Magox

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I don't believe any rational thinking person actually believes that the media isn't biased towards liberal doctrine.

What's funny is that you've been so brainwashed that you've been conditioned to be naive.

Gotcha stuff? What are you talking about? You mistakenly believed that Clinton's premium support plan wasn't basically the same as Paul Ryan's. If anything, Paul Ryan's plan is more generous than Clinton's was. First off, the plan set by Paul Ryan isn't "fixed". The premium support payment is capped at the growth of GDP, plus 0.5 percent. The subsidy will be adjusted based on the income level of the consumer. Secondly, Paul Ryan's plan gave you the option to either enroll in the premium support plan or remain in traditional Medicare. So there is choice. Third, the plan doesn't even begin until 2023, which means seniors will remain in the current system. In 2023 people over 65 would pick an insurance plan in a new Medicare exchange system, with Medicare competing with other insurers for their business. So you're characterization of savage cuts are simply false. To say that you supported Clinton's premium support plan but not Ryan's who is factually more generous to Medicare recipients, by definition through example, does make you "partisan". Also, when someone asks you a question, it's reasonable to expect an answer. Sorry, but when you respond with blanket liberal talking points such as "savage medicare cuts" , "shift the burden back to the poor and the elderly" that isn't considered to be a substantive reply. And when asked to expound on your reply, which is reasonable, you know so you can actually seriously defend your claims, you come back with nonsense, such as "questions appear silly to me and have already been answered in public discourse by now". That's your reply? Reasonable debate includes hard data and logical reasoning, and a good healthy back and forth, not empty talking points and deflections. Every time you get confronted to back up your claims, you come back with deflections. Like "these questions appear silly to me", "its nonsense that i even have to point these obvious examples out" (which btw, those examples weren't cogently related to what I was talking a bout) or "sounds to me like youre trying to draw me into that gotcha stuff", and "so if i disappear its bc i dont play those games. keep it smart and nonpartisan or i aint playing" If you "disappear" it's because you don't have anything substantive further to offer.

But here's the rub, LA is more intelligent than any of you... And with that

This seems to make sense....

Jake Tapper, who I believe may be one of the most fair "main stream" news dudes has a slightly different take of how Hillary looked. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/23/tapper_on_hillarys_outburst_exhaustion_taking_strong_emotional_toll_on_her.html

Not if you're Joe I'm a few beers short of a six pack

He's the worst defender on their squad and made the pro bowl... Wow, that's gotta be the best defense EVERRRRRRRR!!!

The premium support plan is the "voucher" plan you were just criticizing.

Reforming the tax code. She would be more serious about spending cuts than Obama. Less regulations imposed on business. Those are a few to name some.

Where did I say or imply that Clinton would look to dismantle Obama's social justice policies? Just curious...

So the premium support plan which was originally proposed by Bill Clinton's staff members is a draconian measure that in your words mercilessly slashes Medicare? What's clear is that you don't fully don't understand the premium support plan.... Tell me in specifics how this plan will unfairly shift the burden on the poor? If you can't provide an answer, then we all know that you aren't equipped to answer the question. Regarding your non answer about the expansion of medicaid... Did you just say that "we have plenty of resources" ? With that, we all know where you stand. Where did I say that people should just "fend for themselves" or even make that implication? I'll tell you where, nowhere. What I proposed long before you ever began visiting PPP was that we should build medical centers through out the U.S, hired by the government to care for the poor. I also proposed that this should be partially funded by philanthropists and anyone who wanted to participate in donations to the charities, facilitated by the government through extremely friendly tax deductions. I also proposed that we should have a government funded pre existing medical pool. This way you can get a lot of the sick people out of the private health insurance pools, which would reduce premiums for the rest of us. I went in a lot more detail, and don't have the energy to go more into detail, but that's the gist of it.

Obama would much rather have Biden be the next president. Despite what you heard on the campaign trail, Obama feels that Clinton was not the right kind of democrat when he was in office. He is basically trying to undo many of Clinton's initiatives and is wary of Hillary moving more to the center. He knows that Biden will be the person he needs to continue on whatever progressive social justice policies that he began. But it doesn't matter, if Hillary runs, she steam rolls Biden, even though I fully expect Biden to get heavy African American support, because of the loyalty they will feel for the person who was Obama's "right hand" man.

