-
Obama’s Unaffordable Act
June 19, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Curbing the IRS
June 12, 2013 | 70 comments
-
Can We Get It Back?
June 5, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Ronald Reagan of Virginia
May 29, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 67 comments
A Further Perspective
Entitlement Reform Revolution
Newt Gingrich has proposed the most cutting-edge solution to our fiscal crisis.
(Page 3 of 3)
Gingrich proposes to control health costs by expanding HSAs throughout the health care system. Workers would be empowered with the freedom to choose them in place of employer provided coverage, the poor would be empowered to choose them for their Medicaid coverage, seniors would be empowered to choose them for Medicare.
Gingrich supports extending similar Patient Power to the poor in Medicaid with designated sums for the purchase of private insurance coverage in competitive markets, resulting in incentives for cost saving choices among competing health insurance alternatives. That would greatly benefit the poor because Medicaid today is structurally an institution serving to deny the poor essential health care just when they are the sickest and most in need of such care. That is because Medicaid does not pay the doctors and hospitals enough to assure such care. But with the above reform, the poor would enjoy the same health care as the middle class because they would have the same private insurance as the middle class, paying market rates for care.
Gingrich supports doing the same for Medicare, with retirees free to choose premium support through the program for the purchase of the private health insurance of their choice, similar to Ryan’s proposal. The same approach for the drug coverage of Medicare Part D has proved quite successful in controlling costs. A personal savings and investment account for the Medicare payroll tax during working years would provide additional funds that can be used in retirement for the purchase of private health insurance of the workers’ choice, which would result from Gingrich’s proposed ultimate expansion of personal accounts.
Gingrich further supports replacing Obamacare with a complete health care safety net assuring essential health care for all, achieved with no individual mandate and no employer mandate. That safety net focused on the truly needy would cost just a fraction of the cost of Obamacare, actually sharply reducing government in the process.
That starts with the provision already in federal law, stemming from the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation of the 1990s also enacted when Gingrich was Speaker, providing for guaranteed renewability. That means if you already have health insurance, you cannot be terminated because you become sick. That is what health insurance insures against after all, so such termination would actually be fraud, as state law across the country recognized even before Kennedy-Kassebaum. Under this regulation, insurers also cannot discriminatorily raise rates for those who become sick while insured. This law ensures that if you have health insurance, you will be able to keep it as long as you continue to pay the premiums.
The next component involves block granting and reforming Medicaid as discussed above, assuring that no one would suffer without essential health care because they were too poor to buy insurance. The final component would be a high risk pool in each state for the uninsured who never get coverage and then become too sick with costly illnesses like cancer or heart disease to buy it. The uninsured in this case would be able to get coverage as a last resort from the high risk pool, paying what they can based on their income, with taxes subsidizing the pool to keep it afloat. Because only 1-2 percent ever become actually uninsurable like this, this is the most inexpensive option for assuring an essential safety net.
What Gingrich has now proposed is the most cutting edge, advanced, sweeping, entitlement reform, sufficient to solve America’s long term fiscal crisis, while better providing for those in need, which is what makes it politically viable and so exciting.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (125) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/30/entitlement-reform-revolution
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.30.11 @ 6:56AM
It all sounds good and pragmatic and that's what is needed. After culling out millions for himself for that last several years will Newt be the patriot who reforms the system from people precisely like Newt?
The article was good but if, as you predict:
"These reforms taken together would reduce federal spending over an extended period of years by half from what it would be otherwise, solving America's entitlement and fiscal crisis,"
that still wouldn't solve the problem
Cutting future spending by half would still leave a gaping deficit of over 21 trillion over the next 10 years. Perhaps it would get the ball rolling in the right direction.
Although Newt would be the best one to make the case one has to wonder about his close alliance with Hermain Cain and what that was all about. Ditto Nancy Pelosi. Ditto the entire corrupt Washington establishment.
Grouchy| 11.30.11 @ 7:12AM
Newt is a good idea man & would be a good Speaker of the House to replace the worthless Baby Boehner...But he will lose to Obama because of family values: Obama married once with two daughters...Gingrich a serial adulterer....married to his former mistress who was his employee when he was cheating on wife #2. If the Democrats get to the right of Republicans on family values, it's over.
chuck| 11.30.11 @ 7:29AM
I think you're wrong. People are tired of the same old crap, and are looking for real solutions to some very real problems. And if the man with the solutions has some baggage, even a mountain of it like Gingrich, well build an extra wing onto the White House! At least we know what we are getting with Newt. Could anyone say the same thing about O 4 years ago?
O gotta Go!
Keith G| 11.30.11 @ 9:37AM
I disagree. People often say the most electable politician is the guy you'd want to have a beer with. Some say it's who you would trust to watch your kids. Newt is neither. He's a really unlikable character with a very dodgy past. Just imagine if he was the nominee for the Democrats; how would you view his character then?
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 10:13AM
DAMNATION! I miss Mrs. Palin!
ENOUGH ROPE| 11.30.11 @ 10:17AM
Gee by golly, based on the "optimism" about the Republican candidates, how about all of us Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents sleep all day on election day until 9 PM and then get up and have pizza and beer while we cheer for President Obama's reelection?
David W| 11.30.11 @ 10:29AM
I neither trust Obama nor would I want to have a beer with him. He appears to be a serial liar (worse that Newt, worse than Nixon, worse than anyone). Having a beer with someone means being able to properly discuss the ways of the world. Obama's view of the world is so warped I'd probably choke on my beer.
Newt has been asked the question several times about his past. Unlike Clinton he has shown remorse and asked forgiveness (plus some of what the MSM is reporting is crap, based upon interviews with Newt's daughter). Given how much protection the MSM is giving Obama he could be having homosexual orgies in the White House with underaged sex slaves and we'd never know it.
I'd love to have a candidate who is as pure as the driven snow. But that appears to be difficult to find (after all, they are all humans, with the typical human failings, with the exception of Obama of course).
SUBVET| 11.30.11 @ 7:09PM
Who would you rather have a beer with........obozo or Newt no brainer there. Newt's past yes we know his but what about obozo......nothing.
Jack in Wi| 11.30.11 @ 2:54PM
The vast majority of Republicans in the Senate voted yesterday to give the President vast powers to detain American citizens without going to court. This vast attack on our civil liberties was led by John McCain and the Democrat Carl Levin. We have 2 guys running for the Republican nomination who want endless war and endless destruction of our Constitutional liberties. Of the 2 I would say Gingrich is far worse then Romney. With Romney he might change his mind at the drop of a hat. Gingrich is a Mussolini wantabe. Obama has threatened to veto this bill. He will actually look like someone who cares about civil rights. This is how low the Republican party has fallen.
Today Heliocopter Ben Bernanke dropped several trillion of printing presss money into Europe to bail out the Stock Market and the Euro. The Fed will print money till the cows come home to make sure Obama wins the election. If either Romney or Gingrich is put in by some mistake. The results of endlees war and endless debt would put an end to any hope we have to save this country for our posterity. At least with Obama in we have hope of a general insurection or perhaps a general strike. With the Republicans in, there would be no opposition at all. It is similar to when Bush was in power.
coal carrier| 11.30.11 @ 4:40PM
In an earlier debate Ron Paul promoted the idea that by building a fence on our southern border to secure it from illegal immigration could be used in the future to keep American citizens from leaving the country. Oh yeah, he’s the candidate that I want to see debate Obama.
carnot| 11.30.11 @ 11:34PM
bahahaha....so in the grand scheme of things...this trumps hanging out with terrorists and working overtime to destroy a country?
Shamus| 11.30.11 @ 7:43AM
If Gingrich were the nominee, his biggest problem would presenting a message that ordinary people could understand about entitlement reform. It'd be a heavy lift.
