Thomas: Rubio's Tide is Rising.

[mcsluggo]

Love this guy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/30/marco_rubios_tide_is_rising_111137.html

Marco Rubio's Tide Is Rising

By Cal Thomas

I am also curious which guy you love... Rubio or Thomas?

[Wrong Direction]

I think Presidential and VP candidates should be judged by the exact same standard.

I see the point, but I think your position is a little over stated.

If you play the odds, the VP isn't likely to become president through anything but an election, and certainly not quickly. Rightly or wrongly, it is often viewed as a position that helps you grow into the office of the President.

Rubio for VP is less risky than Obama for President, regardless of ideology.

Now I'm going home to no power.

[Larry]

Just saw somebody else's (no doubt rather partisan) take on the same speech.

Somehow, I assume that ThinkProgress is probably about as neutral as Kos, or FreeRepublic, or Fox News.

But the video they've embedded in the page certainly seems to be genuine.

Potential vice president running mate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) dismissed the importance of programs like Medicare and Social Security during a speech at the Reagan Presidential Library this afternoon, arguing that the initiatives “weakened us as people”:

(Quoting Rubio):

These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.

[Kilmer17]

I am also curious which guy you love... Rubio or Thomas?

Jeez.

Rubio.

Thomas is a hack.

J, I hope you were taking that the right way. I was obviously joking. So I hope that IM the one who's reading it wrong.

I actually think Rubio could win it all in 2012. Im certain he will be POTUS in my lifetime.

[Jumbo]

Jeez.

Rubio.

Thomas is a hack.

J, I hope you were taking that the right way. I was obviously joking. .

Yes, amigo, I knew you were playing and I was joking back with you, but my apology part was sincere---I've been known to be a part of hijacking a few threads without intending to in my time and I don't really like it when I do that. .

[Hubbs]

I've said it before, I'll say it again—Rubio is a VP temptation in 2012 and is the GOP nominee favorite in 2016, barring a GOP win in 2012 and the lack of some sort of sex/corruption/etc. scandal between today and a non-GOP-White-House 2016.

[PeterMP]

Just saw somebody else's (no doubt rather partisan) take on the same speech.

Somehow, I assume that ThinkProgress is probably about as neutral as Kos, or FreeRepublic, or Fox News.

But the video they've embedded in the page certainly seems to be genuine.

You'd think that everything was going along swell and then somebody said, 'Hey, let's create Social Security and Medicare just for fun.'

[Larry]

You'd think that everything was going along swell and then somebody said, 'Hey, let's create Social Security and Medicare just for fun.'

Part of my reaction is along the lines of "we must protect the purity of our precious bodily fluids".

And part of it is to speculate about the myth that in the Good Old Days, people saved for retirement. I'm not certain, but the impression I have is that in the (not so) good old days, the vast majority of people DIDN'T retire, they worked till they died.

(Which, I'll admit, might not be a bad thing. I could see the argument that there's a problem with the "formula" where people's "life" ends at 65, but they don't die till 80. But I don't see any simple way where we could change either of those numbers.)

[twa]

You'd think that everything was going along swell and then somebody said, 'Hey, let's create Social Security and Medicare just for fun.'

How much has it changed over the years?...benefits,costs and expansion to non-contributors ect

typical bureaucracy

[Larry]

How much has it changed over the years?...benefits,costs and expansion to non-contributors ect

typical bureaucracy

It's changed vastly over the years.

But the biggest change is "the median lifespan isn't 63 years any more".

You think we should change that? Go back to the Good Old Days?

[PeterMP]

How much has it changed over the years?...benefits,costs and expansion to non-contributors ect

typical bureaucracy

Then make the argument in those terms not some make believe time and place where everything was swell w/o government support because things essentially functioned like an idealized communist society.

[Larry]

Then make the argument in those terms not some make believe time and place where everything was swell w/o government support because things essentially functioned like an idealized communist society.

Where the men are strong, the women are good looking, and all of the children are above average.

