What does the GOP have to offer?

[Lakhota]

The main thing the GOP wants to accomplish is KILL THE BEAST. They want to shower defense with gold and fuck the rest.

 

[IndependntLogic]

There isn't much to get excited over with Republicans, but I will say I think they're more willing to accept our current economic stake and make the necessary cuts and budgeting to keep us from going off the deep end. They've done a bad job in the past at keeping spending down, but all you have to do is look at Democrats over the past few years to see they basically have to be lead kicking and screaming into having an adult conversation about the economy and our spending.

I don't even hate people for having a sense of goodwill built up for Democrats, including Obama. I just hate the lack of perspective so many have. With the Bush-era tax cuts and the debt ceiling, Obama essentially waited till the 11th hour to have the uncomfortable talk, and then used the fact that Republicans didn't readily sign on to his plan as proof of their obstruction.

I see no evidence of Republicans making any serious attempt at reducing spending. Do you? Have I missed something?
However, Obama did say he would slash defense. That is the one area that makes the most sense to me. There is no benefit derived in jumping into foreign land wars. Well, unless you're part of the Military Industrial Complex.
Doesn't matter though. All the Repubs and several Dems killed that idea before it had a chance.
As far as the Bush Tax Cuts and debt ceiling, I'd have to disagree. Discussions about the Bush cuts have been going on for months. The debt ceiling wasn't suddenly "sprung" on the GOP - quite the opposite. The GOP suddenly came out of nowhere and said "Hey, Let's default on America's loans! That will be great fun!" and made asses of themselves in the process.

Republicans have done almost nothing to cut spending and in fact they passed a budget with shady accounting that is predicted to be more than the previous budget. There are great talkers like my Congressman Ed Royce who talk a great game but then he passes bloated budgets based on excuses like the military wouldn't get paid. I'm no longer accepting excuses though. I hope we vote his sorry ass out. We don't need politicians that talk a good game and then stab with the knife and twist.

And before you get a hard-on that I'm calling out the GOP for their BS; none of this erases how f'd up Dems are. Voting for them is like voting for teenage girls who think they have access to daddies credit cards. And the mindless crap they say; seriously some of them must have 5th grade minds.

Further, what has Obama done about cuts? Seriously, nothing. He's refused to even make mild cuts which is nonsense and in fact we've seen all types of reckless spending. I'm sorry but he had his chance and he blew it.

So I'll try to look past these anger issues of yours and address what is worth addressing here.
There are many things I agree with Libertarians on - just not usually to the extent they would take things. For example, I think pot being outlawed is just plain stupid. But would I legalize meth? Crack? I just don't know if I'm on board that far.
Obama wanted to cut defense in a big way. Of course, no one would get away with say 50% and for good reason. So he took $100 Billion out for a test drive. That's over 15% and would have been a good start. Of course, the Repubs and several Dems immediately let him know it would never fly. We'll see what happens there.
I am voting for Obama this year. I voted for Harry Reid in '10 and I hate the guy. But the Tea Party, in its' infinite wisdom gave us someone even funnier than Eskimo Barbie as an alternative: Sharon Angle. At least she was entertaining.
Obviously you have no respect for any vote that doesn't concur with your own. Oh well. Some people are like that.
I have actually started threads about my respect for people voting for Ron Paul. While their views are different than mine, they are passionate about our country and willing to buck the system. I also respect anyone voting for Romney, based on his stated positions and historical actions (which means no matter where you stand on an issue, he agrees with you! Or at least he used to!).
One thing I have noticed about Libertarians and which tends to hurt their movement is their elitist attitude. They have a political philosophy which doesn't exist anywhere in the world and contrary to what they say, didn't exist here either, yet they look down their noses at anyone not totally convinced it is the panacea to all government woes. I think this is part of the reason they are often viewed as extreme.

 

[MuadDib]

I'm completely opposed to raising the debt ceiling until I start seeing some serious efforts to reduce the deficits and start paying off the debt. Same goes for any discussion of tax increases.

