PDA

View Full Version : Santorum



llotter
01-04-2012, 07:58 PM
Once Santorum spends a few days in the limelight, his star should fall as rapidly as it rose. His big-spending record has not been exposed because of his former low status but hopefully, the public will recognize that my man, Rick Perry is the right guy for the job.

pooltchr
01-04-2012, 09:12 PM
I don't think Santorum has the money to take his campaign very far into the race. Perry may be the biggest challenge to Mitt.

Steve

hondo
01-05-2012, 12:18 AM
I heard Perry is dropping out.

Qtec
01-05-2012, 01:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but hopefully, the public will recognize that my man, Rick Perry is the right guy for the job. </div></div>

Don't hold your breath. LOL

Q......Rick ' oops' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvmKnFY4uk) Perry for Pres?

Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard Perry is dropping out. </div></div>

I think he got a big secret check from the Koch PIGS, and changed his mind, over the course of a couple of hours, he dicided he wasn't going to go home and talk to God, afterall, LMAO!

Oh, and God told Bachmann to get her ass out of the primary. But her dictating, feminine, flabby humongous hubby had to go shop for doggie sun glasses before she could get her backside out of town.

Guess she had to run home and make sure her farm subsidy check came in from the big bad government.

BWA HA HA HA!

God told Bush to go kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, women and children, and American Troops, all for no bid contracts for Halliburton, and the Bush Family/bin Laden, Carlyle group.

Gee, what's wrong with that God, anyway?

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

LWW
01-05-2012, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard Perry is dropping out. </div></div>

I heard Obama is dropping LSD.

eg8r
01-05-2012, 06:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once Santorum spends a few days in the limelight, his star should fall as rapidly as it rose.</div></div>So you are saying he is going to be exactly like every other Rep candidate not named Romney?

eg8r

llotter
01-05-2012, 07:12 PM
I am saying that his record of conservatism is full of holes. He was a supporter of all the big spending of GWB to record deficits. He supported the re-election of Senator Specter, a very leftist Republican against a good conservative challenger. He also supports a more liberal challenger of a seated conservative, Senator Smith, in NH.

While I strongly agree with Santorum's conservative record on social issues, we are now on a ruinous course toward bankruptcy thanks to unchecked spending of big government supporters in both parties. I hope we don't elect another one.

eg8r
01-05-2012, 07:33 PM
My point is that I don't think it matters at this point. It seems that Romney is skating by because all the candidates are just spending their money attacking Romney's challengers. As they rise they fall just as quickly.

I don't think Perry has a chance because he is on the wrong side of the "Bush" people. They have lots of money and will use it against Perry through the nomination. If he gets lucky enough to survive and win the nomination then he will have their support but at that point they will have spent so much money pushing out skeletons that Obama won't have to spend a dime drudging any of it up. He can just keep repeating, lie or not.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-13-2012, 07:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am saying that his record of conservatism is full of holes. He was a supporter of all the big spending of GWB to record deficits. He supported the re-election of Senator Specter, a very leftist Republican against a good conservative challenger. He also supports a more liberal challenger of a seated conservative, Senator Smith, in NH.

While I strongly agree with Santorum's conservative record on social issues, we are now on a ruinous course toward bankruptcy thanks to unchecked spending of big government supporters in both parties. I hope we don't elect another one. </div></div>

We've seen your prediction come true at this point, apparently.

However, while I think the points about supporting non-conservatives over conservatives are true, I don't think the criticism of him on fiscal policy is so reasonable. They ARE true as well, but I'm just wondering who among the current or recent GOP membership in the Congress this side of Ron Paul (and now, maybe his son, Rand) would meet your standard?

Or is that the point you're really raising? That nobody in the Congressional crop of Republicans is really a fiscal conservative, either?

llotter
01-14-2012, 06:41 AM
A defining issue was the Medicare Drug plan that passed in 2003. There were only 9 Republican senators voting against, along with 25 in the House. This marked the first Republican plan to increase 'entitlements' and it is a black mark on the Party, at least until it is undone. Of course there were other non-conservative spending programs such as the No Child Left Behind that many Republicans signed onto that are now helping us over the economic cliff.

So yes, the pickin's are slim when it comes to finding true conservatives among the current legislators but there are a few and the Tea Party influence has had a positive effect on that number.

LWW
01-14-2012, 06:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A defining issue was the Medicare Drug plan that passed in 2003. There were only 9 Republican senators voting against, along with 25 in the House. This marked the first Republican plan to increase 'entitlements' and it is a black mark on the Party, at least until it is undone. Of course there were other non-conservative spending programs such as the No Child Left Behind that many Republicans signed onto that are now helping us over the economic cliff.

So yes, the pickin's are slim when it comes to finding true conservatives among the current legislators but there are a few and the Tea Party influence has had a positive effect on that number. </div></div>

Quite true ... and prove that Bush was a leftist, to the point that if he had bore the golden (D) he would be on Mt Rushmore by now.

Qtec
01-14-2012, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A defining issue was the Medicare Drug plan that passed in 2003. There were only 9 Republican senators voting against, along with 25 in the House. This marked the first Republican plan to increase 'entitlements' </div></div>

It has been described as the worst piece of legislation ever, and a massive give away to special interests.

Q

LWW
01-14-2012, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A defining issue was the Medicare Drug plan that passed in 2003. There were only 9 Republican senators voting against, along with 25 in the House. This marked the first Republican plan to increase 'entitlements' </div></div>

It has been described as the worst piece of legislation ever, and a massive give away to special interests.

