PDA

View Full Version : Beck Doesn’t Hold Back in Gingrich Interview



Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 12:58 PM
Tough Questions on Mandates, Big Gov’t, and Global Warming
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-doesnt-hold-back-in-gingrich-interview-tough-questions-on-mandates-big-govt-and-global-warming/

VIDEO at link


Glad to see some conservatives finally holding this guy to the flame.


GLENN: All right. You said if you are a fiscal conservative who cares about balancing the federal budget, there may be no more important bill to vote on in your career than in support of this bill. This was what you said about a new you entitlement, Medicare prescription drug program.

GINGRICH: Which also included Medicare Advantage and also included the right to have a high deductible medical savings account, which is the first step towards moving control over your health dollars back to you. And I think is a very important distinguishing point. On the government, my position is very straightforward. If you’re going to have Medicare, which was created in 1965, and was created at a time when practically drugs didn’t matter. There weren’t very many breakthroughs at that point. To take a position that we won’t help you with insulin but we’ll pay for your kidney dialysis is both bad on a human level and bad on financial level. Kidney dialysis is one of the fastest growing centers of cost and we spend almost as much annually on kidney dialysis as the entire National Institute of Health research budget, about $27 billion a year right now. If we say to you we’re going to pay for open heart surgery but we won’t pay for Lipitor so you can avoid open heart surgery, it’s both bad (inaudible) but it’s also just bad financially. So we ‑‑




GLENN: But you believe ‑‑ no offense, but you believe voting for something that is ‑‑ you’re trying to transition into smaller government by also supporting a bill that has in it a gigantic giveaway?

GINGRICH: Well, you’ve already given away ‑‑ that’s my point. I don’t see how one defends not having the ability to avoid the requirement for surgery, which is what this is all about. And the question is can you live longer and more independently and more healthily with the drug benefit than without it, and I think that if ‑‑ and you can make the (inaudible) and say, well, Medicare. A, you won’t win that in the short run. So you’re going to have Medicare. And the question in the short run is, so you want to have a system that basically leaves people with bad outcomes, or do you want to, in fact, maximize how long they can live and how independently they can live.

AmPat
12-06-2011, 01:26 PM
I wish Newt would stop with the qualifying and all the ancilliary arguments and get to the real problem. Too much government involvement!

Stop the hand wringing and false tears. Stop with the government transfer of wealth programs that pose as inefficient government charities (entitlements).

Bottom line: Get the government out of the FDR/LBJ/ and every progressive piece of crap, out of control, bankrupting, unconstitutional entitlement business.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 01:41 PM
Gingrich is like Clinton, he is a populist that checks the direction of the wind and goes that way.
Conservatives will have to strongly influence the wind, if he is our candidate.

Starbuck
12-06-2011, 01:55 PM
Gingrich is like Clinton, he is a populist that checks the direction of the wind and goes that way.
Conservatives will have to strongly influence the wind, if he is our candidate.

That's right. The only way to change the Republican Party is from within. Leaving the party out of frustration - the way people did when Perot ran - can be disastrous.

Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 02:19 PM
That's right. The only way to change the Republican Party is from within. Leaving the party out of frustration - the way people did when Perot ran - can be disastrous.

I did not nor would I have voted for Perot in my youth. I would today.

Perot's problem is that he waffled and lost his edge. Had he not become flakey he would have gotten around 39% of the vote which would have been more than enough to have won a three way with Clinton and Bush.

From my experience in the Republican party is that things from within die slowly. The tea party has made inroads, but the establishment types are holding on for dear life. It is yet to be determined if the inroads are working. There is not a strong candidate that the tea party has clearly embraced.

That might be a good thing though, since no one person may be able to coopt the messege. Men like Mark Sanford were hopeful, but fell from grace. There are a few others save Mike Lee, Ken Cuccinelli, and Rand Paul who may yet carry the torch in 2016.
I'm not leaving it...but then I don't have to vote for their false prophet either.

Articulate_Ape
12-06-2011, 05:27 PM
I wish Newt would stop with the qualifying and all the ancilliary arguments and get to the real problem. Too much government involvement!

Stop the hand wringing and false tears. Stop with the government transfer of wealth programs that pose as inefficient government charities (entitlements).

Bottom line: Get the government out of the FDR/LBJ/ and every progressive piece of crap, out of control, bankrupting, unconstitutional entitlement business.

I'm afraid that the only one in the current field who is as serious as a heart attack about doing any of that is...erm...





Ron Paul.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 06:05 PM
I'm afraid that the only one in the current field who is as serious as a heart attack about doing any of that is...erm...





Ron Paul.

Larouche, Perot, Buchanan,Paul were all exercises in futility.

Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 06:53 PM
Larouche, Perot, Buchanan,Paul were all exercises in futility.


I was part of the Buchanan Brigade. It was made up of some true believers in changing the system. Buckley decided to purge us from the ranks for left wing shill types who were nothing like the Goldwater's and Reagans.

Perot had it won..but sabotaged himself. But then..he wasn't really a strict constitutional conseservative in the Goldwater vein.

When people stop settling for mediocrity and base their decision on principled individuals who actually mean what they say....there is real change.

until then....what I'm hearing is let's just settle for mediocrity....

Articulate_Ape
12-06-2011, 07:08 PM
Larouche, Perot, Buchanan,Paul were all exercises in futility.

Understood. I was just sayin'.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 08:25 PM
Understood. I was just sayin'.

I understand, I don't like the way this current system works either. A very small percentage of the people actually choose our candidates.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 08:29 PM
I was part of the Buchanan Brigade. It was made up of some true believers in changing the system. Buckley decided to purge us from the ranks for left wing shill types who were nothing like the Goldwater's and Reagans.

Perot had it won..but sabotaged himself. But then..he wasn't really a strict constitutional conseservative in the Goldwater vein.

When people stop settling for mediocrity and base their decision on principled individuals who actually mean what they say....there is real change.

until then....what I'm hearing is let's just settle for mediocrity....

The people aren't choosing our candidates. By the time we have our primaries in Oklahoma they have already been chosen. A handful of states choose the candidates that the rest of us are stuck with.

Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 09:13 PM
The people aren't choosing our candidates. By the time we have our primaries in Oklahoma they have already been chosen. A handful of states choose the candidates that the rest of us are stuck with.

I agree...I would go further that under our 2 party system, it is even more narrow because of the party control.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 09:21 PM
I agree...I would go further that under our 2 party system, it is even more narrow because of the party control.

I could live with two party's if they all had primaries on the same day. The only time we see a presidential candidates commercials is when Fox previews them, they don't bother to pay to have commercials play here, there is no point for them to waste the money.

Tecate
12-06-2011, 11:04 PM
Gingrich will be easily destroyed in short order. There's plenty of fodder to go around.

He's just the current RINO of the month.

AmPat
12-06-2011, 11:07 PM
I'm afraid that the only one in the current field who is as serious as a heart attack about doing any of that is...erm...
I fear you are correct. I really hope that Bachmann or maybe Perry will gain momentum. I don't trust the professor or the used car saleman. They reek of BIG gubmint.
Ron Paul.


I understand, I don't like the way this current system works either. A very small percentage of the people actually choose our candidates.
The liberal press is the biggest selector of the approved GOP candidate. If the people chose, we would never have gotten a McCain last time. :mad:

Janice
12-06-2011, 11:11 PM
I understand, I don't like the way this current system works either. A very small percentage of the people actually choose our candidates.

Unfortunately that is true. It appears the the GOP is joined at the hip with the hate America democrats on this point. I hope the Tea Party (of which I am a part of) turns this next election on its ears, as it did the midterms.

The cancer appears to have spread beyond redemption. I pray that I am wrong.

Molon Labe
12-09-2011, 10:18 AM
Gingrich will be easily destroyed in short order. There's plenty of fodder to go around.

He's just the current RINO of the month.

That is probably going to be true. He has no money and can't go from having 8% nationally to 35 and 50 in some polls because of some debate time. I don't think those numbers are very solid at all.

Novaheart
12-09-2011, 11:20 AM
I wish Newt would stop with the qualifying and all the ancilliary arguments and get to the real problem. Too much government involvement!

.

Some questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. People who want you to "get to the point" when you are getting to a complex point, are generally people who either aren't interested in the details or can't follow a complex answer to a complex question.

Novaheart
12-09-2011, 11:22 AM
Bottom line: Get the government out of the FDR/LBJ/ and every progressive piece of crap, out of control, bankrupting, unconstitutional entitlement business.

Do you want all government-paid-for healthcare to return to pre-1965 design and costs?

Novaheart
12-09-2011, 11:26 AM
I did not nor would I have voted for Perot in my youth. I would today.

Perot's problem is that he waffled and lost his edge. Had he not become flakey he would have gotten around 39% of the vote which would have been more than enough to have won a three way with Clinton and Bush.

Perot lost, in my opinion, for the same reason that Ron Paul has a huge following but doesn't win a lot of votes:

The American people are a bunch of children when it comes to presidential elections. They want to "feel good". Asked why they voted against their own interests for Ronald Reagan, some were surprised at how much against their own interests it was, they said, "He made me feel good about being an American." That's not reason, it's emotion.

Novaheart
12-09-2011, 11:32 AM
The people aren't choosing our candidates. By the time we have our primaries in Oklahoma they have already been chosen. A handful of states choose the candidates that the rest of us are stuck with.

That's rather defeatist, and given the fact that many GOP (or DNC) candidates fail, or that outcome is a surprise, then these must be the most incompetent Star Chamber members in history.

I think it's a worse scenario than that. I think it's a good old boy system crossed with Big Brother (TV show) dynamics, colored by a public with a voracious appetite for scandal and drama. At least a mob tends to move in one direction at a time.

Tipsycatlover
12-09-2011, 12:28 PM
Gingrich has something Perot didn't. Public rage against the incumbent.

Janice
12-09-2011, 08:16 PM
I love that note about Bachmanns comment that Newt is a ‘Frugal Socialist’.

Spot on.

AmPat
12-10-2011, 11:26 AM
Some questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. People who want you to "get to the point" when you are getting to a complex point, are generally people who either aren't interested in the details or can't follow a complex answer to a complex question.I am quite capable of following complex arguments but I am equally contemptuous of verbal diarrhea. Politicians who don't like the question because they don't understand it or the true facts are politically devastating employ the O Blah Blah method of running mouth syndrome.


Do you want all government-paid-for healthcare to return to pre-1965 design and costs?

Yes! The sooner the better. Cold turkey won't be feasible but a steady diet to complete destruction of governmental forced Charity is the only answer. We need to reverse the Marxist disease that we allowed by ending "permanent entitlements."