Posted on May 5, 2015
How many people are familiar with the Veterans Party of America?
4.3K
29
13
6
6
0
How many people have heard of this party? Would you support it? Why or Why not?
Thank you CPT (Join to see) for bringing this party to my attention.
https://www.facebook.com/VeteransPartyOfAmerica
Thank you CPT (Join to see) for bringing this party to my attention.
https://www.facebook.com/VeteransPartyOfAmerica
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Election 2016
Politics Election 2016
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
2
2
0
I just read their entire platform, and though I agree with much of what is written there, I unearthed a number of contradictions and economic fallacies. To encapsulate, they begin by stating they are Constitutionalists, but then proscribe to the Federal government a number if powers that are from Constitutional in nature. Overall, I like the message but there are troubling contradictions that cause me concern, Constitutionally speaking.
(2)
(0)
1SG Mark Wilder
If you don't mind, which ones? Everything in the platform which would require an Amendment to change does state as such.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
1SG Mark Wilder To begin with the platform states "The Constitution of The United States of America is, “The Law of the land.” It is not subject to interpretation or indifference by our elected officials."
And that's absolutely correct. However in plank III they write... "III. Job Creation: America is in a major economic crisis. Jobs are the key to our recovery. Stimulation of small business and the free market being awarded contracts to complete government funded infrastructure repair projects will be key to a successful recovery."
Government funded construction or infrastructure contracts are NOT the path to creating jobs. As soon as the job is done the job is gone. The path to job creation is fewer regulations, less red tape, and lower taxes that will allow small businesses to start, grow, and flourish. Lower taxes means every American has more money in their pockets to make purchases they think best serve them... when they purchase those products, jobs are created and the economy is stimulated. When government "stimulates" the economy, it first has to take the money out of the market, out of the people's hands, or even worse, borrow it and put the bill onto our children and their children.
In Plank VII they address education and it all sounds great until the last sentence. It's not what the sentence says, but rather what it doesn't say that leaves me wondering.
"No Federal monies will be given to “for profit” charter schools or private schools."
Does this mean that Federal monies WILL be given to public schools? If so, I'd like to see where the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to give monies to public schools, (or private for that matter).
Regarding plank XI I'm not sure where they're going with that. One thing is clear though, there is no provision in the Constitution for either Social Security, or Medicare.
Regarding Plank XII instead of citing some vague "consumption tax" I'd suggest they look at a plan that's already been thoroughly thought through like the FairTax. http://fairtax.org/
I've skipped over some here, but you get the picture.... this one caught my eye though...
Plank 18 says, "XVIII. Corporate Subsidies: Large, multi-state corporations should not receive any corporate subsidies unless the cause of the corporation’s failing is from direct government pricing mandates. We oppose the government demanding businesses sell products at set prices."
So, they don't want to give corporate subsidies to businesses... (I like that)... but then they go on to say " unless the cause of the corporation’s failing is from direct government pricing mandates"
Under what circumstances should the Federal government be mandating prices?
This is not a comprehensive list, there are more issues that don't fit in with their contention that there is fealty to the Constitution. I hope these examples are helpful to your question.
And that's absolutely correct. However in plank III they write... "III. Job Creation: America is in a major economic crisis. Jobs are the key to our recovery. Stimulation of small business and the free market being awarded contracts to complete government funded infrastructure repair projects will be key to a successful recovery."
Government funded construction or infrastructure contracts are NOT the path to creating jobs. As soon as the job is done the job is gone. The path to job creation is fewer regulations, less red tape, and lower taxes that will allow small businesses to start, grow, and flourish. Lower taxes means every American has more money in their pockets to make purchases they think best serve them... when they purchase those products, jobs are created and the economy is stimulated. When government "stimulates" the economy, it first has to take the money out of the market, out of the people's hands, or even worse, borrow it and put the bill onto our children and their children.
In Plank VII they address education and it all sounds great until the last sentence. It's not what the sentence says, but rather what it doesn't say that leaves me wondering.
"No Federal monies will be given to “for profit” charter schools or private schools."
Does this mean that Federal monies WILL be given to public schools? If so, I'd like to see where the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to give monies to public schools, (or private for that matter).
Regarding plank XI I'm not sure where they're going with that. One thing is clear though, there is no provision in the Constitution for either Social Security, or Medicare.
Regarding Plank XII instead of citing some vague "consumption tax" I'd suggest they look at a plan that's already been thoroughly thought through like the FairTax. http://fairtax.org/
I've skipped over some here, but you get the picture.... this one caught my eye though...
