Will Ryan be able to get bi-partisan support? Will his own party support the plan?

Paul Ryan's budget would slash $6 trillion, reform entitlements, cut taxes

With a government shutdown looming larger and their party divided over any dealmaking, House Republicans have a new, shiny object: Budget Committee Chairman’s Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget.

Ryan will roll out a blueprint Tuesday that could slash up to $6 trillion in the next 10 years from spending, reforms and cuts entitlements, and overhauls sections of the tax code. Never mind that Ryan’s ambitious vision has no chance of passing the Democratic Senate — the 2012 budget is likely to provide Republicans with a measure of unity they’ve been lacking as they try to wrap up work on the stalled 2011 spending plan.

It’s a high-stakes moment for Ryan’s political career: He has been touted as a conservative visionary and budget wizard but yet faced serious internal Republican pressures over his proposals.

The Republican budget is expected to include several major proposals: reduction of the corporate tax rate to 25 percent; elimination of corporate tax loopholes; spending cuts with enforceable caps; reforms to “save critical health and retirement programs”; health reform that “repeals and defunds the president’s health care law”; and a promise to restore “America’s exceptional promise,” according to GOP aides, lawmakers and a draft summary of the budget.

Sources said Ryan plans to lower spending below 2008 levels, a dramatic cutback. There was discussion about lowering to 2006 levels, but that won’t make it into the budget. Those huge cuts were suggested in January by Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) but received little support at the time.

Other plans include block grants for Medicaid, a proposal that many governors of both parties prefer, as it shifts control to the states. Those on Medicare would get to choose among competing private insurance plans — which advocates have described as “premium support.” The budget is also expected to kill funding for the health care law, likely by stopping the expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for private health insurance.

“The president’s budget was a safe budget, this budget is not a safe budget,” said Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a freshman member of the Budget Committee, told POLITICO. “It’s not safe politically, but it’s the right thing to do.”

But in a sign of the pushback Ryan will receive, former Comptroller General David Walker is quick to point out the shortfalls in the plan.

“Chairman Ryan ought to be encouraged for laying out a budget with more deficit reduction” than the $4 trillion, 10-year cuts that the Simpson-Bowles commission proposed last December, Walker said.

(article continues)

The bad news: looks like Republicans are set to raise the debt limit. They should shown some backbone and said "no".

Cantor in 2010: ‘Beyond Comprehension’ To Lift Debt Limit to $14.294 Trillion

The good news: at least the Tea Party Republicans are making a stand

Tea partiers weigh debt filibuster

The funny part is that the "cuts" both sides agreed to aren't even real cuts.

The Budget Deal Turns Out To Be A Gigantic Fraud
http://www.businessinsider....e-budget-deal-2011-4

quote Originally the deal between The White House and Congressional Republicans was touted for delivering $38 billion in cost savings. Then, yesterday's analysis showed that the savings were probably just half that, since a lot of the savings came from not spending money that was never going to be spent. Turns out, the spending cuts are even more minimal than that. According to the CBO, via National Journal, the total savings come to a whopping... $352 million. With an M. So yeah, total joke. This certainly doesn't make it any easier for Tea Partiers to vote for the deal, or for Boehner to come up with another compromise when debt ceiling time comes. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: The funny part is that the "cuts" both sides agreed to aren't even real cuts. The Budget Deal Turns Out To Be A Gigantic Fraud

Then f*** 'em all until someone with balls comes to the front and does the right thing.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Then f*** 'em all until someone with balls comes to the front and does the right thing.

I agree. What a complete and utter shame. They gave up their leverage and caved. We'll never get out of this mess with crappy "deals" like this current budget deal. I'm really beginning to believe it's over. Our country is ultimately lost, but I will not surrender until my last dying breath, as I stand in the 6 hour waiting line at the hospital. A good effort is no longer good enough.

Jim

If you're a dirtbag, you're outta here...good riddance.

Nevada Sen. John Ensign announces resignation

quote Originally posted by fierobear: If you're a dirtbag, you're outta here...good riddance. Nevada Sen. John Ensign announces resignation

Ah, you beat me to it!

