Tell me about Gary Johnson

[DrPizza]

I dislike:
I like:
-Balanced budget.

Economically, the federal government is not a private business - a balanced budget, macroeconomically, is not really a good idea. Not requiring a balanced budget gives government the opportunity to smooth out business cycles. During a recession, extra government spending can get the economy moving again. During very good times, increasing taxes, interest rates, etc., can keep the economy from growing at too great a rate. I've only taken a few business/economics courses, but from what I understand, Bush should have raised taxes on the rich, not cut taxes. Further, how can you ever go to war if you're required to have a balanced budget. "Hey, everyone, this year we're going to have to raise your tax rate to 70%. Anyone making less than 50k per year, you're probably going to starve and/or lose your home." But, you certainly don't do both: go to war AND cut taxes.

 

[glenn1]

Oh, okay. Well when you said "I disagree, that mindset is going to stick us with 2 parties for ever." I thought you were opening the discussion to the two party system itself, and thought I'd offer a counter argument that it's actually our constitution and not our mindset.

Dank gave you a pretty good list of shitty positions/ideas he has. Far worse than Clinton IMO. But it's pretty clear to me that you're not voting for Clinton in any case. I also disagree that Clinton is one of the worst major party candidates ever offered by the D's or R's. But that's probably just another thing you said that we're not allowed to discuss.

So I'll leave the thread to you and the people that are responding the way you want them to.

You really are dense. OP has been very willing to listen to arguments detailing what people dislike about Johnson and expressed appreciation to those who did. What he has repeatedly said is that he doesn't consider "it's a wasted vote" to be an argument he cares about.

 

[dank69]

... But, you certainly don't do both: go to war AND cut taxes.

Yeah, that is so stupid I doubt anyone is dumb enough to try it.

 

[dank69]

You really are dense. OP has been very willing to listen to arguments detailing what people dislike about Johnson and expressed appreciation to those who did. What he has repeatedly said is that he doesn't consider "it's a wasted vote" to be an argument he cares about.

He isn't dense, that was sarcasm meant to point out that when the OP made that statement he opened himself up to criticism for it.

 

[local]

With you except for the bolded.

That's cool we are all different and want different things. I am probably biased on the balanced budget thing coming from a state that is required to have one. As to the others, I am against career politicians and believe they lose touch with normal people once they have been in too long. Reduce foreign aid because we don't need to be paying for other countries stuff and I think cap and trade is just bullshit that pushes a problem around instead of dealing with it.

 

[local]

Economically, the federal government is not a private business - a balanced budget, macroeconomically, is not really a good idea. Not requiring a balanced budget gives government the opportunity to smooth out business cycles. During a recession, extra government spending can get the economy moving again. During very good times, increasing taxes, interest rates, etc., can keep the economy from growing at too great a rate. I've only taken a few business/economics courses, but from what I understand, Bush should have raised taxes on the rich, not cut taxes. Further, how can you ever go to war if you're required to have a balanced budget. "Hey, everyone, this year we're going to have to raise your tax rate to 70%. Anyone making less than 50k per year, you're probably going to starve and/or lose your home." But, you certainly don't do both: go to war AND cut taxes.

Agreed for the most part. Note I did say I didn't like the stance on immediately balancing the budget or eliminating the stimulus. But I do believe it is in our best interests long term to not inflate our debt so much that when we really need it, recession, depression, war, etc., that using it would put us over the edge.

When not required to overspend keep the budget neutral and reduce our debt load through inflation. Then when needed we will have enough ceiling room to keep from going into a debt spiral. The path we have been on for the last several years is not sustainable.

And yes, Bush shouldn't have cut taxes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Kee-rist. Gary Johnson is a libertopian nut case who gets baked for breakfast.

His economic ideas are pure trickle down, the true source of our current malaise.

 

[dank69]

That's cool we are all different and want different things. I am probably biased on the balanced budget thing coming from a state that is required to have one. As to the others, I am against career politicians and believe they lose touch with normal people once they have been in too long. Reduce foreign aid because we don't need to be paying for other countries stuff and I think cap and trade is just bullshit that pushes a problem around instead of dealing with it.

Yeah, I think a balanced budget is more dangerous at the federal level for the reasons mentioned in Dr. Pizza's post.

I think voting politicians out is the only power we citizens have over them to try to get them to represent us. The term "lame duck" was coined for a reason. Once they aren't worried about getting reelected, an unscrupulous person can screw over the people he represents with impunity.

I believe foreign aid is the best path forward to help raise the standard of living in other countries to our level so we aren't competing with slave labor. I acknowledge it isn't exactly a quick fix, but I don't see any other realistic way to remedy that situation.

As for cap and trade, you may be right, but we have to find some way to make corporations pay for their negative effects on the environment.

 

[PricklyPete]

Oh, okay. Well when you said "I disagree, that mindset is going to stick us with 2 parties for ever." I thought you were opening the discussion to the two party system itself, and thought I'd offer a counter argument that it's actually our constitution and not our mindset.



Dank gave you a pretty good list of shitty positions/ideas he has. Far worse than Clinton IMO. But it's pretty clear to me that you're not voting for Clinton in any case. I also disagree that Clinton is one of the worst major party candidates ever offered by the D's or R's. But that's probably just another thing you said that we're not allowed to discuss.



So I'll leave the thread to you and the people that are responding the way you want them to.

Fair enough, I should not have responded at all and my response does appear ignorant. I do believe that voting a third party can do two things...

1) influence a current party or its candidates to change their views
2) change out one of the current parties if a 3rd party gets enough momentum

So I don't think it is wasting my vote.

I never said I wouldn't vote for Clinton...you are putting words into my mouth. I can say that I would never vote for Trump. I'm just having a hard time voting for Hillary. Partly for policies...partly for her as a person.

I'll be the first to admit that if Trump gets elected and I find out my vote for Hillary could have made a difference...I will be disappointed with myself at some level.

Still, this is not what I was wanting to discuss with my OP and really don't want to discuss further in this thread. I really want to discuss Gary Johnson...both the person and his policies.

 

[PricklyPete]

Economically, the federal government is not a private business - a balanced budget, macroeconomically, is not really a good idea. Not requiring a balanced budget gives government the opportunity to smooth out business cycles. During a recession, extra government spending can get the economy moving again. During very good times, increasing taxes, interest rates, etc., can keep the economy from growing at too great a rate. I've only taken a few business/economics courses, but from what I understand, Bush should have raised taxes on the rich, not cut taxes. Further, how can you ever go to war if you're required to have a balanced budget. "Hey, everyone, this year we're going to have to raise your tax rate to 70%. Anyone making less than 50k per year, you're probably going to starve and/or lose your home." But, you certainly don't do both: go to war AND cut taxes.

I'm with you on the balanced budget not really being practical on a federal level, but I would love to see more effort in cutting government expenses and actually running a surplus for paying down the debt and having reserves to cover bumps in the road.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Don't pick fights if you're just going to run away.

nah.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Kee-rist. Gary Johnson is a libertopian nut case who gets baked for breakfast.

His economic ideas are pure trickle down, the true source of our current malaise.

Except that nut case turned New Mexico around financially, got re-elected as a republican in a state that's 2:1 democrat, and trains for 500mile bike races after he gets 'baked'.

 

[dullard]

I'm with you on the balanced budget not really being practical on a federal level, but I would love to see more effort in cutting government expenses and actually running a surplus for paying down the debt and having reserves to cover bumps in the road.

I've always argued for a balanced 10-year plan.

DrPizza is correct that an unexpected war could start tomorrow and a balanced budget means we can't defend ourselves since we don't have the funds and can't realistically raise taxes overnight.

But all budgets should attempt to be long-term balanced. If a war starts tomorrow, then the next 10-year budget should account for that extra cost.

But, we don't actually need to run a surplus. Debt is great that way. If you run an exactly balanced budget, debt goes away after 30 years. This is because the budget includes interest and principle payments; meaning the debt goes down each year in a balanced budget.

 

[werepossum]

People saying he can't win or it's a wasted vote aren't following the polls.

Hillary nor Trump are making a majority happy. They have vocal minorities behind them. Polls typically put them each at 30-35% at best. In those same polls, Gary is getting 10-15%.

Gary's also been climbing in the polls, quickly. And he's actually doing even better among important demographics. Gary is polling higher among the active military than Donald Trump!

Only about half the country has decided they're Trump or Hillary. There's a huge, huge chunk of the voter base that doesn't like either, and if Gary's the only other legit option (Jill Stein isn't, she doesn't have the traction nor is on all ballots in all states), he might find himself getting a windfall of votes.

Gary's also flat out more qualified for the job than either Trump or Hillary. It's a no contest.

Well said.

Johnson is as close to an ideal candidate as I'm ever likely to see. I have some very major disagreements with him, such as his open border policy and his free trade support, but as Neil Boortz says, if two people agree on everything then one of them is redundant. Johnson was an excellent governor, has great personal integrity, and is a strong support of personal liberty and freedom. I would much rather vote for someone like that - and have a President like that - than vote for a Hillary or Trump even if one of them professed agreement with me on every issue.

You forgot he is running against Clinton too.

Both "crook" and "egomaniac" work equally well for Trump or Hillary.

Some of us vote for the people who we believe would make a qualified president. Apparently some of us also vote for president so they can say their vote won or because or stupid party loyalty.

And then whine that we only have two choices and the parties don't really represent the people.

I have no illusion that Johnson can win. As Woolfe points out, poll support is always much higher than actual voting. People lose their nerve and want to "make their vote count", so they vote for a major party candidate. However, a third party vote lets the two parties know that many people are motivated to vote and are not being served by either party. At the least, the losing party has to consider responding to this. This is how the two parties change, by wanting to win rather than lose.

 

[TechBoyJK]

It's important to note that GJ is strongest in the demographics that will eventually be the majority of the country, and GJ is relatively young and fit. He's absolutely killing it in the 18-40 crowd.

He could weather this election, the following election, the one after that, and then some. He could still be running 20 years from now.

If he's already getting 10-15% now, he's likely to keep building on that over time. He'll be favored by a much larger base with a decade. He might not do much this election, but the next one? even more support.

 

[Puffnstuff]

So if I understand right, you are essentially voting against the RNC and not because you no longer like Johnson...correct?

At that point I was voting against both the RNC and the DNC but not enough people saw fit to rock the boat. This time I want to keep my education benefits so Hillary has to win.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Economically, the federal government is not a private business - a balanced budget, macroeconomically, is not really a good idea. Not requiring a balanced budget gives government the opportunity to smooth out business cycles. During a recession, extra government spending can get the economy moving again. During very good times, increasing taxes, interest rates, etc., can keep the economy from growing at too great a rate. I've only taken a few business/economics courses, but from what I understand, Bush should have raised taxes on the rich, not cut taxes. Further, how can you ever go to war if you're required to have a balanced budget. "Hey, everyone, this year we're going to have to raise your tax rate to 70%. Anyone making less than 50k per year, you're probably going to starve and/or lose your home." But, you certainly don't do both: go to war AND cut taxes.

Or in simple terms even those with very tight home budgets take out car loans or school loans or mortgages. Only the super wealthy don't need to do it but they still do. Should Government be run like a wealthy household. Short term debt only and take in more tax revenue than what is spent?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's important to note that GJ is strongest in the demographics that will eventually be the majority of the country, and GJ is relatively young and fit. He's absolutely killing it in the 18-40 crowd.

He could weather this election, the following election, the one after that, and then some. He could still be running 20 years from now.

If he's already getting 10-15% now, he's likely to keep building on that over time. He'll be favored by a much larger base with a decade. He might not do much this election, but the next one? even more support.

Maybe or maybe the run between Trump & Hillary becomes so tight that people defect to Trump or Hillary. Tough call and either outcome isn't unrealistic.

 

[Knowing]

Maybe or maybe the run between Trump & Hillary becomes so tight that people defect to Trump or Hillary. Tough call and either outcome isn't unrealistic.

The dems hope he is a spoiler candidate. That's why there's way more attention on him than Jill Stein. According to isidewith (wiki), she's 91% in common with Hillary (99% Bernie). She ticks the positive boxes that Hillary does and doesn't have her baggage. Maybe she needs to write some nice letters about banks or advocate an interventionist foreign policy to break out of the media blackout they caught Bernie in.

 

[TheGardener]

If he's already getting 10-15% now,

Can you show me where Johnson is polling at 10 to 15%? I see 5% to 10%. And that is better than what I expect come November. If he materializes 15%, and Stein can garner 3%, it will cut into Clinton's numbers more than Trump's.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

 

[Ichinisan]

Reading the OP, this sounds like a thread I was going to make.

 

[dank69]

It's important to note that GJ is strongest in the demographics that will eventually be the majority of the country, and GJ is relatively young and fit. He's absolutely killing it in the 18-40 crowd.

He could weather this election, the following election, the one after that, and then some. He could still be running 20 years from now.

If he's already getting 10-15% now, he's likely to keep building on that over time. He'll be favored by a much larger base with a decade. He might not do much this election, but the next one? even more support.

People probably said similar shit about Ron Paul.

 

[guachi]

Economically, the federal government is not a private business - a balanced budget, macroeconomically, is not really a good idea.

You're being polite here, though the parts I cut are good examples why deficits are good.

A mandatory balanced budget at the federal level is insane. It's a guaranteed way to exacerbate a recession. The deficit in 2009 was about 8% of GDP. Imagine if there were a mandatory balanced budget. Federal spending would have needed to drop by a third or taxes drastically raised. In the middle of a recession. That's a guarantee for a depression. Insanity.

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[dank69]

I'm voting libertarian for one reason. To make a statement about my unhappiness of this election cycle. I don't want trump, I don't want hillary and to vote for either is basically accepting that I like one better than the other (I don't).

So I'll vote to show I'm a concerned citizen, but i'll vote libertarian in the hopes that they get enough votes to be in the debate next time.

Do you think that when Hillary/Trump wins they will care about the tiny percentage of votes that libertarians got much less reflect upon any reasoning that led to those votes?

The only statement voting libertarian (or any 3rd party for that matter) sends is that you don't understand Duverger's law.