The Grand New Party

It seems Colin Powell is on board with a Grand New Party (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/powell_to_rush.html). Good for him.
The party of big government spending, big government control and regulation, and higher taxation already exists, it's called the Democratic Socialist Poopy-Head Baby-Eater party.

The party of big government spending, big government control and regulation, and higher taxation already exists, it's called the Democratic Socialist Poopy-Head Baby-Eater party.

Sir your not suppose to use Democrats and Socialist together.

Just curious if anyone else noticed the DOD budget proposal Gates unveiled a few weeks ago? Very, very interesting and IMHO a much bigger deal than any of the change Obama is initiating. Basically Gates asked for just a 4% overall budget increase instead of the whopping 8% or 10% Def Secs have often shot for. But more importantly Gates' proposal revealed a big change in strategy...getting away from the inanity of weapons systems like SDI that cost trillions and never produce anything, instead Gates proposed significant growth to the special forces, practical military/technology applications like transport and small engagement weaponry. All in all it was extremely encouraging. Each of the last three decades we've seen trillions of dollars "disappear" into the defense budget for things that never materialized, and almost always under the guise of "classified" status so we never know where the money goes and especially why it produced so little. The opportunity cost of those dollars wasted in the military-industrial complex is almost unfathomable as we now sit on the most decrepit infrastructure of all 1st world nations and a national debt that will soon equal GDP. I think it's really interesting Gates, a Bush man, moved DOD this direction as soon as Obama was elected. Historically Def Secs have unparalleled autonomy in how they run the show and spend the money...Gates likely pushed this change of his own accord which again i just find very interesting.

Just curious if anyone else noticed the DOD budget proposal Gates unveiled a few weeks ago? Very, very interesting and IMHO a much bigger deal than any of the change Obama is initiating. Basically Gates asked for just a 4% overall budget increase instead of the whopping 8% or 10% Def Secs have often shot for. But more importantly Gates' proposal revealed a big change in strategy...getting away from the inanity of weapons systems like SDI that cost trillions and never produce anything, instead Gates proposed significant growth to the special forces, practical military/technology applications like transport and small engagement weaponry. All in all it was extremely encouraging. Each of the last three decades we've seen trillions of dollars "disappear" into the defense budget for things that never materialized, and almost always under the guise of "classified" status so we never know where the money goes and especially why it produced so little. The opportunity cost of those dollars wasted in the military-industrial complex is almost unfathomable as we now sit on the most decrepit infrastructure of all 1st world nations and a national debt that will soon equal GDP. I think it's really interesting Gates, a Bush man, moved DOD this direction as soon as Obama was elected. Historically Def Secs have unparalleled autonomy in how they run the show and spend the money...Gates likely pushed this change of his own accord which again i just find very interesting.

I'd say sense the Iraq war we probably have focused more spending on that type of stuff becuase that what we need at the time. So I'm not so sure if that is such a big swing in another driection or just spending on our curent needs.

Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.

Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.

I think we could cut all goverment programs by 15 to 25% and still get the same thing from each program. It would take cutting alot of waist and also getting rid of alot of goverment and private employees but I think it could be done. The problem is that no one has the balls to suggest anything like this.

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

First....I think the point of the article and saden's echoing is that dumb moves like this show a complete lack of substance. The GOP, woozy and wobbling from knockout blows brought on by years of craptastic governance devoid of anything really conservative in a traditional sense, is showing actually not one iota of a clue. They worry about renaming things, using marketing here, to get people to vote for them. It shows a total lack of substance when they simply don't realize that people are done voting for them not because the Dems are so great but because at least the Dems represent their ideas relatively accurately. Not like the good ol' GOP who says they want small government and less taxes and so and so forth but never really delivers. The GOP should worry about actually making things happen that fit a conservative viewpoint and not about calling the Dems the "Democratic Socialist poopy head baby-eaters". It's dumb.

Fabulous post. Well said.

I was just thinking today about what specific policy initiatives the Republicans could champion since we didn't exactly hear anything like that in Michael Steele's speech yesterday.

The first two that immediately come to mind are tax reform and energy. Those issues seem to be something the American people could relate to, and something Republicans could take the lead on. With taxes, they should really commit to the idea of reforming the tax code, either with a flat tax for every single American or a national retail sales tax. I heard a comment the other day that really stuck with me -- the government should have no right to know how much money you make. The federal income tax is an outdated, inefficient, and unfair way to collect revenue. Highlight these points to distinguish from the Democrats who continue to rely on antiquated taxing methods which date back to the 1860's.

With gas prices sure to rise yet again this summer, we'll have the opportunity to drive the point home that it is insane not to tap our own natural resources to free ourselves from foreign oil.

Obviously the Republicans have no power to carry out these ideas with actual legislation. The point though, is to make the American people associate the GOP with bold, fresh ideas. With congressional elections coming around the corner, they can't afford to wait.

First....I think the point of the article and saden's echoing is that dumb moves like this show a complete lack of substance. The GOP, woozy and wobbling from knockout blows brought on by years of craptastic governance devoid of anything really conservative in a traditional sense, is showing actually not one iota of a clue. They worry about renaming things, using marketing here, to get people to vote for them. It shows a total lack of substance when they simply don't realize that people are done voting for them not because the Dems are so great but because at least the Dems represent their ideas relatively accurately. Not like the good ol' GOP who says they want small government and less taxes and so and so forth but never really delivers. The GOP should worry about actually making things happen that fit a conservative viewpoint and not about calling the Dems the "Democratic Socialist poopy head baby-eaters". It's dumb.

Excellent post :food-smil

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.