POL: As a self-described liberal, I find myself agreeing with Newt Gingrich . . .

[albionmoonlight]

. . . more than I would like to agree with Newt Gingrich. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/10/gingrich.kerry/index.html

When most GOPers talk, I tend to disagree. But with Newt, I don't have that near as much.

Strange because I think that Newt is generally considered to be pretty far to the right.

I feel like a guy who says that he tends not to like R&B club music realizing that he actually likes a fair number of Black Eyed Peas songs.

[molson]

Newt's great strength is that he is very good at communicating his ideas. That happens to be a big weakness of the current administration, so he is a breath of fresh air, whether you agree with him or not.

[PSUColonel]

Well, I for one don't necessarily agree with the premise than man is responsible for global warming, but if I did, I would have to say I agree with Newt's position. The government should not be in the research and development business. That is soley for the private sector. The debate over stem cell research is very similar. Many "lefties" in the government want to subsidize stem cell research,(at a significant cost to tax payers) when in reality it should be the private sector who researches stem cell biotechnology. I beleive that ultimately the marketplace will decide what is viable, and what isn't. Government blowhards however simply have pet issues, and due to their massive egos, they think THEY in turn know what's best. (in this case see John Kerry) Rediculous!

[JPhillips]

Regulation shouldn't be the only tool, but to insist that regulation has no place is foolish. We're years away from having equal costs for "green" technologies, so if Gingrich wants to reduce carbon emissions in the near term regulation has to be a part of the plan.

[JPhillips]

Well, I for one don't necessarily agree with the premise than man is responsible for global warming, but if I did, I would have to say I agree with Newt's position. The government should not be in the research and development business. That is soley for the private sector. The debate over stem cell research is very similar. Many "lefties" in the government want to subsidize stem cell research,(at a significant cost to tax payers) when in reality it should be the private sector who researches stem cell biotechnology. I beleive that ultimately the marketplace will decide what is viable, and what isn't. Government blowhards however simply have pet issues, and due to their massive egos, they think THEY in turn know what's best. (in this case see John Kerry) Rediculous!

Aren't you saying you know what's best?

[Klinglerware]

Since Newt comes from an academic background, I would say that while many on the left disagree with him, many do respect the intellectual rigor informing his policy positions.

[PSUColonel]

Aren't you saying you know what's best?


may I ask what your personal issue is with me?

[JPhillips]

It's not a personal issue, hell I don't even know you. When, however, you make foolish arguments I'm likely to try and counter them. This isn't your private blog, yet you seem to get quite offended when people make posts critical of your arguments.

[beargrowlz]

"The morning you provide the incentives, there'll be 50,000 entrepreneurs figuring out how to get the money," he said. "The morning you try to do it by regulation, there'll be 50,000 entrepreneurs hiring a lawyer to fight you."


This sums it up perfectly IMHO. Use what Americans do best (make money) to accomplish whatever liberal or societal goal you have.

I think the same concept applies to universal health care. You want universal health care, encourage competition among health insurers to cover everyone and use medicaid and medicare dollars to pay premiums after negotiating with the health care companies to provide significant discounts for the huge bloc of customers the state would provide them with.

I think sometimes we start thinking government is the only solution to accomplishing what we want - when we could be looking at how to use what we do well to accomplish what we want to make the country a better, more compassionate place.

Small "L" liberalism needn't be antithetical to the marketplace. In fact, if the progressive agenda can make it profitable enough for private enterprise, the marketplace can be a hell of a tool for progessives.



Cheers.
<!--startclickprintexclude-->

[PSUColonel]

It's not a personal issue, hell I don't even know you. When, however, you make foolish arguments I'm likely to try and counter them. This isn't your private blog, yet you seem to get quite offended when people make posts critical of your arguments.



no, it's just simply that anything I write in the form of an opinion, you seem to take exception to...regarless of what it is. You seem to just simply like calling in black if I say it's white, and vice versa.

In fact, I'm curious, do you even beleive in (agree with) capitalism?

[PSUColonel]

This sums it up perfectly IMHO. Use what Americans do best (make money) to accomplish whatever liberal or societal goal you have.

I think the same concept applies to universal health care. You want universal health care, encourage competition among health insurers to cover everyone and use medicaid and medicare dollars to pay premiums after negotiating with the health care companies to provide significant discounts for the huge bloc of customers the state would provide them with.

I think sometimes we start thinking government is the only solution to accomplishing what we want - when we could be looking at how to use what we do well to accomplish what we want to make the country a better, more compassionate place.

Small "L" liberalism needn't be antithetical to the marketplace. In fact, if the progressive agenda can make it profitable enough for private enterprise, the marketplace can be a hell of a tool for progessives.



Cheers.
<!--startclickprintexclude-->



very well said...Healthcare is another great example along with stem cell research.

[JPhillips]

no, it's just simply that anything I write in the form of an opinion, you seem to take exception to...regarless of what it is. You seem to just simply like calling in black if I say it's white, and vice versa.

In fact, I'm curious, do you even beleive in (agree with) capitalism?

You have a mighty large persecution complex. Let me explain how a message board works in case you don't understand. People post things and then people comment on the posts. You want to be able to post without anyone else contradicting you, but that's not the way it works. If your skin is so damn thin as to be personally offended by every criticism you should take to writing manifestos on napkins.

You also want to pretend that all you want is honest discussion, but you make BS statements like the one above and then feign ignorance when someone calls you out for trolling. You have no curiosity about my beliefs. You just want to take a shot at the liberal strawman in your head. You can't possibly have read my post and come to the conclusion that I don't believe in capitalism.

I mistook you at first for a guy that though I disagreed with, was willing to discuss topics with some honesty and intellectual curiosity. You've made it quite plain though that you really just want to hear your own voice. You've already decided that the liberals and foreigners are the root cause for all the evil in the world and you're waiting for everyone else to pat you on the back for figuring it all out so soon.

[PSUColonel]

You have a mighty large persecution complex. Let me explain how a message board works in case you don't understand. People post things and then people comment on the posts. You want to be able to post without anyone else contradicting you, but that's not the way it works. If your skin is so damn thin as to be personally offended by every criticism you should take to writing manifestos on napkins.

You also want to pretend that all you want is honest discussion, but you make BS statements like the one above and then feign ignorance when someone calls you out for trolling. You have no curiosity about my beliefs. You just want to take a shot at the liberal strawman in your head. You can't possibly have read my post and come to the conclusion that I don't believe in capitalism.

I mistook you at first for a guy that though I disagreed with, was willing to discuss topics with some honesty and intellectual curiosity. You've made it quite plain though that you really just want to hear your own voice. You've already decided that the liberals and foreigners are the root cause for all the evil in the world and you're waiting for everyone else to pat you on the back for figuring it all out so soon.


I don't think what you are saying about me is true, simply because you very convientently exclude the context in which I say certain things, but if that's your opinion, that's your opinion. There's not much I can do to change that.

[stevew]

I'm hoping for a Rudy/Newt ticket. Yeah, they've got skeletons, but I think they are who I agree with moreso than anyone else out there. I'd prefer Newt to headline the ticket, but I know that's not realistic. Although him taking the VP role may not be realistic either.

[Butter]

IBTL.

[Subby]

no, it's just simply that anything I write in the form of an opinion, you seem to take exception to...regarless of what it is. You seem to just simply like calling in black if I say it's white, and vice versa.

In fact, I'm curious, do you even beleive in (agree with) capitalism?
I think taking the opposite side of any issue that PSUColonel is on is probably a pretty safe way to live one's life.

Kind of like Costanza prospering only when he went against his first instincts...

