JUB Republicans...

[Stardreamer]

Do You identify yourself as a non affiliated conservative?

Hard to find a mold I fit into which is fine with me, I don't like molds. Fiscal conservative and civil libertarian work as describing some of my views. I didn't vote along any party lines in the last election except for maybe Libertarian but I voted for both Democrats and Republicans based on the individual race. I decided to answer the question because I didn't feel it should be left unanswered but I'm not going to defend the Republicans as I said I'm rather disappointed in their performance so far.

 

[Stardreamer]

A Non Affiliated Conservative HOmosexual, or NACHO.

Hell works for me, (sings to Macho Man) Nacho Nacho Man....

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

So...nothing to add?

SSDD.



MR has never insulted me; what's this "everyone" bullshit?

Lol I know You are a respectful individual on this board as far as I know.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Okay here the complete list of what I think sounds worthwile from the GOP.gov legislative Digests for the 112th Congress. My approval is based on the excutive summaries the GOP provides so I reserve the right to withdraw my approval if details emerge that show the description provided is incorrect.

• H.R. 525 Veterinary Public Health Amendments Act of 2011
• H.R. 570 Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2011
• Efforts to defund NPR provided those efforts are directed to all government funding of domestic news programming.
• H.Con.Res 27 Accepting a statue of Gerald R. Ford from the people of the state of Michigan
• H.R. 662 Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011
• H.R. 394 Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011
• H.R. 386 Securing Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011
• S. 188 Naming the courthouse under construction in Yuma AZ the John M. Roll United States Courthouse.
• H.Res. 9 Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the 'job killing' health care law
• H.R. 292 Stop the Over Printing (STOP) Act
• H.R. XX A resolution to Cut Congress' Budget

Thank you for putting forward what you feel the Republicans have put forward that is "good". None of your brothers-in-arms could name anything at all.

 

[bike10]

Up until 1980 was always voted and admired the GOP was those moderate Republicans who left the party when Reagan was elected.

The party was moved to far right and embrassed the Religious Right. Former chairman Michael Steele love say how the GOP is the party of the Big Tent, the party of Inclusion not Exclusion.

Today to be in the GOP God's Only Party you must be a birther, pro gun, anti abortion, anti public schools, anti union, anti gay, anti environment and list goes on.

The party now has the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann who have limited knoweldge of goverment and history but are worshiped by those of lesser IQ's.

 

[Joshua_me]

Why would I want to participate in a thread started by someone who insults everyone?

Ahh... The classic debate tactic that many of us learned in High School.

Don't answer the question, attack the questioner.

Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest do it most everyday.

I hear it's quite profitable.

 

[thevofl]

Ahh... The classic debate tactic that many of us learned in High School.

Don't answer the question, attack the questioner.

Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest do it most everyday.

I hear it's quite profitable.

Olbermann does it, Mathews does it, etc. It is SO prolific on BOTH sides.

 

[Stardreamer]

Another item I approve, Republicans in the House are supporting the reinstatement of the DC School Choice Program.

 

[palemale]

Really, many of the bullets are supposed to be the same goals of the health care bill? Was that a waste?

What you cited were just talking points. Is there more to the legislation than what you cited? Otherwise it is a wish list and, yes, a waste of time, money and paper. Obama's health care reform bill actually changed the system for delivering health care in this country. The Republican bill, if the Senate were stupid enough to pass it and Obama willing to sign it, wouldn't change anything.

But thank you for answering the question. As MRIII said, no other Republicans on here would even attempt it. The list is pretty pathetic, though, and explains why you are disappointed in the Republicans.

 

[MoltenRock III]

What you cited were just talking points. Is there more to the legislation than what you cited? Otherwise it is a wish list and, yes, a waste of time, money and paper. Obama's health care reform bill actually changed the system for delivering health care in this country. The Republican bill, if the Senate were stupid enough to pass it and Obama willing to sign it, wouldn't change anything.

Agreed. In fact in his bullet point list, I've noted the status:

(1) foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations;

Talking point blather. Means nothing. No specifics. Just pandering.

(2) lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice;

"ObamaCare" already allows this, and expands this, under Democratic law now.

(3) preserve a patient’s ability to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it;

"ObamaCare" already allows this, and expands this, under Democratic law now.

(4) provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage;

"ObamaCare" already allows this, and expands this, under Democratic law now.

(5) reform the medical liability system to reduce unnecessary and wasteful health care spending;

More work here is needed, but this is nothing more than political pandering. Talking points only, no "meat", no proposals, no laws.

(6) increase the number of insured Americans;

"ObamaCare" already allows this, and expands this, under Democratic law now. The new law increases insured by nearly 40 MILLION!

(7) protect the doctor-patient relationship;

"ObamaCare" already allows this, and expands this, under Democratic law now.