Obama's script writes itself. Republicans want to take away your Social Security and medical care. Grandma eats dog food and gets thrown off the cliff. Would voters see through this sham? It would take a great deal of persuasion and some level of trust.
I think Democrats would be salivating at the chance to fight the election over the issue of entitlement reform, as they could simply ignore the shambles they've made of the economy.
richard ryan| 11.30.11 @ 8:06AM
True, entitlement reform takes political courage. I've always wondered if liberals were simply ignorant, or if they truly did not care about the well-being of this nation. Time and time again they have indicated the latter, but no issue illustrates this as strongly as our entitlement system. As has been pointed out, even if we slash future spending, we are still headed over a cliff. I have yet to hear ONE serious proposal from democrats to reduce our debt. The super committee, to me, was the first sign that this country is finished. They couldn't cut 1.2 trillion over a decade. Meanwhile, the democrat annual deficit has exceeded this for each year of Obama's administration. And he will successfully blame republicans for our fiscal woes. We can sit around and talk about affairs and divorces and that nonsense until we are blue in the face. But we had better elect a serious conservative with some courage or it's over. simple as that.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 9:26AM
rich,
You forgot to include liberal mendacity as an option. You should consider it.
richard ryan| 11.30.11 @ 10:26AM
That's a given, I've never doubted that as their means to achieving what they want. Of course 99% of liberal politicians are liars and vote buyers. What is more difficult to believe is that after 3 generations of failed leftist policies they still cling to these ideas despite the knowledge that they will ruin the lives of our children and grandchildren. Stupid, evil, or both? Or do they believe that as members of the elite, their offspring will be immune from the chaos that will surely be coming?
Aces and Eights| 11.30.11 @ 12:36PM
"Or do they believe that as members of the elite, their offspring will be immune from the chaos that will surely be coming?"
This is the key. It has always been the key. 2000 years ago Roman Patricians thought that THEY were immune from the trials of the Plebians (until Sulla brought a few "trials" to their attention.) As long as it doesn't affect THEM, they feel free to "experiment" even to the point of claiming abject failure as a "great success!" (as Obama is doing by claiming his policies are saving the economy.)
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 1:41PM
They'll be immune because they will inherit their parent's political offices....
I thought we took care of that 235 years ago....
TrueBlue| 11.30.11 @ 2:04PM
It helps that most of them are godless. If there's no afterlife then who cares what happens after they are dead so long as they can get the greatest benefit to themselves while alive?
CrackerHound| 11.30.11 @ 12:18PM
I fear you are correct Shamus.
Newt could counter-punch every single time the MSM shows a clip of dems proclaiming these shallow slogans by demanding equal time and correcting the report with facts and CBO endorsements and the like. In essence, hound the media and push his ideas. He could at least reach non-ideological fence sitters and perhaps convert thinking Americans to his side. Although the left wing MSM will be a tough nut to crack but if tried correctly, they wouldn't have a choice but to give his vision a fair hearing (being aggresive and shameing NBC into compliance is key).
Given Obama's record and demonstrated lack of ideas, it wouldn't take much to convince Americans to vote for Newt. Imagine someone with actual ideas beyond "hope" or "change" running against The Obama(stolen TARP money), Reid and Pelosi (vote for it to see what is in it) clan.
Smart spending cuts vs. the blind raping of treasury and redistributing to cronies
Tax increases+mountainous regulation vs. tax cuts+smaller government
Obama has NOTHING to run on and has wayyy more baggage than Newt although of a different variety....he hates the American people and it shows. The campain ad possibilities are endless.
I don't know how conservatives cannot see that Newt is who we must go with and how electable he really is. Most people that vote know the seriousness of the situation and will look past Newt's 15-year old baggage.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 1:44PM
You assume that the MSM will bother to air Newt's witty ripostes to Obama's wall of hubris.
Which they will NOT.
It's gonna be am endless loop of his 1994 quote about ending social security, with the Tiffany's bill, and Mrs. G #1, #2, and #3.
DO NOT KID YOURSELF PEOPLE.
Endless, endless, endless, endless, endless, ...
TrueBlue| 11.30.11 @ 2:11PM
Newt, assuming he can stick to conservative principles and not bow beneath the weight of liberal pressure like he did with Manmade Global Warming and others back in '96, needs to make use of the internet. Put out podcasts explaining his ideas, do what Ryan did and release youtube videos explaining his plans and showing the actual numbers so people can compare the math.
Ignore NBC, CNN, etc unless they come to him, then make sure that he sticks to only soundbites that are very difficult to cut up and use against him. Use FOX as much as they'll let him, and then just make use of conservative blogs, youtube, and commercials to get the message out and to counter accusations and post entire interviews from the MSM to show how much chopping they do.
I still like Cain a heck of a lot more than Newt, but Newt is many times better than Romney (Mr. Obamalite).
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 2:40PM
True, I'm with you.
Chalkdust| 11.30.11 @ 8:24AM
Look, let's not dive off the deep end over D.I.V.O.R.C.E, which is as common today as male pattern baldness or a cranky wife. If Newt can control his liberal tendencies. America is in big trouble and needs a big idea man with brass stones who realizes we're all going have to give a little. Liberals, Progressives and their fellow travelers are just going to have to step aside while the people who believe in the American dream repair the damage they've done to our country.
wodiej| 11.30.11 @ 9:32AM
Although I don't advocate committing adultery, socialism is worse. When people don't have a job and are sleeping in their cars, they don't give a damn about an affair Gingrich had 15 years ago. They want someone who will move this country back in the right direction. So take your pick-socialism and destruction of our country or a man who made a mistake 15 years ago-which is it? We have ALL made mistakes. Do we want to be judged the rest of our lives for it? I think not.
Quasimoto| 11.30.11 @ 10:19AM
Newt Gingrich for President!
I swear I can't stop laughing. And this is the best the GOP can do? Trot out this tired old horse who's pulling a wagon full of manure from his past that smells to high heaven.
And then there's Cain, an ordained Baptist minister, who can't keep his zipper up, and brazenly declares that his sex life is none of the media's business.
And Obama will be smiling all the way to re-election, and Barak has a beautiful smile. Love to see that man smile.
Beautiful day today here in Virginia. "Hey Mr. Bluebird on my shoulder; it's a fact, it's natural; everything is satisfactual . . ." or something like that . . .
Post-a-Note (74)| 11.30.11 @ 10:35AM
How right you are, Quasimoto.
The GOP doesn't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning the election.
Traditional Republicans have left the party in droves because of the rabid Tea Baggers and the mean-as-hell Religious Right.
Since the Religious Right took over, I left the party like I was fleeing a house on fire.
A house on fire . . and imploding. A pretty good metaphor for the ridiculous GOP.
Brother Ben| 11.30.11 @ 10:36AM
Amen.
op uy ert ew s0d wer lin| 11.30.11 @ 10:41AM
When Cain sang "Amazing Grace shall be my theme in glory . . ." , he must have been singing about one of his mistresses named Grace.
You reckon?
That man knows hot to hustle 'em up.
op uy ert ew s0d wer lin| 11.30.11 @ 10:43AM
That man knows how
The Knife| 11.30.11 @ 11:55AM
Oh crap. We're stuck with the affirmative action hire Obama. This is what stupid Democrats keep forgetting. The big O is going to look a lot worse next year. 2012 is going to make 2010 look like the good old days for Democrats.
