Mike Napolitano Outlines One Key Element of The RI Dem Congressional Win: Massive, Shameless, Televised Lying
For good or ill, I don't watch television. So on the day after the election, when I questioned, semi-rhetorically, the outcome of the Rhode Island congressional races to a sympathetic friend, he filled me in on what I had missed: a barrage of television ads by the Dem candidates falsely proclaiming the intentions of their Repub opponents to end Social Security, Medicare and breathing air for anyone over the age of sixty.
Mike Napolitano elaborates on this in a couple of comments, copied below, under a GoLocalProv post. Mike makes some excellent points, especially with regard to the so-called "deduction" for "moving jobs overseas" and the myth about where the $700+ billion cut from Medicare and shifted to ObamaCare will come from.
Aaron, perhaps you weren't watching TV during the last few months when Cicilline, Whitehouse and Langevin informed voters that Republicans wanted to take away their Social Security, Medicare and even Pell Grants. Perhaps you didn't hear these candidates state that over and over in every ad. Perhaps you didn't also hear them say that Republicans wanted to lower taxes for the rich and get tax credit for jobs overseas. These are called lies and scare tactics. When you can't run on your record, you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. ...
Aaron, your assumptions on policy and stereotypes are very telling. First of all, in a down economy raising taxes on anyone is not a solution. Perhaps a course on macroeconomics is in order. You argue there is no proof and there is a great deal of it. Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. The problem has not been taxes. The problem has been runaway spending. Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years. The government acts like a college student with his/her parent’s credit card. No matter how much the limit, it is never enough.
Just because Republicans stand for keeping the Bush tax cuts for everyone, does not necessarily translate into tax breaks for the rich, which is how the Democrats have spun it. The Democrats have also stated over and over that the rich don’t pay the same taxes as people in the middle class, which is also untrue. Perhaps you should look at the IRS tax tables and upon checking them, one can clearly see that the more income one makes, the higher one is taxed. Is this not already built in? Of course, your party has gone out of its way NOT to clarify the difference between capital gains taxes and income taxes and the risks associated with investments versus income. Another fact is that the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income taxes. It seems that point is never brought up, either.
Also, technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving. However, the deduction is not a special loophole afforded only to companies moving work overseas, as Democrats have made it sound. Rather, the deduction is written into the tax code pertaining to any cost companies face in the course of doing business. That means a company can claim the deduction whether it's moving operations to Beijing or Buffalo. By the way, any cost of doing business is deductible. It seems these points are never brought up either.
To continue, you use another tactic in your comments to my response. You attempt to lump me in with the fringe theorists which is yet another tactic I see utilized quite often with Democrats, especially Sheldon Whitehouse. So if you wish to argue facts and use logic rather than attempt to paint anyone who debates you as extremist, please don’t insult me.
Under President’s health care plan $716 billion will be cut from Medicare which is a fact. Those touted Medicare savings are achieved through reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse. If they can cut so much from waste fraud and abuse, why hasn’t it already been done? In addition, when you pay less to doctors who participate in Medicare, less will accept patients with it.
A recent investigation involving ABC news affiliate WTVD with Dr. Joseph Shanahan was up front about the challenges of accepting Medicare patients. Shanahan stated the system doesn't pay enough to cover costs. "The reimbursement is so low for that - in some cases 60, 80 dollars - it costs you more to get a plumber to come to your house than to get a rheumatologist to come to the hospital," said Shanahan. Shanahan says he's one of only a few rheumatologists treating Medicare patients in his area . They make up about 60 percent of his business but pay for a small percentage of the cost to run it. "The less physicians get paid, the poorer care you're going to receive," said Shanahan.
Right now, Shanahan said Medicare pays him between $40 and $190 to see a new patient and $19 to $134 for follow-up visits. If proposed Medicare cuts kick in by the end of the year, the payments will be about 30 percent less. "There's a point, an edge, a cliff, that when we get to it, I'm not going to be able to provide that top quality care. If I can't provide the best care, I'm not going to provide any," he said. And, the Raleigh rheumatologist says he's come to that point, making the difficult decision to stop taking new Medicare patients this year.
