|
Question for Libertarians: ot, CA, Snuffy, tdrake, theclone,
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [82958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80106
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Question for Libertarians: ot, CA, Snuffy, tdrake, theclone,
Nov 5, 2012, 1:02 PM
|
|
or anyone else:
You guys seem to favor massive federal budget cuts and it seems deficit reduction is your number one priority.
Massive cuts, imo, mean that our current economic slowdown could last another 5 years, and it could drive the unemployment rate to 15% or so.
Are you prepared to bite the bullet in this way to help the country long term?
Would you favor this approach if it meant unemployment and a career change for you?
|
|
|
|
 |
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yes.
Nov 5, 2012, 1:10 PM
|
|
Capitalism isn't a walk in the park. It exposes consumers to the full consequences of their choices. It means making the hard choices in the short term for the benefits of the long term, especially when disposing of destructive government burdens. Will, ultimately, capitalism deliver more wealth, health and prosperity in the longrun? Yes. So, I'd be in favor of enduring short term hardships for that.
Though, I don't necessarily agree with your apocalyptic scenarios. But, even if that were the case, then yes. I would still be for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I should also add that no everything we (I) want has to be
Nov 5, 2012, 1:10 PM
|
|
done overnight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
which is why libertarians should stick with the R party
Nov 5, 2012, 1:25 PM
|
|
the conservative movement at least is powerful enough for libertarians to achieve some of their goals, and the only party that pays any attention to the conservative movement is the Republican Party. Unfortunately, you'll just have to put up with traditionalists like myself if you want to see any libertarian ideas put into law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 22551
Joined: 5/14/03
|
they will use absolutism as an excuse not to vote
Nov 5, 2012, 1:38 PM
|
|
Republican but run to incrementalism when faced with the prospect of the realities of how THEY would actually govern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
okay, howdy-doody flyboy.***
Nov 5, 2012, 1:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'm not a party man. So, I'll work with whatever vehicle I
Nov 5, 2012, 1:58 PM
[ in reply to which is why libertarians should stick with the R party ] |
|
see as most advantageous to my own goals. I see the LP as a great vehicle for change at the local level, but the GOP as a good vehicle at a broader level. Democrats can be useful as well on social policy.
Basically, I'm just gonna use you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8243]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7408
Joined: 2/20/04
|
Happy Birthday, Bob Barr!***
Nov 5, 2012, 2:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
Libertarians want fiscal conservatism. Your (the pubs')
Nov 5, 2012, 2:00 PM
[ in reply to which is why libertarians should stick with the R party ] |
|
notion of that is cutting taxes and living on deficit spending. That's not fiscal conservatism. So that, and a lesser drive toward federally enhanced/enforced social/cultural conservatism is why true libertarians won't touch the GOP with a 10-foot pole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
Republicans aren't conservatives, Democrats are.
Nov 5, 2012, 3:45 PM
[ in reply to which is why libertarians should stick with the R party ] |
|
Today's Republicans are reactionaries, trying to return to a simpler and ostensibly better time. It's the Democrats trying to preserve the status quo.
One party is stuck in the previous century, the other is stuck in the century before that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'll take the guy that's for cutting defense spending,
Nov 5, 2012, 3:48 PM
|
|
reforming entitlements, balancing the budget, lowering taxes, removing regulatory burdens on business, pulling us out of the Middle East, reinforcing the 4th Amendment, legalizing pot, freeing non-violent crime "criminals," and making our immigration laws more reflective or reality rather than a political football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
That's where my vote's going. FWIW.***
Nov 5, 2012, 3:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
so you're voting Johnson?***
Nov 5, 2012, 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
Yep.
Nov 5, 2012, 4:51 PM
|
|
If I were in a swing state, I'd probably vote Obama, because conservatives are better than reactionaries, and we must choose between the lesser of two evils. But I have at least as much in common philosphically with Gary Johnson as I do Obama. We desperately need a president who can think outside the box right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1357]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2671
Joined: 8/24/04
|
Re: I'll take the guy that's for cutting defense spending,
Nov 5, 2012, 10:13 PM
[ in reply to I'll take the guy that's for cutting defense spending, ] |
|
I thought GJ wanted to maintain a presence in the Middle East? Don't kid yourself, maintaining some military presence in the ME is key to keeping gas prices down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
that's ridiculous
Nov 5, 2012, 4:43 PM
[ in reply to Republicans aren't conservatives, Democrats are. ] |
|
it's like you just picked a point in time without historical context in which you could claim that, at one and the same time, Republicans are reactionaries and not interested in preserving a status quo. Yes, the Democrats want to preserve the post- FDR, post-LBJ status quo, but conservatives have long argued that FDR and LBJ brand progressivism is reactionary against the American revolution. That doesn't mean anybody (progressives or conservatives) wants to turn back the clock to any particular time, but you can't really say Democrats are conservatives now because progressives ran the country from the 30's to the 60's.
What's more, political conservatism refers to transcendent truths about the human condition, not to the preservation of the society of any paricular time. There is, probably, a conservative manner or a conservative style of governing, but that style or manner won't necessarily coincide with conservative ideals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
The meanings of words do not change over time.
Nov 5, 2012, 5:04 PM
|
|
"Transcendent truths about the human condition", give me an effing break. The current Republcian party wants to return to the days of the Gilded Age when wealth and power were synonymous. That's reactionary any way you define it. The Democrats want to preserve the ways we become accustomed to - that's classical conservatism. If there were any real Liberals out there, they'd be talking new ways of doing things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: The meanings of words do not change over time.
