Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. : An Appreciation

Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. : An Appreciation (Page 2)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 01:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
He's unelectable, and knows it. But now he at least has respect from the left, so it opens doors for him in terms of booking speaking events, getting political appointments, and other highly lucrative endeavors.

I see your point, although I don't know how in relative comparison to any other candidate he is unelectable.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Why is the Ryan plan completely retarded but the status quo that Democratic party embraces (as do you apparently) - that's destroying the country financially - is not retarded?

Medicare as it stands is retarded, bankrupting and unconstitutional.

I'm not interested in getting into this with you when right off the bat you are making unabashed false assumptions about my positions. I don't feel like going on the defensive when it doesn't seem like you are interested in a productive conversation.

Haven't you figured out that maybe you don't have as strong a grasp on the viewpoints of your arch enemies as you believe?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 02:39 AM
 
You called the Ryan plan retarded. That pretty well nails down where you stand on the issue.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You called the Ryan plan retarded. That pretty well nails down where you stand on the issue.

Uh huh, because logically speaking, if I find his plan retarded than I *must* think that the status quo should be continued in perpetuity.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 03:19 AM
 
You never really propose any solutions but enjoy bashing others for not being constructive. It gets annoying. And since your politics seem to line up very well with the left-wing base of the Democratic Party, it's a natural assumption to make that you also support the status quo.

Do you have a proposed solution to the Medicare monster other than raising taxes?

If I were dictator, I would institute the abolishment of all federal Entitlements, closure of all agencies responsible for them, closure of all other non-essential agencies, a 30% reduction in all remaining budgets across the board (including Defense), followed in subsequent years by additional across the board cuts as needed until we start running surpluses to begin paying back our ludicrously high debt. But I know this country has been corrupted by Progressivism for far too long to handle my medicine, so we have to start rolling back the Wilson-FDR-Johnson-Obama corruption more gradually.
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 18, 2011 at 03:31 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 03:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You never really propose any solutions but enjoy bashing others for not being constructive. It gets annoying. And since your politics seem to line up very well with the left-wing base of the Democratic Party, it's a natural assumption to make that you also support the status quo.

Do you have a proposed solution to the Medicare monster other than raising taxes?

If you are really interested in listening to my proposals, don't be a dick and tell me what they are before I opt to share them. It's not as if you have a history of really having a good grasp of the viewpoints outside of your political world... Anyway, 'nuff said.

The reason why I called the Ryan voucher plan retarded is because it is not at all infeasible to speculate that monthly insurance plans for the elderly cost upwards of $800/month. I haven't researched this figure, but this is based on a crude guestimate... Let's assume that this is in the ballpark, give or take a couple hundred or whatever. It seems like it will result in one of the following happening:

1) The vouchers would be for an inadequate portion of this resulting in people not opting to purchase health insurance because either they can't afford to cover the difference, have inadequate savings, or else decide to spend their money on something else. In doing so this puts additional stress on our ERs and increases our costs across the board.

2) The vouchers would cover costs adequately, but they would be unsustainable just as Medicare is today


I don't think we can really have a conversation about the best way to pay for health care when our costs are what they are, there is no good way to pay for this. The first job needs to be to decrease these costs significantly. The best way to do this might be simply to increase the number of health care consumers, but there may be other things that can be done. To me, this is the best starting place, to be very very broad and general.

If costs can be reduced down to sane levels, then let's talk about private health insurance vouchers. Until then, the way I see it the Ryan plan will only make the problem worse.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 05:13 AM
 
I'll ignore your bluster. Many of your assumptions are very off the mark. For one, Ryan's plan is guaranteed to be less expensive for the government because it shifts from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program. Costs are exploding because Medicare is based on defined benefits, which promotes overuse, fraud and other kinds of abuses. Moving to a defined contribution program would dramatically cut Medicare's expense.

Gingrich's foolishness may have drastically reduced our chances to get anything like Ryan's plan enacted, though.

But again, I still don't see your proposal for cutting costs. All you can do in the political arena is find fault with right-wing plans to fix left-wing failures.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 05:34 AM
 
How does the Ryan plan cut costs? This isn't a given, this could very well simply result in expenses just being shifted around from one area to another. How would it account for the potential increase in bankruptcies due to not being able to afford health care costs, the subsequent strain on welfare, the effect on our GDP, etc. At the very least the plan would take the expense off the government and put the burden on us, but these costs don't simply disappear.

I've been noticing that with your posts in general you seem to think that as a hypothetical government dictator you can just flip switches and knobs and not expect there to be consequences and ramifications for these changes that have to be accounted for. I'm not as comfortable as some in diving into something like this on blind faith without carefully exploring the results and consequences of these actions on multiple levels.

I've been thinking about something ebuddy said in another thread... He said that once an entitlement is offered it can't be taken away. In this case the GOP will surely need a hell of a lot of political capital to want to mess around with Grandpa and Grandma's health care, this will be a non-starter with many constituents on both the left and right, especially since they have been paying into Medicare for their entire lives.

However, I'm not so sure that it is impossible to take an entitlement away. Why is this so, but it is possible to raise taxes or enact policy that decreases our personal freedoms? I think that while it is difficult to take an entitlement away, entitlements are not set in stone and in the very least can be decreased. If one *really* wants to disband Medicare, why not experiment with reducing the contributions of this entitlement first? In the case of the Ryan plan, why offer vouchers at all if they are going to be half-baked and lame (as I suspect they would be given the current costs of health care)?

What we can agree upon is that costs need to be decreased. Why don't we get our politicians to obsess over this as a starting place? Why aren't we supporting generic prescription drugs, going after tort reform, finding ways to effectively provide preventative care, stopping subsidies of corn so that our foods are a little healthier and perhaps obesity is reduced, revamping how medical records are shared between doctors, etc.? There are probably a zillion things we can and should be doing.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Yeah, Lewinski's privacy means dick.
Who taped who?
While this is important and I'm not sure why Lewinsky didn't sue the pants off of Tripp, there is something far more egregious about the Federal Justice Dept violating a single person's privacy in an attempt to silence their claims against the government; any government (R) or (D).
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 07:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
However, I'm not so sure that it is impossible to take an entitlement away. Why is this so, but it is possible to raise taxes or enact policy that decreases our personal freedoms?
Taxes are raised quietly and their decreases trumpeted loudly as the political football that it is. Entitlements are unique in that they become a bureaucracy of stewardship over funds granted to a specific demographic, for a specific need. When cuts are proposed to that bureaucracy it is viewed as an attack on the demographic.

I think that while it is difficult to take an entitlement away, entitlements are not set in stone and in the very least can be decreased. If one *really* wants to disband Medicare, why not experiment with reducing the contributions of this entitlement first?
Which is it going to be? Are you going to start by cutting services provided to Grandma and Grandpa or their meds? Why not just snatch Ethel's purse from her wheelchair in the retirement home cafeteria? See how dicey this is?

In the case of the Ryan plan, why offer vouchers at all if they are going to be half-baked and lame (as I suspect they would be given the current costs of health care)?
There is absolutely no way to decrease the costs of Medicare on the whole of society without putting a greater financial burden on the seniors using it. The AARP commercial will show you the seniors complaining about the proposed cuts in Medicare in front of their $300k ranches because they are cute and who doesn't love their grandma and grandpa? It's hard to see the fact that many of them are perfectly capable of paying for their own health care.

What we can agree upon is that costs need to be decreased. Why don't we get our politicians to obsess over this as a starting place?
That's what the proposals are for and the ones offered by Ryan for example are far more serious than the ones offered by his counterparts in Washington. It's a step, a bold step, and a necessary step. This does not mean there won't be people to say; "it won't work", "it can't work", "it'll never happen", etc...

Why aren't we supporting generic prescription drugs
How shall we support them and how much will this save?

going after tort reform
I'm with ya and Paul Ryan's plan calls for tort reform.

finding ways to effectively provide preventative care
Like HMOs for example? So... you're willing to jump into this proposal without regard for the cost ramifications of this extension in care based on... what exactly?

stopping subsidies of corn so that our foods are a little healthier and perhaps obesity is reduced
So would you rather attack farmers getting free money from the government or attack the poor, but capable people getting free food from the government? After all, if corn syrup is contributing to obesity, you gotta believe free food is contributing to obesity.

revamping how medical records are shared between doctors, etc.? There are probably a zillion things we can and should be doing.
If Ryan's plan included provisions for greater use of information and communication technology in the health care industry, would you support it? No, because you don't support the privatization of Medicare and Medicaid. A (D) might also propose improvements in information and communication technology while proposing other ideals in tandem that are equally contentious to the other side. Neither will pass, not because of the good ideas in them, but because of what the other side views as bad and can be vilified as an "attack" on this thing or that. Look at what happens when you propose that a teacher pays an equal portion of their healthcare as the rest of society; IT'S AN ATTACK ON TEACHERS! UNION BUSTING!!! What of the proposal to raise the retirement age by two years in France for example? RIOTS IN THE STREETS - IT'S AN ATTACK ON THE ELDERLY!

An entitlement granted can never be taken away and in most cases can't even endure a proposed decrease in the rate of increase.
ebuddy
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How does bringing the tea party back to reality help prevent moderates from voting for Obama? Do you mean that he would be getting his party in his camp, and segregating his party from the tea party folk? The problem with this theory is that there are many in his party who might be more inclined to support the tea party folk. This might actually make things worse.
The way I see it, each side has their level of unquestioning support. The Tea Party folks may not like Newt right now, but should he win the primary they will hold their nose and vote for him against Obama rather than stay home altogether. However, the moderate voter may be more inclined to vote for Newt over Obama based on the more moderate stands he takes right now.

In any normal political cycle, the Ryan budget would have been presented as the starting point for the Right, and it would be understood that the plan would be heavily modified in negotiations. That's how divided government works: neither side can pass legislation on its own, so compromise is necessary. Lately, the language I have been hearing from the Tea Party folks is that compromise is capitulation, and if there is a Republican candidate who is not backing their agenda 100% the Tea Party will run a Primary Challenge to them.

(Note the special election for Chris Lee's House seat, taking place down the road from me. It should be a slam-dunk Republican seat, but Tea Party involvement is giving the Democrat a small edge. It's a bit more complicated than that: the "Tea Party" candidate is a former Democrat without firm support from the national Tea Party, but I think it's forced the Republican candidate further Right anyway. The Ryan budget is going over like a lead balloon in Buffalo, so the Republican's unwavering support for it is hurting her. But there's no doubt in my mind that if the third candidate were not running, the seat would not be in question right now.)
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
And I'm starting to think that even his jabs at Obama will be entertaining, Recently, he contrasted himself with Obama: Obama is the "Food Stamp" president, while Gingrich would be the "Paycheck" President. Sounds like something that someone who's looking to get offended would call racist. But he backed it up by saying that the number of people on Food Stamps has increased under Obama's tenure, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation. I'm surprised no one has taken the bait yat.
His "Food Stamp President" comment didn't go unnoticed. Just like his "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" comment didn't go unnoticed. It generated a little grumbling in the press but nothing inordinate. Gingrich is known for being a bomb thrower so such dog-whistle politics is par for the course with him. As for his recent comment ... yeah he has a modicum of "cover". It is true that the number of people on food stamps have increased. And so he will vociferously take umbrage with any suggestion of a racial undertone to his "Food Stamp President" comment. He will pretend that many GOP voters don't reflexively associate "food stamps" with minorities. Just like he pretended that the "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" comments during the Reagan era didn't conjure up images of black women with a bunch of kids out of wedlock getting over on the system in the minds of "hard working, white males" who were utterly convinced that they were the only ones who paid taxes. Again, there's nothing new here because exploiting the racial fears and resentments of white voters in order to win elections is straight out of the GOP's Southern Strategy playbook.

So for me personally, the larger issue is that Gingrich conveniently fails to mention that the economy was shedding jobs at 750K a month the day President Obama was inaugurated. And when people are laid off social safety net spending (e.g. Food Stamps) always increases. It's a disingenuous charge at best considering how that downward trajectory was halted and reversed shortly into his term.



Of course, little things like facts are beside the point.

OAW
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 12:53 PM
 
His Detroit comment got a knowing chuckle out of me (in an "I see what you did there" sort of sense).

Unfortunately, it looks like Newt is going down more because of his lack of orthodoxy with the hard right. A shame.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 12:56 PM
 
I don't know about the hard-right. But the base definitely is tired of RINOs, and that's what Gingrich showed himself to be.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Gingrich is known for being a bomb thrower so such dog-whistle politics is par for the course with him.
I was familiar with the "coded language" concept in politics but hadn't heard of the term "Dog-Whistle Politics" to describe it until now. Thanks for the link!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Taxes are raised quietly and their decreases trumpeted loudly as the political football that it is. Entitlements are unique in that they become a bureaucracy of stewardship over funds granted to a specific demographic, for a specific need. When cuts are proposed to that bureaucracy it is viewed as an attack on the demographic.
Taxes are targeted at demographics too, right, or at least social classes? I understand your point, but there have no doubt been plenty occasions where social programs have been reformed or eliminated, so while I agree that this is tricky business, it's not set-in-stone business either.

