“We're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”
That was President Obama in January, 2010. So what did he say today?
“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates…This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”
Paul Ryan, in response, describes President Obama thus:
He's basically a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.And
Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells.This of course would be a more polite way of saying what Joe Wilson said in 2009.
Two things seem clear after today. First, no matter how much some might try to muddy things, the choices couldn't be much more stark in 2012. Second, Paul Ryan may say he's not running for president, and might not intend to run for president, but it's become increasingly clear that he is a guy who needs to run for president in 2012 on the Republican side.
19 comments:
Mark,
this is the same Paul Ryan who helped to run up this massive debt by fervently embracing the reckeless Bush tax cuts, the unpaid-for Iraqi and Afghani wars, a massive new and, again, unpaid for prescription drug benefit, TARP, etc. and now complains when Obama points out the obvious flaws in Ryan's plan. It's called a dialog. Did you honestly expect Obama to embrace Ryan's laughable and unrealistic plan? And Conservatives whining about Obama's rhetoric? And crying "Unfair" over pointing out that Ryan's plan soaks the poor and middle class and lavishes money on the wealthy (which it does). These are the same people who came up with Death Panels, rationing and the like. Blogger Please!
It's high time Obama called the Right out for spewing complete nosense about how cutting taxes is somehow going to stimulate our economy. If that were the case, we would currently be in the most booming economy in our history.
When Eisenhower was president and the foundation was laid for America's post-war boom, it was done so with a top tax rate of over 70%. Now we are supposed to believe that any attempt to return to Clinton-era levels of taxation for millionaires and billionaires (39.5%) is somehow going to kill the economy. Ya, right. How are they going to live without that extra 4.5%.
Look, trickle down economics doesn't work...at least not for the macroeconomy, and not over the long-haul. We've been down that road before and it got us into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
I loved today's speech. Obama has effectively boxed in Republicans for 2012. And I agree with you: Let's have a debate about what is more important...another 10% tax cut for those who have already realized the vast majority of the increases in wealth and productivity in this nation over the last 30 years, or investing in our future and paying down our debt. Obama is working the middle. It's Ryan who is in fantasy land fixating on tax cuts for the well to do. Let's see where Independents stand now that Ryan's plan has placed Republican priorities in plain view. Let's see how America's seniors and baby-boomers react when they realize that Paul Ryan and the Republican's voucher program constitutes the real death panel. And if you can tell me why it is wrong for me to use terms like that, but not you, I would be really grateful to be enlightened. Seriously.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
I just lost a long comment in response, but let's just say this:
1) Ryan has a plan. He's put it out there. I expect you to reject it. I continue to await Obama's plan. Or Harry Reid's plan. Or any plan at all from the port side.
2) We can continue to pass continuing resolutions and trying to win the news cycle, or we can realize that the long-term trends are awful and start doing something about it. The hour grows short, though. And what Ryan is saying is undeniably true -- if we keep kicking the can down the road, eventually our children will make the decision for us. And we won't like it much. Do you want to be part of the discussion now, or do you want to win the news cycle and perhaps the 2012 election? What matters more to you? Your comment seems to answer those questions.
Last point -- you can use whatever terms you want, my friend. I don't care. As a certain prominent American politician put it recently, they are just words. That's all we get these days from your side of the aisle.
Rich,
You live up to your name in that you are "rich"in criticism, but short on solutions. What is your solution, other than the "soak the rich" class warfare mantra?
It's worth pointing out that Obama is simply arguing with reality when he says Medicare--with its fifty trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities--is off the table. Medicare WILL change; the question is not whether it will change, but rather whether the changes will be merely moderately painful, or catastrophic.
By ignoring the problem, Comrade Obama is choosing "catastrophic," of course.
And again, at fifty trillion bucks, this dwarfs anything Bush signed up for, Rich. Sometimes ya gotta look at the left side of the Pareto chart.
A car is barreling down the highway as the driver fiddles with the seat heater while balancing a Big Mac, fries and large Coke in his lap and staring at the GPS screen instead of at the road ahead. Meanwhile everyone else in the car is arguing loudly over what music to play through the high-tech, 12-speaker sound system and whether it's too hot or too cold in the compartment, and who gets to drive next.
