Republicans 0 - Democrats Won

Conservative Ideas Defeated Again

Since the day following the 2012 general election, this political observer told friends and Republican elected officials the following: 

Say to the President (hopefully while on live TV), “Mr. President you are positioning the United States to go in the wrong direction.  You are taking us directly into a disastrous financial mess which will devastate the American people.  Your plan will create a slow or no-growth America which will not add employees to private payrolls.  But, you won this election and have the right to promote your course of action.  We Republicans will not vote yes, but we will not vote no and stand in your way.  When you do take America into this foreseeable upcoming financial disaster, do not point an accusing finger at Republicans.  You will have earned all the credit for yourself.” 

Unless Republicans thought the President’s plan was a formula for success, they should have let the Democrats have their ‘victory’ then sat back and waited for the predictable results. 

It was obvious on November 7th to this political observer that arguing, stalling, and negotiating with this President and his allies in the Senate was going to make Republicans look weak and give the President and the Democrats a bigger victory when Republicans finally cave-in to political reality. 

Here we are at the end of the year, Republicans decided to play the President’s game and the results were predictable.  Republicans look weak.  When economic disaster does arrive, the Democrats and their allies in the press will say, the President tried to save the situation but the Republicans would not let him. 

There is nothing unusual here for a Republican team that has repeatedly learned how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