Drunken Sailor| 11.30.11 @ 12:26PM
Has anyone else noticed that every time Obama's popularity dips, Liberals show up at AS and try to convince us he is a shoe-in? Just yesterday word was posted that Obama's approval is even lower than Jimmy Carter's was at the same time in his Presidency. Congratulations Obama, you now in first place in your race to the bottom.
skip| 11.30.11 @ 10:54PM
Your brilliant and astute analysis, brimming with reason and experience based on such blatantly obvious intelligence and honesty, as well as that of your esteemed colleagues, sure has won this mean-as-hell religious conservative over. We have all secretly been worried sick we didn't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning, what with the brilliant and astute policies that have resulted in all this hope and change that has made things so wonderful. All this liberal success has really got us fleeing in droves. The only thing I don't get is whether your ridiculous metaphor represents (74) of your fellow brilliant and astute colleagues rabidly tea bagging you a day, or whether it is (74) times you rabidly take it on the chin per tea bagging, before your house on fire implodes.
TrueBlue| 11.30.11 @ 2:15PM
You mean the ACCUSATIONS that still have not been proven? Accusations put forth by women who, for each one that actually has a name attached to it, have records of accusing men of the same thing or worse. Thanks to the MSM tabloid mentality we have become a country of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent." People are more than willing to listen to everything that Hollywood, DC, and various athletes spout out on topics they don't have a cursed clue about. At least Cain has admitted when he doesn't know something rather than trying to pretend he's perfect like Obama and the liberal elitists.
Chalkdust| 12.1.11 @ 7:02AM
Speaking of manure.........Oh I'm sorry I must have dozed off! I just returned from a trip to the "English" embassy. That Obama, he's such a court jester and funny in a smiley way.
7 UP| 11.30.11 @ 11:56AM
READ ALL ABOUT IT!
Herman Cain withdrew from the Republican presidential race today, a move that resulted in millions of pro-adultery voters shifting their support to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The shift in support is significant because pro-adultery voters represent the single largest voting bloc in the Republican Party, experts say.
mike c| 11.30.11 @ 12:52PM
Like many self-descibed geinuses Newt has the propensiy to be spectactularly stupid and w/ history as a guide his self-implosion is inevitable.
The only question is; will he combust before or after the election?
God help us all if its the latter.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.11 @ 2:59PM
"Newt Gingrich has proposed the most cutting-edge solution to our fiscal crisis"
Before or after he colonizes Mars?
Alan Brooks| 11.30.11 @ 3:19PM
Gingrich is 50% hot air
50% futurist books with glossy 3 color jackets.
Newt's cuteness as a leprechaun is what sells him to the public; good for him, he can do commercials for Lucky Charms cereal.
Brian Mc| 11.30.11 @ 6:57AM
There is no way libs will see this as anything less than sinister. Why? Because there is no mention of liberal control over the masses, that's why. They will cut this thing apart until they find starving children and grandmas eating from cans of cat food before they consider this 'politically viable'.
chuck| 11.30.11 @ 7:14AM
That's why you can't compromise with them, they must be defeated.
al222| 11.30.11 @ 8:27AM
exactly. libs don't care about policy, they care about power. anything that reduces it is DOA in DC
CrackerHound| 11.30.11 @ 12:28PM
Unfortunately, half of Americans are just like the Greeks....riot in the streets if you cut one penny from their monthly check or ask them to work a little harder while the country is two days away from starvation. It's almost hopeless it seems.
This is why I don't really care if the media and dems are able to portray Republican's ideas as wanting to throw grandma over a cliff....what else are we going to do? This is what we MUST sell to the voters and shrug off the fear mongering media democrat cabal.
Jack in Wi| 11.30.11 @ 6:59AM
If Gingrich and the Republicans talk anything about Social Security except to say that they will pay the benefits to the elderly, and maybe let the young opt out, they will be decimated at the polls. The public doesn't trust the GOP on this issue.
period.
Gingrich is hated by most of the American population including most Republicans. Paul Ryan had a plan that Gingrich attacked. Now Paul is a likeable technocrat who is young, and good looking. Gingrich with all his junky healthcare, and Social Security plans, and eternal wars around the world is an ugly old man that couldn't sell anything to anybody. Nobody is going to trust Newt on any issues if he knows anything about the guy and his record. Bush could not sell a Social Security plan. Neither could Ryan. Gingrich and all his plans will be the final obituary for the GOP. Good Riddence. End the wars. Bring the troops home. End all foreign aid. Slash everything else including closing many departments. But please do not try to touch Social Security as the main issue to balance the budget.
Cosmo| 11.30.11 @ 7:18AM
If you privatize Social Security, there won't be any money to pay benefits to retirees...You need to go in the opposite direction--increase Social Security revenues by busting the cap & having everybody pay into it...including athlete millionaires who only pay on the first $90,000.00. Have them pay on their entire income and Social Security would be saved, you could raise benefits and cut the rate to 5%.
chuck| 11.30.11 @ 7:20AM
I surely hope this is sarcasm.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 9:34AM
If not, it's a sorely-challenged facts and mathematics shipwreck...
chuck| 11.30.11 @ 7:19AM
.............................................................................
............................................................................
Can't we all just ignore Jack for 1 day?
The campaign to shun Jack continues.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 9:27AM
Jack who?
Is that some new knock-knock joke?
wodiej| 11.30.11 @ 9:33AM
If Gingrich were hated by most people, why are his poll numbers going up?
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 9:42AM
Maybe because the poll numbers necessarily include some Democrats who need to have a moderate-voter-confusing candidate like Newt topping the Republican ticket to save their little President from defeat.
Maybe because pollsters know how to ask and sequence questions to materially affect the results. And maybe pollsters, whose biggest paying customers are the mainstream media and the Democrat Presidential campaign, have a good idea of what their best customers want to see in the polls. Anybody with any sales experience knows you draw more flies with honey than with vinegar....
Look at it this way, if they'll cheat in federal elections violating state and federal laws, why wouldn't they cheat in polling, which is not even illegal? They're not that lazy...if only!
op uy ert ew s0d wer lin| 11.30.11 @ 11:09AM
His poll number are going up because so many Republicans share Newt's rotten moral character. That's why,
The Knife| 11.30.11 @ 11:56AM
Put some ice on it, silly.
Truth to Power| 11.30.11 @ 12:05PM
Did somebody drag some stimulus money through a trailer park? There are a lot of trolls out today.
Drunken Sailor| 11.30.11 @ 2:08PM
Can't be the trailer park. Remember trailer parks and white trash go hand in hand and we all are to busy being racist, thumping our bibles, and clinging to our religion to post anything in Obamas's favor
Mimi| 11.30.11 @ 7:02AM
Bring on the CREW who would creatively draw up some entertaining campaign adds, That would simplfy, and inform all the people about this PLAN. To use the Free Market to solve problems is the American way...Good for Newt, and thanks Peter for getting the message out to us.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 9:31AM
I'd be so much more comfortable about Nest's plan, if I wasn't so certain that fifteen minutes later he'd come up with ANOTHER completely new idea about reforming Social Security. Newt is so ADD that is my biggest fear of him as President. Not to mention loving health insurance mandates, believing in solving anthropogenic global warming by increasing energy costs, and so on....
Newt has never met an idea he didn't like.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 9:32AM
Freud is alive and well in my day. That'd rightly be me being "more comfortable about Newt's plan..."
Sheesh - back to bed for me. C Ya.
Mimi| 11.30.11 @ 2:03PM
DTOM....Who can take the bull by the horns...who is not WEAK ...Strong and deliberate enough to make the needed changes....He comes off as the BEST leader.....I have watched the debates and Newt is the one the others look up to.
The N.H. Union Leader said it well.
Newt is the one to take serious...One most important thing....HE LOVES THIS COUNTRY & most likely will SERVE it well.
If someone with more Conservative tendencies and the ALTER-BOY type...( I LOVE Rick Santorum) came up in the race and looked more viable we could sure live with that!
