Paul, be grateful he didn't just flip you the finger. Obama is a Chicago thug proving once and for all that you can go to Harvard and still have no class.

It's good to occasionally see that there are a few adults in Washington. Unfortunately they are outnumbered and usually shouted down by the panderers, flacks and fools that constitute the majority of both parties.

Then of course you have the hate-filled jackasses, the best example of which currently infests the White House.

What Obama did to Rep. Ryan during his speech on Wednesday is no different from what he did to the Supreme Court Justices a little over a year ago. Twice we have now seen Obama set people up so that he can deliver a sucker punch in public (where he feels safer). From that I take it that fundamentally Obama is a bully. I also believe that like most bullies he's a coward. Those are not good attributes to have in a person in any leadership position, much less President of the United States.

Actually Obama is doing Ryan a political favour by contemptously dismissing Ryan's medicare voucher proposals. My feeling is that if Ryan and the tea party loons want "to go to the mattresses" with their plan to "end medicare", that is their choice, go ahead, but the electoral consequences won´t be pretty.

if you’re a Republican Congressman who voted to abolish Medicare.

Oldsters vote and they watch a lot of tv too. If you’re a Republican in a swing district and you let your voting record make the election a referendum on the abolition of Medicare, you’re in a bad way. You want the Matlock crowd hot and bothered about gay marriage or Sharia law, not worried about the fact that you want to cut their health care.

If these idiots pass this thing—which will die in the Senate, my guess is that outside of Rand Ryan and a few other loons, no one there touch will touch this thing—it will cost them ten seats all by itself.

Steve, I think saying Paul Ryan wants to end Medicare is a very disingenuous because I think you know that is not really true. He is proposing reform. What about Obama's desire to do away with Medicare Advantage which many seniors find to be a very beneficial program? The bottom line with Obama is that he is a thug. Upset Old Guy has explained this above. He is an amoral individual that lacks any sense of duty to his office. Obama may have a very impressive speaking presence but if one pays attention to his actual words there is a significant intellectual and creative void there. Many people like yourself want to give Obama some sort of credit for being president during a very challenging time in our history. But if you look at it dispassionately he is clearly not up to the challenge and he is really not the one we have been waiting for. In fact, he seems to make matters worse with every utterance and action. We do know if we go along as we are now - and really that is what Obama is basically proposing - we will reach a point where there will be nothing. If seniors are so short-sighted as not to see a need for reform now, any real or more likely imagined inconvenience will pale to what they will receive in a collapsed economy - nothing. And then what will they do, work? It stuns me that people like you would rather sell out the future of this country as a whole than acknowledge that this man is a terrible leader. I thought liberals considered themselves the protectors of the little people. What the hell is going to happen to the little people under this man's policies? In your mind to really see Obama as the culmination of the progressive agenda?

Ryan wants to hand over Medicare to the private insurance companies, make the geezers pay more and live less, so he can cut the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%.

Steve,

ObamaCare already ends Medicare as we know it and seniors voted GOP in Nov because they know Rynas plan is a better choice ...

If its going to change they know which plan they want ...

Chico,

nice DNC talking point ... you did manage to leave alot of facts that disprove your case ...

for one, nothing will change if you are 55 and older so your first contention is a lie ...

but thats normal for liberals ...

keep on lying ... see if you can scare seniors ...

Oh, Jeff, so it's OK to shaft the geezers of the future?

I'm under 55, so I guess I might be in front of the AETNA or CIGNA death panel after my profitability has been exhausted.

point taken, the grandfathered clause saves the over 55 years olds, but it does seem cynical that the tea parties who bashed the Obama administration on medicare cuts in the recent election, now want to take the lead to abolish the programme now .for those under 55. and install cuts on those over 55...that´s politics!

Oh, Jeff, so it's OK to shaft the geezers of the future?

As a future geezer, I'm not expecting ANY of the following to be available.

Medicare.
Medicaid.
Social Security.
VA benefits.

I'm HOPING they'll be available at some level, but I'm putting away 14% of my paycheck in a 401K (which I'm pretty sure the government's going to think about grabbing in the future) because I can't count on it. I CANNOT count on it in planning for the future.

"...that´s politics!"

Considering Obama is occupying the White House at the present time and driving the progessive agenda, this statement has no merit in criticizing the Republican Party.

As a future geezer, I'm not expecting ANY of the following to be available.

Medicare.
Medicaid.
Social Security.
VA benefits.

These programs did well for over 60 years. Do you ever question why they might not be available, or do you just swallow the BS your masters are feeding you and parroting it back?

At the same time Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be unsustainable, the government is shoveling out money -$220 million - to the likes of two Wall Street housewives.

The loans were set up so that Christy and Susan would keep 100 percent of any gains on the deals, while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90 percent of the losses. Given out as part of a bailout program ostensibly designed to help ordinary people by kick-starting consumer lending, the deals were a classic heads-I-win, tails-you-lose investment.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411

So which is is Chico and Steve? Does Ryan want to get rid of Medicare or does he want to turn it over to the insurance industry to run under government supervision?

And I suppose that your assumption that the insurance industry will do worse than the government which has always reported astronomical levels of fraud that the insurance industry has never seen?

What about the government policy that says that a physician receiving medicare payments cannot even tell a patient about a treatment that medicare doesn't pay for and if they do they risk heavy fines and possible jail time? Which is why my parent's physician makes them apply for reimbursement and won't take payments directly.

Or that for years Medicare mandated a treatment for breast cancer that the oncology profession had abandoned as ineffective, or that Medicare wouldn't pay for the anti-emetic medicines that made chemotherapy tolerable?

Private management would mean less waste, less fraud and a system that actually kept up to date on current treatments.

Sure insurance has it's issues, but government heathcare has many more. Medicare pays below cost for most therapies. Hospitals couldn't keep their doors open if everyone paid like Medicare/Medicaid.

Even Michelle obama's employer, the University of Chicago Medical Center, stopped being a trauma center because they were getting too many Medicaid patients and couldn't afford to keep receiving them in.

Chico, "These programs did well for over 60 years. Do you ever question why they might not be available".

Why did Madoff do so well initially? Because ponzi schemes (earlier called: pyramid schemes) always do well in their early stages. But they inevitably crash when income is no longer sufficient to support pay-outs.

More than 60 years? Medicaid - 1964, Medicare - 1965.

Actually the main thrust of the post before the libtards chased twinkling lights is Obamalama chose to politicize totally the budget deficit thus ignoring a major and maybe catastrophic problem for the future of our country. His lack of leadership is vivid for all but the left. This country has problems and they do not require political solutions.

Obamalama is toast. He may get the WH but he lost the senate. ww

"These programs did well for over 60 years. Do you ever question why they might not be available, or do you just swallow the BS your masters are feeding you and parroting it back?"

Chico, you're an idiot. If these were privately managed programs and you had fiduciary responsibility for them you would have been under investigation by the government and likely in jail some time ago. The fact that the government itself manages them means that the Ponzi scheme/ the state of indebtedness can be carried merrily along much further than would otherwise be legal in the private sector. The ultimate outcome is the same. Just because the disaster is delayed because of creative government accounting isn't just cause for accolades. With comments such as those you write here it becomes sadly clear why the situation we are in does not worry enough people.

Paul Ryan's proposal for senior citizen death camps was bound to garner this kind of reaction.

I'm suprised you're surprised.

I see Woops head is up it's ass again, nice drive by a-hole. Oh and nice to see you hope all is well in your world.

Oh, I understand why they likely won't be available, Chico.

It's called having too damn much debt to too little income, and too many fucking politicians going "Oh, it's just a few billion, we'll stick it onto the deficit and nobody will notice!"

Do that enough years, and you end up severely screwed. I don't blame the bankers, or their housewives, or Enron, or BP or 'the rich' or whoever it's trendy to blame this week. I've watched over the last 40 years as program after program inflated the deficit, each program going from 'it'd be nice to have this' to 'Oh, we can't cut THAT - too many people depend on it!' The programs that did well were living on borrowed money, on IOUs signed by people who knew what they were doing, shoving the debt down the line past the time they were in office.

