No question that a nation's fiscal deficit creates numerous harms in proportion to its size.
A large deficit strangles an economy and contrains a nation's ability to defend itself. It leads to political division between a pro-government elite and a discouraged producer class. As Thrasybulus notes, deficits turn the profligate against the solvent.
The fiscal deficit isn't the only issue in this election but it's the central issue.
I disagree and the polls show that many agree with me when asked what was most important during the primaries, defeating Obama was at the top of the list. The central issue is do we want a president who wants America to succeed versus one that wants America to fail. In my view, the destruction of the American economy is just a means to the central end for the Obama administration. Obama neither wants our economy to revive nor for the American political philosophy to persevere. he wants to "fundamentally transform" the United States. This is the result of years of preparation by the far left. Obama care, which was "too big to read" was certainly too big to write as well in such a short period. It has been written years in advance. Senator Harry Reed credited the Apollo Group with writing Obama Care. Obama has a long history of affiliations with the anti-American left since the beginning of his political career.
If libertarians can't win elections for whatever reason, and the message is to radical for most people's tastes, then why have the Democrips and Rebloodlicans erected so many onerious ballot access laws to prevent any competitive parties from running candidates and participating in debates when election times comes? Again, if the ideas really stink, why not just let themselves look like fools in front of the voting public without these ballot access laws???
Because the two party system is so convenient for the two parties. They have to invent differences every four years to sway voters toward their invented differences. When it comes right down to it, many voters decide based on hair styles. It is why $100 haircuts are so important to them. The two parties really like those voters. They never ask specific questions.
Because the two party system is so convenient for the two parties. They have to invent differences every four years to sway voters toward their invented differences.
Okay, let's explore this for a bit - starting with the last part. There certainly ARE differences in the parties, and the current makeup of the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives attests to that - and a fractious lot it is. I'll agree that both parties want the power of the majority and tend to do whatever is necessary to acheive same, and I'll agree that those on the R side who have achieved something approaching tenure tend to be more akin than different to their Democrat counterparts. Even so, you can't seriously argue that there's no practical difference between them when you look at long-term Members such as, say, Nancy Pelosi and Darryl Issa.
The two-party system may be convenient for the two parties, but it also has some structural advantages for the nation. We can see this right here in Maine, which has only produced a governor elected by a majority once in the past five cycles. Given the makeup of the legislature in ALL of those cycles it has not been an impediment to any of those governors, but it easily could have been. In parliamentary systems where you have three or more parties of significant heft, governance is often the product of coalition governments, which are inherently unstable.
If we examine the various wings within the Republican and Democratic parties, we see the equivalent of multi-party status in the existence of factions. The factions tend to fight things out intramurally and establish the "face" of the party before going head-to-head with the opposing party, in which similar intramural battles have been fought. Currently, the hard left holds a LOT of power in the D column; my read is that the R side is in flux with the emergence of the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul faction. Bottom line, though: interest groups in a two-party system work within one of the major parties, battling for their positions, instead of forming new parties of their own. Same result, different process.
It's ugly, I'll admit. But paraphrasing Churchill, "it's the worst possible form of government - except for all the others."
Mackenzie, Romney has no plan to curtail spending. He hasn't even endorsed Paul Ryan's wholly inadequate plan. And he plans to tinker with Obamacare, not rip it out by the roots.
Why do you think Palin hasn't even endorsed him yet?
Eagleisland is spot on, as usual. Parties are collections of factions. The GOP is made up of entrepreneurs, industrialists, homeschoolers, gun rights activists, veterans, classical liberals and Hayekian economists, to name a few.
When the party suffers a defeat in an election, some of these factions are swept out with the tide as well.
Reagan, with a strong and devoted base, defeated the hapless incumbent in '80 and immediately instituted BOLD, PAINFUL REFORMS. He lost 26 House seats in '82, but held on until the reforms took hold and propelled us into an era of growth and triumph.
His rival for the nomination in '80, you may recall, was the timid, indecisive George Romney - oops - I meant Bush. Imagine his Presidency, if you will. No fervent base, no bold ideas. Massive tax and spending cuts? Nope, that was voodoo economics. The Soviets as The Evil Empire? Don't make me laugh. Fire the Air Traffic Controllers? Hardly. 20% raises all around.
We would have lost 56 seats in the House in '82, and there would have been no "Morning in America".
This is exactly what we will get with Mitt Nixon - oops - I meant Romney! Mittens means the end of the Republican Party, and those factions within the GOP who are willing to try to reverse America's decline will be thrown out with the bathwater...
