Paul Ryan!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrish1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And what does Cardinal Burke believe the Republican Party represents? Does their position on abortion alone qualify them for the Catholic vote? Ruling out one party does not automatically translate into an endorsement of the other.
No one is ruling out one party-however the Church rules out voting for a candidate who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. The unfortunate fact is the majority of those who support this intrinsic evil reside in the democrat party-who’s party platform claims this evil is an absolute right that must be defended.
 
This is meaningless. Simply more flips and flops. Not only from Romney but from Ryan.

“Ryan’s earliest budget proposal did not include the option to stay with Medicare as we know it.”

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/mitt-romneys-strategy-to-win-the-medicare-debate/

Just more of an attempt by Romney and Ryan and Republicans to muddy the waters in hopes voters get so confused as to what their intentions really are. But Ryan made his intentions perfectly clear to begin with. To end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system.
You’re right, Matt, and one can see this in Ryan’s original plan in which Medicare was NOT an option for seniors. If Ryan had his way completely, he would prefer to end Medicare sooner rather than later. As it stands now, the revised Ryan plan is designed to phase out Medicare gradually and substitute vouchers, though not explicitly stated as such. Hopefully, the voucher program will be successful enough that successive generations won’t miss Medicare. This may actually work but it is a risk for the people it will impact first, the “near-seniors,” who are the guinea pigs. If privatization of health care (one of the words Republican operatives have informed the candidates to avoid during the campaign like the plague) can work, then all is good; but if privatization fails, despite adjustments along the way, then people will likely be at even greater risk than they are currently. If it were up to me, I would support a single-payer system and get the for-profit insurance companies out of the health-care industry altogether, which was Hillary’s plan during the 2008 election. If others prefer to call that European socialism, then so be it. Of course such as change, in the opposite direction, would be even bolder than the Ryan plan and, FWIW, certainly against Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy!
 
Source? How do we know you didn’t just make these “facts” up? :rolleyes:
My Congressman, Michael Burgess, is a physician. He was on Waxman’s committee in 2009, and politely offered to consult with Waxman about the health reform bill that was coming up. He did not even get a reply.
 
You’re right, Matt, and one can see this in Ryan’s original plan in which Medicare was NOT an option for seniors. If Ryan had his way completely, he would prefer to end Medicare sooner rather than later. As it stands now, the revised Ryan plan is designed to phase out Medicare gradually and substitute vouchers, though not explicitly stated as such. Hopefully, the voucher program will be successful enough that successive generations won’t miss Medicare. This may actually work but it is a risk for the people it will impact first, the “near-seniors,” who are the guinea pigs. If privatization of health care (one of the words Republican operatives have informed the candidates to avoid during the campaign like the plague) can work, then all is good; but if privatization fails, despite adjustments along the way, then people will likely be at even greater risk than they are currently. If it were up to me, I would support a single-payer system and get the for-profit insurance companies out of the health-care industry altogether, which was Hillary’s plan during the 2008 election. If others prefer to call that European socialism, then so be it. Of course such as change, in the opposite direction, would be even bolder than the Ryan plan and, FWIW, certainly against Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy!
Purpose of the Wyden Ryan plan is to keep medicare solvent, not to end it. Medicare trustees say medicare will be bankrupt if there is no plan to fix it by 2024

When has Ryan said he did not want medicare to be an option for elderly or that he wanted to end medicare?

Public option exists alongside private vouchers, seniors can choose. Romney has made that clear
 
You’re right, Matt, and one can see this in Ryan’s original plan in which Medicare was NOT an option for seniors. If Ryan had his way completely, he would prefer to end Medicare sooner rather than later. As it stands now, the revised Ryan plan is designed to phase out Medicare gradually and substitute vouchers, though not explicitly stated as such. Hopefully, the voucher program will be successful enough that successive generations won’t miss Medicare. This may actually work but it is a risk for the people it will impact first, the “near-seniors,” who are the guinea pigs. If privatization of health care (one of the words Republican operatives have informed the candidates to avoid during the campaign like the plague) can work, then all is good; but if privatization fails, despite adjustments along the way, then people will likely be at even greater risk than they are currently. If it were up to me, I would support a single-payer system and get the for-profit insurance companies out of the health-care industry altogether, which was Hillary’s plan during the 2008 election. If others prefer to call that European socialism, then so be it. Of course such as change, in the opposite direction, would be even bolder than the Ryan plan and, FWIW, certainly against Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy!
Say what??? His plan phases out medicare “though not explicitly stated”???

