House Speaker Newt Gingrich s decision to embrace the individual insurance mandate a key part of the Obamacare health plan and his charge that GOP Rep. Paul Ryan s plan is radical right wing social engineering has cut him off from the vast majority of the Republican...
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover
Zatch
...
Last edited by jackers; 05-16-2011 at 11:37 AM.
BuchananOriginally Posted by jackers
The individual mandate was actually a right-wing invention. McCain was pushing it and Obama was originally against it, but eventually gave in.
McCain is right-wing?
Thanks for te correction. I'll edit my post. Small text on my iPhone!
Nope.
No. It was taken from Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposal.
It goes back a lot further than that. It was originally suggested (in Congress, at least) in a 1993 bill from Chafee. Hatch, Grassley, Bond, and Bennett supported it and are still in the Senate today.
The point being that Gingrich is not that far afield of what was previously a mainstream Republican position.
As right-wing as Gingrich, however much that is.
I love Pat Buchanan. He's basically Ron Paul with the social views (abortion, gays, drugs) of Rick Santorum.
He has economic views like the founding fathers. Buchanan would Tariff everything to reduce taxes on the middle class and reinvigorate manufacturing. I actually agree with that a lot more than Ron Paul's position, but I'll take Paul over the NAFTA crowd.
Gingrich is going to have to pull off something crazy to win in this election. How is a Rockefeller Republican going to win when the party is shifting right?
Gingrich will now lie and spin it as he is against a federal mandate. What he will not tell you is that his healthcare reform plan will penalize the states by withholding federal matching funds if they do not implement the individual mandate. So essentially is it still works out to be a federal mandate. This is how he forced welfare reform on the states and made every American subservient to the federal government regardless of need for any government program. He is now getting a second shot to take it one step further.
Newt Gingrich's polices are in the same class Hillary Clinton and Obama. It is laughable that such a hardcare authoritarian Progressive is running as a Republican.
Last edited by kahless; 05-16-2011 at 12:25 PM.
How did welfare reform make every American subservient to the federal government?
We're talking about this right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona...pportunity_Act
Another one bits the dust. Now, maybe our only major opponents will be Romney, Bachmann, and Pawlenty. I think we could take this all the way home.
I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature and that power, whether vested in many or a few, is ever grasping, and like the grave, cries, 'Give, give.'
Abigail Adams
The Welfare Reform Act - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 expanded the size and role of the federal government far outside the limits of Constitution. What was a simple system to provide for the needy was transformed to a major penal system with its own system of courts, prosecutors, police, and jails: family courts, matrimonial lawyers, child protective services, domestic violence units, child support enforcement agents and various state/federal agencies.
As far as that link it looks like the Wefare Reform Act of 1996 redirects to a positive propaganda article for those applying for welfare for "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act". I started to write more and found this below in the discussion for that link which I thought appropriate to post here.
To add my further two cents. As I recall it created incentives to force parents into the state child support collection systems regardless that they do not collect or have ever applied for welfare. The state, the counties and family court Judge's each are provided a financial incentive for a parent placed into the system. (Obviously a conflict of interest for Judges preciding over such cases). The entire welfare reform system reeks of corruption and Corporatism. Federal and state contracts to implement such systems were provided to companies already cozy with our politicians and federal/state governments. For example the contracts are being provided by the military industrial complex of corporations. (i.e Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman etc).This article clearly repeats political propaganda without critical evaluation.
The first error I found was actually in another article, Welfare_reform, which refers to this article. This article is also found directly by searching for "welfare reform." Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was just one act in a series that started during the Reagan era and continued during the Clinton era. The general trend and agenda had bipartisan support. This bipartisan effort is part of what created the deep divide between The People and The Political Class that has become so obvious. Welfare reform was never about any of the things politicians talked about. It wasn't about personal responsibility or cutting welfare dependency. The welfare budget increased dramatically as a result. Evidence such as that presented in the article, preserves the renaming hoax - i.e. things were renamed so that I decline could be shown if you just kept looking at the outcome under one specific program label, such as AFDC. But increases were being made in other areas, including benefits that previously did not exist; with a net result of increased benefits, particularly for divorced and never-married mothers. The time limits to entitlements were also fake. Projections on the effect seem impressive to someone who has insufficient knowledge, but it was simply designed to pretend that established statistically normal outflow from welfare programs are a result of reform. Those who don't fit the profile are exempted from the stated limits. In fact, the arrangement was designed to allow a worsened statistical result. But you're not supposed to know that, because the presentation does not provide an accurate before and after comparison - just the propaganda that uses the renaming hoax to give a false picture. Two parent families were not "encouraged." In fact, it's solidly established that these reforms were part of a very powerful attack on marriage and family that goes well beyond the increased benefits for divorced and never-married mothers. Child support enforcement was a fake - simply taking credit for payments by calling them "collections," and unnecessarily paying billions every year to private companies that basically don't do anything. The child support "collection" scam not only costs taxpayers billions every year (part of the increased cost of welfare) but it led directly to the abolition of marriage; i.e. that marriage no longer exists as a "sacred, private institution" with Constitutional protection against arbitrary government intrusion. It was reclassified by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in P.O.P.S. v Gardner to "social policy" (from its former proper classification as civil law) allowing federal intrusion and removing fundamental civil rights protections. The Court's purpose was to preserve excessive and unnecessary federal funding for states that was part of the purpose of the reforms; i.e. yes - pork-barrel spending.
Instead of parents handling child support payments on their own, all too often they were forced into collection with these companies or be held in contempt. No surprise considering the incentives. The companies in-turn would charge a fee as well as delay payments to the custodial parent so they could profit from interest.
Federally mandated guideliness increased child support levels so that a system that was supposed to encourage two parent households actually encourages single parent households due to the child support incentives. Every man and woman that has a child together is at risk of being subservient to the other should they be the first to win the custodial parent status thus receiving the lifestyle child support incentive combined with "ability to earn" policies of the non-custodial.
It also created the federal new hires database that requires all employers to report new hires to the federal government, a defacto national tracking of Americans. I am just scratching the surface here and provided a few links below.
Bottomline, the government is acting in area in which they do not belong, acting outside the Constitution and have over reached to Americans outside of those needing welfare. Welfare is best left to charitable organizations, parenting is best left to the parents and marriage best left to religious organizations. The reality is Newt Gingrich is a hardcore Socialist and his talk otherwise is just smoke and mirrors.
Welfare and the "Road to Serfdom"
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublicatio...2572FB00696FED
From Welfare State to Police State
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/t...askerville.pdf
How the Failure of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...ilure_of_w.htm
Last edited by kahless; 05-16-2011 at 07:57 PM.
Gingrich is the Giuliani of 2008; point being, don't expect him to last as a candidate for very long.
I like Pat better than Ron too, as I am a paleo-con and think he has better views on social issues. Did you see what he said today?
Pat Buchanan: IMF Sex Scandal "A Bad Day For The New World Order"
Interesting stuff, I've got to read up on this a bit more, thanks.
Buchanan:"You have the Charlie Sheen of global finance running the IMF."
Haha, man he is hysterical.
Also, cool video game website.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us