MonsterMark said:
See, now this is pure partisian.
No comment about the letter I notice. Why? Cause its all true and is indefensible?
-
An Open Letter to the Republican Party
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
See, now this is pure partisian.
No comment about the letter I notice. Why? Cause its all true and is indefensible?
-
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry. Sometimes I just don't have the time to pontificate and being 'pithy' is the next best thing.:NJoeychgo said:
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
I asked you before...
Vitas said:
I'll ask you again, what is it specifically that you are objecting to
about the 1994 "Contract with America?"
Joeychgo said:
If that is the way you choose to respond to my opinion, you will soon have a nutcase Yahoo chatboard here. If that is what you want, that is what you will have...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
Vitas, he's NOT objecting to the contract with America. Geez. He's pointing out with a quoted article/excerpt that the current Republican party has strayed away from the commitments that they made back in 1994, and I agree with the quote.
When you quoted his opening statement in your first post on this thread, you encapsulated his bottom line. He said it clearly: He thought it would be interesting.
Stop insisting that he answer a question that is invalid. You're cluttering up this thread.
Vitas said:
You expressed no opinion.... And I thought you had better things to do...
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
What is the basis for your complaint?
CF:
Joeychgo said:
:yawn:
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
yeah, put yourself to sleep
You aint said nothing Vitas - Nothing at all of value.
I did notice that most of the right wingers have had little to say about the letter.
I did notice that most of the right wingers have had little to say about the letter.
FreeFaller
USAF LS8
I brought up a point...but I'm used to being ignored...
...not inflammatory enough I guess
...not inflammatory enough I guess
FreeFaller said:
Yeah - it seems that if we dont let the right wingers divert the issue, they dont want to discuss anything, expecially when they dont have democrats to blame.
I responded to your point though steve. It would be very hard to seal the border, but what other options do we have to stop some terrorist from just walking into the use via the rio grande?
FreeFaller
USAF LS8
They don't just cross the rio grande.
We have a saying in the USAF. Force Protection is everyone's job! The best weapon against those who would do us ill are the eyes and ears of Joe citizen. That's where we need to start. Educating and informing the masses.
Americans need to start becoming a part of this fight. Not just sit around and wait for the government to come and wipe their a$$ for them.
Read my new post...
We have a saying in the USAF. Force Protection is everyone's job! The best weapon against those who would do us ill are the eyes and ears of Joe citizen. That's where we need to start. Educating and informing the masses.
Americans need to start becoming a part of this fight. Not just sit around and wait for the government to come and wipe their a$$ for them.
Read my new post...
Well, the Government is best equipped to handle the issue. As a citizen my responsibility is to pay the taxes to pay for that force protection. I dont know that I want every Tom, Dick and Harry out on the border with their smith & wesson.
However, that doesnt mean it has to be military or INS only. Local and State governments need to be involved as well.
However, that doesnt mean it has to be military or INS only. Local and State governments need to be involved as well.
FreeFaller said:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
FreeFaller said:
Yeah, but weren't the Minutemen told to stand down?
All because they were making the border patrol look bad.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm
o.k. which leaves us with two questions:
is the opposition to the GOP often voiced here simply because of their lack of effectiveness? Reasonable complaint.
And here's the problem, do you think the DNC will do anything any better?
There is no reason to think so. Because they spent over 40 years digging the holes. Unfortunately, instead of filling the hole back up, too many of the GOP are just digging more slowly.
is the opposition to the GOP often voiced here simply because of their lack of effectiveness? Reasonable complaint.
And here's the problem, do you think the DNC will do anything any better?
There is no reason to think so. Because they spent over 40 years digging the holes. Unfortunately, instead of filling the hole back up, too many of the GOP are just digging more slowly.
JC1994
Dedicated LVC Member
Great post Joey, I had almost forgot all those empty promises. I also vote based on how I feel about the candidate. not party affiliation. I did not like Gore or Kerry, so was I right to vote for Bush? well let's say being unemployed 6 months for the first time in 18 years has me wondering, but I really think that it would not matter who is sitting in the oval office so I don't blame Bush for that. NAFTA did not help either, and the reason I voted for Clinton is he claimed to be against it, Dole got my vote next time. they all make promises they will never keep. the whole system needs to be changed before my faith in it is restored.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JC1994 said:
:I
First of all, I don't think the "author" of the first post is a conservative. Those items mentioned were address the first week the 104th congress was in session.
The Contract With America was remarkably successful. While everything didn't become law, everything in it was brought to a vote. Most everything passed the house, but some couldn't get through the Senate, or President Clinton vetoed it.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by a 3/5 vote in both Houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House 279-152, 1/4/95; rejected by the US Senate 65-35, 3/2/95), and provide the President with a line-item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House 294-134, 2/6/95).
The Taking Back Our Streets Act
An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions (H.R.666, passed 289-142 2/8/95), death penalty provisions (H.R.729, passed 297-132 2/8/95), funding prison construction (H.R.667, passed 265-156 2/10/95, rc#117) and additional law enforcement (H.R.728, passed 238-192 2/14/95).
The Personal Responsibility Act
An act to cut spending for welfare programs by means of discouraging illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. This would be achieved by prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age, denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, and enacting a two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. H.R.4, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, included provisions giving food vouchers to unwed mothers under 18 in lieu of cash AFDC benefits, denying cash AFDC benefits for additional children to people on AFDC, requiring recipients to participate in work programs after 2 years on AFDC, complete termination of AFDC payments after five years, and suspending driver and professional licenses of people who fail to pay child support. H.R.4, passed by the US House 234-199, 3/23/95, and passed by the US Senate 87-12, 9/19/95.
The American Dream Restoration Act
An act to create a $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. H.R.1215, passed 246-188, 4/5/95.
The National Security Restoration Act
An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the President determines its necessity for the purposes of national security, to cut US payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO. H.R.7, passed 241-181, 2/16/95.
The "Common Sense" Legal Reform Act
An act to institute "Loser pays" laws (H.R.988, passed 232-193, 3/7/95), limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to prevent what Republicans considered frivolous litigation (H.R.956, passed 265-161, 3/10/95). Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by President Bill Clinton.
The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act
A package of measures to act as small business incentives: capital gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. Although this was listed as a single bill in the Contract, its provisions ultimately made it to the House Floor as four different bills:
* H.R.5, requiring Federal funding for state spending mandated by Congressional action, and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $50m per year, was passed 360-74, 2/1/95.
* H.R.450 required a moratorium on the implementation of Federal regulations until June 30th 1995, and was passed 276-146, 2/24/95.
* H.R.925 required Federal compensation to be paid to property owners when Federal Government actions reduced the value of the property by 20% of more, and was passed 277-148, 3/3/95.
* H.R.926, passed 415-14 on 3/1/95, required Federal agencies to provide a cost-benefit analysis on any regulation costing $50m or more annually, to be signed off on by the Office of Management and Budget, and permitted small businesses to sue that agency if they believed the aforementioned analysis was performed inadequately or incorrectly.
The Citizen Legislature Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (i.e. six terms for Representatives, two terms for Senators). H.J.Res.73 rejected by the US House 227-204 (a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority not a simple majority), 3/29/95; RC #277.
Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, an elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
The Contract With America was remarkably successful. While everything didn't become law, everything in it was brought to a vote. Most everything passed the house, but some couldn't get through the Senate, or President Clinton vetoed it.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by a 3/5 vote in both Houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House 279-152, 1/4/95; rejected by the US Senate 65-35, 3/2/95), and provide the President with a line-item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House 294-134, 2/6/95).
The Taking Back Our Streets Act
An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions (H.R.666, passed 289-142 2/8/95), death penalty provisions (H.R.729, passed 297-132 2/8/95), funding prison construction (H.R.667, passed 265-156 2/10/95, rc#117) and additional law enforcement (H.R.728, passed 238-192 2/14/95).
The Personal Responsibility Act
An act to cut spending for welfare programs by means of discouraging illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. This would be achieved by prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age, denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, and enacting a two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. H.R.4, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, included provisions giving food vouchers to unwed mothers under 18 in lieu of cash AFDC benefits, denying cash AFDC benefits for additional children to people on AFDC, requiring recipients to participate in work programs after 2 years on AFDC, complete termination of AFDC payments after five years, and suspending driver and professional licenses of people who fail to pay child support. H.R.4, passed by the US House 234-199, 3/23/95, and passed by the US Senate 87-12, 9/19/95.
The American Dream Restoration Act
An act to create a $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. H.R.1215, passed 246-188, 4/5/95.
The National Security Restoration Act
An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the President determines its necessity for the purposes of national security, to cut US payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO. H.R.7, passed 241-181, 2/16/95.
The "Common Sense" Legal Reform Act
An act to institute "Loser pays" laws (H.R.988, passed 232-193, 3/7/95), limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to prevent what Republicans considered frivolous litigation (H.R.956, passed 265-161, 3/10/95). Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by President Bill Clinton.
The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act
A package of measures to act as small business incentives: capital gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. Although this was listed as a single bill in the Contract, its provisions ultimately made it to the House Floor as four different bills:
* H.R.5, requiring Federal funding for state spending mandated by Congressional action, and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $50m per year, was passed 360-74, 2/1/95.
* H.R.450 required a moratorium on the implementation of Federal regulations until June 30th 1995, and was passed 276-146, 2/24/95.
* H.R.925 required Federal compensation to be paid to property owners when Federal Government actions reduced the value of the property by 20% of more, and was passed 277-148, 3/3/95.
* H.R.926, passed 415-14 on 3/1/95, required Federal agencies to provide a cost-benefit analysis on any regulation costing $50m or more annually, to be signed off on by the Office of Management and Budget, and permitted small businesses to sue that agency if they believed the aforementioned analysis was performed inadequately or incorrectly.
