The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: flowers on December 12, 2013, 12:10:37 am
-
Who in Congress are the true conservatives?
Ted Cruz
Trey Gowdy
Daryl Issa?
Please add to my list. I am currious the true number we have.
-
I know there must be at least a couple more, I am just tired tonight...really...really busy day and cannot think of any. Please help my list......Rap I know you should know each and every one of them :patriot:
-
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
-
Both Congress and Senate?
-
Senate
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
-
:2popcorn:
-
What is a "true conservative"?
Surely John Cornyn, with a rating of 86 from Heritage Action, is a conservative from the Senate.
All Republican members of the Texas delegation to the House are conservative.
-
Both Congress and Senate?
Yes. could you please fix that title?
-
What is a "true conservative"?
Surely John Cornyn, with a rating of 86 from Heritage Action, is a conservative from the Senate.
All Republican members of the Texas delegation to the House are conservative.
My list is tea party types.
-
The forums list so far...
Ted Cruz
Trey Gowdy
Daryl Issa?
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Senate
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
-
Yes. could you please fix that title?
Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. So the title is correct.
-
My list is tea party types.
That's not what the title is asking for. And if I can't add people I consider conservative (and who the vast majority of voters consider conservative), then your thread is worthless.
-
The forums list so far...
Ted Cruz
Trey Gowdy
Daryl Issa?
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Senate
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Jeff Flake is not a representative; he is now a Senator. And he was opposed to defunding Obamacare and was on the Gang of Eight on Immigration.
So just what is a "Tea Party type" if Jeff Flake qualifies? John Cornyn has a higher rating from Heritage than he does.
-
Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. So the title is correct.
That is what I thought. :shrug:
-
Can someone please define what a "true conservative" is?
-
Both Congress and Senate?
Isn't congress the description for both the house and senate?
-
Can someone please define what a "true conservative" is?
I say it is anti tax, less government. Those are just 2 examples....I am sure they may be more but they lean way away from more government and toward the constitution.
-
I say it is anti tax, less government. Those are just 2 examples....I am sure they may be more but they lean way away from more government and toward the constitution.
Was Ronald Reagan a "true conservative."
-
My Congressman and friend Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is one of the one who isn't just a Conservative but the testicular fortitude to say it like it is.
-
My Congressman and friend Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is one of the one who isn't just a Conservative but the testicular fortitude to say it like it is.
I adore Louie.
-
Was Ronald Reagan a "true conservative."
Reagan would not qualify; he raised taxes three times as president.
-
Was Ronald Reagan a "true conservative."
good question. all I have heard about him he was. What do you think is a true conservative? You or anyone else here. I want to know. I am sick to death of McCain, Gramercy and Bohner types. They cave to the dems. I am sick of bipartisan votes and those who par take in it. .
-
The forums list so far...
Ted Cruz
Trey Gowdy
Daryl Issa?
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Senate
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
-
Can someone please define what a "true conservative" is?
I will add to the list of not being conservative, those who want amnesty aren't conservative.
-
Reagan would not qualify; he raised taxes three times as president.
Certainly not by the litmus tests today, of these digital entertainment and discussion forums.
Reagan signed abortion enabling legislation, and approved illegal immigrant amnesties.
One strike and you are OUT. Rubio, is just one current example.
But alas, these forums are self-selecting, and the trend is to only want to play with people with nearly identical views.
So you do NOT interface with other views.
-
Reagan would not qualify; he raised taxes three times as president.
once again .. not the you will read it ............
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/
Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story
Posted By Matt K. Lewis On 9:30 AM 06/06/2012
Ronald Reagan may have presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists are attempting to besmirch that legacy — while using him as a straw man against modern Republicans.
Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot — or that he was a failed baseball player: It’s factually correct, but misleading, nonetheless.
I’ve decided to examine Reagan’s tax cuts and tax increases in order to set the record straight and end this tomfoolery.
Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.
When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)
Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen. Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.
The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.
So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.
(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)
Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011…)
Again, my argument is that some taxes are more important than others. Do massive cuts to income taxes — perhaps the most confiscatory and arbitrary form of taxation (which disencentivize the very act of working) — carry the same weight as a temporary consumption tax increase which raised just over 3 billion in revenue a year? I would argue that the two clearly aren’t the same thing — and yet that distinction is seldom made.
So how has this canard advanced to a state where it would demand correction so many years later? Both sides have contributed to advancing this misleading narrative. It’s in nobody’s interest to clarify the distinction — that not all taxes hikes and cuts are equal. Conservatives who oppose all tax hikes (or revenue raisers such as removing deductions) gain little by exposing Reagan’s nuanced approach. Liberals benefit most from the opaqueness — because they can label Reagan a serial tax increaser — while ignoring the broader impact of his work on the federal tax racket.
Facts matter. Reagan’s legacy has been co-opted and mangled by both sides. Yes, he raised taxes. Yes he cut taxes. The real story is how he raised taxes and how he cut them. And the overarching theme is that Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates and broadened the base. He was a reformer willing to make tough decisions. And at the end of the day, his legacy is that of a free market tax cutter. “If you aggregate together all the tax hikes … Reagan was a net tax cutter,” says Americans for Tax Reform’s Ryan Ellis. “I believe that makes him unique in the 20th century Cold War era. (Kennedy’s were passed by Johnson, who later raised taxes to pay for Vietnam).”
Why is it important to set the record straight on this? Because liberals continue to attempt to hoodwink conservatives into supporting deficit reduction plans along the lines of tit for tat. “We’ll cut spending if you raise taxes.” Looking to history, though, conservatives should be wary of this feint.
Reagan was offered such a deal (a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) in 1982, and it’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency, the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.“ The Democratic Congress then promptly proceeded to ignore the planned spending cuts. George H.W. Bush encountered the same trick in 1990. It cost him the presidency. The same idea was tossed out last summer — and smartly rejected by the GOP.
President Reagan deserves better than to have his legacy misrepresented. It is healthy for us to properly assess his policies. He came into office amid very difficult times, vowing to restore the American dream. Considering the full body of his work, I’d say that was a mission well accomplished.
-
I will add to the list of not being conservative, those who want amnesty aren't conservative.
Why? Are pogroms and concentration camps conservative ideals?
-
once again .. not the you will read it ............
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/
Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story
Posted By Matt K. Lewis On 9:30 AM 06/06/2012
Ronald Reagan may have presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists are attempting to besmirch that legacy — while using him as a straw man against modern Republicans.
Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot — or that he was a failed baseball player: It’s factually correct, but misleading, nonetheless.
I’ve decided to examine Reagan’s tax cuts and tax increases in order to set the record straight and end this tomfoolery.
Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.
When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)
Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen. Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.
The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.
So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.
(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)
Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011…)
Again, my argument is that some taxes are more important than others. Do massive cuts to income taxes — perhaps the most confiscatory and arbitrary form of taxation (which disencentivize the very act of working) — carry the same weight as a temporary consumption tax increase which raised just over 3 billion in revenue a year? I would argue that the two clearly aren’t the same thing — and yet that distinction is seldom made.
So how has this canard advanced to a state where it would demand correction so many years later? Both sides have contributed to advancing this misleading narrative. It’s in nobody’s interest to clarify the distinction — that not all taxes hikes and cuts are equal. Conservatives who oppose all tax hikes (or revenue raisers such as removing deductions) gain little by exposing Reagan’s nuanced approach. Liberals benefit most from the opaqueness — because they can label Reagan a serial tax increaser — while ignoring the broader impact of his work on the federal tax racket.
Facts matter. Reagan’s legacy has been co-opted and mangled by both sides. Yes, he raised taxes. Yes he cut taxes. The real story is how he raised taxes and how he cut them. And the overarching theme is that Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates and broadened the base. He was a reformer willing to make tough decisions. And at the end of the day, his legacy is that of a free market tax cutter. “If you aggregate together all the tax hikes … Reagan was a net tax cutter,” says Americans for Tax Reform’s Ryan Ellis. “I believe that makes him unique in the 20th century Cold War era. (Kennedy’s were passed by Johnson, who later raised taxes to pay for Vietnam).”
Why is it important to set the record straight on this? Because liberals continue to attempt to hoodwink conservatives into supporting deficit reduction plans along the lines of tit for tat. “We’ll cut spending if you raise taxes.” Looking to history, though, conservatives should be wary of this feint.