(Now, we did this once before - funding WW2 with war bonds and stamps. That was a bit different - the money raised by taking on that debt was spent in the US, and the money paid back went to people in the US, with interest. Net effect? Economic stimulus out the wazoo, with the PEOPLE controlling where they spent their money and on what, basically farming it back into the economy. Compare that to now - where we're selling the debt overseas. Think the debt's going to generate any real stimulus when (if) it's ever redeemed? THEY'LL get the dollars, not us.)

So I blame the politicians who promise out money and programs to get elected and the fucking assholes like you who go "Hell, I'll vote for the guy, he's promising me what I WANT!"

And you know that old saying about 'be careful what you wish for', right?

If you're making 12K a year, and you've got 10k in debt, that's manageable if you're really careful. (Been there, done that, glad as hell that I'm no longer doing that! Think I still have a copy of "75 ways to cook healthy ramen dinners" around somewhere.)

But let's say you get fucking drunk one night, go to a strip club (because you just got a $200 check from the IRS, get some drinks and look at some titty) and you start signing markers and end up with about $100k in debt. You owe it, it's your signature - and Guido ain't going to take 'I don't have it!' for an answer - you're going to get your legs broken if you don't pay up.

Well, Guido's starting to tap that lead pipe impatiently. He doesn't care who's got your money, and he doesn't give a shit about excuses or who's to blame or what. He wants to get paid.

You've got a hangover. And an empty wallet.

What happens next?

For all the crowing about America being the greatest nation in the history of the universe, across all parallel dimensions, you faux-deficit-hawks clamouring for lower taxes for rich people sure have given up on maintaining America's stature as a decent place to live.

The only way these comment threads make any sense is if you all happen to earn $250K+/year. Otherwise you've all been convinced by the various Catfood Commissions that America--greatest nation on Earth!!!!--can't afford to guarantee healthcare for seniors, because rich people gotta stack their paper and F-35 JSF's gotta get built otherwise the Russians will invade and conquer the Homeland.

It's called having too damn much debt to too little income,

Right, and why is there too little income?

There's been 30 years of tax cutting, with a brief pause under Clinton when surpluses were run.

The top marginal tax rate during World War II was 94% on income over $200,000 (about $2,451,668 in today's dollars)

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

In the boom years of the 50s and early 60s, it was still 91% on incomes over $400,000 (about $3 million in today's dollars).

We're fighting two or three wars, and the only people paying for them are paying for them in blood. The upper classes don't join the Marines too often, at least they could pay taxes for the VA benefits you call say are going away.

Yeah, Chico. All we had to do was keep jacking up the tax rates, and there would have been enough money for everything... until the fuckheads raised spending AGAIN.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Raise taxes. Raise spending to accomodate increased revenue, and then some. Raise taxes again, because we're not getting enough. Oh, more revenue - so it gets spent, along with a little more.

The blame's on the politicians, not the taxpayers.

.... Buraq Hussayn bin Buraq Hussayn bin Hussayn Osama commanded Mr Ryan to attend a narcissistic demagoguing that was a blatant attack on Mr Ryan's 2012 budget and a character assination of Mr Ryan. An act typical of the arrogance of your average 1930s-era common-garden charismatic-narcissist.

Although, some have it luckier than others. Italy's had a brain and the Austrian-speaking one had made Corporal on his own merits. And could hang paper!

The problem isn't too little revenue. The problem is too much spending. Yes, both parties are at fault here and there is no reason that the federal government could not find the courage to roll back spending to the 2008 levels. That would save close to a trillion dollars per year and it wasn't like we weren't funding entitlements etc back then.

Chico demonstrates that he does not understand taxation and thinks that raising taxes will provide enough revenue when it has already been shown that you can confiscate 100% of the wealth of everyone earning over $250,000 and it still wouldn't cover government spending for 1 year.

Hyper seems to think that a government that can't cover the obligations that it has now will somehow be able to cover the $2-3 Trillion that it would take to run healthcare like it is today. Why do we know that the existing system will work better than obamacare? Because adding several layers of unproductive federal bureaucracy to the existing system does not reduce costs it increases them and only in the fantasy world you found up your ass does it do anything else.