Plank 18 says, "XVIII. Corporate Subsidies: Large, multi-state corporations should not receive any corporate subsidies unless the cause of the corporation’s failing is from direct government pricing mandates. We oppose the government demanding businesses sell products at set prices."
So, they don't want to give corporate subsidies to businesses... (I like that)... but then they go on to say " unless the cause of the corporation’s failing is from direct government pricing mandates"
Under what circumstances should the Federal government be mandating prices?
This is not a comprehensive list, there are more issues that don't fit in with their contention that there is fealty to the Constitution. I hope these examples are helpful to your question.
Pass the Fair Tax | FAIRtax.org
FAIRtax.org
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
1SG Wilder, using my phone, I missed that you are the Natl. Chair. I hope my comments are received as constructive criticism, as they were intended, and not as condemnation. There is s lot to like about your party, like all political parties though, there are concerns that warrant careful consideration.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SSgt Orcutt,
I did just post THIS on your other thread:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/2016-presidential-race-if-you-could-see-anyone-win-who-would-it-be-and-why?c=1&urlhash=644282&disable_n_plus_one=1&from_creation=Comment
I WROTE:
"Perhaps the most surprising thing, at least to me, is THIS:
http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/#!Today-We-Celebrate-One-Year/c1r7e/2E245904-0FBE-422D-8F1F [login to see] CE
"No leader of the VPA receives a salary, stipend, reimbursement, or any other form of compensation for their duties. We are all volunteers.
Our 2015 budget does not provide for a salary of any leadership, nor does our party constitution or bylaws. The bulk of our 2015 budget is earmarked for advertising.
If our members have not noticed, we never once ask for a donation to the party. Instead, we are earning them by moving this party forward."
Imagine that...loving your country so much that you are willing to tred into the political landscape with zero compensation.
We are faced with trillions of dollars in debt, and, for some reason, it is the benefits of the people who shouldered the burden of war for the last decade, that always go on the chopping block first.
I'm not so naive to think that everyone should do everything for FREE, however, our 'leaders'--even in the face of sky high national debt--would rather take from the less than 1% that DO serve, than take from social programs or, God forbid, actually 'modernize' their own retirement scheme or current compensation first.
Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of the elitist attitude exuded by BOTH parties, now.
I'm not saying the VPA is the best thing since sliced bread, however, they at least do appear to be trying to lead by example. The other parties, IMHO, could learn a few leadership lessons from their display of sacrifice and selfless service."
I did just post THIS on your other thread:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/2016-presidential-race-if-you-could-see-anyone-win-who-would-it-be-and-why?c=1&urlhash=644282&disable_n_plus_one=1&from_creation=Comment
I WROTE:
"Perhaps the most surprising thing, at least to me, is THIS:
http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/#!Today-We-Celebrate-One-Year/c1r7e/2E245904-0FBE-422D-8F1F [login to see] CE
"No leader of the VPA receives a salary, stipend, reimbursement, or any other form of compensation for their duties. We are all volunteers.
Our 2015 budget does not provide for a salary of any leadership, nor does our party constitution or bylaws. The bulk of our 2015 budget is earmarked for advertising.
If our members have not noticed, we never once ask for a donation to the party. Instead, we are earning them by moving this party forward."
Imagine that...loving your country so much that you are willing to tred into the political landscape with zero compensation.
We are faced with trillions of dollars in debt, and, for some reason, it is the benefits of the people who shouldered the burden of war for the last decade, that always go on the chopping block first.
I'm not so naive to think that everyone should do everything for FREE, however, our 'leaders'--even in the face of sky high national debt--would rather take from the less than 1% that DO serve, than take from social programs or, God forbid, actually 'modernize' their own retirement scheme or current compensation first.
Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of the elitist attitude exuded by BOTH parties, now.
I'm not saying the VPA is the best thing since sliced bread, however, they at least do appear to be trying to lead by example. The other parties, IMHO, could learn a few leadership lessons from their display of sacrifice and selfless service."
2016 Presidential Race- If you could see anyone win who would it be and why? | RallyPoint
If you could vote for anyone to win the 2016 presidential election, who would it be and why? Who would you like to see make a run if they are not doing so already? Would it be Allan West? Mike Huckabee? Jen Bush? Gary Johnson, or dare I say Hillary Clinton.It disclaimer is that I want this to be a mature and legitimate conversation. I enjoy hearing other people's views and experiences. Like mama used to say "if you don't have anything nice to...
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Again, I'm not 'endorsing' them, however, since the initial thread basically opened the flood gates for political discussion, I do think they are at least worthy of being watched and followed.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Michael Orcutt
Sorry about the CPT (Join to see). I must have missed that comment on my other thread and when I created this thread it didn't prompt me that this was already a discussion on another thread. My apologies.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google