I could have voted for John Huntsman, but none of the other Republican candidates were acceptable. The other problem is that the Republican party hasn't been a "Fiscally Conservative" party for a long time. We do need one, but there isn't any current party that will fill that role that doesn't also have other terrible positions.

It wasn't that I wanted "Free Stuff"... it's that I don't want a pathological liar who also feels that people who aren't like him don't deserve the same rights.

@bareboards2

I'm also glad that we can discuss these issues like reasonable people. I apologize if I've come off as unreasonable in the past. The truth is that I'm always willing to talk things out.

I've heard the rhetoric about death panels from both sides; I just haven't put in the effort to separate fact from fiction. Now that I've looked into it, this is what I've found. What you're describing (end of life consultations) is not the same thing as what are now being called death panels in Obamacare. Yes, it is true that the provision you are speaking about was demonized by republicans and ultimately removed from Medicare. I'm actually not sure how I feel about it, because it is a form of assisted suicide, and it could be abused. Some seniors may feel pressured into forgoing care, just as you hear of some people receiving substandard care because they are organ donors.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r

In any case, the conversation has evolved, and we are no longer talking about these end of life consultations when we are talking about death panels. The death panel in Obamacare is an unelected board of 15 "health care experts" (the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB) who will make critical decisions on what services within Medicare are financially viable, and which aren't. Here is a quote from President Obama in the first debate acknowledging this:

"It — when Gov. Romney talks about this board, for example, unelected board that we’ve created, what this is, is a group of health care experts, doctors, et cetera, to figure out, how can we reduce the cost of care in the system overall?” Obama said.

“Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do,” Obama added.

This is also acknowledged by a senior adviser to Obama:

"WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=2

So call it death panels, or rationing, the principle is still the same. The recommendations this board makes will become law unless it is overridden by a 2/3's majority vote in congress. Here is a good example of how this type of legislative oversight is making health care "better" (penalizing hospitals for readmitting patients within 30 days):

"Beginning Monday, the hospitals will receive lower reimbursements on Medicare claims filed with the government for each admitted patient. Over the year, the total amount of those reductions will vary from $1.2 million for MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Northwest Washington, the region’s largest private hospital, to about $12,000 for Reston Hospital Center in Virginia. Of 16 hospitals in the District and Northern Virginia, all but three will get paid less."

"Some of the hardest-hit facilities are inner-city hospitals that tend to treat sicker, poorer patients. These patients sometimes end up being readmitted because they have a harder time getting medication and follow-up doctors’ appointments, often because they lack transportation, hospital officials said.

“Not only do we have the very sick patients, they also have very significant social needs,” said Kamaljit Sethi, who heads quality and safety at Providence Hospital in Northeast, where officials estimate they will lose about $320,000 in the coming year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hospitals-in-dc-va-to-lose-millions-from-medicare/2012/09/30/2fe0f96c-08ca-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83b
f_story.html

What this means is that patients with the greatest needs will lose the most services, because the hospitals will no longer be able to serve them because of this penalty. This outcome could turn out to be deadly for thousands of people, ultimately, all in the name of efficiency. This is a perfect illustration as to why Government should have as little power over your health care as possible. Here is testimony from the front lines:

" Today while working my shift in the emergency room, an old lady was brought in very sick and in fact near death. I did my usual workup and evaluation and attempted to administer life saving treatment. It was my plan to admit this woman to the hospital. I found out a little later that this same woman had been a patient here just slightly more than 2 weeks ago with a DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS. I was told that if this woman was admitted, the hospital would not be paid.

The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid. When they first started this nonsense they said this only applied to patients with the same diagnosis. Now they have "expanded" the rule to include re-admissions for any reason. So if you're in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg.......too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your leg."

http://grouchatrighttruth.blogspot.com/2012/10/death-panels-are-here.html

This is completely outrageous, I think you will be forced to agree. Personally, I think we need to have a national conversation about this issue, and both sides need to come together to hammer out this issue. Obamacare is clearly not ready for primetime, and as it stands it is going to hurt people.

