GeorgiaDon

And I yours. You always make me think about what I believe, and why, which I really appreciate. Yes, and thanks for that. To some extent, I can agree with this. Certainly I agree it would help if people had more financial skin in the game. However, your point assumes that people actually have an opportunity to make a choice. Perhaps they are weighing that $150 a month for meds against their country club membership fees, but for many $150 a month represents a real hardship. Not a "giving up cable", but losing their job because they now can't afford a car, and public transit doesn't run when they need it to get to or home from work. Then there are the really serious cases, where treatment runs to high five figures and up. If everybody had a similar sized pot of money, and could allocate it to this or that as they say fit, one could perhaps justify saying "too bad so sad, you shouldn't have spent all your money on Pokemon cards". Given that a round of chemotherapy can run $80,000 or more, though, there's no choice to be made for most people. You use the term "choice" a lot, in the sense that people choose unhealthy behaviors because they know (or believe) they won't be held accountable for the cost to treat them. I can't disagree that this is a problem. However, not all medical issues result from choices people make. I did not (or I don't recall) choosing my parents. Yet, I have certain costs imposed on me because of family history of certain diseases. I have even been told that should I ever leave my current job (where I am covered under a group plan) I would likely have trouble getting health insurance because of conditions that developed in close relatives after I started work here. People get bitten by mosquitoes and get West Nile, or they get listeria from eating contaminated lettuce. Shit happens. Whether you live or die should not be contingent on your bank account, IMHO. Let's say we agree that we don't want the health care (or health insurance) system to encourage unhealthy behavior. Can we also agree that not every medical problem is caused by lifestyle choices? What kind of a system might one propose that discourages poor lifestyle choices without simultaneously threatening economic ruin or worse (denial of treatment) to people whose disease is not a result of choices they made? Or would you argue that such collateral damage is worth it to keep freeloaders at bay? Yet, both require medical care and that must be paid for somehow. In that regard, injuries from an assault are no different from encephalitis brought on by the bite of an infected mosquito: both are acute emergencies requiring immediate care. Do doctors and hospitals bill assault victims differently than other patients? Will it? Perhaps. Consider, though, what would happen if the doctor used to see 100 patients with colds a week, and now they see 10 (9/10 decide to tough it out without seeing a doctor). Where the doctor made $5,000 a week from cold patients, now they make $500. Yet, they still have to pay rent, malpractice insurance, office staff, maybe still student loans. So, what's to keep the cost of an office visit from going up to compensate? Maybe competition, but if every doctor in town is facing the same pressures I'd bet that the cost per visit isn't going to be declining. Sure, the cost of the health care system in total may go down if people decide to forgo treatment, but that's no guarantee that cost or access for individuals will improve. Many cutting edge treatments are just highly expensive by their nature. The next big thing in cancer treatment is likely to be genome sequencing from tumor biopsies, so as to identify specific mutations associated with the specific patient's cancer. This will allow the doctor to prescribe specific drugs designed to counter specific genetic defects. Genome sequencing is coming down in cost, but the equipment is very pricy and the staff to run the analysis have to be very highly trained, so costs are likely to remain significant (a couple of thousand dollars). Producing patient-specific drug cocktails will always be more pricy than mass market one size sort of fits all therapies. Cancer therapy is likely to become even more expensive than it already is, although it is also likely to be much more effective. Although there is a benefit in terms of cost savings to the overall system that results from encouraging people to self-ration their use of health care, there are also costs. People walking around, going to work or to the coffee shop, with an infectious disease are much more likely to spread that disease to others. Should going out in public, where one might be exposed to infectious individuals, be considered a "poor lifestyle choice"? Also, some diseases will not get better if left untreated (like a cold does); costs go up dramatically, and chances for a favorable outcome go down, the longer one delays treatment. Any overall saving to the system from people self rationing care can easily be overwhelmed by a few patients whose condition is worsened by delaying treatment. I remember those days too. I did not have financial reserves that would have allowed me to pay for treatment of a major medical emergency; I assume you were in the same position. In my case I wasn't too worried about it, because I was living in Canada at the time and so I had decent health insurance. I suppose you were just fortunate to not be hit with anything too major. Since moving to the US, though, I have known students who were not so fortunate, including one who died from a condition that would have been survivable had she not self-rationed her access to health care for too