Friday, June 26, 2009

The Gang of Eight Who Abandoned Us

We have yet again, been let down by our Republican Representatives. If all of the Republicans in the House of Representatives had stuck together, and shown conviction in standing up to Pelosi, by voting against this Cap & Trade Bill, then this Bill would have been stopped in its tracks. But, no, that didn't happen. These eight Republicans caved in to Pelosi's and Waxman's pressure, and voted YES on the Cap & Trade Bill. These eight Republicans have absolutely NO backbones!!! This Bill has now passed a hurtle and is off to be debated in the Senate. We MUST stop this Bill from being passed in the Senate!!!! Please Call all your Senators, to stop this travesty from happening!!!!

I don't get it, these Republicans are supposed to stand up against higher taxes, but they didn't. They have abandoned us, as conservatives, and our belief in smaller government. This Cap & Trade Bill will cause massive taxes on American consumers. This Bill will cause an economic crisis to turn into a castatrophe. These eight Representatives MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!

Here are the names of the eight Republicans who voted Yes to the Cap & Trade Bill:

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765


22 comments:

Nickie Goomba said...

Thanks for the list. Mack will get a call from me in the morning.

Thanks also for visiting the blog. As a 20 year Social Worker (don't say it!) I appreciate your presence.

I'm taking the liberty of adding a link to your page from my blog.

Teresa said...

Nickie,
Thank You very much for adding a link to my blog. I added a link to your blog also.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

“I don't get it, these Republicans are supposed to stand up against higher taxes, but they didn't. They have abandoned us, as conservatives, and our belief in smaller government.”

Republicans still believe in small government? Some do, I know, but they are the exception these days. I remember watching the other Republican presidential candidates mock and laugh at Ron Paul for defending the principles that once defined conservatism. Any Republican who supports war, for example, supports big government. Wars fought to “spread democracy” or bring “an end to evil” require a very big government!

Woodsterman / Got Wood? (Odie) said...

I'm here from Nickie's place. I love your passion and resolve ... Go get those guys ! (Your newest follower)

Teresa said...

Kyle,
Your right, some Republicans still believe in smaller govt. There are more new comers who are running for elections that believe in conservative values-smaller govt.

I don't agree with you when you say "Any Republican who supports war, for example, supports big government." The Wars of the past-WWI, Civil War, and Revolutionary War etc., were not fought because of big govt. I don't think that just because you want to spread freedom and free others' from tyranny, that you are necessarily promoting big govt. Yes, I will agree that promoting big govt. and fighting a war can happen at the same time. But, I don't think that the two are interconnected.

I think that "liberalism" plays a bigger role in the spread of big govt. Sometimes Republicans lose their way, fall into that trap, and end up following the liberal way.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

It doesn’t matter for what reason modern wars are fought; they entail big government. It takes big government to fight wars effectively. It really takes big government to remake other nations (or our own) framed on a new political philosophy. The Iraq War was a huge government program, involving enormous funds, dense concentrations of power, a mass of government employees, and multiple government agencies and operations. The war on terror saw the creation of new government agencies. When fighting wars, governments grow in side and scope. They have to. War and big government are interconnected because it takes big government to wage war. Hence the old expression that war is the health of the state. You cannot consistently support a war and be against the growth of the government (making government bigger) in all cases.

Some conservatives have tolerated the growth of the state during war on the basis that the increases in size and scope were temporary. When the war was over, government would return to a smaller size. What should have given conservatives pause, but largely didn’t, was the perpetual nature of the war on terror. We saw and continue to see many conservatives defending permanent big government because they defend war with no end in sight.

Teresa said...

Woodsterman,
Thanks for both the compliment and following me.

Teresa said...

Kyle,
I disagree with your cause and effect analysis.

I don't think that people who want to bring freedom to the oppressed who can't fight against tyranny thenselves, necessarily support a "big" govt. But, Wars, may initiate govt to grow, or as result of a war, the war may cause big govt. or a bigger govt. The Govt. may grow inevitably due to the war, in the International community, but that does not necessarily mean that it must grow within the U.S. domestically. Once the war ends jobs are ended overseas(maybe not all), troops brought home,funding ends, and we eventually let the nation take over control for itself, both financially and through its own govt. One example of that would be WWII.

Do you believe that Republicans, who believe in freedom, which may result in War, cannot believe in smaller govt. on various other issues within the Govt. in the U.S.?