ReverePaul January 03, 2013 at 05:43 PM
What do you think this angry "thug" government does with your money? Steals your money and then hides it in the White House while Obama laughs? Maybe you should look up where the tax money goes
Regionman January 03, 2013 at 09:01 PM
Who said anything about an "angry thug government"? I said, "When someone uses hired thugs to take peoples assets against their will, that's called stealing." If you would brush up on your American history you would find that there was a perfectly good working tax system prior to the fed tax we have today. Basically the states collected taxes through various manners. Then they would pay their allotments to D.C. for services that D.C. provided for the common good of all the people in every state. Roads, military border defense, etc. It still goes on today. People were known as citizens of the state they claimed as home. They were not thought of as a United States Citizen. A persons sovereign identity was carried with the state they were born and or living in. This why so many legal documents including birth certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates, etc. are only valid if they have a state seal on them. The notion that the federal government had any right to taxing individual citizens of any state directly was thought to be absurd because the fed was already recieving taxes indirectly from them through the state allotments and federal income tax was actually found to be unconstitutional in court.
Regionman January 03, 2013 at 09:02 PM
So, in the feds desire for more funding than they were already getting from the population, eventually the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified and the money floodgates were opened. Mr ReverePaul, you dine out for a nice dinner at a local Applebee's Restaurant and the tab is, let's say, $30. You pay your bill, head out the door and are promptly confronted by a gentlemen who claims to be a representative for DineEquity, Inc. He tells you that you owe him $30. You say who is DineEquity, Inc. and why would you owe him $30. He says DineEquity Inc. owns Applebee's Rerstaurants and they need more money from you. What would you tell him? I am anxious to know your true response. Every time I debate a liberal, when they are confronted with issues they can't defend, they either, 1. Try to change the meaning of the debated issue. 2. Try to change the subject entirely. 3. Start name calling. 4. All the above.
ReverePaul January 03, 2013 at 11:14 PM
First, I asked you where do you think the federal income tax money goes and you responded with number 1 on your "liberal response list". Second of all, nobody eats at Applebee's and even if I did, I would pay this imaginable DineEquity Inc. the money because, I don't know, it's the law. All your whining about the 16th Amendment is a waste of time because there's no way it's going anywhere. As for the argument for the rise of taxes on the rich (which was original issue), here are a couple of reasons. First of all the notion that raising taxes (particularly on the rich) is going to crush the economy is ridiculous. Even during the massive tax increases after World War II did barley any damage to the U.S. economic growth. Another reasons is that these rich people that will be getting taxed can afford it because they have done ridiculously well over the last 30 years. In 1979, their income was 10% of total income. In 2008, it doubled to 21%. In contrast, the income for the middle class has pretty much stayed the same. And finally if the Bush era tax cuts are so great for the economy, well, how do you explain the economy we are in now with those same tax cuts? Wait I already know the answer which is the same one every conservative responds with. Blame Obama and the Dems.
mike k January 04, 2013 at 05:42 AM
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 04:11 PM
mike k you are correct. It's called de-funding. ReverePaul, nice try, but you, I, and everyone else reading this column know that the "question" you posed to me was really a rhetorical question. You answered your own question within it by making the absurd point that D.C. "Steals your money and then hides it in the White House while Obama laughs?" It was obvious that it was meant as an absurd, sarcastic joke. It was not meant to be taken as a serious point of debate to be answered. I could ask anyone, "What, are you out of your mind?", and I don't expect an answer. If you want answers from people then ask legitimate questions that stick to the issues. Next, You stated "nobody eats at Applebee's". If that's the case how is it that DineEquity Inc. stock (DIN) New York Stock Exchange is trading at over $69 per share today? Someone must be eating there, and it must be profitable?
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 04:37 PM
Then you finished that sentence with "and even if I did, I would pay this imaginable DineEquity Inc. the money because, I don't know, it's the law." I don't know exactly what you mean when you use the word "imaginable" but I am assuming that you are trying to state that you are a law-abiding citizen. OK. Let's hope you never exceed the speed limit, always wear your seat belt, etc. Then in the next sentence you use the word "whining" in resoponse to my explaining to you how our taxing system works and the changes that have been made. You say that I am "whining" about the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "Whining" is a verb that describes complaining or protesting done in a demeaning childish manner. I did no such thing. However, I do find that in almost every one of your responses to anyone within this column who has a different political view from you, you tend to use verbs and nouns against them that are designed to belittle them personally or marginalize their views.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 04:57 PM
This all falls under the heading of: 3. Start name calling. Actually I should have used the broader description of "Character Assasination". This includes sarcastic tones, verbs, and nouns that are designed to discredit the other person, thereby hopefully misdirecting the focus away from issues and making the focus of a more personal nature. I find you use this disingenuous tactic almost immediately when confronted with facts. Then you state, "First of all the notion that raising taxes (particularly on the rich) is going to crush the economy is ridiculous." Again using the word "ridiculous" when someone is trying to engage in intelligent debate is yet another discrediting ploy. Your knee-jerk reaction to any view that is not in line with yours is to instantly call it all "nonsense" which makes you appear to take the higher ground and somehow exempts you from engaging in true debate. Then incredibly, in the very next sentence you admit that massive tax increases did indeed damage U.S. economic growth. In two consecutive sentences you made contradictory points. Who is discredited here by their own words?
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 05:12 PM