long. But when your "choice" is between rent, tuition, food (pretty modest, considering how slender this young lady was), and a bus pass (couldn't afford a car), and you're too proud to rack up bills you can't pay, then it isn't surprising that one would put off going to the doctor until the pain became intolerable. It happens the other way too. Medical tourism from the US to Canada is growing, because the cost of care is so much cheaper in Canada and the quality is as good as the US. Here's the difference: Americans going to Canada are usually after treatment they can't access in the US, because of pre-existing conditions limitation or out of pocket costs, whereas Canadians going to the US are primarily interested in jumping the line for an elective procedure they can get (but may have to wait for) in Canada, and they are wealthy enough to pay the 4-5X higher US bill. In a few cases, you have smaller communities on one side of the border and much larger cities right across the border. Of course the larger community will have the bigger hospitals and a wider range of services. For that reason, people from Windsor will go to Detroit for some specialized services, and people from upstate New York or Vermont may go to Montreal. By "lazy", I meant that when one answers the question "why do the same medical procedures cost 3-5X as much in the US as they do elsewhere?" with "Americans are different than Europeans or Canadians", that answer lacks any specific detail that might allow one to get at the actual nature (and so possible solutions) to the problem. Let's say we were able to magically switch all the American population to Europe, and the European population to the US. Would the cost of the US health care system immediately fall to European levels? Would the European system immediately jump to US levels? If we checked in a generation from now, where would costs be? If Americans are genetically more disease prone, if it costs on average 5x as much to achieve the same medical outcome as it costs to treat a European with the same condition, then one would expect the cost of the European health care system to rise, and the American system to fall, correspondingly. I doubt, though, that that is what would happen. The problem (it seems to me) with assuming that the cost differences are due to biological differences between Americans and Europeans (or Canadians) is that it discourages examination of other, structural features built into the US system that inflate costs. I agree with your comments about legal representation for the indigent, I was just curious to see how you compared that to health care for the indigent. All in all I agree with you that we don't want to encourage unhealthy behavior, and one way to do that is to make people responsible for more of the cost of their treatment. Where we seem to disagree is that I don't see any practical way to distinguish between "lifestyle diseases" and things that we risk just by being alive (like infectious mosquitoes), and I dislike the idea of a system where we expose people to serious risk of death or disability, coupled with permanent financial ruin, when they have the bad luck to get sick or be injured. Insurance (including health insurance) is intended to mitigate financial damage by spreading risk over a large population, but when I sign up for any insurance plan I accept that there is some chance (reflected in my premiums) that someone somewhere may try to game the system, for example by burning down their house. Insurance plans penalize smokers by charging higher premiums, and they could do so for other risky behaviors. That would provide a financial incentive for people to avoid those behaviors, without resorting to a strictly "user pays cash for service" system that exposes everybody to risk of financial devastation or loss of care. My wife's insurance, for example, charges a certain monthly premium, but then she can earn credits for participating in work-organized walks/5K runs, losing weight, etc. It's remarkable to look around her workplace and see people who have lost 20-50 pounds in order to get that monthly credit. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Was that a little bird whispering in your ear, or a squirrel pissing on your head? My money's on the latter. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

His entire piece is about race. The underlying "logic" is that identity is determined by blood line. It is a thoroughly racist piece of shit, and therefore so is the author. Who the fuck cares if his blood line is Luo or white or Klingon? Only someone who thinks race "makes the man" would give a shit. Yet, you though the piece was insightful enough to post, in it's entirety, without any editorializing on your part. So, you now own it. Hope it's a good fit. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As far as I am aware, no one is likely to experience death or be disabled because they failed to take or pass any of the classes I teach. A problem I have with your prescription for access to health care is that it entails making a subjective value judgement about the worthiness of the patient to receive treatment. It may be an easy call to say that the 30-year old obese diabetic with congestive heart failure is "unworthy" because their condition is almost certainly self-imposed, but what about the assault victim whose only "offense" is to have to walk through a sketchy neighborhood to get home from the bus stop? Perhaps you will say that your prescription is objective, because access to care will depend only on a patient's ability to pay, but ultimately that "objectivity" rests on a subjective