“While this president is in office, repealing this full law is not realistic and not the best use of our efforts.”- Rep. Mike Castle
Representative Castle has indicated that he will not support efforts to repeal HCR, dubbing them “unrealistic.” Good, we need to focus on legislative goals that are realistic and attainable, like fixing some of the most egregious problems with HCR, not set ourselves up for future defeat with a sure-to-fail agenda.
Like Rep. Castle, I also opposed the passage of HCR. For my own part, I think Dave Burris summed it up best: HCR is healthcare funding reform, not healthcare reform. Still, I think it is a tactical error for the GOP to make repeal of the law a key campaign item particularly since calls for repeal are often paired with talk-radio style apocalyptics over the passage of HCR. Folks, that is a huge mistake. Both tone and substance matter and, if we’re not careful, we risk getting both wrong.
One of the major problems with “repeal” as a campaign slogan for November, 2010 is that many of HCR’s negative consequences are deferred while its benefits are, often, immediate. As Arthur Green has written on FrumForum:
Republicans counting on Obamacare’s unpopularity to deliver them a win in November seem likely to face disappointment. An honest look at the package shows it’s masterfully designed to deliver a lot of meaningful favors to groups likely to reward Democrats at the polls in November. In particular, senior citizens and middle class families all get immediate benefits while the important costs and externalities resulting from the package won’t take place for some time. Democrats are right to think that people will like the package…
Some of the major problems with HCR- funding, the long-term impact on the public debt & state budgets, and its potential to lead to rationing or declines in the standard of care will take years to make themselves manifest:
Higher taxes, the potential of waiting lists, and some employers’ decision to drop coverage and the like won’t happen until 2014 or after.
To reiterate, the deferred nature of the systemic problems embedded in HCR means that they will not be facially apparent “realities” for voters in November, 2010. This problem is exacerbated by the tone and tenor of the rhetoric some conservatives have used in the debate leading up to the passage of HCR, much of which had a millenialist “end of the world as we know it” flavor. Well, HCR passed and…. the sun rose the next morning… the markets did not crash… life goes on.
Long-term the path to victory in 2010 and beyond for the GOP begins with re-capturing our former status as “the party of ideas.” It is critical for our nation and her future that we foster the development of a mature and responsible conservatism capable of opposing the Obama administration and it’s agenda with real, concrete, policy solutions. As another blogger on FrumForum has observed:
We should bring policies to the voters. Many obsess over repeal, but instead of turning the clock back to last year, conservatives should focus on offering real solutions to health care….
Conservatives are angry that Obama apparently neglected [the power of free markets] in his recent reform package, and we have every right to be. But anger over statism won’t end statism—only policy proposals can do that. To provide and implement them we must abandon vitriol and embrace the intellectual legwork that true conservatism demands. Instead of verbal attacks on socialism, we should try actually offering solutions based on capitalism.
Rather then crying “socialism” and setting ourselves up for future failure by setting unrealistic near-term objectives, we’d do well to maintain a thoughtful tone and attack HCR with specific policy counterproposals designed to “reform” it. In other words, rather than being shrill and reactive, let’s put the Democrats on the defensive; and let’s make them play defense on the worst possible ground.
Here are just a few ideas about how to select that battleground. First, let’s parse out the most egregious tax hikes or mandates in HCR and argue for their repeal and/or amendment. We have a better chance of repealing some of the worst aspects of the new law if we uncouple them from the bill’s positive aspects, and tackle them on their individual merits. Separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, is always a good strategy.
By way of example, I’d imagine a great deal of support for the repeal of the sweetheart “backroom deals” made to secure the passage of HCR- the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback being merely two of the best known and most egregious examples.
Targeting the enforcement provisions for the individual mandate is a second inviting line of attack. For example, Republicans in Congress could introduce legislation repealing funding for the IRS needed for enforcement. Alternatively, we could also introduce legislation that would permit states to, if they so chose, opt-out of the individual mandate provisions in HCR.
At the same time, introducing legislation that would expand the exchange mandate to congressional leadership and staff, the President, and the Vice President has much to commend it. Such a move would put the Democrats in the awkward position of explaining to the nation why the same rules they just served up to the rest of the country ought not apply to them.
These are just examples.
