The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[ewingxmanstarks]

^I have to check that...I don't remember ppl applauding, but I agree what he said was pretty bad.

[HarthorneWingo]

"Lovefest" was an accurate description (except when mention of Obama)


The only visible gaffe was Herman Cain, on the muslims in your administration question...He could easily be painted as a bigot after that...He's new to the game


Ron Paul, as usual was interesting...I wish the guy had different foreign policy..He would be my candidate.

Romney was very clever when discussing Romney Care...He said if Romney Care was the blueprint for Obama Care, then why didn't Obama call him to discus the bill, and find out what works and what doesn't? That's going to make it hard for Obama's side to bring up the Romney Care issue, if it does come to a general.

Yeah, Cain has made a few eye-opening statements since he's gotten into the fray. The muslim comment was definitely a gaffe. But that's what happens when you try an play to the extreme component of one's party. But, what do I know, maybe that's how Cain really feels. In any event, not a smart position to take.

There are aspects of Ron Paul's agenda which I like. If he had won the GOP nomination in 08 and picked a reasonable running mate, it would have been a tough decision for me since I really didn't like Obama's position of doubling down on Afghanistan.

As for Romney, why did Obama have to call Romney when I'm sure he understood how Romney Care worked and had people on his staff who knew how it worked? The bottom line is that they're the same and Romney will not be able to extricate himself from it ... not that he should try, IMO. But if everything Obama is bad, and Obama Care and Romney Care are the same, then Romney Care - and by extension Romney - is bad.

Romney also had egg on his face regarding his positions on the auto bailout, which saved the auto industry and tons of American manufacturing jobs.

The MSNBC panel seemed to think that Bachmann (on the extreme right) and Romney (middle right) won the lovefest.

[mugzi]

Maddow absolutely brings her own prejudices to the table - prejudices that she's too arrogant to even acknowledge. And I say that as a liberal.

Lawrence O'Donnell has quickly become my favorite.

He makes Ed Schultz look like Albert Einstein. Wingo, how did you ever pass the bar exam? Did you sit next to an Asian guy?

[mugzi]

Maddow's show is extremely horrible...Hannity's show is horrible...BBC in general is crap

The interesting show is on the radio...Michael Savage is the best from the standpoint of interesting and entertaining....He does say some ridiculous things that I don't agree with, but the guy has a very interesting mind, and is very good with words...A lot of the time he's also dead on.

LOL

You wouldn't know truth if it smacked you upside the face. Savage has a Phd and has written 27 books, some of which were best sellers, what have you done besides be labeled by most of this board as a troll with a mod badge?

[Pharmcat]

Maddow's show is extremely horrible...Hannity's show is horrible...BBC in general is crap

The interesting show is on the radio...Michael Savage is the best from the standpoint of interesting and entertaining....He does say some ridiculous things that I don't agree with, but the guy has a very interesting mind, and is very good with words...A lot of the time he's also dead on.

LOL

You wouldn't know truth if it smacked you upside the face. Savage has a Phd and has written 27 books, some of which were best sellers, what have you done besides be labeled by most of this board as a troll with a mod badge?

i have multiple professional degrees including a doctorate...not sure what that has to do with anything

I mean how can any1 support some1 who says these kind of things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAA2KxgqVvk

[Pharmcat]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/14/mexico ... ?hpt=hp_t1

this issue needs to be addressed

[HarthorneWingo]

Maddow absolutely brings her own prejudices to the table - prejudices that she's too arrogant to even acknowledge. And I say that as a liberal.

Lawrence O'Donnell has quickly become my favorite.

He makes Ed Schultz look like Albert Einstein. Wingo, how did you ever pass the bar exam? Did you sit next to an Asian guy?

So you watch Lawrence O'Donnell AND Ed Shultz?

Ya know, mugzi, I've learned to take your insults as compliments. They usually mean that I struck a nerve. I know the rationale behind your pecking order of condemnation and ridicule.

