Challenge: Let's discuss the 10 points of The Contract from America

[goldcatt]

Yeah...Then they dropped and neglected the agenda items that were shot down and gave the limp loser "we tried" excuse.

Then came the great budget capitulation of '95 and the return of the GOP to being the party of "yes dear".

Were I in the GOP, I wouldn't be a party to any such "contract" until my party proved that they were serious through action.

The only one that didn't pass was term limits. And had I been in Congress I would have voted against term limits at that time too.

But let's please don't make this a partisan issue or one of personality or failings of whatever Congress or group.

I want to know whether you can or cannot support those 10 things in the Contract.

Are you saying that if whomever is in Congress can't guarantee they'll be able to pass an item, you won't support it?

I don't agree with Dude often, but he brings up a valid point here. This was tried not all that long ago, by the same party with some of the same individuals and with most likely the same intentions. Comparisons are inevitable. And frankly I don't see much difference, except in 1994 the GOP had strong leadership to rely on and agree or disagree with the policies, a more fleshed out proposal to pitch.

Now....? I smell a retread of an old idea by a group of pols needing a boost. I take it you think it's a good idea but I can't even tell you whether I can support the points offered without some meat on the bones to start from.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...Then they dropped and neglected the agenda items that were shot down and gave the limp loser "we tried" excuse.

Then came the great budget capitulation of '95 and the return of the GOP to being the party of "yes dear".

Were I in the GOP, I wouldn't be a party to any such "contract" until my party proved that they were serious through action.

The only one that didn't pass was term limits. And had I been in Congress I would have voted against term limits at that time too.

But let's please don't make this a partisan issue or one of personality or failings of whatever Congress or group.

I want to know whether you can or cannot support those 10 things in the Contract.

Are you saying that if whomever is in Congress can't guarantee they'll be able to pass an item, you won't support it?

I don't support vague talking point "contracts", which have no real value.

I especially don't support them when the people parading them out believe that merely supporting those few points means that they're doing their job and/or holding to any set of fixed principles.

In short, I don't support dog and pony shows, no matter which party is perpetrating them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah...Then they dropped and neglected the agenda items that were shot down and gave the limp loser "we tried" excuse.

Then came the great budget capitulation of '95 and the return of the GOP to being the party of "yes dear".

Were I in the GOP, I wouldn't be a party to any such "contract" until my party proved that they were serious through action.

The only one that didn't pass was term limits. And had I been in Congress I would have voted against term limits at that time too.

But let's please don't make this a partisan issue or one of personality or failings of whatever Congress or group.

I want to know whether you can or cannot support those 10 things in the Contract.

Are you saying that if whomever is in Congress can't guarantee they'll be able to pass an item, you won't support it?

I don't agree with Dude often, but he brings up a valid point here. This was tried not all that long ago, by the same party with some of the same individuals and with most likely the same intentions. Comparisons are inevitable. And frankly I don't see much difference, except in 1994 the GOP had strong leadership to rely on and agree or disagree with the policies, a more fleshed out proposal to pitch.

Now....? I smell a retread of an old idea by a group of pols needing a boost. I take it you think it's a good idea but I can't even tell you whether I can support the points offered without some meat on the bones to start from.

Again referring to the OP, I do NOT want this to be a partisan discussion or diatribe on who did or did not do whatever. Lets keep parties, personalities, and opinions of ideologies out of it please.

The Contract from America is not an invention of any political party. It has been formulated and agreed on by grass roots groups who are now soliciting candidates to run for office who, if elected, will agree to put those ten items at the top of their list of priorities. These grass roots groups could care less what political party those candidates represent or whether they are running as independents. If they sign the Contract, they will be supported.

I'm really wanting to discuss the 10 issues themselves.

So is there any one of those ten points that you think should not be a priority of the next Congress?

(And it's kind of neat seeing you and Dude allied on something. )

 

[goldcatt]

The only one that didn't pass was term limits. And had I been in Congress I would have voted against term limits at that time too.

But let's please don't make this a partisan issue or one of personality or failings of whatever Congress or group.

I want to know whether you can or cannot support those 10 things in the Contract.

Are you saying that if whomever is in Congress can't guarantee they'll be able to pass an item, you won't support it?

I don't agree with Dude often, but he brings up a valid point here. This was tried not all that long ago, by the same party with some of the same individuals and with most likely the same intentions. Comparisons are inevitable. And frankly I don't see much difference, except in 1994 the GOP had strong leadership to rely on and agree or disagree with the policies, a more fleshed out proposal to pitch.

Now....? I smell a retread of an old idea by a group of pols needing a boost. I take it you think it's a good idea but I can't even tell you whether I can support the points offered without some meat on the bones to start from.

Again referring to the OP, I do NOT want this to be a partisan discussion or diatribe on who did or did not do whatever. Lets keep parties, personalities, and opinions of ideologies out of it please.

The Contract from America is not an invention of any political party. It has been formulated and agreed on by grass roots groups who are now soliciting candidates to run for office who, if elected, will agree to put those ten items at the top of their list of priorities. These grass roots groups could care less what political party those candidates represent or whether they are running as independents. If they sign the Contract, they will be supported.

I'm really wanting to discuss the 10 issues themselves.

So is there any one of those ten points that you think should not be a priority of the next Congress?

Several of them, maybe - depending. I already stated a short list of my problems with the first item, I have similar questions about almost all of them - questions that could possibly be answered to my satisfaction, if there were just a tiny bit of substance there.

And there are many, many things I believe are top priorities that aren't on that list at all. How about getting our head out of our figurative you-know-what on two shooting wars? Rearranging our priorities as far as domestic security in general? Securing the border and finding a workable solution to illegal immigration? Scrapping the current system of financial regulation and starting over with rules that make sense? Amending trade agreements to make them fair and stop bleeding our jobs to the Third World? Overhauling K-12 education to something that actually works for the same or less money?

I have more...but you get the idea. I'm just not of the ideological niche that proposes most of these 10 items as "tops" on our agenda.

 

[Modbert]

I seem to recall a Contract from America or to America in the 90's. If that worked out so well the first time, why do we need another one?

I love all the feel good slogans though that any Republican would run on, but involves nothing concrete. I could offer more concrete platform to run on right this minute. But if this is the best the tea party can come up with it, then it's no wonder that Sharron Angle is their candidate.

 

[code1211]

Yeah...Then they dropped and neglected the agenda items that were shot down and gave the limp loser "we tried" excuse.

Then came the great budget capitulation of '95 and the return of the GOP to being the party of "yes dear".

Were I in the GOP, I wouldn't be a party to any such "contract" until my party proved that they were serious through action.

The only one that didn't pass was term limits. And had I been in Congress I would have voted against term limits at that time too.

But let's please don't make this a partisan issue or one of personality or failings of whatever Congress or group.

I want to know whether you can or cannot support those 10 things in the Contract.

Are you saying that if whomever is in Congress can't guarantee they'll be able to pass an item, you won't support it?

I don't support vague talking point "contracts", which have no real value.

I especially don't support them when the people parading them out believe that merely supporting those few points means that they're doing their job and/or holding to any set of fixed principles.

In short, I don't support dog and pony shows, no matter which party is perpetrating them.

Many times, wisdom is contained in the words of our philosophers. One of these is in our current society was Yogi Berra. Of his many Yogi-isms, one that i always liked was, "If you don't know where you're going, you're probably not going to get there."

The contract from America may be too specific, but at least it has 10 mile posts to measure progress and to center action. All ten, in my mind, are worthy points to consider. Like anything else political, the tiger pits are everywhere, but all ten points address items that are obviously in need of addressing.

If I happened to be a candidate, I would welcome debate from anyone saying that these points should not be addressed. What's not to address? Is the Tax Code really too clear today? Is the Constitution not a good thing to follow in making law? Is governemnt growing too slowly? Are individual rights a bad thing?

These are worthy points of discussion and good markers with which to guide our future legislation.

 

[Foxfyre]

I seem to recall a Contract from America or to America in the 90's. If that worked out so well the first time, why do we need another one?

I love all the feel good slogans though that any Republican would run on, but involves nothing concrete. I could offer more concrete platform to run on right this minute. But if this is the best the tea party can come up with it, then it's no wonder that Sharron Angle is their candidate.

BUZZZZZZZZZ. One demerit

Please refer to the request in the OP to leave political parties, personalities, or opinions of ideologies out of it. Let's focus on the ten items please. Thank you for understanding.

