It's Official--Romney and Ryan for 2012!!!

[freedombecki]

Going into this weekend, President Obama had the edge, and I believe it will stay that way.

Paul Ryan is an attractive candidate if you're already a true believer, but I think more moderate folks are waiting for substance. It's not enough to say that the President is a failure. You need to say what it is that you will do to help get us back on track.

On that note, Paul Ryan offers us something real, not just theory. His "Plan For Prosperity" is something you can read. His budget is something real that was passed in the House. In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal.

His proposal on Medicare is clear: it would eliminate Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher program that cashes Medicare out, gives me a $15,000 subsidy once I'm a senior and says to me that I must go out and shop around in the private market for the best deal. However, before Medicare existed, poverty among seniors was rampant. Big insurers didn't want to cover seniors because as we know, that's the time in your life when you start breaking down.

So what good does $15,000 do me if it runs out by the middle of May? Who picks up the tab for the rest of the year now that I'm in the free market system like everyone else?

Medicare works. It is popular. It works because the rates have been negotiated for our seniors on their behalf so that they can have security and peace of mind, and so that we don't end up in a situation that is unregulated, which means insurance companies would haggle with them over everything and charge them through the nose because they'd be regular customers like the rest of us.

I don't see how Paul Ryan goes more than a week or so without the questions coming in hard and fast about how getting rid of Medicare creates prosperity or jobs for us. He will have to backtrack here on in.

Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas. Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past, gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work, but the Romney-Ryan plan is to give even more to the top, at my expense and at the expense of other hard-working folks. It makes no sense.

I remember what it was like for the Republicans who went back home and got yelled at by old white conservatives last year after they passed the Ryan budget. It wasn't a pretty picture. They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not because they wish to see this President fail.

If I were President Obama, I would use the footage of old white people yelling and booing at Ryan. I would argue that Paul Ryan is certainly a handsome, attractive man with lots of energy, but it's too bad his energy is misdirected since further tax cuts and welfare for Shell Oil and no Medicare for the rest of us is wrong. Just plain wrong.

The dynamic does not change. The Republican ticket simply does not seem able to be able to articulate a vision that makes any sense to us and time is running out.

Paul Ryan will do well on the campaign trail. He's a charming guy. But in the debate he will get stuck because he will no longer be able to preach only to the converted. He'll have to account for his budget, and things will get sticky when that time comes because if you're Biden, you just have to hang back and say, "They would get rid of Medicare as we know it", causing Ryan to have to walk it back and over explain it the rest of the way.

Unless the economy crashes in the next few weeks, the edge is still with President Obama.

In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal.

Show me?

Medicare works.

Sure, if you ignore the $60 trillion long-term shortfall.

It is popular.

Sure, free money.

Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas.

I have an idea, let's spend $800 billion, it'll stop unemployment from rising above 8%.
And by July 2012, it'll take unemployment down to 5.6%.

Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past,

LOL! Right.

gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work,

You're right, giving more money to government and expecting it to trickle down and cause a recovery never works. But that's the Dems, not the Republicans.

They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not

They've passed several, Reid won't allow a vote in the Senate.

because they wish to see this President fail.

He's already failed. Everyone can see it.

Outta the park! And this was the best bubble popper of the week:

"They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not

They've passed several, Reid won't allow a vote in the Senate."

 

[candycorn]

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times

I wouldn't call a 99-0 vote against your budget in the Dem controlled Senate "refuses to act".
I'd call it, "even your liberal buddies know you're radioactive".

You could call it that from an unsophisticated viewpoint. The Congress did the same to a Reagan budget once. It's what happens when you have one house i n Congress that hates the President. And it's also what has resulted from our turning a blind eye to poltical appointees being able to steer and stop legislation in the Senate.

But the point is that the President has submitted a budget. All stories to the contrary are simply lies.

You could call it that from an unsophisticated viewpoint.

Could you give me the sophisticated explanation for this?

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

The Congress did the same to a Reagan budget once.

Zero votes? Link?

It's what happens when you have one house i n Congress that hates the President.

Obviously, that explains why not a single member of the President's own party voted for his budget. LOL!

Thanks, that was funny!

House Unanimously Rejects Pres. Obama’s Budget Proposal

House Unanimously Rejects
Pres. Obama's Budget Proposal
FOX News
Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.

Republicans have opposed Obama's budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts.

The vote came as the House debated a GOP budget that contains far more deficit reduction than Obama has proposed.

GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama's plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama's budget priorities, but they largely voted "no" Wednesday night.

Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama's proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

The budget was offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), to show how few votes the president's budget might get.

House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton's budget.

House Democrats floated three of President Reagan's budgets in the 1980s. Those budgets collected 28, 15 and one votes, respectively.

When you understand it was a political gimmick; the importance fades unless you don't buy the gimmick nature of it. In that case, you're just not that sophisticated when it comes to federal politics.

 

[candycorn]

I find it hilarious because Obama mine as well not even campaign this is going to be the easiest re election win EVER. He had a chance to pick Rubio who is Latino and from a swing state Florida,or Martinez from New Mexico a swing state,Woman and Latino. Or Governor Haley from South Carolina a woman and a minority. But he picks a white guy from Wisconsin...just makes no sense to me but hey I wasn't gonna vote for him in the first place and this hasn't changed my mind and I am not voting for Obama either. November 6th will be a 55% Obama,35% Romney,10% Gary Johnson.

He needed to fire up the base and Ryan will do that. The middle belongs to the Democrats but I see him working.

He should have selected someone like Tom Coburn who is, at least, a Senator and infinitely more qualified than Ryan to assume the Presidency. He would have gotten the same catalyst effect without the baggage.

 

[Interpol]

Going into this weekend, President Obama had the edge, and I believe it will stay that way.

Paul Ryan is an attractive candidate if you're already a true believer, but I think more moderate folks are waiting for substance. It's not enough to say that the President is a failure. You need to say what it is that you will do to help get us back on track.

On that note, Paul Ryan offers us something real, not just theory. His "Plan For Prosperity" is something you can read. His budget is something real that was passed in the House. In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal.

His proposal on Medicare is clear: it would eliminate Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher program that cashes Medicare out, gives me a $15,000 subsidy once I'm a senior and says to me that I must go out and shop around in the private market for the best deal. However, before Medicare existed, poverty among seniors was rampant. Big insurers didn't want to cover seniors because as we know, that's the time in your life when you start breaking down.

So what good does $15,000 do me if it runs out by the middle of May? Who picks up the tab for the rest of the year now that I'm in the free market system like everyone else?

Medicare works. It is popular. It works because the rates have been negotiated for our seniors on their behalf so that they can have security and peace of mind, and so that we don't end up in a situation that is unregulated, which means insurance companies would haggle with them over everything and charge them through the nose because they'd be regular customers like the rest of us.

I don't see how Paul Ryan goes more than a week or so without the questions coming in hard and fast about how getting rid of Medicare creates prosperity or jobs for us. He will have to backtrack here on in.

Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas. Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past, gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work, but the Romney-Ryan plan is to give even more to the top, at my expense and at the expense of other hard-working folks. It makes no sense.

I remember what it was like for the Republicans who went back home and got yelled at by old white conservatives last year after they passed the Ryan budget. It wasn't a pretty picture. They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not because they wish to see this President fail.

If I were President Obama, I would use the footage of old white people yelling and booing at Ryan. I would argue that Paul Ryan is certainly a handsome, attractive man with lots of energy, but it's too bad his energy is misdirected since further tax cuts and welfare for Shell Oil and no Medicare for the rest of us is wrong. Just plain wrong.

The dynamic does not change. The Republican ticket simply does not seem able to be able to articulate a vision that makes any sense to us and time is running out.

Paul Ryan will do well on the campaign trail. He's a charming guy. But in the debate he will get stuck because he will no longer be able to preach only to the converted. He'll have to account for his budget, and things will get sticky when that time comes because if you're Biden, you just have to hang back and say, "They would get rid of Medicare as we know it", causing Ryan to have to walk it back and over explain it the rest of the way.

Unless the economy crashes in the next few weeks, the edge is still with President Obama.

In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal.

Show me?

Medicare works.

Sure, if you ignore the $60 trillion long-term shortfall.

It is popular.

Sure, free money.

Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas.

I have an idea, let's spend $800 billion, it'll stop unemployment from rising above 8%.
And by July 2012, it'll take unemployment down to 5.6%.

Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past,

LOL! Right.

gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work,

You're right, giving more money to government and expecting it to trickle down and cause a recovery never works. But that's the Dems, not the Republicans.

They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not

They've passed several, Reid won't allow a vote in the Senate.

because they wish to see this President fail.

He's already failed. Everyone can see it.

Have you even read Ryan's budget? Have you read the Path to Prosperity? It's all in there.

Tell me how turning Medicare into a voucher program saves us money.

The House has passed ZERO jobs bills. Regulating vaginas does not create jobs.

There is no $60 trillion shortfall. Where did you get a number like that? From Glenn Beck, who told us that the President's Indonesia trip cost $2 billion and that he took a third of the Navy with him?

The $800 billion was meant to go directly into job creation, but President Obama compromised with conservatives in order to secure 60 votes in the Senate (since 60 is the new 50) and he turned 40% of it into tax cuts, and we all know that tax cuts don't create jobs, just look at the past decade.

The President's figures were way off because his plan was constructed 3 months before he entered office and he had no idea that Republicans were going to leave him with 750,000 job losses per month.

It appears that you're just drinking the koolaid instead of debating, and blaming Obama for not cleaning up after Bush fast enough.

This is what I don't understand. Obama didn't clean up after us fast enough so that means we get to have power back so we can finish our wrecking job of America?

No thanks.

Voucherizing Medicare and throwing seniors onto the private market would be a disaster for us all because there's no way they could afford the cost overruns after their vouchers are used up.

Is that the best you got, making fun of me instead of arguing real and pertinent facts?

Make a sound argument for Medicare vouchers and I'll be open to it, but making fun of me or calling Obama a failure without offering a solution is just wasting my time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me say a word about the man Mitt Romney will replace. No one disputes President Obama inherited a difficult situation. And, in his first 2 years, with his party in complete control of Washington, he passed nearly every item on his agenda. But that didn’t make things better - in fact, we find ourselves in a nation facing debt, doubt and despair.

Who can disagree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You could call it that from an unsophisticated viewpoint. The Congress did the same to a Reagan budget once. It's what happens when you have one house i n Congress that hates the President. And it's also what has resulted from our turning a blind eye to poltical appointees being able to steer and stop legislation in the Senate.

But the point is that the President has submitted a budget. All stories to the contrary are simply lies.

You could call it that from an unsophisticated viewpoint.

Could you give me the sophisticated explanation for this?

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

The Congress did the same to a Reagan budget once.

Zero votes? Link?

It's what happens when you have one house i n Congress that hates the President.

Obviously, that explains why not a single member of the President's own party voted for his budget. LOL!

Thanks, that was funny!

House Unanimously Rejects Pres. Obama’s Budget Proposal

House Unanimously Rejects
Pres. Obama's Budget Proposal
FOX News
Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.

Republicans have opposed Obama's budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts.

The vote came as the House debated a GOP budget that contains far more deficit reduction than Obama has proposed.

GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama's plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama's budget priorities, but they largely voted "no" Wednesday night.

Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama's proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

The budget was offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), to show how few votes the president's budget might get.

House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton's budget.

House Democrats floated three of President Reagan's budgets in the 1980s. Those budgets collected 28, 15 and one votes, respectively.

When you understand it was a political gimmick; the importance fades unless you don't buy the gimmick nature of it. In that case, you're just not that sophisticated when it comes to federal politics.

414-0 is a gimmick? Why did Obama's Dems go along?

I guess Obama showed them when he put forward another version of his budget?
Wait, he never did?
I get it, that's the gimmick, the President never submitted a budget.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Going into this weekend, President Obama had the edge, and I believe it will stay that way.

Paul Ryan is an attractive candidate if you're already a true believer, but I think more moderate folks are waiting for substance. It's not enough to say that the President is a failure. You need to say what it is that you will do to help get us back on track.

On that note, Paul Ryan offers us something real, not just theory. His "Plan For Prosperity" is something you can read. His budget is something real that was passed in the House. In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal.

His proposal on Medicare is clear: it would eliminate Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher program that cashes Medicare out, gives me a $15,000 subsidy once I'm a senior and says to me that I must go out and shop around in the private market for the best deal. However, before Medicare existed, poverty among seniors was rampant. Big insurers didn't want to cover seniors because as we know, that's the time in your life when you start breaking down.

So what good does $15,000 do me if it runs out by the middle of May? Who picks up the tab for the rest of the year now that I'm in the free market system like everyone else?

Medicare works. It is popular. It works because the rates have been negotiated for our seniors on their behalf so that they can have security and peace of mind, and so that we don't end up in a situation that is unregulated, which means insurance companies would haggle with them over everything and charge them through the nose because they'd be regular customers like the rest of us.

