Skip to comments.
Why Medicare Expansion Threatens the Bush Tax Cuts and Undermines Fundamental Tax Reform
The Heritage Foundation ^
| July 25, 2003
| Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Posted on 11/29/2003 2:58:19 PM PST by FirstPrinciple
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last
To: inquest
And you are going to prevent the economic breakdown by more spending? I don't think so. I was always under the foolish impression that debt had to be repaid. silly me. Since we got our MBA in as President, all we have to do is follow his lead and get him reelected, regardless of what it costs the public. Excuse me, but I have reached my limit.
41
posted on
11/29/2003 6:32:33 PM PST
by
meenie
To: jagrmeister
You can't preserve political power by constantly doing unpopular things like denying medical coverage to seniors. Huh! Who is preventing seniors to get medical coverage? You are a little too carried away by hyperbole dont you think?
Comment #43 Removed by Moderator
To: inquest
Yes, as written. See the 14th amendment. The XIV Amendment was not the way the Constitution was written. It is how it was amended, but not originally written.
And I'm not splitting hairs. When I read how someone wants it as written I then have to wonder what they mean.
44
posted on
11/29/2003 7:11:41 PM PST
by
rdb3
(I don't believe in man-made "principles." I believe in Christ and what He calls right and wrong.)
To: Pukin Dog
The bill is reality. The complaining about it is not.
Where's the money going to come from? You sound like a liberal democrat - - you don't want to hear that there's no free lunch. Too bad Bush has bought into the free-lunch philosophy, because the price (in new taxes) is going to be steep for our children.
To: inquest
You can't preserve political power by constantly doing unpopular things like denying medical coverage to seniors.
Wow, you've got the age-old philosophy of the Democratic PArty down to a T. Buy votes- with the money of the middle class. Tax, tax, spend, spend - elect, elect. That's not why I voted for Bush - - - but it might be why I won't vote for him again.
To: rdb3
The XIV Amendment was not the way the Constitution was written.We were talking about the way the Constitution is written. Article V clearly states that amendments are just as much a part of the Constitution as the original document.
And in any case, even if by some bizarre twist the amendments were to be done away with, if you're a free citizen now, you'd still be a free citizen afterwards. Nothing would change in that regard.
47
posted on
11/29/2003 7:18:46 PM PST
by
inquest
(Government: Guilty until proven innocent)
To: freedomdefender
You responded to the wrong poster.
48
posted on
11/29/2003 7:20:20 PM PST
by
inquest
(Government: Guilty until proven innocent)
To: rdb3
Because I'd cease being a citizen and will be 0.6 of a person again. I knew exatly what you were getting at. I even started to reply to it then didn't. I do wish the courts would stop writing law with some of their interpretations though.
49
posted on
11/29/2003 7:32:20 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: FirstPrinciple
BUMP!!!
50
posted on
11/29/2003 8:20:24 PM PST
by
MayDay72
(Welfare Statism => Socialism => Serfdom)
To: FirstPrinciple
No, I was framing the issue as its seen by the public. You have seniors who can't afford medicine. You have some politicians who are willing to provide them with it and others who seek to deny them this benefit. Personally, I'd like to see Medicare converted into private retirement accounts.
51
posted on
11/30/2003 1:55:08 AM PST
by
jagrmeister
(-I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: inquest
While we may disagree on the Medicare bill, I do think we need to put Republicans on notice that they should be fighting harder against the growth of non-discretionary spending that has grown by leaps and bounds, despite a GOP President, Senate, and House. It's too bad the Groups (as Zell Miller calls them) in Washington that urge more spending outnumber those that demand less spending by 100 to 1. Those of us who want lower spending need to get organized.
52
posted on
11/30/2003 1:58:02 AM PST
by
jagrmeister
(-I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: meenie
Don't forget the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, the successful war on terrorism and prevention of attack on our soil since 9/11, deposing Saddam Hussein from power, appointing conservative justices, removing stringent business regulations such as ergonomics and environmental "studies" that take 10 years before businesses can utilize land, mandating student testing, school choice at least between public schools and banning partial birth abortion.
53
posted on
11/30/2003 2:00:33 AM PST
by
jagrmeister
(-I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: jagrmeister
I think Bush did as much as he could without picking any fights with the Democrats. Call it the new tone or whatever it is, Bush made sure that he doesn't infuriate key Democrats. Also, I think he changed his mind (a sober way to put it) on key issues like CFR and even prescription drugs. I am having second thoughts about the tax-cuts because they are so back-loaded and have a sunset provision. Expansion of Dept of Education, unionizing airport employees and creating a worthless Dept of Homeland Security doesn't excite me either.
To: FirstPrinciple
bttt
55
posted on
11/30/2003 8:36:38 PM PST
by
Tauzero
(Avoid loose hair styles. When government offices burn, long hair sometimes catches on fire.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson