HOUSE PASSES MEDICARE DRUG BILL

fox news ^ | Nov 23, 2003

[RobFromGa]

WASHINGTON

[getgoing]

I stand corrected-bad cut & past job. Thank you. Disgust reigns as I find myself in a landmark position, agreement w/the vote of my House Rep, Frost. YUCK

Send your message, I did:

Ken Mehlman,Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Manager
BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com

[Birdlady]

What we wrote:

"This is an obscene waste of taxpayer's money!

I have been a conservative republican all my life (59 yrs old), and will never vote for this "socialist" spending....EVER!

You're no better than the tax and spend democrats! APPALLING!

Please show me the Constitutionality of this drug bill? (I don;t expect an answer!)

Jenny XXXXX-XXXX

[AAABEST]

musta slept thru my history class . What the hell was the Great Society era ?

Hehe. You too? I thought it was just me. I was trying like hell to remember this "great society" but I have no memory of it whatsoever, although everyone keeps talking about it.

I feel kinda bad that we missed it, solving poverty and all.

[Reagan Renaissance]

It's called dissent. When politicians do something wrong or stupid, their mistakes should be highlighted because it is we that pay for the mistakes, not the politicians. When politicians do something self-serving designed only to insure their own re-election and that something is extremely detrimental to the American people, then those politicians should be not rewarded with votes. Rewarding bad behavior simply encourages more bad behavior. It is what got us into this mess and certianly will not be what gets us out.

How do conservatives gain by electing Republicans who have been more successful at advancing Democratic issues than Democrats were? Is your goal to elect Republicans or to restore conservative values?

Have you looked at electoral data from the US? Most elections are close and fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. And the trend over the last dozen or so elections as been toward even closer elections. America is polarized, not united. There are two camps with almost completely divergent world views. So far this "war" between these rather equally balanced camps has been mostly peaceful. Apart from the exceptions of lunatic environmental groups on the left and few killings related to abortion clinics, this war has been fought with ballots instead of bombs and bullets. I will submit that it has been mostly peaceful, because the right has been gaining power at the expense of the left, but not so much power that the left thinks the direction of change is cast in stone or that the changes that have occured are permanent. If the trend to the right accelerates or even relentless continues farther right, I suspect you will see the hostility level on the left increase. By the same token, if the trend were to reverse, even a little, you would see dramatically rising hostility levels from the right.

Since the United States is dead on course for hyperinflation or debt default before 2016, the states are unlikely to united much longer. I would not be surprised to see the first secession shortly before or after the 2008 election. We could easily see several secessions by 2012. And with no change in the political or economic trends that are already in place, there won't be a Presidential election in 2016 in the US as we know it.

If Republicans could find another Ronald Reagan and elect him before 2012, the outcome could be very different. The renaissance that could and that probably would follow might be the most productive period of peace and prosperity in the history of man. The reason you correctly recognize Reagan as the greatest President in modern times is because Reagan was enough of a leader to take the course that he believed to be right regardless of the potential political consequences and then proved his leadership capabilities by persuading enough Americans to his position to over power his political opponents. Reagan fought rather than switch, and he won. The Bushes have switched without a fight. "Read my Lips" and campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. For the record, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. The same Republicans that fought Hilliary Care now can't wait to pass Bush Cares. I never thought I would see the day in my lifetime when I would thank God for the opposition of Democrats and be praying that the Senate Democrats block one more Bush prescription.

There is an old saying that the majority is almost always wrong and on the rare occassions when the majority happens to be right, it will be for the wrong reasons. The Senate Democrats aren't the majority at the moment, but this is the first time in my sixty years that the Democrats want to vote correctly, but they have fulfilled the other part of the canard; they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

GO DASCHLE! HOLD THAT LINE!

[NittanyLion]

Unfortunately, we have not forgotten that horrible day when the planes hit the towers. That was the result of the purists 'punishing' a man who dared to do things of which they did not approve. Seemingly, the farther away from the Towers the more likely you are to see things without the prism of that day. We who had the WTC as part of our lives cannot be so blithe.

Talk about melodrama...

This argument boils down to a very simple philosophical difference: we both want the GOP to retain power but differ as to how that will happen. I believe conservatism works, and if we adopt conservative practices people will be converted by the results. Apparently, you believe conservatism cannot convert people, so instead you choose to adopt liberalism in order to retain power. Otherwise you'd be arguing against this bill.

I have a basic faith in the efficacy of conservative ideals; you do not. Nothing remains to be said.

[NittanyLion]

And you have all the answers, right? Are you getting to the part where you start bringing up your morals, and principles, and voting your conscience, and the person has to "earn" your vote? Is that next?

Let me guess. You feel threatened when people cite morality, principles, etc? James Taggart, is that you?

[NittanyLion]

It's called dissent. When politicians do something wrong or stupid, their mistakes should be highlighted because it is we that pay for the mistakes, not the politicians. When politicians do something self-serving designed only to insure their own re-election and that something is extremely detrimental to the American people, then those politicians should be not rewarded with votes. Rewarding bad behavior simply encourages more bad behavior. It is what got us into this mess and certianly will not be what gets us out.

How do conservatives gain by electing Republicans who have been more successful at advancing Democratic issues than Democrats were? Is your goal to elect Republicans or to restore conservative values?

