The Republican Party is reeling from defeat, what changes should they make?

Needing_Grace said:

I don't disagree, but I believe that the government's job in a democratic republic is to protect and form society. The government acts as our agent and on our behalf because in a society as interconnected as ours, it is necessary to have an accountable agency to deal with society and its issues as a whole. The key is that this take place in a democratic republic where the government is responsible to the people through fair and open elections.

Click to expand...

The problem is our government isn't accountable any longer. Why because we no longer have a media that reports abuses any longer, at least not unbias. Today the government is in 100% control of this country. People aren't. To get elected in this country requires alot of money and better hate ads. We don't hold government officials responsible. We gripe and complain about them for 2, 4, or 6 years and when elections come up we just re-elect them.

Think about how President Obama got re-elected for just one second. His re-election campaign didn't push his agenda or his record. President Obama ran on neither of these. Rather President Obama won by convincing enough people that Romney was going to do ... and that he kills people and steals their money, etc.

This is how people get elected now. We don't elect no one any longer on their record or their agenda. Most of the time you don't know what either is, unless you do alot of digging. The media no longer does what it is suppose to do. And to be honest they are one of the major reasons for the declining environment in this country. If this country collapses in our lifetimes historians will look back and blame the media, for this I have no doubt.

Needing_Grace said:

It must not be forgotten that no person stands alone. We stand or fall together.

Click to expand...

No we don't stand alone. We can't. But now we live in a country that hasn't been this divided since what maybe the civil war? Don't forget what Jesus said, A house divided will fall, and right now our house is divided.

Needing_Grace said:

And as to salvation, Christianity is anything BUT individualistic (as someone on CAF once said). We are saved together but damned alone. I mean, just try receiving the sacraments all by yourself.

Click to expand...

You are right. But guess what most Catholics are individualistic. You want the proof of this? Next time your church has a function to do x, how many show up to help?

Aeyamar said:

If they changed their stance on Climate Change and the environment that would be a really important shift in my opinion. I'd also like it if the Republican platform incorporated scientific data and testing into their platform in general. That is to say, that instead of embracing denialism for the sake of party ideology, they reacted to scientific research and understanding by adjusting their platform (e.g. Climate change, evolution being taught in schools, etc).

I'd also particularly like it if they became the party of individual liberty and championed an end to the security state that was ramped up under Bush's presidency and perpetuated under Obama's. This is in my opinion where one of our current president's greatest policy failure lies.

Click to expand...

Climate Change is natural. We have science to prove it.
The Republican Party does not have any problem teaching Evolution. But not Darwinism.
Your second paragraph is very true...

LoAmmi said:

So you believe IT support is not worth paying for?

Click to expand...

No I'm not saying that, but in most cases IT support can be provided by private companies.

Erose said:

No I'm not saying that, but in most cases IT support can be provided by private companies.

Click to expand...

and those private companies ship the actual jobs overseas.

So, your plan takes jobs away from Americans and gives them to, say, India. Are you sure you want to run with that?

Also, I was a contractor not an employee. We were not considered essential though. Do non-employee contractors get to stay?

LoAmmi said:

and those private companies ship the actual jobs overseas.

So, your plan takes jobs away from Americans and gives them to, say, India. Are you sure you want to run with that?

Click to expand...

So you think that a private company is going to have a man/woman from India fly over to the US to replace a hard drive?

Erose said:

So you think that a private company is going to have a man/woman from India fly over to the US to replace a hard drive?

Click to expand...

No, usually the hardware manufacturer such as Dell will contract someone to replace the hard drive. The help desk will simply call the manufacturer to report the hardware failure. If you ever call Dell and a person shows up at your door, they were not the person you spoke to and they are not an employee of Dell. But that help desk job has been lost to another country.

LoAmmi said:

No, usually the hardware manufacturer such as Dell will contract someone to replace the hard drive. The help desk will simply call the manufacturer to report the hardware failure. If you ever call Dell and a person shows up at your door, they were not the person you spoke to and they are not an employee of Dell. But that help desk job has been lost to another country.

Click to expand...

Well that still means that an American just replaced your hard drive does it not?

Look if you want jobs to come back here it is pretty simple to do. Cut corporate taxes down to a similar level that most other industrialized countries have. Currently we have one of the highest rates in the world. That isn't good.

LoAmmi said:

Also, I was a contractor not an employee. We were not considered essential though. Do non-employee contractors get to stay?

Click to expand...

If they are needed yes.

Erose said:

No I'm not saying that, but in most cases IT support can be provided by private companies.

Click to expand...

Why pay for an employee plus someone's profit and have to work with their schedule when you can just pay an employee and have them available when needed?

Sent from my iPhone using CF

Root of Jesse said:

Climate Change is natural. We have science to prove it.
The Republican Party does not have any problem teaching Evolution. But not Darwinism.
Your second paragraph is very true...

Click to expand...

What science are you referring to that proves climate change is natural and not man-made? There's a 97-98% consensus among practicing climatologists that the current climatic change is mostly or entirely cause by humans. Even the study the Koch Brothers (two ideologically right-wing business men who make large portions of their fortunes off fossil fuels) poured millions into to get the facts straight on Human fossil-fuel generated climate change, came back with the conclusion that the scientific consensus was accurate and the data indicated that the climate change the planet is undergoing right now is not natural.

Scientists have been tracking carbon emissions over the past 60 years with the warming of the earth and have even gone so far as to trace back previous climate patterns all the way back to the most recent ice age. And the data they've gathered all points to the fact that both in temperature and in atmospheric carbon content, we are living in a period that is completely out of synch with the known natural cycles of the earth. And the change based on historic data is correlated with the start of the industrial revolution and the sudden widespread use of large amounts of coal and later oil to power industry.

Climate change denial is also primarily an American peculiarity. Only in the US is there the particular peculiarity of one political party latching onto climate change denial. So here in the states the scientifically dishonest explanations of climate change or sometimes even outright conspiracies are given way more time in the spotlight. Likewise, the politicization of climate change also is what caused it to move from a fact accepted by the majority of Americans in the 90s (even when stratified by political affiliation it was majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans), to a minority of Republicans and a more even split among independents by the end of the 2000s.

That was a lot more writing than I expected when I first started my reply. Let me also state that I'm glad you even read my original post. It was more or less passed over by everyone else.

Needing_Grace said:

Why pay for an employee plus someone's profit and have to work with their schedule when you can just pay an employee and have them available when needed?

Sent from my iPhone using CF

Click to expand...

Because in most cases it is cheaper to hire a contractor for spot duty than have a person on the payroll for that same spot duty. Also in some cases it is just cheaper.

We have a local company where my company has had a engineer contracting to them for over a year now. Every day he goes there. In fact that is his only job now, to supply engineering support to that company. Why does this happen? Because that company learned it was cheaper for them to contract than to hire.

By the way the new number for the national dept now is: $16,680,382,269,539

Erose said:

By the way the new number for the national dept now is: $16,680,382,269,539

Click to expand...

The national dept? Is this their telephone number?

...

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Needing_Grace said:

Psychological Projection

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.

Erose said:

My point is the government needs to get back to its basic responsibilities. The need to get out of all this frivilous stuff that they are in now. An in my opinion furlough all non-essential government personnel and don't invite them back. And after doing this go visit every governmental department and the ones that are empty close them and those that are no consolidate. That would be an excellent start.

Click to expand...

And what will THAT do to the unemployment rate?

And if programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been established law for many, many years they are not "frivolous." They are life-giving and life-saving. They are essential. They are necessary.

The economically ignorant seem to believe that government can be drastically cut without causing widespread unemployment and recession.

The reason why unemployment is still 7.9% is because Tea Party governors in places like Wisconsin and Ohio laid off hundreds of thousands of state employees. No wonder why their residents voted for Obama and will most likely vote to oust them at the first opportunity.

Economics 101: With a current reference to the U.K.

Drastically cutting the federal budget raises unemployment. If grants to states are cut, those states suffer. The companies that do business with the federal government also suffer. If benefits are cut, the people that receive those benefits have no money to spend.

Economics 102: This recession lowers tax revenues--because people who used to pay taxes no longer have the incomes to do so.

The net result is that the drastic budget cut leaves the government no better off than it was previously.

Erose said:

Ok, but like I said if people want it then let them donate their money to it. EWTN and many other Christian networks use the same model and they are not getting federal funds. PBS should do the same thing. The point is that right now if we as a country want to get out of this horrible financial mess that we are in we need to understand we can't afford this stuff any longer.

Remember this number: $16,680,160,235,247 that is our national dept and it is climbing very fast.

Click to expand...

EWTN doesn't come close to the level of production as PBS.

The government funding of PBS is very small compared to everything else they fund.

But in addition to government funding, PBS and NPR must raise the rest of the money to stay in operation and produce the level of programing they do. If they went commercial, the sponsors would dictate the type of programing they produce, and the quality would go down hill.

As it is, I use to watch Discovery Chanel, which is totally privately funded through sponsors. However, the quality of their program has gone down so low, it's akin to a tabloid network.


Jim

Fantine said:

And what will THAT do to the unemployment rate?

Click to expand...

It would go down of course.

Fantine said:

And if programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been established law for many, many years they are not "frivolous." They are life-giving and life-saving. They are essential. They are necessary.

Click to expand...

When did I say that these programs are non-essential? Hum. You need to stop trying to demonize everyone that doesn't agree with you Fantine. Do not bear false witness is still one of the commandments.

Fantine said:

The economically ignorant seem to believe that government can be drastically cut without causing widespread unemployment and recession.

Click to expand...

Yes it can be cut. It needs to be drasitically cut. The worse thing for this country right now is this climbing number called our national dept: $16,680,949,178,762 it keeps going up and up and up and up and up ...

Fantine said:

The reason why unemployment is still 7.9% is because Tea Party governors in places like Wisconsin and Ohio laid off hundreds of thousands of state employees. No wonder why their residents voted for Obama and will most likely vote to oust them at the first opportunity.

Click to expand...

Don't be silly. The governor of Wisconsin saved those jobs where if the union had its way there would have been 1000s of teachers layed off. When Governor Walker took over Wisconsin the unemployment rate was over 9% in Wisconsin now it is 7.3%. Also under a Tea Party governor in Ohio the unemployment rate in that state went from over 10% down to 7.0%. Both of these States under Tea Party Governors now enjoy an unemployment rate below the national average.

Fantine said:

Economics 101: With a current reference to the U.K.

Drastically cutting the federal budget raises unemployment. If grants to states are cut, those states suffer. The companies that do business with the federal government also suffer. If benefits are cut, the people that receive those benefits have no money to spend.

Click to expand...

Not all of us believe in Keynesian economics. If we learned anything over the last four years Keynesian economics doesn't work.

Fantine said:

Economics 102: This recession lowers tax revenues--because people who used to pay taxes no longer have the incomes to do so.

The net result is that the drastic budget cut leaves the government no better off than it was previously.

Click to expand...

Yeah so we need to get out of the private companies' way and let them start producing jobs. More regulations and higher tax rates are not the way to do that.

JimR-OCDS said:

EWTN doesn't come close to the level of production as PBS.

The government funding of PBS is very small compared to everything else they fund.

But in addition to government funding, PBS and NPR must raise the rest of the money to stay in operation and produce the level of programing they do. If they went commercial, the sponsors would dictate the type of programing they produce, and the quality would go down hill.

As it is, I use to watch Discovery Chanel, which is totally privately funded through sponsors. However, the quality of their program has gone down so low, it's akin to a tabloid network.


Jim

Click to expand...

So your point is that PBS and NPR don't produce a product people are willing to buy so we have to subsidize them? Well you have your answer then. Time for them to stand on their own two feet or go by-by. We just can no longer afford spending money on things we shouldn't be spending money on. Does everyone forget this country is standing on a financial cliff right now? Since my last post the national debt is now: $16,680,956,414,906

Erose

So your point is that PBS and NPR don't produce a product people are willing to buy so we have to subsidize them?

Click to expand...

No, I never said that. In fact, people do support PBS and NPR out of their own pockets because they like the programing.

However, take away the government funding and let them go totally commercial, the sponsors will dictate the programing.

Look at network TV and there is nothing equivalent to what PBS produces.

I don't want PBS to become another network where sitcoms and murder shows are the norm.


Jim