really good commentary on republican primary/party issues

[Major Kong]

I'm not intimating anything... just curious. Just haven't seen that before.

Narcissus of the United States.

[ieatbacon]

If they're not "doing something!" and simply obstructing others from "doing something really bad"...to me, that's doing something good. A valve is a useful thing when it shuts off the water and keeps my toilet from overflowing. Most of the time, it's just sitting there. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, keeps my floor dry.

Your analogy is broken. They're not shutting the valve off they're joining you in complaining about the water running. You hired a plumber and he charged you $100/hour to tell you "that leaky toilet, that's Obama's fault".

Next time you should hire a plumber that has a record using a wrench... Otherwise, you're in "hope and change" territory that he can fix your problem.

[HokieJoe]

If they're not "doing something!" and simply obstructing others from "doing something really bad"...to me, that's doing something good. A valve is a useful thing when it shuts off the water and keeps my toilet from overflowing. Most of the time, it's just sitting there. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, keeps my floor dry.

Your analogy is broken. They're not shutting the valve off they're joining you in complaining about the water running. You hired a plumber and he charged you $100/hour to tell you "that leaky toilet, that's Obama's fault".

Next time you should hire a plumber that has a record using a wrench... Otherwise, you're in "hope and change" territory that he can fix your problem.

They already know who is at fault. What they don't want is a plumber who will drill a bunch of holes in the plumbing, which is what compromise always brings. That sort of 'plumbing' is why we're almost $20 trillion in the hole.

[HokieJoe]

I think this is a good summary of the issues and problems

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... cans-chaos

Okay article. Yes, the debate format encouraged bombast over substance. However, Trump is a reaction/creation to Obama; and poor leadership from Establishment Republicans. Theater cuts much deeper than the debate format and infighting melodramas.

I agree that trump is the next step in the Obama cult of personality, but as the article emphasized, the republicans could have/should have headed this off at the pass. In fact, one of the things repubs have decried is the lack of substance of Obama. They only have themselves to blame for letting this occur, particularly when the election was theirs for the taking.

Sorry, I edited for clarity.

Serious question: What has the tea party accomplished? There seems to a lot of blaming of Obama and Establishment Rs, and they probably deserve a lot of it, but it seems a lot of the dysfunction coincided with electing a bunch of outsiders with no government experience and no desire to compromise (even with members of their own party). Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, and I know "compromise" is a bad word to many, but has the tea party candidates done anything except grandstand and obstruct? E.g., Propose serious legislation (not just repealing Obamacare)?

While Trump is far from the tea party, I see him as the next iteration that has tapped into that grass-roots anger.

The problem as I perceive it is that compromise keeps leading us down the wrong path. IOW, we're compromising our country into financial oblivion. Voters have heard all of the excuses/lies and their tired of it.

[HokieFanDC]

I think this is a good summary of the issues and problems

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... cans-chaos

Okay article. Yes, the debate format encouraged bombast over substance. However, Trump is a reaction/creation to Obama; and poor leadership from Establishment Republicans. Theater cuts much deeper than the debate format and infighting melodramas.

I agree that trump is the next step in the Obama cult of personality, but as the article emphasized, the republicans could have/should have headed this off at the pass. In fact, one of the things repubs have decried is the lack of substance of Obama. They only have themselves to blame for letting this occur, particularly when the election was theirs for the taking.

Sorry, I edited for clarity.

Serious question: What has the tea party accomplished? There seems to a lot of blaming of Obama and Establishment Rs, and they probably deserve a lot of it, but it seems a lot of the dysfunction coincided with electing a bunch of outsiders with no government experience and no desire to compromise (even with members of their own party). Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, and I know "compromise" is a bad word to many, but has the tea party candidates done anything except grandstand and obstruct? E.g., Propose serious legislation (not just repealing Obamacare)?

While Trump is far from the tea party, I see him as the next iteration that has tapped into that grass-roots anger.

The problem as I perceive it is that compromise keeps leading us down the wrong path. IOW, we're compromising our country into financial oblivion. Voters have heard all of the excuses/lies and their tired of it.

