Displaying 61 To 90 Of 94 Comments An Open Letter To Any And All “Conservatives” You showed good foresight. And I understand your lament about what we “should have done” so we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now. It’s the same lament I have about many social issues……if people would just stop making choices that have negative consequences that will hold them back economically for years to come…..personal responsibility…..yada yada yada. But that doesn’t get us anywhere in dealing with the here and now. We always have to deal with the realities of now, not what we think the realities should have been if different choices had been made. I think it’s kind of naïve to expect coal, oil, or natural gas companies to lead the way in “investing” in alternative energies. Companies sell a product because there’s demand for it. If there’s a high demand and access to a steady supply, what incentive is there for a company to change the products it offers? That will change when one of several things happens…..competitors introduce new products that accomplish the same goals in a better way, which produces higher demand for THEIR products and less for the coal, oil, or natural gas companies, or consumers become educated enough » Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 12:07 pm Well, if you and I ran for office…..lol! I think we SHOULD. Whether we could or not is another question. You say I have some similiarities with Democrats — and I know that I do. I guess I’d have to think about this the way a lot of Dems think about the ACA and their preference for single payer….it would be the ideal, and anything that moves towards it would be progress. » Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 11:51 am Nirek, to continue our discussions on social security and taxes, I’ve moved your last responses here so we can discuss it further. I would say $40,000 to $100,000 is middle class and under is working poor. Over 100 grand a year , you might be rich.But that is my opinion and for my state, Vermont. It may be different in other states.Good question though. Lets keep talking, Cyndi. Nirek, I’d be interested if anyone else would care to chime in on this. I think it’s interesting, because whenever I’ve gotten answers from people, and you contrast them with what you can actually find in government documents, there is WIDE disagreement on what it actually means to be “middle class” and where “rich” begins. Yet, talking points about the middle class and the rich are tossed about constantly in the political debate. Think about the differences in tax proposals between the parties when it comes to individuals…..even the Democrats don’t seem to think “rich” applies until you get above 250K. The GOP, about 400K. And even then, there’s “rich” and then there’s RICH. Even the ACA provides subsidies up to the middle 90Ks. Under your definition, that would be the very upper middle class. When I think about it, to me 40-90K is lower middle class, especially in today’s economy, and 91-150K is middle class, and 151-300K is upper middle class. Above that, I guess you’re “lower class rich”,. My family’s income ranges from around 110K to 160K depending on the year, but that’s only been within the past few years with my husband’s most recent promotion, and it varies due to bonuses and personal investment performance. It started 30 years ago at around 35K between us and took basically a lifetime to work ourselves up to that. Anyway, I can assure you we are by no means rich. I see us as solidly middle class, for now anyway. Cyndi, we are real close on taxes! I agree with almost all of what you said. Where I would have a change is the super wealthy and corporations making BIG profits. They should pay a bigger % of their income in taxes. Simple question….why? I understand the arguments against the super wealthy and corporations now, under the current system, with the subsidies and loopholes. But if we made the changes we basically agree on, to where they no longer have those advantages, what is your justification for taxing them at a higher rate? If they made 5 million, they’d be paying at X rate. If they made 500 million, they’d be paying at X rate. They’d still be paying more if they made more….why pile on top of that? To me, that is penalizing for size and success. » Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 1:01 am Nirek, our energy thread ran out of room so I’m moving it up here. I was a lineman for 32 years and know something about both power and telephone. Please keep the conversation going. Thanks. I originally heard the anecdote from my husband a few years ago and I believe he showed me an article about it in one of the industry magazines, but I can’t recall which one. I recall reading more about the resolution of it sometime last year, so I googled for info and found you some links below that back up what I said. From the first link I listed: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wind-farms-can-kill-eagles-without-penalty-f2D11702834 http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/birds-bats-wind-turbines-deadly-collisions I’m glad you have solar power. Unfortunately, not everyone has the money, available space, the housing design, or lives in an area where that would work for them. My grandfather put solar panels on his home back in the 1980s, just sold his house after my aunt’s death and the system still works, but of course it is supplemented by conventional electric and gas service. You keep talking about solar and wind, and I’m all for that, but to me you don’t seem to be acknowledging the current realities that where