Which is it going to be? Are you going to start by cutting services provided to Grandma and Grandpa or their meds? Why not just snatch Ethel's purse from her wheelchair in the retirement home cafeteria? See how dicey this is?
Indeed, as is the Ryan plan for vouchers as it stands today given the high costs of health care.

There is absolutely no way to decrease the costs of Medicare on the whole of society without putting a greater financial burden on the seniors using it. The AARP commercial will show you the seniors complaining about the proposed cuts in Medicare in front of their $300k ranches because they are cute and who doesn't love their grandma and grandpa? It's hard to see the fact that many of them are perfectly capable of paying for their own health care.
I don't understand your point here. It's fair game to put a greater financial burden on all seniors, or just the ones with the dough?

That's what the proposals are for and the ones offered by Ryan for example are far more serious than the ones offered by his counterparts in Washington. It's a step, a bold step, and a necessary step. This does not mean there won't be people to say; "it won't work", "it can't work", "it'll never happen", etc...
I credit him for coming up with something, I don't mean to piss all over it, but I'm in the "it won't/can't work" category obviously. The obviousness of this makes the plan seem retarded to me, although as I write this I can see how this seems like I'm pissing on it, so I'm happy to dial back my rhetoric.


How shall we support them and how much will this save?


I'm with ya and Paul Ryan's plan calls for tort reform.


Like HMOs for example? So... you're willing to jump into this proposal without regard for the cost ramifications of this extension in care based on... what exactly?


So would you rather attack farmers getting free money from the government or attack the poor, but capable people getting free food from the government? After all, if corn syrup is contributing to obesity, you gotta believe free food is contributing to obesity.


If Ryan's plan included provisions for greater use of information and communication technology in the health care industry, would you support it? No, because you don't support the privatization of Medicare and Medicaid. A (D) might also propose improvements in information and communication technology while proposing other ideals in tandem that are equally contentious to the other side. Neither will pass, not because of the good ideas in them, but because of what the other side views as bad and can be vilified as an "attack" on this thing or that. Look at what happens when you propose that a teacher pays an equal portion of their healthcare as the rest of society; IT'S AN ATTACK ON TEACHERS! UNION BUSTING!!! What of the proposal to raise the retirement age by two years in France for example? RIOTS IN THE STREETS - IT'S AN ATTACK ON THE ELDERLY!

An entitlement granted can never be taken away and in most cases can't even endure a proposed decrease in the rate of increase.

I'm not really interested in dissecting each of my ideas point by point because they were simply examples of the sorts of things that we could be discussing, I'm not interested in defending any of these particular points at length at this time. Given that we agreed on at least one of these items my point has been proven: there are things we can be working on to decrease costs. Why we aren't I don't really get... However this is paid for, lowering costs is a good thing, right?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2011, 01:17 PM
 
Regarding the Ryan Medicare plan and whether or not it is "retarded" ....

Given the reception Rep. Ryan and all the other GOP congressman received back in their districts over the recess ... along with polling showing 84% of the public firmly opposed to seniors having to pay higher Medicare premiums .... I'd say it's pretty "retarded" for GOP officials who were distancing themselves from the Ryan plan just a week or so ago to be piling on Gingrich for doing the same thing.

But to the plan itself. I'd say that it is "retarded" because ....

A. It proposes to push seniors into the for-profit private health insurance market that has demonstrated repeatedly that it will not cover seniors at anything remotely approaching an affordable price. After all, private insurance companies don't make money off of customers that are the most likely to use the highest cost insurance benefits. This is why Medicare was created in the first place!

B. At the end of the day the Ryan plan does not address the fundamental issue. The problem is not Medicare. The problem is not that it's a government run plan. The problem is out-of-freaking-control healthcare cost inflation. All the Ryan plan is doing is saying the government will cut its costs by turning Medicare from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. IOW ... Uncle Sam is only going to pay so much. But what happens when healthcare cost inflation continues at this ridiculous pace? Oh well Grandma ... you are just sh*t out of luck if you can't come up with the extra premiums that the private insurance companies will inevitably demand. Again ... the issue here is NOT that "Medicare is unsustainable". The issue is that "healthcare cost inflation is unsustainable". And even Stevie Wonder can see that neither the private nor the public sector will be able to cope with it in the long-run. So perhaps the intelligent thing to do would be to tackle the issue of cost control, n'est-ce pas?

