So... A Panel

POSTED BY JHW22

In the debate Paul Ryan said he didn't want unelected judges deciding what women can do with their bodies.

We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people, through their elected representatives, in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.

Instead, he wants our neighbors to elect people to do make our decisions. That's a panel. Um, there's some pretty big hypocrisy there, folks.

And if you think about it, there's a further hypocrisy. If you really are anti-choice, why would you leave the choice up to states? Would you really be OK with abortions taking place anywhere? Because if you leave it to the people and the representatives they elect, then you're gonna have abortions somewhere.

They just need to admit they will prevent it everywhere and stop playing games -- with women's lives.

What's Wrong with Ron Christie?

I watched Real Time with Bill Maher last night. After taking a break from Maher for most of last year because I felt he was always 10 days to 2 weeks behind on facts and perhaps had gotten a little lazy on preparation for his show, I figured I had to watch immediately after the GOP Convention just for a couple of laughs. I wasn't disappointed.

He obliterated Dinesh D'Souza while interviewing him and called him out for every bullshit meme that douchebag put in his anti-Obama movie. Catch a repeat if you can. But the main thing that caught my attention was the panel discussion: Jason Alexander, Soledad O'Brien and one of my favorite people to hate, Ron Christie.

When Christie was front and center a few years ago, it would me my blood boil. And he seemed to be on every fucking taking head show there was. He's such a hard line Republican that there was no use debating/arguing with him on any point, regardless of facts. If Darth Cheney came out and said the sky was green, Christie would deny his lying eyes and argue green skies to the death.
I just came to the conclusion that this was the role he was being paid for and that he couldn't possibly believe the bullshit pouring out of his mouth. Just like it's an act for Sean Hannity, I felt the same about Ron Christie. And for me personally, that makes me despise that person even more; there's no conviction or honesty in what they say. It's just a little game, being a paid shill for the GOP.

But watching Christie tonight, after not seeing him for so long, perhaps because his 15 minutes were up or he had a moment of clarity on the air and was subsequently fired as a GOP surrogate (but I doubt that) I tried to give him a fresh start. And wouldn't you know it, that little fucker is still the towing the GOP line always was- but this time I felt differently.

I used to think he was a paid shill, but now I truly think he actually believes what he says. ...I know right?! I was shocked too! The $716 billion Medicare story came up and Christie denounced President Obama's awful $716 billion Medicare "cut" but defended Paul Ryan's $716 billion Medicare "savings," and no amount of explanation that the savings were the same was going to change Christie's mind. Nope. Obama's cut bad. Ryan's savings good.

Bill Maher: So let me ask this panel, do you think we’ve ever seen lies like this [from politicians like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney]? Because it’s one thing to slant things, all politicians do that, but to just pull out of your ass…I mean Mitt Romney went through…Obama ‘s apologizing around the world — Fact checkers: no — Raising taxes on the middle class — Not true — Cutting defense — He’s only raised it. — Uh, you know, wrecked our credit rating — Welfare work requirement…he got rid of that — No, he didn’t do that — Robbing Medicare… Just a series of total lies. Have we seen this before? 

Soledad O’Brien: I don’t know if we’ve seen it before, but what I think you are seeing is people trying to get control of the message, that sort of the veracity doesn’t matter, right? If you can just say it and say it often, say it enough, and say it loud enough, and just keep repeating it and have everyone around you repeating it, then eventually it becomes true. I think that we’ve seen that a lot in this campaign. 

Bill Maher: Well now you’re describing what Hitler did. I’m not saying the Republicans are Hitler, but Hitler famously said the big lie works and the little lie doesn’t. 

Ron Christie: Well I think the big lie here is we need to fact check the fact checkers. The fact of the matter is the media has been running around – audience disapproval – the media has been running around saying Paul Ryan has been lying. The fact of the matter is this: President Obama and his plan Obamacare took $716 billion out under Medicare Advantage, he took it out of hospitals, and he took it out of the insurance program, and he programmed that into Obamacare. That’s true.

While this is technically true, what's misleading is that it's a cost savings over future spending curbing the increasing costs, not a cut in current spending. The part of Christie's sentence "took $716 billion out under Medicare Advantage" is purposely misleading. You know, it's that fiscal responsibility Republicans constantly beat their chests about but never really put into practice. But I'm done with this. Unlike Republicans, I'm not going to beat a dead horse while simultaneously beating my head against the wall.

