Republicans: what's the end game?

[Anonymous]

start read this

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2016/06/22/what-paul-ryans-latest-health-proposal-would-mean-for-seniors/#6bc0f6c25f39

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are terrified that Trump will actually be successful in cutting down the government jobs and programs which accomplish nothing except that's where they get their paychecks.

Most of them can be replaced by robots anyway.

Non-functioning robots will do the trick.

I think that you got this backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The end game is more prosperity and freedom for everyone, rich and poor.

Unfortunately, when it comes to "freedom," we'll get prosperity for the one percent. For the rest? Kris Kristofferson said it best: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

[Anonymous]

The difference between left and right:
Left- let's tax everyone and spend it
Right- let's borrow some more and spend it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I think the answer to OP is yes, a dystopic society where the top 1% live in luxury while the rest live in poverty and cater to their needs.

I am in the top 3 percent. How will I do?

You're at the break-even line. Just make sure your kids don't slip at all down the socio-economic ladder, there's no climbing back up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd seriously like to understand the end game to all of this "dismantle the government" ideology that started in earnest with Reagan in the post-Nixon years and has now reached it's logical zenith under Trump.

What will happen when tax revenues are fraction of what we need to maintain the military, infrastructure, and the Boomers begin dying in poverty in mass due to the dismantling of Social Security & Medicare?

I'd love to understand what Republicans want our country to look like once they enact all these policies. What is your vision? Is the point to weaken our country to the point that Constitutional changes are rammed through that fundamentally end "one person, one vote" electoral politics? Perhaps the installation of some sort of hereditary-based political structure?

Will we be able to defend ourselves from foreign invaders with a society that is physically unhealthy/aging, in prison, and with crumbling infrastructure?

I feel like a lot of my Republican friends and Trump can say what they want to do to dismantle government....but have they contemplated what will exist in the aftermath?

Ryan's plan caters to the wealthiest and will deeply hurt the poor and working classes - what's left of them. Poor states will be poverty ridden - the benefit of a federal safety net is it lifts all boats, so to speak. It's hard to fathom why the GOP wants to destroy the middle class ... why they want to turn the most vulnerable away from basic support. I'm a fiscal conservative but cannot for the life of me understand the motivation behind this hateful, greedy party and it's platform. It's not just Trump; it's spineless Ryan and McConnell and a whole host of others. This is getting scary.

First I'm ignoring the whole people are going to starve/die crap that's fear mongering

Fed government will do what the constitution actually says mainly Defense/National Security type stuff

Rest of the money will go to the states and each state will decide what they want to do... That's the end game

Read some of the stuff Paul Ryan has put out it's all out there

See, I think you're willfully ignoring a HUGE outcome of Ryan's policies. What will happen to Americans in old age if you dismantle Social Security and Medicare? You can't ignore that elephant in the room....way too big and affects all of us. Again, you have not articulated an end game. You've told us what you want to do, but what does Tomorrow look like?

For crying out loud, tt's not going to be wholly dismantled. The age limit is going to increase one maybe two years the wage caps will increase and there might be some means testing

Again quit with the fear mongering

So facts and truth now equal fear mongering? Raising the age limit may not mean much for the "deadwooders," but means everything for blue collar folks. Some are barely able to hold on till they qualify for Medicare. Manual labor can be very taxing on the body. My dad was in great physical shape, but he even had a hard time in his last years on the job as he worked on a cement floor for 40 years. Can't find the quote, but just think of how hard a time some folks in their 40s and 50s have had in finding affordable health care. Imagine an 85 year old widow with no close survivors navigating. Will there be a penalty if coverage lapses, etc? What will her voucher cover if she spends 2 weeks in the hospital with a bad case of pneumonia? Or falls at home and is in rehab for 3 months? so social workers at nursing homes are going to have become experts in 200+ plans? Would love if you could sketch out how this works beyond your admonition of fear mongering.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't work. We have another Great Depression. We wind up in a massive world war with China, Russia, or both. The New Deal programs come back. Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Anonymous]