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 2:44PM
Mimi;
You just gotta find 15% of Republicans in early primary states who'll agree with you. I'm pretty sure Rick's been trying to figure out how to do that for a while. Heck, I wish him luck. He stands way tall over ADD Gingrich and RINO Romney.
And Obama looks like a ant....
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.30.11 @ 7:03AM
This is what G.W. Bush proposed, years ago. But the Democrats (led by that Poster Boy for: The Reason that Rednecks, Blacks, Hispanics, WASPS, Europeans, and Asians, Hate Jews - Chuck Schumer ) had a plan of their own. They congregated at the nearest Statue of FDR, and smiled for the cameras. I believe that only the back of Nancy Pelosi's head, was visible, as it was in the FDR's lap. (Anyone surprised?)
So. Expect these Plans, of Gingrich's, to be soundly rejected by the usual Subjects. The ones who tell us that "We need to Spend MORE", and, "We're NOT out of Money", "We need to CUT Defence", "Islam is a Religion of Peace", and that "God should bless" Obama's Street Mobs, as they Defecate in the Streets, Steal whatever isn't nailed down, and RAPE their fellow 99% with Impunity.
By the way: Type in SCHUMER, and then hit the Spell Check App. See what comes up. The shoe fits.
SUBVET| 11.30.11 @ 7:15PM
Mr. P........as usual the only sane response here.
martin j smith| 11.30.11 @ 7:41AM
No, the first thing any new President will have to do is to create economic stability first and along with that social stability. Communists and Socialists will participate and instigate riots and violence in general.
The former Democrat Party now a mixture of Communist,Socialists,Marxist -Leninist along with fellow travelers will not go down quietly ever.
The candidate that is elected will need to be patient yet persistent in putting forth reforms .
Perhaps the very first reform would be how to bring the nation together-you know the one Obama was elected for ?
martin j smith| 11.30.11 @ 8:09AM
Reform talk is great but being able to actually do it is another matter. Lets look at Walker in Wisconsin
as a tiny example of what a President would have to be up against . You can just imagine the MSM and the Socialist-Communists drumming up the rhetoric.
Its about who can handle THIS that counts the most. Thus: No to Huntsman,Ron Paul,and most likely Romney as well. We do not need a McCain again. We need a leader as close to being called a Statesman( Woman ) as possible.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.11 @ 9:16AM
Peter,
you might note that we in Texas profit from these ideas already, and we have been for the last TEN YEARS. Uh, Rick Perry anyone?
He has actually accomplished it instead of talking about it.
Ground Control| 11.30.11 @ 9:34AM
You can't "reform" any handout system based in Washington DC. It is simply not possible. No matter what "reforms" or controls are put in to place, they will be circumvented. Gingrich suffers from the same delusion that most Republicans do, he actually believes that the Federal Welfare System and Social Security exist to help poor people. They do not. They were designed as vote-buying schemes and exist olny to serve this purpose. DIVEST the Federal government from any such programs (the US Gvovernment has absolutely ZERO legal authority to operate such programs anyway) and let State and local governments take care of such things. DC is far too removed from the recipients of this "aid" to adequately police the system (which is the intent). Local governments can more easily and effectively control who gets aid, how much they get, and whether they really need aid or are just milking the system. The Feds WANT corruption in the system because that is how politicians buy votes, by passing out the goodies like Roman Senators passing out the grain dole. Mr. Gingrich seriously needs to re-examine this. As a historian, he knows these things quite well, and should know better than to repeat the corruptions of the past.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 1:48PM
Actually in 1994 they actually did pass pretty significant welfare reform and things got noticeably and decidedly better.
So your "it's not possible" theme is invalid. Back to the hangar, Ground Control, you got issues.
Ground Control| 11.30.11 @ 2:59PM
Some reform. Take another look. Most of the "reforms" of 1994 have been circumvented. The money goes out. The system gets scammed. The budgets go up. The acountability is virtually non-existent. I stand by my comment.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 6:44PM
Actually Ground beef control,
Your point is good. Over time all things become more socialist, because those asking for things usually have very little to do other than asking for more and those being pilfered are too busy doing things to spend all their time mashing down the 'gimme, gimme, gimme' crowd.
It is that simple.
Also the welfare reforms did work for about ten years. It's like a baby, every couple of hours you have to pull apart the diaper end, clean out all the yuckiness, and everything is fine for a while. Then, repeat.
wodiej| 11.30.11 @ 9:34AM
it's a good plan. The days of not being responsible for your own health, finances and retirement are OVER.
Aces and Eights| 11.30.11 @ 12:41PM
"it's a good plan. The days of not being responsible for your own health, finances and retirement are OVER."
If so, then the days of government being responsible for these things are NUMBERED! Government-centric programs are inherently unsustainable. This is why Greece, Italy, and most of Europe are in trouble. It is already happening here.
Stormzeye| 11.30.11 @ 9:34AM
The Tea Party Movement will hopefully give us an overwhelmingly conservative Congress. Possibly even veto proof. Even with Romney in the WH he couldn't do anything but move more to the right. With Gingrich in office many of his Big Ideas could actually become law. The political direction of the country will be determined by the make-up of the Congress.....just as the Founders intended.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 9:53AM
Numerically not possible in the Senate, I believe. Only 33 seats are up in 2012, only 21 are Democrats, 2 are Democrat caucusing independents. So if the Democrats lost every Senate race and the two independents they would still have 36 Senate votes, which would prevent any veto override. So don't plan on ending Obama Care with O still in the Oval Office.
It's not a possibility. Unless you can find a way to have four Democrat Senators not up for election in 2012 drop dead or resign their Senate seats in time for a Republican to win their seats. I'm not holding much hope out for that...you shouldn't either.
Ya really need the White House, really, really, really bad.
mildred bean| 11.30.11 @ 9:45AM
Thanks for the snake oil. It was top shelf.
The problem:
Social security and medicare. Today's taxes pay for today's benefits.
And the number of old coots is rising rapidly, the number of workers is static.
Newt's plan:
Ffor the young, they keep the taxes and put them into the stock market. And for the old coots, his plan is to keep the benefits unchanged.
Getting rid of taxes, Newt says, that will cut the federal deficit. Keeping the same benefits for 70% more old coots, that will bring it down more. Putting money in stocks, Newt says, that gives you security.
Newt's character issues. There starting to sound like his strong suit.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 10:04AM
millie, child,
Every day you become closer to becoming an old coot. It is not something old coots choose.
You might also give a moment's thought to what the piece of paper the SSA sends you with your lifetime earnings and payments INTO social security for forty years really looks like. And then have people who have just started paying tell you that this is 'an entitlement' a GIFT from the G-D government. There is a lot of reality that is being ignored in that term, "entitlement."
As to not wanting to put that money in the stock market, I want to hear your idea on where to invest one's life savings nowadays. In Treasury Bills? In euros? Oops, bad idea that last one. Chinese yuan? Municipal bonds? If I could have invested all of the money they TOOK from me in the guise of SS contributions in the stock market, I would be facing a significantly higher payback on that investment.
You need to learn a little more about economics. Read Milton Freedman, he's pretty readable and he's been proven right, every time his ideas have been implemented and stuck to.
P.S. Does the fact that the acronym "SSA" is well, "ass" backwards kind of say something to you? It does to me!
C Smith| 11.30.11 @ 9:56AM
Newt has a problem that will not go away. Newt, the guy who visited his wife in the hospital as she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss divorce? Wanted to marry the woman he was currently "bedding." This lasted until Newt and Bill found something in common, interns and staffers decades their junior!
"But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away" (Proverbs 6:32 -33).
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 10:11AM
Whether you believe it or not, this old canard has been put to (Stop me before I do it again!) bed.
