Reconciliation of Health Care is First Step Toward Dictatorship

It would be amusing if it were not so sad and hypocritical to see the party of NO now decrying the same tactic they used during the Bush administration.

 

Um, I'm not MP.

To put it briefly, I know, because they explicitly said so. Below you will find quotes from some of our most important and respected Founding Fathers. They were unambiguous as to their sentiments regarding "democracy."

And just in case you're jumping to conclusions (which you may not be at all...if not, my apologies): In no way am I saying that our Founding Fathers weren't proponents of liberty. Rather, I'm saying they were in no way fans of a Democracy. They wished to set up a Republic. "Democracy" was viewed as "mob rule." Some quotes, better said than I manage to:

From Neal Boortz: SOURCE

From James Madison--The Federalist Papers: SOURCE

Other views by Founding Fathers on democracy SOURCE:

• John Winthrop, whose "City on a Hill" inspired President Ronald Reagan, declared that "among civil nation a democracy is accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government."
• John Adams: "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes and murders itself. There never was democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
• Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

Re-iterating: Please make the important distinction between freedom (which IMO the Founding Fathers were more protective of and understood better than our generation), and democracy (which in its purest form scared the daylights out of many, if not most of the FF's).

Oh, and you might want to apologize to MP for confusing us. He's probably spitting mad about it by now. :laugh:

 

Yep. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

I know getting a straight answer is likely a losing cause...

...But are you opposed the reconciliation process?

 

Good research. If the Founding Fathers had desired a democracy they would have given us one. That is why we have a Constitutional Republic.

 

Somebody has to say no to the party of SPEND and TAX and SPEND SOME MORE.

 

Why didn't they say NO why did they not say NO when G. Bush took a budget surplus and turn it into a deficit, and a growing one at that? Hypocrits is what they are.

 

I thought Congress ran on a majority vote. Maybe reconciliation is not a great idea. The Republicans used it when they were in power and we now that put us in a very bad way.

However, now the Republicians want to deny the used of it to ram through G. Bush's policies. Now they say they do not want it so they can say NO to everything.

Seems a real bag of worms.

 

Were you for reconciliation when the Republicans used it in passing Bush's wants?


O. Hatch, who has been critical of Obama and reconciliation voted for reconciliation every time it came up during the Bush years.

[sizej="3"]I thought you might be interested in Republican Senators during the Bush administration who voted for reconciliation.

 

Actually, it is a democratic republic. It has not been Constitutional for decades.

 

No, the bag of worms is your fanatic hatred of the Republican Party. You are so blinded by your rage, you cannot see how liberal they actually are, and for all practical purposes, you are just like them.

 

I don't hate the Republican Party. I do hold them responsible for many of the problems we now face. There were in power and they created many of the problems. Their blind following of G. Bush made the problems even worse. The projections in 2000 were that if we continued following the financial policies then in place we would be running a budget credit of 1 trillion this year. In their blind obedience they turned this into what we see today. They irresponsibility placed short-term political gain over long-term financial health of the nation. We see an example of this in the headlines today about Social Security. Everyone for many years, has know this day was coming and yet nothing was done. The GOP made such a whipping boy of taxes that all politicians were afraid of raising any taxes to stave off these problems. I hold both parties responsible, the GOP 1995 to 2004 and the Democrats until now. Putting off these solutions have and will make the solutions much more painful. The lives of our great-grandchildren have been mortgaged for political gain. The piper is going to be paid in one way or another and it is going to hurt everyone.

Hate and anger are negative emotions that do no good. They only harm the holder of the emotions. Calm rational thought and observation is much better. I

 

If you hold both parties responsible, then why is it that you only point out Republican failures? Social Security is coming home to roost because of both parties. One problem is the constant IOUs from the government. However, the other problem is people now collecting social security collecting many multiple of what they paid in. As was said in another thread, it was made clear at the foundation of social security, it was never meant to be a sole source of income. It was up to each individual to save and prepare for retirement. Social Security was meant to be a supplement.

 

Fair question. Primarily because there were in power for ten years and did nothing to reduce the problems. Instead they followed policies, especially after 2000 that insured the problems would be much worse. Now they have nothing to say but NO, even to ideas they pushed before if they are accepted or presented by the Democrats.

This problem has been know for years. I remember talking when I was in my 30's and 40's about this problem and how it would come home to roost someday. The problem should have been addressed years ago, but it wasn't.

This has been true as long as I remember.

I agree that was the intent. But the vast majority of people have not planned and saved ahead. Not saving seems to be in our DNA. It is a failing of most people to want immediate gratification and not sacrifice for the future.

This was an avoidable problem, but politicians did not have the gumption to do what was needed. Political points took precedence over the needs of the nation.

To me this is being continued with a vengeance by the party of NO.

 

Social Security has needed reform for years. One could put the funds in a safe investment for those that do not want to take the risk of the stock market. For example, right now the 30 year treasury note is running 4.7% and the ten year 3.7%. This would result in a much better return than it is giving now.

I do agree with one of your points. We as Americans seem to have lost our foresight to save or invest. There is no thought given to the future, only instant gratification.

 

I always believe it was bad business to allow the government to borrow from the Social Security fund. It never made any sense to me. But politicians saw it as an easy way to spend money with little or no thought of the future.

The money should have been invested, say in state municipal bonds or in high grade corporate bonds. If I believed a really competent person would have been placed in charge of the investments stocks would have been alright. However that would have brought conflict of interest. The government would have slanted rules and regulations to their favor at the expense of the market and people.

People who lived through the depression of the '30's became savers. Children born after WW II were indulged and became spenders and not savers. This is part of the problem.

 

I had to look up reconciliation to find out what it is. Everywhere I looked, it said it is used for the Budget. Although the early predictions are that the healthcare bill will dominate 1/6 of the budget, it is supposed to be about health care.

One very real concern is the "strong arm" tactics that are reportedly being used to coerce elected congress members to vote for this bill. It was a problem when GWB used it to get CAFTA, and it is a problem now.

PS One congressman that caved to the pressure and voted for CAFTA is now UNEMPLOYED.

 

No.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a big Orrin Hatch fan.

Well...you thought wrong.

Man, I bet you get disappointed when someone with whom you disagree is consistent in your view. Does it make you feel guilty?

 

Upset? Guilty? ROFL. Not at all. I will defend your right to believe as you want regardless of whether you agree with me or not. One of our great Baptist traditions.

 

This is the problem with partisan politics. "Well the Republicans used it so..." Well gues what? The Republicans were wrong for using it. The Dems are now wrong for using it. Just because one side does something doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to do it. Like my mom used to say, "if so and so jumps off a bridge, will you do it too." Two wrongs don't make a right. This is not the way to pass anything, much less something as big as this bill. It is a cheap tactic used by sleazy politicians to pass something people don't want.

I absolutely despise the "well the Republicans did it" argument. Not only is that a moronic argument is the first place, it is also played out. We are supposed to be Christians. Christians are supposed to believe in living by a higher standard no matter what everyone else is doing. We should hold our politicians to these standards. The fact is both sides are corrupt, immoral, and unethical and both sides have been destroying this country for quite some time.