I don't see how Paul Ryan goes more than a week or so without the questions coming in hard and fast about how getting rid of Medicare creates prosperity or jobs for us. He will have to backtrack here on in.

Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas. Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past, gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work, but the Romney-Ryan plan is to give even more to the top, at my expense and at the expense of other hard-working folks. It makes no sense.

I remember what it was like for the Republicans who went back home and got yelled at by old white conservatives last year after they passed the Ryan budget. It wasn't a pretty picture. They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not because they wish to see this President fail.

If I were President Obama, I would use the footage of old white people yelling and booing at Ryan. I would argue that Paul Ryan is certainly a handsome, attractive man with lots of energy, but it's too bad his energy is misdirected since further tax cuts and welfare for Shell Oil and no Medicare for the rest of us is wrong. Just plain wrong.

The dynamic does not change. The Republican ticket simply does not seem able to be able to articulate a vision that makes any sense to us and time is running out.

Paul Ryan will do well on the campaign trail. He's a charming guy. But in the debate he will get stuck because he will no longer be able to preach only to the converted. He'll have to account for his budget, and things will get sticky when that time comes because if you're Biden, you just have to hang back and say, "They would get rid of Medicare as we know it", causing Ryan to have to walk it back and over explain it the rest of the way.

Unless the economy crashes in the next few weeks, the edge is still with President Obama.

In it, it extends corporate welfare to major corporations who don't need our money. What's more, he would give these folks an even better deal.

Show me?

Medicare works.

Sure, if you ignore the $60 trillion long-term shortfall.

It is popular.

Sure, free money.

Romney-Ryan represent a party that appears to be out of ideas.

I have an idea, let's spend $800 billion, it'll stop unemployment from rising above 8%.
And by July 2012, it'll take unemployment down to 5.6%.

Folks like myself, who have supported Republicans in the past,

LOL! Right.

gave them the benefit of the doubt that trickle-down economics would work. Well, it didn't work,

You're right, giving more money to government and expecting it to trickle down and cause a recovery never works. But that's the Dems, not the Republicans.

They were elected to pass a jobs bill and it is clear to us all that they have not

They've passed several, Reid won't allow a vote in the Senate.

because they wish to see this President fail.

He's already failed. Everyone can see it.

Have you even read Ryan's budget? Have you read the Path to Prosperity? It's all in there.

Tell me how turning Medicare into a voucher program saves us money.

The House has passed ZERO jobs bills. Regulating vaginas does not create jobs.

There is no $60 trillion shortfall. Where did you get a number like that? From Glenn Beck, who told us that the President's Indonesia trip cost $2 billion and that he took a third of the Navy with him?

The $800 billion was meant to go directly into job creation, but President Obama compromised with conservatives in order to secure 60 votes in the Senate (since 60 is the new 50) and he turned 40% of it into tax cuts, and we all know that tax cuts don't create jobs, just look at the past decade.

The President's figures were way off because his plan was constructed 3 months before he entered office and he had no idea that Republicans were going to leave him with 750,000 job losses per month.

It appears that you're just drinking the koolaid instead of debating, and blaming Obama for not cleaning up after Bush fast enough.

This is what I don't understand. Obama didn't clean up after us fast enough so that means we get to have power back so we can finish our wrecking job of America?

No thanks.

Voucherizing Medicare and throwing seniors onto the private market would be a disaster for us all because there's no way they could afford the cost overruns after their vouchers are used up.

Is that the best you got, making fun of me instead of arguing real and pertinent facts?

Make a sound argument for Medicare vouchers and I'll be open to it, but making fun of me or calling Obama a failure without offering a solution is just wasting my time.

Have you even read Ryan's budget? Have you read the Path to Prosperity? It's all in there.

Excellent! So you can easily prove your claim.

The House has passed ZERO jobs bills.

They've passed several, one very recently.

There is no $60 trillion shortfall.

What is the long range shortfall in Medicare?

and we all know that tax cuts don't create jobs,

Wasteful, short term targeted cuts just waste money.

blaming Obama for not cleaning up after Bush fast enough.

3.5 years and $5.3 trillion deeper in debt and we still have fewer jobs, damn right I blame Obama.

 

[auditor0007]

the tea party is not the people robmoney needed to win this.


The tea party make it impossible for the republicans to win elections

over 60 congressman and 6 senators says different, that was just 20 months ago, hello.

