The Grand New Party

when did he say this?
I said it only a matter of time before he blames Bush. So that means its something he is going to do not allready done and its just something I feel he is going to do.

So, I think I have laid out what I would consider a basic platform for an opposition party:
Increase State's Rights and Responsibilities
- Eliminate "Federal Bribery" laws
- Place Responsibility for Education at the State Level by disbanding the Dept of Ed
- Same with others as said earlier
Reduce Federal Obligations and Authority
- bring cabinet positions and Federal policy in line with the ideals of the Constiution
- reduce/eliminate campaign on morality based issues (ie abortion/death penalty) and push for more aggressive campaigns based on limited govt.

Return the Military to a Defense First posture
- in a responsible manner draw down the standing army and increase the role of the Reserve Army.
- increase intelligence assets
- maintain air and naval capabilities

Obviously this is a shell platform, But here are my questions:
a) what level of support would this platform find in the undecided mobs

b)what would your ideal platform include/not include


(70Chip-my thesis for the my GVPT 600 class is tomorrow so I have slacked on work today ;) )

The rep. brought up the idea about eliminating the Dept of Ed and got bashed for wanting to ruin all the little kids education back in the 80's.

The rep. brought up the idea about eliminating the Dept of Ed and got bashed for wanting to ruin all the little kids education back in the 80's.

I think the Republicans have given very good examples of how NOT to do things at this point. An exception is the Contract for America and the first 100 days into it. Other than that they have been horrible in presenting ideas and follow through. I think the ideas have merits, and could be presented in the media and internet with enough rational thought to win public support. The keys have to be focusing on the States and Local governments taking better care of their kids then an anonymous Federal Bureaucrat.

This party would have to be very focused in its message of State's Rights, and State's responsibilities.

The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that more Americans think their current tax burden is about right (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx) and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/12/sports/sp-jock-tax12) so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.

Since most Americans aren't paying the bulk of the taxes I have no doubt they would answer this way.

Americans will start caring about the over $250k per year crowd when the jobs start going away. After all, the high earners in this country are usually their employers.

You cannot help the wage earner by bringing down the wage payer.

I think you can sell the idea of reforming the tax code can work if you sell it right. For instance, everybody pays the same rate. Nothing wrong with that. Then you eliminate withholding. Once everybody has to write a check directly to the government every quarter, people will start paying much more attention to how much is taken out of their paychecks, spending will get under control real quick. Then there's the privacy issue. As I said earlier, I'll bet most Americans would agree that the federal government has no right to know how much money you make, what you contribute to savings, or what you put into retirement. Just like the privacy issue, which most Americans like, the same should go for their bank accounts.

Our financial situation is none of the government's business. Sell it that way, and I think you've got yourself an issue that can win.

Since most Americans aren't paying the bulk of the taxes I have no doubt they would answer this way.

Americans will start caring about the over $250k per year crowd when the jobs start going away. After all, the high earners in this country are usually their employers.

You cannot help the wage earner by bringing down the wage payer.

I think you can sell the idea of reforming the tax code can work if you sell it right. For instance, everybody pays the same rate. Nothing wrong with that. Then you eliminate withholding. Once everybody has to write a check directly to the government every quarter, people will start paying much more attention to how much is taken out of their paychecks, spending will get under control real quick. Then there's the privacy issue. As I said earlier, I'll bet most Americans would agree that the federal government has no right to know how much money you make, what you contribute to savings, or what you put into retirement. Just like the privacy issue, which most Americans like, the same should go for their bank accounts.

Our financial situation is none of the government's business. Sell it that way, and I think you've got yourself an issue that can win.


Everyone is motivated by money including those with money who "employ everyone." This is by far the biggest consumer market in the world as well as the best place for talent. No self-respecting business man would simply pack up and leave because a) it wouldn't be in their best interest for what I hope are obvious reason (employees -> consumers -> $$$ -> employers) and b) someone will step in and fill in the gap they left including foreign investors/corporations/entrepreneurs. There's simply too much competition out there to walk away from the biggest pie on the planet. Sure, our economic power might decline in the future but taxation would be the least of our worries in that regard. Anywho, I leave you with this quote from Ike (http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm) (the letter is worth reading in its entirety):

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

p.s. Ayn Rand's utopian view of the world is no better than that of an anarchist shouting "abolish money!"

