Expect to see this

[Joe Miner]

q

 

Did she talk about it on her show? I think I beat her to the punch on it.

 

WT mentioned the segment in his post: From Sunday on Meet the Press, in an exchange with Rich Lowry.

 

She kept bringing up the same point you did. She was then repeatedly asked whether she supported BO cutting that $700B, and always answered that she wasn't running so she didn't need to voice her opinion.

[WorldTraveller]

It's a moot point anyway, that's Ryan's plan, and last I checked Romney is at the top of the ticket.

 

Obamas plan:

 

Obama is using those cuts/rate of growth reduction from Medicare to help fund Obamacare.

 

Ryans plan:

 

Ryan is using the same cuts/rate of growth reduction from Medicare to preserve the solvency of Medicare.

 

Romneys plan:

 

Romney has no cuts/rate of growth reduction in Medicare and promises to restore those "cuts" back into Medicare

 

 

It's important for anyone who is reading PPP and trying to learn the facts about the plans and where they differ. This obviously pertains to the "cuts" in medicare that is in question.

 

 

Also it is important to note that in Romneys plan:

 

 

1) Anyone 55 and over doesn't get affected by the law whatsoever.

 

2) Anyone below the age of 55 has the CHOICE to either remain in traditional Medicare or go to the voucher/premium support program.

 

 

So if you are scared shitless, then you can always decide to stay with the existing traditional medicare program.

 

 

 

 

BOOOOOGAAAAA WOOOOOOOGAAAAA WOOOOOOOOGAAAAAA

 

Scary!!!

[IDBillzFan]

Most of the time I find Chris Stirewalt's stuff to be less than thoughtful, but he posted this article today discussing something I completely missed and yet find amazingly relevant today.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...on_Entitlements

 

The mystery to political reporters is why the Obama Democrats haven't embraced the "choice" election concept Obama says he favors. Why is the Obama campaign talking about "chains" and trying to force a referendum on Romney's character? Romney accepted the concept of a contest between sharply contrasting visions the president said he wanted, so why the demagoguery and personal attacks?

 

To find the answer, you have to go back to Dec. 3, 2010 when the plan put forward by the chairmen of the president's bipartisan debt commission came three votes short of passage. The men tapped to lead the commission by the president -- a moderate Republican, former Sen. Alan Simpson, and a moderate Democrat, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton -- needed 14 of 18 votes of the bipartisan group of lawmakers, CEOs, policy wonks and one labor leader on the panel to guarantee an up-or-down vote in both houses of Congress.

 

The commission was pretty clearly designed to fail, much like the debt-ceiling commission would do in 2011, but as the clock wound down on the Simpson-Bowles project, it became clear that it might just work. Rather than serving the typical role of a blue-ribbon commission in Washington, this one was threatening to do more than simply provide a deflection for politicians unwilling to address a subject.

 

In the end, the chairmen's proposal came up just three votes short after surprising support from fiscal hawks and liberals from the Senate delegation alike. The plan, which involved whacking tax deductions and making substantial, long-term changes to entitlement programs, found surprising support.

 

The plan didn't get the votes, though. It came up short because of some liberal House Democrats who refused to make any changes to Social Security and, more notably, for the refusal of the chairman of the House Budget Committee, one Paul Ryan.

 

Ryan, citing concerns over Medicare and the tax code, walked away from a deal that even hawkish senators like Tom Coburn had deemed acceptable. In doing so, Ryan handed Obama what could have been the greatest gift of his presidency.

With House Republicans standing in flat-footed refusal of a plan with bipartisan support to tame the skyrocketing national debt, the way was clear for Obama to seize the high-ground on the subject.

 

Obama, after all, had already grabbed the third rail of entitlements by financing part of his 2010 health law through cuts to Medicare. Never again could Democrats claim the subsidized insurance program for senior citizens was inviolable. Obama had also long talked about the need to get serious about entitlements. Here, in Ryan's refusal, was Obama's chance to put Republicans on defense on the subject. Republicans were terrified that Obama would pick up the Simpson-Bowles plan and shove it down their throats. It was a time of high anxiety for the GOP.

 

But Obama balked. The president, who had taken so much heat for overfilling his plate in his first two years, opted to do nothing. He allowed the plan to simply drift off into the archives rather than do the politically advantageous thing and use Simpson-Bowles as a tool to strike a pose as a budget hawk.

[Nanker]

Well, he was probably tired and needed to unwind with a few rounds of golf and a couple of dozen find raisers and hot nights in New York with MO. Cut the guy a break. Isn't he groovy?

[WorldTraveller]

This is an effective, simple political outline of how the message on Medicare will be rolled out from the Romney camp.

 

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/244015-romney-uses-white-board-to-attack-obama-on-medicare-

[Nanker]

This is an effective, simple political outline of how the message on Medicare will be rolled out from the Romney camp.

 

http://thehill.com/v...ma-on-medicare-

 

Yes, and in his response to this horrible incendiary and vicious attack by the horse-owning governor, the way-cool, unifying, civil-toned President characterized Romney's plan as this: "Their plan ends Medicare as we know it. They want to 'voucherize' Medicare."

 

Serious talk from a serious diplomat there. Seriously.