Here is a question for all Libertarians

[Spinaroonie]

If the election was today would you vote for Bush over, say, John Kerry or someone like that? Why or why not?

 

[grimreefer]

If it were TODAY I would vote for Bush over any of the other's that have thrown their ambitions into the ring. It would ONLY be a vote of standing behind the president during the current tensions. I'm not sure where I stand on the whole Iraq issue but we've already unzipped our fly...

 

[Guru]

If it were TODAY I would vote for Bush over any of the other's that have thrown their ambitions into the ring. It would ONLY be a vote of standing behind the president during the current tensions. I'm not sure where I stand on the whole Iraq issue but we've already unzipped our fly...

That's a good idea. We should give him a full eight years to destroy the economy.

 

[grimreefer]

That's a good idea. We should give him a full eight years to destroy the economy.

Your free to vote your own way. I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to economics outside my own budget.

 

[miles]

If the election was today would you vote for Bush over, say, John Kerry or someone like that? Why or why not?

Oh, great.

Fear of the unknown vs. fear of the known.

I wouldn't vote for either of them. They're both Republicrats.

 

[Ishmael]

If the election was today would you vote for Bush over, say, John Kerry or someone like that? Why or why not?

Bush. Not having any other choices in the field of announced candidates.

The reasons? The proposed tax cut and the nominations to the Federal Courts.

Ishmael

 

[patient1]

The president takes an oath to protect, preserve, & defend the Constitution when he is inagurated.

If a person actually read the Bible & and took it seriously, they wouldn't ever swear on it. (I can explain if anybody cares)


I think I'd vote for somebody that took it seriously enough to ask Congress to actually declare a war before initiating one, that took The Constitution seriously enough not to suspend any citizen's rights under any circumstances less than a declared war.

 

[Ishmael]

The president takes an oath to protect, preserve, & defend the Constitution when he is inagurated.

If a person actually read the Bible & and took it seriously, they wouldn't ever swear on it. (I can explain if anybody cares)


I think I'd vote for somebody that took it seriously enough to ask Congress to actually declare a war before initiating one, that took The Constitution seriously enough not to suspend any citizen's rights under any circumstances less than a declared war.

Actually I happen to agree. But given the motivations of most members of Congress those things could never occur. Considering that members of Congress take much the same oath and have consistently sold the nation out in the interests of their particular constituency groups.

Only the courts can protect us and once the courts are loaded with judges that believe to their soul that the Constitution is a "living document", to be reinterpreted again and again by reading between the lines and using situational logic, well, you can see where I'm going with that.

Ishmael

 

[patient1]

Actually I happen to agree. But given the motivations of most members of Congress those things could never occur. Considering that members of Congress take much the same oath and have consistently sold the nation out in the interests of their particular constituency groups.

Only the courts can protect us and once the courts are loaded with judges that believe to their soul that the Constitution is a "living document", to be reinterpreted again and again by reading between the lines and using situational logic, well, you can see where I'm going with that.

Ishmael

You can probably guess that I hold every member of Congress in contempt that insists we're at war as a justification for whatever they're debating, but won't officially declare against which entity since what date with a vote.

 

[Ishmael]

You can probably guess that I hold every member of Congress in contempt that insists we're at war as a justification for whatever they're debating, but won't officially declare against which entity since what date with a vote.

But there is still the case where something must be done. So what did Congress do last Aug.? They voted on a resolution that all but declared war on Iraq. Giving themselves ample political cover if things go wrong, and plenty of lime light if things go as planned. Spineless dolts.

Ishmael

 

[Byron In Exile]

If the election was today would you vote for Bush over, say, John Kerry or someone like that? Why or why not?

This is a question for Libertarians?

Are you serious?

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

This is a question for Libertarians?

Are you serious?

Sadly, he is.

Ishmael

 

[JazzManJim]

Given the current field of Candidates, I'd have to vote Bush right now.

