Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Except just banning pre-existing clauses means people don't bother to get insurance. They just wait until they're sick. So you need the individual mandate. And because healthcare is beyond the budgets of many people, you need subsidies. To fund the subsidies you need to tax the higher end plans, and once that's in place then to make it clear and open to the market you need the exchanges. And there you go - you've got ACA.
Now, other parts like limited profit margins, employer mandate etc, those weren't essential, but really, once you commit to prohibiting pre-existing conditions, you need most of the ACA.
The problem there is, With the setup we were "given" of having Bronze, Silver, and Gold plans in basically all states (some states had a "platinum" plan, but most did not) is that people's natural tendency is to automatically say, "I need the gold plan" even when it runs counter to their actual needs. The very reason why Silver and Gold plans exist is because there are people who are already sick, and sick on a long term basis (things such as Type 1 diabetes, various forms of Arthritis, cancers, etc). The reason why the premium is higher, is because there is less copay, and the 505/50 partial pays are hit much, much sooner than on a bronze plan.
This is actually why I was able to get people into "health" insurances that actually helped people, and for cheaper than most plans they thought they needed.
whembly wrote: Ya see Seb... that's all they had to do to convince the public.
The problem I'm yammering about, is that the political and media classes themselves never accurately explained how PPACA would work -- they only presented Obama's predictions about how wonderful it would be. Not the details of how it would allegedly work -- who would pay for it, and who would actually benefit.
Hey, I've been pointing out from the start how badly sold ACA was. Starting with the Democrats starting to talk about the reform before they'd hashed out a broad plan for what that reform would be, to Obama's weird decision to champion healthcare reform but step away from the specifics of the reform, then compounded because no Democrat leader in congress ever stood up and took ownership and responsibility to sell the bill, the whole thing was a clusterfeth from the get go. No argument there.
But what I described above... that was repeated countless times. I read it in countless columns, and I then repeated it endlessly on this forum. It barely registered because people didn't give a gak, because hardly anyone was interested in learning how ACA actually worked. The Republicans just wanted to find stuff to hate, the Democrats wanted to repeat the standard defences, and independents went looking for stuff to get scared about. It's just politics as it always is.
I mean, if you really want to get moralistic about this, what’s your opinion on the campaign of lies and insanity run by the Republicans to oppose healthcare reform?
We gotta pass it, in order to read it!
Come on. I've explained so many times how misleading and bs that quote was. It was Pelosi being asked about the details of the senate plan prior to reconciliation, to which Pelosi sensibly said that's the senate's bill, and she won't know what's in the final version until it is passed.
Bad fething policy seb... no one in their right mind should support this mechanism.
The PPACA was sold by Obama[i] himself on THREE BIG LIES:
1) If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!
2) If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!
3) If you voluntarily choose the Obamacare plan, it will be 14% to 20% CHEAPER!
Eh, I think it’s a stretch to say the plan was sold on those three things alone. I don’t disagree with those being lies (the first two anyway), but the overall selling of the bill was way more complex than that.
On something of this magnitude, I don't buy into the idea that we must "break a few eggs" in order to make omelettes.
Especially on something of this magnitude. And seriously, if you’re going to get moralistic on this, just walk away from politics.
Maybe so, but it isn't far from the truth.
Our current democracies are far from perfect because political debate is so weak and so based on tribalism. But it does let us vote out people that really piss us off, and that’s good enough for the most part.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Our current democracies are far from perfect because political debate is so weak and so based on tribalism. But it does let us vote out people that really piss us off, and that’s good enough for the most part.
Indeed... the ACA was part of the reason why Congressional Democrats got spanked last election.
Moving on...
Ya'll call for Republican Civil War™?
This... THIS has a making of a Civil War:
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/house-freedom-caucus-warns-of-blowback-for-boehner/?dcz=
The House Freedom Caucus has a secret it wants to share with Democrats.
“If the Democrats were to file a motion to vacate the chair and were to vote for that motion unanimously, there probably are 218 votes for it to succeed,” one member of the House Freedom Caucus told CQ Roll Call Tuesday night, as he exited an meeting in the basement of Tortilla Coast.
