Posted on 02/04/2007 10:33:24 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Uh, I believe he's recommending to phase out social security and allow the people to build wealth for their own retirements.
Newt`s 21st century CWA seems a bit bloated and overbearing. More instructive then straightforward. It also stays away from the social issues, mentioning abortion only once. While Newt opposes abortion on demand, he finds the social issues somewhat divisive and isn't an outspoken prolifer. However, the thrust of Newt's overplan would lead to promoting Judeo-Christian values more in American society and expressing God as the Creator in the same fashion the Founders did.
Newt's got to make up his mind and stop messing around. Is he gonna run for the nomination or not? Waiting till Labor Day to make his decision sounds a little strange.
Well, then, somebody better come up with another candidate that can satisfy people around here or we're going to have one bitch of a gun grabber in the Oval Office.
I think it needs a Reader's Digest version or a KISS rework, but I understand that Newt is trying to fully express his ideas.
Don't forget SCOTUS' role in neutering the CWA. Line-item veto, etc.
We can, and will, do better, once the MSM is knocked over.
So what's your point?. Newt is loyal to his country, a historian, reasoned, well spoken, and smart. Carter and Clinton had none of those qualities and they were elected.
Thankfully, I am not a chicken little.
Then why didn't he say that? Instead he said this:
V. To ensure that no American retires into poverty, we will transform the Social Security system starting with younger workers who should have the right to choose a personal Social Security Savings Retirement Accounts that will enable them to accumulate the wealth needed for a prosperous retirement while preserving Social Security for today’s retirees and near-retirees.
There's not a word in there about 'phasing' anything out, just letting younger folks have some new "right". I presume he'll amend the BOR or something to 'grant' us this new "right" he's talking about.
Besides we already have these Savings Retirement Accounts. They're called 401k's or 403b's. So just what exactly is he talking about?
Why can't he just admit that Congress has pillaged the Social Security 'trust fund' and that there really isn't a single dime in there. I know I for one would find the truth more than just a bit refreshing after the years of BS emanating from Congress on the subject.
By 2006, the Republicans had all but forgotten their promises to the American people and succumbed to relentless pressure and name-calling by the Dems and their cronies in the MSM. They had squandered their opportunity and yielded power to the liberals.
The Contract with America is a great idea. What's to insure that the Republicans won't go running scared the first time someone in the media criticizes their plan as "mean-spirited," "racist," "favoring the rich" or "contributing to global warming"?
Yup, it is a bit bloated and overbearing. Hopefully, he's taking time over the next few months to streamline, strengthen and polish it for prime time. Hopefully he'll appreciate our feedback. He's definitely the smartest, most articulate and accomplished (from a conservative perspective) candidate out there.
By the way, if you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in his God and Religion in America video that was broadcast on FOX a couple weeks ago.
I like his conservative approach and his reliance on the founding documents and principles. Conservatism is so much more refreshing than the unconstitutional liberal bilge water being pumped out by Rudy and McCain.
By Riley Yates
MANCHESTER Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.
Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.
"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.
*snip*
Gingrich's speech focused on the First Amendment, but in an interview beforehand, he also hit upon wide-ranging topics.
* Gingrich said America has "failed" in Iraq over the past three years and urged a new approach to winning the conflict.
The U.S. needs to engage Syria and Iran and increase investment to train the Iraqi army and a national police force, he said. "How does a defeat for America make us safer?"
Gingrich said. "I would look at an entirely new strategy." He added: "We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want."
* Political parties in Presidential primary states should host events that invite candidates from both parties to discuss issues, said Gingrich, who criticized the sharpness of today's politics.
* Gingrich said voters unhappy with the war, the response to Hurricane Katrina and pork barrel spending were the main drive behind the GOP's rejection at the polls. But he argued Republicans would have retained the Senate and just narrowly lost the House if President Bush had announced the departure of embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before, instead of after, the election.
* Gingrich said he will not decide whether he is running for President until September 2007.
In an impromptu speech during a Mediterranean cruise that hosted scores of conservative donors and activists, the Georgia Republican expressed unexpected skepticism about prospects of military intervention to halt Iran's nuclear program.
"I am opposed to a military strike on Iran because I don't think it accomplishes very much in the long run," said Mr. Gingrich, who supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and has been a strong defender of Israel.
"I think if this regime [in Iran] is so dangerous that we can't afford to let them have nuclear weapons, we need a strategy to replace the regime," Mr. Gingrich said. "And the first place you start is where Ronald Reagan did in Eastern Europe with a comprehensive strategy that relied on economic, political, diplomatic, information and intelligence" means.
The statement represented a significant modification of one of his most hawkish foreign-policy views.
Earlier this year, he said, "A nonviolent solution that allows the terrorists to become better trained, better organized, more numerous and better armed is a defeat. A nonviolent solution that leads to North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons threatening us across the planet is a defeat."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060901-120603-6166r.htm
Me too.
On one hand it's too bloated. On the other it's not detailed. Well, I believe it's an outline. Need to eliminate the bloat, concentrate on what's good, fill in the specifics.
Well, on that we will have to disagree: I think a required American history course could change a few things in this country, if nothing other than giving the younger generations the same hisotrical reference points we got growing up.
I'm tired of my kids calling me from out of state to ask me the name of our first satellite during a game of Trivial Pursuit. (And that was a Carolina honors graduate!)
Conservatism is so much more refreshing than the unconstitutional liberal bilge water being pumped out by Rudy and McCain.
McCain is a creature of WashDC, and Rudy is a creature of liberalism. Neither one has much to offer conservatives. Newt`s whole political world is based in constitutional conservatism and like Reagan, Newt believes strongly in the founding principles of America. He just needs to give his fans adn possible future supporters, SOME idea of what direction he will take. We can't wait forever Newt!
Well, I think education should be controlled at the local level. Let the school boards (local people) control the curriculum. I think most districts would make American History a required subject. You can always move to a different locale if you have to. It's much harder to move to a different state or country.
Excerpted from:
The Cost of Defeat in Iraq and the Cost of Victory in Iraq - 18 Points
Testimony to Senate Foreign Relations Committee
January 23 2007
Newt Gingrich
Key Steps to Victory in Iraq
1. Place General Petraeus in charge of the Iraq campaign and establish that the Ambassador is operating in support of the military commander.
2. Since General Petraeus will now have responsibility for victory in Iraq all elements of achieving victory are within his purview and he should report daily to the White House on anything significant which is not working or is needed
3. Create a deputy chief of staff to the President and appoint a retired four star general or admiral to manage Iraq implementation for the Commander in Chief on a daily basis.
4. Establish that the second briefing (after the daily intelligence brief) the President will get every day is from his deputy chief of staff for Iraq implementation.
5. Establish a War Cabinet which will meet once a week to review metrics of implementation and resolve failures and enforce decisions. The President should chair the War Cabinet personally and his deputy chief of staff for Iraq implementation should prepare the agenda for the weekly review and meeting.
6. Establish three plans: one for achieving victory with the help of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory with the passive acquiescence of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory even if the current Iraqi government is unhappy. The third plan may involve very significant shifts in troops and resources away from Baghdad and a process of allowing the Iraqi central government to fend for itself if it refuses to cooperate.
7. Communicate clearly to Syria and Iran that the United States is determined to win in Iraq and that any further interference (such as the recent reports of sophisticated Iranian explosives being sent to Iraq to target Americans) will lead to direct and aggressive countermeasures.
8. Pour as many intelligence assets into the fight as needed to develop an overwhelming advantage in intelligence preparation of the battlefield.
9. Develop a commander’s capacity to spend money on local activities sufficient to enable every local American commander to have substantial leverage in dealing with local communities.
10. Establish a jobs corps or civil conservation corps of sufficient scale to bring unemployment for males under 30 below 10% (see the attached op-ed by Mayor Giuliani and myself on this topic).
11. Expand dramatically the integration of American purchasing power in buying from Iraqi firms pioneered by Assistant Secretary Paul Brinkley to maximize the rate of recovery of the Iraqi economy.
12. Expand the American Army and Marine Corps as much as needed to sustain the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan while also being prepared for other contingencies and maintaining a sustainable rhythm for the families and the force.
13. Demand a war budget for recapitalization of the military to continue modernization while defeating our enemies. The current national security budget is lower as a percentage of the economy than at any time from Pearl Harbor through the end of the Cold War. It is less than half the level Truman sustained before the Korean War.
14. The State Department is too small, too undercapitalized and too untrained for the demands of the 21st century. There should be a 50% increase in the State Department budget and a profound rethinking of the culture and systems of the State Department so it can be an operationally effective system.
15. The Agency for International Development is hopelessly unsuited to the new requirements of economic assistance and development and should be rethought from the ground up. The Marshall Plan and Point Four were as important as NATO in containing the Soviet Empire. We do not have that capability today.
16. The President should issue executive orders where possible to reform the implementation system so it works with the speed and effectiveness required by the 21st century.
17. Where legislation is needed the President should collaborate with Congress in honestly reviewing the systems that are failing and developing new metrics, new structures and new strategies.
18. Under our Constitution it is impossible to have this scale of rethinking and reform without deep support from the legislative branch. Without Republican Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Democratic President Harry Truman could never have developed the containment policies that saved freedom and ultimately defeated the Soviet Empire. The President should ask the bipartisan leaders of Congress to cooperate in establishing a joint Legislative-Executive working group on winning the war and should openly brief the legislative branch on the problems which are weakening the American system abroad. Only by educating and informing the Congress can we achieve the level of mutual understanding and mutual commitment that this long hard task will require.
http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4029
It's late for me here. I'll say good night. :0)
Except this part: There should be a 50% increase in the State Department budget and a profound rethinking of the culture and systems of the State Department so it can be an operationally effective system.
I'm thinking more like 100% decrease. ;-)
Of course I'm kidding, mostly...but I'm no fan of the State Department or a goodly proportion of its denizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.