Example of Ryan’s Acumen on Health Care – “Hiding spending does not reduce spending.”

Via Andrew Malcolm at Investors Business Daily. Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan directly takes on President Obama and explains how his health care reform cost more–not save–money thanks to double-counting and other gimmicks.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sammy in Arizona
Sammy in Arizona
9 years ago

The deficit hawk, Paul Ryan voted for almost every budget busting house bill since 1999. Including the vote for the largest entitlement expansion in 50 years, medicare part D, (with the GOP amendment that makes it illegal for the government to negotiate for lower drug prices) also the infamous Republican “Bridge to Nowhere” trillion dollar wars in Afghanistan and Iraq . Ryan also voted for the Wall Street bailout and the bailout of GM and Chrysler.
All financed mostly by the good folks in China

Max D
Max D
9 years ago

In other words, Sammy inadvertently acknowledges Ryan’s analysis to be accurate but…(cut & paste Sammy’s canned left wing drop speech).

Dan
Dan
9 years ago

Sammy the Democratic Troll has a new target, it seems. At least it gives us a break from his anti-Romney spam. Obama paying you yet, Sammy?

OldTimeLefty
9 years ago

Sammy brings up valid arguments which neither predictable Dan nor MaxD can refute so they substitute invective for argument.
Ryan did indeed vote for:
1. The largest entitlement expansion in 50 years, medicare part D, (with the GOP amendment that makes it illegal for the government to negotiate for lower drug prices)
2. The infamous Republican “Bridge to Nowhere”
3. Trillion dollar wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
4. The Wall Street bailout and
5. The bailout of GM and Chrysler.
Disingenuous Dan and MaxD make no attempt to refute or explain these undeniable facts.
Libertarian Dan might also want to explain how Ryan’s attempt to put the government between a woman and her body dovetails with Free Wheelin’ Dan’s ideas on keeping government out of people’s lives.
Two bit sarcasm from two people who have nothing to say, and who say it very loudly.
OldTimeLefty
OldTimeLefty

Dan
Dan
9 years ago

OTL – That’s really rich. If I saw any actual substance in one of your posts, I would have a heart attack from surprise. You contribute nothing of value to any discussion. It seems that cutting and pasting partisan campaign talking points on any candidate from the other side is valuable content in your view. Not in mine.
Why should I defend Ryan? He has paid people to do that for him. Do you see me on here campaigning for him or supporting him in any way? You must have me confused with a brain-dead partisan troll like Sammy.

Sammy in Arizona
Sammy in Arizona
9 years ago

substitute invective for argument.
Posted by OldTimeLefty at August 16,
That’s all they’ve got
sticks and stones…..Sammy

OldTimeLefty
9 years ago

Dan,
Let’s see how this works. Sammy posts some comments; you respond by calling Sammy a name.
I reiterate Sammy’s post, asking you to explain why you name call and avoid rational argument. You reply by asking why you should defend Ryan since he has paid people to do it for him. If you don’t need to help poor old Pablo, why did you see fit to attack Sammy for posting some questions about Senor Ryan’s confused voting habits?
Come on Dan, say something or shut up. Invective does not substitute for argument.
OldTimeLefty
OldTimeLefty

Dan
Dan
9 years ago

OTL – Sammy’s comments are but a part of a long-running pattern of trolling on this website. The fact that his comments concern Ryan in this case is incidental – literally every comment he makes on this blog is attacking a different Republican politician or a random controversial figure he picks out of a hat for the day. If we spent any significant time addressing all of Sammy’s trolls about various “conservative” individuals, most of whom we care very little about, then we would be doing nothing else. You’re simply using him as a platform of convenience here for the purpose of “scoring points.” Anyone remotely honest about the situation would instantly recognize the antagonistic game Sammy plays again and again after he has been called out for what he is. I’ve never shied away from a legitimate argument, but you and Sammy consistently have none to offer. Quote another silly poem for us now and tell yourself again how we’re all too dimwitted to recognize your deep level of insight.

Max D
Max D
9 years ago

1. The largest entitlement expansion in 50 years, medicare part D, (with the GOP amendment that makes it illegal for the government to negotiate for lower drug prices) – Mr. Biden: Yea
2. The infamous Republican “Bridge to Nowhere” – Mr. Biden: Yea, Mr. Obama: Yea
3. Trillion dollar wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. – Mr. Biden: Yea
4. The Wall Street bailout and – Mr. Biden: Yea
5. The bailout of GM and Chrysler. – Mr. Biden: Yea (Lets not forget, TARP wasn’t originally passed to bailout GM & Chrysler)
So what’s your point?

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.