Compromise isn't leading our country into financial oblivion. Neither side has wanted to do anything about our financial destruction for decades.

[awesome guy]

I think this is a good summary of the issues and problems

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... cans-chaos

Okay article. Yes, the debate format encouraged bombast over substance. However, Trump is a reaction/creation to Obama; and poor leadership from Establishment Republicans. Theater cuts much deeper than the debate format and infighting melodramas.

I agree that trump is the next step in the Obama cult of personality, but as the article emphasized, the republicans could have/should have headed this off at the pass. In fact, one of the things repubs have decried is the lack of substance of Obama. They only have themselves to blame for letting this occur, particularly when the election was theirs for the taking.

Sorry, I edited for clarity.

Serious question: What has the tea party accomplished? There seems to a lot of blaming of Obama and Establishment Rs, and they probably deserve a lot of it, but it seems a lot of the dysfunction coincided with electing a bunch of outsiders with no government experience and no desire to compromise (even with members of their own party). Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, and I know "compromise" is a bad word to many, but has the tea party candidates done anything except grandstand and obstruct? E.g., Propose serious legislation (not just repealing Obamacare)?

While Trump is far from the tea party, I see him as the next iteration that has tapped into that grass-roots anger.

The problem as I perceive it is that compromise keeps leading us down the wrong path. IOW, we're compromising our country into financial oblivion. Voters have heard all of the excuses/lies and their tired of it.

Yep, all the compromising is on the side of how much more to borrow and spend.

[RiverguyVT]

If they're not "doing something!" and simply obstructing others from "doing something really bad"...to me, that's doing something good. A valve is a useful thing when it shuts off the water and keeps my toilet from overflowing. Most of the time, it's just sitting there. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, keeps my floor dry.

Your analogy is broken. They're not shutting the valve off they're joining you in complaining about the water running. You hired a plumber and he charged you $100/hour to tell you "that leaky toilet, that's Obama's fault".

Next time you should hire a plumber that has a record using a wrench... Otherwise, you're in "hope and change" territory that he can fix your problem.

Nah. I think the analogy is sound. Obstruction can be a great thing. Preventing bad stuff is good.

[UpstateSCHokie]

If they're not "doing something!" and simply obstructing others from "doing something really bad"...to me, that's doing something good. A valve is a useful thing when it shuts off the water and keeps my toilet from overflowing. Most of the time, it's just sitting there. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, keeps my floor dry.

Your analogy is broken. They're not shutting the valve off they're joining you in complaining about the water running. You hired a plumber and he charged you $100/hour to tell you "that leaky toilet, that's Obama's fault".

Next time you should hire a plumber that has a record using a wrench... Otherwise, you're in "hope and change" territory that he can fix your problem.

Nah. I think the analogy is sound. Obstruction can be a great thing. Preventing bad stuff is good.

Agreed. If someone is trying to kill me, I want to stop that person. I don't want to "compromise" with them and just let them shoot me in the shoulder.

[HokieFanDC]

If they're not "doing something!" and simply obstructing others from "doing something really bad"...to me, that's doing something good. A valve is a useful thing when it shuts off the water and keeps my toilet from overflowing. Most of the time, it's just sitting there. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, keeps my floor dry.

Your analogy is broken. They're not shutting the valve off they're joining you in complaining about the water running. You hired a plumber and he charged you $100/hour to tell you "that leaky toilet, that's Obama's fault".

Next time you should hire a plumber that has a record using a wrench... Otherwise, you're in "hope and change" territory that he can fix your problem.

Nah. I think the analogy is sound. Obstruction can be a great thing. Preventing bad stuff is good.

Agreed. If someone is trying to kill me, I want to stop that person. I don't want to "compromise" with them and just let them shoot me in the shoulder.

In this analogy, it's you and someone else standing there with guns pointed at each other. Nothing gets done. Eventually, you're both just going to die of starvation. You can't just do nothing, forever. You have to come up with ideas, and implement them, that keep everyone healthy.

[RiverguyVT]

In this analogy, it's you and someone else standing there with guns pointed at each other. Nothing gets done. Eventually, you're both just going to die of starvation. You can't just do nothing, forever. You have to come up with ideas, and implement them, that keep everyone healthy.

Stopping one party from poisoning the garden IS doing something. That alone keeps me from starving.
There is no resultant requisite that I then go and plant several rows of some vegetable that we don't already have.
I did my part. I prevented him from spraying the whole thing down with roundup.

[absolutvt03]

If they're not "doing something!" and simply obstructing others from "doing something really bad"...to me, that's doing something good. A valve is a useful thing when it shuts off the water and keeps my toilet from overflowing. Most of the time, it's just sitting there. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, keeps my floor dry.

Your analogy is broken. They're not shutting the valve off they're joining you in complaining about the water running. You hired a plumber and he charged you $100/hour to tell you "that leaky toilet, that's Obama's fault".

Next time you should hire a plumber that has a record using a wrench... Otherwise, you're in "hope and change" territory that he can fix your problem.

Nah. I think the analogy is sound. Obstruction can be a great thing. Preventing bad stuff is good.

Agreed. If someone is trying to kill me, I want to stop that person. I don't want to "compromise" with them and just let them shoot me in the shoulder.

In this analogy, it's you and someone else standing there with guns pointed at each other. Nothing gets done. Eventually, you're both just going to die of starvation. You can't just do nothing, forever. You have to come up with ideas, and implement them, that keep everyone healthy.

Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.

[Mcl3 Hokie]

When has Obama and Democratic Party compromised with the Republicans? Obama has never had to bring his side to the table. I'm convinced that's why he blew up the Grand Compromise. He knew he couldn't get his party to the table, so to not be embarrassed, he blew it up with the request for more taxes.

If they're not "doing something!" and simply obstructing others from "doing something really bad"...to me, that's doing something good. A valve is a useful thing when it shuts off the water and keeps my toilet from overflowing. Most of the time, it's just sitting there. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, keeps my floor dry.

Your analogy is broken. They're not shutting the valve off they're joining you in complaining about the water running. You hired a plumber and he charged you $100/hour to tell you "that leaky toilet, that's Obama's fault".

Next time you should hire a plumber that has a record using a wrench... Otherwise, you're in "hope and change" territory that he can fix your problem.

Nah. I think the analogy is sound. Obstruction can be a great thing. Preventing bad stuff is good.

Agreed. If someone is trying to kill me, I want to stop that person. I don't want to "compromise" with them and just let them shoot me in the shoulder.

In this analogy, it's you and someone else standing there with guns pointed at each other. Nothing gets done. Eventually, you're both just going to die of starvation. You can't just do nothing, forever. You have to come up with ideas, and implement them, that keep everyone healthy.

Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.

[HokieFanDC]

In this analogy, it's you and someone else standing there with guns pointed at each other. Nothing gets done. Eventually, you're both just going to die of starvation. You can't just do nothing, forever. You have to come up with ideas, and implement them, that keep everyone healthy.

Stopping one party from poisoning the garden IS doing something. That alone keeps me from starving.
There is no resultant requisite that I then go and plant several rows of some vegetable that we don't already have.
I did my part. I prevented him from spraying the whole thing down with roundup.

Except that the garden is already poisoned. The status quo will bankrupt America at this point. And the "one party" attitude is part of what got us here in the first place. There isn't one party responsible, and things need to be done to keep us from getting worse.

[RiverguyVT]

Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.

No it isn't. What if the valid alternative is "nothing on that matter needs doing"?

Party A wants to replace Fort Knox with a Taj Mahal.. Party B says "no" and obstructs. Party B need not then offer a lesser Taj Mahal. A very worthy alternative is keeping Fort Knox as-is.

[absolutvt03]

Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.

No it isn't. What if the valid alternative is "nothing on that matter needs doing"?

Party A wants to replace Fort Knox with a Taj Mahal.. Party B says "no" and obstructs. Party B need not then offer a lesser Taj Mahal. A very worthy alternative is keeping Fort Knox as-is.

You keep spitting out these flawed analogies and completely absurd hypotheticals. Why not use actual issues like healthcare and raising the debt ceiling? And note that I said saying no to EVERYTHING. Doing something as a one-off is completely different than it being your entire strategy. It seems like too often one side votes no simply because the idea being voted on is coming from the other side.

