The Grand New Party

[JoeRedskin]

The health care thread took a left (or right) turn into the politics of the Republican party. I just thought we might want to bring that discussion over here and let the health care discussion get back on track.

Essentially, the question is where do fiscal conservatives go now that the social conservatives have co-opted the Republican party?

Can a group based on fiscal conservatism and limited government be viable? OR will any such group attract and be subsumed by anti-government groups and/or social conservatives.

Can fiscal conservatives remain allied with social conservatives and still be relevant or is it a catch-22? We need them for a majority but in gaining their support we lose the core values of fiscal restraint by the government, personal responsibility and limited, but appropriate, govt. regulation (i.e. oversight of banking, insurance, interstate trade, etc.)?

[Monksdown]

When everyone claims to be a moderate...how many from each side do we need to steal?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

When everyone claims to be a moderate...how many from each side do we need to steal?

There doesn't need to be sides. How about a party based on ideas and principles. A little looser banding to prevent incestuous thinking and provide for more agility in the idea department.

[FRPLG]

Good idea.

[firstdown]

I guess the point I was trying to make in the other thread is I just don't see the big legisltive push for the religious right agenda. I hear it talked about but just don't see that it controls the party. Its the same thing on the left. You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.

There are a initiatives that Obama and the Dems are pushing through that will raise energy costs and hurt U.S. industry. I also believe a new version of Kyoto is being negotiated or will be soon and the President is all for it. All this pushed heavily by the environmental lobby. There is also a video mentioned on the front page of Fox News today, All About Stuff I think it was, it's basically a 20 minute rant on how bad the U.S. is for the environment (using a bunch of bogus statistics, as usual) and this is being shown in schools throughout the country. Don't underestimate the power of the environmental lobby (Dark Side).

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There are a initiatives that Obama and the Dems are pushing through that will raise energy costs and hurt U.S. industry. I also believe a new version of Kyoto is being negotiated or will be soon and the President is all for it. All this pushed heavily by the environmental lobby. There is also a video mentioned on the front page of Fox News today, All About Stuff I think it was, it's basically a 20 minute rant on how bad the U.S. is for the environment (using a bunch of bogus statistics, as usual) and this is being shown in schools throughout the country. Don't underestimate the power of the environmental lobby (Dark Side).

Lobbyists ruin governments regardless of which side they're on. It's quite a shame that the people that make such key decisions often have no knowledge on them and rely on what somebody who swoons them feeds.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Could you please explain how the environmental issues are not a concern? Why are we one of what, 2 civilized countries who haven't ratified the KP? It is time for a new Kyoto Protocol, though I haven't reviewed any new version, so I'll have to look into that.

The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

I agree with you. Here's a little more info on Kyoto:

Ten Second Response: The Cost of Kyoto

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

Well without global cooling we really don't have that leg to stand on. The Kyoto treaty was not brought up in a time like now, the economy was much better, but I do agree that it could have a major economic impact. It's not so much that we need to ratify a treaty, just we need to take better steps towards preserving the environment.

People call talk about skewered facts or whatever they'd like, but the huge emission of pollutants teamed with deforestation can certainly not be helping or neutral.

Even aside from all of this, whether global warming be a scare tactic or not, it is pushing innovation in some stagnant industries and helping speed along the development and research of more efficient energy and processes to help us. In turn that is helping create jobs and technologies from which we can benefit.

Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I guess the point I was trying to make in the other thread is I just don't see the big legisltive push for the religious right agenda. I hear it talked about but just don't see that it controls the party. Its the same thing on the left. You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.

Nice ,, LOL !!!

[CRedskinsRule]

Essentially, the 2-party system has divided itself based on how it spends the money.

Since more than 60% of the country, rich and poor, now believe that government can distribute money in one form or another, EIC payments or tax deductions for solar energy or whatever other pet project you may deem worthy of other peoples money, a new party would have to draw from moderates. The problem is moderates won't unite behind one party because the 2 behemoths can co-opt any fledgling ideas, and leave real change behind.

The American government, originally, was limited in scope by the 10 amendments, and specifically #s 9 and 10. That is no longer the case. If the Federal government wants to force the enforcement of a law, they simply punish the bad states by withholding funds. The Supreme Court has been complicit in this growth by allowing interstate commerce regulations to weave webs of entanglement into every level of the government. The media is complicit, because they no longer try to be a neutral observer, but depending on their bias, report news that promotes their agenda.

Sadly, there is not very much chance that the country is suddenly going to agree to limiting government.

Don't know that my rant was coherent, or that it answers any significant question.

No, no new party will be created. 30% of Americans will vote Democratic come hell or high water, 30% will vote Republican come hell or high water, and the other 40% will be so divided by things like choice, healthcare, marriage, and other social divides that the 2 major parties will bring enough to one side or the other to squash any silly new idea, like limited, representative, government of the people.

[saden1]

Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?

I think we could cut goverment in half and 99% of the people would never notice any change or they might notice an improvement.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?

WOW, where to start.

Dept of Ed gone

Department of Defense, restored to a self - defense posture
Army -Reserves only, 2yr compulsory service, with a Officer Corp maintained.
Air Force and Navy Funded, but for defense of borders and trade only
NASA gone (privatized)

Dept. of Health and Human Services gone

Dept of State, fully funded

Department of Justice, funded for Judicial Branch requirements.

Department of the Treasury funded for printing money, and protecting American currency from fraud

Department of Housing and Urban Development gone

Department of Transportation, funded as necessary for maintain interstate commerce.

Department of Interior, probably subsumed mostly gone

Department of Agriculture, Fully funded, perhaps put food assistance to the poor here.

Department of Commerce funded for appropriate regulatory agencies

Department of Labor fully funded

Department of Energy fully funded

Department of Homeland Security gone (goodby big brother)

Department of Veterans Affairs placed under DOD.

I suppose thats a start, most anything that creates a dependency on the federal government, rather than a reliance on self, family and local community, ought to be out and out eliminated. And before anyone cries how awful, and cruel. Remember the federal government does not create money out of thin air(if they do we are in serious trouble.) If our government's payroll was reduced, more could go to individuals/local communities/charities and state governments in order to handle the needs of the local community and people.

Also, this is a pipe dream, I know it will NEVER happen, and if it did, it would be so painful as to be apocalyptic in nature. But our Federal government was established to maintain a framework in which the States, unique and distinct could take care of their own needs. We are now much closer to the England of King George, than we are of the United (but individual) States of America.