So in other words, the charge is valid on its face, as I said: They WERE penny pinching, counting ketchup as a veggie was a direct result, Reagan signed off on it, and one of the umpteen "fire and regulation BAD!" Reaganites tried to defend it. Meanwhile, his penny penching boss raised taxes on the poor to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest. So, yes, the Republican Party enriched millionaires by making poor children go hungry. Had they not been handing out tax cuts to those who didn't need them (during a recession, no less) it wouldn't be an issue, which, as much as the greater nutritional value, is why Clinton doing the same with salsa doesn't bother me: He was raising EVERYONES taxes at the time, because he was trying to balance a budget. For all the talk about balanced budgets under both, I believe Reagan and Bush raised taxes a grand total of once each, when the failures of Reagans first term created a second recession and when Bush saw first hand how accurate his term "voodoo economics" was. In other words, we've raised taxes about three times in as many decades, cutting them furiously in the interim, a growing federal and trade deficit along with a bloated dollar. Personally, I pity anyone working at the CBO these days because their bosses can't handle simple integer math.

And yes, it's completely different from "death panels", if only because the very private insurers said to be our saviors invented them decades ago and have used them ever since; you can't blame Obama for creating something twenty years old even if it DID function as described (also, the death panel charges are factually untrue and the people making them know it, while the ketchup-as-vegetable charge is factually accurate and we both know it). Wikipedia even claims that during the healthcare debate insurers tried to insert a rider that both prohibited the feds from using cost benefit analysis boards AND guaranteed private insurers the right to do so in perpetuity. So much for running government like a business, eh?

Your other point is also valid as far as it goes; yes, Republicans are understandably annoyed when Democrats (or anyone) make shaming accusations against them, but when the accusations are TRUE much of your points impact is blunted. Again, it boils down to being mad that Dems tell the public things the Republican Party has actually done. FWIW, I'm sorry the GOP routinely does shameful things, too; I'm sorry both major parties do, which is why I support neither.

In fact, I had a thought last night about a true Independent Party, whose only ideology would be "We will vote for neither Republicans or Democrats". Granted, you don't have to look farther than the Tea Party (or the American Party, which has numerous similarities) to know a serious party needs a platform, not just a slogan.