Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>At least the Republicans pay it lip service<< LOL! Well, now I'm convinced I should trust them to be the party of fiscal responsibility. But at least you admit that this nonsense about the GOP being any more fiscally responsible than the Democrats is largely a myth. Neither of these two parties is truly about cutting spending. They are about bringing home the bacon. Sarah Palin, the New Maverick, is no different. We really need a viable third party in this country that could put our financial house in order, but the two major ones successfully distract voters into debates about "character" and "personality" and "family values" and other childish name-calling.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We really need a viable third party in this country that could put our financial house in order*** No third party needed, Ron Paul is the man for that job. He'll never get elected though, unfortunately (or, at least, it would take a catastrophe of the highest magnitude before people start to listen...like a depression for example).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But at least you admit that this nonsense about the GOP being any more fiscally responsible than the Democrats is largely a myth.> No, I haven't. I don't believe raising taxes and increasing federal spending is fiscally responsible, and until I see Democrats propose slowing down the growth of entitlements or even cutting pork, I'll continue to believe Republicans are more fiscally responsible.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'll continue to believe Republicans are more fiscally responsible<< Even if, as you say, it's just lip service. Interesting.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster If the Democrats get universal health care passed and pull us out of Iraq they will be saving us a lot of money. Domestic programs are far less costly than war.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << until I see Democrats propose slowing down the growth of entitlements >> The Republicans passed the largest entitlement increase in a generation when they pushed through the Medicare prescription drug benefit. This legislation was written by drug company lobbyists and championed by a Republican President and Congress. Many have called it the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation passed during the Bush administration.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No, I haven't. I don't believe raising taxes and increasing federal spending is fiscally responsible, and until I see Democrats propose slowing down the growth of entitlements or even cutting pork, I'll continue to believe Republicans are more fiscally responsible." That's cute. A lot like the Easter Bunny.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Even if, as you say, it's just lip service.> And, as I said, some actually vote for it, which is more than Democrats can say.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Republicans passed the largest entitlement increase in a generation when they pushed through the Medicare prescription drug benefit.> And most Democrats cheered every step of the way, or complained that it wasn't enough.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 More revisionist history. You had Democrats on these very boards (me included) who called it a modest benefit at a great price, and therefore dumb legislation. You have Democrats in Congress pushing to change the bill so that the government could negotiate bulk rates with the drug companies for Medicare part D, as the VA already does, and Republicans shooting that down and insisting on passing the bill with such negotiating prohibited. So which approach would have been more fiscally responsible, and which was rewarding their drug company donors?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And, as I said, some actually vote for it, which is more than Democrats can say.<< Well, no. There are some Democrats who also vote against spending measures as well. It isn't that one party is better at this than the other. It's that both parties stink at it. There's just too much evidence -- and recent history -- to show that when given the chance, Republicans will spend with abandon. This president couldn't find a veto pen on anything until stem cells showed up. I'm sure that was somehow "mostly" the Democrats' fault.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Yeah - all their cheering and complaining. >> And most Democrats cheered every step of the way, or complained that it wasn't enough. <<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<More revisionist history.>> <Sorry, no.> Sorry, yes, and I said why. I notice you didn't actually refute any of the points in #130, just got in this week's lame version of "no, it isn't." But the facts in #130 are as I stated them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh What facts there are in your post don't show any revisionist history on my part.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What facts there are in your post don't show any revisionist history on my part.> Yes, they do. Your revisionist history was, and I quote, "And most Democrats cheered every step of the way, or complained that it wasn't enough." Not true. It was primarily Democrats who criticized the bill for its provision prohibiting the government from being able to negotiate bulk prices with the drug companies, thus making it hugely expensive for a modest benefit. Even more important, it was the Republican leadership who insisted on this provision, and then rammed it through the house, including extending the vote past the normal cut off point, and pressuring some reluctant GOP members to vote for it. <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/22/2314" target="_blank">http://content.nejm.org/cgi/co.../22/2314</a> "Serious conflicts of interest on the part of the bill's primary authors were common. The chairman of the Commerce Committee, Representative Billy Tauzin (R-La.), coauthored the bill while negotiating a $2-million-per-year job as a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the drug industry's trade organization. The top Republican aide on a subcommittee involved in writing the legislation also left his position soon afterward to lobby for PhRMA. Thomas Scully, the administration's top Medicare official, deliberately understated the program's projected cost by $134 billion, and when the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) objected, Scully reportedly threatened to fire him if he shared his true estimate with Congress. Soon after the legislation passed, Scully resumed his career as a health care–industry lobbyist. When the conference report was brought to the House for a vote, members were given less than one day to read the 850-page bill, a violation of House rules. When the vote was called at almost 3 a.m., voting Democrats stood unanimously with 22 Republicans in opposing the legislation. Had the vote been gaveled down in the customary 15 minutes, the bill would not have passed. So the Republican leadership held the vote open for a record three hours while attempting to change the outcome — through intimidation and other tactics that, again, violated House rules. Finding itself with a narrow lead at 5:53 a.m., the Republican leadership immediately brought the vote to a close. Many abuses undoubtedly took place that night. Representative Nick Smith (R-Mich.) later revealed what may have been the worst: that former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Representative Candice Miller (R-Mich.) tried to bribe him with political favors to change his vote — an infraction for which the House Ethics Committee later admonished them. Through these means, the Republican leadership succeeded in passing a bill whose goal was, according to Representative Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), to "end Medicare as we know it."1 Thomas's words proved as prophetic as they were ironic. Part D works better for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries than for beneficiaries. Drug-industry lobbyists worked to prevent the reimportation of cheaper medications from Canada and to add patent protection against generic drug makers. Independent analysts predicted that with such victories, the bill would increase drug-industry profits by $139 billion over the next eight years.2 The elderly and disabled, pharmacists, nursing homes, and families, for their part, have been burdened by a flawed plan that was not drafted with them in mind. Unlike existing government health plans, Part D does not allow the administration to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. As a result, these companies are charging taxpayers up to 80 percent more for drugs purchased under Part D than for those purchased under other plans."
