Obamas "Jobs Bill" is DOA as it should be!!!!!!! Unfu***** believeable

[saveliberty]

We are placing the people first. How are we doing that?

1. Challenging the President on the Constitutionality of Obamacare.
2. Asking for a responsible deficit reduction plan.
3. Limiting new spending.
4. Suggesting LESS government invovlement in business will spur growth.
5. Rejecting new stimulus, which did nothing the last time. In fact, it slowed recovery.
6. Pointing out the failure of Obama on bring us back from war, tranparency, green policy, healthcare reform, and a host of other major issues with little or no progress.

 

[Meister]

Pardon me for trying to foil a reelection of the worst US president in modern history.

Haven't you heard? Opposing Dear Leader is treason. The Brownshirts told me so.

There is a ethical role in this country that the minority party is bound to, if this nation is to remain a democratic republic. It is called the LOYAL minority. That role is to always put the people and the country before party.

Republicans have refused...

Oh brother....

 

[saveliberty]

Thank you for mindlessly PROVING my point...

"The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY."

Congressional Democrats (even the Black Caucus) are falling away from the President. He is a failure. I'm sure its convenient to blame Republicans. You and your kind have been doing it for 11 years already.

 

[Full-Auto]

Blind partisan BULLSHIT! Republicans have openly said their only goal is to defeat Obama. And the worst things get for the American people, the better for their chances. The right are fucking Tearrorists who are willing to destroy our democratic process and spit in the face of the will of the American people. Can you name another President who hasn't been able to have all his appointments confirmed 3 years into his administration???

The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY.

We know during the health care debate:

At the beginning of this process we (Republicans) made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

David Frum, former G.W. Bush speechwriter

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

That may be your opinion but it remains far from reality.

Dont you accept the quotes?

Quoting opinion makes it less or more then an opinion?

 

[Bfgrn]

Haven't you heard? Opposing Dear Leader is treason. The Brownshirts told me so.

There is a ethical role in this country that the minority party is bound to, if this nation is to remain a democratic republic. It is called the LOYAL minority. That role is to always put the people and the country before party.

Republicans have refused...

Oh brother....

Oh brother Meister? Do you deny that Republicans made a strategic decision during the health care debate to "make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."???

 

[Full-Auto]

There is a ethical role in this country that the minority party is bound to, if this nation is to remain a democratic republic. It is called the LOYAL minority. That role is to always put the people and the country before party.

Republicans have refused...

Oh brother....

Oh brother Meister? Do you deny that Republicans made a strategic decision during the health care debate to "make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."???

Such opposition your side had to bribe its own members.


Is that what you think compromise is. Taking bribes for your vote?

 

[Immanuel]

Blind partisan BULLSHIT! Republicans have openly said their only goal is to defeat Obama. And the worst things get for the American people, the better for their chances. The right are fucking Tearrorists who are willing to destroy our democratic process and spit in the face of the will of the American people. Can you name another President who hasn't been able to have all his appointments confirmed 3 years into his administration???

The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY.

We know during the health care debate:

At the beginning of this process we (Republicans) made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

David Frum, former G.W. Bush speechwriter

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

Pardon me for trying to foil a reelection of the worst US president in modern history.

Thank you for mindlessly PROVING my point...

"The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY."

Sound familiar?

Probably not, because you are extremely partisan, but liberals did the same thing to Bush and it was done to Clinton as well. Oh well, life goes on.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh brother....

Oh brother Meister? Do you deny that Republicans made a strategic decision during the health care debate to "make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."???

Such opposition your side had to bribe its own members.


Is that what you think compromise is. Taking bribes for your vote?

Yea, the conservatives (Blue Dogs) in the Democratic Party single-handedly undermined the public option, which is what the bill should have had. But instead we got the GOP/Heritage Foundation's Individual Mandate. I blame the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman.

 

[Bfgrn]

Pardon me for trying to foil a reelection of the worst US president in modern history.

Thank you for mindlessly PROVING my point...

"The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY."

Sound familiar?

Probably not, because you are extremely partisan, but liberals did the same thing to Bush and it was done to Clinton as well. Oh well, life goes on.

Immie

Did Bush get his two tax cuts for the wealthy passed Immie?

 

[saveliberty]

Thanks for not refuting the Obama is the worst modern US president ever claim.

You have the Presidency and majority in the Senate, yet you can't get anything done. Know why? Its the wrong approach and people have figured that out. Time to start listening and stop the socialist rhetoric.

 

[Immanuel]

Thank you for mindlessly PROVING my point...

"The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY."

Sound familiar?

Probably not, because you are extremely partisan, but liberals did the same thing to Bush and it was done to Clinton as well. Oh well, life goes on.

Immie

Did Bush get his two tax cuts for the wealthy passed Immie?

Yes, he did get the tax cuts.

Did Obama get ACA passed, Bfgrn?

It changes nothing. Liberals threw a tantrum throughout the eight years of Bush (barring the short time that we all came together after 9/11). It is the way of politics.

The opposition from either side is necessary to keep things stable. Saveliberty is correct in an earlier post when he spoke about what conservatives are attempting to prevent happening during this administration.

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck!

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

Sound familiar?

Probably not, because you are extremely partisan, but liberals did the same thing to Bush and it was done to Clinton as well. Oh well, life goes on.

Immie

Did Bush get his two tax cuts for the wealthy passed Immie?

Yes, he did get the tax cuts.

Did Obama get ACA passed, Bfgrn?

It changes nothing. Liberals threw a tantrum throughout the eight years of Bush (barring the short time that we all came together after 9/11). It is the way of politics.

The opposition from either side is necessary to keep things stable. Saveliberty is correct in an earlier post when he spoke about what conservatives are attempting to prevent happening during this administration.

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck!

Immie

Obama got the ACA passed with ZERO Republican votes. Even though the bill they passed is almost a carbon copy of the Republican proposal in 1993, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE'

WHY is that Immie?

I will let George Bush's speechwriter explain it to you...

Waterloo - David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

 

[Immanuel]

Did Bush get his two tax cuts for the wealthy passed Immie?

Yes, he did get the tax cuts.

Did Obama get ACA passed, Bfgrn?

It changes nothing. Liberals threw a tantrum throughout the eight years of Bush (barring the short time that we all came together after 9/11). It is the way of politics.

The opposition from either side is necessary to keep things stable. Saveliberty is correct in an earlier post when he spoke about what conservatives are attempting to prevent happening during this administration.

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck!

Immie

Obama got the ACA passed with ZERO Republican votes. Even though the bill they passed is almost a carbon copy of the Republican proposal in 1993, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE'

WHY is that Immie?

I will let George Bush's speechwriter explain it to you...

Waterloo - David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

Again!

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck.

You guys want to destroy this country from the inside out. Spending like there is no tomorrow and pushing this nation closer towards a socialistic regime. Conservatives want to slow down the spending and protect our freedoms. If it were not for conservatives we would owe our souls to the nanny state in every manner conceivable to the point that we would even have to ask permission to wipe our own asses.

Conservatives AND liberals are necessary to keep this country from going too far in either direction... too far left and becoming a Socialistic nightmare or too far right and becoming a pure "free market" Capitalistic society. Either one of those alternatives would ruin this nation.

Immie

 

[Meister]

Oh brother Meister? Do you deny that Republicans made a strategic decision during the health care debate to "make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."???

Such opposition your side had to bribe its own members.


Is that what you think compromise is. Taking bribes for your vote?

Yea, the conservatives (Blue Dogs) in the Democratic Party single-handedly undermined the public option, which is what the bill should have had. But instead we got the GOP/Heritage Foundation's Individual Mandate. I blame the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman.

So that would be a "yes" the dems had to bribe dems to get the Bill passed. Your opinion on what should have passed is just that....your opinion.

 

[Meister]

There is a ethical role in this country that the minority party is bound to, if this nation is to remain a democratic republic. It is called the LOYAL minority. That role is to always put the people and the country before party.

Republicans have refused...

Oh brother....

Oh brother Meister? Do you deny that Republicans made a strategic decision during the health care debate to "make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."???

Seems that the republicans input were quickly rejected early on which led to their rejection of the healthcare debacle, BFGRN.
As far as Clinton's Waterloo......was he re elected in '96? Not much of a Waterloo

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, he did get the tax cuts.

Did Obama get ACA passed, Bfgrn?

It changes nothing. Liberals threw a tantrum throughout the eight years of Bush (barring the short time that we all came together after 9/11). It is the way of politics.

The opposition from either side is necessary to keep things stable. Saveliberty is correct in an earlier post when he spoke about what conservatives are attempting to prevent happening during this administration.

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck!

Immie

Obama got the ACA passed with ZERO Republican votes. Even though the bill they passed is almost a carbon copy of the Republican proposal in 1993, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE'

WHY is that Immie?

I will let George Bush's speechwriter explain it to you...

Waterloo - David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

Again!

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck.

You guys want to destroy this country from the inside out. Spending like there is no tomorrow and pushing this nation closer towards a socialistic regime. Conservatives want to slow down the spending and protect our freedoms. If it were not for conservatives we would owe our souls to the nanny state in every manner conceivable to the point that we would even have to ask permission to wipe our own asses.

Conservatives AND liberals are necessary to keep this country from going too far in either direction... too far left and becoming a Socialistic nightmare or too far right and becoming a pure "free market" Capitalistic society. Either one of those alternatives would ruin this nation.

Immie

True Conservatives focus on the Constitution and the Founders' intent when they wrote, passed, and ratified it. Liberals, in very small numbers, perhaps keep us reminded to keep things more personal and to take measures to alleviate short term pain as much as possible when we are going for long range goals. But that Constitution, at least as it was intended, makes sure that a free market, Capitalistic society will be restrained from violating anybody's unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights. That restraint is sufficient to allow the people, with their rights secured, to pursue whatever dreams or goals they envision.

The Left, however, has been chipping away at that concept for decades now, taking more and more self determination and freedom from the people and shifting it to an ever more powerful, more invasive, more intrusive, and more authoritarian government. That was what the Founders most rejected and most feared. And rightly so.

Our Fearless Leader is so far left of most of the left that he can see no plan, no idea, no ideal that does not speed up the process of the federal government becoming the only authority of everything. His current jobs proposal includes little or no free market concept, but rather is a whip and cattle prod to hurry big government to be the total authority.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh brother....

Oh brother Meister? Do you deny that Republicans made a strategic decision during the health care debate to "make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."???

Seems that the republicans input were quickly rejected early on which led to their rejection of the healthcare debacle, BFGRN.
As far as Clinton's Waterloo......was he re elected in '96? Not much of a Waterloo

Denial is not an argument Meister...it is an emotional response. The President reached across the aisle on health care, and Republicans LIED about wanting to work with him and the Democrats, JUST LIKE Bush's speechwriter said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley vowed to the American people that he would work with Max Baucus and the Senate Committee on Finance on a bipartisan health care bill. Then he went home to Iowa and parroted the biggest LIE of the year...death panels.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama got the ACA passed with ZERO Republican votes. Even though the bill they passed is almost a carbon copy of the Republican proposal in 1993, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE'

WHY is that Immie?

I will let George Bush's speechwriter explain it to you...

Waterloo - David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

Again!

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck.

You guys want to destroy this country from the inside out. Spending like there is no tomorrow and pushing this nation closer towards a socialistic regime. Conservatives want to slow down the spending and protect our freedoms. If it were not for conservatives we would owe our souls to the nanny state in every manner conceivable to the point that we would even have to ask permission to wipe our own asses.

Conservatives AND liberals are necessary to keep this country from going too far in either direction... too far left and becoming a Socialistic nightmare or too far right and becoming a pure "free market" Capitalistic society. Either one of those alternatives would ruin this nation.

Immie

True Conservatives focus on the Constitution and the Founders' intent when they wrote, passed, and ratified it. Liberals, in very small numbers, perhaps keep us reminded to keep things more personal and to take measures to alleviate short term pain as much as possible when we are going for long range goals. But that Constitution, at least as it was intended, makes sure that a free market, Capitalistic society will be restrained from violating anybody's unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights. That restraint is sufficient to allow the people, with their rights secured, to pursue whatever dreams or goals they envision.

The Left, however, has been chipping away at that concept for decades now, taking more and more self determination and freedom from the people and shifting it to an ever more powerful, more invasive, more intrusive, and more authoritarian government. That was what the Founders most rejected and most feared. And rightly so.

Our Fearless Leader is so far left of most of the left that he can see no plan, no idea, no ideal that does not speed up the process of the federal government becoming the only authority of everything. His current jobs proposal includes little or no free market concept, but rather is a whip and cattle prod to hurry big government to be the total authority.

WHAT you and the rest of the right wingers here are saying is what I said:

"The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY."

 

[Foxfyre]

Again!

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck.

You guys want to destroy this country from the inside out. Spending like there is no tomorrow and pushing this nation closer towards a socialistic regime. Conservatives want to slow down the spending and protect our freedoms. If it were not for conservatives we would owe our souls to the nanny state in every manner conceivable to the point that we would even have to ask permission to wipe our own asses.

Conservatives AND liberals are necessary to keep this country from going too far in either direction... too far left and becoming a Socialistic nightmare or too far right and becoming a pure "free market" Capitalistic society. Either one of those alternatives would ruin this nation.

Immie

True Conservatives focus on the Constitution and the Founders' intent when they wrote, passed, and ratified it. Liberals, in very small numbers, perhaps keep us reminded to keep things more personal and to take measures to alleviate short term pain as much as possible when we are going for long range goals. But that Constitution, at least as it was intended, makes sure that a free market, Capitalistic society will be restrained from violating anybody's unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights. That restraint is sufficient to allow the people, with their rights secured, to pursue whatever dreams or goals they envision.

The Left, however, has been chipping away at that concept for decades now, taking more and more self determination and freedom from the people and shifting it to an ever more powerful, more invasive, more intrusive, and more authoritarian government. That was what the Founders most rejected and most feared. And rightly so.

Our Fearless Leader is so far left of most of the left that he can see no plan, no idea, no ideal that does not speed up the process of the federal government becoming the only authority of everything. His current jobs proposal includes little or no free market concept, but rather is a whip and cattle prod to hurry big government to be the total authority.

WHAT you and the rest of the right wingers here are saying is what I said:

"The right has thrown a childish tantrum ever since Obama was elected. It will be THEIR way, or NO WAY."

Oh baloney. They are voting for what they can vote for. They are rejecting what we who elected them expect them to reject. And they know we'll hand them their tushes if they don't stand firm on their campaign promises that got them elected.

It's how it is supposed to work you know. You elect somebody based on what they support or don't support. And you expect them to be the person you elected.

Obama said early on that he doesn't have to consider what the GOP proposed because he won. And surely you remember his line in that Rhode Island factory just last October: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama got the ACA passed with ZERO Republican votes. Even though the bill they passed is almost a carbon copy of the Republican proposal in 1993, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE'

WHY is that Immie?

I will let George Bush's speechwriter explain it to you...

Waterloo - David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

Again!

God help us if we allow either side to run a muck.

You guys want to destroy this country from the inside out. Spending like there is no tomorrow and pushing this nation closer towards a socialistic regime. Conservatives want to slow down the spending and protect our freedoms. If it were not for conservatives we would owe our souls to the nanny state in every manner conceivable to the point that we would even have to ask permission to wipe our own asses.

Conservatives AND liberals are necessary to keep this country from going too far in either direction... too far left and becoming a Socialistic nightmare or too far right and becoming a pure "free market" Capitalistic society. Either one of those alternatives would ruin this nation.

Immie

True Conservatives focus on the Constitution and the Founders' intent when they wrote, passed, and ratified it. Liberals, in very small numbers, perhaps keep us reminded to keep things more personal and to take measures to alleviate short term pain as much as possible when we are going for long range goals. But that Constitution, at least as it was intended, makes sure that a free market, Capitalistic society will be restrained from violating anybody's unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights. That restraint is sufficient to allow the people, with their rights secured, to pursue whatever dreams or goals they envision.

The Left, however, has been chipping away at that concept for decades now, taking more and more self determination and freedom from the people and shifting it to an ever more powerful, more invasive, more intrusive, and more authoritarian government. That was what the Founders most rejected and most feared. And rightly so.

Our Fearless Leader is so far left of most of the left that he can see no plan, no idea, no ideal that does not speed up the process of the federal government becoming the only authority of everything. His current jobs proposal includes little or no free market concept, but rather is a whip and cattle prod to hurry big government to be the total authority.

Bullshit. The arguments you make have been raging since our founder's days. Every generation has had them, and the best minds and scholars have weighed in. The history of what each generation built is our legacy. Conservatives today have the audacity to spew that only THEY know our founder's intent, when history and even how our founders governed totally flies in the face of that strict constructionist radical extreme.

America is a nation of people, human beings, entities that can be harmed or even extinguished. It is the responsibility of the government of We, the People, to keep that from happening.

My favorite quote from the Great Depression came from Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised objections to F.D.R.’s work programs and relief programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”