PDA

View Full Version : The Repulsive, Arrogant Republicans !



Gayle in MD
10-05-2009, 09:24 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


<span style="color: #000066"> </span>An excellent Op-ed that tells it like it really is. A study in the shame of Republican Politics which aim for national failure whenever they lose, bacuse they have made a huge mess of the country. <span style='font-size: 11pt'> </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
KRUGMAN
Published: October 4, 2009


There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.


“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.





</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> </span>Bravo Mr. Krugman! It's not just the truth, it's the shameful truth. <span style='font-size: 17pt'> </span>

Kerbouchard
10-05-2009, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.</div></div>

I sure hope he is right, but in any case, Obama doesn't need the Republicans to try to sink his presidency. He's doing a fine job of that on his own. Obama is without doubt a one term president, and rightfully so.

Thankfully, he has reminded the American Public that the President of the United States needs more experience than being able to run a good campaign.

Sev
10-05-2009, 12:56 PM
No bias at all in that article that I can see. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
10-05-2009, 02:15 PM
Interesting article, except based on a false premise...that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. And they used the exact same type of scare tactics. "Bush wants to take Social Security away from Grandma......"

pooltchr
10-05-2009, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting article, except based on a false premise...that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. And they used the exact same type of scare tactics. "Bush wants to take Social Security away from Grandma......" </div></div>

Ain't it funny how they can find so much fault with Bush, but can't see that the same things are still happening within their own party!

Steve

wolfdancer
10-05-2009, 06:16 PM
Well, finally you admit that Bush/Cheney was corrupt....it's part of the healing process....step 1 of the 12 step deprogramming....
We are keeping a watchful eye on President Obama.....these past 8 years were living proof that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Thank God for term limits)

wolfdancer
10-05-2009, 06:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the President of the United States needs more experience than being able to run a good campaign. </div></div>
It's true that he never was CEO of a company like Harken Oil, never got the people in his home state to build a stadium so that he could mismanage a Baseball franchise, and never smoked cocaine on a regular basis, but he did serve in the Senate....as opposed to say being President of the Screen Actor's Guild

Kerbouchard
10-05-2009, 07:06 PM
I again state, the President needs more experience than being able to run a good campaign.

pooltchr
10-05-2009, 07:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, finally you admit that Bush/Cheney was corrupt.... </div></div>

Who was talking about corruption? I thought we were talking about using scare tactics.
You really should invest is a 3dr grade level reading class...it might help you understand what's going on here.
Steve

Gayle in MD
10-05-2009, 07:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I again state, the President needs more experience than being able to run a good campaign. </div></div>

Yeah, right. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif So far he's shown enough experience to divert the impending BUSH Depression.

Now settling Bush's two unwon wars, may take some time, but Obama has already shown himself to be something other than a Bubba from Texas who makes snap decisions, on gut emotions, sends people to war on fake intelligence, fails, and then escalates the militarily unwinnable war, in spite of it.

Bush and the blank checkers, didn't leave any little problems, just major disasters.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Sev
10-05-2009, 07:50 PM
She came from planet Clare.
I know she came from there.
She drove a Plymouth satellite.

wolfdancer
10-05-2009, 10:35 PM
You seem to attract all the Bubbas here......like moths to a flame.
I don't think they are used to
A) a woman being smarter, and better informed then they are
AND
B) smack talking back at them

Sev
10-06-2009, 05:15 AM
Now thats quite funny.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2009, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You seem to attract all the Bubbas here......like moths to a flame.
I don't think they are used to
A) a woman being smarter, and better informed then they are
AND
B) smack talking back at them
</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">That's pretty obvious, and has been for a long time.

Between what they write here, and what you report to me about their going to other sites to attack me, I'd say their addicted, wouldn't you?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Bubbas of the world: "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!!!!"

</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
10-06-2009, 09:09 AM
Perhaps you should stop taking what Wolfi says at face value and see if you can find any personal attacks against you. If anything the attacks were against him for stirring the pot.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2009, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting article, except based on a false premise...that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. And they used the exact same type of scare tactics. "Bush wants to take Social Security away from Grandma......" </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">You are denying that Bush tried to privatize SS?

You are quite wrong about that. he went all over the country trying to gain support for privatizing SS. Where were you? </span>

Sev
10-06-2009, 09:27 AM
Actually he tried to use FDR's thrift account model.
If was good enough for FDR...............

pooltchr
10-06-2009, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


<span style="color: #000066">You are denying that Bush tried to privatize SS?

