NUT CASE RON PAUL VS OTHER NUT CASES THE TEA PARTY

[RMD343]

Neocons hijacked the tea party the same way Obama hijacked the occupy wall street movement.

[darknight651]

@RMD343 I will hijack you and take you to the largest peak in earth mount everest and drop you from there.

[Deathfromthesky2112]

A true moronic liberal. Ron Paul believes in freedom and free market solutions. He wants to end the drug war, iraq war, and the afghan war. I didn't know believing in freedom and liberty made you nut case.

Grow up you partisan hack.

[sjvietboy408]

@Deathfromthesky2112, even the damn sheeps will recognize the word FREEDOM & LIBERTY as something favorable when they hear that word, but only the damn government disinfo agent would go against the word FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

[dudev]

@Deathfromthesky2112

What Ron Paul wants and what can be realistically achieved are two things miles apart. He's the impractical candidate.

[darknight651]

@dudev I am glad that there are still few americans Like you.

[pablomatic77]

Glenn Beck, Sara Palin and John McCain have nothing to do with the Tea Party movement. Nobody in the Tea Party movement follows them. Their hijacking attempts are just a mainstream media myth. Ron Paul rules!

[anchorbass24]

This is nothing but establishment propaganda, Ron Paul destroyed his opponents in the 2010 election. There was very little challengers, and he won in a land slide. Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!

[kevlarunderware]

ron paul 2012  end the fed

[TheForwardGaze]

The Tea Party is a reincarnation of Pat Buchanan's nativist Reform Party--racism, isolationism and oligarchy for all.

[FreelancePatriot76]

Who do these liberal assholes think they are to high jack something that doesn't belong to them? MLK was a Republican. Not that the R and the D matters but it proves it was never theirs an they're high jacking the civil rights movement just because the Fuhrer now happens to be black. Pathetic.

We don't challenge the Fuhrer based on race but you defend him with race.

He who uses race as a political weapon is not only racist BUT PHONY !!

[EikC]

@FreelancePatriot76

You're a freedom-hating terrorist. Why do you hate America so much?

[sssssjjjj1]

Ron Paul would not abolish social security. I've had the pleasure of asking that same question, he would try to abolish fed, dept edu, energy, blah blah, but not social security because people had paid in to it. Congress and pres's have spent it when all along they vowed not to touch it, now that it's time for boomers to collect they've spent it on buying elections, such as giving it to israel for aipac pressure and favorable press.

[ekingh22]

Did that fool of an expert just say the tea party movement is mainly Mcain and Palin CONSERVATIVEs, you cant be serious

[Tzacharu123]

The Tea Party movement is definitely not libertarian. The only libertarian thing about the Tea Party movement is fewer taxes, and that's just about it. They support the war, many support abolition of abortion, they support intervention in foreign countries, all of which are not libertarian views.

Did you even watch the video you posted? This was all high lighted in the segment. Everyone likes to run around these days calling themselves a libertarian, when most are not, they're just conservative

[ekingh22]

@Tzacharu123 your soo wrong on what you think the tea parties are. The first ever tea parties were Ron Paul and Alex Jones supporters, and the neo-con republicans are trying to take this party over. And now you delusional and got the ideology mixed up. Smaller government, less spending,...thats anti war.

[imstillalive0331]

the fact is, libertarians are based on the original tenants of the republican party: small government, non-intervention in foreign conflicts and at 5:40 when he said it is NOT based on historical conclusions!? what the hell does that mean? because i will happily debate anybody on the still current relevance of the constitution and the pitfalls of relying on government to manage anything. if you want to talk about history

[thevirtueallliberal]

"Imstillalive", ha...funny name . Libertarians can't even agree what libertarians are . They are allot of things . From my political view point, when you can't agree what you are the other name for that is confused . Or it can be called Anarchism , which libertarians have strong roots in . I accept your debate challenge and raise you one logical point, ha...

[PianoForteAndrew]

@thevirtueallliberal

i do not see the connection you make between not knowing how to identify yourself with a group and anarchism, which rejects any form of group. anarchists are quite unconfused, just like all mobs; democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, and teabaggers.

libertarians can very easily identify with one another, and do all the time. there's just not enough of them to support a presidential candidate. teabaggers are not libertatians. they are a mob, like libs and cons.

