Does The Republican Party Have Any Vision Or Plan For The Future?

[85suited 0]

The Democrats lose me every time on tax policy....

[CaneBrain 95]

Even though you percentages are are way to high and do more to hurt then help, I am glad you support a tax cut for most of the higher incomes!! You may just have a future as a capitalist yet...You are a lawyer you should have read the question closer.

he edited it after I already responded.

[hblask 1]

Okay Republicans what are the top ten things the Republican Party should espouse in their vision for America? And for each item how would you sell it to the average wage earning American?

Oooh, ooh, not a Republican, but can I play? I don't know if I can do 10 though.1. Social Security reform: Hard-working Americans should be able to retire without worrying. They should be able to be confident that they will not lose their house after a lifetime of hard work. That is why we need to reform retirement in the United States. For too long, irresponsible politicians have been promising that the fix to Social Security is just one reform away. The real problem is much bigger than that. Citizens just starting their working career now will be lucky to get a 1-2% return on their money in the current SS program, and that assumes no more tax increases or benefits cuts -- something that is historically a bad assumption. It is time to take the economic security of our seniors out of the hands of politicians whose biggest concern is the next election cycle, and put it into the hands of America's greatness -- it's productivity and innovation. For the last 25 years, Congress has shown nothing but cowardice in regard to this important issue. Because of that, the transition will be more difficult than necessary. But each year we wait puts more seniors at risk, and imposes more unfair burdens on our children and grandchildren. But we must start with a simple principle: we will not yank the rug out from under the feet of those close to retirement. We, the government, made a promise to these people, and now that they are close to retirement it would not be fair to say sorry, we can't help you. So any program must provide for those who are retired or near retirement in the way that we've promised. But for those who are just beginning their career, or in the middle stages, we must begin the transition to a program that is based on assets and productivity instead of the empty promises of another generation of politicians.(I think I'll break this into parts)

[hblask 1]

2. Foreign policy: For too long, the United States has tried to be the world's policeman. It is an expensive and dangerous game. Our military is spread too thin, our troops are getting burned out, and our safety is being compromised by doing too much. The goal of our military should be clear and explicit: to defend our citizens from direct threats. It is not our job to fix corrupt governments in other countries, it is not our job to get involved in every border skirmish in the world. It is time to bring most of our troops home and devote our resources to making our military strong and respected. We have over 140 military bases around the world, most of them with little strategic value, and many of them in countries where our presence causes resentment. Strategically, we could accomplish the same goals with between 10 and 25 military bases outside the US, all in countries that want us there. From these bases, we could provide quick strike capabilities to any nation that threatens our citizens.Once we decide that our goal is to protect our shores, the difficult question becomes "what is considered a direct threat to us?" -- and fortunately we have some of the greatest military minds in the world to answer that, if we would only listen to them. The current plan of putting troops everywhere and trying to be all things to all people is doomed to failure. It's time to put US citizens and their tax dollars first.

[hblask 1]

3. The Insane War on Drugs: Sorry, America is not ready to face this issue yet, and fails to recognize the parallels between alcohol prohibition and our current version of prohibition. I'd like to help you, but you are not ready for it yet. The time will come.

[Tantalar 0]

This country is finished and it is because people keep voting Democrat/Republican.check out the documentary http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 absolutely free it will explain a lot if you don't already know

[hblask 1]

4. Health care: If you go to the grocery store, you have thousands of fresh fruits and vegetables to choose from. If you go to the mall, you have thousands of styles of shoes to choose from. Yet most Americans have one or two or three choices when it comes to medical care. Yes, those choices are excellent, but they are expensive. The reason there are thousands of choices for shoes and thousands of choices in food is because we trust you, the taxpayer, to make your own decision as to what is good for you and your family. Yet when it comes to health care, for the last 50 years, our policy seems to be "bureaucrats know best". We have created a system where the individual and their relationship to their doctor is the least important part of the process. We've created a system where corporations get tax breaks for making those decisions for you, but the individual pays extra if they want to make them for themselves. We've created a system where insurance companies can game the system for their own profits, because they help write the laws that keep competition a distant dream. It's time to change that. We need to give individuals the tax breaks to buy affordable, portable insurance, and take that away from corporations and businesses. Only when every citizen demands affordable, flexible programs that meet their families' needs -- not the needs of politicians -- will the marketplace finally become competitive. America has the best and the brightest when it comes to medicine, and a history of innovation and excellence that the rest of the world envies. We need to unleash that brain power and innovation to solve this problem. Currently, our system is crippled by the fact that the federal government spends almost half of every dollar spent on health care. We cannot afford to waste precious resources by trusting the people who brought us the S&L crisis, the mortgage meltdown, and trillion dollar deficits. The person who cares most about the health of you and your family is you, and it is time to empower you to make the choices that matter in your life.

