-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Public Policy Polling has come out with the latest survey of Iowa caucus-goers and it looks like a photo finish. Ron Paul leads at 20 percent, Mitt Romney is in second at 19 percent, and Rick Santorum is right behind at 18 percent. PPP sees plausible scenarios where each of the big three could win Tuesday.
Newt Gingrich finishes fourth at 14 percent, Rick Perry next at 10 percent, Michele Bachmann at 8 percent, Jon Huntsman at 4 percent, and Buddy Roemer at 2 percent. Like every other recent poll, it shows Santorum with the momentum — the former Pennsylvania senator has gained in overall popularity to the point where he has the best net favorability and he has strong plurality support among late deciders — while Paul has declined. The more traditional the Iowa turnout, the better Romney does. The less traditional, the better Paul does (to vastly oversimplify).
View all comments (59) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/01/latest-possibly-last-iowa-poll
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Screwtape Protests
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
Bob Grant | 1.2.12 @ 12:19AM
I'm more pissed that the Cowboys got their arse handed to them by the Giants...once again!
If Jerry Jones is going to invest any more money on facelifts, it needs to be on the team and not on that cartoonish mug.
Garrett, Ryan, and Romo need to go bye bye.
Dan| 1.2.12 @ 9:04AM
It's isn't Romo.
The entire offensive scheme has no deep threat potential. Just a few years ago, when the Cowboys had TO, Romo was consistently going deep. The Cowboys at one time had the best offense in football for long plays from the line of scrimmage.
But really since Garrett took over, they've no long threat.
Moreover, how can Romo play effectively when he's running for his life.
Why haven't the Cowboys screen packages like those of the Eagles? The Cowboys have no provision for providing the kind of time necessary to allow plays to develop DOWN the field, which means the Cowboys have no real VERTICAL GAME.
Moreover, how can you finger Romo for a secondary that can't protect leads, that can't get off the field. Who here thinks the Cowboys don't have the worst secondary in football?
Did you see that first touchdown against Newman? Did you hear Rodney Harrison at half time unload on him, and that's not the first time Harrison has singled out Newman for his attentions.
No, the Cowboys need a defense that can hold.
And they need a much more imaginative overall offensive scheme.
In addition, ask yourself this, when was the last time that the Cowboys had an explosive play on special teams? Last night there was a chance to recover a fumbled punt, yet Alan Ball blew it. But really, why haven't we had a decent return team for years?
Special teams? Average, when they haven't actually blown protective coverage as they did for that field goal attempt against the Giants several weeks ago.
Offense? No vertical game, and that wasn't all accountable for Austin being hurt a good chunk of the year. We know that Romo has a great vertical game in him, for we all saw it on display just several years ago. It didn't just vanish. The Cowboys are ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE on offense, yet Romo gets fingered, as if he were the be all and end all of Cowboy problems.
Moreover, we can't finger Rob Ryan for he didn't select the defensive "talent" on this team.
Keep Jenkins, keep Ware, keep of course Sean Lee, keep those three as your nuclear going forward, and everybody else on defense has to understand that next year they're playing for their place on this team.
Significant free agency pickups have to be made, and the entire draft has to be devoted to the defense.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 9:56AM
They have no offensive scheme due to Garret's inability to utilize talent. What the heck happened to Whitten? Teams that use tight ends win games, championships. Why not use the running backs more as receivers? .....Whose fault? Garret and his boss.
Romo has no pocket awareness. He can no longer track defensive rushers around him. This also applies to his blockers. In addition, he doesn't seem to be aware of the location of the line of scrimmage. On one play he was two full yards past it when he threw the pass. Who does THAT?
He needs to spend more time in the off season thinking about the fundamentals of his profession and less on trips to Cabo and celebrity golf tournaments....Whose fault? Romo's .
Dan| 1.2.12 @ 10:10AM
Witten was best when he was used to move the chains, and for the occasional seam pass that demonstrated that excess attention to Cowboys wideouts will result in you getting burned down the middle.
Which was exactly the approach early in the TO years.
But somewhere along the line Cowboy wideouts stopped running deep crossing patterns and started running routs down the sidelines, and ONLY down the sidelines. Recall that game against Baltimore several years back, when the Baltimore defense KNEW for a certainty which plays the Cowboys would run, and even Raven defenders were asking TO and others, "why do you keep doing that....?" They weren't asking to taunt, they were asking in a genuine professional bewilderment about the lack of imagination of the Cowboy offense.
I don't know what to make of an offense that just several years ago had the best vertical game in football, even rivaling that of Brady and his crew, and now has an offense that has no vertical game other than the de rigeur bomb down the sidelines that invariably goes incomplete.
Pocket awareness? Romo has a keen ability to move around, --------- their offense has been kept afloat PRECISELY by his ability to gain time and allow routes to develop. But again, why not the screen packages to force a greater honesty on the opposition, why not more frequent roll outs, and not just roll outs to his right, but to his left. Romo moves to his left and throws all across the field better than any QB in football, and the stats prove it.
The Dallas Morning News had an article a couple weeks back about how the cowboys do when they take their chances down the field, how it helps the run game, and how Romo sees more of the field, {left, right and center} better than anybody.
Romo is a tremendous asset that isn't being used.
But as a scapegoat to avoid asking far more fundamental questions, --------------- THAT he is being used for.
Anybody who closely observed the Cowboys secondary over the course of the season knew that the offense had to put up over 30 against good teams. The Cowboys offense plays with no margin for error. The slightest mistake, a single turnover, -- Cowboys pay.
Pathetic secondary.
Run defense that occasionally shows up.
No special teams explosiveness, but occasional screwups.
Too much reliance on a rookie kicker.
Failure in free agency acquisition. Take a look at the acquisitions by the Eagles for instance....
This offense can do better, and providing time for Romo we'll begin to see better. But NOBODY in this league can play well at QB without time, and without an offensive scheme designed to EXPLOIT your own talent while EXPOSING the flaws on your opponent.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 10:44AM
That's a chicken or egg proposition. You say their failures start with having their wideouts running deep sideline patterns in lieu of deep slant patterns. I say they begin with failing to open up the "sweet spot": 15 yards down field, in the middle. You do that by either establishing your tight end or back as a threat.
For some odd reason, they've completely taken that threat off the board.
As far as Romo, I agree with your analysis in general, i.e., his ability to move the pocket a little bit AND throw awkward passes because of his arm strength, however, it seems his ability to process where the opposing teams' rushers are the past few years has diminished.
The bottom line on Romo is he's entertaining to watch because of his swashbuckling style (Brett Farve-lite), his unparalleled arm strength, and ability to successfully throw awkward passes, but he's never shown an ability to truly lead an offense (look at the constant breakdowns and unforced errors) nor elevate his game when it counts most.
I'll take an Eli Manning any day.
Dan| 1.2.12 @ 12:19PM
Manning did well last night.
But then again, think of it this way, WHICH QB HASN'T done well against the Cowboy defense and secondary? This defense made Rex Grossman and Matt Moore look like worldbeaters? Of course Manning is going to have success against the Cowboys, he had all night and he has good receivers.
EVEN average receivers look like pro-bowlers against our defensive secondary.
Which top class receiver has this defense shut down lately?
No name comes to mind.
As for Witten, he's been overused.
Teams KNOW that to take him out of the equation leaves the Cowboys little option. Bryant is going to be a force, but he's not quite there yet, {his route running is suspect as are still his reads}. Austin WAS a project but he's not the size or strength of a Cruz or a Calvin Johnson.
For a receiver to get thirty yards downfield takes at least three seconds. But around that mark is when Romo starts getting SERIOUS pressure, and that's even when he's in shotgun.
Shotgun doesn't seem to provide the additional time that it was designed to provide when Tom Landry brought it back out of retirement for pro football.
In the passing game, EVERYTHING depends on the QB having time to go through the progressions. Even Brady gets exposed without time. The Cowboys defense shut Brady down for 3 and a half quarters by getting to 'em. But then as is painfully par for the course, the secondary collapsed against Brady late in the 4th quarter.
God I could go on about the Cowboys recent problems for days.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 2:58PM
For a quarterback it's all about footwork; the ability to put your body in position to throw a pass.
It makes average quarterbacks good, good quarterbacks great.