As for taxes and the law, which you seem to hold so dear. The early American Colonists revolted and outright rebelled against what was considered to be wrongfull taxation but was LEGAL at the time. Now to this notion of disdain you have for the so-called "rich". In this country we do not have a Monarchy or Class system of society that places people into varying levels of existence, prominence, affluence, or social order depending on their birth. Our Constitution officially denounces titles of nobility and states that all men are created equal. These so-called "rich" that you talk about have roots in the same ideals that you and I have. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first two are guranteed by the constitution. Happiness is NOT guranteed. The PURSUIT of it is though. Sadly, many people are ignoring these proclomations.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 05:27 PM
But the worst thing of all, is as I get older, I have found that anyone who is not at least 55 years of age or older has never known what it means to prosper under a true conservative, liberty loving, constitutional government. Republicans and Democrats alike........we have had nothing but liberalism for an entire generation now. You mentioned Bush. He and his father were both liberals. For almost the last 30 years we have had a liberal bent in our judiciary, executive, and legislative branchs. It doesn't matter which political party has been in office. What saddens me the most is I see an increasingly infantile attitude in full-grown people. It's like we live in a country of millions of 3 year old adults. Every 3 year old only knows they want what they want, and they want it NOW, period. They are totally self-centered. They always want the other kids toys. They throw fits when they don't get them.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 05:48 PM
They have no patience. They are not interested in the needs of others or respect others belongings or their sensibilities. They live by no principles or standards. They do not recognize right or wrong or care if there is a difference. They have to be taught ALL these things. When people grow to adulthood, but either have not been taught to appreciate and adhere to principled values, or they have been taught but have rejected them, then they have not fully matured in mind and spirit. They are still the 3 year old trapped in an adult body. The only difference is, when we were 3 we were not accountable for our behavior. When we become adults we are accountable and that childish self-centered behavior that we were supposed to grow out of by now is defined as the sins of envy and covetousness. The more I visit with ultra left liberals the more I realize they are simply still like the selfish 3 year old child.
ReverePaul January 04, 2013 at 05:49 PM
So it's not self-centered to only be consumed with how much YOU have to pay in taxes? Also, those four posts of yours wasn't a fit? While I'm sure you think your a genius for pointing out errors in my grammar ( I didn't know this board was test) you responded to none of the facts I posted and again changed the meaning of the debate. Also, you were so quick to point my sarcastic point of Obama hiding your money yet were unable to pick up my other sarcastic point of saying nobody eats at Applebee's and decided to use it as an opportunity to tell others about how smart you think you are. Guess what, nobody cares. Finally, while I'm flattered that you think I deserve the time to write me a short novel as a response, but I sadly won't do the same because your not worth it.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Extreme liberals only see what they want to see. Someone appears to "have more" than they do. The envy and covetousness rises up in them. With real disdain and hatred in their hearts they utter the words "rich guy" without ever giving a thought as to how that person achieved their success and that they have the same opportunity to be successful as well. In fact, most of them espouse the idea that the evil "rich guy" got that way by depriving them of their "fair share". In essence, the "rich guy" somehow magically stole something from them and they now want what it rightfully theirs. Try to find that idea in any macroeconomics class and you will come up short. But that is what ultra liberals including our current president believe. He is encouraging class envy. We don't have classes in this society. I know there are references to lower income, middle income, and upper income, and sometimes the word "class" is used. But we do not have a "class" or "caste" system in the U.S.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 06:11 PM
Anyone from anywhere can climb to whatever mountain peak they aspire for. But it takes hard work and dedication. 3 year olds don't understand the concept of work and dedication. They are accustomed to being cared for. Translate that attitude into the grown adult and you have another attribute of the ultra liberal. Also, 3 year olds aren't yet hel accountable for their actions. They don't yet know right from wrong and/or don't care. Plug that same mindset into the full grown adult and you have someone who does not live by a fixed set of principles. It becomes a moving target. Because of a lack of fixed principles they can only look at what is legal at the time. Because it is wrong to kill an innocent unborn baby, there was a time when enough principled people agreed that abortion should be illegal. So it was.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 06:24 PM
But as we know today it is legal for a mother to give consent to murder her own unborn child. The principle hasn't changed. It's still just as wrong as ever, but the liberal will scream from the mountain top that it's legal. There is no conscience that has been developed as to what is right or wrong in the liberal. They still think with a toddlers mindset. That's also why they have no qualms about the federal government confiscating even more property. They have no principled compass or they chose to ignore it. They simply covet. In other words, liberals are nothing more than selfish children who never matured and grew out of their childishness. I think the Democrat party should come clean and take the old J. G. Wentworth slogan and put a new twist on it: "It's your money, and we want it now!"
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 06:39 PM
It's more self-centered to want something that you didn't work for from someone who did work for it. There's no way around it pal. I didn't say I was a genious, you did! thank you!!! Oh, by the way, I give to my church and 3 other charitable organizations. They don't pay enforcement agents salaries to collect from me so more of what I give gets to the recipients. There are 440,000 churches and 1,400,000 charitable organizations that provide relief to all types of people groups in the U.S. and around the woprld. That's almost two million private outlets for voluntary charitable contributing in the U.S.! You gotta love private enterprise!!! I wonder how much good we could do if the federal government would just get out of our way?
Ellisville Shopper January 04, 2013 at 07:11 PM
mike k's plan is to turn the country into a corporate fascist state by giving taxpayer money to corporate welfare queens so he can buy more Chinese junk and put more Americans on the unemployment line.
Ellisville Shopper January 04, 2013 at 07:21 PM
@Marc Perez The Bush Admin completely ignored the fraud in mortgage origination including a warning from the FBI in 2004 that it was rampant throughout the industry- in banks and mortgage companies alike. One bank CEO said he knew 85% of the mortgages originated with his company would go bust. He didn't care. Just took the origination fee and sold off the loan Banks packaged and repackaged the notes (same note up to 10x in some cases) and sold this toxic debt AAA rated paper. This rampant fraud happened on Bush's watch. He was warned and did nothing. It nearly took the system down. Were you not paying attention while this was happening. 2007? 2008? Lehman? AIG?
