In it Mr Friedman holds up President George H W Bush (Bush 41) as the model of a level headed and clear thinking Republican, the kind of Republican (or Democrat, one would presume) we need now. But, Mr Friedman's comments leave something to be desired, such as this comment about Bush 41:
George H.W. Bush also believed that to be a conservative was to act with “prudence,” one of his favorite words and a philosophy he demonstrated in foreign policy by deciding, once he defeated Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, not to follow him to Baghdad.The only problem with this, and at the time I too thought it was a great decision, is that President Saddam Hussein took it as a sign that he, Saddam, had won. The result of the fact that we stopped when we did, out of a concern for the wholesale slaughter of Iraqis is that we got the Second Gulf War. Put aside your dislike for George W Bush for a moment and think about the fact that for a decade President Saddam Hussein claimed to have weapons of mass destruction and threatened to use them and in the mean time committed depredations against his own People, especially the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. He and his sons were terrible people.
So, we have Standard and Poors threatening to downgrade our credit rating, not because of a default but because we can't get our national debt under control. So, in a way, the Tea Party folks are the ones looking down the road a couple of months and saying there is going to be a problem, there is going to be a train wreck, when the size of our debt is such that the rating agencies downgrade our ratings. And, those Tea Party folks think that the debt is a drag on economic recovery, which isn't going to well right now.
And, here is a comment from an unnamed Health Care Professional and PhD on another forum:
I have to come down in support of Jim and the discussion on the impact of unfettered healthcare cost in the US as being the single biggest threat to long term fiscal health of our nation. As I have written over and over again, when we are spending 25% of our GDP on healthcare what won't we be spending money on? Education? Defense? Think about this in terms of the increasing number of obese, overweight or otherwise compromised youth cohort as well as the impact of obesity and overweight on health spending within the military population. These are national security threats best taken in tandem.We have to get the entitlements under control.
Yes, cut National Defense. Bring the troops home early from our far flung wars if needs be, but get control of our debt and our spending.
And, for those Democrats who say we have to increase Federal Taxes, I say that there are a lot of folks who believe that if there is a tax increase there will be no real spending reductions. How do we square that circle? How do we provide confidence that we will reduce spending? This is a problem that has been with us since the time of President Jefferson. Again from The New York Times.
Hat tip to Hot Air.
Regards — Cliff
Entitlement reform?? Don't expect it anytime soon, especially when it comes to the Democrat's national health care plan called Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteAnd, the Tea Party folks are correct in their opposition to big government and all the woes it provides. Obamacare, "sold" to the American people as the ONLY means of getting medical costs under control and actually SAVING money is, by the very agency responsible for administering Federal health care, the CMS, going to COST MORE than had it never become law. This from the Washington Times as reported by the CMS itself,
"From the Washington Times:
"Despite President Obama's promises to rein in health care costs as part of his reform bill, health spending nationwide is expected to rise more than if the sweeping legislation had never become law.
Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8% under Mr. Obama's Affordable Care Act, according to a 10-year forecast by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services released Thursday. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7% annually.
CMS officials attributed the growth to an expansion of the insured population. Under the plan, an estimated 23 million Americans are expected to obtain insurance in 2014, largely through state-based exchanges and expanded Medicaid eligibility.
The federal government is projected to spend 20% more on Medicaid, while spending on private health insurance is expected to rise by 9.4%."
The RINOs are alive and well....and voting Democratic.
Are you recommending death panels when you talk about curbing healthcare costs?
ReplyDeleteYou who?
ReplyDeleteRegards — Cliff
If "you" is me, I am not talking about curbing health care costs as an advocate, merely pointing out that the government solution, touted as a big money saver, is actually the more expensive of the options.But then, many said that when the big sell was going on. In fact, what of the many "programs" pushed on America under the current guy has lived up to its hype? The quick answer, "NONE."
ReplyDeleteGeorge Soros is VERY happy with the big infusion of American tax dollars in the Brazilian Petrogas company.....that George has an $855B stake in.
And of course, on a smaller scale, Biden is doing well by renting his property to the Secret Service so the agents can be near to the official residence. Talk about Win/Win....Biden gets protected AND makes a tidy profit. Is this a great country or what??