And why should we agree to increased taxes when the government has shown us so clearly that they are not serious about reducing spending? The left lives in this fantasy world that says they can spend, spend, spend and someone else will always have the money to cover for them. We have passed that point.

Chico -

Re VA benefits - if the government has no money, and can't borrow money, where is the money going to come from to pay for the benefits the government promised?

I've already seen entitlements that were supposed to be lifetime ones go away. I saw my GI bill benefits that were supposed to be available for 20 years after I got out truncated to 3.

It sucked - but what can ya do? The politicians changed the rules in the middle of the game. They do that, I've noticed. Just because you're promised something doesn't mean you're going to get what they promised.

So I look at the state of our economy. I look at the income, I compare it against the expenditures, I then look at the deficit year over year, and then at the national debt - which only goes up, and at the interest payment needed to service said debt - which only gets larger each year.

Can you really not see the problem here? It's not that the 'rich' aren't being taxed enough. There will NEVER be enough money to take care of politicians determined to spend it all and then some.

Chico

Why were the 50s and 60s boom years?

Because eveyrone and their brother were buying items they could not get in the early 40s due to the war. In addition, we were rebuilding Europe.

Women started working and families had 2 incomes.

Thanks for playing.

While all you jerkoffs out there are advocating increased taxes on the "rich" what are they doing? Could it be they are sitting on the money they have, or maybe liquidating some assets in order to invest or purchase precious metal, banking in foreign countries or investing in land and businesses overseas?
You don't get rich being stupid, and even rats are smart enough to desert a sinking ship. Humans on a sinking ship are generally smart enough to take their valuables with them.
For those of us who can't, or won't, grease the palms of the lifeboat captains we can hope the life jackets will keep us afloat, or we can get down in the hold and fix the leak, either way we are going to get wet.
There is a nasty rumor that the government is printing a new currency to replace what is in circulation now, kind of like what we did in Vietnam where they changed the MPC, leaving those with the old MPC holding worthless paper.
Common sense and rationale for the most part, does not exist in our government (and a large part of our population). There are many simplistic solutions to our current debt problem, and the only thing lacking is someone with the guts to implement them.

I know hyper! If only we, like Canada, had a richer, stronger neighbor to rely on so we could neglect our own defense.

SCSI,

And don't forget that we provide backup health care for when the Canadian system is overwhelmed. How many stories have there been about Canadians sent to American hospitals for treatment because the canadian hospitals either were out of beds or unable to perform certain treatments?

And yet thats the system hypergirlie thinks we should adopt here.

OK hypergirlie, if we adopt the same type of health care that you have, where are you gonna send patients the next time you run out of hospital beds, or quadruplets are coming to term and your hospitals can't handle them?

It seemed to work pretty well when the top marginal rate was 39% on incomes over $400,000. The USA was running budget surpluses, the dollar was strong, and the economy was booming. During the Clinton years, that is.

But the teatards buy the crap that those making over 400,000 will flee the country or "go Galt" over a measly 4% percent. Where would they go?

I'm hear the senior citizen death camps made possible by Paul Ryan's budget proposals will by themselves save the average taxpayer $3 a year.

Woop! Woop!

Small price to pay for someone else's Grandma, don't you think?

Oh - you don't think, I forgot -- my bad.

I mean, after all - you don't even know all the grandmas Paul Ryan will kill with his proposal. Who cares!

Butt Hay, we got to save money to pay for the next holy war waged by the religious right against (insert people of color here). I mean, there's a chance they'll get back into the white house someday.... Look at how well Donald Trump is doing in the Florida GOP polls! All he had to do was lie about Obama's citizenship and the racist rubes line up to vote for him.

It's official. The GOP Is the party of stupid.

