Centrist group in House 'will never' meet with Freedom Caucus

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Martyrdom is, well, just selfish and stupid.

Thank God you were not there during our War for Independence, because you would definitely be fighting for the British instead of something 'selfish and stupid'.

[EC]

Thank God you were not there during our War for Independence, because you would definitely be fighting for the British instead of something 'selfish and stupid'.

Oh, please! You think we'd have taken him? Didn't think your opinion of our professionalism was that low. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oh, please! You think we'd have taken him? Didn't think your opinion of our professionalism was that low. 

He obviously would not do the really tough stuff, so you might be right, and could have just stayed in England instead of undergoing the trauma of the long ship ride to the Colonies.

[EC]

He obviously would not do the really tough stuff, so you might be right, and could have just stayed in England instead of undergoing the trauma of the long ship ride to the Colonies.

 

Though you might have wound up with him anyway. Don't forget, the US was our dumping ground for none criminal malcontents until you all got stroppy about paying for the French Indian War.

Still, worked out pretty good in the long run. 

[INVAR]

We stood for principle when the ACA was passed - not one Republican voted for it.

But now the task is a pragmatic one - how to undo the damage.   

Martyrdom is, well, just selfish and stupid.

Words from someone who is conquered and subjugated.

[Sanguine]

They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.

@Jazzhead, so, who was it they compromised with?

[skeeter]

Though you might have wound up with him anyway. Don't forget, the US was our dumping ground for none criminal malcontents until you all got stroppy about paying for the French Indian War.

Still, worked out pretty good in the long run. 

I'll take a 12% tax on my tea over 31% federal income, 12% state income, 9% sales tax, plus property, plus license, plus gas, plus yada yada.

Old KGIII looks pretty damn good right now.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead, so, who was it they compromised with?

The centrists in their own party.  Remember, the political climate at the of the ACA was similar to the political climate today.  No Republicans were going to vote for the ACA, so the Dems needed complete unity to pass the bill.  Leftists and centrists had to all agree on a compromise bill.  The leftists preferred single payer, centrists did not.  So the ACA basically represents the bill that was able to gain the support of the most centrist Dem Congressmen.   The hard left compromised, satisfied as a strategic matter with their "half a loaf."

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh, please! You think we'd have taken him? Didn't think your opinion of our professionalism was that low. 

Actually, no.  I think he'd get the Benedict Arnold treatment if he were on your side of the pond.

[DiogenesLamp]

The votes aren't there.  The real world is a fine place to live - try it sometime.

Then what is wrong with calling out the people who's votes were there in 2015  but who have now decided their votes are no longer there?   


Flim flam people need to be called out and punished for their flim flamery.   


I say the house needs to be cleaned of people on "our side"  who lie to us.   So does the Senate.


We should thank them for identifying themselves as our next set of  targets. 

 

[DiogenesLamp]

We stood for principle when the ACA was passed - not one Republican voted for it.

But now the task is a pragmatic one - how to undo the damage.   

Yes,  undoing the immoral things that Obama did is just so complicated.   Far be it that we just vote to overturn what he did. 


That is just completely unreasonable.   

[DiogenesLamp]

The centrists in their own party.  Remember, the political climate at the of the ACA was similar to the political climate today.  No Republicans were going to vote for the ACA, so the Dems needed complete unity to pass the bill.  Leftists and centrists had to all agree on a compromise bill.  The leftists preferred single payer, centrists did not.  So the ACA basically represents the bill that was able to gain the support of the most centrist Dem Congressmen.   The hard left compromised, satisfied as a strategic matter with their "half a loaf."

You just ignore the point I make.   The *ONLY*  issue was whether the government would be involved or not.   *HOW MUCH*  the government *WILL*  be involved can be endlessly negotiated at subsequent future dates so long as they win 100% of the principle that THE GOVERNMENT will run Health Care.   


The left did not compromise on this core principle.   The moderates in the Democrat party were forced to accept this principle 100%.   


The boundary line of the war is that principle.   It is not *HOW*  the government is involved or to what degree,  or how much they will pay,  or who they will serve,  or how their involvement will be managed by what group of people following whatever policies,   it is *WHETHER*  the health care system will be controlled and ran by the GOVERNMENT.   


It is the only issue of significance in the entire debate,  and you avoid that point like the plague. 

[INVAR]

The boundary line of the war is that principle.   It is not *HOW*  the government is involved or to what degree,  or how much they will pay,  or who they will serve,  or how their involvement will be managed by what group of people following whatever policies,   it is *WHETHER*  the health care system will be controlled and ran by the GOVERNMENT.   


It is the only issue of significance in the entire debate,  and you avoid that point like the plague.

No he doesn't.

He has stated on several threads now that Government is there to run things better than the private sector, because they exist to mandate fairness, equality and provide for those who are not "lucky" in life's lottery.

He outed his love for Communism some time back.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You just ignore the point I make.   The *ONLY*  issue was whether the government would be involved or not.   *HOW MUCH*  the government *WILL*  be involved can be endlessly negotiated at subsequent future dates so long as they win 100% of the principle that THE GOVERNMENT will run Health Care.

By that definition, the issue was lost long before the ACA.  State governments have been regulating insurance for most of the last century.  Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, the licensing of doctors and drugs, the requirement that public hospitals treat everyone....these were all things that pre-existed the ACA by decades.  And if "how much" doesn't matter, then we shouldn't even bother.  The battle was already lost, so who cares if we repeal the ACA anyway?

But obviously, how much really does matter a lot.  We're talking about the effect of policies on the lives of citizens, not simply as some abstract philosophical principle, and of course the magnitude of any given change is going to have an effect on the lives of citizens.  To dismiss the "how much" question is to reduce the entire issue to one of theoretical ideological purity, rather than on how it actually effects the lives of people.

It's like saying there's no difference between an 80% income tax rate, and a 1% tax rate, because either way, you've already lost "the issue" of taxes based on income.  We live in a real world, not in some game where "winning" and "losing" are the only two possible results.

[bolobaby]

I've already addressed this @bolobaby, but since I'm sensing you're bored, I'll give it one last shot:  I limit the amount of time and energy I waste during a day.  Haters gonna hate Bolobaby --- and neither fact nor reason will change that.  I've simply chosen to let the haters spew and carry on without interruption.  I apologize if this shortens your playtime.

If only you had the power and the right to tell me or even suggest to me what I should and should not do -- this would be a damned powerful statement Bolobay.  But, all you did was waste my time ... yet again.   I will be checking every now and then to see if you change this, so keep trying.   I'm rooting for you! 

   

Typical. Can't address on substance, so posts some dismissive BS.

Fact: RIV is a Trump shill who selectively invokes Reagan, but when confronted with the plain disparities between Trump and Reagan, she runs and hides.

All the hallmarks of an aloof fraud, as most here have figured out.

Sad! (ha.)

[DiogenesLamp]

But obviously, how much really does matter a lot.  We're talking about the effect of policies on the lives of citizens, not simply as some abstract philosophical principle, and of course the magnitude of any given change is going to have an effect on the lives of citizens.  To dismiss the "how much" question is to reduce the entire issue to one of theoretical ideological purity, rather than on how it actually effects the lives of people..

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 


This principle had an immediate effect on the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts,  and a longer term effect in the rest of the nation in the subsequent years.   


That principle was the dominant force in abolishing slavery in the United States.   


It is principles which guide the subsequent results. 

The destination is always ultimately decided by the foundational principle involved. 

The rest is just details. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 


This principle had an immediate effect on the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts,  and a longer term effect in the rest of the nation in the subsequent years.    That principle was the dominant force in abolishing slavery in the United States.

I think this actually proves my point.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be guided by principles, or ever cease striving to achieve that end.   We absolutely should do both.  But being guided by principle in your actions does not mean a rigid insistence on immediate, 100% compliance with that principle, or nothing else.  If it did, the Constitution would not have granted 20 more years of the slave trade.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think this actually proves my point.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be guided by principles, or ever cease striving to achieve that end.   We absolutely should do both.  But being guided by principle in your actions does not mean a rigid insistence on immediate, 100% compliance with that principle, or nothing else.  If it did, the Constitution would not have granted 20 more years of the slave trade.

And how did that compromise work out in the long run?   

[DiogenesLamp]

"Quia parvus error in principio magnus est in fine."

[Jazzhead]

You just ignore the point I make.   The *ONLY*  issue was whether the government would be involved or not.   *HOW MUCH*  the government *WILL*  be involved can be endlessly negotiated at subsequent future dates so long as they win 100% of the principle that THE GOVERNMENT will run Health Care.   


The left did not compromise on this core principle.   The moderates in the Democrat party were forced to accept this principle 100%. 

  There are no moderates in the Democratic party who reject the notion that the government can be involved in the regulation of the health insurance market.    The role of government in regulating specialized markets characterized by natural disparities of information is seen as the norm, indeed integral to the functioning of a modern economy.

You can't return to your ideal of a 19th century limited role for the federal government.   It's a practical impossibility.   The government will regulate the industries of insurance, annuities,  pension promises, and public securities markets.    If you refuse to accept that then you're just a crank.

The question becomes the quality and philosophy of regulation, the predisposition toward honoring such values as individual liberty, commercial freedom and privacy,  and the sunsetting of rules unnecessary or intrusive.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DEMONSTRATED ITS CORE VALUES WHEN NOT A SINGLE MEMBER VOTED FOR OBAMACARE.

But standing on principle is possible when the goal is resistance.   When you've barked in righteous protest and caught the car,  you've got to change your focus and drive the damn thing,  on the road and not into the ditch.   

The GOP cannot vote to just get rid of the ACA,  seven years in and with millions taking advantage of insurance they likely could not have gotten before.    You have to manage the transition,  you have to address the unwinding of expectations. 
The AHCA was part of a plan to do that,  and whether you agree with it or not,  it was a responsible plan,  not a reaction to agitprop conservatives thinking they won a mandate to drop a bomb on one-seventh of the economy.       

     

[DiogenesLamp]

The GOP cannot vote to just get rid of the ACA,  seven years in and with millions taking advantage of insurance they likely could not have gotten before. 

And how do you suppose this occasion of bribing the people from the government treasury will eventually resolve itself?   

  You have to manage the transition,  you have to address the unwinding of expectations. 

Has any entitlement,  once give,  ever been unwound?   I knew at the time that the longer this thing was allowed to linger,  the more impossible it would be to get rid of it. 


The absolute worst thing the Republicans could have done was to ameliorate it's harmful effects,  because if it made the nation scream out in pain,  it would have not only been repealed,  it would have enacted a vengeance upon those who created it. 


But once more,  the moderates won that conflict,  and Obamacare was delayed and softened until it was only a nuisance to most instead of an unbearable agony.     

The AHCA was part of a plan to do that,  and whether you agree with it or not,  it was a responsible plan,  not a reaction to agitprop conservatives thinking they won a mandate to drop a bomb on one-seventh of the economy.       

   

Because dropping a bomb on 1/7th of the economy is only okay when Democrats do it.   We should be more responsible and not upset Democrat constituencies by cutting them off from the Taxpayer's teat.   


Yeah,  that's going to work out well in the long run. 

[INVAR]

And how do you suppose this occasion of bribing the people from the government treasury will eventually resolve itself?   

Has any entitlement,  once give,  ever been unwound?   I knew at the time that the longer this thing was allowed to linger,  the more impossible it would be to get rid of it. 

The absolute worst thing the Republicans could have done was to ameliorate it's harmful effects,  because if it made the nation scream out in pain,  it would have not only been repealed,  it would have enacted a vengeance upon those who created it. 

But once more,  the moderates won that conflict,  and Obamacare was delayed and softened until it was only a nuisance to most instead of an unbearable agony.     

Because dropping a bomb on 1/7th of the economy is only okay when Democrats do it.   We should be more responsible and not upset Democrat constituencies by cutting them off from the Taxpayer's teat.   

Yeah,  that's going to work out well in the long run.

You do know what it is you are arguing with don't you?

[Smokin Joe]

First off, they don't owe "loyalty" to Trump, and Trump should understand that. 

Precisely.

But at the same time, those conservatives of whom you speak do owe something to their constituents.  They were elected not simply to do the voters' will, but rather to act in the most effective way possible on matters which the voters themselves have neither the time nor resources to grapple with.  And in their intransigence they failed, having now guaranteed the prolongation of the very thing they claim to be against.  They set what was possible against their "principles," and thereby failed their constituents.

Negotiate much? If I say "I want ABC" and you throw a mishmash of "qRl&9" on the table, and say "take it or leave it", well "Have a nice day. Bless your heart. GTFO." are all possible responses, but i won't jump on that piece of roadkill like a starving coyote. I'll leave it.
The attempt to shift blame for this to those who would not jump on the first tender which fell far short of the spec is only that much more to be held against those who proffered it in the first place.

All that said: the AHCA was not a well-conceived bill.  It was rushed to the floor when it should not have been.  The proper role of all Republicans, whether moderate or conservative, was to work with Ryan to get a bill that could pass.  Instead, it seems that there was a lot of posturing that only led to defeat.

Not all Republicans were given that option. In fact this was crafted without input from the FC. If you want a bill all republicans can work with Ryan on, then perhaps having all Republicans in on crafting it would be a step in the right direction.

[Smokin Joe]

"The hard left compromised to move its agenda along"   

What exactly did they compromise on @Jazzhead?

I'm curious what stages 2 and 3 of that monstrosity were.

[Smokin Joe]

They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.

IIRC, Romneycare (AKA the Hillarycare template) wasn't so far off, in principle, from Obamacare. That is why Romney did so swimmingly well at the polls.