Mrs G #1 is alive and her daughter came out and said the whole hospital thing was an overblown media firestorm and it was never the issue it's been made out to be by the mainstream press.
As to adultery, you betcha, it's a sin. So the only viable candidate for the Presidency has to be sinless? Constitutionally, you still have to be 35 years old, so we gotta find somebody who has lived in a bubble since their birth in 1977. Good luck with that. And that candidate would probably be even worse than Obama!
For the record, I'm no fan of Newt's.
Drunken Sailor| 11.30.11 @ 10:44AM
DTOM,
Give it up. Apparently to many conservatives are still looking for the perfect canidate and are willing to shoot thier own d**k off until they find him. A.B.O Anybody but Obama. Any of our guys would be better than we are right now but to many are more worried about putting a canidate THEY like in the W.H. and not putting a canidate that everyone can live with, can beat Obama and most importantly can turn this ship around and do the Job!!!
God I can't wait until the primaries are over so we can finally start getting behind one canidate. Those that refuse to help remove Obama and change course, should be jettisoned over the side along with the garbage. Lead, Follow, or Get the hell out of the way!
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 12:08PM
DS,
I wailed on Newt for that very story, then retracted it with much groveling. So it sets off a little alarm bell in my head when I see it. Also if I am going to have to be voting for Newt, I'd prefer to have the guys on my side have their facts straight.
Sometimes, I ask for too much. Oh well...if you never ask, you never get what you want.
Drunken Sailor| 11.30.11 @ 12:27PM
I understand your point and was not directing my ire at you. You have a favorite but at least understand that other canidates may not be a bad choice either. Others who will remain nameless (due to their constand politician worship) can't see the forest for the trees.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 1:50PM
Apparently my favorite threw in the towel today....
Oh, Mrs. Palin! Your country needs you, dear.
Drunken Sailor| 11.30.11 @ 3:21PM
Not sure 7up's post up above hasn't lost all of his carbonation so don't lose hope.
John McC___| 11.30.11 @ 10:27AM
To CSmith
The story of Newt visiting his wife in the hospital has been debunked ages ago. First, his wife had sought the divorce, not Newt. Secondly, their daughters told their mom, that Dad was downstairs. His wife asked him to come up. I wish I could find (quickly) the balance of the info that supports my thesis, but I can't. That shouldn't stop you from looking it up yourself.
C Smith| 11.30.11 @ 12:50PM
Newt's daughter’s credulous and conveniently timed contradiction of her mother's documented testimony (appended) bears every earmark of fraud and deception, yet is accepted without reservation.
Please remember that little Kathy is now the president and CEO of her father's public relations firm, Gingrich Communications, and an obvious shoo-in for a cabinet position if her father is elected.
“He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery.” (Jackie Gingrich, "Washington Post," January 3, 1985).
"His wife, who had started treatments for uterine cancer in 1978, underwent surgery in 1980. A day after the operation, Mr. Gingrich came to the hospital. Since they had already separated, he called her room to see if he could come up. Once there, according to friends who knew them both, he began talking about the terms of the divorce. She has said she threw him out of the room... A few weeks before Mr. Gingrich filed for divorce, he called his political aide and friend Mr. Carter to talk about his marriage. Mr. Carter said he and other friends had been worried that the marriage was falling apart. Mr. Gingrich told him why he wanted a divorce. 'He said: 'She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.' It sounds harsh and hokey, but anyone who knows him knows it's perfectly consistent with the kinds of things he says." (New York Times, Newt Gingrich Profile, November 27, 2011, 1994)
CopyKatnj| 11.30.11 @ 10:36AM
Since learning of the Chile Social Security system years ago, I have been a proponent of this system. As of January 2011 2% SS reduction, I have increased my 401K deduction for the same amount. By my figuring, at least they ( the Federal Government) doesn't have it to spend and I'll put the theory to work the best I can.
Result, no complaints, I watch it closely and it's mine.
John| 11.30.11 @ 10:37AM
Newt's plan to reform the entitlements is nothing like Gov Rick Perry. Rick Perry proposed a bold approach in overhauling the entitlement system, similar to Ryan Plan. Perry's also offers a comprehensive reform plan to restructure the tax code, the federal workforce, the executive, the judicial, the legislative branch, and the cut, grow, and balance on spending. Overall, Perry's plan makes more sense and sustainable. Perry has a solid conservative record on fiscal policy.
Old Joe| 11.30.11 @ 10:41AM
So Newt isn’t electable because he is known to have committed adultery with two women. Woopty do! The country loved Bill Clinton even though it knew that he had committed adultery with dozens of women and even raped one. If we are going to speak of adultery, let’s talk about the homosexual men who have come forward to speak of their sexual relations with Obama. Or is the new rule “homosexual adultery is OK but heterosexual adultery is taboo”.
I have known a lot of good men who were great business leaders, loved their families and their wives, but could not turn down an opportunity to bed a beautiful woman. But then, adultery is always the man’s fault, right. And if he is a Republican, it is horrible. If he is a Democrat, it is a resume enhancer, a man who understands the common folk because he has committed the same sins.
To all of this I say BS. Let’s elect someone who has ideas to fix this country, not a flip flopping RINO.
7 UP| 11.30.11 @ 11:37AM
John Edwards?
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 12:10PM
Edwards couldn't get himself re-elected to the Senate. Adultery was not the problem, it probably had more to do with 'stuck on stupid.'
martin j smith| 11.30.11 @ 10:48AM
Let me re-iterate this point: To have a reform you need an electoral mandate that means whoever is the President ( hopefully not Obama and if he is this country is dead ) --will need not only to win but win by a big lot. I mean get around60% or even better in the vote or at least very close to it.
Even so, the opposition and that is not only Obama but the entire Socialist-Communist Movement will challenge ANYTHING called reform not only in legal ways but in illegal and including violence. This you had better believe or what you talk about is truly foolish. THUS:
It is imperative that Republicans recognize the need for a very strong leader who believes in this nation can articulate a message that resonates with the vast majority of voters and a vision as well. No Socialist lite need apply--Romney ? Newt ? or whoever. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! But, if any candidate ( of course I must put in except Paul and Huntsman ) is nominated I will support--Romney ekh !!!!!!! ), Better believe what I am saying If there is a mandate then the New President will have a chance to implement REFORMS like the ones discussed. above. Its lthe old cart before the horse deal.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 2:10PM
mjs,
You don't give us much hope. Since 1824, only WG Harding, FDR (1st re-elect), LBJ (after JFK assassination, RM Nixon (re-elect) made it to 60%. LBJ actually hit 61%.
So it's been forty years since we had that big of a margin. But I'd point out that Nixon got run out of town by the Democratic House in '75.
We don't so much need a big margin in the Presidential race as we need ANY margin, and then we need to take the Senate back.
If Obama wins, he'll be override-proof, unless in '12, every Democrat and independent Senator loses to a Republican, and four more Democrat Senators quit the Senate and are replaced by Republicans. Oh, yeah, then you have to worry about the Ol' Reliable Republicans: Oly Snowe, John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, and Scott Brown to name a few decidedly wobbly, statist Republicans. I probably missed a couple too.
In short, I can't stand Newt, I can't stand Romney, but damnit it all, I'm going to go and push the button for them. Their is NO ALTERNATIVE other than to vote for the GOP. NONE. NOT ANY. FUGGEDABOWDIT! You gotta go and pull the stinkin' lever for which ever...NO EXCUSES. Death ain't an excuse, if you die, just vote absentee, damnitt!
Or else get ready for another civil war again. This time it'll be the ten largest cities against flyover land. Not the neat and orderly North v. South thing. And the big city side will get help from the unfriendlies offshore.
Who Knows?| 11.30.11 @ 11:22AM
Ah, the Gingrich boomlet continues.
