction and begin taxing employer health plans both tax breaks that mostly benefit the poor and middle class. Romney refuses to admit what breaks he'd eliminate prior to being elected because he couldn't sell it. Having a plan that sounds good promising tax cuts wouldn't sound so good if he explained how he intended to pay for it. Come on Romney, man up and give us the whole plan.
.
All the elderly of Florida would have no idea what you are talking about here...and, would be most effect by the Romney/Ryan/Republican plan.
.
.
The only real tax break for MIDDLE CLASS America is the HOME MORTGAGE DEDUCTION.
Under the Ryan/Romney/Republican plan of action for January 2013 is to destroy the tax deduction for home mortgages.
.
THE OBAMA PLAN!!!
We now take a break from all the Obama bum kisser media lap dog puff piece articles, attempts at misdirection from the real issues, obama supporter name calling and emotional drivel to present some facts about Mr. Obama's economic plans. Please note the highlighted portions if you are too stupid or lazy to read all of the real facts contained in this post
Here are the specifics on the Obama economic plan to go along with his big government as the center of the universe agenda.
Straight from Mr. Obama's fourth proposed budget. Here is the debt he is proposing to foist on US, our kids and grandchildren:
Table S–15. Federal Government Financing and Debt—Continued(Dollars amounts in billions)Actual 2011 Estimate 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020021 2022
Debt Outstanding, End of Year: Gross Federal debt:Debt issued by Treasury .................................................... 14,737 16,323 17,520 18,471 19,398 20,363 21,298 22,218 23,125 24,051 24,984 25,918
Debt issued by other agencies ........................................... 27 28 28 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 24 22 Total,
gross Federal debt .............................................. 14,764 16,351 17,548 18,500 19,427 20,392 21,326 22,245 23,152 24,077 25,008 25,940
Almost $26 Trillion in debt at 75% of GDP proposed /projected by Mr. Obama. UNSUSTAINABLE! And we all know that in actual practice it will turn out to be a lot higher if Obama is returned to office. And on July 16, on Morning Joe, Mr. Obama's spokesperson, Rep. Jim Clyburn(D), admitted that the Obama plan necessarily will require middle class tax hikes in the years going forward after the election, in order to pay for the deficit spending and debt laden Obama plan. Which is why Mr. Obama is only proposing a ONE YEAR extension of the current middle class tax rates.
And please, when you see Mr. Obama on the campaign trail, ask him how much yearly revenue he perceives his proposed tax hike on those making over $200,000.00/$250,000.00 per couple (projected to raise $60 to 70 billion)will raise, and how that will even come close to his proposed $1.3 Trillion per year in deficit spending and debt building.
Too bad Mr. Obama can't discuss his budget plan with the American people. He knows it will be rejected, so he is busy playing with smoke and mirror attacks on Mr. Romney and giving meaningless rhetorical speeches in the hopes of duping voters once again.
How about you explaining how much of our debt Bushs policies continue to add to our debt. A medicare drug plan that costs 300 billion a year unfunded that added 1.2 trillion to our debt since Obamas been president and will continue to add 300 billion a year for every president yet to come. And the Bush tax cuts which have added almost 2 trillion to our deficit also unfunded not even counting our 2 unfunded wars. No president in history has acted as irresponsibly as Bush by simply operating on credit.
Even as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget would impose trillions of dollars in spending cuts, at least 62 percent of which would come from low-income programs,[1] it would enact new tax cuts that would provide huge windfalls to households at the top of the income scale. New analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) finds that people earning more than $1 million a year would receive $265,000 apiece in new tax cuts, on average, on top of the $129,000 they would receive from the Ryan budget’s extension of President Bush’s tax cuts.[2]
The new tax cuts at the top would dwarf those for middle-income families. After-tax incomes would rise by 12.5 percent among millionaires, but just 1.8 percent for middle-income households (see Figure 1 and footnote 6). Low-income working families would actually be hit with tax increases.
Chairman Ryan claims that his budget would fully offset the cost of his proposed tax cuts by closing tax expenditures (tax credits, deductions, and other preferences) for high-income households. But his budget contains no specific proposals to do so, and meeting this goal would be all but impossible, given that the Ryan budget rules out reducing the tax expenditure most heavily tilted to high-income households: the preferential rates for capital gains and dividends.[3]
Yawn cut and waste
I didn't agree with Bush's approval of the Dem Congress's deficit and debt building spending and I don't approve of Mr. Obama continuing to do more of the same.
larry,
repubs never liked social security or medicare, epecially after 1968.
they have been trying to finding ways to starve the social security beasts and 9-11 gave them the perfect cover to do so.
