Dismiss it and throw in a little “Everybody does it” for good measure, LOL.
Bottom line is, Obama did the exact thing that 3 months earlier he flat out stated would deep six any entitlement reform; demagogue the proposal. That was my one and only point. Everything else you brought up was a diversion.
Conclusion, he does not want any entitlement reform. It’s quite clear he doesn’t want any appreciable reduction in government spending.
BTW, the “gutting” of Medicare was indeed in Ryan’s original proposal. Obama referred to the voucher plan in January. It’s right in the Whitehouse transcript you did not read.
On Wednesday Obama delivered a mostly political response to Paul Ryan’s mostly serious proposal to reforming some entitlements (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid) while starting to deliver substantial reductions in deficit spending.
Probably the most disgusting quote from Obama is:
“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.”
Less than 3 months ago, Obama addressed the new GOP Congressional caucus and said this, ironically in response to a question from none other than Paul Ryan:
“No, no, but here's my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don't think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan.
And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that's -- the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gop-house-issues-conference
It’s possible that he was being honest both times but that would only indicate one thing, Obama intends to do nothing about any of “these” entitlements. It’s the only position that jibes with both statements.
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for," Mr. Obama told his supporters. "So it's not on the level."
I think he has a point!
-- Modified on 4/15/2011 4:08:47 PM
"I think, Paul, for example, head of the budget committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. I've read it. I can tell you what's in it. And there are some ideas in there that I would agree with, but there are some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about because I don't agree with them."
Whose not be genuine here?
So, you're saying President Obama does not agree with so of those ideas? Are you saying President Obama does not believe there should be a healthy debate on those ideas and proposals?
Your Obama quote seemed intended to show how Obama was attempting to discredit Ryan concerning Ryan’s budget plan. My Obama quote was intended to illustrate how only 3 months earlier Obama praised Ryan (in public) for the same plan by saying, “Ryan. . . has made a serious proposal. I've read it. I can tell you what's in it. And there are some ideas in there that I would agree with. . .”. I included the unrelated portions, which were the only ones you focused on, only for completeness.
I only deal in the obvious so if you choose to focus on those factors that are not, I cannot help you.
First, this quote wasn't in your original post, but never mind. What you ignore is that in the original post Obama does characterize Ryan's plan as "tinkering" with Medicare. You call that praise?
More to your original point: when Obama made the comment directly to Ryan three months earlier, it was (um, obviously) three months before the final details of the Ryan plan were released. Do you think it's remotely possible he might have made a different comment had he known the details? Yet you have the gall to try to indict him for hypocrisy? Perhaps you don't understand the definition of the word, because you've been practising it on this thread by ignoring this fact.
Bottom line, like all right wingers you are so adamantly opposed to anything Obama might say or do that your arguments are predictable and baseless. Oh, and hypocritical.
Dismiss it and throw in a little “Everybody does it” for good measure, LOL.
Bottom line is, Obama did the exact thing that 3 months earlier he flat out stated would deep six any entitlement reform; demagogue the proposal. That was my one and only point. Everything else you brought up was a diversion.
Conclusion, he does not want any entitlement reform. It’s quite clear he doesn’t want any appreciable reduction in government spending.
BTW, the “gutting” of Medicare was indeed in Ryan’s original proposal. Obama referred to the voucher plan in January. It’s right in the Whitehouse transcript you did not read.
Just pulled this one off the GD Board. More hypocrisy from you, Captain O! Not to mention that you didn't even respond to the core of my argument: Obama's comments directly to Ryan we made three months before the Ryan plan was released. How can Obama be accused of praising it (when "it" didn't exist at the time of his original comments)? In fact, I also point out that he didn't praise it as you said, and even called it "tinkering." It's sad that you can't even intelligently argue your own case. Now go away.
-- Modified on 4/16/2011 4:48:09 PM
The basis of the Medicare plan that was demagogued this week DID exist and was known to Obama in January. If you had bothered to read the transcript THAT YOU ASKED FOR in the first place (in our thread below) then you would have known it.
http://classic.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=143019&boardID=39&page=1
If you want me to "go away" then either quit responding or respond from an informed position, not incorrect assumptions.
OK, you said you'd provide a link. Well you did, but when I went to it and searched every post on it (and every link on every post) I found nothing that shows what you promised: that Obama knew three months ago what was in Ryan's plan. And, by the way, when I referred to the Ryan plan I was referring to more than just Medicare, but to his entire deficit-reduction plan. After all, that's what Obama was addressing in his speech last week. Did I miss something? Do check and let me know.
-- Modified on 4/17/2011 8:16:49 AM
The link you went to was simply your post asking for one. See the bottom of this post.
My OP specifically showed how last week Obama demagogued Ryan’s MEDICARE plan specifically in regard to Medicare entitlement reform. That the voucher proposal was going to KILL DISABLED CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY, when just 3 months earlier he had stated that such demagoguery would PREVENT ANY Medicare reform. I can only therefore conclude that he WANTS NO REFORM.