You are quite wrong about that. he went all over the country trying to gain support for privatizing SS. Where were you? </span> </div></div>

Actually, what Bush wanted to do was offer everyone the option of allowing the government to handle their SS dollars, or personally take control of it themselves. It has nothing to do with privatizing Social Security.
But anyone who struggles with the difference between profit and margins probably wouldn't understand this concept.
Steve

eg8r
10-06-2009, 01:05 PM
You just never understood what he wanted to do. You had your head in the sand and even now you perpetuate the lie.

eg8r

wolfdancer
10-06-2009, 01:11 PM
Ed....grrr!!!
Down boy, sit.....leave the nice lady alone

Kerbouchard
10-06-2009, 01:18 PM
Even with the 10's of thousands of dollars I have put into Social Security, if I could opt out and forgo any benefits from the money I have paid in, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Privatize Social Security, get rid of it, add an option to opt out...I don't care, but stop friggin stealing money from me.

There is no way anybody under 40 is going to see any money from Social Security, and I wish some politician would at least have the balls to be honest about it.

wolfdancer
10-06-2009, 01:22 PM
wait till I'm gone though, will you.....it's a major part of my income right now, well that and washing car windows on the freeway ramp entrance

Gayle in MD
10-06-2009, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed....grrr!!!
Down boy, sit.....leave the nice lady alone
</div></div>

Just ignore the peanut gallary. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Bush tried to get the country to sink their money in the stock market and give up their SS.

That's called privatizing SS where I come from.

Good thing the Dems stopped him.

Good move.

Clinton stopped the grinch, known as gingrich, another good move.

Republicans have been trying to sink the middle class for decades. The poor, have never even been on their radar.

The right worries about a president talking with school children, but no problemo when the president commits treason.

If these RW nuts weren't so hilariously ignorant, they'd be hilariously entertaining, but instead, they are just fodder to be ignored..

The whole world is meeting to slow up global warming, and cut back on the burning dirty fuel in order to do so, and the knuckle dragging neanderthals, better title than my old one, BTW, anachronistic idiots, are still out there denying it even exists.

Why should we bother even attemptimg any debate with any of them.

I only come here to visit with you, Dick, Martin, Hondo, Mad max, and my other friends, all left, the ones who were actually intelligent. and saw the same realities that we so readily see.

Deeman and Sack, can go either way, depending on how their moods are running, but mostly, they can be intellectually reasonable, unless sack is in one of his nitpicking moods... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Oh well, atleast I'm not out there peddling poll lessons. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

We can surely see how fitting the title of this thread was... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
10-06-2009, 01:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Oh well, atleast I'm not out there peddling poll lessons. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif



</div></div>

You have to actually know something before you can be a teacher.

But another attack from you is no longer unusual. You and your furry friend have nothing else to fall back on.

Steve

wolfdancer
10-08-2009, 03:50 AM
I'm sure that if I wanted to spend/waste the time.... I could find your last 50 posts, and there would be 35 of them where you replied in an insulting manner to someone's post, even someone's bland, benign post (as you did the other day with mine)... take the one I am now replying to ....you are dragging a third party into your reply and insulting them when it is uncalled for, and he probably is a really nice guy, salt of the earth, so to speak; give the gentleman a name so that we can see which innocent party that you are picking on.....
Don't go around trying to paint yourself as a good guy here, when you insult just for the sake of insulting.

Gayle in MD
10-08-2009, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wait till I'm gone though, will you.....it's a major part of my income right now, well that and washing car windows on the freeway ramp entrance </div></div>

LMAO! They don't care if the corporations steal from them, while polluting their air, food, water, and kill our troops with faulty equipment, and elecution showers, and the Pentagon steals multi billions, ever year, and organized religion owns virtual parklands, while paying no taxes, and multi millionaires and billionaires, hide their money offshore, and 2/3 of the corporations don't pay any taxes, and their tax dolars are given to corps. in the form of subsidies and loopholes, but lets get rid of the one program that actualy puts some money back into their greedy little fists!

LMAO!

Kerbouchard
10-08-2009, 07:09 AM
You're right Gayle, I don't care about any of that. I just want old people to starve to death. You figured me out...good job.

Gayle in MD
10-08-2009, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting article, except based on a false premise...that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. And they used the exact same type of scare tactics. "Bush wants to take Social Security away from Grandma......" </div></div>

Wrong again!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/archive_citation.cfm?template=cite_curves_facts_ar chive

Bobbyrx
10-08-2009, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush tried to get the country to sink their money in the stock market and give up their SS.

That's called privatizing SS where I come from.

Good thing the Dems stopped him.

Good move.
</div></div>
Not anymore than Obama is trying to go to a single payer, universal, government run healthcare system.
But I thought you were all about choice.......

Bobbyrx
10-08-2009, 02:47 PM
Interesting article from, as the article itself says, a "liberal leaning think tank'. However there is NOTHING in it that says Bush wanted to privatize social security.