Romo used to be good at moving the pocket and buying time to get off a good pass, and one of the very few who still can throw a great pass WITHOUT his body being in proper position. Great arm strength. He tends to use his upper arm and should to power a pass. He's also a very efficient thrower.
The complete opposite of Tim Tebow in every way.
The problem with Romo is he's become a head case. He used to not read the press clippings. Jedis never read negative comments. Now I believe he indeed does pay attention to the negative press and it's affecting him. A self fulfilling prophesy.
Put together a package of players, draft picks, and lots of clammage and go get Luck, or better yet, Griffin.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 2:59PM
"...and should to..."
Correction: shoulder
JmsA| 1.2.12 @ 12:30AM
Get used to it, Bob; it will not only continue but will get worse as long as JJ is running the show. He built a beautiful box and filled it with junk.
And now to the subject at hand: I don't believe any polling from PPP; for goodness sake, they're democrats.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 12:45AM
PPP is very inaccurate, therefore, goes in the box of junk along with the Cowboy personnel.
Iowa will work out very well for Romney because it's one he doesn't necessarily have to win but will because the rest of the field is cannibalizing one another. Thereafter, he'll cost to an easy win in NH, SCARO, FLA, and Super Tuesday.
Just as well because he's been by far the best organized and, in my opinion, the most qualified. That's not saying much, I'm only comparing him to his opponents.
It's kind of like calling the Giants a good team because they beat the Cowboys. A dicey proposition.
Dan| 1.2.12 @ 9:06AM
JJ as you term him has three Super Bowl victories under his belt.
There's a slew of owners who never even got close to the Super Bowl. And you can't go pretending that those victories were all attributable to Jimmy Johnson.
JmsA| 1.2.12 @ 10:53AM
Owners don't win Superbowls. They pay the bills and let the football professionals do their job. Jerry Jones is a dilettante as far as football is concerned. He operates as what he is, a wildcatter oilman, making wild guesses about personnel as if picking a site to drill on. The jury is in: it doesn' work. Head Coaches, coordinators, assistant coaches and players win games, and Superbowls. JJ is the GM in Dallas. The Cowboys have only one playoff win in 15 years under JJ's stewardship without Jimmy Johnson. Yes, Barry Switzer won one Superbowl in Dallas, with the team Jimmy put together, which is to say, the team had won two in a row before. After that and the advent of free agency, the wheels fell off the cart, because JJ cannot pick talent. Yes, all of those superbowls were possible because of Jimmy Johnson. He picked the talent, the coaching staff, and ran a tight ship when he was there. The record speaks for itself. The worst such stretch in the history of the franchise. A classic study in futility. Under Jimmy Johnson, the Cowboys went for worst to best. Under JJ they're going from bad to worst. As I previously wrote, JJ built a fancy box and filled it with crap. JJ will haunted by the ghost of Jimmy Johnson, who won at Oklahoma State, the University of Miami, and in Dallas, yet not in Miami, because he was handed a crappy team, and wisely decided to retire and make easy money talking about football instead of coaching it for loser owners. Anything else? And finally, don't believe anything PPP says.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 11:04AM
"..He operates as what he is, a wildcatter oilman, making wild guesses about personnel as if picking a site to drill on. The jury is in: it doesn' work..."
That is a fantastic description of Jerry Jones. Nothing more needs to be added...except this:
Most successful businessmen, or people in general, know their strengths AND weaknesses.
He gambled, and perhaps, got lucky in his business endeavors including the early years as Cowboys owner. But his winning streak ended in '96, and like most bad gamblers who are generally delusional, they think they can recreate the magic by just riding out the bad streak.
In the Cowboys case, that bad streak has lasted 15 years. Fans have no choice but to go along for the ride.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 11:21AM
Jerry Jones meddles with the Cowboys with the same gusto as Obama and the economy.
W| 1.2.12 @ 11:29AM
Dan/Bob
If you want a real football team, root for the Pgh Steelers. Six Super Bowl wins, two losses. Beat the cowboys twice and our only losses were to the Packers and cowboys. In Pgh the cowboys are referred to as the cryboys.
We have had the same owners, the Rooneys, since 1933.
