Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
If the Republicans take the House, then what?
In my lifetime, I would have to say that I have voted for a candidate about 5% of the time, most of the time I am voting against the other guy. For example, I voted against B. Hussain Obama not really for John McCain. That is the position that I think that our Congress will be in if the Republicans take control of the House and a majority (not a super-majority) in the Senate.
The Republican control of the House can stop potential damage by limiting the amount of spending since all appropriations bills have to start in the House of Representatives. As far as I can tell that is about all that can be done. To override a Presidential veto take 2/3 majority in the Senate and I don't see that happening at this time. Keeping the Democrats at less than 60 members will allow for the filibuster to still be used (again voting against the bad guy not for the good guy).
What I can see happening is a giant stall in the political world. The President not be able to get any of his radical reforms pushed through Congress. There also will be no legislation signed by the President that is passed by a Republican majority Congress. So essentially a two year "holding pattern" in legislation. Sure a lot of Post Offices will get a new name but I don't see anything else happening.
Potential dangers for the Republicans, in this time, is that the President will blame even more problems on the Congresses inability to act. President Obama has not taken the blame for anything that has happened during his administration and I don't see him taking blame anytime soon (the buck doesn't stop in the Oval Office anymore).
What is does do for the Republicans is, that is builds a base that can be expanded in the next two years, running up to the Presidential election. If Republicans actually come up with a plan on what legislation they are going to pursue and stick to the plan (take notes from the 1994 Contract with America), I think majorities can be expanded in both the House and Senate in 2012. Republicans have to see their mistakes of the past and put the checkbook away and actually take the time and listen to the American people. They need to make themselves candidates that a citizen would want to vote for, not just against the other guy and the American people will respond.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Party of No?
The recent mini-battle on the Capitol Hill was with Pay-Go and extending Unemployment benefits. Sen. Bunning said that we could not extend Unemployment benefits unless we had a method to pay for the legislation, as dictated in the new "Pay-go" rules that recently passed.
I heard a conservative radio commentator say yesterday (He was a sub for Fred Thompson and I can't remember his name), that it was a bad move by Sen. Bunning, because it makes the Republican Party look like the "Party of NO". My question is why is being the Party of No, bad?
I think that is what this country needs now is a few people saying no. No more spending, no more taxes, no government controlled health care, no card-check, no bailouts, no more insanity.
The argument in this case is that we should help those people who are unemployed. These people cannot find a job and it would be bad not to help these suffering people. My answer is in of two parts. Yes we should help people in the short term, till they find another job. That is how it was intended. What I have a problem is more times we extend the benefits, the more dependent we become dependent on those benifits. Are there people out there that can not find a job? Yes. Don't kid yourself though, there are a lot of people out there that will not do what it takes to get a job, any job, because they are accustomed to the "free money". I know because I have had these people in my office during the last year, as I was hiring for a maintenance position. I had many people who would not take an offered job because they wanted to wait for their unemployment to run out.
Another problem is that they do not want to be "underemployed". If you were working for $20 an hour and became accustomed to that lifestyle, then you lost your job. You get unemployment benefits. Would you take a job that paid less than your unemployment benifits? You take free money to not work and not take the lower paying job and have to work.
During the Great Depression my grandfather used to go to the local feed lot first thing in the morning, and start cleaning the stalls. He would clean all morning and then after a group of them were done the feed lot owner would come out and decide who he could afford to pay for the work. Some guys got paid, some didn't. Grandpa did what it took to support himself, support his family. We are losing that in this country. We aspect the government or someone else to take care of us when we are down. There are many companies that were started by people doing what it took to "put food on the table" that are multi-million dollar companies today. People need an incentive and if you are just giving people free money there is no incentive.
So as for being the "Party of NO", I say good, I'm happy to be in that party. The problem is that we have been saying yes for far too long.
I heard a conservative radio commentator say yesterday (He was a sub for Fred Thompson and I can't remember his name), that it was a bad move by Sen. Bunning, because it makes the Republican Party look like the "Party of NO". My question is why is being the Party of No, bad?
I think that is what this country needs now is a few people saying no. No more spending, no more taxes, no government controlled health care, no card-check, no bailouts, no more insanity.
The argument in this case is that we should help those people who are unemployed. These people cannot find a job and it would be bad not to help these suffering people. My answer is in of two parts. Yes we should help people in the short term, till they find another job. That is how it was intended. What I have a problem is more times we extend the benefits, the more dependent we become dependent on those benifits. Are there people out there that can not find a job? Yes. Don't kid yourself though, there are a lot of people out there that will not do what it takes to get a job, any job, because they are accustomed to the "free money". I know because I have had these people in my office during the last year, as I was hiring for a maintenance position. I had many people who would not take an offered job because they wanted to wait for their unemployment to run out.
Another problem is that they do not want to be "underemployed". If you were working for $20 an hour and became accustomed to that lifestyle, then you lost your job. You get unemployment benefits. Would you take a job that paid less than your unemployment benifits? You take free money to not work and not take the lower paying job and have to work.
During the Great Depression my grandfather used to go to the local feed lot first thing in the morning, and start cleaning the stalls. He would clean all morning and then after a group of them were done the feed lot owner would come out and decide who he could afford to pay for the work. Some guys got paid, some didn't. Grandpa did what it took to support himself, support his family. We are losing that in this country. We aspect the government or someone else to take care of us when we are down. There are many companies that were started by people doing what it took to "put food on the table" that are multi-million dollar companies today. People need an incentive and if you are just giving people free money there is no incentive.
So as for being the "Party of NO", I say good, I'm happy to be in that party. The problem is that we have been saying yes for far too long.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Republican "Census"
I am currently a member of the Republican Party. I am a member of the Republican Party because quite frankly I hate to not have a voice. What I mean is, when the caucus and primary time comes around I want the opportunity to vote for a candidate that has a chance of winning the election. I may reconsider that membership in light of a mailing, I received yesterday.
I received a request for money from the party, which is normal. The way that the letter was formatted made it look like a government census form. This bothers me quite a bit. The reason it bothers me is; I don't think that we as a party need to "trick" people into donating money or finding out information.
If you want me to donate money, fine then ask me to donate money and I'll decide. If you want to know my opinion, ask me I'm usually not afraid to tell people my opinion (hence the blog). But don't throw the word census into your mailings and expect me to be scared into filling out your questionnaire and send you some money.
We need to be addressing the issues and I know that it sometimes takes money to address these issues and get the right people elected. It does not take deception. That is the ploy of people who scam the elderly and uneducated.
When I get mail that looks "Official" it makes me cringe and I automatically distrust the sender. If you (the Republican Party) want my support in the future, you better be going down the ethical road, not resorting to deception.
I received a request for money from the party, which is normal. The way that the letter was formatted made it look like a government census form. This bothers me quite a bit. The reason it bothers me is; I don't think that we as a party need to "trick" people into donating money or finding out information.
If you want me to donate money, fine then ask me to donate money and I'll decide. If you want to know my opinion, ask me I'm usually not afraid to tell people my opinion (hence the blog). But don't throw the word census into your mailings and expect me to be scared into filling out your questionnaire and send you some money.
We need to be addressing the issues and I know that it sometimes takes money to address these issues and get the right people elected. It does not take deception. That is the ploy of people who scam the elderly and uneducated.
When I get mail that looks "Official" it makes me cringe and I automatically distrust the sender. If you (the Republican Party) want my support in the future, you better be going down the ethical road, not resorting to deception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