[CaneBrain 95]

Henry,#2 and 3 are clearly libertarian values (and are direct opposites of GOP views).Are you putting up YOUR 10 or a GOP 10?

[hblask 1]

Henry,#2 and 3 are clearly libertarian values (and are direct opposites of GOP views).Are you putting up YOUR 10 or a GOP 10?

Well, my ten (or however many I get to). #3 is clearly the opposite of anything a Republican would write, but #2 is a traditionally Republican position, it's just that the last 15-20 years they seem to have lost their way. The Republicans need to get back to the old tradition of strong defense and let the Democrats engage in senseless wars. I'm not sure why these positions traded parties.

[Nimue1995 1]

So far so good H. And I disagree that you couldn't sell number 3 to the American people. You just need the right spokesperson and the right pitch. If the abolition of the death penalty can be sold to the Montana Legislature then ending the IWOD can be sold as well. I think we might have more health related costs after implimentation but certainly that would be offset by the reallocation of our Drug Enforcement budget. And for those who think this would increase criminal activity, I don't think so. Alcohol does play a role in criminal activity but not like it was during prohibition. Don't think that I support drug use because I don't (though I smoked weed when I was younger,lol). But it's a choice that we need to take out of the hands of government and put it where it belongs in the public health sector. The Montana Meth Project has done more to slow down and decrease the use of meth in Montana than all the enforcement programs here combined. It's a very graphic education program and it works.Oh and by the way, I'd certainly buy into your campaign. I don't necessarily agree with number 4 simply because there will always be those people who fall through the cracks and we need a safety net for those. Same with Social Security. And I believe as a rich nation we have an obligation to those among us who for physical or mental disabilities cannot help themselves. But other than that, I pretty much can get behind that position.

[CaneBrain 95]

Well, my ten (or however many I get to). #3 is clearly the opposite of anything a Republican would write, but #2 is a traditionally Republican position, it's just that the last 15-20 years they seem to have lost their way. The Republicans need to get back to the old tradition of strong defense and let the Democrats engage in senseless wars. I'm not sure why these positions traded parties.

I am not sure when the GOP was opposed to having as many foreign base presences as possible. Must have been before my time. A neo-con view would support more bases not fewer.for the record, I agree. Bill Maher's show pointed out recently that we have like 50K military personnel living in Germany. I know they got out of line a few times (lol, understatementaments) but that seems like overkill to me.

[hblask 1]

Oh and by the way, I'd certainly buy into your campaign. I don't necessarily agree with number 4 simply because there will always be those people who fall through the cracks and we need a safety net for those. Same with Social Security. And I believe as a rich nation we have an obligation to those among us who for physical or mental disabilities cannot help themselves. But other than that, I pretty much can get behind that position.

For #1 and #4, when the issue of 'people falling through the cracks' comes up, there are easy answers. First, for SS, the govt could give a guarantee, so that if you switched over to the private investment plan, and continued to contribute throughout your life, the govt would guarantee a certain level of income. This plan would be so cheap and rarely used that I'd have no problem making such a promise. And notice, I'd be willing to make switching optional -- you can stick with the SS program and it's future of benefit cuts and tax increases if you'd like. It's still be available to anyone. This would have an interesting effect that as more people bailed out of SS, it would become more lucrative to stay in it, so basically you'd have an exodus to the level that makes sense for a society that wants a safety net for seniors. As for healthcare, there'd be no reason to abandon the current safety net programs except to the extent that they are harming the system. For example, Obama just expanded some program (I forget it's real name, but it's commonly called the Childrens Health Program) to people making over $70K/year. This is bad economic policy and an immoral transfer of taxpayer dollars. But overall, we have a ton of safety nets, from forcing hospitals to pass the costs on to paying customers, to federal, state, and local programs. Those don't need to go away.

[hblask 1]

for the record, I agree. Bill Maher's show pointed out recently that we have like 50K military personnel living in Germany. I know they got out of line a few times (lol, understatementaments) but that seems like overkill to me.

One of our biggest bases is Ramstein (sp?) in Germany, and that's one I'd leave open, and model the remaining dozen or two dozen after that. We need a few large, strategic bases instead of a bunch of smaller non-strategic ones. The key is to be X hours away from striking anywhere in the world. Germany seems like a logical choice, as they are well-located, and they don't mind us being there. What we DON'T want is a small base in some backwards violent country like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where it just breeds antipathy toward the US.Also, we can do so much from sea now so that a strong nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier presence around the world would accomplish much of what we need.