As far as your other comments, I'm not limiting myself to any particular news source. I am a political independent and I will share with you that I won't be voting for either candidate this year. I will still participate in the local elections but I cannot vote for either candidate in good conscience. While I am socially and fiscally conservative on many issues, I am liberal on others, such as helping the poor, the environment (within reason), and immigration. I don't fit into a polical cookie cutter and I don't automatically support a candidate because they give God lip service.

*animation

And why the hell has Ronald Reagan become some sort of demigod to the Republicans?

I remember Reagan. He wasn't the idealized fiscal conservative version they have all made him out to be now.

Conspiracy implies colusion, I think they all just hate him seperately. I don't understand why.
Wiki page here said he caried 2 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Touche, I did infer you thought he's my guy.
The all caps was to emphasize the important part, not to 'yell', people often tend to read the first few words and begin their arguement against a straw man arguement, and I hate replying to them.
He is intelligent, if not smart. He is honest to a fault. Many of his ideas are outrageous at best, but come from an intelligent arguement perhaps taken too far. He will not win, and won't be the retardican nominee, but may force them to ignore the vote to deny him!
And NO, I am not dumbocratic QM, fuck you right back! ;-}
I'm an old school republican (fiscal conservative, social liberal) that's more pissed at the neocons than I ever could be at the democrats. The dumbocrats are useless, but somewhat consistant, the retardicans drank the coolaid and went bat shit crazy on me. What does that leave me with, and don't say 'Tea party', they're a big part of the problem.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.

Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.
>> ^newtboy:
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.

Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.
>> ^newtboy:
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.
THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!
Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.
>> ^newtboy:
If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.
Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we"

We is the general citizenry of the United States. Back in 'the day' when the nuclear family was stronger, working families would take care of thier elderly. Often they would live under the same roof until they died. Also before Social Security, people would save for thier own retirement and generally (not always, but generally) would have enough saved up for a good living when they stopped working. There were a few cases of widows, or other hard luck cases who were in genuine need, but this vision you are creating where every elderly person was living in a box and eating dog food is bunk.

You see - SS was originally designed to be ONLY for those rare 1 in 100,000 elderly persons who was in GENUINE need. It was supposed to be a very very very small program, only to be tapped in the most exigent of circumstances. It was not ever supposed to be a program that took more from a person's paycheck than INCOME TAX (it is today). It was not supposed to be the de-facto 'retirement program' for every man, woman, and child in the nation (it is today). It was not supposed to be the biggest item in the national budget (it is today). But that's what happens you you take a simple problem (take care of the 0.01% of the needy) and hand it to the Federal Government.

The number of people who qualify for SS should be infinitesimally small. The amount taken from taxpayers for the program should also be virtually nothing. All of the needy eldery can be cared for with state programs which can receive RARE and OCCASIONAL assistance from the tiny Federal program. The order of operations is "Family" first, then "Extended family", then "Community", then "State", and the very very very very very LAST place you ever go is Federal.

the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable

They are - but you (like many) are confusing "Republican" with "fiscal conservative". The GOP is not filled with fiscal conservatives. In fact, the GOP routinely and regularly opposes fiscal conservatives. The Tea Party is filled with Republicans, Democrats, and Independants that are all united under a banner of "fiscal conservatism". The GOP doesn't like them. Not one bit. Fiscal Conservatives are not in a position to "look after the long-term fiscal health of the nation" because they are not in a position to do so. The GOP and the Democrats are both dominated by big-spend, Big Tax, Big Government leftists. The GOP panders to both social and fiscal conservatives with a bunch of lip service, but (as you noted) they don't walk the walk.

Incidentally, the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable. Their interest in the deficit is, in general, a pose. The primary reason they are interested in cutting spending is that it makes room for tax cuts. Again, the position that taxation (above a certain minimal level) is wrong is one that can be debated, but at least admit that that is where you're coming from, rather than pretending that this is about ensuring the solvency of the government. Because letting the Bush tax cuts expire would do a lot more for the deficit than abolishing Social Security.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security
I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.
I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.


When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we" you're referring to? There's very good evidence that SS is responsible for the significant drop in the rate of poverty among the elderly over the last half-century. The facts are that when social security spending (per capita) increases, the poverty rate among seniors reliably decreases, and vice versa. Opponents of SS may honestly believe that an increase in elderly poverty is a painful tradeoff that must be made in order to protect the financial future of the country. That is an honest position that can be debated. But at least acknowledge the existence of the tradeoff. The program has had a huge impact in the lives of some our most vulnerable fellow citizens.

The idea that abolishing SS will do no harm because people will be able to invest their own money to protect their future is ridiculous. First of all, investing wisely is psychologically difficult. We are not built to plan carefully for that far in the future. Second, even if you do make the decision to invest sensibly, it is not easy to do, given that the financial system has been set up to prey on small investors for short-term profit, with high fees and fraudulent advice. You just can't expect the average person, who has no idea how or why to invest in a suitably diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds, to successfully invest in the market.

So I think there is very good reason to think that getting rid of SS will have a significant cost attached. Of course, it is also true that SS faces a long-term financing problem, and we need to be having a discussion about how to deal with it. But it does neither side any good to just deny that there are any worthwhile arguments on the other side.

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security

I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.

I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.

I think the first isn't about being anti-Democrat, when you get down to it. I think it's a sense of entitlement. You know, who are these guys expressing opinions on my country? This my country God Damn It! and they've got no right! Opposing everything the Democrats say happens to be a very effective way of maintaining a power-base.>> ^Grimm:

I'm convinced that most Republicans are not small government, fiscally conservative republicans (even though that's what the whole Tea Party movement is supposed to be about). They are First: Anti-Democrat (everything the dems do is wrong and any thing wrong is their fault), they are Second: Pro-Christian (govt shouldn't tell us how to live our lives...unless it's based on my christian values..then it's OK) and Third: Fiscally conservative in name only (billions/trillions spent on Democrat programs is a waste and destroying the economy and our country and dems must be stopped at all cost. Billions/trillions spent on Republican programs and they turn a blind eye and don't acknowledge that it too is a waste and also destroying our economy).

I didn't..."dems must be stopped at all cost." >> ^VoodooV:

>> ^Grimm:
I'm convinced that most Republicans are not small government, fiscally conservative republicans (even though that's what the whole Tea Party movement is supposed to be about). They are First: Anti-Democrat (everything the dems do is wrong and any thing wrong is their fault), they are Second: Pro-Christian (govt shouldn't tell us how to live our lives...unless it's based on my christian values..then it's OK) and Third: Fiscally conservative in name only (billions/trillions spent on Democrat programs is a waste and destroying the economy and our country and dems must be stopped at all cost. Billions/trillions spent on Republican programs and they turn a blind eye and don't acknowledge that it too is a waste and also destroying our economy).

Don't forget that they're completely willing to sabotage the country just so that Obama looks bad. They don't want the economy to improve...at least not until they can take the credit for it.

>> ^Grimm:

I'm convinced that most Republicans are not small government, fiscally conservative republicans (even though that's what the whole Tea Party movement is supposed to be about). They are First: Anti-Democrat (everything the dems do is wrong and any thing wrong is their fault), they are Second: Pro-Christian (govt shouldn't tell us how to live our lives...unless it's based on my christian values..then it's OK) and Third: Fiscally conservative in name only (billions/trillions spent on Democrat programs is a waste and destroying the economy and our country and dems must be stopped at all cost. Billions/trillions spent on Republican programs and they turn a blind eye and don't acknowledge that it too is a waste and also destroying our economy).


Don't forget that they're completely willing to sabotage the country just so that Obama looks bad. They don't want the economy to improve...at least not until they can take the credit for it.

QFT

>> ^Grimm:

I'm convinced that most Republicans are not small government, fiscally conservative republicans (even though that's what the whole Tea Party movement is supposed to be about). They are First: Anti-Democrat (everything the dems do is wrong and any thing wrong is their fault), they are Second: Pro-Christian (govt shouldn't tell us how to live our lives...unless it's based on my christian values..then it's OK) and Third: Fiscally conservative in name only (billions/trillions spent on Democrat programs is a waste and destroying the economy and our country and dems must be stopped at all cost. Billions/trillions spent on Republican programs and they turn a blind eye and don't acknowledge that it too is a waste and also destroying our economy).

I'm convinced that most Republicans are not small government, fiscally conservative republicans (even though that's what the whole Tea Party movement is supposed to be about). They are First: Anti-Democrat (everything the dems do is wrong and any thing wrong is their fault), they are Second: Pro-Christian (govt shouldn't tell us how to live our lives...unless it's based on my christian values..then it's OK) and Third: Fiscally conservative in name only (billions/trillions spent on Democrat programs is a waste and destroying the economy and our country and dems must be stopped at all cost. Billions/trillions spent on Republican programs and they turn a blind eye and don't acknowledge that it too is a waste and also destroying our economy).

all of those bills are just ones the GOP themselves say are jobs bills, not anything having to actually do with jobs

And Obama's bill is just one that he says is a job bill, not anything having to do with jobs.

UCwhutididthere? From a fiscally conservative position, the GOP bills are about jobs. To a hard-left prog-lib-dyte, they aren't. To a fiscal conservative, Obama's bill is an absolute joke, but to a proglib-dyte it looks wonderful.

The truth is that both approaches are "methods" for creating jobs, but take different approaches. The GOP is using free markets, natural resource development, and small business tax breaks as a means of spurring job growth. The Democrats approach is taxes and deficit spending on temporary jobs and unions. But the past 3 years has shown us that Obama's approach is crap, and the GOP is saying "here's a viable alternative - let's try it". The Democrats in the Senate are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" Meanwhile the Democrats and President are saying, "Let's keep going what we've been doing for the past 3 years..." and the GOP in the House are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" It's a philosophical debate, and the nation as a whole prefers the GOP approach - not the President's. So he's trying to get the stupid and the suckers to buy into this moronic "do nothing" congress line. He's got nothing else because poll after poll shows both him and his plan are cratering.

the second thing you cite to is a bill basically eliminating the EPA

No - it is a bill to reduce the EPA to a less stupid level. EPA regulation of Co2 is not something the people voted for. It was rammed through by legislative fiat by Obama as a means of stifling energy production and imposing regulations on businesses which (in turn) hurt jobs. Obama's administration is rife with such bullcrap. He bans drilling in the Gulf which COSTS jobs. He blocks the Canada pipeline - which COSTS jobs. He blocks Ohio natural gas drilling - which COSTS jobs. Meanwhile he is literally dumping billions into failed projects like Fisker, Solyndra, and others which they KNOW are bad investments and are going bankrupt left and right. The GOP effort to halt that would almost immediately create over a MILLION jobs. The result will be more energy production, which will lower costs and create work. THAT is a job plan. Obama's plan kills jobs and raises energy costs.

And, IMO, the worst part of the American political system is partisan politics, and its grown to a level of extremism that it could only hope to be challenged by a well established and respectable 3rd party (perhaps a party of the 99%... food for thought?).

The addition of a third, 4th, 5th, or 10th party would do nothing to resolve partisan politics. A lot of people think the 2 party system is poison, and multiple party systems are some sort of nirvanah. A 1 second analysis of parlimentarian political entities dispells that illusion. Systems with more parties - if anything - become even more contentous, fragmented, and full of partisanship than ever. The amount of skullduggery is amazing. The common man becomes even more distant from the political system, because the dizzying level of alliances, promises made/broken, and other shenanigans that take place to engineer a 'majority' on a vote essentially render any one party non-existent.

This is a bubble that really needs to be popped. I'm not saying the 2 party system is good. Quite often I feel very disenfranchised by the 2 party system because my perspective as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian leaning, constitutional constructionist are rarely represented to my tastes. But the opinion that the addition of a 3rd party would in any way address the rancorous nature of US politics is simply incorrect.