|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Because going against public opinion on everything in regards to cuts, taxes, is the way to go. Also you lost the election but somehow won the argument, on the grounds of principle no less.
|
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this.
|
You think it is refreshing to see a Republican offer forth a budget solution that puts practically all cut burden on the lower classes? Do you follow US politics much or what?
|
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday aggressively criticized the Medicare cuts under Obamacare — cuts which are also included in the House GOP budget that was unveiled Tuesday. In echoing the familiar Republican attack line on the President, Cruz did not reference the budget proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) that adopts the same cuts.
“Obamacare took $716 billion from Medicare, a large portion of which came from the Medicare Advantage program which serves a great many seniors, and especially poor seniors,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “According to the Office of the Actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Medicare advantage cuts in Obamacare will reduce enrollment from 14.8 million to 7.4 million by 2017. It will cut it in half. Seven million people will lose their coverage under Medicare Advantage.” (The actuary also found that those who lose coverage under Medicare Advantage, an optional program under which seniors can receive coverage through a private insurer, would remain covered under traditional Medicare.)
“I would remind you the president said if you like your health insurance, you can keep it,” Cruz said. “Yet seven million seniors are losing Medicare Advantage.”
His remarks come one day after the budget blueprint unveiled by Ryan sustains those cuts, which reduce reimbursements for private insurers under Medicare Advantage and providers such as hospitals and nursing homes. Ryan told reporters he wants to use them for deficit reduction as opposed to funding the Affordable Care Act.
The remarks by the freshman senator from Texas came as he was pushing his amendment to defund Obamacare, seeking to amend legislation aimed at funding the government after March 27 through the end of September. He admitted his measure wasn’t likely to pass.
Citing statistics from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, he said the Medicare cuts would “in particular hurt seniors” in Texas, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alaska, New York, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.
Source
|
On March 14 2013 05:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday aggressively criticized the Medicare cuts under Obamacare — cuts which are also included in the House GOP budget that was unveiled Tuesday. In echoing the familiar Republican attack line on the President, Cruz did not reference the budget proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) that adopts the same cuts.
“Obamacare took $716 billion from Medicare, a large portion of which came from the Medicare Advantage program which serves a great many seniors, and especially poor seniors,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “According to the Office of the Actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Medicare advantage cuts in Obamacare will reduce enrollment from 14.8 million to 7.4 million by 2017. It will cut it in half. Seven million people will lose their coverage under Medicare Advantage.” (The actuary also found that those who lose coverage under Medicare Advantage, an optional program under which seniors can receive coverage through a private insurer, would remain covered under traditional Medicare.)
“I would remind you the president said if you like your health insurance, you can keep it,” Cruz said. “Yet seven million seniors are losing Medicare Advantage.”
His remarks come one day after the budget blueprint unveiled by Ryan sustains those cuts, which reduce reimbursements for private insurers under Medicare Advantage and providers such as hospitals and nursing homes. Ryan told reporters he wants to use them for deficit reduction as opposed to funding the Affordable Care Act.
The remarks by the freshman senator from Texas came as he was pushing his amendment to defund Obamacare, seeking to amend legislation aimed at funding the government after March 27 through the end of September. He admitted his measure wasn’t likely to pass.
Citing statistics from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, he said the Medicare cuts would “in particular hurt seniors” in Texas, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alaska, New York, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. Source
Why does my state have to elect fucking idiots? It's not even sneaky any more, but dishonest. I have a hard time believing somebody could be this stupid, and just as hard of a time believing somebody could be so dishonest. It has to be one of those, and either one is a tarnish on my state.
|
It was close, but by a vote of 37-33 the New Mexico House passed legislation removing the possibility of jail time for possession of marijuana. Next, the bill will move to the Senate where it will be assigned to a committee. It will then need to win the support of the majority of committee members, then a majority of the full Senate.
If it passes in the Senate and is not vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez, H.B. 465 would make the first offense for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a civil offense, punishable only by a $50 fine. Possession of one to four ounces would also be punishable by a civil fine of up to $100. Second offenses would be petty misdemeanors subject to double the fine amount, but would still carry no risk of jail time. Possession of four to eight ounces would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $300.