Hey, folks. It's fun to read the comment threads infected by trolldom. They throw out a few fallacy bombs, including strawmen, ad populum, poisoning the well, and non sequiturs. And then the more conservative/libertarian commenters stop their discussion of the actual blog entry thesis - the opinion of the author that it was uncivil if not arrogant to invite a person to a televised speech in which he was to be savagely attacked and that Ryan's reply exhibited integrity - to address the irrelevant distractions from the troll clown brigade. This is a fairly standard pattern here. And perhaps it can be best visualized by metaphor. A group of like minded friends are chatting while walking down the sidewalk and a mangy mutt crosses their path. The dog stops to dump a large, odoriferous turd squarely in their path. Instead of walking around it and continuing with their discussion, they stop to observe the offending object. They then examine the feces carefully and begin to discuss why it is objectionable - odor, appearance, health threat, etc. - for so long they forget the subject originally under discussion. But, I suppose, many of the regular participants in these threads are here to joust with the Troll-stone Kops anyway. And, admittedly, it can be fun.

It seemed to work pretty well when the top marginal rate was 39% on incomes over $400,000. The USA was running budget surpluses, the dollar was strong, and the economy was booming. During the Clinton years, that is.

But the teatards buy the crap that those making over 400,000 will flee the country or "go Galt" over a measly 4% percent. Where would they go?

Obama "all of these *(&(*&(*&*(&$%^&^& republican sons of &*^&*^*%%$$%$%%$%^%$, who would gut their own %$^%$@#E*#@*((*#@$& mother for a &^*%#)(#*#)( penny, who want to restablish (*&*(*(#@$@#$&(#@&( slavery, and who sell their firstborn *&^^&^&^&*&&^__())(_ daughter into prostution and want their *((*&*%%%^^&&^& granny to &*^^&#&@$&^#@$*&#*$ die or eat ()**()@#$()@#)($(*)@#$*) dogfood have taken all the (*#(*$(#@&&*#*($@&(*#$@ civilty out of Washington"

Good point Observer of Trolls though I have seen a better version of trolls at other blogs. The one's here are rather dimwitted even boorish with their inane comments. Even Crickmore has gone teh way of stoopid.

So pointing out Ryans' proposal for Death Camps for Senior Citizens apparently irks the rubes, but years of them spewing that ObamaCare has "death panels" and that he's a "Muslim born in Kenya" set the stage for this...

What's teh matter, ladies? Can't take your own medicine?

LOL.

Gee more poow from Woop.

Poow is woop spelled backwards. What a coincidence.

Please ban poow boy.

Kenny, always hating on women! Lemme guess: you tried to force yourself on a woman in the back seat of your dad's K-car, and she beat the shit out of you and ditched the car in a swamp? The 80s were tough for a lot of people bucko. Ever considered talk therapy? Don't worry, not all psychologists are gay or women.

Fun fact: there are more Americans who go elsewhere for healthcare, than there are Canadians who go to America. We have problems with access; you have problems with affordability; and so both systems are flawed, but ours costs a fraction of what yours does for equivalent or better outcomes. As for leaning on your for national defense, umm... suckers! (?) Seriously though, I don't recall any buildings in Canada being destroyed by terrorists on 9/11, and yet for some stupid reason we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, ostensibly to prevent further attacks on the United States. So: you're welcome?

RM, quit being such a goddamn baby. Start your own blog and then ban whomever you like, and roll around in your nickel's worth of ad revenue to your heart's content.

Sorry, the second paragraph obviously calls for a citation:
http://www.health-tourism.com/medical-tourism/statistics/

Hyper

Again, folks go from the US to another country to have optional procedures done. They are cheaper overseas. Things like liposuction etc.You chose a sex change but whatever floats your boat. They go out of the US for those as well due to the requirements.

For the things like heart surgery, transplants, etc they come to the US for the best care in the world.

-------

Chico

Ref the balanced budget and great and wonderful CLinton years.

Google "DOT COM BOOM" you may learn something.

Also if you look at HISTORICAL FACTS ( I know it is hard to do) the stock market peaked about a year before Clinton left office and Bush inherited a recession.

In addition, Clinton never balanced the budget though the republicans helped cut the deficit with welfare reform. Why do I say CLinton never balanced the budget? Because Social security revenue has been counted in the budget for decades. Of coruse there is nothing but a bunch of IOUs in the SS trust fund, IOUs which are now coming due.