War spending and less tax revenue to fund both social security and military! romney doesn't want cuts to defense spendig!
Reagan Adviser Bartlett: "Bush Is More Responsible" For "The Current Budget Deficit." In a June 12 post on the New York Times' Economix blog, former Reagan and George H. W. Bush adviser Bruce Bartlett called the Republican claim that "all increases in the debt or deficit" since his inauguration are President Obama's fault "is, of course, nonsense" because "[George W.] Bush is more responsible." From The New York Times:
Liberal lies just seem to grow legs.
Larry-367607 says "How about you explaining how much of our debt Bushs policies continue to add to our debt. A medicare drug plan that costs 300 billion a year unfunded that added 1.2 trillion to our debt."
Care to explain your lie Larry? Larry, how long will it take a 60 billion a year program to add 1.2 trillion to our debt? Because here is the truth.
Four years into full operation, President George W. Bush's Medicare prescription drug program is coming in well below its projected cost, giving hope to backers of the new health insurance law that it, too, could beat budget expectations.
The numbers are stark and conclusive: In 2009, the government spent $60.8 billion on the drug benefit, or far less than the annual $111.2 billion cost projected just five years ago, after the program was enacted.
The lower cost - a result of slowing demand for prescription drugs, higher use of generic drugs and fewer people signing up - has surprised even some of the law's most pessimistic critics.
The full story is here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/bush-drug-plan-beats-cost-mark/?page=all
Obama cut 700 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, more then enough to fund the Bush era prescription drug plan. It is pretty sad when liberals like Larry don't think the government can come up with 60 billion a year to help seniors.
.
The ONLY real tax deduction for the MIDDLE CLASS and POOR Americans is the MORTGAGE TAX DEDUCTION.
Immediately in January 2013 if the Ryan/Romney/Republican Plan of action will be to KILL OFF the TAX DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE INTEREST.
Their will be NO MORE real TAX DEDUCTION for the poor and middle class Americans under the RYAN/ROMNEY/REPUBLICAN plan of action.
As RYAN puts it....."Let the MIDDLE CLASS America ......DIE ! ! ! ! ! ! "
.
Fosz - Please cite the source of your quote where Paul Ryan said ....."Let the MIDDLE CLASS America ......DIE ! ! ! ! ! ! "?
Also while you are looking up that quote perhaps you should enroll in a basic course on how our government works. For tax law to change, legislation mut be proposed, passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the president.
But then again you are just blowing hot air out your butt, because even if legislation is passed to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and establish the tax rates proposed in the Ryan plan, taxpayers would see a reduction in thier taxes.
The Dems think the seniors in Florida don't know Obama already cut $700 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. They are also finding out that, under the Romney/Ryan plan, no senior will have their benefits cut. And younger voters relish the idea of being given a choice about what to do with their money, rather than having it dictated to them by Obama and the Feds.
Mr Obama is in for a big surprise on election day in Florida.
Ryan will get rid of Medicare. Real bad. TAXES, HUGE TAXES. From failure Romney
Yes I'm sure younger workers will relish getting a check for $500 when the cheapest insurance for a 65 year old is 1200 and covers 50% of costs. Under a voucher plan most seniors couldn't afford health care.
Larry, couldn't agree with you more. There are going to be a lot of bankrupt seniors if/when Ryan's plan is implemented. At 51, I have a distinct feeling that I am royally screwed.
2 things you don't F-WITH in America??
GUNS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS!
They don't call it the 3rd rails for nothing!
Cut what is paid to doctors and hospitals? And where will you find a doctor? It is weell known that we don't have enough doctors to cover the 30 billion consumers that are to be given healthcare under ObamaCare. We have also learned recently that many doctors will no longer take Medicaid and Medicare patients. Ryan's plan is not an easy pill to swallow but may well be the lesser of the negative results. Doing nothing, as Democrats seem to propose, is definitely not a solution! letting the programs go unchanged equals no programs in about 10-15 years!
