Glenn Beck speaks the unmentionable

[myfavoriteboxer]

Obama is a centrist. Gingrich is a lobbyist and influence peddler who supports whoever writes the biggest checks. Romney is unable to hold any solid political views and apparently has no ambition (policy-wise that is) other than to become president... and then... who knows. The centrist case for Romney is that he'd be a competent technocrat that won't be prone to elementary school mistakes. That's more than you can say about the rest of the Republican field, but we already have a president in that mold in Obama.

Even a left-leaning voter like me who has plenty to be disappointed in Obama, has no alternative available in this race. Obama offers basic decency and attempts at competent management of the government which are insufficient responses in the face of America's various crises. All the Republicans have to offer is an even less helpful reactionary politics incapable of introspection or responsibility.

[AirFlacco]

Why don't you ask the 15M unemployed if OBY is responsible. It's even worse
amongst his own race. Ask over 1M foreclosures if he is responsible?

Every person I know that has a business is losing money in this economy.

The numbers are still vs him and that's a fact.

Galen has said he can live with Romney and you are saying the same or similar.
You're all liberals.

This is the real Romney now saying some of OBAMA CARE is good and some is bad
so throw out the bad even though he signed the same law as Guv of Mass and the
state is in debt.


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/1...keep-the-good/

[NCRAVEN]

Obama is a centrist

Seriously? I know a lot of left leaning voters and voters way left of center, not many people think Obama is a centrist, except when it's necessary for re-election.

Gingrich is a lobbyist and influence peddler who supports whoever writes the biggest checks.

I am not Gingrich's biggest fan and while I think what you say here is true to a degree, there is VERY little doubt in my mind he would be a much better Pres than Obama.

All the Republicans have to offer is an even less helpful reactionary politics incapable of introspection or responsibility.

This tells me that it doesn't matter what Republican nominee says or does they're already wrong cause they have a R next to their name.

[AirFlacco]

As I keep saying, it doesn't matter what happens in the polls cause Mitt is the
establishment's man and he'll get the nomination. Rove and Bennett are fighting
hard to make this happen.

To give you an example, Nikki Haley, new Guv of SC just endorsed Romney, not Newt.
The Tea Party just put her in, so why is she endorsing a lib. Because the libbies are
running the party and if she wants to get invited to the big shin digs and meetings
she better support their candidate and she has.

The Tea Party will eventually become the establishment but until then there will be
turn coats within certain factions of the party and Haley might have trouble running
for re-election for biting the hand that feeds her.

[myfavoriteboxer]

Maybe one might consider Republican establishment types "liberals" if rather than try to limit the power of government, they use it to help the powerful. Not deregulation, but regulation that makes it easier for the industries who hired the right lobbyists. Not tax cuts, but tax expenditures (subsidies) for a few. Obviously both parties are guilty of this sort of thing. Romney would be in strange shape as president because he seeks to do what is popular, and what is popular is confusing. People think government spends too much but they also dislike government cuts. They don't want government-run health insurance but they really like Medicare and the VA.

It's pretty clear to me that we're facing a crisis of individual debt, brought on because incomes have been flat for 40 years and we were content to fool ourselves that we were getting wealthier when it was just a bubble of real estate and cheap fossil fuels and credit cards holding it all up. Either Obama doesn't have the answer or the structure of government makes it impossible for him to fix things and he's staying silent about it (neither portrait is flattering). But yes, all the candidates with Rs next to their names have nothing to say to me about this. The answer is not to alter the marginal tax rate for a few billionaires. It's not to lower pollution standards (x more kids with cancer or asthma = y more jobs ... Yeah, right). It's a big problem that people can't make a living wage... so Republicans attack workers? Birth control?

So I would characterize is as judging (not pre-judging) the Republicans post-'09 and considering them not serious. It's a genuine disappointment to me because I'd rather have an opposition party with something valuable to say.

[AirFlacco]

Conservatives don't like medicare. The Tea Party is about
cutting that short of thing because they greatly contributes to the deficit. I have a great
medical plan but eventually the law makes me go off it and go on medicare when I'm
65. That will put me on well fare even though I have a plan now that I pay for.

My mom pays for medicare's supplement, about $125 pr mo but I know retireees
that can't afford that and just take medicare. That supplement is a big difference.
I retired at 57 but I know guys that would like to but can't because their company
doesn't offer any medical plans for retirees so they have to wait til 65 so they
can get medicare, um, wellfare.

This is what the budget cuts are about amongst conservatives.

Meanwhile the debt keeps rising.

[myfavoriteboxer]

I'm pretty sure that lots of conservatives like it. The fears about the health care law in 2010 had a lot to do with older voters worrying about it being altered. It's a vicious cycle in that socialized care for expensive populations (retirees, veterans) is popular, but expanding the amount of people covered, thus adding healthier, cheaper people to make health care more cost effective, is politically difficult. Private health benefits tied to certain types of employers is a huge drag on the economy because it forces people to only look for certain types of jobs, and stay in those jobs once they have them even if they would rather move, switch professions, or retire as in the case you mentioned. It would make so much more sense to view health care as a public good and tie it to citizenship rather than the jumbled combination we have now, where it's for-profit until you're retired, giving private insurers no incentive for prevention that would affect your health after you switch to Medicare.

