Is the Republican Party all but dead? There is a new scandal every week, rantings of the far right are increasingly embarrassing to the few moderates they have left, and what leadership they have seems to be totally misreading the American public. Maybe Dirk's party (I confess to not having read the manifesto) has a chance.
RIP Republican Party
- Thread starter curious
- Start date
-
- Tags
- party republican rip
Actually I would say things are looking better for the GOP now than about a month ago thanks to Obama's absurd healthcare and cap and trade plans, which many Democrats are even rejecting and hence, are causing a rift within the party. The GOP's ratings may not be great, but Obama is losing supporters too.
I don't think most people would classify these as 'absurd'. Certainly not as absurd and the rantings and ravings of Limbaugh and his ilk. They rarely even utter sentences that make sense in a rational world. Screaming that universal health care will destroy the country is just stupid. Screaming that having the government involved will destroy the country is also stupid. We already have that with Medicare, and guess what, the country is still here.
Also, it represents a total misread of the mood of the public. These people think that the religious fundamentalists and the extreme right represent a significant part of the American population, and they don't. And most of us are pretty tired of having these people control the agenda of the whole country.
Also, it represents a total misread of the mood of the public. These people think that the religious fundamentalists and the extreme right represent a significant part of the American population, and they don't. And most of us are pretty tired of having these people control the agenda of the whole country.
Very good question as my take is the same. They are dead, and the only people we hear from are relatively old people. Cheney is a huge embarassment. Hopefully we are not the only people thinking about it, and they are in the process of revamping, as presently they do come across as something of history. A protest party rather than one which is focussed on future solutions and a vision.
You can't put someone like Limbaugh in this equation because he really is an extreme. If you use him, I will point out Michael Moore as he is esentially the same from the liberal side.
As for universal healthcare- if you look at the polls a large number of Americans are against it. Most people don't want it, it is mostly the leftist politicians that do.
And as for the effect on the country, universal healthcare won't literally destroy the country, but it could lead to serious problems later on that could threaten the country. Social security has also existed for a while, but look at the problems it now posses. What socialists need to realize is that in the LONG RUN their policies have always ended like what is bound to happen to social security.
And you say you are sick and tired of the neocons, but you do realize that you are closer in idealogy to them than you are to my beliefs right? In fact, you both push for big government in policy (which is what matters in the end- not the rhetoric) and are for a large Federal government.
You may be right. If so why are the democrats going down the same road of "extreme"? Extreme is acting like a kid looking at a Christmas book. They have to know that when some of their ideas and wishes blowup as they always do they too will pay the price.We hear a lot more from the Rush Limbaughs of the world than we do from Michael Moore. I don't think Moore is as far left as Limbaugh is right, but that's just my opinion. I'll come back with Newt Gingrich, who is obviously hoping to run for the presidency in 2012.
Where in the world did you get that idea? I did the following google search: poll universal health care 2009
Every article on retrieved on the first page reported that the majority of Americans supported universal health care. A few links for you:
Most would pay higher taxes for universal health care
Poll favore universal health care
Majority favor single payer health care
So to avoid problems now, all the people who have been helped by social security and Medicare should have gone without an income or medical treatment for all those years. Hmmmm. No.
Size of government is not the issue. It's what big government does that is the issue. A big government that runs up huge debts by entering an illegal and unnecessary war while simutaneously reducing taxes for higher incomes, cutting services, and giving businesses a free hand to steal from the public is different from one that runs up huge debts trying to prop up a damaged economy, give the unemployed a little more to live on, create jobs, and keep banks open and the companies that insure our 401Ks alive. I'll take the latter.
So support universal medicare is one thing, but do Americans really know what it is about? It would appear that there is already a Draft bill in the works, has anybody read it yet, or will it, like the 1.2-trillion package bill just be rushed through again? The 1.2-trillion bail-out is one thing, but universal medical care in the United States, along the bare bones given by the President is completely different and should be completely studied and digested on regional and state level BEFORE it is debated on a federal level. There should at least be Commissions of Enquiry on the State level to debate it in its detail, allow people to do presentations in pros and cons, and then have hearings about it. Then shift it to a federal level to iron out all the details BEFORE the bill is introduced to Parliament.
I'm utterly appalled at people talking in such a superficial universal way about medicare, without having worked through all of the finer details first. It can't be a piece of paper with legislation that is imposed one everyone, it has to come from the bottom up with people knowing exactly what is being planned and participating in those plans. Otherwise a great mess is waiting to happen.
That is only recently, but over the past few years, I would say Moore has had his share of time in the spotlight as well- especially everytime he releases one of his movies.
I have seen polls that say just the opposite. Also, straight from the article you posted (links 1 and 2- same poll): "Many Americans are concerned that their own health care may be compromised if the government is involved, and while they are generally willing to pay more in taxes for universal coverage, that support drops when dollar amounts are mentioned." They are for it until they hear the costs. Heck, most people would want free healthcare, but government healthcare is not free, you pay for it through taxes.
You do realize that if they didn't have social security and medicare, they would'nt have had an income tax either, right?
You fail to realize that the economics behind both those regimes are very similar. Not only that, but so is the philosophy. Also, in both situations you end up with massive debts, bureaucracies, and the people suffer. Not only that, but the people have less freedom. I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a sustainable and free world, not one that is entangling with government. Also, both the "economically stimulating" governments and the warmongering ones have been tried tons of times before and our founding fathers spoke out against both of them because they knew how they end up. America was supposed to be something different and it was and it turned out to be prosperous. Sadly, some of you on the left are bringing it back to the status quo government of world history.
Drops, doesn't go away. And while I'm sure you've seen polls that say the opposite, I'd like to know who conducted them. I'm thinking Republican think tanks.
No, I don't, because neither are funded by income taxes. They are funded by separate social security taxes (that FICA line on your paycheck), and Medicare taxes (also itemized on your pay stub or statement).
I don't 'fail to realize'. I disagree. As in 'I think you are wrong.'
As far as America having been 'something different', when exactly was that? Before taxes? Back when the federal government relied only on tariffs (a hidden form of tax)? When was it? I want dates. Because I'll bet we had taxes then. I presume you were alive then. It must, by your reasoning, have been before the great evils of income taxes and social security, so you must be even older than I am if you can remember back that far.
Last edited:
What do you mean by drops? A lot of people would be turned off if they knew how much it would end up costing them over the next 10, 20, 30 years. Also, it is not like your polls aren't biased either.
Ok, you are missing my point. I am saying that without social security, you would not have the taxes for social security either. Anyway, from a budgetary standpoint, income tax revenue is close to the cost of social security cost, so my suggestion still works out in terms of dollars.
So, you think that it is wrong to compare the economics behind what Obama is doing and what Bush did? Both presidencies have had overly active Federal Reserves, which expanded the monetary supply greatly (with Obama's expanding it A LOT faster than Bush.) They both expanded the size of government. They both meddled in markets because they believed certain companies were "too big to fail." Both Feds also sported historically low interest rates. Look at the policies and you will see that Bush wasn't a free market capitalist in practice and what Obama is doing is only the same thing Bush did, but exponentially greater. Not only that, but instead of tax cuts, he is considering raising taxes and regulations, both which are proven to hurt production as the laws of microeconomics clearly show and as economists, whether they are supply-siders, Keynesians, or Austrians all agree with. Not only that, but he is willing to raise certain taxes that will reduce tax revenue and also hurt production such as capital gains.
Who said I am against all taxes? I am for very limited taxes as I believe the only government program that the federal gov't should have is the military. Look at the early days of this nation and you will see that we did have taxes, but limited taxes. Also, I don't think we have ever had the truly free and prosperous society that we could have in today's world because things have changed and with technology and equality for women and colored people, we have the opportunity to really create the freest and most successful world today. Economics and history tells us that limited government is the way to do that, not socialism. And about the age thing, I don't know what you are talking about because there are things called books in this world, which tell us about the past. I don't have to be 300 years old to know what happened back then.
“Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast heaven to hell so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labours of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per head since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per head approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and than the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold on sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (mêlée, final vociferations) tennis… the stones… so calm… Cunard… unfinished…”
Similar threads