[lordscarlet]

I'm hoping for a Rudy/Newt ticket. Yeah, they've got skeletons, but I think they are who I agree with moreso than anyone else out there. I'd prefer Newt to headline the ticket, but I know that's not realistic. Although him taking the VP role may not be realistic either.

Newt is who we thought he was.

[PSUColonel]

I think taking the opposite side of any issue that PSUColonel is on is probably a pretty safe way to live one's life.

Kind of like Costanza prospering only when he went against his first instincts...

Sir,

You know nothing about me other than what you have decided my "online persona" is in your mind. I think if you ever met me personally you would likely not think that, but then again who knows.

[Subby]

I know that you live in a kickass condo on the golf course!

[Surtt]

What I read was Gringrich wants to do nothing, simple preserve the status quo, with the illusion of helping.

A company would have the choice of investing in expensive technology in hopes of recovering their investment further down the line.
Or simple do nothing, keep making the same profit, pump out the same green house gasses, with no penalty.

Given the voluntary choice, companies are going to choose to keep doing things the way they have and nothing will change.

[PSUColonel]

I know that you live in a kickass condo on the golf course!

True ;)

[Fighter of Foo]

I'm hoping for a Rudy/Newt ticket. Yeah, they've got skeletons, but I think they are who I agree with moreso than anyone else out there. I'd prefer Newt to headline the ticket, but I know that's not realistic. Although him taking the VP role may not be realistic either.

Goodbye Constitution, Hello Iran. Rudy scares me.

That is all.

[ISiddiqui]

I've always liked Newt even if I thought some of his policies were a bit batty. Unlike some folks on Capitol Hill today, he doesn't think the way to win a debate is to yell the other guy down. He enjoys engaging in civil, thoughtful debate where both sides articulate their position. Its one reason I always liked him because civility is something slowly being lost (if it isn't already) in the halls of Congress these days.

As for universal health care, I find it interesting that PSU tends to support a liberal proposal. One mistake people make is thinking universal health care means a single payer plan like the NHS in Britain. IIRC, beargrowlz's proposal is very similar to what countries like Austria have, where the government acts more of like a broker to insure groups of people. Taxes still go up, a good deal, because premiums have to be paid, even after significant discounts due to bargaining.

[Warhammer]

I think if people actually listen to Newt, his policies make a hell of a lot of sense. I don't always agree with him, but if he ran I would sure vote for him.

[Warhammer]

. . . more than I would like to agree with Newt Gingrich. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/10/gingrich.kerry/index.html

When most GOPers talk, I tend to disagree. But with Newt, I don't have that near as much.

Strange because I think that Newt is generally considered to be pretty far to the right.

I feel like a guy who says that he tends not to like R&B club music realizing that he actually likes a fair number of Black Eyed Peas songs.

I've found that if you strip away all the labels the press applies to people and actually listen to what they say themselves, your perceptions of a lot of people will change.

[ISiddiqui]

I think if people actually listen to Newt, his policies make a hell of a lot of sense.

Let's not go too far now ;).

Some of his policies, perhaps ;).

[flere-imsaho]

The government should not be in the research and development business.

ORLY? Some big-ticket R&D efforts can only happen because they have extensive government support, if not also involvement. The big defense projects of the 20th century are probably the most accessible examples. Then there was the Human Genome Project, of course.

Many "lefties" in the government want to subsidize stem cell research,(at a significant cost to tax payers)

I hate to contradict your assumptions with facts, but these proposals in the government have to do with a wide array of work, including allowing researchers who receive grants for potentially unrelated projects to also work on stem cell projects, for which they may have private funding. It's about removing roadblocks, not about money.

I beleive that ultimately the marketplace will decide what is viable, and what isn't.

Indeed. There's a huge amount of demand for stem cell research, worldwide, and other countries have taken advantages of the roadblocks the Bush Administration has set up in the U.S.A. to get a jump on that research, leaving our R&D companies with nowhere to go. Way to let people play in the free market, George!

Rediculous!