Source
|
The whole legalisation of marijuana is an interesting issue.
I heard a planet money podcast about a medicinal marijuana business in Washington state. He ran a legitimate business but his bank dropped him because of pressure from the Feds. He could not get any bank to offer him merchant services (credit card etc) and could not even get an ATM company to stock the ATM in his store, he stocked it with his own money. In the end he had to lie about his business to get a bank to accept him.
Also countries like Mexico are being pushed by the Feds to stop pot crossing the border, while American states are voting to legalise it.
Weird times.
|
On March 14 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:
You think it is refreshing to see a Republican offer forth a budget solution that puts practically all cut burden on the lower classes? Do you follow US politics much or what?
I think that the size of government should be dramatically reduced. This budget is on the right track.
|
On March 14 2013 06:40 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 05:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday aggressively criticized the Medicare cuts under Obamacare — cuts which are also included in the House GOP budget that was unveiled Tuesday. In echoing the familiar Republican attack line on the President, Cruz did not reference the budget proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) that adopts the same cuts.
“Obamacare took $716 billion from Medicare, a large portion of which came from the Medicare Advantage program which serves a great many seniors, and especially poor seniors,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “According to the Office of the Actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Medicare advantage cuts in Obamacare will reduce enrollment from 14.8 million to 7.4 million by 2017. It will cut it in half. Seven million people will lose their coverage under Medicare Advantage.” (The actuary also found that those who lose coverage under Medicare Advantage, an optional program under which seniors can receive coverage through a private insurer, would remain covered under traditional Medicare.)
“I would remind you the president said if you like your health insurance, you can keep it,” Cruz said. “Yet seven million seniors are losing Medicare Advantage.”
His remarks come one day after the budget blueprint unveiled by Ryan sustains those cuts, which reduce reimbursements for private insurers under Medicare Advantage and providers such as hospitals and nursing homes. Ryan told reporters he wants to use them for deficit reduction as opposed to funding the Affordable Care Act.
The remarks by the freshman senator from Texas came as he was pushing his amendment to defund Obamacare, seeking to amend legislation aimed at funding the government after March 27 through the end of September. He admitted his measure wasn’t likely to pass.
Citing statistics from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, he said the Medicare cuts would “in particular hurt seniors” in Texas, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alaska, New York, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. Source Why does my state have to elect fucking idiots? It's not even sneaky any more, but dishonest. I have a hard time believing somebody could be this stupid, and just as hard of a time believing somebody could be so dishonest. It has to be one of those, and either one is a tarnish on my state.
Texas.
|
On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this.
You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty."
Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet.
|
On March 14 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:
You think it is refreshing to see a Republican offer forth a budget solution that puts practically all cut burden on the lower classes? Do you follow US politics much or what?
Of course it's refreshing! The Plebs need to be reminded of their place from time to time after all. Spare the rod, spoil the child and all that nonsense. (this is NOT sarcasm. Seriously, I swear.)
On topic, in terms of longevity I'm perfectly okay with things tanking now. The sooner the better. The closer we are to the ground when we hit, the less REAL damage it will do.
|
On March 13 2013 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 05:52 McBengt wrote:On March 13 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2013 01:39 farvacola wrote:WASHINGTON -- House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) rolled out his latest budget proposal, offering an ambitious blueprint that promises to balance the budget in a decade by repealing President Barack Obama's health care reforms and slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to help the poor.
Ryan's previous budgets -- used by Democrats as weapons in the last campaign season -- did not strive for balance in any such near term, and even then many analysts predicted they would not work. Many deem a 10-year balancing plan as impossible to follow without wreaking havoc on the economic recovery.
Ryan was deaf to such objections, arguing that Congress has an obligation not just to achieve a sustainable debt -- which Democrats say they favor -- but to reduce it.