When you max out a credit card, you don't raise the credit limit and keep spending. You get your finances in order and start paying it off.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I see no evidence of Republicans making any serious attempt at reducing spending. Do you? Have I missed something?
However, Obama did say he would slash defense. That is the one area that makes the most sense to me. There is no benefit derived in jumping into foreign land wars. Well, unless you're part of the Military Industrial Complex.
Doesn't matter though. All the Repubs and several Dems killed that idea before it had a chance.
As far as the Bush Tax Cuts and debt ceiling, I'd have to disagree. Discussions about the Bush cuts have been going on for months. The debt ceiling wasn't suddenly "sprung" on the GOP - quite the opposite. The GOP suddenly came out of nowhere and said "Hey, Let's default on America's loans! That will be great fun!" and made asses of themselves in the process.

Republicans have done almost nothing to cut spending and in fact they passed a budget with shady accounting that is predicted to be more than the previous budget. There are great talkers like my Congressman Ed Royce who talk a great game but then he passes bloated budgets based on excuses like the military wouldn't get paid. I'm no longer accepting excuses though. I hope we vote his sorry ass out. We don't need politicians that talk a good game and then stab with the knife and twist.

And before you get a hard-on that I'm calling out the GOP for their BS; none of this erases how f'd up Dems are. Voting for them is like voting for teenage girls who think they have access to daddies credit cards. And the mindless crap they say; seriously some of them must have 5th grade minds.

Further, what has Obama done about cuts? Seriously, nothing. He's refused to even make mild cuts which is nonsense and in fact we've seen all types of reckless spending. I'm sorry but he had his chance and he blew it.

So I'll try to look past these anger issues of yours and address what is worth addressing here.
There are many things I agree with Libertarians on - just not usually to the extent they would take things. For example, I think pot being outlawed is just plain stupid. But would I legalize meth? Crack? I just don't know if I'm on board that far.
Obama wanted to cut defense in a big way. Of course, no one would get away with say 50% and for good reason. So he took $100 Billion out for a test drive. That's over 15% and would have been a good start. Of course, the Repubs and several Dems immediately let him know it would never fly. We'll see what happens there.
I am voting for Obama this year. I voted for Harry Reid in '10 and I hate the guy. But the Tea Party, in its' infinite wisdom gave us someone even funnier than Eskimo Barbie as an alternative: Sharon Angle. At least she was entertaining.
Obviously you have no respect for any vote that doesn't concur with your own. Oh well. Some people are like that.
I have actually started threads about my respect for people voting for Ron Paul. While their views are different than mine, they are passionate about our country and willing to buck the system. I also respect anyone voting for Romney, based on his stated positions and historical actions (which means no matter where you stand on an issue, he agrees with you! Or at least he used to!).
One thing I have noticed about Libertarians and which tends to hurt their movement is their elitist attitude. They have a political philosophy which doesn't exist anywhere in the world and contrary to what they say, didn't exist here either, yet they look down their noses at anyone not totally convinced it is the panacea to all government woes. I think this is part of the reason they are often viewed as extreme.

Well they legalized drugs in I believe it was Portugal and drug rates and crime rates went down. Why the fuck should you care what another person does with his own body? That's his body; it's his right.

And anger issues? I"m not sure that I follow. I did not even denigrate you. What you call anger is passion. You might know if you weren't dead inside.

And Obama is cutting defense; military; not civilians of course. But seriously, I'm sick of the lib diatribe. It's just an excuse to disregard all the other bloated budgets. Makes some real cuts and then say hey, we cut our crap; now you cut your stuff. That's leadership; not what Obama is doing.

Libertarians are elitists? Some of them are over zealous? But elitist? Brush off your dictionary dude and look up the word. Elitist is the state of our two party system and the media. Libertarians have values and frankly they're right. People like you try to cut them down (b/c you hold your Dem nonsense) even while they speak common sense.

You take getting called out as a slight when in fact you're just getting called out for holding up a piece of dog crap and calling it beef wellington.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm completely opposed to raising the debt ceiling until I start seeing some serious efforts to reduce the deficits and start paying off the debt. Same goes for any discussion of tax increases.

When you max out a credit card, you don't raise the credit limit and keep spending. You get your finances in order and start paying it off.

You forgot to add "When a democrat is in the White House."

Because if not, it gets raised seventeen times under Reagan, seven times under Bush II.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Republicans have done almost nothing to cut spending and in fact they passed a budget with shady accounting that is predicted to be more than the previous budget. There are great talkers like my Congressman Ed Royce who talk a great game but then he passes bloated budgets based on excuses like the military wouldn't get paid. I'm no longer accepting excuses though. I hope we vote his sorry ass out. We don't need politicians that talk a good game and then stab with the knife and twist.

And before you get a hard-on that I'm calling out the GOP for their BS; none of this erases how f'd up Dems are. Voting for them is like voting for teenage girls who think they have access to daddies credit cards. And the mindless crap they say; seriously some of them must have 5th grade minds.

Further, what has Obama done about cuts? Seriously, nothing. He's refused to even make mild cuts which is nonsense and in fact we've seen all types of reckless spending. I'm sorry but he had his chance and he blew it.

So I'll try to look past these anger issues of yours and address what is worth addressing here.
There are many things I agree with Libertarians on - just not usually to the extent they would take things. For example, I think pot being outlawed is just plain stupid. But would I legalize meth? Crack? I just don't know if I'm on board that far.
Obama wanted to cut defense in a big way. Of course, no one would get away with say 50% and for good reason. So he took $100 Billion out for a test drive. That's over 15% and would have been a good start. Of course, the Repubs and several Dems immediately let him know it would never fly. We'll see what happens there.
I am voting for Obama this year. I voted for Harry Reid in '10 and I hate the guy. But the Tea Party, in its' infinite wisdom gave us someone even funnier than Eskimo Barbie as an alternative: Sharon Angle. At least she was entertaining.
Obviously you have no respect for any vote that doesn't concur with your own. Oh well. Some people are like that.
I have actually started threads about my respect for people voting for Ron Paul. While their views are different than mine, they are passionate about our country and willing to buck the system. I also respect anyone voting for Romney, based on his stated positions and historical actions (which means no matter where you stand on an issue, he agrees with you! Or at least he used to!).
One thing I have noticed about Libertarians and which tends to hurt their movement is their elitist attitude. They have a political philosophy which doesn't exist anywhere in the world and contrary to what they say, didn't exist here either, yet they look down their noses at anyone not totally convinced it is the panacea to all government woes. I think this is part of the reason they are often viewed as extreme.

Well they legalized drugs in I believe it was Portugal and drug rates and crime rates went down. Why the fuck should you care what another person does with his own body? That's his body; it's his right.

Settle down sweetheart, I think you're going to burst. Like I said, I see it with pot. I'm just not sure about the whole legalize everything deal - and it's unrealistic. You can swear and have all the tantrums you want and no one's going to legalize meth. Where pot has a realistic chance. Then if usage and crime went down, that might be a stepping stone to examine other possibilities.

And anger issues? I"m not sure that I follow. I did not even denigrate you. What you call anger is passion. You might know if you weren't dead inside.

I love it! I'm sure you meant dead inside, in the nicest possible way! Do you read what you write? Just curious.

And Obama is cutting defense; military; not civilians of course. But seriously, I'm sick of the lib diatribe. It's just an excuse to disregard all the other bloated budgets. Makes some real cuts and then say hey, we cut our crap; now you cut your stuff. That's leadership; not what Obama is doing.

So basically until Obama waves a magic wand and solves all the problems of the world in one fell swoop, any step in the right direction isn't good enough. You're pretty entertaining.

Libertarians are elitists? Some of them are over zealous? But elitist? Brush off your dictionary dude and look up the word. Elitist is the state of our two party system and the media. Libertarians have values and frankly they're right.
Oh! Oh I hadn't realized! Okay, so then Libertarians are a small, select group of people who are the only ones who are right. But they're not "elitist". And you just told me to get out my dictionary, right? Here's one for you to look up: irony.

People like you try to cut them down (b/c you hold your Dem nonsense) even while they speak common sense.
Oooooh. People like me, eh? You mean black people? Tall people? Oh wait. You mean the overwhelming majority who don't agree with the small minority that are the only ones who have good values and know what is "right" for everyone else and the only ones who have common sense AND who are NOT Elitist, btw!!!

You take getting called out as a slight when in fact you're just getting called out for holding up a piece of dog crap and calling it beef wellington.

Hmmm. for whom do you think I have such high regard? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Obama? Pray tell, enlighten us with your acumen! My lovely bride keeps asking what I'm smiling and laughing about so by all means, continue!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Your problem is that you want to desperately believe that America is not facing serious problems. And you want to desperately believe that we are not to blame for our problems. And you'll mock anyone that defies your status quo is cool mentality. It's sad really.

 

[Sallow]

I'm completely opposed to raising the debt ceiling until I start seeing some serious efforts to reduce the deficits and start paying off the debt. Same goes for any discussion of tax increases.

When you max out a credit card, you don't raise the credit limit and keep spending. You get your finances in order and start paying it off.

You forgot to add "When a democrat is in the White House."

Because if not, it gets raised seventeen times under Reagan, seven times under Bush II.

Fun that when Carter, Clinton and now Obama occupied the White House, spending went DOWN..and was STILL an issue.

 

[editec]

Republicans will ...
- repeal Obamacare
- stop the EPA and unions from destroying US companies
- quit raising taxes to pay for social programs and more spending
- maintain a strong national defense
- invest in areas the Feds should like the space industry instead of the green industry

Thanks for the laugh.

That's not entirely fair, RDD.

Gone Berzerk honestly answered the question as he sees their plan.

He BELEIVES what he just wrote, and if you do not, it falls to you to address the specific things you think he wrote that are wrong.

 

[BillyV]

You seem to think that a party has to be “for” something new to be viable; I disagree. Conservatives in general are “for” what we already have, a country that rewards hard work, innovation, intelligence and risk taking,
Okay a civil and intelligent post. I appreciate this. So please no I mean no offense when I state the the Dems could claim the exact same thing, just as legitimately.

Thanks for not offending my delicate sensibilities. I don’t agree; the Dems want to “improve” things through more government. Some of us don’t think their idea of “improvement” is positive for the country, and prefer the systems already in place.

“against” vast new entitlement and social engineering programs that cater to the lowest common denominator, and "against” unbending loyalty to green energy or excessive new environmental and other regulatory burdens.
What are the "new" entitlement programs? What social engineering? I'd love to see us off oil completely but for Conservative, not Liberal reasons.

Ummmm….Obamacare? Not a new entitlement?

So most are “for” a repeal of Obamacare, because it will cost a trillion dollars over the next ten years (at least, with $500 billion of new taxes).
That is what Repubs say. Dems say it will reduce the deficit. I'd like to see it repealed anyway though. But I think we do need SOMETHING as an alternative.

Whether or not it reduces the deficit is irrelevant. If I raise $1 trillion in taxes and spend 90% of it social programs, I can say that “reduces the deficit” by $100 billion. It doesn’t change the fact that you have still spent an additional $900 billion that either could have created wealth in the private sector or been paid directly against the debt.

That extra trillion dollars will come partly from Medicare (savings on fraud waste and abuse – right! Read: more deficit spending); taxes on medical insurance premiums (yes, for those of us who pay them), increased Medicare taxes on wages of higher income individuals and on investment income, and excise taxes on medical equipment and fees on pharmaceutical companies (which will be paid by medical insurance companies and, therefore, by those who pay for it), and the penalty on employers who choose not to offer health insurance (that should be good for business). And what will all that money buy? A free ride for anyone who now does not find it “convenient” to pay for health insurance;

You don't think there are people out there who simply can't afford insurane premiums?

Those who truly can’t afford it have Medicaid. If someone is not qualified for Medicaid because they make too much, then they just have not made it a priority.

redistribution on a massive scale.
There is always redistribution. It is just a matter of what direction or type of recipient benefits.

That’s a non-answer. Redistribution defined (dictionary.com) - Economics . the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs. Therefore, by this definition it can only go one way – from producers to non-producers (or perhaps lesser producers) Redistribution is a fact of life in civilized society; all citizens must have what they need to survive. There’s a difference between that and providing cradle-to-grave entitlements.

Should we have a safety net? Yes. Should we be subsidizing those who would rather not pay for their own well being? No. And just to be clear, I am not against the mandate (assuming it’s constitutional, which I’m afraid it probably isn’t); I think if we are going to run a health care system that denies no one care, it stands to reason that everyone will at some time in their lives end up using those services. A mandate is unnecessary if we simply deny services to those who can’t pay, but that will never happen (and rightly so). Anyway, Obamacare will lead inexorably to government-dominated and finally government-run healthcare, resulting in the destruction of the most innovative and finest healthcare system on the planet. Please no stats from the UN claiming otherwise; the US system is profligate with resources and is THE place to be if you are suffering from a serious illness. Somewhat expensive, yes, but you will not wait for service nor suffer from lack of available physicians, medical equipment or hospital space.

I had government health care in the military. It was fine. Not one officer I knew bought private insurance and I know none of the enlisted men did. I've also lived in three countries that had government health care. None of the horror stories occured in my personal experience and I am not a quick to believe the media claims as some.

I didn’t disparage any other country’s system, and people are usually happy with it right up to the time they need treatment for a complex or serious illness and are required to wait, sometimes with disastrous consequences. How often do you hear about that in the US? Also, these other countries benefit from the profitability of the American market; the onslaught of new drugs and therapies would drop to a trickle without the margins afforded them in this country.

Most are also “for” a reduction in statutory corporate income tax rates to enhance competitiveness; you can say that “no one pays the statutory rates”, but you would be incorrect. The largest corporations often can avoid them to some degree by making use of deductions and credits, but many are not available to the general mid-size business. In any case, those larger corporations are also the companies that are more easily able to offshore American jobs.
There is a flaw here but I think we're close in our thinking. I would do the opposite. Global Corporations (there really is no such thing as a big American company any more) pay an average of 15%. Many pay zero taxes. They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes. Think about it. The tax rate in India is 33%. Do you think they move jobs there because of the tax rate or because there is virtually no regulation and th average wage is $2 a day? Think about that. So i would take away all their tax breaks and subsidies - BUT I would give them to companies that met two qualifications: 100% American employees and 100% of revenues reported and paid in the USA. Think about what THAT owuld do for the deficit and unemployment.

Global corporations pay varying rates depending on the markets they are in; I’m not sure where this “15%” figure comes from, but I don’t think it’s relevant without some idea of the mix of foreign and US earnings and taxable income. None incur “zero taxes”; that’s just a fallacy. Some pay zero taxes in given years due to deferral strategies and carryover losses from other years. Look at the “deferred tax” component of a profitable company’s financial statements; that’s where you’ll find the income tax expense to be paid in future years.
Now you say on the one hand, “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes”, and in the next line you say that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment. You can’t have it both ways; either taxes are a consideration or they are not.
I also am not a proponent of stopping US companies from penetrating foreign markets. Does anyone think Japan is unhappy that Toyota and Honda manufacture cars in the US? Why then should we be unhappy when GM and Caterpillar manufacture for the China market? Many of the more lucrative executive, engineering and design components required stay in the US, just as Japanese engineers benefit from Toyota and Honda.

Reduce the top rate to 25% (as Mitt has suggested), eliminate many of the “give away” deductions that have evolved over the years and let them all compete equally. Do the same with individual rates, or you will create an “accountants’ full employment act” to manipulate income from personal to corporate earnings. And for the record, most conservatives are “for” supporting our most productive citizens, not badgering them about “fair share” (to which there is never any limit) to support our least productive citizens. Again, safety net, yes; permanent entitlement, no.

Most are “for” exploiting our domestic resources to the fullest, fossil as well as alternative. “Against” cap and trade or other confiscatory policies; the environmental policies of the West have simply moved the pollution to low-wage foreign countries that care less about the environment and therefore do more damage, then send back the resulting products. That’s not a solution; it’s just a bigger problem. Solar and wind energy are fine, but they are not a solution; reliance on them will just lead to poverty and misery until and unless they are competitive in all ways with carbon-based fuels.

I am all for solar etc... and every technology I can think of, started out inefficient and expensive and then got better and cheaper. Hell, i remember having to pay for a cell phone the sie of a brick and I couldn't even go on the net with it. besides, I like anything that could possibly bankrupt the Middle East. )

That’s true, there’s a time lag before a new technology is really commercially viable. But while that was happening, we kept our land-line phones and cellular was a novelty. The Dems would have us eliminate the land-lines while the cell phones are still bricks, or make the land-lines incredibly more expensive to make the cell phone more competitive. That’s what they want to do with cap and trade and other excessive environmental policies.

Most, finally, are “for” smaller, smarter government. We have, what, three agencies of the federal government responsible for protecting salmon at different stages? That’s lunacy, and a sign of the truth of Reagan’s comment that “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!” A government that gives us only what we need, not everything we want; a right-sized government that spends no more than it takes in (yes, a balanced budget amendment is the only way that will ever happen; pretty sure the Republican House took a vote on that) and expects and encourages its citizens to take care of their own problems. We have serious debt problems, and are careening toward a financial precipice. That’s enough for me not to vote “for” the policies of the liberals, no matter how reasonable their arguments may sound.

I have yet to see a Republican administration reduce the size of government. I mean, they always talk a good game but I don't recall any of them do it. Help me out with that one!

Well, I understand the Republican platform is to eliminate three major agencies from the outset: Commerce, Education, and……….ummmmm…….I’ll get back to you on the other one.
It’s true that government has yet to be downsized during my lifetime. However, given our current situation and the forces pulling at the Republican Party, I believe they are the most likely to reduce, or at least moderate the growth, of government. The Dems have shown that they have little interest in smaller government.

And, of course, because “Dems suck!”

Okay, that I can get behind! But so do repubs. I can't think of anything they have accomplished that makes me say "Well okay, THAT was really good!". And I don't see much that impresses me from them.

Both parties are flawed; we have to choose those that most closely reflect our opinions.

 

[tjvh]

The truth is neither party "needs" to be offering anything. What America needs is people to get up off their asses and contribute to society rather than milk from it.

Let me guess. You're old. Maybe getting those nice SSI checks, some nice health care from MediCare and MediCaid?
I could be wrong but you have that feel.
Younger people know it's hard out there right now.

I am nowhere near Social Security... Mid 40's.

 

[Listening]

The question(s) you raise here are not easily answered due to the different approach that people take to governing and the emphasis they place on different aspects of our existence. And the GOP has a much more nuanced (or they did) argument which they have not made for quite some time.

In a nutshell, any considerations given to government have to consider the basis for the issue and the groundrules for what can be applied and cannot be applied. This is where most arguments break down. If people could get this worked out, the rest would be pretty easy IMHO.

As an example....health care.

This has pissed me off for almost twenty years. When Hillarycare first came to the surface, the GOP killed it like I wanted them to. But they walked away from the issue. I know people who struggle because of health insurance isssues. The system is broken in some respects. National Health Care is not the answer I want. In the first place, it is not allowable under the USC. I don't care how much the dems argue otherwise, the USC, the federalist papers, and the 10th amendment (combined with the fact that we haven't had it for over 200 years) all pretty much say it is not within the purview of the fed. You can say well SS and Medicare should not be either. And I would say...that is correct. And the GOP quit beating that drum 50 years ago (it is easy not to rock the boat when you own the world economy...I blame the GOP for letting the issue go).

I may not want federal health care (for other reason that are to long to list here), but I want the issue addressed. There are other ways to do it.....Mitt Romney did it in Mass. which is perfectly legal and the people of the state of Mass seem happy with it (I guess ?).

I applaud the democrats desire to see everyone get health care. But the overuse and abuse of federal power is something they don't acknowledge.

That is the fundamental difference in my book. And neither side addresses that basic issue.

But I digress......

So, in my mind, the argument becomes more subtle. The GOP should simply be pointing out the way that things should be working.

Why do we need a federal health care program when states can do this ?

And why hasn't CA or NY passed state run program ?

Again, this is just an example....please don't feel the need to respond on the subject of health care.

My point is that the GOP has lost it's bearings and is now floundering.

And the democrats are attempting to utilize the federal government to solve a bunch of issues that a lot of us don't think are any of their business. Look at the thread on the school being fined for offering soda. Really ? But what you get is the democratic response of "Well, you are against good nutrition." Really ?

Or could there be another reason ?

The GOP has not done a good job of keeping that front and center.

Less government means more personal responsibility. However, as a society, we do have an obligation to each other. How that gets worked out has never been discussed or has fallen by the wayside.

In a thread asking why anyone would vote Dem, when they have no plans etc... I responded with several items that obviously required planning and were subsequently carried out. I also included a couple things that are still in the planning phase.

Having said that.....

In theory (and I stress that this is the case.....the behavior does not match the theory), the GOP does not want plans at the federal level.

The going in assumption, by the left, in most any argument is that a problem needs to be fixed and the federal government is the way to fix it.

So, the GOP does not counter with better fixes. It simply says....stay out of that business.

A difficult position to sell if you have not laid the groundwork properly.

So, I don't want plans for the fed beyond their limited scope of responsibilities.

While i don't hold the Dems in high regard, I am quick to challenge post that lack substance or logic. One poster got rather hysterical, threw a bit of a fit at being challenged to cite specifics about what the GOP has accomplished / plans they have presented that are so vastly superior to those of the Dems, and why.

