What are the Republicans solutions to fixing:

If you'd care to find out, you can visit this site and I'm sure you'll find the answers:

http://www.gop.com/index.php/?can

Party platform info can be found here for these topics:
http://www.gop.com/2008platform/

The info there will be definitive.

Selecting a few individuals to provide weight to your argument isn't "expanding" on anything, it's narrowing the focus incredibly.
If people want something to be taken seriously I suggest they get the information themselves and not let themselves be led by outspoken rabble rousers.

Yes, I also demand that we hear from Republicans and that we "hear it right now" AND I also say Republicans are "whiners". Therefore, I expect a reply in the same polite tone of my demands.

Sincerely,
Immune to Irony

You're killing me there MP.


The Dems don't have solutions and their prior solutions are most of the problem now. The sectors of the economy that constantly have costs rising above the rate of inflation are those in which the government is involved. Government is the problem, not the solution.

Funny thing about that . I seem to rememeber 8 years of problem solving by the Republicans who were in control at the time. This of course is right before the 1 year the Democrats have been at it. Trying to say it's all their fault at this point is a little...Nah! Very silly.

Okay so here ya go.

1. Get the government out of the housing market by ending the tax payor backing of fan and fred and no longer taking a position in home ownership.
2. End the subsidy for employers wrt health care to decouple health care from employment.
3. Devote time and money to win the wars in sundry countries. It's unfair to take over a country and leave it in a bad state.
4. Support small business by not increasing taxes or demanding new mandates that decrease money for payroll.
5. Wall street works best when major deals are open and known to the free markets. Allow the market to take negative bets (shorting) to express lack of confidence.
6. Open education by allowing for charter schools and ending the union monopoly on education.

So there ya go.

Well, I'm not a republican, so I can't speak for them... but I can offer my own opinions


Cut spending. Yes, this means we will have to stop handing out foodstamps, WIC vouchers, Federal unemployment benefits, Landbank program for farmers, price supports for milk, grain, etc, and many other non-essential programs. Yes, this will be very painful, for the economy as well as some individuals... but it really is necessary.


Do nothing. When did it become the Federal Government's problem to provide jobs for people????


Do nothing... healthCARE is universally available already. Now, if you meant health INSURANCE... or the COST of healthcare... well... those are completely different things than just "healthcare".


Either get in or get out... either way is fine with me, but requires a full commitment... we either fight and win, or we get out... there is no middle ground.


Get the government out of it. The fed should not be buying up mortgages (Fred and Fan).
They also need to quit mandating loan practices to banks. If a person is high-risk, then they need to rent... home ownership is NOT for everybody. It requires a certain measure of responsibility if its going to be done by way of a mortgage.


That would be the responsibility of the general populace. Grow a backbone!... if you don't like the way a corporation operates, then DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS! ... it really does work... IF the majority agrees with your point of view AND they have the cajones to stand by their convictions. If the general populace is too spineless or stupid to do this, then they deserve what they get.


Fail kids, hold them back, kick them out of school.
In the U.S. we have an obligation to provide an education to everyone. We do NOT have an obligation to educate everyone regardless of other factors. If a child (and his parents) does not wish to partake of the education that is being provided (misbehaving, not putting any effort into it, being disruptive) then kick his butt out of school. An education was PROVIDED, he CHOSE not to take advantage of it.
America needs garbage men and McDonalds cooks too.

One party in the US feels that if a person has a problem, government should be obligated to help. The other party disagrees.

Other than that, they're pretty much the same.

King, why don't you just kill all the poor people with nerve gas? It's a faster way to kill them then the way you're proposing. In the end, the economy would be much healthier. Yes, this will be very painful for some individuals... but it really is necessary.

If you think about it, when people suggest that folks just let other folks succeed or fail on their own instead of propping them up, it's pretty much the way nature works, and naturalists will tell you that people shouldn't interfere.

I don't think folks should confuse a "hands off" approach with malice.

I think he has proposed it but like all good solutions, it's for the children and grand children and not for the present generation. Thus he is advocating for abortion and making sure to put all those Planned Parenthood clinics in neighborhoods where they can weed out the largest number of undesirables. Undesirables defined by Sanger and her ilk as being black, brown or poor.

Why don't you just ask what we think, or what conservatives think. As someone else already posted, you can look up the GOP agenda if you wish.


They're pretty straightforward as well. You simply don't listen and/or disagree with them.


Their "solution" to almost any problem is throw money at it and take it over. Period.


Right, because your tone isn't condescending or rude. Your "questions" are loaded. In other words, they imply that Republicans and the above named parties don't have any answers. The original question is not one asked from a place of intellectual honesty.

I don't think you'd have to stop those social programs. You'd have to cut thousands of federal employees, end various subsidies, corporate welfare, pork, etc. You have to eliminate entire departments and ask others to trim their budgets by 25%. Lots of federal workers would lose their jobs.


True, but it can help create conditions that provide jobs.


They are nearly separate, but reform is needed. Just not the "reform" we see now.


Agreed.


Good luck with that one. Also, Freddie and Fannie are the "the fed."


While some new regulatory measures might be needed, I basically agree. These are publicly traded corporations. And frankly, us punishing their CEO doesn't make any "regular person" any richer.


Education is really just a political football. They passed NCLB knowing we'd never reach the 100% thresholds in 2014. It just gives them (Congress) something to do later. Personally, I say we get rid of the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Act and turn it over the to the states. That's where the real funding problems are anyway.

Really ???????

He always does this. Sometimes exaggerating and using the slippery slope can be effective to make a point, but does it frequently. If someone opines that we should, say, have a flat tax, he might respond by saying "great...let's just not tax the rich at all. Let's line the poor up and take their money, then shoot them. That would be great!"

Try not to take it personally, nor seriously.

It's also called the class straw man fallacy.


He doesn't want to refute or engage the original argument. It is much easier to knock down the argument about you wanting all the poor dead, or wanting you wanting to call supposedly people ragheads, or wanting to burn crosses on their front lawns, or that you hate them beacuse they a women, or educated or... well you see the point.

Failboat. He's saying that what you guys propose will end up leading to the deaths of thousands of people. He jokingly, albeit in a macabre way, muses that you might as well just nerve gas them and get it over with. He's expressing his disdain for how you people view the suffering of those who die without healthcare. Color me unsurprised you missed the point.

If the fraction of the same number of people without healthcare died in some sort of terrorist attack, we'd immediately have billions of dollars spent in response. In fact, we did. And after 9/11, look at how insane our defense (or offense) spending is. We've spent what, a trillion dollars over the death of 3000 people? Why do these deaths count more than the ones we cause ourselves through a simple lack of caring?

Oh, so he's using a non sequitur then. Thanks for clearing that up.

If we could move beyond the various fallacies that supporters of the current health care reform proposals use, we might actually get somewhere. But I'm beginning to believe that, sadly, this is all they have to bring to the table.

Except for the death of thousands is in no form proven or even presumed. There are billions of people around the world who live at rates of poverty much higher than the U.S. minimum. They don't just roll over and die.

Additionally the failure to grant utopia just because it is requested, is not akin to waging a war against someone or murdering them. Of course that is the whole point of the strawman which is why it is used.


It wasn't just people. The actual costs in terms of financial damage both in GDP and economic networth just that day alone was over a trillion dollars. So it makes perfect sense to spend to prevent such reoccuring actions. Trillion dollar a day losses are not something we can sustain for long. The cost of health care is something we are sustaining for now just fine. If the government would get out of the way, that would quickly become managable as well due to market forces. The areas where we think market forces inappropriate to solve our problems are delineated by the Constitution.

That's insane. Seriously, it's nutso.


Ahh, he's musing. Well, his musing is exactly the problem. First, he has no idea how "we" view the suffering of people without healthcare. He just knows "we" oppose what current proposals. He knows that we oppose universal care. In typical liberal-progressive fashion, he MUSES that this must mean we don't care about people. There are two possibilities: Either he actually believes that we don't care, or he just uses bleeding-heart tactics to advance his argument. Therefore, he's either ignorant or shameless. Perhaps both.


So we're comparing the defense of the nation to a social program? We're comparing a constitutionally mandated item to a discretionary one? Like it or not, the founders never intended for everyone to provided with a good standard of living and healthcare. They did intend that we defend the nation.

And tell me...was it only after 9/11 that defense spending became "insane?" By the way, here's a tidbit from wiki:

When your "solutions" amount to "tough", "work harder", "here, have a new tax deductible savings account", or "we can solve the whole problem by reducing the waste that amounts to a very small percentage of the cost of healthcare", yes, you don't care about people.

Can you name any "whole problem" that the government has eradicated with regard to social ills?

Can you name any "whole problem" that the invisible hand has eradicated with regard to social ills?

Of course not but then I'm not the one declaring that anything less than government endorsed utopia means you want to personally engage in mass murder. Those who endorse market forces know life is imperfect, nothing will ever end all suffering and that trade offs are part of any solution. Those who say, give me what I want or you are personally turning the knob on the nerve gas yourself are those who suffering from the religious fervor of Utopian Socialism.

Stop demanding heaven on earth and then you don't have to insult those who note it can't be delivered. Better still you might even realize they are justified in keeping their own resources rather than wasting them on irrational solutions from irrational minds.

It's a big leap from "nothing's perfect" to the greed and callousness of letting people suffer and die undertreated and untreated. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

I'm not demanding heaven on Earth. I'm saying we should make strides to be a civilized society and care for one another, regardless of blood relation.

No heaven on earth, just a restatement of a bunch of other platitudes. What does civilized society mean and if my definition isn't yours, how does that equate to mass murder?

Since it can't be perfect, isn't the discussion merely of what degree of greed and callousness we tolerate and what number of people suffer and die untreated and I'm going to assume that would be undeserved. Also where is the proof of lack of treatment. No one goes without treatment. It is illegal to turn away someone who needs treatment. The question is only ever about pays.

