Republican's 'Pledge to America'

**jt1** · September-23-10, 04:09 PM

I figured I would read the republican's Pledge to America document ot see what they laid out as a plan fo rthe future. To me it was typical political rhetoric that is big on promises with no detail. I also questioned why they did not addresss much of this when they held the power in Washington.

The thing that caught my eye while reading this is the number of pictures embedded in the document. Even more humorous [[sad?) is that not a black face was to be found in any of the pictures. I believe one picture had Hispanic people. It doesn't change what is stated in the doucment but it is pretty sad.

Here is the document: http://pledge.gop.gov/resources/libr...to-america.pdf

**Papasito** · September-23-10, 04:17 PM

Obama made a lot of promises when he wanted in. Now the Republicans are making thiers.
IMO let them make thier promises, and then hold thier feet to the fire when they don't fulfil them.

The last the the Republicans made a "contract with America" they took the majority and then sat back on thier laurels. The next election came around and the Democrats sent them packing - the people's retalliaton for making promises they could not fulfill.

Moral of the story: Talk is cheap.
Politicians will say anything to get elected.

**MCP-001** · September-23-10, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Obama made a lot of promises when he wanted in. Now the Republicans are making thiers.
IMO let them make thier promises, and then hold thier feet to the fire when they don't fulfil them.

The last the the Republicans made a "contract with America" they took the majority and then sat back on thier laurels. The next election came around and the Democrats sent them packing - the people's retalliaton for making promises they could not fulfill.

Moral of the story: Talk is cheap.
Politicians will say anything to get elected.

Amen to that!

**maxx** · September-23-10, 04:27 PM

http://www.slate.com/id/2268458/pagenum/2
"...Hence, when you look through the GOP proposals to cut spending, they are uniformly, laughably puny...When Republicans denounce "government spending," then, they're talking only about government spending that they don't like: the TARP [[a Republican creation), health care reform, stimulus spending, the auto industry bailout. But the plain fiscal fact is that the national Republican Party has been addicted to its own forms of government spending at least since the Nixon administration..."

**MCP-001** · September-23-10, 04:31 PM

jt1 beat you to it.

**maxx** · September-23-10, 04:35 PM

So I see. lol

**maxx** · September-23-10, 08:29 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_735911.html
"...The Republican Party's 21-page blueprint, "Pledge to America," was put together with oversight by a House staffer who, up till April 2010, served as a lobbyist for some of the nation's most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies...

And it turns out that the America Speaking Out website from which was supposed to come the ideas for the Pledge was just a distraction. What Americans spoke out for was stopping outsourcing of jobs which did not make it into the Pledge.
http://www.americaspeakingout.com/

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...outsources-it/
"...Of course, Democrats in the current Congress have proposed time and time again to close corporate tax loopholes that encourage the offshoring of jobs, and Republicans have been opposed to all of their efforts. H.R. 1586 prevented teacher layoffs and bolstered Medicaid, while closing a variety of corporate tax loopholes: 39 Republican Senators and all but two Republican members of the House voted no..."

Stosh · September-23-10, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Obama made a lot of promises when he wanted in. Now the Republicans are making thiers.
IMO let them make thier promises, and then hold thier feet to the fire when they don't fulfil them.

The last the the Republicans made a "contract with America" they took the majority and then sat back on thier laurels. The next election came around and the Democrats sent them packing - the people's retalliaton for making promises they could not fulfill.

Moral of the story: Talk is cheap.
Politicians will say anything to get elected.

Only problem with that is you would actually have to want what they want to do.

No fucking thanks, pal.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-24-10, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Obama made a lot of promises when he wanted in. Now the Republicans are making thiers.
IMO let them make thier promises, and then hold thier feet to the fire when they don't fulfil them.

The last the the Republicans made a "contract with America" they took the majority and then sat back on thier laurels. The next election came around and the Democrats sent them packing - the people's retalliaton for making promises they could not fulfill.

Moral of the story: Talk is cheap.
Politicians will say anything to get elected.

The difference is, you still vote for them no matter how ridiculous the shit they spew.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/op...rugman.html?hp

**Papasito** · September-24-10, 08:06 AM

you still vote for them no matter how ridiculous the shit they spew.

Like Obama's promise of an American utopia?
How's your health care? Did your employer drop yours yet because thier provider tripled the rates?
How's Guantanamo doing? Closed yet?
All the troops out of Iraq? How about that Obama meeting with Ahmadinejad?
"The most transparent administration" "Control the debt and deficit" "Cut Government Spending"

I heard all that out of Obama's mouth when he was running.
Pot meet kettle.

gdogslim · September-24-10, 08:24 AM

The Repubs spent and spent after they had control, thinking it would keep them in power, doling out entitlements for votes, like the dems do, that was their downfall.
That's what p'd off the mainstay republicans and that is why the tea party formed and are voting out the elitists and rino's and voting conservatives in.
Obama's utopia where everyone will have free this and free that, and it will save money [[healthcare) is a fantasy only a entitlement addict could beleive.

When either party has total control of all branches, they get out of control.

**maxx** · September-24-10, 09:02 AM

Papsito: Like Obama's promise of an American utopia?