 

[Modbert]

BUZZZZZZZZZ. One demerit

Please refer to the request in the OP to leave political parties, personalities, or opinions of ideologies out of it. Let's focus on the ten items please. Thank you for understanding.

Give me a break Foxfyre. This contract is put forth by the same individuals who did so in the 90's. All you need is Newt's mug up there as they try and get it passed.

They've done this before, what's next in the 2020's? A 3rd Contract from America? Reminds me of a bad Horror franchise that just won't die.

If we're going to talk about these ideas, we might as well be honest about who's pushing them and why. Since you asked, in the next post I'll explain why the list is a complete joke.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only one that didn't pass was term limits. And had I been in Congress I would have voted against term limits at that time too.

But let's please don't make this a partisan issue or one of personality or failings of whatever Congress or group.

I want to know whether you can or cannot support those 10 things in the Contract.

Are you saying that if whomever is in Congress can't guarantee they'll be able to pass an item, you won't support it?

I don't support vague talking point "contracts", which have no real value.

I especially don't support them when the people parading them out believe that merely supporting those few points means that they're doing their job and/or holding to any set of fixed principles.

In short, I don't support dog and pony shows, no matter which party is perpetrating them.

Many times, wisdom is contained in the words of our philosophers. One of these is in our current society was Yogi Berra. Of his many Yogi-isms, one that i always liked was, "If you don't know where you're going, you're probably not going to get there."

The contract from America may be too specific, but at least it has 10 mile posts to measure progress and to center action. All ten, in my mind, are worthy points to consider. Like anything else political, the tiger pits are everywhere, but all ten points address items that are obviously in need of addressing.

If I happened to be a candidate, I would welcome debate from anyone saying that these points should not be addressed. What's not to address? Is the Tax Code really too clear today? Is the Constitution not a good thing to follow in making law? Is governemnt growing too slowly? Are individual rights a bad thing?

These are worthy points of discussion and good markers with which to guide our future legislation.

By jove, I think he's pretty well got it here.

Indeed, which of these ten points is not worthy of discussion or debate for the next election?

 

[Foxfyre]

BUZZZZZZZZZ. One demerit

Please refer to the request in the OP to leave political parties, personalities, or opinions of ideologies out of it. Let's focus on the ten items please. Thank you for understanding.

Give me a break Foxfyre. This contract is put forth by the same individuals who did so in the 90's. All you need is Newt's mug up there as they try and get it passed.

They've done this before, what's next in the 2020's? A 3rd Contract from America? Reminds me of a bad Horror franchise that just won't die.

If we're going to talk about these ideas, we might as well be honest about who's pushing them and why.

I do not wish to discuss the politics of 'who' in this thread please. There are hundreds of other threads out there discussing the politics of 'who'.

I would be very grateful to any USMB members willing to discuss the ten points of the contract though and whether you would favor or disfavor a candidate depending on whether he supported those ten points or did not.

I am convinced we have USMB members smart enough to discuss an actual issue without having to trash somebody in order to do it.

 

[goldcatt]

By jove, I think he's pretty well got it here.

Indeed, which of these ten points is not worthy of discussion or debate for the next election?

Saying they're worthy of discussion or debate and signing a "contract" pledging oneself to blindly pursuing them without any further idea of how, when, and what are two very different things.

They're all worthy of discussion of course, whether they should be "the" top issues or whether the candidates themselves are either cynical or foolhardy in signing on to them without some idea of what they're pledging themselves to is a different topic, and the one the OP seems to be addressing.

 

[Modbert]

Challenge: To discuss the 10 issues contained in the most recent draft of The Contract from America without criticizing ANY group. More than 130 candidates for Congress have now signed the contract and more will no doubt do so.

Is it possible for USMB members to discuss the pros and cons of the 10 points of the Contract without mentioning GOP, the Democrats, the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, the Tea Parties, the NAACP, the religious right, the leftwing fringe, opinion of ideologies, or accordian players?

If nobody responds, I guess I'll take that as a no.

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty
Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government
The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom
The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

1. Protect the Constitution
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget
Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending
Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork
Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes
Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)
The Contract from America

1.) A nice feel good slogan, but both parties will use and abuse this early and often.

