DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 12, 2006, 10:58:48 PM
-
(I'm on record as having been against his being made Majority leader, when he was 1st being considered. I wonder if the GOP has learned their lesson yet?)
Leave Boehner Behind
By Philip Klein
Published 11/10/2006
In the run-up to this year's elections, many prominent conservatives argued that a Republican defeat could have a silver lining by forcing the party to recommit itself to small government principles. John Boehner is not that silver lining.
Should Republicans elect current Majority Leader Boehner as their minority leader next week, it will be a clear signal that they have learned nothing from their electoral defeat and will remain the party of big government.
In a statement announcing his intention to run for the leadership post, Boehner cited his close involvement with the drafting of 1994's "Contract With America" as well as his work toward achieving earmark reform this year to demonstrate his fiscal conservative bona fides. But no two laws better represent the modern brand of big government Republicanism than the Medicare prescription drug law and the No Child Left Behind Act. Any congressman who voted for either legislation should not be taken seriously as a proponent of limited government, and yet Boehner voted for both of them.
Not only did Boehner vote for the largest federal expansion into education since the Carter administration, but he sponsored the legislation. Shortly after President Bush signed the bill with Boehner standing over one shoulder and Sen. Ted Kennedy standing over the other, Boehner said its passage was "one of the proudest accomplishments of my tenure in Congress."
No Child Left Behind is up for reauthorization next year and in his post-election press conference President Bush cited it as an issue he wanted to work together with Democrats on. If they are going to be negotiating education policy with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Republicans can ill afford to be led by Boehner, a man who is personally invested in the legislation and who proved willing to compromise conservative principles in order to get a "bipartisan" bill passed.
The original No Child Left Behind bill included provisions for school vouchers, but Boehner was willing to abandon those provisions in desperate pursuit of Democratic votes. Boehner also ditched a push by House conservatives to allow some states to decide how to spend federal education dollars.
After the law went into effect, liberals criticized President Bush for not providing adequate funding. In response, Boehner passionately touted how much Republicans had increased education spending.
On Febuary 5, 2003, he issued a statement in response to criticism by the American Federation of Teachers, pointing out that: "If the President's FY 2003 and FY 2004 budget requests are enacted, Title I funding will have received a larger increase during the first two years of President George W. Bush's administration than under the previous seven years combined under President Bill Clinton."
In fact, funding was increasing so fast, he argued, that by January 2004, federal money was pouring into states faster than they could spend it. "We are pumping gas into a flooded engine," he declared.
As if his staunch support for expanding the federal role in education isn't bad enough, Boehner also voted in favor of the biggest expansion of entitlements since Lyndon Johnson's presidency.
"A quarter of all senior citizens find themselves without prescription drug coverage, and this legislation commits an unprecedented $400 billion over ten years to close that gap," Boehner said after voting in favor of the legislation. Actually, the bill is now projected to cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years and also add $8 trillion to the nation's long-term entitlement deficit.
In the wake of the Republican electoral "thumping," it is imperative that the party return to its small government roots. Perhaps there would be an argument for Boehner maintaining his leadership role if there weren't another viable option. But Mike Pence, who is also running for the minority leader post, has been a dedicated defender of limited government. Despite tremendous pressure from members of his own party -- and even the president -- Pence was one of a few Republicans who voted against both No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug bill. That's the type of strong conviction that will be required to rebuild the Republican Party on small government principles and to stand up to Speaker Pelosi.
Boehner, on the other hand, will virtually guarantee more of the same.
A month before the 2004 election, Boehner gloated that: "Funding for the U.S. Department of Education has increased by more than 142 percent under GOP control of the House, from $23 billion in FY 1996 to nearly $56 billion in FY 2004."
Boehner isn't the solution to the problem. Boehner is the problem.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10615
(http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/varv111106a.jpg)
-
I would think that the skill set required for minority leader should be focused more on management skills than ideology. I don't know if Boehner has those skills or if Pense has better skills but the author in my opinion is making a case based on false premises.
-
I would think that the skill set required for minority leader should be focused more on management skills than ideology. I don't know if Boehner has those skills or if Pense has better skills but the author in my opinion is making a case based on false premises.
Perhaps, however I tend to support the author's notion that recognizing why the party lost it's base (& ideological focus), in this last election, is the 1st step to recovery. Rehiring a fella that embodies why the party lost in the 1st place does a great diservice to the notion of rehabilitation of said party
-
I haven't seen any evidence that a low turnout by conservatives affected the race. I saw evidence that the Dems were just more successful in recruiting "western democrats" to run in red leaning districts. They offered a palative alternative to centrist independents.
I'm not a big fan of ideological purges, certainly not in the GOP, nor in the democrat party for that matter. I thought what the Kossacks did to Lieberman was out of line. I'm not a big fan of William Kristol at the Weekly Standard nor Klein at the American Spectator thinking they get to call the shots or define the party without doing any heavier lifting than hitting the submit button.