( provide the States greater flexibility to administer Medicaid programs;

"ObamaCare" already allows this, and expands this, under Democratic law now.

(9) expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs;

This is what Republicans screamed "DEATH PANELS" over, and demanded to be removed from the legislation. You can't have it both ways, of bitching about "DEATH PANELS", and/or Michelle Obama encouraging healthy eating while calling her a Socialist, yet claim you are for this too. Sorry, that pig don't fly.

(10) prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers;

"ObamaCare" already disallows this!

(11) eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful spending; or,

(12) do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement programs or increase the tax burden on Americans.”

"ObamaCare" doesn't accelerate it, but in fact adds back over $100 billion to the treasury!.

It also calls for a permanent fix to Medicare Physician Payments.

Again, all bravado, nothing specific. Where's the meat? This is just b.s. talking points. Where is the legal specifics behind this? How does one make it "permanent"?

Given all of this nearly 85% of what you think is "good" about a Republican health care proposal has already been solved under ObamaCare, so why would you be so against it?

 

[Stardreamer]

Agreed. In fact in his bullet point list, I've noted the status:



Talking point blather. Means nothing. No specifics. Just pandering.



Given all of this nearly 85% of what you think is "good" about a Republican health care proposal has already been solved under ObamaCare, so why would you be so against it?

The bill doesn't seem to be law but an instruction to the various committees to focus on the items and advance them. I can't say I understand the details of how the House works so I don't know if referendums to themselves on what to focus on is normal procedure or not.

You notice I did not include the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in my list, I don't think that was a worthwhile effort and I've stated so before. I'm indifferent at this point on PPACA, I think the objectives are good but it failed to address the real issue of the rising cost of care. It would be better at this point to just work at addressing problems with it than trying to start from scratch.

 

[chrisrobin]

Olbermann does it, Mathews does it, etc. It is SO prolific on BOTH sides.

Your insistence on applying "false equivalence" somehow challenges your own credibility. I think you are capable of better.

The "true believers" thought that Edward R. Murrow and Joseph Welch were out to crucify the poor, poor embattled junior senator from Wisconsin, but eventually, he died of cirrhosis of the liver in obscurity. Truth has its way of rearing its ugly head.

 

[MoltenRock III]

The bill doesn't seem to be law but an instruction to the various committees to focus on the items and advance them. I can't say I understand the details of how the House works so I don't know if referendums to themselves on what to focus on is normal procedure or not.

You notice I did not include the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in my list, I don't think that was a worthwhile effort and I've stated so before. I'm indifferent at this point on PPACA, I think the objectives are good but it failed to address the real issue of the rising cost of care. It would be better at this point to just work at addressing problems with it than trying to start from scratch.

House Referendums essentially are "points of agreement" and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Additionally, I should have pointed out that the Obama Administration have allowed any and all states to "go their own way" regarding healthcare with the requirement that any individual state's plan MUST cover at least as many citizens, not raise the deficit above the guidelines spelled out in the "ObamaCare" bill, nor be more expensive for individual citizens.

Funny how all of a sudden many nay sayers have shut their trap about healthcare on the right. Now they have to put their money where their mouth is, and put forward a plan as good or better than that "awful", "terrible", "job killing", bill Democrats already have.

 

[thevofl]

Your insistence on applying "false equivalence" somehow challenges your own credibility. I think you are capable of better.

The "true believers" thought that Edward R. Murrow and Joseph Welch were out to crucify the poor, poor embattled junior senator from Wisconsin, but eventually, he died of cirrhosis of the liver in obscurity. Truth has its way of rearing its ugly head.

What are you talking about? I was responding to a comment that the right uses ad hominem attacks. I was pointing out that the left does the same. How is that false?

I am not looking to excuse what Hannity or Limbaugh does, far from it. I see it on both the left and the right. And I am pointing it out.

I get pissed off when one side holds the other to the letter of the law as they bend over backwards to twist the truth to excuse their own side's misgivings.

 

[Stardreamer]

Additionally, I should have pointed out that the Obama Administration have allowed any and all states to "go their own way" regarding healthcare with the requirement that any individual state's plan MUST cover at least as many citizens, not raise the deficit above the guidelines spelled out in the "ObamaCare" bill, nor be more expensive for individual citizens.

I like that approach, part of my basic philosophy is that governance should be as close to the people as possible and letting the states 'go their own way' provides greater room for developing effective systems. Too bad the administration is not very good at explaining the plan. They might have met less resistance if they emphasized this point.

Funny how all of a sudden many nay sayers have shut their trap about healthcare on the right. Now they have to put their money where their mouth is, and put forward a plan as good or better than that "awful", "terrible", "job killing", bill Democrats already have.