[Wrong Direction]

Then make the argument in those terms not some make believe time and place where everything was swell w/o government support because things essentially functioned like an idealized communist society.

Maybe this is simply a difference of opinion based on our ideologies, but I don't see anything at all to disagree with in Rubio's quote. This isn't a man who's saying that we should just leave everyone to fend for themselves, as evidenced by these other quotes from the same speech...

We have the opportunity -- within our lifetimes -- to actually craft a proper role for government in our nation that will allow us to come closer than any Americans have ever come to our collective vision of a nation where both prosperity and compassion exist side by side.

...

Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools ... that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. And our programs to help them should reflect that.

His point about SS and Medicare is a good one. We've abdicated our personal responsibility to save for ourselves. Some, many in fact, still do, but between guaranteed pensions, these programs and a rising retirement age, we've put our retirements in the hands of others, with huge unknowns. GM couldn't be THAT profitable forever, for example.

There is a way out of this, but it'll take a long national committment to slowly buy our way out of it by converting from reliance on pensions and government programs to reliance on our own savings, with those government programs there for the people who truly need them. This is a fundamental point to conservatism, and one that I 100% support.

[twa]

It's changed vastly over the years.

But the biggest change is "the median lifespan isn't 63 years any more".

You think we should change that? Go back to the Good Old Days?

We adjust it for inflation and income ,why not life expectancy?

I believe it has vastly changed from it's(and medicares) original purpose.

are those changes worth the costs?

[Larry]

I believe it has vastly changed from it's(and medicares) original purpose.

Could you please provide us with your opinion as to what their original purpose(s) were, and what you claim they've become?

From where I sit, their purpose seems pretty consistent: To insure a minimum standard of living (including medical care) for people who can no longer work.

[Wrong Direction]

Could you please provide us with your opinion as to what their original purpose(s) were, and what you claim they've become?

From where I sit, their purpose seems pretty consistent: To insure a minimum standard of living (including medical care) for people who can no longer work.

There are two legitimate debates about Medicare in particular. One is about the amount of care that should be provided. Should Medicare cover every check up, ever flu shot, every lab, hospice in perpetuity, etc. The second is about the economic model behind coverage. There are options, such as private insurance, therapy caps, today's models, removing first dollar coverage, etc., that are all up for debate.

Interestingly, on the first issue, the people who support the current model will be quite bullish. Because costs are exploding, those who support the current model (and those who don't) will need to reassess the amount of care that is able to be provided.

Medicare as we know it WILL cease to exist, it's just a question of what will exist in the aftermath. The answer could be something along the lines of emergency care, hospital care and huge deductibles on outpatient care.

[Elessar78]

Cal Thomas is a very crappy hack of a writer..

Oh I don't know, I like how he worked in another Shakespearean reference toward the end " . . . Some leaders don't know they can lead until leadership is thrust upon them . . .":D

[War Paint]

Most of conservative talk radio is saying Rubio is pretty much guaranteed to be the VP on the GOP ticket next election.

[Kilmer17]

It's his if he wants it for sure.

But I dont think he wants it.

[Wrong Direction]

It's his if he wants it for sure.

But I dont think he wants it.

Might depend on the candidate, or on his own ambitions for 2016. If I were him I'd try to get in now. Ryan, Christie and Clinton will all likely be formidable opponents in 2016.

[Baculus]

OK -- why are people so high on Rubio again? (And I am aware of the guy, but I just don't understand why people are so excited about him.) Is it since he says the right "conservative" things?

[PeterMP]

Maybe this is simply a difference of opinion based on our ideologies, but I don't see anything at all to disagree with in Rubio's quote. This isn't a man who's saying that we should just leave everyone to fend for themselves, as evidenced by these other quotes from the same speech.

In part I quoted:

"You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

He makes it sound like everything was great until the government got involved. Social Security was started BECAUSE there were elderly people that didn't have any saving.