So facts and truth now equal fear mongering? Raising the age limit may not mean much for the "deadwooders," but means everything for blue collar folks. Some are barely able to hold on till they qualify for Medicare. Manual labor can be very taxing on the body. My dad was in great physical shape, but he even had a hard time in his last years on the job as he worked on a cement floor for 40 years. Can't find the quote, but just think of how hard a time some folks in their 40s and 50s have had in finding affordable health care. [b]Imagine an 85 year old widow with no close survivors navigating[/b]. Will there be a penalty if coverage lapses, etc? What will her voucher cover if she spends 2 weeks in the hospital with a bad case of pneumonia? Or falls at home and is in rehab for 3 months? so social workers at nursing homes are going to have become experts in 200+ plans? Would love if you could sketch out how this works beyond your admonition of fear mongering.

And, you don't think the widow has a problem now?

And, you think those in their forties and fifties aren't paying more now with ACA?

[Anonymous]

PaleoConPrep wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:I'm not a typical modern Republican, so my answer may be a bit different. At this point, the end game for me would be a scaling back of the federal government, and much more power to the states. The Feds should be responsible for national defense and nothing else. Every other power should be given to the states. Georgia and Texas may ban abortion and gay marriage, and have no welfare programs. However, if people in California and NY want a more socialistic economy with welfare programs, they can pay for it with state taxes. So the type of society would depend on which state you live in. 3 cheers for STATES RIGHTS!

Ok so you realize that most of the welfare in this country goes to the red states, right?

Beyond that, how do you propose working standards be handled? What happens if there is discrimination? What specific programs should be cut? You want to cut the EPA? Fine, so you are ok with living in Flint then without the benefit of bottled water? How about fracking next door to where you live. You ok with that? You ok with lack of food testing at meat packing facilities? That might be cat you re eating, not beef. You ok with that?

PaleoCon here
All civil rights laws would be repealed. A private company has a right to decide who they will and will not hire. The government should not have the power to interfere with that right. States would handle environmental matters.

States can't handle environmental matters because air and water don't obey state lines, silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:I'm not a typical modern Republican, so my answer may be a bit different. At this point, the end game for me would be a scaling back of the federal government, and much more power to the states. The Feds should be responsible for national defense and nothing else. Every other power should be given to the states. Georgia and Texas may ban abortion and gay marriage, and have no welfare programs. However, if people in California and NY want a more socialistic economy with welfare programs, they can pay for it with state taxes. So the type of society would depend on which state you live in. 3 cheers for STATES RIGHTS!

Ok so you realize that most of the welfare in this country goes to the red states, right?

Beyond that, how do you propose working standards be handled? What happens if there is discrimination? What specific programs should be cut? You want to cut the EPA? Fine, so you are ok with living in Flint then without the benefit of bottled water? How about fracking next door to where you live. You ok with that? You ok with lack of food testing at meat packing facilities? That might be cat you re eating, not beef. You ok with that?

PaleoCon here
All civil rights laws would be repealed. A private company has a right to decide who they will and will not hire. The government should not have the power to interfere with that right. States would handle environmental matters.

States can't handle environmental matters because air and water don't obey state lines, silly.

Exactly. Funny how conservatives love to talk about common sense and all that folk wisdom yet they seem to have missed that old rule about shit flowing downhill. The law that polluted water follows is gravity. States' rights is a completely arbitrary and useless ideology to try foisting on things that are governed by the laws of nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are terrified that Trump will actually be successful in cutting down the government jobs and programs which accomplish nothing except that's where they get their paychecks.

Most of them can be replaced by robots anyway.

Non-functioning robots will do the trick.

What government jobs and programs would you cut? Be specific.

It is a great slogan in a vacuum, but when push comes to shove, most of these federal jobs, the DOD and military jobs are in the red states. I am fine with a lot of cuts, my taxes will go down and I don't use welfare or other subsidies other than gas and highways. But I think most Americans, if exposed to the value of our Federal Government would like see that for the most part, it is a pretty good bargain.

