The $700B lie--Republicans and honesty continue to prove to be immiscible

And Ryan has the audacity to attack Obama on it whilst keeping those same savings in his own plan. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The ACA does not cut $700B from medicare.  It's an absurd accusation and a tacit admission by the Republicans that they cannot defeat Obama if they run on reality.

What an interesting accusation when the side you support is actively engaged in various absurd accusations of their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Here's a nice rundown by Soledad O'Brien.

Your links broken. This works- http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/fact-check-cutting-through-the-medicare-rhetoric/

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

 

 

Oh the irony. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

MJ, participate on topic...

I assumed that the topic was absurd accusations being made during this election season. You've claimed a lie and an absurd accusation by one party in this election. I was just amused that you haven't noted any from any others, particularly those you support. Why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

...or get the **** out.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

MJ, participate on topic or get the **** out.

Oh come on! You know by now MJ likes to answer indirectly when backed into a corner. Rather than take a position or say something definite he obfuscates. And when you call him on it he'll try to get you into a conversation oh say on if obfuscation is the right word to use. Totally off topic. Recently " Begging the question " is his favorite jimmac distraction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Oh come on! You know by now MJ likes to answer indirectly when backed into a corner. Rather than take a position or say something definite he obfuscates. And when you call him on it he'll try to get you into a conversation oh say on if obfuscation is the right word to use. Totally off topic.

You guys crack me up. BR starts a thread pointing out one branch of the establishment party's lies and absurd accusations while failing to mention those of the branch he supports. What is the topic? Is the topic the lies and absurd accusations made by politicians and political parties during election season or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Recently " Begging the question " is his favorite jimmac distraction.

Well, when you stop doing it, I'll stop pointing it out. ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Oh come on! You know by now MJ likes to answer indirectly when backed into a corner. Rather than take a position or say something definite he obfuscates. And when you call him on it he'll try to get you into a conversation oh say on if obfuscation is the right word to use. Totally off topic.

 

You guys crack me up. BR starts a thread pointing out one branch of the establishment party's lies and absurd accusations while failing to mention those of the branch he supports. What is the topic? Is the topic the lies and absurd accusations made by politicians and political parties during election season or not?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Recently " Begging the question " is his favorite jimmac distraction.

 

 

Well, when you stop doing it, I'll stop pointing it out. ;-)

You mean when it's convenient for your argument you'll stop pointing your something out. ( Wink if I could )

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You mean when it's convenient for your argument you'll stop pointing your something out.

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

Point is, stop begging the question all the time and it will stop getting highlighted. ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You mean when it's convenient for your argument you'll stop pointing your something out.

 

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

 

Point is, stop begging the question all the time and it will stop getting highlighted. ;-)

 Uh huh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 Uh huh.

Give it a try, you'll see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The ACA does not cut $700B from medicare.  It's an absurd accusation and a tacit admission by the Republicans that they cannot defeat Obama if they run on reality.

 

Let's say I go to the same restaurant every day for lunch and it costs $10.  I make a deal with the restaurant stipulating that if I guarantee all of my friends will also buy lunch there every day, my lunch will only cost $5.  I used to pay $10.  I now pay $5.  I still get the same food.  

 

Would you say that my lunch budget was cut?  If you do, you're playing a semantics game and using the word with the worst possible connotation in hopes of tricking others into thinking I won't get a side and a drink anymore.

 

I saved $5 and got the same lunch.  That was a shrewd move on my part--not something to be vilified for.

 

The ACA saves $700B by negotiating lower rates from insurance companies for the same services.  The insurance companies went along with this due to the individual mandate bringing in more customers overall. 

 

Obamacare does not cut $700B--it SAVES $700B--you dishonest, morally bankrupt assholes.

Obamacare does cut $700b from Medicare. It does so plainly and clearly. On top of this, it forces people to purchase medical insurance at levels they do not yet need so that generational theft can occur and thus cost shifting can attempt to help cover both the cuts and the fact that said government run health care is bankrupt.

So now let's apply this to your rather crappy analogy.

You go to the same restaurant everyday for lunch and it costs $10. The problem is that the restaurant is run by Amtrak and thus even with $10 meals, the restaurant is bankrupt and under threat to close even with you handing them $10 for a crummy lunch.

The restaurant declares that to remain solvent, it will need to raise the price of the meal to $20. This is very untenable and you note that there is no way you would or should pay this since there are dozens of private restaurants that can meet the lower price target.

You make a deal with the restaurant and the restaurant makes a deal with you. They will provide you with lunch for the same $10. They will mandate that everyone else at your job site eat there whether they want to or not. If they refuse to eat there, they will be fined. In addition to that, they will instruct their providers that per a new contract they conjured, the providers must provide the same supplies for 15% lower cost and hopefully no reduction in quality.

For screwing over your co-workers (the young) and the suppliers (insurance and health providers) ,the restaurant and its employees (government power brokers and bureaucrats) get to keep their power, their perks, their salary. You get to keep your meal, all while screwing over everyone else.

All you have to do is hope all the people doing the real work and earning somehow don't fold, go underground or shrug in any fashion while you suck them dry.

Thanks for reposting the Democratic talking points so that you helped enable a bunch of dishonest, morally bankrupt assholes.

I do like your thinking though. At this stage, pathetic as it may be, I can still afford to deal with some morally bankrupt assholes. Democrats are too busy driving us into actual bankruptcy to really sweat moral bankruptcy.

Why given a guy who is going to borrow another $5-7 trillion or a guy who will call me names, screw my wife and kick my dog, I'd have to choose the latter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The ACA does not cut $700B from medicare.  It's an absurd accusation and a tacit admission by the Republicans that they cannot defeat Obama if they run on reality.

 

Let's say I go to the same restaurant every day for lunch and it costs $10.  I make a deal with the restaurant stipulating that if I guarantee all of my friends will also buy lunch there every day, my lunch will only cost $5.  I used to pay $10.  I now pay $5.  I still get the same food.  

 

Would you say that my lunch budget was cut?  If you do, you're playing a semantics game and using the word with the worst possible connotation in hopes of tricking others into thinking I won't get a side and a drink anymore.

 

I saved $5 and got the same lunch.  That was a shrewd move on my part--not something to be vilified for.

 

The ACA saves $700B by negotiating lower rates from insurance companies for the same services.  The insurance companies went along with this due to the individual mandate bringing in more customers overall. 

 

Obamacare does not cut $700B--it SAVES $700B--you dishonest, morally bankrupt assholes.

Did you notice in Brit Hume's interview with Paul Ryan that Ryan referred to this as a "gutting" and when Hume asked about Ryan's same cuts it was referred to as "savings"?  F***ing hilarious!!!!

Facecheck.org on Medicare:

"The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won't be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals."

AARP on ACA & Medicare:

"The health care law strengthens Medicare by protecting and improving your guaranteed benefits and cracking down on waste, fraud and inefficiency."  Source:  AARP Fact Sheet

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

"Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act."  Source:  AARP Fact Sheet

But hey, none of the above will stop some from using extreme intellectual dishonesty to craft false arguments to support their hatred for all-things-Obama, including lying through their teeth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northgate 

Facecheck.org on Medicare:

 

"The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won't be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals."

If the law stipulates that 2+2=7, then anyone who declares or disputes such things must be a dishonest asshole. Right? Have all your clients declare that they are going to pay you 15% less because they say so, and let's see if you just take it out of your own ass, or find some way to reduce services rendered or if you try to reduce clientele served.

Northgate, if you want to be intellectually honest, just find the last time a provider cut was passed for Medicare and actually carried out without some bandage legislation later revoking it.

It "strengthens" it by declaring it won't go bankrupt because they've decreed via law that all the people that get paid by it are somehow going to provide the same or better level of service for much fewer dollars. Perhaps they could just pass a law declaring that seniors won't get sick and won't die and we won't even have to worry about Medicare since per what the law stipulates, no one will get sick or die.

It is ridiculous to assert that because a bill asserts something must be so, that reality will bend to the law.

They are all bullshit both of them. There is no one to believe any longer.
 

“TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Right.
TAPPER: A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: You saw that with the ‘doc fix.’
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?
OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria.”
 

Video