The election of Mitt Romney, barring Divine intervention, marks the end of the Grand Old Party. Definitely not a favorable path for the USA.
Governor Johnson looking better every day now....
Thrasybulus Mackenzie, Romney has no plan to curtail spending. He hasn't even endorsed Paul Ryan's wholly inadequate plan. And he plans to tinker with Obamacare, not rip it out by the roots.
I do not think thatis true.In addition to Romney including the repeal of Obama Care as a part of his deficit reduction plan - there is this - from The Washington Wore last November
The $95 billion figure and a $100 billion savings from converting Medicaid and workforce training to block grants to the states are the largest numbers cited by Mr. Romney in his fiscal plan. He said he would eliminate subsidies for Amtrak, saving $1.6 billion. He would reduce subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation, eliminate Title X family planning programs that help abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood, and would “end foreign aid to countries that oppose America’s interests"
And of course, Romney has said that on day one he will excuse all fifty states from having to participate in Obama Care.
I think Romney can be a very good president and do not share your negative views of the man. What is Gary Johnson's defict reduction plan? I googled it but little came up got "gary Johnson deficit reduction plan" on the first page.
"What is Gary Johnson's defict reduction plan?"
40 minute Gary Johnson primer HERE (youtube)
Disclaimer: I watched it a few days ago. Tonight, I'm on a lousy internet connection (Sprint) in metro Denver! He does mention a $1.4 trillion budget reduction but I can't remember how he got there nor am I willing to wait for it to load. Please watch it, then come back here and answer your own question.
Romney's entire list of budget "cuts" (cutting federal spending by tossing partial payment to the states is not a cut) amounts to a 600 pound man trimming his fingernails. Not a word about the massive entitlement avalanche coming down on our heads, but plenty about slashing minor art programs and liberal hobby horses.
He has not proposed even abolishing one federal agency.
Gary Johnson's plan is to slash $1,4 trillion the first year, bringing the budget into immediate balance. What's more, that is exactly what he did in New Mexico with a Democrat legislature that fought him tooth and claw. So in 8 years he vetoed more bills than ALL 49 OTHER GOVERNORS COMBINED. And left the state with a billion dollar surplus.
May I point out that it is one thing to say you'll do something (maybe comes to mind), and quite another to say you;ll do something AGAIN. The track record is there for all to see.
Thrasybulus:Gary Johnson's plan is to slash $1,4 trillion the first year, bringing the budget into immediate balance. What's more, that is exactly what he did in New Mexico with a Democrat legislature that fought him tooth and claw. So in 8 years he vetoed more bills than ALL 49 OTHER GOVERNORS COMBINED. And left the state with a billion dollar surplus.
SO I give you a small detailed and likely incomplete list of Romney's plan to reduce the deficit-mentioning that it includes repealing Obama Care- refuting your previous statement that Romney doesn't want to repeal Obama Care- just eat around at the edges- (YEAH Right! -that's why he won the primary- because the Republicans and the American people want to keep Obama Care).
And of course the number one requirement for repealing Obama Care ( If the Supreme Court doesn't rule it unconstitutional) is to get rid of Obama being that the president has veto powers. Splitting the vote against Obama increases the chance that Obama will win and so decreases the chance of repealing Obama Care.
You make further unsubstantiated assertions about what Romney's plan is in a vague reference that you do not properly identify- and then make a generalized claim with no details about Gary Johnson's plan.
I have actually listened to Romney and would never be caught making a false statement such as that Romney doesn't not want to repeal Obama care. Most importantly, I feel that Romney has his heart in the right place regarding America. He wants the United States to regain its economic prosperity and power. As Romney said in an interview last night, reducing spending is important but that in order to reduce the deficit we need to grow the economy. There are a lot of ways to go about both and we can argue the details but ultimately someone will be in charge and I want that person to be someone who is capable and has his heart in the right place. I cannot claim to know what is the best way to solve the problem but I like all of the reductions that Romney mentioned above.- most notably Amtrak, which in Maine-last I heard Collins and Snowe were fighting a cut in an environmental bill that would take away the federal handout for daily operating expenses, which is not what taxpayer money is supposed to be used for- but in Maine the power elite of our political culture doesn't care - they just want to see that redistribution of wealth flowing from the federal government into the coffers of the corporate state in Maine. I am very glad to see that Romney has brought up this issue.
