The Republican Pledge

[3rdnlng]

Did they go far enough? Interesting post below.

 

 

http://www.redstate.com/hogan/2010/09/23/the-pledge-to-nowhere/

[Magox]

Did they go far enough? Interesting post below.

 

 

http://www.redstate.com/hogan/2010/09/23/the-pledge-to-nowhere/

First off, the folks from Redstate are idealogical purists that are the mirror opposite image of those from the HUFFPO crowd.

 

Some of their solutions don't appeal to the middle. They would rather you just REPEAL the HEALTH INSURANCE Bill and not replace it with anything. The Repeal and Replace idea is the better option.

 

Also, they can't afford to go TOO MUCH into detail before the elections, you don't want the other side to demagogue their specific solutions considering that they know they are basically a shoo-in to win many seats.

 

Same goes with talking about the third rail of politics such as S.S and Medicare, specially right before election time. I mean, look, even Jim from Anchorage who is a conservative doesn't like the idea of someone touching his S.S, so it's pretty obvious that this is a sensitive area that you want to avoid going into the midterms.

 

What they could and should of done is talk about eliminating Earmarks. They didn't, and my guess is because some of the Senior Establishment GOP members wanted their little pork projects and it was something that was off the table. That was a missed opportunity. They should have also mentioned that they would look to balance the budget.

 

Other than that, bringing Discretionary spending levels to 2008 levels would save $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. That was a good move, I would be interested in seeing how they could achieve that. Also Repeal and Replace with the solutions they have was a good move and that would definitely help our economy out more so than the destructive nonsensical health insurance bill the Libs proposed.

 

I thought they should of cut on Defense spending and I also believe that we should let all the Bush Tax cuts expire after two years. That would cut $4 Trillion off the national debt. WIthout this, this undermines their argument that they are serious about reducing the national debt.

 

Of course, the base doesn't like to hear cuts in Defense spending or higher taxes. But even if you follow the Laffer curve you see that the tax cuts enacted by Bush are too extreme on the tax cut side. The proof is in the deficits causes by it...

 

Anyhoo, it's definitely better than the destructive policies from the left, but it could of been better. But I certainly understand them not going too much into detail considering how close they are to midterms and the prospects they have of possibly winning the house.

[3rdnlng]

First off, the folks from Redstate are idealogical purists that are the mirror opposite image of those from the HUFFPO crowd.

 

Some of their solutions don't appeal to the middle. They would rather you just REPEAL the HEALTH INSURANCE Bill and not replace it with anything. The Repeal and Replace idea is the better option.

 

Also, they can't afford to go TOO MUCH into detail before the elections, you don't want the other side to demagogue their specific solutions considering that they know they are basically a shoo-in to win many seats.

 

Same goes with talking about the third rail of politics such as S.S and Medicare, specially right before election time. I mean, look, even Jim from Anchorage who is a conservative doesn't like the idea of someone touching his S.S, so it's pretty obvious that this is a sensitive area that you want to avoid going into the midterms.

 

What they could and should of done is talk about eliminating Earmarks. They didn't, and my guess is because some of the Senior Establishment GOP members wanted their little pork projects and it was something that was off the table. That was a missed opportunity. They should have also mentioned that they would look to balance the budget.

 

Other than that, bringing Discretionary spending levels to 2008 levels would save $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. That was a good move, I would be interested in seeing how they could achieve that. Also Repeal and Replace with the solutions they have was a good move and that would definitely help our economy out more so than the destructive nonsensical health insurance bill the Libs proposed.

 

I thought they should of cut on Defense spending and I also believe that we should let all the Bush Tax cuts expire after two years. That would cut $4 Trillion off the national debt. WIthout this, this undermines their argument that they are serious about reducing the national debt.

 

Of course, the base doesn't like to hear cuts in Defense spending or higher taxes. But even if you follow the Laffer curve you see that the tax cuts enacted by Bush are too extreme on the tax cut side. The proof is in the deficits causes by it...

 

Anyhoo, it's definitely better than the destructive policies from the left, but it could of been better. But I certainly understand them not going too much into detail considering how close they are to midterms and the prospects they have of possibly winning the house.

 

 

Good post. I'm not sure if I agree with you regarding the Bush tax cuts though. We desperately need to grow this economy.

[Jim in Anchorage]

First off, the folks from Redstate are idealogical purists that are the mirror opposite image of those from the HUFFPO crowd.

 

Some of their solutions don't appeal to the middle. They would rather you just REPEAL the HEALTH INSURANCE Bill and not replace it with anything. The Repeal and Replace idea is the better option.

 

Also, they can't afford to go TOO MUCH into detail before the elections, you don't want the other side to demagogue their specific solutions considering that they know they are basically a shoo-in to win many seats.

 

Same goes with talking about the third rail of politics such as S.S and Medicare, specially right before election time. I mean, look, even Jim from Anchorage who is a conservative doesn't like the idea of someone touching his S.S, so it's pretty obvious that this is a sensitive area that you want to avoid going into the midterms.

 

What they could and should of done is talk about eliminating Earmarks. They didn't, and my guess is because some of the Senior Establishment GOP members wanted their little pork projects and it was something that was off the table. That was a missed opportunity. They should have also mentioned that they would look to balance the budget.

 

Other than that, bringing Discretionary spending levels to 2008 levels would save $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. That was a good move, I would be interested in seeing how they could achieve that. Also Repeal and Replace with the solutions they have was a good move and that would definitely help our economy out more so than the destructive nonsensical health insurance bill the Libs proposed.

 

I thought they should of cut on Defense spending and I also believe that we should let all the Bush Tax cuts expire after two years. That would cut $4 Trillion off the national debt. Without this, this undermines their argument that they are serious about reducing the national debt.

 

Of course, the base doesn't like to hear cuts in Defense spending or higher taxes. But even if you follow the Laffer curve you see that the tax cuts enacted by Bush are too extreme on the tax cut side. The proof is in the deficits causes by it...

 

Anyhoo, it's definitely better than the destructive policies from the left, but it could of been better. But I certainly understand them not going too much into detail considering how close they are to midterms and the prospects they have of possibly winning the house.

As the SS plan of the tea party was explained to me by you and GG, I am comfortable with it. Of course anyone who has a vested interest[paying in for many years] in a mandatory government run health care/retirement plan is very concerned about someone yelling PRIVATIZE it!

Maybe more details are what the average voter is looking for. Tell me what you are going to do,exactly.

I am pulling the lever for Joe Miller, a tea party Republican[what else do you call them?]running for US Senator and frankly am excited about a election for the first time in many years.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Jim in Anchorage

[jjamie12]

But I certainly understand them not going too much into detail considering how close they are to midterms and the prospects they have of possibly winning the house.

Can you clarify this, please? Are you suggesting that if people knew what the Republicans would try to do if they won, then they wouldn't vote for them?

[Booster4324]

Can you clarify this, please? Are you suggesting that if people knew what the Republicans would try to do if they won, then they wouldn't vote for them?

 

He is saying (in my interpretation of it, not speaking for Magox) that if they get too specific, they give fuel to the fire for the Democrats to make hay with (to mix metaphors). Why do that when they seem to be set? This will be a bloodbath for the Democrats that will make 94 seem tame and normal.

[ExiledInIllinois]

He is saying (in my interpretation of it, not speaking for Magox) that if they get too specific, they give fuel to the fire for the Democrats to make hay with (to mix metaphors). Why do that when they seem to be set? This will be a bloodbath for the Democrats that will make 94 seem tame and normal.

 

Kinda like coming out and saying something like: "most ethical Congress."

 

 

It really pays not to get too specific... So they took "the pledge."

Edited September 25, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois

[/dev/null]

The Republican pledge:

Elect us to stop those God damned hippies!

 

The Democratic pledge

Hope and Change!

 

Rinse and repeat. Spend a couple billion/trillion dollars and we wonder why everything is f*cked up?

[Booster4324]

The Republican pledge:

Elect us to stop those God damned hippies!

 

The Democratic pledge

Hope and Change!

 

Rinse and repeat. Spend a couple billion/trillion dollars and we wonder why everything is f*cked up?

 

True dat.

[Magox]

Can you clarify this, please? Are you suggesting that if people knew what the Republicans would try to do if they won, then they wouldn't vote for them?

I thought I did clarify quite clearly in my post up above.

Also, they can't afford to go TOO MUCH into detail before the elections, you don't want the other side to demagogue their specific solutions considering that they know they are basically a shoo-in to win many seats.

 

Same goes with talking about the third rail of politics such as S.S and Medicare, specially right before election time. I mean, look, even Jim from Anchorage who is a conservative doesn't like the idea of someone touching his S.S, so it's pretty obvious that this is a sensitive area that you want to avoid going into the midterms.

[Peace]

Things I don't believe: The Republican Pledge.

[/dev/null]

Things I don't believe: The Republican Pledge.

Things I don't believe: Anything spoken by a Republican or Democrat

[jjamie12]

I thought I did clarify quite clearly in my post up above.

Then there are only two things that could possibly follow (I presume... feel free to tell me where I'm wrong)

 

Either:

 

1- Democrats will convince 'the people' that the specific solutions offered by Republicans aren't what they want and would therefore vote for Democrats. (Which is, theoretically, the point of elections)

 

2- People don't actually want the specific solutions that Republicans would offer and would therefore vote for Democrats. (Which is, theoretically, the pont of elections)

 

Either way, it seems like a pretty odd position to take, Magox... especially for someone who is always looking into the details of things (you know, like you). It seems like you're saying: Don't worry, folks... just trust the Republicans here. I know they don't really want to tell us the specific solutions to these problems, but trust them... they're good solutions.

 

Am I wrong?

[Magox]

Don't worry, folks... just trust the Republicans here. I know they don't really want to tell us the specific solutions to these problems, but trust them... they're good solutions.

 

Am I wrong?

Yes, because that isn't what I am saying. I am speaking from what I presume to be their strategical POV which is "Hey guys, we are up by 10 points with 3 minutes left to play, let's run out the clock"....

Edited September 25, 2010 by Magox

[3rdnlng]

Then there are only two things that could possibly follow (I presume... feel free to tell me where I'm wrong)

 

Either:

 

1- Democrats will convince 'the people' that the specific solutions offered by Republicans aren't what they want and would therefore vote for Democrats. (Which is, theoretically, the point of elections)

 

2- People don't actually want the specific solutions that Republicans would offer and would therefore vote for Democrats. (Which is, theoretically, the pont of elections)

 

Either way, it seems like a pretty odd position to take, Magox... especially for someone who is always looking into the details of things (you know, like you). It seems like you're saying: Don't worry, folks... just trust the Republicans here. I know they don't really want to tell us the specific solutions to these problems, but trust them... they're good solutions.

 

Am I wrong?

 

 

The Republicans could say that they have a solution for fixing Social Security and spell out exactly how they would do it, and the Democrats would twist the essence of what the Republicans stated, and come up with something along the lines of "The Republicans want to do away with Social Security". It's happened before.

[jjamie12]

Yes, because that isn't what I am saying. I am speaking from what I presume to be their strategical POV which is "Hey guys, we are up by 10 points with 3 minutes left to play, let's run out the clock"....

Got it... You're just saying what their strategy is, not that you support it.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

The Republicans could say that they have a solution for fixing Social Security and spell out exactly how they would do it, and the Democrats would twist the essence of what the Republicans stated, and come up with something along the lines of "The Republicans want to do away with Social Security". It's happened before.

 

Yeah... but isn't that the whole point of, you know, campaigns and elections? One side offers ideas and / or solutions; the other side says: Hey, those solutions suck because of 'x', 'y', or 'z' our solutions are better. Then the voter decides which message he likes better.