Reagan was offered such a deal (a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) in 1982, and it’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency, the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.“ The Democratic Congress then promptly proceeded to ignore the planned spending cuts. George H.W. Bush encountered the same trick in 1990. It cost him the presidency. The same idea was tossed out last summer — and smartly rejected by the GOP.
President Reagan deserves better than to have his legacy misrepresented. It is healthy for us to properly assess his policies. He came into office amid very difficult times, vowing to restore the American dream. Considering the full body of his work, I’d say that was a mission well accomplished.
You, apparently, haven't read it either. While the article poo-poos them as "temporary" and not nearly as big as the income tax, it is forced to admit that Reagan nonetheless went along with some tax increases, such as an increase in the federal gas tax and an increase in a cigarette tax.
Which raises the question: are so-called "conservatives" opposed to any tax increases whatsoever, or only to certain types of tax increases? If the former, then they have to let go of the belief that Reagan is one of them; if the latter, then they need to start moderating their rhetoric and to begin articulating a more sophisticated, more nuanced approach to taxes.
-
good question. all I have heard about him he was. What do you think is a true conservative? You or anyone else here. I want to know. I am sick to death of McCain, Gramercy and Bohner types. They cave to the dems. I am sick of bipartisan votes and those who par take in it. .
I honestly don't have any idea of what a "true conservative" is - that's why I asked for a definition from those who, to all appearances, do know what one is. Being sick of McCain, et al, isn't something that's limited to so-called "true conservatives" and disliking them doesn't ipso facto make on a "true conservative" - at least I don't think it does, but I can't say for sure because so far no one's been able to articulate any sort of coherent definition of one.
-
You, apparently, haven't read it either. While the article poo-poos them as "temporary" and not nearly as big as the income tax, it is forced to admit that Reagan nonetheless went along with some tax increases, such as an increase in the federal gas tax and an increase in a cigarette tax.
Which raises the question: are so-called "conservatives" opposed to any tax increases whatsoever, or only to certain types of tax increases? If the former, then they have to let go of the belief that Reagan is one of them; if the latter, then they need to start moderating their rhetoric and to begin articulating a more sophisticated, more nuanced approach to taxes.
I am against ANY tax increases. However, taxes were so high when Reagan was elected that overall it was a net-net relief for everyone and for the economy and as you read the fuel tax was instituted as a temporary tax.
Kennedy was a tax-cutter as well.
This habit of we'll raise taxes today for cuts in ten years is pure bull.... and as this points out had a great deal to do with #41 not being re-elected.
-
Certainly not by the litmus tests today, of these digital entertainment and discussion forums.
Reagan signed abortion enabling legislation, and approved illegal immigrant amnesties.
One strike and you are OUT. Rubio, is just one current example.
But alas, these forums are self-selecting, and the trend is to only want to play with people with nearly identical views.
So you do NOT interface with other views.
Viz. Reagan, I agree. Viz. your snide, tiresome attacks on the forum: give me a break. The fact that I agree with you on some things and rather vociferously disagree with you on others - and the fact that both of us are still here - should put paid to the myth that this forum is some sort of an echo chamber.
-
I am against ANY tax increases. However, taxes were so high when Reagan was elected that overall it was a net-net relief for everyone and for the economy and as you read the fuel tax was instituted as a temporary tax.
Kennedy was a tax-cutter as well.
This habit of we'll raise taxes today for cuts in ten years is pure bull.... and as this points out had a great deal to do with #41 not being re-elected.
You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Reagan either raised at least one tax, or he didn't. Trying to spin the issue as really some sort of a net gain/net loss matter is disingenuous and smacks of Obama's attempts to spin the failure of his "you can keep it" promise as really just meaning that if your insurance is qualified, then you can keep it. Since Reagan did, in fact, raise at least one tax, then he cannot be a conservative under your definition.
You're also confusing particular instances with general policies. I, too, find the accounting gimmicks Congress engages in offensive; however, I do so because those gimmicks are tantamount to lies, not simply because those gimmicks include a tax increase here and there. That is, this budget deal isn't offensive simply because it contains tax increases, but because of the way it disingenuously uses those tax increases to create a fiscal mirage that hides the true financial disaster awaiting the US.
-
Reagan signed the abortion bill when he was governor of California and then he regretted it - long before he decided to run for President he spoke out about the bill he had signed. In fact the more automated medicine has become the more people who used to support abortion are against it - case in point the woman behind Roe v Wade says today she NEVER would have brought the suit and regrets it. It is to Reagan's credit he realized his error.. so did Romney... so have many former supporters of abortion...
As a matter of fact analysis of the recent race in VA came out with some astounding information - it was not Obamacare that drove the dramatic surge Cuchinelli experienced the last week of the election - it was him coming out with ads showing McAuliff's actual position (pro-abortion) and Cooch being anti-abortion - the analysis indicates had Cuchinelli actually hit him even harder on this he could have easily made up the 55,000 votes he lost by. So much for being told conservatives should not run on abortion.
-
You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Reagan either raised at least one tax, or he didn't. Trying to spin the issue as really some sort of a net gain/net loss matter is disingenuous and smacks of Obama's attempts to spin the failure of his "you can keep it" promise as really just meaning that if your insurance is qualified, then you can keep it. Since Reagan did, in fact, raise at least one tax, then he cannot be a conservative under your definition.
Any way you look at it he has been the most conservative president in this century... and he did it having to work with Democrats.
-
[[ List Of True Conservatives In Congress and Senate ]]
Methinks it's bound to be a short one....
-
http://www.redstate.com/socrates/2013/02/08/are-you-a-true-conservative/
Are You A True Conservative?
It doesn't matter in the slightest. Everyone thinks they are.
By: Loren Heal (Diary) | February 8th, 2013 at 05:11 PM
The issue is not who is “true conservative” or even a plain old conservative, but who is willing to gamble his own power to achieve a result beneficial to everyone.
In the power struggle between the DC Establishment and grassroots, labeling of the two sides often conceals the battle lines. Language frames the debate, and I am still not completely comfortable with the labels “establishment” and “grassroots”. I’m even more uncomfortable with the labels “true conservative” and “RINO”, as they don’t describe at all what the fuss is about.
I am a conservative. Well, I’m really a libertarian. Actually, I’m just interested in pursuing American ideals. I like to do what works. I know people have to get elected to implement their policies.
Did that paragraph make any sense? Each of the sentences was true, on some level, but none of them fully describes me, and I suspect none of them describes you completely either.
We are each amalgams, mixtures of ideologies. We each have a different makeup, a different reading list of foundational literature, a different story to tell. Each of us values adherence to our own ideology — whatever it is — with a different weight. We are each willing compromise on some policies, but not on others.
There are many ways political beliefs can be categorized. The poles we generally use in the US — whether we say left vs right or we say statist vs libertarian — are themselves complex, made up of the summation of myriad policy preferences. Your beliefs, your priorities, and your willingness to compromise on what you do and don’t care about are unique to you, and can change even for you over time.
There is seldom a binary, yes-or-no answer to any of these questions. It’s almost always a matter of degree.
We have to expect, therefor, that conservatives are going to differ with others who call themselves “conservative”. Extending the label with “true conservative” just doubles down on the fact that you’re willing to take on the undefinable label. You may even stray into the No True Scotsman Fallacy, so tempting is it to believe that everyone thinks the way we do.
The label “true conservative” began to be applied when grassroots activists noted that politicians of both parties were campaigning as conservatives, especially in Republican primary elections, but weren’t actually all that conservative when they got into office. Politicians love to campaign as social conservatives in rural areas, for instance, using the power of projection to allow voters to believe they are also fiscal conservatives.
By contrast, the name “RINO” is an acronym for “Republican In Name Only”, and came about describing politicians such as longtime US Senator from Pennsylvania Arlen Specter, who actually changed his party affiliation twice. But quickly the term began to be applied to anyone who strayed from the Republican party line on any issue, and then for any moderate Republican. Ironically, while still connoting moderate views, it became shorthand for any politician whose positions were based on party loyalty rather than conservative ideology.
Beware when someone uses the Fallacy of Ambiguity to say that there are two establishments, or to ask what it is that a conservative wants to conserve. Words are just labels for concepts, and such trickery is designed to conceal rather than to enlighten.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is a conservative:
Boehner attributed the suspicions to the younger members in the Republican ranks who are not familiar with his voting record in the years before he took the Speaker’s gavel.
