News-Record.com

I doubt you'll get much argument in here, Chuck.

I also doubt you'll change a single vote from here; conservatives that agree will say "but what's the alternative" - which makes them faux conservatives , or possibly true RINO's.

They're conservatives in name only.

Unfortunately, as the old saying goes : "The only good reason for voting Republican is the Democrats, and vice versa."

What a depressing situation we are in. What's the answer??? I say give the other guys a chance. I won't say it can't get worse. Learned that lesson when Grier took Weast's place.

No mention in Mr. Mann's LTE about any Dems voting against all this "conservative" excessive spending. Conservative politicians for some reason think if they can outspend liberal politicians then they will get more votes, so they all feed from the same trough now. Problem is you can't outspend a liberal, just wait if we ever get Hillary-Care.

It's no wonder that people's personal finances are in a mess and the average American is in debt up to their eyeballs. Our own government, with billions and billions and their disposal, can't seem to stop spending money--even when they are spending money they dont' have.

This is the first time I've heard about conservatives being against term limits, though. As far as the state's right argument, I'd consider that to be pretty lame considering the fact that a large majority of voters in a state still can't seem to get their intent across to our court system.

As I said in an earlier letter, I am usually not one just to categorically vote someone out. Like Carol (if I understand her point), if you want more of the same, vote Republican; if you want change, even if it's Hillary, what's the worse that could happen? More of the same, but maybe, just maybe, things could get better.

Hilary-Care.

Help me out, Dan. I know Hilary is a polarizing person .. so let's no go there (I really have no opinoin - she seems a typical politician, i.e., say what ever to get elected) ... but let's do talk the difference in the proposed but failed 1994(?) plan and the now in place 2004(?) plan.

1994: G-man "regulated" medical program, with negotiated prices. Failed due to heavy lobbying by Pharm' industry and lack of political coordination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

2004: G-man "regulated" medical program, without negotiated prices. Passed with Pharm' industry approval and political coordination.

http://www.amazon.com/Impostor-George-Bankrupted-America-Betrayed/dp/0385518277/sr=8-1/qid=1161010979/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5083683-9495965?ie=UTF8&s=books

Dan,

As I have said in the past, I think you are an intelligent man. However, your immaturity was most apparent in the post above. That "They (dems)did it first, do it most consistently and are worse." mentality is more indictive of the younger generation.

You may not agree with Mr. Mann, which is your perogative. But I, for one, would like an open and honest discussion about why he is wrong. To turn around and attack liberals because he has made (what I feel are) valid points regarding the lack of conservativism of the present repub administration/congress, is a copout, imho.

If you think congress and the president are acting in a conservative manner, please be so kind as to clue me in. I am totally missing any conservative behaviors although I HEAR them say they are conservative.

This repub controlled congress and WH has had years to show their conservative leanings. So far all I have seen is liken to ZsaZsa on steriods. Uncontrolled spending, privacy violations and massive government restrictions are the hallmarks of this administration/congress.

"ZsaZsa on steroids"

Damn Yvonne, that's a mental image I REALLY could have done without.

Yvonne, thanks for calling me intelligent, my mom would be proud. I DO agree with the LTE writer in that conservative politicians, including Bush, have abandoned a hallmark of conservatism: smaller govt. and fiscal responsibility. This is anathema to conservative beliefs which I hold dear. I support low taxes, but spending must be trimmed as well in order to avoid deficits.

Where I differ with the author is that he only mentions conservative polticians as responsible for excess govt. spending, waste, and pork, as if Congress is only populated by conservatives. They ALL are responsible!! They all are equally feeding off the taxpayer money trough like there is no end in sight and it disgusts me. This includes both special interest spending like tax breaks for oil companies and govt. services for illegals just to name two.

Bottom line, when it comes to govt. spending, waste, and pork the R's and D's are one in the same.

"when it comes to govt. spending, waste and pork the R's and D's are one in the same"

Different priorities maybe, but I agree with Dan in regards to the end result.

Until the voting public as a group demands better, it ain't gonna' happen.

JDR, haven't read the book, I assume it addresses more than healthcare under Bush. I don't think the country is bankrupt yet, but is well on it's way at the rate we are going.

I for one do not want the govt. in the healthcare insurance industry, look how screwed up the Medicare drug program is. I was amazed, mad and disappointed that Bush & Co. sucked into the pharma industry and did not negotiate discounts, that's insane.

Boy I sound like a Bush basher today, which I am when it comes to govt. waste, ineffective social programs like the Medicare drug program, and doing absolutely nothing about illegal immigration.

You thought conservatives believed in paying off old debts???? Where the heck did you get that? I've voted Republican most of my life and I don't ever remember that as being a reason why.

Of course, you could be referring to the going back to Iraq thing.

Ohhhhh, I am going to press some buttons there I can just feel it.

Dan - here's where you and I rub:

You first say, "Problem is you can't outspend a liberal, just wait if we ever get Hillary-Care."

I point out that Hillary-Care was more in line with your principles than the plan eventually inplemented.

You respond, "I was amazed, mad and disappointed that Bush & Co. sucked into the pharma industry and did not negotiate discounts, that's insane."

.. so will you in the future refrain the "you can't outspend a liberal, just wait if we ever get Hillary-Care" comments?

I say rub 'cause we've had this specific discussion before - non-negotiate pharma industry discounts - and it seems that your "principles" are more Partyline based than truely principled.

I'm not picking on you, but jeeze - don't you see it?

Alternatively fellow bloggers - am I off base here?

JDR, you always have a rub with me, I'm used to it. Is there anything we agree on?

As for Hillary Care, I read the link you provided. The plan described was a mandatory law for employers to provide HMO style health insurance for their employees. It didn't address the unemployed or self-employed such as myself.

I am against any mandate that employers provide healthcare to their employees so Hillary Care is not in line with my principles, not sure where you got that idea.

As someone who shells out $580/month for health insurance, my second largest expense after the mortgage, believe me I am well aware of how expensive health care is. I still however would rather pay this than have my taxes raised to 60% or more to pay for it à la European style.

Point two, I will not refrain from my liberal spending comments. The medicare drug program is limited to prescriptions for seniors and look at what a mess it is. Imagine if Hillary or someone else comes along with a national healthcare program? I don't think govt. should be in the health insurance business.

Why would my principles be more partylined when I disagree with my party on this issue?

Alternatively fellow bloggers, is anyone else confused as I am? Help me out JDR.

Is there anything we agree on? I hope so!

The Hillary Care plan was never completed, so who know what it would have looked like - but here's a thought: You may not like "any mandate that employers provide healthcare to their employees", but you alreay provide it to your employees - so the Hillary Care would have addressed the self-employed such as yourself.

The unemployed and uninsured are a problem - but the reality is we pay for them anyway - listen to all the bitching about emergency room waiting - it's the last resort for colds in the unemployed and uninsured - someone's paying for that ! - as well as being the first resort for the employed and insured with a busted leg - someone's paying for that too!

As for à la European style - did you know the average American pays for health care twice what average European pays (about $4400 / year vs. $2200 / year)? Doctors there make a lot less. Look into where your health care dollar goes - IT'S THOSE EEEEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLL CORPORATIONS. (Had to add that - ya know it's also somewhat true.)

Anyway you slice it, the Gov't is already in the health insurance business, and short of letting many folks rot in the street, there's not much anyone can do about it.

and a followup thought:

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/10/show_some_compa.html#comments

Check out littlebuddababy's comment about her mom: overweight, facing really expensive medical stuff 'cause she's either stupid or can't herselve. The other alternative is just to die fat and happy - early but fat and happy.

WAIT WE CAN'T HAVE THAT - Let's insist Terry remain indefinately on a Feeding tube .... Call the President back from the Ranch to Sign the Bill ... AAAAAHHHHHHHHH.

get my drift?

Yvonne,

It's easy to read more into something than is there when all we've got to go on is the printed word. Many of us don't feel motivated to get on and write 'atta boy' or 'these friends speak for me' every time we see something we agree with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that but many of us pick out what we don't agree with and let the other slide.

Dan's comments were justified because this letter was nothing but one big attack on conservatives. Dan did not refute those claims but simply stated the obvious: Dems have no upper hand here.

You got a little preachy there for a minute. It's funny how we let folks we generally agree with slide and nitpick the one's that we don't. You picked on Dan in a situation where you would have never taken a liberal leaning poster to task. I responded by taking up for Dan where I might not take up for Demon Deacon or someone else.

No real point. It's just funny how human nature works.

JDR,
So nice to see you draw the great contrast in what Dan says he believes and how far off the mark his political alignment is. Trouble is that so many right wing radio and TV talking heads, have convinced people that "LIBERAL" is bad and "CONSERVATIVE" is good. Now the Conservatives are spendaholics, and the Liberals are moderates. The only place the GOP is conservative is in the various asundry religious/cultural issues that are run by the extremists in the party.
George Bush I, had his war paid for by the regional players. "Little Enos" just thinks money and soldiers grow on trees. The next President could be mediocre and be considered wonderful when compared to our current one. God save us all!

JDR, you got me lost again. I'm self employed with no employees, so how would Hillary Care help me? Even if I did have employees how do I pay their insurance already?

We do agree that we already pay for the uninsured and illegals who choose not to pay for the matter. Kinda like I pay uninsured motorist coverage on my car insurance premium.

I work in a lot of hospitals and they tell me all kinds of stories of people who don't pay, won't pay, can't pay, give fake names so they can't pay. One even told me the ER is busy on Monday mornings because some people go there to avoid reporting to work!! I don't know what the solution is there.

As for your comparison with Budda's overweight mom and Terri Schiavo, no I don't get it.

Careful with using eeeevvvvvvviiiilll, watch out. Stevie jumped all over my case about that, thought it was immature.

Nit, thanks for the post. That was my point, R's don't have a monopoly on excessive spending. A more fair LTE would have been criticizing the prez and ALL of Congress for excessive spending and govt. waste. As Jan points out, priorities may be different, but excessive spending and waste nonetheless.

DD, even when I criticize Republicans as I've done numerous times in this thread you still aren't pleased.

Please do some homework and find me some D's who are fiscally conservative. Links appreciated.

"Why would my principles be more partylined when I disagree with my party on this issue?"

.. because you state as bbbaaddd as your party on this issue, the other party would be worst - even when it's pointed out other party's plan appeared to more conservative - with genuine price negotiations ... try this relatively neutral link .. fascinating and ... surprise surprise ... it's all about Power.

"Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

makes me sick - rational discussion is dismissed to facilitate power.

"William Kristol's latest advice: Oppose any Clinton health care reform "sight unseen" and adopt a stance that "There is no health care crisis."

Dan - Hello .. slap yourself. You are self employed. You have one employee - yourself.

.. slap yourself again. Budda's overweight Mom is part of the reason Medical costs are so high. Because of her lack of discipline (rioght LBB?) she may get expensive care that you and I & all in this blog and in this country will ultimately pay for as part of our insurance or as part of our taxes.

Terri Schiavo was a similar case - Mr. Schiavo paid for her care - years of it - using his insurance and claim monies. Given his way, GWB would have had added care given to a jello-brained woman, using your taxes to pay for it - all so he could get a few more votes from his Christian base.

I totally agree R's don't have a monopoly on excessive spending - while "a more fair LTE would have been criticizing the prez and ALL of Congress for excessive spending and govt. waste", a rational voter will throw ALL the bums out.

By re-electing the same clowns, you are encouraging them to do more of the same.

I now dare you to lie and say you're not gonna pull mostly Red levers.

I wouldn't consider the other parties plan (a national healthcare plan that forces all employers to insure their employees) to be more conservative, price negotiations or not.

A good example is my wife, who works 2 days a week. Helps her keep current in her profession and provides some extra spending money. She "splits" this job with another lady who works the other two days. Her boss doesn't pay insurance for either of them. If he was forced by the govt. to pay insurance he would most likely fire them both and hire a full time employee.

The govt. has no business forcing employers to provide insurance (other than work comp. and even that is abused to high heaven) or other benefits to employees. The market should decide that.

"The govt. has no business forcing employers to provide insurance (other than work comp. and even that is abused to high heaven) or other benefits to employees."

See - we agree on many things. Given company A paying $x without insurance, or company B paying $x with insurance - most will take B. The market decides.