[littlebuddy149722]

@lowlifecool LOWLIFE!!.  haha. You made that very easy for me.

[redrajani]

btw the ron paul presidential campaign spawned the campaign for liberty (with leftover campaign funds) and young americans for liberty.

THE BAILOUTS SPAWNED THE TEA PARTIES!!!!!

[thevirtueallliberal]

"Red"  the Tea Party is nothing more then back door Republican corporate funded, conspiracy sniffing, revolutionaries .The Tea Party consist of lobbyist-run think tanks like Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded . There's Dick Armey, the former Republican Majority Leader who now leads Freedom Works and is a lobbyist for the firm DLA Piper. Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Americans for Prosperity is run by Tim Phillips, who was Ralph Reeds former partner in the lobbying firm Century Strategies. The group is funded by Koch family foundations .A family whose wealth is derived from the oil industry. Americans for Prosperity has coordinated pro-drilling "grassroots" events around the country, as well

[thevirtueallliberal]

See Mr.Wake is a poster boy for the TeaKlusKlan .They consist of anti-government, conspiracy theorist, extremist hypocrites, and under occurrence of hate groups . Mr. Waken, you have a problem with the GOP backed SCOTUS decision ? How many of your relatives are on these scary "socialist" programs you decry ? As a matter of fact what does "socialism" mean to you ? I just want to school your ass on how wrong and stupid you really sound .

[redrajani]

freedom is such a crazy idea....

i have never been to a tea party but i definitely agree with some of their points.

another way to smear thoughts and movements that are alternatives to the mainstream.

(and make them mainstream- palin hijacking the movement?)

[thevirtueallliberal]

The Tea Party isn't about "Freedom" Red . It's about striping people of their personal freedoms by stripping away decades of fed. law . that protects people . The tea party is just what I described in the uploading of this video . I don't like them, I don't trust them and I think they are nothing more then Freedom Works sponsored Republicans in sheep's clothing trying to get back into power .

[redrajani]

ron paul is not a nut case.

the teaparty people are pissed off at liberals AND republicans for redistributing their hard-earned money to failing corporations.

i don't know what right wing faction is trying lead these pissed off people, but it doesn't change the fact that you still don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

you don't have to trust or like anyone, but you should at least share a common goal: freedom. attacking the "teabaggers" --ha you sound just like a liberal should.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Ron Paul is a smart man but so was Hoover. However, it doesn't make their policies any more sound when faced with a depression. When Hoover didn't act, that's what made the depression great .Allot of Dr. Paul's policies are naive and reckless in my view. abolishing decades of Fed. civil law, abolishing medicare, S.S. instead of tweaking them so they can be fixed . Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

Once it is understood money is debt and loans are nothing more than IOU's, it becomes abundantly clear the 25% drop in money supply during the great depression is the root cause. Hoover had no control, it was the Federal Reserve who did and still does control this issue.

By tweaking, you must mean drastically reducing the costs. By 2017, according to the GAO and CBO, SS will be paying out instead of paying in. That's another 7 trillion. Med and SS are the largest problems we face, not nukes

[thevirtueallliberal]

What caused the great depression ? A number of things .The Stock Market Crash of 1929 . Bank failures .Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures. Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, Your explanations of the Great Depression are symptoms of the illness. When the market crashes, when banks fail, when people lose their savings, and surviving banks slow lending are precisely a decrease in money supply. Why do people spend less? Theres no money to spend. Do you believe Money = Debt? Do you understand how a loan is created, not out of existing money (bank deposits), rather an IOU or promise to pay? This is the root cause of all the symptoms you mentioned.

[thevirtueallliberal]

I didn't explain the great depression was a symptom of the illness .I explained what caused that illness . I also explained how the illness was cured, sooner rather then later, this second time around .Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

It was the Wall Street crash that caused this.When this happened, it had a domino affect. When things happen consecutively, all these institutions shut down from fear . It wasn't or isn't a OUI problem . Although I acknowledge we have to practice fiscal responsibility in times when there is no recession , until the economy shows signs of improvement . I don't believe for a second the sky is falling .