“Some of our members don’t realize that while I may be a nice enough guy, and I get along with people, when I was voting I had the 8th most conservative voting record in the House,” he said. “But a lot of our newer members – they don’t know that. And so, you know, they think I’m some squish, that I’m ready to sell them out in a heartbeat, when obviously, most of you in this room know that…”
The Speaker does in fact have a 88% lifetime rating with FreedomWorks and a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union.
The trouble for the Mr. Boehner has come since his election as Speaker in 2011. Before then, his votes — except for a tendency to favor earmarks and his votes for TARP – were exempliary. Since then, he has led a path of sacrificing principle on the altar of the retention of power.
The vast majority of those in the Republican establishment, like Mr. Boehner, are conservative or libertarian by ideology. None of them is a screaming Marxist. The question is whether they vote their ideology and construct bills around that ideology, or whether they maneuver and connive to give the appearance of favoring their ideology while their true intent is acquiring and retaining political power for themselves.
We’ve all heard, “You have to win to implement your policies.” The trouble is that you’ve never fully won. There’s always the next election, the next poll, the next press conference.
Do you want to gain power to further your ideology, or do you use your ideology to gain power? Again, it’s a matter of degree.
The distinguishing question between establishment and idealists is whether someone thinks it’s more important to get elected or to represent his ideals. Almost everyone has a set of policy positions they would not change or back away from to get elected. People with a larger number of strongly held such positions are idealists, and people with a smaller number of more weakly held beliefs are establishmentarians.
The battle is not between “RINOs” and “conservatives”. The battle is over the question of retaining power versus clinging to ideals at all costs. If you argue that you must avoid the conflict to live to fight another day, you are arguing that your own power and position are more valuable than using them to defend what you believe.
-
I am against ANY tax increases. However, taxes were so high when Reagan was elected that overall it was a net-net relief for everyone and for the economy and as you read the fuel tax was instituted as a temporary tax.
Kennedy was a tax-cutter as well.
This habit of we'll raise taxes today for cuts in ten years is pure bull.... and as this points out had a great deal to do with #41 not being re-elected.
Did you type that with a straight face? Up thread, a cigarette tax is not a tax. But, Paul Ryan agreeing to raise the TSA tax IS a tax.
Which is it?
-
Reagan signed the abortion bill when he was governor of California and then he regretted it - long before he decided to run for President he spoke out about the bill he had signed. In fact the more automated medicine has become the more people who used to support abortion are against it - case in point the woman behind Roe v Wade says today she NEVER would have brought the suit and regrets it. It is to Reagan's credit he realized his error.. so did Romney... so have many former supporters of abortion...
As a matter of fact analysis of the recent race in VA came out with some astounding information - it was not Obamacare that drove the dramatic surge Cuchinelli experienced the last week of the election - it was him coming out with ads showing McAuliff's actual position (pro-abortion) and Cooch being anti-abortion - the analysis indicates had Cuchinelli actually hit him even harder on this he could have easily made up the 55,000 votes he lost by. So much for being told conservatives should not run on abortion.
Is this another litmus test? Are you really saying that a politician who makes peace with the fact that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on abortion is simply not going to go away, certainly not in our lifetimes, and who instead chooses to spend her time on other, more achievable, goals is not a "true conservative"?
-
Any way you look at it he has been the most conservative president in this century... and he did it having to work with Democrats.
Well now, to paraphrase a certain other president, that all depends on what "conservative" means. If "conservative" means holding firm to pure principle and refusing to compromise one whit with the democrats/liberals, then I'm afraid that Reagan was not a "conservative." By this light, Reagan would have the company of folks like Ryan, and Cruz, at least with respect to immigration reform, but he would not be accorded the mantle of "conservative" by many of today's self-proclaimed "conservatives."
So, what does the term "conservative" mean? Is there some definite, coherent, even if not comprehensive, definition of a "conservative" or is it simply an empty vessel into which anyone can pour their own likes and dislikes?
-
Any way you look at it he has been the most conservative president in this century... and he did it having to work with Democrats.
Actually, that's not true. Reagan grew the size of government.
Calvin Coolidge actually reduced real spending and kept it there. He's the only president in the 20th century to have done that.
-
http://www.redstate.com/socrates/2013/02/08/are-you-a-true-conservative/
Are You A True Conservative?
It doesn't matter in the slightest. Everyone thinks they are.
By: Loren Heal (Diary) | February 8th, 2013 at 05:11 PM
The issue is not who is “true conservative” or even a plain old conservative, but who is willing to gamble his own power to achieve a result beneficial to everyone.
In the power struggle between the DC Establishment and grassroots, labeling of the two sides often conceals the battle lines. Language frames the debate, and I am still not completely comfortable with the labels “establishment” and “grassroots”. I’m even more uncomfortable with the labels “true conservative” and “RINO”, as they don’t describe at all what the fuss is about.
Did that paragraph make any sense? Each of the sentences was true, on some level, but none of them fully describes me, and I suspect none of them describes you completely either.
We are each amalgams, mixtures of ideologies. We each have a different makeup, a different reading list of foundational literature, a different story to tell. Each of us values adherence to our own ideology — whatever it is — with a different weight. We are each willing compromise on some policies, but not on others.
There are many ways political beliefs can be categorized. The poles we generally use in the US — whether we say left vs right or we say statist vs libertarian — are themselves complex, made up of the summation of myriad policy preferences. Your beliefs, your priorities, and your willingness to compromise on what you do and don’t care about are unique to you, and can change even for you over time.
There is seldom a binary, yes-or-no answer to any of these questions. It’s almost always a matter of degree.
We have to expect, therefor, that conservatives are going to differ with others who call themselves “conservative”. Extending the label with “true conservative” just doubles down on the fact that you’re willing to take on the undefinable label. You may even stray into the No True Scotsman Fallacy, so tempting is it to believe that everyone thinks the way we do.
The label “true conservative” began to be applied when grassroots activists noted that politicians of both parties were campaigning as conservatives, especially in Republican primary elections, but weren’t actually all that conservative when they got into office. Politicians love to campaign as social conservatives in rural areas, for instance, using the power of projection to allow voters to believe they are also fiscal conservatives.
By contrast, the name “RINO” is an acronym for “Republican In Name Only”, and came about describing politicians such as longtime US Senator from Pennsylvania Arlen Specter, who actually changed his party affiliation twice. But quickly the term began to be applied to anyone who strayed from the Republican party line on any issue, and then for any moderate Republican. Ironically, while still connoting moderate views, it became shorthand for any politician whose positions were based on party loyalty rather than conservative ideology.
Beware when someone uses the Fallacy of Ambiguity to say that there are two establishments, or to ask what it is that a conservative wants to conserve. Words are just labels for concepts, and such trickery is designed to conceal rather than to enlighten.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is a conservative:
Boehner attributed the suspicions to the younger members in the Republican ranks who are not familiar with his voting record in the years before he took the Speaker’s gavel.
“Some of our members don’t realize that while I may be a nice enough guy, and I get along with people, when I was voting I had the 8th most conservative voting record in the House,” he said. “But a lot of our newer members – they don’t know that. And so, you know, they think I’m some squish, that I’m ready to sell them out in a heartbeat, when obviously, most of you in this room know that…”
The Speaker does in fact have a 88% lifetime rating with FreedomWorks and a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union.
The trouble for the Mr. Boehner has come since his election as Speaker in 2011. Before then, his votes — except for a tendency to favor earmarks and his votes for TARP – were exempliary. Since then, he has led a path of sacrificing principle on the altar of the retention of power.
The vast majority of those in the Republican establishment, like Mr. Boehner, are conservative or libertarian by ideology. None of them is a screaming Marxist. The question is whether they vote their ideology and construct bills around that ideology, or whether they maneuver and connive to give the appearance of favoring their ideology while their true intent is acquiring and retaining political power for themselves.
We’ve all heard, “You have to win to implement your policies.” The trouble is that you’ve never fully won. There’s always the next election, the next poll, the next press conference.
Do you want to gain power to further your ideology, or do you use your ideology to gain power? Again, it’s a matter of degree.
The distinguishing question between establishment and idealists is whether someone thinks it’s more important to get elected or to represent his ideals. Almost everyone has a set of policy positions they would not change or back away from to get elected. People with a larger number of strongly held such positions are idealists, and people with a smaller number of more weakly held beliefs are establishmentarians.
