Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Pledge to America

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Pledge to America

    We can read news stories on it all day, but I think its better to start by reading that actual source document. I had a heckuva time finding a copy. It seems the media would rather we read their comment on it than read the actual text.

    This seems to be a draft. If anyone can find a final copy, that would be appreciated.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...T2010092204771

    On edit: I was disappointed to see no references to removing unconstitutional restrictions on the RKBA.

    Also, a more compact edition, about the size of the Contract with America, would have been a better marketing tool.
    Last edited by eye95; 09-23-2010 at 10:55 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Unconvincing, to say the least. I think they are grabbing at straws to insure victory. I wonder if the candidates that were endorsed by the tea party were involved. Doubt it.
    Last edited by rodbender; 09-23-2010 at 12:02 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    Looks like a ploy to garner votes in Congress...

    but maybe I'm just distrusting of politicians?

  4. #4
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    Pathetic.

    Nothing but talk radio talking points. I don't see anything about actually ending federal agencies. I watched their press conference and was very disappointed. They have learned nothing from the anger of the people.

    Reducing spending and the size of government can only be done by cutting entire agencies. Just because you decrease funding to 100's of bureaucracies doesn't stop them from continuing to exist.

    This was a giant softball lobbed to the voters.
    Last edited by gsx1138; 09-23-2010 at 04:47 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Its strength lies in its ability to gather people who are displeased with the current state of government and get them to the polls to vote. If it is successful to that end, it will have served its purpose and perhaps turn things around in Washington. We'll see in November.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Its strength lies in its ability to gather people who are displeased with the current state of government and get them to the polls to vote. If it is successful to that end, it will have served its purpose and perhaps turn things around in Washington. We'll see in November.
    Good point.

    I was hoping that folks would discuss the actual issues in the Pledge. Apart from this post, the replies have been tritely dismissive and ignored the substance. A shame.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    the replies have been tritely dismissive and ignored the substance.
    I read it, found little substance worth mentioning. I stand by my original statement, only to add that it appears they are attempting to align themselves with the Tea Party they so unabashedly discredited a few short weeks ago.

    From one perspective it looks like the GOP might actually be "getting a clue" but based on past behavior it falls right into the same category as gun control the war on drugs or any other political ploy to garner your vote.

    But that's just my humble opinion...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No substance?

    I just grabbed the scroll bar and dragged it down to a random spot. I grabbed the first bullet I saw:

    Purchase Health Insurance Across State Lines: Americans residing in a state with expensive health insurance plans are locked into those plans and do not currently have an opportunity to choose a lower cost option that best meets their needs. We will allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live.
    That is a substantive proposal. The document is full of them.

    It is easy to be dismissive of the proposal. It requires effort to find specific substantive proposals and then discuss them.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    Rhetoric does not equal substance. I think some of it may be worth discussing if it ever makes it off paper.

    This is a repeat of what they do every decade or so when they need to regain Congressional control. But the parts they don't really believe in will be dropped as time passes... like term limitations from the "Promise to America" back in the what, 1990's?

    To me this is just their current ploy to garner votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

    GOP or Democrat... any of them... care more about getting elected and forwarding party agenda than they do about pushing things their constituents actually care about. Two years from now if they are actually working on the items in this list it might be relevant.

    Today it carries little weight... just talk.

    Again, just my opinion.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    having or lacking substance doesn't matter when you have no trust in the source. I don't think many people trust the old school GOP. I'll be rooting for the TEA party.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Unconvincing, to say the least. I think they are grabbing at straws to insure victory. I wonder if the candidates that were endorsed by the tea party were involved. Doubt it.
    Agreed I trust absolutely no one. KICK EVERYONE OUT ON THEIR BUTT
    If they refuse to follow the constitution what makes you think they will follow this.
    Last edited by zack991; 09-24-2010 at 04:55 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    KICK EVERYONE OUT ON THEIR BUTT
    If they refuse to follow the constitution what makes you think they will follow this.
    Amen... and this, unlike the Constitution, is not a binding piece of legislation. Just a bunch of great ideas penned together to appear progressive and garner support.

  13. #13
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Personally, I think the Pledge to America is fine as a SMALL STARTING POINT.

    Additions:

    Balanced Total budget (includes discretionary and NON-discretionary spending) that is NO MORE than 10% of GDP
    Eliminate several unneeded Federal Depts including the Dept of Education and Energy.
    Audit the Federal Reserve
    Reduce spending levels to that required to meet the first entry above!


    Most important however is electing persons of honor.... those who are honest (absolutely honest) with integrity and when they fail we remove them from office at the next election and elect NEW persons of honesty and integrity.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Thanks, Joe, for the substantive post.

    I agree that the government cannot be trusted to balance the budget and must be forced to do so. I'd support a constitutional amendment forcing a balanced budget.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    I don't think a balanced budget amendment is the answer. All they may do is raise taxes to try to balance the budget. What we need is an amendment to clarify the commerce and general welfare clauses and then get rid of every agency or department that doesn't meet that criteria and the enumerated powers of Art. I, Sec. 8. That would probably take out about 80-90 percent.

    During the Virginia ratification debates, Patrick Henry warned that congress could and would use these 2 to do anything they pleased. Was he a psychic, a visionary, or just wiser than most?

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Unconvincing, to say the least. I think they are grabbing at straws to insure victory.
    I agree. They're just turning their sails to take advantage of which way the political winds are blowing.

    We need only look to their relatively recent history to understand their true game is to get and keep power and privilege. In the end, the nat'l debt goes up, the deficit goes up, pork goes up, and liberty goes down.

    Its not like reading the Tea Party principles suddenly caused vast changes in their attitudes and ambitions.

  17. #17
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    It's going to take a few more election cycles to get enough Constitutionalists in congress to really be of any help.

    Need to concentrate more on the state level as well. That's where the real power lies.

    The federal government is a child of the states. The parents need to put a good ass whooping on the unruly child.

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Rod Bender and others with reference to a Balance Budget Amendment.....

    Here was my suggestion made first in my entry on this topic earlier....

    "Balanced Total budget (includes discretionary and NON-discretionary spending) that is NO MORE than 10% of GDP"

    It is limited to a maximum amount of 10% GDP! I do believe current spending levels are in excess of 15-20% if not upwards of 25%....

    I would see a Balanced budget (including discretionary and non-discretionary spending) limited to no more that 10% Gross Domestic Production to be a significant IMPROVEMENT over what we have now!

  19. #19
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Rod Bender and others with reference to a Balance Budget Amendment.....

    Here was my suggestion made first in my entry on this topic earlier....

    "Balanced Total budget (includes discretionary and NON-discretionary spending) that is NO MORE than 10% of GDP"

    It is limited to a maximum amount of 10% GDP! I do believe current spending levels are in excess of 15-20% if not upwards of 25%....

    I would see a Balanced budget (including discretionary and non-discretionary spending) limited to no more that 10% Gross Domestic Production to be a significant IMPROVEMENT over what we have now!
    Yes, I saw your earlier post and I agree, it would be much improved over what we have now. Did you see mine? Did you understand mine?

    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender
    I don't think a balanced budget amendment is the answer. All they may do is raise taxes to try to balance the budget. What we need is an amendment to clarify the commerce and general welfare clauses and then get rid of every agency or department that doesn't meet that criteria and the enumerated powers of Art. I, Sec. 8. That would probably take out about 80-90 percent.

    During the Virginia ratification debates, Patrick Henry warned that congress could and would use these 2 to do anything they pleased. Was he a psychic, a visionary, or just wiser than most?
    After this we could add a balanced budget amendment.

    If we can get rid of all the unconstitutional agencies and departments, it would be way less than 10%.

    While we are at it, we could repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Yes, I did see your post the one suggesting that a balance budget WITHOUT my limit of "no more than 10% of GDP as meaningless since the tax rate would simply be raised to cover the shortfall.

    And that I why I reiterated my original post with its limits....

    And I do agree that SEVERAL Federal agencies/department are wholly without constitutional standing and should be dissolved IMMEDIATELY!

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I read it it's Republican posturing and politicking, nothing much of substance. Get rid of huge gov. agencies to start, DEA, BATF, IRS on and on......stop ear marks period, even if it is because you want your bill passed stop compromising. Get rid of Patriot Act and Health Care, stop trying to be our "moral" cops. Start respecting our Bill of rights across the board.Should I go on? I really don't want to trade one form of tyranny for another I want freedom.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •