Originally Posted by cashman

Anything Tom Geithner does or says? He is a Tax cheat who wants to use Socialist and Progressive Approaches to solve our Economic problems. When asked why he didn't pay his taxes, he said "I don't know why I didn't pay them".

Cheating liars using socialist tactics usually try to become dictators.

Is that where we are headed?

Thoughtful post. Did you read the article?

Originally Posted by GatbTester

The truth of the matter is that within this bill is the beginning of a shift power to the executive branch of government, a direct violation of our Constitution in checks and balances. What harm can that bring, you ask? Oh, not much just one step into the grave of socialism or even fascism. Secondly this bill will severely limit the amount of care we seniors are going to be able to receive and there will be administrators who mete out our health care with a spoon.

I don't know how seniors can support this thing. Are they not going to cut the patients on Medicare like 25% ?

Originally Posted by JUREK

I don't know how seniors can support this thing. Are they not going to cut the patients on Medicare like 25% ?

Death Panels may not be as far fetched as the liberal progressives wants you to believe?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Thoughtful post. Did you read the article?

I read the article. Tho I usually do not read many articles written by guys who write only for Liberal mags like The New Yorker And The Atlantic.

I prefer reading both sides of the issues.

A good Therapist will not accept insurance payments for alcohol or drugs addiction as if someone else is paying the addict is usually not really committed to recover. If someone really wants to recover they should have to pay even if it means working just to raise the money for therapy or rehab.
I think you can see the relationship of this to what is going on. If someone is getting something for "nothing" then why would they want to earn? There is a case to be said that Social Security is built on paying. I know the arguements that it is running out of money, etc. but that does not detract from the point that people paid to receive.
Welfare has destroyed the need to work..Heck, a lot of people go for lots of kids since they get more money for doing nothing. As in the case of insurance for additions..if someone else is paying for your needs then you have little want to work..
If you want to know how this works just look at the projects in the cities. How many have they closed because the residents have worked, earned and moved out? NONE..How many have watched the drug merchants move in, cause addictions and the addict apply for FREE treatment because medicaid or insurance is paying..remember medicade is your paying for them to get high. The Project is the model of socialism. It is the height of socialism.
I will not go further but hopefully this has caused some to thing more about the free health care, fee clinics, fee rehabs, free detox, free education, free
transportation, free food, free cars and even free phones if you can't pay.
NONE OF THIS IS FREE..YOU ARE PAYING AND IT IS NOT GETTING BETTER. TO BELIEVE IN A WELFARE STATE IS PRE DETERMINING FAILURE.

Originally Posted by cashman

...I usually do not read many articles written by guys who write only for Liberal mags like The New Yorker And The Atlantic.

It's tough to find any single publication that covers any political issue with true balance. Most people think The Economist does, but that one can be criticized for being published in the U.K. and not the U.S. By the way, the author of the article in The Atlantic also writes for The Economist occasionally.

Your criticism of The Atlantic and the New Yorker as "liberal mags" is added to similar criticism that has been received when I've referenced articles from TIME, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. Other posters here have referred to those publications, along with The New York Times, of course, as "liberal rags".

It raises a question in my mind...if true conservatives feel they can learn nothing from reading the aforementioned publications, what do they read to get the conservative view? I'd like to find out, so I can begin to read those publications as well, in order to get a more balanced view of things.

Anyone who has eschewed articles because they come from a liberal publication, let us all know the publications we can read to get a view from the conservative perspective. Just post 'em right here.

1) The Weekly Standard
2) National Review
3) Taki's Magazine
4) The American Conservative
5) The New American
6) Front Page
7) The Christian Science Monitor
8) Human Events


I am sure that there is more, but this is a good start for your reading pleasure.

VK, did you happen to see the piece in the New Yorker about Geithner?


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_cassidy

Or the article in Vogue?

http://www.vogue.com/feature/2010_Ma...othy_Geithner/

Looks like "the fencing master" is on guard.

Originally Posted by Donna2

[B]1)...this is a good start for your reading pleasure.

Thanks, Donna. Believe it or not, I actually read articles from several of those publications. I really like Taki's Magazine and particularly Patrick Buchanan, a regular contributor. In fact, in his column there on February 26, Buchanan wrote, "Federal revenues are running at 16 percent of gross domestic product, spending at 27 percent. Wednesday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that a Greece-like situation, where creditors refuse to buy U.S. debt unless we raise interest rates to cover the rising risks of a U.S. default, cannot be ruled out."

Then Buchanan said, "...in 2012, the party of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul will have to tell the country how it proposes to end these wars without losing them, how to bring manufacturing back, and how to cut spending by $1 trillion a year, if taxes are off the table.", suggesting that if the GOP wins in 2010 and 2012 they'll face just a difficult a situation as Obama has now, with no real evidence at the moment of what changes they'll bring to the situation.

Wow! Where have I read that before? Here on TOTV Political? Hmmm, I think I may have written it myself!

The Weekly Standard's editor, Bill Kristol, is probably a lot further right than Newsweek's Jon Meachum is left, but that's not the point I was making. The important thing is that people take the time to read the opinions from both sides of the political spectrum. Otherwise, I guess I don't know how one could form anything close to an informed opinion.

And to BKCunningham...wow! If The New Yorker is a liberal magazine and Tim Geithner could be expected to be favored there, all I can ask is "what happened?"

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I hate to say it, but I think the political and economic knowledge of a large majority of Americans is formed by the soundbites, political entertainment shows on TV and the ads placed and paid for by special interests.

I have finally been drawn in to the Political Discussion.

VK, you have posted an excellent response. The portion I have repeated above should be repeated over and over. We buy our cars, laundry soap, insurance, toothpaste, etc., etc. based on the most convincing ads. Now, as you so aptly mention, we are electing our governing bodies the same way with the added help of sound bites and talking heads. We are being grossly mislead by both sides.

Originally Posted by downeaster

I have finally been drawn in to the Political Discussion.

VK, you have posted an excellent response. The portion I have repeated above should be repeated over and over. We buy our cars, laundry soap, insurance, toothpaste, etc., etc. based on the most convincing ads. Now, as you so aptly mention, we are electing our governing bodies the same way with the added help of sound bites and talking heads. We are being grossly mislead by both sides.

This may be true but it is unfair when 80 to 90 % of the press is Liberal biased.