Gov. Christie (threatens) Republicans with primaries over entitlement reform

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 3:55 PM GMT
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/144653-gov-christie-chides-gop-over-entitlement-reform

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) urged Congress to address the solvency of programs like Social Security and Medicare and warned Republicans they could face primaries for failing to cut government spending.

    Christie said it had become a “political strategy” for Republicans to ignore reforming entitlement programs.

    “Our new, bold Republicans that we just sent to the House of Representatives, they’re not talking about it,” Christie said. “They’re waiting for [President Obama] to talk about it.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:04 PM GMT
    You know riddler it always strikes me as tacky that a Canadian who has very good social services and universal healthcare for an astonishingly low cost is promoting cuts to those things in the US. Now tell us what will happen to those people suddenly without either. Work camps? Mass pits for the deaths from no food, shelter, or medical care? Go get a job with the current unemployent going on? Have them line up by the thousands at the doors of charities? What?

    There are lots of other things that can be cut, as evidenced in your earlier topic about the jet engines (which is a small amount, but something).

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:07 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidYep, I saw that.

    We need more governors to say the same thing to put more pressure on DC.


    This is kind of exciting in many ways. With the sweeping congressional elections and the breakthroughs of Tea Partiers across the US (except California) particularly at the state and local levels, the same entrenched interests are finally being confronted. For as much as there are many who hate the influence the US has on the world, an economically strong and influential US is far better than the alternatives.

    The irony of Obama's legacy may be that of libertarians who number significantly amongst the tea partiers elected in rejection to the big government vision provided not only by Democrats but many Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:14 PM GMT
    meninlove said You know riddler it always strikes me as tacky that a Canadian who has very good social services and universal healthcare for an astonishingly low cost is promoting cuts to those things in the US. Now tell us what will happen to those people suddenly without either. Work camps? Mass pits for the deaths from no food, shelter, or medical care? Go get a job with the current unemployent going on? Have them line up by the thousands at the doors of charities? What?

    There are lots of other things that can be cut, as evidenced in your earlier topic about the jet engines (which is a small amount, but something).

    -Doug


    For astonishingly low cost? I think we Canadians get what we pay for - and what we're paying for is already falling apart and is unsustainable as practically all policy makers point out. I think it's a relatively good system on average but if you have a bad disease, your outcomes are better elsewhere - especially having had several people I know including friends and family go through the system in recent years. It's kind of tacky of you not to recognize the deficits and benefits of both systems as they currently are - but it also presumes that the path to a better system must also be through government.

    It should be further noted that the US government seems especially inefficient at spending the money it has. The US already spends more than Canada per capita on Medicare with only a small percentage of Americans even qualifying for Medicare. You would advocate spending even more?

    No one is advocating that the entire system of social services be removed - that's a straw man. It seems also equally silly if not more so to suggest that money is being allocated efficiently. Defence spending is another area where savings can be had. Sustainable jobs won't and can't come from government - and with the US being in the financial situation it is now most of the savings going forward will need to come from entitlement reform in addition to a hard look at everything else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:21 PM GMT
    ahem, you're talking cuts, not efficiencies or achieving synergy in your OP. As well, I said nothing about increasing funding. That's you putting words in my mouth. Please, if you can, refrain. As for your anecdotal horror stories about our healthcare system, I have just as many to refute yours.

    Tell me where in my post I said the gov't should create jobs.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    Now back to the abandoned. Bigger tent cities in parks? Jail for stealing bread to eat? Shantytowns in garbage dump-sites? What?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:31 PM GMT
    meninlove saidahem, you're talking cuts, not efficiencies or achieving synergy in your OP. As well, I said nothing about increasing funding. That's you putting words in my mouth. Please, if you can, refrain. As for your anecdotal horror stories about our healthcare system, I have just as many to refute yours.

    Tell me where in my post I said the gov't should create jobs.

    icon_rolleyes.gif



    Not sure what you're not understanding here. Either way, the US government needs to spend less money. You're the one to suggest that cuts will result in 'work camps, mass pits for the deaths from no food, shelter, or medical care' etc. This idea that "promoting cuts to those things in the US" necessarily results in reduced services are your words not mine.

    You can get all legalistic or exaggerate my arguments all you like - and it's an approach that might be credible if you weren't as sloppy with your own.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:40 PM GMT
    Because you don't cut first and then scramble to shore up shortfalls. The result is the situation I proposed. The better way, which successful businesses do, is OEP.
    Streamline, achieve synergy, then cut once to you can see there will a surplus from doing the above.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 4:57 PM GMT
    As for our system and it's money drain - here take a look.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/09/disability-tax-credit-revenue-agency-claims.html

    The CRA has done lots of hiring recently. I can see why. The tacky side of this is that gov't then grows bigger.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 5:09 PM GMT
    meninlove said You know riddler it always strikes me as tacky that a Canadian who has very good social services and universal healthcare for an astonishingly low cost is promoting cuts to those things in the US. Now tell us what will happen to those people suddenly without either. Work camps? Mass pits for the deaths from no food, shelter, or medical care? Go get a job with the current unemployent going on? Have them line up by the thousands at the doors of charities? What?

    There are lots of other things that can be cut, as evidenced in your earlier topic about the jet engines (which is a small amount, but something).

    -Doug

    I have to say I have found it equally tacky when non-US citizens, especially those who are not economic experts, actively cheerlead policies that will lead us into bankruptcy and the degrading of our treasury securities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 5:17 PM GMT
    Kindly name which bankrupting policies I cheerleaded.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 5:22 PM GMT
    meninlove said Kindly name which bankrupting policies I cheerleaded.


    lol just making a general comment. I think collectively all your comments about our health care fall into that category.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 5:28 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said Kindly name which bankrupting policies I cheerleaded.


    lol just making a general comment. I think collectively all your comments about our health care fall into that category.


    Oh dear, more spin doctoring. I thought as much.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2011 6:05 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said You know riddler it always strikes me as tacky that a Canadian who has very good social services and universal healthcare for an astonishingly low cost is promoting cuts to those things in the US. Now tell us what will happen to those people suddenly without either. Work camps? Mass pits for the deaths from no food, shelter, or medical care? Go get a job with the current unemployent going on? Have them line up by the thousands at the doors of charities? What?

    There are lots of other things that can be cut, as evidenced in your earlier topic about the jet engines (which is a small amount, but something).

    -Doug

    I have to say I have found it equally tacky when non-US citizens, especially those who are not economic experts, actively cheerlead policies that will lead us into bankruptcy and the degrading of our treasury securities.


    I think it's offensive when US citizens cheerlead for economic policies that will impoverish vasts number of our citizens. icon_rolleyes.gif