The bottom line is that Cicilline, Whitehouse and Langevin were dishonest in their campaign ads. The only skill their campaigns utilized was how far they could go on lying by omission. They brought the term spin-doctoring to a whole new concept! But then again you are also using the same tactic.
Why don't you and your friends quit complaining and admit you got beat. So they distorted facts. Did they only do this at the last minute? No. So what'd you do about it? Nothing. Now you just whine.
And nice job with Operation Clean Slate.
Oh wait, that'd be insulting to confuse your Strike Farce with Clean Slate. At least Clean Slate got Republicans elected. You batted zero.
Well, As I read the above story and the first comment, I get both sides. Yes we Republicans took a beaten by the lies and misconceptions used in ads about us by the democrats.
SO WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LEARN TO DO THE SAME TO THEM?
I also partially agree with the above comment that we knew it was coming and we did nothing.Yes, it is partially our fault. We do the same things over and over and hope for a better outcome. I just hope our party wakes up and starts to look at things differently.
This is reality and we MUST start to understand what they do and adopt it for us. The democrats have been using Rules for Radicals against us for decades and it has kicked our asses, and we have done nothing about it.
Rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Rule: Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
Rule: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
This is 4 rules of many that the Dems use against us. We need to understand and master these rules and turn it around on them. It no longer matters if we have the best ideas, or that we truly care about the poor, minorities, taxes, etc. Wake up.
If we don't start to use these rules against them, they will continue to beat us into the ground.
@Not Gio My comments were in response to an article on GO Local Prov and were to merely point out how these races were lost.
Also for the record Clean Slate was a failed advertising campaign that cost a great deal of money. Nobody knew what is was. Strike Force was a volunteer group of grass roots supporters that assisited campaigns which cost next to nothing. It was not an advertising campaign. The money this time went to candidates for the General Assembly. Campaigns need money in order to get out their message. I am sure you will find some crude comment to make about this under your fictional name, however the money was much better spent this way.
The state is doomed. The majority consists of an ugly coalition between those who mooch off government (welfare queens, government/non-profit workers, contractors, etc) and the likes of shi*birds like this Russ Conway-rich marxists bitterly clinging to their atheism, abortions and amnesty.
Any cost of doing business is deductible, including the cost of moving companies overseas.There is no special incentive to move jobs overseas what the Democrats want to do is end the deduction for firms moving overseas, in order to create a disincentive to offshore. I good move that is opposed by the Republicans
The State leadership of the Republican party was told by a number of underling members and delegates a year or more prior to the election that that was exactly what was going to happen and how the Dems would campaign. And guess what? That's exactly what they did. Heaven forbid the State party bosses would listen to their own members who have much experience in this arena. The Dems define the Republlican party EVERY time and every time they win. I'm not being derogatory, just stating facts. The officers of the Republican State committee to a person, should resign immediately. You not only didn't win seats, but actually lost seats. Giving money to candidates who you know never had a chance. What a waste of money.
Giving money to candidates who you know never had a chance. What a waste of money.
While I agree the Republicans allowed themselves to be defined by the Democrats, to whom would you suggest they give the money? There were uncontested seats. Who were the primary challengers? Maybe there were mismanaged campaigns but I didn't see any other candidates banging down the door to run. Riley came with baggage but I don't think Doherty and Hinckley were poor candidates.
"Also for the record Clean Slate was a failed advertising campaign that cost a great deal of money. Nobody knew what is was."
He calls it "failed", yet it won seats. Doesn't matter if anyone knew what it was. Candidates won.
"Strike Force was a volunteer group of grass roots supporters that assisited campaigns which cost next to nothing."
And they got what they paid for.
"however the money was much better spent this way."
