Paul Ryan

[Professor S]

Welcome back, Game! I can't listen to the audio of the video, but I saw an interesting stat: Paul Ryan's plan eventually lowers spending to 15% of GDP. To be honest, this is necessary if e ever want to actually pay off our debt. Over time, we tend to bring in about 18% of GDP in revenue each year. We are currently spending at about 25% of GDP and we are accruing absurd amounts of debt.

If we ever want to pay it off, we eventually have to 1) raise revenue to normal levels by encouraging investment and employment, and 2) lower spending below normal levels. Now raising revenue is a sincere and difficult discussion, but we can't avoid lowering spending.

Also, I've been hearing a lot about Ryan's plan over the last few days. Here are some clarifications:

1) Ryan's plan does not cut spending, but mainly freeze's it. The cuts people are talking about are cuts to future spending. The idea is to transition the future burdens/opportunities to the marketplace with the expectation that the market can provide a better product more efficiently by promoting competition.

2) Ryan's plan preserves medicare for those 55 and older.

3) Interestingly enough, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the only plan that technically cuts Medicare, and it cuts it by about $600-700 billion.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Welcome back, Game! I can't listen to the audio of the video, but I saw an interesting stat: Paul Ryan's plan eventually lowers spending to 15% of GDP. To be honest, this is necessary if e ever want to actually pay off our debt. Over time, we tend to bring in about 18% of GDP in revenue each year. We are currently spending at about 25% of GDP and we are accruing absurd amounts of debt.

If we ever want to pay it off, we eventually have to 1) raise revenue to normal levels by encouraging investment and employment, and 2) lower spending below normal levels. Now raising revenue is a sincere and difficult discussion, but we can't avoid lowering spending.

Also, I've been hearing a lot about Ryan's plan over the last few days. Here are some clarifications:

1) Ryan's plan does not cut spending, but mainly freeze's it. The cuts people are talking about are cuts to future spending. The idea is to transition the future burdens/opportunities to the marketplace with the expectation that the market can provide a better product more efficiently by promoting competition.

2) Ryan's plan preserves medicare for those 55 and older.

3) Interestingly enough, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the only plan that technically cuts Medicare, and it cuts it by about $600-700 billion.

You need to get some audio. lol

-EDIT-

And just in case you think this guy doesn't slam democrats too:


I think the downside of Ryan is that he doesn't hide what he's planning, and it's unpopular.

[Professor S]

Game, notice he never says that the ACA isn't taking over $700 billion out of Medicare. It is, and the "savings" he mentions just seconds later are the funds taken from Medicare. Cenk plays a lot of semantics, but plays them poorly. The non-partisan source he mentions is likely the CBO and that was debunked in the Paul Ryan video I posted earlier in the thread.

Also, when has moving services from the private sector to the public sector ever improved prices or corruption? The minute someone can show me proof this has ever happened I'll register as a Democrat.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Game, notice he never says that the ACA isn't taking over $700 billion out of Medicare. It is, and the "savings" he mentions just seconds later are the funds taken from Medicare.

Ok, lets go a little more mainstream with it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...medicare-cuts/

"Those Medicare savings -achieved through reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse, not benefit cuts – appear in the House Republicans’ FY 2013 budget, which Ryan authored."

That's exactly what he's saying in the video. Republicans are being misleading, Oh, and their comeback? At the end of the ABC article? "He’s used it to pay for Obamacare, a risky, unproven federal government takeover of health care" Ok so Romney/Ryan won't use the 700 billion to pay for Obamacare, understood... and "And if I’m President of the United States, we’re putting the $716 billion back” Excelent word play, but lies non the less... unless his meaning is 'back' into the governments pockets to pay for his own plan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...are-cuts-says/

I'm not even going to quote that one, you should read it. But to Sum it up, there's two facts here (as reported by non partasian sources:

1) The Ryan plan supports and protects the same 700 billion in "cuts" or "savings" (or whatever you want to call it) that Obama's plan does.
2) Ryan is accusing of Obama for "robbing" those funds to pay for Obamacare, but in Ryan's plan he's also "robbing" those funds to pay for his own plan.

So this whole 700 billion dollar "arguement" is all smoke and mirrors. Romney, Ryan, and Obama (aka the corporatist party) all support these changes. Instead of being misleading and focusing on the 700 billion cut, they should have an honest debate about where the funds are going.. aka 'Obamacare' vs 'Romneyryancare'

[Professor S]

Game, when you're right you're right. I fell for the same thing I blame a lot of the Obama attacks for: calling reductions in future spending "cuts".

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-...re-falsehoods/

As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)

And it assumes they actually happen. There’s good reason to think that some of those reductions won’t be implemented. The law calls for cuts in the future growth of reimbursement payments to hospitals and other health care providers — that accounts for $219 billion of the Medicare savings in the law. But Congress has consistently overridden similar scheduled cuts in payments to doctors.

Once I read the actual facts it doesn't make me like the ACA any more, to be honest.

By the way, I recommend FactCheck.org. It's from the University of PA and I find it to be much more even handed than PolitiFact, which is run my a newspaper.