Lawrence O'Donnell graduated from Harvard and wrote for the Lampoon. He's also worked in Congress. Plus, he married Kathryn Harold who is hot as shyt. Here's his personal history (you may want to consider taking your statement back after reading this). You should really do a little research before you spout off at the mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_O%27Donnell

From 1977 to 1988, O’Donnell was a writer.[3] In 1983, he published the book Deadly Force, about a case of wrongful death and police brutality in which O'Donnell’s father was the plaintiff’s lawyer.[6] In 1986, the book was made into the film A Case of Deadly Force, in which Richard Crenna played O'Donnell’s father and Tate Donovan played O'Donnell, and for which O’Donnell was associate producer.[7]

From 1989 to 1995, he was a key legislative aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.[3] From 1989 to 1991, he served as senior advisor to Moynihan. From 1992 to 1993, he was staff director of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, then chaired by Senator Moynihan. And then from 1993 to 1995, he was staff director of the United States Senate Committee on Finance, once again under Senator Moynihan’s chairmanship. He thus led the staff of the Senate's tax-writing committee during the consideration of President Bill Clinton's first budget, which Congress enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

From 1999 to 2006, O’Donnell was associated with the television drama The West Wing. Over that time, he wrote 16 episodes. From 1999 to 2000 he was executive story editor for 12 episodes, in 2000 he was co-producer of 5 episodes, from 2000 to 2001 he was producer of 17 episodes, from 2003 to 2005 he was consulting producer for 44 episodes, and from 2005 to 2006 he was executive producer for 22 episodes.[8] O’Donnell won the 2001 Emmy award for Outstanding Drama Series for The West Wing, and was nominated for the 2006 Emmy for the same category.


-more-

[HarthorneWingo]

LOL

You wouldn't know truth if it smacked you upside the face. Savage has a Phd and has written 27 books, some of which were best sellers, what have you done besides be labeled by most of this board as a troll with a mod badge?

i have multiple professional degrees including a doctorate...not sure what that has to do with anything

I mean how can any1 support some1 who says these kind of things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAA2KxgqVvk

@ mugzi .... open mouth, insert foot.

[Pharmcat]

racism on well you know what channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XnLjDaREXs

[HarthorneWingo]

racism on well you know what channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XnLjDaREXs

Dang, that's some shyt. Makes me kind of wonda how we keep from going unda.

[HarthorneWingo]

The case for medicare saving money. Suck on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opini ... l?src=recg

Op-Ed Columnist
Medicare Saves Money
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 12, 2011

Every once in a while a politician comes up with an idea that’s so bad, so wrongheaded, that you’re almost grateful. For really bad ideas can help illustrate the extent to which policy discourse has gone off the rails.

And so it was with Senator Joseph Lieberman’s proposal, released last week, to raise the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67.

Like Republicans who want to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with (grossly inadequate) insurance vouchers, Mr. Lieberman describes his proposal as a way to save Medicare. It wouldn’t actually do that. But more to the point, our goal shouldn’t be to “save Medicare,” whatever that means. It should be to ensure that Americans get the health care they need, at a cost the nation can afford.

And here’s what you need to know: Medicare actually saves money — a lot of money — compared with relying on private insurance companies. And this in turn means that pushing people out of Medicare, in addition to depriving many Americans of needed care, would almost surely end up increasing total health care costs.

The idea of Medicare as a money-saving program may seem hard to grasp. After all, hasn’t Medicare spending risen dramatically over time? Yes, it has: adjusting for overall inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose more than 400 percent from 1969 to 2009.

But inflation-adjusted premiums on private health insurance rose more than 700 percent over the same period. So while it’s true that Medicare has done an inadequate job of controlling costs, the private sector has done much worse. And if we deny Medicare to 65- and 66-year-olds, we’ll be forcing them to get private insurance — if they can — that will cost much more than it would have cost to provide the same coverage through Medicare.

By the way, we have direct evidence about the higher costs of private insurance via the Medicare Advantage program, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to get their coverage through the private sector. This was supposed to save money; in fact, the program costs taxpayers substantially more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.

And then there’s the international evidence. The United States has the most privatized health care system in the advanced world; it also has, by far, the most expensive care, without gaining any clear advantage in quality for all that spending. Health is one area in which the public sector consistently does a better job than the private sector at controlling costs.

Indeed, as the economist (and former Reagan adviser) Bruce Bartlett points out, high U.S. private spending on health care, compared with spending in other advanced countries, just about wipes out any benefit we might receive from our relatively low tax burden. So where’s the gain from pushing seniors out of an admittedly expensive system, Medicare, into even more expensive private health insurance?

Wait, it gets worse. Not every 65- or 66-year-old denied Medicare would be able to get private coverage — in fact, many would find themselves uninsured. So what would these seniors do?

