• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marco Rubio Will Be President One Day.

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
82,151
Reaction score
45,169
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm slapping my hand on the table and calling it. If this man wants to be President in the future, he will be. He has the way to break down complex issues to their core basics in a manner that appeals to America's strongest positive nature. Not since Reagan, I think, have Republicans seen someone who could speak passionately and effectively like this.


This is just the latest example; but a simple youtube search of his speeches will consistently demonstrate the same level of performance.

 
This guy isn't saying anything I haven't already heard. He basically is saying, I don't want to **** over my current voters just the ones I have down the line. If they were really behind this they would make it in effect ASAP therefore "save" more money. The Democrats have a plan that gradually makes savings in the medicare plans. How is it going bankrupt? Can they even explain that? How is taxes on corporations or getting rid of oil subsidies going to hurt our economy anymore? Check out this handy little graphic:



Every single one of those countries has a lower unemployment rate than us, most if not all of them have a far more progressive healthcare system than ours, higher taxes on average even for citizens, and a better quality of life. So please, show me the direct correlation that higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations is going to **** us even more.
 
his CPAC speech: powerful stuff.


 
JohnWOlin said:
This guy isn't saying anything I haven't already heard. He basically is saying, I don't want to **** over my current voters just the ones I have down the line.
Click to expand...

how is it screwing over future seniors to save Medicare so that it is available for them? currently this is not the case - under our current plan, Medicare disappears in about a decade. how does it screw over future voters to ensure that the program instead survives?

The Democrats have a plan that gradually makes savings in the medicare plans.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect - they have a plan to take 500 Bn out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare; and they have proposed a rationing board to deny people service. however, the CBO has been rather brutal in pointing out that neither will save Medicare past it's current "blow-up" date.

How is it going bankrupt? Can they even explain that?
Click to expand...

it is going bankrupt because it has no reserves (we spent them all - hope you liked your stimulus check), and costs and expenditures are racing upwards as the boomers retire. We would need $89 Trillion just to keep the program as it is currently structured - instead we have negative $14.5 Trillion. And we will probably be at negative $16 Trillion by the time we are able to do anything about our entitlements. We need another $18 Trillion if we want to keep Social Security - we dont' have that, either, but because the program grows slower, we have a little more time.

How is taxes on corporations or getting rid of oil subsidies going to hurt our economy anymore?
Click to expand...

well, i would imagine that would be because it would raise the price of gas. I have no problem getting rid of tax shelters, subsidies, and corporate welfare, but we should do so in a way that avoids raising the cost of doing business in America - assuming we want businesses to do business in America.
 
These things won't stop businesses from doing business here. Did you see the graphic? I got a better idea, just make universal healthcare. It works much better than the current system. Explain this to me, how will a senior who didn't think they needed a nursing home pay for a nursing home with a voucher that doesn't cover it? Will the cost of nursing homes perhaps be regulated? If there was a way to ensure that these vouchers would cover the same cost we have right now, a guarantee that the government is able to regulate this cost then I would be all for it. If not, then no.
 
JohnWOlin said:
These things won't stop businesses from doing business here.
Click to expand...

not entirely, no. but marginally, absolutely. Canada is economically freer than we are - CANADA. And their economy is picking up and businesses are relocating there from here. I wonder if those two things are related?

Did you see the graphic?
Click to expand...

I did. would you like me to go into the reasons why it is a non sequitor? It will require some explanation, and so I would want you to agree that you will actually respond honestly and answer what I post before I spend the time to go into it.

I got a better idea, just make universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

no, that is a bad idea - it creates a monopoly over healthcare, which operates no differently than any other monopoly. resources are reduced, quality deteriorates, and customer service becomes non-existent.

It works much better than the current system.
Click to expand...

actually in terms of "healing sick people", our current system - as flawed as it is - works better than the universal ones. That's why Canadians come here for healthcare.

Explain this to me, how will a senior who didn't think they needed a nursing home pay for a nursing home with a voucher that doesn't cover it?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here as your tense seems convoluted, but nobody is proposing a voucher system that I am aware of.

Will the cost of nursing homes perhaps be regulated?
Click to expand...

only if we wish to reduce their supply. Price ceilings inevitably produce shortages, and often black markets that are forced to charge exorbitant rates to make up for the risk of law enforcement.

If there was a way to ensure that these vouchers would cover the same cost we have right now, a guarantee that the government is able to regulate this cost then I would be all for it. If not, then no.
Click to expand...

if you are referencing the premium support portion of the Ryan plan (which isn't a voucher system), then I can tell you that the plan does indeed guarantee that seniors recieve coverage. it just also asks them to pay more out of pocket for things like check-ups; while providing more support for poorer and elderly retirees to help cover their costs for them.
 
not entirely, no. but marginally, absolutely. Canada is economically freer than we are - CANADA. And their economy is picking up and businesses are relocating there from here. I wonder if those two things are related?
Click to expand...

Yet Canada has higher corporate taxes than we do (as seen in the graphic).

no, that is a bad idea - it creates a monopoly over healthcare, which operates no differently than any other monopoly. resources are reduced, quality deteriorates, and customer service becomes non-existent.
Click to expand...

This is where we differ greatly. The government local, state, and federal, has a monopoly on a few other things, roads, libraries, firefighters, police, military, education, etc. Most of those things are great. There is nothing stopping you from using private options and nothing stops people from using private options in other countries. To me healthcare is a right not a privledge. We should be protected by our government and all of these things help to protect us, just as I believe healthcare would serve to protect us. We have much greater healthcare cost than most other countries even with medicare so you are basically suggesting lets go ahead and make it more.

actually in terms of "healing sick people", our current system - as flawed as it is - works better than the universal ones. That's why Canadians come here for healthcare.
Click to expand...



The average wait time in Canada varies depending on service just as it does in United States. It depends on the service, and typically higher wait times in both have to do with more specialized surgery. Another factor could be the fact that the government makes deals with companies in United States to make sure their drugs cost a lot but when subsidized cost less for the citizen, although the government is footing the bill. Look at how many people in Congress that headlined these medicare and medicaid bills in the past that are actually working from pharmaceutical companies now.

If the government could regulate the pricing of drugs, equipment, etc in a way that the average cost was as low as Canada's for example I would have no problem with their $6000 coupons, because then they might actually save money. But that won't happen. Obama's plan is better.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Yet Canada has higher corporate taxes than we do (as seen in the graphic).
Click to expand...

no. Canada collects a higher percentage of her revenue from corporate taxes.

Canada's corporate tax rate is significantly less than ours.

It is, in fact, currently 16.5%, though the government plans to cut it even further next year:

so, as Canada has slashed her corporate tax rate, she has seen increased returns.


Now, if you want to argue that we need to adopt the same corporate tax structure as Canada.... then I am 100% right there behind you. Go, Wolin, Go!
 
Last edited:
as for healthcare, it is 1:20 am, and i have to be up in a little over 4 hours. another day eace:
 



Actually when you figure in state taxes, payroll tax deductions (our corporations get a much bigger deduction than Canada does) and average local taxes, Canada and United States corporations on average pay about the same amount. Not to mention the other various loopholes and deducutions corporations can get away with. That's like saying during Eisenhower the top earners in the United States paid over 90% of their income, they could have if not for the fact that they were granted so many deductions and the like.

You would be surprised how much stuff is actually deductible from a business. I just have one great personal example that I always found interesting. I ran a website that dealt with gaming. A big company sent me to their studios to check out a game, 5 star hotel, 5 star dining, incredibly lavish experience, and of course I got a copy of the software when released. It was me and 8 other journalist. In total the entire thing probably cost this company $3k a head for a total of $24k. They also send this $60 game (that with production and shipping cost about $5 to make) to about 200 other people (for a total of $1200 in cost) So what do they do with this $25k? They simply right it off. This giant multi-billion dollar company does themselves a favor by doing this.

So while we do have some of the highest corporate taxes it is obvious that they are not paid by some of our biggest companies in full. This is why these loopholes and deductions need to be fixed.
 