The battle is not between “RINOs” and “conservatives”. The battle is over the question of retaining power versus clinging to ideals at all costs. If you argue that you must avoid the conflict to live to fight another day, you are arguing that your own power and position are more valuable than using them to defend what you believe.
Great. Keep in mind, though, that this applies equally to liberals just as it does to conservatives. The article's test for who's a good politician and who isn't is (more or less): one "who is willing to gamble his own power to achieve a result beneficial to everyone." Keeping in mind that this test begs the question of who the term "beneficial to everyone" is defined, and by whom, Obama and the democrat party Congressional leadership would pass this test with flying colors if the person gambling his/her power is entitled to determine whether a result is beneficial to everyone. They clearly believe that Obamacare will be beneficial to everyone and they were willing to push (I would say exceed) the bounds of power in order to enact it. That is a pretty good illustration of someone who is willing to gamble his/her power in order to achieve a beneficial result - again, provided that it is the gambler him/her self who gets to define what a beneficial result is.
I'm not saying that the article is wrong, or that the author's benchmark is useless, but I am saying that this article is not the unalloyed support for conservatives that you seem to think it is.
-
Did you type that with a straight face? Up thread, a cigarette tax is not a tax. But, Paul Ryan agreeing to raise the TSA tax IS a tax.
Which is it?
The TSA tax is on flyers but is going into the general fund, no one is addressing the expanding budget at the TSA which has more than doubled since 2002 (when the TSA was formed) while flying is actually down due to the economy... this is my issue... with both parties. There is too much waste, fraud and abuse in their spending and yet they choose to raise more taxes and cut medical payments to doctors for treating patients and still they fund a bloated TSA, NSA, IRS, Education..........
and worse of all they spend a lot more than 2.3 billion a year on waste like this list - so when they stop all the B.S. spending then talk to me about raising taxes or fees.........
How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
Really? Do we need to spend $3 million just to watch shrimps run on a treadmill? Actually, yes, if we want to begin to understand the effects of bacteria on mobility, according to National Science Foundation spokeswoman Maria Zacharias.
Does playing FarmVille on Facebook help people to make friends and keep them?
FarmVille is a simulation game on Facebook that allows users to create a virtual farm, grow and harvest crops, trade and exchange seeds with other farmers. At first glance it seems ludicrous that $315,000 would be spent on attempting to study the real social aspects of an online game.
How do you ride a bike?
According to the Senator's report, $300,000 was spent in 2009 helping scientists study how humans ride bicycles.
Study of Study of Studies
Two years after the Pentagon launched their study of studies, Congress learned that the project was still ongoing so they asked the General Accounting Office to review the Pentagon’s results. The GAO discovered that the Pentagon’s study of studies had only managed to review nine studies. When the GAO asked to see copies of the reviews, the Pentagon could only locate three of the nine study reviews. Of the reviews the GAO were able to obtain, they determined that they were poorly conducted and left out a number of important cost factors such as manpower involved.
So taxpayer dollars were used to pay for a study of studies that was poorly conducted and two-thirds of the results are missing. Then we also paid for a study that studied the study of studies which only tells that the study of studies was a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.
Why Chimps Throw Poop…
the government blew $592,000 on a study last year to figure out why chimpanzees throw poop.
Exporting Elmo:
The U.S. Agency for International Development provided $10 million to a Pakistani arts organization to adapt "Sesame Street" for Pakistani toddlers. The money will also help pay for the creation of 130 episodes of the show.
Dragon Robots for Preschoolers:
The National Science Foundation spent $131,000 on robot dragons designed to mimic human responses to help teach preschoolers language skills. Apparently interaction with real humans was deemed inadequate.
Virtual Mummies:
Thanks to a $25,000 federal grant, visitors to the Milwaukee Public Museum will now be able to experience a "3-D high-definition, full-color true holographic or holographic-like exhibit of a virtual mummy unwrapping."
Dead Man's Party:
Those who complain federal employment benefits are already too generous won't be pleased to learn that many government workers keep receiving payments long after they've died. The Inspector General for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management says "the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually, totaling over $601 million in the last five years."
Cowboy Poetry:
It's hard to recall John Wayne reciting verse in any of the many Westerns he made, but cowboy poetry is a big enough phenomenon to have its own annual celebration. And this year taxpayers helped pay for it courtesy of a $50,000 contribution from the U.S. government.
Promiscuous Quail:
The National Institute of Health gave the University of Kentucky $176,000 to determine if Japanese quail are more likely to have sex when high on cocaine. The study is scheduled to last through 2015.
Happiness is ... Social Media:
Another National Science Foundation grant for $198,000 paid for a University of California-Riverside study of "motivations, expectations and goal pursuit in social media." Among the questions the study seeks to answer: "Do unhappy people spend more time on Twitter or Facebook?"
Guilty Pleasure:
The federal government gave the Hawaii Department of Agriculture $50,000 to help pay for the 2nd Annual Hawaiian Chocolate Festival. The goal is to "highlight the culinary talents and products specifically linked to Hawaii's chocolate industry."
O Christmas Tree:
The U.S. government spent $74,000 last year to help the state of Michigan "increase awareness about the role Michigan plays in the production of trees and poinsettias." Michigan's $40 million Christmas tree industry already ranks third in the nation.
High on Pizza:
A private company was given $484,000 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to build a Mellow Mushroom pizzeria in Arlington, TX. Mellow Mushroom is a national chain known for its use of hippie and drug themes.
Tips for India:
The National Science Foundation wants to help politicians in India do a better job. So it is awarded a $426,000 grant for research to determine the effectiveness of communications to citizens from officeholders. The U.S. sent $126 million in aid to India last year, even though it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Art for Italians:
The State Department contributed $350,000 for the United States to be part of the 54th International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy. No word on how much the exhibit enhanced U.S. international relations.
Jobs for Barbados:
The mixed success the government has had creating jobs here in America did not discourage the U.S. Agency for International Development from spending $1.35 million on an "entrepreneurship initiative" for the Caribbean island nation of Barbados. The U.S. unemployment rate has been over 8% for three years.
Video Game Powerups:
A video game promotional organization in Massachusetts landed $100,000 to help developers create intellectual property and help businesses get access to capital. Video game development is a $2 billion industry in Massachusetts.
What Were They Smoking:
The Virginia Commonwealth University received $55,000 in 2011 (part of a larger $170,000 grant) to study changes in the hookah smoking habits of students in the nation of Jordan. Among other things, the study sought to answer the question: "How many Jordanian students believe that water pipe tobacco smoking is more harmful than cigarettes smoking?" (Answer: 62.2 percent).
Chinese Puzzle:
The Chinese economy is second only to that of the United States. And China holds billions of dollars in U.S. debt. So the U.S. government sent $17.8 million in aid to China last year to improve the Asian giant's social services and clean up its environment. That makes sense, right?
Do You Believe in Magic:
Did you know there is an American Museum of Magic in Marshall, MI? Well, the magic museum made $147,000 of your tax dollars disappear last year. The purpose of the federal largesse was to help the museum "better understand its various audiences and their potential interest in the history of magic entertainment."
Little Green Menus:
NASA spends $1 million a year on developing recipes for foods which astronauts could prepare while visiting Mars, even though the agency has no plans to go there any time soon. But just in case NASA changes its mind someday, it wants to ensure that astronauts on Mars don't experience "menu fatigue."
Why Fruit Flies Fall in Love:
The National Institutes of Health spent $939,771 on research that has discovered male fruit flies are more sexually attracted to younger female fruit flies. "Video of the encounter," the scientists wrote, "showed that the male was much more attracted to the young fly."
and more............ pretty soon you exceed the 23 billion per year...... without raising one cent in revenue from taxpayers.
The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.
The U.S. government spent $200,000 on “a tattoo removal program” in Mission Hills, California.
The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn’t we all love to have a “research job” like that?
The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom.
Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.
The federal government spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
According to USA Today, 13 different government agencies “fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program.”
A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn’t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.
The U.S. government spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
The U.S. Postal Service spent $13,500 on a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.
The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions”.
A total of $1.8 million was spent on a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The federal government spends 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.
U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.
The U.S. government handed one Tennessee library $5,000 for the purpose of hosting a series of video game parties.
A few years ago the government spent $123,050 on a Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.
One professor at Dartmouth University was given $137,530 to create a “recession-themed” video game entitled “Layoff”.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. military spent “$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida”.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture shelled out $30,000 to a group of farmers to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight “haycations”.