[hblask 1]

#5 Education: Ever since the federal government has started meddling in education, America's place in the world has dropped. With each failure of the past, Congress' response has been to put more money into the same failed programs. Congress has locked the states into an education model from the distant past at a time when everything else changes at an increasingly rapid rate. We can no longer afford to waste the potential of this nation's youth. It is time to free our students from the entrenched bureaucrats of the NEA and the groups that support them. There is no reason for the federal government to be involved in education. Education is a local problem, and the federal government is ill-suited to address local problems. The issues that New York City schools are dealing with have no similarity to the issues that schools in Montana or New Mexico are dealing with. So instead of encouraging innovation in education, the federal government has locked schools into a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't solve anybody's problems in a meaningful way, and prevents the type of changes that could solve them. It locks students into mediocrity at the expense of excellence. It is time to end the Department of Education and give parents and communities the right to educate their children to standards that allow us to compete in the world.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

3. The Insane War on Drugs: Sorry, America is not ready to face this issue yet, and fails to recognize the parallels between alcohol prohibition and our current version of prohibition. I'd like to help you, but you are not ready for it yet. The time will come.

LOL, you remind me of Ross Perot on this one.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Henry,#2 and 3 are clearly libertarian values (and are direct opposites of GOP views).Are you putting up YOUR 10 or a GOP 10?

I was thinking the same thing, H would be a great third party candadate. I would vote for him.

[Nimue1995 1]

#5 Education: Ever since the federal government has started meddling in education, America's place in the world has dropped. With each failure of the past, Congress' response has been to put more money into the same failed programs. Congress has locked the states into an education model from the distant past at a time when everything else changes at an increasingly rapid rate. We can no longer afford to waste the potential of this nation's youth. It is time to free our students from the entrenched bureaucrats of the NEA and the groups that support them. There is no reason for the federal government to be involved in education. Education is a local problem, and the federal government is ill-suited to address local problems. The issues that New York City schools are dealing with have no similarity to the issues that schools in Montana or New Mexico are dealing with. So instead of encouraging innovation in education, the federal government has locked schools into a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't solve anybody's problems in a meaningful way, and prevents the type of changes that could solve them. It locks students into mediocrity at the expense of excellence. It is time to end the Department of Education and give parents and communities the right to educate their children to standards that allow us to compete in the world.

I'd agree with this caveat - that there be a minimum standard for graduation that all states and communities adhere to. Because otherwise a high school diploma from NY might not be worth as much in the workplace as one from say Montana or vice versa. I'm not a fan of No Child Left Behind but there does have to be some standard of knowledge that a high school student should know before getting that diploma. Also I don't really see a problem with doing some kind of diversion at say the junior high level so that children that just aren't cut out for academics can instead receive vocational training that will allow them to work instead of continuing on. For some kids it's just a waste of time and money to keep them in school when they'd rather learn a trade and work.

[hblask 1]

I'd agree with this caveat - that there be a minimum standard for graduation that all states and communities adhere to. Because otherwise a high school diploma from NY might not be worth as much in the workplace as one from say Montana or vice versa. I'm not a fan of No Child Left Behind but there does have to be some standard of knowledge that a high school student should know before getting that diploma. Also I don't really see a problem with doing some kind of diversion at say the junior high level so that children that just aren't cut out for academics can instead receive vocational training that will allow them to work instead of continuing on. For some kids it's just a waste of time and money to keep them in school when they'd rather learn a trade and work.

This problem has already been solved privately, via free markets. It's called the SAT and ACT tests.National standards are causing severe harm to our education system. If you think about how they are created, you'll see why. How do we decide what this minimum standard is? Politically. And how do politicians decide? Based on pressure. If the standard is too high, they get crap for flunking all those poor underprivileged kids who never had a chance in life and now you're just burying them how could you? So the standards drop and drop until they are at a politically palatable level. And then schools are ranked based on how many kids pass this test. And how do you get enough kids to pass the test? By spending your dollars on the kids who are just below the line and can raise their scores enough to pass, while advanced topics are ignored.So add this all up: low national standards, teaching to that standard, scarce resources spent on people just below that standard while ignoring those who could excel. The result of all this is obvious, and it's why the US is so low by world standards.Nothing positive can come of national standards for education.

[Nimue1995 1]

Lol, 85 I'm beginning to like your guy more and more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090302/pl_politico/19498

[Zealous Donkey 0]

This problem has already been solved privately, via free markets. It's called the SAT and ACT tests.National standards are causing severe harm to our education system. If you think about how they are created, you'll see why. How do we decide what this minimum standard is? Politically. And how do politicians decide? Based on pressure. If the standard is too high, they get crap for flunking all those poor underprivileged kids who never had a chance in life and now you're just burying them how could you? So the standards drop and drop until they are at a politically palatable level. And then schools are ranked based on how many kids pass this test. And how do you get enough kids to pass the test? By spending your dollars on the kids who are just below the line and can raise their scores enough to pass, while advanced topics are ignored.So add this all up: low national standards, teaching to that standard, scarce resources spent on people just below that standard while ignoring those who could excel. The result of all this is obvious, and it's why the US is so low by world standards.Nothing positive can come of national standards for education.

You left out the good ole run of the mill bureaucratic waste/ fraud/ abuse. Go and read some of the audits of the St. Louis Public school system. They used to have some available online in their entirety. Money mismanaged by the millions year after year. When the auditors tried to get them to account for money they spent, they were often called racist.

[Nimue1995 1]

This problem has already been solved privately, via free markets. It's called the SAT and ACT tests.National standards are causing severe harm to our education system. If you think about how they are created, you'll see why. How do we decide what this minimum standard is? Politically. And how do politicians decide? Based on pressure. If the standard is too high, they get crap for flunking all those poor underprivileged kids who never had a chance in life and now you're just burying them how could you? So the standards drop and drop until they are at a politically palatable level. And then schools are ranked based on how many kids pass this test. And how do you get enough kids to pass the test? By spending your dollars on the kids who are just below the line and can raise their scores enough to pass, while advanced topics are ignored.So add this all up: low national standards, teaching to that standard, scarce resources spent on people just below that standard while ignoring those who could excel. The result of all this is obvious, and it's why the US is so low by world standards.Nothing positive can come of national standards for education.

So then to graduate have them be able to pass the SAT or ACT with a minimum score. Not that difficult. And I really think that going with a diversion at 13 or 14 to put those kids who want to go into a trade rather than spend the next 6 years or so in high school should be allowed to do so. If schools want to make those apprenticeships run the same number of years as High School, that would be fine too. College really isn't for everybody and there should be a choice for those kids who want something else instead.

[hblask 1]

So then to graduate have them be able to pass the SAT or ACT with a minimum score. Not that difficult.

But that is the exact same problem. The reason the SAT works is because any student or any college or employer is free to ignore it if it becomes ridiculous. So what score is acceptable? No matter where you set it, school becomes about reaching that score on the SAT rather than reaching the maximum potential for each child.

And I really think that going with a diversion at 13 or 14 to put those kids who want to go into a trade rather than spend the next 6 years or so in high school should be allowed to do so. If schools want to make those apprenticeships run the same number of years as High School, that would be fine too. College really isn't for everybody and there should be a choice for those kids who want something else instead.

Yeah, I think one simple change would fix schools: the money stays with the student to spend on whatever education they want. Right now, public schools spend an average of over $10,000/year per student, and even with class sizes of 25 they STILL can't educate our kids. A quarter of a million dollars isn't enough!?!?!?! If that money went where the kids went, I would quit my job and open a school for 10 kids. For $100,000/year, these kids would come out of school craving knowledge; learning would be their passion, and they could face any challenge in the world. At any rate, I think what you mention here is the type of experiment that would start to happen. The whole notion that there is a single thing called "education" is obsolete, and needs to be left in the past, where it belongs. There are as many ways to learn as their are students, but our public school system insists that sitting in rows being lectured at is vital for all kids. It's crazy. We could have a school for every learning type: apprenticeships, arts schools, math schools, internships, trade schools, and yes, sitting in rows being lectured at.

[Sal Paradise 57]

But that is the exact same problem. The reason the SAT works is because any student or any college or employer is free to ignore it if it becomes ridiculous. So what score is acceptable? No matter where you set it, school becomes about reaching that score on the SAT rather than reaching the maximum potential for each child.Yeah, I think one simple change would fix schools: the money stays with the student to spend on whatever education they want. Right now, public schools spend an average of over $10,000/year per student, and even with class sizes of 25 they STILL can't educate our kids. A quarter of a million dollars isn't enough!?!?!?! If that money went where the kids went, I would quit my job and open a school for 10 kids. For $100,000/year, these kids would come out of school craving knowledge; learning would be their passion, and they could face any challenge in the world. At any rate, I think what you mention here is the type of experiment that would start to happen. The whole notion that there is a single thing called "education" is obsolete, and needs to be left in the past, where it belongs. There are as many ways to learn as their are students, but our public school system insists that sitting in rows being lectured at is vital for all kids. It's crazy. We could have a school for every learning type: apprenticeships, arts schools, math schools, internships, trade schools, and yes, sitting in rows being lectured at.

TEACHING FAIL OMG

[CaneBrain 95]

nice to see a republican admit limbaugh is just an "entertainer" who likes to generate controversy.....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19498.htmlI like this Steele guy.....

[Loismustdie 0]

nice to see a republican admit limbaugh is just an "entertainer" who likes to generate controversy.....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19498.htmlI like this Steele guy.....

Read through this and tell me where he gets one issue wrong. One. Ignore the 6000 typo, it's corrected later on . Good luck: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5107.guest.html