I was-not am-not arguing for Hillary's plan .. just the concept that overall it appeared to be the more conservative choice - until Uncle William killed it. Did you read that summary? Fascinating.

...so to argue that just because she is a Democrat, whatever law "she" may try to advance is more spendy - well that's partisan BS.

one more, then I'm done.

First off, there are probably limits to "full employment" - for example your wife's 16 hours is below what most employer's call full, which is 40. I think most company plans - like 401K's and such, have definitions closer to 30 hours to even qualify.

Of course, Walmart has a rule where you work 32 hours (average about $9/hour) and you are considered a "full time employee" - that's why they get away with claiming so many "full time employees" - and they offer health care - after two years full time work - health care into which employees have to contribute heavily. Of course, with a typical employment lasting only months, there are few in the plan. Caveat: Walmart is changing a lot to counter all the negative publicity since these details have beome widely known.

So here's a thought: What if the plan were Mandatory Employee Health Care, but the corporation was able to take the entire expense as a tax credit? I'm only saying one cannot rationally dismiss and Mandatory Employee Health Care without looking on to the details.

Nitpicker,

You have miscatagorized me (and you know it). If I have issue with anything anyone posts here, I usually respond (if I have time and inclination). Since you have been around for a while, you know I have disagreed with JDR, Carol, Jan, Swanks, DD and others.

When I am misunderstood, I usually try to make myself a bit clearer. When I am critized, I try to understand how that person came to the conclusion they did. When people are deliberately insulting, I ignore their posts altogether.

I agree we are limited by the printed word and the delays in responses. If you found my words to Dan preachy, I am sorry, but you have misconstrued my post. As you know Dan and I go back a long way. Initially we both were fairly hostile towards each other. Over the years we have worked on finding common ground and have been kinder to one another. Thus I have come to expect more than what I preceive to be an immature cop-out from him.

The letter was about conservatives who are not behaving in a conservative way but continue to call themselves conservatives. If it had been about liberals who are not acting in a liberal manner but are still calling themselves liberals, I would expect one to address that issue. Therefore, had a liberal attacked conservatives rather than the issue, I would have responded to that also.

Dan,

Thank you for a polite response and for answering my questions. BTW, I agree BOTH parties are guilty of outrageous spending. But it's only one party that is claiming to be conservative.

Yvonne, I always try to be polite, my mom taught me that. You are correct, we go back to the beginning days of this blog, disagreed on many things, especially abortion, but I do respect your opinion. I know one thing we agree on totally, illegal immigration, and neither party has done squat about it.

Actually JDR, I don't believe I touched on who pays for her medical care. Just FYI, She does. She does not depend on any tax dollars to pay her bills, she pays them herself so it's kind of not part of this discussion. However, I will concede that a lot of people who are overweight do use government handouts to pay for their medical bills.

Yvonne,

I wasn't trying to miscategorize (sounds like a Bushism word) you. Just goes to show that it isn't always easy to get the full intent when reading words on a screen. I was really commenting on human nature in general.

As far as you go, you can deny it if you want, but you more often will come to the defense of like-minded posters than you will for those you disagree with. I didn't say you never came to the defense of those you disagree with, just that you are biased as all of us are.

As far as you and Dan going back a long way, I know that. I've been here since Dan first posted here.

And, yes, you, Dan and I have come a long way from the early days. You are much more cordial. In fact, I'd say you are one of the most polite posters here. So, please don't take what I said as a criticism of you. It wasn't meant to be. Just take it that I have a love of observing human nature and consider all of us to be human.

As far as the preachy comment, here's what I considered preachy:

"your immaturity was most apparent in the post above", and "more indictive of the younger generation".

IMO, that comes across as preachy. But all I'm getting is the written word and how I read it might not be how you say it.

Whoops. I'm still signed in as another bigmouth. I was showing lbb how you can still change your identity on Typekey in an earlier LTE.

However, it is fitting that I post with that handle since that was one of the earlier handles I used.

I think that was the one I used when I posted every single bad word known to man just to see how far you could go without being censored. That post mysteriously disappeared like our friend Steve. Just goes to show how far we've come.

Ahhhhh. That's better.