Funny they talk about all the flaws in Ryan's budget plan, but yet the mainstream media hasn't said sh|t about the fact that obama hasn't passed a budget in almost 4 years. More hypocritical BS from obama and the main stream media
How do you pass a budget with fools like Ryan in the House? GRIDLOCK
The Dems couldn't even vote in favor of Obama's budget. If you want to get things done, the easiest way to do that is remove Obama the obstructionist.
Gee dal, he could pass a budget like every other president in our past has done it, by leading. Mr. Obama thought when he had a majority in the Senate and House that he could do what he wanted - and he did... and he alienated the opposition. He did that because he lacked experience. He showed us what he was going to do with his "power" and thus arose the idea to make him a one term president.
He failed as a leader and then blames his predessesor and blames those who don't do what he says. This man has no idea what is needed to lead a nation.
LOL. Romney gets in..continued GRIDLOCK until the next election. No question about it
Funny how hard it is to pass a budget when 95% of republicans sign a pledge to a lobbyist promising not to raise any taxes. Obama proposed a plan to match 2 trillion in cuts with 2 trillion in tax increases. Republicans opposed any increases including eliminating Bushs tax cuts.
Bush added a drug plan that adds 300 billion a year to our debt and tax cuts that add almost 500 billion a year each and every year. Over 3 trillion of our deficit since Obama has been president are due to actions Bush took during his presidency. Obama was willing to repeal the Bush cut which gave 80% of the money to the top 10% but republicans refused as that's a tax hike.
Republicans have voted down reducing big oil subsidies, paying gentlemen farmers who've never farmed to not plant and corporate welfare because republicans consider these tax hikes. From what Ryan has proposed in the past to eliminate the home mortgage deduction and to tax employer health plans he apparently doesn't consider eliminating middle class tax breaks as raising taxes.
.
There is no way Obama will ever get anything passed in Congress as long as Boehner is still around.
We can all hope that Boehner will have a complete "Black Out" from his great comsumption of alcohol this November.
That is the reason why all REPUBLICANS MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE this NOVEMBER 2012.
.
Ryan wants to privatize Social Security, giving the money to Wall Street.
He is a rich boy who lives mainly off of his family's capital gains money, which is why he wants to eliminate that tax to benefit himself and other rich boys like Romney - and pay for it by cutting out things like the mortgage deduction many Americans rely on.
Washington
Right I am all for the privatization option of Social Security so i can put my portion in double digit gains free from government LOU'S.
Capital gains does include middle class 401k and IRA,S
.
The death of Social Security and Medicare is every Republicans dream. That would mean Wall Street would have temporary gains and the America people would lose their ass.
Just how often have you seen the stock market go up and your 401k go down? ? ? ? ? ? You would lose all of the Social Security money in a very short time...and, once you were looking forward to retirement....now, your dreams....would die.
Act now, and vote all republicans out of office this November BEFORE IT IS TO LATE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
.
Hey Ryan you S*n-Of-A-Bit*h, keep your G*d Da*m Hands off medicare.
I cannot stand this Moth** F**ker
You should educate yourself on Obamacare because it cuts $711 billion from Medicare starting this year.
Newsflash- Ryan will sell out his MOM. Contempt you are an idiot. LOL
Nothing in Obamacare reduces benefits under medicare except for high income elderly and then modestly. Under Romney/Ryans plan they certainly do,
dal -
Newsflash. Obama did sell out his mother, & grandmother & you & me & all our childeren & our founding principals, & rule of law & Hope & Change, etc...
All in order to become more like California (or better yet, Greece). Dal you are a complete idiot.
GOOOOOOO Government!
.
"W. Gibbons" all Republicans want to destroy you. All they want is to take the security blanket of Social Security and Medicare that you have paid into for many years.
You will have NOTHING left after the republican party is through with you.
.
You forgot to spew the lie from the Soros/Obama playbook about "Throwing Grandma Off A Cliff"
Okay, I was born in 1958 and will turn 54 next month. I'm freakin' screwed if Ryan's vouchers thing goes through. I had no intention of voting for Romney anyway, but hey, I can't imagine anyone currently 45-54 who won't have a real problem with this.
I prefer choice and control over where my money goes. I'm not stupid enough to believe that Obama and his lackeys are the ones that should make the decisions for me.
reality check: What do you think will be availabe to you if Obamacare isn't repealed? Obamacare cuts $711 from Medicare starting this year. Ryan's bill at least is honest with you. There is no money to pay for Medicare as we know it. You plan for the demise (Ryan) or you lie to the people and tell them government is going to cover it by raising taxes on the rich (Obama). Raising taxes on rich will not even start to help our deficit. You are screwed because you're not willing to wake up and smell the coffee.
Well said and all true. Thanks proud hispanic
Giving the rich tax breaks for 10 years HURT OUR DEFICIT. And the GOP with Romney WILL CONTINUE TO KILL US. Has not worked for 10 years.
KingK -- You prefer to gamble in the fixed games of Wall Street? ( Remember, the odds are always with the house).
You will be given a voucher for say $500 when the lowest priced plan may cost $1200 or more. If you can't come up with the difference you'll be uninsured. Romney claims you'll still have an option to get medicare but clearly it wont pay anywhere near what it does today or no one would take the vouchers. You clearly cant get the savings Romney claims if medicare as it exists today isn't gutted.
Anyone really believe you can buy insurance from a for profit company that adds 20% or more for profit and anyone would choose a voucher over medicare?
My husband and I would both be under this new medicare program. Just using today's numbers, insurance would cost around $1500 a month for the two of us, or or $18,000 per year. If we are each given a voucher $6500 a year or $13,00, then we are short $5000 dollars a year. This does not include deductables or co-pays that may occur. We have worked all of our lives and paid into this program, and we will lose on this. I am all for fixing our country's finances, but this is not the way. is this what Ryan means by equal opportunity but not equal outcomes?
That shoud say $13,000.
As any Republican knows.....you are a burden to the Republican Society of American if you are over the age of 60. You have given your most productive years of work to society and once your over the age of 60 ..... please kiss your ass goodbye. You are no longer productive to society of the Republican Party.
Please .... die. You are no longer productive. The Republican Party in January 2013 will want to take 50% of all life insurance monies you might have and stop all middle class tax deductions such as Mortgage Interest. Your money will now go to the UPPER CLASS WELFARE PROGRAMS for the rich.
.
.
Most future seniors born after 1957 will be unable to afford the increasingly and extremely inflated costs of private health insurance premiums with the inadequate Ryan voucher. (Private insurance companies have never wanted to cover seniors anyway; seniors have a 100% chance of getting sick and/or dying--too much liability for for-profit companies. That is why Medicare was originally started in the 1960s because most seniors could not get insurance and/or access to health care.) Private insurance is more costly to run than Medicare to begin with--more expenses such as advertising, CEO bonuses, profits for stock holders, etc. etc. So starting in 2023, seniors will increasingly be unable to access health care, which will in turn cause a decrease in health care consumption by those who always consume the most health care, and will in turn inevitably cause lay offs in the health care industry (which is probably the USA's largest industry). With decreases in their Social Security owed them on top of this, seniors born after 1957 will become very poor very fast, many will lose their homes due to inability to pay inflated property taxes, causing much higher property taxes for younger people who also will be hit very hard. Very tough and tougher times ahead, I would guess a major depression on the way that would pale the 1930s sometime after 2025 if this Ryan/Romney get their way.
This is exactly the most likely pathway for most on a "convert medicare to buying private health insurance pathway"
MEDICARE was born as there was no viable over 65 year old after work place private health insurance market
I'm not saying we do not need reform to fix some issues, but I just do not see the private insurance market worker for most of the folks over 65..
I'm doing well at 56 with pensions +ss and good savings and still think paying for health insurance after 65 would be a huge chunk of change from what money I have.. many would not be able to afford the insurance even with any reasonable voucher estimate.........
Medicare doesn't need to be gutted. The medicare tax rate of 1.45% could be raised to 2% which would raise 35% more money and make it solvent for another 40 years. Such an increase would mean an additional $5.50 for every $1000 in income. After the baby boomers die off it could be decreased rapidly.
Has anyone heard if Romney has signed up for Medicare? Is he getting his Social Security? All this stuff is clear as mud. Why don't we all just jump into the pond and see who gets bitten by the cottonmouth and who get shorn by the snapping turtle, I hope you get the irony. The entire political system in this country is not just broken it is f$%&*# up. The corporations will make sure Romney gets elected by the most misinformed electorate in history. I for one am sooooooo glad to be old. I will be long gone before this mess he will create comes to pass if Romney wins and has his way with the government and the economy.. Good luck all and I hope you survive.