Couple of things, though. the President, by law, doesn't have to consult Congress to wage War for 90 days (the 1972 War Powers Act). But, he's already gotten that permission. They gave it to him with full awareness of his intentions in Iraq. Those who would back out of it now didn't do the most basic homework.

As far as the economy goes, I"m not terribly worried. We're in a down trough. We've been in them before. We'll get back up out of it. Giving the people back their money is by far the best way to get things ramped up again. We've pretty much proven that twice since 1960.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

Sadly, he is.

Ishmael

YES BECUASE THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH ME WANTING TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO A QUESTION I HAD! GOD FORBID SOMEBODY WANTS TO HEAR HOW SOME PEOPLE THINK ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS! WE HAD BETTER GO CALL OUR CONGRESSMEN SO THIS SORT OF ATTROCITY TO HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN AGAIN!

 

[70/30]

I'm wondering if the Libertarian Party as we know it is finished. I mean, will they get 0.37%; 0.36%; or 0.38%? I'm guessing 0.36% because they'll find common ground with GWB: pollution is great; deficits create growth; and children really aren't the future. Also, they both agree the FEDs must support domestic industries, if not, then how will anyone make a living.

 

[JustAnotrGuy]

I have to say, as much as I think bush is an incompitent dolt, he was still the strongest candidate, as weak as he is. I related more closely with Gore's ideals, but the bottom line fact is that Gore wasn't strong enough to realize that you hafta lie to become president and then you can do good deeds if you want.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

YES BECUASE THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH ME WANTING TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO A QUESTION I HAD! GOD FORBID SOMEBODY WANTS TO HEAR HOW SOME PEOPLE THINK ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS! WE HAD BETTER GO CALL OUR CONGRESSMEN SO THIS SORT OF ATTROCITY TO HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN AGAIN!

Kinda wondering what hte hell you're talking about? Really. Is it your assumption that the Libertarians are anti-civil rights. Or are you upset that they don't endorse entitlements for sub-cultures?

Ishmael

 

[jodarby]

Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

Bush. Not having any other choices in the field of announced candidates.

The reasons? The proposed tax cut and the nominations to the Federal Courts.

Ishmael

Not to mention a $300 billion deficit this year and next year...

That doesn't matter to to the Republicans anymore? No tax cuts with deficit spending. That should be the mantra.

 

[70/30]

Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

Not to mention a $300 billion deficit this year and next year...

That doesn't matter to to the Republicans anymore? No tax cuts with deficit spending. That should be the mantra.

thought that was gonna be some kinda amendment or maybe some sorta contract.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

Not to mention a $300 billion deficit this year and next year...

That doesn't matter to to the Republicans anymore? No tax cuts with deficit spending. That should be the mantra.

Republican /= Libertarian

Ishmael

 

[jodarby]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

Republican /= Libertarian

Ishmael

I have no idea what that means. Where is the hue and cry about the deficit? How can someone support Bush's economic policies when it comes with a price tag that will be paid for in our old age or by our youth?

 

[Texan]

Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

Not to mention a $300 billion deficit this year and next year...

That doesn't matter to to the Republicans anymore? No tax cuts with deficit spending. That should be the mantra.

jodarby, I really enjoy most of your posts, but I don't think you understand that the only way to increase tax revenue is to increase the growth of the overall economy. Tax cuts are about the only tool the government has to stimulate the economy.

People can argue (reasonably) to which groups within the economy the stimulation should be applied, but not the necessity of stimulation, or the use of tax cuts as the only available tool.
Democrats want to stimulate at the lowest economic levels, believing that the money will not be saved, but rather be spent by people at the lower income levels (actually, it's because the lower income levels make up their constituency). Republicans want to stimulate at the employer level, believing that stimuli at that level multiply in the form of jobs, investment and growth. (It can be argued that people with incomes to benefit, are mostly Republican constituents.)

