REALLY!, A NEW PLEDGE?

[rigney]

Is this "new" Republican pledge based on ventage ideas, or a ventage pledge based on new ideas? For the sake of this nation, it had beter be neither, but a pledge of ideas compatable to an exponentially changing enviroment. Few of us rationalize it, but the world is changing so rapidly it's literally a daily occurance. And whether Democrats or Republicans decree the mandates running this country, hopefully; the average Americans views will shortly be heard again in the rule making. If not, the fun may have gone out of the game forever. So!, get it together Republicans! "With his help", You've made an ass of Obama these past 2 years. You are in the drivers seat now, and best you don't screw it up. Remember, your good fortune was the concensual support of "elgible" voters who put you back into office. Keep that in mind!

A new concept? I wonder.

 

http://pledge.gop.gov

[jackson33]

rigney; It's hard to estimate whether John Boehner ®, the incoming Speaker of the House is being rhetorical or sincere in his desires. My personal problem with him is he has been around since 1991, was there during the last challenge to the Challenge to the Constitution (1991/92), the publics disapproval and elections of the first Republican Congress in 40 years (1994 Gingrich) and it's methodical demise over the next many years (1998-2006) and did nothing, he was part of the problem he now claims wants to correct.

 

Contrary to what's being said, the NEW HOUSE will choose their speaker and this might just be some ploy to keep any possibility of disrupting the traditional acceptance of the previous House's selection, I don't know. Many new members, however have already been offered special privileges (committee assignments) and apparently will follow through, which to me is the same old scenario.

 

While the Speakership won't be up for election by the full House until January 2011 when the new Congress convenes, in practice the Speaker almost always comes from the majority party.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner

 

You are in the drivers seat now, and best you don't screw it up. Remember, your good fortune was the consensual support of "elgible" voters who put you back into office. Keep that in mind![/Quote]

 

In 1946 Republicans took charge of Congress, with good intend and successfully avoided a predicted return to the "Great Depression" predicted by "Keynesian Economist" advocates (sound familiar) only to take on the slogan "The Do Nothing Congress" and lost their advantage for the next 40+ years. My fear is short of somehow de-crowning Obama in 2012, the same possibility exist now.

 

Anyway as for the Pledge itself if it had been written by anyone from the New Membership or a promoter of them (you know the names), it would fit into the agenda of the newest Majority of the electorate, currently the Independents and in my lifetime the first real apparent desire to return to those ideas this Country was founded on....

 

America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.[/Quote]

 

For the record, I'm not discarding the Reagan Revolution or the Gingrich "Pledge to America", but this movement has come from the Grass Roots up, opposed to promises down and they will be hard to please...

[swansont]

In 1946 Republicans took charge of Congress, with good intend and successfully avoided a predicted return to the "Great Depression" predicted by "Keynesian Economist" advocates (sound familiar)

 

That's not quite true. AFAICT, the prediction of a return of the great depression was contingent on doing nothing to safeguard the economy, and that didn't happen. In 1944 congress passed the GI Bill, and many of the soldiers went back to school rather than look for work. It also paid an unemployment benefit for up to a year, and the loan guarantees helped stimulate construction.

[Moontanman]

This pledge is just more propaganda by extremist elements of the party trying to continue misinformation supporting their agenda. Most of the problems they claim to want to solve are problems created by that same party by deregulation and pandering to greedy immoral people who's life goal is to get rich at any cost with no regard to the lives of the people they ruin along the way. Simply put it's just more bullshit from extremest politicos to justify their grab for power.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Moontanman

[rigney]

This pledge is just more propaganda by extremist elements of the party trying to continue misinformation supporting their agenda. Most of the problems they claim to want to solve are problems created by that same party by deregulation and pandering to greedy immoral people who's life goal is to get rich at any cost with no regard to the lives of the people they ruin along the way. Simply put it's just more bullshit from extremest politicos to justify their grab for power.

 

"WOW", I was going answer Jackson. but reading your reply, it's better that I answer both of you.