Every child knows there are no “do-overs” in freeze tag or other games. That’s also true in politics. Win or lose in November, we can’t turn back the clock on HCR; we’d do well to adjust to this reality and position ourselves for future success rather then re-hashing battles already fought, and lost. While President Obama is in office, we have as much chance of commanding the flow of the tide as we do repealing HCR. Better then to focus on winnable battles over the repeal and/or modification of some of its provisions- battles that will put the Democrats in the uncomfortable position of defending the bill’s least popular elements.
Michael, your idea that we make Democrats look bad by proposing The President and Congress join an HCR exchange would backfire. Federal employees are in an exchange. HCR extends the exchange concept to ordinary citizens. So if you’re saying let’s demand Congress choose their insurance from an exchange offering various plans from various carriers at group rates the answer is – Congress already does. Democrats could simply answer if Republicans in Congress don’t like exchanges, quit the one they are in – go buy from the private free market as individuals. I doubt GOP members would venture into the “free market” as individual insurance buyers. We are fighting something good. That is why we are spinning wheels as the Party time left behind.
Your idea that we block funding so the IRS can’t take care of business comes across about as subtle as standing in the school house door blocking Civil Rights.
We all want the GOP to return to being the “party of ideas” but how to you do that when we have this odd new philosophy that says the Federal government has no role in making the United States better? We have to lose that whole anti-government schtick.
None of our health reform ideas holds water. Unfettered selling across state lines would be a disaster. Imagine paying $100K in premiums then being turned down for a stress test by an insurance company headquartered in the Virgin Islands with the Delaware Commissioner out of the loop. Bad idea.
Health Savings Accounts have been around since 1995 greatly expanded in 2004, but only 2% have signed on because the average family can’t save for anything – much less a special health savings account. Is that what the GOP wants to tell American workers? Just set aside an extra 10 grand for medical after you get done paying for food shelter and gas?
Tort Reform is something States are doing. Any State can do Tort Reform. California has the toughest Tort Reform but rates skyrocket anyway. We overdo that as a solution. Why? Just to be against Democrats. Nothing to do with the national interest.
Our “ideas” do not hold water. They are slogans not workable policy ideas. That is our forte at the moment. Slogans and insults. Hell no we can’t is our counterpoint to yes we can. WTF?
The GOP has to come to grips with the fact that not everything in life is subject to free market forces. Health care is not just another free market commodity. That’s why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, car dealers do not. Health care is a life and death proposition properly belonging in the public domain. As long as we reject basic facts of life we are heading nowhere.
You are advocating a strategy that we offer alternative ideas opposing Democratic ideas. But what if Democratic ideas are good ideas? At what point does the national interest trump Party politics. That is the crux of what is wrong with us. We would not agree to anything good as long as it come from President Obama.
Sometimes there is only one “best” idea. The Party that advances that best idea first gets the credit. We need to concentrate on being first rather than being opposite. The opposite of a good idea most likely is a bad idea. If Democrats say lets build a highway from Maine to Florida, do we say let’s build it underground just to be “alternative”. That is sort of where we are at.
As long as we remain the anti-Government Party. A party that does not believe there are national solutions for national problems, we be spectators booing from the stands, as the world races forward.
Some Republican candidate somewhere has to break the ice by simply saying:
“Sometimes there are problems where the government is the solution.”
Bill,
Government has a role and it should work with people and the private sector not stand on our necks while they remove our wallets.
Obama care is seriously flawed package of great talking points devoid of fiscal realities.
Double accounting and absolutely nothing to reduce or control costs is not reform it is trickery at its best.
Take a trip to the Commonwealth of Mass and see how theory and reality work.
I support universal care with choice, competition and responsibility not Washington one size fits all.
Mike Protack
Government does work with people and the private sector.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” – Ronald Reagan
God I miss Ronald Reagan!
The continuation of the entitlement philosophy in this country will absolutely bankrupt us. The national debt clock clicks louder and louder every second, eventually we will cease to operate. No one needs to have a Masters Degree in Economics figure that out. Even a small business owner like me (a woman who HAS to balance her books every month) understands that.
@Bill “Government is not the solution, it’s the problem” –Ronald Reagan
@Mike Protack – The HCR Act not only stands on our necks, it will strangle us. I see it as national suicide and Obama is leading the pack. Shame on him. Shame on all of them!