[callouschristian]

@OurBraveNewWorld Oh PLEASE!! Ron Paul was there as the ship was sinking. The thing that makes him tea partier is his ability to play the blame game long enough to keep people stupid so he can shove it up your ass one more time, slave.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Reduction in purchasing across the board .With the stock market crash and the fears of further economic woes, individuals from all classes stopped purchasing items . American economic policy with Europe . As businesses began failing, the government created theSmoot Hawley Tariff in 1930 to help protect American companies. This charged a high tax for imports thereby leading to less trade between America and foreign countries along with some economic retaliation. Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

And drought conditions, believe it or not ? While not a direct cause of the Great Depression, the drought that occurred in the Mississippi Valley in 1930 was of such proportions that many could not even pay their taxes or other debts and had to sell their farms for no profit to themselves. Does any of this sound familiar ? Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Dude Hoover enacted numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget . What FDR did was pump money into the U.S. economy . That money was spent right away keeping people on their feet, until the economy improved .

[thevirtueallliberal]

In terms of the bail outs, it was absolutely necessary . Although the bail out had many mistakes, it kept a recession from turning into a second great depression . Also, most of TARP has been payed back with a profit . Some of that billion dollar profit set to be used to stimulate small business through lending via community banks .

[OurBraveNewWorld]

You have been completely misled on the bailouts.

According to the Fed Res docs, 26.1 trillion has been issued by the Federal government, and only 2% has been payed back. It is silly to think we have made a profit . . .

I urge you to watch IOUSA and/or Money as Debt. No parties, politics, nada. Just facts on how dire our financial situation is and how central banking mathematically creates these problems. It's imperative we understand the slide of hand trick banks use if are to solve this.

[thevirtueallliberal]

"OurBrave", your talking about a report released by TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky, who made it seem as if the overall cost of all the economic rescue programs will eventually total $23.7 trillion. The media (mostly right wing media) went crazy over this, ha...? Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

What they failed to mention is what it means and how it was calculated. In the report, Barofsky clearly wrote that the number was designed to suggest the scale and scope of those efforts and not to provide a firm financial statement . To arrive at $23 trillion, Barofsky simply added together every financial rescue program that has been proposed, including those that were discontinued or never even started. Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, true, to a point. The Total bailout, actual dollars spent, is 10.4 Trillion.

Still makes my point: it is not 700 billion and we are not even close to getting paid back.

[thevirtueallliberal]

10.4 billion was not the cost of the bail out "OurBrave" ? Come on man....? That 10.4 billion was what was left to Obama . It was a result of two unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription plan, and partially unfunded tax breaks to the richest 10% (The part that was payed for was from the Clinton projected surplus) . Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

In addition, lower taxes are coming in due to the recession, and government spending trying to stimulate the economy . And it's working . GDP up ! Housing foreclosures down ! rate of Job loss slowing under Obama ! Unemployment is even down . However, I think we need to take the profit from TARP and give it to Main Street, to stimulate further growth .

[Tzacharu123]

@thevirtueallliberal Lol, of course the economy's going to go up right after you throw money into it, but doesn't boil down to the "now", it boils down to the "later". What's gonna happen two years from now when those debts start to really hurt us? What happens when the companies we bailed out can't pay back the loans? What's gonna happen once companies realize they can just be irresponsible and rely on the government bailout money to save their asses? Democrats NEVER think of long term effects.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Floyd Norris of the New York Times broke down the real numbers . Look up the article . In addition, the report assumes that every home mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac goes into default, and all the homes turn out to be worthless. It assumes that every bank in America fails, with not a single asset worth even a penny. And it assumes that all of the assets held by money market mutual funds, including Treasury bills, turn out to be worthless.Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal I perfer to go by Nomi Prins and Krisztina Ugrin

[thevirtueallliberal]

"Nomi Prins" ? Doesn't she advocate bringing back the Glass Steagall Act ? The one repealed by the Republican backed Gramm Leach Bliley Act ?

[thevirtueallliberal]

It would also require the Treasury itself to default on securities purchased by the Federal Reserve system. Mr. Barofsky, the one your quoting, stated to the House committee,"of the $700 billion appropriated by Congress, the Treasury has so far spent $441 billion, and about $70 billion of that has been repaid" . The real number would be a projected $2 trillion in loss, according to Andrew Willaims, a spokesman for the Treasury Department . Let me stress, projected ! It could be lower .

[thevirtueallliberal]

Ok, now the I.O.U.S.A. movie . You say "watch it, no parties, politics, nada " . That's just not true dude . One look at the groups that are behind the movie and part of a traveling group of economists, along with the head of the Office of Management and Budget, who is taking a disturbing political tact, for a office that is supposed to be not politicized. This group includes the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Both are conservative think tanks. The movie attempts to present these people as a broad spectrum of the country, when in fact they represent the financial elite of the country. This movie has the distinct feeling of being a platform for cutting social services to the normal person. Big money hates these programs "OurBrave" . And hates the fact that money they pay in taxes goes to the non-elites, even though most of their income is not earned in the traditional economic sense.Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

but is either a government granted monopoly (in the case of Exxon or Citibank) or simply a return on previously earned capital. Furthermore big money spends a great deal of time lobbying to cut these programs. One of the great scams is the singling out of Medicare as a wasteful program that will drastically increase the budget to unsustainable proportions. Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal No one says Medicare is wasteful. I agree with you, with current laws, it has great overhead numbers. What you are missing is it is 34 trillion in debt. It is broke. IOUSA takes no stance on how to fix the problem; it simply states the facts. No scam here. Not wasteful, just unsustainable.

[thevirtueallliberal]

"OurBrave" , medicare is not in debt for 34 trillion. That 34 trillion debt is actually a budget forecast, if the system isn't reformed . One of the reforms being raising taxes, price control, and cutting back on fraud .All of which a universal type health care system does . Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Let's take the V.H.A.. Adjusting for the changing mix of patients (using data on reliance and relative costs by priority group), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that VHAs budget authority per enrollee grew by 1.7 percent in real terms from 1999 to 2005 (0.3 percent annually). Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Though not the decline in cost per capita that is suggested by the unadjusted figures, that estimate still indicates some degree of cost control when compared with Medicares real rate of growth of 29.4 percent in cost per capita over that same period (4.4 percent per year). Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

So if you really think that Medicare as it is, is doomed, why not propose converting it to a VA-type system as opposed to simply declaring it bankrupt and shutting it down? I'll tell you why .Because the standard argument ,"socialized medicine" (yell run for the hills, ha....!) .The diluted perception of "loss of choice" .It doesnt seem to apply if the alternative is no health care at all.

[imstillalive0331]

im in the va system. fuck that

[thevirtueallliberal]

However, what is unsaid is that they oppose any legislation to reduce the costs of health care because that would be "socialist. The ultra wealthy are in favor of any health care change that reduces benefits to normal patients, but not for any legislation that reduces the payout to pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers or other elite interests even though there are massive opportunities for cost reductions. Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, it appears you believe health care cost would be lower if everyone was required to purchase it . . .is that because of supply/demand? Do you believe if someone could afford healthcare they would purchase it?

[thevirtueallliberal]

Again I ask you how it is that every other western country can cover their citizens and have a lower GDP cost .Yet we can't cover all our citizens and are health care GDP cost are through the roof ?

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, there are many factors to explain this, but the obvious ones are technology, laws, and quality of care.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Not sure what you were referring to when you said," there are many factors to explain THIS, but the obvious ones are technology, laws, and quality of care". Technology is great, if you can afford it ? "Laws", not sure what you mean ? "Quality" ? Look at the H.D.I. report, and you can see where we rank on quality . It ain't bad but it ain't good either .

[acongagua]

crawl back to your hole liberal swine

[OurBraveNewWorld]

Can you identify a policy of Ron's that you disagree with and why? Dont forget facts, sources, something to support your argument. . . .

Most cannot state their opinions regarding the role of government without spraying ignorant names out their face. . . you don't roll with the majority, right?

[thevirtueallliberal]

OURBRAVENEWWORLD,yes I can . Doesn't Ron Paul want to repeal a womens right to choose ? Doesn't Ron Paul approve of social matters being left to individual states with no fed. intervention ? Thus leaving states to repeal laws that help women, people of color, disabled, gays, different faiths ? Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, I believe you are correct, he does want these issues to be states rights, not fed rights. I don't think the constitution allows the fed to weigh in on these social issues. . . do you?

If a state repeals these laws, who is the fed to say they cannot? Do you think, for example, gay marriage should be decided by states or the fed? If you believe the fed, where do they get the constitutional authority?

[thevirtueallliberal]

Ron Paul was against the bail out . Imagine were we would be if we hadn't had one ? Doesn't Ron Paul want to abolish Medicare ? Leaving millions of seniors with out a safety net .Even Ron Paul's stance on closing all military bases is insane .Getting out of Iraq was and is justified . Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, yes he does want to abolish Medicare and close most, if not all military bases. I don't think this is an instantaneous change in that you wake up one day and it all be gone. . . you phase it out.

You have to admit, we are approaching a fiscal problem so large that will sink our ship of state. Without reducing costs, eventually we are screwed. Medicare alone is a massive part of our budget. Why is closing our military bases overseas insane? What is the cost/benefit?

[thevirtueallliberal]

Really good , "YourBraveOldWorld" ? Use a de facto answer like misinterpretations of constitutional law as an answer when not addressing the moral outcome of these bazaar and reckless policies proposed by Ron Paul. There is this thing called the The Commerce Clause and constitutional amendments.Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, relax man, you are so high strung. . .

It appears that you are in favor of the fed overseeing soical issues. . . i don't agree with that, but that's ok

I'm not sure how the Commerce Clause applies in social situations, but that's ok too.

[thevirtueallliberal]

"You favor the Fed. government over seeing social issues" That's not correct "OurBrave" . I favor the Fed. government having a basic set of standards, rules,and guidelines to follow on social issues when it comes to civil rights and the union. Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

I agree with this, to a point.

My opinion is drug laws, gay marriage, pro-life/choice, so on are states rights and the fed has no business in these matters.

[thevirtueallliberal]

"OurWorld" all these social issues you mentioned are states rights to a degree . As I stated before there should and is a set standard set by the supreme courts to protect it's citizens from having rights taken away, in the name of "states rights" . Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

For example why should gay people have their rights taken away ? Are they any less of a tax payer/U.S. citizen ? Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies are arguing this point now for gay marriage on the grounds our Constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law . Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Why should a women have her choice/privacy between her and her doctor violated by the state ? In the case of Rove vs Wade, the courts ruled it was a constitutional rights to privacy issue .Emanating from the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process .Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

As far as marijuana, I think it should be legal and taxed .However, the courts have repeatedly ruled the Fed. government can regulate it under the " interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution . If you want it changed you have to go through congress .

[thevirtueallliberal]

Tell me something , would you get on a plan knowing they were not subject to basic Fed. safety standards ?As far as interstate commerce roughly it applies to social issues like this.The people created the Federal system . In fact, the people of the Union are the Federal system . So if you want Federal money, your state has to abide by the laws enacted by congress .And who elects congress OurBrave ? Also there is Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution showing what powers congress has .

[OurBraveNewWorld]

The Interstate Commerce Clause, from my understanding, grants no legal authority to the fed to regulate social issues. You even admit it's "roughly". Have you any court decisions to back your claim?

This Clause, in my opinion, is one of the most abused clauses of them all and in doing so is part of the problem

If my state wants federal dollars? I live in a donor state. My state pays more in fed taxes then we get back.

[thevirtueallliberal]

As far as the "interstate commerce", it's open to interpretation with the courts siding with congress over the discretion, use and meaning of these laws .Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

In addition, there are other constitutional powers congress has . Interstate commerce only being one of them . It's just not a question of what the Fed. government can't do, it's also a question of what individual states can't do .Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Congress has the authority to pass laws. If the President vetoes the proposed law, Congress has the authority to override the veto by a 2/3 vote, and the law takes affect anyway . Let me re-iterate, if you feel these laws that congress passed are unconstitutional, bring it up with SCOTUS on constitutional grounds . Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

As far as your state being a "donor state",depends ?Which state do you live in ? I do know more Blue states are donor states then red, yet they support these social programs, and keep voting blue . You have to look at the bigger picture dude .

[thevirtueallliberal]

If you think there is something unconstitutional, then bring it forward to SCOTUS. Just don't try to tell me this is about rights ? This is about a clever transparent, to us progressives, repealing of decades of civil rights laws.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, I'm not sure where you're going with this one. I am not a lawyer nor judge; I have no business dealing with SCOTUS. True, I could hire a someone to represent me. I don't think I've argued that anything is constitutional, nor unconstitutional.

[thevirtueallliberal]

"Phase medicare out" ? So why not just gather the old and sick and send them to the gas chambers ? Why is it we are the only western country in the world with a for profit health care system who can't cover all it's people and spend more then any other western country ? Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, The Concord Coalition analysis of the federal deficits makes my point. We are out of money and are approaching the point of not being able to borrow more. I dont want to gas old people, thats asinine. Something has to give, and keeping medicare is not an option. This program has cost over 8 trillion dollars, and we don't have a cent to pay it back. Doesn't seem like a problem to you?

[thevirtueallliberal]

Medicare cost are expensive but cheaper then privatized health care cost, correct ? With a universal health care system, those cost would save our economy trillions over time . Closing military bases over seas is not insane . Closing them indiscriminately is . The national security vs the closer out ways the cost of keeping them open .

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, Medicare is Expensive? you mean 100% unsustainable. Its misguided to claim the insurance industry is private. Thats something we both can agree on, I hope.

Have you considered how much Medicare costs? It is shocking to run the numbers. According to the GAO and CBO, the promises we have already made to Medicare (A,B) = 26 trillion and (D) = 8 trillion. We dont have a single dollar saved to make good on these promises. How can you ignore this situation?

[thevirtueallliberal]

"OurBrave" Medicare is the single largest cost to the U.S. economy correct ? Well what does almost every leading economist recommend to fix this ? Abolish medicare ?No that would be "asinine", like you stated . No what they recommend is a universal health care system . Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

That's what health care reform is all about . Fixing the growing deficit and covering most of it's people .Which now under the pay for profit system , isn't happening . Look at the CBO report on the senate Baucus Bill . It states the U.S. would save money after 10 years and be able to cover 94% of the people .Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

After 10 years the bill would result in a deficit reduction of $81 billion, and continue to save the country money each year, the report said. Right now the average overhead for private health insurance is 11.7%, for medicare it's 3.6%,and for Canada it's 1.3% . How are they able to do this and the U.S. can't ? Because we don't have cost controls .

[OurBraveNewWorld]

Where did you get the deficit reduction number? Even if I accept that, you have solved a mere 0.2% of the 34 trillion dollar hole Medicare created. By that standard, it would take 4,197 years to pay it back.

Overhead numbers appear to be in line with common thought. True, when price fixing is law, cartels form, markets are segmented by state, and lawsuits galore, it is more efficient to run Medicare. This seems obvious. This doesn't address the 34 trillion dollar problem

[thevirtueallliberal]

By tweaking the system I mean raising the age to receive S.S. benefits . I mean creating a universal health care system where we all have to pay . It's the only thing that will bring the cost down . In addition most economist agree this is the answer as well . HMO's are driving medicare cost up . I got my numbers from the CBO score on the Baucus health bill . The savings would be greater if it were a universal system (medicare for all) . With strict price controls for the HMO's, etc, etc.....

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, if you think raising the age of S.S will do anything to reduce the 8 trillion hole, you don't understand how the SS trust funds work. The reality is, there is no money in SS. Our awesome gov't has spent every penny in the trust funds and replaced them with IOU's. Increasing the age only allows our govt to spend more of the trust fund.

How can someone pay for health care if they can't already afford it? What % of income do you expect these people to use on healthcare?

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal So you stand by the 4,197 year timeline to get out of debt for Medicare? I didn't include interest on 34 trillion . . .you can tack on a few extra years for that.

Cutting benefits is the only way to solve this problem. To help offset this pain, reduce income taxes. . . these hurt the very people you want to help the most anyway. Allow the market to dictate how to spend their hard earned money.