One example, what about Republicans that voted for the War in Iraq because of the appearance of a threat against the U.S., but they just voted against both Stimulus packages, or/and against the Cap& trade Bill?

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Sure Republicans can support big government in some ways and small government in others. The point I’ve been making is that many Republicans and conservatives really don’t oppose big government in principle: they oppose some big government programs and support others.

You write:

“I don't think that people who want to bring freedom to the oppressed who can't fight against tyranny thenselves, necessarily support a "big" govt.”

Of course they do. They support big government as a means to bringing freedom to the oppressed. They have to support big government because big government is required for such an endeavor. Look at the Iraq War. How much money and how many man hours did our government spend? How many new agencies were formed? How many operations did our government engaged in that it wouldn’t have been engaged in had we not gone to war. The invasion itself involved the military, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Office for Special Plans, the CIA, the Defense Department, the FBI, and others. The occupation saw the creation of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, the Iraq Reconstruction and Development Council, the Coalition Provisional Authority, and a number of programs geared toward responding to the social and economic crisis facing Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. If all of these offices, agencies, operations, and programs don’t amount to “big government,” then the term is meaningless. And it doesn’t matter that the operations are overseas. It is our government that grew as a result of the Iraq War.

You also write:

“Once the war ends jobs are ended overseas(maybe not all), troops brought home,funding ends, and we eventually let the nation take over control for itself, both financially and through its own govt. One example of that would be WWII.”

This doesn’t disprove that war involves big government; it only shows that particular government programs come to an end. Of course, others get started, and the warfare state continues on.

Ben Read said...

I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Kyle. Warmongering = Big Government. Sorry, it's just a simple fact. War requires substantial government and military (also a government function) infrastructure to perpetuate.

On another note, I really have to question your motive in this blog post in the first place. While I am a proponent of demand driving market forces, the question of the environment is one that won't be addressed without some external force being placed on the market. Are you going to call your electric company and tell them to turn off power to your home because they aren't producing environmentally sustainable energy? And could you make a $40-50,000 investment in solar power for your home today?

While I don't want to get into a greenhouse gases/global warming discussion, politicians on both sides of the fence agree that we have to move away from fossil fuels for the security of our nation and for a better environment (if nothing more, with reduced smog and the ill health effects that come with it). Some force has to be placed on the market to change. And a very conservative-based argument is that even though pricing might go up in the short term, let's not worry about the industry that's affected. This change will only make us stronger in developing a new, world-leading industry.

These senators haven't failed us - they just thought beyond their party roll call and used rational thought to make the right decision. There might be a temporary hiccup from this kind of policy going into effect, but it will make us a stronger nation with better power options.

Teresa said...

Kyle,
Some of what was created by the war was created by private enterprises such as news agencies etc. The U.S. news agencies are not govt. run.

The Republicans who supported the war are not in favor of big govt., in the way that FDR expanded our governments social programs during the Great Depression. Temporary Government expansion is a neccessity for succeeding in a War.

Before the Iraq War started, The Pentagon, CIA, The Defense Dpartment, military, the FBI were all in existence before the start of the Iraq War. Therefore, the Iraq War did not cause the creation of these agencies.
The Office of Special Plans was started in 2002, which was before the Iraq War started and used to gain intelligence.

The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs was created as a transitional government, from 2003 until its dissolution in 2004.
The Coalition Provisional Authority replaced the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, and performed similar duties as the Humanitarian program did. They did not coexist at the same time.

Yes, large amounts of money have been used for the War in Iraq and its reconstruction efforts. Money can be replaced, but innocent Iraqi lives cannot be replaced, or brought back to life. They are permanently gone forever.
Money is one of the many costs of freedom. If the U.S. had not participated in previous wars on the basis that they would have been far too costly, or because of that possibility, than Hitler and other brutal dictators that were removed or killed, may have stayed in power for a long time.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Teresa,

You wrote:

“Some of what was created by the war was created by private enterprises such as news agencies etc. The U.S. news agencies are not govt. run.”

Yeah, so?

“The Republicans who supported the war are not in favor of big govt., in the way that FDR expanded our governments social programs during the Great Depression.”

Both saw big government as a suitable means for achieving their desired ends. That the Republicans and Democrats have different pet projects doesn’t mean they haven’t both at times advocated big government.

“Temporary Government expansion is a neccessity for succeeding in a War.”

Ah, so then you are for bigger government in some instances!

“Before the Iraq War started, The Pentagon, CIA, The Defense Dpartment, military, the FBI were all in existence before the start of the Iraq War. Therefore, the Iraq War did not cause the creation of these agencies.”

I didn’t say the Iraq War caused their creation.

“The Office of Special Plans was started in 2002, which was before the Iraq War started and used to gain intelligence.”

The OSP gathered information that led to the invasion. It grew out of a unit charged with gathering damning intelligence on Iraq that would help make the case for war. It was therefore, as I said, involved in the invasion.

“The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs was created as a transitional government, from 2003 until its dissolution in 2004. The Coalition Provisional Authority replaced the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, and performed similar duties as the Humanitarian program did. They did not coexist at the same time.”

Did I say they coexisted?

“Yes, large amounts of money have been used for the War in Iraq and its reconstruction efforts. Money can be replaced, but innocent Iraqi lives cannot be replaced, or brought back to life. They are permanently gone forever.”

True. And my opposition to the Iraq War had much more to do with the massive death, displacement and destruction it would cause than with the cost involved.
“Money is one of the many costs of freedom. If the U.S. had not participated in previous wars on the basis that they would have been far too costly, or because of that possibility, than Hitler and other brutal dictators that were removed or killed, may have stayed in power for a long time.”

This sounds like an argument for big government!

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Ben,

Good points. Our contemporary way of life has negative effects upon the environment and upon life itself. Living in heavily polluted parts of the country taught me that! If we are going to improve the environment, then we have to make changes to the way we live, and those changes will affect the market. Would be nice if people of their own volition would be eco-friendly, so to speak, but that doesn’t look likely to happen. Here, therefore, is an area where government involvement makes sense. Doesn’t mean every measure advanced by the government is a good one, of course, but I don’t see a market solution being effective on its own.

Teresa said...

Kyle,
When you named all of those agencies together, you gave the perception that they all together at the same time make up big govt. That is why I made the not coexisting point.

What I am for is both the freedom and the protection of the United States of America. I am not for big govt. in they way that liberals promote the ideas for bringing about big govt.

Also, You named all of those agencies in being involved with the Iraq War in relation to big government and how the Iraq War caused big government. These agencies would have existed regardless of whether there was a war or not. So, by my assessment there was big government before the Iraq War even started.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

"So, by my assessment there was big government before the Iraq War even started."

Yes, the warfare state has been around for a while, and didn't begin with the Iraq War. I remember reading that we've been involved in over 200 military operations since the end of World War II. I focused in the Iraq War as an example of a big government "program," not as a sole cause of big government.

Teresa said...

Ben,
I am questioning your motives!!!! This Bill will only bring hardship and suffering to our economy. This Bill will cause massive layoffs and cause the poor to be poorer. It will cause our middle class to be poor. This Bill will Not help the environment one iota!!! You obviously would put the environment above keeping human beings from starving. When the streets are full of hungry people, I know who to blame for the massive amount of people who go hungry-YOU. When corporations are forced to close because they can't afford to pay utilities because this cap & trade Bill forced costs to skyrocket, and I see hungry people on the streets like during the Great Depression, I know exactly who to blame-YOU. You don't get it!! The costs will be passed on to us-the consumers. This Bill will only hurt America. So yes, I question your motives when a person would rather care about the well-being of environment and wildlife, rather than human beings.
Human Beings take precedent over the environment!!!!
Obviously you are a progressive that is leading this country on a road to HELL!!!!

Yes. These eight Republicans are not thinking of the citizens of this great country. They have abandoned conservative principles. They have crossed the lines over to the dark and evil lair of the Democrats. They have crossed the line to the Party who couldn't give a rats ass about this country. Republicans care more about this country than the Democrats could ever dream to.

This Bill WILL NOT help us to get away from fossil fuels. Obama is not allowing off shore drilling, and other additional drilling on land. With environmentalists like you, we will NEVER be independent from foreign oil.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Teresa,

Just give it up and admit it - Ben's right. You're motives are suspect. You spend so much time blogging and twittering that you must be getting paid for it. Admit it - you are a shill for Big Oil! Come out of the closet, already, you Conspirator! Why would Ben question your motives if he didn't know what he was talking about? After all, it's not like he knows you personally. He must be privy to some information that justifies his suspicion. That must be it. Otherwise, he'd just be an ASSHOLE!!

Ben Read said...

I'm sorry to have intruded upon a private conversation where only certain individuals are allowed to discuss. I hope you are more friendly and open in your real lives than you've been to me on this blog. I guess that us left-wing, tree-hugging, whale-loving, people-hating liberals should just keep our mouths shut since we no longer live in a democratic republic.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Or you could disagree with people's points without questioning their motives like an asshole...

Teresa said...

Ben,
I don't mind when a person disagrees with me on an issue but when a person questions my motives, the claws come out GGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRR..............

Ben Read said...

Perhaps this was a poor choice of words - and not knowing me, words are all you have to judge me by. I honestly meant, by "questioning your motives," that I was trying to get at the real reason you would want these representatives removed for voting with their conscience. Are you really calling for this because they have violated the voters' trust, or is it because they've done something you think doesn't fall down the party line? Rather than questioning your motives, I really wanted to understand them. I never intended my statement to question your ethics or morals, or to imply that you were trying to do something evil. If my words were taken that way, I sincerely apologize as that's not how they sounded in my head as I wrote them.

We do not live under a purely democratic government. We entrust leaders to make decisions for us. Part of that is having a responsibility to represent their constituency, and we have the right to vote them out of office if they clearly violate that trust. My question, if I were to have posed it more eloquently, would have been this:

Why do you feel abandoned? Why should these representatives be voted out of office? The issue that they voted their consciences on is one of great importance to us. Beyond trees and animals, I'm a father who puts the interests of my son before anyone, or anything, else in this world. If we don't reduce pollution and smog his life expectancy will decrease, his chances of developing asthma and lung cancer increase and he is stuck in a dirty, ugly world. Who wants that for their children?

This issue is not about a tax - that's a great marketing campaign that the Republican leadership has run to torpedo this effort. HOwever, if you look at strong, conservative economic values you will see that there is merit in this proposal. Conservative principals dictate the least involvement from government as necessary. And it's the "as necessary" that people seem to forget. This is one issue that can't be handled by the market itself because there is no incentive. That doesn't mean that there isn't a need, or even a desire from the consumers in that market. You won't turn off your electricity because it is generated by burning fossil fuels. You won't move to somewhere that produces nuclear-powered energy. These aren't reasonable demands. The only solution in this case is that the market must be regulated to address the issue. From all that I have read, I truly believe that the renewable energy industry will develop at incredible rates to rival the size and scope of the fossil fuels industry. That won't mean starving families, it will mean more prosperity and global leadership.

These representatives should be praised for standing up and voting for something they feel will help address an incredible issue for our future. It is an investment in the future and we rarely see congressmen thinking beyond the next election. It is the "next election" motive that I believe has driven the Republican party to stand against what is otherwise the best option proposed to date for dealing with this.

I hope this better represents my question and my beliefs... if not, I'll leave :)

Teresa said...

Ben,
Apology accepted. I propose Let's turn over a new leaf and begin anew.

I believe in caring for the environment but there is a lot in this Bill that jeopardizes businesses existence. Most of the taxes that are going to be increased on businesses will be passed on to the consumers. But, this bill will affect small businesses the most, to the point where they won't be able to survive becasue of the tax hikes. Unless, somehow the government would grant some relief to small businesses. This Bill will affect most everything to do with utilities, gasoline etc., including many products as well, and all of these items would have taxes increased on them.

Pelosi and Waxman were scrambling for votes until the very last day. They basically bribed these 8 Republicans to get their votes. This was shown on the House floor on T.V. as it was happening. They also worked out for a number of Democrats, who might be in trouble for re-election, so that they could vote against the bill in order to appease their constituency. That is one reason I would say that the eight GOP members abamdoned their principles and gave into bribes instead.

As, a Conservative I am against higher taxes and that is another reason that these eight Republicans have abandoned their principles and their constituents wishes/beliefs. One Republican belief is in lower taxes.
I believe that Americans can come up with a bill that would help the environment and not increase taxes so dramatically, especially at a time when we are in trouble economically-recession.

Most Republicans believe that this type of Bill is not necessary. I don't think that they are primarily thinking about the next election. They have read the legislation, gotten both economists and environmentalists opinions, and listened to their constituents when they made the decision to vote against the bill,other Republicans- not the eight that voted for it. The Republicans do not want the American taxpayer to be burdened with additional higher taxes.

I believe that there can be better incentives for businesses etc. to clean the environment, without a tax increase on pretty much everything, which is what this bill will do. Thinking about the future, making air cleaner-better to breathe, and stop cancer but I think that there are much better ways to take action in cleaning the environment than taxation.