I thought the same thing a voted for him. Since hes been elected no one in florida has seen or heard from him...Ive written to him twice no response at all, not even an acknowledgement the email was recieved and I know others that have recieved the same treatment.
I understand theres a learning curve, but theres also a learning curve for congressman and we have a new congressman that has had several town halls since Nov2nd and responds swiftly to every email..at least the two ive written him. Rubio needs to tune up his public relations and not appear to be hey im elected now leave me alone...eloquent speechs are wonderful, but theres alot more to it than that...Remember obama's eloquent campaign speechs...
 
Obama's eloquence, I think, was overplayed by a media whose members were hearing what they wanted to hear.

but if his PR staff sucks, then that is absolutely an issue he needs to address.
 

you just double-counted deductions. when you add in state and local taxes, the US rate jumps to over 39%; well over Canada's combined 25%. furthermore those deductions come with compliance costs - which are absolutely massive in this country. We could fully fund the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, and NASA for what we spend just trying to comply with our own behemoth labyrinth of a tax-code.

So while we do have some of the highest corporate taxes it is obvious that they are not paid by some of our biggest companies in full. This is why these loopholes and deductions need to be fixed.
Click to expand...

and Republicans agree, which is why they strip them all out in their 2012 budget.
 

It's a plan that is intellectually dishonest. It discounts anything in Obama's plan and in fact many of the rights the Health Care law we have now affords us or will that Republicans have even seemed to appreciate aren't even mentioned in his plan. Now I would go along with every single thing the Paul Ryan plan did if it did one thing--force the medical industry to be non-profit, have every single thing set at a certain price, and therefore it is easy to predict the cost and therefore their vouchers could be even less than what it is. Companies, hospitals, etc would compete not on a profit base, but on how well they actually do by taking care of there patients. This entire bill's motive is to make peoples health and well being even more for profit.

If I can accredit this bill for anything, it would probably be that it has made more Americans open to the idea of systems more similar to what our allies have.
 
cpwill said:
I'm slapping my hand on the table and calling it. If this man wants to be President in the future, he will be.
Click to expand...

well, don't hurt yourself. let's look at his record, shall we?

Tea Partier... loses 20 points just for that.

no right to privacy. that will go over well... especially since that is Roe v. Wade's qualifying argument, which is why he opposes it... he opposes abortion, totally.

against stem cell research and supports 'civil rights' for the unborn a truly bizarre rightwing religionist bit of nonsense.

opposes same SSM opposes laws that make it illegal to refuse to hire gays (ENDA) or gays in the military. high estimates... 7% of the electorate in major cities where all the big electoral votes are.

eliminate capital gains, reduce corporate taxes. MORE oil drilling, MORE oil exploration, screw the penguins. privatize rail system,

no foreign policy experience or views, aside, from, I am going to assume, NOT normalizing relations with Cuba.

supports pretesting senate bills for 'constitutionality'... one of the very stupidest things i have ever heard. gun nut. prefers enriching insurance companies to providing health care. because he is 'business friendly'... and it is not hard to see why.

he has been giving the business to his constituents for some years now... used a GOP CC to make private purchases of 100k at least 16k on 'personal expenses'.. like a $135. ... haircut. THAT not counting the double billing against the card for air travel.

GOP bank (GOP Ops and Rubio allied developer on DodD) 'lent' him the money (half a mill) to buy a new house. same GOP affiliated lender reassessed the property AFTER he bought it and offered an additional $135k, unasked, just 'because'. and the buyer of his old house... was the mother of a GOP lobbyist... who lobbied on his behalf... Rubio made an enormous profit (33% over original cost) after owing it only 4 years.

raised 400k for GOP cause, of which he gave 14k to his mother (the dear boy)... could not account for 20% ot the money. maintained a political slush fund of some 600k but spent a lot on himself (this is beginning to get repetitious) . . . 4k DID go to campaigning.

we need not even bother with tax issues.... but... i love this one... stop taxing folks so damn much... let the poor pull themselves up by their chinga botas....but let's slap a 'surcharge' on tourists to fund a new FOOTBALL STADIUM!

yea.... i'd vote for this chump.

geo.
 
Last edited:
Damn man I just wanted to address the issue you went for the throat.
 
ah... sorry.... i get stirred up sometimes... btw, there is a typo up ther.e that "DodD" should be "BofD", as in Board Of Directors. but... Sarah is starting out on a National Bus Tour... getting ready to declare?

you will lots to address.

geo.
 
JohnWOlin said:
It's a plan that is intellectually dishonest
Click to expand...

I would very much like to see you demonstrate this, as even President Obama disagrees with you.

It discounts anything in Obama's plan
Click to expand...

what plan? the President put forth a "2012 budget" that was just 2010 copy-pasted, and then later reniged on it saying he didn't mean it, but he figured at the time he had to put out something, and offered instead a speech. as a result, even democrats were told not to vote for it when it came to the floor of the Senate a couple days ago - it died 0-97. The House under Democrat control refused to come up with a budget, the Senate still under Democrat control has refused to come up with a budget. the ONLY people currently offering a budget at all are the House Republicans (well, and technically Jim DeMint and Rand Paul)

If the President had taken his own Debt-Reduction-Commisions' report seriously (as he pretended for a while that he would), then he would have a plan that even Republicans - even I - would admit was serious and responsible and tackled the problems we face, though admittedly not entirely in ways that I like or think best. But he hasn't even done that. Harry Reid stated that at this point it would be FOOLISH for Democrats to come out with a budget, because it would lessen their ability to attack the Republicans' offering in the 2012 elections.

that's what you call "Leadership".

and in fact many of the rights the Health Care law we have now affords us or will that Republicans have even seemed to appreciate aren't even mentioned in his plan
Click to expand...

that is correct - we continue to seek to repeal that disastrous law that tosses us over a fiscal cliff in the next handful of years.

Now I would go along with every single thing the Paul Ryan plan did if it did one thing--force the medical industry to be non-profit
Click to expand...

which would be followed by it's collapse. doctors don't work for free.

have every single thing set at a certain price
Click to expand...

this would instantly create a massive shortage, followed by the creation of a black market that would make prices even more prohibitively high, creating the exact opposite of the effect you claim you want.

and therefore it is easy to predict the cost
Click to expand...

being able to predict the cost is easy. just have the doctors post them.

as I think I've pointed out to you before - there is a Clinic in Tennessee which does exactly this, but refuses to deal with the Insurance companies. by taking cash and cutting out the administrative BS alone they are able to offer the same level of care and services for one-half to one-third the price.

Companies, hospitals, etc would compete not on a profit base, but on how well they actually do by taking care of there patients
Click to expand...

:lol: excellent plan. get rid of the profit motive . hey how is that working out for North Korea, anywho? everything peachy there?

This entire bill's motive is to make peoples health and well being even more for profit.
Click to expand...

motive is irrelevant - results matter. and the results of the items you have outlined above would be disastrous.

If I can accredit this bill for anything, it would probably be that it has made more Americans open to the idea of systems more similar to what our allies have.
Click to expand...

just as they are coming to the realization that they are unaffordable and are moving away from them. our timing couldn't be more ironic.
 

fortunately (thank goodness) you aren't exactly what is considered a mainstream voter, there, Geo. I don't think there is or will ever be a "Republican" that would get your vote, and if there was, I woudn't want him running.
 
cpwill said:
I don't think there is or will ever be a "Republican" that would get your vote, and if there was, I wouldn't want him running.
Click to expand...

hard to argue with that. even, so... he is not either. his views are more extreme than mine. and i do think that many will want to elect a man so eager to enrich himself at the expense of others under false pretenses.

geo.
 
Last edited:
as I recall Charlie Christ tried all those same charges last go-around, and as I recall, they all fell pretty flat on their faces. and I wouldn't tell yourself that Rubio is further from the center from yourself. we are a conservative country:

 
cpwill said:
we are a conservative country:
Click to expand...

nice picture.... you are good at posting pictures that support what you would like others to believe.

but you are lousy at providing any REASON for me or anyone to accept the pictures as meaning anything at all.

who is doing the defining of 'liberal', 'conservative'? who is making the pretty picture? the address of the pretty picture suggests another personal blog... i know how you love those.

here is the original source.

and here... we can get an answer for who is doing the defining... the people are defining themselves. ya know what? not everyone will define themselves the same way YOU would.

ya see? NOT according to YOUR definition or mine. Democrats are less inclined to think in lock step. which i would say is a good thing.

geo.
 
