"Pledge to America" Unveiled by Republicans

[Night Strike]

You said people could only make a certain amount of money.

No, I definitely did not.
And, if you think I did,then exactly what dollar figure do you think I gave as the cap?
(hint..you won't find it, because I never gave one)

I never said you defined what the level was, you just that there should be one. "People should be able to make money, up to a certain point." Sounds exactly like saying people should only make a certain amount of money to me (and anyone who can read).

[Woodruff]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the government doesn't need to tax the people more; instead, it needs to spend less, which is why I mentioned the withdrawal and (I hope) their return and thus the cut of war funds.

Due to the size of our budget, I am starting to believe that we're going to have to do both - raise taxes a bit (get that bastard paid down) and significantly cut our spending.

This has been true for quite some time.
Problem is, no one can seem to agree on WHERE to make the cuts, least of all the Republicans and Tea Partyers.

Because the Democrats are so freaking willing to cut? My ass they are. I really don't understand how you can make such statements without at least laughing at yourself.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the government doesn't need to tax the people more; instead, it needs to spend less, which is why I mentioned the withdrawal and (I hope) their return and thus the cut of war funds.

Due to the size of our budget, I am starting to believe that we're going to have to do both - raise taxes a bit (get that bastard paid down) and significantly cut our spending.

This has been true for quite some time.
Problem is, no one can seem to agree on WHERE to make the cuts, least of all the Republicans and Tea Partyers.

Because the Democrats are so freaking willing to cut? My ass they are. I really don't understand how you can make such statements without at least laughing at yourself.

No, I don't exclude the Democrats. Its just that most of the argument has been along the lines of "bring in the Republicans" .. or "the Tea Party" because they will cut taxes/spending.

In truth, no politician so far is really good at cutting taxes.

[Woodruff]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the government doesn't need to tax the people more; instead, it needs to spend less, which is why I mentioned the withdrawal and (I hope) their return and thus the cut of war funds.

Due to the size of our budget, I am starting to believe that we're going to have to do both - raise taxes a bit (get that bastard paid down) and significantly cut our spending.

This has been true for quite some time.
Problem is, no one can seem to agree on WHERE to make the cuts, least of all the Republicans and Tea Partyers.

Because the Democrats are so freaking willing to cut? My ass they are. I really don't understand how you can make such statements without at least laughing at yourself.

No, I don't exclude the Democrats. Its just that most of the argument has been along the lines of "bring in the Republicans" .. or "the Tea Party" because they will cut taxes/spending.
In truth, no politician so far is really good at cutting taxes.

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have "least of alled" into the thread. That's where my problem lies.

[PLAYER57832]

You said people could only make a certain amount of money.

No, I definitely did not.
And, if you think I did,then exactly what dollar figure do you think I gave as the cap?
(hint..you won't find it, because I never gave one)

I never said you defined what the level was, you just that there should be one. "People should be able to make money, up to a certain point." Sounds exactly like saying people should only make a certain amount of money to me (and anyone who can read).

Except, I have said over and over that the point is when they are no longer really making money on their own, are depending on taxpayer subsidies to make money.

Another point would be when the government is many trillions in deficit because far too many cuts and tax breaks were given to bigwigs and large companies in the past. Then, those same people do need to pay the piper, finally.

[PLAYER57832]

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have "least of alled" into the thread. That's where my problem lies.

It's a reference to the hypocrisy. The Republicans claim to be about cutting spending .. AND taxes, but in fact, are about cutting taxes for wealthy folks and cutting spending on the rest of us.

[Woodruff]

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have "least of alled" into the thread. That's where my problem lies.

It's a reference to the hypocrisy. The Republicans claim to be about cutting spending .. AND taxes, but in fact, are about cutting taxes for wealthy folks and cutting spending on the rest of us.

Yes, there is certainly hypocrisy involved.

[PLAYER57832]

For the most part, I judge politicians individually, and then just those for whom I can vote or have other contact. ( a few, like Pallin make themselves known to all)

Overall, its not that I really like the Democrats or what they are putting forwrd. (too weak, too little of anything) Its just that I absolute do NOT like the Republicans. And that is actually more about how they do things than their policies. Their policies are bad, but I blame the Republicans for the absolute slide and the utter partisanship. They too often act the bully who either gets to set the rules or stomps out.

I can respect differing views. I may not agree, but I can respect them. I don't respect AT ALL this recent attitude that "either they agree with us or they are socialist", etc. And I do feel the Republicans, though not the sole purveyors, are the worst in that, have absolutely worked to use that mentality and create it to their benefit. All politicians have done it to a point, but there was time when folks could at least be civil in political discourse.

[BigBallinStalin]

For the most part, I judge politicians individually, and then just those for whom I can vote or have other contact. ( a few, like Pallin make themselves known to all)

Overall, its not that I really like the Democrats or what they are putting forwrd. (too weak, too little of anything) Its just that I absolute do NOT like the Republicans. And that is actually more about how they do things than their policies. Their policies are bad, but I blame the Republicans for the absolute slide and the utter partisanship. They too often act the bully who either gets to set the rules or stomps out.

I can respect differing views. I may not agree, but I can respect them. I don't respect AT ALL this recent attitude that "either they agree with us or they are socialist", etc. And I do feel the Republicans, though not the sole purveyors, are the worst in that, have absolutely worked to use that mentality and create it to their benefit. All politicians have done it to a point, but there was time when folks could at least be civil in political discourse.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Republicans for not siding on some of the Democrat's bills, but the Democratic Party should take into further consideration the Republican Party's views on more bills instead of just ignoring them outright, putting up a bill that doesn't represent anything the Republicans find acceptable, and then complaining about the Republican Party shooting them down.

Likewise, the Republican Party really should have voted in favor of that bill for more transparency on donors' contributions to politicians for that would benefit the people overall, but instead they acted selfishly and failed to really impress anyone.

Both parties need to understand the dire consequences of continually failing to compromise; otherwise, some other rising star will most likely take advantage of their lackluster performance. (which isn't necessarily bad for the people, just bad for those two parties).

[PLAYER57832]

For the most part, I judge politicians individually, and then just those for whom I can vote or have other contact. ( a few, like Pallin make themselves known to all)

Overall, its not that I really like the Democrats or what they are putting forwrd. (too weak, too little of anything) Its just that I absolute do NOT like the Republicans. And that is actually more about how they do things than their policies. Their policies are bad, but I blame the Republicans for the absolute slide and the utter partisanship. They too often act the bully who either gets to set the rules or stomps out

I can respect differing views. I may not agree, but I can respect them. I don't respect AT ALL this recent attitude that "either they agree with us or they are socialist", etc. And I do feel the Republicans, though not the sole purveyors, are the worst in that, have absolutely worked to use that mentality and create it to their benefit. All politicians have done it to a point, but there was time when folks could at least be civil in political discourse.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Republicans for not siding on some of the Democrat's bills, but the Democratic Party should take into further consideration the Republican Party's views on more bills instead of just ignoring them outright, putting up a bill that doesn't represent anything the Republicans find acceptable, and then complaining about the Republican Party shooting them down. .

The irony is that the original health care bill, the "big baddie" of the Republican party right now, actually DID very much borrow from ideas the Republicans put forward not so long before.

There are many other examples.

No, I don't hold the Democrats blameless (take to long to get into all that), but it absolutely HAS BEEN the Republican party that is doing most of the "stomping off". Furthermore, there is a well -documented pattern, going back to before Reagan, (though it began to really take hold with Reagan) of altering the way people talk about things so that everything is framed to benefit them.

How is it that supporting big Business, condemning unions and fair wages, decent working conditions, etc.. how is it FIGHTING those things, things traditionally very much supported by average joe's how is it that they became the enemy? Ask many midwesterners and they are not directly opposed to any of that -- not unions, not safe working conditions, not schools, etc. YET, when they vote, they vote for people who are opposed to those things. Why? Because instead of talking about those things (at first), they talked "homosexuality", "abortion", "family values" ... and blaming this non-existant liberal elite (where is it, exactly? and just how is it that this remote unknowing group gets to make so many decisions... and how is it that the decisions that group makes are so absolutely NONLIBERAL?) for any problem.

They talk general about the "economy" and "building jobs", but specifically about abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, etc.

AND, they adopted as "conservative" some of the truly core liberal values, like respect for various races, etc. (Religion is a bit rockier.. gotta tolerate other religions, but not in any way impede conservative Christianity!)

Likewise, the Republican Party really should have voted in favor of that bill for more transparency on donors' contributions to politicians for that would benefit the people overall, but instead they acted selfishly and failed to really impress anyone.

NO, they did exactly what the Republican party is and always has been about.. supporting the elite, the wealthy.

Both parties need to understand the dire consequences of continually failing to compromise; otherwise, some other rising star will most likely take advantage of their lackluster performance. (which isn't necessarily bad for the people, just bad for those two parties).

In fact, PEOPLE need to understand that if they keep listening to and believing the rhetoric instead of stepping back and really thinking about things.. we will continue to have our freedoms taken and our economic prosperity pulled from our grasp. Note that an economic slide is inevitable. It is inevitable in the traditional sense (buying so much, etc) because our world.. nothing about Democrats, etc.. simply cannot keep sustaining this disposable, use it and throw it mentality. We cannot keep paving over agricultural land, contaminating water and so forth and keep having a decent life.

Neither the Republican party Nor the Democrats, and certainly not the Tea Party or Liberaterians dare tell the truth about that. AND, Bush ahs effectively turned people's eyes away from the science that shows this to be the truth.

The thing is that we do have choices and chances to fix things, manage the slide so its not so much an absyssmal drop as a change. Build more houses truly "green" (I don't mean the mocked up fakery that folks like Gore try to pass for "green", I mean true sustainable building), support sustainable agriculture (in its multitudinal forms), support sustainable industries.

To a large extent, making that happen means paying far, far more attention to natural products, natural resources (after all, what are plants and animals but fully reproduceable and sustainable factories?), etc. We cannot do this blindly like folks did in the 70's. The economics matter, practicality (things like "attractiveness", "taste", ease of use, etc.) and just plain fitting within what people are willing to do (this definitely includes educating people as to what needs doing), that MATTERS.

[tzor]

Meanwhile, back to cutting spending, look what I just found ...

Homeland Security Department Spends Millions of Taxpayer Dollars to Feed and Shelter the Poor and Homeless

(CNSNews.com) - The Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency created by President George W. Bush to keep the nation safe from terrorists, also spends millions of taxpayer dollars helping hungry and homeless people in "communities impacted by unemployment."

DHS announced on Thursday that it has handed out $2.6 billion in stimulus funding since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law on Feb. 17, 2009.

Nearly $100 million of that money was distributed through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to more than 10,450 local organizations across the country to provide "immediate relief to communities impacted by unemployment."

"No, really. We bought them this hogae. It was this big."

[PLAYER57832]

Meanwhile, back to cutting spending, look what I just found ...

Homeland Security Department Spends Millions of Taxpayer Dollars to Feed and Shelter the Poor and Homeless

(CNSNews.com) - The Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency created by President George W. Bush to keep the nation safe from terrorists, also spends millions of taxpayer dollars helping hungry and homeless people in "communities impacted by unemployment."

DHS announced on Thursday that it has handed out $2.6 billion in stimulus funding since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law on Feb. 17, 2009.

Nearly $100 million of that money was distributed through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to more than 10,450 local organizations across the country to provide "immediate relief to communities impacted by unemployment."

"No, really. We bought them this hogae. It was this big."

So feeding hungry people is not an emergency as far as you are concerned? (and its spelled "haogie"..everywhere its spelled around here, anyway)

[tzor]

So feeding hungry people is not an emergency as far as you are concerned?

It's not a matter of "homeland security." I believe there is another department charged with "feeding the hungry." They might be a tad bit better at the food distribution thing. You have to consider administrative costs, setup costs, lack of economies of scale costs etc. If you do want to do something, then do it right. No one in the Federal government gets a bonus for being efficient. It's the opposite, actually.

[spurgistan]

So feeding hungry people is not an emergency as far as you are concerned?

It's not a matter of "homeland security." I believe there is another department charged with "feeding the hungry." They might be a tad bit better at the food distribution thing. You have to consider administrative costs, setup costs, lack of economies of scale costs etc. If you do want to do something, then do it right. No one in the Federal government gets a bonus for being efficient. It's the opposite, actually.

OK, what department "feeds the hungry?"