Well, as the health economists Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll document, right now Americans in their early 60s without health insurance routinely delay needed care, only to become very expensive Medicare recipients once they reach 65. This pattern would be even stronger and more destructive if Medicare eligibility were delayed. As a result, Mr. Frakt and Mr. Carroll suggest, Medicare spending might actually go up, not down, under Mr. Lieberman’s proposal.

O.K., the obvious question: If Medicare is so much better than private insurance, why didn’t the Affordable Care Act simply extend Medicare to cover everyone? The answer, of course, was interest-group politics: realistically, given the insurance industry’s power, Medicare for all wasn’t going to pass, so advocates of universal coverage, myself included, were willing to settle for half a loaf. But the fact that it seemed politically necessary to accept a second-best solution for younger Americans is no reason to start dismantling the superior system we already have for those 65 and over.

Now, none of what I have said should be taken as a reason to be complacent about rising health care costs. Both Medicare and private insurance will be unsustainable unless there are major cost-control efforts — the kinds of efforts that are actually in the Affordable Care Act, and which Republicans demagogued with cries of “death panels.”

The point, however, is that privatizing health insurance for seniors, which is what Mr. Lieberman is in effect proposing — and which is the essence of the G.O.P. plan — hurts rather than helps the cause of cost control. If we really want to hold down costs, we should be seeking to offer Medicare-type programs to as many Americans as possible.

[Pharmcat]

medicare wont be going anywhere

people love it, as they should


just need to strengthen the program, that is all

[mugzi]

I think you two should get a room because this leftwing love fest you have for each other is best shared behind closed doors.

And Pharmcat, Ive seen that video before. The guy came on the show baited him, and Savage told him what he could go do. It's subversives like you who are so quick to paint someone you dont agree with a bigot, or a hate monger, etc. Its downright pathetic. You might be a Knick fan in name, but you didnt grow up in NY or if you did you were very sheltered. That's how Ny'ers from his generation spoke when someone came at them with ill intent. And black, white, jew, gentile it still goes on today not only in NY but everywhere. But what you don't know because you never listen to his radio show is the man has more intelligence than any left wing pundit and can seamlessly jump from politics to history to medicine-traditional and holistic, the environment, etc. and be both entertaining and informative.

Now I know and get along fine with everyone, gays included. And personally unless I was disrespected I wouldnt even think to respond in that way. But even if I did, I wouldnt apologize for words. Because at the end of the day, words are just words. And being gay is the civil rights du jour right now. From getting married to these really gay commercials about not saying gay as an insult. When does it end?

Free speech isn't limited to talking points out of Das Kapital my friends. Dont like what someone has to say, fine, dont listen to him.

And Wingo, you're the Michael Moore of this board. All bluster, no substance. Shilling for a hack like O'donnell only confirms that even more for me. You think getting a degree from Harvard means anything to me? Harvard is as left and elitist as they come, I wouldn't wipe my rear with their degree.

Here's the real socialist O'donnell.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM2ktCj4-bM[/youtube]

[Pharmcat]

wishing some1 get aids is very childish and hateful

he may be a doctor, but that doesnt mean he can be a bigot

and I have listened to his show plenty of times, and he has a lot of personal insecurities (see changing his last name), and takes it out on others

[mugzi]

What isn't hateful nowadays? Hate without action is merely rhetoric.

And just because someone doesn't believe in the gay lifestyle they're a bigot? So do homosexuals who don't believe in heterosexuality and the natural order of perpetuating the human race bigoted against straight people and sustaining humanity?

You're grasping at straws, and plenty of people in news, music, acting, etc. have stage names, so what?

[ewingxmanstarks]

romney won hands down

cain's answer was not surprising, [b][b]the disappointing (And scary) was how much people applaused his bigoted views

[/b][/b]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uLazo3B ... feature=iv[youtube][/youtube]

Start at the 8 minute mark....Are you willing to say you were wrong for misscharacterizing the crowd?

