Posted on 03/30/2017 8:35:55 AM PDT by davikkm
I, also, think this will be counterproductive. Trump needs more Republicans, not Bolshekrats. Counting on Bolshies, means higher taxes and bigger government. This is a non-starter.
There ya go.
The leftist wackos hated Obamacare. It’s not single payer. But they voted for it.
They got on board and gave obama time to pick off the moderates like Stupak one by one.
POTUS simply can’t fight both wings of his own party at the same time and get his agenda through Congress. After being abandoned by the freedom caucus he’s now got little choice but to court the progressive wing of the GOP and hope to pick up a few Dems along the way.
ALL of them took an oath to defend the Constitution.
It’s long past time they get properly schooled in just what the Constitution actually says.
All of them meaning President Trump and the DEMS, of course.
Well I tried to warn others by posting videos of Candidate Trump advocating for “government care” ... I got suspended for my efforts.
I guess that there are many here on FR that don’t like hearing that Trump is not a conservative.
I guess that there are many here on FR that don’t like hearing that Trump is not a conservative.
I see on another thread Trump’s VP has just broken the vote tie to defund PP in the Senate. Not bad for “not a conservative”.
Did the moderates vote to repeal Obamacare? Did they campaign to repeal Obamacare? What negotiations need to take place to actually keep your word? Drain the swamp!
That is exactly right!!! The freedom caucus is the only group that intends to keep their word.
“Nonsense”
In spades.
It’s obvious that the republican establishment plans to control Trump’s agenda. They want obamacare to be law. The tax cuts will be smaller and mostly corporate tax cuts with the necaessary off sets(border adjustment tax /middle class tax hike). No funding for the wall etc. If I don’t see real pro growth tax cuts with middle class tax relief and a wall I will not ever vote republican again. I am sure I am not alone.
Because he is not a conservative. Because he is not ideological. Because he wants to win, which means it does not matter what the bill is - if he supports it, he wants to win despite the details.
I don’t think President Trump is being anti-conservative on this. The Freedom Caucus needs to get past the idea of just obstructing and getting on board to get things done because there simply aren’t enough Freedom Caucus members to run things on their own. Compromise (to a certain extent) will be needed to get things done. You know something is haywire when Pelosi, Schumer and the Freedom Caucus all celebrate together.
That’s the position that has gotten us where we are now - big government running everything. It is the RINO position.
This is how I see it too. With them we will get nothing done. Never Trumpers
Frankly, I see tweets like that being addressed in this thread as a venting of pique, not a true reversal of President Trump's underlying Conservatism. But that said, I see your comments, otherwise, as constructive. We have to bridge all unnecessary party conflicts--all that is, that do not reflect a real difference in American objectives.
In this spirit, let me suggest a compromise on Health Care, which could satisfy both the strict Constitutionalist & strict Jeffersonian, on our side, while reassuring the "moderates," who fear the result of an abrupt abandonment of the present Federal involvement in Civilian Health Care. This approach, understood, is intended to be acceptable in principal by almost all Republicans, as well as some Democrats in districts where everyone is not a Leftist "whack job."
We start with a brief recital of medical history, to postulate the ideas--the long term objectives--first, what the framers of our Constitution intended, when they left health care legislation to the States; and secondly to the honorable intentions of the class of physicians, who assumed the responsibility of the Hippocratic oath.
{Why this is important as a unity gesture, is not just that it would appeal to the hard core right--of which I am one. It actually leads to a public debate as to an ideal that argues for a Republican approach. It leads to an ability to demonstrate why Obama care has simply worsened the already grossly inflated medical costs that LBJ's 1965 intrusions have directly contributed to. The fact is that it is lunacy to allow the Federal Government, via various mandates, to meddle in something as immediate as the relation between a physician and patient, and expect the two certain results that anyone able to picture the dynamic interaction of factors, would expect: to wit, soaring costs & declining efficiency of service. Properly employed, this discussion will help public attitudes.)
Next, there needs to be what at first blush will appear as a factual recital in the opposite direction, relating only the factors now present in American Health Care, which actually have to be taken into account, as we endeavor to pursue a reasonable strategy, acceptable to all fair minded people of all persuasions, to back the bureaucrats in Washington out of American medicine. Here is the essential legal analogy:
We have in the law a doctrine that provides an exception to ordinary contract law, which allows the creation of a binding obligation, where one party--even without legal consideration for the promise--induces another party to commit to something, or part with something of value; where the party inducing the commitment is deemed to be estopped from denying the benefit promised. Under such an understanding, it would be unfair to immediately cancel the benefit promised to those who voluntarily signed up for Obamacare, under the promises made at the time.
Note, I am not suggesting a permanent continuation of any Federal entitlement; only that we recognize the concept that people who committed their future medical needs under the fallacious--but for many over-powering--inducements, have a legitimate situation--from a lay perspective--that needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.
We have to acknowledge these concerns--both sets of concerns--the reality of what worked without the Federal Government for 2200 years, and what works in human concerns generally, and the mess that the Socialist manipulators have created by their misuse of Federal power, for functions never delegated to those Socialist manipulators.
Just starting with a brief discussion of both factors, will elevate the level of public trust that we are not bulls in the proverbial china shop.
Now before someone accuses me of compromising principle, this is how Medicare & Medicaid are handled in the appropriate Chapter of the Conservative Debate Handbook:
As I see it, the Freedom Caucus is aligned with what the base of the Republican Party wants. As Peggy Noonan said in the March 25/26 Saturday/Sunday Wall Street Journal, a Quinnipiac survey found the Ryan bill "highly unpopular." Her article noted:
"Only 17% of respondents approved of the bill, with 56% opposed and 26% undecided. Bloomberg's Sahil Kapur, reading the cross tabs, noted on Twitter that the bill was 26 points underwater among noncollege whites, and an astounding 46 points underwater among voters 50 to 64. 'This is Trump's base,' Mr. Kapur noted."
The Tuesday Group of moderates/RINOs, which was previously aligned with Boehner, is now pushing what is basically Obamacare Lite. Perhaps Trump is making the assumption that more of the Tuesday Group members are at risk of losing THEIR seats if the Freedom Caucus prevails, than if the Freedom Caucus members, by switching to vote for the bill, go against the will of THEIR voters. Trump apparently thinks he can sacrifice the Freedom Caucus in the hopes of preserving a higher number of Tuesday Group members.
Rush Limbaugh pointed out that the Ryancare bill stuck back into the bill a number of things that previously passed Republican bills had taken out of Obamacare. The Ryancare bill does not reflect what the base of the party thought the Party stood for. IMO, that is a dangerous gamble for the Republican Party, and Trump is wrong to threaten the Freedom Caucus.
Rush keeps breathlessly reminding us “Trump is not ideological” like it’s some kind of badge of honor. It’s actually the problem, he doesn’t have any roots or firm convictions and we are moving the direction of the establishment.
George W. Bush “got stuff done” and where did we end up? Bigger government, bigger deficit and the entire party in ruins.
Thanks for the Wikipedia link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.