assessment that a person's worth is contingent on nothing more than their wealth. By this metric, the 85-year-old millionaire "deserves" any level of medical care they wish to pay for, but the 22-year-old college student who's in a work/study program and also works weekends to pay their bills "deserves" nothing, because every dollar they make that isn't spent on necessary rent and food is invested in their education. Basing someone's worthiness to receive medical care only on the size of their bank account completely discounts the value of everything they might accomplish in their life, be it future earnings, creative accomplishments, businesses built, and so on. If your argument that access to low-cost or "free" health care is what makes people unhealthy were correct, then people in Canada or Europe should be even less healthy than Americans. Judging by lifespan and obesity rates, to name just two metrics, that does not appear to be the case. I suspect the factors at play are much more nuanced, and involve factors like amount of time spent walking vs riding in cars (public transit, widely used in Europe, requires some measure of walking), and cultural factors such as social acceptability of unhealthy foods (here in the South they fry everything) and lifestyles (being obese is normal in some social groups in America, less so elsewhere). Income disparity also plays a role, in that it takes money to buy really healthy food, and generally the wealthier people seem to have more time to go to the gym, play tennis, go skiing in Vail etc than people who are struggling to make ends meet with two or three minimum wage jobs. Note that this is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of differences between the US and all the other countries. One thing that is often thrown out there is that "Americans are different", and "you can't compare Europe (or any specific country) with the US", but that line of argument is just lazy. We are all Homo sapiens, the basic physiology of Europeans is no different than Americans (for example, Europeans are unlikely to have more "brown fat" than Americans just because they are European). If one wishes to insist there are intrinsic differences, one should be prepared to point to specific cultural or social factors (such as behaviors) that explain the differences. Out of curiosity, as a lawyer, what are your thoughts on people who engage in criminal behavior yet lack the resources to pay for legal representation if they are caught? Do you disagree that people should be entitled to legal representation, through a taxpayer-funded public defenders office, despite an inability to pay? Do you think that I should have a portion of my taxes go to pay for such people, despite the fact that I have never engaged in criminal activities and that I would not be eligible for taxpayer-funded legal representation if I was to be arrested for anything? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Pure racist drivel. Since you posted this stinking turd without any comment or disclaimers of your own, I can only assume you agree with everything in there. Republicans: Building a bridge to 1812. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, it would seem that in your world Obama can either look like an outclassed fool, or angry and desperate; there are no other possibilities. And Romney can only look "in charge", or else stoic and presidential; there are no other possibilities. Good thing you're so objective about all this. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't know about any net gain either, given that all but about 6% have already decided who the are going to support. What struck me was that once again the Romney that showed up was quite different from the belligerent saber rattling campaign trail Romney. I really don't know what the guy stands for, what he believes (or hopes for), or how he would behave in office. "Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter, to meeee.."(/Queen). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

But, I thought he was going to sell us out to the jihadists after the election! Now you tell me it's the Russians? Or maybe it's Russian jihadists??? I can't keep all these conspiracies straight! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Reality has a well known liberal bias. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You might consider using some sort of lube. Or stroking a bit slower. If your hand looks like that please don't post a photo of your other bits. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Even your quotes are attributed incorrectly. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you honestly believe this Congress would pass anything Obama proposes, on any subject whatsoever? This Congress that has repeatedly turned its back on longstanding Republican policies when Obama has included them in proposed legislation? This Congress that is lead by people who declare, in the midst of the worst recession in decades, that their #1 priority is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president? The surest way to ensure the death of any legislation, nomination, or treaty would be for Obama to propose it before the election. If you think there is any "flexibility" in the way Congress has been behaving, you've either not been paying attention, or you are blind. One of the things I hate the most about American politics is that everyone complains that politicians lie, then they get their panties all in a wad when one says something that is actually true. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well if they believe women were made from Adam's rib, it's no surprise they believe all kinds of other nonsense too. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So you're saying we're basically road kill? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Why would we forget about defense? Defense is also one of the big dogs. Indeed, 20% of federal budget, same as Social Security. www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 Even more if you consider programs for veterans. The difference, of course, is that social security and medicare are bringing in revenue through payroll taxes. Obviously the programs will have to be modified so they are self sustaining, and one might debate the philosophy of having them at all, but to treat them like other programs that don't bring in any revenue disingenuous. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I thought you were one of those people who were all worried about the deficit? Considering that social security is growing anyway because the baby boomers are starting to retire, how can you reconcile your expectation for larger increases with your demand for budget slashing? Killing off big bird is not going to come close to balancing those books. If it makes you feel any better, I haven't had a pay increase in 4 years, and a couple of those years saw a decrease due to mandatory unpaid furloughs. Of course, health insurance, parking, and a myriad of other fees goes up every year. And, I'm paying for your social security. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with you, and I'm no fan of Romney. Under the rules of the debate, Lehrer's role was supposed to be quite limited. It was up to Obama, not Lehrer, to challenge Romney's sudden changes of policy and even outright lies, and for whatever reason Obama didn't do that, or at least wasn't at all effective. There were so many points in the evening where I was sure some Romney statement would draw an energized response, but it was not to be. Inexplicable. When Romney said Big Bird has got to go, I was just waiting for Obama to make some crack about Big Bird being part of the 47%, but he just looked at his shoes or something. Saturday Night Live did a decent job of skewering the debate. I love how they have Romney claiming he killed bin Laden, and Obama barely responds. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Perhaps we can agree to disagree about that. Some people prefer a "leader" who "takes charge" and "kicks ass". Others (including me) might prefer someone who gathers facts, gets a variety of opinions, then makes a considered decision. It doesn't bother me if the president has a low-key personality. It does bother me if the president shoots from the lip, staking out public positions before getting the facts, because then they can't afford to back down even if their position makes no sense. Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" were a recent and particularly egregious example. I don't dislike Romney personally at all, though I doubt we'd find much to talk about over a beer. I just don't share his priorities, and I think some of them will be destructive for the country. All parties agree that the federal budget has to be cut back substantially. Romney's opposition to anything that would bring in more money means the budget balancing would have to be done 100% by cutting government services. When you pair that with his proposed increases in military spending, and promises that there will be no reduction in social security and medicare benefits, then every other thing the government does will initially have to be cut drastically (30% or more), and eventually they will have to disappear altogether. Some of course will say "so what", or applaud a return to government as it was conceived in the 1700s. They will perhaps eventually start to wonder what is going on when they see the consequences for public health and safety, a return to 1950s levels of pollution, erosion of our global competitiveness due to lack of investment in education and research, excessively long wait times to get access to federal courts, and on and on. So, I disagree with Romney's spending priorities: the US already spends almost half the total global expenditure on the military (US is 46%), and I do not think we should be cutting everything else the government does in order to give the military more. When Romney promises to kill Obamacare, then says he will bring back all the popular parts (such as coverage for preexisting conditions), which are also the expensive parts, without saying a word about how he will pay for it, then I think he is either pandering, making promises without thinking things through, or lying. I don't believe in "double down on trickle down", as Clinton succinctly put it. I seriously doubt that putting more money in the pockets of the very wealthy, and paying for it by cutting public investment in education, research and development, social safety nets, and so on will boost the economy. Judging by their performance to date, if the "1%" are the "job creators" they should be fired, because despite claiming an ever growing share of the national pie they have not translated that into US jobs. Rather, they pocket the dough, or park it offshore. It's "everyday folks" buying cars, buying food, spending their money that creates the demand for products and services that leads industry to build factories and hire people. Engineering a massive transfer of money from the majority of the population to the wealthiest few will reduce the money people have to spend on goods and services, reduce demand, and persuade industries to trim their work force. Romney's top-down economic theories are