To My Republican Friends......What Needs to Be Done to Win National Elections

[alan1]

They are my representative to the government. If I do not like how I am being represented, they lose my vote

Given that Republicans only give a shit about the wealthy......I see no reason to give them my vote

Typical straw man claim, an opinion masquerading as a fact. It's sad that you probably believe it to be a fact absent of any proof.

Hey, here is a challenge for you........
Name a democrat congresscritter or president that isn't wealthy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Except the Congressmen are NOT the government

They are my representative to the government. If I do not like how I am being represented, they lose my vote

Given that Republicans only give a shit about the wealthy......I see no reason to give them my vote

Another example of a faulty premise and an illogical conclusion. Obama has increased taxes on the poor and middle class vastly more than Bush ever did. Bush lowered their taxes.

What has Obama done? The medical device tax hits everyone. Poor, middle class, rich...everyone. The ACA is a giant wealth re-distribution scheme that punishes the middle class.

Yet you say the Republicans only care about the wealthy? Where do you come up with this shit? Rachel Maddcow? MSNBC? It is ridiculous.

They've been saying it since before I was born. The media has always been biased but it's never been this obvious before.

 

[mudwhistle]

BTW, to all of you liberals.......Sarah Palin will be signing her book here at Ft Campbell Friday from 10am to 1pm.

The line will be pretty long so get here early.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do feel then that it's the responsibility of the federal bureaucracy to identify Americans by groups and then cater specifically to each?

.

Government is a delicate balance of helping those who need help.

The Government has no Constitutional obligation to "help" anyone. You are given a Bill of Rights and the opportunity to succeed. That is all you are entitled to.

Nonsense.

The Necessary and Proper Clause affords Congress the authority to address all manner of issues determined appropriate to benefit the Nation as a whole:

Scope of Incidental Powers

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

Operation of Coefficient Clause

Practically every power of the National Government has been expanded in some degree by the coefficient clause. Under its authority Congress has adopted measures requisite to discharge the treaty obligations of the nation;1645 it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary to protect and promote interstate commerce.1646 The right of Congress to utilize all known and appropriate means for collecting the revenue, including the distraint of property for federal taxes,1647 and its power to acquire property needed for the operation of the Government by the exercise of the power of eminent domain,1648 have greatly extended the range of national power. But the widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. Inasmuch as the various specific powers granted by Article I, Sec. 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining[p.341]the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject.1649

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Although inalienable, our civil liberties are not absolute, and the Bill of Rights and its case law create the framework in which the courts determine when a given restriction is appropriate or when it is offensive to the Constitution and invalidated.

 

[mudwhistle]

Government is a delicate balance of helping those who need help.

The Government has no Constitutional obligation to "help" anyone. You are given a Bill of Rights and the opportunity to succeed. That is all you are entitled to.

Nonsense.

The Necessary and Proper Clause affords Congress the authority to address all manner of issues determined appropriate to benefit the Nation as a whole:

Scope of Incidental Powers

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

Operation of Coefficient Clause

Practically every power of the National Government has been expanded in some degree by the coefficient clause. Under its authority Congress has adopted measures requisite to discharge the treaty obligations of the nation;1645 it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary to protect and promote interstate commerce.1646 The right of Congress to utilize all known and appropriate means for collecting the revenue, including the distraint of property for federal taxes,1647 and its power to acquire property needed for the operation of the Government by the exercise of the power of eminent domain,1648 have greatly extended the range of national power. But the widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. Inasmuch as the various specific powers granted by Article I, Sec. 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining[p.341]the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject.1649

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Although inalienable, our civil liberties are not absolute, and the Bill of Rights and its case law create the framework in which the courts determine when a given restriction is appropriate or when it is offensive to the Constitution and invalidated.

Cool....

 

[Spoonman]

Quit listening to democrats would be the place to start.