JmsA| 1.2.12 @ 11:38AM
All true, Mr. Grant. Thank you for the kind words. And a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year to you and yours.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 12:16PM
...and to you as well. Looking forward to your take on the issues of the day.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 12:16PM
...in the new year.
W| 1.2.12 @ 11:29AM
Dan/Bob
If you want a real football team, root for the Pgh Steelers. Six Super Bowl wins, two losses. Beat the cowboys twice and our only losses were to the Packers and cowboys. In Pgh the cowboys are referred to as the cryboys.
We have had the same owners, the Rooneys, since 1933.
JmsA| 1.2.12 @ 11:41AM
Yes, the Steelers are a well run organization. My best friend is a diehard Steeler fan. Good luck to you and the Steelers. Happy New Year.
W| 1.2.12 @ 11:47AM
Happy New Year to you JmsA.
We will need the luck, have many injuries, Mendenhall may have an ACL tear.
Dan| 1.2.12 @ 12:08PM
The Rooney family is in bed with the damn Democrats.
That moron Rooney even shilled for Obama!
I'm a Cowboy fan; I'd root for any team in the NFC East before I'd root for the team that beat Landry and company in the Super Bowl.
The Steelers are a disaster when viewed through their support for the Democrats............
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 12:23PM
Are you sure? I can't believe Rush would have as one of his closest associates an Obama shill. Depressing if that's the case.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 12:15PM
Remove Jackie Smith's dropped would-be-touch down catch and the outrageously bogus Benny Barnes pass interference call and we'd be having a different conversation my friend.
Nevertheless, that was the greatest Superbowl game I've ever witnessed. The quality of the game exceeded the hype, which was massive even by today's standards.
W| 1.2.12 @ 12:46PM
IF, IF, IF
The Steelers do it and the cryboys talk about if.
Dan Rooney supported Obama so he would be appointed ambassador to Ireland. That's how the game is played.
In local politics, the Rooneys support Reps and Dems, but local politics in Pgh has been IrishDem. The last Rep mayor was in 1930.
The Steelers and Cowboys were the best Super Bowls, competitive, and Staubach was almost as good as Bradshaw. Landry was a great coach. Tony Dorsett was a Pgh native. Ernie Stautner was a Steeler.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 2:41PM
So give up your country to a dictator in the hopes said dictator will grant you a cushy ambassadorship?
Cronyism at it's worst.
What's disturbing is why Rush would want to have anything to do with this creepy family.
MikeN| 1.2.12 @ 4:03AM
This is a bogus poll. Roemer at 2% and Huntsman at 4%. If they had 500 people, that's 10 and 20. My guess is that some of the poll callers just made up stuff randomly.
Clint| 1.2.12 @ 4:46AM
Again, The PPP Poll Surveyed Likely Republican Caucus Goers And Left Out The Independents And Democrats. We'll Keep That Number Quiet For The Moment.
We Tea Party Supporters Of Dr. Ron Paul Stay Workman, Play Four Quarters, Don't Leave It In The Locker Room And Don't Prematurely Celebrate A Win, Until We've Actually Won It.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Occam's Tool| 1.2.12 @ 9:07PM
Well, Clint, you're gonna be in 3rd place tomorrow by this time. And then it will be all over for the asshole from Galveston. Toodles, dumbass.
Clint| 1.2.12 @ 11:40PM
More Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy,Tool Job Shuck & Jive Trash Talkin'.
Bring It, Short, Fat, Agin' Smear Bund Ass Clown,Tool Job.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Smear Bund Ass Clown,Tool Job.
Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 10:14AM
So in order to win the Iowa caucus, for the Republican Party, Ron Paul needs the help of the "independents" and Democrats. And you fail to see the irony of all this.....
ml| 1.2.12 @ 6:52AM
I don't believe in polls. PPP's is a liberal polls and it is located from Raleigh, NC. The PPP's is ties with the Democrats and liberal news media. Not the Republicans.
martin j smith| 1.2.12 @ 7:51AM
When will we have a real debate run by All stripes of Republicans including Conservatives,So Called Moderates and whatever. Let them slug it out and let the voters decide what makes sense.
Mike Rogers | 1.2.12 @ 8:26AM
You all deride PPP, correctly, as liberal, but you are letting that fact blind you to the other fact - they get it right quite often. It has been said more than once that they are the Dems' oppo research poll - trying to pick up the biggest threats - that could be Santorum!
Dan| 1.2.12 @ 9:10AM
The poll makes sense, Santorum is climbing in the polls.
Romney as usual is going nowhere, although the fact that he's going nowhere in polling is spun for him as "Romney holding steady...."
He isn't steady ----------------------------- he's stuck!
The antiRomney sentiment is still much stronger than any proRomney insanity.
Santorum might win Iowa.
Lastly, take a good look at Romney's numbers in the South?
Have they budged?
After all the favourable press he's received over the last few weeks, simultaneous to the onslaught against Gingrich, --------------------- have Romney's numbers moved.
The election isn't going to be decided in New Hampshire.
For all the establishment's efforts to drag Romney over the finish line, ------------ he isn't there yet............
Indy| 1.2.12 @ 10:17AM
Do RP supporters know their candidate has no formal plan to reel in entitlements? They believe he will be the one to cut spending but from the WS article, the plan is to cut defense / overseas spending but no plan to reform SS and Medicare, the biggest driver of our debt...is this true? An excerpt follows, please read the full article:
"The conventional case against Ron Paul's fiscal policy is that it's unrealistic because it's too bold. That's true enough: Ronald Reagan couldn't abolish one department; Ron Paul wants to abolish five (Education, Energy, HUD, Interior, and Commerce). But there's a much stronger case to be made that Paul's fiscal policy is not that bold at all. It is, in fact, the most timid fiscal policy put forward by any Republican presidential candidate this year...
Leave aside for the moment any (legitimate) concern that Paul's gutting of the defense budget would leave us vulnerable. As a matter of simple arithmetic, Paul is indulging in a fiscal fantasy.
First of all, the entire annual defense budget, including war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, is less than $700 billion--not $1.4 trillion as Paul claims. More important, by 2025 Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt will consume all federal revenues. In other words, we could eliminate all defense spending and all other federal spending, and we'd still be running a deficit in a little over a decade.
So what's Ron Paul's plan to avert the oncoming fiscal catastrophe? He doesn't have one. Paul's "Plan to Restore America" doesn't deal with Medicare, which is on track to be the biggest driver of our debt. And Paul's plan doesn't deal with Social Security. But he does endorse block-granting Medicaid to the states.
Although Paul thinks that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are "technically" unconstitutional, he would like to fund the programs for more than 60 years because people are now dependent on them. But Paul has no specific plan to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent during his long-term transition period.
According to his campaign manager, Paul simply wants to have an "adult conversation" about how to keep Medicare and Social Security working. (If that sounds a lot like Barack Obama's plan to deal with entitlement spending, that's because it is.)"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....15036.html
I have enough reasons not to support RP but if this is true, then I'll add it to the list but why was this never brought up in debates? GOP candidates speak up, voters must be informed, it's probably too late for Iowa but not for other states. The more I learn about this candidate, the more questions I have, are his supporters willing to question him further or will nothing change their minds?
Anthony M| 1.2.12 @ 10:32AM
Paul is known, over his long career, as a serious budget cutter, that's probably why no one brought it up at the debates. The argument against Paul, which in an adult country could be very interesting, is his views on our defense strategy. Should the US pull its military out of its overseas bases and rely on our Air Force and Navy to protect our international commitments? An argument can be made that this would be a good strategic move, although I can also see the arguments against it. The problem is that the anti-Paulists just want to call him names instead of arguing facts.
John Navratil| 1.2.12 @ 11:21AM
Anthony M,
I love Ron Paul right where he is. His Jeffersonian view of a world super-power returning to its safe little agrarian haven separated from the rest of the world by two oceans which can be crossed by missile in minutes as opposed to frigate in weeks is, in my mind, disqualifying. Having lived in the Middle East, I find his view that if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone risible.
Limited government views - yes! Foreign policy - absolutely not!
We should know a lot more this evening.
Jeff| 1.3.12 @ 4:10PM
They DID leave us alone until we started blindly supporting Israel's war of genocide against the Palestinians. We have one interest in the Middle East: the free flow of oil. Let Israel perish! They are a nation of roaches who deserve to reap the whirwind!
