What's the difference between a libertarian and a republican on views?

[Zebo]

Liberatarians believe in live and let live as long as it hurts no one. Therefore all consentual crimes would no longer be crimes. They are strict consitutionalists which means no income taxes, and following the bill of rights to the letter not "interpretative courts". They are basically isolationists when it comes to foriegn policy. Think Angola and you have liberatarianism.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
So I guess they had sky-rocketing inflated energy costs like we did and they were forced to sign long term contracts for energy rates at absurd prices ? If anything this is just an example of the melt down splash effect of Enron had on other states. The real burden though was paid by us Californians as power companies ( which does not just include Enron ) held us for ransom while this administration looked the other way.

California got screwed by its own power rules. You cant blame that on anyone else but yourself.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I believe the TX Lege only meets every two years and during the survery period the Lege was primarily controlled by Dems. Ann Richards was governor for part of the survey period as was GWB. FL meets annually but the budget surpluses began accumulating under Dem governor (Chiles, I think) and a Dem Lege. Despite the fact you should never use such isolated entities to make broader generalizations you are still wrong.

 

[Drift3r]

Oh yeah so because we deregulated power companies it was okay for them to start pushing for over inflated power prices ? NO ! That is called extortion and price gauging at the tax payer expense by power companies who saw an opportunity as they new that this administration would not help in investigating this fraud because of partisan politics.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

CA deregulation was a funk masterpiece signed by GOP Gov Pete Wilson . . . then again many CA Republicans would be considered Democrats in the South. As for general budget management, CA is really messed up even if you correct for Enron, Williams, Dynergy robbery.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Oh yeah so because we deregulated power companies it was okay for them to start pushing for over inflated power prices ? NO ! That is called extortion and price gauging at the tax payer expense by power companies who saw an opportunity as they new that this administration would not help in investigating this fraud because of partisan politics.

Sure blame it on everyone else, and dont look for the faults in yourself. Good plan.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I believe the TX Lege only meets every two years and during the survery period the Lege was primarily controlled by Dems. Ann Richards was governor for part of the survey period as was GWB. FL meets annually but the budget surpluses began accumulating under Dem governor (Chiles, I think) and a Dem Lege. Despite the fact you should never use such isolated entities to make broader generalizations you are still wrong.

I noted that they were isolated and you might not want to posting surveys that are 10 years old either as they are not worth much either.

Most states right now have budget problems and Texas and Florida have done a good job controlling spending. Florida did not allow spendig to grow rapidly during the dotcom boom and has not had major budget problems. Texas did has some big spending increases because of the dotcom boom, and was forced to make tough spending cuts to make the budget this year. This is far better solution than raising taxes and/or whining to the fed for help.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I hate to agree with charrison but the CA deregulation plan was illogical. I mean its nearly impossible to create a scenario where Californians could realistically expect to get stable (much less cheaper) energy prices or supply.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hate to agree with charrison but the CA deregulation plan was illogical. I mean its nearly impossible to create a scenario where Californians could realistically expect to get stable (much less cheaper) energy prices or supply.

No it could of worked out had Pete Wilson actually put any thought into the bill he signed and added safe guards to prevent incidents like this from happening. As it was he just signed the bill and gave the power companies everything they wanted.

P.S. Just looked at the news and saw that the near bankrupted PG&E company has just signed a sweet heart deal to become re-regulated at tax payer expense.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I noted that they were isolated and you might not want to posting surveys that are 10 years old either as they are not worth much either.

If they are isolated and cannot be generalized as justification for your position . . . why mention them? Furthermore, the best way to establish reasonable data is to use an interval. For instance, 1990-2000 or 1994-2000. The early data may be older but if the governments are relatively stable (TX had a solidly Democratic Lege and Governor for decades, I think) then the generalization has utility . . . at least for TX. Chiles was Gov of FL for close to two terms . . . Jeb got his job b/c Lawton croaked. It wasn't the huddled masses of Floridians yearning for a lower tax burden and economic growth. Anyway, on the margins GOP Leges do spend and tax less than Dems . . . but the difference is quite small. Actually the stingiest governments were Dem Gov with a GOP Lege, followed by GOP Gov/GOP Lege, then GOP Gov/Dem Lege, followed by Dem/Dem. But top to bottom the difference would scarcely get a peep from a Libertarian.

Most states right now have budget problems and Texas and Florida have done a good job controlling spending. Florida did not allow spendig to grow rapidly during the dotcom boom and has not had major budget problems. Texas did has some big spending increases because of the dotcom boom, and was forced to make tough spending cuts to make the budget this year. This is far better solution than raising taxes and/or whining to the fed for help.