Last edited:

well, if you had actually decided to look at the link you are deriding, you might have noticed that the answer to your questions are that

A) the people defining "conservative" "moderate" and "liberal" are the respondents themselves, and
B) the people who put out the graph was the same people who did the poll. Gallup.

the people are defining themselves. ya know what? not everyone will define themselves the same way YOU would.
Click to expand...

no, but generally conservative means a few basic things - what has been defined as the "tripod" of conservatism; social, fiscal, and foreign policy.

but you are reduced to arguing that when they said they were conservative that they didn't really mean it? or they thought that "conservativism" really meant "liberalism"? no - people who are unsure of what they are generally self-describe as "moderate" and "independent"

Democrats are less inclined to think in lock step. which i would say is a good thing
Click to expand...

actually Democrats have been moving in a fairly interesting direction. as the number of "liberals" in the general populace and independents have decreased, they have increased within the Democrat party - which is shifting left even as the rest of the country shifts right.

Which I would say is probably a good thing for the Republican party, as far as general electoral politics are concerned, but less good for the nation as a whole.
 
there

cpwill said:
well, if you had actually decided to look at the link you are deriding, you might have noticed that the answer to your questions are that
Click to expand...
i did look at it. how do you think i got the link to the actual poll... which YOU did NOT look at.
but generally conservative means a few basic things
Click to expand...
to you.
but you are reduced to arguing that when they said they were conservative that they didn't really mean it? or they thought that "conservativism" really meant "liberalism"?
Click to expand...
no. i mean that conservatism is not terribly meaningful. literally, it means to keep things as they are. it is often meant to return to a previous state. many conservatives long for the good old days of the '50's when homosexuals had the good taste to stay in the freakin closet, abortion was a sin and minorities knew their place.

other conservatives are just scared of progress or afraid of defying the dominant class or believe the lie that wealth and power ARE virtuous in themselves and so align themsoeves, at least ideologiaclly, to wealth and power. and THAT is the central of conservatism; the accumulation of wealth and the power that wealth bestows. many think that it is really possible that if they work REAL hard they can join that class and acquire that wealth.

trouble is, the more that make it, the less it means - the class becomes diluted, the wealth distributed so thin that no one can have any great amount, which is why the wealth resist, holding onto wealth and denying it to you. in a world where everything is owned, to get more means to deprive another and yes, it really IS as simple as that. and the wealthy do NOT want to give it up

Once upon a time we could pretend that there was enough wealth in the world for everyone. Smart people have come to realize that this is simply not true - the wealth of the world is limited.
nah. there is no evidence of that. the political winds shift. when conservatives are in power and not everyone is happy, the nation leans liberal, though many do not use the word since Reagan so effectively demonized it.

it just depends on which party is screwing up at any given time. which explains why we have had two 'radical liberal' presidents in the last 2 decades despite the lack of liberals in you poll over that same period of time.

geo.
 
Re: there

I live in Florida, and had the pleasure of supporting Rubio when he was 30 points behind Crist. Then he whupped Crist's behind. Now, once-possible VP material Crist can not get elected dog-catcher down here. 18 months from when Rubio was 30 points behind

Rubio is clearly off to a good start for a junior Senator. He's from the biggest swing state, which makes him a hotter commodity as well. Trust me when I tell you that he is not yet a full "natural", as was Reagan. But he is learning rapidly. Faster than Palin by a long shot. Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Chris Cristie are the three up-and-coming Republican rock stars. But much can happen between here and the Oval Office.

As a registered Repulican, and a Conservative, I do like the stallions in the stable. <neigh>

We got Allen West too. Outside chance he goes for the Republican nomination to challenge Senator Bill Nelson in 2012.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…