these technologies are today is not where they need to be to provide a stable source of power that satisfies the electrical demand of our entire country, and we can’t just wave a magic wand and decree it so. » Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 12:28 am It’s not that I have allegiance to coal. I simply know the reality of energy production, electrical load, and what it takes to supply the power demands of this country. Of course coal plants put out pollution, but the majority of them put out less than they did at earlier points in time. If we could simply shut them down, convert it all to solar and wind, and supply the necessary power to satisfy demand at a reasonable price, don’t you think it would be done? More energy is moving to renewables every day. It’s a work in progress. Everyone is worried about the future, but we also have to live in the here and now. It would be REALLY interesting to have all the coal plants go offline for a day, oh say in August or January, and see what happens. It’s horrific enough when there’s a bad storm and people are without power for a day or so, or even a few days. Concerns about the environment or not, it’s going to take time to make the switch, and when it’s fully made, there will be inherent problems in those systems too. My favorite anecdote was about one of the wind farms our company owns part of out in the plains. HUGE amount of wind turbines…..and they kill massive amounts of birds. Unfortunately, some of those birds are bald eagles, and the government (which encourages the wind production) fined the companies because there is no way to prevent the eagles from flying into the blades. The government’s suggested solution? Hire “spotters” with binoculars, who when they see an eagle coming anywhere near, radio headquarters to shut down the wind turbines until the bird makes it way out of range. Do you know how many times a day, week, month it happens that an eagle flies in range? a LOT. Gee, that’s real reliable energy production there. Anyway, they fought the fines and won, and the wind turbines are still killing birds including bald eagles until someone figures out a way to stop it. It’s another one of those “unintended consequences” of “progress”. » Posted By cyndibru On June 11, 2014 @ 9:58 am Sherry, I think we got far enough into responses on the thread that your post below didn’t have a “reply” button so I had to reply here. I agree with you as far as the obstacles that are in the way. It’s the same old problem: everyone says they want change, but only if it affects the OTHER guy. Business wants government to stay out of their affairs, yet runs to the government to gain an advantage. I think it would be a big change and all groups would struggle with it, because no one really likes change. I think it would take a really charismatic president to spearhead it and try to make the case to the American people, and it would still be an uphill battle. But I think it would solve a lot of complaints that many people have on both sides of the aisle. » Posted By cyndibru On June 11, 2014 @ 1:27 am It certainly has. I find those kind of name-calling and trivial attacks a bunch of b.s. noise. I’d rather talk about the issues. And that’s one of the things I didn’t like over at HP, and when I was looking for a new site, and MSNBC or FOX…..all that name-calling and attacking on non-issue stuff and “rah-rah” from both sides. Many of those who call themselves conservatives are guilty of this kind of nonsense, and a lot of liberals love to point it out. However, you’ll see few libs calling out those making “McTurtle” comments, those who made fun of GWB’s speech idioms or “C” student status, and even on this site I see a lot of posts labeling anyone in the opposition as X or Y. On both sides, I see a lot of “I can dish it out but I’m offended when it’s turned on MY side”. I think people should either ignore it all as the drivel it is, or call out all offenders equally, regardless of political persuasion. If not, I find the hypocrisy label applies. » Posted By cyndibru On June 10, 2014 @ 10:10 pm When it comes to the global economy, I think companies that operate in the United States (no matter if they are headquartered here or not) should be subject to U.S. tax laws. Anything they earn here should be taxed here. Other countries violating trade laws and stealing intellectual property is a real problem that hurts American companies. I also think we need some tariffs to protect American-made goods. NAFTA was such a disaster and accelerated the offshoring of jobs. The average American doesn’t seem to understand that when you flood the market with goods made by much cheaper labor and materials, and you don’t place a tariff on those goods, American companies have no choice but to cut their production costs or go out of business. Yes, the $20 VCR at Wal-Mart was great, until all the people at the American factory making VCRs lost their jobs. I worked for a while in the furniture industry and watched the same thing happen there. Now it’s very difficult for the average person to even TRY to buy American in many categories. As for energy issues, I don’t agree that there’s some secret conspiracy. I’ve worked at a coal-fired power plant, and my husband has worked at one for 34 years, from a lowly maintenance helper to plant manager. I’ve seen the pollution controls installed, the company’s efforts to recycle the flyash, personally reported the air quality monitoring to the state, done the coal barge accounting, etc. I’ve seen the effects of deregulation on the industry, I know the weakness of our nation’s electrical grid, I know when the company and the industry began revving up natural gas plants, and I’ve seen them shut down the old coal-fired units that can’t be updated cost-effectively. I’ve seen their investments in solar and wind and other alternatives and I’ve seen the problems, and how long it takes to work through and develop and implement new technology on a big scale. I know about their efforts and those of the electrical industry working towards green and clean back to the 1980s. I’ve seen them scramble when there’s an outage so we don’t lose the grid. I could go on and on, but I do know one thing. No one’s hiding or sitting on new technology — the power companies are the ones who want it, as fast as they can get it. » Posted By cyndibru On June 10, 2014 @ 9:32 pm I thought of a question for you, Nirek. I often have a problem getting anyone to define middle class. At what income level do you think middle class begins and ends? Where does “rich” start? » Posted By cyndibru On June 10, 2014 @ 9:01 pm As for social security, I think it’s ridiculous that there’s been talk of means testing or of raising the retirement age again. Of course, I also think it’s ridiculous that so many people seem to have the desire to live forever, but that’s another discussion. My husband was born in 1960, his brother in 1959. My husband already has to work 2 more years than his brother does in order to collect. SS is meant to be a safety net for retirement. At minimum, if that’s all you have, you’re supposed to be able to eke by. Anyone with the means to do so should have been saving more on their own, but is still entitled to collect on that minimum as that’s a promise that was made to all Americans, and makes it a program that benefits all who make it to senior citizen status. That said, the justification for the earnings cap has always been that there’s a max under the SS formula that will ever be paid out, so it’s not “fair” to collect above that amount. To this, I say phooey. Right now, that cutoff is still in the range that I consider middle class. Want to talk fairness? You can’t cut SS payments any lower or people won’t survive, means testing is patently unfair, raising the retirement age discriminates against those who work in physically demanding jobs, and our national demographics are such that we MUST increase the amount collected. SS is an insurance program — there’s always been a possibility you can die before you ever collect a dime. And the $255 death benefit doesn’t even cover your cremation urn! So what’s unfair about collecting on higher amounts of earnings that won’t be part of the payback formula? IMO, nothing. Just keep the rate the same, don’t over-penalize people for being successful, but don’t have a salary cap on earnings subject to SS tax. » Posted By cyndibru On June 10, 2014 @ 8:55 pm Here’s my thoughts on taxes, as simplified as I can make it. The U.S. income tax code is a NIGHTMARE. Far too many special interests being granted breaks or cuts. I don’t believe the tax code should be used to influence what should be judgment free choices, as I’ve already explained. That really bothers me, on a personal level. I also have a problem that EVERYONE, no matter how their “income” is earned, or how much it amounts to, is not asked to contribute. To me, it’s more of a psychological thing. The EITC has nothing to do with taxes. If you’re not paying any, you can’t have a credit. No one should get a “refund” of money they haven’t paid in. Up the aid programs, subsidies, do it another way. You can use the tax records to see who qualifies each year, but call it something else and give everyone a stake in contributing via income taxes, even if it’s minimal. I don’t see a need for “deductions” or credits or tax subsidies of any kind. Both individuals and corporations should be treated the same, and filed on a postcard. All types of income should be treated the same, no matter where it comes from or how it is derived. You list all of your gross income, from all sources, and you pay the percentage assigned for that amount of income. No one should get a refund, period. Once you’re above a certain established income threshold (so many times the poverty level, for instance)for household size, everyone, individuals and corps included should pay the same rate. That way, the “poor” aren’t paying a disproportionate percentage of their income, and the successful aren’t being penalized for being successful, and we’re out of the business of deciding who is “worthy” of paying less in taxes for whatever reason and who is not. » Posted By cyndibru On June 10, 2014 @ 8:35 pm Thanks Sherry! Nice to see you here too. Don’t worry, no cockiness here. I enjoyed talking with you as well. I found several people over on HP that I had long discussions with on numerous topics, and I found that as they progressed, we were able to work our way to numerous points of agreement. Not on everything, of course, but often enough to give me some hope that once you get past the rhetoric, maybe our country isn’t as divided as it seems. » Posted By cyndibru On June 10, 2014 @ 8:08 pm 1. I agree that the reader often infers “tone”, and I stated how I inferred it from how the question was phrased. Do you believe that all poll questions are simply questions, or sometimes specifically designed to convey a certain message and invoke or provoke a certain response? Do you perceive a difference in tone between these two questions: (I obviously do) 2. Of course it is possible for liberals to exist in KY and for conservatives to exist in San Francisco. I was not claiming otherwise, but simply pointing out that regional and cultural influences DO exist and have a general tendency to influence most people’s viewpoints and values. One’s upbringing and subsequent life experiences also have a tendency to do this. Overall, my state has a more conservative culture and San Francisco and the Northeast have a more liberal culture, and that tends to have an influence on those who live there. I reread my comment and I’m not sure why those terms convey to you that I was referring to or inferring that it applied to EVERYONE who lived in either place. Perhaps it’s that reader bias or tone issue again. 3. Of course, and many of those millions who fall into those categories are influenced by the very factors I cited. Some conservatives certainly fall into that category, as do some liberals. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 11:59 pm Moving on to some of your other questions, Nirek…… “Why do you “conservatives” hate Obama so much that you are willing to stop any progress for the country?” I don’t hate President Obama. I disagree that many of the things he favors constitute or will bring about “progress” for the country, and also I think his personality and lack of national government experience factors into why there has been so much gridlock. In general, I favor the GOP platform over the Dem platform. When Obama and Hillary were running in 2008, I felt Hillary would be the better Dem candidate for numerous reasons. I still wouldn’t have voted for her, but I believe she would have been a better consensus builder and a more pragmatic politician as far as getting things accomplished. We may very well find out in 2016. “Why do “conservatives” want to continue drilling and fracking when the science shows clearly that we are destroying our environment by burning fossil fuels?” Because the technology is not yet available to produce enough energy from alternative sources to supply the demand and make it affordable to the masses. Until it is, we need to keeps the lights on, and the homes warmed and cooled, etc. Energy in the U.S. is becoming cleaner and cleaner every year. Energy companies themselves are working on and investing in alternatives. Everyone says they want clean energy, but there is a point that the majority of people aren’t willing to go beyond to achieve it. Cost and access dictate that point. The environment and climate change rank well below other concerns for most Americans. “Why do you continue to deny facts? Science? Why are “conservatives ” for the XL Pipeline when it will benefit only the oil companies and the Chinese? It will hurt American citizens by taking their property and any spills (there will be spills) will contaminate the ground water. Why do you insist on building this thing ?” Many Americans on BOTH sides of the aisle support the Keystone XL, not just conservatives. The State Dept’s own report disagrees with your contentions. This stuff is currently moving through the country anyway, by rail. “Why do you blame President Obama for the deficit when he has made cuts trying to undo all the fiscal, physical, and environmental damage done by “w”?” I personally don’t blame President Obama for the deficit, or the national debt, nor do I blame GWB. They may set the “agenda”, but spending is approved by Congress. The blame lies there, and with our American tendency to want to “help” everyone and “fix” everything whether we can afford to or not. Hard choices must be made, and no one wants to make them. So many economic factors are influenced by the global economy, trade, unforseen events and policies that are enacted previously and have effects that show up in the future. Many decisions are made based on projected costs that rarely turn out to be accurate. As to what the overall solution is, I have not a clue. I have pondered it for years and given up because it gives me a blinding headache. It is one of the things that distressed me most when the GOP had control of Congress while GWB was President and did not reign it in as they should have. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 11:30 pm Thank you for the compliment. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 10:24 pm I’m attempting to follow your logic about the working poor who might benefit financially from a minimum wage increase (how much is debatable for various reasons, but let’s assume you’re correct) yet continue to vote for Republicans who oppose it. So if I personally would financially benefit from a tax break involving issue X, you would claim I am voting against my best interests if I voted for a politician who was NOT in favor of a tax break for issue X. I’m sure for some people, the only criteria they may use to determine what is in “their best interest” is their personal short-term financial gains, or what they believe will produce such gains. Heck, some people actually claimed to have voted for Obama because they wanted a free phone, even though those government phones have been around for quite some time. For others, financial gain is far down on their priority list. They may not agree that a rise in the minimum wage will ultimately benefit them, for various reasons, or they may feel that other things those legislators support are more important to them than a minimum wage increase. They may rather see more emphasis on bringing back or creating jobs that pay above minimum wage, or they may have stronger views about social issues than financial ones, or they may believe it’s a personal matter between employee and employer when one agrees to take a job for the wages offered. There are any number of explanations for why an individual votes the way they do, and in most cases you would have to ask them individually to find out specifically why. I’m sure some of the reasons would be specious, not well-thought out, but others would not. Just like I would be in favor of a rise in the amount of income subject to social security taxes even though the current system benefits me personally because I believe that would be the best and least painful way to ensure SS stays solvent, or that I would be in favor of changes to the tax code that eliminate deductions that benefit me personally, like the mortgage deduction or child deduction, because I personally don’t feel the tax code should be used to reward or penalize choices that should be equal in a free country, like having children versus choosing to remain child-free or choosing to rent instead of buy because you don’t want the responsibilities involved with owning. Sometimes my party is against things that I’m personally for. I expect many others in my party and those in other parties feel the same way and run across the same kinds of conflicts. You have Democrats who oppose abortion rights and favor gun rights, but agree with the Dems on other things that are more important to them so they vote Dem. What is in someone’s own best interests is multi-layered and many faceted, IMO. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 10:12 pm Also, Miles you will never hear “because it’s in the Bible” as an argument from me. I find the claims of the earth being less than 10,000 (although most bible thumpers put it around 6000) years old patently absurd. I went to Catholic schools where we were taught SCIENCE in science class, not creationism. We also had a lovely course in world religions and beliefs — as a religion elective. I do not use my personal religion as a basis for my political opinions or decisions. As far back as Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, through today’s ridiculous creationism and anti-science Fundamentalist crusades, I find them repellent in the political arena. I am thankful I was not raised with those beliefs and received a good education, and I personally have many issues with my OWN formal religion because I have the ability to critically think and “faith” is not my strong suit. I live relatively close to the Creation Museum (what an oxymoron!) and they will never get a dime from me. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 9:09 pm Miles, I don’t claim to speak for all conservatives and I certainly don’t agree with all conservatives and the way they speak or conduct themselves. I don’t feel obliged to “defend” or “explain” anyone but myself. I have no problem with people who disagree with me, or I wouldn’t be interested in talking with them. I believe politics is a dirty game, on both sides of the aisle, and I refuse to be a hypocrite, pointing out the faults and deficiencies of those on “the other side” while ignoring, cheering, or silently condoning the same type of behaviors from those on my own side. I accept the reality of what politics is. I’ve played the “lets trade links” and facts game before, and I can certainly do it again, as well as aggressiveness, unfair characterizations and put-downs. It can be fun, depending on what your objective is. Frankly, I think that in general in discussions, you tend to get what you give. If playing whac-a-mole is the goal, that’s fine. But then don’t turn around and pretend to be sincere and really care about what the other guy thinks and why. It’s not that I **care** about tone, or that I’m personally offended by it when it’s aggressive and negative. At that point, I’ll choose whether I wish to engage or I don’t. But when the OP purports to be asking for genuine conservative responses to a set of what were written more as what comes across to me as attacking talking points than sincerely asked questions, I’ll mention tone. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 8:50 pm Hello Nirek, I will start by saying that I agree with JumpinJack to a point. While your “questions” may be sincere, there is a tone to them that doesn’t encourage honest and open communication from those you say you wish to hear from. Basically, you have worded them in such a way (as I’m sure you well know) where it reads that you’re starting off from a premise that those of the other persuasion have done or are doing something wrong and you want to ask them why. When your questions begin with “why do you deny facts”, “why do you blame”, “why do you claim to be Americans”, etc (as if YOU are the arbiter of what being an American is) it suggests to me that this person is not really that interested in what I have to say, or he would have asked his question in such a way that it doesn’t begin with an automatically insulting premise. I’ll consider your questions and try to respond to most of them at some point and give my honest thoughts about each. But for now, I’ll start with this one….. “Why do the majority of Republicans vote against their own best interests? That confuses me so much. Republicans voted against everything except tax cuts for corporations and the rich. That just puts a bigger burden on all middle class and working poor folks.” First of all, I find your assertion that the majority of Republicans vote against their own best interest or their own self-interests both insulting and absurd. Who are you or anyone to tell someone else what is in their own best interests? What is in one’s own best interests is a subjective question, not an objective one, and the person best able to determine that is the person themselves, not someone else who thinks they know what is important to the person, or really, who has an opinion about what THEY think should be important to that other person. To me, to assert what is in the best interests of someone else is extremely arrogant. You see, you and I have differing points of view. This most likely results from any number of factors: living in different areas of the country that have different cultures and values; being raised in different types of families, perhaps being of a different religion or not having one, etc. For example, you don’t live in KY and I’m sure my state’s “culture” (or lack thereof, depending on who you talk to), may seem very foreign to you. Just as many parts of California (think San Francisco) or the Northeast’s “culture” seems very foreign to me. It can be hard to get past those knee jerk reactions and really give people the benefit of the doubt. Just because it could never work for me and my way of thinking and values doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for or isn’t good for them, and their way of thinking and values. While I’m never going to be a San Fran liberal, I have changed my opinion on abortion rights and on gay marriage, and I’d be in favor of campaign finance reform and term limits (depending on the specifics) and on eliminating a lot of corporate subsidies. Will I ever be a bleeding heart when it comes to social issues? No. But am I reasonable and open to ideas and discussion with people who don’t start off with the opinion that because I disagree politically that I’m stupid and ill-informed and don’t know my own interests? Yes, I am, in many political areas and so are many others on both sides. I would never presume that because you have a different political opinion than I do that you obviously must not know your own self-interests. Intelligent people realize that different people in different areas of the country can and do have different political priorities, interests, needs, wants, core values, belief systems, etc. When you brand those who disagree with you politically the way that you do, it explains why nothing ever gets done. Who would want to work WITH people they think are ignorant? And who would want to work WITH people who call them ignorant and not smart enough to know THEIR own interests? Answer: gridlock. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 5:37 pm The Once and Future Impeachment of Barack Obama KT, you asked me: I also have to disagree that Americans don’t like the ACA, or can’t afford it. I know several people who have benefited greatly because they now can have a doctor to see and care for them, when before, they didn’t.” No, they have a plan. It’s available and ready to go, but they haven’t moved on it at all in the House yet, which was Murph’s point. He says that’s because they can’t pass it in the house due to the infighting between GOP factions there. I say that with the current political realities and timing, there’s no “upside” for the GOP to do so at this time. It could be passed, but it would be a big battle just like the ACA was for the different Dem factions. Since we know it won’t go anywhere while the Dems are in charge of the Senate, the GOP has no reason to have that fight NOW, is my point. Murph disagrees and thinks they have an obligation to put it out there now. That’s the context of the discussion. Of course lots of Americans like the ACA, especially the ones getting free and/or low cost health care from it. Lots of other Americans don’t like it as it stands, for various reasons. The GOP thinks there’s enough of those Americans who will be voting in the contested races that could flip the Senate this fall to keep the current focus on winning the Senate majority, not the specifics of any replacement plan. They’re not looking to have any infighting over anything right now if they can avoid it. It doesn’t mean that they COULDN’T pass something they felt was necessary at this time, and they’d use arm-twisting to do it if necessary. But they don’t find it necessary at this time, even if Murph thinks it is. His argument is that choosing not to advance the legislation is proof that it can’t be advanced. I disagree with that. » Posted By cyndibru On June 13, 2014 @ 12:39 pm I’m sorry that you think my reply isn’t addressing your questions or that when it does, it isn’t “logical”. To me, it is. I agree with you that the GOP has a problem with infighting between the “traditional” GOP and the hard liners/tea party reactionary factions. I just don’t agree that means they CAN’T pass an ACA alternative plan in the House. We’ve already agreed that there is no way the Dems are going to allow any legislative changes to their “signature” achievement until Obama is out of office. You think the GOP in the House should go ahead and have the bloody infighting NOW to pass the alternative legislation that we know will go nowhere and “make” Harry Reid say no by filing it in his desk drawer, and that this would best benefit the GOP by showing America their alternative plan. I think the GOP believes enough Americans dislike the current plan regardless of the specifics of what a replacement plan might look like, plus other election factors, that they have a real shot at winning a majority in the Senate, where at that point any of their agenda, including their alternative plan, will get then get priority consideration. I think the GOP sees that currently, the infighting to pass that plan would get much more press than Harry’s slipping it into his desk drawer, and isn’t worth spending the political capital to do so until there’s a chance it would be taken seriously by the other legislative branch. They don’t have the power to push their agenda now, better to not upset any political momentum prior to the elections by having any pointless internal battles. Save your arm-twisting until it might actually mean something. » Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 12:53 pm Weird, I can’t find a “reply” button on your latest post, so I had to use the “reply” button on mine above it. There’s probably a better way to be navigating around here that I haven’t figured out yet. Nowhere in my post did I say that GOP actions or inactions are the responsibility of the Dems. I do believe that both parties certainly take political realities into account whenever they do or don’t do something legislatively. A political reality, that you acknowledged in your response, is that the Dems won’t allow ANYTHING that repeals or replaces or amends any part of the ACA. Why did the GOP then vote ad nauseum for repeal? You contend it’s because that’s the only thing the GOP can agree on. I say it’s much simpler than that – it’s to make a political point that has an “upside” for the GOP with their voters. Would there be infighting and political wrangling if the GOP proposed bill regarding health care actually had hearings? Of course, no doubt. And if it had a prayer of passing through the Senate and the President’s veto pen, that would be worth it. But it doesn’t, so there’s no political upside to having the fight and doing the wrangling. But you think the GOP, without having the ability to actually set and pass the agenda, should bloody themselves up and do the same. Sorry, they’re not that gullible. When push comes to shove and it COUNTS, they’re better at standing in lockstep than the Dems are – just look at what they’ve been able to block in the Senate by doing so. That, of course, you call obstruction. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 5:01 pm Well, at least you acknowledge that the GOP actually HAS an alternative plan, which is more than many liberals will acknowledge. I think we’ve all heard that particular talking point many times, that the GOP simply wants to repeal the ACA and go back to the way things were, with “people dying in the streets”. Lies and empty political rhetoric aren’t exclusive to the GOP. IMO, the GOP doesn’t have a hope of changing or replacing the ACA until Obama is out of office. Could Boehner get it past the Tea Partiers by working with the Dems in the House? Probably….only to have it die in the Senate. And in doing so, highlight the fight within his own party only to have it be for naught. There’s no “upside” to that. Your assertion that if the House passed it, the Senate Dems and Harry Reid might actually consider it and it could become the basis for a reconciliation bill I see as very disingenuous. That’s not going to happen in the current political climate. No “tweaks” are going to made to the ACA other than by executive order while the Dems are in charge. Its touted as “Obama’s signature achievement” and by extention, the Dems’ as well. They SAY they’re willing to consider changes to “improve” it, but first of all, that’s not what this bill does and secondly, I don’t believe they really are or would, especially not before they see what happens in the midterms and if they were really honest about it, probably not before 2016. I don’t think your other questions really come into play in the current thinking or maneuvering, although » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 11:15 am Hiya Murph! Made it here! As a conservative myself, I would find an impeachment a waste of time. If the GOP takes the Senate, which I hope they do, I would hope they attempt to pass legislation that addresses the issues this country is facing. As we know, there is much agreement about the problems we face but disagreement about the solutions that will work. Currently, the logjam has been Congress. I don’t hold out much hope that will change — the logjam will simply move to the President’s desk and his veto pen. But at least our side’s ideas will get fully heard and presented, and we’ll see what happens in the court of public opinion. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 12:30 am Huffington Post Finalizes Its Divorce From Its Bloggers LOL sherry, I know what you mean about the time thing! I think I remember talking with you over at HP. I just landed here myself. Nice to see some familiar people! » Posted By cyndibru On June 10, 2014 @ 7:52 pm Another HP refugee here….thank you Murphthesurf for the recommendations and directions to this site — looks enjoyable! As a conservative generally GOP voter who lives in a very conservative area of the country, I originally joined in at HP because I wanted to learn and understand more about the other point of view. My conservative views run more to policy than to social conservative issues. I favor gay marriage rights, legalization of marijuana, abortion rights with reasonable restrictions, etc. I’m not looking for an echo chamber, which is why I dislike most of the conservative sites, and it’s one of the things that irritated me about HP — finding the “meat” of ideas and respectful discussion instead of demonization of the opposition and mudslinging. I’m relatively secure in my political persuasion but I do enjoy learning how the other side thinks and believes and what motivates them and contrasting that with my own take on things. Glad to see some of the people I enjoyed reading at HP have moved here and looking forward to getting to know this community. » Posted By cyndibru On June 9, 2014 @ 12:48 am Yes, we’re all suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. That must be it. There’s