Specifically review this exchange (I’ve HIGHLIGHTED as best TER allows):
*************************
THE PRESIDENT: Now, going forward, here's the deal. I think, Paul, for example, head of the budget committee, has looked at the budget AND HAS MADE A SERIOUS PROPOSAL. I'VE READ IT. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S IN IT.
The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. Social Security we could probably fix the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan sat down together and they could figure something out. That is manageable. Medicare and Medicaid -- massive problem down the road. That's where -- that's going to be what our children have to worry about.
Now, Paul's approach (to Medicare) -- and I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you've got a lot of detail in your plan -- BUT IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WOULD SAY WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE VOUCHERS OF SOME SORT FOR CURRENT MEDICARE RECIPIENTS AT THE CURRENT LEVEL --
CONGRESSMAN RYAN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: No?
CONGRESSMAN RYAN: People 55 and above --
THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-five and -- WELL, NO, I UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, THERE'S A GRANDFATHERING IN, but just for future beneficiaries, right? That's why I said I didn't want to -- I want to make sure that I'm not being unfair to your proposal, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I'VE READ IT. And the basic idea would be that at some point we hold Medicare cost per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn't go way out of whack, and I'm sure there are some details that --
CONGRESSMAN RYAN: We drew it as a blend of inflation and health inflation, the point of our plan is -- because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability -- it has to be reform for younger generations because it won't exist because it's going bankrupt. And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That's the kind of reform we're proposing for Medicare. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand. Right, right. Well, look, as I said before, THIS IS AN ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE PROPOSAL. The problem is twofold: One is that depending on how it's structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we're saving money is essentially by capping what they're getting relative to their costs.
Now, I just want to point out -- and this brings me to the second problem -- when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package, our health care reform package, to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board, by many on your aisle, for slashing Medicare. You remember? We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors. That was the story that was perpetrated out there -- scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors.
No, no, but here's my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don't think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan.
And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a series discussion about it. I raise that BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF THESE ENTITLEMENTS IF WHAT WE DO IS CHARACTERIZED, WHATEVER PROPOSALS ARE PUT OUT THERE, AS, WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- THE OTHER PARTY IS BEING IRRESPONSIBLE; THE OTHER PARTY IS TRYING TO HURT OUR SENIOR CITIZENS; THAT THE OTHER PARTY IS DOING X, Y, Z.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gop-house-issues-conference
******************
Then he acted exactly the way he said we should not.
Both sides have demagogued this and every other issue in Washington. If Obama used pointed language now that the Ryan proposal has actually been put on the table, I have no problem with that. You act outraged when Republicans have been doing the same thing about Obama's proposals for the past two years...even when he proposed things that they had originally supported. Both sides will fan the flames for the next several months while, at the same time, they work behind the scenes to see if there's any room for compromise. Your expressions of shock are either naive or totally disingenuous.
It's not shock at all on my part. It was totally expected. What I expressed was disgust.
At least you've finally paid enough attention that you've dropped your dismissive attitude that it never happened.
Why don't you want to address the original point that Obama does not want ANY entitlement reform and the implications that probability has for our future? It's gone beyond a total lack of leadership.
and you've gotten really, really good at it. First of all, I never said it didn't happen. You really need to go back and read my posts again and/or take Reading Comprehension 101. I actually said it several times and you responded. I guess I shouldn't be surprised if you can't remember what I wrote, because you can't even remember what YOU wrote. As for Obama not wanting any reform, nothing you've quoted him saying says that. He just doesn't want a complete gutting of Medicare a la the Ryan plan. You really should re-name yourself CaptainObtuse.
NOT! As I have found out with snowcone, it is pointless debating anything with a blind, ranting fool. Now go off and enjoy your mindless babble with your little friends.
Maybe it's time you recognized that you're the common denominator.
I am shocked, shocked, to find politics going on in Washington, DC! Sheesh, if I tried to count every time a politician talked out of both sides of his mouth I'd run out of space! And as Obama pointed out, Ryan himself voted for several things (including Medicare Part D) that were unfunded. So who's the hypocrite? Your sense of outrage is amusing, but not really believable.
The hypocrisy of Ryan et al. is arguably that they over spent and now, years later, want to reverse course after a mea culpa and years of different circumstances. Obama’s hypocrisy spans mere weeks and illustrates how he really has no intention of curbing deficits.
My post was not aimed at some childish game of playing gotcha over hypocrisy but rather an attempt to discover the goals of Obama. Hypocrisy can make that interpretation difficult but Obama's actions here when compared to January's are revealing.
you have serious reading comprehension problems. My last post plainly said that some level of double-talk is Washington business-as-usual a/k/a hypocrisy. But you ignore that. The entire point, actually, is they are all playing a game down there. Your hypocrisy is pretending you aren't playing a game with your tendentious posts, that are argumentative over nuances of language that you willfully mis-interpret. Please return to Obvious-land before you sprain your brain further. You are fooling no one but yourself.
I comprehend quite well that you prefer to ignore most things politicians say especially when they seem to be hypocritical or it suits your purpose. I choose not to do the same.
You asked “who was the hypocrite?” so I answered.
I am curious though which piece of language you think I so tendentiously misinterpreted.
Not that you'll agree with it. You are clearly too far gone in your Obama-hating mania.