TaxFoe- I am not going to watch a UTube about Gary Johnson. I seldom watch Utubes as they require too much dedicated time. I prefer articles- that I can read in time segments as available to my busy schedule. It is up to those supporting Gary Johnson to present a reasonable answer to the question- not just easy promises from a candidate who knows he will never be elected and never have to make good on his promises. I'm am not the one rooting for the re-election of Obama. I only posed to question to Thrasybulus because of claims he is making against Romney. I am not interested in doing that work as I do no believe that Gary Johnson has a chance of beating Obama. Why don't you tell that to Thrasybulis- he needs to do better research on the candidate he is advocating ..
How did you miss the fact that Rpmney's chief weakness in the primaries was his unwillingness to come out for repeal of Obamacare, seeing as how he pioneered it (and what he did in Massachusetts is turning into a fiscal nightmare).
Romney is Nixon - talk conservative (this year, anyway) and govern liberal. Obama Lite, just as Obama is Bush Lite.
In their desire to defeat Obama, many people have been blinded to the etch-a-sketch reality of Mittens. Who was his "favorite" President? Who did he back for President in 1976, 1980, 1988 and 1996? His history is clear, and he is not on the side of smaller, more Constitutionally proscribed government.
Finally, Romney has proposed the most authoritarian policy initiative in American history - a National Identity Card. No one will be allowed to seek medical care, get a job, open a bank account, buy or sell property, etc, unless they are "enrolled" in the federal government's data base. That alone should make it impossible for any thinking person to vote for Mitt.
Mitt Romney Is a Lot Like Thomas E. Dewey, the Equivocating Loser to Truman
How do you justify spreading blatantly flse rumors.It the only thing that Romney's detractors can come up with against him are lies- thatsays a lot in favor of Romney.
Your claims about what Romney said about an ID card that identifies whether some one is legal to work in this country takes a lot of liberty with the truth. You are taking criticism of the idea as to what such a card could eventually evolve into and attributing that as being what Romney has proposed- which is simply false. Romney was making a suggestion pertaining to illegal immigration- NOT to all the other functions that you have expanded upon and put into Romney's mouth. The immigration problem is a tough one. I cannot think of a single solution that does not have a down side. At least Romney is willing to propose some ideas- and anyone who does will be ctiticized for the down side of the idea.
You have a very narrow. and oppressive method of determining who is a "thinking person" - which does not meet my own standards for the same.
Go ahead vote for Obama-which is what a vote for Gary Johnson really is and it hasn't escaped me that you spend more time bashing Romney than you do supporting Johnson. You haven't even given a remotely real answer as to how he would reduce the deficit.
Romney is not the lesser of two evils because Romney is not evil.
I've always thought it is oxymoronic for a Libertarian to come to political power. We can sort of see that with Brakey. The self-proclaimed anti-establishmentarian is wielding his power, contrary to a libertarian perspective, to promote libertarianism.
Will someone volunteer to list some multi-party systems which produce the results they desire? There a lot to choose from, few democracies function with two-party systems. I'd be satisfied with just one example.
Will someone volunteer to list some multi-party systems which produce the results they desire?
Swiss presidential debate.
I just visited Gary Johnson's web site and found a number of specific proposals for balancing the budget. I won't recapitulate them here because my favored arm is in a cast and they are easy enough to find, so easy, in fact, that anyone in this forum can do it.
It is true that many members of the Libertarian Party are impractical ideologues, but overall, there were enough sensible members to nominate Governor Johnson, who is the first nominee of the party actually capable of doing a good, effective job as President (yes, that includes St. Ron). He knows what might be possible and what isn't, is completely sane, at home in the 21st Century, has actually governed a state and built a major business from the ground up, and is exactly the type of person around whom a personality cult will never form (see Ayn Rand and St. Ron).
Gary is not only the best Libertarian Presidential candidate ever nominated, he is the best choice for President in this election, period. I will vote for him with a wonderfully clear conscience.
As to the lesser of two evils choice so aptly parried above by Mr. Wonka, I favor the Cthulu for President campaign's stand: Why vote for the LESSER of two evils?
IF you are going to vote for the Gary Johnson- what does it say that you won't even say boo about his policies and pass that on for others to look up- no matter what your excuse is. Just make a claim that he's the best and that will do. Gary Johnson didn't make much of an impressive stand in the republicans primaries but if people want to vote for him and Obama wins, then it is a sorry story for America that Obama has that much of a chance of winning with his failed record and all the other stuff currently going on as we speak. On the other hand, I figure that Obama supporters rarely listen to the news and so may never hear about the current mess the president is into now, Maybe the number of clueless voters just remains the same no matter what happens. If you vote for Johnson and Obama wins - you voted for Obama.