The thing to ALWAYS keep in mind about all politicians is the difference between character and beliefs, or opinions, or views.
Newt talks AND acts. It’s his previous acts that expose his BAD character.
Here’s the latest by the inestimable Jennifer Rubin---
"Newt and NewtCare: Two strikes against Gingrich
By Jennifer Rubin
It’s perfectly reasonable for conservatives to look for a candidate who didn’t support an individual mandate. If that’s the most important or even a top concern, a voter should absolutely look for an electable conservative who doesn’t have that track record. What is not logical, however, is to choose someone with the exact same issue, plus a load of other baggage.
Let’s start with NewtCare. Politico reports: “If Republicans are flocking to Newt Gingrich to get away from Mitt Romney’s health care problems, they could end up with a nominee with … awfully similar health care problems. Or maybe worse: While Romney signed a state mandate into law, Gingrich once went a step further and advocated a federal one. Gingrich backed a federal mandate in the early 1990s as an alternative to the health care proposal Hillary Clinton pushed. Today, he describes himself as ‘completely opposed’ to the federal mandate in the health reform law President Barack Obama signed last year.” I suppose Mitt Romney can at least take pride in standing by his plan rather than shedding his skin for the sake of an election. And as Politico points out, Gingrich has done far worse than Romney in certain respects:
In 2000, he praised Don Berwick, whose recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is expiring amid opposition from Senate Republicans.
As founder of the Center for Health Transformation, Gingrich also has supported using electronic health records in evidence-based medicine, a concept that some backers of the health law liken to “comparative effectiveness research.”
And he once wrote an op-ed praising a Wisconsin health system’s approach to end-of-life care — which later got embroiled in the charges that the Democrats’ health reform law would include “death panels.”
If some conservatives think Romney is handicapped in taking the right to President Obama on health care or can’t be counted on to repeal Obamacare, is Gingrich any better?
The problem some conservatives are seeking to “solve” — find a more ideologically pristine nominee than Romney — should lead them to Rick Santorum or Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), not Gingrich, who, in addition to NewtCare, has defied the right-wing base on illegal immigration.
But Gingrich’s problems aren’t only ideological. Already some conservatives are having qualms about the man behind NewtCare. Maggie Haberman reports: “In their latest missive, the group Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government has struck with another email about the GOP race — this time taking aim at social conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats.” The gist of the e-mail is to take issue with Vander Plaats’s past support for Jim Nussle and potential support for Gingrich, which the group claims, reflects a “willful disregard of personal behavior.” In other words, just as it became untenable for Christian conservatives to excuse Herman Cain’s behavior, anti-Gingrich groups and supporters are going to make it very uncomfortable for values voters to stand up for Gingrich. Once again, you have to wonder why social conservatives wouldn’t look to less-problematic candidates. In a thought-provoking column Peter Wehner suggests some criteria by which to assess presidential candidates. The last is especially relevant to this discussion:
Is the nominee steady, well-grounded, discerning, self-disciplined, and wise? Are they people of integrity? Are they consumed by their resentments or are they free of bitterness? Are they disposed to view opponents as enemies? Do they learn from their mistakes and are they open to new evidence? In a crisis, do they demonstrate equanimity or erratic behavior? Are they tempted to cut ethical corners in the quest for power and success?
It’s a puzzle why Gingrich’s glibness should count for so much and these factors for so little with some in the conservative base.
Gingrich is a skilled self-promoter whose belief in his own spin gives the appearance of earnestness. He was a historian, not a lobbyist. He’s a rock-ribbed conservative, not a unprincipled pol. He is dedicated to family values, not a serial violator of them. Well, that’s what Gingrich tells himself, but really, are conservatives supposed to buy it?"
mildred bean| 11.30.11 @ 11:25AM
Okay, I'm an old fashioned bigot.
So I wont vote for a womanizer. Clinton, Gingrich any of them.
But I got another reason. I may be dumb but I can add.
Which Newt cant.
Newt wants to balance the budget by having the young stop paying social security taxes. Just when the baby boomers cash out.
Tell me oh wise ones, how will that work?
Pat| 11.30.11 @ 7:29PM
Mildred: I’d guess it will work out pretty bad, but that was probably a rhetorical question on your part. In 20 years, the entire United States will reflect the demographics of Florida today once the Boomers have entered that state of permanent unemployment we call retirement. Lots and lots of gray hairs, not so many of the young and restless. But there’s nothing we can do about it, except maybe enjoy watching politicians try to top each other with “The Solution According to Me”.
The Boomer money paid into Social Security is long since spent, perhaps wasted is more appropriate, but try telling a Boomer that. They paid into the fund and they want what they’re entitled to and that’s that. Like any 6 year old, they demand their broke, out of work father must somehow find the money to take them to Disney World for a week of nightly fireworks and Mickey watching, logic doesn’t work with 6 year olds, or with Boomers either apparently.
But we have finally achieved a glorious Bi-Partisanship, both Obama and Newt secretly agree they haven’t a clue what to do about the situation. There is no money put aside to pay Social Security recipients except what we can gouge from the paychecks of young Americans fortunate enough to find work. The Fund is broke and getting broker by the minute and that’s a reality neither the Democrats or Republicans can change. Each incoming president looks at the numbers and almost faints, there is no apparent solution and no compromise which will make both the AARP and young Americans happy. So, kick the can down the road which will probably drive frustrated young Americans to kick over some old geezer’s walker.
Newt’s plan sounds great on paper except for what we do for the next 20 years while waiting for his plan to mature. So, maybe we should all go to Disney World and take a good look Florida’s aging population, we’d better get used to it because it’s a show coming soon to a community near each of us.
David| 11.30.11 @ 11:53AM
Newt still wants to eliminate SSD and SSI and that will give more votes to the opposition.
I've noticed that the wealthy want to continue to gain wealth while forcing the poor to become a new slave class. This has always been the Democrat's view of how it should be. I never realized how many Republicans held the same view.
The Knife| 11.30.11 @ 11:58AM
Go back to selling used cars. Your future is all the amazing benefits of Greece.
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 12:14PM
Dave,
Who's the slave? The guy who works and has the pay generated by his work taken away, or the guy who sits at home and gets an ATM card replenished with money from the guy who worked and had his pay taken away. Hmmm?
Simpler version for you: The slave is
a.Guy who works or
B. Guy who does not work.
If you want to argue that the right answer is B, you are either terminally stupid or an unrepentant communist.
Even socialists figured you had to do some work to eat. Not this liberal crowd.
David| 11.30.11 @ 1:06PM
A slave is the person who has had free choice removed. Much of what is spewed forth from many is just that. A method to enslave many or til eradicate them. Many would claim to have just cause to eliminate those on these programs. That's wrong - period.
I worked for many years, from the time I was 15, until the day I became disabled. However there is a thought amongst some that I do not deserve disability because 'why should they support me'. Well they aren't. I paid in like everyone else. Then there's the argument that those funds were exhausted prior to my becoming disabled and etc etc etc. Heard it before. That problem was not created by me, but in fact was created by those who control the program.
The problem is not that the system is bad. It isn't. It could use some repair, true. But the real problem lies in the administration of the system. The people who decide to give out handouts to people who have never worked, or don't want to work, etc. The real underlying issue is the slanted, favored handing out of billions to illegals, the lazy, the "entitled".
And those who want to eliminate the system altogether are indeed heartless, mean, and cruel. They are wickedly evil people. It is obvious there needs to be a system, but the governing of it must be reformed. Not the system so much.
Lastly, what if you can't work? Your solution is 'Let them die.' Even dogs have better morals. The mentality that drives such hatred is one of the problems with America. They are the rants of people who are so full of hate and venom, they can't think of a better solution (nor do they even want to).
