U.S. Presidential Election page 3 (locked)

1843 posts

Flag Post

Me? I’m fine. Was at the museum all week with my kids, and now I’ve got work I’ve got to go do.

 
Flag Post

I can’t vote, but..

ROMNEY 2012.

</discussion>
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by TheBSG:If I voted for Paul Ryan, I’d literally be fucking killing my own self considering I’m on medicare and could literally not survive, live, exist, or even have a political opinion if I wasn’t.

Ryan did propose cuts to medicare, and that is the focus of the Obama campaign, but the fact is that Obama literally gutted medicare. He cut $716 Billion from medicare1. While Ryan did propose a reform of Medicare, he didn’t propose cuts to that depth, but changed the way government funds things. I know that Obama accuses Ryan of wanting to gut medicare, but that’s dishonest, not only in that Ryan’s plan didn’t do that, but that Obama actually did. If medicare is what is really important to you, then vote Romney/Ryan.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/medicare-368797-obama-cuts.html

The next Jhco of the day award. Its very pathetic that your source refers to politfact.com to denounce the lies of Democrats but has its own and your claims/lies countered by the very same site.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/15/checking-facts-700-billion-medicare-cut/

I especial like how you yourself claim that voting Romney/Ryan would be better, even though Ryan´s Budget plan includes the exact same cost reductions/savings in Medicare cost growth. Now the Romney campaign has indeed issued a statement that Romney would fully repeal the laws(obama care and etc.), but it included the statement that they(Romney/Ryan) plan to instead “implement the reforms that they have proposed to strengthen it for future generations”.

 
Flag Post

Romney/Ryan because the President has done absolutely nothing to warrant having his contract extended for another four years.

 
Flag Post
I especial like how you yourself claim that voting Romney/Ryan would be better, even though Ryan´s Budget plan includes the exact same cost reductions/savings in Medicare cost growth. Now the Romney campaign has indeed issued a statement that Romney would fully repeal the laws(obama care and etc.), but it included the statement that they(Romney/Ryan) plan to instead “implement the reforms that they have proposed to strengthen it for future generations”.

The difference is, is that the President is cutting $700 billion from current seniors. Ryan doesn’t touch anyone older than 55, meaning that people can prepare for cuts in Medicare, as opposed to not having any Medicare at all, which is the current route Washington seems interested in taking.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
I especial like how you yourself claim that voting Romney/Ryan would be better, even though Ryan´s Budget plan includes the exact same cost reductions/savings in Medicare cost growth. Now the Romney campaign has indeed issued a statement that Romney would fully repeal the laws(obama care and etc.), but it included the statement that they(Romney/Ryan) plan to instead “implement the reforms that they have proposed to strengthen it for future generations”.

The difference is, is that the President is cutting $700 billion from current seniors. Ryan doesn’t touch anyone older than 55, meaning that people can prepare for cuts in Medicare, as opposed to not having any Medicare at all, which is the current route Washington seems interested in taking.

Can you give some links to sources backing your claims.
1. That the president is cutting 700 Billion from current seniors. Please note that i have already provided links to politfact.com which show your wrong, unless you have a source that clearly contradicts these sources.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/15/checking-facts-700-billion-medicare-cut/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/stephanie-cutter/ryans-plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/
2. How Ryan does not touch the same people/anyone older than 55, but gets the exact same 500/716 Billion in savings to reduce deficit in his Budget plan. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-vicki-kennedy-jack-lew-paul-ryan/story?id=16673650&amp;page=7#.UCqcqqCiH9o
3. That the measures implemented by Obama will lead to people not having any Medicare at all.

 
Flag Post

I still want to know how nationalized healthcare isn’t going to make medicare obsolete, because I’m not opposed to that being false I just kind of assumed.

Also, a thing I meant to say earlier: Vote for useless democrats and they spend too much money and raise taxes on rich people while leaving the spending power of the middle class relatively intact. Vote for effective pseudo-liberal “republicans” and they only make our national debt soar three times as much, but instead on the backs of many people that contradict their own well being and vote for them but will not bounce back from these policies. Sorry, but I’d rather spend rich people’s money and have crappy tax rates than increased crime, poverty, and social disorder because rich people are too scared to lose 100,000th of their wealth. This isn’t a red vs blue thing either, it would be if we were talking about actual fiscal conservatives. “No I’m fiscal, this giant government contract is for the Halliburton who is a person, not the person who is my brother.”

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” – GK Chesterton

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I still want to know how nationalized healthcare isn’t going to make medicare obsolete, because I’m not opposed to that being false I just kind of assumed.

A proper nationalized healthcare system would roll medicare under its wing. You would still get it, but it would be taken care of by a different authority with a lot more clout. That’s what happens in most of the European models.

The nationalised healthcare that Obama tried to bring in, wasn’t a proper nationalized healthcare system. It couldn’t be. The country’s just not ready for that drastic a change. Rather, it was in simplified lingo, setting maximum levels that insurers could charge for healthcare. This would have the knock-on effect of rendering some treatments inaccessible, and bringing down the price of others. So medicare provision would change drastically as the medical insurers were brought under closer scrutiny, and the availability of treatment options shifted.

