Did you miss the big news today? Well fear not, for I am here to bring it to you!
Paul Ryan went on television today to explain his brand new, same old budget. But something happened while he was, once again, promising to repeal ObamaCare. The truth about his budget and what he and his Republican friends are trying to do, slipped out. And Americans heard first hand that Paul Ryan and the Republican party want to “destroy” the healthcare system for the American people.
This actually happened today and these are actually Paul Ryan’s words.
With a plate full of crises already looming in President Obama’s second term – North Korea’s nuclear threats, the Drone Program, domestic gun control and continued GOP obstructions on every front – the latest battle is an oldie and not a goodie. It appears Obamacare has resurfaced with a great wave of ‘pomp and circumstance’.
Over this past weekend, many Republicans have begun their 35th war on ObamaCare, threatening to destroy the very fabric of its existence in the name of Debt Reduction. Now, the wiz kid of the previous election, Vice Presidential Candidate Rep. Paul Ryan has devised a plan (Again) to eliminate ObamaCare and reduce the debt in the same swing. After the fiscal cliff fiasco, Ryan said, “We’re not going to re-fight the past because we know that’s behind us,” but he doesn’t apply that logic to ObamaCare, which he and his fellow Republicans do want to relitigate… again!
Fighting to repeal ObamaCare was “never a doubt” in Republican minds, he said Tuesday.
This is completely ironic, mind you, because if you recall, Obamacare was patterned after the Mitt Romney health care plan he formulated in Massachusetts while he was governor. Also, if you recall, then Vice Presidential candidate Ryan, also formed his own plan. (Do you follow me?) When asked by a reporter what he thought of the Paul’s plan, Romney said, “I’m the one running for president. We’ll go by my plan.”
It appears that Rep. Ryan has no one holding him back now, so here is the brand new same old same old Paul Ryan Plan… again, Part 2.
It’s a 10-year fiscal plan that takes aim at repealing ObamaCare’s 2010 health care overhaul in which Paul projects savings of $4.63 trillion over 10 years, yielding a surplus of $7 billion by fiscal 2023. “Our opponents will shout austerity, but let’s put this in perspective,” Ryan wrote in an op-ed posted to The Wall Street Journal’s website Monday night. “On our current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5 percent each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4 percent.”
But who benefits from this plan and who will be hurt by it?
As always, tax cuts for the wealthiest and the poor will see programs slashed, if not cut completely. The budget would take its heaviest toll on entitlements that support the poor, including Medicaid and food stamps, while holding Social Security harmless. Why the poor and middle class are always targeted by Republican programs has been a mystery to millions of Americans especially when the wealthy seem to not be phased by any loophole they can squirm through.
Do they understand that taking away any program from those that are in need only demoralizes that individual, that family, that community? And does the super rich Congressional Republicans really believe that Americans truly want to live on Food Stamps and Unemployment Benefits? Or have a Medicare program that doesn’t work for them?
Here’s the final analysis Rep. Ryan. During the 2012 election, America did not support your “plan” of action. They came out in record numbers and voted for the President’s approach in November. As a matter of fact, a new McClatchy-Marist poll of registered voters shows that, generally, voters, by 53 to 37 percent, prefer to reduce the deficits by mostly cutting government programs and services rather than mostly by raising taxes..
The White House chimed in on the Ryan plan stating,
“By choosing not to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected, this budget identifies deep cuts to investments like education and research – investments critical to creating jobs and growing the middle class. And to save money, this budget would turn Medicare into a voucher program–undercutting the guaranteed benefits that seniors have earned and forcing them to pay thousands more out of their own pockets. We’ve tried this top-down approach before. The President still believes it is the wrong course for America.”
It’s an attempt to make himself and his party look ‘busy,’ the same old, tired attack on Obamacare – a healthcare program that at last count, had the support of 9-GOP Governors over the past 3 weeks. Rep. Ryan and a group within the rank and file Republicans have decided to give it another go. But all of this is just another attempt to tarnish the legacy of President Obama.
Congressional Republicans have not backed the President’s plans or his direction for this country unless they felt cornered. And this is just an addendum or a harbinger of the Republicans wish for the future. Posturing for the 2014 elections? Digging in for the 2016 White House? Yes and Yes. But make no mistake about it, with Americans polling in high numbers that the wealthiest should take on more of the tax burden than the poor, Rep. Ryan and his GOP surrogates have an uphill fight or if you prefer, going up stream, up a creek without a paddle.