If that’s true, Democrats could certainly use a vote to remove Speaker John A. Boehner as leverage in any number of upcoming battles: the Export-Import Bank, a highway bill, all sorts of spending measures. But absent any real talk from Democrats, the official response from Boehner’s communications director, Kevin Smith, was simply to dismiss CQ Roll Call’s reporter.
“Matt Fuller is a prop for Freedom Caucus propaganda,” Smith wrote via email.
While the HFC member in question wouldn’t say whether a vote to take Boehner’s gavel was part of the discussion Tuesday — and other members said it was not — it’s clear the decision to strip North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows of his subcommittee chairmanship has stirred the already excitable Freedom Caucus into a new frenzy.
The HFC looks ready for war, as does GOP leadership and more moderate Republicans who are sick and tired of conservatives voting against the team — and that could signal more retaliation to come from both sides.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the HFC chairman, and Raúl R. Labrador, one of the founding members of the secretive conservative group, had plenty to say to CQ Roll Call Wednesday about leadership’s recent moves against members who voted against the rule for Trade Promotion Authority.
“The reason this is happening is pretty clear,” Labrador said of Meadows’ demotion and the dismissal of other HFC members from the whip team. “The leadership is afraid.”
Labrador said GOP leaders sense their influence slipping, as 34 Republicans defied Boehner and others on the TPA rule. “And they know that that 34 is really not 34,” Labrador said. “They know that that number is really much larger.”
That may be true, with HFC membership now up to around 40 — according to Jordan’s best estimate, because he said he didn’t have the classified roster in front of him.
There’s been some discrepancy in reports on the size of the caucus — The Daily Caller put its total at 70. The Hill says it’s between 50 and 60 — but that’s due in part to group’s own obsessive secrecy about its rules and membership. And, for the record, it takes a four-fifths majority to reach an official position, according to members.
Labrador notes that, while at least 25 of the 34 “no” votes on the rule were from members of the conservative caucus, it’s not just conservatives upset about TPA, or the rule for the legislation or the resulting “shenanigans,” to use Labrador’s word for leadership’s crackdown.
“They’re afraid,” Labrador said. “They want to break our backs, because they’re afraid that that number is just going to continue to grow.”
If leaders are afraid, they’re not exactly backing down. On Wednesday, Boehner said he “absolutely” supported Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz removing Meadows, and affirmed that, “when it comes to procedural votes in the House, the majority has to stick together.”
That reasoning doesn’t sit well with HFC members. “This was a substantive rule. This wasn’t your typical rule,” Labrador said, calling Boehner’s claim it was simply a procedural vote “B.S.”
Jordan and Labrador both laid out a case that the rule made major self-executing policy changes — Jordan, in his fifth term, called it “the most convoluted rule I’ve ever seen” — and therefore, he viewed it more like a vote on a bill than procedure.
Some Republicans may be comforted that the HFC has a reason why it voted against the rule. It indicates the Freedom Caucus isn’t really prone to just voting against procedural motions in quixotic or retributive fashion.
“It’s about principles,” Labrador said. “It’s not about tit-for-tat.”
The Idaho Republican — who unsuccessfully ran for majority leader almost exactly a year ago and wouldn’t rule out another run in the future — said many in the GOP conference think differently than conservatives. “They think that being a member of Congress is just so dang cool, and that there’s nothing greater than this,” Labrador said.
Conservatives are in Washington to stand on principle, he said, not to get titles like vice chairman. That, he said, is what really scares leadership and others — “that they can’t control you.”
Jordan, who sat silently while listening to Labrador, was less critical of leadership and other Republicans in the conference, focusing instead on what he believes the Freedom Caucus is about: doing what you said you would do.
“That’s much more important than if you’re a subcommittee chairman, or if you’re on a certain committee,” Jordan said.
Jordan is a subcommittee chairman on Oversight and Government Reform — as Meadows was before he lost his gavel — and, like Meadows, Jordan voted against the TPA rule. Also, like Meadows, he hasn’t contributed a dime to the National Republican Congressional Committee this year. (Labrador said it was difficult to give to the NRCC when a group led by Boehner’s former chief of staff was running ads against conservatives. “And then to have the speaker and his cronies to come to you and say you need to give money to the NRCC.”)
So why Meadows and not Jordan?
“Good question,” Jordan said.