Agreed but I would rather health care move back a step and the Congress focus on the economy. I think not doing that was a BIG reason the voters turned against the Democrats in 2010. The people were wanting to hear about jobs and all they heard instead was about health care which many did not think was that pressing an issue. Even though rising medical costs are part of the economic problem and fixing them could help, the Administration simply failed to bring the focus on that, the focus instead seemed to be on universal coverage. The Administration applied the wrong focus and priorities in the health care debate and failed to provide the leadership needed to sell it properly.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I like that approach, part of my basic philosophy is that governance should be as close to the people as possible and letting the states 'go their own way' provides greater room for developing effective systems. Too bad the administration is not very good at explaining the plan. They might have met less resistance if they emphasized this point.

The thing is; no matter what the President did, says, states, invokes, or allows will be attacked by the wingnut fringe until it's drowned out.

The right had 8 full years to pass something they liked, yet never have. The right doesn't give a shit about healthcare for anyone, period. They love it as is, where is, as the costs continue to zoom upwards towards 20% of GDP. And its fine they like it as is; but they should just be honest about it, and say that instead of lying that they are interested in "fixing it" when it's clear they aren't.

 

[Stardreamer]

The thing is; no matter what the President did, says, states, invokes, or allows will be attacked by the wingnut fringe until it's drowned out.

The right had 8 full years to pass something they liked, yet never have. The right doesn't give a shit about healthcare for anyone, period. They love it as is, where is, as the costs continue to zoom upwards towards 20% of GDP. And its fine they like it as is; but they should just be honest about it, and say that instead of lying that they are interested in "fixing it" when it's clear they aren't.

I don't think it would have mattered anyway as the timing of making health care a priority sucked. The people were clamoring for a year for Washington to focus on the economy and they got a year of Health Care debates instead, which no matter how much the Administration tried to tie it to economy, it was 5, 6 or lower on most peoples political priority scale. THAT is why the voters lost confidence in the Democrats in 2010. The Republicans are making some of the same mistakes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Agreed but I would rather health care move back a step and the Congress focus on the economy. I think not doing that was a BIG reason the voters turned against the Democrats in 2010. The people were wanting to hear about jobs and all they heard instead was about health care which many did not think was that pressing an issue. Even though rising medical costs are part of the economic problem and fixing them could help, the Administration simply failed to bring the focus on that, the focus instead seemed to be on universal coverage. The Administration applied the wrong focus and priorities in the health care debate and failed to provide the leadership needed to sell it properly.

He could address health care in a very direct way that would make an impact: at the moment, your medical expenses have to reach a certain point before there can be any deduction; just change that so the first thousand dollars is a refundable tax credit, and the cost of an annul physical the same, and the first five hundred per child -- and deductibles count. Since this would benefit their obscenely-wealthy friends, too, hopefully the RePublicans could be persuaded to go along. It wouldn't be money in people's pockets right away, but if it was done so bills for deductibles could be attached to tax forms so the money would be "refunded" to the medical providers, it would start saving people money right off.

And could up a scheme where the obscenely wealthy get slammed with a massive tax bill -- but paying for and endowing new medical schools, immediate care clinics, and such things is half tax deductible, half credit. They could do good for the country's medical system, and get their names on buildings or whole schools -- sort of at the point of a gun, but as the man they love to quote said, "From him to whom much is given, much is required".

 

[Stardreamer]

He could address health care in a very direct way that would make an impact: at the moment, your medical expenses have to reach a certain point before there can be any deduction; just change that so the first thousand dollars is a refundable tax credit, and the cost of an annul physical the same, and the first five hundred per child -- and deductibles count. Since this would benefit their obscenely-wealthy friends, too, hopefully the RePublicans could be persuaded to go along. It wouldn't be money in people's pockets right away, but if it was done so bills for deductibles could be attached to tax forms so the money would be "refunded" to the medical providers, it would start saving people money right off.

And could up a scheme where the obscenely wealthy get slammed with a massive tax bill -- but paying for and endowing new medical schools, immediate care clinics, and such things is half tax deductible, half credit. They could do good for the country's medical system, and get their names on buildings or whole schools -- sort of at the point of a gun, but as the man they love to quote said, "From him to whom much is given, much is required".

I like it but it would need to be part of a good housecleaning of the tax code too. Which is something else we desperately need. I rather liked the recommendations Obama's deficit panel came up with, lower taxes with higher revenue by getting rid of most of the deductions.

p.s. to the admins: why do I keep getting a red notice on the bottom of my posts telling me my grammar is bad? We grading for diction now?

 

[opinterph]

p.s. to the admins: why do I keep getting a red notice on the bottom of my posts telling me my grammar is bad? We grading for diction now?

The notice was part of the 2011 April Fool's event. It should no longer be appearing on posts made today or moving forward.