2.) It's quite obvious whoever signed this contract has no real idea what Cap & Trade is. Despite what scare tactics that people try to put on it, Cap & Trade is the brainchild of Republicans. Again, mostly feel good but a little concrete here.

3.) I'm not sure if you realize, but this is stupid. Even if we cut massive spending, cutting taxes is not going to help get us a balanced budget.

4.) So they want a flat tax. Yeah, no. More economic stupidity.

5.) Feel good group that would merely become political. You seem to forget we have The Supreme Court.

6.) Good luck, especially since the Tea Partiers don't want their Social Security or Medicare cut.

7.) So basically they want to put back in pre-existing condition and the only thing they want to do is basically allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines. Let the race to the bottom begin!

8.) Outside of the less regulations (after the Oil spill? Really?), this is pretty much what Obama said he wants to do.

9.) Toro has already explained well enough that if you cut pretty much every big program, you still wouldn't balance the budget. As for pork, it's the least of our problems. And you can bet it would get 2/3 since they all want to help each other out in Congress.

10.) What morons. Protect the rich! We're actually putting the taxes to where they were before Bush got in power. If that's socialism, then the people putting forth this list are truly a joke. Maybe they'll want to cut taxes in two wars again.

So all I see in this list is the Worship of the Constitution, feel good slogans, cut taxes, cut regulations, and pretty much nothing that will help solve this nation's problems. Hooray!

 

[Modbert]

I do not wish to discuss the politics of 'who' in this thread please. There are hundreds of other threads out there discussing the politics of 'who'.

I would be very grateful to any USMB members willing to discuss the ten points of the contract though and whether you would favor or disfavor a candidate depending on whether he supported those ten points or did not.

I am convinced we have USMB members smart enough to discuss an actual issue without having to trash somebody in order to do it.

Give me a break with the insults. There is nearly nothing to discuss here in the first place. It's a bunch of feel good slogans that are difficult to implement in the first place. I wouldn't support a candidate who would sign this contract because he/she would obviously feel that they don't need to offer up concrete ideas and instead sign bullshit contracts.

 

[goldcatt]

I do not wish to discuss the politics of 'who' in this thread please. There are hundreds of other threads out there discussing the politics of 'who'.

I would be very grateful to any USMB members willing to discuss the ten points of the contract though and whether you would favor or disfavor a candidate depending on whether he supported those ten points or did not.

I am convinced we have USMB members smart enough to discuss an actual issue without having to trash somebody in order to do it.

I understand what you're trying to do here, but the problem is this is an obviously ideological agenda being advanced in the same manner and spirit as the partisan GOP "contract" of the 90's. Those are facts, and it would be naive in the extreme to try to pretend otherwise.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an ideological "side" using its nominally non-partisan splinter groups to advance an agenda in its name, both sides do it and while it's disingenuous it's cetainly not illegal or immoral. But you can't blame people for seeing through it and commenting on it, the similarities make it inevitable.

 

[Modbert]

I understand what you're trying to do here, but the problem is this is an obviously ideological agenda being advanced in the same manner and spirit as the partisan GOP "contract" of the 90's. Those are facts, and it would be naive in the extreme to try to pretend otherwise.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an ideological "side" using its nominally non-partisan splinter groups to advance an agenda in its name, both sides do it and while it's disingenuous it's cetainly not illegal or immoral. But you can't blame people for seeing through it and commenting on it, the similarities make it inevitable.

Exactly. It is a ideological agenda, and to try and act like it's not would be dishonest. I wasn't around in the 90's, but I read enough about the one in the 90's to know this is the same old game. Even mostly the same players.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do not wish to discuss the politics of 'who' in this thread please. There are hundreds of other threads out there discussing the politics of 'who'.

I would be very grateful to any USMB members willing to discuss the ten points of the contract though and whether you would favor or disfavor a candidate depending on whether he supported those ten points or did not.

I am convinced we have USMB members smart enough to discuss an actual issue without having to trash somebody in order to do it.

