Republicans lose

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But a democracy is made of opposing views, plans and ideas. We wouldn't be complete without them. Fighting for your party when it is wrong and you know it is wrong is where I see the biggest problem.

That is my point, it's all about the party for some people. Even when it's wrong.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by GISG

The Obama care getting a pass was rhetorical. I should have made that clear.

But, something has to be done.



Medicare, Social Security running out of money faster
12:08 PMPrint Share
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says Medicare and Social Security need quick fixes.CAPTIONBy Alex Brandon, APMedicare's trust fund will run dry in 2024, five years earlier than forecast just last year, and Social Security's will be exhaused by 2036, adding fuel to the debate over cutting one or both programs to reduce annual budget deficits.

One reason they are running out is there is not enough coming in. Get more people working and paying taxes.

Second there is a LOT of waste and fraud. Let's start there.

Third, how is giving vouchers going to change anything since the government pays those vouchers. All they are really doing is forcing old people to have to go find their "Blue Cross" or other insurers. They still are gonna have their red tape to approve what those vouchers pay for etc etc

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Ten Myths of Ryan’s House Budget Plan

Myth #1: The House budget recklessly cuts taxes by $4 trillion.

Fact: It cancels a future tax increase.

Myth #2: The House budget increases the deficit by giving tax cuts to the rich.

Fact: The proposed change is a revenue-neutral tax reform plan that simplifies the tax code.

Myth #3: The House budget represents only minor deficit reduction.

Fact: It substantially reduces both short- and long-term budget deficits.

Myth #4: The House budget exaggerates the long-term spending challenge.

Fact: The challenge is real and potentially calamitous.

Myth #5: The House budget balances the budget on the backs of seniors.

Fact: Current and near-retirees are exempt from reforms.

Myth #6: The House budget would privatize Medicare and hand seniors vouchers.

Fact: Seniors would receive government support to purchase health insurance coverage on a tightly regulated government exchange system.

Myth #7: Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance.

Fact: Medicare’s administrative burdens are hidden and they outweigh private-sector costs.

Myth #8: The House budget plan would end Medicare as we know it.

Fact: Obamacare ended Medicare as we know it.

Myth #9: The House budget plan would shift Medicaid costs to the states and hurt the poor.

Fact: Medicaid block grants would help states lower Medicaid costs and provide them with the flexibility to better serve the poor.

Myth #10: Most Medicare costs would continue to rise, and retirees would bear those costs with insufficient assistance.

Fact: Intense market competition would reduce costs and enable Medicare patients to secure value for their dollars.

It is just what the nation needs in order to avert a debt-induced economic calamity. Its critics would do well to read the plan and understand it—and put forward their alternative—before dismissing it.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...se-Budget-Plan

The problem with polemics like this is, it's clearly biased. Facts aren't facts just because someone calls them facts and had this person not used the term "Obamacare" I would have less trouble believing it came from an informed unbiased source

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Ryan 40, Obama 0

whatever happened to the American people? Who cares about Ryan or Obama?

[stony ground]

Ok, the Democrat won, but let's not get carried away. Look at the final results:

47% Kathy Hochul (D, WF)
43% Jane Corwin (R, I, C)
9% Jack Davis (TP)
1% Ian Murphy (G)

The Tea Party candidate garnered 9% of the total votes. If he had not been in the race, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of those votes would have fallen to the Republican, giving her the comfortable 52 - 47% victory. Is this a mandate for big government Dems...or a wake-up call to the GOP that they can win with the Tea Party, but not without them?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Cindy

That is my point, it's all about the party for some people. Even when it's wrong.

If we say "some" people, than I agree. It is very similar to religious beliefs. Someone believes strongly in their ideology and they defend it, to the end. That is what both parties are doing. Not much difference in some cases as being "sincerely wrong".

But, when someone defends the wrong when they are aware of the wrong and support it anyway, that's where I have a problem.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

whatever happened to the American people? Who cares about Ryan or Obama?

Because both Ryan and Obama represent their constituency. It shows that Obama's people do not want his plan and almost half believe that Ryan's plan would work for the people. You can't have a plan without a leader and you can't have a leader without people.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by stony ground

Ok, the Democrat won, but let's not get carried away. Look at the final results:

47% Kathy Hochul (D, WF)
43% Jane Corwin (R, I, C)
9% Jack Davis (TP)
1% Ian Murphy (G)

The Tea Party candidate garnered 9% of the total votes. If he had not been in the race, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of those votes would have fallen to the Republican, giving her the comfortable 52 - 47% victory. Is this a mandate for big government Dems...or a wake-up call to the GOP that they can win with the Tea Party, but not without them?

It is basically a tough change going on right now. The Tea Party doesn't want to support Rhinos just to win a vote for the Republican Party. That's how Newt's gotten himself in trouble with them.

[GISG]

Originally Posted by stony ground

Ok, the Democrat won, but let's not get carried away. Look at the final results: 47% Kathy Hochul (D, WF) 43% Jane Corwin (R, I, C) 9% Jack Davis (TP) 1% Ian Murphy (G) The Tea Party candidate garnered 9% of the total votes. If he had not been in the race, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of those votes would have fallen to the Republican, giving her the comfortable 52 - 47% victory. Is this a mandate for big government Dems...or a wake-up call to the GOP that they can win with the Tea Party, but not without them?

The Tea Party cadidate was a plant, using his own money to bring about the results they got.
Jack Davis has ran three times in that district as a DEMOCRAT. He used over 5 million of his own money to bring about the upset this county hasn't seen for 70 years.
Having said that, it never would have been possible in the first place if the goof that had been previously elected knew how to keep his shirt on.

But, unlike democrats, republicans go quietly into the night when they are exposed to be deviants. Democrats get promoted in their party.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by GISG

The Tea Party cadidate was a plant, using his own money to bring about the results they got.
Jack Davis has ran three times in that district as a DEMOCRAT. He used over 5 million of his own money to bring about the upset this county hasn't seen for 70 years.
Having said that, it never would have been possible in the first place if the goof that had been previously elected knew how to keep his shirt on.

But, unlike democrats, republicans go quietly into the night when they are exposed to be deviants. Democrats get promoted in their party.

I wasn't following this election and didn't know that about Jack Davis. Totally throwing confusion into the pot.

I guess we can talk politics all day long, but the short of it is that, if we don't have a serious revival in this country, all of our talking is not going to do a thing to change for the better.