Gayle in MD
10-09-2009, 02:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting article from, as the article itself says, a "liberal leaning think tank'. However there is NOTHING in it that says Bush wanted to privatize social security. </div></div>

Right. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I think an intelligent person would fully understand the article, and a partisan person, would deny what it says.


http://www.ask.com/bar?q=President+Bush+......-a0131049531 (http://www.ask.com/bar?q=President+Bush+wants+to+privatize+Social+Sec urity&page=1&qsrc=19&ab=3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreelibrary.com%2FShould%2BS ocial%2BSecurity%2Bbe%2Bpartly%2Bprivatized%253F%2 BPresident%2BBush%2Bwants%2Bto...-a0131049531)

I could bring up loads of headlines about Bush's goal of privatizing SS, but you'd deny them, also.

You are truly a waste of time.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
10-09-2009, 08:55 AM
What in the world are you talking about. The headline from the link YOU just provided. "President Bush wants to let workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts."
Where does it say Bush wants to privatize social security?It doesn't and he didn't. He wanted to provide people a CHOICE, you know, that thing you said you were always for.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could bring up loads of headlines about Bush's goal of privatizing SS, but you'd deny them, also.
</div></div>
I could bring up loads of headlines about Obama's goal of privatizing healthcare, but you'd deny them also.

Gayle in MD
10-09-2009, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What in the world are you talking about. The headline from the link YOU just provided. "President Bush wants to let workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts."
Where does it say Bush wants to privatize social security?It doesn't and he didn't. He wanted to provide people a CHOICE, you know, that thing you said you were always for.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could bring up loads of headlines about Bush's goal of privatizing SS, but you'd deny them, also.
</div></div>
I could bring up loads of headlines about Obama's goal of privatizing healthcare, but you'd deny them also.

</div></div>
Yeah, yeah, the entire rest of the country was wrong and you are right. The newspapers were full of headlines, about Bush's efforts to privatize social security.


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Two Democratic House members from North Carolina, where Bush made one of his recent visits, remain unconvinced.

"The parallel is spurious," said Rep. David Price. "I think he (Bush) feels he can perpetuate the notion that federal employees are getting some kind of special treatment and that he wants the same for ordinary people, and he's hoping people won't look too closely at the claim."

"The president continues to leave important details out," said Rep. Bob Etheridge. "Americans need to read the fine print on the Thrift Savings Plan and all the aspects of the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>president's privatization blueprint for Social Security." </span>
John Rother, policy director of AARP, the lobbying group for older Americans, said Bush knows "most Americans would love to have what federal employees have, but of course that's not what the president is proposing. He's pointing to the thrift savings part of the plan but not mentioning their regular pension plan and their Social Security benefits that lie underneath it."


</span>
Guess you didn't read the whole thing at all.
Good thing the Dems stopped him, eventhough it didn't help much given he still bankrupted the country by the time we got rid of him.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Chopstick
10-09-2009, 09:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting article from, as the article itself says, a "liberal leaning think tank'. However there is NOTHING in it that says Bush wanted to privatize social security. </div></div>

Right. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I think an intelligent person would fully understand the article, and a partisan person, would deny what it says.

<span style="color: #000099">This is what it says.</span>

<span style="color: #3333FF">"A personal retirement account would earn higher returns than the government-run system, and allow her higher retirement benefits without higher taxes. She wouldn't need to make risky investments: By investing part of her Social Security taxes in government bonds, she could have twice the benefits she's now promised."
</span>

<span style="color: #000099"><span style='font-family: Courier New'>This is absolutely correct. Zero default risk, stabilize long term interest rates, significantly reduce the national debt, immune to fluctuations in the stock market, and most importantly, if SS funds were in bonds, no president would be able to dip into funds for his parties own agenda. What's wrong with that?</span></span>

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=President+Bush+......-a0131049531 (http://www.ask.com/bar?q=President+Bush+wants+to+privatize+Social+Sec urity&page=1&qsrc=19&ab=3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreelibrary.com%2FShould%2BS ocial%2BSecurity%2Bbe%2Bpartly%2Bprivatized%253F%2 BPresident%2BBush%2Bwants%2Bto...-a0131049531)
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
10-09-2009, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Americans need to read the fine print on the Thrift Savings Plan and all the aspects of the president's privatization blueprint for Social Security."
</div></div>

Chopstick
10-09-2009, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Americans need to read the fine print on the Thrift Savings Plan and all the aspects of the president's privatization blueprint for Social Security."
</div></div> </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">They are no longer allowing us to read the bills they are proposing. Don't you think that is odd? They are also refusing to account for the money. Fire them all and start over. That's what I say.</span>

Bobbyrx
10-09-2009, 10:40 AM
Yes I read it all and again, there is nothing about forcing anyone to do anything. It was going to be a choice. You can argue about what the private plan was going to be, but there is no where can you show me it was to be mandatory. Your sources here are house Democrats. Would you like me to quote you Republican congressman regarding Obama's health care plan and use that as my source???

Gayle in MD
10-09-2009, 02:22 PM
I relly don't care who you quote. When Bush was at it, running around the country trying to get support for it, there were a number of journalists and economists who reported on the hidden goals, and the fine print involved.

I had a number of discussions with some of my own friends, who work in the field of economics and in our representative government.