Suddenly they realize there's a brick wall ahead. What to do? Hitting the brakes hard will toss people about, spill their drinks bump their heads and hurt their feelings. Or you can just hit the wall. Either way, the car is going to come to a stop.
One option gives you chance to eventually drive around the obstruction. The other results in a litte white marker beside the road, commemorating what once had been.
The choice is between the unacceptable and the unthinkable. And some just say, "Go faster!"
Analogy is spot on, NW, except that since Obama is at the wheel, it should probably be a large Slurpee.
Thanks, Mr. D. It doesn't have to be a specific president, though. The car turned down this road a long time ago and no one saw the Dead End sign. There have been several drivers since then, and some have had more of a lead foot than others, but no one's ever seriously tried to change direction, though we have veered from the ditch occasionally.
True, NW. It might have looked like a Model A at the beginning and might look like a Chevy Volt now, but it's the same damned car.
All,
Our $14 trillion debt is largely a result of the cost of two unfunded wars, a runaway defense budget, the Bush tax cuts, (taxes on the richest Americans are the lowest they have been in a generation, and I fail to see how a 4.6% rise in income tax on the wealthiest 2% of Americans is "soaking" the rich), a demographic bubble that we have known about for years but refused to address (remember how you guys sneered at Al Gore's SS Lockbox?) and a recession caused by the lack of regulation of Wall Street. Both sides have played a part in this, and both sides are going to have to participatee in fixing it.
The only way out of this mess is a three-pronged approach of budget cutting - esp. on defense spending, entitlemenint reform and tax increases. Any adult knows this right now. But it's the conservatives who are saying that all tax increases are off the table and defense is sacred...So remind me who is being unrealistic.
We had a chance to address this 10 years ago...back when we were actually genertaing a surplus and paying down the debt. Back when Dubya told us, in his first major address to Congress, that he was going to slash taxes and still create a responsible budget that would pay off the national debt in ten years. Remember that? It was 10 years ago...and where are we at?
Guys, your plan didn't work. But we are the irresponsible ones. Yah, right.
Time for the three-pronged approach.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
You leaven some common sense with shovel loads of crap. To discuss just one point: Al Gore's "lockbox." We made fun of his lock box because it was nothing of the sort. It was a pol trying to fool people into thinking that the government actually saves their social security taxes instead of immediately spending them. Do you think that if Gore had been president then those taxes would have been saved and/or invested? Then you are a rube. They would have been spent. Bush at least cut taxes to help the economy power through the recession he inherited (no blame casting here; downturns happen) and through 9/11, both of which could have been far more serious with a retard in office (say someone like Obama.)
You are quite correct that it isn't just the Democrat's fault. We get that. But right now, there is only one party that is even slightly serious about working on (never mind solving) this problem. And it ain't yours.
Rich,
I have no idea if the plans of the Democrats are responsible, because they aren't offering one. I do know that they went through the end of the last Congress without even passing a budget and appropriations for the fiscal year that is now half over.
Your party is in no position to wave a finger at anyone right now. Period. And I'd remind you that, even if we could confiscate the entire fortunes of all the rich bastards your side hates, it still wouldn't cover the deficit that we are running currently. Not their incomes. Not even a percentage of their incomes. You could take it all and it wouldn't cover what is being spent right now. Until the Democrats stop behaving as they are, your cavils are less than meaningless.
Mark,
what a load of hooey. Ryan's plan means next to nothing as well. And I suspect that you know that. It's jus a pander to the base extolling the tired old Republican playbook: Gut everything and have tax cuts for the rich. The middle class loses jobs, Social Security and Medicare, union rights, the safety net, food and water inspections, and infrastructure. Tea partiers may be dumb enough to by into this (although I have my doubts), but most independents won't. And the reason is simple: It is a complete non-starter. How many Republicans are going to be dumb enough to go on record for a plan that will end Medicare as we know it? Your base may claim to be passionate about the plan now, but aren't these the same people who were attacking Obamacare for its incremental changes to Medicare? And I do realize that Ryan's plan very cynically leaves all Seniors and soon-to-be Seniors out of the cuts (because he is so principled. Right?) But, with 2012 on the horizon, is any half-sane member of the House going to campaign for re-election after having voted to utterly transform Medicare?
Moreover, even the Congressman who (inexplicably) believe in the Ryan Plan know that it will never pass the Senate or survive a veto pen. So why would anyone go home and risk the wrath of constituents over gutting Medicare when the whole thing is a legislative black hole?
While cuts need to be made, (along with tax raises, and incremental changes to entitlements) Ryan's plan is laughable, and a complete non-starter. Does anyone on here want to bet me that Ryan's plan never makes it out of this Republican Congress? What kind of odds you wanna give me that it never makes a floor vote? It reminds me of the line in Tommy Boy: Anyone can take a crap in a box and slap a piece of paper on it...but that piece of paper doesn't mean anything.
Ryan just threw the middle class under the bus, and I am willing to bet that a whole bunch of members of his own party aren't too happy about it privately.
I will say it again: Years of tax cuts, lost jobs, failed ideology, religion, guns, and culture wars haven't worked. They won't this time either. And in the zero sum game of American politics, Ryan just laid his cards on the table before the betting started. You can call that brave. I call it stupid. But I am grateful for it.
Regards,
Rich
rich people dont pay income taxes. they live off of trust accts and the like, or funnel their earning through incorporating (like, hollywood stars do)
the rich that obama wants to soak are those who have earned large incomes who normally do not. these folks are ofetn one shotters, like a good year for sales commisions, or a athlete who only has a short carreer in which to acquire wealth.
in practice, income taxing the rich is actually taxing people who are trying to become rich, not those who already are.
just compare the actual net worth of the bushes, the gores, the kenedys, the rockefellers or the waltons with how much they actually pay in taxes to see the whole truth.
you would likely see their rates to be quite low compared to standard box maker of copy writer.
how fair is that?
and this discussion makes me very happy that i refuse to shill for either party...
And I do realize that Ryan's plan very cynically leaves all Seniors and soon-to-be Seniors out of the cuts (because he is so principled. Right?)
Wrong. He leaves them out because folks who are in those categories have built their lives around the assumption that the programs would be there. Someone my age (and yours, and Gino's, since we are all contemporaries) still has time to get with a different program. And we're going to need to, because Medicare is unsustainable for a variety of reasons, including the tu quoque ones you are so fond of bruiting.
Bottom line is this -- as Gino rightly points out, we tax income, not wealth, in this country. Culture wars may not win, but class warfare ain't gonna win, either. Ryan's plan may or may not get through at all, but at least it starts a very necessary conversation. But if you want to kick the can down the road and see what happens in 20-25 years, that's your right, I suppose. I just don't want to hear a word from you about your fate then when our children refuse to pay for the empire of crap that Washington has constructed in bipartisan fashion for the last 75 years.
The promise of entitlements in a country that has destroyed itself is meaningless. That's like being a millionaire in Zimbabwe. It's all well and good to talk about protecting grandma from the Paul Ryan and his Huns, but let's be honest about that knife you're slipping into your grandchild's back.
Rich, again, the real national debt--the one with GAAP accounting--is closer to seventy trillion dollars, and almost all of it is due to unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. A great portion of the rest can be attributed to the costs of the Great Society just as easily as it can be to GOP tax cuts.
OK, so are you going to take a look at the Pareto or not? #1 is Medicare, #2 is Social Security, #3 is other welfare programs, and national defence comes in at most at #4.
There is not enough wealth in the country to pay for these. It's either reform Medicare and Social Security, or run head-on into that brick wall. Vote for Obama and the Democrats, and you are definitely choosing the brick wall.
i dont give the GOP much credit for honesty. either.
both sides played the impending shutdown to the emotions of their voters.
the democrats, btw, held the whole thing over abortion funding.
in every struggle, there is The Hill you are willing to die on: the sacred ground that cannot be relinquised. i wonder how Rich feels knowing that, loyal cheerleading democrat he is, snuffing babies is the sacred ground.
Bubba, I'm not so sure that Rich knows what a Pareto is since I haven't seen the word used at TPM* Most of the rest of his comments in this thread have come directly (or indirectly, perhaps) from there.
Post a Comment