RUBIO not considered by Mitt:
A top ally to Marco Rubio suggested that a prominent Romney aide was the source of the ABC News story today that stated Romney is not considering the Florida senator as his running mate.
"Do remember that Stuart Stevens was Charlie Crist’s guy," Ana Navarro told BuzzFeed, referring to Rubio's Republican-turned-independent opponent in the 2010 Senate race. "The guys who did all of that oppo and attacks on Marco were none other than [Romney advisers] Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer."
Page Not Found
Sorry, we couldn’t find the page you requested.
And the story is already scrubbed. Do people remember what the Romney Death Star did to dismantle the the Republican challengers in the primaries?
Romney is pure Nixon. A choice between him and Obama is a choice between Obama Lite and Bush Lite.
I'll have the Sam Adams, if you please:-)
That's funny - I just heard on Fox news last night that the Romney camp said they were vetting Rubio- just for fun I guess and to waste some money- because who are we going to believe Fox News or Theasybulus quoting from a story that has been scrubbed? Hmmm- I wonder why it was scrubbed. Egg on your face if Romney does pick Rubio.
When I see propaganda like the above- it just makes me ask- who exactly is that ad campaigning for. Selective pieces of information taken out of context- Now that convinces me that maybe Obama is behind it. It's about Obama's speed.
Rubio turns down Romney fundraiser to spend more time with his family
Johnson-- abolish IRS, institute Fair Tax on expenditures, not income with exemption for basic necessities, nothing else, end drug war, end Afghanistan war (not opposed to all foreign intervention like Paul, though). For repeal of Patriot Act. Curtail but not abolish Fed Reserve. Block grant medicare and medicaid funds to states. Give all roles in transportation, housing, and education back to states. Abolish D of Ed, HUD, Transportation. Pro-choice and for marriage equality. I know more lefties than many people on this board and Johnson will take as many votes from Obama as from Romney--in his opinion and my observation at least.
Go ahead vote for Obama-which is what a vote for Gary Johnson really is
No, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson.
Selective pieces of information taken out of context
So you're saying that it's all true?
"All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions." - Adlai E. Stevenson
Voting is a positive act, not a choice between the least offensive of two pre-approved candidates. if you are convinced that Obama or Romney is the right choice, go for it and do not criticize me for acting on my own convictions. A democratic republic depends on informed citizens who vote based on knowledge and conviction even if we are a minority. Thrasybulus, I, and others have not been vague in discussing Gary Johnson's practical qualifications for the presidency, which, astounding though it may be, equal or surpass those of all other candidates. I have met him and talked with him for a while, as some others here may have. No, he's not charismatic, but he is sensible, persuasive, and sincere and has a Reagan level blend of principles and pragmatism. His policy statements can be found by anyone willing to make the effort in far less time than it takes me to type these posts with my right index finger. People who need everything explained for them should seriously consider becoming Democrats
When did I criticize you for acting on your own conscience? Those are your words not mine. I never brought conscience into it- just mathematical chances and pragmatism. You have slanted any mention of the obvious mathematical relationships and then told me what I am allowed to say. If it bothers your conscience- then own it but don't censor my free speech- or my free though about what it is pragmatic to consider in the voting process. Part of the positive act of voting is inclusive of deciding when defeating a particular candidate needs to be prioritized.
Finally you gave a specific answer but p[lease don't treat me like I am stupid- Not only has Thesybulus been vague he has consistently posted false statements about Romney rather than make an argument for Gary Johnson and others have posted typical campaign smear campaigns designed to program the thoughtless.
And when did I mention charisma? Who ever said Romney was charismatic? - but he is sensible, persuasive, and sincere and has a Reagan level blend of principles and pragmatism- and I have found the Romney has an analytical mind which can easily be smeared by political campaigns aimed at the unthinking who never encompass analytical thought.
Your ending sentence once again shifts the responsibilities to others. Not only are you instructing me on what to think as you rearrange reality but you are instructing me and others on how to schedule our time as well. So the people who take the mathematics of this election seriously- and the direness of defeating Obama seriously, are supposed to do the work of campaigning for Gary Johnson- Just makes my point about why Gary Johnson is not mathematically and pramaticly electable. What are the mathematical and pragmatic chances that the public is going to do that? Gary Johnson supporters campaign on - its on his webpage - look it up- Good Luck with that! How passionate can you really be?