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2011, 12:47 PM
 
I think Newt is probably an unfit candidate based on how poorly he is handling his Meet the Press thing. Perhaps Big Mac is right, perhaps he is done. If he is getting into this amount of trouble so soon, this probably doesn't bode well. I suppose he has time to rebound, but first impressions are important.

Who does this leave that is electable? Palenty, Daniels, Romney?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2011, 01:11 AM
 
Newt Gingrich Hearts His ABBA Ringtone

Gingrich's secret passion for ABBA was revealed when his cell phone suddenly rang during a campaign stop in Iowa, where he has been trying to launch a presidential campaign.

"Dancing Queen," Gingrich sheepishly admitted, is his ringtone.




"I'll let you guess," he said, grinning, "I'm not telling."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2011, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Regarding the Ryan Medicare plan and whether or not it is "retarded" ....

Given the reception Rep. Ryan and all the other GOP congressman received back in their districts over the recess ... along with polling showing 84% of the public firmly opposed to seniors having to pay higher Medicare premiums .... I'd say it's pretty "retarded" for GOP officials who were distancing themselves from the Ryan plan just a week or so ago to be piling on Gingrich for doing the same thing.
GOP officials were not "distancing themselves from the Ryan plan". There are numerous aspects to the "Ryan plan" and there are minor points of contention within it just as any other proposal while enjoying the overwhelming majority GOP support. Gingrich called elements of the plan "extreme" and with his history of bending to the pressures of "likability" rendered himself just another RINO. The fact is no one 55 or older would see a higher Medicare premium and the plan is phased in. It merely decreases the rate of increase which of course politically equates to "an attack" on elderly people. The reason Ryan's plan does not enjoy more populace support is because as usual Republicans haven't a friggin' clue how to communicate to people. Proof that an entitlement granted can never be taken away.

But to the plan itself. I'd say that it is "retarded" because ....

A. It proposes to push seniors into the for-profit private health insurance market that has demonstrated repeatedly that it will not cover seniors at anything remotely approaching an affordable price. After all, private insurance companies don't make money off of customers that are the most likely to use the highest cost insurance benefits. This is why Medicare was created in the first place!
The Social Security Act of 1935 was amended to include Medicare in 1965. Social Security was part of the New Deal package in response to the Depression, Medicare was simply demagogued into the Social Security Act based on a fundamental desire to build the foundation for a more pervasive single-payer system and was a response to nothing. Are you saying Social Security was enacted because the free market demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot afford to give away free money?

Medicare has demonstrated repeatedly that it distorts free market principles and is only affordable for seniors while saddling the rest of the country with out-of-control spending and waste across the health care expanse. It is an antiquated program to serve a need it no longer needs to with the wealth of retirement savings vehicles available to people that could get a much greater return on their health care investment than they are presently.

B. At the end of the day the Ryan plan does not address the fundamental issue. The problem is not Medicare. The problem is not that it's a government run plan. The problem is out-of-freaking-control healthcare cost inflation.
While I'm ecstatic this is now a concern for the left, to ignore the merits of competition in the free market is lame. Health care costs are what they are for no other reason than they can be. The only reason they can be is because people, seniors included, are not discriminating their care nor their choices in providers. People are more discriminating with their own money than with someone else's. When you don't shop and when you don't discriminate providers, you pay more and get less. It's as simple as that.

All the Ryan plan is doing is saying the government will cut its costs by turning Medicare from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. IOW ... Uncle Sam is only going to pay so much. But what happens when healthcare cost inflation continues at this ridiculous pace? Oh well Grandma ... you are just sh*t out of luck if you can't come up with the extra premiums that the private insurance companies will inevitably demand.
Enter FUD! "SORRY GRANDMA!" What about the grandma who has a net-worth of a couple million dollars OAW, does she count too? Why is this government-run provision not means tested? Because it had nothing to do with helping your poor grandparents! Most welfare in this country is doled out to the middle class.

Again ... the issue here is NOT that "Medicare is unsustainable". The issue is that "healthcare cost inflation is unsustainable". And even Stevie Wonder can see that neither the private nor the public sector will be able to cope with it in the long-run. So perhaps the intelligent thing to do would be to tackle the issue of cost control, n'est-ce pas?
A more discriminating consumer will do exactly that. There is nothing about give-aways that control costs and in fact it has been demonstrated from time immemorial that this distorts the free market and drives up costs. You have only to look at the explosive cost of a college education to see this phenomena at play.