[stahrgazer]

Highlights:

Jobs:

- Stop job-killing tax hikes

- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income

- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit

- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.


Cutting Spending:

- Repeal and Replace health care

- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)

- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward

- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


Reforming Congress:

- Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority

- Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote


Defense:

- Provide resources to troops

- Fund missile defense

- Enforce sanctions in Iran

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

... Any thoughts?

I see nothing in this about cutting Congressional salaries, staff, or perks. When I see that? Then I'll agree they're working to tackle a deficit.

I see nothing in this, for example, that repeals congressional health care. When I see that? When congress is forced to the same none-provided healthcare forced on so many underemployed and unemployed Americans? THEN I'll trust them to come up with a healthcare system that is fair for everyone.

I see nothing in this that establishes jobs for some under and unemployed Americans. Beefing up missiles won't cut it. We need more standard manufacturing back in our country, and when I see them stopping the bleeding by re-establishing import taxes, then I'll believe they're "defending" America adequately.

At least Obama's trying to create jobs by bettering infrastructure in ways that can be healthy for our country and our planet. Super-fast railways, for example, one of his proposals, would create jobs, reduce some of our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce another few thousand cars from the roads.

Back in the mid-70's oil companies had the patents for the current electric cars. They had ZERO incentive to market them. It's changing. Government investment in electric cars can change it more - while creating new jobs for us.

Giving a small restaurant owner 20% off his taxes is nice for them, but does nothing to invest in America's future.

[tzor]

OK, what department "feeds the hungry?"

SNAP: Dept of Agriculture.

You know, the FOOD guys do the FOOD thing?
Just FOOD for thought.

[PLAYER57832]

You said people could only make a certain amount of money.

No, I definitely did not.
And, if you think I did,then exactly what dollar figure do you think I gave as the cap?
(hint..you won't find it, because I never gave one)

I never said you defined what the level was, you just that there should be one. "People should be able to make money, up to a certain point." Sounds exactly like saying people should only make a certain amount of money to me (and anyone who can read).

Well, gee... you know, if you day that cheating people is illegal, you are, in fact limiting their earnings... pretty socialist, that.

[PLAYER57832]

So feeding hungry people is not an emergency as far as you are concerned?

It's not a matter of "homeland security." I believe there is another department charged with "feeding the hungry." They might be a tad bit better at the food distribution thing. You have to consider administrative costs, setup costs, lack of economies of scale costs etc. If you do want to do something, then do it right.

While I am not going to argue this was the best decision, your claim that this is an utterly silly and wasteful allocation is just wrong. The Dept of Ag has some responsibility for food allocation, but not all.

FEMA is tasked with providing emergency assistance of many kinds. FEMA was put under Homeland security by Bush. I believe that allocation was wrong, but there it is.

No one in the Federal government gets a bonus for being efficient. It's the opposite, actually.

In the old days. Now, most departments offer nice bonuses for cutting funding BUT, the problem is that government's job is generally not to be efficient in the private market sense. Many of the tasks government takes on are not fundamentally money-making enterprises.

[tzor]

Sorry to bump this, but I just saw an interesting commentary by Harris R. Sherline.

To support their bid to regain control of Congress, the Republican Party has unveiled their "Pledge to America." It is a lengthy document, encompassing some 43 pages (including pictures), which purports to explain to American voters what the Republicans will do if they prevail in the forthcoming election on November 2.

Unfortunately, in this observer's opinion, that's exactly what's wrong with it. That is, it's too long, too wordy, too full of explanations of the challenges that the nation faces, but short on clarity and action. I believe most people will be put off by the length of the document and will probably not take the time and trouble to read and digest the contents.

It's fine for political junkies and policy wonks, but I contend that the message gets lost in its length and complexity.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah.. gee. 43 pages with pictures. And here, my poor son is asked to read about twice that every week ... in elementary school.