The thing is, more than a good old boy attitude is needed to fufill the promises from either side of the aisle that neither party seems to carry out. There must be more than just a little grease applied to the frayed axles of this country. We are more than a 150 years removed from a devestating conflict that literally tore this nation apart in the 1860s. Sadly, there are enough radical idiots out there who would relish nothing more than destroying our total liberties because these freedoms don't fit their venue. And regardless of who is in office, this disaster could happen again; "posthaste". People willing to take something verbatim from politicians readily, usually realize too late that what they mistook for help, was nothing more than their own crudulity. Perhaps even stupidity! Politicians perform jobs, nothing more. And other than self preservation, few help their constituency little more than as a national gesture. Sprinkle a little sugar around and everybody is gonna love it. l look good, stand tall and scream like a wounded 'Banshee" when things don't go my way. But, if you elect me again; I promise to straighten this government out. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was America. I'm working hard to fulfill your dreams. But many of us tend to forget this braggadocio a year or so after elections are over. And ignorant people 'wanting something for nothing", don't really give a damn one way or another. Just gimme!

Edited January 3, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

If the wartime government stimulus had ended the Great Depression, its winding down would certainly lead to its return. At least that was the consensus of almost every economic forecaster, government and private. In August 1945, the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion forecast that 8 million would be unemployed by the spring of 1946, which would have amounted to a 12 percent unemployment rate. In September 1945, Business Week predicted unemployment would peak at 9 million, or around 14 percent. And these were the optimistic predictions. Leo Cherne of the Research Institute of America and Boris Shishkin, an economist for the American Federation of Labor, forecast 19 and 20 million unemployed respectively — rates that would have been in excess of 35 percent!

 

What happened? Labor markets adjusted quickly and efficiently once they were finally unfettered — neither the Hoover nor the Roosevelt administration gave labor markets a chance to adjust to economic shocks during the 1930s when dramatic labor market interventions (e.g., the National Industrial Recovery Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, among others) were pursued. Most economists today acknowledge that these interventionist polices extended the length and depth of the Great Depression. After the Second World War, unemployment rates, artificially low because of wartime conscription, rose a bit, but remained under 4.5 percent in the first three postwar years — below the long-run average rate of unemployment during the 20th century. Some workers voluntarily withdrew from the labor force, choosing to go to school or return to prewar duties as housewives.

 

But, more importantly to the purpose here, many who lost government-supported jobs in the military or in munitions plants found employment as civilian industries expanded production — in fact civilian employment grew, on net, by over 4 million between 1945 and 1947 when so many pundits were predicting economic Armageddon.

 

Household consumption, business investment, and net exports all boomed as government spending receded. The postwar era provides a classic illustration of how government spending "crowds out" private sector spending and how the economy can thrive when the government's shadow is dramatically reduced.[/Quote]

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n3/cp32n3-1.html

 

swansont; I wish you had waited a few post to take this thread off topic, but nearing the end of the War most all economist, especially the Keynesian advocates (had dominated the 30's and early 40's) felt massive stimulation was in order and those that felt otherwise got elected into the 1946 Congress. While the 1944 GI Bill did allow 7-8 million GI's (think there were 50+ M eligible) to attend College (1945-1956), it would be my opinion it was the return of the private sector into the economy, along with the needs that brought about demise for Keynesian Economics Theory at least until 2008. The point attempted in post #2, this thread was that Congress virtually had nothing it could do with a Democratic Executive, was labeled "The do nothing Congress" and lost in 1948, possibly permitting Truman his victory. In 2012 IMO the very same thing could happen again, but as the 'Do nothing House". They did not win back the Senate (2010) as was in 1948.

 

Moon; I've asked this question of others feeling Capitalism/Free Markets, are the enemy of the people....just where can investment come from to create jobs and/or an economy, if not from that system? Governments never have and many have tried and failed.

 

Canada, with an on par value in their currency to the US, just lowered their Corporate Tax to 13.5%, with the US at 35% and many other Countries have no tax. If you could make a profit building a manufactured good, where would you build your factory, where a million dollar profit will be taxed 135K$ or 350K$, not to mention the cost involved in all that "deregulation", otherwise known as regulation or the cost to even permit, build and compete Internationally...?

 

The question is "really a new pledge" and there is only one acceptable answer for a positive future of this county and it's not the final destruction of what little manufacturing remains.

[Moontanman]

You guys are something else, i did not say a word about giving money to people nor did I say that capitalism is bad, i sad the "new pledge" is just more political bullshit, saying what people want to hear. Now if you guys really want to talk about giving money away to people who don't deserve it, of doing things against capitalism I'd be glad to point out many instances of this.

 

The new pledge is just more bullshit from political extremists who want others to join them. It reminds me of an anemone, it protects certain fish while at the same time luring other fish to their doom. it's time for political bullshit to stop. We cannot aford to continue protect selfish bastards who only want our country to benifit them, (both sides are full of these assholes) it has to benifit everyone! Our country is and always has been a blend of capitalism and socialism, no purely capitalist or socialist society can survive, we need to decide what blend we need (not what we want) and it's time for both extremes to stop pointing fingers and shouting how bad the other side is while hiding their own dirt. Republicans give money away to the rich, Democrats give money away to the poor, it's such bullshit, neither side has an altruistic bone in their bodies, it's all ME ME ME ME! personally I'd like to see our country become great again and the polarization we see today is only driving us closer to the edge of disaster. neither side has impressed me in a very long time...

[swansont]

swansont; I wish you had waited a few post to take this thread off topic

 

Um, you brought it up. Thanks for the love, though.

[rigney]

That's not quite true. AFAICT, the prediction of a return of the great depression was contingent on doing nothing to safeguard the economy, and that didn't happen. In 1944 congress passed the GI Bill, and many of the soldiers went back to school rather than look for work. It also paid an unemployment benefit for up to a year, and the loan guarantees helped stimulate construction.

 

Can't say I blame a G.I. from any war for wanting to go to school instead of working. He's paid for his education in full. Once a Vet gets out of that hell hole called combat, he simply wants to reminisce and kick back for a while. School? Man, that's a no brainer. WW2 was not a popular war, but it was necessary to get us to where we are today. Most of the guys coming home to where I lived, went back to the jobs they held prior to early 1942. The coal mines! I suppose being underground was better than getting their ass shot off. A few of those who attended WVU, WV Tech and Morris Harvey went on to better things. That was 1946. Today it seems that 'so many" feel our government is responsible to supply the same benovelance even though they haven't done a damn thing to deserve it but sit on their asses, and cry for more. Well, La De Da!. Don't get me wrong, many young people break their asses working night and day to get an education, and they deserve our respect. I asked a 12 year old lad this past Friday evening what he wanted after finishing school? His reply: "A JOB". Edited January 3, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

This pledge is just more propaganda by extremist elements of the party trying to continue misinformation supporting their agenda. Most of the problems they claim to want to solve are problems created by that same party by deregulation and pandering to greedy immoral people who's life goal is to get rich at any cost with no regard to the lives of the people they ruin along the way. Simply put it's just more bullshit from extremest politicos to justify their grab for power. [/Quote]

 

Moon; I'm sorry you felt indignant (was not intended on my part and doubt anyone else's) over the response to your comments, but whether you wish to call the Republicans partial to "Rich People" (rarely worded that way) or Capitalism and the free market, the meanings are the same and IMO, NOT TRUE. In fact, I would suggest to you, the Bush Tax Cuts (Republicans introduced and legislated both 2001 and 2003 acts) had a greater beneficial effect, toward the lower and middle class (economical) than anyone or anything else, overall.

 

What you are and were professing was the Democratic Spin, where Rich People under Obama's plan to NOT continue these reduced rates and yes will cost 140B$ over the next two years. Keep in mind and I'd bet you didn't realize this, is that maintaining the rates for those in the earning under 200K$ (single filer) or 250K$ (couple) will cost 300B$ every year and if made permanent Three TRILLION dollars over the next ten years and what this administration wanted. Another point, I'd bet you didn't consider were the millions of farmers and/or small business that may EARN 1-2 or more million, but after deductions would have been in that 200-250K$ bracket or lower, anyway. The savings was simply not there.

 

Not to beat a dead horse to death, but the question I asked is important at least in understanding the meaning of the current pledge. You or again anyone, take out the words "Capitalism/Free Markets" inserting "The Rich" and come up with an answer. I don't feel Capitalism can work without Rich People, is our system and most the industrialized world and the beneficiary of any success is and has always been for the less advantaged.

 

Moon; I've asked this question of others feeling Capitalism/Free Markets, are the enemy of the people....just where can investment come from to create jobs and/or an economy, if not from that system? Governments never have and many have tried and failed.[/Quote]

 

As for the Pledge itself, YES it is rhetoric no less than Obama (Democratic Party) will continue to beat the drums for maintaining the lower rates in 2013, he has already said he will campaign on the issue. However if somehow the Republican House DOES hold to the pledge and rhetoric, spending could be cut trillions of dollars over the next decade and IMO, a must. In the real world, the House alone can stop any legislation with a majority vote and as powerful as the Executive's power is to veto any bill, then taking a 2/3rds vote for the Senate to over ride. It's called the "check and balance' system.

Edited January 3, 2011 by jackson33