Please give examples or are you just parroting Republican propaganda?

**MCP-001** · September-24-10, 09:24 AM

In today's news:

Neither party liked.

**Papasito** · September-24-10, 09:35 AM

Please give examples or are you just parroting Republican propaganda?

you [[guys) are so narrow minded and short sighted. i am not parroting anyone.
in fact, I don't believe the Republicans are going to back up thier promises. i am fairly confident they are only saying what the "Conservatives" want to hear so that they can be elected. i am sick and tired of hearing every talk show guy say "i'm not a Republican - i'm a Conservative"... kind of a coincidence that every single one of them individually says the same thing. so to your shock and awe and to the confliction of your preprogrammed response mechanism i do have my own thoughts and opinions, and what my thoughts and opinions are is that they [[republicans/tea party candidates) do have a few good things that need done, like getting spending under control, untying the hands of the economy so we can get back to prosperity [[while maintaining sufficient oversight/regulation, of course), putting Governemnt size in check with what the country can afford, and a few other things.... but what i truly think is going to happen is that they are going to take the house and senate and then sit back on thier checkered pants laurels like they did the last time they took it over and then do nothing but savor the power until they are ousted again. like i pointed out in the past, the Republicans could have done something about health care when they were in the White House, or when they were the majority, and didn't. Obamacare happened because the Republicans blew thier chance to reform health care when they had the opportunity to make thier own legislation [[they did nothing). i think the administration we have right now is not what the country needs, I think we'd be better off had Hillary won. I have voted Democratic and Indedpendant and Republican in the past. Getting blasted by Democrats when i don't worship the ground Obama walks on alienates me as a voter from the Democratic party - basically Democrats say either you fall in lock step or you are a dirty Republican Tea Partying racist redneck - and that's NOT the way to win over undecideds and independants.

**rb336** · September-24-10, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Like Obama's promise of an American utopia?
How's your health care? Did your employer drop yours yet because thier provider tripled the rates?

This has nothing to do with "obama's" health care. it is merely insurance company greed and doctors' techno-addiction and lack of any ability to actually diagnose people.

How's Guantanamo doing? Closed yet?

nope. again, he sticks with the right-wing policy 'cause he's a communist muslim fascist

All the troops out of Iraq? How about that Obama meeting with Ahmadinejad?

he has done EXACTLY what he said he would here.

**maxx** · September-24-10, 10:15 AM

Papasito: i do have my own thoughts and opinions, and what my thoughts and opinions are is that they [[republicans/tea party candidates) do have a few good things that need done, like getting spending under control, untying the hands of the economy so we can get back to prosperity [[while maintaining sufficient oversight/regulation, of course)...

You don't get it yet. Business sees any regulation as unfriendly. I think they are holding the U.S. economy hostage by holding back on investments because of their fear of "uncertainty". When was any business ever a sure thing? Wasn't it all about risk-taking?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d2989390-8...49a,s01=1.html
"...Accusing President Barack Obama of following a pro-union agenda that is burying US businesses in a new generation of regulations, Tom Donohue, president of the Chamber, whose imposing headquarters stands opposite the White House, said Washington’s trajectory is creating more uncertainty for businesses that will mean more job destruction...
US corporations have almost $2,000bn in cash in their treasuries, according to estimates. “Look at the tax cost in the healthcare bill and the tax cost in the capital markets bill and they add up to hundreds of billions of dollars,” said Mr Donohue. “It is a fundamental uncertainty [that is holding businesses back].”
However, defenders of the Obama administration argue that businesses have benefited hugely from the recovery at a stage when joblessness continues to hover at near double-digit levels. US corporate profits have risen by 36 per cent this year, and profit margins as a share of gross domestic product are at or near post-war records.."

Getting blasted by Democrats when i don't worship the ground Obama walks on alienates me as a voter from the Democratic party -[/quote]
I don't know who you are referring to. I asked you to justify your hyperbole.

**maxx** · September-24-10, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by MCP-001

In today's news:

Neither party liked.

We need campaign finance reform so the Congress can get back to doing the work of the people who elected them instead of the monied interests who back their campaigns.

**mjs** · September-24-10, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

You don't get it yet. Business sees any regulation as unfriendly. I think they are holding the U.S. economy hostage by holding back on investments because of their fear of "uncertainty". When was any business ever a sure thing? Wasn't it all about risk-taking?

Do you really mean big business? Simple answer, quit protecting them then. Allow market forces to replace them with small business. Don't bias FinReg so it disadvantages community banks over large banks. Quit subsidizing big oil, big farming, and big auto. Smaller fed government will lead to decreased subsidies and increased State power can loosen the death grip of big business because its harder to get to every state and local government than it is to get to just 51 U.S. Senators.

Funny thing of these business uncertainty people. Individuals are a bigger part of the economy and they are holding back more. Maybe 401K money going from equities to cash, gold, and bonds has more to do with polls showing 87% of Americans feeling the market is unfair to small investors. Maybe what will move it is reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, limiting derivative trading, banning selling space to microsecond trading scammers, protecting consumer's jobs with meaningful tariffs, and controlling M &A for banks and others that can't grow generically because their customers hate them.

