Recall how this video illustrated how Obama uses the same tired rhetoric to describe our foreign allies:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs[/youtube]
Now today the RNC released a video illustrating the same tired rhetoric uses to describe the budget proposal Paul Ryan released:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SOx9jtpqA[/youtube]
There is nothing new to this President. No great thinking involved. Just copy and paste any kind of rhetoric, any kind of demagoguery. As Allah points out:
There are only so many ways to accuse House Republicans of hating sick people and disabled kids. If you’ve got a paragraph on point, why not just copy/paste that sucker in there and check the “Paul Ryan wants to kill grandma” box?
Sadly, this demagoguery is nothing new for this President. It worked for him in 2008 so why not try it one more time.
Paul Ryan decimated his attack however:
The President’s attacks began with an admission that his assumptions reflect White House spin, not our budget’s substance: “I want to go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly.” Of course, the assumption that our budget makes these kinds of indiscriminate cuts is false. The House Budget Committee made dozens of specific assumptions to justify our numbers, and we made these assumptions public in the hundreds of pages of text we posted in plain view on the House Budget Committee’s website. It’s not a “secret plan” to “never tell us where the knife may fall” – it is a specific plan to cut waste, eliminate programs that don’t work, end crony politics, and carefully prioritize hardworking taxpayers’ money in precisely the way leaders of the President’s party have refused to do for over three years. In a related vein, does this new standard allow for analyses of the President’s budget to go through what it would mean for the country if the President’s $2 trillion tax increase were to be spread out evenly?
Instead of using numbers from the actual House-passed budget, the President’s claims relied on false assumptions created out of thin air by the White House.
As a matter of fact, it is actually the President’s budget that makes it far more likely that college students, the sick, mothers, young children, seniors and all Americans would face harsh disruptions in government services and indiscriminate cuts. By making our unsustainable fiscal trajectory worse, his budget guarantees a debt-fueled economic crisis, which would hurt society’s most vulnerable the first and the worst.
And he proceeds to go through each scaremongering claim by Obama and gives us the real facts. Not the same ole’ cut and paste demagoguery…but the reality.
We don’t have huge budget deficits because of tax cuts and unfinanced wars. We have huge budget deficits because of runaway entitlement programs.
40 years ago spending on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare equals a little over 4 percent of GDP. Now it is 10 percent. 20 years from now it is projected to be 16 percent.
If this spending is not fixed we will be forced to raise taxes to unsustainable levels which will ultimately lead to the downfall of this country.
See author page
When you look at how easily Obama’s fallacies are shredded you have to ask yourself:
WHY has he kept that drunken speechwriter who was photographed fondling the breast of a Hillary life-size cutout BEFORE the 2008 election?
What does that horrid jerk have on Obama?
No surprise here at all. He’s been an empty suit from day one, a pseudo intellectual with zero depth.
Ryan Budget May Be Best GOP Can Produce, But It Would Increase National Debt and Share of GDP That Government Takes From Taxpayers
That’s from New York’s The Sun, which isn’t exactly a left-leaning newspaper. The article points out that the Ryan budget:
Doesn’t balance the budget;
Doesn’t reduce the federal debt;
Increases the federal government’s share of the GDP; and
Increases federal spending by 35 percent over the next 10 years.
Hey, it will give millionaires an enormous tax cut, however. Maybe that’s enough to win it popular support.
Ryan budgets – the vote: 2011 235-1943 for; 2012 – 228-191 for.
Obama budgets – the vote: 2011 Senate 97-0 against; 2012 House 414-0 against.
Ryan 463; Obama 0. Whose budget numbers are more radical?
@Greg: OK Greg, what budget have the Democrats proposed and what was the outcome. Maybe besides just putting down the proposed budget the Democrats in the Senate could do their job and propose one. BTW, what was the vote on 0-bama’s budget proposal? What a wingnut you are.
@CommonSense#5
Common Sense I am with you in asking Greg and any other wing nuts from the Left same exact question(s).
In 2011 and 2012 the House consisted of 242 republican members and 193 democratic members. While House republicans couldn’t muster the full support of their own party’s members for the radical, right-wing social and economic agendas that their leaders portray as a budget proposals–proving, I suppose, that a few moderate republican representatives still do exist–they have managed to pass such budgets for 2012 and 2013. The budgets were about political posturing rather than effective governing; neither stood a chance making it through the Senate, and the representatives who voted for them knew it.