very dangerous IMHO. Finally for now (as I have to get back to work) Romney has made it clear that he would be much more active than Obama has been in intervening militarily in foreign conflicts, even those that are quite peripheral to US interests. He has basically promised that when Israel says "jump" he will say "how high"? No candidate for president can afford to say it, but despite the US's position as the only remaining military superpower, the US is no longer able to dictate to anyone and expect them to jump to our command. This is because the real power in the world today is economic clout, and in that arena the US is losing ground. Everybody else knows that traditional military power is a dinosaur. Militaries are good only for protection against other militaries, and such conflicts are rare these days. Countries don't invade other countries, so much as they just buy them. In my opinion, for what it is worth, money spent on ever more aircraft carriers and fighter jets is seriously misplaced, because the long term and even immediate threats to the US are economic: by sticking with yesterdays technologies we risk becoming economically irrelevant. Already our trade balance shows that we consume much more than we produce. How long will that continue before we can't afford to even consume any more? If other countries assume leadership in producing and exporting things, how will another aircraft carrier possibly help to put things in balance? I know Republicans tend to be very much enamored with the military, but to my mind investment in that direction, beyond what is needed to protect our shores and essential assets from military threats, is completely the wrong way to go. I don't think Obama is without flaws either, by the way, some of them the same issues as I have mentioned re Republican policies. However he has proposed budgets, and taken positions in (ultimately failed) negotiation with Republicans, that would gradually reduce government spending in a manner that is more consistent with my own priorities. He isn't brash, and perhaps tends to study issues for a little too long before taking action, but I think that is better than jumping the gun and making national policy before the facts are in or properly evaluated. Anyway, gotta run. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I heard he was accused of being married to a known equestrian. Also, he can speak French. Does that qualify? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's a good thing that Governor Romney would never use taxpayer money to invest in a solar company that subsequently failed. A more useful approach would be to discuss whether or not governments at any level should do anything to invest in any industry. A purely capitalist or libertarian approach might be to leave such investment entirely to the private sector. On the other hand, governments at all levels, including other countries, use incentives such as loans, grants, tax writeoffs, and so on to attract investment and industry to their district. States compete to attract manufacturers. Countries support development of strategic industries and technologies. If a government takes a principled stand and refuses to use taxpayer money to support or attract any private industry, they also have to expect that such industry will always find more attractive locations to build their factory. For the "principled" government, that means drastically reduced employment opportunities and tax base. How much are you willing to pay for your principles? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't really disagree with you, but I'd point out that reality is more nuanced. When we are talking about smoking and alcohol consumption, those are both optional behaviors. One can reduce or even eliminate those behaviors and be fine, even more healthy than one would otherwise be, so it is probable that increased taxes would reduce participation in those behaviors. On the other hand one has to eat to live, so increasing taxes on "unhealthy" foods is likely to cause people to shift to more healthy foods or portions. It's quite unlikely that anyone would cease eating altogether, no matter how high you raised the tax. When it comes to taxing investment, I think you have to consider what alternatives people have for their money. As long as people can still make money by investing it, they are unlikely to withdraw from the market and stick their money under a mattress. In the past when taxes were outrageously high (in the 90% range I seem to recall), people still invested because even 10% return was still a lot of money, especially compared to nothing or losing value due to inflation. Now, since I'm not part of the 1% I don't know what options are available for investing offshore, but certainly I can imagine that there would be a level of taxation that would encourage people to move money out of the US. One argument that isn't based on that idea is the notion that taxing income from investments differently from wages is socially corrosive, in that it implies that money made from ones labor is not as "worthy" as money made by investing, and by extension it implies that wealthy people are somehow "better" than people who work for salary or wages. Even if a compelling argument could be made that it is necessary to tax investment income lower than other forms of income to encourage wealthy people to "put their money to work", it isn't obvious to me why money that is taken out of those investments to pay for a chalet in Vail or a villa in Monaco should be taxed less than the money I saved and used to build my house. I realize that a lot of that "investment money" is retirement savings that ultimately leads back to "everyday" people. Huge increases in taxes on investments might end up reducing money people have to retire on, money that gets spent and put back into the economy. However, when I retire my understanding is my shares in my 401K/mutual fund (actually TIA-CREFF) get converted to an annuity, and after that I get taxed on the annuity income at the regular rate. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't really see why people who depend on 401K type savings should pay a higher tax than people who just can sell off some shares. But I'm sure someone will be happy to explain to me that I just hate/am jealous of rich people. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Since your entire world view is built around magical thinking, I'm not surprised you're comfortable with a loaves-and-fishes model of budgetary "planning". In the real world, though, you just cannot give everybody everything they want and not blow up the budget. You say Romney has "leadership" and "managerial experience", yet he seems to me to be acting every bit the politician, caving to this constituency and that. And it's pretty easy to put on a good debate performance (as in, acting) if you are totally unconstrained by either your previous positions or by reality. Republican math: Increased military spending + increased medicaid + 20% tax cut = balanced budget Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Really, Buzz? Have the Republicans been pursuing a path of "friendliness and compromise" for the last four years? Is Mitch McConnell stating "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" an example of "friendliness and compromise"? Well if your idea of a great leader is someone who shakes his magic eight ball etch-a-sketch every morning to see what his platform-du-jour will be, have at it. I don't think Romney is a terrible person, but he really seems to say just about whatever he seems to think his audience of the moment wants to hear. Personally I have no idea what policies he would or would not support, but it does seem that the tea party types have got a garotte around his testicles. Anyway, anyone who believes they can increase military spending, increase medicare spending, give everyone a 20% tax break, and pay for it all by disenfranchising Big Bird is living in cloud cuckoo land, IMHO. I doubt very much that Romney believes that either, I think he's just pandering to his base, who are none too mathematically adept. Which leaves me wondering what he really plans to do, if he has any plan at all beyond: Step one, get elected. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree. However, I highly doubt he believes what he said. The Republicans have already made it clear that campaigning has nothing to do with facts or truth. It's more like advertising. The party that does the better job of manipulating the public wins - facts are not part of the process. - other than the fact that at least 80% of the public are very easily manipulated. He's a politician, and he'll say whatever the audience of any particular moment wants to hear. He was speaking to fundies - so he panders to them. I doubt very much he'll say the same thing speaking to a group of doctors, or university students, or anybody living north of the Mason-Dixon line (well, maybe an Indiana chapter of the KKK). In this case, I'm pretty sure he absolutely believes every word. He is my representative in Congress, and he has a long history of similar and equally outrageous statements. A couple of years ago he was the author of numerous Obama = Hitler type speeches, which are red meat around here. As far as speaking to university students and similar types is concerned, he simply doesn't bother. Athens/Clarke County is an island of blue voters in a sea of red, due to the presence of the University of Georgia. The Republican solution was just to gerrymander the district so Clarke County is divided up between three districts, all of which are overwhelmingly rural/agricultural and Republican; 1/3 of Clarke County per district dilutes the D vote to where there is no risk that anyone who isn't a R might get in. And it would be impossible to overestimate the influence of fundie Christianity around here. So Rep. Broun does not hold any events in Athens/Clarke County, and declines every invitation to speak. His power base is elsewhere, and although he "represents" us we aren't worth his time to speak to us. There's a reason why Rep. Broun is running unopposed: nothing he could possibly say or do would be outrageous enough to impede his election. It's a waste of money for the Democratic party to campaign here. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There is an awful lot in the way of structural barriers and voter inertia to overcome to get a third party candidate into the white house. Perhaps an alternative path would be to aim for a state governorship or two, or to try to establish a block of seats in Congress. That wouldn't have the clout of the presidency, though that is probably considerably overrated anyway. It's not as if the president can impose much of anything on Congress. On the other hand, the states seem an appropriate laboratory for experimentation. If a couple of decent-sized states could be run on Libertarian principles, for example, and not have the wheels come totally off, voters nationally might be less intimidated by the new ideas. At the same time, some real world experience at actually governing might help some of these parties to hone their ideas so they could work in the real world. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)