Q </div></div>

By who?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOW you should provide a link moron</span>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>


Or do you honestly expect to be taken at your word?

LWW
01-14-2012, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A defining issue was the Medicare Drug plan that passed in 2003. There were only 9 Republican senators voting against, along with 25 in the House. This marked the first Republican plan to increase 'entitlements' </div></div>

It has been described as the worst piece of legislation ever, and a massive give away to special interests.

Q </div></div>

Possibly ... just not by anyone who isn't a spoon fed hyper-partisan agitprop agent.

Back where the air is thick:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all the wrangling over health care policy this year, Americans are craving evidence that it's possible to make the system more accessible and affordable. A new survey demonstrates that such evidence does, in fact, exist--in the form of a Medicare prescription drug program known as Medicare Part D.

The poll, commissioned by the nonpartisan Medicare Today coalition, surveyed seniors who participate in Medicare Part D. And the results show overwhelming approval.

The landmark legislation that created Part D was passed by Congress in 2003 with bipartisan support. It was the first major overhaul of Medicare in 35 years, and it offered a much-needed benefit to seniors struggling to pay for their prescriptions.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Six years later, the program is a resounding success. In the Medicare Today survey, 88% of seniors with a prescription drug plan report being satisfied with their coverage. The numbers are especially favorable in states with large concentrations of seniors: 93% of seniors in Florida and 89% in New York express approval.</span>

Similarly high numbers--<span style='font-size: 11pt'>in excess of 80%--say that their premiums and co-pays are affordable and that their plans represent a good value. This is a crucial point. At the time the bill was enacted, opponents argued that Medicare Part D would do little to make medicines more affordable to seniors. Not only have program costs to taxpayers been well below original projections, the new survey underscores Part D's affordability for individual beneficiaries.</span>

In reality, the program has worked as its designers hoped. Medicare Part D is an effective partnership between the federal government, private insurance providers and pharmaceutical companies, giving seniors access to a variety of plans and subsidizing payments for those with low incomes.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>In 2010, average monthly premiums will be $30, just $2 above the 2009 level</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and lower than previously anticipated. Overall, the program's costs this year have been $35 billion lower than forecast. Indeed, the program has cost less than anticipated four years in a row, making Part D a rare budgetary success story among federal programs.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>These cost savings are largely driven by competition. In September, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported that more than 2,000 prescription drug plans will be available nationwide to the 26 million seniors enrolled in Part D.</span>

Far from leaving seniors with limited options, Part D allows Medicare enrollees to choose the prescription plan that most closely aligns with their needs. In the Medicare Today survey, 80% of participants say their plan covers all the medicines their doctor prescribes. The numbers were even higher in New York and Florida.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Given the support shown by seniors, it would make sense for Congress to study the Medicare prescription drug program for lessons that can be applied to comprehensive health reform legislation. So it's unfortunate--and confusing--that some in Congress are talking about making unnecessary changes to Part D, particularly to the way Medicare pays for and provides access to prescription drugs. What's more, the proposals would re-institute payment procedures from earlier this decade, before the prescription drug program was passed, when seniors had serious difficulty paying for medicines.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), these changes would result in the vast majority of seniors paying more for their coverage. Analysis of one such bill showed seniors would pay upward of 20% more in Part D premiums.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Raising costs is the wrong way to address our health care challenges. Policymakers should focus on improving a good program, not raising prices for many beneficiaries by undermining the aspects of the program that make it successful.</span> There are, in fact, several proposals under consideration that would save seniors money, including the drug manufacturers' agreement with the Obama administration to spend $80 billion providing discounted medications to seniors affected by the much-discussed donut hole.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Enacting comprehensive health care reform is another crucial step. Reform done the right way would lower prices throughout the system, increase access to health insurance and maintain incentives for medical innovation--all of which are vital to improving the quality of health care in America while keeping a lid on costs.

The Medicare Today survey shows once again that health care concerns resonate with seniors. Members of Congress should protect and strengthen programs that are working for seniors and use the success of Medicare Part D as a model for passing comprehensive, bipartisan health reform this year.</span></div></div>

And there you have, in a nutshell, why statists hate <span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 11pt'>MEDICARE PART D ... and the EEEVILLL RYAN PLAN</span></span> from which it was patterned.

These plans:

- Come in under budget.

- Reduce recipient costs.

- Actually allow choice and competition.

- Refuse to leave medical decisions to the cold, cruel hand of the state.

- Do not make vassals of the citizenry.

- Keep power in the trust of the people and not in the Washington regime.

So, when viewed through the warped prism of fascist economics, it is a complete failure. When viewed through the prism of reality ... it is everything which OBAMACARE promised to deliver, but didn't.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>INCONVENIENT TRUTH! (http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/12/medicare-seniors-health-care-reform-opinions-contributors-mary-grealy.html)</span>

Next ridiculous statement please?

Soflasnapper
01-15-2012, 02:22 PM
So here you now defend the largest increase in the entitlement area since LBJ, which not only wasn't paid for at all, but intentionally made vastly more expensive than necessary as a payoff to Big Pharma?

This is the most hypocritical position I've seen you ever take, and that is saying a lot.

You now stand revealed as a statist yourself, or a mendacious sophist, willing to throw overboard everything you've ever said about big government programs.