Indy| 1.2.12 @ 11:49AM
I understand his position on defense cuts and for this discussion, let's say he wins and is elected, his defense cuts are in place, now...we are still on a path to fiscal ruin if entitlements are not reformed, what is his plan to reform Medicare? Does he have one?
What I am trying to attempt is an adult conversation about RP's other positions, I hear him say he will cut spending but is he tackling the root of our debt problem? It appears to me he is not putting his cards on the table to address our debt problem, he leaves out the biggest driver our of debt, does he not?
Clint| 1.2.12 @ 10:56AM
“Dr. Paul will dramatically cut other big government spending so that we can take care of people who have become dependent on Social Security and Medicare while we work our way through a transition back to Constitutional solutions for medical care and retirement,” Benton wrote. “One of his first elements of that transition would be to allow workers 25 under to opt out, keep their own money and take responsibility for their themselves.”
" Dr. Ron Paul's Plan To Restore America,
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Indy| 1.2.12 @ 11:43AM
Please read a little closer, the cuts he proposes will not be enough to sustain Medicare
The Medicare Trustee’s 2011 report clearly shows no change to Medicare means the program will collapse. By 2024, the Hospital Insurance trust fund will be depleted, 5 years earlier than projected in last year’s Medicare report. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary, paints a grimmer picture in the Statement of Actuarial Opinion, “Medicare prices would be considerably below the current relative level of Medicaid prices…and far below levels paid by private health insurance. Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result.”
Take at look at these charts
http://www.heritage.org/Budget.....titlements
The math doesn't work, RP does not have a plan to tackle Medicare which is the biggest driver of our debt. Let's get past the campaign stump speech, the devil is in the details, I'm looking for RP details? Please provide a link with his detailed plan to reform Medicare so I can be an informed voter?
Resist We Much! | 1.3.12 @ 3:46PM
"The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa."
anD theN yoU wokE uP iN neW hampshirE anD soutH carolinA.
Clint| 1.2.12 @ 1:06PM
" Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Wednesday said that he would preserve health care entitlements, including the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled, while trying to transition Americans into medical savings accounts.
The House member from Texas, who was for many years a practicing physician, recalled the days before Medicare and Medicaid were created in the 1960s, when government was only accountable for the care of veterans -- and even there, government did a poor job, he said.
But Paul noted that as president, he would not immediately cut health care benefits, especially for the elderly and children. Instead, he wants to transition out of the current system by allowing people to set up personal medical savings accounts and letting young people opt out of Social Security.
"I take a very moderate approach," he said. "I'd be willing work toward sanity by not cutting health care benefits until we solve our problems with this horrendous financial crisis."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Indy| 1.2.12 @ 2:53PM
Again from the WS article "he would like to fund the programs for more than 60 years because people are now dependent on them. But Paul has no specific plan to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent during his long-term transition period."
We are now in 2012, what happens by 2024? Back to my earlier posts above -
"by 2025 Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt will consume all federal revenues."
The Medicare Trustee’s 2011 report clearly shows no change to Medicare means the program will collapse. By 2024, the Hospital Insurance trust fund will be depleted, 5 years earlier than projected in last year’s Medicare report. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary, paints a grimmer picture in the Statement of Actuarial Opinion, “Medicare prices would be considerably below the current relative level of Medicaid prices…and far below levels paid by private health insurance. Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result.” My guess is that next year's report will show a more accelerated deterioration of Medicare, the economy is weak, spending is off the charts, RP does not have a plan to adequately address this. Does RP have a plan to cut spending, yes, but even he is well short of the mark and not being properly challenged by the other candidates nor the press. Voters need to know what is RP's transition plan, his moderate approach is too high level, moving people to medical saving accounts has merit but some details please...
Clint| 1.2.12 @ 3:51PM
Do Your Own Homework.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Indy| 1.2.12 @ 5:28PM
Ha, I have done my homework and that's my point, there are no details...it's easy to break out the red pen and list 5 departments to cut, but to take on Medicare, nope.