Still Out of Touch with America. The good thing is, the longer they stay out of touch with America, the longer they’ll stay Out of the White House. In that case, Stay the Course.
austerity (ô-str-t) n pl -ties 1. the state or quality of being austere 2. (often plural) an austere habit, practice, or act 3. (Economics) a. reduced availability of luxuries and consumer goods, esp when brought about by government policy b. (as modifier) an austerity budget
You’ve heard the word used a lot. Austerity can only work effectively in a poor economy if participated in by all its citizen. But as usual, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan wants austerity to ride on the backs of the middle class and the poor in a proposal he feels will balance the federal budget in 10 years without raising taxes any further. He proposes to do this by executing $4.6 trillion in additional government spending cuts. Same story as last year Mr. Ryan. No one liked it then, no one’s going to like it much now.
Ryan plans to unveil the House Republican budget today, and the details haven’t changed much from the last time he proposed the same cuts for the middle class with no mention of closing loopholes for the rich or reform of the Bush tax cuts which allows the rich to hold onto their dollars at a greater rate than the average citizen.
The House Republican Budget Plan,
Calls for the U.S. government to spend a total of about $41 trillion through 2023, a 3.4 percent annual increase. That compares to the current spending trajectory of $46 trillion over 10 years, a 5 percent annual increase.
Will grant approval to the northern portion of the controversial Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline, which he contends will create 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 indirect jobs.
Will seek to convert Medicare health care for the elderly into a voucher-like system under which seniors receive a subsidy to purchase private insurance or traditional Medicare –with no changes for those 55 or older,– so that the plan contributes savings to achieve balance in a 10-year window.
Will again seek to turn control and funding for Medicaid health care for the poor and food stamps over to states.
Proposes tax reform, with the goal of just two tax brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent.
“Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023 and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy,” said Ryan. Of course it’s a budget the Obama Administration will not be able to sign-off, continuing the stalemate.
Austerity my a_ _! ♦
Dr. Robert E. Bristow
A new study headed by Dr. Robert E. Bristow, director of gynecological oncology at the University of California, says that there are widespread, persistent flaws in the care of women with this disease, which kills 15,000 a year in the United States alone.
About 22,000 new cases of ovarian cancer are diagnosed annually, and most of them are being discovered too late for even aggressive treatment to do much good. Worldwide, there are about 200,000 new cases a year.
Oncologists around the country say the main reason for the poor care is that most women are treated by doctors and hospitals that literally lack expertise in the complex surgery and chemotherapy that can prolong life.
“If we could just make sure that women get to the people who are trained to take care of them, the impact would be much greater than that of any new chemotherapy drug or biological agent,” said Dr. Bristow
The study found that about a third of patients received the best possible care, confirming a women’s best course of action would be to consult physicians in hospitals that offer treatment of the disease as their primary care. ♦
Alex Rodriguez is now embroiled in a family feud, as he faces a lawsuit from his cousin Yuri Sucart, who is reportedly seeking $5 million in damages relating to the Yankee superstar’s claim that Sucart provided him with performance-enhancing drugs. He has consulted with his Miami attorney about filing a lawsuit against Rodriguez.
All on the heels of a recent Major League Baseball and DEA investigation into whether A-Rod and cousin Yuri were involved in obtaining performance-enhancing drugs from a Coral Gables anti-aging clinic operated by Anthony Bosch, a name that’s come to be synonymous with the words ‘Big Sports figure accused of using performance enhancing drugs.”
Sports Illustrated reported in February 2009 that Rodriguez had tested positive for anabolic steroids during the 2003 season, when MLB and its Players Association conducted surprise testing to see if the drug had inundated the sport. When Rodriguez tested positive, he dragged Sucart into the controversy.
And the plot thickens… ♦
Up until now the White House has steered clear of mentioning China by name when discussing cyber crime. Not anymore! President Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, demanded Monday that the Chinese government stop the data theft from American computer networks and begin to play by the rules.
“Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale,” Mr. Donilon said in a wide-ranging address to the Asia Society in New York.
Lukewarm warming words from the big boys on the block, but I suppose one’s government has to be delicate in such matters.
The U.S. “demand” came two days after Chinese foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, rejected mounting evidence that his country’s military was involved in cyber attacks on American corporations and some government agencies.
