Poor conservatives, I don't get it. Righties please explain.

[Sbane]

Some of it has to do with excessive protections of species people just don't understand much about. Many times it is just a way to stop development. Sometimes, like in the case of the redwood forests, it is justified. I think environmental protectionism does go overboard sometimes, but other times it is needed to protect something that just won't come back. If you want to take a chainsaw to the redwood forests, I'll take a chainsaw to you! Ahem..

Anyways, then there are the public sector unions. When teachers can't get fired regardless of how incompetent they are, or police and firefighters retire and get lavish pensions at the expense of the poor, you would think they have a good reason to vote Republican. And at the state and local levels, a lot of taxes are paid by the poor as well, so lavish benefits do hurt them. And things like environmental protectionism that stops construction or logging hurts them too.

[Sbane]

"Poor conservatives" aren't a large group of people.

In certain parts of the country, they are.

[Sbane]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

Standard budgetary gimmickry. Medicare spending of course continues to rise.

Would that be on a per capita basis on how many people are using it. Keep in mind Medicare usage will increase over the next 10-15 years. Even "real" cuts will lead to more growth in spending. And there is no way around that. I think cuts in social security might be the better route to go.

[Sbane]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

Standard budgetary gimmickry. Medicare spending of course continues to rise.

Would that be on a per capita basis on how many people are using it. Keep in mind Medicare usage will increase over the next 10-15 years. Even "real" cuts will lead to more growth in spending. And there is no way around that. I think cuts in social security might be the better route to go.

In 20 years, the number of folks over 65 will jump from 37 million to 87 million I think. Instead of 1.5% of the population being over 85 (long term care and senile dementia/Alzheimers city), it will be 5% of the population. Combine that with the cost of advancing medical technology, and what you are looking at is a fiscal abyss that makes the Grand Canyon look like Laguna Canyon in comparison. 

More generics! I should get into managed care, shouldn't I?