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 07:27 PM
Ellisville Shopper, before you make a post please read all my posts, especially when I mention Bush. That will answer your question.
Ellisville Shopper January 04, 2013 at 07:47 PM
If you read carefully you will see the comment was for @Marc Perez (as I indicated) in regards to this, "The economy is in the sewer and the unemployment rate is in the toilet, Bush's fault?" I don't care to ask you any questions at all.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 07:51 PM
Forgive me. My mistake. Bush was a liberal anyway. We have had nothing but liberal politics controlling our future for the last 25 years.
Ellisville Shopper January 04, 2013 at 07:57 PM
subjects of the Chinese? From the guy who wants to give taxpayer money to the biggest corporate welfare queen of the all -WalMart- so he doesn't have to drive so far from his duplex community to buy cheap Chinese junk, Yeah, STOP THE SPENDING!!! STOP PRETENDING YOU CARE ABOUT WHERE TAXPAYER MONEY GOES!!! (Unless it's going into the pockets of large corporations, right mike?)
Ellisville Shopper January 04, 2013 at 08:21 PM
@Marc Perez "The economy is in the sewer and the unemployment rate is in the toilet, Bush's fault? I don't think so..............." I think so. Bush had been at the helm for eight years when this blew up. To refresh your memory regarding the dates- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/ Episode One- The Obama administration arrived in Washington in early 2009 facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression — and an American public outraged by bailouts for the financial institutions that had gotten them there... "Inside Job"- Producer/director Charles Ferguson (No End in Sight) speaks at length with journalists, politicians, and financial insiders in order to offer a clearer picture of the economic meltdown that hit America starting in 2008... "Margin Call"- Set in the high-stakes world of the financial industry, Margin Call is an entangling thriller involving the key players at an investment firm during one perilous 24-hour period in the early stages of the 2008 financial crisis. When an entry-level analyst unlocks information that could prove to be the downfall of the firm, a roller-coaster ride ensues as decisions both financial and moral catapult the lives of all involved to the brink of disaster...
ReverePaul January 04, 2013 at 10:34 PM
Don't ask regionman any questions, he'll just go off on some tangent. Regionman for you to think that all rich people have worked hard for their money is like saying all people who are liberals are all freeloaders, which you also have implied. Guess what, while many rich people did work for their money, not all did (family money). Also, I bet there are thousands of people who live in poverty that work twice as hard as you but guess what, they are still in poverty. The American Dream is not a sure thing that happens to all hard-working people. And yes giving to charities is awesome, good for you. While I'm sure you care about these charities, I'm sure you care more about getting the tax breaks. As for your completely off topic point about abortion and how it is wrong to kill a baby (which it is) how is not wrong to do something about lax guns regulations in our country when thousands of people die from guns every year. What's the different between liberals screaming for abortion and conservatives screaming for guns? Both do the same thing
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Hey heyyyyy.......it's ReverePaul back from the dead. I thought I wasn't worth the trouble. But let me go off on the tangent as to why people who earn the money they have deserve to keep it more than people who didn't earn it who want to take it away from them. Come to think of it, that's not really a tangent, is it? I would like for you to offer your definition of what "rich" is. Your illustrious President thinks that every middle income person is "rich" because he just raised our payroll taxes. I have personally been laid off for about 4 months now, but starting this week my wifes payroll take home check will be reduced by around $100 per month due to increased taxes. THANK YOU MR. OBAMA!!!!!
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 11:28 PM
As for working hard, I grew up on a farm and learned the value of hard work. After my layoff, I have devised 3 separate part time income streams to replace a portion of my lost income. Two of those involve some pretty heavy physical labor. Don't even talk to me about hard work. I have 40 years of it under my belt. Please explain to me why you used the term "family money"? Is that a bad thing? Also I am glad you agree with me when you say, "The American Dream is not a sure thing ". When I said we have the right to pursue happiness, but happiness is not guranteed, that is exactly what we are talking about. No one is guaranteed happiness and prosperity, only the pursuit. And your illustrious president cannot guarantee you prosperity either, only a marginal existance at best. I give to charities because I want to.
Regionman January 04, 2013 at 11:33 PM
For every dollar that is given there is a 15% deduction, so the effective gift is $.85. It still costs me alot more to give than not to give, even with the tax deduction. I could save money for my greedy little self if I didn't give, but that's not the point. As for guns, thousands of people die because other people kill them. Guns have to be used by a person. They don't kill on their own. Oh.......and by the way, as a side news bulletin, 64,000,000 legal gun owners killed no one yesterday.
Caffeinated January 05, 2013 at 12:29 AM
Needlesslyverboseman. Termpaperman. Pointlesstangentman.
mike k January 05, 2013 at 04:47 AM
you couldn't comprehend an intelligent thought if it landed on your pointy little head.
ReverePaul January 05, 2013 at 06:32 AM
"Your illustrious President thinks that every middle income person is "rich" because he just raised our payroll taxes." While I'm sure you think the 2% raise of taxes is the end of the world, taxes are a part of societies everywhere so deal with it. The ones that Obama really taxed are those households making above 450,000. The middle income person makes from 51,000-123,000 thousand so I don't know where your going with that. And also for the term "family money", I was showing you that not all rich people need to work hard for their money, all they need to do is be in the family. I know quite a few of those people. Also, 31,940 people died from guns last year, so basically we're willing to sacrifice deaths every year so gun owners can look at their guns in a box or go out to hunt? Why don't you go tell the people of Sandy Hook that number and see how they react. Are you going to tell every single person affected by gun deaths every year that others don't use guns to kill so it's fine to have a ridiculous amount of guns in our society? When people shoot a gun, their intention is to kill or to hurt something? How is that good in society? And can you also explain the need for assault rifles in our country?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something