Obama supporters struggling to defend his $700 billion in Medicare cuts

[Little-Acorn]

Rich Lowry (Editor of National Review) had an interview with Rachel Maddow, an Obama shill pretending to be an MSNBC commentator. And for once, Lowry did not let her simply "run out the clock" by changing subjects, ducking clear and straightforward questions, and putting up strawmen instead of honest answers. The interview turned hilarious as Lowry keps repeating the same question over and over to Maddow, who kept flinging every deflection and silly diversion she could rather than answer the question.

Republicans need to take off the gloves like this, far more often. People have had enough of Democrats ducking the issue, trying not to discuss their own President's programs, changing the subject, etc.

-----------------------------------------------

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...msnbcs-rachel-maddow-meet-press#ixzz23M2exaXr

LOWRY: And this whole idea of the Obama campaign and the Democrats have been pushing that Romney, because he hasn't said what deductions and loopholes specifically he's going to close, which no presidential campaign ever does, therefore he's going to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for lowering rates is an utterly fantasy made out of utter whole cloth.

MADDOW: What he, Paul Ryan was on the Simpson-Bowles Commission and dissented from it because it did raise revenue. He dropped out. He blew that up. He blew up the Gang of Six. He got zero Democratic votes for any of his budgets.

If only Lowry had mentioned that Obama didn’t get any Democratic votes for his own recent budget proposals. But I once again digress:

DAN BALZ, WASHINGTON POST: Not only because of revenue, but he dissented because he did not think it went far enough on healthcare.
.
LOWRY: Right. And that's the key thing. Even President Obama, who's cut $700 billion from Medicare, which I guess you support…

MADDOW: Which Paul Ryan will keep doing…

LOWRY: Do you support $700 billion in cuts in Medicare over the next ten years?

MADDOW: I'm not running for president.

LOWRY: Do you?

MADDOW: I'm not running for anything. Paul Ryan is running for vice president.

LOWRY: Do you? Why can’t you answer? See, you can’t answer.

MADDOW: But wait, I'm not running for anything..

LOWRY: This is the key vulnerability. Democrats have cut $700 billion out of Medicare which you won't or can't defend it. Defend it.

MADDOW: Is it good or bad?

LOWRY: Do you support it? You can’t answer.

MADDOW: But wait. Why are you asking me?

LOWRY: You can't answer. Because you're an opinion maker who is supposed to give us your opinion. But you will not tell us what your opinion is.

MADDOW: What I want to know is the logic of…

LOWRY: Democrats cannot defend that.

MADDOW: Wait. I want to know is the logic…

LOWRY: Go ahead. Defend it.

MADDOW: What I want to know is the logic.

LOWRY: [Laughs].

MADDOW: Wait. Rich, hold on.

LOWRY: Answer me. You're not answering.

 

[dogtowner]

we need to stay on message and make the left no choice but to attempt to defend their iindefensable record.

 

[Cruella]

The stupid will believe a phony ad like Ryan pushing granny over a cliff and not the real facts about Obama

Fingers in their ears, eyes closed, shouting the Democrat's diddly; "na, na, na, not listening"

 

[GenSeneca]

I've found this recent debate incredibly frustrating....

Obama has made no cuts to medicare, none... What he has proposed are theoretical reductions in the growth of medicare spending - rather than growing at a rate of 7%, medicare would only grow at a rate of 5%. A reduction in the growth rate of a budget is NOT a cut.

It is usually Dems using this tactic of referring to reductions in the growth of government budgets as "cuts" (usually preceded by the word "draconian") as a means of painting Republicans as wanting to poison the air and water, leave the sick to fend for themselves, and pushing granny over the cliff... and it's all utterly fallacious.

A cut is an actual reduction to actual spending; if we spend $10 billion this year and only $9 billion next year, that's a cut. Limiting the rate of growth to $11 billion next year, as opposed to $12 billion, is not a "cut" in spending - It's an INCREASE in spending! By referring to reductions in the rate of growth as cuts, Republicans and Conservatives are walking right into a trap that the Dems have laid and only they can get out of - because Dems don't give a rats ass about bankrupting the country.

It's disappointing to see Republicans (especially Conservatives) attacking Obama as having "cut" medicare spending like this... If this tactic is used successfully by Republicans in this current debate, how the F do you expect to reform medicare and SS? If the tactic of demonizing reductions in the rate of growth as being "cuts" proves to be effective in hurting the electoral chances of Obama, then Conservatives will have managed to shoot themselves in the foot with a shotgun - while their foot was heel deep into their mouth.

We have to get entitlement spending down to avoid going bankrupt, attacking reductions in the rate of growth as being "cuts" undermines that effort.

 

[Cruella]

Sounds like an accounting smoke and mirrors job to me. Regardless which column you put the expense in, or which check book you use to pay the bills out of, the bottom line is the same. The biggest problem for seniors is going to be finding doctors who will take medicare patients. My doctor has a sign on her receptionist counter that says "we no longer take medicare patients". But if Obummer gets another term, he'll probably force doctors to take medicare patients at a loss.