Congressman Todd Platts will make his monthly visit to The Gary Sutton Show on Monday, March 3rd from 9 to noon on Newsradio 910 WSBA.
Engage Todd on the issues of the day that affect you and all of us. The phone number is 1-800-357-0910. Get inside the beltway with the inside information from Congressman Platts of the 19th Congressional District of Pennsylania for three hours only on Newsradio 910 WSBA.
As always, you can stream the show from the internet by clicking on the "Listen Live" button near the top of the left sidebar.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Mr. Platts visits Main Street!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Could someone please ask Mr. Platts his opinion on the DEM candidates promise of government healthcare.
Here is a government run system that Obama and Hillary believe should be an example for healthcare in the US.
This may be part of their plan to save Social Security. If the healthcare system kills you, then Social Security won't have to provide you benefits.
Also ask him what the Repubs plan is. Heathcare costs and insurance premiums are rising out of control. What's the solution?
Just asking. I have an HSA, but not I'm convinced it's the solution.
What I would like Todd Platt to answer is when is Congress going to stop stealing from Social Secuirty ?
Basically Congress has been raiding the Social Security surplus for more than 20 years.
Including interest, Congress has now spent $2 trillion of Social Security money on other government programs since 1984. And then our illustrious elected representatives have the gall to turn around and scaremonger American workers and senior citizens that the system faces financial collapse unless taxes are raised and future benefits cut. No wonder the program's finances are in horrible shape; Congress spent the money that should have been going to prefund workers' retirement.
As it works today, Congress pilfers the Social Security Trust Fund monies in two ways. First, Congress misappropriates annual payroll tax surpluses directly on other programs. Second, Congress avoids raising tax revenue or borrowing money from the public to pay the Trust Fund the interest it is due by giving it "special-issue" IOUs that do not show up as part of the national debt and are not backed by an adequate dedicated revenue source. This scam is the same as if Congress borrowed the money from the public, paid the Trust Fund the interest and then, as with the excess payroll tax revenue, raided the interest paid the Trust Fund and spent it on other programs, leaving behind the same IOUs.
I want he and his cohorts in Congress to understand that I will no longer accect this treacherous deception.
Guys,
Stay tuned to the show today (Monday) and I'll ask him your questions directly. Anybody else? Get them in here before or during the show, and I'll share your questions and thoughts with him. GS
How about explaining the difference between national healthcare and national health insurance?
I think there's a conception out there that they are the same. For example, nationalized healthcare suggests that physicians are in effect government employees and paid by the government. A nationalized health insurance plan is quite different from that.
I think there are alot of mis-conceptions flying around out there and depending on what political club you belong to it tends distort the information. No surprise there, but healthcare costs needs attention and I'm tired of listening to people playing politics with the issue.
Have you, Representative Platts or Gary, seen the movie "Sicko?"
In it, Michael Moore shows that citizens in other countries have access to healthcare regardless of their financial status, or pre-existent conditions........
Why can't we have free healthcare, free college education for our USA citizens?---especially when we apparently can find the money to kill and maim people in lands far away from ours, such as VietNam or Iraq, and have managed to run up a ten trillion deficit over the last 30 years doing so??????
If you haven't seen "Sicko," I recommend everyone watch it.
Here's my question for Rep. Platts:
If John McCain becomes our next President and he proposes another bill which would make it illegal for American Citizens to band together and offer their opinion to the political class, would you support it like you did last time? Was that vote - which I think was Un-American - a mistake? Apologize for it now and I'll be able to vote for you again.
Gary a great idea to make the show interactive this way. But you should keep this thread at the top during the broadcast.
Rep. Platts,
First of all, since you have a birthday in a couple of days, Happy Birthday.
Early in the presidential primary process before he became the likely nominee, you came out in support of, and endorced Sen. John McCain.
My question is related to how stongly are you willing to stand by your endorcement. If Sen. McCain is elected, and the American people continue to see more of his pro-amnesty, McCain-Feingold, and gang of 14 type actions, would you urge and accept votes against yourself as an expression of displeasure with John McCains actions as President? Are you willing to risk you political career on John McCains actions as President?
I don't want to loose you as a representative, and I would like to gain you as a Senator if possible. However, I do have some reservations concerning a McCain presidency. The level of your support would be an indication of your comfort level you would have with his presidency. Thanks for you excellent representation.
jacqueitch: "Why can't we have free healthcare, free college education for our USA citizens?"
Why stop there... Why can't we have free room and board, free cars and insurance, free vacations, free private jets, free homes on the beach, and free love? If you are going to request government handouts, you shouldn't limit our possibilities for entitlements.
Eric,
Health care and education are not freebies that are out of reach for a civilized nation to provide for all its citizens.
Why it isn't is:
It's a matter of priorities.
It's politics.
It's control.
And denial.
Giving women 50% of the power to govern alongside their male counterparts isn't farfetched at all. Yet mentioning it to people who have been brainwashed to believe in the patriarchal model as the only functional one draws snide looks and shoulder shrugs. . .
Do you think that capitalism is the answer to how to care for our citizens' health???----
I guarantee that when profits are the critical piece of the puzzle, only the rich are going to have ultimate healthcare and the poor among us will not.
And that's exactly what we have in USA: 48 million people who lack access to healthcare when they're ill. And along with it, a sense of hopelessness and futility because begging for help is demeaning when the only recourse is begging.
And the other two arguments are that when profits govern healthcare, sickness will be maintained, because that how profits are made, and sickness will be ignored, because insurers make their profits by not having to pay out.
The two are not contradictory in that both contribute to the profit margins, and exist side by side.
Giving women equal power by replacing every other man with a woman is good common political sense. It restores democracy into a system not representative quicker than anything else, and, like the female right to vote, is long overdue.
My guess is that women would mandate healthcare coverage without regard to age, sex, race, or status.
We've got a very biased, and flawed system here.
The answer the Representative Platts gave to the Social Security question only underscores further in my mind that he donesn't understand or has yet to come to grips with the fact that Congress itself with runaway spending financed on the backs of Social Secuirty have THEMSELVES to blame for the mess.
Sure, the SS Admin buys Treasuries with the excess money that they have had for years, but because is is invested in Treasuries it is a DEBT to OURSELVES. WE WILL PAY both the DEBT and the INTEREST with more taxes !! What is so hard to understand about that ?? Apparently our Congressmen don't.
It is basicially a house of cards.
It is hard to have confidence when either they don't understand or don't care or both.
We really need to get people in who understand fiscal responsibility.
Our current crop doesn't.
jacqueitch: "Health care and education are not freebies that are out of reach for a civilized nation to provide for all its citizens."
Although the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government that power, who cares. I completely agree. As a citizen of a civilized nation, I believe that there is no limit to things I can not afford that is within the reach of a civilized nation to provide for me. Some voters can be purchased for healthcare, government housing, free meals, and other things that most responsible adult should be able to provide for themselves.
My vote can not be purchased that cheaply. For my support, I want a house like Al Gore, cars like Jay Leno, a gardener named Pablo, a maid named Hazel, a butler named Alfred, a private jet, a vacation home in the Bahamas and I want my elected officials to use the power of government to force my neighbors to pay for it.
"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy."
If the government is going confiscate the assets and the freedom of private citizens to provide things for those who didn't work for what they want, then I am all for it. I figure if we are going down the path towards a dictatorship then I want to travel that path in style.
So, forget healthcare. I want a big black jet with a bedroom in it. I want to join the mile high club at thirty-seven thousand feet. I want to live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars where the girls come easy and the drugs come cheap. We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat. And we'll hang out in the coolest bars. In the VIP with the movie stars. Every good gold digger's gonna wind up there every Playboy bunny with her bleach blond hair.
I want it at government expense. So, just let me know which candidates I need to vote for, and I promise that me, my wife, and all of our deceased relatives will vote until we get those people elected. It is time for a change.
"Some voters can be purchased for healthcare, government housing, free meals, and other things that most responsible adult [sic] should be able to provide for themselves."
I think you underestimate people. I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find more than a literal handful of people who are happy to be earning so little that they require handouts.
This is a fundamental divide though...some people think everything is under an individual's control while others think there are circumstances that leave people in a situation that requires a little help.
RB: "I think you underestimate people. I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find more than a literal handful of people who are happy to be earning so little that they require handouts."
I don't underestimate anyone. I believe that anyone with the will, desire and determination can overcome life's obstacles and succeed.
Perhaps you have live a sheltered life void of family members who have multiple children out of wedlock because they know if they provide the vote, then the politicians will provide the checks. Perhaps you don't have relatives who got pregnant in high school, only to have children that get pregnant in high school. Perhaps you don't realize that this doesn't happen generation after generation due to a lack of healthcare, sex education, welfare, and other social programs, but due to a lack of self control and the reassurance that there is no need to change behavior because others will continued to be forced to pay for their poor decisions.
RB: "This is a fundamental divide though...some people think everything is under an individual's control while others think there are circumstances that leave people in a situation that requires a little help."
Where there is a "fundamental divide" is in my belief that everyone can succeed if not prayed upon by those wishing to base political carriers on exploiting the permanently dependent. Below are things that are under an individuals can control to avoid becoming socially dependent.
"First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior." Dr. Walter E. Williams
If we ask for the following:
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference." --Reinhold Niebuhr, The Serenity Prayer
One usually realizes that the list of things that aren't able to control is a lot shorter than we realize.