[RiverguyVT]

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

[HokieFanDC]

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.

[absolutvt03]

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.

Agreed. Healthcare is one of those areas where doing nothing was not an option. I actually find it interesting that he went with that as it seems to be something most people agreed needed to change. I can understand the argument that Obamacare was not the answer but doing nothing was not the answer either.

[ElbertoHokie]

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

No way. Premiums were skyrocketing. Employers had carried the brunt of that but they were starting to pass it onto the consumer more rapidly. Healthcare costs were skyrocketing well before Obamacare went into effect.

"status quo" was already out of control.

And the belief that "my healthcare is affordable(since my employer is paying the increases) so why change it?" is a bit of a shortsighted view.

[Mcl3 Hokie]

However, what Obamacare is has nothing to do with cost containment. All they have done with this move is to push everyone to high deductible plans, which they can't pay when they need the services. So, the losses are pushed to the hospitals. Great plan, right?

Did healthcare need to be addressed? Yes

But by making it a one party solution with no compromises, you now have the cluster f*ck that we have now.

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

No way. Premiums were skyrocketing. Employers had carried the brunt of that but they were starting to pass it onto the consumer more rapidly. Healthcare costs were skyrocketing well before Obamacare went into effect.

"status quo" was already out of control.

And the belief that "my healthcare is affordable(since my employer is paying the increases) so why change it?" is a bit of a shortsighted view.

[ElbertoHokie]

However, what Obamacare is has nothing to do with cost containment. All they have done with this move is to push everyone to high deductible plans, which they can't pay when they need the services. So, the losses are pushed to the hospitals. Great plan, right?

Did healthcare need to be addressed? Yes

But by making it a one party solution with no compromises, you now have the cluster f*ck that we have now.

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

No way. Premiums were skyrocketing. Employers had carried the brunt of that but they were starting to pass it onto the consumer more rapidly. Healthcare costs were skyrocketing well before Obamacare went into effect.

"status quo" was already out of control.

And the belief that "my healthcare is affordable(since my employer is paying the increases) so why change it?" is a bit of a shortsighted view.

I don't pretend to think that Obamacare is the miracle fix it was billed as. But the status quo was not working. If you think it was, it was because your employer hadn't decided to pass that cost onto you...yet.

[133743Hokie]

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.

Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?

[HokieFanDC]

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.

Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?

??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.

[HokieJoe]

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.

The problem is, government programs and regulations have been a major cost driver in healthcare. Of course there was no compromise on the plan, so the Democrats looking to make a bad situation worse, decided to wind the knot tighter by increasing the government's role. That's like mashing the gas pedal down further when head-on collision is imminent.

The health insurance industry's role was not addressed where it mattered most. They should've opened up the insurance market to competition. Inot competitive terms, it should work no differently than car insurance. That's just one area. Another area is health savings accounts. Whole Health employees loved their HSA's. Another area is reasonable tort reform...One more is just offering castostrophic care insurance.

None of that was addressed because the eurosocialist wannabes, aka the Democrats, want Single Payer. F that, and F them.

[HokieJoe]

However, what Obamacare is has nothing to do with cost containment. All they have done with this move is to push everyone to high deductible plans, which they can't pay when they need the services. So, the losses are pushed to the hospitals. Great plan, right?

Did healthcare need to be addressed? Yes

But by making it a one party solution with no compromises, you now have the cluster f*ck that we have now.

Okay.

Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.

No way. Premiums were skyrocketing. Employers had carried the brunt of that but they were starting to pass it onto the consumer more rapidly. Healthcare costs were skyrocketing well before Obamacare went into effect.

"status quo" was already out of control.

And the belief that "my healthcare is affordable(since my employer is paying the increases) so why change it?" is a bit of a shortsighted view.

I don't pretend to think that Obamacare is the miracle fix it was billed as. But the status quo was not working. If you think it was, it was because your employer hadn't decided to pass that cost onto you...yet.

From whence did employer-mandated insurance originate?