no legitimate point of view or opinion other than your own. » Posted By cyndibru On July 1, 2014 @ 11:39 pm Sorry Nirek, but I respectfully disagree with your opinion. The legal issue before the court had nothing to do with determining “what is best for women”. That’s not the basis on which it was brought before the court, and it’s not the basis on which it was decided. I find it difficult to think that anyone would think that should factor into it in any way. The issue was whether individuals who operate a closely held family company, whose religious beliefs are part of their incorporation documents, give up their right to religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution simply because they chose to incorporate their business, and can be required to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs, simply because the Administration decided requiring them to do so would “benefit” women. The answer is no. The right to religious freedom trumps any perceived benefit to others. » Posted By cyndibru On July 1, 2014 @ 11:36 pm I agree, it’s right in there. We read the same words and interpret them differently and reach different opinions of their meaning. And your opinion disagrees with the majority of the Court. Like it or not, they’re the final arbiters, even when our personal opinions disagree with their decisions. » Posted By cyndibru On July 1, 2014 @ 11:27 pm Yes Monica, the President and his administration’s health and human services division chose to “interpret” the ACA as allowing carving out contraception/birth control as a separate drug/device category from all others, and writing a mandate requiring all employers to provide EVERY drug/device for this purpose in their insurance coverage, at ZERO co-pay. Those other provisions you mention in the ACA are mostly written into the law itself, not part of the administrations “interpretation” of the law. I have my reasons for disliking the ACA, but dislike of President Obama isn’t one of them. However, he does have a tendency, IMO, to take some executive actions too far, and IMO, the “free” birth control mandate is one of them, not only for the religious objections but the obvious favoritism. Every law “benefits” someone. Doesn’t mean the benefits outweigh any and all other principles involved. Disagreement about that is part of politics and why there are multiple points of view. As for the 401K issue, 401K’s are administered by a 3rd party, not the individual company and they offer investments in mutual funds, not individual companies and stocks. The contributions to 401K’s are self-directed, by the employees. There’s no conflict of interest there, or where is the outrage over 401K plans of “liberal” companies offering mutual funds that have oil, banking industry, and other corporations that they philosophically object to included in their employees’ mutual fund options? » Posted By cyndibru On July 1, 2014 @ 11:23 pmComments Posted By cyndibru
Your post read:
Cyndi, sorry I shortened your name for my own sake. I’d like to know where you got that anecdote from. Honestly I doubt that birds are that stupid. That said , I have had small birds fly into my windows and knock themselves out for a while. So maybe there is a problem there.
Solar on the other hand hurts nothing! My array of 24 panels makes all my power and more.
“Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don’t look up. As they scan below for food, they don’t notice the industrial turbine blades until it is too late.”
Why do so many conservatives seem to dislike President Obama and his policies so much?…..versus…..
“Why do you “conservatives” hate Obama so much that you are willing to stop any progress for the country?”
IMO, one is a general question, and one assumes facts not in evidence but is designed to put forth the OP’s negative opinion of the opposition and its assumed motives as if it were established fact.
“cyndibru, are you saying that infighting among the GOP is preventing them from even coming up with a better PLAN/IDEA to achieve affordable healthcare insurance for more Americans?
As you stated, the Hastert rule is an “informal governing principle”. It’s not hard and fast, and exceptions are made. The establishment GOP decides when to bring things up for a vote or not, and when it’s something they feel needs to be passed and/or considered, they know whether or not they have the votes within the entire HOUSE to pass it. If they NEED the votes, they’ll arm twist within their own party. If they don’t, because enough Democrats will vote in favor, they’ll allow those GOP to vote how they wish for political cover with their voters. Not much difference than in the Senate, where votes by Landrieu and others against the Dem majority are overlooked or excused by “look where they come from”. But when push comes to shove, they make the deals they need to pass SOMETHING. That’s why you have the ACA, because not enough DEMOCRATS wanted single payer or anything different. They had enough votes, numbers wise, to pass anything they wished, disregarding the GOP entirely. But the political reality was that they had to appease their own party members because there wasn’t party unity on what should be done. So they had to fight it out amongst their own party, and the fight is still resonating today.
if the GOP takes the Senate, they could become relevant. I could then see Congress as a whole working on passing an alternative plan, even if they know it won’t make it past Obama’s veto pen. Because then it would serve as a real alternative to consider as we run up to 2016.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats