• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ultimate lesson of the 2012 Presidential election

solletica said:
To a conservative, "shaping" the news means revealing any information not approved by rush, and/or the speeches at GOP private fundraisers.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. And silly too. And unimaginative. (Trotting out Rush Limbaugh is sad.) You are surely aware of how brazen the NY Times bias toward John Kerry was. And you are surely aware of Arthur Brisbane's comments on "overloved and undermanaged" causes championed by the old gray skank.

If you aren't, here's a fact that you should know: "Ninety-five percent of congressional staff members believe that political bias in the media influences or shapes decision-making in Congress."

Survey: 95% of Hill staffers see media bias - POLITICO.com
 
tererun said:
true, but hen you cut taxes for the one percent you do not create the demand you do when you cut it for the middle or poor classes. Romney wants to cut it for the one percent while raising it on the 99 percent. It makes more economical sense if you are going to cut taxes to cut it for the middle and lower classes as the money will be spent and actually get to the rich.
Click to expand...

Romney wants to cut the tax rate. That is very different from "cutting taxes." His plan is to reform the tax code. I think the mistake he's made is not to be absolutely crystal on how he intends to do that.

First those are 2 different problems. The programs are good, but they need better accountability. I would most certainly vote for stricter oversight, more specific benefits, and harsher punishment for fraud. I am not willing to say just because someone screwed them up that we should just get rid of the things that right now are holding up our economy. I would also like to note that those changes are happening. With the advancements of technology there has been much more control placed on the welfare system and I am all for more happening to make sure the money is being spent on the right things.

Our government has to start clamping down medical costs. They are high because there are no restrictions and it is a necessity for survival. It does not need to be so costly. If you want to allow the free market to gouge money off an Iphone that people do not need to survive i am cool with that. When you allow the medical industry to hold people and through them the government hostage for overpriced medicine then the government needs to step in and cap costs, or at least negotiate a lesser cost for their bulk purchases. That isn't being done because it will cost them their lobby money.

That is the end result of what you are suggesting, unless you are encouraging crime. You take an old or disabled person's social security from them and if they do not have savings they will starve to death and die. They simply are at the point they cannot work. I am simply following your suggestion to it's logical conclusion since money does not fall from heaven. please do not blame me because you now feel guilty because you had to face the inevitable conclusion to cutting off social programs in an economy without the jobs to cover the people.
Click to expand...

No, actually that's not it. If the government truly wanted to "contain medical costs," the first thing that would happen is that a mandatory $1,000 deductible (or some-such) would be put into place. For the poor on Medicaid, the $1,000 would be in the form of a Health Savings Account. $1,000 they would either keep or use to fund their sore-throat trips to the emergency room.

It would become mandatory that doctors and hospitals publish their price lists so that people could comparison shop before spending their $1,000 deductible.

The government would block the AMA's efforts to stop small clinics from opening staffed by Nurse Practitioners under the supervision of an MD.

They would shorten patent protections on priority drugs. They would push the AMA to change protocols on terminal illness treatment.

There are a myriad of things the government could do to "contain healthcare costs." Setting up the AHA isn't one of them. That will do nothing to lower the cost of healthcare bottom line.

I am sure you think so because I make you feel guilty. I should not remind you of the end result of cutting off the only income many elderly or disabled have. I should not remind you of the effect of denying the sick medical care. It reminds you that there is a reason we do those things. It is not because we all hope to someday live on the government dime, but that we hope if our life ever comes to those points there is something there for us when we cannot make our own. No one wishes to be disabled or have to live on welfare, but when they are down they do wish there was something there to help them. If it is so damned great go live off of it. If it is so easy and free go do it. You don't do it because it is not easy.

No, I think because they try to deny the effects of cutting programs that help defenseless and sick people they are sociopaths. I think because they seem to take great joy from trying to do it that they are sociopaths. You are not taking responsibility for your actions. That is the problem. if you came out and said the hell with the elderly, sick, disabled, and poor I would know you understand that cutting them off is something you have at least thought through to the point of recognizing what happens to them. You have not done that. You cannot even accept that your own claims we cannot afford them are basically sentencing them to a painful death if we follow your guys ideas. I just chose to have the programs in place despite the abuses, and hope for them to be corrected to be as efficient as possible because I see the need for them, and have compassion for the people who receive them and need them. You don't get to come here and tell me how compassionate you are when you are telling people to screw off and die.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I haven't endorsed cutting Social Security or Medicare. That is a figment of someone's imagination -- that would be yours. If these programs are going to be in place? Then people should have to pay for them. They should make economic sense from Day One. Where am I "telling people to screw off and die"? You are high on something, yes?