Two can play that game:

Obamas plan will , although not explicitly stated, result in nationalization of all industries and the seizing of all wealth above $250,000
 
Ryan’s own bishop has strongly defended him. The comments about Ryan’s budget came from the staff of the USCCB, which is very liberal.
A serious liberal would find this comment highly amusing - but what does it matter anyway? Does the word of a Bishop have less authority it he’s not a raving conservative?
 
Yup.
  1. Stay on the traditional plan
or get a voucher and
  1. use it to pay for an approved private insurance plan (any savings you keep)
  2. use it all + money you kick in for a premium plan.
#2 drives insurance prices down, as a person gets to keep what he doesn’t spend, and will try to find the cheapest plan that fits his needs
SUCCINCTLY put! Can it be true? Looks to good to be. NOT implausible - perfectly logical - benefits “the people” (the REAL ones, not the obscurely invoked fiction of the communists)? THIS from a politician in Washington?

To combat an idea this good counter-advertising must repeat “don’t be fooled - it’s not what it looks like” a lot. And the Emperor will go on wearing … ?:eek:

Who came up with the concept of insurance anyhow? One smooth talking caveman I guess.

:hey_bud: YOU - give me money … and later … IF everything in your life goes flooey :crutches: or ya die … why, I’ll give it BACK to you. Month after month. Or your widow. You LOVE her dont’cha?

And she looked fervently at him to see what he would SAY! :kiss4you:

Always seemed to me like betting against yourself. The win-win was always just a lesser evil!

I’m FINE! (pay the bill again) I’m DYING! (thank GOD I got that insurance!)

NOW I can pay the ex-Catholic college dorm fees for my kid and their significant, keep my ex-spouse supported in the manner to which (she/he) has become accustomed, and STILL have money for a funeral - if no one much comes! < Oh crud. THIS dream again!

“Every FUNERAL starts with FUN!” - the wit and wisdom of Chairman Mao
 
Does their position on abortion alone qualify them for the Catholic vote?.
No.
Ruling out one party does not automatically translate into an endorsement of the other
There is no moral obligation to vote republican. While one cannot vote for Obama given his anti-life stand, there no obligation to vote for a republican if there are other pro-life candidates.
 
No.

There is no moral obligation to vote republican. While one cannot vote for Obama given his anti-life stand, there no obligation to vote for a republican if there are other pro-life candidates.
Although non votes may result in an Obama victory
 
Although non votes may result in an Obama victory
Perhaps, but there is nothing that the Bishops have said that suggests that anyone must vote republican. Obviously the life issues are nonnegotiable, but among pro-life candidates there is no requirement to vote for the likely winner or the one with the supposed best chance.
 
Perhaps, but there is nothing that the Bishops have said that suggests that anyone must vote republican. Obviously the life issues are nonnegotiable, but among pro-life candidates there is no requirement to vote for the likely winner or the one with the supposed best chance.
True enough.
 
Perhaps, but there is nothing that the Bishops have said that suggests that anyone must vote republican. Obviously the life issues are nonnegotiable, but among pro-life candidates there is no requirement to vote for the likely winner or the one with the supposed best chance.
Honestly that’s not even the point. While you cannot vote for a pro-abort like Obama the decision regarding the other candidate has to be made with the same consideration, not whether or not he/she will win.

My hope and prayer is that those who know they cannot vote for Obama but are reluctant to vote for Romney for what I consider silly reasons (he’s a Mormon, he’s mean to dogs, his wife has an expensive horse) will consider the consequences of their non-vote. They may help Obama to be re-elected.

I’m curious if the Bishops have said anything regarding the inadvertent results of HELPING a pro abort to be elected by ignoring a perfectly acceptable (on Catholic issues) candidate and not voting. While we are not compelled to vote, I believe it’s our civic and Christian duty. The purists that are “staying home” for silly reasons may help evil to continue.

Lisa
 
Does their position on abortion alone qualify them for the Catholic vote?
No.

There is no moral obligation to vote republican. While one cannot vote for Obama given his anti-life stand, there no obligation to vote for a republican if there are other pro-life candidates.
There is a moral obligation to vote for a pro life candidate over a pro abortion candidate, regardless of party affiliation. Church teaching says 2 of the most serious sins in society are abortion and euthanasia. Immigration, health care, tax, economy are not proportionate enough to justify voting for a pro abortion candidate. Consider that 1 million plus babies are killed a year
 
Say what??? His plan phases out medicare “though not explicitly stated”???