Democratic proposals haven’t been given any serious consideration in the republican controlled House.
In the Senate, far right republicans won’t give any ground to make it possible for democrats to support bipartisan compromise. That’s a given. Republicans have monkey-wrenched the process by refusing to engage in the normal give and take that’s essential for a two-party government to work effectively.
Obama is a highly articulate politician and President. I’m pretty sure he can explain that situation in terms that reasonable voters will be able to understand. His recent speech suggests that he has every intention of doing that, and that he won’t be pulling his punches.
Like any of Obama’s plans, Ryan’s is flawed also.
@Greg: Excuse me but what stops Democrats from proposing a budget?? Did the Republican proposal pass the House??
@Greg: What 0-bama intended to do was propose a budget. Did he and what was the vote? 0-bana intended to lower the unemployment rate far below what it is now. What happened?? When 0-bama was elected Democrats had a majority in the House. What happened?? Oh yea, America spoke loud and clear on 0-bamacare. What happened??
@Greg: Greg, have you read the Ryan budget. Do you have any clue what’s in it? Please show me 1 cut in this budget vs current spending levels. Or, as with all Democrats and their idea of spending, is it just a reduction in spending increases??
We’ve seen how ballistic Dems get when a budget goes anywhere near balance.
Bowles-Simpson is a great example of a bi-partisan budget plan that Obama wouldn’t touch because it cut too much…..yet Bowles-Simpson doesn’t even bring the deficit into balance until 2035!
Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget is more liberal.
It doesn’t bring the deficit into balance until 2038 or 39.
But Obama’s proposed (and Dead-On-Arrival) budget NEVER brings us to any balance at all…..ever!
Here’s a graphic chart.
http://static.keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/long-term-deficit-comparison-obama-ryan-bs.png
@Greg: What part of Paul Ryan’s budget do you have issue with? I mean exactly which part of it is too radical for you to endorse?
Please be specific.
It was encouraging to hear Mitt Romney note Obama’s use of the fallacy of the Straw Man in his first campaign speech aiming at Obama instead of a fellow Republican.
Obama “came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making, and criticized policies no one is proposing. It’s one of his favorite strategies — setting up a straw man to distract us from his record,” said Romney.
Also …
Among Obama’s untrue assertions, Romney said, was that the $5.3 trillion in cuts the budget plan envisions over the next decade would be applied equally to all programs.
“Of course you wouldn’t cut programs on a proportional basis. There would be some programs that you would eliminate outright — Obamacare being first on the list,” Romney said.
One source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-sharpens-his-attack-says-obama-is-running-a-hide-and-seek-campaign/2012/04/04/gIQAeCeCwS_story.html
@Greg:
The Ryan budget proposal, to many conservatives, does not go near far enough in curbing government spending.
There are two ‘extremes’ in federal budgeting.
-One is exactly as Obama proposes, which is continued spending beyond all possible and suggested revenue increases. Obama’s budget proposals over the past couple of years have done nothing to actually address cutting the deficit or debt, and instead, double down on government spending, especially in areas shown to be money pits or con jobs. As Nan pointed out, Obama’s budget proposals do not ever reach the point of balance.
-The other ‘extreme’ is massive cutting of the budget that immediately balances it. In order to do this, not only must spending increases, in all areas, be nil, but in many budget areas the spending must be much, much less than it is currently. This may not be the best time to push for this ‘extreme’, considering the actual economy(the one Obama doesn’t publicize).
So, I find it quite amusing, as well as frustrating, when the liberal/progressives find it necessary to slam Ryan’s budget proposal as being ‘extreme’, when in reality, his budget proposal is somewhere between the two extremes I presented above. It’s also more realistic that such a proposal can be realistically implemented, and be successful, in fully balancing the budget, even if it is decades down the road.
I agree that Obama is highly articulate. However, only when his words are prepared well in advance. When not scripted, Obama is a bumbling fool who shows no understanding whatsoever of the subject at hand.
No, Obama will not explain the budget, his or Ryan’s, in terms a reasonable voter understands. Obama uses hyperbole and outright falsehoods to influence the uneducated, playing to their emotions rather than their intelligence. Reasonable people understand that, whether an individual or government, one cannot continue to spend more than they take in and expect to survive.
You, Greg, and your liberal/progressive friends remind me of The Lemming Condition, written by Alan Arkin. It relates to an old Chinese proverb that reads;
Right now, our country is headed towards a complete bankruptcy that will make Greece look like a financially stable entity. Why? Because there isn’t anyone to bail us out when we hit that point, Greg. And all Obama and his bots desire pushes us further and faster in that direction. But unlike the adult lemmings in Arkin’s story, you all should know better than to continuously run to the cliff, and ultimately, to your doom. That you don’t shows a frightening level of zealotry, seen in the mass cult killings/suicides, where even impending doom is no deterrent, and even a reasonable request to slow down is treated as an extreme action. And the one difference between the lemmings in Arkin’s story, and all of you liberal/progressive zealots, is that you all won’t leave anyone behind on this migration. In Arkin’s story, many younger lemmings are left behind to rebuild the lemming civilization until the next ‘big event’. You all want to carry, prod, cajole, and generally force everyone off the cliff.
@Greg:
I know you won’t respond to this, but I will not let your ignorance of the budget process remain unchallenged. The republican controlled Housed did allow the democrat budget to the floor for a vote. It failed 262-163.
The Senate only needs 51 votes to pass a totally democrat structured budget. They have 54 dems and Papa Joe, this should not be a problem for them. If they do pass a budget, which is required by law, the Ryan budget and the Senate budget would go to conference. That is the way it is supposed to work. And then, the Senate could complain about republicans blocking a budget. But until the Senate passes a budget, they have no defense and the American people are starting to understand that. The Senate does not want to propose a budget because all the stimulus spending is sewn into the baseline right now and they would have to either keep it in their budget or cut it out. They do not want to put up a budget with the stimulus money as a baseline and they don’t have the cahones to cut it out.
I hope you enjoyed today’s Schoolhouse Rock.
@Nan G, #12:
The Ryan plan doesn’t balance the budget, or come anywhere near doing so. Under the Ryan plan, spending increases by 35% over the next 10 years. The share of the GDP taken by the Federal Government grows. The debt doesn’t begin to be paid down–it grows even larger.
It’s basically an attempt to dismantle or roll back 65 years of progressive social programs–programs that serve the poor and mainstream Americans–while giving enormous new tax breaks to those who need them the least.
The main thing about it that has to do with reducing long-term deficits, reducing overall spending, and paying down the debt is the election year sales pitch.
That, we’ve heard before. We’ve heard some variation of the pitch repeated with the fervor of a tent revivalist during every republican campaign since Ronald Reagan. Republicans have repeatedly been elected when enough people go for it. In the not so distant past, it got them 12 continuous years of Congressional majorities. During 6 of those years, they also had a like-minded republican in the White House. Remember?
So when has their tenure ever resulted in dramatically reduced deficits or any reduction whatsoever in the national debt?
What we see when we look back at their record are increased deficits and huge escalations in the rise of the national debt. Every single time.
You can take their word on irresponsible tax cuts favoring the wealthiest, and on deep cuts to social programs and investments in the nation’s future, however. Our foreign creditors are just about tapped out. They’ll have to drastically cut such spending to pay for an accelerated upward transfer of wealth that will result from reduced corporate and high income tax rates.
@johngalt, #15:
I guess we’ll all see how much truth there is to that when Obama has a one-on-one debate with Mitt Romney. Romney has been so astonishingly inconsistent that he’ll need notes to keep track of his most recent positions.
I actually agree with that statement. What I don’t agree with is the Ryan budget approach, which I don’t consider to be remotely balanced in terms of priorities–not to mention genuinely effective. It’s a right wing political agenda disguised as an effort to balance a budget. I think we have to accept spending cuts across the board and a more progressive schedule of tax rates, if we really want to bring deficits under control and pay down the debt.
If we cannot come to terms on what to cut, I would accept mandating a flat rate cut applying to every federal spending item save interest on the debt, including defense and entitlement programs. That could be put in place and then debate could ensue about exceptions–with the understanding that every exception must be paid for.
@Greg:
Obama used that fallacy as a basis for his rant against Ryan’s budget.
He falsely claimed that ”hundreds” of National Parks would be forced to close because of it.