[Pharmcat]

romney won hands down

cain's answer was not surprising, the disappointing (And scary) was how much people applaused his bigoted views

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uLazo3B ... feature=iv[youtube][/youtube]

Start at the 8 minute mark....Are you willing to say you were wrong for misscharacterizing the crowd?

i may be confused

i was also going by this article, check the last sentence here

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/1 ... =allsearch

but yea my bad if i got it wrong

[ewingxmanstarks]

romney won hands down

cain's answer was not surprising, the disappointing (And scary) was how much people applaused his bigoted views

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uLazo3B ... feature=iv[youtube][/youtube]

Start at the 8 minute mark....Are you willing to say you were wrong for misscharacterizing the crowd?

i may be confused

i was also going by this article, check the last sentence here


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/1 ... =allsearch

but yea my bad if i got it wrong

SMH @ Dan Gilgoff

[ewingxmanstarks]

The case for medicare saving money. Suck on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opini ... l?src=recg

Op-Ed Columnist
Medicare Saves Money
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 12, 2011

Every once in a while a politician comes up with an idea that’s so bad, so wrongheaded, that you’re almost grateful. For really bad ideas can help illustrate the extent to which policy discourse has gone off the rails.

And so it was with Senator Joseph Lieberman’s proposal, released last week, to raise the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67.

Like Republicans who want to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with (grossly inadequate) insurance vouchers, Mr. Lieberman describes his proposal as a way to save Medicare. It wouldn’t actually do that. But more to the point, our goal shouldn’t be to “save Medicare,” whatever that means. It should be to ensure that Americans get the health care they need, at a cost the nation can afford.

And here’s what you need to know: Medicare actually saves money — a lot of money — compared with relying on private insurance companies. And this in turn means that pushing people out of Medicare, in addition to depriving many Americans of needed care, would almost surely end up increasing total health care costs.

The idea of Medicare as a money-saving program may seem hard to grasp. After all, hasn’t Medicare spending risen dramatically over time? Yes, it has: adjusting for overall inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose more than 400 percent from 1969 to 2009.

But inflation-adjusted premiums on private health insurance rose more than 700 percent over the same period. So while it’s true that Medicare has done an inadequate job of controlling costs, the private sector has done much worse. And if we deny Medicare to 65- and 66-year-olds, we’ll be forcing them to get private insurance — if they can — that will cost much more than it would have cost to provide the same coverage through Medicare.

By the way, we have direct evidence about the higher costs of private insurance via the Medicare Advantage program, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to get their coverage through the private sector. This was supposed to save money; in fact, the program costs taxpayers substantially more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.

And then there’s the international evidence. The United States has the most privatized health care system in the advanced world; it also has, by far, the most expensive care, without gaining any clear advantage in quality for all that spending. Health is one area in which the public sector consistently does a better job than the private sector at controlling costs.

Indeed, as the economist (and former Reagan adviser) Bruce Bartlett points out, high U.S. private spending on health care, compared with spending in other advanced countries, just about wipes out any benefit we might receive from our relatively low tax burden. So where’s the gain from pushing seniors out of an admittedly expensive system, Medicare, into even more expensive private health insurance?

Wait, it gets worse. Not every 65- or 66-year-old denied Medicare would be able to get private coverage — in fact, many would find themselves uninsured. So what would these seniors do?

Well, as the health economists Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll document, right now Americans in their early 60s without health insurance routinely delay needed care, only to become very expensive Medicare recipients once they reach 65. This pattern would be even stronger and more destructive if Medicare eligibility were delayed. As a result, Mr. Frakt and Mr. Carroll suggest, Medicare spending might actually go up, not down, under Mr. Lieberman’s proposal.

O.K., the obvious question: If Medicare is so much better than private insurance, why didn’t the Affordable Care Act simply extend Medicare to cover everyone? The answer, of course, was interest-group politics: realistically, given the insurance industry’s power, Medicare for all wasn’t going to pass, so advocates of universal coverage, myself included, were willing to settle for half a loaf. But the fact that it seemed politically necessary to accept a second-best solution for younger Americans is no reason to start dismantling the superior system we already have for those 65 and over.

Now, none of what I have said should be taken as a reason to be complacent about rising health care costs. Both Medicare and private insurance will be unsustainable unless there are major cost-control efforts — the kinds of efforts that are actually in the Affordable Care Act, and which Republicans demagogued with cries of “death panels.”

The point, however, is that privatizing health insurance for seniors, which is what Mr. Lieberman is in effect proposing — and which is the essence of the G.O.P. plan — hurts rather than helps the cause of cost control. If we really want to hold down costs, we should be seeking to offer Medicare-type programs to as many Americans as possible.

Very clever article, but complete rubbish....Krugman is an utter disgrace

[Pharmcat]

but he has a phd