Not surprised

To your first point, I believe that serious reforms are in order. People who willfully decide to do little with their lives other than go about with their daily nothingness while sucking off the government tit need to be identified. Once identified, there has to be some sort of claw back, now what does that entail? I don't know, maybe a reduction of entitlement benefits? I completely agree that there has to be job training, but there will always be people no matter how much you do for them, that won't push forward. And when you have a society that continues to pile benefits for doing less you will naturally continue to have more and more people who won't have incentive to get off their asses. People become complacent when too much is handed to them, apathy sets in, which leads to erosion of job skills. So the question is how do you provided an effective safety net, while not creating a segment of the society dependent of government?

You didn't answer the question. For that matter, you barely addressed any of the points I brought up. such as: Secondly, how do you justify that a vast expansion of Medicaid is not an entitlement? To my third point, Even if we were to accept your argument that the Public Option would of brought on more competition, that still doesn't answer address these flaws: Also the public option was riddled with faults. How in the world is a private insurer who has limited pockets going to compete with the Federal Government who basically has unlimited funds at their disposal? You don't think that if they lowered rates that it would put private insurers out of business? And if rates are artificially lowered by the government, that means quality of care would go down, simply because there aren't enough doctors who will take on even scheduled Medicare rates, which is what their goal would of been. Or, if they didn't artificially lower rates, their would of been an explosion in the overall costs to the federal budget because of the massive infusion of clients shifting from Private insurers to the public option. I can go on for hours regarding this topic, why don't we start off with the point I brought up, and we'll go from there. You also never addressed this point: Let's see how serious you are about have a real discussion.

Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this? And a vast expansion of Medicaid is an entitlement. To say otherwise is absurd. Reasonable people can argue in what we can do to increase life expectancy and coverage, but that doesn't automatically mean that the ACA was a good piece of legislation, simply because action was taken. Well before you got here I spoke at length of the pitfalls of ACA, and there are many, ranging from taxes, to national debt implications, busting state budgets, small business activity, quality of health care deterioration and consumer behavior patterns which will lead to even higher premiums. Soon enough we'll find out. Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much.

It's pretty obvious, Obama won and he feels empowered. There is no hiding who he truly is now, he's an unabashed liberal who cares more about from his view, dealing with social inequities through implementing bigger government policies while instituting punitive measures amongst those who feels owe it back to society, than trying to restore a vibrant economy. If anyone saw his inaugural address, knows that his agenda is the antithesis of Clinton's second term, when he decreed "The era of big government is over"... Well, Obama basically said "The era of big government is back, and we've juiced it up". So of course, it wasn't surprising to me that he never made mention of the economy and debt, why would he? Those are his failures, not to mention that liberals don't really enjoy discussing the debt. Rather than discuss these topics, that most of us care about, he is going to try to push through his leftist agenda. He's a borderline megalomaniac, it's gonna be his way or the highway, and he has the election results to prove it. At least that's how he sees it. The only hope I have of there being a grand bargain is if he comes to his senses and decides that addressing the entitlements and tax reform is part of the legacy he wants to leave behind. My guess is that he won't deliver, first because he isn't equipped to come through on a grand bargain, simply because he isn't able to connect with the opposing party. Secondly, liberals don't want to touch the entitlements, and he has always been beholden to their beliefs. The only reason why he ever pissed off liberals with some of his "compromises" is because he had to. If there is anything he loves more than his liberal orthodoxy, it would be himself. Which means that he compromised not for the sake of the good, but for his legacy and his re election. Well now that he has been re elected, I expect to see an even greater movement to the left.

It all starts and ends at the top.

Dude, he's trolling... Leave him him be so he can masturbate to his Manti Teo posters on his door.

Holy ****! You are me! I talk about incentives and the government all the time. If you continue to pile up the incentives for doing less, you will get a less productive society. If you apply punitive measures (higher taxes on the wealthy), not for tangible results but in the name of economic "fairness", then you will get less production. Make no mistake, Obama cares more about social justice than having a vibrant economy. Remember the Hillary/Obama debates?

I'm not surprised

Shallow much?

"I'd like to get me some of that chunky piece of ass, oh ****, Hillary is lookin again"