Nov 5, 2012, 5:12 PM
|
|
"The current Republcian party wants to return to the days of the Gilded Age when wealth and power were synonymous." Is that a fact? Because it certainly does sound like nothing more than the opinion of a liberal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
It's my opinion that it is a fact.
Nov 5, 2012, 5:18 PM
|
|
And it carries as much weight as your opinions do. Every position they take favors corporations and the wealth accumulators over individuals and wealth creators. All of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [82958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80106
Joined: 11/29/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27403]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39025
Joined: 9/9/05
|
Essentially we're f####d
Nov 5, 2012, 1:16 PM
[ in reply to Yes. ] |
|
Because any politician with this kind of "do the hard thing now so we can reap the benefits of our labor later" will get voted out after one term because of the high unemployment (or whatever).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [82958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80106
Joined: 11/29/99
|
I'd hardly call 15% unemployment apocalyptic. At the same
Nov 5, 2012, 2:24 PM
[ in reply to Yes. ] |
|
time, I hardly agree with your apolcalyptic scenarios if we keep pluggin along with our current imperfect system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
then you're a moron.
Nov 5, 2012, 2:43 PM
|
|
our current debt trend is wholly unsustainable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [82958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80106
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Geez, man. The current debt trend goes away when the
Nov 5, 2012, 3:56 PM
|
|
economy improves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [458]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 402
Joined: 4/23/04
|
Not necessarily a Libertarian, more of a Conservative, but
Nov 5, 2012, 1:17 PM
|
|
we did not get here (bankrupt) quickly and we will not recover quickly. That drive-thru, I-want-it-now mentality we have developed in the last 30-40 years is part of the problem. That's why Romney says vote for "love of country", not revenge. And I blame the Republicans only slightly less than I blame the Democrats for this sorry state of affairs, but the republicans can, perhaps, be drawn back to a more sensible position, the Democrats cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3148]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3620
Joined: 1/15/09
|
Reducing the deficit strengthens the Dollar
Nov 5, 2012, 1:18 PM
|
|
and gives American companies a leg up on foreign competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55989]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31615
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Doesn't weak currency make trade more appealing?
Nov 5, 2012, 1:20 PM
|
|
I thought that's why Romney wants to label China as a currency manipulator for keeping the value of their currency artificially low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 22551
Joined: 5/14/03
|
Tightening the money supply strengthens the dollar
Nov 5, 2012, 1:40 PM
[ in reply to Reducing the deficit strengthens the Dollar ] |
|
Deficits don't cause inflation (unless of course they are financed by money creation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37127
Joined: 11/22/03
|
That's not true in and of itself....
Nov 5, 2012, 3:55 PM
[ in reply to Reducing the deficit strengthens the Dollar ] |
|
currency strength is a double-edge sword.
A weaker dollar can lead to inflation, but also helps exports.
Given that inflation is basically being held down, I don't think the weaker dollar is a bad thing for most cases. Of course, the US$ has been all over the map versus the EURO. So when you're speaking to "weak dollar" it varies based on what you're comparing it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Well I'm not a fan of labels...
Nov 5, 2012, 1:54 PM
|
|
I wouldn't confuse libertarianism with tea party-ism.
honestly...I would have taken the alleged deal that was on the table $10 of spending cuts for $1 in taxes.
I thought that was a good deal, and to the heart of what we should be doing as a nation.
Many federal agencies just need to waste less and become more efficient rather than to be cut. Look no farther than FEMA. Mitt has taken some heat for saying he'd cut it. Now, look at their efficacy in getting help on the ground. Many citizens say they are operating no better than they did in 2005. Yet they have more money?
Throwing money at agencies is not the solution. We've got to change the culture of DC that says that's the norm. Anything else is simply arranging chairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
I'm not a Libertarian, but have some libertarian leanings.
Nov 5, 2012, 1:56 PM
|
|
Given the current economic morass, I don't propose massive spending cuts or tax increases in the immediate future (next 2 - 3 years??). I do firmly believe, however, we can't really spend or borrow out way out of the hole.
For a start, though, I'd like to see $500 to $700 billion cut fairly quickly from the spending side (look at typical spending growth over the previous decade and then the spending bump in 2009). Let's start working on that more recent jump in the short term and focus longer term on just what the central gov't is supposed to do. Some sacred cows will need trimming, and nothing should be off the table.
On taxes, my ideas on those haven't changed in the last 30 or so years. Reform is key. I agree with Romney & Ryan on taking out personal deduction (all of them) and flattening rates. The call to strip hundreds of billions of dollars from the tax base, however, and reduce rates even further (at least in the short term) is asinine. I'd look at reducing the business rate (I'm for one rate for business and individuals alike) as well, along with bringing tax rules in to equilibrium across all sectors and industries.
Not so much what I want, but what I see - we are never going back to pre-New Deal. It ain't gonna happen. So reduce spending where and when we can, but learn to pay for it. But my idea of tax reform is not soak the rich. There are a lot of folks in the "middlin'" incomes that probably are not, or have not typically, paid their "fair share". Share the pain a little bit, and people may decide they can live with fewer gov't frills.
All this is going to take some serious leadership. And a lot of people biting bullets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
if it would make things worse for 4-5 more years
Nov 5, 2012, 3:48 PM
|
|
we'd nearly be through it now
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [673]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 980
Joined: 4/22/11
|
As a Libertarian. Yes!***
Nov 5, 2012, 10:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
|
|
|
50
COLLEGE: A three-year starter at strong safety for Clemson, finished his career with 234 tackles and 11 interceptions.
