Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished? - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 9:11 AM on j-body.org
blucavvy wrote:

i didn't say it makes sense, you told me to back up my belief that he should be punished so i did. what would b an acceptable solution then?

lol dude youre killing me here. im trying to be as nice as possible on this one since youre new and we joke around in AG and stuff. but this forum is for serious debate, not semi coherent babble or nonsensical posts like AG is. if you arent able to make sense with your propositions, then you may want to rethink posting in here at all. just trying to help you out....

and what do i think should be done? not a damned thing. he spoke out of turn and he was admonished for it. why should there be anything beyond that? trying to punish him for being rude and speaking out of turn would be like having your license taken away for jay walking. it doesnt make sense--the punishment is neither proportionate nor related to the "crime"






Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 9:34 AM on j-body.org
blucavvy wrote:

i didn't say it makes sense, you told me to back up my belief that he should be punished so i did. what would b an acceptable solution then?



not much you can do to really punish him. best you could do would be to change the rules so there was some form of punishment the next time it happens.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 10:17 AM on j-body.org
thank you sndsgood, that was all i was wantin to know.

tabs i appreciate it, really do, and i know i'm not the smartest cookie, i'm not disagreeing. and yeah i'm sure i sound stupid and i'm ok with that. just trying to learn. that's y i asked you what a legal form of punishment would be since like you said-what my suggestion was couldn't work.



Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 10:43 AM on j-body.org
plainly put: there is no legal repercussion since he did not break any law.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, September 14, 2009 1:30 PM


Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 1:09 PM on j-body.org
you mean there is no legal repercussion since he did not break any law


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 1:31 PM on j-body.org
what are you talking about?




Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 7:29 PM on j-body.org
blucavvy wrote:

i have healthcare, but thanx for bashin again buddy. you're real informative aren't you? and yeah i pay for it. goddamn you just really don't get it do you? let me guess, you were one of those idiots in the town halls waving a shot gun around huh?
btw let me clarify i have had insurance since i was 19 and paid for every month of it on my own in a trade job, which as you may or may not know hasn't been doing great in this economy. so go ahead, spout some @!#$ again that you have no idea what you're talking about.


Your correct, I don't get why You WANT to pay for other peoples health care when they done EARN it for THEMSELVES, as you have done.


Explain Please.


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 7:30 PM on j-body.org
Dont*....

Dont EARN it for THEMSELVES.


damn edit ... Suppose I could have proofed read it...

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Monday, September 14, 2009 11:58 PM on j-body.org
This is the biggest problem I have with the argument.....

If you speak out of turn against authority.... you will be punished and / or silenced.

Whats that sound like?


And even if they did think up some bs way they could punish him.... how in the hell could they enforce said punishment..... they guy didnt to anything wrong....... other than being rude..... wich in my opinion..... isnt necessarily a bad thing in some situations...


Personally.... I think Obama should have had the balls to stop his "speech" right then and there and have an actual debate with the man calling him out...... I mean.... if the guy is wrong.... Obama should have been able to explain why right?


But I guess since he didnt have a pre printed page of lies to read from on the subject at hand..... it wouldnt have been fair.....





Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:35 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

This is the biggest problem I have with the argument.....

If you speak out of turn against authority.... you will be punished and / or silenced.

Whats that sound like?


And even if they did think up some bs way they could punish him.... how in the hell could they enforce said punishment..... they guy didnt to anything wrong....... other than being rude..... wich in my opinion..... isnt necessarily a bad thing in some situations...


Personally.... I think Obama should have had the balls to stop his "speech" right then and there and have an actual debate with the man calling him out...... I mean.... if the guy is wrong.... Obama should have been able to explain why right?