Quite.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Small "L" liberalism needn't be antithetical to the marketplace. In fact, if the progressive agenda can make it profitable enough for private enterprise, the marketplace can be a hell of a tool for progessives.


You should actually take a closer look at what Kerry and Gingrich are arguing over. Cap and trade (Kerry's proposal) is actually quite market-friendly. It encourages market innovation in pollution control and ensures that pollution allowances are allocated to their highest valued use. Gingrich is, as Surtt noted, arguing basically for the status quo.

[Leonidas]

I've always greatly admired Newt the politician and Newt's intellect. Shoot, if it weren't for Newt, Bill Clinton would never have been able to claim he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. OTH, Newt the human being is an entirely different character, and likely very un-electable for President.

[Leonidas]

As for universal health care, I find it interesting that PSU tends to support a liberal proposal. One mistake people make is thinking universal health care means a single payer plan like the NHS in Britain. IIRC, beargrowlz's proposal is very similar to what countries like Austria have, where the government acts more of like a broker to insure groups of people. Taxes still go up, a good deal, because premiums have to be paid, even after significant discounts due to bargaining.
I honestly don't know what Americans think about healthcare anymore. I get the feeling you are implying lots of folks want the Brit version of healthcare. I could be wrong here, but if that's where you are going, boy does America need to learn some things. The British NHS is severly broken. The Brits know it's broken and hate it, but I don't think even they know the depths of its depravity. What we have in America has many problems, but the overall quality of healthcare is way, way greater than what the NHS provides. Cancer patients are being gypped in radiation and chemo to save money. Premature babies are called "cotrobbers" by medical staff because they are ineficient to take care of. You have to pay for parking to go to the emergency room. I took my wife to the hospital because she nearly lopped the end of her finger off and they cleaned it with water and put a bandaid on it. We waited three hours for what we could have done better in our own home. Every time we get a prescription through NHS it's under-prescribed and we have to go back to our military doctor to get a proper prescription (have done that at least five times). Whatever America does, do not even consider copying NHS, it is terrible.

[Crapshoot]

I've always greatly admired Newt the politician and Newt's intellect. Shoot, if it weren't for Newt, Bill Clinton would never have been able to claim he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. OTH, Newt the human being is an entirely different character, and likely very un-electable for President.

Yes and yes, but Newt the politician who carps about the "secularists" and the revival of a "Christian heritage" is a little annoying, and unbecoming for a man of his intellect (its one thing with some idiot like James Inhofe does it).

[ISiddiqui]

I get the feeling you are implying lots of folks want the Brit version of healthcare.

No... the people who are against universal health care tend to portray folks for universal health care as being for an NHS type system, when that doesn't necessarily have to be the case (obviously some are, but plenty are for more of a market based approach which provides a basic level of health care for everyone)... In fact, IIRC, Clinton's health care plan was more market driven than an NHS system (it basically mandated that all employers provide health insurance, through private insurance carriers, which would be subject to more regulation).

[KWhit]

Government blowhards however simply have pet issues, and due to their massive egos, they think THEY in turn know what's best. (in this case see John Kerry) Rediculous!

Let me guess. Republicans don't have massive egos and they don't think they know best. Is that right?

[Leonidas]

Let me guess. Republicans don't have massive egos and they don't think they know best. Is that right?I think the market on blowhard egoes is pretty much owned by everyone who works under the Capitol dome. Party affiliation is purely coincidental.

[flere-imsaho]

The (perhaps one) good thing about the NHS is that the level of care received by the 60 million uninsured people in Britain is considerably better than the level of care received by the 45 million uninsured people in the United States.

[PSUColonel]

Let me guess. Republicans don't have massive egos and they don't think they know best. Is that right?

Did I say that? :D

[adubroff]

ORLY? Some big-ticket R&D efforts can only happen because they have extensive government support, if not also involvement. The big defense projects of the 20th century are probably the most accessible examples. Then there was the Human Genome Project, of course.


Don't forget the whole "putting a man on the moon thing" which I'm sure would have happened had our government not funded it...but it would have happen in the Soviet Union!

There are certain economic sectors where the free market will never work (Health Care, R&D, Military, Police, Roads, Roads, Parks and Public Works to name a few off the top of my head).

[Buccaneer]

Good communications skills usually trump all.

[bhlloy]

I honestly don't know what Americans think about healthcare anymore. I get the feeling you are implying lots of folks want the Brit version of healthcare. I could be wrong here, but if that's where you are going, boy does America need to learn some things. The British NHS is severly broken. The Brits know it's broken and hate it, but I don't think even they know the depths of its depravity. What we have in America has many problems, but the overall quality of healthcare is way, way greater than what the NHS provides. Cancer patients are being gypped in radiation and chemo to save money. Premature babies are called "cotrobbers" by medical staff because they are ineficient to take care of. You have to pay for parking to go to the emergency room. I took my wife to the hospital because she nearly lopped the end of her finger off and they cleaned it with water and put a bandaid on it. We waited three hours for what we could have done better in our own home. Every time we get a prescription through NHS it's under-prescribed and we have to go back to our military doctor to get a proper prescription (have done that at least five times). Whatever America does, do not even consider copying NHS, it is terrible.


I'm interested in knowing whether you know anyone with cancer? Because an NHS GP and local cancer unit has saved my mum's life three times. Sure there are really shocking local health authorities, but when the alternative is that poor people can't afford to go to the doctor I know exactly what side of the debate I am on.

[bulletsponge]

I think the market on blowhard egoes is pretty much owned by everyone who works under the Capitol dome. Party affiliation is purely coincidental.

True

[BishopMVP]

I'm interested in knowing whether you know anyone with cancer? Because an NHS GP and local cancer unit has saved my mum's life three times. Sure there are really shocking local health authorities, but when the alternative is that poor people can't afford to go to the doctor I know exactly what side of the debate I am on.That's just an absurd strawman. You make it sound like people are getting turned away from ER's in the US with gunshot wounds because they don't have insurance.The (perhaps one) good thing about the NHS is that the level of care received by the 60 million uninsured people in Britain is considerably better than the level of care received by the 45 million uninsured people in the United States.(I'm assuming that's a typo and meant to read insured Britons?) It's interesting to actually look at who is uninsured in the US. Up here in Massachusetts, when looking into passing their version of "Universal Health Insurance" they were shocked to discover that a large percentage of currently uninsured weren't poor people (who usually fell under various government programs already), but rather they were young healthy unattached people who willfully chose to forgo health insurance beacuse they felt the money was better allocated elsewhere. Because the unspoken truth about any large-scale healthcare program is that it's healthy productive people subsidizing care for the elderly, unhealthy and unlucky folks. Now, there's a good argument for such a system, like Social Security, where you pay in when you can and draw out when you need to, but all these arguments seem to ignore the reality that there are millions of people out there who are uninsured by choice and are willing to take the risk of having no health insurance.

EDIT - Maybe this falls better under the Health Care thread http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1440276#post1440276

[flere-imsaho]

That's just an absurd strawman. You make it sound like people are getting turned away from ER's in the US with gunshot wounds because they don't have insurance.

Go talk to an ER doctor sometime and let them tell you about how soon they turf out patients who do not have insurance.

(I'm assuming that's a typo and meant to read insured Britons?)

Nope, I was just making a point. Although there is now some private insurance available in Britain, technically Britons aren't insured, they're just covered by the NHS, so I was comparing them to uninsured Americans, who don't have insurance and are covered by... nothing, basically.

[Glengoyne]

I've been saying this for some time.

Newt isn't near the Right Wing Demon that the left protrayed him as.

It took Delay and company nearly ten years to remove all of the ethics and finance reforms Newt shepherded into the house. The contract with America was a great thing.