OP here:
The problem is that the average American - and especially the average UMC Trump voter - stubbornly & falsely believes that they use zero government services. Somehow they only give in taxes, but don't take advantage of roads, cheap fuel, safety/emergency services, a clean beach, parks, hiking trails, Medicare, subsidized mortgages, or the tons of other publicly-funded services that make life in the United States fairly enjoyable.

Like I said, I still have not seen a vision for a viable end game that doesn't leave most Americans worse off.

Yep, they take a WHOLE LOT for granted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I think the answer to OP is yes, a dystopic society where the top 1% live in luxury while the rest live in poverty and cater to their needs.

The end game is to weaken the federal government enough so that billionaires and megacorporations can fill the power vacuum. The end game is a corporate plutocracy where corporations have more rights than citizens. Libertarianism is a trojan horse. And all that anyone needs to do in order to verify that is to take a look at who funds libertarian mouthpieces and think tanks like CATO - it's the Koch Brothers (who founded it) and folks like ALEC who are comprised of said megacorporates.

Folks who think libertarianism is about freedom and liberty are deluded. That's not at all the end game.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I think the answer to OP is yes, a dystopic society where the top 1% live in luxury while the rest live in poverty and cater to their needs.

The end game is to weaken the federal government enough so that billionaires and megacorporations can fill the power vacuum. The end game is a corporate plutocracy where corporations have more rights than citizens. Libertarianism is a trojan horse. And all that anyone needs to do in order to verify that is to take a look at who funds libertarian mouthpieces and think tanks like CATO - it's the Koch Brothers (who founded it) and folks like ALEC who are comprised of said megacorporates.

Folks who think libertarianism is about freedom and liberty are deluded. That's not at all the end game.

This, and it jibes with both the statements made by White house Advisor to be Steve Bannon and with the details of the trillion dollar infrastructure plan. So, given this desire for a smaller government end game, why do we need a trillion dollar infrastructure plan, if it isn't to create a true oligarchy in the United States? Scrap the plan and let the states deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So facts and truth now equal fear mongering? Raising the age limit may not mean much for the "deadwooders," but means everything for blue collar folks. Some are barely able to hold on till they qualify for Medicare. Manual labor can be very taxing on the body. My dad was in great physical shape, but he even had a hard time in his last years on the job as he worked on a cement floor for 40 years. Can't find the quote, but just think of how hard a time some folks in their 40s and 50s have had in finding affordable health care. [b]Imagine an 85 year old widow with no close survivors navigating[/b]. Will there be a penalty if coverage lapses, etc? What will her voucher cover if she spends 2 weeks in the hospital with a bad case of pneumonia? Or falls at home and is in rehab for 3 months? so social workers at nursing homes are going to have become experts in 200+ plans? Would love if you could sketch out how this works beyond your admonition of fear mongering.

And, you don't think the widow has a problem now?

And, you think those in their forties and fifties aren't paying more now with ACA?

What is the widow's problem now? She has a no voucher Medicare and, if indigent, Medicaid. What will she do when her voucher only covers a quarter of her med costs and there is no longer Medicaid to cover her long term care.

Many people, even those not on ACA, are paying more. Why are folks in denial about this? Our HHI is in the top 2-3% and our premiums have escalated over last three years and we are not self-employed, on ACA, or have chronic conditions, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I think the answer to OP is yes, a dystopic society where the top 1% live in luxury while the rest live in poverty and cater to their needs.

The end game is to weaken the federal government enough so that billionaires and megacorporations can fill the power vacuum. The end game is a corporate plutocracy where corporations have more rights than citizens. Libertarianism is a trojan horse. And all that anyone needs to do in order to verify that is to take a look at who funds libertarian mouthpieces and think tanks like CATO - it's the Koch Brothers (who founded it) and folks like ALEC who are comprised of said megacorporates.

Folks who think libertarianism is about freedom and liberty are deluded. That's not at all the end game.

Exactly.