Categories
ObamaCare Paul Ryan Politics

The Brand New Same Old, Same Old – Ryan Plan

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.

Categories
executive actions gun Politics violence

President Obama Delivers His Plan To Reduce Gun Violence – Video

In case you missed it, President Obama and Vice President Biden introduced their plan today to help curb gun violence. Watch as the President discussed the legislative and executive actions needed to close background check loopholes, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

His plan included signing an Executive Order on 23 issues relating to guns.

Categories
Elections Mitt Romney Politics Tax taxes

Mitt Romney’s Plan Will Raise Your Taxes

Unless you’re earning over $1 million a year that is, then you will see your taxes cut by as much as $146,000 a year. But for the middle class Americans struggling to make ends meet, prepare to pay more in taxes if Mitt Romney becomes your president.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center analyzed Mitt Romney’s tax proposals and, according to the Wall Street Journal, “concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan would reduce taxes significantly for high-income earners (by 6.9% or $146,000 for households making more than $1 million), and increase federal deficits by $180 billion in 2015 compared to current tax levels.”

And despite Romney’s claims, his plan would also raise taxes slightly for low-income families.

Associated Press: “Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 would get small tax cuts, averaging 2.2 percent, or about $250, the study said. People making more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging 15 percent, or about $146,000.”

Categories
Mitt Romney Politics

Mitt Romney Wants To Sell Your Home To Investors

The Democratic National Committee put out a new ad on Friday, featuring Mitt Romney. I doubt Romney was a willing participant in this video, as some of the things said in the ad were a bit unsettling.

The ad below shows a clip of Mitt Romney expressing his preferred method of handling foreclosures, and the words he spoke would put fear into the hearts of any family who finds themselves in the unfortunate position of losing their home. “Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process,” Romney said. “Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allowing investors to buy their homes, put renters in them, fix the homes, and let it turn around and come back up. The right course is to let markets work. And in order to get markets to work and to help people, the best we can do is to get the economy going.”

In a conference call with reporters, Brad Woodhouse, the communications director for the DNC said;

“To Mitt Romney, houses aren’t places where people raise their families and build lives. They’re investments to make a profit. Mitt Romney is out of touch. He’s out of touch with what’s going on with this country, he’s out of touch with the middle class.”

Out of touch with the middle class correctly describes the millionaire Mitt Romney. He has never had to deal with the misfortune of losing his home, or should I say homes, or should I say mansions. So it is totally natural for him to think of investors over families. Imagine that decision-making in the White House, as Mitt Romney attempts to become the Republican nominee to take on President Obama in 2012.

Watch the ad below.

Categories
Barack Obama democrats Politics

President Obama’s Speech On Raising The Debt Ceiling – Transcript

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Primetime Debt Speech

Monday, July 25, 2011

Washington, DC

As Prepared for Delivery –

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis – one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress – a compromise I can sign. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Exit mobile version