SLEAZY MOVE: FCC Commissioner Gets A Big Job At Comcast Right After Voting In Favor Of Comcast-NBC Dea
l
FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the Republican commissioners who recently voted in favor of Comcast's NBC takeover, just got a new job as SVP of government affairs at Comcast.

Pretty sleazy.

The FCC is supposed to be regulating the telecom industry with the public in mind. There's already a lot of skepticism that this is how the system works.

And when one of the most important FCC employees bolts for a sweet job at one of the biggest companies she is supposed to be regulating, there are few reasons for the public to have confidence in the agency.

Sure, it's probably a good hire for Comcast, and it's not like the public had any respect for the cable giant to begin with. This is the company, if you recall, that supposedly paid people to take naps at a FCC meeting.

And it's probably a good job for Baker. We assume there's nothing illegal about this move. And, of course, former government employees should eventually be able to work in the private sector without penalty.

But given the timing, this should be embarrassing for everyone involved, especially Baker and the FCC.
http://www.businessinsider....attwell-baker-2011-5

Mike Huckabee says he is not running for president, leaving the GOP without any potential candidate having a sense of humor.
Wonder who will be thrown under the bus this time?

Beware Newt Gingrich - evidently, he bought into the whole global warming bullshit scenario

http://www.climatedepot.com/

The Return of the Myth that Competition will Fix Medicare

quote House Republicans plan to propose Tuesday historic changes to Medicare, Medicaid and other popular programs that pour federal money into Americans’ lives, arguing that a sacrifice now will keep those programs solvent for the future. ...On Medicare, Ryan will propose altering the plan so that the federal government no longer acts as a health insurer for seniors. Instead, he would create what’s called a “premium support plan.” Seniors would pick from a list of private insurance plans, and Medicare would subsidize their coverage. The idea, again, is to use market competition to create a system with lower costs. Ryan’s plan would not apply to Americans age 55 and older, for whom Medicare would remain under the current system.

But, private insurance plan premiums have been rising faster than Medicare expenses:

quote Given this, I'm really baffled by this repetition of the assertion that more competition in the market for health insurance is the answer. There's no theoretical justification for it, and no empirical evidence for it. The fact is that people in the US consume more health care services every year. So every year we pay more.

Republicans better walk away from this plan fast or their heads will be handed to them in the next election.

The big question is...if we don't do the short term, lesser pain of cuts, what happens when the whole system collapses (because they didn't fix the problem), and NOBODY has ANYTHING?

More Newt news.
Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
http://www.newsmax.com/Head...al&promo_code=C446-1

quote Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance. Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993: “I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor in Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured purchase health insurance. Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare. "I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..." Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation President Obama signed into law in 2010. The position staked out by Gingrich appears to be at odds with leading conservative critics of Obamacare, who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional. The Obama administration is currently facing three lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states. The issue is on track for a Supreme Court decision in the summer of 2012, which would make it a likely hot-button topic heading into the elections. Conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can’t require people to engage in a particular “economic activity” just because they live in the U.S. Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right. Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States." Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law. “In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system,” Gingrich told NBC’s David Gregory. “I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …" Romney has not come under fire for not disowning his health care plan, which has caused private health care insurance rates to skyrocket as patient services have declined in Massachusetts. Gingrich's position quickly came under fire from several conservative blogs on Sunday. “He tried to distinguish his mandate from the Obama mandate, but with little success,” the American Federalist Journal wrote on Sunday. “Sandbagging your fellow Republicans in Congress and offering tacit support for a key (unconstitutional) component of Obamacare is a very strange way to begin a run in a Republican primary. Not a strong start.” The Wall Street Journal called Gingrich’s description of an ideal healthcare plan with mandates a “pretty good description of what the Democratic Congress passed into law last year." The Journal continued: "Beginning in 2014, most Americans who don't have insurance will be required to pay a fee, with many, depending on income, getting subsidies to help buy coverage through state-based exchanges.” The conservative website Red State said Gingrich “won’t exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.”

Newt is an immoral ass. I definitely would not vote for him.

I see that Gingrich also agrees with me that Ryan's Medicare plan is a nonstarter.

Gingrich slams GOP Medicare plan despite the fact he once said he'd vote for it

Trying to find the middle ground is not a good tactic for the primaries.

This is why I consider him to be an "old guard Republican". He's trying to play footsie politics when we need a guy with an axe.

He's a dirtbag AND a RINO. Hasta levista, Ah-nold

Schwarzenegger Reveals He Had a Child With a Member of Household Staff

Keep holding their feet to the fire. Riiiiight

Where's all the talk of the Republicans backing away from Ryan's Budget Medicare plan, or the fact that two of the current front runners have different views on Healthcare than the rest of the party? (Newt apparently disagrees with the Republican plan and Romney set up a "socialized" system in Mass.)

Who are the Tea Party backing? Bachmann? Palin?

quote Originally posted by newf: Keep holding their feet to the fire. Riiiiight

What's your point?

quote Where's all the talk of the Republicans backing away from Ryan's Budget Medicare plan, or the fact that two of the current front runners have different views on Healthcare than the rest of the party? (Newt apparently disagrees with the Republican plan and Romney set up a "socialized" system in Mass.)

Screw them then.

quote Who are the Tea Party backing? Bachmann? Palin?

Too early to tell.

LOL. Gotta love the news media...

Revelations could tarnish Schwarzenegger's legacy

Uh...duh...ya THINK?

Things I don't like about Chris Christie:

Despite his pulling New Jersey out of the regional "global warming" thing, he still believes in it

MILLOY: Do GOP hopefuls trust Al Gore?

=====================

Was Christie Right to Use Police Helicopter to Get to His Son’s Baseball Game?

(however)

Update: Christie Changes Course, Reimburses State for Helicopter Flights

(too little, too late?)

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Things I don't like about Chris Christie: Despite his pulling New Jersey out of the regional "global warming" thing, he still believes in it MILLOY: Do GOP hopefuls trust Al Gore? ===================== Was Christie Right to Use Police Helicopter to Get to His Son’s Baseball Game? (however) Update: Christie Changes Course, Reimburses State for Helicopter Flights (too little, too late?)

Not sure you would be so lenient in your post if it had been a Dem but good on you for at least trying.

Funny the rest of the "conservatorium" has not felt a need to comment, not sure if some of them should so quickly call out Neptune and RayB so much when it looks the most of the "conservatorium" members are doing exactly what they accuse others of and seem so offended by.

Oh well even if I think you are very very gentle when it comes to the Right vs the Left at least you have put in a bit of effort.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Things I don't like about Chris Christie: Despite his pulling New Jersey out of the regional "global warming" thing, he still believes in it MILLOY: Do GOP hopefuls trust Al Gore? ===================== Was Christie Right to Use Police Helicopter to Get to His Son’s Baseball Game? (however) Update: Christie Changes Course, Reimburses State for Helicopter Flights (too little, too late?)

That kind of sucks... I'm a little dissapointed to hear this. I'm not sure really how I feel though? This is different (in my mind) than say, Nancy Pelosi taking a private federal jet on vacations, and letting her friends use it.

I'm cool with him using a limo, I mean... is he supposed to drive himself in a suburban? He is still the president of the state, and he does have some level of protection that is warranted. Flying a helicopter to a game IS definitely pushing it though...

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: That kind of sucks... I'm a little dissapointed to hear this. I'm not sure really how I feel though? This is different (in my mind) than say, Nancy Pelosi taking a private federal jet on vacations, and letting her friends use it. I'm cool with him using a limo, I mean... is he supposed to drive himself in a suburban? He is still the president of the state, and he does have some level of protection that is warranted. Flying a helicopter to a game IS definitely pushing it though...

Yeah, it is disappointing. But we are bound to be disappointed by just about everyone, at some point. Nobody is perfect. We can only hope for the best.

But the bottom line is, we have to hold Republicans accountable, even the ones we like.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Yeah, it is disappointing. But we are bound to be disappointed by just about everyone, at some point. Nobody is perfect. We can only hope for the best. But the bottom line is, we have to hold Republicans accountable, even the ones we like.

Why is there no Democrat Watch?
If there were truly interested in holding their feet to the fire you would think one of the dems would start one.
Oh I forgot, the stimulus and CFC worked, less the 8% unemployment, Gitmo is closed and the weeds are growing over the place, we are down to one war, the housing market is booming, and so on.
Forget I asked.
Good thread you started.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Why is there no Democrat Watch? If there were truly interested in holding their feet to the fire you would think one of the dems would start one. Oh I forgot, the stimulus and CFC worked, less the 8% unemployment, Gitmo is closed and the weeds are growing over the place, we are down to one war, the housing market is booming, and so on. Forget I asked.

That's why I've been challenging people like Neptune. But all I get in return is bullshit. I'm starting to think these Democrats are not nice people!

quote Good thread you started.

Thanks. I hope we can all make a positive difference for the country.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Why is there no Democrat Watch? If there were truly interested in holding their feet to the fire you would think one of the dems would start one. Oh I forgot, the stimulus and CFC worked, less the 8% unemployment, Gitmo is closed and the weeds are growing over the place, we are down to one war, the housing market is booming, and so on. Forget I asked. Good thread you started.

You haven't seem the "Obama Watch" one? It's many many pages long with the regular "haters" participating.
I suspect this thread is more an half hearted attempt to show that there isn't any so called hypocracy from a few as it's seems it's more paying lip service to the title IMO. As a self proclaimed Tea Partier the OP might want to start a TP Watch as well.

quote Originally posted by newf: You haven't seem the "Obama Watch" one? It's many many pages long with the regular "haters" participating. I suspect this thread is more an half hearted attempt to show that there isn't any so called hypocracy from a few as it's seems it's more paying lip service to the title IMO. As a self proclaimed Tea Partier the OP might want to start a TP Watch as well.

As usual you missed the point.
Maybe it is because you are partisan or Canadian, go figure.

quote Originally posted by newf: You haven't seem the "Obama Watch" one? It's many many pages long with the regular "haters" participating.

"Haters"?

quote I suspect this thread is more an half hearted attempt to show that there isn't any so called hypocracy from a few as it's seems it's more paying lip service to the title IMO. As a self proclaimed Tea Partier the OP might want to start a TP Watch as well.

Jesus Christ, I'm glad I'm not one of your friends or relatives. Do you put your ear to your birthday presents to make sure they aren't ticking?

quote Originally posted by newf: You haven't seem the "Obama Watch" one? It's many many pages long with the regular "haters" participating. I suspect this thread is more an half hearted attempt to show that there isn't any so called hypocracy from a few as it's seems it's more paying lip service to the title IMO. As a self proclaimed Tea Partier the OP might want to start a TP Watch as well.

The post, as I understood it, is different than the Obama Watch. This "Republican Watch" post is supposed to be (as I understand it) a place where we can check up on the progress that the Republicans have made, or more specifically... to see if in fact they are holding true to their promise of enforcing a balanced budget philosophy, welfare reform, etc...

The Republicans made a lot of promises in 2010 in preperation for sweeping the house, and I think this thread is merely to ensure that they are in fact holding true to what they said they were going to.


For the most part, I think they have... but there have been many who have succumbed yet again, to the same corruption / lobbying pressure that many of our past representatives have. For the most part though, those who were sworn in have upheld their promises (to the best of their ability within their control).

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Jesus Christ, I'm glad I'm not one of your friends or relatives. Do you put your ear to your birthday presents to make sure they aren't ticking?

Oooooh I love getting a new watch. I'll keep my eye out for your package in the mail.

quote Originally posted by newf: In my opinion this thread was an attempt to show that a certain memeber is not being a hypocrite by seemingly only criticizing one side and I give him credit for starting the thread but as shown there is far less traffic and posts regarding actual "watching" or critiquing due to the fact that most here are aligned and support the Republicans. Just an observation on my part.

Well, that might be because of two things:

1. The Republicans didn't have any real power until last November. They only control the House of Representatives.

2. The Republicans still don't have the White House, and the President is a very visible figure.

quote Originally posted by newf: No, I'm pretty sure I didn't. A look through the thread would show that the Repubs/Conservatives are being treated very differently than the Dems/Liberals are on PFF OT. I'm not saying it's wrong or unexpected just calling a spade a spade IMO. For example you don't think the Chris Christie story would have been almost instantly posted by multiple PFFers? Again I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, it just happens that many of the most vocal members on OT seem to have similar points of view about such things and the threads and posts in the threads shows that to be the case. In my opinion this thread was an attempt to show that a certain memeber is not being a hypocrite by seemingly only criticizing one side and I give him credit for starting the thread but as shown there is far less traffic and posts regarding actual "watching" or critiquing due to the fact that most here are aligned and support the Republicans. Just an observation on my part.

I'm gonna surprise you here, prepare to be amazed. This will blow your mind. Ready?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Really ready for this?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The world is not fair.

"Get over yourself". (someone on a commercial the other day)

Brad

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Jesus Christ, I'm glad I'm not one of your friends or relatives. Do you put your ear to your birthday presents to make sure they aren't ticking?

Can you imagine his parents trying to convince him that no, he wasn't adopted and they really are his parents?
When he got the talk about the birds and the bees, it must have been more like a doctoral thesis presentation than a father and son talk.

It's fine to be skeptical, but if someone told him the weather was "nice" he'd go off one a three week argument over peer reviewed data on what qualifies as "nice" and expect some kind of measurable metric on the "quantity of nice" in the local air over a given time.

Growing up with an attitude like that, he probably did have to check his birthday presents to make sure they weren't ticking.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Well, that might be because of two things: 1. The Republicans didn't have any real power until last November. They only control the House of Representatives. 2. The Republicans still don't have the White House, and the President is a very visible figure.

That's fair enough, the ones in power will get the brunt of criticism for sure. Like I said at least you started the thread, you can't help it if the rest of the Conservatorium don't participate in your watch.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: So this thread would suggest that they are keeping their promises?

If you would ask my opinion on whether or not they are, I DO believe they are keeping their promises... most of them at least. The promise (as I understood it), is to reduce spending, and attempt to reduce the size of government. When they came into office, we were already 5 months behind on a budget. In the US, the next fiscal year's budget is created in early September (every year). For the last 3-4 months, the Democrats had been running the United States without any budget whatsoever. Basically, all they were doing is spending, and there was NO budget. The media didn't seem to really make a big deal about this, but I can find no time in history when the US operated without a budget for this long throughout history... at least not in my lifetime?

The very first thing they did was pass a bill to roll-back the health care law. People voted for Obama because they were hoping for a J.F. Kennedy... someone that could bring us all together and make us proud again. A lot of people aren't getting exactly what they had hoped for, and the majority of the United States does not support a government run health-care initiative... even if they do otherwise support health-care for all (there is a difference). So... Republicans won overwhelmingly (first time there has been such a massive changeover in nearly 100 years), specifically on the promise to overturn the health care bill (or at least to fix it). They passed it, but of course it was rejected when it went to the senate... merely symbolic.

Since that time, they've passed a lot of legislation that has helped reduce spending in the long-term... but it hasn't come with substantial fighting, even among themselves... but that kind of stuff happens. We now have a buget, and even though they've had to raise the debt limit, the new freshmen in congress aren't "cool" with willy-nilly spending... which almost all the Democrats (except the Blue Dogs) and some of the Republicans that were there before, were simply spending like it was going out of style. Every representative would do what they could to "bring home the bacon."

We'll have to see what happens... but this upcoming election, there's expected to be somewhat more of the same. I think my guy (Bill Nelson) might get the boot also... I liked the guy, he was a Blue Dog, but he did vote for the health care bill...

Christie backpedaling on the helicopter incident

Chris Christie: ‘I Make No Apologies’ Regarding Use of NJ State Helicopter

Newf's postings remind me of the last South Park episode where one of the children becomes a cynical a-hole . That makes it very hard to see anything in a positive light.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-15-2011).]