President Obama Re-Elected - Page 311

On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:


I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something

EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that.

On August 19 2012 10:51 BlueBird. wrote:


You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest the earth has gone without conflict, a few days?

The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.

What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.

In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.

One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.

And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.

NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.

Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.

If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.

On August 19 2012 10:52 Savio wrote:


Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now?

EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say...

On August 19 2012 01:36 Meta wrote:
I noticed a lot of talk of soldiers and war, I want to add my two cents. Both my parents were in the military, I have 2 aunts and an uncle in the military, my half brother is in the military, my grandfather was and some cousins were. I also have a few friends I met online who served in the military.

For all of them, they went into the military as a last resort in life because they had no other option to sustain themselves, and they signed up to fight and possibly kill people and die on the whim of some douchebag higher up in the ranks who may or may not be getting some financial gain out of the conflict.

But for all their sacrifice, I'd respect each and every one of them infinitely more if they sucked it up and left the military. War is essentially mass murder, and to aid in any way to that is to be an accomplice. Period. I would personally rather have all my rights stripped away and be locked in jail than be forced to kill or help kill other humans. It's sickening. It's wrong. I don't know how they live with themselves.

On August 19 2012 11:01 BlueBird. wrote:


Except for I don't agree with you, and it hasn't been "centuries" since WW2.

of course I don't think that Hitler winning would have been good. However, I don't think the war led us to prosperity, we have had Vietnam, Cold war, Korean War, Desert storm, war against terror, Iraq War small little conflicts, all since then, doesn't seem very peaceful, if after WW2, there were NO more wars, oppression, and violence, then sure, I'd totally be behind what your saying.. Sure production might have spiked and led to some decent economic times, but I wouldn't say the world has particularly prospered from all those people that died in WW2.

I respect soldiers that do humanitarian work, I'm proud of them even. If you read my previous posts, you'd see that I think being a soldier is ok, that I agreed WW2 had to be fought, I don't hate soldiers. Doesn't change the way I feel about war though.

On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:

War is bad. Tyrany is also bad....Not all wars are right. But some are.

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.

"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."

The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.

Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.

"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."

Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times

On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:


Can you give an example?

On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:


I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something

EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that.

On August 19 2012 10:52 Savio wrote:


Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now?

EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say...

On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:


I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something

EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that.

On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:
A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp:


Source


EDIT: Also found this very funny: Source
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:
A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp:


Source


EDIT: Also found this very funny: Source
+ Show Spoiler +

The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.

What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.

In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.

One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.

And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.

NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.

Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.

If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.

On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:


If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore.

On August 19 2012 08:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
NYTimes article:



Source

On August 19 2012 13:03 xDaunt wrote:

You do realize that we spent several pages going over this in detail, right? Is it really necessary or even useful to post an editorial that is nothing more than the liberal talking points on the issue?

As for the editorial itself, if this is the best that democrats can up with, they're fucked. I'm not going to rehash everything that has already been said. However, have democrats already forgotten how easily they turned public opinion against the Ryan plan for proposing Medicare cuts? They are absolutely delusional if they think that they are going to escape the ire of senior voters for actually enacting the cuts that Ryan only proposed, and which are not part of Romney's plan.

On August 19 2012 12:48 xDaunt wrote:

Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments.