Today's GOP

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Labor relations is a different topic. This thread is about what conservatives think about the modern GOP....

I wasn't able to glean this from you long response, as interesting as it was.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I wasn't able to glean this from you long response, as interesting as it was.

I tend to ramble.

[icenine]

I think the major problem with the GOP is that they are trying to convince younger voters that such things as Social Security and Medicare will not be around for them...
yeah we can debate whether it will be or not but they are always saying these things won't be around...then poof your 65 and thank god they are still with us. So younger voters who tend to believe this falsehood start voting for people who claim that they will "fix" everything for them by getting rid of the programs that we will all need eventually. Thus we have the young dashing Paul Ryan who is going to take away a very good program for all if he gets his chance....
Basically a lack of education. You can fix the debt problem without destroying the country...there has to be cuts on defense...a balanced approach. Of course Ryan will not do that. So we will be like those third world countries with well a fed military class and hungry citizens without health care.
That is what is wrong with the GOP selling a self-fullfilling prophecy to younger voters who do believe the sermon.
If you are under 55 and vote for Ryan you are basically voting to cut two more years of your life out of medical coverage (67 instead of 65) and for having to pay more out of your own pocket. Since most people on medicare over 85 (i think) are women you are also making the life of your surviving spouse alot more difficult because of premium support. Young people are not thinking of this and the GOP leadership is counting them not to know better.
That is what is wrong with the GOP.

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

I think the major problem with the GOP is that they are trying to convince younger voters that such things as Social Security and Medicare will not be around for them...
yeah we can debate whether it will be or not but they are always saying these things won't be around...then poof your 65 and thank god they are still with us. So younger voters who tend to believe this falsehood start voting for people who claim that they will "fix" everything for them by getting rid of the programs that we will all need eventually. Thus we have the young dashing Paul Ryan who is going to take away a very good program for all if he gets his chance....
Basically a lack of education. You can fix the debt problem without destroying the country...there has to be cuts on defense...a balanced approach. Of course Ryan will not do that. So we will be like those third world countries with well a fed military class and hungry citizens without health care.
That is what is wrong with the GOP selling a self-fullfilling prophecy to younger voters who do believe the sermon.
If you are under 55 and vote for Ryan you are basically voting to cut two more years of your life out of medical coverage (67 instead of 65) and for having to pay more out of your own pocket. Since most people on medicare over 85 (i think) are women you are also making the life of your surviving spouse alot more difficult because of premium support. Young people are not thinking of this and the GOP leadership is counting them not to know better.
That is what is wrong with the GOP.

IMHO, a post like this demonstrates what's wrong with the political dialogue in this country. We tend to reflect the talking points of the end of the political spectrum we gravitate to and close our minds to ideas or opportunities that might exist outside of that limited perspective.

For example, you may or may not realize that the "Ryan Plan" for Medicare already exists. Its typically referred to Medicare Part C or Medicare Advantage. It was enabled as part of legislation passed in 1997 under the Clinton administration. It was later expanded under Medicare Part D in 2003.

The practice of Medicare giving grants to private insurers to offset the cost of coverage has been in practice, and has been pretty successful in the market for years. Under the program, Medicare - eligible subscribers can choose from difference packages of plans offered by private insurers that are partially subsidized by Medicare funds, and allow the insured to purchase enhancements to the basic, subsidized coverage that meets their needs.

An expansion of that program is what Ryan is calling for. Contrary to current political advertising, the plan is relatively popular, albeit a bit confusing to some when it was rolled out. It has also not resulted in seniors eating dog food to be able to afford their medicines, and there are no know occurrences of Paul Ryan or any other politician pushing grandma off a cliff, as we've seen in some political commercials.

Political debate and dialog has devolved into repeating talking points or rehashing the extreme themes and messages that politicians or their surrogates foist onto the American people. The biggest failing of the GOP, IMHO, is that after many years of this kind of negative campaigning, they've yet to find away to effectively respond to it.

The response of Romney's camp to the Dem's drumbeat about tax returns - as if one's personal wealth is a qualification for the office - is a great example. Its a great trickbag for the Dems to try to place Romney in. If he doesn't turn over his tax returns, then the Dems can continue to try to exploit that as a campaign issue. If he does, you can bet that a team of tax attorneys will be at the ready to generate demagogic press releases and campaign commercials about those tax returns. Of course, this also allows the Dems to continue to avoid talking about the last 4 years, and keep the Romney camp on defense.

The other issue the GOP has is that they were entirely complicit in the expansion of government that occurred from 2001 - 2008. Now that the Tea Party has taken aim at the GOP as the party most likely to respond to reform and most likely to lead any charge for regaining control over the growth of government spending, it creates an opportunity for the Dems, with no plan of their own to restrain spending or deal with the growing public debt, to paint the GOP as hypocritical.

They Dems have also been successful, at least with the mainstream press, or painting the Tea Party as angry radicals. Meanwhile, the average Tea Party demonstration looked like a church picnic compared to the OWS activities. Yet, media coverage of OWS was far more favorable than that received by the Tea Party. Meanwhile, the GOP, resistant to giving up too much of the status quo, has failed to fully embrace the Tea Party movement.

Now, you might be critical of the Tea Party crowd because their beliefs don't comport with your own. To that, I simply ask this: Where is the Dem plan to regain control over the ever - expanding and crushing Federal Debt? Where is the Dem plan to wrest control of the Federal budget and restrain the growth of each year's budget which is increasingly financed by debt each year?

We may have differences in political views, but if we can't agree that government spending is not sustainable at current levels, and that we must start actually paying down principal on the Federal debt and not just make token interest payment, we're all toast.

EDIT - if you respond to the questions above by suggesting that the Dems have hitched their wagon to Simpson - Bowles, be very careful. First, where is there any Dem sponsored legislation requiring implementation of the commissions findings? Then, of course, you also have this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/e...003642883.html

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm curious about the war on religion. Heard of it but never seen it. Can you describe it and relate any manifestations of it.



It's usually referred to as Calvinism.

John

I looked up Calvinism on Wiki. That looks like different stuff than what I am referring to with regard to wealth evangilism. By wealth evangilism I mean preachers with a drumbeat that says if you follow the way then wealth will come to you. Olstein comes to mind, as does Meyer. There are probably a few more players on the airwaves that I'm not familiar with. I'm not saying these are bad people. I'm just saying that their message is a departure from what I would consider to be the classical teaching of if you live the way then you will be saved. Monetary wealth didn't play a part in the original.

I'm just talking out loud as if we were around a table. I'm no expert on this stuff.

In any event, I don't know if war on religion is a common term. It's just one I used to desccribe what I think I'm seeing.

My perspective of religion is a little more contrasted than most Americans so maybe my recent American religion history is skewed. I grew up for the most part in Bavaria. In that region of the world the church plays a big part in daily life. The churches are at the center of towns. They are solid stone, half a millenia old, covered inside with gold, and saints are entombed in the floors. Believe in religion or not there is at least an aura that some deep thinking happens there. The church also provides the cadence of life with bell tolls on the hour. The church has a peaceful presence even if not everyone follows it or tithes.

When I got a whiff of quote-unquote American style religion on TV I was shocked. There were people getting healed, preachers wearing Rolexes, Tammy Faye Baker. Gott damn it was crazy. Christianity had been turned into a carnival freak show. Even though I was not a member of any relgion I still felt like the native indian that cried when I saw the garbage marketed to Christians on TV.

I can see how the Atheist movement gets a skewed picture of religion and seems to have grown in numbers and conviction.

The good news is that what I saw on TV could be contrasted against the more staid Christian practices of neighbors with european roots. The older Germans, Italians, Poles, and the like of Detroit still carried the humility and tranquility of the homeland churches. I suspect they also brought those qualities to politics. While politics may have been just as challenging at least they got it done.

Since that time the Atheists seem to have gotten a stonger foothold and battled the churches. Similarly more people seem to be agnostic. Those effects might well be caused the Circus churches of the 1980s. For sure the was a war against religion during the 2008 election. That's when Glenn Beck urged Christians to leave their church if it had social tendencies. Rush Limbaugh probably did the same as well as a host of people on Fox news and conservative talk radio. Of course those people were also urged to turn to Ayn Rand with her atheist objectivism and self-dealing. Humility and teamwork were repainted as weakness and statism.

So that's the way I see the difference between Reagan era or old Republicans and the new class of Republicans. While their party name is the same their ability to work with the other side and the directions of their internal compasses are notably different.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

IMHO, a post like this demonstrates what's wrong with the political dialogue in this country. We tend to reflect the talking points of the end of the political spectrum we gravitate to and close our minds to ideas or opportunities that might exist outside of that limited perspective.

For example, you may or may not realize that the "Ryan Plan" for Medicare already exists. Its typically referred to Medicare Part C or Medicare Advantage. It was enabled as part of legislation passed in 1997 under the Clinton administration. It was later expanded under Medicare Part D in 2003.

The practice of Medicare giving grants to private insurers to offset the cost of coverage has been in practice, and has been pretty successful in the market for years. Under the program, Medicare - eligible subscribers can choose from difference packages of plans offered by private insurers that are partially subsidized by Medicare funds, and allow the insured to purchase enhancements to the basic, subsidized coverage that meets their needs.

An expansion of that program is what Ryan is calling for. Contrary to current political advertising, the plan is relatively popular, albeit a bit confusing to some when it was rolled out. It has also not resulted in seniors eating dog food to be able to afford their medicines, and there are no know occurrences of Paul Ryan or any other politician pushing grandma off a cliff, as we've seen in some political commercials.

Political debate and dialog has devolved into repeating talking points or rehashing the extreme themes and messages that politicians or their surrogates foist onto the American people. The biggest failing of the GOP, IMHO, is that after many years of this kind of negative campaigning, they've yet to find away to effectively respond to it.

The response of Romney's camp to the Dem's drumbeat about tax returns - as if one's personal wealth is a qualification for the office - is a great example. Its a great trickbag for the Dems to try to place Romney in. If he doesn't turn over his tax returns, then the Dems can continue to try to exploit that as a campaign issue. If he does, you can bet that a team of tax attorneys will be at the ready to generate demagogic press releases and campaign commercials about those tax returns. Of course, this also allows the Dems to continue to avoid talking about the last 4 years, and keep the Romney camp on defense.

The other issue the GOP has is that they were entirely complicit in the expansion of government that occurred from 2001 - 2008. Now that the Tea Party has taken aim at the GOP as the party most likely to respond to reform and most likely to lead any charge for regaining control over the growth of government spending, it creates an opportunity for the Dems, with no plan of their own to restrain spending or deal with the growing public debt, to paint the GOP as hypocritical.

They Dems have also been successful, at least with the mainstream press, or painting the Tea Party as angry radicals. Meanwhile, the average Tea Party demonstration looked like a church picnic compared to the OWS activities. Yet, media coverage of OWS was far more favorable than that received by the Tea Party. Meanwhile, the GOP, resistant to giving up too much of the status quo, has failed to fully embrace the Tea Party movement.

Now, you might be critical of the Tea Party crowd because their beliefs don't comport with your own. To that, I simply ask this: Where is the Dem plan to regain control over the ever - expanding and crushing Federal Debt? Where is the Dem plan to wrest control of the Federal budget and restrain the growth of each year's budget which is increasingly financed by debt each year?

We may have differences in political views, but if we can't agree that government spending is not sustainable at current levels, and that we must start actually paying down principal on the Federal debt and not just make token interest payment, we're all toast.

EDIT - if you respond to the questions above by suggesting that the Dems have hitched their wagon to Simpson - Bowles, be very careful. First, where is there any Dem sponsored legislation requiring implementation of the commissions findings? Then, of course, you also have this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/e...003642883.html

The current Medicare plan is so popular among seniors that Ryan and the GOP are excepting them from his plan because of insurmountable opposition.
He wants you and me (under 55) to take a plan that is not nearly as good and ends Medicare as we know it. If his plan was so good why is he not making it for everyone? I say this with all due respect Whell. You are being sold a bill of goods and you are going vote against your own self- interest.
You go ahead and make your eligibility date 67, and plan on your spouse having to pay more in premiums for her health care after you are gone (most likley she will outlive you, I hope u both live a long time). If you are under 55 why would you short change yourself?

[HatchetJack]

I think the 65-67 age thing is really a moot point and just a suggestion at
this point. We need SOMEONE in charge of the checkbook and Ryan appears
to be the only one willing to take on that challenge. We have to live within
our means now that we are in this world economy so some things will have to
be cut including military spending. If someone is healthy and 65 years old
with a job and insurance why would he think about quiting anyway?
If he's sick and disabled he's covered any way right? I doubt that will ever
pass but just the fact that someone is willing to have some ideas about
fiscal responsibiliy shows promise. Something we have none of at the moment.

[BlueStreak]

Oh, yes, of course, Mike. The GOP is ever the hapless, innocent victim of negative campaigns and misinformation.

If the Tea Party is merely "painted" by the Democratic Party as "angry, misinformed radicals", then how come nearly every Tea Partier I encounter here and in other venues------appears to be just that; Angry, misinformed and very radical. And, where would you say such misinformation eminates from? Little birds wispering in their windows while they sleep? I don't think so. Not unless Rove & Friends have managed to invent robotic little birds.

We get the notion that the rights ultimate goal is to eliminate "social safety nets" entirely from the leadership itself. "So(c)ialist Security", "Ponzi Scheme", "Welfare Queen", "...sucking the unemployment teet" are phrases of demonization we've heard coming directly from the mouths of prominent Republican politicians.

I know the OP of this thread called for the opinions of conservatives, but after reading your post, I felt compelled to comment.

In summary my opinion of the GOP is that it is has become a wolf in sheeps clothing. The modern day, far right has managed to convince half of the people in this country that they are honest, well intentioned, squeaky clean and pure Christian do-gooders that only want what's best for everyone.....and nothing could be further from the truth.

Regards,
Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Oh, yes, of course, Mike. The GOP is ever the innocent victim of negative campaigns and misinformation.

If the Tea Party is merely "painted" by the Democratic Party as "angry, misinformed radicals", then how come nearly every Tea Partier I encounter here and in other venues------appears to be just that; Angry,

Regards,
Dave

Rather selective perception, if you ask me. I think there's a whole large cross section of Americans - from the left, right and center - who are angry about what their government has become. You don't get to a Prez below 50% in polling, and a congress that polls below 10%, without some folks being a bit pissed off at the status quo. If I read some of your own posts, there's no question in my mind that there's anger in some of them.

If I were in politics today I'd be advocating to my peers that we damn well better find a way to harness that anger and steer the energy behind it into something productive and positive. Instead, the message managers continue to focus on the issues of the day that divide us, rather than those issues that impact all of us. Its a bloody waste and it maintains a paralysis the governed while the governing class continues to do whatever the hell they want.

And yes, just as you might suggest that the bulk of the negative politicking and campaigning originates from the right, I see most of it coming from the left side of the aisle. Maybe that's suggestive of a reality that has all of them full or crap, and we need to wipe the slate completely clean and start over....as soon as we find our way past the moneyed interests that keep all of them in Washington.

[BlueStreak]

That was much more sensible. However, the conservative majority SCOTUS has further solidified the connection between our politicians and the "monied interests". So, I don't see that happening any time soon. If ever.

Thanks,
Dave