But will that be sustainable? Voters are fickle, and they were upset over a lot of things, so they took it out on the incumbents. The problem is things didn't change or even begin to get better, and now people are asking themselves who is to blame. If voters decide it is the Republicans who have been obstructionists, then expect a very big backlash.

Generic congressional polling is only showing Republicans with a very slim lead. If Obama wins big, many close congressional races could switch back to the Dems.

 

[Steelplate]

I must disagree with your statement.......

I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.

He has never said anything different regardless of what the Dem smear ads would like you to believe.

There is no question that Medicare as it exists today is simply not sustainable for the future. Changes MUST be made. If those changes are made now, they will be fair less painful than if we wait until we are plunging over that cliff.

Fearing that change only puts off what most of us know must happen one way or the other....or Medicare just won't exist for us.

55 or older? Right there is the problem with me. I'm 47, put one kid through college and am putting another through as we speak. for the past decade my wife and I have been living pretty much paycheck to paycheck to make that happen, and we are on fairly solid ground with our finances...it's tight, buy we get our bills paid on time. There are many, MANY people in worse shape than us within the same age demographic. To turn this into a voucher system is one thing. To make the cutoff so late is another. If he would lower that to 35...that would be plenty of time for those people to plan for the fact that they are going to get a "voucher" that won't nearly cover the cost of their medical needs as they get older...because the older you get, the more your needs are and the more it costs.

setting the age at 55 pits a hell of a lot of people behind the 8 ball.

 

[Bill Angel]

A terrible ticket politically. The pair may have made a good Secretary of Commerce and OBM Director but the game here is to get a plurality of voters in each state to pull a lever next to your name. That wasn't going to happen in the Governor's case before this and certainly won't happen after this.

I think that you meant OMB ( OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) rather than OBM.
A similar thought had occurred to me, as Ryan's membership in the House of Representatives and his intense focus on budgetary matters brings to mind David Stockman, who became Director of OMB in the first Reagan Administration.

 

[chanel]

Here's the problem. Ryan is a numbers guy. We need that. But Americans tend to be a bit math challenged and don't like hearing that the sky is falling. Obama doesn't care about numbers and says that everything is fine.

I am rooting for Romney and think Ryan is an excellent choice. But I am anxious that he will come off as a pessimist. I hope I'm wrong.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded]Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Conservadude]

Obama had two years of nothing but him and his party.. He has NO excuse for unemployment and the debt being so high. None. He's out of excuses and out of ideas!

 

[jillian]

Gentle Reminder - this thread is in the CDZ

The news was obviously officially 'leaked' yesterday evening (Friday) that Mitt Romney would announce his VP pick today. And that pick would be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. In the last hour, Romney and Ryan made that official with a formal announcement.

So I would have lost a bet that it would be Marco Rubio. I did not think it would be Ryan. In truth, last night I was disappointed mostly because I really wanted Rubio.

But now that I've had some time to think about it, the only conclusion I can come up with is that Mitt Romeny is 100% serious about economic reform and he picked the most logical person to help do that. And, if they are elected, I am optimistic that they will make a difference.

So we have Mr. Businessman plus Mr. Economics as the official ticket. What do you think? A good one? Or not?

you left out what would be my chose, FF.

i don't think ryan changes anything one way or the other.

an interesting article from nate silver, my numbers guru for all things electoral...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/aug-11-will-ryan-pick-move-the-polls/#more-33069

 

[jillian]

Obama had two years of nothing but him and his party.. He has NO excuse for unemployment and the debt being so high. None. He's out of excuses and out of ideas!

i know it's a lot to ask, but maybe you've heard of the filibuster?

just sayin'

and to be fair, dens aren't get in line and do what the boss says, homogeneous types.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama had two years of nothing but him and his party.. He has NO excuse for unemployment and the debt being so high. None. He's out of excuses and out of ideas!

i know it's a lot to ask, but maybe you've heard of the filibuster?

just sayin'

and to be fair, dens aren't get in line and do what the boss says, homogeneous types.

Which is why they voted for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the Stimulus?

The truth is as stated, Obama could pass any piece of legislation in the first two years he wanted. He could have had any piece after that by picking off about 2 GOP senators. With Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins that should have been easy. But compromise is not in his vocabulary. It's my way or the highway.

We see the results. The economy is in terrible shape and likely to get worse. Tax rates are set to jump more than they ever have. Foreign policy is in disarray and a total failure. Every measure of the economy shows that this is the worst recovery on record.
That is reason enough to vote Obama out.

