So I assume you are opposed to the health care insurance regulations we have had on the books all this time before this year? Insurers of any sort have never just been able to charge whatever they want - not home, not auto, not commercial liability, or any other insurance.
Agree to disagree. I say where taxes come from as a huge affect on the economy. SO make OBama veto these things. Make him veto a repeal on the health care when a better plan is presented to Americans and 60% desire a repeal. Make Obama veto giving Americans back whats left of the stimulus (whatever that is)
This logic is unsound. The majority of Americans are overwhelmingly ignorant. A majority decision from a group of idiots is still likely to be a stupid decision.
You are absolutely correct. I consider insurance a deal between the insurer and the costumer and no need for government to get involved unless a contract is violated.
Which is great and all for the political excitement. And maybe it will affect future elections. But if your goal is actually to help the economy or the budget, none of your solutions get us there - it's all just political positioning.
It's true, it probably isn't. In general, if people really knew what was in their best interests, they wouldn't smoke, drink, etc.
I also find the "60% want to repeal, therefore we should" line of argument interesting. Weren't you also the one making fun of California's budget deficit (I may be getting you confused with someone else)? California is the real-life result of just taking popular opinion on every issue and making it law through propositions. In the long run, what you get is lots of spending, lots of tax cuts, and a big mess of fiscal irresponsibility. Not surprisingly, that mirrors how most Americans manage their own finances - buy a bunch of stuff, borrow a bunch of money, and then never figure out how to pay it back.
No, all the "politcal postioning" affects future elections and thus we get a more conservative government and then things happen.
Republican aren't for "buying a bunch of stuff" (well at least this used to be the case). They used to support getting rid of entitlements and hopefully Americans can get them back on this path.
My god what I would give for a republican with a reasonable articulation of a valid complaint. There are a lot of legitimate things to complain about Obama for: 1) Wiretapping 2) Guantanomo 3) Afghanistan surge 4) Weak wall st reform 5) A continued inability to make rational cuts in spending (MIC) 6) etc. But I never see this from the GOP/conservative crowd. All I get from their own talking heads is blatant fear mongering and misinformation. I guess, to a certain extent the above policies are continuations of GOP policies, and maybe that is the difference - but it's hard to not be mystified that a good half of the population in this country is more upset by mosque construction than wall st reform, or considers useless (or at least, unproductive) wars a viable alternative to deficit reduction. It's hard to not be terrified when 20% of americans think the president is muslim despite swaths of evidence to the contrary. It's hard to not give a **** when you realize that the mindset of partisan politics on both sides just utterly dilutes the conversation to the most simplistic and irrelevant topics, often with little at stake but rhetorical talking points. America scares me - there is no sensible debate anymore. The far right has decided to radicalize behind anything "non-left" regardless of actual policy impact, and the left cannot get it's act together to unify in any sort of counter position. One wonders just how much compromise is possible should the GOP take the house - as others have astutely pointed out here, the repubs have a certain "backed into a corner" situation ahead of them. They have so radicalized their supporters, that simple democratic compromise may be too sensational to appease the masses. There is so much eye-popping contradiction here... It's insane. The same folks who proudly gloat over their country here are the same most willing to deny it's most basic principles to those they don't appreciate or understand. It's ridiculous. A president can campaign on change and then leave the vast majority of the previous presidents' unsettling policy in place without much furor. It's alarming. When protesters can get so angry over things they obviously do not understand and do not care to understand. Who's to blame here? Is it ourselves for being so gullible, or the media and politicians, for using that gullibility so ruthlessly? I'm genuinely perturbed at the situation. Neither party's ideology is all that different, but a good portion of the citizens think the difference is so striking that simple compromise has become heinous, and laws are judged not by the policy they enact but by who lobbied for them.
Republicans aren't the only people that get to vote. If you ask people whether they want to keep Social Security or get rid of it, they'll vote to keep it. If you ask people whether they want a tax cut, they'll take the cut. Combine the two, and you get more spending and less revenues. But as far as the original position - Republicans have never successfully cut spending even when they had full control. So while they may run on the idea of fiscal responsibility, they've never actually pursued it. Two things here - one, the original question was what was the GOP platform for America if they win in 2010. You're saying it's to fight for a bunch of stuff that can't be done to win a future election? So basically, their strategy to fix our problems is to punt them down the road. And then, even better, they are running on things that don't even have support within the caucus. Republicans often run away from the Paul Ryan plan - so what are the chances of it getting passed? Remember - the Obama health plan had huge amounts of support in 2008. It was only after actually negotiating details to make it through Congress and being attacked for 2 years that it became unpopular. What do you think will happen to the Paul Ryan plan, which is unpopular BEFORE having to come up with details or being attacked? I would argue that you still don't have an actual viable solution for any of the issues facing the country right now. You have some theories that don't have support within either party, haven't had details developed, and haven't even gone through the legislative process, and are still unpopular.
BTW, tallanvor - I would like to commend you for engaging in a legitimate discussion and debate on this board. We're used to a lot of nonsense here, and it's nice to have a poster that posts based on actual logical arguments (even though we obviously disagree) instead of just the basso-ist nonsense. We need more posters like you (and ghettocheeze, Refman, etc) on the conservative side. I think it will take a while to get out of the "yell at each other" mentality that's built up over time, but it would make this board a much more interesting place.
Humans don't give up entitlements once they have them (Greece is an example of this). The best thing to do is not give people the entitlements to begin with (Democrats are usually guilty of this but Republicans have done it to). Yes its hard to cut spending (get rid of entitlements) but it doesn't mean it can't be done and its more likely to be done with Republicans(although still not likely). Basically yes, although I wouldn't use "punt down the road" I would say "set up to fix after 2012 election and stop Obama entitlement programs til then". I disagree with the Democrats ethically, so my only other option is to compromise my ethics and shoot for some bi-partisanship (which I also find unethical). I think a lot of this comment is speculation. It has never been voted on so who knows how much support it would get. Politicians are not the sort to give an opinion unless they have to (aka vote on it). I wouldn't deny most Republican efforts are spent denouncing Democrat policies, and that is because it would do no good to introduce their bills (although I think they have quite a few). They won't pass until they have control. Obama won't read any Republican ideas. They should concentrate a good portion of their efforts on getting control back then push their policies.
I have always hated bi-partisanship. A politician gives up half of what he promised to his constituents and another politician does the same, and I, the constituent, is suppose to be happy. I would rather see both duke it out on the house floor to get me everything they promised me, and then let it go to vote.
I wish. Ever hear of John McCain, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Lindsey Graham. All gutless yellow turds.
"Agree to disagree" is a nice way to say that you can't prove your point. You're not talking about a purely philosophical difference here. You are making a quantitative claim that can be either supported or refuted with facts.
Should that surprise you? Has the average conservative shown that he has anything more to offer in the last couple of years?
