Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could care less about the Public Debt. Why should I? The whole silly system could collapse but I would still get paid for what I do and be able to pay for what I need. The Big Banksters would lose their wealth, power and prestige but even they would have enough left over to survive even if they had to sell the Ferrari for a Focus.
That's not how it works. If you're going to use a study to prove your side you need to use something bipartisan like the CBO or use your opponents side to prove your point.
The CBPP is a far left organization (that I've used many times to prove to liberals this or that) but I wouldn't turn around and try to argue with you using the Heritage Foundation.
I can use whatever sources that I want. If you think the CBPP is wrong or inaccurate, the onus is on you to show where their inaccuracies are. The CBO isn't going to be as blunt as the CBPP would. The Heritage Foundation isn't even a think tank, they're a propaganda machine.
Once again, you can't dismiss a source because you don't like its viewpoint when their analysis is spot on.
What the conservatives posting on this thread seem to be saying is that when the Democrats are talking about healthcare reform, the appropriate response is don't touch Medicare. But when the Republicans talk about healthcare reform, it's okey-dokey to do away with Medicare. Is that correct?
I'd say that's pretty much universal. The only thing we know for sure though is Obamacare double counts savings from taking $500 billion from it then claims it makes it more solvent while adding a different exchange.
So far, democrats have been the only ones to remove billions from Medicare while simultaneously blaming republicans for wanting to strip Medicare.
I can use whatever sources that I want. If you think the CBPP is wrong or inaccurate, the onus is on you to show where their inaccuracies are. The CBO isn't going to be as blunt as the CBPP would. The Heritage Foundation isn't even a think tank, they're a propaganda machine.
Once again, you can't dismiss a source because you don't like its viewpoint when their analysis is spot on.
There are way more doctorates at The Heritage Foundation than at the CBPP.
I can dismiss it because it wasn't accurate.
A real big hint in an accurate assessment would be seeing information you don 't particularly agree with along with things you do agree with.
If you agree with everything your source has written, or your opposition's source not at all, you've joined the partisanly hacked crowd.
I can use whatever sources that I want. If you think the CBPP is wrong or inaccurate, the onus is on you to show where their inaccuracies are. The CBO isn't going to be as blunt as the CBPP would. The Heritage Foundation isn't even a think tank, they're a propaganda machine.
Once again, you can't dismiss a source because you don't like its viewpoint when their analysis is spot on.
Okay, well then I'll put the disclaimer since you won't.
One issue we consider is how a proposal would affect the federal-state relationship in administering these programs: we seek to enhance state flexibility while retaining federal financial commitments and federal legal protections for program recipients. We also help implement changes in these programs. In addition, the Center designs improvements to make these programs more accessible to eligible populations, more effective in helping beneficiaries meet basic needs while moving toward self-sufficiency, and simpler to administer for federal and state governments.
In other words, any proposal that is opposite of larger government is going to be in direct contrast to their stated goals and their organization.
Actually Ryans plan keeps granny where she is really. But what it also does as any plan will is keeep what the trusteee said will be massive cuts from happening especailly in SS when by law it drops to 77% of what was promised.For those younger than 55 it actaully gives some hope that it may be eqaul to what is noraml now.Its funny that a group who took 500 billion out of medicaire claims to how be saving it as is;but I guess you can fool ;fools.If they buy that then we need to take a eqaul; per cantage out of alot of programs and putitng it towards debt to get it down. Some can fool themselves as long as the liers tell them they favor no change while largely defunding it.
So what I hear from the right-wing, who are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom, is, "Democrats cut approximately $500 billion from Medicare when the reform bills passed."
Yet, even as Republicans denounce the modest reform law that reins in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that's more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.
Those 53 year old daughters will one day be grandmas and they won't be able to afford health care with the cheapskate Ryan vouchers. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. The CBO said, “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts.
So here we have the hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings -- savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.
So what I hear from the right-wing, who are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom, is, "Democrats cut approximately $500 billion from Medicare when the reform bills passed."
Yet, even as Republicans denounce the modest reform law that reins in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that's more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.
Those 53 year old daughters will one day be grandmas and they won't be able to afford health care with the cheapskate Ryan vouchers. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. The CBO said, “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts.
So here we have the hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings -- savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.
I can make this real simple for you and your side.
Your side seeks to solve a fiscal problem with a welfare program by cutting money from that welfare program and starting another. The thinking, of course, is they can get it right this time around.
The republicans are looking to find more inventive ways of trying to solve the problem, not the same damn ways over and over again.
I'd say that's pretty much universal. The only thing we know for sure though is Obamacare double counts savings from taking $500 billion from it then claims it makes it more solvent while adding a different exchange.
So far, democrats have been the only ones to remove billions from Medicare while simultaneously blaming republicans for wanting to strip Medicare.
So far, Republicans have been the ones proposing to do away with Medicare, permanently, at the expense of seniors. Because heaven forbid we should raise taxes on the richest Americans. Why that would be terrible, rich people paying more taxes! Senior citizens receiving subsidized health care. If those elderly people can't pay for it, they shouldn't receive health care, right?
So far, Republicans have been the ones proposing to do away with Medicare, permanently, at the expense of seniors. Because heaven forbid we should raise taxes on the richest Americans. Why that would be terrible, rich people paying more taxes! Senior citizens receiving subsidized health care. If those elderly people can't pay for it, they shouldn't receive health care, right?
Wow, how many times does it have to be repeated that no current seniors will be affected but only those 54 and younger?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