 

[FJO]

I must disagree with your statement.......

I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.

He has never said anything different regardless of what the Dem smear ads would like you to believe.

There is no question that Medicare as it exists today is simply not sustainable for the future. Changes MUST be made. If those changes are made now, they will be fair less painful than if we wait until we are plunging over that cliff.

Fearing that change only puts off what most of us know must happen one way or the other....or Medicare just won't exist for us.

So, what if you're 54 and been putting into the system for close to 40 years? You're just shit out of luck? Your older siblings will be taken care of, but you get some shitty voucher that doesn't come close to paying the bills? No thanks.

With an unrealistic and obsolete age of 65 years when the life expectancy is well over 75 years is simply unsustainable, for both Medicare and Social Security.

It MUST be raised, and it must start somewhere.

55 seems like a good start.

 

[Foxfyre]

I must disagree with your statement.......

I am 71, also on Medicare, and I listened to every word Ryan spoke this morning. At no time did he say anything about "taking away" Medicare. In fact, just the opposite. He said if you are 55 or older and/or already on Medicare, there will be NO changes.

He has never said anything different regardless of what the Dem smear ads would like you to believe.

There is no question that Medicare as it exists today is simply not sustainable for the future. Changes MUST be made. If those changes are made now, they will be fair less painful than if we wait until we are plunging over that cliff.

Fearing that change only puts off what most of us know must happen one way or the other....or Medicare just won't exist for us.

55 or older? Right there is the problem with me. I'm 47, put one kid through college and am putting another through as we speak. for the past decade my wife and I have been living pretty much paycheck to paycheck to make that happen, and we are on fairly solid ground with our finances...it's tight, buy we get our bills paid on time. There are many, MANY people in worse shape than us within the same age demographic. To turn this into a voucher system is one thing. To make the cutoff so late is another. If he would lower that to 35...that would be plenty of time for those people to plan for the fact that they are going to get a "voucher" that won't nearly cover the cost of their medical needs as they get older...because the older you get, the more your needs are and the more it costs.

setting the age at 55 pits a hell of a lot of people behind the 8 ball.

We cannot continue the program as it is without it becoming such a horrendous drag on the economy that we all suffer the consequences. We have to be able to reform the system without demonizing those who offer plans to do so.

If the Ryan plan is imperfect or will produce unintended negative consequences, the debates and discussions and close analysis will reveal that and there will almost certainly be fixes and amendments. Electing Ryan does not make his plan for Medicare reform automatic any more than some of Barack Obama's more radical concepts became automatic when he was elected.

Here is an analysis of various Medicare reform plans that are out there. It is obvious that Ryan's plan is right there in the mix as 'reasonable'. The summary analysis is just a little way down into the document - Page 4 I think.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/bg2675.pdf

 

[Greenbeard]

If the Ryan plan is imperfect or will produce unintended negative consequences, the debates and discussions and close analysis will reveal that and there will almost certainly be fixes and amendments. Electing Ryan does not make his plan for Medicare reform automatic any more than some of Barack Obama's more radical concepts became automatic when he was elected.

Ryan's plan solves nothing. Its claim to fame is that it aims to hit a per enrollee Medicare spending growth target that has already been achieved.

It's ideological drivel--a more expensive alternative designed solely to smash the most popular and most effective federal program in history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama has had trouble in leading for sure, swizzlee.

However, the far right in Congress today are the most derelict reps and senators since the Democrat segregationists in the fifties and sixties, in my opinion.

Then you need to ask yourself this.............

Why is Obama unable to convince Congress to come his way? A good, capable leader would know how to convince members of Congress in order to get his bills passed. Reagan could do it. Clinton could do it. Obama could not.

That is HIS failure and blaming others is a big part of his problem. Blaming others never got anything accomplished. As a result the past 3 years have been a big fat zero.

So now you're saying if Romney is elected, we would be looking at not only corruption but a "failed economy", too.

Our economy is already failing. Do you really believe it's going to get any better if Obama is reelected? Do you think he's suddenly going to have a Democrat House and Senate so that he can slide his bills through?

I think you know that isn't going to happen. So are you saying you're resigned to 4 more years of failing economy?

If you're really optimistic about Obama, why or how do you see him solving our problems, including your health situation?

 

[Liability]

Nah. The singularly most derelict reps and Senators are those who voted for Obamacare waiting to find out what they were voting for until AFTER the thing passed.

Reprehensible. A liberal Democrat tradition.