The Citizen Legislature Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (i.e. six terms for Representatives, two terms for Senators). H.J.Res.73 rejected by the US House 227-204 (a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority not a simple majority), 3/29/95; RC #277.
Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, an elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
Calabrio said:
And what has happened since Bush took office 5 years ago? How come the job wasnt finished if these great ideas were held up by democrats?
They were held up by the Senate, and the President at the time.Joeychgo said:
Why haven't all of them been addressed? Because that takes politic will, and these politicians are afraid of the beating they'll take when the press misrepresents them.
In case you forgot, according to the Democrats and the media, old people and children were going to starve and die because of the Republicans. Old people would mix their medicine with dog food. And children would go to school hungry and sit in school buildings with holes in the roof, with their giant distended bellies.
But, answer my question:
Do all of you support the ideas proposed in the Contract With America.
If you do, then you're all Republicans.
And, you're probably like most of us conservatives, who ARE frustrated at the lack of progress on these issues.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
I have said more than you have. You copied someone else's opinion.
I was the first one to answer you with a short answer, which stands.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Edit: Nevermind. Not worth it.
Calabrio said:
SO what your saying is the 'Good Guys', the poor misunderstood and underdog republicans, despite having control of congress and white house, cant get the job done that they were elected on because the big bad democrats and liberal media will give them bad press and the people will respond negatively toward the republicans for fulfilling their election promises. So, instead, they build a $200 million dollar bridge in Alaska...
Calabrio said:
I agree with some, what bothers me most, after the all talk no acton part, is the numerous contridictions philosophically.
Lets support the death penalty but ban abortion;
Lets proclaim to want to get government off the people's backs (mainly by reducing taxes for the rich) but stand by idely while oil prices, and consequently the price of every consumer product increase considerably;
Lets use phrases like "The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act" which does little to directly increase jobs or increase wages, however gives the rich more wealth via the taxes paid mostly by middle america. All the while watch the same rich people outsource our jobs to China so they can make more money, all the while the Chinese use so much oil that it contributes significantly to increasing oil prices. Then I get to listen to Oil executives claim their entitled to the 26 billion in profits they made in 3 months time.
Its the contridictions that anger me the most. Its all BS.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
Let's kill the innocent child but save the adult murderer.
What's the difference between these two conflicting statements???
One has not chosen its own destiny. The other has.
Joeychgo said:
The $200 million dollar bridge to no-where is a good example of pork spending And the funding should be stopped. But that's hardly the biggest problem facing the federal government.
While pork barrel spending is a problem, the expansion of government and funding of federal programs is where most of the money is being wasted. And any attempt to reform or reduce the rate of growth of these problems is met with irrational levels of hostility from the left and the media.
"If Republicans only expanded the size of government by 5% a year, old people will die. They will have to chose between dog food and cheap medicine from Canada."
Right now, the big problem is that NO Democrats will support fiscal responsibility. And we have a handful of North Eastern and liberal Republicans who are blocking the process as well.
But, the challenge is, NO democrats support reduced government spending or limiting the growth of the federal government. So, to condemn the ineffectiveness of the GOP right now in getting things done is fair. But to do it and support the Democrats is foolish.
Republicans are considered successful when they shrink government and reduce government dependency.
The opposite holds true with the Democrat party. In order for them to retain power they need to expand the size and scope of the government. It's a political philosophy of making people dependent upon government. A depency so great, some of are terrifying someone will take their "entitlements" away. Look at the 90% vote in the inner-cities for additional evidence of this.
There is nothing hypocritcal about this.
The destruction of innocent life has nothing in common with the punishment of the most vile and evil people in our society in the pursuit of justice. This is no moral equivalence in destroy innocent unborn life and a murderer. And to anticipate the next cliche response, there isn't even a biblical contradiction here, as some desperate lefties like to try to attempt. There is no biblical restriction of state execution, or "killing." MURDER is in violation of the 6th commandment, not the broad definition of killing.
Where is the hypocracy here? You're creating examples that defeat your own argument. If you believe in free market systems, why would you interfere with the markets.
If gas prices go up because of limited supply, people will use less. As a result, prices will fall. It also encourages, through the use of the market place, the purchase of more efficient cars.
If you artificially reduce the prices, demand will either stay the same or increase, and that will result in a shortage. Where's the logic in this? While it might make a knee-jerk liberal feel good about it for one minute, in the long run, the policy is destructive.
You don't GIVE rich people more by lower taxes. You just STEAL less from them. "Poor" people don't employ anyone.
You're foolish implication is that by RAISING taxes on businesses, somehow that will result in more jobs being created? How could that possibly be? Please explain where you might have discovered that flawed economic school of thinking?
I'd address the rest of your comment, but it doesn't make any sense. China and Oil prices have nothing to do with the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act.
But regardless, there's no hypocracy here. In fact it's very consistant with supply-side economics. Though given your limited understanding of economics, I'll probably have to explain what that is too.
No, it's not all BS
But your talking points are.