Why do people hate Liberals?

[thanatos144]

May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?

Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency. But liberalism always blames the other guy.

Immie

His statement might actually be true.

The thing is that Bgfrn and the democrats are not liberals - not even in the same universe as liberals. Bgfrn is a leftist.

Leftists are authoritarian. democrats are clearly authoritarian and under the tutelage of Barack Obama verge on totalitarian. Central planning requires the authority to implement said plans. Under the rule of Obama, the IRS and NSA help to enforce the will of the state.

I won't disagree with that. Early in this thread I stated I was speaking about progressives. I think the conversation slipped to liberals, but we are speaking of the extremes on both sides.

Immie

if liberals are trying to liberate us what the f*** are they bring us from? freedom? self determination?

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[thanatos144]

that is liberated us from... I swear to god my f****** phone spit out wrong words

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[Bfgrn]

Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.

Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.

Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.

Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.

Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?

You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.

1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".

4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.



Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.

Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.

Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.

Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?

You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.

1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".

4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.

Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.



Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.

Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.

Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.



As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?

You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.

1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".

4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.

Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.

Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...

Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...

Was Reagan a 'conservative'?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.

1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".

4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.

Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.

Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...

Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...

Was Reagan a 'conservative'?

Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Toro]

I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.

Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.

Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...

Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...

Was Reagan a 'conservative'?

Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.

 

[numan]

'
It's déja vu all over again. After the Vietnam War, everyone was saying that they opposed the war and knew it was a mistake -- even though I knew that during the war they were Nazoids parroting the government line and were zealous in doing dirt to the real war resisters.

Now, in the wreckage of the Bushite Neo-Con disaster, they moan that Bush betrayed them -- though these hypocrites were beating the drum in support of the war criminal while he was President.

I suppose even idiots who thought they could "have a beer with Bush" are capable of learning from their mistakes -- but it's not likely.
.

 

[thanatos144]

Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...

Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...

Was Reagan a 'conservative'?

Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.

So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?

 

[eflatminor]

Why do people hate Liberals?

Because so many of their ideas require implementation by force. Stated differently, they think they know what's best for everyone else.

Same can be said of many Conservative ideas, but modern liberals have the lion share of ideas so good, they have to mandatory...

Of course, this cannot be said of libertarian principals.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.

So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?

REALLY?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

[thanatos144]

You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.

So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?

REALLY?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

You all have a common ground in socialism. Hell FDR was more like Hitler in his concentration camps then Stalin at the time.

 

[dilloduck]

Because they lie. They lie a whole lot

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do people hate Liberals?

Because so many of their ideas require implementation by force. Stated differently, they think they know what's best for everyone else.

Same can be said of many Conservative ideas, but modern liberals have the lion share of ideas so good, they have to mandatory...

Of course, this cannot be said of libertarian principals.

I wish the title of the thread was why do conservatives hate liberalism, since I think most of us don't hate any people of whatever ideology.

But you've touched on the heart of it.

Conservativism, as defined in modern day America, does not coerce, force, or mandate other than what absolutely has to be done to secure our rights and provide us the freedom to live our lives as we choose.

Anarchist libertarianism is not liberalism but neither is it conservatism because it would deny us the ability to organize ourselves to live as we choose.

And Liberalism, as defined in modern day America, assigns all power over to the government to dictate to us what rights and privileges we will have, what property we are allowed to keep as well as how we are allowed to use it, how different groups are expected to speak and conduct themselves, and what sort of lives we are expected to live.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.

Oh, I get it all right, you're a partisan hack with a goal of smearing the opposition. You utterly disregard reality and the meaning of words in your quest to slander the opposition.

The problem is that what you post is utter stupidity as a result. The straw man you erect then mislabel as "conservatism" bears no resemblance whatsoever to conservatism. This is because you seek to smear, rather that rationally analyze.

1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Right Humpty; just as sand is a perfect example of water.

As long as we jettison fact, reason, logic, and intellect - your argument is sound.

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

As long as we jettison fact, reason, logic, and intellect - your argument is sound.

However, out here in "rational world," words have fixed meanings.

{Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program }

So, among we rationals, Medicare Pt. D is the very definition of an entitlement.

Now I realize Humpty, that words mean precisely what you with them to mean - but you don't live in the rational world - things are a bit different here.

2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

So Humpty, only Conservatives voted for Medicare Pt. D?

See, out here in rational world, more democrats than Republicans voted to pass the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

Did you know Humpty, that out here in rational world, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was passed by the legislature? There in Wonderland, where you reside and define words as you please, no doubt the Bush Jabberwocky simply declared the law.

3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".

4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 is terrible law - even out here in rational world.

It is not however, "Conservative."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I wouldn't say that. Anyone who didn't know what Bush was in 2000, simply wasn't paying attention.

I left the Republican party in 1988 due to George HW Bush, when Dubya showed up in 99, I knew exactly what he was. This is the reason that I've never voted for anyone named Bush in my life. I had very low expectations for Dubya, and he lived down to them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You all have a common ground in socialism. Hell FDR was more like Hitler in his concentration camps then Stalin at the time.

Actually, the death camps of Stalin dwarfed those that Hitler ran.

The concept of Concentration Camps that FDR used, came from his good friend, "Uncle Joe." FDR supposedly had no knowledge of Nazi camps when he started rounding up the Japanese.

 

[Immanuel]

Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.



Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.

Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.

Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.



As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?

You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.

1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".

4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.

Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.

That is what has been said throughout this thread, but you put it much more succinctly. The same kind of thing applies to the liberal side of the equation as well. The far left, the extreme, has the loudest voice and the good message that should be heard from the left is drowned out by that extreme, aka progressives.

Immie

 

[thanatos144]

You all have a common ground in socialism. Hell FDR was more like Hitler in his concentration camps then Stalin at the time.

Actually, the death camps of Stalin dwarfed those that Hitler ran.

The concept of Concentration Camps that FDR used, came from his good friend, "Uncle Joe." FDR supposedly had no knowledge of Nazi camps when he started rounding up the Japanese.

yes... Yet that was after Hitlers and FDR's camps.

 

[Uncensored2008]

yes... Yet that was after Hitlers and FDR's camps.

The camps of Siberia started under the Tsars. Lenin used them heavily with about a 99% mortality rate. Stalin actually increased the survival rates of the Gulags - though it was still a virtual death sentence, a Menshevik sent to the concentration camps in 1927 had about a 5% chance to live - better odds than had under Lenin.

USSR--Genocide and Mass Murder