One tiny problem with such unfounded hyperbola: it is easy to fact-check.
The USA has a grand total of 47 National Parks.
Sort of like when Obama falsely claimed over 10,000 people got killed in tornadoes.
@Greg: Why Greg your comments forget that for TWO years Ds held BOTH the House and the Senate with numbers that could not be overcome by the Republicans and no budget came from Ds during that time.
@Greggie: Still avoiding my question, I see.
Here it is again for you, Greggie:
Come on now, this should be easy. Get off the talking points, and show some real numbers and provide a link to your source.
That seems pretty easy, even for you.
@Greg:
Two things; One, we will see how much truth there is, but not because Obama will be debating Romney(most likely nominee). No, we will see how much truth is in that, as we have now for over three years, on how little grasp Obama actually has of the issues. Talking points are one thing. Responding to ind-depth questions that require one to think on their feet is entirely different.
Two, I could really care less about Romney. He isn’t the candidate I prefer, and against most other possibles, even the ones who dropped out, he comes in last. And you won’t find too many conservatives on here excited about Romney as the nominee, either. So, slam away at him.
It’s not a “right-wing” political agenda, Greg. Did you miss the “extremes” that I detailed? Ryan’s budget is actually somewhere close to the middle of the two, in terms of effectiveness at balancing the budget. That you want to see more tax increases is understandable, considering which way you lean. However, Obama’s proposal(you cannot really call it a budget) doesn’t cut hardly anything, and the things that it does “cut” are items specifically listed within the Constitution that the federal government, through Congress, is responsible to provide.
And that’s where your rhetoric of “balanced approach” falls apart, Greg. You state that you want to see a “balanced approach”, of both cuts and tax hikes, but then you go and support the guy who has virtually no cuts and plenty of tax hikes, and condemn the guys who have what seems to be the opposite. In reality, going off of who you support in this debate, you don’t really want a “balanced approach”, but rather, want to see the “rich” pay for their success. You call it fair. I call it envy.
I challenge you to suggest this at places like DU, HuffPo and the DailyKos. At the least you will be laughed off of the sites, and most likely banned from them. Or, suggest this to your local democrat party people. My guess is they will hem and haw and try to get rid of you as quickly as possible. Why? Because cuts like that, without any guarantee of reapplication of funds for all the pet projects of the liberal/progressives is the reason the Democrat party puts out ads saying the conservatives want to take grandma’s groceries away. Or kill children. Or take away civil rights, as if federal monies is an actual civil right. Or any other such type of ad where conservatives are considered evil for even suggesting cuts.
Not that I don’t agree with it. I think something like that would be a great start towards actually balancing the budget, and even providing a surplus. But there is virtually ZERO possibility of the democrats proposing such a thing. And it’s because of that, that the conservatives are so unwilling to see tax hikes imposed. Because they know that no spending cuts will ever be embraced by the democrats in concert with tax hikes. Tell me I’m wrong.
Some conservatives write tomes, when they could expend their knowledge of a subject to a few sentences. They seem to believe that the more they write, the more proof they have afforded.
It would be wise to familiarize yourselves with the following articles and cited materials therein:
http://www.cps-news.com/?s=ryan%27s+budget+plan
The idea of informed choice is to familiarize oneself with all sides of the argument—not just the conservative or liberal side.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): And your source is just the liberal side, your point?
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Did you or any other liberal actually go to civics class? Your ignorance on the subject matter is astounding. Paul Ryan is the chairman of the House Budget Committee. The job of the budget committee is to set the amount of spending and revenue for the year. That is it. They make suggestions as to how these goals should be met, but that is the extent of their power. The House Ways and Means committee then decides what programs will be cut, funded, increased, and what changes to the tax code if any will be made to comply with the budget.
Maybe you should pick up a tome and do some reading. And while your at it, see if you can find out why the Senate, the democratically controlled Senate, won’t pass a budget.
Here’s a terrific video highlighting how Obama uses EXACTLY the same phrases in his tired rhetoric from one year to the next:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SOx9jtpqA&feature=player_embedded
Note that Obama even stumbles over the same words from year to year!
One of the commentors:
Plug in the TeleprompTer, change the tie on the dummy, put the flags in place, wind up the dummy, flip the switch and let the babble flow.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Obviously you have nothing to contribute.