[flere-imsaho]

Just to reflect on Glengoyne's pont, I worked in the Senate briefly in 1992. It's a bit shocking that the people we thought were pure evil back then pale in comparison to those we think are pure evil now.

[beargrowlz]

I've been saying this for some time.

Newt isn't near the Right Wing Demon that the left protrayed him as.

It took Delay and company nearly ten years to remove all of the ethics and finance reforms Newt shepherded into the house. The contract with America was a great thing.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Doesn't matter which party is in power, when an entity has basically unchecked control of the reigns of government, ethics, fair play, self deprecating modesty and good government gets thrown out the window.

It's why changes in party control, even when your own party loses, are a good cleansing for the system of government.

[bhlloy]

That's just an absurd strawman. You make it sound like people are getting turned away from ER's in the US with gunshot wounds because they don't have insurance.



I have no idea whether this is true or not - I have no personal experience. I do know however there is a girl at work walking around with a broken foot because she hasn't been at the company long enough to have insurance. And given that fact that she can't afford to get it seen to, I don't think it is a stretch that many people don't go to the doctors with minor things that end up turning into major things and end up being diagnosed too late (or not at all).

There just seems to be this myth in the UK that a pay-for-all health care system is this utopia that the government is denying us, and from my year and a half in the US that just isn't true. Things aren't actually any better over here, and if something goes wrong that my PPO doesn't want to cover I am screwed.

Of course, the ultimate irony is that every person in the UK has the option of essentially moving to US style insurance based private healthcare, which would be the only other option if the NHS died. The fact that most people don't I think speaks volumes as to which option they would really rather.

[BishopMVP]

Nope, I was just making a point. Although there is now some private insurance available in Britain, technically Britons aren't insured, they're just covered by the NHS, so I was comparing them to uninsured Americans, who don't have insurance and are covered by... nothing, basically.You really want to argue that Britons who pay with taxes for health care don't have health insurance? You win on semantics I guess.Go talk to an ER doctor sometime and let them tell you about how soon they turf out patients who do not have insurance.I have no idea whether this is true or not - I have no personal experience. I do know however there is a girl at work walking around with a broken foot because she hasn't been at the company long enough to have insurance. And given that fact that she can't afford to get it seen to, I don't think it is a stretch that many people don't go to the doctors with minor things that end up turning into major things and end up being diagnosed too late (or not at all).I know all about preventative care, and how a lack of it ends up costing more in the long run when treated in an ER, and I'm sure it's not the best care possible. My point is that it does get treated, and your co-worker wouldn't be turned away at the door. Later she could have financial discomfort or lawyers coming after her from the hospital/insurance companies, I don't know.

From the Boston Globe - "Massachusetts has relatively few uninsured residents, about 10 percent compared to about 16 percent nationally. It already spends more than $500 million in federal and state money annually to compensate hospitals for treating the uninsured."

500 million+ divided by 10% of 6 million residents works out to a little under $1,000 being paid out each year to hospitals per uninsured person in this state. I was also under the impression that much of the rest of the cost of treating uninsured patients is passed on to the people who buy health insurance in the form of higher premiums.There just seems to be this myth in the UK that a pay-for-all health care system is this utopia that the government is denying us, and from my year and a half in the US that just isn't true. Things aren't actually any better over here, and if something goes wrong that my PPO doesn't want to cover I am screwed.

Of course, the ultimate irony is that every person in the UK has the option of essentially moving to US style insurance based private healthcare, which would be the only other option if the NHS died. The fact that most people don't I think speaks volumes as to which option they would really rather.Find it interesting for some reason people who switch countries (you, Leonidas) end up focusing on what the new system does worse. Probably just grass is greener/noticing shortcomings more often thing. As for people voting with their feet, I'm unfamiliar with the British system, but if they're already paying for NHS through taxes, I'm not surprised most people aren't paying for additional health coverage. It's also a different system due to the small market of people using private plans in the UK vs. the US with its higher number of companies and plans to choose from.