At a daily news conference in Beijing, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, repeated her government’s position opposing internet cyber attacks and said she wanted nothing more than to have an open “constructive dialogue” with the United States and other countries about cybersecurity issues. Perhaps China can create some type of innovative software to help America protect against…Chinese…cyber atta…ok, scratch that. ♦
Climbing out of the woodshed for his first interview since his ticket lost the presidential election to Barack Obama last Tuesday, Paul Ryan emerged with a new epiphany – the reason the Republicans lost the elections had nothing to do with the crazy policies they were proposing. No. Their loss had everything to do with the “urban” voters who voted overwhelmingly for the President.
In an interview with WISC-TV, the Republican vice president candidate explained;
We were surprised at the outcome. We knew this was gonna be a close race. We thought we had a very good chance of winning it.
I think the surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,’ he said. ‘When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.
See folks? And all along you thought the loss was a result of his party’s crazy adaptation on economic policies, like repealing ObamaCare and putting families back to at mercy of the insurance companies. Apparently, the Romney/Ryan ticket never heard of Americans going bankrupt because insurance carriers dropped policy holders at the exact time they needed those policies most. So repealing ObamaCare was their “number one priority,” according to Mitt Romney.
And you thought Republicans’ Neanderthal view on women’s issues could have been a reason women voted for Obama in almost record numbers? Well according to Paul Ryan you would be wrong. And issues didn’t cause over 70% of the Latino votes for the president either.
And apparently, seniors were tired of all the great benefits they received from Medicare, so their vote for Obama had absolutely nothing to do with Ryan’s budget proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
If this is the message Ryan took from the shellacking he took in Tuesday’s election, then maybe he needs to go back to the woodshed and wait for a different message.
And what’s up with this “urban” language anyway? Ronan Farrow, Writer, human rights lawyer and diplomat, most recently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Special Adviser for Global Youth Issues, had this to say;
FYI, Paul Ryan, the rest of the country has moved on from using “urban” as a euphemism for “black.”
A charity that operates a soup kitchen in northeastern Ohio has faced an exodus of donors ever since vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan staged a photo-op on the premises.
“It appears to be a substantial amount,” Brian Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society in Youngstown, told The Huffington Post. “You can rest assured there has been a substantial backlash.”
Ryan and his family were photographed cleaning dishes on the premises. During Ryan’s appearance at the soup kitchen on October 13, he briefly talked with volunteers before donning an apron and cleaning some large metal pots. He was at the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes.
But Antal told the Washington Post that the Romney campaign did not ask for permission before entering the soup kitchen. He said he worried his faith-based apolitical organization could lose funding if it appeared the charity favored one of the political candidates.
Now, Antal’s concerns appear to have been warranted. The charity, which is funded by private donations, has seen much of its money cut off, though Antal said he could not disclose the specific amount.
“I’m a volunteer,” Antal added. “I receive zero compensation. Withholding donations is only going to hurt the over 100,000 we serve annually.”
Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here. Just another story pointing out something you’ve all heard before and know for a fact – that Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate and his running mate Paul Ryan, both lie.
In this posting, you’ll see Paul Ryan denying that he requested Stimulus funds, only to admit that he did in fact, asked for funds on two different occasions. This admission came when Ryan’s back was against the wall in the vice-presidential debate.
The right-wing is having a hissy fit today. Just moments after the vice presidential debate ended, the Republican talkers received their talking-points and hit the waves with one intent – trying to fool their followers into thinking that Paul Ryan won the debate. Personally I missed the debate because of some other pressing issues I had to deal with, but if the Republican fallout is any indication, Vice President Joe Biden cleaned the stage with Paul Ryan.
Fifty percent of uncommitted voters who tuned into Thursday night’s vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky., said they see Vice President Joe Biden as the winner over Mitt Romney’s GOP running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., according to an instant poll taken by CBS News.
Of the 431 polled immediately following the debate, 31 percent deemed Ryan the winner, and 19 percent said they felt it was a tie. Party-wise it’s a switch from last week’s presidential debate, which uncommitted voters handed easily to Romney over President Obama.
Both Biden and Ryan gained ground on relatability and knowledge. The percentage of voters who say they believe they can relate to Biden spiked from 34 percent before the debate to 55 percent; 48 percent think Ryan is relatable, up from 31 percent before the debate. Meanwhile, after watching the two candidates debate, 85 percent of those polled think Biden is knowledgeable about the issues; 75 percent say that about Ryan.