I don't know if your comments on SS and Medicare are serious? I mean what we get is an older population, my very old grandparents included, who can eat and keep a roof over their head. If to you that is worth nothing there's not a lot of room for conversation here...we're coming from vastly different value systems. You said we got nothing from SDI. If you read the article, which based on your post you didn't, there are very tangible things that have come from SDI spending. SS and Medicare are entitlement programs that provide for people's well being, but leave nothing tangible. SS and Medicare have morphed greatly from what FDR originally intended. As far as your grandparents they absolutely deserve their SS & Medicare as I'm sure they paid into the programs for years. However both programs are going to need drastic overhauls real quick or we are looking at higher rates, less benefits, or insolvency of the program altogether.

So, I think I have laid out what I would consider a basic platform for an opposition party:
Add: Term Limits - total of 8 yrs for a rep, 12 yrs. for a Senator.
Balanced Budget ammendment.

That's fine. You and your children can go die for someone else's freedom. Those same people that you saved will spit in your face after you've given them everything. If sticking your nose in everyone else's business is what you call conservative then I can understand why we had jerks like the Bushes and McCain run the GOP. as saden mentioned, when it's in the nation's interest we need to act. I'd rather stop a potential aggressor thousands of miles away than at any of our borders. If we can save millions of lives in the process than I'd say that's a plus. I served in the military and was stationed in Japan so I was prepared to die "for someone else's freedom", if necessary. My son is looking into going into the USAF and God forbid he dies serving his country. If that happens I'll be devastated but proud of what he stood for, even if I disagree with a decision of the Commander in Chief or Congress (be they D or R). If you chose to sit any conflicts out, that's your choice, we have an all-volunteer military.

NATO is BS. As members of NATO you have to come to the aid of a nation that is attacked. That token army they threw up isn't squat and everyone knows it. Bush tried to get more troops, eff you. Obama thought he'd get more troops because he wasn't "a go it alone guy like Bush". They just told Obama to eff himself too. If we're not at war in Afghanistan then why is our army there, tea, opium? Lie to me, tell me something.We are at war IN Afghanistan against terrorist factions, not at war WITH Afghanistan. If we were attacked by a hostile COUNTRY the countries of NATO would be obiligated to assist as if they were attacked.

Going into the eastern bloc is a big mistake. If you think Russia will allow Georgia and the Ukraine to become members of NATO without a fight you've got another thing coming. The best thing to do is let the Commies be and not rub their noses in s**t. We might need the Russians in the future.Alger Hiss had the same advice for FDR at Yalta. The Polish people suffered under the Soviet bloc for 50 years thanks to that mentality. If people like you had won the foreign policy debate in WWII or the Cold War we would've had to fight a two front war....alone against Japan and Germany or we would still be in the Cold (or possibly full-scale) War with the USSR and who knows what side China would be on (probably not the side of Democracy). Oh and tens of millions more would've died, but they would've spit in our faces anyway.

We didn't bring down the Soviets. Their own ignorant marxist economist brought them down. Just like the ignorant marxist in our government are bringing us down.Reagan pushed several key buttons to hurt the Soviets at every turn (Poland, Afghanistan, etc.). He forced the Soviets to divert too many resources towards a military build-up. This coupled with some help from the Saudis manipulating the oil market and Europe shutting down a pipeline of natural gas crushed the Soviet economy.

I agree we have some serious issues to address in the country, but is anyone doing anything right in our country according to you?

Everyone is motivated by money including those with money who "employ everyone." This is by far the biggest consumer market in the world as well as the best place for talent. No self-respecting business man would simply pack up and leave because a) it wouldn't be in their best interest for what I hope are obvious reason (employees -> consumers -> $$$ -> employers) and b) someone will step in and fill in the gap they left including foreign investors/corporations/entrepreneurs. There's simply too much competition out there to walk away from the biggest pie on the planet. Sure, our economic power might decline in the future but taxation would be the least of our worries in that regard. Anywho, I leave you with this quote from Ike (http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm) (the letter is worth reading in its entirety):



p.s. Ayn Rand's utopian view of the world is no better than that of an anarchist shouting "abolish money!"

Ike wasn't purely conservative. That's never been in doubt. Besides that, what he said is probably true, which is why those who believe in limited government have such an uphill climb. Americans have been conditioned over many years to expect the government to be there for more and more of their basic needs. Dependency then becomes a bigger problem and anyone who tries to present the idea that people should be more self-sufficient doesn't stand a chance. That's why the focus should really be on changing the mindset of the people, not so much the politicians.

As to your first point, you're correct; money certainly is the motivating factor. But once the high achievers realize that there is no point acquiring wealth because it will be confiscated, there's no point in producing either. They can sit on their wealth, earn interest and kick back. Or they can leave.

And I can promise you this -- there won't be a huge influx of businesses to take their place if the new business stands to take the same type of hit the last guy did. The incentive to do business is no longer there.