I understand what you're trying to do here, but the problem is this is an obviously ideological agenda being advanced in the same manner and spirit as the partisan GOP "contract" of the 90's. Those are facts, and it would be naive in the extreme to try to pretend otherwise.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an ideological "side" using its nominally non-partisan splinter groups to advance an agenda in its name, both sides do it and while it's disingenuous it's cetainly not illegal or immoral. But you can't blame people for seeing through it and commenting on it, the similarities make it inevitable.

I don't think you do understand though. Once we bring the 1994 contract into it, once you divert the focus to political parties or ideologies or presumed motives, discussion of the actual principles in the Contract and whether we do or do not agree with them becomes impossible to do. Once you make it a partisan or ideological thing, any discussion of what we want our government to accomplish becomes essentially moot.

This thread will dissolve into another food fight as most political threads eventually do.

We can avoid that by keeping party, personalities, and ideologies out of it. That isn't dishonest at all. It is practical.

Okay, moving along here. . . .

By jove, I think he's pretty well got it here.

Indeed, which of these ten points is not worthy of discussion or debate for the next election?

Saying they're worthy of discussion or debate and signing a "contract" pledging oneself to blindly pursuing them without any further idea of how, when, and what are two very different things.

They're all worthy of discussion of course, whether they should be "the" top issues or whether the candidates themselves are either cynical or foolhardy in signing on to them without some idea of what they're pledging themselves to is a different topic, and the one the OP seems to be addressing.

Well, just as the U.S. Constitution is the short version of reams of writings and debates and discussion that went into every clause and phrase, so is the Contract as described in the OP the short synopsis of the reams of writings and debates and discussion that went into each one.

Let’s look at the preamble to the Contract again:

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

So which, if any, of the ten issues in the Contract would you NOT want Congress to debate and bring to a vote in the first year of the next Congress?

 

[Oddball]

Many times, wisdom is contained in the words of our philosophers. One of these is in our current society was Yogi Berra. Of his many Yogi-isms, one that i always liked was, "If you don't know where you're going, you're probably not going to get there."

The contract from America may be too specific, but at least it has 10 mile posts to measure progress and to center action. All ten, in my mind, are worthy points to consider. Like anything else political, the tiger pits are everywhere, but all ten points address items that are obviously in need of addressing.

If I happened to be a candidate, I would welcome debate from anyone saying that these points should not be addressed. What's not to address? Is the Tax Code really too clear today? Is the Constitution not a good thing to follow in making law? Is governemnt growing too slowly? Are individual rights a bad thing?

These are worthy points of discussion and good markers with which to guide our future legislation.

I could say the same things about phone sex.

It kind-sorta has a desired outcome, it makes one feel all warm and steamy, but in the end you know deep down that the person on the other end of the line is never going to put out in actual reality.

Arf-arf!....Neeeeeeeiiiigh!

 

[Modbert]

I don't think you do understand though. Once we bring the 1994 contract into it, once you divert the focus to political parties or ideologies or presumed motives, discussion of the actual principles in the Contract and whether we do or do not agree with them becomes impossible to do. Once you make it a partisan or ideological thing, any discussion of what we want our government to accomplish becomes essentially moot.


Let’s look at the preamble to the Contract again:

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

So which, if any, of the ten issues in the Contract would you NOT want Congress to debate and bring to a vote in the first year of the next Congress?

Foxfyre, I'm going to explain this again so perhaps you can understand it. It won't become a partisan or ideological thing, it already is.

You seem to be confusing our being against partisanship as opposed to some of the ideas. I don't want Congress discussing responsibility, I want them actually doing something about it. However, these ideas are merely a bunch of partisan ideological ones that have little no input from a great portion of the voting population.

 

[Modbert]

I could say the same things about phone sex.

It kind-sorta has a desired outcome, it makes one feel all warm and steamy, but in the end you know deep down that the person on the other end of the line is never going to put out in actual reality.

Arf-arf!....Neeeeeeeiiiigh!

Or you find out that you're not talking to a chick, but rather a guy.

Which is what will happen exactly here when people realize the people pushing this contract don't have good intentions.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I'm going to explain this so even you can understand it friend Modbert.

It is partisan only if people make it partisan.

I refuse to accept that 10 principles or ideas cannot be discussed on their own merits by intelligent people or that they cannot be discussed without bringing opinions of ideologies, personalities, or political parties into it.

So, which of those 10 items would you NOT want to see brought to a vote in the first year of the next Congress?