Newt supported (and profited from) health care initiative

[gabosaurus]

Not only did Newt Gingrich support the individual health care initiative, he collected huge payouts from insurance companies that would profit from its passage.
"GingrichCare" anyone?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_story.html

[ConHog]

Not only did Newt Gingrich support the individual health care initiative, he collected huge payouts from insurance companies that would profit from its passage.
"GingrichCare" anyone?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_story.html

He's a two faced liar Gabs. the only thing that shocks me is that he isn't Obama's VP.

[gabosaurus]

He's a two faced liar Gabs. the only thing that shocks me is that he isn't Obama's VP.

He wants to be your next President. I am shocked that so many members of the "Family Values" party support him.

I agree with my daughter -- all politicians are stupid. And dishonest.

[ConHog]

He wants to be your next President. I am shocked that so many members of the "Family Values" party support him.

I agree with my daughter -- all politicians are stupid. And dishonest.

I don't think all so many members support him, they just oppose Obama and some think he's the best shot of getting rid of him.

I also agree with your daughter, well except for yours truly, will you vote for me in the next school board election?LOL

[gabosaurus]

I personally believe that the only GOP candidate who has a chance to beat Obama is Mitt Romney.
Romney is the best candidate for the exact reason why some conservatives dislike him -- he is closer to the center and embraces more mainstream beliefs. Romney actually has a lot of support from Dems who are frustrated with Obama, but don't want to give up their core beliefs.
The GOP leadership is uncomfortable with the fact that Romney is a Mormon. Others don't support him because he is not conservative enough.

Republicans need to make a decision. Do they want to appease the far right factions (including the Tea Party) er do they want to beat Obama in 2012?
They can choose someone with a chance or nominate another Barry Goldwater.

[ConHog]

I personally believe that the only GOP candidate who has a chance to beat Obama is Mitt Romney.
Romney is the best candidate for the exact reason why some conservatives dislike him -- he is closer to the center and embraces more mainstream beliefs. Romney actually has a lot of support from Dems who are frustrated with Obama, but don't want to give up their core beliefs.
The GOP leadership is uncomfortable with the fact that Romney is a Mormon. Others don't support him because he is not conservative enough.

Republicans need to make a decision. Do they want to appease the far right factions (including the Tea Party)? Or do they want to beat Obama in 2012? Or do they want to nominate another Barry Goldwater?

I actually agree with you, well for the most part. I'm not sure I wouldn't classify the Tea Party as far right, certainly there are some far right people IN the tea party, but that isn't the same thing.

[jimnyc]

The Tea Party IS NOT the far right, not even close. Anyone who says so doesn't care or doesn't know what the core principles of the group are, what they want and how.

[jimnyc]

As for the OP, is there proof that Newt personally profited, or is it just the "think tank"? Also, is there any proof at all that he did anything unethical outside of meeting with people? I could go into Obama's and other major Dem leaders collecting money and meeting with healthcare leaders but I don't see the point. In other words, is there a story here besides accusing Newt of what Obama and others do as well?

[ConHog]

As for the OP, is there proof that Newt personally profited, or is it just the "think tank"? Also, is there any proof at all that he did anything unethical outside of meeting with people? I could go into Obama's and other major Dem leaders collecting money and meeting with healthcare leaders but I don't see the point. In other words, is there a story here besides accusing Newt of what Obama and others do as well?

Truth is Jim, I think they ALL do this kind of thing, and then run and tattle on each other. I have no doubt the bastard made money , but if we're waiting around for an honest politician , may as well shut down on Washington.

This bullshit of your guys a liar/crook/cheat/whatever and my guy is not gets so old.

[jimnyc]

Truth is Jim, I think they ALL do this kind of thing, and then run and tattle on each other. I have no doubt the bastard made money , but if we're waiting around for an honest politician , may as well shut down on Washington.

This bullshit of your guys a liar/crook/cheat/whatever and my guy is not gets so old.