[BigBallinStalin]

For the most part, I judge politicians individually, and then just those for whom I can vote or have other contact. ( a few, like Pallin make themselves known to all)

Overall, its not that I really like the Democrats or what they are putting forwrd. (too weak, too little of anything) Its just that I absolute do NOT like the Republicans. And that is actually more about how they do things than their policies. Their policies are bad, but I blame the Republicans for the absolute slide and the utter partisanship. They too often act the bully who either gets to set the rules or stomps out

I can respect differing views. I may not agree, but I can respect them. I don't respect AT ALL this recent attitude that "either they agree with us or they are socialist", etc. And I do feel the Republicans, though not the sole purveyors, are the worst in that, have absolutely worked to use that mentality and create it to their benefit. All politicians have done it to a point, but there was time when folks could at least be civil in political discourse.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Republicans for not siding on some of the Democrat's bills, but the Democratic Party should take into further consideration the Republican Party's views on more bills instead of just ignoring them outright, putting up a bill that doesn't represent anything the Republicans find acceptable, and then complaining about the Republican Party shooting them down. .

The irony is that the original health care bill, the "big baddie" of the Republican party right now, actually DID very much borrow from ideas the Republicans put forward not so long before.

There are many other examples.

No, I don't hold the Democrats blameless (take to long to get into all that), but it absolutely HAS BEEN the Republican party that is doing most of the "stomping off". Furthermore, there is a well -documented pattern, going back to before Reagan, (though it began to really take hold with Reagan) of altering the way people talk about things so that everything is framed to benefit them.

I'd really have to see numbers to be persuaded to your view.

Likewise, the Republican Party really should have voted in favor of that bill for more transparency on donors' contributions to politicians for that would benefit the people overall, but instead they acted selfishly and failed to really impress anyone.

NO, they did exactly what the Republican party is and always has been about.. supporting the elite, the wealthy.

The majority of both parties support the elite, the wealthy.

Both parties need to understand the dire consequences of continually failing to compromise; otherwise, some other rising star will most likely take advantage of their lackluster performance. (which isn't necessarily bad for the people, just bad for those two parties).

In fact, PEOPLE need to understand that if they keep listening to and believing the rhetoric instead of stepping back and really thinking about things.. we will continue to have our freedoms taken and our economic prosperity pulled from our grasp. Note that an economic slide is inevitable. It is inevitable in the traditional sense (buying so much, etc) because our world.. nothing about Democrats, etc.. simply cannot keep sustaining this disposable, use it and throw it mentality. We cannot keep paving over agricultural land, contaminating water and so forth and keep having a decent life.

Neither the Republican party Nor the Democrats, and certainly not the Tea Party or Liberaterians dare tell the truth about that. AND, Bush ahs effectively turned people's eyes away from the science that shows this to be the truth.

The thing is that we do have choices and chances to fix things, manage the slide so its not so much an absyssmal drop as a change. Build more houses truly "green" (I don't mean the mocked up fakery that folks like Gore try to pass for "green", I mean true sustainable building), support sustainable agriculture (in its multitudinal forms), support sustainable industries.

To a large extent, making that happen means paying far, far more attention to natural products, natural resources (after all, what are plants and animals but fully reproduceable and sustainable factories?), etc. We cannot do this blindly like folks did in the 70's. The economics matter, practicality (things like "attractiveness", "taste", ease of use, etc.) and just plain fitting within what people are willing to do (this definitely includes educating people as to what needs doing), that MATTERS.

Have you read the Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken?

You'd really enjoy it.

[tzor]

Yeah.. gee. 43 pages with pictures. And here, my poor son is asked to read about twice that every week ... in elementary school.

I suppose compared to the average piece of legislation that comes out of congress, that's a relative paraqgraph of reading (although few of the members of eitehr congress or the senate read any of the bills these days). Still, at 43 pages, that's not a rallying cry, and it's not something you can use to really encourage the base. "Give me liberty or death" is what we need, or if you want to use a modern example "hope and change."

To use an analogy: I was talking to a co-worker yesterday about how the Met is going to perform John Adam's "Nixon in China." I pointed out that Adams is a "modern" composer with a lot of atonal music. "It's just like 'Dr Atomic' which they performed last year. You don't go out of the opera huming the songs. In fact, it's only been a year since I saw that and I can't remember a damn piece of melody from the opera."

It's highly entertaining, but don't ecpect the masses to keep singing the melody as they walk into the voting booth.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah.. gee. 43 pages with pictures. And here, my poor son is asked to read about twice that every week ... in elementary school.