There it is... ^

yep. republicans aren't democrats. you can't try to please everyone with your political rhetoric. if you do, you end up with an Obama. in the end, he really ended up pleasing very few. this administration has not been good for America. most people honestly realize that.

one thing democrats do is get the word out better than the republicans. not that its a better word, but they utilize social media better and convince people they are better off with them. but that isn't the case. no one is better under Obama. the poor, are no better, the middle class is no better. the rich do well no matter who is in office. fact is, the gap has continues to grow between the rich and the poor. $7trillion has been added to the deficit and we have 3 more years to go. the economy is no better. jobs are not better. we have lost more rights. we have an absolute healthcare disaster. the infrastructure is still crumbling. women, well you still have the right to kill babies. then again, since you gained that right, 28 years of republican presidents never actually tried to take it away. but you see the power of the lib spin. they actually have people believing they have.

republican lost the last election because they let the democrats attack Romney and never did a thing to try to counter those attacks. democrats used Romney's association with bain as a negative. Republicans ignored it. they should have jumped all over it, embraced it and showed what a success Romney and bain actually were. Romney alone, as a business man, created more jobs then Obama as president with all of his resources.

what republicans need to wake up to is the intelligence game, the marketing, and the polishing of their conservative image.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

as a woman i have a lot of issues with the democratic party and the direction it is taking..sometimes i cannot believe the abuse of women by both parties....its like the democrats are the gropers and the republicans are rapist and those are your options....neither really responds to the needs of their female voters....

This exemplifies the entire problem we have with our country.

People think that the government exists to respond to the needs of various groups of people, when in fact, the federal government is not responsible for people, in general or specifically. They are there to protect and administer the country as a whole.

If you want the needs of women, men, gays, blacks, greens, the six-fingered-southern-Wabach tribes, then look to your State or local governments. Not the Feds.

This exemplifies the entire problem we have with conservatives.

“…neither really responds to the needs of their female voters” doesn’t mean anyone is looking to government to ‘respond to their needs,’ it means female voters are going to be inclined to support a political party that respects them as individuals and their Constitutional right to be left alone; currently that’s not the republican party, as the GOP seeks to dictate to women whether they may have children or not and subjects women to humiliating, degrading burdens as they seek to exercise their right to privacy.

Conservatives have got the stop believing in the errant, paranoid myth they’ve created that everyone is looking for a ‘hand out.’

 

[Spoonman]

Although inalienable, our civil liberties are not absolute, and the Bill of Rights and its case law create the framework in which the courts determine when a given restriction is appropriate or when it is offensive to the Constitution and invalidated.

yea right. in a dictatorship maybe. the bill of rights was designed to protect the citizens from government. not to let government manipulate them to control the citizens.

 

[Spoonman]

They have an Constitutional obligation to represent their constituents. If those constituents prefer Congressmen who actually give a shit about them, they will be elected

Except the Congressmen are NOT the government

They are my representative to the government. If I do not like how I am being represented, they lose my vote

Given that Republicans only give a shit about the wealthy......I see no reason to give them my vote

have the rich gotten richer under Obama? has the gap between the wealthy and poor lessened? What about Obama himself? hasn't he firmly planted himself as a 1 percenter in his 5 years in office?

 

[Seawytch]

That's bunk. And on top of that, 5 million people would beg to differ.

I notice you posted no facts to the contrary. Who do you think pays for the emergency room visit by the un or underinsured?

You quote an op ed from the CEO of an insurance company claiming that it's a necessity to buy health insurance. Do you not see a conflict of interest? If he sold pistachios he have you convinced you would die without pistachios.

Post facts contrary to:

It costs $91, for example, to treat a patient with strep throat in a doctor's office. Treating that same patient in the emergency room costs more than three times as much - $321.

Where do the uninsured get treatment? Not in a doctors office...they wait in emergency rooms and get the $321 treatment instead of the $91 treatment. That drives all our costs up.

Would you rather pay $321 for that individual's care or $91? By subsidizing the individual's purchase of insurance through the exchanges, we are paying the $91 instead of the $321.

