Calling the Big Dawg


ABC:

The day after the stunning upset in the special congressional election in upstate New York, Rep. Paul Ryan is a man under fire.

But ABC News was behind the scenes with the Wisconsin Congressman and GOP Budget Committee Chairman when he got some words of encouragement none other than former President Bill Clinton.

“So anyway, I told them before you got here, I said I’m glad we won this race in New York,” Clinton told Ryan, when the two met backstage at a forum on the national debt held by the Pete Peterson Foundation. But he added, “I hope Democrats don’t use this as an excuse to do nothing.”

Ryan told Clinton he fears that now nothing will get done in Washington.

“My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out there. You gotta get this thing moving,” Ryan said.

Clinton told Ryan that if he ever wanted to talk about it, he should “give me a call.” Ryan said he would.

Democrats make no bones about why they believe they won in a solidly Republican district – voter anger at Paul Ryan’s controversial plan to restructure Medicare.

“It was about Medicare,” Clinton said during a speech to the debt forum minutes before he met Ryan back stage. Clinton was referring to Ryan’s controversial budget plan, passed by the House this year, which would transform Medicare for those under the age of 55.

“You shouldn’t draw the conclusion that the New York race means that nobody can do anything solve the rising Medicare costs,” said during his speech. “I just don’t agree with that. I think you should draw the conclusion that the people made a judgment that this proposal in the Republican is not the right one. I agree with that, but I’m afraid that the Democrats will draw the conclusion that because Congressman Ryan’s proposal, I think, is not the best one, that we shouldn’t do anything and I completely disagree with that.”

There are two issues here: “should we” and “how do we.”

The first issue is should we provide health care to our senior citizens. That issue was settled a long time ago. The real issue facing us today is how do we pay for it.

TANSTAAFL – “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

There are a lot of options available besides ending Medicare. Controlling costs seems to be a taboo topic but it shouldn’t be. Unfortunately the Democrats don’t want to fix Medicare, they just want to gain political mileage by scaring people with it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Calling the Big Dawg

    • Karma says:

      My brain hurts at the hypocrisy. Maddow takes down Ryan’s plan with the same arguments Reps have against Obamacare.

      It is clear that both Dems and Reps want these mandates to private companies to stand. And yet Clinton is the bad guy.

      Nevermind the Clintons wanted to preserve a govt plan as a price control. The Big Dawg is ‘in cahoots’.

  1. myiq2xu says:

    MSNBC suspends Schultz for calling Ingraham a ‘slut’

    If Bill O’Reilly called Obama a “N-word” would people settle for a suspension or would they demand he be fired?

  2. 1539days says:

    This is where I have to lay some blame on the voters themselves. Republicans got some mileage out of Obamacare in 2010 because it raided the Medicare fund to pay for this health care reform that has no actual plan of operation. So now the Democrats are going on offense by saying Republicans will end Medicare “as we know it” but won’t put forth their own plan because someone might not like that either, especially since Obamacare will have a system similar to vouchers itself.

    This “ending Medicare as we know it” thing drives me nuts because Medicare as we know it now can’t last. First we have Medicare, then we have a prescription drug plan, we have the donut hole funds from a separate account and then there’s the “doc fix” to pay doctors more so they don’t all drop Medicare patients.

    Something has to give. Either the government spends less, the elderly pays more, we increase taxes or we create some kind of requirement that doctors have to treat these people. Either way, someone’s not going to like it.

    • myiq2xu says:

      The first thing we need is some honest dialog.

      Don’t hold your breath.

    • votermom says:

      If we turn it into medicare for all so that it covers everyone, including doctors and politicians, then we would fix it. Because then the deciders would have a real stake in fixing it. Right now the only worry about it at election time. The rest of the time they are too busy enjoying the bribes they get from the healthcare lobby.

      • djmm says:

        Well said, votermom! Medicare for all would be best. Even just extending Medicare to those over 55 would help — a lot of over 55’er’s are out of work and might be able to retire, if they did not have to worry about health care costs. At the same time, they are healthier than those who are 65, so that could help. Cut back on fraud (as Sen. Brown suggested) and you are there.

        djmm

    • Three Wickets says:

      The Independent Payment Advisory Board is supposed to be part of the Medicare answer for Dems, but I believe the GOP is trying to squash it now in Congress.