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 2:28PM
So how much free choice does the rich guy or the non-working guy have?
You have not answered the question.
You cannot answer it because you know your answer is that the hardworking rich guy is NOT the slave. Which you KNOW is wrong. The very core belief you hold is 180 degrees off course from the fundamental principles of our country. And I saw it and called you on it.
And you responded by making up a bunch of baloney filled strawman arguments about what I believe, which I assure you you are in complete ignorance of. And then assailed me indirectly because of your made up strawmen that you pasted onto me.
Take your ignorant, uneducated self and your platoon of straw men and go have a big bonfire in your basement.
Strawmen? Here are your straw troops which you made up, in your own words. (This is a favorite Obama illogical argument. He does it every time he opens his mouth in public. This is a very crude logical fallacy that anyone with any logical training or just plain sense immediately recognizes.):
" there is a thought amongst some that I do not deserve disability"
"And those who want to eliminate the system altogether are indeed heartless,..."
"Your solution is 'Let them die."
"the rants of people who are so full of hate and venom, they can't think of a better solution (nor do they even want to)."
I think there are a couple more, but they are not worth exposing.
My question to you remains: Are you a useful idiot or an unrepentant Communist?
I hope, for your sake, that you can do something about your ignorance that renders you idiotic. You can, but you better do some real serious study and thinking. You'd better get busy, you got a long way to go, pal. If you don't think so that only leaves the Communist option. You pick.
John| 11.30.11 @ 12:00PM
Newt is a good debater, but he is not a proven conservative. He supported the TARP, cap and trade, the individual mandate, and climate change initiative. Rick Perry has a solid conservative record on fiscal and social issues, and is lot more electable and has resources than Newt. Between Newt and Perry, I 'll take Rick Perry, no doubt.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.11 @ 12:11PM
John,
check out Perry's interview with Gretta ...Fox news website today.
FACE-IT| 11.30.11 @ 12:11PM
How much would you cut Defense Spending? http://bit.ly/rLN8P3
cicero| 11.30.11 @ 12:13PM
Are we looking for perfection again? Newt is the only one, so far, who does not simply reiterate talking points over and over again. ( 999, anyone?) I tend not to judge anyone elsee's love life, unless I know the circumstances behind it. It seems that his first wife is still alive, and was the one who initiated the divorce. (According to their daughter.) I don't know the status of his second marriage at the time of the start of his relationship with his current. Were they separated? Unless and until we are willing to throw over Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, etc., over their personal lives, lets just drop this. Whether you like Newt or someone else, lets look at the ideas, and abiblity to put them forward and get them passedd.
So far, Newt is in the running. Is he qualified for the job? Let's face it, no one (except maybe Washington) is qualified for that position, except in retrospect.
Drunken Sailor| 11.30.11 @ 12:45PM
Exactly. Is the canidate likeable? I don't care. Can the canidate do the job? #1 priority. Sometimes you need someone that can get the job done and doesn't really care if they hurt someone's precious feelings in the process.
mildred bean| 11.30.11 @ 12:19PM
Qualified for the job?
When he wants to balance the budget by eliminateing social security taxes, without cutting benefits?
That's not even sane.
You smart guys, you say his moral character doesnt mattere. At least you admit he's got none. Fine. But us dopes, we will never touch this guy.
CrackerHound| 11.30.11 @ 1:42PM
[[["When he wants to balance the budget by eliminateing social security taxes, without cutting benefits?"]]]
Mildred, did you read the column?
"Both bills were officially scored by the Chief Actuary of Social Security as eliminating all future Social Security deficits through the operation of the personal accounts alone, without benefit cuts or tax increases. Indeed, as discussed above, future retirees with personal accounts would enjoy higher not lower benefits."
Sounds reasonable to me. It has worked for 30-years in Chile....with rave reviews from those participating.
Clint| 11.30.11 @ 12:35PM
" Gingrich and Romney: Same health plan, different candidate.
If Republicans are flocking to Newt Gingrich to get away from Mitt Romney’s health care problems, they could end up with a nominee with … awfully similar health care problems.
Or maybe worse: While Romney signed a state mandate into law, Gingrich once went a step further and advocated a federal one."
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Ron| 11.30.11 @ 1:08PM
There are soooo many problems (not with the ideas) but with the presentations that it is not funny...
First off, the political scum currently sleezing around DC are never, ever going to give up the Social Security cash cow...They love that non-slush, slush fund. Second, no matter what , the Lamestream Media will run interference for NerObama...look at the "saved or created" crap that came during the most recent wave of job losses. All the media spewed was how much worse it would have been without NerObama's "courage" to make hard decisions. Then, as noted above, they will pund home how the conservatives are going to starve grandma, kill the medicare reciepents, and throw everyone but their rich buddies into camps and poorhouses.
cicero| 11.30.11 @ 1:19PM
No one's runnig to Gingrich to get away from Romney. It is just a matter fact that they are the two frontrunners. The race it to get away from Obama. If anyone has anyone better than either Romney or Gingrich, or for that matter any of the others, bring them to the table. We will have to run with whoever emerges from the primary process, and that can only be one of those running.
Mimi| 11.30.11 @ 2:36PM
The RACE is sure getting interesting. Lets just wait until we see somebodies numbers up past 50%...In the meantime stop tearing down the candidates and start treating the DEM'S and Obama with the rancor. They have so much to be called out on and they deserve it....The candidates don't!
DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 2:47PM
Mimi;
With six candidates in the race, anybody who can stay in the 30's is pretty much winning going away...
Jabber3| 11.30.11 @ 2:28PM
What Newt is proposing (supporting) is not a new idea and still contains the same three (3) fatal flaws found in the original version.
Oldefarte| 11.30.11 @ 3:13PM
Peter's as usual intelligent editorial is extremely over-optimistic at best. The very idea of welfare is that of wealth redistribution, with income producers paying for indigents. Social Security was originally enacted as a means of forcibly through payroll deductions requiring paycheck recipients to save toward their own retirements [since they were undiciplined on their own to do same]. The meager earnings/growth of the SS trust funding system was not the best investment vehicle for investment increase purposes, but it at least was preferable to the previously complete non-savings by workers [and as such provided a partial retirement income at least]. The proposal of personal accounts [with stock/bonds etc investments capabilities] are admirable, but most workers simply do not have the mental/intellectual capabilities necessary to direct/manage their own savings accounts [and incorrect decisions or indecisions would result in huge market losses to workers' savings accounts in economic downturns]. The only solution demands that the federal government be forced to pay back the $trillions of '''''''BORROWED''''' money from the SS fund, and to possibly begin uncapping the income level from SS taxiation on a progressively declining basis. The reason why SS is now currently underwater is due to this '''''borrowing''''' or STEALING throughout its history by government politicians that transferred SS funds to other government welfare programs to pay for same, all at SS recipients' expense [if a bank were to BORROW a depositor funds for its own useage, wouldn't that be STEALING???????]. If the SS trust fund were to be completely repaid the funds previously stolen from same [and the income level unlimited for SS taxiation purposes], no doubt SS would once again become an independent and self-sustaining saving for retirement vehicle which it was originally intended to be. Additionally, seniors and everyone need to understand the current theft which is being perpetrated also upon the SS fund by the decrease of taxiation percentage from 6% to 4% demanded by Democrats. The MSM etc subversively refer to this as a PAYROLL TAXIATION decrease, when in fact it is a SS FUND TAXIATION decrease [FICA payroll taxiation is the SS deductions of which both workers and their employers contribute to the SS Fund]. Democrats and the MSM are misleading the public and seniors on this issue since the SS fund is being adversely effected by this attempt to provide tax relief to the younger generation workers in this down economy. The MSM and their Democratic handlers need to begin telling the truth concerning this issue!!!!!!!!!
shipley130| 11.30.11 @ 3:31PM
Obama is setting up a failure for the future. Reducing funds now and then some poor sap occupying the White House would need to fix another Obama mistake. Obama might be counting on that occupier to be a Republican.
diviz| 11.30.11 @ 3:14PM
How are personal accounts different than the 401k and ROTH I already have?
Nick| 11.30.11 @ 4:25PM
diviz,
They don't steal from me to pay for them, that's how!
Nick| 11.30.11 @ 4:32PM
Oops! That was supposed to be: They steal from me to pay for them, that's how!
(If the personal accounts are mandatory, that is.)
shipley130| 11.30.11 @ 3:26PM
Look at the bloated pig our federal government has become. 200 million tax dollars spent to put Obamacare exchanges into place, when we already have insurance structures in place. It's a sick pig.
Pat| 11.30.11 @ 4:36PM
You walk into the sports betting area of Caesar’s Palace shortly after Newt becomes our next president, an attractive waitress asks what adult beverage she can serve you and then you plunk down an even $500 on Newt’s proposal becoming the law of the land. The Palace is offering 50 to 1 odds against Newt ramming his campaign promise through Congress, you believe in Newt and are willing to take that bet, healthy payoff if you win and, of course, you’re sure to win since Newt promised it.
But if we hurry back to the real world, Newt’s campaign promise and $4.00 will buy you a caramel machiatto at Starbucks. Realize Newt is trying to get elected, the author of this puff piece is trying to sell his book – so what exactly do we get out of this? Maybe the hope someone in politics has a workable solution. But as the betting clerk at Caesar’s said, quoting P. T. Barnum, “there’s a sucker born every minute”.
Here in real world, ugly as it is but the only one we live in, there are such things as 401-K plans, different retirement savings plans for the self-employed and for those who work in non-profits. The government, our government, wasn’t supposed to spend the formerly immense social security fund surplus on whatever pork or vote getting schemes stimulated their fancy, but they did and without much protest on our part. So, we’re relying on this same government of ours to make this latest proposal work?
The Democrats, who pay close attention to these things, know something we don’t. Specifically, the Helpless will always be helpless which makes them the perfect recipients for government programs – programs championed by Democrats.
Even compassionate conservatives and libertarians realize the needy among us must have government programs – see, the battle is lost before it even starts. Who decides who is “needy”? Who pays to support those in “need”? And what would we do if we decided not to help the “needy”? This last question will never be debated, we must support the “needy” – or so we’re told. The “Helpless” among us realize we will always come to their aid, the Democrats among us realize that as well, so why don’t we? Hope is good thing, but realistic hopes in politics are rare and the betting clerks at Caesar’s Palace are usually right - in fact, another one was born just this minute.
Oldefarte| 11.30.11 @ 4:45PM
Michelle Bachmann has just been reported to be opposing the extension of this SS tax rate reduction.......WHY IS SHE THE ONLY ONE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE DEVASTATION OF THIS POLICY? It's destroying SS and seniors need to WAKE UP and realize what Obama/Democrats are underhandedly doing with same. It's another wealth redistribution political mechanism of stealing from SS in order to give a tax break to the younger generation by boosting their paychecks!!!!!!!!!!!!
martin j smith| 11.30.11 @ 4:54PM
Right now the best thingis first to stop looking only at the negatives of each candidate lets us ALSO look at what they do have to offer and then judgewho we like best.
Naturalborn Texicatette| 11.30.11 @ 6:19PM
Read this:
Perry Says Amnesty Not Solution to Illegal Immigration
Wednesday, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 AM
By Hiram Reisner
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
0
inShare
Texas Gov. Rick Perry says the U.S.-Mexico border must first be secured, and then under no circumstances would he support any type of amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants who now live in the United States. The presidential contender also told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Tuesday that before he can lay out a specific plan for solving the illegal immigration problem, a conversation must be held with the American people.
“Well, one of the things we’re not going to do is support amnesty. There’s not anybody that’s going to be — I don’t care whether you've been here 25 days or 25 years — there’s not going to be amnesty involved in the program,” Perry said. “Americans have made it very clear that they’re not going to support amnesty. There are a host of ways to address this issue.
“But I’m not going to sit here and go through and talk about all the different options because there may be some ideas that haven’t been talked about yet. So I’m going to stick with the folks like [Maricopa County, Ariz.] Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio — who was with me today and who’s endorsing my candidacy — and work on securing the border because until you get the border secure, all of these issues about immigration reform are frankly just intellectual engagement.”
Van Susteren asked Perry what the next step would be once the border was secured.
“We ought to have that conversation with the part-time Congress and with the people of this country of how do we want to deal with this. Are there people that are going say: You know what? We’re going to allow you to pay a fine,” Perry said. “Are there people that are going to say: ‘Listen, we’re going to send you back to your country of origin, and you apply for a new type of immigration program that we’re putting into place to speed up the ability for people who have certain skills to come in and be engaged.’
“I think I’ve laid out a number of concepts and ideas — I don’t know which of those the American people want — and that’s the reason that we need to have this long and lengthy conversation,” he said. “Not necessarily long, frankly, but a conversation and a discussion, a debate about how do we deal with these 11 million people.
“I don’t know that if I have all the right answers — and one thing I have learned, that on this very volatile issue of immigration and immigration reform, we need to talk to the American people — we need to get their input,” Perry continued. “We need to listen to them. . . . So rather than put myself in a box and say: ‘Here is exactly what I would do,’ I’m going to sit and have conversations with the American people. We’ve got plenty of time to do that because we’re not going to secure the border with this administration — It’s going to take a new president.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Perry: Amnesty Not Solution to Illegal Immigration
POST American| 11.30.11 @ 10:00PM
----Tavistock Presidential SOFT-programming----
----------------------RED ALERT!-----------------------
DO a double take on that lead in photo,
while remembering--
"Newt Gingrich was handpicked and
brought up by Georgia Globalists to co-opt
and subvert the GENUINE conservative
awakening of the early 90's."
Georgia Globalists? --think Jimmy Carter
and Ted Turner for starters.
The man who made a name pumping the
works of 'on board' 'brought in' Globalists
and EUGENISTS ALvin and Heidi Toffler.
The man who pumped NAFTA and GATT,
and is now making way for OPEN borders
and FINAL consolidation.
The prime presiding figure, for Republicans,
during the very heyday of the Globalist
RED China sellout and TREASON OP.
The very man who pumped the merging of
the Soviet and American systems (ie rule
by unelected .councils/ police state surveillance
/ micro-chipping of the ENTIRE population etc.).
NOT ONLY is he unrepentant about all of this
---BUT he's back with MORE!
-------------------THE VERY MAN---------------------
-----------------------------is-------------------------------
----------------------BOTTOMLESS---------------------
ame| 12.1.11 @ 3:25PM
These reforms must include cutting government agencies and CUTTING THE FEDERAL PAYROLL by 400,000 jobs - cut the budgets of everyone in government, including the president's budget - the budget is too much when he can have Kobi beef while we suffer!
POST American| 12.3.11 @ 10:06AM
----------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
-----DROP the '90's Show' breakdowns and
sunday morning 'news show'formulations.
It's not only utterly laid on
--------------but dangerously out of touch.
The shadow government is --THE-- government.
Even as such, it's self-destructing to takedown
the last of our sovereignty and to bring in the
private, corporate banking and EUGENICS
borg ---better known as the UN-- and the Bank
of the World to RULE.
We will predict that by 2015 America, in full
blown USURY debt plantation receivership,
will be playing host to on site, on the ground,
'friendly assistance' from our KEY creditor
---Globalist front RED China.
---------------YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.