For the few remaining uncontrollable circumstances of life that "requires a little help," I support individual charity as opposed to government handouts. A free society shouldn't force generosity with other peoples money. Unlike yourself, I have faith in people, not elected official that freely give the money of others to stay in office. Unlike yourself, I don't underestimate the ability of individuals or groups of individuals to offer assistance without government intervention.
Reality_Based, I realize that the political success of certain politicians is based on the eternal perpetuation of social programs designed to create generation after generation of dependent voters. The goal is not to solve the problem, because if the problem were solved these politicians would no longer been needed. The business of growing socially dependent voters is so profitable, that we are importing them from other countries. I don't know if you sincerely want to help people, are you are among those who only want to exploit the less fortunate. Either way, the continuation of social handouts is the wrong course of action.
"I don't know if you sincerely want to help people, are you are among those who only want to exploit the less fortunate."
Do you expect to have rational conversation if you really question this?
Aside from that, nothing you wrote is based on anything but your belief. Some of it justifiable ("I believe that anyone with the will, desire and determination can overcome life's obstacles and succeed." as an example) other things? Just ideological b.s. ("I realize that the political success of certain politicians is based on the eternal perpetuation of social programs designed to create generation after generation of dependent voters.")
Please offer some evidence for your claims. For example, name a society that has thrived based solely on charity. I can save you a little time because there is no such thing.
If you want to rant on your ideological soapbox that is your choice. If you want to have a conversation that is quite another thing. Throwing out grand platitudes of things you 'know' just doesn't cut it.
Eric: "I don't know if you sincerely want to help people, are you are among those who only want to exploit the less fortunate."
RB: "Do you expect to have rational conversation if you really question this?"
When most people have rational conversations they state what they know, and question what they don't know. You seem to have a problem with both.
FWIW, I have noted that you failed to respond in the affirmative or negative and therefore you wish to leaving it open to interpretation.
RB: "If you want to rant on your ideological soapbox that is your choice. If you want to have a conversation that is quite another thing. Throwing out grand platitudes of things you 'know' just doesn't cut it."
I am free to voice my opinion on my soapbox on Main St. whether you agree with what I say or not. Likewise, you are free to do the same. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This forum is provided by Gary Sutton and Co., and if they find my comments objectionable they are free to remove them.
My comments were not written to seeking your approval or agreement, only to provide you with a alternate point of view. If you don't like my views, don't read them.
In one paragraph you said, "Do you expect to have rational conversation if you really question this?" when I questioned what I don't know, but then in another paragraph you said "...things you 'know' just doesn't cut it" when I say things that I do know.
Is there any wonder why it is difficult for you to have a "rational conversation"? It is kind of difficult to have a conversation when you don't like when others have questions or make statements.
Reality_Based: "...name a society that has thrived based solely on charity."
Charity is generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless. I don't know of any "society" that has thrived on charity. The purpose of charity is not to promote "thriving." It is an act of kindness meant for a temporary means of survival.
If you meant that you wanted me to name a society that has thrived without the forced charity of taking resources from one person by government to give to another. The answer is simple.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
1776-1935 - No Social Security
1776-1939 - No Food Stamps
1776-1961 - No Section 8 Housing
1776-1964 - No War on Poverty
1776-1965 - No Medicare
Am I saying that these programs are bad? Absolutely not. What I am saying is that I support individual charity as opposed to governmental social programs and handouts.
You see, there are limits to individual charity. I may let a friend sleep on my couch until he gets on his feet, but I won't let him sleep there permanently. OTOH, government social programs get funding based on providing services.
The politician funds the program, the program creates the dependents, the dependents re-elect the politician, the politician raises taxes to increase the funding, the funding grows the program, the program creates more dependents, the dependents re-elect the politician. The cycle continues into eternity.
The programs aren't concerned about the cost, because its not there money. The government program benefits from keeping a dependent, however the charitable individuals charity is subject to end if the one receiving the charity refuses to work towards a positive outcome.
As I quoted previously...
"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury."
Eric,
Do your feelings and perceptions on the role of charitiable contributions vs government involvement extend beyond our borders, too?
What role should government play in coming to the aid of those affected by a natural disaster?
Eric,
When did you stop beating your wife?
Fred: "Do your feelings and perceptions on the role of charitiable contributions vs government involvement extend beyond our borders, too? What role should government play in coming to the aid of those affected by a natural disaster?"
IMO, it depends on the details and circumstances. For the most part, charitable activity should be left to individuals and groups like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. The government should become involved mainly in situations were national defense or US foreign interest are a primary concern.
RB: "Eric, When did you stop beating your wife?"
On the day she stopped playing checkers because she realized that she couldn't beat me. (lol)
Post a Comment