@think123 – Why should be be subtle? Absolutely block the funding. The President just signed a bill into law FORCING private citizens to buy a product! WHA? This is insanity!
What a slap in the face to MY Constitutional rights. America firmly said “NO” to this HCR package and the arrogance of the leadership in DC forced their will and gave us a patronizing “YES WE CAN” with a wink and a laugh.
The problem with “socialist” ideas aka entitlements like HCR or “spreading the wealth” (as Obama supports) is basic:
Eventually the government runs out of other people’s money. – Props to Margaret Thatcher
Mike Protack wrote: “I support universal care with choice, competition and responsibility not Washington one size fits all.”
Agreed, I think access to adequate healthcare is a universal human right in our modern world- HCR and the proposals pushed by the D’s are not the way I’d go about effectuating it though. At the risk of digressing, my “fix” for healthcare would be the empowerment of consumers and providers at the expense of middle-men (something I see as the key to reversing the depersonalization of healthcare) coupled with tort and regulatory reform. Alas, Speaker Pelosi and the President failed to solicit my opinion 🙂
Also, with respect to “repeal” there are aspects of HCR that are good & positive (the wheat) intermixed with the bad aspects (the chaff). By way of example- coverage for pre-existing conditions- is anyone really going to argue against that? Do we really think that, say, a young man who has had cancer during childhood really ought to be uninsurable for life?
I also tend to think the provisions permitting younger folks to stay on parents’ insurance longer are necessary in light of the job market for college graduates today.
More to the point, why, by staking out a maximalist “repeal it all” position, would we even make these items issues in a race? Again, separate the wheat from the chaff, parse out the negative aspects from the popular or good aspects and run against them. That is a tactically sound strategy for electoral success.
Or is the plan to tell the parent of that kid with the preexisting condition, or the recent college graduate about to age-off their parents’ insurance, that its just too bad for them because we are fighting socialist tyranny? We are trying to win these elections…. right?
think123 wrote: “Your idea that we block funding so the IRS can’t take care of business comes across about as subtle as standing in the school house door blocking Civil Rights.”
This analogy is rather poor- the IRS funding is for enforcement of the insurance mandate provision, it is money the gov’t would use to prosecute individuals. In the civil rights era, we didn’t call out the National Guard to force unwilling African American students into desegregated schools at bayonet point.
Christa, the Reagan slogans are just slogans. Like a stitch in time says nine. Make love not war. You make it sound like slogans contain answers to our problems. Voted for Reagan twice, think he was a great leader, his slogans are cute but meaningless.
This no government philosophy is nuts. What solution don’t we want? The FBI or the FDA? The FCC or National Hurricane Center? I want the Government checking the water my familly drinks. Get real.
Behind the lovable Reagan slogans was a tripling of the deficit, the first national debt over $1 trillion, the collapse of the S & L banks requiring the very first $150 billion tax payer bank bail out. Not as bad as Bush fiscally, but almost. For sure, he meant well.
America said NO to HCR? I was one of about 70 million who voted for reform in 2008. I understand it’s a slap in the face to lose a big election. If gallop polls ruled we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. Election day is when we say yes and no. It’s Civics 101. You’re talking as if polls are more important than elections.
Tax treatment for not having insurance will be similar to tax treatment for not buying a house. You pay less income tax if you have mortgage deductions. You will pay less income tax if you have health insurance. The only way to implement no preexisting denial is for everybody to be in. Otherwise, you wait until you get sick to buy. The GOP is against preexisting denial and against mandated coverage. Can’t have one without the other. Even though the GOP is the truth and the light we need to be good losers after we get kicked out of Congress and the White House for ruining things.
Socialism? For the 619th time, it was we Republicans who did the socialism. TARP. Buying into the banks, AIG, GM. Obama did not do that – GOP Bush-Cheney did the socialism. Earth to conservatives. How can the GOP ever get back to where it belongs if it can’t even face the facts?
Michael, you are way exaggerating things. The new IRS folks will not be employed to “prosecute” individuals. They will be checking tax returns. I think you will be surprised to see how will things work out. A lot of conservatives did not think desegregation would work out either. The conservative argument was – what business is it of the government to tell me who I can serve in my restaurant. This is dictatorship. Government too big for it’s britches. Progress had to just roll over them then, as now.
My prediction this will work out good. On the other hand maybe conservatives will get lucky. Maybe it will be a disaster for America. You can always hope Michael.
think123 wrote: “On the other hand maybe conservatives will get lucky. Maybe it will be a disaster for America. You can always hope Michael.”
Give me a break, as if anything I have written or said implies that I want negative outcomes for America.. please. Opposition does not imply a Rush Limbaughesq “we want him to fail” mentality- any honest person appreciates that.
I publically “own” every single line I write on here by putting my name next to it, you… you are anonymous. I have read enough of your comments to wonder if you ever really were a Republican, but for now I will still give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that claim as true…. Regardless, I have better things to do then bandy crooked words with a forked tongued anonymous commenter till the lightning falls.
ps- the bonus LOTR paraphrase is a gift for the dorks among us.
Thinker123,
Indeed, 70 million did vote for reform in 2008, there can be no arguing that.
However, how many of these people voted based on the hollow slogan of “hope and change”, i.e. the sloganeering that you so impugn with Reagan? How many of them voted not only for this hollow sloganeering, but voted based on the media’s willful disregard of Obama’s shady past and his campaign’s muting of his leftist ideology?
From the fraudulent information they were given, how many of this 70 million erroneously believed Obama was a centrist, reach-across-the-aisle, scholarly law professor, with an extensive work and legislative history, as well as experience sufficient enough — worthy enough — to run the executive branch without relying almost entirely on the crutch of a teleprompter to keep his glib tongue in check? Suffice to say, if the People actually knew then what they know now, Obama would probably have lost 15 to 20% of his ill-gotten record haul. He probably shouldn’t have even made it past Hillary Clinton in the primary.
So before one goes any further with a self-righteous, ‘I voted for change’ meme. Do realize that you were taken for a sucker. A “useful idiot”, as Obama’s mentors’ ilk would say.
From here, you do realize that after a year of contentious debate, the majority of the People — many realizing their mistake in voting for Obama or not voting at all — didn’t want Obamacare to go through as proposed. The polls, as well as a Senatorial election in deep blue Massachusetts, document this clear fact. The polls also document the clear fact that the majority didn’t like the manner in which the Congressional Democrats and the White House arm-twisted, wheedled and out-right bribbed House Reps and Senators into voting for it in the first place. For crying out loud, Democrats were so pathetically desperate, they even threatened to make a mockery of the democratic process by “deeming” the Senate Bill in the House! Are you proud of voting for that?!
Maybe so, for you stated, “we need to be good losers after we get kicked out of Congress and the White House for ruining things.” Well, for one, I wasn’t in Congress, nor in the White House during the Bush years and neither were 99.9999% of the People who are upset with the un-American and un-Constitutional shenanigans of the spendthrift troupe currently in power.
So no, we won’t sit idly by and let these people ruin our country, because the debate doesn’t end on Election Day and that, my friend, is democracy…Civics 101 if you will.
Michael, did not mean to impugn your motives. Your post did counsel a more civil approach. And I know you are an enlightened person. But c’mon. Conservatives are not rooting for an Obama failure? Next thing you know you’ll be saying conservatives are not smearing him as socialist/marxist. You say it. All the conservatives here say it. Without a shred of evidence. Just a smear. Now, you are offended at the mere suggestion conservatives want him to fail?
Block IRS funding. Demand Congress and the President be in the new exchange. Pass laws so States can opt out. That sounds more like a plan to sabotage this new law than “policy” aimed at helping the American people with insurance problems.
The way to prove you don’t want the President of the United States to fail is to disagree, offer alternative policy, but don’t try to kill the President’s credibility by calling him a socialist communist marxist. That is hate talk. With nothing at all to back it up.
Que, I too used to think I was the only smart one and the rest of the voters were dumb but I got over it many years ago. Hope and change was a decent slogan. But I was listening when Candidate Obama said he favored single payer national insurance for all Americans. And when he said it would be tops on his agenda.
Nothing wrong with slogans, but they are not policy. “Government is the problem” is not policy. Let the free market solve health insurance is not policy.
I did not vote to have Obama sign hope and change into law. I voted to have him sign insurance reform into law. We now have a good start.
You are wrong about Obama being leftist. Not even sure I know what you mean. Leftist in Afghanistan or leftist with the Credit Card Act. Are you sure you know what leftist means. It is not synonym for young black Democratic. Policy makes a leftist. Leftist are communist leaning. Obama is none of that. He conservative compared to Bush. I doubt Obama would have done TARP. I don’t think he believes in too big to fail. As a matter of fact he will sign Wall Street financial reforms whereby the next time an AIG says they are too big to fail, The government will have the authority to kiss their ass goodbye without a bailout.
So me and my fellow voters are useful idiots eh? And you must be the smart one among us? Useful idiot from Marxist/Leninist Lenin describing how he installed communism in Russia and that is what you imagine is happening now? Far out.
Nobody thought Obama was anything but Obama. A young man with ideas. A calm in a storm. I did not think centrist or left or right. He just seemed like a decent well balanced man. McGovern was left. Obama is not. How could we possibly be “fooled” when conservative radio told us 24/7 he liked terrorists and did not see America the way we see America. In spite of the lies, the smears, the communist baiting, we elected him.
Remember when Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by 500.00 votes? Had to get the Supreme Court to declare him the victor? I voted for Bush. He slid in to office then set out like he had a mandate. Pushed though the largest tax cuts, had to short circuit the Dems to do it. Pretty gutsy for a President who lost the popular vote. Stop treating Obama like he is from Mars. He is us. He is America.
Christa mentioned Margaret Thatcher so I though this snippet from her beloved Conservative Party of 2010 would be of interest
“As the party of the National Health Service, we will never change the idea at the heart of our NHS – that healthcare in this country is free at the point of use and available to everyone based on need, not ability to pay.”
Please don’t bother to do the old nothing is free. The assumption here is the British people know that. Taxes pay for NHS.
@ Bill Holt – perhaps health care is “free” in the UK at point of service but taxes (which is money that comes from somewhere, and I hear – not from trees) still foots the bill.
Maybe Reagan’s slogans are meaningless to you @think123 but not to me. The government is failing us on a large scale. If it were up to me, the Feds would focus on national security, trade international affairs and leave the rest of the decisions to the states and the people. I am not suggesting anarchy (and took offense to your “get real” comment) but the government is under the false impression it can “fix” all the wrongs and that simply isn’t so.
I was a registered Independent for over 10 years and switched my affiliation back to Republican the day after the last presidential election. Why?
Was it because I think the Republicans are doing a stellar job? NO.
It is because I blamed myself for being a complacent citizen and leaving my primary vote up to others. I choose the Republican party because they seem to place more value on my life and liberty than the Democratic party. Seems the Democratic party thinks I need a nanny. No thanks, don’t need one!
I don’t care WHO “did the socialism” but I want it to stop. The continued and irresponsible expansion and reckless spending will crush us. I don’t want or need government to tell me what to buy, where to eat or what kind of light bulb I can put in my home. Enough is enough already!
Why is it the American people are encouraged to pay down their debt and balance their household budgets and yet the Congress (this one and the last few) spend trillions of OUR money without producing positive results? They act like frat boys on a party spree with their daddy’s credit card (and this time, daddy is us and we’re picking up the tab).
No, Conservatives are NOT rooting for the President to fail!
My God, why would you say such a thing or make a comment suggesting we want a disaster? *shaking my head in disgust*
We do NOT want our country to go bankrupt.
We DO NOT want another September 11th.
We also DO NOT want our liberty eroded another inch!!!
By the way, on the campaign trail Obama said he wanted to “spread the wealth around”. Karl Marx wanted to do that too. I wonder: How is ‘Spread the Wealth’ different from Marxism, Communism, & Socialism?
When you “spread the wealth” you destroy the incentives to create jobs and wealth. If disagreeing with the “spread the wealth” governmental mandate/philosophy makes me a hater. So be it. I hate that idea, a lot! (and I don’t care who started it)
And if you think the IRS isn’t going to penalize people for failure to pay any tax, you need to “get real” yourself!
Government is broke. Please send my taxes back.
Stafford, keep writing, Keep speaking out.