Wonderfully stated. I thought these two paragraphs bear repeating.

[maxter]

President Bush used up some capital to get this passed in the House. Smart move. Now all eyes are focused squarely on the senate. Now Frist is going to move fast for a vote. More than likely the Dims will filibuster. AARP has come out for it so the Dims are on record as being against this bill, i.e. against the elderly. What happens now, pass or no, is a winning strategy for Bush. He gets credit either way, and more than likely it will not pass in the Senate (thanks to Dims and some Pubbies) and some constinuencies will be very pissed. Mr. Bush will not be using up any capital on this one. The microscope will be on the Dims obstruction game and all the other obstruction, i.e., judicial nominees, will be in sharp focus to be seen clearly by the whole. WIN/WIN.

[dsc]

"I feel kinda bad that we missed it, solving poverty and all."

Johnson declared war on poverty. Poverty won.

[petercooper]

This is LOSE/LOSE. The dims are not that stupid that they'll filibuster it. They will put up a little stink, Frist will cave on anything they want and the Dims will claim credit. The U.S. taxpayer will be left holding a trillion dollar bill for Granny's drugs. Granny doesn't need this bill. We don't need it. This is not Europe. (yet)

Bush is the biggest spending president in recent history. Enough is enough! He's been great on defense and taxes.. Everything else, he's no better than Ted KEnnendy.

[Thermalseeker]

I'm not a terrorist or involved in money laundering fraud.

Good for you!

Those are the specific requirements. Do you have something to hide?

Those "specific requirements" are aimed at US CITIZENS, not illegals. Read the Patriot Act. It directs these powers at CITIZENS. And, no, I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean that the Fed can trample on my 4th Amendment rights. You do remember the Constitution, don't you? Perhaps you'd feel safer living in an environment like 1938 Germany? Your papers please.........

As far as the borders go: Read title IV, subtitle A, sections 401-417 of the bill.

Lovely words, but words are meaningless unless there is action to back them up. Our borders are still wide open. Just last week two new border crossing tunnels were discovered near Calexico, CA and another near Del Rio, TX. How many more exist and are being used to bring in weapons and or terrorists? Our ports? Same thing. Wide open. Care to hazard a guess as to how many containers enter our ports every single day unchecked? How about just from the middle east?

Oh and this comment: List for us all the successful attacks on US soil since this office was created.

Yeah, that's a great rationale. We've not been attacked on our soil since 9/11, so therefore it won't happen again. Yeah, I really feel safe now. These folks are hell bent on getting nukes. Unless we seriously make efforts to seal up the borders and ports that bright flash you see will not be somebody taking your picture. After the nuclear gun is fired it's too late.

The solution is really pretty simple. To hell with political correctness. Close the borders now. Round up every illegal and deport them. Track every foreign student closely, especially those from suspected terrorist nations. Suspend foreign aid to any nation that chooses to side with terrorists, i.e., Syria, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, et al. The Bakka Valley should be "cleansed".

You see, the Patriot Act isn't aimed at illegals or foreigners. It's aimed at citizens. Name for me each US citizen that was part of the 19 that flew those planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the field in PA. How about the WTC bombing in '93?

Yeah, the Patriot Act. Catchy name. Too bad it's aimed at the wrong people. Even worse are people who refuse to accept what it really is.

[RobFromGa]

The only way that Bush "loses" on this is if the Senate GOP caves in to the Senate Democrats in order to get any bill passed. And then it goes back to certain defeat by the Republicans in the House. As long as Frist can hold the line and make them either pass it or obstruct it, I agree that Bush wins. Bush did campaign on Prescription Drugs, and he is keeping his word.

Those of you who would rather him go back on his word are asking him to be dishonest. We know he is honorable and this is the best bill he can get for now. With more solid majorities in 2004, and again in 2006, much can be accomplished.

Think major tax changes, SocSec privatization for the under 45-50 crowd, Victory over Terrorists, great Supreme Court justices. Getting this passed makes these things possible.

[RobFromGa]

Even worse are people who say that the Patriot Act is something it isn't. Judicial review is required, and these are powers already used against organized crime and other racketeers. Now they are used against people who wish to kill millions of us.

Name one innocent citizen who has been deprived of his rights by the Patriot Act. This bill makes sense at this point in time, they set it up to expire so that we can revisit the issue in 2005.

[T. Jefferson]

Off your meds again I see.

[OldFriend]

Melodrama??????????????

[NittanyLion]

That's right. You can't argue this topic based on the merits, so you bring in 9/11 to divert attention. What's more, the implicit claim of doing so is that somehow I'm less interested in national security than you. It's a juvenile debating tactic, and I'll call it what it is.

National security (by way or retained GOP power) and conservative policy are not mutually exclusive, contrary to what you think.

[Osage Orange]

Kudos...Nice post.

FRegards,

[FITZ]

Johnson declared war on poverty. Poverty won.

Poverty won is because it became very lucrative never to work. You could have a home provided for you, all the food you could hope to eat, free electricity, free heat, free telephone, free clothes, free health care and much more if you never chose to work. Now the indigents of the third world have caught on to that idea and they're coming on over.

[Consort]

You feel threatened when people cite morality, principles, etc?

I fell disgust when people hide behind those things at the expense of common sense. Keep digging.

[NittanyLion]

Wow - you really are James Taggart.