The choosing of your line apparently makes one a kind and virtuous soul whereas the choosing of a line that covers some other number makes one a homicidal mass murderer who wants to pull the switch themselves.

The current solution works for 85% of the population. Most other solutions actually won't cover many more people because 10 million illegal aliens won't be covered no matter the plan. Most of the inflated number right now are people in transition or people who choose not to have insurance due to being healthy and young. Also again, no one goes without treatment, the discussion is merely of who will get the bill.

How does drawing a different line here make one a wannabe mass murderer? Please explain that.

As politically unpopular as it is, everyone, including illegals, should be treated.

Also, people do go without treatment. You are talking completely out of your ass on that one. I've watched insurance companies deny my best friend the proper dosage of his medicine even though he's supposed to be covered. And every time he has to undergo one of these repeated delays, his colon gets worse. It's almost to the point where he may have to have it removed. He HAS insurance (and supposedly a fucking decent plan) and they're still fucking him. Don't even try to tell me that people who don't have insurance are in the same boat or better.

Trumpet, I'm sorry, but you're an uncaring individual who cares more about being right and keeping more green pieces of paper in your wallet than the welfare of your fellow man.

Sorry BR, your friend can get his medicine if he wants it... He just has to pay for it. But you want ME to pay for it for him. Why don't YOU buy him his pills?

The injections cost thousands of dollars. He can't afford it. I can't afford it. Collectively as a society, we can afford it. You are a heartless bastard.

The issue is the cost of the injections. There are heartless bastards involved, but King is not the one to be angry at.

Reread what he said. It was pretty heartless.

No... I spent several thousand dollars for my OWN family's healthcare last year. YOU seem to think I should pay many thousands more so that your friend does NOT have to.
Advocating personal responsibility does not equate to "heartless bastard".

Yeah, I hear you. I spent over $20k last year on medical bills myself. I guess folks should pick up my bill.

The other bad part of the reasoning is assuming that just because the health care is socialized, that the socialized medicine would have approved the use of this treatment and would be authorizing these shots at $1000 a pop just because it is on the dime of "society."

Instead it sounds exactly like the type of scenario that people write about when they fear socialized health care. Everyone gets a very basic level of health care under most plans but it is always the costly and quick stuff where the horror stories reside. The courts are finding the Canadian waiting lists are human rights violations and this is the system we want? BR notes his friend has coverage and still isn't getting the level of care he expects or desires.

BR, what makes you so sure the treatment of your friend would happen in Canada or England? How can you sure he wouldn't already be dead due to the ten month wait to see the very rare number of specialists they have who deal with his particular ailment. You say he is prescribed the shots, but not at the dosage level he feels is necessary. How can you guarantee that wouldn't be true there as well?

This is why what is being asked for is heaven on earth or utopia. Your friend has insurance, has treatment and is receiving his meds by your own claims. Yet he wants to be made whole again and that may or may not be possible at a cost comparable to even what a group can offer. Most people here have noted their own health care plans cost several thousand dollars per year. If your friend is in such a plan and it provides him well above what he can pay, then it is better than what he would have had alone. Yet when the group contributes, the group is at stake and it isn't fair for him to declare he gets whatever he wants at $1000 a pop when others in the plan will need treatment as well.

The truly heartless person would declare that the needs of the one are paramount over the group and that he deserves to be made whole again no matter the cost to the group. My health care plan costs several thousand dollars a year as well (on my end that doesn't even include the employer side) and as a reasonably fit man of 39, I would bet I haven't used up even the cost of one year in all the years I've had my own health insurance (since I was 23.)

One of the reasons often glanced over but really at the root of rising health care costs is the fact that there isn't any real analysis of what the return is on certain treatments and procedures and those that are not cost effective are DROPPED. This means if the return on the money spent to help your friend with his colon would pay for 10,000 people to have broken arms fixed instead, the government picks the option that helps the 10,000 over the one and guess what that means for the one. It means he or she dies. Obama is advocating for exactly these types of things in his health plans and it makes it more likely your friend would not be treated rather than treated better.

The simple truth is that the poor in America are paying for the rich to have healthcare whilst they themselves go without.

Some simple truths are so simple that they aren't even true.

Trumpet, he was prescribed the dose by his doctors and then the insurance company said they won't pay for anything but 1/4 or 1/2 of the dose prescribed because they feel that works just fine. That was one time. Other times, the insurance companies claimed they didn't have the right paperwork. They've claimed all sorts of things in order to stall, delay, and hopefully not pay for his shit. That's why the state of California has successfully sued one is about to sue the other. Stop trying to justify yourself in this situation. You can't.

Anyway, if what Trumpet says is true, and I highly, highly doubt it as it's consistent with his typical anti-government posturing, worst case scenario is for my friend here things remain the same while millions of other people get access to healthcare. I don't think it will be doomed to such an extent, but even then, that's far better than what we have now.

Civilizations have a way of growing uncontrollably, collapsing and disappearing into the mists of time. Ours is headed that way on a bullet train right now.

Try Cuba. Seriously. I'm not being sarcastic.