Are you a libertarian?

[Steeplerot]

He also believes monopolies happen due to libertarians. He's clearly delusional.

History proves your agenda to do nothing less then stifle competition by empowering the wealthiest exploiters that capitalism inevitably creates. Why should we believe your ideaology is valid when every time in the real world we try it it crashes the system faster then white lighting off a blacksnake's ass?

There is a reason Right wing US Libertarians are the domain of trust fund kids and maladjusted losers.

 

[MotF Bane]

History proves your agenda to do nothing less then stifle competition by empowering the wealthiest exploiters that capitalism inevitably creates. Why should we believe your ideaology is valid when every time in the real world we try it it crashes the system faster then white lighting off a blacksnake's ass?

There is a reason Right wing us libertarians are the domain of trust fund kids and maladjusted losers.

History proves your agenda to completely fail economically, so your argument isn't going anywhere.

 

[bamacre]

He also believes monopolies happen due to libertarians. He's clearly delusional.

Perhaps he should study the definition of monopoly.

 

[Carmen813]

Language evolves. Meanings change. Liberal doesn't mean what it used to. Get over it.

Then calling yourself a libertarian has no meaning. If things continue as is, in a few short years libertarian will simply be the new neo-conservative.

 

[BoberFett]

Then calling yourself a libertarian has no meaning. If things continue as is, in a few short years libertarian will simply be the new neo-conservative.

It's quite possible. Not that it really concerns me all that much. I don't define myself by simplistic labels.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

I'm not a libertarian, if only because no rational & informed person can believe that "self-regulation" can replace little/no govt. regulation in business or the marketplace, as we saw in previous financial crisis, and are seeing now.

The news that a number of mortgage foreclosures were poorly handled certainly doesn't improve businesses' credibility.

 

[MJinZ]

I've been searching for a party to align myself with for quite some time.....

I do consider myself an Independent, and don't like to "align myself" with any one particular organization

Ur a moran

 

[BenSkywalker]

The mere fact a cell phone company can charge someone $35,000 is proof enough that they have too much power.

The mere fact that the government can easily decide that they are taking that from millions of people on a regular basis is proof enough that they have way too much power. Big difference- the person using the cell phone made the *choice* to utilize resources in a wreckless manner.

We have spent trillions of dollars on a welfare state and failed to make any progress. Any corporation that had done as much would have collapsed instead of simply forcibly taking more funds away from general consumers. People lament the banking issues and how many people lost their homes, but what about IRS property seizures? When the government sends armed people to force people out of their homes the 'liberals' champion them being forced to pay 'their fair share'- but when a corporation does it to a much lesser degree, some how they are evil.

Being a Libertarian isn't about being an anarchist- and people shouldn't ever confuse them as such. Realizing that the federal government having absolute control over every element in your life doesn't make you an anarchist. A simple economic truism is the only way to increase the standard of living for a people is to improve the productivity of the people. Sending trillions of dollars to a bunch of nigh retarded lawyers in Washington DC whom I wouldn't trust to manage taking out the trash is not even remotely close to the most productive way to use our resources. For too long now the populace of this country has been propping up utterly inept politicians who continue to hurt the natural progress of our society.

 

[MJinZ]

The mere fact that the government can easily decide that they are taking that from millions of people on a regular basis is proof enough that they have way too much power. Big difference- the person using the cell phone made the *choice* to utilize resources in a wreckless manner.

We have spent trillions of dollars on a welfare state and failed to make any progress. Any corporation that had done as much would have collapsed instead of simply forcibly taking more funds away from general consumers. People lament the banking issues and how many people lost their homes, but what about IRS property seizures? When the government sends armed people to force people out of their homes the 'liberals' champion them being forced to pay 'their fair share'- but when a corporation does it to a much lesser degree, some how they are evil.

Being a Libertarian isn't about being an anarchist- and people shouldn't ever confuse them as such. Realizing that the federal government having absolute control over every element in your life doesn't make you an anarchist. A simple economic truism is the only way to increase the standard of living for a people is to improve the productivity of the people. Sending trillions of dollars to a bunch of nigh retarded lawyers in Washington DC whom I wouldn't trust to manage taking out the trash is not even remotely close to the most productive way to use our resources. For too long now the populace of this country has been propping up utterly inept politicians who continue to hurt the natural progress of our society.

Lol nublet doesn't realize the welfare state is there as social control mechanism and is one of the most effective policies ever that prevents you from getting carjacked by ghetto dwellers on a regular basis...

Nublets never understand much below the surface

 

[First]

Libertarianism fails because it's only attractive in the theoretical ether of some far-off world. It doesn't actually work when applied to real behaviors in America. Americans don't save no matter how many tax breaks you give them and this has been true for more than a decade or two (try 8 decades). You have people arguing and railing against the existence of social security, medicare and unemployment insurance, yet they bitch out of explaining what would happen to the millions of Americans who are irresponsible and decide not to save, who lose their job and have children and a spouse to take care of, or who simply get unlucky and get injured.

Libertarianism is very interesting and ideal in a world where people are responsible and consistent with their thinking and values across the board. In reality, it's clearly utter bullshit that's never worked (can anyone here name a successful libertarian/hybrid country out there, just one?). But that won't stop the tards from railing against entitlements while actively taking them, or them claiming their obscure libertarian politicians would actually be honest politicians because they're, um, different!

 

[BenSkywalker]

Lol nublet doesn't realize the welfare state is there as social control mechanism and is one of the most effective policies ever that prevents you from getting carjacked by ghetto dwellers on a regular basis...

I understand 'liberals' vested interest in keeping poor people poor as much as possible, propping up crime organizations and limiting the effectiveness of local law enforcement so that they may dictate the socio economic standards that can sustain their all consuming power grab, but reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who could best deal with the real problems people have don't reside in Washington DC. Support your government dictated multi trillion dollar psuedo ponzi schemes while making the Madoffs of the world out to be criminals. The hypocrisy of Washington, either side of the aisle, is just sickening.

It doesn't actually work when applied to real behaviors in America. Americans don't save no matter how many tax breaks you give them and this has been true for more than a decade or two (try 8 decades).

The company I work for puts an amount equal to 3% of our pay into a retirement account on the first 100K(need to be their five years to be fully vested on it). Despite my SS acount having double that amount contributed to it for a far longer time, the payout on my pension plan is going to be roughly double what SS is scheduling me for. That may be anecdotal, but the reality is that Washington DC handles things far worse then almost anyone else- if SS were phased out, companies would step up as a simple factor of attracting employees, or worse case the state governments could deal with it on a state by state basis if people wanted it that way.

 

[First]

Also, understandably we love to hate gov't....until we desperately need it of course. A fear of overbearing gov't is probably more well ingrained in Americans than any other nation, and I think that healthy fear is part of what has made us as free/successful as we have been. But if you're going to blast gov't, just make sure your very livelihood doesn't depend on social security checks, unemployment insurance, and/or medicare benefits. Because FYI, it makes you look like an f'ing retard.

 

[BenSkywalker]

But if you're going to blast gov't, just make sure your very livelihood doesn't depend on social security checks, unemployment insurance, and/or medicare benefits. Because FYI, it makes you look like an f'ing retard.

What makes people look like a retard is them thinking that Washington DC has a monopoly on solutions. I can't think of a single time, ever, where they had the best solution(I'm sure there has to be an example, I just can't think of it).

 

[Steeplerot]

I understand 'liberals' vested interest in keeping poor people poor as much as possible

This is about the wackiest conspiracy theory from right-wing talk radio in the past 2 decades.

Never fails to amaze me people buy this conspiracy stuff, but then if you repeat stuff over and over..

 

[First]

The company I work for puts an amount equal to 3% of our pay into a retirement account on the first 100K(need to be their five years to be fully vested on it). Despite my SS acount having double that amount contributed to it for a far longer time, the payout on my pension plan is going to be roughly double what SS is scheduling me for. That may be anecdotal, but the reality is that Washington DC handles things far worse then almost anyone else- if SS were phased out, companies would step up as a simple factor of attracting employees, or worse case the state governments could deal with it on a state by state basis if people wanted it that way.

No question smart private investing is better than gov't-mandated investing, but facts are facts and businesses offered nowhere near enough investment benefits to employees before SS existed in the 30's. Employers have never (let me repeat, never) provided investment strategies across the board in all industries that didn't eventually end up leaving out millions of Americans. Most businesses would and have covered their employees with 401K or some derivative thereof, but that still leaves several million depending on businesses that won't or can't offer it.

What makes people look like a retard is them thinking that Washington DC has a monopoly on solutions. I can't think of a single time, ever, where they had the best solution(I'm sure there has to be an example, I just can't think of it).

Who has said they have a monopoly on solutions? I can think of a few left-wing kooks but no one of consequence. Keeping SS, Medicare, and unemployment insurance are no-brainers because practical people know how Americans live; sometimes irresponsibly, sometimes victims of recessions, sometimes unlucky in life/health. Those are just realities. Has nothing to do with "depending" on gov't since we can actually afford it, despite the usual tards saying we can't.

 

[BenSkywalker]

This is about the wackiest conspiracy theory from right-wing talk radio in the past 2 decades.

You hear a lot of talk about ending the drug war by legalizing drugs on right wing radio do you? I may have missed hearing about that, but I don't spend much time listening to any political figures or mouthpieces.

No question smart private investing is better than gov't-mandated investing

Government investing? SS is a psuedo Ponzi scheme and everyone knows this. That is not a conspiracy theory, the federal budget is a matter of public record.

Keeping SS, Medicare, and unemployment insurance are no-brainers because practical people know how Americans live; sometimes irresponsibly, sometimes victims of recessions, sometimes unlucky in life/health.

I would say if you have no brain then those solutions seem obvious. It's much like the person that drives a Hummer for his 40 mile commute and complaining about his fuel costs saying it is a no brainer to keep his vehicle because it is too far to walk. Supporting the status quo is precisely the same thing.

Those are just realities. Has nothing to do with "depending" on gov't since we can actually afford it, despite the usual tards saying we can't.

Supporting the nanny state is depending on the government in no uncertain terms. It is not fiscally responsible to buy a $150K car for driving on weekends. No matter how much money you have, no matter how easily you can afford it, it is not fiscally responsible. You lament how American's in general are not responsible with their finances and the solution is somehow to send more money to the most irresponsible spender in the history of humanity by a staggering margin, that isn't very logical.

 

[First]

You hear a lot of talk about ending the drug war by legalizing drugs on right wing radio do you? I may have missed hearing about that, but I don't spend much time listening to any political figures or mouthpieces.



Government investing? SS is a psuedo Ponzi scheme and everyone knows this. That is not a conspiracy theory, the federal budget is a matter of public record.



I would say if you have no brain then those solutions seem obvious. It's much like the person that drives a Hummer for his 40 mile commute and complaining about his fuel costs saying it is a no brainer to keep his vehicle because it is too far to walk. Supporting the status quo is precisely the same thing.



Supporting the nanny state is depending on the government in no uncertain terms. It is not fiscally responsible to buy a $150K car for driving on weekends. No matter how much money you have, no matter how easily you can afford it, it is not fiscally responsible. You lament how American's in general are not responsible with their finances and the solution is somehow to send more money to the most irresponsible spender in the history of humanity by a staggering margin, that isn't very logical.

Sadly, I can't tell if this was a serious post.

 

[Howard]

No. Socially liberal and fiscally moderate.

 

[BoberFett]

You're always good for a laugh First. 70 years of failed big government and you still cling to it like a child to their security blanket.

 

[Siddhartha]

Paleoconservative, social liberal, fiscal conservative, really does not mean anything to me. I want to know what political and social policies you support

Can you guys describe what exactly you want the federal and local governments to do.

For example do you want to do away with all federal goverment activities like medicare, FDA, etc?

Do you want to maintain, grow, or reduce the US political sphere of influence?

Do you want to maintain military preparation to fight WWII?

I copied the below from a Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget article:

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:


Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6&#37
$677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts

US receipt and expenditure estimates for fiscal year 2010.Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

 

[BenSkywalker]

I want to know what political and social policies you support

Speaking for myself, I probably support a good deal of the same policies that the majority of people support- I do not think Washington DC is where they should be handled.

For the top segment, interest on the national debt would be the one that we obviously must handle. The others should be largely phased out or moved over to state level control IMO.

For the second grouping, DoD, DoVA, DoJ, NASA, DoC, DoT, DoI, and NIB I see as having viable requirements to operate at a federal level, but all of them are spending significantly more then they should be if they operated close to the productivity standards of the private sector. MS had operating expenses in the range of $6 Billion dollars for the last fiscal year- the operational expenses of the governmental agencies is insane.

 

[Jadow]

No, but I share a lot of the same beliefs as libertarians.