TX cut its already spartan services to the poor, elderly. TX has avoided the explosion in Medicaid/SCHIP costs because under Gov Bush they had the most onerous and restrictive enrollment regime. By making it difficult for people to acquire services which are a legal entitlement, TX balances the books. If you remove the inflation in healthcare costs from most states (Medicare/Medicaid/state employees) their budgets look much healthier. I'm willing to give Jeb (and the FL Lege) credit for controlling spending during the boom b/c I have no evidence to the contrary. But Bush in TX gave tax cuts to business/big donors while keeping little kids from getting healthcare.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hate to agree with charrison but the CA deregulation plan was illogical. I mean its nearly impossible to create a scenario where Californians could realistically expect to get stable (much less cheaper) energy prices or supply.

No it could of worked out had Pete Wilson actually put any thought into the bill he sign and add safe guards to prevent incidents like this from happening. As it was it just signed the bill and gave the power companies everything they wanted.

P.S. Just look at the news and saw that the near bankrupted PG&E company has just signed a sweet heart deal to become re-regulated at tax payer expense.

We can blame pete for signing it, I will give him that much credit. But the the california leg got it to his desk.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I noted that they were isolated and you might not want to posting surveys that are 10 years old either as they are not worth much either.

If they are isolated and cannot be generalized as justification for your position . . . why mention them? Furthermore, the best way to establish reasonable data is to use an interval. For instance, 1990-2000 or 1994-2000. The early data may be older but if the governments are relatively stable (TX had a solidly Democratic Lege and Governor for decades, I think) then the generalization has utility . . . at least for TX. Chiles was Gov of FL for close to two terms . . . Jeb got his job b/c Lawton croaked. It wasn't the huddled masses of Floridians yearning for a lower tax burden and economic growth. Anyway, on the margins GOP Leges do spend and tax less than Dems . . . but the difference is quite small. Actually the stingiest governments were Dem Gov with a GOP Lege, followed by GOP Gov/GOP Lege, then GOP Gov/Dem Lege, followed by Dem/Dem. But top to bottom the difference would scarcely get a peep from a Libertarian.

Most states right now have budget problems and Texas and Florida have done a good job controlling spending. Florida did not allow spendig to grow rapidly during the dotcom boom and has not had major budget problems. Texas did has some big spending increases because of the dotcom boom, and was forced to make tough spending cuts to make the budget this year. This is far better solution than raising taxes and/or whining to the fed for help.

TX cut its already spartan services to the poor, elderly. TX has avoided the explosion in Medicaid/SCHIP costs because under Gov Bush they had the most onerous and restrictive enrollment regime. By making it difficult for people to acquire services which are a legal entitlement, TX balances the books. If you remove the inflation in healthcare costs from most states (Medicare/Medicaid/state employees) their budgets look much healthier. I'm willing to give Jeb (and the FL Lege) credit for controlling spending during the boom b/c I have no evidence to the contrary. But Bush in TX gave tax cuts to business/big donors while keeping little kids from getting healthcare.

There is no evidence of tax cuts of in Texas under Bushs 2 terms in texas. At least none that i know of.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Aw man that's like saying you had to have sex with a prostitute b/c she offered.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There is no evidence of tax cuts of in Texas under Bushs 2 terms in texas. At least none that i know of.

Huh?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hate to agree with charrison but the CA deregulation plan was illogical. I mean its nearly impossible to create a scenario where Californians could realistically expect to get stable (much less cheaper) energy prices or supply.

No it could of worked out had Pete Wilson actually put any thought into the bill he signed and added safe guards to prevent incidents like this from happening. As it was he just signed the bill and gave the power companies everything they wanted.

P.S. Just look at the news and saw that the near bankrupted PG&E company has just signed a sweet heart deal to become re-regulated at tax payer expense.

We can blame pete for signing it, I will give him that much credit. But the the california leg got it to his desk.

No the Power companies and their lobbiest got it to his desk IMHO.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I have no idea what you mean but one of Bush's first acts as governor was what he called emergency tax relief for the Oil Biz.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I have no idea what you mean but one of Bush's first acts as governor was what he called emergency tax relief for the Oil Biz.

After doing a bit of research, there were a couple of small tax cuts in Texas. None were right away for the oil business.

In five years as governor, Governor Bush called twice for tax cuts in Texas, in 1997 and 1999. Both times the Texas Legislature wisely gave him less than what he asked for. In 1997 he proposed a $3 billion cut, taking money from the state's surplus, cutting property taxes and increasing sales taxes. The Legislature gave him just $1 billion dollars worth of property tax cuts that year. In 1999, with [/b]Texas experiencing the largest budget surplus in its history[/b], he came back another $2.6 billion in property, sales, and business tax cuts, which he tied to a major education initiative (sound familiar?). The Legislature agreed to $1.85 billion of those cuts

I see no large tax breaks and I see nothing about the oil industy.
linkage

Looks like the cuts were just give the surplus back the people of Texas.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Just curious

Generally we believe in keeping government out of peoples lives as much as possible which includes abortion. This also means that we do not endorse any kind of prohibition based on religious views on morality. We believe in strict separation of church and state as it was written in the Constitution and we hold the individuals right to privacy and the right to be left alone as something sacred which should be protected. We believe in the right to hold and bare arms. We believe in fiscal responsibility when it comes to goverment spending. We do not believe in foreign aid or any other types of government hand outs or bail outs like social, religious or corporate welfare. For more info look at the link below.



http://www.lp.org/issues/

OMG, I'm a Libertarian.....


Thanks for the link

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A Libertarian is a Republican who doens't have nightmares he'll blow off the bathroom door.

Hehe I missed your post moondog. 😀

Libertarians are closer to Liberals hence the name... They are both liberal economically and socially, though, unlike liberals....But Republicans... are nothing but beggar wantabees and nothing more....ditto heads with a total disregard for their fellow man. Unless of course, they can spunge off the govt with a grant or a contract for their wares. Or "need" a business loan or selectivly written tax break. Which they do excessivly. To call them spend thifts is a absolute joke and a lie many seem to believe. All one needs to do is look at government spending and defiet spending under conservative leadership starting in 1981. Then we have to whole police state which BTW started in about 1981. Assest forfiture without due process by IRS in effort to stop "money laundering", by the DEA and local law enforcement for the "drug war" have all lead to carryover to seizing assests of normal people. Of course they can't defend themselves because they are left without resourses to do it. READ the WSJ, every day they have federal notices of seizure. Sure they recently threw a 2% tax cut bone back to the middle class, however they are setting things up so the next president will have to raise taxes 4% to pay for things in the future.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Just curious

Generally we believe in keeping government out of peoples lives as much as possible which includes abortion. This also means that we do not endorse any kind of prohibition based on religious views on morality. We believe in strict separation of church and state as it was written in the Constitution and we hold the individuals right to privacy and the right to be left alone as something sacred which should be protected. We believe in the right to hold and bare arms. We believe in fiscal responsibility when it comes to goverment spending. We do not believe in foreign aid or any other types of government hand outs or bail outs like social, religious or corporate welfare. For more info look at the link below.



http://www.lp.org/issues/

OMG, I'm a Libertarian.....


Thanks for the link

Alot of "Moderates" on both sides could see themselves as "Libertarians" 😉 But unfortunately the only "Libertarian" candidates seem to single issue bent nutballs 😛 If a DECENT candidate would pop-up as a Libertarian then i could see a political shift but until that time it will be Libs vs Cons.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

I took the Political test that gets linked here with some regularity and by picking satisfied with the status quo on every question tested out at 100% democratic and 100% Libertarian, and also quite Republican.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I took the Political test that gets linked here with some regularity and by picking satisfied with the status quo on every question tested out at 100% democratic and 100% Libertarian, and also quite Republican.

Well if your're happy each party wants to take responsibility for it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

My information on many Bush policies in TX come from Molly Ivins' book Shrub. I loaned it to a GOP friend so cannot use it as a reference. Here's an interesting site which uses comparable numbers (and language so somebody is borrowing without giving proper credit) link.

In 1997, Bush wanted school property tax reform and asked Texas lawmakers for $3 billion in tax relief by using some money from the state's surplus and shifting the taxation to other methods. He proposed spending $1 billion from the surplus, raising the sales and motor vehicle sales taxes and imposing a business activity tax.

The Legislature didn't completely agree, but settled on a $1 billion tax cut.

When Texas lawmakers next met in 1999, Bush wanted $2.6 billion in property, sales and business tax cuts. Legislators approved a $1.85 billion package, consisting of about $1.35 billion in property tax reductions, $277 million in consumer tax cuts and $229 million in business tax cuts.

I believe this is standard procedure for the GOP and Dems . . . cut taxes people always take notice of while raising fees and taxes that often sneek by them.

If Bush and his supporters hadn't agreed to funding for pre-kindergarten and other education spending, the governor wouldn't have gotten his tax cut, Gallegos said.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Unfortunately a lot of people in the Libertarian Party are freaking loons.

But there aren't a lot of loons in the Democrat or Republican parties...

Originally posted by: Rogue9
The difference is that the Libertarians value your freedom.

Plain and simple.

 

[hagbard]

http://www.harrybrowne.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.rationalreview.com/
http://www.anti-state.com/
http://www.hempbc.com/

Read these and find the common thread.