-
The Republicans can't win with their ancient spiel about how government can't help people and should therefore give back all their taxes. This is why Rove decided to recruit the evangelicals and get them all het up about abortion and anti-gay legislation.
But the traditional Republican corruption, the very un-traditional (and unsuccessful) nation-building conquest and reorganization of Iraq spooked the evangelicals, and it looks like they stayed home during the last election.
Nearly everyone wants to receive Social security when they retire, especially because they are paying for it. But the official Republican line is that SS is doomed. If there were any majority possible for major reform of SS, it has peaked and is now deader than Hillary's heathcare plan.
In the last two years of the Juniorbush administration, we have seen the GOP peak and go into freefall. Thank God.
-
The Republicans can't win with their ancient spiel about how government can't help people and should therefore give back all their taxes. This is why Rove decided to recruit the evangelicals and get them all het up about abortion and anti-gay legislation.
But the traditional Republican corruption, the very un-traditional (and unsuccessful) nation-building conquest and reorganization of Iraq spooked the evangelicals, and it looks like they stayed home during the last election.
Nearly everyone wants to receive Social security when they retire, especially because they are paying for it. But the official Republican line is that SS is doomed. If there were any majority possible for major reform of SS, it has peaked and is now deader than Hillary's heathcare plan.
In the last two years of the Juniorbush administration, we have seen the GOP peak and go into freefall. Thank God.
Is this one of those "it's obvious" posts Ami chides you about?
Rove recruited eveangelicals?
Social Security does not need major reform?
Please.
-
I haven't seen any evidence that a low turnout by conservatives affected the race. I saw evidence that the Dems were just more successful in recruiting "western democrats" to run in red leaning districts. They offered a palative alternative to centrist independents.
I beg to differ. I saw a multitude of razor close elections. Recognizing the 24/7 mainscream attack affecting the "swing voters", and the complete lack of committment to core conservative principles affecting those folks, leads credence to how both effected the outcomes of so many races. There were locations that had a near 4:1 Republican to Democrat voter registration, that went to the Democrat representantive running against the GOP incumbent. If that's not conservatives making their voices heard of the discontent they had of Bush & the GOP, I don't know what is
I'm not a big fan of ideological purges, certainly not in the GOP, nor in the democrat party for that matter. I thought what the Kossacks did to Lieberman was out of line. I'm not a big fan of William Kristol at the Weekly Standard nor Klein at the American Spectator thinking they get to call the shots or define the party without doing any heavier lifting than hitting the submit button.
I'm not asking for a purge, simply recognition of what went wrong, and not to facilitate the same mistakes. Boehner as minority leaders does precisely that, IMHO
-
There were locations that had a near 4:1 Republican to Democrat voter registration, that went to the Democrat representantive running against the GOP incumbent. If that's not conservatives making their voices heard of the discontent they had of Bush & the GOP, I don't know what is
If that is the case either the conservatives voted for another party or didn't bother to vote at all. And if that is true i'm not sure they have the credentials to make demands upon a party they turned their backs upon.
-
There were locations that had a near 4:1 Republican to Democrat voter registration, that went to the Democrat representantive running against the GOP incumbent.
If that is the case either the conservatives voted for another party or didn't bother to vote at all. And if that is true i'm not sure they have the credentials to make demands upon a party they turned their backs upon.
Again, I beg to differ. When you're given choices that you can't stomach, not choosing does not equate to "turning your back on the party", if said back is going in a direction it ought not. That is the 1 thing that each individual has is the power of their vote. The one thing Conservatives accurately criticise the left for, is their "herd mentality" I mean, how dare blacks even look at a Republican. Point being, it's would be hypocrtical to advocate that Conservatives simply vote Republican.....just because they're not Dems. That's the Dems' campaign platform, simply flipped.
Bt, I'm not looking for some "hard right" shift in the GOP, ala MoveOn's approach to steering the Dems. And I also concede that Bush didn't campaign so much as a Reagan conservative, as much as he did a "compassionate conservative". Somewhere along the line, outside of the tax rate cuts, Bush pretty much ignored the conservative agenda, of fiscal discipline & reform, of immigration, SS, medicare, & the tax code. And worse, was the GOP controlled House & Senate began spending like the Tip O'Neil Democrats of the 80's. The Conservatives had not just every right, but dare I say duty, via their vote, to send the GOP a clear message. Lining up Boenher to become the minority leader would lend me to believe that the Republicans still don't fully appreciate why they are no longer in charge in Washington
-
My point being that if you want to steer a party in the direction you wish, they way you do that is by supporting like minded candidates or getting directly involved in platform formulations.
I have said the same thing when the religious right makes their bi-annual threats to vote with their feet if party leadership does not kow tow to their whims.
Now both the religious right and other conservatives unhappy with the present makeup of the party are free to exercise their individual preferences and vote with their feet if they so choose. They are free to hijack the libertarian party and make it something more than a group of folks sitting at starbucks discussing political philosophy. Membership in a party is much more than who you vote for, it's volunteering for campaigns, doing outreach work, organizing, crunching data and working the phones. It's raising funds and defining issues. It's not a job that you show up for one day in November. And any significant change in the party has been driven from the inside.
i just don't see where this consumer attitude gives anyone the right to make demands.
-
My point being that if you want to steer a party in the direction you wish, they way you do that is by supporting like minded candidates or getting directly involved in platform formulations. i just don't see where this consumer attitude gives anyone the right to make demands.
Representative Governement. If the folks I have been supporting stop representing me, then I exercise my right to not provide them their power platform, and look towards those that will represent me
-
Rove did indeed recruit evangelicals.
Social Security may need changes, but the ones that Juniorbush proposed would abolish the system and almost certainly result in older people being cut off as their numbers dwindle. The first reform SS needs is the government spending all that money as it would tax revenue and issuing IOU's. That money could be invested, after all.
If people favored Juniorbush's suggestions on SS, they sure were quiet about it. Every representative was bombarded with letters from angry citizens against his cockamamie plan, which sucked deeply and was beyond redemption.
The fact is that the ratwing lost bigtime. They are in crashandburn mode. Iraq was a major reason, but observe that Clay Shaw, a moderate Republican in Broward Co. FL also went down in smoke and flames after 16 years for supporting Juniorbush.
I celebrate their demise. I frankly hope they will expire, as the Whigs did.
A two party system would be ever so much better if neither of the two parties were Republicans.
-
Representative Government. If the folks I have been supporting stop representing me, then I exercise my right to not provide them their power platform, and look toward those that will represent me
I understand what Representative Government is. I also understand you have the right to choose the candidate who best represents you views.
I also assume that all things being equal you would prefer that the candidate who best represents you views would be a republican as historically they have come the closest to that goal.
My quibble is that in a representative government, once elected we should let these Representatives do their job as their conscience dictates. And part of that job is to organize the caucus for maximum effectiveness. This is an internal deliberation. And I'm not so sure voters have the right nor the duty to micromanage those affairs. That is not to say constituent input isn't welcome, it is to say i don't see where they get to demand who is chosen.
-
My quibble is that in a representative government, once elected we should let these Representatives do their job as their conscience dictates. And part of that job is to organize the caucus for maximum effectiveness. This is an internal deliberation. And I'm not so sure voters have the right nor the duty to micromanage those affairs. That is not to say constituent input isn't welcome, it is to say i don't see where they get to demand who is chosen.
Bt, I agree about letting them do their job. That said, once they begin acting in a way that appears to no longer represent me or my principles, as their "conscience" dictates them to do otherwise, I'm entitled, dare say obligated, not to support them any further with my vote. I believe I can also have my voice heard via telephone calls, e-mails, and letters This didn't all of a sudden happen. Boehner didn't all of a sudden begin acting like a Democrat-like Republican. My quibble is with the GOP, not you. If the GOP places Boehner as the minority leader, I'm going to again assume that they still haven't learned their election lesson yet. And that's a shame for the country
-
I'm entitled, dare say obligated, not to support them any further with my vote. I believe I can also have my voice heard via telephone calls, e-mails, and letters
And nowhere am i saying you should not exercise your right to choose a party and candidate that best meets your needs. And if choosing Boehner is a deal killer for you , so be it. My position is that it is the caucus's decision, made up of members across the spectrum, and not a pundit from the American Spectator nor frankly the voters. The voters spoke when they entrusted their representative with their vote. If the reps fail to live up to your expectations, then vote them out two years from now. But in the meantime let them do their job. And electing their leader is part of it.
-
And nowhere am i saying you should not exercise your right to choose a party and candidate that best meets your needs. And if choosing Boehner is a deal killer for you , so be it.
I never said it would be. I did say that it would be safe to assume that the GOP hasn't learned from the election thumpin yet, if they did place Boehner in said position
-
I did say that it would be safe to assume that the GOP hasn't learned from the election thumpin yet, if they did place Boehner in said position
My guess is that those newly elected reps are closer to Boehner than Pense on the spectrum, so it is possible that the GOP learned its lesson too well .
-
My guess is that those newly elected reps are closer to Boehner than Pense on the spectrum, so it is possible that the GOP learned its lesson too well .
Perhaps....and they'd also be Democrats.
-
Perhaps....and they'd also be Democrats.
There is no disputing that fact. But wasn't that the lesson to be learned? Govern from the middle?
-
There may be a big group that left the left part of the Republicans and swung to the Democrats because they are near the center where the partys overlap.
There may be a big group that sits on the right side of the party and feels betrayed by the partys left choices.
Which of these is the party going to chase after?
Oh, and XO, good greif half the country preferrs Republicans , who want a massive die off or what?
-
Perhaps....and they'd also be Democrats.
There is no disputing that fact. But wasn't that the lesson to be learned? Govern from the middle?
No, not at all. The "lesson to be learned" is don't repetatively alienate those that make up the core of your own voting block. Occasional aggravation is to be expected. Constant spitting in the face, won't be tolerated
-
Perhaps i am missing something here, but seems to me the conservative core wasn't solid, they couldn't be relied upon and perhaps a move towards the center might replace those fickle votes.
I understand how they feel, but i'm not so sure their expectations were realistic.
Bush was successful because he was more to the middle than his opponents.
I'm probably more to the middle than you are.
And i certainly don't have a problem with my portion of the spectrum being represented in the leadership.
-
Perhaps i am missing something here, but seems to me the conservative core wasn't solid, they couldn't be relied upon and perhaps a move towards the center might replace those fickle votes.
And having done so got precisely the results we now see before us.
-
And having done so got precisely the results we now see before us
You mean the 5 wins to 1 loss?
I don't think that is a bad record by any means.
-
And having done so got precisely the results we now see before us
You mean the 5 wins to 1 loss?
No, the latest loss. As I said, the core voting block can only be spit in the face, only so long
-
No, the latest loss. As I said, the core voting block can only be spit in the face, only so long
Well you can't win them all.
But the fact that the "core" stuck with the party during the previous 5 elections and apparently didn't even hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils says this election was more complex than just a disatisfaction in the base.
BTW do you think the Adelman story and this one has a common thread.
-
No, the latest loss. As I said, the core voting block can only be spit in the face, only so long
Well you can't win them all. But the fact that the "core" stuck with the party during the previous 5 elections and apparently didn't even hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils says this election was more complex than just a disatisfaction in the base.
Again, I must opine, you can only tolerate being slapped around just so long. Eventually, you're going to say no mas. The fact that the GOP had been winning the prior election cyles is likely a belief that the Gingrich Republicans would show themselves. Alas, it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, and Bush consistently demonstrated he wasn't going to push for it, either
BTW do you think the Adelman story and this one has a common thread.
I haven't actually been paying attention to that thread. I'll give it a look see, and get back to you, on that one
-
Again, I must opine, you can only tolerate being slapped around just so long. Eventually, you're going to say no mas. The fact that the GOP had been winning the prior election cyles is likely a belief that the Gingrich Republicans would show themselves. Alas, it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, and Bush consistently demonstrated he wasn't going to push for it, either
Sorry it has come to this. We'll miss you when you are gone.
-
Sorry it has come to this. We'll miss you when you are gone.
Oh contraire. I look forward to the GOP returning to some core principals...........if they wish to return to power. It's what put them in power, in the 1st place
-
It's what put them in power, in the 1st place
The core values of Lincoln?
Coolidge?
Hoover?
Ike?
Nixon?
Reagan?
Bush
and
Bush
Lot of spectrum covered .
Whose core values are we talking about?
-
It's what put them in power, in the 1st place
The core values of Lincoln? Coolidge? Hoover? Ike? Nixon? Reagan? Bush and Bush Lot of spectrum covered . Whose core values are we talking about?
Conservatism, sprinkled with some Pragmatism. Fairly narrow, and easy to follow
-
Conservatism, sprinkled with some Pragmatism. Fairly narrow, and easy to follow
======================================================
Juniorbush is anything BUT conservative.
He's not very pragmatic. either.
========================================================
The easiest thing to follow in GOP politics is the trail of slime that flows from the lobbyists to the Republican candidates. The Democrats are also guilty of this, but to a much lesser degree.
That zillion dollar bridge in Alaska is only the most obvious example. In the end, the Republican Congress voted to give Alaska the money for the useless bridge, but without stipulating that it had to be pissed away on precisely that project.
The basic message of the GOP is that government is not much good fpor anything, and therefore should not be called on to do anything, except to defend the nation and maybe deliver the mail..
Strange how the GOP feels that the military should not be privitized as well...
The message to the voters is that electing the GOP to do anything pretty much guarantees that it will be done poorly, with vampires encharged with the blood banks and foxes in charged with the chicken coops whenever possible. Iyt is foolish to believe that anyone who believes in the inherent incompetence of their own trade should be entrusted with anything.
The US was not safe on 9-11, and the fiasco in Iraq has not made it safer.
What do you suppose the Israeli destruction of Lebanon might cost us taxpayers? It has to be a guess, because the total will be hidden in a snarl of red tape and a cloud of secrecy.
Republicans: Useless since Theodore Roosevelt.(Who quit the party, by the way.)
-
Juniorbush is anything BUT conservative.
D'uh. The folks on the right have been saying that since the get go. It's been the rabid left trying to claim he's some far RW Conservative ideologue
He's not very pragmatic. either.
And obviously, that claim couldn't be further from the truth
-
Juniorbush is anything BUT conservative.
Many of us realized that - even before he elected in 2000 - and said so. That doesn't mean his opponent was automatically a better choice.
Republicans: Useless since Theodore Roosevelt.(Who quit the party, by the way.)
Interestingly enough, Teddy rejoined the Republicans.
And George Wallace never left the Democrats.
-
Republicans: Useless since Theodore Roosevelt.(Who quit the party, by the way.)
Interestingly enough, Teddy rejoined the Republicans.
And George Wallace never left the Democrats.
D'OH ..... Ami with another uppercut on the chin 8)
-
Bt gives two statements that are spot on.
My quibble is that in a representative government, once elected we should let these Representatives do their job as their conscience dictates. And part of that job is to organize the caucus for maximum effectiveness. This is an internal deliberation. And I'm not so sure voters have the right nor the duty to micromanage those affairs. That is not to say constituent input isn't welcome, it is to say i don't see where they get to demand who is chosen.
Emphasis mine.
And:
The core values of Lincoln?
Coolidge?
Hoover?
Ike?
Nixon?
Reagan?
Bush
and
Bush
Lot of spectrum covered .
Whose core values are we talking about?
In fairness Sirs, you are looking for a simple answer to a question that requires a complex view. From Bt's first statement and especially the sentence I emphasized, there is an important lesson that cost the Republicans dearly in the recent election. The evangelical voters do seem to have a sense of entitlement that they are somehow given the right to govern by proxy through their candidates. As you know, it does not work that way. It will always lead to disappointment, especially when you have a President who drops in popularity and is occasionally at odds with his own party.
The second issue is that not all Republicans have the same core values. What you seem to desire is a small tent of Pat Buchanan-like domestic policies, but the truth is that not all "conservatives" believe what you believe. What Bt properly points out is that Republicans are very different as we can see from Reagan to Bush the Elder to Bush the Lesser.
Making a comment like: "Conservatism, sprinkled with some Pragmatism. Fairly narrow, and easy to follow" is meaningless. A Republican from Alaska is going to want/require Federal money. A Republican from the South is going to focus on more evangelical values whereas a California Republican might get away with focusing more on balancing the budget. It might not even be a regional difference, but could be a simple philosophical difference. "Conservatism, sprinkled with some Pragmatism. Fairly narrow, and easy to follow" is nothing more than an ill-defined slogan. And as was stated earlier, what will you do, purge the party of those who don't believe?
In the meantime, you have a party leader in President Bush, whether you like it or not.
-
And George Wallace never left the Democrats.
So?
Edward Jackson was always a Republican.
-
Making a comment like: "Conservatism, sprinkled with some Pragmatism. Fairly narrow, and easy to follow" is meaningless. Fairly narrow, and easy to follow" is nothing more than an ill-defined slogan. And as was stated earlier, what will you do, purge the party of those who don't believe? ... In the meantime, you have a party leader in President Bush, whether you like it or not.
Well, that's one opinion that I can whole heartedly disagree with. Actually, it's anything but meaningless. It's a practical platform. Limited Government, Fiscal discipline, Reform, a rejection of the "Living" Constitution hypothesis, among others. Simple, Easy, and anything but an "ill defined slogan" And your question is just as easy, replace them with those that do. If they want their power back that is. Oh, and the reference to Bush being the GOP's party leader falls into the category of "No d'uh"
-
So?
Edward Jackson was always a Republican.
So?
And he was a lifelong northerner, so I guess not all racists live in the south, contrary to some opinions around here.
-
Well, that's one opinion that I can whole heartedly disagree with. Actually, it's anything but meaningless. It's a practical platform. Limited Government, Fiscal discipline, Reform, a rejection of the "Living" Constitution hypothesis, among others. Simple, Easy, and anything but an "ill defined slogan" And your question is just as easy, replace them with those that do. If they want their power back that is. Oh, and the reference to Bush being the GOP's party leader falls into the category of "No d'uh"
Limited Government: What does that mean? Will abortion rights be left alone? Will there be no more attempts at establishing prayer in school? Or is it limited only where you believe it should be limited?
Fiscal discipline: Does that include foreign invasions like Iraq and the "War on Terror" ? What exactly will fiscal discipline include?
Reform: The most used word in the politician's guidebook to being elected. What reform? What specific areas need reform?
Living Constitution: What areas in the past six years have suffered from the "living constitution" hypothesis?
So far it still falls in the meaningless category Sirs, you've just attached more meaningless rhetoric to it. Let's get into the specifics.
-
So?
And he was a lifelong northerner, so I guess not all racists live in the south, contrary to some opinions around here.