When the issue of climate change came up, Christie wondered why it was such a cudgel on both sides, and wished we could just "agree to disagree." The science is not still out on this! And the English scientist email conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked as Christie was reminded by Maher when he tried to make that an issue. But at this point I wasn't so much angry as I was dumbfounded.

How does a seemingly intelligent person like Ron Christie deny global warming? How is it that one can be so ingrained in their ideology that solid, scientific facts are nothing but a conspiracy theory in their eyes? How did his brain develop to the point that if he and others like him in his party, which looks like a vast majority of them at this point, don't believe or understand something, then they outright just refuse it? Or that they are so willing to believe a lie from someone they respect, but when confronted with the truth, with facts staring them in the face even by nonpartisan entities, it just doesn't sink in?

No matter how many times they are confronted with pure fact, it's dismissed which makes trying to have a conversation or debate with Republicans, teabaggrs and Obama haters so frustrating. Paraphrasing Maher, how can you have a debate when you can't agree on the facts?

Ron Christie believes Paul Ryan because he wants to believe Paul Ryan. But all those reporters actually doing their jobs for a change and reporting the lies? Nu-uh. He said someone should "fact check the fact checkers." ...What? Well, then who's going to fact check the fact checkers checking the fact checkers when you still don't get the result you want?! It's all talking in circles. It's birtherism at the next level. Insist on a birth certificate, but when it's provided, insist it's a forgery. Ask for the long form and when it's provided, insist it's a forgery. They will never be satisfied.

It must be nice to live in your own little bubble, blissfully unaware that maybe, just maybe you might be wrong.

 (Cross-posted on ABLC)

Paul Ryan the Liar

Man... and I thought Mitt Romney was bad.

By now you've heard all the fact checkers debunk the misleading claims and flat out lies in the Ryan speech last night at the GOP Convention's Meet the Shiny New VP Nominee segment, for the majority who haven't been paying attention. But you have to hand it to the Obama camp to put out a video like this so soon.

Bravo!



(Cross-posted at ABLC)

Paul Ryan Forgets Stimulus Requests

Seriously, dude?! Now you're just fucking with me.

Paul Ryan spent the last three years railing against the horrible, terrible, no good, very bad stimulus in front of the cameras and microphones, while asking for stimulus money behind the scenes to help his district create jobs and stimulate the economy. That's a goddamn fact.

And still, after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar, with video and audio proof and letters requesting stimulus funds with his fucking signature on them, he still tries to push the bullshit that it "did nothing to stimulate the economy." That the stimulus was a complete failure.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Rachel Maddow wipes up the studio floor with this punk, jackass. Must. See.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Cross-posted at ABLC)

Fact Check: Enough of the GOP Medicare BS

The new lie from the Romney camp and its hatchet men is that the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare. Mitt Romney himself says that President Obama "stole $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare" and that current seniors are seeing a reduction in their benefits and their service. All of it is absolute horse shit.

And thank you, Soledad O'Brien for giving us a concise look at the facts.

 


This has to be shouted from the mountaintops. I don't give a shit that Paul Ryan's plan which Mitt Romney embraces, cuts the same amount of money out of the Medicare program. This is a bad argument for the mere fact that it'll get convoluted in a "both sides are the same" meme.

The argument is that ACA reduces Medicare increases by $716 billion over 10 years by reducing payments and streamlining the system and pumps that savings back into the healthcare system. Romney and Ryan would have that $716 billion come from the pockets of those who can least afford it, namely seniors on a fixed income, by restructuring Medicare into a voucher system that will never keep up with the rising cost of healthcare, especially if they plan on "repealing ALL of Obamacare" as Romney continues to threat.

And here's a great catch from Bob Cesca on the latest Romney ad flat out lying about the CBO report that I didn't catch the first time I saw it:

...the CBO’s director Doug Elmendorf wrote that if the House Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, the repeal would increase federal spending on Medicare by $716 billion. There’s nothing about cutting Medicare in there. NOTHING. Romney and his campaign are lying. Again. And they’ll keep on doing it.

(Cross-posted on ABLC)

Paul Ryan's First "Homina Homina" Interview

Say what you will about Brit Hume (I certainly have), but this is one solid interview. Hume for the most part, doesn't let Ryan get away with vague, softball answers and tries to get concrete answers from Ryan on the GOP ticket's philosophy and how they plan to implement their vision.

You really should watch the whole interview and try to stomach some of the bullshit talking points.



