The two parties are engaged in a furious battle for undecided so-called independent voters in November. Both are accusing the other's plan as bad for America.
The Republicans are claiming that Obama care will cut billions from medicare, implying that the cuts would be chopping services to elders. The intent as I understand it is to reduce the administrative costs. So this is intentionally misleading.
I have no doubts about the costs hidden in the thousands of pages of gobbledygook that was declared law through a loophole and not via a majority vote (which I find outrageous). I just wish there was an unbiased source that could be consulted to tell the truth about each side's programs, benefits vs costs.
The Ryan budget will cut spending in social programs but would INCREASE the military spending at a time when most Americans want to REDUCE military costs. I think most voters, even seniors realize that the medicare and other "entitlements" need to be controlled, lest the US go the way of Greece, California et al.
Seniors could favor a proposal that does not directly affect them, but not if it does not require equal cuts in the military budget, which most people believe is bloated and wasteful. Ron Paul was right on this issue, and anyone who claims to be a constitutionalist would have to agree with him. Lord knows we could use a bit more domestic security on those borders and inner city neighborhoods. Bring em all home.
5 comments:
Always good to check the facts. The military spending/budget numbers are as follows: 2012 - $716.3 billion; 2013 - $701.8 billion; 2014 - $599.3 billion
Checking facts is for saps. I just go with what they say on CNBC.
I believe that the reductions in defense spending that George refers to are due to the automatice budget cuts mandated if no budget deal is reached. Undoubtedly, they won't happen. More importantly, Romney has vowed to INCREASE defense spending in another one of his many panders to the right wing of the Republican Party. And just to be clear (I think I have pointed this out previously) the health care act passed on a majority vote (60 to 39) - using a maneuver (reconciliation) to stop a Republican minority from continuing to block a vote by using the filibuster (which is a Senate rule, not a constitutional right) - an important distinction. (Besides, if Kennendy hadn't kicked the bucket for another 9 months, the Democrats would have had enough votes to get cloture and end the filibuster.)
A 60 to 39 vote in the Senate could have stopped a filibuster in and of itself. Rick needs to do a little more Googling.
Yeah, seemed odd to me too, but that's what the count was. In any case, it's not as if the Dems pushed through a bill without a substantial majority support (at least 59 votes, if not 60). It was the unprecedented multitude of Republican filibusters that ground legislation to a halt the last three years. Thai's what I'd call undemocratic.
Post a Comment