**rb336** · September-28-10, 10:10 AM

in case anyone didn't notice, good ol' Mitch McConnel or John Boenor or one of them sound-alike repubs made it very clear where they stand -
they will not vote to end tax cuts to companies to defray the cost of companies shipping US jobs overseas as a means to provide tax cuts to companies that create jobs IN THE US.

Anyone who even vaguely thinks they give a rats ass about jobs or working people is either delusional or just plain stupid.

**maxx** · September-28-10, 10:39 AM

mjs:Quit subsidizing big oil, big farming, and big auto.

Just look at the price of oil around the world and tell me that our relatively low oil prices aren't because of the subsidies to oil. While I don't like giving money to huge oil companies, I think just stopping them suddenly would only send our economy into a worse tailspin. Likewise with agriculture. Subsidies were set up to protect farmers from the ups and downs of the market. Are there too many subsidies? Probably. Do we still subsidize mohair? Coal still supplies most of our electricity. Suddenly stopping coal subsidies would just make most people's electric bills go up. We need to invest in cleaner forms of energy and require all coal burning plants to put scrubbers on their smoke stacks and dispose of the coal ash properly. We should look into the amount of profits the coal industry makes compared to the amount of money invested in new technology and research.

**Mikeg** · September-28-10, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by maxx

Just look at the price of oil around the world and tell me that our relatively low oil prices aren't because of the subsidies to oil.

Oil prices aren't subsidized and they do not vary around the world.

Oil is a commodity that is priced and traded worldwide in US dollars. The spot price of oil reflects the current market between supply and demand.

When you write "look at the price of oil around the world and tell me that our relatively low oil prices", perhaps you meant to describe the price of gasoline or the production cost of oil. If it is the former, the difference in gas prices around the world reflects the fact that most countries tax their gasoline much more than the US does, not because of US government subsidies. If you meant the latter, US tax code does have an effect on the oil producer's costs, but that has nothing to do with the price of oil.

Regardless of what you meant, how can you expect to make a convincing argument if you cannot support it with a coherent statement? Price and cost are two distinctly different things, as are taxes and subsidies [[and gas and oil).

**ghettopalmetto** · September-28-10, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

If it is the former, the difference in gas prices around the world reflects the fact that most countries tax their gasoline much more than the US does, not because of US government subsidies. If you meant the latter, US tax code does have an effect on the oil producer's costs, but that has nothing to do with the price of oil.

Regardless of what you meant, how can you expect to make a convincing argument if you cannot support it with a coherent statement? Price and cost are two distinctly different things, as are taxes and subsidies [[and gas and oil).

I think you've just single-handedly reinvented economics. Schizophreniacs don't contradict themselves as much as you have in two paragraphs.

**justanotherboy** · September-28-10, 12:38 PM

The City of Detroit has been run by one party [[Democrats and Unions) for how long now? Maybe to fix the problem, we just send these fine outstanding Democrats from Detroit who have turned our city in the gleaming union democrat utopia where all Detroiters have good jobs, free health care, great housing, good schools and no crime. Since there are no evil NEOCON's to stop the best and brightest Democrats from implementing their agenda in Detroit, why not just elect one of them to fix the world. After all, they fixed Detroit.

Bearinabox · September-28-10, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by justanotherboy

The City of Detroit has been run by one party [[Democrats and Unions) for how long now? Maybe to fix the problem, we just send these fine outstanding Democrats from Detroit who have turned our city in the gleaming union democrat utopia where all Detroiters have good jobs, free health care, great housing, good schools and no crime. Since there are no evil NEOCON's to stop the best and brightest Democrats from implementing their agenda in Detroit, why not just elect one of them to fix the world. After all, they fixed Detroit.

It's amazing how people can turn such complicated issues into such simplistic political jabs. I guess it's easier than actually trying to solve the problems, though.

**mjs** · September-28-10, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

Just look at the price of oil around the world and tell me that our relatively low oil prices aren't because of the subsidies to oil. While I don't like giving money to huge oil companies, I think just stopping them suddenly would only send our economy into a worse tailspin. Likewise with agriculture. Subsidies were set up to protect farmers from the ups and downs of the market. Are there too many subsidies? Probably. Do we still subsidize mohair? Coal still supplies most of our electricity. Suddenly stopping coal subsidies would just make most people's electric bills go up. We need to invest in cleaner forms of energy and require all coal burning plants to put scrubbers on their smoke stacks and dispose of the coal ash properly. We should look into the amount of profits the coal industry makes compared to the amount of money invested in new technology and research.

I was thinking of more of a phasing out because rapid economic shifts generally end up bad. Yes, prices for things such as electricity and gas will go up. However, these price increases are necessary to make alternative energy and, more important, energy efficiency financially viable.

Right now, we drive down coal plant costs, then pay medical costs for poor air quality. Spend war budgets on cheap petro, then pay unemployment for the jobs lost because the Chinese can ship their goods cheaply. Drive convential fuel prices too low for alternative fuel replacement, then giving tax breaks and grants to make up the difference. Its inefficient. Its getting the dog to get the cat to get the mouse to get the fly. We're living unsustainably.