[AirFlacco]

You're exactly right about older folks being scared. That's what all those
town hall meetings were about. I posted a video showing AARP shutting
down a meeting cause they didn't like the question about the death
panels but Herman Cain's statement that he would have died in the 90s
with cancer had OBAMA CARE been in effect then was right and that drew
me to him but the Ryan plan didn't include any cuts for people like my mom already on
medicare or soc sec.

And for all you young guys paying all that money into Soc SEc now, it ain't even
gonna be there when you're eligible for it after paying all that out - thanks for us
baby boomers -lol.

Man Boxer, you have good posts and I've learned from them. Keep them coming.
Cool handle too.

[Galen Sevinne]

The Tea Party will eventually become the establishment but until then there will be
turn coats within certain factions of the party and Haley might have trouble running
for re-election for biting the hand that feeds her.

The Tea Party, if anything, will be a third party which I see as highly unlikely as it currently sits. The Tea Party was an anti-Obama phenomenon which served to stifle any progress by his adminstration. It looks exceedingly irrelevant these days. Just look at the three Presidential candidates who drew tea party support: Bachman, Perry and Cain. It's hard to espouse Tea Party relevancy if these folks were the Tea Party hopefuls. Fox News has stopped their 24 hour promotion and that has ended much of the hype. Freshmen tea party members haven't delivered anything outside of obstruction. In the end, the GOP Prez candidate will be Romney who is essentially a couple hairs right of Obama.

As far as healthcare, the only way to lower the costs is to increase the pool (mandate) and eliminate the profit (single payor). Outside of that there are no controls and prices will continue to escalate.

[AirFlacco]

Good point about 3rd party.

I've heard that before and you might be right but the Tea Party just got started and voted in the
last mid terms for the first time. They got all those freshmen in and took back the House. They are gonna get
more seats in the Senate plus more seats in the house. Bachman never had a chance and neither
did Perry and Cain couldn't keep his penis in his pants.

I've posted links where even the DEMs are asking OBY, at least privately, not to run. Hillary has the
only chance of beating Romney or Newt.

That's why you lefties like Mitt so much. He's another OBY, just with an R but like everyone keeps
saying, anyone is better than Obummer.

Not sure about your health care statement but I'm currently paying 25% of my fixed income on
medical expenses and it goes up in two weeks.

[NCRAVEN]

The Tea Party, if anything, will be a third party which I see as highly unlikely as it currently sits. The Tea Party was an anti-Obama phenomenon which served to stifle any progress by his adminstration. It looks exceedingly irrelevant these days. Just look at the three Presidential candidates who drew tea party support: Bachman, Perry and Cain. It's hard to espouse Tea Party relevancy if these folks were the Tea Party hopefuls. Fox News has stopped their 24 hour promotion and that has ended much of the hype. Freshmen tea party members haven't delivered anything outside of obstruction. In the end, the GOP Prez candidate will be Romney who is essentially a couple hairs right of Obama.

This is actually somewhat accurate..somewhat.

The tea Party will not be a third party, they lost their steam when Republicans won big in the mid-terms because people sat back and said "whew, got some balance in the house now we don't need to worry so much".

The tea party may have tried to serve as obstructionist but name one thing the stopped before the mid-terms? Stimulus, healthcare, Dodd-Frank... anything?

At this point, I think it's going to be Romney as well... who like you said is only a few hairs right of BHO.

As far as healthcare, the only way to lower the costs is to increase the pool (mandate) and eliminate the profit (single payor). Outside of that there are no controls and prices will continue to escalate.

Why is it were told, the way to make education better is to pay teachers more money? But to make the healthcare system better is to cut cost?

A mandate and single payer may lower the cost of healthcare but then what happens? Without the attraction of high-paying careers people won't go into $300,000 in student loan debt etc, leading to less doctors, leading to longer waits, leading to government stepping in and next thing you know we're the UK or Canada where they have to ration shit.

[Galen Sevinne]

Why is it were told, the way to make education better is to pay teachers more money? But to make the healthcare system better is to cut cost?

A mandate and single payer may lower the cost of healthcare but then what happens? Without the attraction of high-paying careers people won't go into $300,000 in student loan debt etc, leading to less doctors, leading to longer waits, leading to government stepping in and next thing you know we're the UK or Canada where they have to ration shit.

As a healthcare provider I can tell you that this has already happened. Few mental health providers still take insurance in this area because reimbursement hasn't increased much, if any at all, in the past 12 years. The net result is that if you can afford the $120+ an hour for therapy and the $75for a 15 minute medication check up, you can access private mental health services. If not, you are left to fight for the few openings available with those who accept insurance. This create a huge gap between those who can access the services and those who can't.

The lower cost I am referring to is not in the price of actual healthcare as in your standard therapy hour but instead, the price it cost to buy insurance and how insurance compnaies distribute that money. 30%-40% of your health insurance money doesn't go towards the cost of your health care but instead towards administrative costs. Talk about your inefficiency! It cost between 5%-10% admin costs to deliver government healthcare. Wait!!! are you saying the government is more efficient? You heathen!

If you want to lower healthcare costs and actually increase reimbursments rates then increase the insurance pool through mandates and single payor and take out the 30% admin cost that goes to marketing and bonuses for private companies and execs.

In the end, let the admin costs be at 10% and increase doctor pay by 10% for insurance reimbursement and you will increase the amount of insurance slots available AND still be 20% less than private plans.