• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead

Ha, there isn't a Marxist in the White House. However, one could consider Koch a plutocrat.

(I knew you couldn't resist coming back, you signed on to DP several times while you were on vacation.)

There is a person in the White House that has attended a Communist Party meeting and is friends with known Communists. So, yes, by the Liberals's rule of guilt by association, there is definitely a Communist in the White House.
 
Why not attend..after all it has the best Suprme Court Justices that CORP Money can buy.

< A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to the Palm Springs area for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.>

<The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom? >

Gotta get the ole brain washed.:roll:

<To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan.

Mr. Koch also notes the beautiful setting. But he advises against thinking of this as a vacation.

“Our ultimate goal is not ‘fun in the sun,’ ” he concludes. “This is a gathering of doers who are willing to engage in the hard work necessary to advance our shared principles. Success in this endeavor will require all the help we can muster.” >

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html?_r=2&ref=politics&pagewanted=all

As much as the NYT author wants to paint an ominous, forboding tone to the story, she comes across a little lame. Seems sort of a non-story.

It's a convention of a couple hundred people at a California resort. Led by a rich conservative guy. According to the article this gathering gets held twice a year. Doesn't appear they allow the press to attend which isn't exactly shocking either.


.
 
QUOTE

Conservative

Great, hope they have a wonderful time and do "advance" shared principles of free enterprise, capitalism, and individual wealth creation vs. what we have right now, the Marxist Party promoting their own agenda of keeping power by making people dependent.

What Marxist agenda is being pushed by this administration? :confused:



As Europe abandons their own socialist model, the empty suit in the WH is promoting that agenda here and the leftwing Marxists are doing their best to convince the majority in this country that model works. The ignorance of the non Marxists people that buy the Obama rhetoric is quite staggering.


Point out the “leftwing Marxists” for me …please.
 
What Marxist agenda is being pushed by this administration? :confused:

What do you call "wealth redistribution", "social justice", "shared prosperity", "collective salvation" if not Marxist ideals. National Healthcare, taxing the rich, massive growth in govt? Open those eyes of yours and think.



Point out the “leftwing Marxists” for me …please

Barack Obama, someone who has never held a private sector job nor has most of his Administration.

Here is a chart that shows past presidents and the percentage of each president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector - you know, a real life business, not a government or teaching job.

1) T. Roosevelt 38%
2) Taft 40%
3) Wilson 52%
4) Harding 42%
5) FDR 50%
6) Truman 50%
7) Eisenhower 57%
8) Kennedy 30%
9) LBJ 37%
10)Nixon 53%
11)Ford 42%
12)Carter 22%
13)Reagan 59%
14)GHWB 51%
15)Clinton 37%
16)GWB 55%

OBAMA - 8%
 
What do you call "wealth redistribution", "social justice", "shared prosperity", "collective salvation" if not Marxist ideals. National Healthcare, taxing the rich, massive growth in govt? Open those eyes of yours and think.





Barack Obama, someone who has never held a private sector job nor has most of his Administration.

Here is a chart that shows past presidents and the percentage of each president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector - you know, a real life business, not a government or teaching job.

1) T. Roosevelt 38%
2) Taft 40%
3) Wilson 52%
4) Harding 42%
5) FDR 50%
6) Truman 50%
7) Eisenhower 57%
8) Kennedy 30%
9) LBJ 37%
10)Nixon 53%
11)Ford 42%
12)Carter 22%
13)Reagan 59%
14)GHWB 51%
15)Clinton 37%
16)GWB 55%

OBAMA - 8%

National Healthcare!!! :shock:this lame a** plan that don’t kick in until 2014, you call this National Healthcare? Its not a pimple on Medicare’s a** and Medicare itself isn't in the same ballpark with “National Healthcare”.

What hospitals does Obamacare plan on Nationalizing? How many Medical Doctors do they plan on drafting into Obamacare? Why is it that most of the Healthcare Companies stock shot up in unison as soon as this abortion was hatched? :confused:

The only redeeming thing that see is that this THING can, hopefully, be made something that resembles… say Medicare, or the VA,sometime in the future.
 
Last edited:
donc;1059051367]
National Healthcare!!! :shock:this lame a** plan that don’t kick in until 2014, you call this National Healthcare? Its not a pimple on Medicare’s a** and Medicare isn’t even in the same ballpark with “National Healthcare”.

Obviously you have never run a business and have never had to pay premiums nor are you paying any attention to what is going on in the country. Rates are going up to fund Obamacare, companies are dropping their coverage which violates another Obama promise that if you like your doctor and healthcare plan you can keep it, CBO has increased the cost estimates to the taxpayers, and the unfunded mandate to the states for Medicaid and the requirement to purchase health insurance is probably unconstitutional.

What hospitals does Obamacare plan on Nationalizing? How many Medical Doctors do they plan on drafting into Obamacare? Why is it that most of the Healthcare Companies stock shot up in unison as soon as this abortion was hatched? :confused:

You are indeed confused but that is another story. Most Obama supporters are. Who said anything about nationalizing hospitals although as more and more drop coverage the demand is going to be for single payer and that will result in nationalization of hospitals and drafting doctors. The more dependence Obama generates the less freedom and choice the American people have.

The only redeeming thing that see is that this THING can, hopefully, be made something that resembles… say Medicare, or the VA,sometime in the future.[/

"This thing" has no chance of improving healthcare quality or quantity and is just one of many disasters this President has imposed on the American people in just two short years. Not one of his economic predictions has come true and he continues to promote a far left agenda that is too costly and focused on shifting this country left of Europe.
 
QUOTE Conservative

Obviously you have never run a business and have never had to pay premiums nor are you paying any attention to what is going on in the country. Rates are going up to fund Obamacare, companies are dropping their coverage which violates another Obama promise that if you like your doctor and healthcare plan you can keep it, CBO has increased the cost estimates to the taxpayers, and the unfunded mandate to the states for Medicaid and the requirement to purchase health insurance is probably unconstitutional.

All of that might be true but it isn’t “National Healthcare” nor “wealth redistribution”, shared prosperity” which I was replying to when I posted this, which you were responding to.

“National Healthcare!!! this lame a** plan that don’t kick in until 2014, you call this National Healthcare? Its not a pimple on Medicare’s a** and Medicare isn’t even in the same ballpark with “National Healthcare”.



You are indeed confused but that is another story. Most Obama supporters are. Who said anything about nationalizing hospitals although as more and more drop coverage the demand is going to be for single payer and that will result in nationalization of hospitals and drafting doctors. The more dependence Obama generates the less freedom and choice the American people have.

Let me direct your attention to post#30 when you posted this.

What do you call "wealth redistribution", "social justice", "shared prosperity", "collective salvation" if not Marxist ideals. National Healthcare, taxing the rich, massive growth in govt? Open those eyes of yours and think.

What were you implying in the bolded part of your ride on that slippery slope with the strawman that you so carefully built? ‘National healthcare”? :confused:National Healthcare means the nation runs, and owns the facilities, including the hospitals and the Docs are all on salary.





"This thing" has no chance of improving healthcare quality or quantity and is just one of many disasters this President has imposed on the American people in just two short years. Not one of his economic predictions has come true and he continues to promote a far left agenda that is too costly and focused on shifting this country left of Europe.

Nah, he wouldn’t have had a problem if he had listened to the people further left then he is, instead of trying to suck up to the party of no. He should have said fu boner, this is what were going for and laid two sheets of papers in front of him.

One paper, in big bold print, so there could not be any doubt would have on it “Medicare for all” the other would say “VA for all”. Now filibuster to you hearts content,let me know when your done.
 
All of that might be true but it isn’t “National Healthcare” nor “wealth redistribution”, shared prosperity” which I was replying to when I posted this, which you were responding to.







Let me direct your attention to post#30 when you posted this.



What were you implying in the bolded part of your ride on that slippery slope with the strawman that you so carefully built? ‘National healthcare”? :confused:National Healthcare means the nation runs, and owns the facilities, including the hospitals and the Docs are all on salary.







Nah, he wouldn’t have had a problem if he had listened to the people further left then he is, instead of trying to suck up to the party of no. He should have said fu boner, this is what were going for and laid two sheets of papers in front of him.

One paper, in big bold print, so there could not be any doubt would have on it “Medicare for all” the other would say “VA for all”. Now filibuster to you hearts content,let me know when your done.

The party of "No"? LOL, right out of the Democrat Play book. Democrats controlled Congress for the past 4 years, Republicans couldn't stop a thing even if they wanted to, didn't have the votes.

Seems to me you have a problem with personal responsibility. Tell me what you believe the role of the Federal Govt. is as intended by our Founders? Barack Obama is a far left President out of touch with the majority in this country. He won the election with 52% of the vote, a non partisan majority and he has destroyed that majority and has lost about 10%. Now there are still people that don't get it but will soon.

Your President has had total control of the Govt. for the past two years. NBER says the recession ended in June 2009 and yet unemployment every month of 2010 is higher than it was last year, economic growth each qtr of 2010 is less than 2009, and he has added 3 trillion to the debt in just two years. Over 16 million Americans are unemployed and not paying much in Federal income taxes yet this President wants to raise taxes on the rich because he seems to believe that people keeping more of their own money is an expense to the govt. Democrats call these making things better, most in this country call it what it really is, a failure.
 
Would you please explain to me that term corporate welfare? Are you saying that the govt. sends checks to those corporations out of the general fund? Or is it simply tax credits that a company can take off its corporate income taxes? All this concern about how much money the govt. gets and not how that money is spent by the govt.

Corporate welfare isn't the important part. I was just looking for a way to squeeze in the word 'welfare'.

The main issue is that the modern capitalist state is geared toward the support of businesses, yet businessmen gripe that they are being robbed. The money they are "robbed of" wouldn't exist, for example, without the institution of bankruptcy. Even if a person loses all their wealth, they keep their person and their freedom, so that they have the hope of recouping their lossses to some measure. In proto-modern capitalist states, instead of bankruptcy we would have slavery or debtor's prisons. Businessmen have to scale back their ambitions in those societies because there is no bankruptcy protocol to act as insurance against an investment gone sour. Wealthy people therefore depend on bankruptcy, as few people would dare risky enterprises that drive technology and prosperity forward unless they had some guarantee that their freedom, at least, isn't in jeopardy as they are making these decisions. Most modern businesses proceed from that guarantee that their freedom won't be in danger, just their finances. Otherwise, the United States would have a very different economy.

Or, airlines, shipping, and trains. Both frequently consume vast supplies of energy, need government help, and are generally risky and unprofitable enterprises (not just in the United States), but the government stomachs those losses because they provide a comparatively cheap method of distribution that enables vanguards of the economy to succeed. That includes businesses that would be considered small.

There are other examples (including corporate welfare, or all the fail safes leading up to bankruptcy), but you get the point. Businesses only grow so large as they do because of these supports, so if they have to pay large percentages of their income in exchange for the opportunity, then that's fair; they are still making more money than they would be in a proto-modern capitalist society.
 
Last edited:
Democrats controlled Congress for the past 4 years, Republicans couldn't stop a thing even if they wanted to, didn't have the votes.

From 2006 to 2008 was hardly controlling congress. They had a slight majority, but they didn't control it to the point where Republicans couldn't do anything about it.
 
Nah, he wouldn’t have had a problem if he had listened to the people further left then he is, instead of trying to suck up to the party of no. He should have said fu boner, this is what were going for and laid two sheets of papers in front of him.

One paper, in big bold print, so there could not be any doubt would have on it “Medicare for all” the other would say “VA for all”. Now filibuster to you hearts content,let me know when your done.

how astonishingly sophomoric

had obama listened to anthony weiner and lynn woolsey and jay rockefeller, ron wyden, chuck schumer, he would certainly have lost kent conrad (budget chair), joe lieberman, ben nelson, byron dorgan, mark pryor, evan bayh, blanche lincoln, claire mccaskill, bill nelson and a number of others including, given the right accumulation of headlines, a senator as senior and sensible as difi

heck, he'd've lost the gatekeeper himself, baucus

you really don't know what you're talking about
 
From 2006 to 2008 was hardly controlling congress. They had a slight majority, but they didn't control it to the point where Republicans couldn't do anything about it.

And how does that differ from the situation from 2000 to 2006? Did the GOP control Congress to a point where the democrats had no impact/influence....??


.
 
QUOTE Conservative

The party of "No"? LOL, right out of the Democrat Play book. Democrats controlled Congress for the past 4 years, Republicans couldn't stop a thing even if they wanted to, didn't have the votes.