As usual, I couldn't disagree more.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2011, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I don't know about the hard-right. But the base definitely is tired of RINOs, and that's what Gingrich showed himself to be.
Wait a second... the guy who shut down the government while battling Clinton (D) for balanced budgets is a RINO? Throw out the baby with the bath water much?
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2011, 03:45 PM
 
"Growing Incoherently" is an anagram of "Newton Leroy Gingrich".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 04:36 PM
 
His entire campaign staff just quit.

Anyone want to do some drive-by speculation?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 04:38 PM
 
Someone told him not take a vacation?

Respectfully delayed fallout for the social engineering "gaffe"?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
His entire campaign staff just quit.

Anyone want to do some drive-by speculation?
Senior Gingrich 2012 aides resign en masse - Politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com

Definitely not a good look. Drive-by speculation? They all know that Gingrich's campaign is toast. If they jump ship now they have a shot at getting picked up by one of the other candidates who is actually viable. We have to keep in mind that these people aren't running campaigns for their health. They do this for a living.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 05:21 PM
 
Don't the majority of these people end up working for losers?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 05:39 PM
 
My guess is that they all bailed to help Dennis Kucinich's 2012 campaign...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Someone told him not take a vacation?
Ex-staffer points to this.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 06:11 PM
 
My take: they had inside info that Rick Perry will run, and make themselves available for that.

It would have created much more bad blood if Perry had pulled them out of Gingrich's campaign.

-t
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 06:48 PM
 
Steve Perry would have a better shot than Rick Perry. Don't Stop Believin!
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
My take: they had inside info that Rick Perry will run, and make themselves available for that.

It would have created much more bad blood if Perry had pulled them out of Gingrich's campaign.

-t
I think that's what I saw in the Washington Post too. Regardless, Gingrich has his work cut out for him; it'll be much harder than tv appearances.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Steve Perry would have a better shot than Rick Perry. Don't Stop Believin!
Seriously. It'll be pretty hard to advocate secession for Texas and then turn around and credibly claim you want to be President of the country you would have seceded from.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Seriously. It'll be pretty hard to advocate secession for Texas and then turn around and credibly claim you want to be President of the country you would have seceded from.
Well, it might all be part of the Masterplan.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 09:48 PM
 
You never know Big T. You never know.

OAW
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 09:52 PM
 
Gingrich is cold toast. He's done. You heard it here first. Unless someone else said it before me. Like OAW. Perfectly.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 09:57 PM
 
^^^

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 12:51 PM
 
Why is it that Gingrich is done, but Palin isn't after all of her gaffes? I've just been reading about her whole Paul Revere thing and the "gotcha question" that this came out of...
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 12:53 PM
 
Stupid and inane comments are expected of beauty queens, but not dancing queens.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 12:54 PM
 
Palin is more entertaining.

-t
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is it that Gingrich is done, but Palin isn't after all of her gaffes?
Not pander to the base strong enough.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is it that Gingrich is done, but Palin isn't after all of her gaffes? I've just been reading about her whole Paul Revere thing and the "gotcha question" that this came out of...
Oh, did I forget Palin? She's not running, but yeah... her Presidential prospects are crouton-crispy done. No chance in hell. Some 40+% of Republicans don't like her.
ebuddy
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 09:40 AM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 02:54 PM
 
The GOP nomination is all over except for the screaming and the shouting. Mitt Romney will be running for president against Barack Obama.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 04:16 PM
 
I can live with that.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 04:21 PM
 
This really feels like Bizarro 2004.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can live with that.
So can I. I hope that after he wins the primary he steers his campaign towards the center, and ignores the far right. There may be moderates and people on the left even who could stomach voting for him if he came across as sane. I just don't want the debates to be about why far right ideas are insane, and perhaps focus in on what might actually be constructive.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The GOP nomination is all over except for the screaming and the shouting. Mitt Romney will be running for president against Barack Obama.

OAW
Just like Hillary had the Democratic nomination all sewn up by 11/11/07 ?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Just like Hillary had the Democratic nomination all sewn up by 11/11/07 ?
The main difference being … Hillary had a credible opponent. Romney does not.

OAW
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2011, 11:04 PM
 
i think something will come up again for newt...

     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2011, 08:49 AM
 
The libural media discovers Newt again:

5 Things You May Not Know About Gingrich : NPR

And here's a sixth thing, which is shown clearly by the picture they chose: he's got an alien growing in his stomach.

     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:09 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,