Neither Labrador nor Jordan thought Chaffetz acted on his own. Meadows doesn’t think that either. And even though Chaffetz was the executioner, Meadows isn’t holding much of a grudge. (When he entered Tortilla Coast Tuesday night for the HFC meeting, he spotted Chaffetz dining separately with Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and went right over to say “Hi.”)
CQ Roll Call asked Chaffetz Wednesday why Meadows was punished but not Jordan, and the Utah Republican went back to his talking points. “I said it was a variety of factors,” Chaffetz said.
Labrador offered his own theory.
“Mark Meadows is not a three-time national wrestling champion,” said Labrador, who was the one laughing hardest at his own joke.
(For the record, the wiry Jordan won the NCAA Division I wrestling championship twice, not three times.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Breaking news from twittah!
SCOTUS rules in favor of Government in ACA subsidies case 6-3.
Well then... interested in reading how the Justices contorted that the "state" = "federal" arguments....
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Chief Justice cites Marbury in ACA case... thats... um... interesting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/25 14:18:07
Man... the Warren camp has seriously got be thinking about jumping in...
Nah... I wouldn't be surprised in the least if both "camps" talked about it before Sanders announced and decided to support the other by not taking votes/attention away from each other.
I mean, I don't think the Dems want to turn their party into a veritable clown car of politicians, the way the Republicans have (I'm not calling the Rs clowns, just that there's a gak ton of them in a "small" space)
I don't know. I imagine they wouldn't mind seeing Sanders in. And if he is, who knows who he would choose as VP. Additionally, if he makes it, her run in 4 years becomes much much more likely as the US will have softened more towards the left following his presidency (I believe) and he's, well, old so I dunno if he'd shoot for 8...
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
I think it'd be great if Sanders get the nomination. Because that guarantee's a Republican President (unless it's Trump... if it's Trump, I'd man the fething phones for Sanders).
Socialism is still pretty damned toxic in American politics.
It's Hillary... all that way though. I don't see him beating her.
You say that, but it's not that bad, socialism is mostly only the devil incarnate with conservatives, who aren't going to be voting for him anyway. And what he actually believes in isn't extreme or anything, it's about in line with a lot of the European nations. If he doesn't rely on the word "socialism", and just states his position, he'll be fine. Not a shoe-in, mind you, but most definitely not an auto-lose. And if the republicans run a really extreme candidate (which seems pretty likely, they have only gotten more extreme over time), that will really help him.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Indeed... the ACA was part of the reason why Congressional Democrats got spanked last election.
It was the reason the Democrats were spanked (well there was also the fact it was a mid-term, which is bad for Democrats and sitting presidents), but in terms of policy it was the one reason for the Republican victory.
So now, if ACA is truly that unpopular, then Republicans need to use it to drive more gains, until Republicans have the power to replace it with something they like, or at least force Democrats to yield and allow it be repealed. That’s politics.
On the other hand, Democrats will rely on the ACA now being in place, and believe the 10 million newly insured and complete absence of a death spiral means the electoral impact will fade pretty quickly.
And that’s politics, same as it’s ever been.
Ya'll call for Republican Civil War™?
The inside game is such a mess. You couldn’t pay me enough to take Boehner’s job. Also, Raúl R. Labrador is the most preposterous name I’ve heard in a long time.
EDIT
Just looked up what Boehner got paid - $200k. Not worth it by a long shot, I think.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 02:43:37
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Slightly off topic, but did anybody happen to catch Ted Cruz on Tavis Smiley last night? He almost came across as a human. Damn, he is good at deception,
whembly wrote: Indeed... the ACA was part of the reason why Congressional Democrats got spanked last election.
It was the reason the Democrats were spanked (well there was also the fact it was a mid-term, which is bad for Democrats and sitting presidents), but in terms of policy it was the one reason for the Republican victory.
So now, if ACA is truly that unpopular, then Republicans need to use it to drive more gains, until Republicans have the power to replace it with something they like, or at least force Democrats to yield and allow it be repealed. That’s politics.
On the other hand, Democrats will rely on the ACA now being in place, and believe the 10 million newly insured and complete absence of a death spiral means the electoral impact will fade pretty quickly.
And that’s politics, same as it’s ever been.
Ya'll call for Republican Civil War™?
