Democrats: +1

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/congress-special-election-medicare-/1

I for one am hesitant to believe that this result was simply due to a three-way-split.

Originally posted by wittywonka
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/congress-special-election-medicare-/1

I for one am hesitant to believe that this result was simply due to a three-way-split.

The Democrat got almost 50%, while the 3rd-party TP candidate got only 9%. And this is an overwhelmingly Republican district! So no, I don't think the result was simply owing to a three-way split.

Originally posted by willy wonka
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/congress-special-election-medicare-/1

I for one am hesitant to believe that this result was simply due to a three-way-split.

The Republicans have saddled themselves with Ryan's Medicare proposals which amount to scrapping the program. It's amazing how quickly the political winds change in the US.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Republicans have saddled themselves with Ryan's Medicare proposals which amount to scrapping the program. It's amazing how quickly the political winds change in the US.

Someone has to be the grown ups. The GOP gambled they would be forgiven for taking away the candy as the public seems aware of and concerned about the debt. It may backfire.

Here's Ryan's latest pitch, BTW. People will either look on this as a sleazy sales pitch or leadership. I would think Dems would like the means testing since that would mean the Rich pay more for healthcare than the poor, but I haven't heard that mentioned anywhere.

YouTube&feature=player_embedded

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Someone has to be the grown ups. The GOP gambled they would be forgiven for taking away the candy as the public seems aware of and concerned about the debt. It may backfire.

That type of moral argument would have a lot more force if the Republicans hadn't demagogued the issue in the 2010 elections by largely campaigning against the health care reform bill by claiming it "slashed" Medicare.

Grownups also might realize that 30 years of tax cuts might have had some impact on creating a budget deficit.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That type of moral argument would have a lot more force if the Republicans hadn't demagogued the issue in the 2010 elections by largely campaigning against the health care reform bill by claiming it "slashed" Medicare.

Grownups also might realize that 30 years of tax cuts might have had some impact on creating a budget deficit.

What's more they want to dismantle Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. Their excuse is returning the tax rate for the wealthy to 1993 levels would "kill jobs", because so many jobs were killed between 1993 and 2001.

Dems don't have the guts to cut spending.

GOP doesn't have the guts to raise taxes.

So the deficit rises...


Same 'ol same 'ol...

Originally posted by sh76
Dems don't have the guts to cut spending.

GOP doesn't have the guts to raise taxes.

So the deficit rises...


Same 'ol same 'ol...

The Democrats at least made some concessions on spending cuts. The Republicans won't budge an inch on tax increases, not even a nominal increase for income above $1 million per year.

Originally posted by sh76
Dems don't have the guts to cut spending.

GOP doesn't have the guts to raise taxes.

So the deficit rises...


Same 'ol same 'ol...

It would take more than guts to cut spending in a recession. It would be stupid.

Even raising the taxes isn't the answer. Deficits have never been eliminated by spending cuts during a recession. You don't pull money out of the economy. Deficits have always been cut or eliminated by expanding the economy - by increasing the rate of taxable transactions.

When the economy is in an inflationary phase, then you can cut spending.

Meanwhile, the message of the NY-26 results - "Don't f--- with Medicare." Unfortunately for Republicans, nearly all of them are on record for essentially bringing Medicare to an end and turning it over to such an efficient industry in private insurance.

The best health care reform would be to lower the age of eligibility to 18 years old. It would also make the system solvent by taking in money from younger people who need fewer services. Really, if you think that private insurance is going to want to cover those 70 year olds unless they are federally subsidized, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The Democrats at least made some concessions on spending cuts. The Republicans won't budge an inch on tax increases, not even a nominal increase for income above $1 million per year.

No. In California they won't even let the electorate vote on tax increases.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
No. In California they won't even let the electorate vote on tax increases.

They stopped doing that? At least they wised up then, asking the populace in a referendum about tax increases is a horrible idea.