Here is the problem. Clean Slate was a "poor idea" even though Republicans got elected. Strike Force was much better and no one got elected. That's "better"?
"Republicans wanted to take away their Social Security, Medicare and even Pell Grants."
Never mind that the Ryan budget proposed massive cuts to Pell grants over the next 10 years or that he repeatedly blamed Pell grants for rising tuition costs (just get 3 jobs, right?). I'm sure many here know I'm right about that and in fact agree with the Ryan plan on that one.
Russ - You agree with Ryan that Stafford Loans and Pell Grants are driving up the cost of higher education for everyone and leading to exploding student loan debt? I'm glad you're breaking from the progressive groupthink by acknowledging basic supply and demand relationships and concurring with virtually all studies and economists who have commented on the issue.
"You agree with Ryan that Stafford Loans and Pell Grants are driving up the cost of higher education for everyone..."
Ah, yes, how much less expensive college would be without all those poor folks cluttering up the place.
Hmm, someone must have forgotten to tell these economists...
"Soaring Tuitions: Are Public Funding Cuts to Blame?"
In the public discourse, federal funding is often blamed for driving up tuition. However, our analysis suggests that public schools are increasing tuition as a way to make up for decreasing state and local appropriations for higher education, and that deeper cuts in public funding may be associated with correspondingly greater tuition hikes.
In any case, one can only wonder where Democrats got that crazy idea that Republicans want to cut Pell grants!
"Ah, yes, how much less expensive college would be without all those poor folks cluttering up the place."
I've heard this silly line from you a few times now. Those low-income individuals are now graduating with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federally owned debt with no jobs, so don't think you're doing them any favors with these programs. They aren't any better off getting $50k from Uncle Sam to go to a $150k school than they were getting nothing to attend a $100k school, and in the case of Federal loans they are far worse off because they now have to pay that amount back with interest on top of tuition. Also, they aren't "kids" in anything but a metaphorical sense; they're legally adults.
"Hmm, someone must have forgotten to tell these economists..."
Um, Russ? That article discusses direct public appropriations. It doesn't analyze Stafford Loans or Pell Grants or their effects at all. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you either didn't fully read the article or misunderstood it because the alternative is that you are intentionally misleading.
"I've heard this silly line from you a few times now."
Look, you can argue that it's a good thing but let's be honest that the argument is that with limited suppy, increased demand raises prices.
"That article discusses direct public appropriations. It doesn't analyze Stafford Loans or Pell Grants or their effects at all."
That's not the case. In fact there is a link in the section I quoted to a WSJ article that discusses "the idea that student aid in the form of grants leads to higher prices at for-profit schools."
"Let's be honest that the argument is that with limited suppy, increased demand raises prices."
There is an important distinction that you are missing. This isn't just an increase in demand. The availability of these grants and loans actually alters the supply and demand curves by increasing ability to pay and creating a consumer surplus, which the employers then raise prices across the board to carve out. So yeah, it's a little more complicated than your "kick out the poor kids" gag line. I do agree that Pell Grants are less destructive than Stafford loans, which only hurt students and taxpayers while benefiting the colleges, but both serve to drive up tuition across the board.
"That's not the case. In fact there is a link in the section I quoted to a WSJ article that discusses "the idea that student aid in the form of grants leads to higher prices at for-profit schools."
Your dishonesty knows no bounds, Russ. I am 100% correct that the article to which you linked did not address the effects of Stafford Loans and Pell Grants on tuition, and when I followed the link to which you are referring (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577454862437127618.html), the clear message of the article is that Federal grants and loans are likely affecting higher education tuition.
The new study found that tuition at for-profit schools where students receive federal aid was 75% higher than at comparable for-profit schools whose students don't receive any aid.
Even the Education Secretary is noted to be in agreement with the hypothesis. In fact, the only person in the entire article who disputes the idea is Steve Gunderson, president of the Association of Private Sector Colleges. What a shocker.