Two can play that game:

Obamas plan will , although not explicitly stated, result in nationalization of all industries and the seizing of all wealth above $250,000
:slapfight::slapfight:
 
Obama said he agrees with some ideas in the Wyden Ryan budget and that it is a legitimate proposal. Remember that when you hear him against it now

President Obama Highlights Paul Ryan’s Efforts to Save Medicare & Social Security

President Obama: I think Paul [Ryan], for example, the head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. Ive read it. I can tell you whats in it. And theres some ideas in there that I would agree with but theres some ideas we should have a healthy debate about because I dont agree with them. The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. Thats going to be what our children have to worry about. Now, Pauls approach, and I want to be careful not to simplify this, I know youve got a lot of detail in your plan, but, if I understand it correctly, would say, were going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level No?

Congressman Ryan: No we protect the program for Americans 55 and above [those in and near retirement]

Obama: I understand theres a grandfathering in.Thats why I said I wanted to make sure that Im not being unfair to your proposal. I just want to point out that Ive 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 doesnt go way out of whack, and Im sure there some details

Ryan: We increase the Medicare payments with a blend of inflation and health inflation. The point of our plan is, because Medicare as you know is a $38 trillion unfunded liability

Obama: Right

Ryan: It has to be reformed for younger generations because it wont exist. Its going bankrupt. The premise of our idea is look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? Thats the kind of reform were proposing for Medicare [applause]

Obama: As I said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. 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 shouldnt have a serious 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 characterize whatever proposals are put out there as ‘Well, you know, that’s the other party being irresponsible…the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens.’ That’s why I say: if we’re going to frame these in the way that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out a) who is to blame; b) how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately that’s how our politics works right now. Every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they have all the talking points, I see Frank Luntz up here, he’s already polled it. I’ve done a focus group, they way we’re going to box Obama in on this one, or make Pelosi look bad on that one. That’s how we operate. It’s all tactics. It’s not solving problems. And so the question is: at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious conversation about Social Security or serious conversation about budget and debt where aren’t simply trying to position ourselves politically. That’s what I’m committed to doing

youtube.com/watch?v=ZBT5wnDK7L0&sns=tw
 
While we are not compelled to vote, I believe it’s our civic and Christian duty.
That it is. We, however, need not vote in every race. I will not vote for Obama nor Romney, but I shall vote in the other races.
The purists that are “staying home” for silly reasons may help evil to continue.
Yes, there are those who will not vote for silly reasons, but there are many who have decided to not vote for good reason. Also, a non-vote could help Romney as well as help Obama.
 
Purpose of the Wyden Ryan plan is to keep medicare solvent, not to end it. Medicare trustees say medicare will be bankrupt if there is no plan to fix it by 2024

When has Ryan said he did not want medicare to be an option for elderly or that he wanted to end medicare?

Public option exists alongside private vouchers, seniors can choose. Romney has made that clear
Based on what I’ve read, the initial Ryan budget plan did not include a fee-for-service Medicare option, but only a voucher program. The first revision of that plan included a Medicare option in addition to vouchers, but the voucher payout was based on the consumer-price-index which measures only general inflation, not health-care inflation. This would mean that over time recipients would likely have to pay more out-of-pocket expenses for their health care. I believe, but have not yet been able to verify, that further revisions of the Ryan plan have made allowance specifically for health-care inflation. Now, as I stated, this plan may work provided consumers are able to make wise decisions and avoid the pitfalls of the insurance industry’s often deceptive advertising regarding the quality of coverage of the health care they provide. Ryan did not explicitly state he wants to end Medicare, but I think one can rationally infer that his intention, and that of the GOP in general, is to ween people off their dependency on government entitlements in order to reduce the deficit and promote economic self-sufficiency.
 
It wasn’t a compliment… which you obviously can’t see. Your “facts” have been refuted numerous times.
Hurray! I must be getting under your skin if you are so keen to shut me up! Thanks for the compliment 😃
 
Based on what I’ve read, the initial Ryan budget plan did not include a fee-for-service Medicare option, but only a voucher program. The first revision of that plan included a Medicare option in addition to vouchers, but the voucher payout was based on the consumer-price-index which measures only general inflation, not health-care inflation. This would mean that over time recipients would likely have to pay more out-of-pocket expenses for their health care. I believe, but have not yet been able to verify, that further revisions of the Ryan plan have made allowance specifically for health-care inflation. Now, as I stated, this plan may work provided consumers are able to make wise decisions and avoid the pitfalls of the insurance industry’s often deceptive advertising regarding the quality of coverage of the health care they provide. Ryan did not explicitly state he wants to end Medicare, but I think one can rationally infer that his intention, and that of the GOP in general, is to ween people off their dependency on government entitlements in order to reduce the deficit and promote economic self-sufficiency.
Obama did not explicitly say he wanted to nationalize all industries but I think one can rationally infer that is his intention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top