So George rolls along here with all the ususal conservative talking points.
Points that have been debated in America for hundreds of years. Of course he
writes with an air of authority that is false and misleading...but nothing
really new here. Then he sneaks in some new stuff. Stuff that is blatantly
false, but likely to be the new conservative talking point. Here it is
"Liberals' strenuous objection to vouchers is that vouchers, as the
functional equivalent of cash, empower individuals to make choices." No
George the liberal objection to vouchers is not that it empowers choice. The
objection is that at best it limits choices but most likely limits services.
Services that are essential to life. You have to gurantee that your vouchers
will keep pace with the rising cost of an equivilant medicare health
policy..then we can talk about choice.
And all this time I thought the sequestration thing was the doing of the
Republican Party.Have I been wrong?
one old man: Yes, but don't let that stop you from insisting otherwise.
No, no, we just want to take your guns and light bulbs. Soon you won't
have to worry about taxes because everything will be owned by the government
too. Seems so silly when I say it huh?
The fiscal cliff is no misnomer for a Democratic Party agenda as George Will
dishonestly describes it. Will and his fellow Republicans all know that the
fiscal cliff is a certainty that can only be avoided by action within the next
month regardless of which solutions are negotiated. The proper role and size of
government will not be resolved but the continued stability of a still
recovering economy is in the balance. Even Republicans who hear Will’s
call to flex their muscle know that.
Well, Joe, then how can you explain the fact that the Budget Control Act of
2011, which set up the sequestration plan was sponsored by Representative David
Dreier, a California Republican with no co-sponsors?After bouncing
around in various House committees, the bill was taken to the floor of the House
for a voice vote on July 28, 2011. On July 30, Mr. Dreier moved to suspend the
rules and pass the bill as amended by Republicans in committee.The
bill was passed by voice vote on August 1 so no record would exist of who voted
for or against it.It passed a few days later in the Senate. It is
said that it was a "bipartisan" bill. In the Senate, it was sponsored
by five Republicans and five Democrats.
Well, one old man, I see you took my advice and didn't let it stop
you....Whether or not the original bill was sponsored by a
republican or not does not matter. The whole thing was passed by both houses and
agreed upon by the Obama administration. If the president or the Democrats
opposed it, it would never have passed.It was designed to force a
compromise and end the gridlock (good luck with that). Naturally, everyone (i.e.
incumbents) were happy with the fact that none of this would happen until after
the election.Your attempt to lay the whole "fiscal cliff"
blame on the GOP is baseless. Both parties have caused this fiscal crisis, and
both are to blame for it.
there are clearly people walking around with "chip on their shoulder"
but I am pretty sure it is not Obama. once the DN proves it will publish
anything it thinks will get its subscribers riled up no matter how childish and
".....Liberals' strenuous objection to vouchers is that vouchers, as
the functional equivalent of cash, empower individuals to make
choices....."____________________Any takers here for the
offer of an increasingly embittered conservative commentator to explain liberal
opposition to vouchers? Liberals just want to keep individuals from making
choices. Does any thinking person buy that argument?Voucher programs
are Republican alternatives to public programs from education to Medicare. They
kill two birds with one stone by subsidizing the private sector with tax
revenues that are needed to strengthen public institutions they wish to abolish.
Liberals see through that ruse, Mr. Will.
To "Craig Clark" you are funny. You say that you don't understand
why conservatives claim that liberals oppose vouchers, then you state that
vouchers are "subsidizing the private sector with tax revenues that are
needed to strengthen public institutions they wish to abolish. Liberals see
through that ruse..."You seem to have done an excellent job
explaining why conservatives think that liberals object to vouchers. You
don't want people to have individual choices, and want those choices to
remain in the hands of government.Why should we continue to waste
tax payer money on inefficient government programs? Did you know that currently
the Federal Government runs on a 20% overhead rate? In comparison a private
health insurance company operates at a 15% rate for overhead plus profit. Why
should we keep using the wasteful government program when the private sector can
do the same thing for less money?As for Education, look at it this
way. A public education costs taxpayers on average $10500/yr per child. A
private school can educate an elementary school child for just under $8000/yr
with better results. Why are we still using the public system when private
companies do more for less?
It's like the GOP is suffering from delusions of Gandure.Over
60% of American want the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire.Republicans are still ignoring polls and public opinion.[Which is why
they still can't figure out how the lost the election. Karl Rove and
FoxNews do not America make.]FYI -- Pres. Obama, the Senate
and the Supreme Court over-ruled the House over Obamacare.Pres. Obama won
re-election, the Senate Gained D seats, the House lost R seats.Get
RedShirt:"...currently the Federal Government runs on a 20%
overhead rate? In comparison a private health insurance company operates at a
15% rate...Why should we keep using the wasteful government program when the
private sector can do the same thing for less money?...As for Education...A
public education costs taxpayers on average $10500/yr per child. A private
school...under $8000/yr with better results. Why are we still using the public
system when private companies do more for less?"Answer: Because
for liberals, it is never a priority to see that money is spent wisely or
efficiently. If they were worried about such things, then they would be
conservative. Instead it is always about WHO gets the money.