We need Social Security. We need Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment/Section 8 Housing Support/all the rest. I'm not for cutting even ONE of these programs. I'm for means testing them . . . for up-charging depending upon assets as well as income.

Anecdotal information: An 83-year-old guy with $1.5 million in assets for whom the government is subsidizing his Medicare costs because that subsidy is available without regard to assets. It's income that counts. All of his money is in tax-free annuities so it appears he subsists of his Social Security income and yearly disbursements from his IRA accounts. Well, he does. THAT, along with the $85,000 in cash he has hidden in his home. Workin' the system.

Anecdotal information: An anesthesiologist who had a heart attack at age 31 in the Operating Room. He went on disability through an insurance policy he'd purchased as well as Social Security Disability. He spends his days water skiing, snow skiing, sailing . . . owns two homes, one in Illinois, one on a lake in Wisconsin. He hasn't worked a day in 25 years. Could he work? Of course. He could teach, he could do a billion different things. In fact, he got SO bored, he worked at his local bank as a loan officer -- without pay. But somehow, because his heart attack precludes his being able to work in an OR? He is on total SS Disability. What the **** kind of sense does that make? Workin' the system.

Anecdotal information: A shirt-tail family member whose granddaughter had a baby and signed over her parental rights to her grandparents. (Father did the same, after a court fight.) They adopted her. They had him tested and declared ADHD, so, as part of the adoption process, the state agreed to pay for special schooling/childcare to the tune of $600/month. There is nothing wrong with that little boy. AND, the grandfather is 74 years old. When he dies, or grandmother dies, Social Security will be ponying up a monthly stipend until he's 18 or older. Workin' the system.

Anecdotal information: My cousin divorced his wife. They had a little girl. They both agreed to sign off on parental rights so his mother could care for her. She was a widow. She received Social Security benefits for this little girl until my aunt passed away . . . then it was upped . . . the little girl was 12 at that time. So. My cousin took her in (her real father) and was paid by the government until the little girl was 18 -- to raise his own child. Was he poor? Nope. He has a beautiful home and a great job. Workin' the system.

So. Do I want to take one thin dime from people who need it? No, I sure don't. In fact, I'd like to see them get more. But the programs are so filthy dirty, they need a complete overhaul.

So all your sociopathic bull****? Is just exactly that.
 
solletica said:
:rolleyes: that has to be the silliest post ever in debatepolitics.

selling books due to one's marketability, even if the marketability has to do one's political status, is still free-enterprise, as opposed to getting bailout money from the feds.

Nevertheless, always fun to watch these conservative posters squirm in desperation. Looks like they need to consult their prophet for more guidance. . .

220px-rush_limbaugh.jpg
Click to expand...

I know him wasn't he arrested for felony possession and then promised to leave the country if Obama won in 08. Yeah thats him
 
nota bene said:
Incorrect. And silly too. And unimaginative. (Trotting out Rush Limbaugh is sad.) You are surely aware of how brazen the NY Times bias toward John Kerry was. And you are surely aware of Arthur Brisbane's comments on "overloved and undermanaged" causes championed by the old gray skank.

If you aren't, here's a fact that you should know: "Ninety-five percent of congressional staff members believe that political bias in the media influences or shapes decision-making in Congress."

Survey: 95% of Hill staffers see media bias - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

Conservatives are accusing the whole media of being shaped, not just one newspaper, and that accusation is completely bogus.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am curious what part of the libertarian message does Obama cater to. Dems win by telling losers that they should remain losers
Click to expand...
Largely on the "social" side, although immigration obviously, too.

Although "libertarian" isn't the only factor that drives me. I also happen to be pro-Enlightenment and that effectively puts me at diametrical odds with the GOP these days. :(

Sadly, for people with a libertarian lean it is mostly a "pick your poison" buffet at the moment among the two main parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom