55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 06:58 pm
@parados,
Parados throws up his hands and says cutting fraud and waste in the Medicare program for starters is a waste of time, I guess because he thinks it costs too much to do it!!!! No wonder people are losing faith in Democrats and liberals!!!

I agree with Tom Coburne:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/27/tom-coburn/coburn-says-20-percent-every-medicare-dollar-goes-/

" Medicare has at least $80 billion worth of fraud a year. That's a full 20 percent of every dollar that's spent on Medicare goes to fraud."

The senator said, "If you look at Medicare and Medicaid, both vital programs today, they're highly inefficient. People claim that they're efficient. Medicare has at least $80 billion worth of fraud a year. That's a full 20 percent of every dollar that's spent on Medicare goes to fraud. And Medicaid is not much better. We don't actually have the numbers because half the states aren't reporting their Medicaid fraud. So when you have programs that are designed to be defrauded, even though they're well-intended and they are helping people, we ought to think about how do we get better value for that money and less money going out the door. "
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 08:42 am
@JamesMorrison,
"Too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving."
-Senator Evan Bayh on the current Congress
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 09:35 am
@wandeljw,
I have not read all that he said, just your little quote, but I would interpret that to mean that he thinks the Democratic Party has been taken over by extreme leftist idealogues. I wonder how Mysteryman is feeling about this? He has claimed to be a supporter of Bayh, and has stated that he believed him to be honest and a practical man. Considering Mysteryman is a conservative, it would seem like it would take a pretty good Democrat to sway him to their side. It is my opinion that even if a person is reasonable as a Democrat, once they go to Washington, there are two many extremists pressuring them to vote their idealogy there, so I will not vote for any Democrat to go to Washington anymore, there are simply too many extremists running their party. Perhaps that is what Bayh has concluded as well?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 10:16 am
@okie,
I took it that Bayh was referring to both Democrat and Republican congressmen who are more interested in placating special interest groups than actually solving problems.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 10:20 am
@okie,
Hey, look how the article you linked to labels that statement:

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-halftrue.gif

Don't you find this kind of selective posting a bit dishonest, okie?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 02:54 pm
Quote:
After watching Huckabee on Feb.7, I wanted to share information regarding history textbook changes that are being considered for Texas public schools! Chairman of Liberty Council, Matthew Staver, was on that program explaining the fact that historic figures and events important to the forming of our nation are subject to being wiped from the new textbooks being considered. It is important to preserve our freedom by retaining the teaching of (1) our Texas State history, (2) our United States history AND (3) World history, in our education system.

Globalists’ intent is to slowly transfer out all national pride by the forming of a one-world government - - beginning with our children. So much history of our founding fathers has already been removed from our textbooks. It is so very important for every parent " every grandparent " every patriot " to protect the teaching of our children in order to preserve our freedom for the next generation. I have copied below some of the information available to you on the Learning Council website " www.lc.org. Please take the time to voice your encouragement to this small board that has so much power over what our children are taught. Texas is one of the largest customers for public school textbooks in the nation. Generally, what is accepted by this board becomes the standard for public education nationally because of its influence. We still have the opportunity to have an influence in that process. The website gives contact information that will allow you to reach each board member separately or to e-mail, snail mail, or telephone them. Please take the time to explore this website and make your concerns known to the Board before their adoption meeting in May. - - and please pass this on to others. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 04:53 pm
@ican711nm,
A related story:
Quote:
Confused Texas Education Board bans kids' author from curriculum
(Traci Shurley, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 24, 2010)

What do the authors of the children's book Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? and a 2008 book called Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation have in common?

Both are named Bill Martin and, for now, neither is being added to Texas schoolbooks.

In its haste to sort out the state's social studies curriculum standards this month, the State Board of Education tossed children's author Martin, who died in 2004, from a proposal for the third-grade section. Board member Pat Hardy, R-Weatherford, who made the motion, cited books he had written for adults that contain "very strong critiques of capitalism and the American system."

Trouble is, the Bill Martin Jr. who wrote the Brown Bear series never wrote anything political, unless you count a book that taught kids how to say the Pledge of Allegiance, his friends said. The book on Marxism was written by Bill Martin, a philosophy professor at DePaul University in Chicago.

Bill Martin Jr.'s name would have been included on a list with author Laura Ingalls Wilder and artist Carmen Lomas Garza as examples of individuals who would be studied for their cultural contributions.

Hardy said she was trusting the research of another board member, Terri Leo, R-Spring, when she made her motion and comments about Martin's writing. Leo had sent her an e-mail alerting her to Bill Martin Jr.'s listing on the Borders .com Web site as the author of Ethical Marxism. Leo's note also said she hadn't read the book.

"She said that that was what he wrote, and I said: ' ... It's a good enough reason for me to get rid of someone,' " said Hardy, who has complained vehemently about the volume of names being added to the curriculum standards.

In an e-mail exchange, Leo said she planned to make a motion to replace Bill Martin and sent Hardy a list of possible alternatives. Hardy said she thought she was doing what Leo wanted when she made the motion.

Leo, however, said she wasn't asking Hardy to make any motions. She said she didn't do any "research."

"Since I didn't check it out, I wasn't about to make the motion," Leo said, adding that she never meant for her "FYI" e-mail to Hardy to be spoken about in a public forum.

Hardy said that her interest was in paring down that list and she didn't mean to offend anyone.

For some, however, the mix-up is an indicator of a larger problem with the way the elected board members have approached the update of state curriculum standards.

Board members will take up social studies standards again in March. They plan a final vote on updates in May.

Hardy's motion is "a new low in terms of the group that's supposed to represent education having such faulty research and making such a false leap without substantiating what they're doing," said Michael Sampson, Martin's co-author on 30 children's books.

The social studies standards update, which started last spring when groups of educators met to suggest revisions, has brought criticism from the right and the left about politicizing the process. As trustees worked their way through a draft this month, political ideas like imperialism, communism and free enterprise were at the heart of some of the changes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 05:18 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Parados throws up his hands and says cutting fraud and waste in the Medicare program for starters is a waste of time, I guess because he thinks it costs too much to do it!!!! No wonder people are losing faith in Democrats and liberals!!!



I didn't say it shouldn't be done. I said it costs money that the GOP REFUSED to provide to cut fraud.

Okie.. The GOP REFUSED to provide funding to cut fraud...

THE GOP, okie.. What part of GOP refusing to provide funding means the Democrats are at fault?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 06:45 pm
Quote:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18995&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
A REAL SOLUTION FOR COVERING THE UNINSURED
The uninsured can be covered at relatively modest additional net cost, without a government takeover of health care, rationing, new health care bureaucracies, or any of the other central components of Obamacare, says Peter Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and a Senior Policy Advisor on Health Care to the Heartland Institute.

Reform should start with Medicaid, which already spends over $400 billion a year providing substandard coverage for 50 million poor Americans. Congress should transform Medicaid to provide assistance to purchase private health insurance for all who otherwise could not afford coverage, ideally with health insurance vouchers, says Ferrara.

This one step would enormously benefit the poor already on Medicaid, he says:

The program today pays doctors and hospitals only 60 percent of costs for their health care services for the poor.

As a result, 40 percent of doctors and hospitals won't take Medicaid patients.
This is already a form of rationing, as Medicaid patients find obtaining health care increasingly difficult, and studies show they suffer worse health outcomes as a result.

Health insurance vouchers would free the poor from this Medicaid ghetto, enabling them to obtain the same health care as the middle class, because they would be able to buy the same health insurance in the market.
How would this be accomplished?

Ideally this would be done by changing Medicaid financing to provide the federal assistance to the states for the program through finite block grants, which would not vary to match increased state Medicaid spending as it does today.

States that innovate to reduce costs can then keep the savings; states that operate programs with continued runaway costs would pay those additional costs themselves.

Such reforms worked spectacularly well in halting the runaway costs of the old AFDC program when Congress adopted welfare reform in 1996.
Done right, this would ensure that no one would lack health insurance because they couldn't afford it, says Ferrar.

Source: Peter Ferrara, "A Real Solution for Covering the Uninsured," FOXNews, February 15, 2010.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 07:26 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

I didn't say it shouldn't be done. I said it costs money that the GOP REFUSED to provide to cut fraud.

Okie.. The GOP REFUSED to provide funding to cut fraud...

THE GOP, okie.. What part of GOP refusing to provide funding means the Democrats are at fault?

Knowing what I know about Democrats, I will just say this much, I won't call you a liar, but I think you are probably twisting and misrepresenting what has happened in this regard. There are a number of possibilities, one being the cutting fraud was being proposed that would create more power or more bureaucracies that would be more Democatic boondoggles, or would enhance Democratic Party power. One thing I do know for sure, conservatives and probably most Republicans would love to fund any reasonable effort to cut waste in Medicare and other bureaucracies. There could have been a bunch of really bad stuff piggybacked onto the legislation as well. One thing I have learned very well, do not trust what Parados says here, and what he claims. I am sure everyone would like to cut fraud and waste, but the devil is how it is done, and typically Democrats never turn down a chance to enhance more government growth and bureaucratic monsters.

For all I know the legislation Parados is speaking of is Obamacare which claimed to want to cut waste in Medicare, but of course Republicans are going to vote against that monstrous boondoggle.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 06:53 am
@okie,
Yes, I do support Evan Bayh.
I have said it before and I will say it again now, if he ever runs for President he will have my full support.
Yes, he is a democrat, and yes he is somewhat of a liberal.
And yes, I disagree with him on almost every issue.

BUT, he has those other, intangible things that count, at least for me.
He looks you in the eye when he talks to you, he says what he means and doesnt play word games, and you always know where you stand with him.

For him to not want to seek re-election tells me more about the Senate then it does him.
It tells me that the Senate has become so partisan (on both sides) that there is no way for anything meaningful to get done.
And apparently Evan Bayh doesnt want to play the BS games it takes to get anything done and he refuses to deal with those in the Senate who, to quote my mother, "have their minds made up and dont want to be confused by the facts".
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 09:28 am
@okie,
Quote:
One thing I do know for sure, conservatives and probably most Republicans would love to fund any reasonable effort to cut waste in Medicare and other bureaucracies.

I love the way you like to make stuff up okie and then you believe it and expect others to believe it.

Perhaps you don't know the history of tax fraud.
The GOP voted to decrease expenditures for the IRS to investigate fraud. Then the surprising result of it was tax fraud increased and now we have increased IRS spending to investigate fraud

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001399.htm
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 09:33 am
@parados,
You know okie, one would think the GOP would support a bureaucrat that makes the government $2000 per hour they work. Why on earth would the Bush administration fire such workers do you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/business/23tax.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 10:03 am
Today in Alexandria, some 80 conservative leaders, including the heads of some of the nation's most influential groups of the right, gather to sign a document that has been more than a year in the making called the Mount Vernon Statement. Below please find the web site where you can read and, if you wish, sign this statement reaffirming our founding fathers' principles of individual liberty and self-determination through the rule of law and free market principles.
Let it not be said that conservatives do not have a sense of humor for at this site one finds that, among other notables like Ed Meese and David McIntosh, none other than Attila the Hun has penned his signature. Attila, you may remember, took a more hawkish view towards foreign relations. Chester Cheetah also agrees with those principles within the document. We can only imagine Chester's boredom with the present Administrations gyrations since he already deals daily with an abundance of puffery at his regular job.

But, seriously check it out, sign it (if you are so inclined) and vote this November.

http://www.themountvernonstatement.com/
JM
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:38 am
@parados,
Somehow your claims are pretty hollow, Parados. After all, you supported the DNC chairman Terry McCauliffe, did you not, the same guy that made hundreds of millions in crooked ways, and now of all things we have a tax cheat running the IRS. If you and fellow Democrats and liberals were so upset about tax cheating, why do you now have a tax cheat running the IRS?

Yes, your claims ring pretty hollow, Parados.
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:04 pm
@mysteryman,
I do remember an article, somewhere, that I read, that used a pretty convincing rationale for Bayh's reluctance to run that was not just simply that he felt he would lose his bid for re-election. The article pointed out that if he did have presidential ambitions it made more sense for him to bow out of the upcoming race. As it stands Bayh has about 13 million in his war chest. Even if Bayh had a good chance of winning (this race would have not been a given for the GOP by any means) the current trend towards "throw the incumbant bums out" would force him to seriously deplete that $13 million nest egg thereby leaving less for a Dem presidential primary fight. Given his disdain for the current congress and his self described preference for executive decision political positions (a former Gov.) and staying in a partisan position which might force him to record a far more leftist congressional voting postion which could hurt his political efforts in a future presidential bid (I think Romney's refusal to veto the Mass HealthCare Bill will come back to haunt him for example) his [Bayh's] decision makes a lot of sense.

JM
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:30 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Yes, I do support Evan Bayh.
I have said it before and I will say it again now, if he ever runs for President he will have my full support.
Yes, he is a democrat, and yes he is somewhat of a liberal.
And yes, I disagree with him on almost every issue.

Mysteryman, I have thought you to be a reasonable man, but for goodness sake why would you even consider supporting a guy that you disagree with on almost every issue? I have to question you on that point, as that does not seem at all very smart as a voter. Surely you could find enough intangibles as you call it in another candidate somewhere, that you could at least agree with much of the time? When you support somebody that you do not agree most of the time, surely you must understand that person will be voting against your interests most of the time? That just seems very illogical to me.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:45 pm
@okie,
The free market is crooked?

IS that what you really wanted to argue okie?

McCauliffe purchased shares of a company and then sold them. He didn't do anything illegal as you are trying to represent. To my knowledge McCauliffe has never been accused of being a tax cheat.

When you want to face reality okie, let us know.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:47 pm
@okie,
Okie, the Obama Dems are self-confessed thieves: they support and implement redistribution of wealth. So they have no compunction about voting for their own tax cheats. It's only Repub tax cheats they abhor.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:56 pm
@okie,
The intagibles mean more to me then a persons political party.
If I find a repub that has those same things, I would support him or her.
With Evan Bayh, it helps that I have met him personally, and truly like the man.

Yes, I know that he would be voting against my personal interests, but I believe that he truly would be capable of getting things accomplished.
My personal interests boil down to whats best for the country, and when I find someone that truly has that in mind, I dont look at his or her party affiliation.

I believe Evan Bayh truly has the countries best interests at heart, unlike most politicians today.
When you add the intangibles in, I still would support his run for POTUS, even if I didnt support most of his policies.

If that explanation doesnt help, I dont know what will.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 07:52:47