It was an attmpet to funnel money away from SS to the same thieves on Wall Street, who ruined our economy, a plan for privatizing SS....that is what is was called by every major news paper, at the time.

G.

Sev
10-09-2009, 03:16 PM
SS is bankrupt for all intended purposes and has been for quite some time. They move numbers around much like Enron.
The thieves in the government stole it all as soon as it was moved into the general fund. Brilliant move there.

Bobbyrx
10-09-2009, 04:30 PM
But only the people who wanted to, had to "funnel their money to the thieves on Wall Street". No major newspaper said he wanted to privatize social security unless it was in the op/ed page.

Gayle in MD
10-10-2009, 06:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But only the people who wanted to, had to "funnel their money to the thieves on Wall Street". No major newspaper said he wanted to privatize social security unless it was in the op/ed page. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>the president's privatization blueprint for Social Security." </span> </div></div>


Wrong.

pooltchr
10-10-2009, 07:36 PM
Bobby, you might as well give it up. Gayle has made up her mind that Bush wanted to privatize SS, having read it on HuffPo, and no amount of facts will change her mind.

In her mind, private anything is bad, and public everything is good. She says she supports choice, but that is only true if it is a choice the Dem's approve of.

Giving people a choice of how to invest their retirement money is a bad idea. Telling banks to lend money to unqualified consumers is good. The only people she really thinks should have a choice is the government. The rest of us should be good little sheep and go along with the socialization of our country because it's "fair".

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

wolfdancer
10-10-2009, 08:14 PM
and this of course, getting an insulting post in the middle of an exchange between he and Gayle....this doesn't count as just another personal attack post, on your part????????????????????

wolfdancer
10-10-2009, 08:17 PM
didn't make any more sense then the first time you stated it.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again

wolfdancer
10-10-2009, 08:24 PM
b.u.l.l.s.*.i.t.
You were discussing Gayle on your site, and I commented on the unfairness of it, since she has the good brains, not to subject herself to the gang banging, so prevalent over there.
How many Democrats still post there during the latest purge?

Sev
10-10-2009, 08:27 PM
So if it was good enough for FDR why not for Bush??

Sev
10-10-2009, 08:35 PM
I have not discussed Gayle in any way significant on AZ.

There are plenty of opposing views on AZ. Rep, Conservatives, Libertarians, Dems, Marxist, Liberals, Atheists, Jews, Christians etc etc.

Just because you 2 cant take the heat in defending your convictions has nothing to do with me.

I cant help but notice that Twister, Mike and a few others are missing from here. I suppose AZ is responsible for that as well.

Gayle in MD
10-11-2009, 07:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But only the people who wanted to, had to "funnel their money to the thieves on Wall Street". No major newspaper said he wanted to privatize social security unless it was in the op/ed page. </div></div>

Backing off?

How about what a Nobel Prize winning economist said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.
</div></div>

I suppose you righties on here are smarter than Krugman?

No, you just hate him too, like you hate everyone and everything that does not support your twisted views.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
10-11-2009, 07:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and this of course, getting an insulting post in the middle of an exchange between he and Gayle....this doesn't count as just another personal attack post, on your part???????????????????? </div></div>

I don't even have to read it to know it is another prime example of the Bubba learning disability. It's the Fox Flu:

Symptoms:

Spewing hatred and lies laced with sexism, racism, homophobia and overall ignorance, particularly as regards economics, socialism and the United States Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights. All this while stuffing the face and running up health care costs with a big fat pot belly that won't quit! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
10-12-2009, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the president's privatization blueprint for Social Security." </div></div>

LOL, again , this is a quote from a house Democrat. You cannot show me anywhere that Bush said he wanted to privatize social security. From the NYT "I do not favor 'privatization' of Social Security,'' Mr. Bush wrote last month in the AARP Bulletin. "Those workers who do not want a personal account would continue to receive their benefits from the federally administered Social Security system. Even those who choose a personal account would continue to draw traditional Social Security benefits.''

Bobbyrx
10-12-2009, 02:24 PM
Why would I hate Krugman, I don't even know him. The problem with him is 1)Obviously being a Nobel prize winner means nothing as shown last week and 2) his column is under OPINIONS in the NY Times. Opinion has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Bush has never said he wanted to privatize Social Security and you can't show me where he did. All you can give me are left wing opinions. Just like I can't show you where Obama says he wants socialized medicine, because he hasn't said so. Just like Bush, he says he wants to give Americans a choice. But I can give you a ton of right wing opinions that he wants to do so. Both sides play the same game...

wolfdancer
10-12-2009, 02:43 PM
Googling "Bush wants to privatize Social Security" brings up quite a few sites related to that; most noticeably an AFL/CIO site
( I know....unions, you f***en hate them )
GWB and SS (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/ns0205c2002.cfm)
and reading the links, I came across this re: national health insurance:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Progressive magazine’s 100th-anniversary issue, published in April, consists mainly of excerpts from issues in each year since 1909. The entry for January 1917 – nearly 93 years ago – expands the much-disputed definition of “American Exceptionalism.” It begins:

“At present the United States has the unenviable distinction of being the only great industrial nation without universal health insurance.”