I suppose compared to the average piece of legislation that comes out of congress, that's a relative paraqgraph of reading (although few of the members of eitehr congress or the senate read any of the bills these days). Still, at 43 pages, that's not a rallying cry, and it's not something you can use to really encourage the base. "Give me liberty or death" is what we need, or if you want to use a modern example "hope and change."

To use an analogy: I was talking to a co-worker yesterday about how the Met is going to perform John Adam's "Nixon in China." I pointed out that Adams is a "modern" composer with a lot of atonal music. "It's just like 'Dr Atomic' which they performed last year. You don't go out of the opera huming the songs. In fact, it's only been a year since I saw that and I can't remember a damn piece of melody from the opera."

It's highly entertaining, but don't ecpect the masses to keep singing the melody as they walk into the voting booth.

I don't agree with the Republican plan. That aside, its pretty hard to come up with anything INTELLIGENT about something as complicated as running our nation in 3, 2 minute blurps.

When people refuse to think.... we get people who pretend to be about "cutting abortion", or "curbing homosexuality", or "beefing up our border"... and who meanwhile flat out lie about real economics, harm to workers and overall impacts of the real agenday they have going. Actually, scratch that, they don't have to lie about economics, because there is only a 10% accuracy rate for economic projections past 2 years. But never mind that.. these folks think its perfectly sensible to pay more attention to economics, istead of science. (and yes, they do that!)

[tzor]

If you really want to understand something; the best way to know you do understand it is to try to explain it to someone else. You need to be able to distil the problem down to its base form, and from that base form you can then expand upon it to derive all the details. But that base form is necessary in order to “sell” the idea in the first place. To put it in another perspective, the “Pledge to America” needs to be, not the document, but the executive summary of the document.

Under this idea, each major talking point (and you have only so many major talking points because of some complexity of the human mind to be able to handle only so many talking points at a time) should ideally be one page long, with one or two major graphics at most. (I think that would be like 4 to 6 slides of a power point presentation because of the difference in the size of fonts from printed to power point.) Each talking point is something that can be handed out.

As you can see, I’m not talking about the “plan” itself. Clearly this is not easy. Clearly I don’t expect the bozos in Washington (on either side), with a few exceptions, to be able to do this. (The fact that the only one who I think can do this is currently working for the White House and is a Democrat is beside the point.). The goal is, as Jefferson states in the musical 1776, “to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.”

[PLAYER57832]

If you really want to understand something; the best way to know you do understand it is to try to explain it to someone else. You need to be able to distil the problem down to its base form, and from that base form you can then expand upon it to derive all the details. But that base form is necessary in order to “sell” the idea in the first place. To put it in another perspective, the “Pledge to America” needs to be, not the document, but the executive summary of the document.

While this is absolutely true, there is a limit to how much you can simplify or "dumb down" some things.

Under this idea, each major talking point (and you have only so many major talking points because of some complexity of the human mind to be able to handle only so many talking points at a time) should ideally be one page long, with one or two major graphics at most. (I think that would be like 4 to 6 slides of a power point presentation because of the difference in the size of fonts from printed to power point.) Each talking point is something that can be handed out.

As you can see, I’m not talking about the “plan” itself. Clearly this is not easy. Clearly I don’t expect the bozos in Washington (on either side), with a few exceptions, to be able to do this. (The fact that the only one who I think can do this is currently working for the White House and is a Democrat is beside the point.). The goal is, as Jefferson states in the musical 1776, “to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.”

I am not interested enough to read through it all.. mostly because I don't think it really and truly has much relation to what the Republicans are going to do or want to do. There is always a disconnect between what is said and what Politicians mean to do. Its called "double-speak". Politicians say what seems to mean one thing, but in truth, really means something else. Often, you have to "be in the know" to fully get the ramifications. I was once, but no longer am "in the know" politically.

However, lately the Republicans have not even bothered trying to communicate much of anything real. Its become OK to flat out lie, because they know too few people will even verify what is said. Or, to be more specific, politicians say little, and leave it to folks like Glenn Beck to "interpret" and "explain"for them. That way, they don't have to worry about the heat, and the points get made in more extreme, less compromising ways than in years past. As always, I don't hold Democrats blameless, but the Republicans lead the charge.

And liberals... have pretty much naively kept trying to be honest.