Thanks Nit. I knew who you were because of a post you made one day. (That is the reason I said "Since you have been around a while..".) I was/am glad you decided to return to the N&R blogs. I value your contribution, even when I don't agree with your opinion. (Just like I value Dan's.)

I agree we are more in tune with likeminded folks. Your point is well taken. However, even people who are likeminded on one issue can be worlds apart on others. My point is/was I don't shy away from comment because I usually agree with someone. Carol is the perfect example. She speaks my mind (thanks Darryl) most of the time. But she and I are at opposite ends on the immigration issue. (The reason I quit posting about that issue is because it seems nothing WE say makes any difference.)

Dan,

I wasn't being sarcastic about a polite response. I appreciate your efforts to keep the discussion open. There was a time when we both would have made close-ended remarks. Thank God we have grown past that!

to all:

Other than get out and vote and blog, what else are you doing to change our government? I ask because I read that Thomasville city counsel voted to make the definition of marriage a constitutional amendment. It disturbs me that they think the definition of marriage is a major consideration when we are at war with one country and may be with another soon.

The people of Thomasville voted these folks in so they must represent the voters concerns. If that's so, I am at a loss for ideas. So help me out, please.

Yvonne, no sarcasm received from your response. I was just using a bit of light hearted humor in saying my mother taught me to be polite.

I remember another bigmouth from the early days, didn't know bigmouth and nit were one in the same. I'll just stay as Dan, makes life easier.

Dan,
I think you would have a harder time, based on congressional votes for the past six years, finding a fiscally conservative Republican. Trouble is, they call themselves that, but they are not.
Dixiecrats, Boll Weevils, or just plain old Southern Democrats are a heck of a lot more fiscally conservative than the GOP of today. Take a look at why the GOP Senator from Pennsylvania is being turned out. Take a look at the race in Tennesee. These are but two races where the Democrat nominee is more fiscally conservative than the Republican running. In Tennessee, Harold Ford, Jr. is definitely a moderate. His opponent, Mayor Corker, is so tied up with big corporations, he is alienating the base of the party--"values voters" and soccer moms. I would bet that Corker will find a way to link Ford with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton---in advertising images, to play the race card. Remember when Trudy Wade ran as a Democrat against Phyllis Gibbs in district 5? Two days before the election, Gibbs sent out, with the GOP blessing, a mailing with Skip Alston's picture next to Wade's. That was the nail in the coffin down in that area. Bet old Corker pulls that one in Tennesee...wish we could wager on that!

Yvonne,

Thanks for your kind response. I was hoping that would go over better than my first attempt.

Dan, I've changed my name from time to time because I wanted folks to react to what I say instead of the name at the bottom of the post.

I've posted this several times but I'll do it again. I've been another bigmouth, truth, yellowdog, and nitpicker. (I may be leaving something out). However, I think nitpicker fits me the best. While it's self-depracating, it is also a very accurate description. Although, I was tempted to change it to pitlicker after jews4jesus called me that once!

As far as the Thomasville stunt, I'll make a couple of observations:

Yvonne, perhaps this is exactly the example of folks going beyond just blogging and voting. Maybe this is an attempt by some preacher down there and the folks in Thomasville to do something bigger.

The other observation is pretty much the opposite and that is this: Who cares what the council from some po-dunk town in North Carolina thinks? Perhaps there is another reason the furniture manufacturers are fleeing that area. There statement may make the news but it really has no legal effect at all. Just a bunch of hot air if you ask me.

And, quite honestly, this is coming from someone who would vote to approve such an amendment if it ever came up for a vote.

Nit, I remember Truth, used to like the posts alot and wondered why he or she dropped off. There was a Yellowdog initially who was vile, I guess the name was retired when you picked it up. Let us know if you change it again.

Thanks man. I used to really dislike yellowdog's post. They were just so mean-spirited and stupid. I can take stupid and I can take mean-spirited. But I can't take the two together. I used that name for irony's sake long after he cleared out. I was actually hoping that using it might keep him from returning.

There's one person here who posts under a different name who reminds me a lot of the first yellowdog. I wonder if you can guess who I'm referring to.

There was also someone else who came on using Truth recently. That wasn't me. Though they seemed to think a lot like me.

I have no intention of changing my name again. I've found one that sticks.