Speaking of playbooks, here is Newts 1994 playbook. Step 1: Avoid Responsibility for GOP Failures. Step 2: Increase Negativity. Step 3: “Throw the Bums Out!” Step 4: The Contract on America

Kinda looks like they should be sending residuals to Newt doesn’t it?As for as your asserting that “Republicans couldn't stop a thing even if they wanted to, didn't have the votes “.They set a new record on filibusters and even managed to filibuster things they wanted in their districts.

Seems to me you have a problem with personal responsibility. Tell me what you believe the role of the Federal Govt. is as intended by our Founders? Barack Obama is a far left President out of touch with the majority in this country. He won the election with 52% of the vote, a non partisan majority and he has destroyed that majority and has lost about 10%. Now there are still people that don't get it but will soon.

Your President has had total control of the Govt. for the past two years. NBER says the recession ended in June 2009 and yet unemployment every month of 2010 is higher than it was last year, economic growth each qtr of 2010 is less than 2009, and he has added 3 trillion to the debt in just two years. Over 16 million Americans are unemployed and not paying much in Federal income taxes yet this President wants to raise taxes on the rich because he seems to believe that people keeping more of their own money is an expense to the govt. Democrats call these making things better, most in this country call it what it really is, a failure.


It takes more than two years to correct eight years of incompetence.:(
 
how astonishingly sophomoric

had obama listened to anthony weiner and lynn woolsey and jay rockefeller, ron wyden, chuck schumer, he would certainly have lost kent conrad (budget chair), joe lieberman, ben nelson, byron dorgan, mark pryor, evan bayh, blanche lincoln, claire mccaskill, bill nelson and a number of others including, given the right accumulation of headlines, a senator as senior and sensible as difi

heck, he'd've lost the gatekeeper himself, baucus

you really don't know what you're talking about

You’re showing why you are on ignore for most of the posters on this forum. Sophomoric? Nah, sophomoric is someone that thinks they know what someone means when they take a cursory glance at their post before they understand what the poster means. I suggest that you go back and reread my post and then you might have a clue to what I was saying when I posted the part that you responded to.

HINT…I don’t like Obama care; so why would I give a s*** if it died in Congress.HINT number two. During the current midterms the repugs would be wearing the collar of stopping healthcare, instead of the Dems going back to their districts and attempting to dodge and weave themselves out from under it.Now do you capiche?:2wave:
 
Why don't you go first?

I know I wasn't the one asked, but isn't the answer pretty obvious about what the founding fathers wanted the federal government to be? They wanted a limited government that ensured people the necessary freedom to pursue their own prosperity, not a government that provides an individual that prosperity.

The federal government was given the power of impeachment, the power to tax and collect taxes, to regulate both foreign and state to state commerce, to make and enforce immigration laws, create a monetary system, create and fund a military for national defense, and the power to declare war on other nations. When it came to things like health care initiatives, alcohol laws, and education (just to name a few), those were issues that were originally intended to be addressed on a state level, not a federal one.

The federal government was not designed or intended to be a provider for the people, but instead to protect peoples individual freedoms and rights so they could provide for themselves. It was never intended to guarantee an individuals happiness. It was created to guarantee that every individual had the freedom and legal right to pursue their own happiness. In other words, on an individual level, the only thing the federal government was every supposed to provide people with, was opportunity... not results.

It's called "Freedom"... The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
 
Last edited:
HINT…I don’t like Obama care

almost no one outside this woebegone white house does

During the current midterms the repugs would be wearing the collar of stopping healthcare

no more than the gatekeeper himself

your immaturity is stunning
 
Ha, there isn't a Marxist in the White House. However, one could consider Koch a plutocrat.

(I knew you couldn't resist coming back, you signed on to DP several times while you were on vacation.)

Is that what the voices from Media Matters told you?
 
Speaking of playbooks, here is Newts 1994 playbook. Step 1: Avoid Responsibility for GOP Failures. Step 2: Increase Negativity. Step 3: “Throw the Bums Out!” Step 4: The Contract on America

Kinda looks like they should be sending residuals to Newt doesn’t it?As for as your asserting that “Republicans couldn't stop a thing even if they wanted to, didn't have the votes “.They set a new record on filibusters and even managed to filibuster things they wanted in their districts.




It takes more than two years to correct eight years of incompetence.:(

Right, 1994? Interesting that you and others continue to divert to the past in an attempt to ignore the present. Name for me one Obama prediction that has been accurate? Then address the actual results of the Obama economic policy.

We don't elect a King therefore what Bush did he did with the help of Democrats who controlled Congress from January 2007 to the end of his term. The recession began in December 2007 almost one year after the Democrats took control of Congress. It ended according to NBER in June 2009 yet today unemployment is higher every month this year vs. last, economic growth is less than last year, and 3 trillion has been added to the debt. So much for the "recovery summer!"
 
I know I wasn't the one asked, but isn't the answer pretty obvious about what the founding fathers wanted the federal government to be? They wanted a limited government that ensured people the necessary freedom to pursue their own prosperity, not a government that provides an individual that prosperity.

The federal government was given the power of impeachment, the power to tax and collect taxes, to regulate both foreign and state to state commerce, to make and enforce immigration laws, create a monetary system, create and fund a military for national defense, and the power to declare war on other nations. When it came to things like health care initiatives, alcohol laws, and education (just to name a few), those were issues that were originally intended to be addressed on a state level, not a federal one.

The federal government was not designed or intended to be a provider for the people, but instead to protect peoples individual freedoms and rights so they could provide for themselves. It was never intended to guarantee an individuals happiness. It was created to guarantee that every individual had the freedom and legal right to pursue their own happiness. In other words, on an individual level, the only thing the federal government was every supposed to provide people with, was opportunity... not results.

It's called "Freedom"... The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.

Couldn't say it better!
 
< A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to the Palm Springs area for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.>

<The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom? >
These guys are so crazy secretive that they've got their own New York Times article detailing gondola rides and listening habits!

<To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan.
Oh! And everybody know you can't be a secret organization unless your membership and group incentives are published to national audience.

Mr. Koch also notes the beautiful setting. But he advises against thinking of this as a vacation.
Now this part just pisses me off. The group met in a beautiful setting?? I mean, WTF.

It's like they're rubbing our noses in the fact that they're so secretive that they can gather in verdant mountain pastures and enjoy the sun while the rest of secretive types are forced to dank, colorless basements in abandoned buildings.


Great article. Thanks for sharing.
 
QUOTE Conservative

Right, 1994? Interesting that you and others continue to divert to the past in an attempt to ignore the present.

As your try to divert from the topic we are discussing while ragging me about a …DIVERSION. Like you said, its interesting.:roll:

Name for me one Obama prediction that has been accurate? Then address the actual results of the Obama economic policy.

See above.

We don't elect a King therefore what Bush did he did with the help of Democrats who controlled Congress from January 2007 to the end of his term.

Bush only vetoed one bill prior to January 2007,after January 2007 he vetoed eleven bills. Hhhmm…wonder what happened ? ;)

The recession began in December 2007 almost one year after the Democrats took control of Congress.

YET More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years.Pretty Amazing isn’t it?

JobsPrivateSector.jpg



It ended according to NBER in June 2009 yet today unemployment is higher every month this year vs. last, economic growth is less than last year, and 3 trillion has been added to the debt. So much for the "recovery summer!

According to the above,the private sector has added 863,000 jobs so far this year. Not nearly enough but like I said in previous threads, its at least pointed in the right direction….UP.:2wave:
 
As your try to divert from the topic we are discussing while ragging me about a …DIVERSION. Like you said, its interesting.:roll:



See above.



Bush only vetoed one bill prior to January 2007,after January 2007 he vetoed eleven bills. Hhhmm…wonder what happened ? ;)



YET More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years.Pretty Amazing isn’t it?

JobsPrivateSector.jpg





According to the above,the private sector has added 863,000 jobs so far this year. Not nearly enough but like I said in previous threads, its at least pointed in the right direction….UP.:2wave:

So with all that job creation explain to me why unemployment is higher every month of 2010 than it was in 2009?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 0 0 0
 
< A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to the Palm Springs area for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.>

<The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom? >
Yeah.... so?
What's this supposed to indicate? That the GOP might try to win in 2012?
Oh! Those villans!
:roll:
 
President is not responsible for adding $3 trillion to the debt, your hero President Bush is responsible for much of it. When President Obama entered the WH there was a $1.3 trillion deficit waiting for him.
This is, of course, false, unless you can show that all of the $1.3T FY2009 deficit occured prior to Jan 21 2009.
 
Back
Top Bottom