Overpaid government bureaucrat...GOOD. Overpaid private company CEO...BAD.
Public school teacher who belongs to a union...GOOD. Private school teacher with
no union affiliation...BAD. Who cares about actual results!
To "LDS Liberal" please don't lie or distort the truth. The fact
is there is no legitimate poll that says that 60% want to let the Bush tax cuts
for the rich expire. In fact there are polls out there that say that 60% want
the tax cuts to remain in place for everybody. The polls say people
want to tax the rich more, but they don't say that they want the Bush Tax
cuts for the wealthy to expire. In fact, they don't even give any
specifics for how they want to apply additional taxes to the rich. They want to
raise taxes on those making $250,000/yr or more. That represents 4.2% of
taxpayers.So, you may have some information, but you don't
appear to be able to understand it. Maybe you should leave poll interpretation
to others, you are not doing so well today.Why should the GOP get
over it. The DNC spent 8 years on a witch hunt with Bush. They are just
following YOUR example.
Joe, no. It was Republicans who invented the idea. Any claims to the contrary
Joe Capitalist..Because for liberals, it is never a priority to see that money
is spent wisely or efficiently. If they were worried about such things, then
they would be conservative". So Joe I'll see your attitude and rasie
you half a dozen private and government studies that show that medicare costs
have grown 4.%5 of the past decades while private insurance has grown 6.7% and
by 2020 a private medicare plan will cost 40% more than now.
George Will hits it out of the ballpark again. From the comments posted, the
Mr Will made an important point about how the GI Bill was essentially a voucher
program. He left out an important point about the GI Bill program though. The GI
Bill was not available to American citizens based on the fact that they were
born in the United States. GI Bill benefits went to people who had served
America in the Armed Forces unlike the "Obamaphone" which you can
qualify for simply because you are also eligible for a SNAP card.
red state prideCottonwood Heights, UT7:59 p.m. Nov. 29, 2012=============I was in the military.Were you?FYI -- In the United States Military I got free housing, free medical,
free clothing, and free education, Guanteed Student Loans I didn't have to
re-pay, Tuition re-imbursements, qualified for all sorts of Federal Student Aid
programs, free VA home loans, and that sweet-heart GI Bill...to name just a very
few benefits.ANDWe were all the same.It was the BEST
Socialist experience of this patriotic American's life!
The only problem here is that the US elected a president that has no idea of how
to handle financial and jobs issues. He has no experience in either area. So, he
makes the same mistake of pounding a square peg into a round hole. And the
merry-go-round starts for another 4 years.
Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Increase revenue, lower spending, and you get
reduced deficits. Republicans ran on reducing deficits. Now that they're
faced with a triggered sequestration that would cut the deficit in half (if you
think the fiscal cliff is too painful and you want a balanced budget, now's
the time for you to understand how much you are really requesting), they oppose
it. Pretty sure Republicans will come out as pro-cat anytime now since Obama has
@Redshirt1701"The fact is there is no legitimate poll that says that
60% want to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire."Uh huh...
just like there was no legitimate poll that had Obama winning this election,
right? How'd that work out for you all?
To "atl134" no, it is not like that. There is NO POLL that I could find
outside of a poll among Occupy Wallstreet people that wanted the Bush Tax Cuts
to expire.If the only poll that makes the point is so highly biased,
then there are no legitimate polls making that point.As for
increasing Revenue, have you heared of the Laffer curve? You can't just
tax your way to prosperity. At some point the taxes become so big that revenue
actually drops.If Republicans oppose a balanced budget, why is it
that the Democrats have yet to even vote on one. The Republicans have voted on
one for the last couple of years, only to have it die at the hands of Harry Reid
in the Senate.To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately you are wrong
about the military. It is not a socialist organization. Pay scales are
different, and even housing is different based on rank. How many sargents have
private jets like the Generals do?
Really George? Didn't Iraq and the whole war on terror, financed by tax
breaks, point us directly at said cliff?
red state pride,"Mr Will made an important point about how the
GI Bill was essentially a voucher program. He left out an important point about
the GI Bill program though. The GI Bill was not available to American citizens
based on the fact that they were born in the United States. GI Bill benefits
went to people who had served America in the Armed Forces unlike the
"Obamaphone" which you can qualify for simply because you are also
eligible for a SNAP card."____________________The big
difference is that the GI bill was not an alternative to long-established
existing programs. GOP voucher proposals for education and now healthcare are
reactive proposals designed to undercut successful programs the GOP opposes on