Only the career politicians, which is what we primarily see on our screens and papers. That's why I think they should have term limits, and limits on pay, and no special privileges for being a member of Washington. People should WANT to SERVE as representatives to help their constituents and their area, not to profit and have a career of it. Keep them young, hungry for change and corrupt proof (as much as we can).

[ConHog]

Only the career politicians, which is what we primarily see on our screens and papers. That's why I think they should have term limits, and limits on pay, and no special privileges for being a member of Washington. People should WANT to SERVE as representatives to help their constituents and their area, not to profit and have a career of it. Keep them young, hungry for change and corrupt proof (as much as we can).

I'd LOVE to see us go back to a part time Congress.

[gabosaurus]

Only the career politicians, which is what we primarily see on our screens and papers. That's why I think they should have term limits, and limits on pay, and no special privileges for being a member of Washington. People should WANT to SERVE as representatives to help their constituents and their area, not to profit and have a career of it. Keep them young, hungry for change and corrupt proof (as much as we can).

I disagree. I believe the corruption starts with their first term in office. Members of Congress meet with lobbyists and learn how much their vote is worth. Getting elected isn't cheap. Remaining in office is even more expensive.
I do agree about career politicians having too much power. The seniority system is the root of corruption. Look at how blindly the rank and file of both parties blindly vote the way they are instructed to by party leaders.
The best way to solve the problem is to eliminate lobbyists and place limits on campaign contributions. But it will never happen because elected officials won't want to kill the cash cows.

[ConHog]

I disagree. I believe the corruption starts with their first term in office. Members of Congress meet with lobbyists and learn how much their vote is worth. Getting elected isn't cheap. Remaining in office is even more expensive.
I do agree about career politicians having too much power. The seniority system is the root of corruption. Look at how blindly the rank and file of both parties blindly vote the way they are instructed to by party leaders.
The best way to solve the problem is to eliminate lobbyists and place limits on campaign contributions. But it will never happen because elected officials won't want to kill the cash cows.

Bing Fucking Oh.

[fj1200]

The best way to solve the problem is to eliminate lobbyists and place limits on campaign contributions. But it will never happen because elected officials won't want to kill the cash cows.

No. All that does is place more power into the hands of elected officials. Limiting campaign contributions only makes it more difficult for challengers to raise enough money to mount an effective campaign. Eliminating lobbyists also puts more power into the hands of those righting the rules in the first place. Limiting speech is never a solution. Pure transparency is the only way.

[ConHog]

No. All that does is place more power into the hands of elected officials. Limiting campaign contributions only makes it more difficult for challengers to raise enough money to mount an effective campaign. Eliminating lobbyists also puts more power into the hands of those righting the rules in the first place. Limiting speech is never a solution. Pure transparency is the only way.

I would like to see blind contributions. if you want to donate, you donate to the process, not to a particular candidate or even party. All donations go into a single fund and are split up evenly among all qualifying candidates.

[fj1200]

I would like to see blind contributions. if you want to donate, you donate to the process, not to a particular candidate or even party. All donations go into a single fund and are split up evenly among all qualifying candidates.

More power to the state for you then? I don't contribute to a process, I contribute to someone who I want to speak for me.

[ConHog]

More power to the state for you then? I don't contribute to a process, I contribute to someone who I want to speak for me.

No, I would favor a private organization being in charge of the money, preferably one that could realize a return on the principle if it wasn't spent each year but was prohibited by law from doing ANYTHING else with the funds.

Hell, we all know if the government got their hands on such a fund it would be bankrupt within a year.

[fj1200]

No, I would favor a private organization being in charge of the money, preferably one that could realize a return on the principle if it wasn't spent each year but was prohibited by law from doing ANYTHING else with the funds.

Hell, we all know if the government got their hands on such a fund it would be bankrupt within a year.

So now I need to give "contributions" to a private organization who is then going to decide which candidates get money to mount a campaign? No thanks. You're ticked off at private lobbyists but have no problem with private campaigns.

Just more convolution to an already overly regulated, convoluted process.

[ConHog]

So now I need to give "contributions" to a private organization who is then going to decide which candidates get money to mount a campaign? No thanks. You're ticked off at private lobbyists but have no problem with private campaigns.

Just more convolution to an already overly regulated, convoluted process.

They decide what exactly? Written standards, if you qualify you get a portion equal to all other candidates.

[fj1200]

They decide what exactly? Written standards, if you qualify you get a portion equal to all other candidates.

I see you answered your own question. They all get the same measly amount of money and the guy with the name recognition and franking privileges is going to walk away with the election. Just more power to the establishment you purport to have disdain for.

[SassyLady]

They decide what exactly? Written standards, if you qualify you get a portion equal to all other candidates.

who sets the standards?

[ConHog]

I see you answered your own question. They all get the same measly amount of money and the guy with the name recognition and franking privileges is going to walk away with the election. Just more power to the establishment you purport to have disdain for.

not true. Lets say Congressional election. How many people are going to qualify for funds. 3 or 4? I dn't think funding would be any more of an issue than it is now. In fact the incumbent would have LESS of an advantage.

Oh, and if I had my way, politicians caught using their franking priveleges for campaign purposes would go to prison.

[fj1200]

not true. Lets say Congressional election. How many people are going to qualify for funds. 3 or 4? I dn't think funding would be any more of an issue than it is now. In fact the incumbent would have LESS of an advantage.

Oh, and if I had my way, politicians caught using their franking priveleges for campaign purposes would go to prison.

It pretty much is. Every attempt at campaign finance "reform" has resulted in nothing more than more power to the incumbent. The incumbent has a built-in advantage and limits on speech will do nothing to correct that. Especially that it's unconstitutional and all.

And franking isn't about campaigning, it's about name recognition. Challengers do not have that.

[ConHog]

It pretty much is. Every attempt at campaign finance "reform" has resulted in nothing more than more power to the incumbent. The incumbent has a built-in advantage and limits on speech will do nothing to correct that. Especially that it's unconstitutional and all.

And franking isn't about campaigning, it's about name recognition. Challengers do not have that.

I understand that, and the guy with the name recognition is the one who gets all the donations. Take away that advantage by giving everyone equal funds. How is that not a win win?

[fj1200]

I understand that, and the guy with the name recognition is the one who gets all the donations. Take away that advantage by giving everyone equal funds. How is that not a win win?

Because you limit the challenger's ability to raise the necessary funds to compete against the entrenched incumbent. Not to mention that it's nothing but a populist solution looking for a problem.


A FAILURE IN PRACTICE
Campaign-finance reform has not managed either to promote political equality or prevent corruption. And data show that one reason campaign-*finance regulations are of little value in attacking corruption is that contributions simply don't corrupt politicians. In a 2003 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, three MIT scholars — *Stephen *Ansolabehere, James Snyder, Jr., and John de Figueiredo — surveyed nearly 40 peer-reviewed studies published between 1976 and 2002. "*[I]*n three out of four instances," they found, "campaign contributions had no statistically significant effects on legislation or had the ‘wrong' sign — *suggesting that more contributions lead to less support." Given the difficulty of publishing "non-results" in academic journals, the authors suggested in another paper, "the true incidence of papers written showing campaign contributions influence votes is even smaller." *Ansolabehere and his colleagues then performed their own detailed study, which also found that "legislators' votes depend almost entirely on their own beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party," and that "contributions have no detectable effects on legislative behavior."



And from previous in the article:

But in the course of the *argument, Justice Samuel Alito interrupted Stewart and inquired: "What's your answer to [the] point that there isn't any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video [on] demand and providing access on the internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, [or] providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?" Stewart, an experienced litigator who had represented the government in campaign-finance cases at the Supreme Court before, responded that the provisions of McCain-Feingold could in fact be constitutionally applied to limit all those forms of speech. The law, he *contended, would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video.


There was an audible gasp in the courtroom. Then Justice Alito spoke, it seemed, for the entire audience: "That's pretty incredible." By the time Stewart's turn at the podium was over, he had told Justice Anthony *Kennedy that the government could restrict the distribution of books through Amazon's digital book reader, Kindle; responded to Justice David Souter that the government could prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book; and conceded to Chief Justice John Roberts that a corporate publisher could be prohibited from publishing a 500-page book if it contained even one line of candidate advocacy.


http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-of-campaign-finance-reform

And you want to give more power to government regulators.

[fj1200]

And reelection rates appear to have zero to do with campaign finance rules which came into effect in the early 70's.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

[PostmodernProphet]

I would like to see blind contributions. if you want to donate, you donate to the process, not to a particular candidate or even party. All donations go into a single fund and are split up evenly among all qualifying candidates.

I think it would be more fun if we had politicians wear coveralls like race car drivers......if they get contributions they have to wear the company logo, so we know who their sponsors are.......who knows....it might even make Congress as popular as NASCAR..........

[gabosaurus]

Ideally, I would like to see campaign contributions eliminated entirely. Give each candidate a set amount of TV time. Give them a web site to state their issues. Make the election process as simple as possible.
Prohibit elected officials from taking contributions from lobbyists or corporate representatives.
I am all in favor of a part-time Congress. It works in a lot of states.

[ConHog]

Ideally, I would like to see campaign contributions eliminated entirely. Give each candidate a set amount of TV time. Give them a web site to state their issues. Make the election process as simple as possible.
Prohibit elected officials from taking contributions from lobbyists or corporate representatives.
I am all in favor of a part-time Congress. It works in a lot of states.

To that end, I would raze the capital building and all of it's supporting structures right to the ground. Send them assholes home, they don't need to live in DC. Go home and be answerable to your constituents. All congressional meetings now take place online.

[jimnyc]

Ideally, I would like to see campaign contributions eliminated entirely. Give each candidate a set amount of TV time. Give them a web site to state their issues. Make the election process as simple as possible.
Prohibit elected officials from taking contributions from lobbyists or corporate representatives.
I am all in favor of a part-time Congress. It works in a lot of states.

Can you send me a picture of you in your panties? Ooops, did I just say that out loud? LOL It's hard to write mean and nasty things to you after seeing your hotness!

And to stay on topic - I think I actually agree with your post!

[ConHog]

Can you send me a picture of you in your panties? Ooops, did I just say that out loud? LOL It's hard to write mean and nasty things to you after seeing your hotness!

And to stay on topic - I think I actually agree with your post!

She is hot. I thought people were joking until she posted that christmas pic. HUBBA HUBBA.


ANd I agree with her as well.

[jimnyc]

She is hot. I thought people were joking until she posted that christmas pic. HUBBA HUBBA.


ANd I agree with her as well.

Damn, I ask for panties and I get you replying instead!! :wtf::puke:

[LuvRPgrl]

No. All that does is place more power into the hands of elected officials. Limiting campaign contributions only makes it more difficult for challengers to raise enough money to mount an effective campaign. Eliminating lobbyists also puts more power into the hands of those righting the rules in the first place. Limiting speech is never a solution. Pure transparency is the only way.

the best, and most right way to solve this is, educate the public on how and why to vote.
But it will never happen.
ANYTHING else is just applying different band aids to the wound, especially trying to limit contributions.
As for giving to a general pool and divying it up, I guess some nazi like people dont think we should have the right to support only one candidate.

[LuvRPgrl]

Damn, I ask for panties and I get you replying instead!! :wtf::puke:

talk about coals in your stockings !!

[fj1200]

Ideally, I would like to see campaign contributions eliminated entirely. Give each candidate a set amount of TV time. Give them a web site to state their issues. Make the election process as simple as possible.
Prohibit elected officials from taking contributions from lobbyists or corporate representatives.
I am all in favor of a part-time Congress. It works in a lot of states.

Do you really think that our country can be run part time? The assertion is laughable unless you enjoy more power being vested in the Executive branch and unelected regulators.

[ConHog]

Do you really think that our country can be run part time? The assertion is laughable unless you enjoy more power being vested in the Executive branch and unelected regulators.

Politicians don't run our government sir. Civil service employees do, and no one is suggesting me make them part time.

[fj1200]

Politicians don't run our government sir. Civil service employees do, and no one is suggesting me make them part time.

reread my post please.