Ummm...OK. I've got to go with the price of tea in China question now. Is there a point to this?
-
Ummm...OK. I've got to go with the price of tea in China question now. Is there a point to this?
Ask XO - he started this.
-
Limited Government: What does that mean?
It means the Fed is responsible for what the constitution says its responsible for, and not what would be "nice" for the Fed to be responsible for
Fiscal discipline:...What exactly will fiscal discipline include?
It includes being responsible for paying for what is done. Not borrowing on the future, not hypertaxing the present. It means budgeting and then STICKING to it, as best as possible. It also includes not expanding programs that are failing or when running a deficit, and not adding a multitude of domestic programs when running a deficit
Reform: The most used word in the politician's guidebook to being elected. What reform? What specific areas need reform?
You're kidding right? SS, Medicare, the Tax system, Tort reform. THOSE are the areas that need reform, not ethics or civility. On the list of priorties that need reform, those latter 2 rank FAR below the ones mentioned above
Living Constitution: What areas in the past six years have suffered from the "living constitution" hypothesis?
1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, Emminant Domain, etc., etc., etc. And the myriad of attacks have been occuring for far longer than 6 years. Not sure why you put the beginning of Bush II as the qualifier, as if such a hypothesis only begain in 2000
So far it still falls in the meaningless category Sirs, you've just attached more meaningless rhetoric to it. Let's get into the specifics.
Only to you and like minded libs, Js
-
It means the Fed is responsible for what the constitution says its responsible for, and not what would be "nice" for the Fed to be responsible for
So the Republicans will be re-elected on removing Social Security completely? Medicare and Medicaid? That sounds like an election winner to me.
It includes being responsible for paying for what is done. Not borrowing on the future, not hypertaxing the present. It means budgeting and then STICKING to it, as best as possible. It also includes not expanding programs that are failing or when running a deficit, and not adding a multitude of domestic programs when running a deficit
So when you're running a deficit and a major hurricane strikes, earthquake, or terrorist attack the Federal government just says "tough luck" ? When the military comes and says we need another $20 billion for operations in Iraq, you just tell them - "Nope, sorry - Jim Bob and Tammy Rae aren't paying any more taxes this month. Come back when we've got a new budget for next year."
Sirs, a budget isn't done in real dollars. It is done in theoretical dollars with projected revenues and contingency planning, some governments don't even plan for inflationary adjustments. "Sticking to the budget" is not necessarily feasible. Consider National Parks. The majority of their revenue comes in the months of June, July, and August. Now, depending upon location, if the weather is terribly hot or incredibly wet you will experience lower revenue in those three months. It might amaze you, but there isn't a whole hell of a lot the National Park Service can do about it. Now, should that prevent Congress from establishing a new National Park? Is the success and the goal of the NPS to make money? Or is it measured in some other manner?
This is the problem with those who claim that the Government should operate like a business or budget like a family. The problem, of course, is that the Government operates and budgets like neither because it functions very differently from either one. It functions on democratic principles and statutes, clearly much differently than a family or business. It is not designed to make quick decisions, nor can it simply ignore statute or regulation. I'm always amazed at those who have no idea how a government operates (and no I'm not aiming that at you Sirs, just off on a tangent).
You're kidding right? SS, Medicare, the Tax system, Tort reform. THOSE are the areas that need reform, not ethics or civility. On the list of priorties that need reform, those latter 2 rank FAR below the ones mentioned above
How and why do they need reform?
1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, Emminant Domain, etc., etc., etc. And the myriad of attacks have been occuring for far longer than 6 years. Not sure why you put the beginning of Bush II as the qualifier, as if such a hypothesis only begain in 2000
I chose the last six years specifically because you reference this thread as a reason why the GOP lost badly in the recent elections and how they can get back on track. Another way of asking is, why wasn't this addressed over the last six years?
Only to you and like minded libs, Js
You might get farther without the groupthink mentality.
-
It means the Fed is responsible for what the constitution says its responsible for, and not what would be "nice" for the Fed to be responsible for
So the Republicans will be re-elected on removing Social Security completely? Medicare and Medicaid? That sounds like an election winner to me. ...You might get farther without the groupthink mentality.
See Js, when you start distorting as bad as knute, it's hard to take whatever else you say seriously. When did "reform" = "removal"?? Perhaps we best stop our debate on this issue at this point.
-
It really makes no difference whether TR "rejoined" the Republican Party sometime between when he ran as a Bullmoose Progressive, or whether George Wallace "never left" the Democratic Party, even after running agaist it on the American Independent ticket.
The face that Juniorbush was neither a conservative nor pragmatic doesnt; automatically make him worse that Al Gore, but it sure as hell didn';t make him better, either.
I don't see where Gore would have invaded Iraq at all. I am sure that if he had, he would not have made anywhere close to the godawful trainwreck Juniorbush, Cheney, Rummy et al have.
George Dubya Bush. Worst President since Jefferson Davis. And he still has over two years to surpass Davis. Will he have to sneak out of the WH in women's clothing to avoid being arrested as Davis did? Only time will tell.
-
It really makes no difference whether TR "rejoined" the Republican Party sometime between when he ran as a Bullmoose Progressive, or whether George Wallace "never left" the Democratic Party, even after running agaist it on the American Independent ticket.
So, why did you bring it up?
The face that Juniorbush was neither a conservative nor pragmatic doesnt; automatically make him worse that Al Gore, but it sure as hell didn';t make him better, either.
I considered Bush a better choice than Gore. It is a simple thing to understand.
-
(http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/20061115RZ2AP-Regan.jpg)
-
I considered Bush a better choice than Gore. It is a simple thing to understand.
=============================================================
Really. really REALLY BAD choice!
Worse still if you STILL think Juniorbush was a better choice.
My cat would have done a better job than Sockpuppet Juniorbush.
Worst president since Jefferson Davis.
-
My cat would have done a better job than Sockpuppet Juniorbush. Worst president since Jefferson Davis.
Yea, you keep saying that, as if your repeating some historical fact
-
It is a historical fact.
Juniorbush is the worst.
Lower than whalesh*t, as they say in the Navy.
-
It is a historical fact. Juniorbush is the worst. Lower than whalesh*t, as they say in the Navy.
:D feel better? Come on Xo....let it all out
-
Really. really REALLY BAD choice!
Nope. Gore would have been worse.
-
It means the Fed is responsible for what the constitution says its responsible for, and not what would be "nice" for the Fed to be responsible for
So the Republicans will be re-elected on removing Social Security completely? Medicare and Medicaid? That sounds like an election winner to me. ...You might get farther without the groupthink mentality.
See Js, when you start distorting as bad as knute, it's hard to take whatever else you say seriously. When did "reform" = "removal"?? Perhaps we best stop our debate on this issue at this point.
Interesting. Read what you said and then my response Sirs. The constitution, as I'm sure any proud Libertarian will tell you, does not give specific authority to the Federal Government to conduct a Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid program. I was adding that to your opposition to the "organic constitution theory." I guess you aren't quite a strict constructionist yet.
What it boils down to is the same problem this administration had in leading the country. You are having a knee-jerk reaction to the losses from the 2006 midterms. So, instead of looking at it from a careful, thinking perspective as Bt is clearly doing. You are hoping the entire GOP will shift its philosophy in one sweeping grand gesture. You want Ronald Reagan to come and save the party and shift all the priorities. Yet, you cannot see the contradictions even with your own beliefs.
For example, many of Reagan's people opposed the war in Iraq. Yet, you support it. Interestingly you mention everything except the war and President Bush's handling of it as a reason for the Republican loss in the midterms. You're going to see the same thing happen in the United Kingdom (well, similar but with some twists). It isn't a lack of conservative principles or a budget deficit that lost elections. I told you before the elections that people rarely vote based on budget or national deficits (most people don't understand them). It was Iraq and yes some scandals, because politicians are generally greedy little bastards. So call me names if it makes you feel better Sirs, but you are a primary reason for the Republicans failure in the election.
-
So the Republicans will be re-elected on removing Social Security completely? Medicare and Medicaid? That sounds like an election winner to me. ...You might get farther without the groupthink mentality.
See Js, when you start distorting as bad as knute, it's hard to take whatever else you say seriously. When did "reform" = "removal"?? Perhaps we best stop our debate on this issue at this point.
Interesting. Read what you said and then my response Sirs. The constitution, as I'm sure any proud Libertarian will tell you, does not give specific authority to the Federal Government to conduct a Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid program. I was adding that to your opposition to the "organic constitution theory." I guess you aren't quite a strict constructionist yet.
[/quote]
Simple response...reading my original reference to Conservatism sprinkled with PRAGMATISM, makes a supposedly meaningless concept, exceptionally meaningful. Not a very pragmatiic or even realistic concept to abolish SS or the Dept of Education now is it. Yet, you took that leap, not bothering to grasp the point I was making, having concluded to your self how meaningless it was. Too bad. We might have had a good debate on this topic
-
Social Security will never be repealed. The United States Of America is not a strict Democracy. Our Democracy has become a hybrid of Democratic and Socialist philosophy. We already have a system of outsource national health care, that may be replaced because of corruption within the insurance industry. It is clear Americans want both, a free market capitalist business system and dedicated social programs. Americans do not want social programs to be operated as for profit business. Americans do not want welfare, Americans want guarantied economic security and a non-profit health care system. If politicians want to win elections, they must give the voters what they want. Americans are not weak- they will have what they want. The key to success is removing the profit aspect. When oversight become good enough to make it too risky for criminals, the social programs will become efficient. It is also clear Americans do not want a faith-based social system. Americans are not moving toward the left, the right or the center. Americans are moving toward an idea of just government. Thats fine with me and if the next generation is smart, they will protect what is in their best interest. Don't gambol with your future. The government of the people is the best idea. Politicians work for us, that is the message of the most resent election.
-
Social Security will never be repealed.......
And who the hell is pushing that?
-
Social Security will never be repealed.......
And who the hell is pushing that?
Those who use the scare tactics, that SS is going broke and want to take a portion of SS and invest it in the Stock Market. The idea is to systematically undermine the SS system by withdrawing funds and redirecting those funds to private control. The health care system we now have is being protected by corporate lobbyist. Those who want to game the systems are pushing that. Snake oil salemen, that's who.
-
The idea is to systematically undermine the SS system by withdrawing funds and redirecting those funds to private control.
That's a better choice than spending the funds and leaving behind IOU's - as is currently done by Congress.
-
That's a better choice than spending the funds and leaving behind IOU's - as is currently done by Congress.
No its not. As I said the current system is under attack by corrupt interest. We need to stop the corruption, not create a new slush fund for corporate America at the detriment of the SS system.
-
Social Security will never be repealed.......
And who the hell is pushing that?
Those who use the scare tactics, that SS is going broke and want to take a portion of SS and invest it in the Stock Market. ...
It IS going broke. That's why the folks you're trying to paint as "repealing it", are actually advocating REFORMING it, you know SAVING IT. Grand canyon of a difference there, Larry
-
No its not.
Yes, it is.
-
The Social Security taxes are more than sufficient to cover expenditures for many a year into the future. More is paid into the fund than is paid out. The excess is pissed away on dumbassed wars, and pieces of paper are left in their place.
Social Security is going broke in the same way that a 60 year old worker who makes more than he spends is going broke. Eventually he won't make enough, or possibly anything, and his savings will not be enough to allow him to live as he now lives. For now, of course, he's okay.
The GOP has wanted to abolish SS since it was founded. This is STILL their desire. Observe how savagely they have treated workers' pension funds lately. Workers used to have a guaranteed pension. Now it is either pered down or the debt pushed off on the government. The guys savaging the pension funds are the same assholes who run the GOP.
Allowing Republicans to 'reform' Social Security is like allowing a flock of buzzards to 'reform' the meat locker.
-
The excess is pissed away on dumbassed wars, and pieces of paper are left in their place.
SS funds are added to the general fund (leaving "pieces of paper") and spent on anything Congress wants to spend it on. The major portion of the budget continues to be social spending, not military.
-
SS funds are added to the general fund (leaving "pieces of paper") and spent on anything Congress wants to spend it on. The major portion of the budget continues to be social spending, not military.
Where did you get that?
Payroll taxes are earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund and excess is invested in Government Bonds which indirectly is used to finance the deficit spending of the Federal Government. It is not part of the general fund to my knowledge.
2006 Trust Fund Annual Report (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html)
-
Payroll taxes are earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund and excess is invested in Government Bonds which indirectly is used to finance the deficit spending of the Federal Government. It is not part of the general fund to my knowledge.
The "Trust Fund" is invested in special Treasury notes. Completely.
Congress is free to spend the money that SS uses to buy these Treasury notes. Congress is obligated to pay these notes back at some time in the future. In other words, they are IOUs.
Basically, the way it works is this. Your right pocket is the SS Trust Fund. Your left pocket is the general fund.
Money from SS comes in, it's put in your right pocket. When a certain level gets built up, SS takes the money out and "invests" it in a bond held by the left pocket. So the money goes to the left pocket, and a bond note replaces it in the right pocket. Congress then spends what's in the left pocket freely.
It's a shell game.
-
Money from SS comes in, it's put in your right pocket. When a certain level gets built up, SS takes the money out and "invests" it in a bond held by the left pocket. So the money goes to the left pocket, and a bond note replaces it in the right pocket. Congress then spends what's in the left pocket freely.
It's a shell game.
===================================
It's a shell game that is being played at the moment by the Republicans. The war is being financed by that deficit spending.
Any group, Republican, Democrat or both, that is capable of this sh*t will also be incapable of managing any stock market based fund that would replace it.
-
SS funds are added to the general fund (leaving "pieces of paper") and spent on anything Congress wants to spend it on. The major portion of the budget continues to be social spending, not military.
Where did you get that?
Payroll taxes are earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund and excess is invested in Government Bonds which indirectly is used to finance the deficit spending of the Federal Government. It is not part of the general fund to my knowledge.
2006 Trust Fund Annual Report (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html)
If you were to give me some cash , I would gladly give you an equal IOU to be cashed in the future.
Would you be just as happy to hold my IOU as I am to hold your cash?
If my method of paying this IOU was to force you and your child to pay me first ,I think I would be getting the better part of the deal.