[vision-master]

Here it is kiddies, enjoy those golden years ahead.

I wonder if social security will be gutted next?

"The changes being proposed would not affect one senior citizen in America, not one, because Paul's made it clear than anyone 55 and over would not see changes," Boehner said.

According to Ryan's plan, Medicare payments would no longer be paid by government sending out checks for medical bills, but would let people under age 55 choose among private insurance plans that the government would then supplement. People 55 and over would remain in the current system, but younger workers would receive subsidies that would steadily lose value over time. Ryan says those who can pay more will have to do so while lower income Americans will still be covered.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... 12-budget/

[Sixstrings]

The changes being proposed would not affect one senior citizen in America, not one, because Paul's made it clear than anyone 55 and over would not see changes," Boehner said.

Oh wow, Thank You Baby Boomers! How nice of you to screw everyone else over one last time, a big royal screwjob for anyone UNDER 55. What a horrid generation.

But you know what, if senior citizens fall for this BS then it's their fault they'll deserve what's coming for them. You have to hold the line on Medicare -- no vouchers, no how no way not ever. Once you allow the GOP to turn it into a voucher program, just wait five years and the country will be even more broke and they'll begin ratcheting down the start-date for who gets real Medicare and who gets a damn voucher.

Frickin' GOP. Their answer to everything is a "voucher."

..younger workers would receive subsidies that would steadily lose value over time.

Confusing how they're wording this. "Younger workers" don't get Medicare in the first place. So what are they saying here, that when younger people do reach Medicare age they won't get Medicare but rather "healthcare subsidies" that will "lose value over time." Jesus Christ, who supports this crap?

Folks, you're not going to be young forever. I know it seems like it, but you will be old and decrepit one of these days. When that happens, private insurers won't want to touch you with a ten foot pole -- do you really want to be left for dead with a stupid voucher that isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

[Novus]

"Young Workers" should seriously consider fleeing the country at this point.

[americandream]

Here it is kiddies, enjoy those golden years ahead.

I wonder if social security will be gutted next?

"The changes being proposed would not affect one senior citizen in America, not one, because Paul's made it clear than anyone 55 and over would not see changes," Boehner said.

According to Ryan's plan, Medicare payments would no longer be paid by government sending out checks for medical bills, but would let people under age 55 choose among private insurance plans that the government would then supplement. People 55 and over would remain in the current system, but younger workers would receive subsidies that would steadily lose value over time. Ryan says those who can pay more will have to do so while lower income Americans will still be covered.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... 12-budget/

Republicans take from the poor and give to the rich. It does not matter who rules, the poor get shafted whilst they obsess over birth certificates, American Idol and whether the earth is 6000 years old or not.

[americandream]

The changes being proposed would not affect one senior citizen in America, not one, because Paul's made it clear than anyone 55 and over would not see changes," Boehner said.

Oh wow, Thank You Baby Boomers! How nice of you to screw everyone else over one last time, a big royal screwjob for anyone UNDER 55. What a horrid generation.

But you know what, if senior citizens fall for this BS then it's their fault they'll deserve what's coming for them. You have to hold the line on Medicare -- no vouchers, no how no way not ever. Once you allow the GOP to turn it into a voucher program, just wait five years and the country will be even more broke and they'll begin ratcheting down the start-date for who gets real Medicare and who gets a damn voucher.

Frickin' GOP. Their answer to everything is a "voucher."

..younger workers would receive subsidies that would steadily lose value over time.

Confusing how they're wording this. "Younger workers" don't get Medicare in the first place. So what are they saying here, that when younger people do reach Medicare age they won't get Medicare but rather "healthcare subsidies" that will "lose value over time." Jesus Christ, who supports this crap?

Folks, you're not going to be young forever. I know it seems like it, but you will be old and decrepit one of these days. When that happens, private insurers won't want to touch you with a ten foot pole -- do you really want to be left for dead with a stupid voucher that isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

The GOP is led by an Australian who is definitely not from the US. But of course, he is white and rich so thats ok. Go back to viewing The Biggest Loser.

[AgentR11]

Republicans take from the poor and give to the rich. It does not matter who rules, the poor get shafted whilst they obsess over birth certificates, American Idol and whether the earth is 6000 years old or not.

Maybe if liberals spent less time denigrating their beliefs, perhaps they would vote more in line with their economic interest.

But, I suppose respect and tolerance are foreign concepts to left wing idealogues.

[sjn]

Republicans take from the poor and give to the rich. It does not matter who rules, the poor get shafted whilst they obsess over birth certificates, American Idol and whether the earth is 6000 years old or not.

Maybe if liberals spent less time denigrating their beliefs, perhaps they would vote more in line with their economic interest.

But, I suppose respect and tolerance are foreign concepts to left wing idealogues.

Is it truly a moral imperative to be tolerant and respectful of ignorant and pathological delusions? Shouldn't a society to treat it's poor and elderly with respect and support? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for a government to provide decent public education unafraid to broach social and religious dogma and for the institutions of state to provide a benefit to the people, not just protect the wealth of the rich?

[americandream]

Republicans take from the poor and give to the rich. It does not matter who rules, the poor get shafted whilst they obsess over birth certificates, American Idol and whether the earth is 6000 years old or not.

Maybe if liberals spent less time denigrating their beliefs, perhaps they would vote more in line with their economic interest.

But, I suppose respect and tolerance are foreign concepts to left wing idealogues.

You wouldn't know respect and tolerance were they to rear themselves directly in your headlights.

It's because social democrats accord you the tolerance you are apparently unable to accord them, that you fellahs can simultaneously force them to impose cuts whilst blaming them for them. In you strange parallel universe of co-opted blame, you fail to recognise that it is you who demand the deregulations, cuts and breaks. It is your actions that lead directly to the bailouts, taxbreaks and; impoverished, unemployed veterans and elderly. The blood is on your hands and that of your mentor, Aussie Foxman.

[mos6507]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for a government to provide decent public education

I'm sure this will bring out all the home-schooling libertarians howling in protest.

[Cid_Yama]

Title should be "House votes to eliminate Medicare". But the Democrats in the Senate will never let it pass there. Even had it got past the Senate the President would veto it.

I thought Obama was selling us out. But now I see the truth. He knew they couldn't prevail, so he gave them enough rope to hang themselves.

Now every American knows what's going on and who is on who's side.

The Repugnants have shown their true colors and the next election will toss them out for good.

[Tyler_JC]

Federal tax revenues have never exceeded 21% of GDP at any point in US history (with the possible exception of WW2 but you can't really call that sustainable).

So we're left with a choice, cut entitlement spending or raise taxes to their highest levels in history and keep on rising them year after year.

Math > Politics.

[vision-master]

United States federal budget


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ral_budget

[Lore]

Federal tax revenues have never exceeded 21% of GDP at any point in US history (with the possible exception of WW2 but you can't really call that sustainable).

So we're left with a choice, cut entitlement spending or raise taxes to their highest levels in history and keep on rising them year after year.

Math > Politics.

We could have also left out a couple of wars that added over a trillion to the deficit, but I believe the oppositions proposal is to end Bush tax cuts and bring us back to the level of marginal tax rate from the Clinton Presidency. To get to the highest rate in history, you would have to go back to 1945 where rates reached 94% (on all income over $200,000). Funny, how costly wars are. Of course back then the rates had to be that much higher as there were far fewer people per capita earning that figure.

There really isn't that big of a problem with SS, if the government would stop raiding it. Some minor modifications and the program would be solvent for many decades to come.

Medicare and Medicaid are different issues, but rather then cut the costs from the benefits side, a more judicious and logical approach would be to attack the inflated and burdensome costs from the pharmaceutical, drug, hospitals, insurance and legal profession. Of course that would be contrarian to big business interests.

I also find the Ryan budget plan rather sly in keeping the status quo for the above 55 crowd, which just so happens to be the strongest block of voters. However, I doubt very much that grandpa and grandma will want to throw their sons and daughters under the bus. In my view the whole plan is just a further continuation of an already out of kilter redistribution of wealth towards the top, nothing more.

[AgentR11]

You wouldn't know respect and tolerance were they to rear themselves directly in your headlights.

So we go from group tactical discussions, directly to personal insults.
Not surprising.

[AgentR11]

Math > Politics.

I wish more people would acknowledge this truth. When expenditures are rising faster than growth; they are NEVER sustainable. You either fix them, or they fix you.

We're honestly about 20 yrs to late to fix them I think. To far down the pipe for anything we do to make a difference.

I'm not looking forward to being fixed; I'm pretty sure my family won't starve to death, but comfortable retirement? Not a chance in hxxx.

[Pretorian]

Math > Politics.

not true when Politics = buying votes from every yokel they can come up with. This is exactly why democracy can never work. Too many asses to kiss, too many pockets to fill, etc.

[PrestonSturges]

I think it should read "House Orders Radical Government Mandated Social Engineering Experiment."

[careinke]

OK, I'm having a little cognitive dissonance about this issue.

The Repuglicans are proposing seniors be required to buy health insurance to cover their medical costs which they will help subsidize. This is supposed to be bad.

The Dimocrats passed a law which requires everyone else to buy health insurance to cover their medical costs which they will help subsidize. This is supposed to be good.

I'm having a little trouble seeing the difference here.

[Lore]

OK, I'm having a little cognitive dissonance about this issue.

The Repuglicans are proposing seniors be required to buy health insurance to cover their medical costs which they will help subsidize. This is supposed to be bad.

First of all, the voucher coverage will never be enough. The reason why Medicare works is because what private insurance company would be insane enough to insure old folks, especially with preexisting conditions? Secondly, a fixed voucher system is not about to keep up with rising costs.

The Dimocrats passed a law which requires everyone else to buy health insurance to cover their medical costs which they will help subsidize. This is supposed to be good.

I'm having a little trouble seeing the difference here.

That is also with faults, but an insurance for all program is an adjunct to the already existing Medicare program, it doesn't replace it.

[PrestonSturges]

OK, I'm having a little cognitive dissonance about this issue.

The Repuglicans are proposing seniors be required to buy health insurance to cover their medical costs which they will help subsidize. This is supposed to be bad.

The Dimocrats passed a law which requires everyone else to buy health insurance to cover their medical costs which they will help subsidize. This is supposed to be good.

I'm having a little trouble seeing the difference here.

It's because you're suffering from what's sometimes called "willful stupidity."