"This is not only a responsible, reasonable balanced plan. It's also an invitation. This is an invitation to the president of the United States, to the Senate Democrats, to come together to fix these problems," Ryan said in a Capitol Hill news conference Tuesday that laid out the $4.6 trillion in cuts he hopes to achieve in 10 years.
"We don't think it's fair to let critical programs like Medicare go bankrupt. We don't think that it's fair to take more from hard-working families to spend more in Washington," he said. "The most important question isn't how do we balance the budget, but why? A budget is a means to an end. An end is the well-being of the American people. An end is a growing economy that produces opportunity and upward mobility."
Even as his budget claims to repeal Obamacare, it pockets the savings achieved under the health care law and keeps the revenue raised by it. It also seeks to cut Medicare by an additional $129 billion over 10 years. It would cut Medicaid some $757 billion by converting the program into block grants for the states. Other programs -- among them food stamps -- would be cut by some $962 billion.
The budget plan includes no cuts in Social Security. Obama has suggested changing an inflation measurement to cut more than $100 billion from the program.
Democrats were quick to hammer the proposal, saying it was another attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor while not asking the wealthy to do more.
"It's deja vu all over again," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said even before Ryan spoke. "This budget reflects the same skewed priorities the Republican Party has championed for years, the same skewed priorities Americans rejected in November."
Indeed, MItt Romney ran for president largely on a budget plan that resembled that of his running mate, Ryan, and lost decisively. Democrats also picked up seats in the House and Senate running against the philosophy of the Ryan budget.
Ryan argued that the election's outcome didn't matter.
"The election didn't go our way. Believe me, I know what that feels like," he said. "That means we surrender our principles? That means we stop believing what we believe in? Look, whether the country intended it or not, we have divided government. We have the second largest House majority we've had since World War II. And what we believe in this divided government era, we need to put up our vision."
He also suggested maybe voters did agree with the GOP.
"Are a lot of these solutions very popular, and did we win these arguments in the campaign? Some of us think so," Ryan said. Paul Ryan Budget: House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare Seriously lol, it is as though the election never happened......... Yeah it's really a platform not a budget. On March 13 2013 04:23 McBengt wrote:On March 13 2013 01:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
He lives in an imaginary world where math does what he wants and where he won the election. Seems like a new platform for the next generation of GOP leaders, if democracy doesn't do what you want it to, just ignore it. Given the demographic trends in the US, I'm sure it will see frequent use in the coming decades. I'm not sure what you mean. GOP controls the house. So they do, it's more the arrogance of trying to push through their own economic vision when it was just handily rejected by the electorate. As if they didn't get the "No." the first time. If it was completely rejected then they wouldn't control the house and Democrats could push whatever they wanted to. Clearly democracy is calling for a compromise.
Democrats got more votes in House elections than Republicans. The Republicans don't have any mandate as a majority of the country did not support them for reelection. They won because of gerrymandering.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/
|
On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet.
You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal.
Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc.
|
On March 14 2013 10:45 Alou wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2013 05:52 McBengt wrote:On March 13 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2013 01:39 farvacola wrote:WASHINGTON -- House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) rolled out his latest budget proposal, offering an ambitious blueprint that promises to balance the budget in a decade by repealing President Barack Obama's health care reforms and slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to help the poor.
Ryan's previous budgets -- used by Democrats as weapons in the last campaign season -- did not strive for balance in any such near term, and even then many analysts predicted they would not work. Many deem a 10-year balancing plan as impossible to follow without wreaking havoc on the economic recovery.
Ryan was deaf to such objections, arguing that Congress has an obligation not just to achieve a sustainable debt -- which Democrats say they favor -- but to reduce it.
"This is not only a responsible, reasonable balanced plan. It's also an invitation. This is an invitation to the president of the United States, to the Senate Democrats, to come together to fix these problems," Ryan said in a Capitol Hill news conference Tuesday that laid out the $4.6 trillion in cuts he hopes to achieve in 10 years.
"We don't think it's fair to let critical programs like Medicare go bankrupt. We don't think that it's fair to take more from hard-working families to spend more in Washington," he said. "The most important question isn't how do we balance the budget, but why? A budget is a means to an end. An end is the well-being of the American people. An end is a growing economy that produces opportunity and upward mobility."