Any true conservative has a simple answer.....we don't want plans. Assuming there has to be "a plan" is the big mistake that the left makes in the eyes of the right. However, the right does not know how to articulate that point. They have the more difficult message to deliver.

He insisted I start a new thread because you know, direct answers and such, well gee.

And if it were me, I'd be asking questions like:

Why is it necessary that the federal government do this ?

What is your basis for wanting the fed to do this ?

We have at least four levels of government.....but we only focus on one....what about the others...what are they doing ?

So okay, here we go. If anyone can provide something even more intellectually substantive than the usual "Because Dems suck!" or "Obama wants to entitle votes into...." and other such prattle,

So, here again.

If a member of the right actuall engages you on a topic, they have, by default admitted that is fair game for the federal government to be looking at this issue. They also admit it is an issue that needs to be addressed. If that is allowable, then they've lost the basis for most of thier argument.

I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. I will not stoop to the petty insults and labeling so common here. I just haven't seen much from the GOP that would incite anyone not already Faithful to The Cause, to vote for them. So I welcome specifics about their plans and accomplishments. Cheers!

So, I afraid I can't help you here.

My desire of the GOP at the federal level is to set a tone for state run government and to kill as many programs as possible. I would like to see the GOP at the state level scream for more autonomy and not give into the money grubbing that goes on because the fed doles out the federal highway dollars.

If you want to talk about plans at the state level (for a particular state), then I am interested.

But that the federal level my basic approach is:

Get rid of as much as you can and cut the budget as best you can (make SS semi private and get rid of medicare as a federal program....but take 20 years to do it......we have an obligation to those who have paid into it).

Any time the dems show up with a program....kill it if the USC does not allow for it.

Let us work out our problems at the local level.

In summary:

There are four levels of government (in most cases) and what is appropriate for each is never discussed. The whole focus is on the federal government. That is a mistake.

I am afraid your question assumes that issues have to be solved at the federal level.

I would disagree with that one right off the bat.

 

[BDBoop]

^^^

Your problem is that you want to desperately believe that America is not facing serious problems. And you want to desperately believe that we are not to blame for our problems. And you'll mock anyone that defies your status quo is cool mentality. It's sad really.

We know they're facing serious problems. We just don't believe they started with Obama.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm completely opposed to raising the debt ceiling until I start seeing some serious efforts to reduce the deficits and start paying off the debt. Same goes for any discussion of tax increases.

When you max out a credit card, you don't raise the credit limit and keep spending. You get your finances in order and start paying it off.

You forgot to add "When a democrat is in the White House."

Because if not, it gets raised seventeen times under Reagan, seven times under Bush II.

Fun that when Carter, Clinton and now Obama occupied the White House, spending went DOWN..and was STILL an issue.

Interestingly enough, compared to Reagan (highest spender), Bush Jr. (second highest spender), Clinton (third highest spender), Obama is looking like a miser. You might wanna check the latest figures, because Obama has the lowest spending in a long time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In a thread asking why anyone would vote Dem, when they have no plans etc... I responded with several items that obviously required planning and were subsequently carried out. I also included a couple things that are still in the planning phase.
While i don't hold the Dems in high regard, I am quick to challenge post that lack substance or logic. One poster got rather hysterical, threw a bit of a fit at being challenged to cite specifics about what the GOP has accomplished / plans they have presented that are so vastly superior to those of the Dems, and why. He insisted I start a new thread because you know, direct answers and such, well gee.
So okay, here we go. If anyone can provide something even more intellectually substantive than the usual "Because Dems suck!" or "Obama wants to entitle votes into...." and other such prattle, I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. I will not stoop to the petty insults and labeling so common here. I just haven't seen much from the GOP that would incite anyone not already Faithful to The Cause, to vote for them. So I welcome specifics about their plans and accomplishments. Cheers!

What exact have the democrats done since they took control of the senate since 2007? What exactly have the democrats done since they at one time had control of both the house and senate and white house?

 

[ABikerSailor]

In a thread asking why anyone would vote Dem, when they have no plans etc... I responded with several items that obviously required planning and were subsequently carried out. I also included a couple things that are still in the planning phase.
While i don't hold the Dems in high regard, I am quick to challenge post that lack substance or logic. One poster got rather hysterical, threw a bit of a fit at being challenged to cite specifics about what the GOP has accomplished / plans they have presented that are so vastly superior to those of the Dems, and why. He insisted I start a new thread because you know, direct answers and such, well gee.
So okay, here we go. If anyone can provide something even more intellectually substantive than the usual "Because Dems suck!" or "Obama wants to entitle votes into...." and other such prattle, I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. I will not stoop to the petty insults and labeling so common here. I just haven't seen much from the GOP that would incite anyone not already Faithful to The Cause, to vote for them. So I welcome specifics about their plans and accomplishments. Cheers!

What exact have the democrats done since they took control of the senate since 2007? What exactly have the democrats done since they at one time had control of both the house and senate and white house?

Well, there's health care for one. But after the teabaggers got into the House, they managed to stop almost all legislation.

If you're looking for the "do nothing Congress", it's the one currently in session, under the leadership of the world's saddest tangerine, Mr. Boehner.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In a thread asking why anyone would vote Dem, when they have no plans etc... I responded with several items that obviously required planning and were subsequently carried out. I also included a couple things that are still in the planning phase.
While i don't hold the Dems in high regard, I am quick to challenge post that lack substance or logic. One poster got rather hysterical, threw a bit of a fit at being challenged to cite specifics about what the GOP has accomplished / plans they have presented that are so vastly superior to those of the Dems, and why. He insisted I start a new thread because you know, direct answers and such, well gee.
So okay, here we go. If anyone can provide something even more intellectually substantive than the usual "Because Dems suck!" or "Obama wants to entitle votes into...." and other such prattle, I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. I will not stoop to the petty insults and labeling so common here. I just haven't seen much from the GOP that would incite anyone not already Faithful to The Cause, to vote for them. So I welcome specifics about their plans and accomplishments. Cheers!

What exact have the democrats done since they took control of the senate since 2007? What exactly have the democrats done since they at one time had control of both the house and senate and white house?

Well, there's health care for one. But after the teabaggers got into the House, they managed to stop almost all legislation.

If you're looking for the "do nothing Congress", it's the one currently in session, under the leadership of the world's saddest tangerine, Mr. Boehner.

Healthcare that the majority of America did not want healthcare that will brake America healthcare that obama had to take money from medicare to fund? That healthcare?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Your problem is that you want to desperately believe that America is not facing serious problems. And you want to desperately believe that we are not to blame for our problems. And you'll mock anyone that defies your status quo is cool mentality. It's sad really.

We know they're facing serious problems. We just don't believe they started with Obama.

Who's saying they started with Obama? Obama just made them much worse.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What exact have the democrats done since they took control of the senate since 2007? What exactly have the democrats done since they at one time had control of both the house and senate and white house?

Well, there's health care for one. But after the teabaggers got into the House, they managed to stop almost all legislation.

If you're looking for the "do nothing Congress", it's the one currently in session, under the leadership of the world's saddest tangerine, Mr. Boehner.

Healthcare that the majority of America did not want healthcare that will brake America healthcare that obama had to take money from medicare to fund? That healthcare?

Actually, if you call it "Obamacare" in the survey, you'd find that people are against it because they don't know what is actually in it. If you break it down by the various things it will provide, the surveys have said that 72 percent of the nation is for it.

But...........since you only listen to FAUX Nooze and right wing blog sites, I doubt that you've heard that.

But tell me.............what has Boehner and this Congress done for getting jobs? That's right........NOTHING. They've been too busy with DOMA, making abortion illegal (yet again, probably for the 10th time I think) and going after the gays.

 

[ABikerSailor]

^^^

Your problem is that you want to desperately believe that America is not facing serious problems. And you want to desperately believe that we are not to blame for our problems. And you'll mock anyone that defies your status quo is cool mentality. It's sad really.

We know they're facing serious problems. We just don't believe they started with Obama.

Who's saying they started with Obama? Obama just made them much worse.

Really? Spending under Obama is LOWER than Reagan, Bush Jr. or Clinton. Oh yeah, unemployment is still dropping (7.9 percent now), and the stock market has maintained over the 12,000 mark and many times has made it above 13,000. When Obama took over, the stock market was at around 7,800, so if you'd invested money you would have actually gotten a return on your investments under Obama.

Try again.