Deficit spending is not a good thing when taken to the extremes of the past 20 years, however some deficit spending is almost necessary to create the investment vehicles (TBills, E, EE Bonds) that are a necessary stabilization and balance to the equity, precious metal, and real-estate markets. The federal securities also provide the interest rate backbone that stabilizes the municipal bond markets. Deficit spending at a rate of 5% of GDP is a very positive economic stimulus. We were running deficits of around 4.6% before the economic turn down of 2000, but are still only running a deficit of around 5.7% of GDP.

The cost of the war and the proposed tax cuts by GWB are NOT bad economic policy, nor are they the reasons the economy is in a down cycle. The reason is simple, a serious lack of consumer confidence. That lack of confidence is probably due to the economy itself, as well as, the likelyhood of a war. The threat of terrorist acts is probably also a factor. Add to these factors, the current market price of oil due to what is happening in the middle east and Venezula, and all the signs point to a relatively short economic recession that won't last too long.

just my thoughts, but they are considered thoughts

 

[phrodeau]

You don't change horses midstream, and President Bush is pretty similar to something horse-like.

 

[jodarby]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

jodarby, I really enjoy most of your posts, but I don't think you understand that the only way to increase tax revenue is to increase the growth of the overall economy. Tax cuts are about the only tool the government has to stimulate the economy.

People can argue (reasonably) to which groups within the economy the stimulation should be applied, but not the necessity of stimulation, or the use of tax cuts as the only available tool.
Democrats want to stimulate at the lowest economic levels, believing that the money will not be saved, but rather be spent by people at the lower income levels (actually, it's because the lower income levels make up their constituency). Republicans want to stimulate at the employer level, believing that stimuli at that level multiply in the form of jobs, investment and growth. (It can be argued that people with incomes to benefit, are mostly Republican constituents.)

Deficit spending is not a good thing when taken to the extremes of the past 20 years, however some deficit spending is almost necessary to create the investment vehicles (TBills, E, EE Bonds) that are a necessary stabilization and balance to the equity, precious metal, and real-estate markets. The federal securities also provide the interest rate backbone that stabilizes the municipal bond markets. Deficit spending at a rate of 5% of GDP is a very positive economic stimulus. We were running deficits of around 4.6% before the economic turn down of 2000, but are still only running a deficit of around 5.7% of GDP.

The cost of the war and the proposed tax cuts by GWB are NOT bad economic policy, nor are they the reasons the economy is in a down cycle. The reason is simple, a serious lack of consumer confidence. That lack of confidence is probably due to the economy itself, as well as, the likelyhood of a war. The threat of terrorist acts is probably also a factor. Add to these factors, the current market price of oil due to what is happening in the middle east and Venezula, and all the signs point to a relatively short economic recession that won't last too long.

just my thoughts, but they are considered thoughts

I disagree with deficit spending. Canada isn't doing it. And to many Americans we are "socialist red" through and through. And yes, we had some tax cuts this past budget. We have also had six consecutive surplus budgets and are paying down our debt. We also had the biggest increase in government spending this budget since the 1970s (something I worry about). However in the end, Canadians won't stand for a deficit and this budget didn't give them one. Americans shouldn't stand for one either.

So Bush and the Republicans have not done enough to cut spending to justify the tax cuts. Can't do one without the other.

Slice it any way you want but don't, don't, don't go into deficit spending to try and boost the economy. It is a fool's game whatever percentages are presented.

 

[patient1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a question for all Libertarians

I have no idea what that means. Where is the hue and cry about the deficit? How can someone support Bush's economic policies when it comes with a price tag that will be paid for in our old age or by our youth?

I read his statement as :

Republican does not equal Libertarian

I don't think Libertarians support the government either incurring debt or redistributing wealth . Declared war is another situation.

I don't think Libertarians support corporate welfare, either.



Reminds me of a man on the street interview before Dessert Storm. A disillusioned pacifist said that this had turned into a debate between the bombers (pro-war) & the stranglers (pro-sanction). Looking back, I can see that we did both.