White House looks past conservatives on tax reform

“Oh great! Let’s ALL become progressives.”

No thanks, I couldn’t stand having to patronize Starbucks.

I await the day a “true conservative” actually proposes the taxes necessary to provide all the services the American people demand, without deficit.
And I actually believe that would be a conservative position to take. To force the American people as a whole to wake up to their unreasonable demands.

No, Mariner, that's tax-and-spend socialism. You'd better give your position some thought and do some soul-searching.

If you do, you will realize that conservatism is mainly about limited government, not giving everyone what they want.

The thankless heroes are those who fight against the tide of big government. We should be supporting them.

If enough people want something, they will put the politicians in office who will give it to them.

The only question is how to pay for it.

Another thing: It’s irresponsible and anti-conservative to give the people everything they want...and borrow the money to do so.

That is absolutely NOT conservative.

If enough people want something, they will put the politicians in office who will give it to them.
The only question is how to pay for it.

The first and most important objective, Mariner, is not to spend it in the first place. European welfare states are examples of what conservatives don't want: single-payer health care and other cradle-to-grave programs. As a result, they pay for it by having 50% income taxation plus 15% sales tax(VAT) plus hidden taxes. You don't support that, do you? Well that is where we would be headed with things like RyanCare.

This goes beyond money. It is really all about control. Once government gains control over our lives, we are continually short-changed, told what to do and not to do, given poor value for our money, forced to beg, whine, complain and supplicate for our "fair share" and generally turned into mindless drones for the State. Take the VA hospitals as an example. Those who have lived under communism understand this and consider us foolish for our willingness to subjugate ourselves to government.

So we must oppose the growth of government, even if it means opposing a President that we otherwise support.

“European welfare states are examples of what conservatives don’t want”

If I were in charge we would burn DC to the ground, and the only Federal program would be Defense.

But I also recognize the political reality: Americans LIKE their programs and benefits. They will vote into office those that will give it to them and without regard to what conservatives think on the subject.

Just do a short poll ON THIS SITE. Most Freepers would never support the elimination of Social Security or Medicare, and most would not eliminate Unemployment Insurance...or completely eliminate any welfare program. Either they or close family members are using one of them, will soon be using one of them or don’t want to “leave destitute” those who use them.

I contend “conservatism”, when the name is stripped, is not politically popular.

“Take the VA hospitals as an example”

While I concede it’s fairly rare, the best medical care I ever received was at the VA.

But I do understand your point. I just wanted to correct, as I always do, disparagement of of the VA as a universal precept.

I appreciate your sense of idealism, right and wrong, and disdain for sports analogies,

Contrary to what a number of #TrumpIsAlwaysRighters on this and various other threads have written, conservatism is not a philosophy of idealism, and I am not an idealist. When I was an idealist, I was a far left union organizer. That life has now burned away 40+ years ago.

Conservatives don't believe things on pure principle. We believe in our principles because they are the principles which will produce the best outcomes. That is why I have no conversations with people who tell me that "purist" conservatism is an error: "Purist" conservatism, like "compassionate" conservatism is a mischaracterization of what conservatism is.

There is no such thing as "compassionate" conservatism because conservatism is, by its very nature, the most compassionate choice. The man who coined that phrase had some (few) conservative instincts, but he was not a conservative. He had, in fact, no ideology that anyone has ever identified, and that is one of the reasons that he (largely) failed.

Similarly, there is no such thing as "purist" conservatism. There is conservatism, and there are things which are not conservative, and when the two of them are mixed together the result is always less than what a conservative solution would provide.

That is why I also deprecate those who say "Trump is a pragmatist." Pragmatism is simply another name for randomly attempting things which have no basis in reality but we "think will work." Why? On the basis of no principle whatsoever, but they seem expedient. Sorry. That is no way to run a country.

Here's my answer: what did we have before 0bamacare?

Nothing.

That is what we should revert to.

Nothing.

If, as a palliative to public opinion, we want to allow individuals with dangerous conditions who won't otherwise be insured by private businesses to get healthcare, we can do what states already do in their mandatory insurance programs: provide publicly funded risk pools for high risk individuals.

We should not, in any case whatsoever be "insuring" people with "preexisting" conditions. That is not insurance; that is simply welfare. Insurance is a means by which people protect each other cooperatively by assuming risk together. If you allow individuals who have decided not to mitigate their risk by going without insurance come into the system after they're injured or sick, you are not talking about anything that remotely resembles insurance. You are talking about selfish people who want to keep their money as long as they can, and then spend everyone else's when the time to pay the piper comes.

We can't be afraid to say that.

And we can't be afraid to say: there IS NO PUBLIC entitlement to Healthcare. We fought that fight for sixty years, and it is not time to give up on it after 6 years of a far left administration. And that is my objection to this bill. Ryan conceded, by providing a "lite" alternative to 0bamacare that the government belongs in this sphere. It doesn't. It is not part of governance.

[

Finally, one small point that is nevertheless important: John Roberts did NOT rule that 0bamacare was Constitutional. If you read his decision for the majority he clearly says at the outset: "The PPACA is both Constitutional AND Unconsitutional." All that the majority upheld in that decision was the individual mandate as part of Congress's plenary power to tax. A number of other provisions were, in fact, struck down, the most important being a Federal power grab to coerce the states into joining expanded Medicaid. {Parenthesis within parenthesis: striking that provision down alone, in the absence of a severability clause made the entire PPACA a legal nullity.}

That point is important in this context because a number of states with the biggest problems with a repeal belong PRECISELY to those Democrat governors (and John Kasich) who OVERCOMMITTED their states to the PPACA by expanding Medicaid voluntarily when they did not need to do so. They deliberately made this choice so that 0bamacare would be more painful to repeal. Tell me: why should a Republican Congress care about protecting them now?

]

If I were in charge we would burn DC to the ground, and the only Federal program would be Defense.
But I also recognize the political reality: Americans LIKE their programs and benefits. They will vote into office those that will give it to them and without regard to what conservatives think on the subject.

You and I are making progress.

We agree that government should be as small as possible, but you think that the voters don't agree.

Well, for starters, the polls indicate that 83% agree that RyanCare is not for them. Next, it our task as conservatives to convince the rest that limited government produces more wealth, better services (that's better healthcare) with less waste and more personal "happiness". That should not be hard, since it is the truth. If any nation on this earth could be more susceptible to this philosophy, it is the USA, where freedom and "the pursuit of happiness" are watchwords. Also, should we fail to make the case and lose to the socialists, then we have nowhere else to go to pursue our dreams. So it is truth's last stand.

All that is needed is leadership and most of these lost souls will spring into action. Reagan demonstrated that.

The cause is by no means lost.

Join us.

They recently redistricting him. Heven is not as safe as he was. Additionally, ran on term limits and promised he would only serve 2 terms. He is currently on his 3rd term.