You want to give the govt more tax money Chico.

Answer me this. What proof do you have that the govt will do anything constructive with it to help the economy?

Look at the trillion or so dollars Obama has spent and unemployment is still over 9% when it wasnt supposed to go over 8%.

Hey, all I care about is paying the bills - stop borrowing. Raising the top marginal rate at some level from 35% to 39% might do that. Cuts? Boehner shows that nobody's going to cut anything, except for Ryan, who wants the geezers to die early.

By the way, how does Ryan propose to make all those private insurance companies cover those decrepit old geezers, at any premium? They're not a very good risk by the time they're 65. Cancer, heart attacks and the Grim Reaper are on the way. It's a money losing proposition.

Wasn't the individual mandate the problem with Obamacare? How do you impose a mandate on the insurance companies to cover the geezers, fix premium rates and levels of care? Sounds like Medicare, except you've added another layer of overhead to it. Retarded.

Chico

"Hey, all I care about is paying the bills - stop borrowing. Raising the top marginal rate at some level from 35% to 39% might do that. "

One more time for mentally handicapped.

In 2010 the IRS took in $1.4 trillion in income tax revunue.

The deficit this year is $1.6 tirllion.

So if they doubled the amount of revenue the govt takes in from EVERYONE THEY WOULD STILL BE IN THE HOLE THIS YEAR.

In other words the max rates wouldnt be 35 or 39 percent it would be upwards of 60% and the bottom rates would be upwards of 25-30%.

In other words CHICO look at what you paid last year in taxes and DOUBLE THAT AMOUNT. IF THEY DID THAT FOR EVERYONE WHO PAID TAXES LAST YEAR THEN THEY WOULD STILL BE IN A HOLE.

I dont know how else to explain SIMPLE MATH to someone.

taxes being too low ISNT THE PROBLEM. THEy are SPENDING TOO FUCKING MUCH MONEY.

Slash defense spending by 20%. Get out of the Middle East. And, stop with the agricultural and fuel sector subsidies.

If Medicare is destroyed, as Ryan et al are hoping, then Chico's point is incredibly important: insurance companies aren't going to line up to offer coverage to seniors. They're in it to make money, and there's no money insuring certain demographics (i.e old diabetics).

Medicare and Social Security are more important to the security of your country than the Department of Defense. (Oh snap!)

The contrast is striking.

From the Obamites we get nothing but platitudes, empty rhetoric, relentless campaigning.

From Ryan we get courage, direct facts, and honest challenges.

A word to the wise: Watch out for Mr. Ryan.

He is a numbers junkie, a policy geek (as opposed to a policy wonk). He knows this stuff inside and out, forward and backward, up and down. Sideways.

He is very, very smart.

And he is unafraid.

If "courage" means destroying Medicare and cutting taxes for rich people, then better to be a coward.

He's not a policy geek, nor a wonk. (Not sure what the point of that distinction is, but anyway...) He originally suggested that his budget cuts would lower unemployment to 2.8% but was laughed at by every serious economist, supply-side and Keynesian alike. Ryan isn't any smarter than the next garden variety ideologue. He's not a wonk, doesn't understand the relationship between spending and employment, and as such is not a serious person.

Hyper

"He's not a wonk, doesn't understand the relationship between spending and employment, and as such is not a serious person."

You are talking about Obama right??

You can't double the tax rate for the lower 50% because few pay any federal income tax. Take my case, our household taxable income has gone from $96,000 in the last year of the Bush administration to $38,000 last year (and a quarter of that was unemployment checks). We paid under $5,000 in income tax. This year I expect to take home 20%—25% less than last year and I don't expect to pay any taxes at all. Hard to believe as little as two years ago I was dodging the AMT millionaire tax. But I guess this is one of those changes you idiots voted for. (Don't blame me, I voted for the American in 2008.)

So, not the cranky sumbitch born in Panama, but the elitist from Hawaii? Why would you vote for him, John? You're confused. Stay out of the sun.