The inside game is such a mess. You couldn’t pay me enough to take Boehner’s job. Also, Raúl R. Labrador is the most preposterous name I’ve heard in a long time.
EDIT
Just looked up what Boehner got paid - $200k. Not worth it by a long shot, I think.
I read a poll that for the first time more people have a favorable view of the ACA than unfavorable.
Granted, a good portion of those 'opposed' to the ACA before were ones who thought it didn't go far enough. It was never wildly unpopular as was repeatedly claimed.
I heard it in the car so I thought I would share...
In the wake of last week's Charleston, S.C., church shootings, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explained his competing concerns between gun rights and gun safety.
"I think guns and gun control is an issue that needs to be discussed," Sanders told NPR's David Greene in an interview airing on Thursday's Morning Edition. "Let me add to that, I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people."
In the wake of the shooting deaths of nine African-Americans at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, many Democratic politicians have renewed calls to tighten gun-control measures. Sanders said he's open to a conversation about what to do next on gun-control measures and would go along with stricter background checks, for example. But he noted in the interview that those measures alone wouldn't solve the problem of gun violence in America.
"So obviously, we need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it," Sanders told Greene. "But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems, and it's not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don't have that and we should have that."
For left-leaning senators from largely rural, pro-gun states — like Vermont — it can be tough to strike a balance talking about guns. Sanders has had a mixed voting record on guns. He voted to end the "gun-show loophole" and in favor of the 2013 universal background check bill and assault-weapons ban following Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre that left 20 children dead. But, previously, Sanders voted to allow guns on Amtrak and against the Brady bill.
It's a stance that could prove problematic for the insurgent White House hopeful. While Sanders has staked out forthright positions mostly to the left of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, guns is one issue where he is more toward the middle of the current field. It's one he doesn't bring up as often as his other rivals, either.
Sanders explained that as a representative of his state, he has to have their interests at heart, but argued that could put him at a good place to bridge a compromise.
"I think the people of Vermont and I have understood for many years that what guns are about in Vermont are not what guns are about in Chicago, Los Angeles or New York, where they're used not for hunting or target practice but to kill people," Sanders said. "I think, interestingly enough, I'm in a very good position representing a rural state to bring forth common-sense legislation regarding guns."
He added, "I can understand if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice, they're not into guns. But in my state, people go hunting and do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out together and they hunt and enjoy the outdoors and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
I heard it in the car so I thought I would share...
Definitely an interesting take. And I kind of think, or suspect that the "main" reason why he voted "yes" on the Sandy Hook stuff, was simply because it was so close to home, and that there'd be a fairly big risk to his career overall if he had gone against it.
Of course, he's fairly spot on when he says gun control won't solve the problems, especially as it pertains to the distastrous state our mental health apparatus is across the country.
I heard it in the car so I thought I would share...
Spoiler:
In the wake of last week's Charleston, S.C., church shootings, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explained his competing concerns between gun rights and gun safety.
"I think guns and gun control is an issue that needs to be discussed," Sanders told NPR's David Greene in an interview airing on Thursday's Morning Edition. "Let me add to that, I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people."
In the wake of the shooting deaths of nine African-Americans at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, many Democratic politicians have renewed calls to tighten gun-control measures. Sanders said he's open to a conversation about what to do next on gun-control measures and would go along with stricter background checks, for example. But he noted in the interview that those measures alone wouldn't solve the problem of gun violence in America.
"So obviously, we need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it," Sanders told Greene. "But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems, and it's not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don't have that and we should have that."
For left-leaning senators from largely rural, pro-gun states — like Vermont — it can be tough to strike a balance talking about guns. Sanders has had a mixed voting record on guns. He voted to end the "gun-show loophole" and in favor of the 2013 universal background check bill and assault-weapons ban following Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre that left 20 children dead. But, previously, Sanders voted to allow guns on Amtrak and against the Brady bill.
It's a stance that could prove problematic for the insurgent White House hopeful. While Sanders has staked out forthright positions mostly to the left of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, guns is one issue where he is more toward the middle of the current field. It's one he doesn't bring up as often as his other rivals, either.
Sanders explained that as a representative of his state, he has to have their interests at heart, but argued that could put him at a good place to bridge a compromise.