Gotta run now…I need to balance my business books (and I use real accounting, not fuzzy “cook the books” Congress math)
Christa, where did you learn that spreading the wealth is a bad thing for America? That it means communism and Karl Marx. Whoever is telling you that is misleading at best.
America is big on spreading wealth. Always has been. That’s why Bill Gate and the top 20% pay almost all the taxes. Those who are doing the best money wise pay for most all the public services. Ask any economist Freidman Greenspan Volcker – it pays to keep a sharp eye on the gap between rich and poor. We manage the gap very adroitly in the United States. History says clearly too many poor people always means big trouble. So we take good care of folks here in the USA. It’s not all dog eat dog all the time. We do dog helps dog a lot.
So don’t panic. Spreading the wealth means trying to make life better for all Americans. It does not signal a communist takeover. As a matter of fact, the sharing sentiment is more Christian than Communist.
Read Thomas Paine and others from revolutionary times. Our ancestors were very interested in ways to prevent what happened in the Old World, just a few having all the wealth, from happening in the New. This was way before Karl Marx was a household name. Considering the gap between rich and poor goes back to before Jesus of Nazareth. The whole story of Jesus is about the rich and the poor. It is an age old question.
Here is snippet of what philosopher Thomas Paine had to say “Agrarian Justice” 1797.
“The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good.
I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene.”
It is an interesting read. I am certain Mr. Paine was not a communist. Our President is not either. The people who voted for him and support him are not communists. Most of the older ones like me are ardent anti-communists. It’s just recently “liberal” was not edgy enough. Now it’s socialist marxist communists. A real mutation of language. Look these words up some time. They have meaning.
Tomorrow most of us will start the day with our bathroom flowing into government sewers, our coffee perking with government purified water, our food and drugs certified safe by government agency, in homes secured by government fire and police squads, we will check our government delivered mail, send our children to the government school, set off on government built highways, government run airports, government run trains listening to radio over government owned airwaves, our destination ever more certain thanks to a constellation of government launched GPS satellites, our computers fetching information over government managed wireless broadband, if by change some horrible accident occurs a government rescue squad is there to help us. Then we will arrive at our “private sector” job. Some of us imagine all this is possible without the government. That the government is the problem.
Christa, you express the thoughts of many. And do it well with passion.
From what media do you get your political info? I would love to know what you listen to what you watch. My guess is all Fox all Limbaugh Beck Hannity.
I ask simply because I have many friends who listen to Rush on radio then do Fox News. They tell me everything else from the New York Times to ABC are “mainstream” as in not good.
They express the same opinion as you do in the same manner with very much the same key words. So . .
Do you watch listen to anything other than Fox Hannity Limbaugh Beck? Just curious, no offense intended. I am mainly interested in how media influences political attitudes.
Is anyone else tired of the condescending elitist tone here? Maybe it’s just me.
I pull my media info from the same places all conservative brain washed people do…the gutter, psychics and fortune cookies, of course! And yes, I have an alter in my home to worship Rush and Beck. I make blood sacrifices to them every Sunday, all conservatives do. Pulease…*obvious sarcasm*
I am tired of being treated like some kind of moron for having my own world view.
Where do you get your news Don? MSNBC, the Huffington Post, New York Times, Daily Kos???
Like you, I’m just doing “research” about how the media influences attitudes. Just like YOU thought you had me pegged for a Rush groupie (I am NOT), let me label you too in whatever way I see fit. That’s fair, isn’t it? Let’s all have a “jump to conclusions” party. YAY! *sarcasm*
I have a degree in History (paid for entirely by my own labors) but more importantly, I have a Masters in common sense.
I prefer news from the News Journal, Real Clear Politics, Fox Business News (Cavuto), CNN, FNC (John Stossel is a new favorite and so is Mike Huckabee) & the Wall Street Journal.
Try this WSJ article on on for size, just posted today
“Would the Founders Love ObamaCare? The resistance to ObamaCare is about a lot more than the 10th Amendment.”
http://online.wsj.com/article
/SB10001424052702304252704575156031760261858.html
And yes, most of the mainstream media is fluff and garbage. If the biased coverage of the last presidential election wasn’t enough proof for you there is nothing I say to make you think otherwise.
*sigh* For the last time, I am not suggesting the cessation of the government in all shapes and forms but government cannot continue to grow unchecked and without producing positive results.
We are reaching the tipping point with taxation. How many more weeks or months of the year do you want the American people to work for the government? Is another month fair? How about 2 months. How about we just pass a law that requires everyone to hand over 6 months of their wages a year to the government? My point: WHERE DOES THIS SPREADING OF THE WEALTH END????
I balance my budget and pay my fair share. I always have. I spend an enormous amount of my time volunteering with non-profits and make regular financial contributions to charity (just like many of my conservative and liberal friends do). I am thankful for what I have and am happy to voluntarily (that’s the key word folks) share my money with charities of MY choice.
If you want to spread more of your wealth, knock yourselves out. Dig deeper and hand over your cash to the government with your faith and trust (mixed in with some ‘hope and change’ for good measure).
I prefer putting my faith in God and my dog. The government…not so much….
Did not mean to touch a nerve. Just curious. I am not saying you worship right wing media, I am just saying you get most of your views from there. That is condescending? Not really. Just a fact of life. Most people that call the President a socialist are pretty much tied into Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. The Wall Street Journal Cavuto Fox et al. Nothing wrong with that. It is what it is. Don’t be too dismissive of brainwashing. I does happen. Just like the government can control us, the private sector has the same potential.
What part of the government bothers you most? Could you run your business without the government?
I hear many conservatives bad mouth entitlements as socialist. The big entitlements are Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. Do you have suggestions? Do you think America would be better off without these programs?
And why in the world would you be against insurance exchanges where small business can by a group rates just like Congress does?
Oh please Don, go suck an egg with your condescension. There is no brainwashing going on here. The United States and the citizens thereof have a tradition of limited-government and self-reliance that is closer to Rupert’s various broadcasts, than the drivel pounded into our brains by the MSM. The vast majority of Americans can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and don’t need a morally equivocating, social justice pontificating, pinheaded journalist, with a degree from Ivy U, to tell them how to think. Furthermore, this is not a discussion of zero government vs. government, it’s a discussion of the degree to which the later is a part of our lives and thus far, this Administration wants to increase government intrusion beyond what is acceptable to MOST Americans. The Bush Administration took an inch; this one thinks they can take a whole mile.
T123, a man who chants, “SEIU, SEIU, SEIU”, was a community organizer trainer, who worked with, if not for ACORN, wins the support of the socialist New Party, was a political ally with a POS like Bill Ayers and whose mentors also include the likes of Frank Marshall Davis and Rev. Jeremiah Wright is leftwing to the point of being a leftist. Period. If it weren’t so bad to be a leftist, then why does everyone run from that term? Own it! Be proud of it! Like Van Jones is.
After all, I’m proud to be a right-wing Conservative, who believes in the strict interpretation of the Constitution, a limited-government (at all levels) and the traditional values as passed down to me from my forefathers via my parents and grandparents.
Its a shame that Obama can’t do the same from the opposite side of the spectrum. Think of all bitterness and angst building inside, that he has to keep his true beliefs in check.
Que, what do you mean Bush took an inch Obama takes a mile? That’s just a feeling you got from the indoctrination by Murdoch’s News Corporation. Can you back it up? No.
The same thing that happened to you, happens to people who get hooked on professional wrestling. Phony conflict with phony villains translates into huge advertising dollars. You are a victim, you just don’t know it.
News Corporation applies the professional wrestling model to politics as a way to sell advertising. The phony villain is Leftist Obama, the good guys are the News Corporation personalities. You fall for it hook line and sinker.
I can always tell who is thought controlled by News Corporation.
First sign is they know who Van Jones is, but do not know who the CEO of AIG was when we bailed them out.
They know more about Acorn than they do about Goldman Sachs and Citicorp.
News Corporation addicts are by far the most virulent haters of the President of the United States.
News Corporation addicts feel they are in danger of having the Constitution taken away from them.
News Corporation addicts watch only News Corporation advertisers because they have been brainwashed into thinking the competitive news companies are “mainstream left wing pinheads pontificating”.
A recent poll shows believers in News Corporation personalities like Glen Beck are also more likely to believe professional wresting is real.
A good first step intervention program for you would be to make News Corporation just one fifth of your mental diet for a few months. Once you see life outside News Corporation you will experience a new appreciation for America.