Medicare was started BECAUSE there were elderly people that couldn't pay for their healthcare (and weren't really getting outside assistance for it).

You want to claim that Social Security and Medicare have created problems as bad or worse then they were designed to fix, great make that argument. You want to claim that there are better solutions than Medicare and Social Security, great make that argument. You want to claim that there is nothing really the government can do to actually fix those problems, great than make that argument.

But don't pretend like there weren't problems that existed that those programs were made to deal with. And that if you eliminated those programs that those problems wouldn't likely re-emerge w/o some other solution in place.

[Baculus]

In part I quoted:

"You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

He makes it sound like everything was great until the government got involved. Social Security was started BECAUSE there were elderly people that didn't have any saving.

Medicare was started BECAUSE there were elderly people that couldn't pay for their healthcare (and weren't really getting outside assistance for it).

You want to claim that Social Security and Medicare have created problems as bad or worse then they were designed to fix, great make that argument. You want to claim that there are better solutions than Medicare and Social Security, great make that argument. You want to claim that there is nothing really the government can do to actually fix those problems, great than make that argument.

But don't pretend like there weren't problems that existed that those programs were made to deal with. And that if you eliminated those programs that those problems wouldn't likely re-emerge w/o some other solution in place.

Good post. I remember when Rubio said that, which was a puzzling remark for a politician out of Florida.

He doesn't have anything new to say, but more talking points, and he is oblivious to the history which you just recounted. The elderly have had long problems with poverty; the US was not (and is not) a wonderful egalitarian playground before Social Security, and people such as Rubio act as if the US doesn't have one of the worse income divides in the entire world.

Again, why are people high on Rubio? Because he can spit out the right conservative sentiments? Because he is good at toeing the line?

[mcsluggo]

actually.. are large portion of why people are high on Rubio is because he is able to NOT toe the line, and get away with it. He is able to say things that keep more people simultaneusly happy (or at least content) than most people are able to... like Reagan he is able to say one thing and have different groups interpret it differently.. and BOTH think that he has agreed with THEM (although the two groups disagree with each other). He is also very reasoned, deliberate and methodical.

[Wrong Direction]

In part I quoted:

Rubio:

"You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

He makes it sound like everything was great until the government got involved. Social Security was started BECAUSE there were elderly people that didn't have any saving.

Medicare was started BECAUSE there were elderly people that couldn't pay for their healthcare (and weren't really getting outside assistance for it).

You want to claim that Social Security and Medicare have created problems as bad or worse then they were designed to fix, great make that argument. You want to claim that there are better solutions than Medicare and Social Security, great make that argument. You want to claim that there is nothing really the government can do to actually fix those problems, great than make that argument.

But don't pretend like there weren't problems that existed that those programs were made to deal with. And that if you eliminated those programs that those problems wouldn't likely re-emerge w/o some other solution in place.

You're taking one quote of his and making it seem like his head is in the sand. Sure, those programs were started for a reason. I can 100% guarantee you that Rubio isn't saying that we need to stop those programs for poor seniors. Unfortunately, Medicare and SS were designed to do much more than address the problems you lay out above.

Warren Buffet (assuming he's a citizen) is eligible for Medicare and Social Security. He's not one of the people you mention above. My father worked as an engineer 38 years before retiring, and then kept working for other companies. He's eligible for Medicare and Social Security. Do you mean to tell me that, if required, he wouldn't have his own retirement without getting a dime from those programs?

The point Rubio's making, which is being ignored in this thread, is those programs removed the incentive for otherwise capable people to prepare for their own retirement, and in so doing, they've created multiple generations of government dependents out of people who don't need to be, and massive long term debt problems.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 01:15 PM ----------

Again, why are people high on Rubio? Because he can spit out the right conservative sentiments? Because he is good at toeing the line?

He's basically Barrack Obama, with non-socialist ideology. Hispanic, conservative, very articulate and good looking, from Florida. He's a great profile for a candidate, just like Obama.