The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
The National Institutes of Health loves to spend our tax money on really bizarre things. The NIH once spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.
According to the Washington Post, 1,271 different government organizations work on government programs related to counterterrorism and homeland security.
The U.S. government spent $100,000 on a “Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia”.
The feds once gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 “to paint a Chinook salmon” on the side of a Boeing 737.
-
Actually, that's not true. Reagan grew the size of government.
Calvin Coolidge actually reduced real spending and kept it there. He's the only president in the 20th century to have done that.
Actually, Congress grew the size of government; Reagan went along in some instances, either because he agreed with the expansion, because he had little choice in the matter, or because he saw it as a useful horse-trade needed to obtain some other result.
It's becoming a bit of a pet peeve with me when people assert that such-and-such a president did this or did that. Other than vetoing a bill, the President really doesn't "make" laws; at most he (or she) is a cheerleader and the ultimate Congressional whip, attempting to cajole, bribe, or brow-beat enough members of Congress to enact his/her agenda. About the only president who has seriously tried to be both law maker and law enforcer is Obama, who seems to think that the executive order is a proper alternative to legislation duly enacted by Congress.
One of the most egregious examples I saw recently was in a kid's book about Teddy Roosevelt. The book stated that as president Roosevelt "passed many laws" doing etc, and etc. The plain fact of the matter is that the president has no power to "pass" or "make" a law; at most s/he has the power to prevent something from becoming law - basically a negative power.
About the only president who has seriously tried to be both law maker and law enforcer is Obama, who seems to think that the executive order is a proper alternative to legislation duly enacted by Congress.
Recognizing that fact, of course, does take away from the popular view of Reagan's legacy; however, it also takes away from the popular legacies of other presidents as well, including Clinton, whom many on the left celebrate for having created a budget surplus when he really had very little to do with it insofar as enacting or repealing laws was involved.
-
The TSA tax is on flyers but is going into the general fund, no one is addressing the expanding budget at the TSA which has more than doubled since 2002 (when the TSA was formed) while flying is actually down due to the economy... this is my issue... with both parties. There is too much waste, fraud and abuse in their spending and yet they choose to raise more taxes and cut medical payments to doctors for treating patients and still they fund a bloated TSA, NSA, IRS, Education..........
and worse of all they spend a lot more than 2.3 billion a year on waste like this list - so when they stop all the B.S. spending then talk to me about raising taxes or fees.........
How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
Really? Do we need to spend $3 million just to watch shrimps run on a treadmill? Actually, yes, if we want to begin to understand the effects of bacteria on mobility, according to National Science Foundation spokeswoman Maria Zacharias.
Does playing FarmVille on Facebook help people to make friends and keep them?
FarmVille is a simulation game on Facebook that allows users to create a virtual farm, grow and harvest crops, trade and exchange seeds with other farmers. At first glance it seems ludicrous that $315,000 would be spent on attempting to study the real social aspects of an online game.
How do you ride a bike?
According to the Senator's report, $300,000 was spent in 2009 helping scientists study how humans ride bicycles.
Study of Study of Studies
Two years after the Pentagon launched their study of studies, Congress learned that the project was still ongoing so they asked the General Accounting Office to review the Pentagon’s results. The GAO discovered that the Pentagon’s study of studies had only managed to review nine studies. When the GAO asked to see copies of the reviews, the Pentagon could only locate three of the nine study reviews. Of the reviews the GAO were able to obtain, they determined that they were poorly conducted and left out a number of important cost factors such as manpower involved.
So taxpayer dollars were used to pay for a study of studies that was poorly conducted and two-thirds of the results are missing. Then we also paid for a study that studied the study of studies which only tells that the study of studies was a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.
Why Chimps Throw Poop…
the government blew $592,000 on a study last year to figure out why chimpanzees throw poop.
Exporting Elmo:
The U.S. Agency for International Development provided $10 million to a Pakistani arts organization to adapt "Sesame Street" for Pakistani toddlers. The money will also help pay for the creation of 130 episodes of the show.
Dragon Robots for Preschoolers:
The National Science Foundation spent $131,000 on robot dragons designed to mimic human responses to help teach preschoolers language skills. Apparently interaction with real humans was deemed inadequate.
Virtual Mummies:
Thanks to a $25,000 federal grant, visitors to the Milwaukee Public Museum will now be able to experience a "3-D high-definition, full-color true holographic or holographic-like exhibit of a virtual mummy unwrapping."
Dead Man's Party:
Those who complain federal employment benefits are already too generous won't be pleased to learn that many government workers keep receiving payments long after they've died. The Inspector General for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management says "the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually, totaling over $601 million in the last five years."
Cowboy Poetry:
It's hard to recall John Wayne reciting verse in any of the many Westerns he made, but cowboy poetry is a big enough phenomenon to have its own annual celebration. And this year taxpayers helped pay for it courtesy of a $50,000 contribution from the U.S. government.
Promiscuous Quail:
The National Institute of Health gave the University of Kentucky $176,000 to determine if Japanese quail are more likely to have sex when high on cocaine. The study is scheduled to last through 2015.
Happiness is ... Social Media:
Another National Science Foundation grant for $198,000 paid for a University of California-Riverside study of "motivations, expectations and goal pursuit in social media." Among the questions the study seeks to answer: "Do unhappy people spend more time on Twitter or Facebook?"
Guilty Pleasure:
The federal government gave the Hawaii Department of Agriculture $50,000 to help pay for the 2nd Annual Hawaiian Chocolate Festival. The goal is to "highlight the culinary talents and products specifically linked to Hawaii's chocolate industry."
O Christmas Tree:
The U.S. government spent $74,000 last year to help the state of Michigan "increase awareness about the role Michigan plays in the production of trees and poinsettias." Michigan's $40 million Christmas tree industry already ranks third in the nation.
High on Pizza:
A private company was given $484,000 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to build a Mellow Mushroom pizzeria in Arlington, TX. Mellow Mushroom is a national chain known for its use of hippie and drug themes.
Tips for India:
The National Science Foundation wants to help politicians in India do a better job. So it is awarded a $426,000 grant for research to determine the effectiveness of communications to citizens from officeholders. The U.S. sent $126 million in aid to India last year, even though it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Art for Italians:
The State Department contributed $350,000 for the United States to be part of the 54th International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy. No word on how much the exhibit enhanced U.S. international relations.
Jobs for Barbados:
The mixed success the government has had creating jobs here in America did not discourage the U.S. Agency for International Development from spending $1.35 million on an "entrepreneurship initiative" for the Caribbean island nation of Barbados. The U.S. unemployment rate has been over 8% for three years.
Video Game Powerups:
A video game promotional organization in Massachusetts landed $100,000 to help developers create intellectual property and help businesses get access to capital. Video game development is a $2 billion industry in Massachusetts.
What Were They Smoking:
The Virginia Commonwealth University received $55,000 in 2011 (part of a larger $170,000 grant) to study changes in the hookah smoking habits of students in the nation of Jordan. Among other things, the study sought to answer the question: "How many Jordanian students believe that water pipe tobacco smoking is more harmful than cigarettes smoking?" (Answer: 62.2 percent).
Chinese Puzzle:
The Chinese economy is second only to that of the United States. And China holds billions of dollars in U.S. debt. So the U.S. government sent $17.8 million in aid to China last year to improve the Asian giant's social services and clean up its environment. That makes sense, right?
Do You Believe in Magic:
Did you know there is an American Museum of Magic in Marshall, MI? Well, the magic museum made $147,000 of your tax dollars disappear last year. The purpose of the federal largesse was to help the museum "better understand its various audiences and their potential interest in the history of magic entertainment."
Little Green Menus:
NASA spends $1 million a year on developing recipes for foods which astronauts could prepare while visiting Mars, even though the agency has no plans to go there any time soon. But just in case NASA changes its mind someday, it wants to ensure that astronauts on Mars don't experience "menu fatigue."
Why Fruit Flies Fall in Love:
The National Institutes of Health spent $939,771 on research that has discovered male fruit flies are more sexually attracted to younger female fruit flies. "Video of the encounter," the scientists wrote, "showed that the male was much more attracted to the young fly."
and more............ pretty soon you exceed the 23 billion per year...... without raising one cent in revenue from taxpayers.
The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.
The U.S. government spent $200,000 on “a tattoo removal program” in Mission Hills, California.
The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn’t we all love to have a “research job” like that?
The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom.
Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.