    • okasha skatsi says:

      Or we bring down the US’s grotesquely exaggerated medical costs.

      • ralphb says:

        HONK!!

      • Mary says:

        How?

        • Well, for starts, look at the prices charged for scans such as CT, MRI, Ultrasound, etc.

          Remember back when to get a ‘photocopy’ you had to go to a blueprint shop? Even early Xerox machines were very expensive. Now we’ve all got fax/scanner/printers on our own desks — because with mass production the cost came DOWN.

          So trying to cut medical costs by forbidding ‘unnecessary’ scans is the wrong direction. We should be making scanners MORE common and easier to use.

          And instead of forbidding everyone from buying drugs from Canada — Medicare should buy their drugs from Canada.

          Stuff like that, for starts.

        • PS. Hell, have TSA use medical scanners. Scan for cancer etc while they’re at it.

        • Another way to save national medical expense. Make contraceptives more available. Save the cost of dealing with UNWANTED pregnancies.

          Unplanned pregnancies in U.S. at 40 percent
          http://www.physorg.com/news225117456.html
          About 40 percent of pregnancies across the United States were unwanted or mistimed, according to the first-ever state-by-state analysis of unintended pregnancies.

          Iirc, the figure $11billion in savings is mentioned….

        • myiq2xu says:

          PS. Hell, have TSA use medical scanners. Scan for cancer etc while they’re at it.

          Hey buddy, while you’re back there would you mind checking my prostate?”

      • Yes. Other countries have better results with much less expense. Let’s look at how they do it.

    • There’s a big difference between, frex, raising taxes to give Medicare more funding — and going to Obamacare+puny-vouchers. Ryan’s Voucher-care WOULD end Medicare as we know it; raising taxes would PRESERVE Medicare as we know it.

  3. votermom says:

    If they are really concerned about the budget, they should consider ending corporate tax breaks.
    But somehow that never happens.

    • Mary says:

      Fair enough. But if they’re going to demonize the “big oil companies” for using manufacturing tax credits to lower their taxes, they won’t get away with Obama supporters like General Electric paying NO taxes thanks to the same manufacturing tax credits now on the books. They ALL use those tax credits.

      Abolish them if you want, but do it across the board, and not just for political points.

    • okasha skatsi says:

      And all the little presents for the top 5% which come at the expense of the rest of us. The Republican Texas legislature is cutting teachers, but alloted funds for tax breaks for brazillionaires who buy their yachts in Texas. I’m beginning to think some of these people–and I use the term loosely–are clinically insane.

  4. myiq2xu says:

    Keep an eye on this guy:

    • Mary says:

      He’s got a point, you know. What IS the Democratic Party’s plan?

      Not only did Congress reject the Ryan budget plan , they took a vote on the Obama budget plan—-voted DOWN 0-97. Unanimous rejection.

      Word is, Democrats aren’t even going to submit a 2011 budget—-they’ll wait till 2012.

      What the hell is that about?

      • “Not only did Congress reject the Ryan budget plan , they took a vote on the Obama budget plan—-voted DOWN 0-97.”

        I suppose you mean the Senate? Unless a hell of a lot of Congressmen stayed home.

        That may be kind of encouraging. Even with its faults, I’d tend to trust the Senate more than Obama.

  5. Jeffhas says:

    Love the Big Dawg – Forest through the Trees and all.

  6. Valissa says:

    I am currently pissed off at the Big Dawg (though I have stood up for him on most things for a long time). Not sure if I am allowed to say that here 😉 I unsubscribed to his Clinton Foundation email list today.

    This is why I am pissed off:

    Bill Clinton calls for internet truth regulator http://memeburn.com/2011/05/bill-clinton-calls-for-internet-truth-regulator/

    In what seems like a “get-those-damned-kids-off-my-lawn” senior moment of not understanding the free-wheeling nature of the internet, Clinton last week made some rather startling calls. In an interview that aired on US business news network, CNBC, Clinton called for the creation of a new US government agency tasked with fact-checking the internet. If the US government isn’t up to the task, Clinton sees no reason why the United Nations should not take on this important role.

    Bill Clinton Thinks The Internet Needs A Taxpayer Funded Ministry Of Truth http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/17343214271/bill-clinton-thinks-internet-needs-taxpayer-funded-ministry-truth.shtml

    Now, it’s certainly true that the so-called “fourth estate” — the press — often isn’t very good at fact checking. They’re especially bad at fact checking politicians, and the popular “view from nowhere” often means that rather than pointing out where a politician has lied, they feel that as long as they give “the other side” equal time, they’ve done their job. However, do we really need a federal fact checking agency? That appears to be the opinion of former President Bill Clinton who suggested such an agency would be a good use of taxpayer money: …

    But why would that be a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money, when others are already trying to do that? We have operations like FactCheck.org and Politifact, both run by respected operations, and both of which have done pretty well from what I’ve seen. Of course, this sort of thing could also already be considered part of the GAO’s mandate, as it’s pretty well respected for not falling for political spin in its reports, but for digging in and getting things right. Of course, that hasn’t stopped much of the government from ignoring the GAO’s position on things.

    Remember during the Obama campaign when he started to try to control the truth and we all made fun of that? And how Obama has continued to do this?

    I know there is alot of bat-shit crazy stuff on the internet but if any of you have ever read 1984 you autta be VERY SUSPICIOUS of anyone, no matter how much you like them, attempting to create some kind of truth bureau.

    • I suggest you fact-check these articles! What did Bill Clinton actually say, in full context?

      Remember it was Wired that misquoted Gore, who DID NOT say he invented the internet.

  7. Valissa says:

    Moderated again so I will break into two posts.

    PART ONE

    I am currently pissed off at the Big Dawg (though I have stood up for him on most things for a long time). Not sure if I am allowed to say that here I unsubscribed to his Clinton Foundation email list today.

    This is why I am pissed off:

    Bill Clinton calls for internet truth regulator http://memeburn.com/2011/05/bill-clinton-calls-for-internet-truth-regulator/

    In what seems like a “get-those-damned-kids-off-my-lawn” senior moment of not understanding the free-wheeling nature of the internet, Clinton last week made some rather startling calls. In an interview that aired on US business news network, CNBC, Clinton called for the creation of a new US government agency tasked with fact-checking the internet. If the US government isn’t up to the task, Clinton sees no reason why the United Nations should not take on this important role.

    • Valissa says:

      PART TWO

      Bill Clinton Thinks The Internet Needs A Taxpayer Funded Ministry Of Truth http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/17343214271/bill-clinton-thinks-internet-needs-taxpayer-funded-ministry-truth.shtml

      Now, it’s certainly true that the so-called “fourth estate” — the press — often isn’t very good at fact checking. They’re especially bad at fact checking politicians, and the popular “view from nowhere” often means that rather than pointing out where a politician has lied, they feel that as long as they give “the other side” equal time, they’ve done their job. However, do we really need a federal fact checking agency? That appears to be the opinion of former President Bill Clinton who suggested such an agency would be a good use of taxpayer money: …

      But why would that be a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money, when others are already trying to do that? We have operations like FactCheck.org and Politifact, both run by respected operations, and both of which have done pretty well from what I’ve seen. Of course, this sort of thing could also already be considered part of the GAO’s mandate, as it’s pretty well respected for not falling for political spin in its reports, but for digging in and getting things right. Of course, that hasn’t stopped much of the government from ignoring the GAO’s position on things.

      Remember during the Obama campaign when he started to try to control the truth and we all made fun of that? And how Obama has continued to do this?

      I know there is alot of bat-shit crazy stuff on the internet but if any of you have ever read 1984 you autta be VERY SUSPICIOUS of anyone, no matter how much you like them, attempting to create some kind of truth bureau.

      • Three Wickets says:

        The requirements for disclosure rules post Citizens United have not panned out in Congress or the White House. Guess BC could be talking about something like the FTC for political communications, since that industry (yes industry) is going to explode in the coming years. Or it could just be his way of saying, don’t trust most of what you see on the web. And he’s probably right. It’s not like he has any governing authority for these ideas anyway.

        • Mary says:

          If the Obots control the FTC and the “controllers,” who’s going to fact check THEM?

Comments are closed.