Ryan, though, faced a loss among voters’ opinions of which candidate would be an effective president, if necessary. Before the debate, he led Biden 45 percent to 39 percent; after the debate, 56 percent of those polled said Biden would be an effective president, with fewer – 49 percent–saying the same about Ryan.
Stephen Colbert is angry… well… maybe…! Apparently there are some “liberal hacks” at Fox News who thought they could ask the Republican vice presidential candidate questions in an interview. The nerve!
Ryan, the Republican candidate for vice-president, had a contentious interview with Chris Wallace over the 20 percent across-the-board tax cut he and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney have proposed.
Colbert brushed off a study Wallace cited saying the plan would cost the U.S. $5 trillion over 10 years.
“True, not true, who cares?” Colbert said. “It’s over 10 years. Romney and Ryan will only be in office for eight of those. Let President [Michele] Bachmann worry about it in 2020. That’s what hindsight is for.”
Colbert was also unimpressed by Wallace’s refusal to accept Ryan’s explanation that the cuts were “revenue-neutral” and praised Ryan for saying it would “take too long” to explain the figures behind the proposal.
“Great answer,” Colbert said. “Why is it a great answer? It would take me too long to explain, but trust me, it was a great answer.”
Mitt Romney is shaking things up again, and I do mean the etch-a-sketch. Romney spent a major part of his campaign criticizing President for “raising taxes” on the middle class. But with the debates looming and the realization that he will meet with the President face to face, Mitt Romney is now trying to erase some of the lies.
Mitt Romney veered off message Tuesday when he told a crowd of supporters in Ohio that President Barack Obama “did not” raise taxes in his first four years in office, undercutting his own line of attack on the president.
“His idea now, he’s got one new, he’s got a new idea,” Romney said during a rally with running mate Paul Ryan. “I admit this, he has one thing he did not do in his first four years, he’s said he’s going to do in his next four years, which is to raise taxes.”
The statement strayed from the Romney campaign’s usual criticism of the president. While Obama’s efforts to let the Bush-era tax cuts on families with an annual income above $250,000 expire have faltered under Republican opposition, Romney’s campaign has repeatedly argued that the president has raised taxes in other ways.
Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan was loudly and repeatedly booed by members of the AARP on Friday after he pledged to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.
“The first step to a stronger Medicare is to repeal Obamacare,” Ryan said, pausing as the audience in New Orleans booed and shouted, “No!”
“I had a feeling there would be mixed reaction,” the candidate said, but the booing continued. “It weakens Medicare for today’s seniors and puts it at risk for the next generation.”
That, too, was met with audible groans and jeers.
“It funnels $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for a new entitlement that we didn’t even ask for,” Ryan insisted.
“No!” people shouted.
Although Ryan seemed to be unfazed by the heckling, his explanations and assurances never convinced the AARP audience, who continued booing him throughout the remainder of his speech.
The Republicans would love for you to believe that what Todd Akin said was just something that happened in his brief moment of insanity. That Todd had a moment, a very bad and unfortunate moment.
But a quick check of the Congressional voting record of other Republicans found that Mr. Legitimate Rape’s comment was not only accepted by the Republican base, Congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan even tried to create laws based on Akin’s belief.
In fact, over the past decade in Congress, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has co-sponsored 32 abortion-related bills that Akin has also sponsored or co-sponsored. Here are a few anti-choice bills that both Akin and Cantor supported:
HR 3: The 2011 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, first introduced in 2011, included language about “forcible rape” in its early versions that set a dangerous precedent for Republican attempts to narrow the definition of “legitimate” forms of sexual assault.
HR 5276: The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2010 would require doctors to describe “the pain experienced by the unborn child” to women seeking an abortion.
HR 649: The 2009 Ultrasound Informed Consent Act sought to force women to look at an ultrasound of their fetus before being allowed to continue with their decision to have an abortion.
HR 2752: Akin was the primary sponsor of the Parents Right to Know Act of 2009, which sought to strip funding for health clinics like Planned Parenthood that provide FDA-approved contraceptives to minors without first obtaining parental consent.
Akin’s anti-abortions views are not, in fact, too radical for the top Republican in the House. Akin’s fellow Republicans want to claim they disagree with his offensive views behind the GOP’s stance toward women’s health, but their voting records say differently.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