The federal government spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
According to USA Today, 13 different government agencies “fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program.”
A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn’t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.
The U.S. government spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
The U.S. Postal Service spent $13,500 on a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.
The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions”.
A total of $1.8 million was spent on a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The federal government spends 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.
U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.
The U.S. government handed one Tennessee library $5,000 for the purpose of hosting a series of video game parties.
A few years ago the government spent $123,050 on a Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.
One professor at Dartmouth University was given $137,530 to create a “recession-themed” video game entitled “Layoff”.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. military spent “$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida”.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture shelled out $30,000 to a group of farmers to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight “haycations”.
The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
The National Institutes of Health loves to spend our tax money on really bizarre things. The NIH once spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.
According to the Washington Post, 1,271 different government organizations work on government programs related to counterterrorism and homeland security.
The U.S. government spent $100,000 on a “Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia”.
The feds once gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 “to paint a Chinook salmon” on the side of a Boeing 737.
Why should the federal government be in the business of paying doctors for anything having to do with providing services to their patients?
-
result is.
I'm not saying that the article is wrong, or that the author's benchmark is useless, but I am saying that this article is not the unalloyed support for conservatives that you seem to think it is.
Ahhh I didn't say it was. I found it interesting in light of this discussion to read the take this author has on the subject and the observation even so-called conservatives which he claims Boehner was before becoming speaker will toss aside a conservative record in order to maintain power.
-
Why should the federal government be in the business of paying doctors for anything having to do with providing services to their patients?
They shouldn't... but thanks to LBJ doctors already work for the government - it is called Medicare and Medicaid....... and once Obama manages to morph Obamacare into single payer all doctors will be employees of the state.
Just this evening a pain management doctor was on The Kelly file - the 2014 Medicare Fee Schedule was released today. Pain management has been "cut" by approximately 40 - 50 % ...... this is already one area of medicine with the highest malpractice insurance costs.. with a 40- 50% cut in payments most pain doctors will be forced to close up practice and today most non-pain medical doctors will not deal with pain management because of the liability that goes with the drugs and procedures that go along with pain management - ranging from cancer patients to elderly patient with severe DJD.
-
Ahhh I didn't say it was. I found it interesting in light of this discussion to read the take this author has on the subject and the observation even so-called conservatives which he claims Boehner was before becoming speaker will toss aside a conservative record in order to maintain power.
I have to correct something your article said upthread. The author said Boehner "had a fondness for earmarks."
The fact is, since he entered Congress in 1991, John Boehner has never requested a single earmark.
-
They shouldn't... but thanks to LBJ doctors already work for the government - it is called Medicare and Medicaid....... and once Obama manages to morph Obamacare into single payer all doctors will be employees of the state. T
That doesn't answer the question. If the government shouldn't, then the government shouldn't, and it's no knock on a budget that increases appropriations for the TSA that it doesn't also increase payments to doctors. In fact, the core purpose of the TSA is very much within the powers given to Congress by the Constitution - powers over interstate and foreign commerce and defense - while medicare and medicaid are not, so increasing the budget of the TSA instead of the budget for medicare/medicaid is actually putting constitutional priorities in the correct order.
-
Ahhh I didn't say it was. I found it interesting in light of this discussion to read the take this author has on the subject and the observation even so-called conservatives which he claims Boehner was before becoming speaker will toss aside a conservative record in order to maintain power.
Fair dinkum. It still doesn't stand for what you seem to think it does, because it certainly puts Obama, Reid and Pelosi in a more favorable light than it does Boehner - or even Cruz, if we're to take conservative criticism of him for his views on immigration as evidence that he's being weak on immigration (at the least).
-
That doesn't answer the question. If the government shouldn't, then the government shouldn't, and it's no knock on a budget that increases appropriations for the TSA that it doesn't also increase payments to doctors. In fact, the core purpose of the TSA is very much within the powers given to Congress by the Constitution - powers over interstate and foreign commerce and defense - while medicare and medicaid are not, so increasing the budget of the TSA instead of the budget for medicare/medicaid is actually putting constitutional priorities in the correct order.
You need to go back and look they are DECREASING payments to doctors - by a significant amount.
Doctors would be thrilled to not have to work within Medicare. Are you aware that ALL medical fee schedules revolve around the fee schedule CMS sets for Medicare? or that a doctor who ops out of being a Medicare provider (which means Medicare mails the doctor the check instead of the patient) but treats a Medicare patient - the doctor is legally obligated to only charge the allowed fee amount set by CMS??? or that doctors fees have not kept up with the cost of living, much less the expenses of keeping up with increased staff due to CMS requirements placed on them else their fees be cut even more significantly. Perhaps if you as an attorney was told by the government what you can charge your clients it would make more sense to you.. in fact one of the biggest drivers of malpractice costs to doctors is lawyers. Want to reduce medical costs then pass tort reform.
-
You need to go back and look they are DECREASING payments to doctors - by a significant amount.
Doctors would be thrilled to not have to work withing Medicare. Are you aware that ALL medical fee schedules revolve around the fee schedule CMS sets for Medicare? or that a doctor who ops out of Medicare but treats a Medicare patient is legally obligated to only charge the allowed fee amount set by CMS??? or that doctors fees have not kept up with the cost of living, much less the expenses of keeping up with increased staff due to CMS requirements placed on them else their fees be cut even more significantly. Perhaps if you as an attorney was told by the government what you can charge your clients it would make more sense to you.. in fact one of the biggest drivers of malpractice costs to doctors is lawyers. Want to reduce medical costs then pass tort reform.
No, I don't. All I have to look at is the inconsistency of arguing against government payments on one issue and arguing for government payments on another issue. If doctors don't like what the federal government is paying them, then they should stop providing services that require them to look to the government for payment. And if other payers follow the federal government's practices lockstep, then doctors who don't like that should stop providing services to people who are covered by those payers.
-
No, I don't. All I have to look at is the inconsistency of arguing against government payments on one issue and arguing for government payments on another issue. If doctors don't like what the federal government is paying them, then they should stop providing services that require them to look to the government for payment. And if other payers follow the federal government's practices lockstep, then doctors who don't like that should stop providing services to people who are covered by those payers.
You clearly don't know anything about how medicine works now days. Under your scenario all doctors should just stop working or only work for the wealthy for cash and tell everyone else to go take a hike....
-
You clearly don't know anything about how medicine works now days. Under your scenario all doctors should just stop working or only work for the wealthy for cash and tell everyone else to go take a hike....
Are you telling me that right now no doctor can stop working, or that no doctor can work only for the wealthy for cash, and that they cannot tell everyone else to take a hike?
If you're not, then yes, I think that's precisely how doctors should work, provided only that they don't abandon a patient in the middle of open-heart surgery, or the like. Why? Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods). The one exception I would take to your remark is the "all" part. I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit (again, so long as they don't abandon patients in the lurch or provide substandard, and dangerous, services) - I am simply saying that stopping work, or working only for the wealthy for cash are valid alternatives that doctors are free to consider.
-
Are you telling me that right now no doctor can stop working, or that no doctor can work only for the wealthy for cash, and that they cannot tell everyone else to take a hike?
If you're not, then yes, I think that's precisely how doctors should work, provided only that they don't abandon a patient in the middle of open-heart surgery, or the like. Why? Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods). The one exception I would take to your remark is the "all" part. I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit (again, so long as they don't abandon patients in the lurch or provide substandard, and dangerous, services) - I am simply saying that stopping work, or working only for the wealthy for cash are valid alternatives that doctors are free to consider.
Fine so we have a world without doctors. Better hope no one in your family gets sick.
-
Fine so we have a world without doctors. Better hope no one in your family gets sick.
/snicker
So the existence of doctors stands or falls on whether the government pays them enough? I thought you were against Obamacare; for all appearances though, you seem to be one of its staunchest supporters, and also one of those "useful idiots" whose parochial views simply help to add on additional federal debt.
-
/snicker
So the existence of doctors stands or falls on whether the government pays them enough? I thought you were against Obamacare; for all appearances though, you seem to be one of its staunchest supporters, and also one of those "useful idiots" whose parochial views simply help to add on additional federal debt.
Don't pull that stunt on me. You are the one who said doctors should all quit.
The current system has NOTHING to do with Obamacare. Obamacare is only going to make it worse. Much worse.
-
Don't pull that stunt on me. You are the one who said doctors should all quit.