The best, most efficient and cost effective way to deliver health care to all Americans would be to simply lower the age of Medicare to zero and cover everyone with basic healthcare that includes a drug plan (after we allow Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs like other countries do). Insurance companies could still exist to sell Cadillac supplement plans to those that can afford more comprehensive coverage.

Oh well...instead we have the ACA...proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, introduced as Legislation by Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, implemented in Massachusetts by Republican Governor and Presidential nominee Mitt Romney (who once touted parts of 'Romneycare' as a national model) and signed into law by moderate Democrat Barack Obama.

and people have the nerve to call it "Socialist Healthcare"...

 

[WelfareQueen]

Government is a delicate balance of helping those who need help.

The Government has no Constitutional obligation to "help" anyone. You are given a Bill of Rights and the opportunity to succeed. That is all you are entitled to.

Nonsense.

The Necessary and Proper Clause affords Congress the authority to address all manner of issues determined appropriate to benefit the Nation as a whole:

Scope of Incidental Powers

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

Operation of Coefficient Clause

Practically every power of the National Government has been expanded in some degree by the coefficient clause. Under its authority Congress has adopted measures requisite to discharge the treaty obligations of the nation;1645 it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary to protect and promote interstate commerce.1646 The right of Congress to utilize all known and appropriate means for collecting the revenue, including the distraint of property for federal taxes,1647 and its power to acquire property needed for the operation of the Government by the exercise of the power of eminent domain,1648 have greatly extended the range of national power. But the widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. Inasmuch as the various specific powers granted by Article I, Sec. 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining[p.341]the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject.1649

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Although inalienable, our civil liberties are not absolute, and the Bill of Rights and its case law create the framework in which the courts determine when a given restriction is appropriate or when it is offensive to the Constitution and invalidated.

This is such utter garbage it is barely worthy of a response. And of course, you don't provide the actual Constitutional Language...(you can't let the rubes know what their actual rights are). I will provide the exact language. Folks can read and interpret for themselves. Maybe you can show them exactly where it says they are entitled to a bunch of free shit.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Seawytch]

They are my representative to the government. If I do not like how I am being represented, they lose my vote

Given that Republicans only give a shit about the wealthy......I see no reason to give them my vote

Typical straw man claim, an opinion masquerading as a fact. It's sad that you probably believe it to be a fact absent of any proof.

Hey, here is a challenge for you........
Name a democrat congresscritter or president that isn't wealthy.

 

[tinydancer]

BTW, to all of you liberals.......Sarah Palin will be signing her book here at Ft Campbell Friday from 10am to 1pm.

The line will be pretty long so get here early.

I'd kill to be there. Give her double hugs and kisses for me. One brave lady. I admire her so. She's taken so much shit. So has her family.

 

[Seawytch]

John McCain was once considered a conservative.

It's not McCain who has changed.

When was McCain considered to be a conservative?

Never.

He's always been a moderate.

Now Chris Christie is a newer, fatter version of John McCain.

On what issues do you consider Christie "moderate"?

 

[alan1]

as a woman i have a lot of issues with the democratic party and the direction it is taking..sometimes i cannot believe the abuse of women by both parties....its like the democrats are the gropers and the republicans are rapist and those are your options....neither really responds to the needs of their female voters....

This exemplifies the entire problem we have with our country.

People think that the government exists to respond to the needs of various groups of people, when in fact, the federal government is not responsible for people, in general or specifically. They are there to protect and administer the country as a whole.

If you want the needs of women, men, gays, blacks, greens, the six-fingered-southern-Wabach tribes, then look to your State or local governments. Not the Feds.

This exemplifies the entire problem we have with conservatives.

“…neither really responds to the needs of their female voters” doesn’t mean anyone is looking to government to ‘respond to their needs,’ it means female voters are going to be inclined to support a political party that respects them as individuals and their Constitutional right to be left alone; currently that’s not the republican party, as the GOP seeks to dictate to women whether they may have children or not and subjects women to humiliating, degrading burdens as they seek to exercise their right to privacy.

Conservatives have got the stop believing in the errant, paranoid myth they’ve created that everyone is looking for a ‘hand out.’