Occam's Tool| 1.2.12 @ 9:10PM
Dear Indy,
won't it be nice to have jack and Clint, etc. shut up an go away when Paul finishes third tomorrow night?
Then we adults can discuss serious things like how and when Iran's military capability is going to be swatted off the map, sans Nation-Building.
Everybody talks about how the nuke production sites are hardened, etc. But their power grid isn't hardened, nor are their water supplies. But I'm interested, very much, in your take.
Clint| 1.2.12 @ 11:43PM
The Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Tool Job Attempts To Play Army Again.
The Tea Party Steps On The Israel Firster Ass Clown,Tool Job.
Indy| 1.3.12 @ 8:54AM
Good mornng, Occam's Tool and Happy New Year!
No matter the finish in Iowa, Jack and Clint will continue. I rarely engage in discussion with them, I find it easy enough to ignore their posts.
As to Iran, I think it's too late, they will have a nuke, when Obama was elected it was already late in the game to take action (strong sanctions as an example but unless Russia and China are on board, they won't work). Bush could not do much given mistakes made (nation building) and no political capital. So we are where we are, what to do?
I honestly don't know, the Middle East is unstable now more than ever (in my lifetime). Do we even have good intelligence on the various power groups in the ME? I don't think so. The rise in power of the Muslim Brotherhood is real, yet our government views them as moderate.
I understand there are weaknesses in Iran's infrastructure but anything we do with a military response will be an act of aggression. Recall how our President asked for them to return our drone with a pretty please, talk about a position of weakness. There is much more to this story than we are told, why didn't we destroy our own drone?
One area of my current research is the threat of an EMP, perhaps you have already looked into that but if not, it is likely a topic you will find of interest...troubling topic and in my opinion a real threat, I have no confidence we are prepared for it.
I'll give your comment some thought, I'm sure there will be an article relevant to this discussion where we can engage with other readers but I don't plan to respond further on this blog post. For now, I must focus on work, after a nice break for the holidays it's full steam ahead. Look forward to chatting with you on other posts.
Judy Kay| 1.3.12 @ 12:06AM
Does either Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry or Bachmann have any plans to "reform" or "transition" Social Security or Medicare? Does Obama have a plan? Just wondering.....
Indy| 1.3.12 @ 8:21AM
I think it is safe to say Obama has no plan and doesn't intend to put one together, he is in full campaign mode. As to others, I believe Bachmann endorsed the Paul Ryan plan. I have not read the details for all candidates, Romney and Gingrich I think do address entitlements. I will be looking for those details as I evaluate other candidates.
My point for specifically bringing up RP is he is viewed by his supporters as the one who will significantly cut spending. A lot of his domestic policy I can support so when I came across the article about the weakness in his efforts to address entitlements, I was a bit surprised. I know there are avid RP supporters who comment on this site so I thought I'd ask what they know in case I missed something. It turns out they don't have any information to share with us, instead it's the usual tag line which is not useful and does not advance the argument for their candidate.
Doctors I know treat not just the symptom of the problem, they attack the source. Why won't the good Dr. RP attack the source? I understand it is politically unpopular. I am a realist, the numbers don't lie, it's simply a question of how fast we drive off the cliff, the roadway to turn around is short and completely impossible if Medicare is not reformed sooner rather than later.
This financial crisis is predictable, the math doesn't lie.
Resist We Much! | 1.3.12 @ 3:46PM
"The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa."
anD theN yoU wokE uP iN neW hampshirE anD soutH carolinA.
Oldefarte| 1.2.12 @ 3:05PM
Those TOO SHORT SHORTS may be making more sense now:
http://youtu.be/zIeW0DY64bE
Clint| 1.2.12 @ 3:47PM
Uh Oh !
The RINO-CINO Smear Bund FartMan Attempts To Play The Queer Card.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Smear Bund Boy, Fartman.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 4:30PM
Whose short shorts and how turned on was Clint? ...assuming it was a guy.
Bob Grant| 1.2.12 @ 4:30PM
...not that there's anything wrong with it.
aware| 1.2.12 @ 3:00PM
I can see the headlines later this week: Santorum surges to 22% followed by Romney at 20% and Gingrich at 18%. The rest follow with Perry at 6%, Bachmann at 5% and Paul at 29%.