"I think the people of Vermont and I have understood for many years that what guns are about in Vermont are not what guns are about in Chicago, Los Angeles or New York, where they're used not for hunting or target practice but to kill people," Sanders said. "I think, interestingly enough, I'm in a very good position representing a rural state to bring forth common-sense legislation regarding guns."
He added, "I can understand if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice, they're not into guns. But in my state, people go hunting and do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out together and they hunt and enjoy the outdoors and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."
It sounds like Bernie is what is commonly called a Fudd, someone who thinks that firearms should only be used for hunting.
Seriously, the more I learn about Sanders the more I like him. Though some of his stances/ideas are a little extreme I think Congress (especially a Republican controlled one) would keep the worst parts in check and thus render the crazy parts moot. Plus, a solid cabinet and VP to focus his ideas would make him pretty formidable as President.
skyth wrote: I read a poll that for the first time more people have a favorable view of the ACA than unfavorable.
Granted, a good portion of those 'opposed' to the ACA before were ones who thought it didn't go far enough. It was never wildly unpopular as was repeatedly claimed.
Yeah, that last part is a really good point - while a majority didn't like ACA they were split on what they didn't like about it, it was either too socialist or not socialist enough. Any attempt to replace ACA will split that group, a reform built around privatisation will drive many people to support ACA over that reform, while a reform based around single payer will see the rightwing support either disappear, or even move to defend ACA.
The only hope to get rid of ACA rested on the program itself failing - failing to enroll new people, or an insurance price spike leading to a death spiral. None of that happened, though, and so ACA steadily becomes as embedded in the system as medicare or any other reform.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That's because he's providing liberal red meat dripping with bloody gore right now.
What you see with Sanders is no different than Cruz does for righties.
Yep. That's pretty much the perfect summary. Most primaries will see at least one guy do very well by saying a bunch of stuff that resonates really well with a specific part of their party's demographic. Lately the Republican primaries have had an average of about four of these guys each time.
I mean, I really like Sanders, even outside of politics he's just a really funny guy, but he isn't going to be the next president, not by a long way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/29 01:46:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
skyth wrote: The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
skyth wrote: The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
Considering how the Repubs are all about gay marriage being bad...I don't see how that plays into 'wanting to be left alone'. Quite frankly, it's very dishonest to say they are about wanting to be left alone when they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...
skyth wrote: The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
Considering how the Repubs are all about gay marriage being bad...I don't see how that plays into 'wanting to be left alone'. Quite frankly, it's very dishonest to say they are about wanting to be left alone when they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...
I think it is more they want themselves to be left alone but also that the government should meddle in the lives of people they don't like.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
I've never really gotten the big government argument that always seems to get trotted out every election.
As I've said before on this forum, American history is a hobby of mine, and I've been hearing about big government since the days of Andrew Jackson's presidency
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
I've never really gotten the big government argument that always seems to get trotted out every election.
As I've said before on this forum, American history is a hobby of mine, and I've been hearing about big government since the days of Andrew Jackson's presidency
It is a simple argument. The base document for the Federal gov't is the constitution. It grants a limited set of powers to the branches of the federal gov't. Our current federal gov't has stampeded across the lines which were drawn to contain it and it is now brandied about as the remedy for all things. And when that remedy does not work, the answer seems to always be "We didn't spend enough! You didn't give us enough power! Give us MOAR and we'll get it right this next time!". And they've been saying that sine before Andrew Jackson. And often that increase in power and spending benefits very few in proportion to the resources spent (gov't is generally inefficient at the level of our Federal gov't, see the VA as an example). Often cronyism comes into play which decreases efficiency even more (see the Solyndra and other green energy initiatives recently).
The TSA is in my opinion a fantastic example of Big Gov't gone wrong. A HUGE expense to us taxpayers that has never done more than put measures into place which give a false appearance of security but which do little if anything to provide actual security. And we grow the organization and dump more and more into it. It is a massive waste.
Many conservatives think we've tilted the scales a bit too much and would like to see it go back at least a bit the other direction. It really is a simple idea.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Wait, are you saying my having to take off my shoes and belt is just a charade? Hold me, I'm so scared!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
6000 points 
4000 points 
Empire 5500 Points 