The current system has NOTHING to do with Obamacare. Obamacare is only going to make it worse. Much worse.
No I didn't. I said that if they didn't like what they were getting paid by the government then they should find patients that don't require them to be paid by the government. And that, quite frankly, is what is supposed to happen under the laws of basic economics. It is only idiots and liberals who try to wave the magic wand of government spending to upend the laws of economics.
I quite agree with you that Obamacare will make things worse, but having the government pay doctors more - and pay more doctors - is precisely what Obamacare is all about, so anyone who argues that the government should be paying doctors more, not less, is arguing in favor of Obamacare.
Furthermore, you are pulling precisely the same sort of shenanigans garden-variety liberals pull when they want to prevent some entitlement from being yanked: "oh dear" they'll moan, "if you cut off this entitlement then you'll be taking [fill in your favorite benefit] from people who can't afford to get it anywhere else. How can you be so heartless?"
The bottom line is this: if the government should not be paying doctors, then it should not be paying doctors, regardless of whether that results in there being no doctors around (that is an extremely dubious assumption, however). Arguing otherwise is precisely what causes unwise, foolish entitlements to become cast in stone for the ages.
-
No I didn't. I said that if they didn't like what they were getting paid by the government then they should find patients that don't require them to be paid by the government. And that, quite frankly, is what is supposed to happen under the laws of basic economics. It is only idiots and liberals who try to wave the magic wand of government spending to upend the laws of economics.
I quite agree with you that Obamacare will make things worse, but having the government pay doctors more - and pay more doctors - is precisely what Obamacare is all about, so anyone who argues that the government should be paying doctors more, not less, is arguing in favor of Obamacare.
Furthermore, you are pulling precisely the same sort of shenanigans garden-variety liberals pull when they want to prevent some entitlement from being yanked: "oh dear" they'll moan, "if you cut off this entitlement then you'll be taking [fill in your favorite benefit] from people who can't afford to get it anywhere else. How can you be so heartless?"
The bottom line is this: if the government should not be paying doctors, then it should not be paying doctors, regardless of whether that results in there being no doctors around (that is an extremely dubious assumption, however). Arguing otherwise is precisely what causes unwise, foolish entitlements to become cast in stone for the ages.
Nope, Obamacare is about forcing doctors from being individual business owners into employees of the government and government run institutions (like hospitals) and the government telling doctors who they can treat, what they can prescribe, etc... the doctors ability to diagnose a patient is being taken away from them by the government... and OBAMACARE pays less - not more... and Obamacare is trying to replace doctors with people who are not as well trained as doctors...
Clearly you have a real dislike for doctors.
-
There is a basic flaw in the question as posted.
It's difficult, nigh impossible in fact, to name "true conservatives" when the selection pool is limited to politicians.
It gets even trickier when you try to figure out what in fact constitutes a politician that is also a "true conservative" by discussing what specific ideals a "true conservative" would champion, because politics has become the act of solidly standing against everything while simultaneously being massively squishy and vague about the things that you do stand for, since actually standing for a specific something is a rather direct and efficient way to supply your opponents with ammunition to shoot you with.
Ergo it's easy to "stand" against out of control spending, but really, really hard to actually cut government spending.
-
What is the "true conservative" litmus test, for abortion legality?
-
What is the "true conservative" litmus test, for abortion legality?
Perhaps more generally, what is the "true conservative" test for the legality of killing?
-
Nope, Obamacare is about forcing doctors from being individual business owners into employees of the government and government run institutions (like hospitals) and the government telling doctors who they can treat, what they can prescribe, etc... the doctors ability to diagnose a patient is being taken away from them by the government... and OBAMACARE pays less - not more... and Obamacare is trying to replace doctors with people who are not as well trained as doctors...
Clearly you have a real dislike for doctors.
Nope. It's not. Conscripting doctors will eventually become necessary under Obamacare as it lurches to its final conclusion, but that is not what Obamacare is about.
Clearly you have a very hard time thinking logically. Perhaps I'll discuss that with some of my psychiatrist friends the next time I see them.
-
There is a basic flaw in the question as posted.
It's difficult, nigh impossible in fact, to name "true conservatives" when the selection pool is limited to politicians.
It gets even trickier when you try to figure out what in fact constitutes a politician that is also a "true conservative" by discussing what specific ideals a "true conservative" would champion, because politics has become the act of solidly standing against everything while simultaneously being massively squishy and vague about the things that you do stand for, since actually standing for a specific something is a rather direct and efficient way to supply your opponents with ammunition to shoot you with.
Ergo it's easy to "stand" against out of control spending, but really, really hard to actually cut government spending.
Pearls of wisdom.
-
Nope. It's not. Conscripting doctors will eventually become necessary under Obamacare as it lurches to its final conclusion, but that is not what Obamacare is about.
Clearly you have a very hard time thinking logically. Perhaps I'll discuss that with some of my psychiatrist friends the next time I see them.
What is illogical? Your dislike for doctors is clearly illogical... you are quiet as a church-mouse about the driving cost behind driving medical costs so high in the first place is YOUR chosen profession...
-
Nope. It's not. Conscripting doctors will eventually become necessary under Obamacare as it lurches to its final conclusion.
Not necessarily.
The short-term effect will be an unavoidable shortage in doctors, which is one of the intended consequences of the law, BUT conscripting existing physicians will create too much of a public outcry, and that public outcry would work against the end-game of Obamacare.
The path is a little different that you envision, but at the end you end up with basically the same thing.
If you list all items on the progressive agenda, eventually you run across the "right" to an education. Couple that with the general progressive dogma of "for the good of society", then throw in this argument that if doctors (and Catholic hospitals) accept money from the government, then they are bound to act in a manner designed to address a compelling need of the State, and you'll start seeing the path.
The government will get around to paying for your education, so long as you enter a field of studies chosen for you by the government to address a compelling need of the nation/government.
That will have the government coming to the assistance of the people and addressing the serious shortages in doctors that the government itself created.
So in the end, they are not conscripted, which is an involuntary action, but rather Federal employees by "choice".
And the government "saved" us all.
-
How about we inject some objective data which can be more easily assessed?
I had intended to add this much earlier but ran out of the time necessary due to a meeting I had to attend with some other True Conservatives (Lol) on the issue of Agenda 21. In any case the basis for these rankings, which come from the John Birch Society, is each Congressperson's votes on a number of matters. I suppose one can dismiss the rationale for the rankings either based on what the votes covered or whether in fact a particular position is "Conservative" or not. But at least this provides some standard beyond saying someone's mother wore army boots.
One more thing: I originally meant to list anyone who had a 90% or higher rating but there were so few I dropped it to 80% and above. The source for these rankings is based on The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. The percentages below are cumulative scores are based on key votes from 1999 through 2013. Click on a senator's or representative's name to get a detailed breakdown of his or her voting record.
and can be found here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/
(AL) Dist.5: Mo Brooks - 80% (NC) Dist.8: Richard Hudson - 80%
(AZ) Sen. Jeff Flake - 82% Dist.11: Mark Meadows - 80%
Dist.6: David Schweikert - 82% (OH) Dist.4: Jim Jordan - 80%
(CA) Dist.4: Tom McClintock - 92% (OK) Sen. Thomas Coburn - 82%
(FL) Sen. Marco Rubio - 80% Dist.1: Jim Bridenstine - 100%
Dist.3: Ted Yoho - 90% Dist.2: Markwayne Mullin - 80%
Dist.6: Ron DeSantis - 90% (SC) Sen. Tim Scott - 80%
Dist.8: Bill Posey - 86% Dist.3: Jeff Duncan - 86%
Dist.15: Dennis Ross - 80% Dist.4: Trey Gowdy - 80%
(GA) Dist.9: Doug Collins - 80% (TN) Dist.2: John Duncan - 81%
Dist.10: Paul Broun - 90% Dist.4: Scott DesJarlais - 80%
Dist.14: Tom Graves - 81% (TX) Sen. Ted Cruz - 90%
(ID) Sen. James Risch - 84% Dist.25: Roger Williams - 80%
Dist.1: Raul Labrador - 87% Dist.36: Steve Stockman - 100% WOOT!