He'll probably waive them both as he did a salary as governor.
Medicare has extended funding since it's creation by increasing the tax rate as a larger percentage of our population ages. It began at slightly over 1% and is currently 7.65%. Simply raising the tax rate to 8% would probably extend our current 12 year cushion to 25 years or more after which time enough baby boomers would die off and rates could come down. The scare tactic employed by Romney that action must be taken today is nonsense.
actually MEDICARE tax is currently 1.45 % from employee and 1.45% from employer on all taxable wages ( no cap like with social security ).
your number is about the employee share of SS + medicare before the 2% employee SS cut of the last 2 years
sorry youre right.Brain freeze.
Scary what Romney and Ryan plan to do to America. Has the welfare for the rich been working for you guys? Not me. I make 250,000 yet I got taxed 30 percent to Romney's 13 percent. This has not been working for 10 years.
Trying to create a balance budget and get job creation started, absolutely terrifying.
What's obamas budget again?
The GOP filled it with pork as usual
Dal...
take the money you have paid taxes on and invest it...then you too can have a capital gains rate less than 30% on what that money earns....that is what Romney does and the same tax law applies to you....
The only tax law that does not apply to you is the zero percent some are paying on what they earn ... you pay on your $250,000.. that is only fair... unless Romney wins, who wants to reduce your taxes, Obama's rhetoric and plan is instituting 21 more taxes to fund Obamacare....you think you are paying...just wait til all Obama's tax-spend-borrow policies kick in and should the interest rates accelerate, your taxes will go through the roof.
See post 13 above for the Obama budget. Deficit spending with no end in sight leading to a massive $25 Trillion in debt at 75% of GDP.The so called "balanced approach".
Real mad: You're wrong. 31% of Romneys income was taxed at 15% but wasn't capital gains it was carried interest. Carried interest is the commission paid when vulture capitalists and hedge fund managers invest other peoples money. If they invest others money and make 100 million profit they take a 20% cut so 20 million. They take no risk it's other peoples money. This is a special tax break just for those 2 enterprises. Any other profession that earns income on commissions would pay normal rates. See what happens when you elect 1%ers?
Dal -
If you really make 250K (which I don't believe) and you pay 30% (due to poor understanding of tax law or horseshjt decision making) in taxes then you are an idiot. ANd so....
You are either a LIAR or an IDIOT (or both)
Either way your comments have now been discounted as comments given by either a LIAR or an IDIOT (or both) and now they do not hold any weight.
Please go away and let the grown ups talk this through.
If no semi intelligent person making 250K pays close to 30% in actual taxes why do they need a tax break? The argument is after all being taxed at 35% is unfair.
Larry, read slowly.
When I make $125k and my wife makes $125k, our house now makes $250k, we will be taxed at, well 70% if you had your choice.
I was responding to a comment by Nice which you clearly aren't. He claimed anyone making 250K or more who paid anywhere close to 30% was a fool. I've made over 250K in my younger days and wasn't commenting on current taxes. Get over yourself.
Larry -
Your comments only prove how ignorant you are. Go ask Dal for part of his $250,000 he seems more than willing to piss it away.
BTW Larry,
Trudat & I have formed a mutual friendship over the many years we have known each other. I give him full authority to verbally smack you around on my behalf.
And I stand by my comment, if you pay 30% on your income you are an idiot. The fact that you dispute my point (by definition) makes you an idiot.
On a board full of annoying ignorant libs who just want other people to support them, thanks for the laugh, lol.
And my only point was why do those not paying anywhere near 30% need Romneys tax break? Amazing you dweebs read so much into such a simple comment. Especially since you commented on eveything except what i said.
Larry you are absolutely clueless. You spew liberal talking points and lies like you were told by the almighty himself. The tax rates themselves are not what really affects the wealthy, it is all the deductions they can take. If deductions go away and the tax rates are lowered, the wealthy will still be paying more then they do today.
We have a progressive tax system which is nothing more then saying the wealthy pay more. Which they do. They pay far and away the lions share of all income taxes. But the system is broken, which is what happens when Washington plays politics with the tax code. We have nearly 50% of households in this country paying zero income tax, now how is that progressive Larry?
There are any number of tax plans out there, reforms which have been needed for decades. Anything from a flat tax to a consumption tax. But Washington doesn't want to give up the benefit it affords them to buy political favors. Targeted tax cuts, closing some loopholes but not others are all scams. They solve nothing and they keep it all political.
Liberals like you Larry need to show us the plan for reforming the tax code. Or come up with a figure that is the most the government should be allowed to take from anyone. This liberal lie about the wealthy not paying their fair share, is compounded by the fact no liberal can even define what fair share means.
Here is how it breaks down Larry. These statistics from the IRS signal a tax system that is not only progressive, but one that is convoluted and unfair.
Federal Personal Income Tax by Percentage.
Top 1% pay 38%
Top 5% pay 58.7%
Top 10% pay 69.9%
Top 25% pay 83.3%
Top 50% pay 97.3%
Bottom 50% pay 2.7%
http://mercatus.org/publication/breakdown-federal-personal-income-taxes
Doesn't the title of this article say it all??
What is the libbie mantra?? "What's in it for you."
Get it?? THIS is the freeloader mentality.
You never hear, "what's in this for the good of my country??" from the libtards. That's just not in their mindset. Doesn't equate, doesn't register.
November will be a very huge wake-up call for the leeches of the libbie left. they may even have to go and get a damm job.
Crazy left wing article. In this one, I'm afraid their slip is showing.
You think the left cares about the country at all? They still allow/force union slugs to "teach" our children, driving us to the bottom of industrialized nations. Id say they really dont care at all, the more socialist, the better.
Welfare for the rich for the last 10 years. How has this been working?
Welfare for the rich my ass. They pay the majority of all taxes whether it is 5% or 50% of what they make why do you care. If it were not for rich people who would you work for? Many people have many things to say and whether I agree or disagree I understand their point but to say the Republicans want to give a tax break to the rich and increase taxes on the middle class is just bull@!$%#. The President and his buddies have done nothing they are really proud of or anything that has really worked except promising people things they cannot deliver. They are like kids in a playground...a vote for Romney will give the rich a break and kill the people in the middle class...bull@!$%#.
Yeah go ahead and say I'm a bad person. I spent 10 years serving my country and I am watching the rich and politicaly connected run it down the drain. I'm not a bad person. I am a God fearing Christian who is fed up with do nothing politicans who blame the other side for their attempt to ruin this government and all because they won't work with a Negro president. What a bunch of .................Well, I can't say what I want on this forum. But if you are an old Viet Nam vet, you know exactly were my mind is.
I don't blame you, if Obama and the gang get their hands on our health care and retirement monies, we can all expect the same type of crappy service you vets get from the VA Hospitals, piss poor at best. I'll bet you would rather be able to take your money and go to a private facility any day.
See the thing is, you and the left are the ones that like to see it that way, the rest of us know they just dont want to work with an inept president.
The fact that he's black is the ONLY reason he got into office, had he been a white guy running the same election with the same credentials and being the same person but white, he would have lost to hillary.
Three Repugotrolls trying to sell giving welfare to the rich has been working...LOL
Contempt
As a matter of fact I do. I represent a number of vets and every single one of them complains about how poor the VA system is. Long waits, inferior quality of service, under care, etc...It's like comparing the postal service to UPS or Fed Ex.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WKOW) -- President Barack Obama unveiled his $3.55 trillion budget Thursday morning, which includes tax cuts for the middle class and the wealthy.
His budget includes:
Republicans send them to war democrats pick up the pieces. No way you can spin the party proposing across the board cuts to all social programs including veteran services as ones who'll take care of vets.
W Gibbons.
The grand majority of us conservatives dont give a rat's ass about Obama's color. We would be the ones voting him back in if he were at least somewhat successful. He is not. He is a huge failure, and just at the time when we really need a competent winner. It may take fifty years to repair all the Obama damage and bring us back to prosperity. It would only take another four years of Obama to totally destroy America.
As for the health care for us vets, (No, you are not the only vet here), Something I've seen over and over is the nickle-diming of the disability payments to some of my friends who were wounded in combat. They must visit a VA hospital once a year to be re-evaluated. If the range of motion of their arm has increased by two or three degrees, their disability payments are reduced accordingly. They are still disabled, still can't do many jobs, but the money is reduced, because they can bend their arm a bit more. These are the things that you never know when you are signing up.
As a vet myself, the best thing that could happen to the VA hospitals is to close them all. The savings to the country would be enormus. Give every qualified vet a Medicare ticket and they would receive better care and less wait.