[thevirtueallliberal]

OurBrave, your making calculations on false numbers . I explained that the 34 trillion is a projected number, in 75 years, if nothing is done . Also, you can't factor in numbers when a growth spurt happens, taxes increase, etc. This will happen as the economy improves . It always does .

[callouschristian]

@OurBraveNewWorld blah blah blah blah......." i don't want to admit that I ever was stupid enough to support bush so I'm a punk ron paul libertarian". You people are unbeatable in your stupidity and audacity!!

[thevirtueallliberal]

Afghanistan, I support that war . Although we do need to find a cheaper way of fighting it until we can hand it over to Afghan soldiers . I think we should review bases through out the world for closing . However, with a scalpel, not a sledge hammer like Dr. Paul wants .

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, Why support the Afghan war? When is it a victory? Who is our enemy, and why do we think if we kill them their kin and friends wont attack us?

I am happy you agree with reviewing the bases. This is common ground and a good start.

Fighting an Ideology is, and always will be, a mistake. . . .

It's nice to find someone on the other side of the coin who can debate our philosophies without ridicule. Thank you.

[thevirtueallliberal]

"Why support the Afghan war" ? Because it's a proxy war to Pakistan OurBrave . Let me reiterate that the cost of taking a non-proactive stance is more dangerous and costly . Cont.

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, you support the anti-American bush doctrine? As a so called civil liberty person, preemptive war seems a lot like guilty until proved innocent. I hope no one invades the US as a proxy to Mexico. . .

[thevirtueallliberal]

"OurBrave", this is not equivalent to the Bush Doctrine .The Bush doctrine was based on a paranoid ideological blindness in terms of fighting terrorist and trumped up intelligence . Iraq was never a threat and I have already acknowledged this .Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

However, the "Obama Doctrine" is rooted in sound intelligence based on a real threat should Al Qaeda or the Taliban get their hands on Pakistan's nukes . They have threatened to use them should they gain a strong hold in that country . Cont.

[thevirtueallliberal]

Let me reiterate, progressives are realist first . I'm not playing politics . I think it's better to take a pro-active stance rather then no stance when the threat is real ."I hope no one invades the US as a proxy to Mexico". OurBrave, that would imply that are political structure is unstable and nukes are not secure , they are . Allot of countries fight wars via proxy . That's why we help fight the drug wars in Mexico because it's vital to national security here in the U.S. .

[OurBraveNewWorld]

You insist on labeling yourself. . .why?

[thevirtueallliberal]

Why do you label your self ? Why do you attend the rallies that you do, if you do ? You believe in that purpose, right ? Well, the same with myself . I believe in the progressive purpose, for the most part . Just because I have that label doesn't mean we don't think out side the box . People mistakenly think progressives are ideologues . Were not . We are compassionate realist for the most part .

[thevirtueallliberal]

I never supported the Iraq war . Or I should say, after learning we were mislead, I didn't support it . My views could change over Afghanistan . However, right now, other then cost, I see no reason to do so . Cont..

[OurBraveNewWorld]

@thevirtueallliberal, mislead about what? No WMD's, no terrorist, no declaration of war, no funding, or what?

Other than cost there's no reason to change . . .how about if you were misled? Too many things to say here, not enough time

[thevirtueallliberal]

"It's about ideology" ? Is the conventional wisdom of a progressive to support the Afghanistan war ? No it's not . Your accusing me of the very thing your guilty of . Progressives are realist first OurBraveNewWorld . If you have anything to learn from this exchange, understand this and not the misconception of "partisan ideology .

[nt0xik8ed]

if sarah palin is part of the teabaggers, it will go down the drain like everything else she's been involved in. i.e., alaska governor, mccains presidency, her book, etc...

[littlebuddy149722]

Why don't you just admit that you are a Jewish traitor to the USA? and that you are trying to smear RP because he is the most constitutionally aligned candidate.??? HE THREATENS YOUR GLOBAL UTOPIA.

[nittgritt]

Support Ron Paul, and I do to. Why this anti-semitic nonsense ?

[3star2nr]

ron paul isnt a nut persay, hes just a bit idealistic. And doesnt understand that his policies some of them arent practical or doable