(IN) Dist.3: Marlin Stutzman - 82% (UT) Sen. Mike Lee - 90%
(KS) Dist.1: Tim Huelskamp - 85% (WI) Sen. Ron Johnson - 86%
(KY) Sen. Rand Paul - 93% (WY) Sen. John Barrasso - 80%
Dist.4: Thomas Massie - 100% Dist.: Cynthia Lummis - 82%
(LA) Dist.4: John Fleming - 82%
(MD) Dist.1: Andy Harris - 80%
(MI) Dist.3: Justin Amash - 93%
Dist.11: Kerry Bentivolio - 80%
(MN) Dist.6: Michele Bachmann - 80%
Some other notables: Sen. John McCain - 64%, Sen. Mark Pryor - 21%, Dist.23: Debbie Wasserman Schultz - 14%,
Sen. Saxby Chambliss - 58%, Dist.8: Tammy Duckworth - 0%, Sen. Pat Roberts - 61%, Sen. Mitch McConnell - 61%, Sen. Mary Landrieu - 20%, Sen. Susan Collins - 40%, Sen. Elizabeth Warren - 0% (both MA senators have a zero), Dist.6: Fred Upton - 48%, Sen. Al Franken - 8%, Sen. Thad Cochran - 53%, Dist.1: Paul Ryan - 58%, Sen. Orrin Hatch - 59%, Sen. John Cornyn - 68%, Dist.1: Louie Gohmert - 74% (there were quite a few 70s but I had to cut it off somewhere), Sen. Lamar Alexander - 53%, Sen. Lindsey Graham - 63%, Dist.8: John Boehner - 54%, Sen. Kay Hagan - 14%, Dist.2: Peter King - 45%, Sen. Kelly Ayotte - 70%, & Sen. Harry Reid - 17%.
As I said this is the opinion of one site but at least the JBS, agree with them or not, rank these people on their actual voting record.
-
Interesting list, cinc.
-
Nice find, Cincy, and the 80% cut off seems like the fairest point!
Any other rating lists out there that would also be useful? Both single issue (the NRA for example) and multiple issue ratings?
Since even here we can't seem to pin down what a conservative actually is, multiple metrics might be the way to go. Negative listings may also help. If a very left wing group gives Reps / Sens a very low rating that would also be valid input.
I don't mind collating the posts, can do that sort of thing in my sleep, but honestly haven't the time to actually find the rating sites meself.
-
First of all, thanks to both you and Rapunzel for your comments about this.
Tomorrow I shall look for some other rankings and encourage others to do so also but tonight I am too tired. There are both Conservative and Liberal sites which deal with such matters and the low scores on the latter can also be interpreted as evidence of degree of Conservativism.
-
Why? Are pogroms and concentration camps conservative ideals?
What are you getting at? Conservatives like to kill Jews and have people in concentration camps? What are you trying to say here?
-
I honestly don't have any idea of what a "true conservative" is - that's why I asked for a definition from those who, to all appearances, do know what one is. Being sick of McCain, et al, isn't something that's limited to so-called "true conservatives" and disliking them doesn't ipso facto make on a "true conservative" - at least I don't think it does, but I can't say for sure because so far no one's been able to articulate any sort of coherent definition of one.
Let me see if I can try to define my "true conservative" type. Less government more private sector. Of course cut taxes. Stop spending money. Is a few of my real conservative ideas.
-
How about we inject some objective data which can be more easily assessed?
I had intended to add this much earlier but ran out of the time necessary due to a meeting I had to attend with some other True Conservatives (Lol) on the issue of Agenda 21. In any case the basis for these rankings, which come from the John Birch Society, is each Congressperson's votes on a number of matters. I suppose one can dismiss the rationale for the rankings either based on what the votes covered or whether in fact a particular position is "Conservative" or not. But at least this provides some standard beyond saying someone's mother wore army boots.
One more thing: I originally meant to list anyone who had a 90% or higher rating but there were so few I dropped it to 80% and above. The source for these rankings is based on and can be found here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/
(AL) Dist.5: Mo Brooks - 80% (NC) Dist.8: Richard Hudson - 80%
(AZ) Sen. Jeff Flake - 82% Dist.11: Mark Meadows - 80%
Dist.6: David Schweikert - 82% (OH) Dist.4: Jim Jordan - 80%
(CA) Dist.4: Tom McClintock - 92% (OK) Sen. Thomas Coburn - 82%
(FL) Sen. Marco Rubio - 80% Dist.1: Jim Bridenstine - 100%
Dist.3: Ted Yoho - 90% Dist.2: Markwayne Mullin - 80%
Dist.6: Ron DeSantis - 90% (SC) Sen. Tim Scott - 80%
Dist.8: Bill Posey - 86% Dist.3: Jeff Duncan - 86%
Dist.15: Dennis Ross - 80% Dist.4: Trey Gowdy - 80%
(GA) Dist.9: Doug Collins - 80% (TN) Dist.2: John Duncan - 81%
Dist.10: Paul Broun - 90% Dist.4: Scott DesJarlais - 80%
Dist.14: Tom Graves - 81% (TX) Sen. Ted Cruz - 90%
(ID) Sen. James Risch - 84% Dist.25: Roger Williams - 80%
Dist.1: Raul Labrador - 87% Dist.36: Steve Stockman - 100% WOOT!
(IN) Dist.3: Marlin Stutzman - 82% (UT) Sen. Mike Lee - 90%
(KS) Dist.1: Tim Huelskamp - 85% (WI) Sen. Ron Johnson - 86%
(KY) Sen. Rand Paul - 93% (WY) Sen. John Barrasso - 80%
Dist.4: Thomas Massie - 100% Dist.: Cynthia Lummis - 82%
(LA) Dist.4: John Fleming - 82%
(MD) Dist.1: Andy Harris - 80%
(MI) Dist.3: Justin Amash - 93%
Dist.11: Kerry Bentivolio - 80%
(MN) Dist.6: Michele Bachmann - 80%
Some other notables: Sen. John McCain - 64%, Sen. Mark Pryor - 21%, Dist.23: Debbie Wasserman Schultz - 14%,
Sen. Saxby Chambliss - 58%, Dist.8: Tammy Duckworth - 0%, Sen. Pat Roberts - 61%, Sen. Mitch McConnell - 61%, Sen. Mary Landrieu - 20%, Sen. Susan Collins - 40%, Sen. Elizabeth Warren - 0% (both MA senators have a zero), Dist.6: Fred Upton - 48%, Sen. Al Franken - 8%, Sen. Thad Cochran - 53%, Dist.1: Paul Ryan - 58%, Sen. Orrin Hatch - 59%, Sen. John Cornyn - 68%, Dist.1: Louie Gohmert - 74% (there were quite a few 70s but I had to cut it off somewhere), Sen. Lamar Alexander - 53%, Sen. Lindsey Graham - 63%, Dist.8: John Boehner - 54%, Sen. Kay Hagan - 14%, Dist.2: Peter King - 45%, Sen. Kelly Ayotte - 70%, & Sen. Harry Reid - 17%.
As I said this is the opinion of one site but at least the JBS, agree with them or not, rank these people on their actual voting record.
thank you for this input!!
-
Let me try to re ask my original question. Who do you think in Congress is a true conservative? Your list, your thoughts without going into the detail of what a true conservative is. Just YOUR list.
-
Oceander wrote:
"Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods)"
But did you not also write in another thread (about the bake shop in Colorado refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple) that the bakery shop owner didn't have legal standing to refuse, under anti-discrimination laws?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,122900.msg497881.html#msg497881
You continued:
"I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit"
But a bakery shop owner cannot "practice" as he sees fit?
Jes' wonderin' ...
-
Oceander wrote:
"Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods)"
But did you not also write in another thread (about the bake shop in Colorado refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple) that the bakery shop owner didn't have legal standing to refuse, under anti-discrimination laws?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,122900.msg497881.html#msg497881
You continued:
"I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit"
But a bakery shop owner is cannot "practice" as he sees fit?
Jes' wonderin' ...
Doctors are no more free than lawyers - they are all licensed in the states in which they practice and if the state deems they have to treat certain patients they will have little choice - same as the aforesaid baker... I posted another article this evening about CMS deeming GYN's are not allowed to treat men for pelvic pain (a problem they have been treating in women patients for years) and if they do treat men in their practice their license WILL be revoked.
-
The list so far..
Ted Cruz
Trey Gowdy
Daryl Issa?
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Senate
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
-
My list is tea party types.
Huh? I don't have the right litmus paper.
-
Huh? I don't have the right litmus paper.
Can you drink what they say without milk and sugar?
-
Debating the vague and ambiguous is unappealing. Moving on.