There were a few things that struck me during this interview.

The $716 billion "raided" from Medicare to pay for Obamacare bullshit talking point not withstanding, Ryan insisted that under a Romney presidency, they would repeal ALL of Obamacare. Not keep the things that work or expressing concern for those who are enjoying some of the benefits of Obamacare already, but ENTIRELY repeal it.

That means those who have been able to obtain insurance now despite being previously refused due to preexisting conditions are out of luck. Seniors who've been able to save money by the Medicare Part D donut hole being closed? Sorry, you'll have to start paying for those meds again. Children who can stay on their parents insurance plan until 26 years of age, especially during this time of high unemployment and college graduates having trouble finding a job? That's a shame. It's the Henry Hill "Fuck you, pay me" Goodfellas style of health care policy.

If you noticed, it seems that the Romney campaign has basically forced Paul Ryan to abandon his own budget, causing Ryan to repeatedly refer to Romney's vision and that he signed on to the Romney campaign. Nevermind Ryan's philosophy and the budget he worked tirelessly on. That was apparently just an exercise to "start the conversation."

Hume also asked about Ryan's affinity for Ayn Rand, to which Ryan responded that he loved her books but not her philosophy. That same philosophy she espouses in her books that causes Ryan to insist his staffers read Rand?

All of this is can only get much more interesting if this is just Day Three of the Dynamic Duo's rollout. What does Ryan now stand for? All of Romney's ideas... or lack of.

Paul Ryan's Pay To Play Town Halls

I suppose Paul Ryan learned his lesson. After revealing the Ryan plan and the idea of making Medicare a voucher system, he got quite an earful of angry constituents at subsequent town hall meetings and realized no one as buying what he had to sell. So to alleviate that problem, Paul Ryan decided to now charge admission for his town hall meetings.

...Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other Republican members of Congress have chosen to charge admission to their home-district appearances.

Ryan will speak September 6 to the Whitnall Park Rotary Club in Greenfield, Wisc. Admission to the event is $15 per person and includes lunch.

Ryan has no free public town hall appearances scheduled during the recess.

What a coward.

If anyone who reads this blog happens to be nearby a Ryan event in the next few weeks (maybe the September 6th event) or knows of anyone who does, and would like to continue to give Mr. Vouchercare a piece of their mind but can't afford it, please contact me. Maybe we can strike a deal and I'll try to help you pay the price of admission. I'm not a wealthy man by any means, but I don't want this chickenshit to get away with this type of tactic without some pushback.

Herman Cain is a Dumbass

Can we all just agree that Herman Cain is clueless? No, really. The guy is a dumbass.

It's bad enough to berate people to reread the Constitution and then righteously quote from the Declaration of Independence, but how about just stepping on the idiocy throttle and running over some Paul Ryan budget doublespeak?!

Nobody’s talking about the fact that the centerpiece of Ryan’s plan is a voucher. Now, a lot of people don’t like to use that term because it has a negative connotation. That is what we need.

People don't like the word "voucher" when it comes to Medicare. That's because the Eddie Munster budget would pretty much kill Medicare and replace it with, as Paul Ryan would like to describe, a "premium support" program, AKA voucher from the government to help with the cost of health insurance that you'd have to shop for yourself from the various insurance companies* and pay for the difference. But in some kind of warped mentality, Herman Cain disregards the Ryan talking points in trying to rename a voucher program "premium support" (which will only increase at the rate of inflation and not the rate of premium increases) and says HELL YEAH! we need a voucher program and "nobody is talking about" it.

...WTF?!

No one is talking about it?! Has he not been watching the news or reading the paper? We know he hasn't  been taking the time to read the Constitution. Who the hell is in charge of the Cain campaign? Whoever it is should be fired immediately.

________________________
*This past Friday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Ryan said that it's Medicare that would help seniors choose their plan which Joe Scarborough was all too eager to eat up, but that remains to be seen.

Ryan's Plan Fails in the Senate

Forty Republican Senators were absolutely idiotic enough to jump off the cliff and vote for the Paul Ryan Budget plan, AKA Kill Medicare Plan.

...Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, brought the legislation to the floor so that Senate Republicans would either have to vote for it, exposing them to attacks from Democrats and their allies, or against it, exploiting growing Republican divisions on the issue.

Five of 47 Senate Republicans voted against it — four because they said it went too far, one on the ground that the budget measure that contained it did not go far enough fast enough to address the budget deficit.

The Democrats playing offense! It's a strange thing to behold.

Redistribution of Wealth: The Ryan Plan

POSTED BY JHW22

OK, I don't read everything, I admit. But I am pretty sure I haven't seen anyone else point out the fact that Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare includes a redistribution of wealth.

According to the wonderful Kaiser Family Foundation:

Government contributions would be lower for higher-income Medicare beneficiaries: payments to plans would be reduced by 70 percent for beneficiaries in the top 2 percent of the Medicare population income distribution, and by 50 percent for those in the next 6 percent of the income distribution. Thus, government payments on behalf of enrollees would be lower for Medicare beneficiaries with relatively high incomes, resulting in these beneficiaries paying higher premiums.

Did you see that? The government would collect Medicare taxes from everyone but would limit the payout the rich people get. They'd pay more for the poor people.

I wonder what Joe the Plumber would think about that...

Rrrruhh?! Newt Trashes GOP/Ryan Plan

TPM: Newt Gingrich slammed the House GOP budget on Meet The Press this morning, telling interviewer David Gregory that replacing Medicare with a voucher system was too "radical" an approach.

..."I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said, calling the plan "too big a jump" for the country. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

Behold, Newt the Moderate!

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Newt is just saying what anyone in their right mind who just threw his very large hat in the presidential ring (see, what I did there? I made a big head joke) would say after looking at polls showing a majority of Americans, Republicans and Tea Partiers included, are opposed to government hands on their Medicare.

It's just proof that Newt will say anything to advance his position. I'm sure he'll shoot toward the top of the current list of GOP candidates with this one. How he'll be perceived on his comments about Kenyan, anti-colonial mindsets or our "food stamp president" is another matter.

Paul Ryan's Tragic Town Hall Meeting

How soon before we don't hear about Paul Ryan anymore? If he keeps getting these kinds of receptions, he'll be treated by his Republican colleagues like a leper in a kissing booth.



Where's Bobby Jindal?

Today's WTF Moment: Don't Touch Medicare Say GOP Voters

Government spends too much. We have to cut, cut cut! Well, what do we cut?
From Steve Benen:

...a new Marist poll out today... asked respondents:

"Do you support or oppose doing each of the following to deal with the federal budget deficit: cut Medicare and Medicaid?"

Among all registered voters, 80% opposed these cuts. Among self-identified Tea Party supporters, 70% opposed these cuts. Among self-identified Republicans, 73% opposed these cuts.

80% of registered voters and even 70% of self-proclaimed Tea Partiers who think the government spends too much oppose cuts in those socialist health care programs! So, to whom then, are GOP politicians catering? Who are they representing? Someone had better tell Paul Ryan to keep his government hands off Medicare.

And yes, you can say all you want that under the Ryan plan Medicare won't be touched for those 55 and older, but does that really matter? What about people who are 54½? Or 53? Provided they've worked steadily since college (or high school), they've paid into Medicare for over 30 years with the promise that it would be there in their retirement. These people who wouldn't qualify due to some arbitrary pencil pusher's number will still continue to pay into Medicare for a minimum of another 10 years until they retire. Do they not count?

Well, I would hope that this poll will be shouted from the rooftops by every Democrat in office to show the absurdity of the Ryan proposal and what it will do to the social safety net that has been promised to the American people by its government.

Speaker John Boehner made it a quick talking point after the 2010 election that they were sent to DC "to do the people's work." Now that they see that 80% of "the people" and ¾ of "his people" don't want their Medicare cut, will he be so quick to scrap it from their budget proposal?

President Obama Caught on Open Mic

So... what's all the hubbub, bub?

President Obama was at a campaign fundraiser in Chicago last night and an open microphone caught a private conversation with a donor. What did he say? That his budget address was a sham and he's secretly going to kill Medicare himself? That Paul Ryan's got the right idea? That John Boehner is a great leader? That he really was born in Kenya?

None of the above. President Obama spoke candidly on the issues, just as I hoped he would speak if I had the opportunity to ask the same questions when no one was "listening."

On the Ryan plan: "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. So it's not on the level."

On Boehner meetings: "I said, 'You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate. You're not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?'"

On defunding Planned Parenthood: "Put it in a separate bill. We'll call it up. And if you think you can overturn my veto, try it. But don't try to sneak this through."

Is this newsworthy? Maybe to show the fact that Obama isn't two-faced or "just like Bush." At least we didn't catch him calling a reporter a "major league asshole."

President Obama's Budget Address

The Country We Believe In

Quote of the Day

People like me don’t say that the Ryan plan is too radical; we say that it’s a fraud. The spending cuts are largely fake, either because they’re just magic asterisks or because they wouldn’t survive politically; the revenue estimates are fake, because they combine huge tax cuts with vague assurances that extra revenue will be found by closing loopholes. There’s no there there — except for big tax cuts for the rich and pain for the poor.

All I can think here is that reporters are so deep into the Beltway conventional wisdom that this is a Bold, Serious Plan that they just tune out the people saying that no, it’s not.

~Paul Krugman on non-serious reporting on the Paul Ryan budget plan

Who Wants To Shut The Government Down?!

Over the last few days, I've posted a couple of examples of Republicans on record threatening to shut down the government if all their budget cut demands aren't met. The GOP, or rather the Tea Party faction of the GOP, wanted $100 billion in cuts to the budget already in place. The Democrats countered with $10 billion. Both bills were rejected in lieu of a more serious discussion. The GOP originally wanted about $32 billion in cuts, and the Tea Party insisted on at least $61 billion. The Democrats met Speaker John Boehner to agree on $33 billion, $1 billion more than the original GOP proposal. Boehner was immediately spanked by the Tea Party and rejected what he had initially agreed to, countering this time with $40 billion in cuts. If the Democrats agree to $40 billion, Boehner and the Tea Party Republicans would reject it and demand yet another number.

Why is this? Why does the GOP, who's collective nutsack is in a Tea Party vise, keep moving the goal posts? Why does Boehner agree to a number, then come back with his tail between his legs and renege on the agreement? It's because they really don't want to negotiate. They don't want a compromise, they want a shutdown because they think it's in their political best interests. It also shows Boehner is no leader.

Here's Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris-Perry on the shutdown and Rep. Paul Ryan's $1 trillion Medicare cut idea.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Quote of the Day

"...we’ll have endless obfuscation, both-sides-have-a-point reporting that misses the key point, which is that the putative savings come entirely from benefit cuts somewhere in the distant future that would, in all likelihood, never actually materialize. (What do you think will happen when retirees in 2025 discover that their Medicare vouchers aren’t enough to buy insurance?)'

~Paul Krugman on the Paul Ryan budget plan

Sitting Together at the State of the Union

Tonight, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union Address to the nation standing in front of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices (we think). As a symbolic sign of decreased rhetoric and bipartisanship after the Tucson shooting tragedy, some members of opposing parties of Congress have decided to break tradition and sit together.

I have one word for this gesture: bullshit.

This isn't something that transpired organically. What a story it would be if when walking into the chamber today, unbeknownst to anyone, members of Congress truly searched for what they claim are "friends on the other side of the aisle" and decided then and there to sit together. But that's not what's happening. This was something that was petitioned and members signed on to.

"I believe that members of both parties can symbolize our common citizenship and common interests by sitting together to hear the president's remarks, rather than divided across the aisle by party," [Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer] said in a statement Thursday.

One wonders whether their symbolism will continue during the address, when Democrats will undoubtedly stand and applaud during sections of the speech. Will the Republicans they're sitting next to do the same?

Will Congressman Paul Ryan's Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union be toned down in rhetoric and criticism? We'll find out tonight, but my guess is that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's Tea Party address will lack such civility.

On a side note, while I praised Senator John McCain a few days back for his views on President Obama's address at Tucson, he couldn't even be bothered to truly find someone at odds with him to sit with, as his "date" tonight is reported to be Senator Joe Lieberman. Nothing like showing bipartisanship by choosing to sit with the senator who describes himself as an "Independent Democrat" and endorsed you in your failed 2008 presidential bid, Maverick.

ADDING... I prematurely published my post before making another point. The reason I'm not really thrilled with this symbolic seating gesture and frankly don't think it matters is because while we usually think of a "it's not what they say it's what they do" mantra when it comes to politicians, the reverse is true in this case.  It's not what they do, such as mixing up the seating arrangement to not appear so divided, but it's what they say, and what they will say and how they say it after the address that's important. Conservatives sitting next to liberals, Democrats sitting next to Republicans means absolutely nothing without taking that symbolism and applying it toward their everyday experiences while working in Congress. I just don't see that happening anytime soon because of who you sit next to for an hour out of the year at the State of the Union. I hope I'm wrong.