Wow, us conservatives want to treat "female voters" the same as "male voters" instead of responding to "their needs". How unfair is that. Oh wait, were supposed to recognize them as "individuals", but at the same time lump them into a a group called "female voters". My bad for not holding opposing opinions as a necessary reality.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Btw...The Courts have no authority under the Constitution or Bill of Rights to declare any law unconstitutional. That power does not exist under our form of Government.

The Court gave itself that power. Basically, like a dictator would do. Specifically, the court gave itself that power in the case Marbury vs Madison.

Chief Executives have ignored the Federal Courts in the past in certain rulings of unconstitutionality, and will likely do so again. If the Supreme Court had ruled the ACA unconstitutional Obama could have proceeded with it anyway without any consequence.

The Court cannot enforce a decree of unconstitutionality because that authority does not exist under our Constitution or our Bill of Rights. Nor has the authority been granted by we the people through the Congress.

When liberals say the courts have the power to determine what is Constitutional and what is not, they are completely and utterly wrong. I have debated this point when numerous lawyers, and all have conceded the point.

If anyone disagrees with me, provide the Constitutional language that authorizes the Federal Courts to invalidate any law that has been passed by Congress, and signed into Law by the President.

 

[Vox]

I notice you posted no facts to the contrary. Who do you think pays for the emergency room visit by the un or underinsured?

You quote an op ed from the CEO of an insurance company claiming that it's a necessity to buy health insurance. Do you not see a conflict of interest? If he sold pistachios he have you convinced you would die without pistachios.

Post facts contrary to:

It costs $91, for example, to treat a patient with strep throat in a doctor's office. Treating that same patient in the emergency room costs more than three times as much - $321.

Where do the uninsured get treatment? Not in a doctors office...they wait in emergency rooms and get the $321 treatment instead of the $91 treatment. That drives all our costs up.

Would you rather pay $321 for that individual's care or $91? By subsidizing the individual's purchase of insurance through the exchanges, we are paying the $91 instead of the $321.

The best, most efficient and cost effective way to deliver health care to all Americans would be to simply lower the age of Medicare to zero and cover everyone with basic healthcare that includes a drug plan (after we allow Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs like other countries do). Insurance companies could still exist to sell Cadillac supplement plans to those that can afford more comprehensive coverage.

Oh well...instead we have the ACA...proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, introduced as Legislation by Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, implemented in Massachusetts by Republican Governor and Presidential nominee Mitt Romney (who once touted parts of 'Romneycare' as a national model) and signed into law by moderate Democrat Barack Obama.

and people have the nerve to call it "Socialist Healthcare"...

total bullshit.
first of all you will not even get registered in the ER if you do not pay straightforward 150-200 in the ER -cash or credit card
a visit to walk in clinic is going to cost 75-100 at the maximum and there are more of those type of clinics now than the gas stations - it is a striving business

NOBODY goes to the ER for the strep throat. NOBODY.
Unless it is a complicated one and then ER is the right place to go

 

[Seawytch]

That's bunk. And on top of that, 5 million people would beg to differ.

I notice you posted no facts to the contrary. Who do you think pays for the emergency room visit by the un or underinsured?

Charity? And how do you expect Obamacare to remedy the situation described in your article? Obamacare ITSELF is driving up healthcare costs for uninsured and under insured. It is having the direct opposite effect on healthcare costs in America, let alone California.

Are you seriously proposing charity as a response to access to quality healthcare?

I can't believe this still has to be explained to you. Instead of paying $300 for treatment in an emergency room because the individual has no insurance, we are paying $100 for treatment in a doctors office because they are insured. See the savings already? By subsidizing the uninsured so they can purchase insurance, you are lowering the cost for everyone.

Another example of how this lower costs...individual does not have insurance so they don't make regular doctor visits...which means they ignore the signs of diabetes until it is too late because they are now being treated in the emergency room, where the only option is costly surgery removing the limb and requiring extensive rehabilitation. Which treatment do you think costs less?

The Affordable Care Act has had an effect on the cost of healthcare costs..it's been slowing them down.

The health-care law’s success story: Slowing down medical costs

 

[Seawytch]

You quote an op ed from the CEO of an insurance company claiming that it's a necessity to buy health insurance. Do you not see a conflict of interest? If he sold pistachios he have you convinced you would die without pistachios.

Post facts contrary to:

It costs $91, for example, to treat a patient with strep throat in a doctor's office. Treating that same patient in the emergency room costs more than three times as much - $321.

Where do the uninsured get treatment? Not in a doctors office...they wait in emergency rooms and get the $321 treatment instead of the $91 treatment. That drives all our costs up.

Would you rather pay $321 for that individual's care or $91? By subsidizing the individual's purchase of insurance through the exchanges, we are paying the $91 instead of the $321.

The best, most efficient and cost effective way to deliver health care to all Americans would be to simply lower the age of Medicare to zero and cover everyone with basic healthcare that includes a drug plan (after we allow Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs like other countries do). Insurance companies could still exist to sell Cadillac supplement plans to those that can afford more comprehensive coverage.

Oh well...instead we have the ACA...proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, introduced as Legislation by Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, implemented in Massachusetts by Republican Governor and Presidential nominee Mitt Romney (who once touted parts of 'Romneycare' as a national model) and signed into law by moderate Democrat Barack Obama.

and people have the nerve to call it "Socialist Healthcare"...

total bullshit.
first of all you will not even get registered in the ER if you do not pay straightforward 150-200 in the ER -cash or credit card
a visit to walk in clinic is going to cost 75-100 at the maximum and there are more of those type of clinics now than the gas stations - it is a striving business

NOBODY goes to the ER for the strep throat. NOBODY.
Unless it is a complicated one and then ER is the right place to go

Bullshit...the emergency room has to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay. Why the **** do you think an aspirin costs $4 each when you stay in the hospital? Because you're paying for the uninfuckingsured.

 

[Seawytch]

You quote an op ed from the CEO of an insurance company claiming that it's a necessity to buy health insurance. Do you not see a conflict of interest? If he sold pistachios he have you convinced you would die without pistachios.

Post facts contrary to:

It costs $91, for example, to treat a patient with strep throat in a doctor's office. Treating that same patient in the emergency room costs more than three times as much - $321.

Where do the uninsured get treatment? Not in a doctors office...they wait in emergency rooms and get the $321 treatment instead of the $91 treatment. That drives all our costs up.

Would you rather pay $321 for that individual's care or $91? By subsidizing the individual's purchase of insurance through the exchanges, we are paying the $91 instead of the $321.

The best, most efficient and cost effective way to deliver health care to all Americans would be to simply lower the age of Medicare to zero and cover everyone with basic healthcare that includes a drug plan (after we allow Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs like other countries do). Insurance companies could still exist to sell Cadillac supplement plans to those that can afford more comprehensive coverage.

Oh well...instead we have the ACA...proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, introduced as Legislation by Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, implemented in Massachusetts by Republican Governor and Presidential nominee Mitt Romney (who once touted parts of 'Romneycare' as a national model) and signed into law by moderate Democrat Barack Obama.

and people have the nerve to call it "Socialist Healthcare"...

total bullshit.
first of all you will not even get registered in the ER if you do not pay straightforward 150-200 in the ER -cash or credit card
a visit to walk in clinic is going to cost 75-100 at the maximum and there are more of those type of clinics now than the gas stations - it is a striving business

NOBODY goes to the ER for the strep throat. NOBODY.
Unless it is a complicated one and then ER is the right place to go

Seriously...just do a little bit of ******* research...

The main reason that so many emergency room visits are for non-urgent care is that hospital EDs are required by federal law to provide care to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Since they cannot be turned away, patients without health insurance, or the necessary funds to pay out-of-pocket costs, often utilize emergency rooms as their main health care provider. This puts ERs under tremendous strain, and limits their ability to more quickly attend to health emergencies.

Emergency Rooms vs. Urgent Care: Differences in Services and Costs