T Nation

The Modern Whig Party

Could it be? A party for moderate Republicans who are tired of being insulted and being called RINOs? A party for those who believe in fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense but are tired of the hijack of the Republican Party by the Christian right? A party for not-so-crazy libertarians who think that science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?

I know how I’m voting in 2012. If a Democrat or Republican wants my vote, pay attention and read carefully.

http://www.modernwhig.org/issues.html

The Whigs are back? Does that mean Andrew Jackson is back too?

VERY interesting, Mike.

But in this era of yelling, screaming, religious intolerance and extreme partisanship; will it work?

Heck…will they even be HEARD?

(This is the first I’ve heard of them).

Mufasa

Other than within an historical context…

Mufasa, I hear you. I just heard of the modern party today. All I can do is give them my support and hope they become more successful than the libertarians, who can be a little kooky.

In the past I begrudgingly case my vote for the Republicans in the name of fiscal responsibility and hoped that the religious nuts wouldn’t get too out of hand. But the religious nuts have taken over the party, they are anti-science, and the party is no longer about fiscal responsibility.

Regarding illegals:

“Offer illegal immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably.”

Been thinking this for awhile now.

If they’d throw their support behind the Fair Tax I would wholeheartedly support this group. I am liking what I’ve seen so far though…

[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Regarding illegals:

“Offer illegal immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably.”

Been thinking this for awhile now.

If they’d throw their support behind the Fair Tax I would wholeheartedly support this group. I am liking what I’ve seen so far though…[/quote]

If you don’t make over $200,000 annually then you will be paying more tax…

Also sales tax increases cause people to more aggressively evade taxes.

I’m all for tax reform, I don’t even care if its progressive/regressive, just dumping it all on sales taxes seems kind of stupid.

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Also sales tax increases cause people to more aggressively evade taxes.
[/quote]

You mean like, not spending. Rather they save and invest?

Why would someone want to do that?

[quote]BBriere wrote:
The Whigs are back? Does that mean Andrew Jackson is back too? [/quote]

oh shit.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Could it be? A party for moderate Republicans who are tired of being insulted and being called RINOs? A party for those who believe in fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense but are tired of the hijack of the Republican Party by the Christian right? A party for not-so-crazy libertarians who think that science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?

I know how I’m voting in 2012. If a Democrat or Republican wants my vote, pay attention and read carefully.

http://www.modernwhig.org/issues.html[/quote]

The Whig party itself was a party of big government. They especially wanted government-subsidized ‘internal improvements’, which usually meant a fleecing of the tax payers. It was these Whig experiments that drained treasuries and made many states outlaw using public money for such internal improvements.

The above is a big reason Lincoln (a former Whig) got put in: He could push through internal improvements at the Federal level and get money for a transcontinental railroad at public expense. That’s why the railroads put him forward…just another railroad-lawyer.

Anyway, the choice of the name ‘Whig’ wasn’t too bright of an idea, though most Americans would know shit from shinola about what the Whigs really wanted.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, can you cite the Article and Clause of the Constitution that authorizes that “science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?”

[/quote]

Article X, section 1-3.

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Laws%20and%20Constitution/Current%20Constitution.asp

:slight_smile:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, can you cite the Article and Clause of the Constitution that authorizes that “science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?”

[/quote]

Article X, section 1-3.

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Laws%20and%20Constitution/Current%20Constitution.asp

:)[/quote]

I’m not sure that Mike the Wannabe Whig lives in MT nor do I think he intended to use the MT constitution to bolster his claim of rampant federal power.

I believe the states indeed have the prerogative to authorize the taxpayer funding of science and education as permitted under state constitutions. They, the states, are the laboratories in our federal system. The 10th Amendment insures this.

Mike should move to a state that spends money lavishly in this area or lobby his state to do so. A good Whig would surely concur.

But you knew all this. [/quote]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure he’s referring to federal powers. And if you’re looking for for something in the US constitution that enumerates education as a duty of the federal government, you won’t find it. But what you will find is a general consensus among the states that “science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future” in the state constitutions.

So if you want to argue its not a federal power, go for it. But mark a distinction between ‘federal’ and ‘government’.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

and here I htought we were going to discuss the return of powdered wigs . . .

[quote]pushharder wrote:

By the way, can you cite the Article and Clause of the Constitution that authorizes that “science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?”[/quote]

It doesn’t have an express authorization for subsidies, but the Constitution certainly affirms that “science and education” are good things by way of the Patent Clause:

Congress shall have Power. . .To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. - Article I, Section 8

Point being, there can be an argument over the means to advance “science and the useful arts”, but certainly the Constitution is not agnostic as to the value of them.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

By the way, can you cite the Article and Clause of the Constitution that authorizes that “science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?”[/quote]

It doesn’t have an express authorization for subsidies, but the Constitution certainly affirms that “science and education” are good things by way of the Patent Clause:

Congress shall have Power. . .To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. - Article I, Section 8

Point being, there can be an argument over the means to advance “science and the useful arts”, but certainly the Constitution is not agnostic as to the value of them.[/quote]

I am all for helping out the science and research community, but I would like to focus on the “limited Time” part. We support a persons hypothesis for decades and then never get to a conclusion, but the person hired dozens of people and purchased many pieces of equipment, and the government paid for it. Yes this might be the exception and not the rule, but government grants should only be used for a short period of time say 5 years. After that your research has to be privately funded. IMO If you are going to have a viable research plan it will be able to raise money privately with in 5 years. If not then your research is crap.