But I guess since he didnt have a pre printed page of lies to read from on the subject at hand..... it wouldnt have been fair.....


chances are if he would have stopped and went into a debate with this guy, most of what he wanted to say would have not been said, he was there to read his speach and not start a debate. not to mention going into a debate with someone would give everyone the green light to interupt at anypoint and just demand the same attention, i feel its in obama's best intrest to ignore it and continue on.

personally i feel is was rude and inapropriate myself. there is a time and place for everything,regardless of wether you disagree he is the president and should be shown the respect due his position. if you oppose what he's saying there are allot of avenues to go about doing that. just as i felt is was innapropriate when bush was booed.


now they are talking of trying to impose sanctions on joe wilson which is just as dumb.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:22 PM on j-body.org
No, there was no better place then there, in congress.


as far as respect... Earned, Never Given.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry



Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:31 PM on j-body.org
if he didn't commit a crime, there's no reason he should be punished.

definitely rude and he should've thought out something better than just "You lie!" but @!#$ it. what's done is done.

i just dont think this is really newsworthy at all.



Check out my build thread!

Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:00 PM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

And lastly, like I have been saying since those BS "Tea-Parties" started this year, where were you when Bush was spending like if there was no tomorrow? "Why the difference now???"
Do you see your double standard here?

As I have said before, while it does not make Bush's spending good, by any stretch of the imagination, the big difference is speed and scope. Also, even though it was done under Bush, the TARP bill is a driving force behind the tea parties. It was simply that, on top of TARP, we got the ARRA and an Omnibus Bill, which together added up to over a trillion in spending increases in a very short period of time, from the man who many thought was going to reduce deficit spending.



If your going to argue that point, then one could also argue what the money is now going to be spent vs what it was used for during the bush administration. Here we have billions going to infrastructure, healthcare for you and the ones who can not afford it.... and what not, where as before a very large sum was spent on the military and the campaign in Iraq........

Also another good point to notice in all of this is how the annual deficit by the end of Obama's presidency will be half of what it is yearly now ......... THAT to me is an incredible feat by itself. WHO knows maybe if you are lucky enough he can have the country back into Clinton surplus type times.....



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:02 PM on j-body.org
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2755





My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:39 PM on j-body.org
I understand how doing something like that is frowned upon since its against edicut and if you acknowledged everyone that did it.... it would open the flood gates for anyone too..... but....

I have never believed that some one deserves respect solely on there title or position... just that of a common man.... and they earn the rest...... I dont care if your the president..... I still see you as an equal and no more..... that is unless you give me a reason to think less of you..

Is what the guy did rude? yes...... but really out of line? not in my eyes that much...... These people need to be blindly confronted sometimes (less chances to think up BS) and regardless if its right or wrong..... I like the fact he did it..... and they guy actually gained a little respect in my eyes for having the balls to "be out of line" for something he believes....





Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:06 AM on j-body.org
"WHO knows maybe if you are lucky enough he can have the country back into Clinton surplus type times..... "

We never had a surplus. It was a projected surpluss based off of false assumptions and numbers games that could have never worked out. Obama is not stopping funding one thing and shifting the money elsewhere as you may think. All these new programs are added costs to the taxpayers. Every number I see shows more and more costs yet very little reductions in spending. The health care alone is projected to cost $900 billion over the next 10years. If its run the same way as everything else you can expect it to be at least doubled.



Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:33 AM on j-body.org
dont know how one president can spend x amount of dollars and be called a spender and the next presidents spend way more then the first and be called a savior.




weeble. the fact that the man is the president should prove that he has earned the respect of millions of people out there. just because he hasn't personally came to your house and talked with you and did something for you personally doesnt mean he shouldn't have respect. if joe wants to speak out thats great, but that wasnt the time nor the place for it. image if half a dozen people were doing that. nothing would get done, the speach wouldnt get read it would just be a big shouting match. less would get accomplished and we'd spend more money as a society getting even less done.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:36 AM on j-body.org
Well they voted to sanction him. I have not really looked into what exactly that means yet...

It sickens me that this keeps being talked about. It is yet another example of a distraction.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:38 AM


FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:47 PM on j-body.org
Wade Jarvis wrote:

Well they voted to sanction him. I have not really looked into what exactly that means yet...

It sickens me that this keeps being talked about. It is yet another example of a distraction.



from what ive heard it looks to be worthless. just basically them going "we think you did a bad bad thing"


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:01 PM on j-body.org
(tabs) wrote:

goodwrench: i have posted over the years about being unhappy with what bush was spending. the difference now, as you so coyly tried to put back on me, is that the spending has been TREMENDOUSLY more, in an amazingly short time frame. did bush spend TRILLIONS of dollars within his first few months in office? hell no...he was busy vacationing on his crawford ranch. yet he spent the money (not nearly as much, of course) over the course of his presidency, not within the first few months like obama.

but seriously....shall i go on about the differences in the spending of the two? we've gone over them in a few different posts already....do i really need to reiterate myself for the sake of your lack of short-term memory, or more appropriately, your voluntary forgetfulness of the stats?


And once again... . Reading comprehension > You.
I never once said on this thread about you. Now if your conscience is biting you in the ass that's a different story. lol
And to me it does not matter how quick you spend the money, it is the final tab what counts. Since I nor you know the final spending spree for the remainder 3 1/2 we really can't crucify until we see the outcome of this. Past presidents, yes we can. Why? For the sheer fact as we know the result of it. Jumping the gun with negativity only makes you look pessimistic.

mitdr774 wrote:

"WHO knows maybe if you are lucky enough he can have the country back into Clinton surplus type times..... "

We never had a surplus. It was a projected surpluss based off of false assumptions and numbers games that could have never worked out. Obama is not stopping funding one thing and shifting the money elsewhere as you may think. All these new programs are added costs to the taxpayers. Every number I see shows more and more costs yet very little reductions in spending. The health care alone is projected to cost $900 billion over the next 10years. If its run the same way as everything else you can expect it to be at least doubled.

The debt slightly decrease during Clinton lasts years.
Found here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf




sndsgood wrote:

dont know how one president can spend x amount of dollars and be called a spender and the next presidents spend way more then the first and be called a savior.

Who calls him a "savior" today? One can only say this if it is the year 2012, not today.
As for the spending, it is mostly how it is spent and what YOU get in return. Put it like this: you spend 10 dollars expecting beer, but instead you get a box of yo-yos. You did not get what you paid for, no? In my case, my money went to fight a war that was not needed, and it is costing me as a tax payer $2-5 billion per week & running up the debt to mostly benefiting the very prosperous/powerful oil industry. This is what happened for 8 freaking years, instead of beers, I got yo-yos. After Obama's first term I'll see if I'm still getting yo-yos. Because quite frankly I'm not to happy that we are eating sh-it over in Iraq.

sndsgood wrote:

weeble. the fact that the man is the president should prove that he has earned the respect of millions of people out there. just because he hasn't personally came to your house and talked with you and did something for you personally doesnt mean he shouldn't have respect. if joe wants to speak out thats great, but that wasnt the time nor the place for it. image if half a dozen people were doing that. nothing would get done, the speach wouldnt get read it would just be a big shouting match. less would get accomplished and we'd spend more money as a society getting even less done.

Bingo.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:20 PM on j-body.org
Short Hand wrote:

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

And lastly, like I have been saying since those BS "Tea-Parties" started this year, where were you when Bush was spending like if there was no tomorrow? "Why the difference now???"
Do you see your double standard here?

As I have said before, while it does not make Bush's spending good, by any stretch of the imagination, the big difference is speed and scope. Also, even though it was done under Bush, the TARP bill is a driving force behind the tea parties. It was simply that, on top of TARP, we got the ARRA and an Omnibus Bill, which together added up to over a trillion in spending increases in a very short period of time, from the man who many thought was going to reduce deficit spending.



If your going to argue that point, then one could also argue what the money is now going to be spent vs what it was used for during the bush administration. Here we have billions going to infrastructure, healthcare for you and the ones who can not afford it.... and what not, where as before a very large sum was spent on the military and the campaign in Iraq........

Also another good point to notice in all of this is how the annual deficit by the end of Obama's presidency will be half of what it is yearly now ......... THAT to me is an incredible feat by itself. WHO knows maybe if you are lucky enough he can have the country back into Clinton surplus type times.....


there's no way in hell he's going to reduce the annual deficit to half, especially if the healthcare bull@!#$ passes. just another example of more @!#$ that comes out of his mouth.




Check out my build thread!


Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:14 PM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

With regards to Wilson lying, consider this one major difference in illegal immigrants being able to purchase health insurance under the exhange, with the government option, and them being able to purchase insurance currently from a private company:

The private company is not going to be subsidized by tax money, which the illegal immigrants do not pay.

So Wilson was not, in fact, lying. The bill that is being pushed right now would allow illegal immigrants to get lower cost health care that is subsidized by federal tax money paid by legal citizens. And Obama said the other night, as he has said in previous speeches, that it wouldn't.
I wasn't going to argue this point, but I changed my mind.

Your point about the public option as a whole being subsidized is purely speculative. Show me that in the bill. It does mention subsidies for some lower income people to buy it - at this point it specifically says that illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for this subsidy. For the rest of it people are paying for their plans - the people buying the plans fund it. Its non-profit based but that doesn't mean that the cost of the plan doesn't ever increase to meet rising cost of people using the plan. That is no different from free market plans now. The only point you might have would be the government subsidizing hospital being required to treat any emergency case in the door(being an illegal or not) - except that is already true today.

In short - if Joe Wilson was misinformed then he wasn't intentionally lying, but he was lying either way.

I'm interested to know if you are for getting rid of (or at least reducing) Medicare - it used to be on the Republican agenda's hit list but Michael Steele is pretending that he wants to protect it. It is after all a big socialist handout to the elderly. They have received (and continue to receive) much more worth of Medicare funding than they ever paid into taxes in their lifetimes. But protecting it polls well with the all-important senior voting block. So now Republicans are to be the guard of socialized medicine just so long as it is popular with important voter demographics? That is a clear cut case of trading principal for votes. In your opinion, is Steele right or wrong?





Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:12 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

I wasn't going to argue this point, but I changed my mind.

Your point about the public option as a whole being subsidized is purely speculative. Show me that in the bill. It does mention subsidies for some lower income people to buy it - at this point it specifically says that illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for this subsidy. For the rest of it people are paying for their plans - the people buying the plans fund it. Its non-profit based but that doesn't mean that the cost of the plan doesn't ever increase to meet rising cost of people using the plan. That is no different from free market plans now. The only point you might have would be the government subsidizing hospital being required to treat any emergency case in the door(being an illegal or not) - except that is already true today.

In short - if Joe Wilson was misinformed then he wasn't intentionally lying, but he was lying either way.

Sorry, but you're off base here. It is not speculative, it's fact. Dean Heller proposed an amendment that would have required the use of the existing S.A.V.E. system, which is already used for many other programs, to very clearly prevent the coverage of illegal immigrants. The amendment was proposed two months ago to require proper verification of citizenship to participate in the Health Exchange, and to receive affordability credits. It was squashed. You need to read this article from the Center for Immigration Studies. It does a good job of explaining how the current wording in the bill does not work to eliminate coverage for illegal immigrants.

Also, and it's in the same article, it does a good job of explaining how the lack of clarity and use of the S.A.V.E. program creates the problem of how illegals would be able to gain access to both the exchange and the affordability credits:

Quote:

The legislation offers affordable premium credits, or more simply affordability credits, to persons with low incomes who meet the substantial presence criteria. Under HR 3200, individuals would use the newly created Health Insurance Exchange to get affordability credits or to enroll in the to-be-created government-provided health insurance program often referred to as the “public option.” The credits are based on a sliding scale, with lower-income people getting a larger credit. The income ceiling for the credits and public option is 400 percent of the poverty level. Section 246 of HR 3200 states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”2 But as CRS points out, “HR 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — participating in the Exchange.”3 So it would seem that illegal immigrants, along with some temporary workers and visitors, would be required to have insurance and could use the Exchange, despite a bar on them receiving taxpayer-financed affordable premium credits.

Even so, the bill does not include any means of determining legal status for those attempting to receive the affordability credits or the public option. Most similar means-tested programs require use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to prevent illegal immigrants or other ineligible non-citizens from getting benefits.
The simple fact of the matter is that by lack of clarity, there can be fraud. When the amendment was introduced to provide that clarity, it was shot down. Thus the claim that the bill would not provide coverage for illegal immigrants is disingenuous at best.



bk3k wrote:

I'm interested to know if you are for getting rid of (or at least reducing) Medicare - it used to be on the Republican agenda's hit list but Michael Steele is pretending that he wants to protect it. It is after all a big socialist handout to the elderly. They have received (and continue to receive) much more worth of Medicare funding than they ever paid into taxes in their lifetimes. But protecting it polls well with the all-important senior voting block. So now Republicans are to be the guard of socialized medicine just so long as it is popular with important voter demographics? That is a clear cut case of trading principal for votes. In your opinion, is Steele right or wrong?

I believe that Medicare and Medicaid should ultimately be eliminated, and replaced with a privately run system, because they have proven they can not run such a system. In spite of the fact that they pay out less, the system is going bankrupt.

As far as Republicans waffling on it, I don't see it. The way I see it is right now it's another exposure of the lies coming from the Whitehouse on this bill. If this discussion were being had solely on what to do about Medicare and Medicaid, I think you'd be hearing the same from them that you've been hearing, which is that it needs to be replaced. However, right now we're having the debate on a government takeover of the healthcare system, regardless of what form it comes in (see note below). The bill contains a big cut in Medicare spending, but the Whitehouse is calling that a lie, because the Democrats have always been the protector of the program, and they don't want to lose that support. The bottom line is that the Republicans have offered plenty of measures to address costs within the existing system, but the far left Democrats (yes, not all of them are that far out) will have nothing to do with a bill that doesn't get the government into the system. This includes, of course, The President. I mentioned this before, but there were bills being held up during his speech to the Congress last week when he talked about wanting to hear ideas. It's all talk. He wants the public to see him as working with both sides, when in fact he is not. The only thing he does which he calls bi-partisan, is to meet with Republicans and try to strong arm them or make a deal with them to get the support for things.

If you haven't downloaded and read the bill yet, I suggest you do so. I posted the link a while ago for people to read. I still haven't finished going through it all, but even without the "public option", it's still a complete takeover of the system. Even the affordability credits program is going to get ridiculously expensive.






Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:03 PM on j-body.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Listen to/read this and tell me he isn't trying to flip and/or have it both ways.

Not that all Republicans are waffling on it, Steele obviously isn't every Republican. But he is in somewhat of a high position. He leads the RNC and as such can be seen as something of a representative of Republican sentiment. So if after that interview, you think he is waffling on the issues you care about - I'd suggest getting people to write him and tell him to correct his message.







Re: Joe Wilson: "THAT'S A LIE!" - should he be punished?
Friday, September 18, 2009 4:54 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Listen to/read this and tell me he isn't trying to flip and/or have it both ways.

Not that all Republicans are waffling on it, Steele obviously isn't every Republican. But he is in somewhat of a high position. He leads the RNC and as such can be seen as something of a representative of Republican sentiment. So if after that interview, you think he is waffling on the issues you care about - I'd suggest getting people to write him and tell him to correct his message.

I think he's pretty clear about it. He spells it out right here in that interview:
Quote:

Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. And the reality of it is simply this: I'm not saying I like or dislike Medicare. It is what it is.

It is a program that has been around for over 40 years, and in those 40 years, it has not been run efficiently and well enough to sustain itself. You have Medicare. You have Amtrak. You have the Post Office - all these government-run agencies that try to inject themselves into private markets typically don't do too well. My only point is that, okay, Medicare is what it is. It's not going anywhere. So let's focus on fixing it so that we don't every three, five, 10 years have discussions about bankruptcy and running out of money....


...Just because, you know, I want to protect something that's already in place and make it run better and run efficiently for the senior citizens that are in that system does not mean that I want to automatically support, you know, nationalizing or creating a similar system for everybody else in the country who currently isn't on Medicare.

As I said, this is also in the context of debating a massive healthcare overhaul that would include reducing a system that many already like. I have no question in my mind that if things stay as they are, you'll hear from Republicans again about fixing and/or cutting Medicare somewhere in the fairly near future. This doesn't mean that they can't talk about keeping it as it is instead of it's cuts being part of a massive government expansion. I'm not a huge Michael Steele fan, because I do believe he's a little soft and tends to muddle things as often as he stands firm on things, but in this interview, he's pretty clear about it. It's Inskeep trying to spin it to make him look like he's waffling (go figure--I mean, it's only NPR). Inskeep tries to put words into his mouth, and Steele clarifies.

Maybe Inskeep is just trying to smear Steele because he's black.






Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search