Even as his budget claims to repeal Obamacare, it pockets the savings achieved under the health care law and keeps the revenue raised by it. It also seeks to cut Medicare by an additional $129 billion over 10 years. It would cut Medicaid some $757 billion by converting the program into block grants for the states. Other programs -- among them food stamps -- would be cut by some $962 billion.
The budget plan includes no cuts in Social Security. Obama has suggested changing an inflation measurement to cut more than $100 billion from the program.
Democrats were quick to hammer the proposal, saying it was another attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor while not asking the wealthy to do more.
"It's deja vu all over again," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said even before Ryan spoke. "This budget reflects the same skewed priorities the Republican Party has championed for years, the same skewed priorities Americans rejected in November."
Indeed, MItt Romney ran for president largely on a budget plan that resembled that of his running mate, Ryan, and lost decisively. Democrats also picked up seats in the House and Senate running against the philosophy of the Ryan budget.
Ryan argued that the election's outcome didn't matter.
"The election didn't go our way. Believe me, I know what that feels like," he said. "That means we surrender our principles? That means we stop believing what we believe in? Look, whether the country intended it or not, we have divided government. We have the second largest House majority we've had since World War II. And what we believe in this divided government era, we need to put up our vision."
He also suggested maybe voters did agree with the GOP.
"Are a lot of these solutions very popular, and did we win these arguments in the campaign? Some of us think so," Ryan said. Paul Ryan Budget: House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare Seriously lol, it is as though the election never happened......... Yeah it's really a platform not a budget. On March 13 2013 04:23 McBengt wrote:On March 13 2013 01:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
He lives in an imaginary world where math does what he wants and where he won the election. Seems like a new platform for the next generation of GOP leaders, if democracy doesn't do what you want it to, just ignore it. Given the demographic trends in the US, I'm sure it will see frequent use in the coming decades. I'm not sure what you mean. GOP controls the house. So they do, it's more the arrogance of trying to push through their own economic vision when it was just handily rejected by the electorate. As if they didn't get the "No." the first time. If it was completely rejected then they wouldn't control the house and Democrats could push whatever they wanted to. Clearly democracy is calling for a compromise. Democrats got more votes in House elections than Republicans. The Republicans don't have any mandate as a majority of the country did not support them for reelection. They won because of gerrymandering. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/
Popular vote for the entire house is irrelevant. You win by popular vote of a district. Yes, districts get gerrymandered, that's been the case all along so you may want to get used to it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that kind of attitude does sidestep the major point of objection against gerrymandering, it distorts representation and thus democracy
|
On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc.
Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it.
A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe.
|
On March 14 2013 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
that kind of attitude does sidestep the major point of objection against gerrymandering, it distorts representation and thus democracy
Sure, but you still need districting / redistricting and even with completely honest districts you can still get control of the house without a popular vote.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 14 2013 12:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
that kind of attitude does sidestep the major point of objection against gerrymandering, it distorts representation and thus democracy Sure, but you still need districting / redistricting and even with completely honest districts you can still get control of the house without a popular vote.
taking the general presidential election's popular vote and electoral vote as comparison, with the number of house districts we have and less constrained boundaries, theoretically it'd be mathematically easier to smooth out the house repreesntation. yet, we have these very ideologically gerrymandered districts that lead to the opposite result.
so the general problem of dividing the country into smaller pieces is not the cause of the house's skewed representation problem. the ideological gerrymandering clearly is the cause.
|
On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc.
It's an incredibly stupid proposal that
1. Is wrong in all sorts of fundamental mathematical ways
2. Makes all sorts of unreasonable assumptions
3. Clearly has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
It's a useless piece of legislation. All it does is present an incredibly polarizing starting point that more reasonably-minded people will have to work away from when crafting an actual solution that both sides can agree on.
There's a balance between pragmatism and ideology, and this thing Paul has presented is clearly not it.
|
On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe.
I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first.
I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