There’s a lot more to it, but that’s the basic gist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I am aware of Obama’s transfer of Medicare to public healthcare, and unless you can provide some insight that I don’t have (it’s a thing I was more informed about last year when it happened), it seems to me that the healthcare bill itself includes the same services as medicare did formerly, it’s just a compilation of those programs.

You’re still not addressing that it would cost me anywhere from 5 to 6 thousand more dollars in copays using a counter intuitive attempt at encouraging competition of putting individuals and our tax payer dollars up for the lowest common denominator using “incentive vouchers,” just as it doesn’t work in private/charter schools that want to teach not-science and still get government funding because of vouchers, drastically lowering the quality of education in poor rural southern states where people would have been religious regardless of their understanding of the world anyway. Richer (still mostly religious and conservative) communities have no problems with voucher systems so they keep thinking they work, and they simply don’t for everyone.

I’m not interested in political ideals here, so if you have real policy analysis on this topic I’m not at all going to deny its legitimacy. I don’t even get why politics gets so emotional, the things people claim should be relatively easy to determine. The goals the different parties are supposed to have don’t mean that we cannot satisfy them both, and in fact our ability to do so ensures an equilibrium of freedom. If we agreed on different goals and then worked towards satisfying them without compromising the goals of the other, we’re going to build a far superior society that is self aware and self controlled. If you’ve got facts that support a particular claim, I’m absolutely open to them and am not interested in opinions here in the least. I’m practical when it comes to government, not political.

Edit: Not too well actually, message me if you want to be my therapist. ;) Thanks for asking though, and yourself?

Except, I’m afraid the elderly won’t get the care they need anymore. That and I don’t think the healthcare bill has a bright future. There are too many people who are against it and as it stands now, I believe a lot of politicians will be losing their jobs over it.

I have not heard anything about any voucher programs. I guess I should do a little research on that. Keep in mind Ryan will be a vice president and it will still have to go through congress. I don’t think something like that is going to fly. We do not have school vouchers in my area and I don’t see them coming anytime soon either. I think school vouchers are a state by state program. I’m gathering they have a school voucher system in your area?

Politics are emotional for most people as one party will have power and stomp the others ideals. Then the other party gets in because the first screwed everything up and they screw it up the other way. Then we have to listen to the lies they tell about each other and get depressed. LOL

I have been doing fine. Working on another house with my wife. I enjoy doing that.

 
Flag Post

‘Murica isn’t brave enough for DR RON PAUL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTehStoner:

‘Murica isn’t brave enough for DR RON PAUL

Apparently not. It’s always the Republicans vs. the Dems. An interesting independent or libertarian never has a fighting chance. :-(

 
Flag Post

I’m tired of these crusades. I don’t care if someone skinny-dipped in Israel. Why is that a problem? I don’t care if someone thought you couldn’t get pregnant from being raped. Yes that’s incredibly stupid, but now he has learned. I don’t care if Obama said ‘you didn’t build it.’ While in a way this might reflect some of his mindset on government and private business, stop talking about it already. I don’t care if Romney won’t release his tax returns and Obama won’t release his school records. Sure Obama maybe has shady school records, and Romney has shady tax returns, but we all knew that already, didn’t we?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

I don’t care if Romney won’t release his tax returns and Obama won’t release his school records. Sure Obama maybe has shady school records, and Romney has shady tax returns, but we all knew that already, didn’t we?

To be fair, aren’t these elected officials allowed some modicum of privacy? Not a lot, just a little? I mean, if I was in public office or a movie star, I wouldn’t consider that relinquishment of total rights to include peeks into my finances, medical records, and what have you.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, I don’t get why becoming president suddenly makes you no longer a US citizen. In fact, I think we’d all be better off if we stopped caring who candidates potentially bullied when they were kids, and focused on policy making. I don’t know why we’re confused that one of the most important singular jobs in not just our country, but in the world and history, is being filled by lying, self interested, privileged individuals, when we care more about the cut of their jib and who they cheated on their spouses with than their qualifications and practical effectiveness at solving problems.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Obama’s amnesty plan does in fact make it easier for illegal immigrants to gain a pathway to citizenship. Many undocumented illegal immigrants will now swarm in America and say they’ve been here for years and who’s to say they aren’t when they don’t have proper identification. This is an obvious ploy of client politics to get Obama reelected by having the sizable Hispanic minority vote for him even though he deported many illegal immigrants and now in an election year he suddenly reverses.

This has been repeated a few times, and it makes no sense to me.

“You have no proof you’ve been here for years? Well then, we should just take your word for it.”

These figures supposedly come from a 2004 report by CIS that estimated the costs to the federal government of households headed by illegal immigrants in 2002. But the CIS report actually put the costs of food stamp, WIC and free school lunch programs to “illegal alien households” at $1.9 billion, not the $2.2 billion claimed in the e-mail. The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens.

Emphasized the important part. If you don’t like this, then you should probably fight for overhaul of the natural born citizen laws.

Also, if this is unfair to legal immigrants, won’t they oppose such a movement and not vote for him? It seems they are giving support, but I could be wrong.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
That the president is cutting 700 Billion from current seniors. Please note that i have already provided links to politfact.com which show your wrong, unless you have a source that clearly contradicts these sources.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf

The key nugget:

In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would
increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013–2022 period.

That is, repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would lead to $711b more in spending in Medicare, meaning that, keeping it, leads to $711b less in spending in Medicare in the next 10 years? Do you know who is affected by Medicare in the next 10 years? That’s right, seniors!

2. How Ryan does not touch the same people/anyone older than 55, but gets the exact same 500/716 Billion in savings to reduce deficit in his Budget plan.

Erm, this looks like the same thing as point 1 since you seem to acknowledge Ryan doesn’t touch a hair on anyone older than 55.

That the measures implemented by Obama will lead to people not having any Medicare at all.

I’m merely looking at the fact that in about 12 years, Medicare is going to Bankrupt. The President has done nothing to seriously address this.

On an aside, I never said that Obamacare would lead to people not having any Medicare at all, I said it’s going bankrupt and there are immediate cuts going into place.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
That the president is cutting 700 Billion from current seniors. Please note that i have already provided links to politfact.com which show your wrong, unless you have a source that clearly contradicts these sources.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf

The key nugget:

In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would
increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013–2022 period.

That is, repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would lead to $711b more in spending in Medicare, meaning that, keeping it, leads to $711b less in spending in Medicare in the next 10 years? Do you know who is affected by Medicare in the next 10 years? That’s right, seniors!

Sigh. People are dying in Syria. Americans are people. Add issendorf logic: Americans are dying in Syria.

Medicare does not just effect Seniors. So far i have seen source that point out that the “cuts” do not “cut” from service being provided to Seniors but instead cut on payments to under performing service providers. I have yet to see any evidence for an actual direct negative effect for the Seniors.

2. How Ryan does not touch the same people/anyone older than 55, but gets the exact same 500/716 Billion in savings to reduce deficit in his Budget plan.

Erm, this looks like the same thing as point 1 since you seem to acknowledge Ryan doesn’t touch a hair on anyone older than 55.

No. Though i can perhaps see that me forgetting to use the questions mark might mislead you. It was supposed to be a question. I am highlighting that you cna´t both have the cookie and eat it.

That the measures implemented by Obama will lead to people not having any Medicare at all.

I’m merely looking at the fact that in about 12 years, Medicare is going to Bankrupt. The President has done nothing to seriously address this.

On an aside, I never said that Obamacare would lead to people not having any Medicare at all, I said it’s going bankrupt and there are immediate cuts going into place.

Your claim was that opposed to Ryan´s method the current rout of Washington seems to lead to no Medicare at all. Does not make much sense if he is not making any more cuts than Obama. Either Obama is actually preparing to keep Medicare from becoming bankrupt or Ryan is also not doing whats necessary.

 
Flag Post

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

 
Flag Post
I would post several link right now, but do to the fact that I'm just terrible at formatting, I can't. Here's the mess that I was trying to post. "I'll":http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/22/medicare_trust_fund_exhaustion_comes_faster_under_romney_plan.html "just":http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/reversing-obama-medicare-cuts-may-backfire-on-romney-by-speeding-up-programs-insolvency/2012/08/16/87ad2cb0-e76e-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html "leave":http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57494288/undoing-obama-medicare-cuts-may-backfire-on-romney/ "these":http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2012/08/poligraph_gop_c_3.shtml "here":http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-obama-medicare-cuts-mitt-romney.php "for":http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/ryans-budget-keeps-obamas-medicare-cuts-full-stop/ "people":http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/stephanie-cutter/ryans-plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/ "to":http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106061/romney-ryan-medicare-cut-obamacare-priebus "read.":http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/13/1119635/-Romney-rips-Obama-for-Medicare-cuts-in-Ryan-budget
 
Flag Post
Sigh. People are dying in Syria. Americans are people. Add issendorf logic: Americans are dying in Syria.

Yes, because that’s really the logical argument I was making.

Medicare does not just effect Seniors. So far i have seen source that point out that the “cuts” do not “cut” from service being provided to Seniors but instead cut on payments to under performing service providers.

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/73509-w16859.pdf

They say that cuts in Medicare could (not will, I submit, but opens the potential) lead to a decrease in care.

No. Though i can perhaps see that me forgetting to use the questions mark might mislead you. It was supposed to be a question. I am highlighting that you cna´t both have the cookie and eat it.

If you refuse to acknowledge the fact and read his budget that passed the House that exempts anyone over the age of 55, there is nothing more I can really do.

Your claim was that opposed to Ryan´s method the current rout of Washington seems to lead to no Medicare at all. Does not make much sense if he is not making any more cuts than Obama. Either Obama is actually preparing to keep Medicare from becoming bankrupt or Ryan is also not doing whats necessary.

Ryan is curbing future growth, Obama is cutting to help fund the ACA. It’s really not that difficult of a concept to grasp.