The third graf has a particular, um, currency. It begins

“Certain interests which think they would be adversely affected by health insurance have made the specious plea that it is an un-American interference with liberty.”

An estimated 45,000 of our fellow citizens die each year because they are not treated for treatable diseases. They lose their liberty prematurely, utterly, and forever. So the more “un-American interference” there is, the more Americans will survive and thus be enabled to preserve their liberty. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
10-12-2009, 06:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would I hate Krugman, I don't even know him. The problem with him is 1)Obviously being a Nobel prize winner means nothing as shown last week and 2) his column is under OPINIONS in the NY Times. Opinion has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Bush has never said he wanted to privatize Social Security and you can't show me where he did. All you can give me are left wing opinions. Just like I can't show you where Obama says he wants socialized medicine, because he hasn't said so. Just like Bush, he says he wants to give Americans a choice. But I can give you a ton of right wing opinions that he wants to do so. Both sides play the same game... </div></div>

No, both do not play the same game, and Krugman won the Nobel Prize for EONOMICS. Hence, his opinion of the bush's sneaky, underhanded attempt to privatize SS, holds plenty of weight, given his expretise in the field.

The fact that Bush didn't say it, has nothing to do with what he was up to, as the world now knows, you can be sure of that.

And LOLOLOL, the fact that you would use such a ridiculous standard of bush's own word, as a standard for any of his actions, or hidden agendas, is about as funny as it gets, given his onslaught of lies for eight years. Do you think he would have leveled with the Amreican Public about exactly what he was up to?

Bush's words, were never the gold standard for Bush's overt, covert intentions.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
10-13-2009, 08:44 AM
In other words, I have no proof that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, just liberal opinion. You cannot show anything he said or did to prove he wanted to do anything more than give people a choice with their own money. Just use the old " hidden agendas " argument. It was a secret but we know what he really wanted to do. Maybe you should quote Kreskin instead of Krugman. I guess that means I can use the "hidden agendas" argument against anything Obama says or does about health care..........."He didn't say he wanted complete government run health care.....but we know he REALLY does.......it's his H.A."

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In other words, I have no proof that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, just liberal opinion. You cannot show anything he said or did to prove he wanted to do anything more than give people a choice with their own money. Just use the old " hidden agendas " argument. It was a secret but we know what he really wanted to do. Maybe you should quote Kreskin instead of Krugman. I guess that means I can use the "hidden agendas" argument against anything Obama says or does about health care..........."He didn't say he wanted complete government run health care.....but we know he REALLY does.......it's his H.A." </div></div>

Your statements are not factual.

Krugman isn't the only economist who studied the entire plan, and said it was an effort to privatize Social Secutrity.

It was an accepted fact, by not only journalists, who wrote against the effort, but also acknowledged by many economists.

Secondly, Obama never said hwat or how he intended to reform health care, only that we must address the rising health care costs that are unsustainable.

Even in his last speech, he left to door open for the congress to come up with a viable plan for reform.

Given the number of bankruptsey's due to rising health care costs, and the onslaught of the Republican policies which have driven down the wages of the Middle Class, and the doubling of Health Insurance costs since 2001, Republicans who have consistantly blocked any progress will only be supported by their radical right wing, people like you, most of whom refuse to do their homework on any given subject.

Obama hasn't lied our country into a war, which costs thousands of American lives.

There is really no comparison between Bush's lies, and Obama's policies, which have sought for bi-partisanship, from an oppossing party which blocks any effort to improve health care, and works only to provide the Health Insruance Industry coverage to continue to gouge the hell out of Americans for their Health care insurance.

Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Doesn't really matter to me what you think about it, that's what he did. He also lied us into a war of choice, which has put our country at far greater risk, and enhanced the power of our enemies.

I'm sure you deny that, also, although our own National Security Estimates, over the last five years, proves it to be so.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
10-13-2009, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your statements are not factual </div></div>
You have not shown otherwise.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Krugman isn't the only economist who studied the entire plan, and said it was an effort to privatize Social Secutrity. It was an accepted fact, by not only journalists, who wrote against the effort, but also acknowledged by many economists.
</div></div>
And it was as accepted fact, by not only journalists, who wrote FOR the plan, but also acknowledged by many economists, that it was NOT an effort to FORCE people out of social security.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Secondly, Obama never said hwat or how he intended to reform health care, only that we must address the rising health care costs that are unsustainable. </div></div>
He never mentioned public option????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even in his last speech, he left to door open for the congress to come up with a viable plan for reform.
</div></div>
By your argument, what Obama says does not matter. It's his "hidden agenda" that matters. Bush said in every speech he gave on social security, that the private account would be a choice.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Doesn't really matter to me what you think about it, that's what he did. </div></div>
Yor are right, it doesn't matter what I think about it. It also doesn't matter that you have provided no evidence exept left wing OPINION. I can give a zillion pages of right wing OPINION that Obama wants socialized medicine. The whole point is that I can say the same thing about Obama and health care as you can say about Bush and Social Security. Both sides play the fear game. Republicans want destroy social security and Democrats want to take your doctor away and have government control all of health care.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama hasn't lied our country into a war, which costs thousands of American lives. </div></div>
And this has what do to with social security?

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your statements are not factual </div></div>
You have not shown otherwise.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Krugman isn't the only economist who studied the entire plan, and said it was an effort to privatize Social Secutrity. It was an accepted fact, by not only journalists, who wrote against the effort, but also acknowledged by many economists.
</div></div>
And it was as accepted fact, by not only journalists, who wrote FOR the plan, but also acknowledged by many economists, that it was NOT an effort to FORCE people out of social security.


<span style="color: #000066"> I have read the statements that his real goal was to privatize from both the left and the right, economists from both, who studied the plan.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Secondly, Obama never said that, or how he intended to reform health care, only that we must address the rising health care costs that are unsustainable. </div></div>
He never mentioned public option????

<span style="color: #000066">No, not during his campaign. Only that he wanted to REFORM Health Care. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even in his last speech, he left to door open for the congress to come up with a viable plan for reform.
</div></div>
By your argument, what Obama says does not matter. It's his "hidden agenda" that matters. Bush said in every speech he gave on social security, that the private account would be a choice.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Doesn't really matter to me what you think about it, that's what he did. </div></div>
Yor are right, it doesn't matter what I think about it. It also doesn't matter that you have provided no evidence exept left wing OPINION. I can give a zillion pages of right wing OPINION that Obama wants socialized medicine. The whole point is that I can say the same thing about Obama and health care as you can say about Bush and Social Security.

<span style="color: #000066">You can say it, but the expert opinions are on my side, from both the left and many right side experts in the field of economics, who studied the plan. </span>

Both sides play the fear game. Republicans want destroy social security and Democrats want to take your doctor away and have government control all of health care.

<span style="color: #000066">That is a lie. Americans are being driven into bankruptsey with 62% of bankruptsey's due to health care costs, and health insurance companies dropping them, or refusing to cover them, which is at the crux of the problem.

Americans fear of health costs is reasonable, and no one has to sell them on it, it just is what it is. it is something that nearly 70 percent of Americans wanted during the campaign. Costs have doubled Since 2001, and now, we have the insurance industry promising to push them even higher, if our government addresses their preventive methods on the ability of Americans to get dependable health coverage.

Nothing being planned puts the government in charge of the actual care.

no one has a bill forcing Americans to drop their current coverage.

</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama hasn't lied our country into a war, which costs thousands of American lives. </div></div>
And this has what do to with social security?




</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">Very simple, Republican launched that war on fear, just as they have used fear to destroy our opportunities to refor health care, even though most predictions are that it will double again during the next ten years.

Republicans, spreading fear about death panels, and socialism, and government running health care, all lies, all fear mongering.

G. </span>

eg8r
10-13-2009, 03:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very simple, Republican launched that war on fear, </div></div>Is that like Obama launching this war on the health insurance industry based on fear?

eg8r

Bobbyrx
10-13-2009, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very simple, Republican launched that war on fear, just as they have used fear to destroy our opportunities to refor health care, even though most predictions are that it will double again during the next ten years.

Republicans, spreading fear about death panels, and socialism, and government running health care, all lies, all fear mongering.
</div></div>
The same way the Dems killed the chance to choose to invest your own money (that the government takes from you without a choice) the way you want to or to leave it alone like it is now. THAT was the plan. How can you blame the Republicans on health care reform failure? The Dems can pass health care reform by themselves, regardless of what the Reps say. They have only themselves to blame.....

wolfdancer
10-13-2009, 07:43 PM
"Jesus saves, Moses invests"
An old saying about Robert Moses, NYS controversial.... planner, visionary.
Investing in the market....there is a winner and a loser in every trade. It could be 1929 redux as the prices would rise and fall dramatically, not based on any fundamentals.
Sad fact is that families have many unexpected expenses, emergencies, and the greater part of the population, could not save up for their retirement....and you guys are also against these "unfair to corporations" pension plans, that have been negotiated and won by unions....
AND you are now trying to compare that to a national health care plan..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif WTF??

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 10:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SS is bankrupt for all intended purposes and has been for quite some time. They move numbers around much like Enron.
The thieves in the government stole it all as soon as it was moved into the general fund. Brilliant move there. </div></div>



Summary
A new health care ad from a conservative group claims that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years." That gives a false impression. The program does have huge financial problems, but there’s no reason to think it’s going out of business as the word "bankrupt" implies. And the issue isn’t new:

A government report the ad refers to says the trust fund for one part of Medicare – hospital insurance – won’t have enough money to pay all benefits in 2017. Medicare’s physician and drug benefits will "remain adequately financed," says the report.
Government projections have found that the hospital insurance trust fund would face a shortfall "almost from its inception," according to the Congressional Research Service. But in many cases politicians have found ways to extend it. In 1970, for instance, the trust fund was expected to be insolvent in 1972.
The ad also claims that "some want to pay for health care reform with $500 billion dollars in Medicare spending cuts." Actually, the House health care bill, to which this refers, proposes a net cut in spending of $219 billion over 10 years.

Analysis
The conservative group Americans for Prosperity has released a new 60-second ad through its Patients First project. The ad, which features a family doctor, Dr. Amy Siems, talking to viewers, recycles a few misleading talking points against health care legislation in Congress, but includes a new claim that is quite startling. Dr. Siems says that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years."

Browse &gt; Home / Articles / Going Out of Business?
Going Out of Business?
A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years.
October 7, 2009

Summary
A new health care ad from a conservative group claims that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years." That gives a false impression. The program does have huge financial problems, but there’s no reason to think it’s going out of business as the word "bankrupt" implies. And the issue isn’t new:

A government report the ad refers to says the trust fund for one part of Medicare – hospital insurance – won’t have enough money to pay all benefits in 2017. Medicare’s physician and drug benefits will "remain adequately financed," says the report.
Government projections have found that the hospital insurance trust fund would face a shortfall "almost from its inception," according to the Congressional Research Service. But in many cases politicians have found ways to extend it. In 1970, for instance, the trust fund was expected to be insolvent in 1972.
The ad also claims that "some want to pay for health care reform with $500 billion dollars in Medicare spending cuts." Actually, the House health care bill, to which this refers, proposes a net cut in spending of $219 billion over 10 years.

Analysis
The conservative group Americans for Prosperity has released a new 60-second ad through its Patients First project. The ad, which features a family doctor, Dr. Amy Siems, talking to viewers, recycles a few misleading talking points against health care legislation in Congress, but includes a new claim that is quite startling. Dr. Siems says that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years."



⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏


American’s For Prosperity Ad
"Dr. Siems"

Dr. Amy Siems: I’ve been a family doctor for 18 years and I’m concerned that some in Washington are making plans that could lead to government control of many Americans’ health care. I think that’s dangerous. Bureaucrats should never be able to deny or delay the care that doctors provide. And if the government starts to take over health care, your choices could be reduced. Health care could be rationed. Quality would suffer. Washington already controls Medicare and Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years. Despite this looming bankruptcy, some want to pay for health care reform with $500 billion dollars in Medicare spending cuts. And look at Canada and England where government controls health care. Patients wait up to a year for vital surgeries. Delays that could be deadly. So instead of forcing Americans into the kind of health care system that has already failed, Washington needs to fix Medicare first.

Narrator: Learn more at JoinPatientsfirst.com

Siems: Government should never come between your family and your doctor.



Bankrupt? Within a Decade?


Yikes. Quite a scary claim to make about a program that encompasses 16 percent of the federal budget and benefits 45 million Americans. But the word "bankrupt" is far too strong to accurately describe Medicare’s problems.

The AFP/Patients First ad points to a government report as the source of its claim, and that report does say Medicare’s "[p]rojected long run program costs are not sustainable," and that its problems are even more severe than those of Social Security. The report says further that the trust fund for one part of Medicare – hospital insurance – is projected to be insolvent in 2017, and calls that "an urgent concern." But that’s not the same thing as being "bankrupt," and it only applies to one of four distinct parts of the overall Medicare program. As the Social Security Administration explains:

Hospital insurance (Part A) pays for inpatient hospital services, skilled nursing facility care and hospice care.
Medical insurance (Part B) covers physician services and medical supplies not paid for by Part A.
Medicare Advantage (Part C) is an option to receive benefits through a private insurance company.
Part D is Medicare’s prescription drug coverage.
The ad refers to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees 2009 Annual Report, which indeed makes some dire predictions for Medicare Part A, the segment that’s in danger of running out of money. Part A relies primarily on payroll taxes and its trust fund, or reserves, to pay for benefits. Parts B and D, meanwhile, funded by general revenues and monthly premiums, "are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future," according to the report. (The trust fund for those segments, though, "will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.")

Funds for Part A will only be able to pay 81 percent of the projected spending in 2017, and less each year after that, according to the trustees’ estimates:

Trustees Report: The projected date of HI [Hospital Insurance]Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017, two years earlier than in last year’s report, when dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected HI dedicated revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing margins in all future years.

The report goes on to say that the HI trust fund "could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years" by either significantly increasing the payroll tax which funds it, cutting spending by half, or a combination of those measures. "Larger changes would be required to make the program solvent beyond the 75-year horizon," the report says.

But warnings of depleting the HI trust fund aren’t new. In a 2008 report, the Congressional Research Service wrote that "almost from its inception, the HI trust fund has faced a projected shortfall. The insolvency date has been postponed a number of times, primarily due to legislative changes which had the effect of restraining growth in program spending." Indeed, a 1983 report from the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging forecasted that:

Senate Special Committee on Aging, 1983 report: Balances in the HI trust fund are projected to be exhausted during 1987. Though the HI balance was a substantial $18.7 billion at the end of 1981, borrowing by the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund (OASI) reduced the HI balance to $8.3 billion at the end of 1982. … This already low balance is projected to decline slowly through 1986 and rapidly in ensuing years, as outlays exceed income by a widening margin.

And that is hardly the only year in which a government report projected shortfalls just around the corner, as this table, re-created from a CRS report, makes clear:

See Chart:http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/going-out-of-business/

And that is hardly the only year in which a government report projected shortfalls just around the corner, as this table, re-created from a CRS report, makes clear:



We don’t mean to say that the projections about the future of the HI trust fund shouldn’t be taken seriously, or that Medicare in general isn’t facing long-term funding issues. But it’s not going to be “bankrupt in eight years.”

The Obama administration has commented on the trustees report several times. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called it “a wake up call for everyone who is concerned about Medicare and the health of our economy,” adding that “it’s yet another sign that we can’t wait for real, comprehensive health reform.” And the administration has put forth proposals that it says will extend the life of the trust fund by several years.

We can’t predict whether the Obama administration and Congress will find a way to save the HI trust fund yet again, but judging from the political past, it seems likely.

At the point where the hospital insurance trust fund is expected to run dry in 2017, the current payroll tax is estimated to cover only 81 percent of the projected outlays (compared to 88 percent this year), and less each year after that. In the past, scheduled depletions have been offset by a combination of increased taxes and other funding, as well as decreased payouts. The original HI tax rate was 0.35 percent in 1966 and increased steadily over the next three decades. It is now 1.45 percent on all covered earnings, and both the employee and the employer pay it. Hospitals, meanwhile, accept Medicare payments that are about 68 percent of what private insurance pays, according to the Lewin Group, and in July, hospitals agreed to cutting $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years, primarily through adjusting annual payment increases.

Other Claims

We’ve examined ads from Patients First and its parent group, Americans for Prosperity, before, and they’ve put forth the same straw man argument: that Congress wants a Canadian- or British-style health care system. As we’ve pointed out in several articles, that’s not what the legislation in Congress would set up. As evidence, the back-up for this ad includes a column in the Tucson Citizen that repeats falsehoods we’ve already debunked about the stimulus bill, which was passed in February.

The group’s support also includes several articles about patients in Canada waiting for specialist appointments, MRIs and even surgeries. It’s Dr. Siems’ opinion that this amounts to a “system that has already failed.” Others would disagree, such as a Canadian scientist quoted in a 2007 article that’s among the group’s back-up: " ‘Canada is not a medical utopia, as some would have you believe, or a disaster, as others claim,’ said Jack Tu, a senior scientist at the Toronto-based Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and co-author of a recent study on waiting times. ‘Most people get care in a reasonable amount of time. What you hear about are the horror stories.’ "

But a debate on whether or not the system has “failed” north of our border is irrelevant. The health care legislation in Congress doesn’t amount to “forcing Americans” into such a system, anyway.

The doctor in the ad also says that "some want to pay for health care reform with $500 billion in Medicare spending cuts.” But that’s more than double the net amount the House legislation proposes to save from Medicare. It’s true that the House health care bill calls for getting $500 billion in savings out of Medicare, but its substantial increases in Medicare spending reduce the net amount cut from the program to $219 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Neither SS or Medicare are bankrupt! </span>

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 10:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very simple, Republican launched that war on fear, just as they have used fear to destroy our opportunities to refor health care, even though most predictions are that it will double again during the next ten years.

Republicans, spreading fear about death panels, and socialism, and government running health care, all lies, all fear mongering.
</div></div>
The same way the Dems killed the chance to choose to invest your own money (that the government takes from you without a choice) the way you want to or to leave it alone like it is now. THAT was the plan. How can you blame the Republicans on health care reform failure? The Dems can pass health care reform by themselves, regardless of what the Reps say. They have only themselves to blame..... </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">The process is on-going. It is still a process, and no bill is settled.

The Republicans are obviously blocking it, when the Democratics gave them 180 of their amendments, and they still voted in a block, against it.


Check out their ovtes in years past. They have ALWAYS blocked health care reform. Since the Reagan administration launched the "Hate your Government" campaign, republicans block everything that is for the common man, and change the rules to advance the interests of the wealthy.

That is why every time Republicans get power, the chasm between the wealth of the rich and the wealth of the Middle Class, grows wider. Then the economy begins to slide, because they cut taxes, grow government, and spend like Imelda Marcos on crack!
G. </span>