Posted on 12/12/2011 4:03:09 PM PST by Fred
as APatientMan asks, we are all waiting...
“My question is pretty straight forward. If we have a better choice I want to hear about it. Who?”
Look at where this country is right now and what will happen come 1 January 2013.
I have been thinking about Progressivism the last few days and listened to Beck today. I remember my parents teaching me about TR, Wilson, the UN, the Great Depression, and FDR, among other things. They liked TR. He was ‘independent.’
My folks were Depression kids, in their 20s when it all went down. Based on what I’ve learned about what the Progressives have been doing for 100 years now, it occurs to me that my folks were part of the last generation to be taught by people who knew the US in a form that wasn’t polluted by Progressive thought.
This means that everyone in Congress now, of any age, has been taught by them, the Socialists or worse. All of our media has been educated under them. I have. It’s only downhill from folks my age. As in slippery slope downhill.
I say this because all this ties together in realizing that only those of the younger generations who have the moxie to actually learn the Founders’ intentions, our original documents, our founding principles, will really be able to recreate the US.
Having ‘a plan’ or constructing a new ‘system’ implies a control pattern that comes from the top—something that most of us move ourselves toward when presented with a problem. The choices of what our Founders would do in situations that are critical to the governance of the nation have effectively been removed from what is actively taught, so these options are not prdinarily considered seriously.
Simply put, those who are our presently elected persons have all but forgotten the principles, if, in reality, the representatives ever learned them in practice.
My two cents.
First you think I’m a paultard and then a romney supporter? A little full of your self aren’t you? I haven’t made my choice yet. Nice to know newt nabbers are pretty much in character with the head salamander. Good Day sir.
I don’t think we do have a better choice right now, although I don’t see any reason to go whole hog for Gingrich in the primaries.
Voting for him if he’s the nominee will be soon enough for me.
I’ve held me nose plenty of times in the primaries and the general, and this time around I just might vote for Santorum in the primaries. And, to be honest, this is such a wild year, I half expect that ANYTHING could happen between now and when the nomination is decided.
In the meantime, I see no reason to build Gingrich up as the next Ronald Reagan. In fact, that’s not only inaccurate, in my view, I think it’s dangerous. The greater the build-up, the greater the alienation if (when) Bad Newt shows up in the White House. If conservatives then abandon him, and they certainly might, we got nothing.
So I’m advocating, if we have to do this, let’s minimize the shock by being realistic about Gingrich now. Just my approach.
While some Newt supporters accuse me of being “scared” by Newt (don’t ask me to explain that psychobabble crappola that gets thrown around when people, apparently, don’t know what else to say to you), I think it takes more intellectual courage to take it to the candidate you seemingly have to support, rather than try to wish away his many and deep flaws.
And, again, who knows what the next weeks and months will bring?
Although it’s getting harder and harder for Newt to step in it: many have signed up for the “I don’t give a damn what he does or says, nothing could make me not vote for him” club.
That, my FRiend, is called a complete pass, and I don’t think it’s a good thing with a guy like Newt.
Nothing. He is a Big Government Rep who has been feeding at the public trough his entire life. He is part of the problem, not the solution.
No, the author is not correct.
However, the calculation to arrive at that answer is complicated.
“While some Newt supporters accuse me of being “scared” by Newt (don’t ask me to explain that psychobabble crappola”
Actually, those words were your words, you stated Gingrich was “unstable”, etc etc...and that “...believe me, people are going to be taking a second look at Romney...”
LOL... your words.
“And, again, who knows what the next weeks and months will bring?”
True enough! I pray that I can tell my Grandchildren how the 2010 elections were just the beginning.
” - - - fueled by your Newt-hatred - - - “
I respect your opinion of me, but as the President of the Small Government Party I have received far worse opinions. I am just looking for a Presidential Candidate that abhors a Big US Federal Government, and I am here to tell you that it is not an easy task.
I am a reasonable man , - - - . Well here, let me show you. Last fiscal year the US Federal Government overspent by 56 %. That means that the US Federal Government is 56 % to big.
Why doesn’t Nanny-Nanny-Newt or Willy-Rom-Rom-RINO propose that if elected they would take a 56 % reduction in pay, AND propose that ALL Federally elected politicians also take a 56 % cut in pay?
BTW, put your smokescreen ranting aside, and just give us some Newt-facts on his accomplishments to significantly downsize the US Federal Government. Newt has been a Federal Politician for decades, so this will be a piece of cake for you.
BTW, BTW, isn’t rational discussion fun?
The - - -. If - - — - .
No, I really can’t improve on what you said.
BTW, ever thought about replacing Hilly, the current Secretary of Statements?
We agree on what we want. I want smaller government, return to Constitutional government, jail for the criminals in the government lining their pockets. It’s a free country, and you can say what you wish, but when you twist what someone proposed and inject ridicule, you can count on me to point it out. By the way, I have no intention of spending the next 45 minutes of my life satisfying your demand for some purity test. I have watched Newt since 1993...I know who he is ( as well as I know any of them) and imho he is the best of the 8 remaining candidates, all things considered.
” - - - We agree on what we want. I want smaller government, return to Constitutional government, jail for the criminals in the government lining their pockets. - - - “
Excellent! I KNEW that you were a rational Freeper!
Hence, as President of the Small Government Party, I extend to you honorary membership in the SGA, and encourage you to double our membership, as I just now did.
I think the answer is clear. Unless Gingrich is now accepting Paul Ryan's "right-wing social engineering" and moving toward some form of refundable tax credit, the only way to pay for everyone to HAVE INSURANCE (which is not to be conflated with people who can't pay for medical care having it provided to them by the government), is to have massive tax increases.
If the individual won't be mandated to pay for insurance, and employers won't be mandated to pay for insurance for their employees, but everyone will be able to have insurance coverage -- who is paying? And why isn't Gingrich spelling it out here?
Perhaps Gingrich is using "universal coverage" interchangeably with "universal healthcare" (which is about what we have now). But that seems like a pretty big leap. Especially since, given Obamacare, Romneycare, Hillarycare, there's a heightened sensitivity about that term.
If there's no individual mandate, and no employer mandate, but what would have been paid under those mandates and MORE is imposed as taxes, this is not bold reform.
From here:
What financing mechanisms could influence universal health coverage? They broadly fall into four categories – tax-funded integral services where tax payers in a country pay a tax that is used to fund health care for the poor; social health insurance, community health insurance and private or voluntary health insurance.
This is classic Gingrich: "universal coverage" is a term the Left uses and the Right does not. So, in his inimitable mixed political metaphor way, Gingrich links a term used by the Left to a principle demanded on the right. And comes up with something like, "No individual mandate and FREE STUFF TOO!"
I'm sure he has an explanation to fill in the blanks, or he'll pull one out of his hat. But, as it stands now, that's not fair advertising.
” - - - We agree on what we want. I want smaller government, return to Constitutional government, jail for the criminals in the government lining their pockets. - - - “
Excellent! I KNEW that you were a rational Freeper!
Hence, as President of the Small Government Party, I extend to you honorary membership in the SGP, and encourage you to double our membership, as I just now did.
Mathematically impossible. FReegards.
What is Gingrich contrasting Obamacare with in that sentence, if you don’t mind me asking?
“I guess you missed my several posts where I asked how Gingrich proposed to achieve universal coverage with “no individual mandate” and “no employer mandate.”
Jag is a Romney bot talking out his arse. Gingrich said no such thing.
I’ve challenged him to prove his claim, and it was a FAIL.
BTW, I also want to point out that there’s every possibility that Gingrich is NOT for universal coverage, even though his website says he is FOR universal coverage.
I think that because what he actually posted as the summary of his healthcare reform plan really doesn’t make sense, or at the least is missing key facts, as it stands now.
And, of course, there are lots of definitions of universal coverage, some of them quite complex. So maybe Gingrich has in mind some highly technical definition of universal coverage that isn’t synonymous with or a code word for socialized medicine or just a term the Left uses one way and the Right uses another. (How confusing.)
Maybe Gingrich just didn’t choose his words carefully enough and he never meant to state or imply that the goal of his plan was universal coverage. Or that he meant some kind of universal coverage that is different from that other universal coverage? Maybe he’ll walk it back or get a new editor?
“BTW, I also want to point out that there’s every possibility that Gingrich is NOT for universal coverage”
That would be a great bet, since he’s not for it.
“even though his website says he is FOR universal coverage.”
No it doesn’t. You are making assumptions that don’t meet the standard of reasonableness.
No, I attributed those words to others.
And even if I hadn’t, wow, it’s pretty weird to think you can make a call on another poster’s emotional reaction to a given situation.
Ever heard of the concept of projection?
How about discussing some of the points in the article?
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.