[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

OAO, my jest was primarily directed at your title. Really? Out of the hundreds of third-parties in America, only the Libertarian Party website provided a substantive piece of policy....? In other words, before I opened your link, I knew exactly which party it would be....

I imagined everyone would. I don't mean to say that no party aside from the LP has ever posted a good article; what I mean to say it is extremely rare to see a good article on any party website...

"Modest" tax cuts that don't get real money circulating on the middle income earners are useless if intended to stimulate the economy, but I digress. Three "modest" tax cuts, eh? Don't you think middle-class Americans would rather have social security benefits there for them, or a reasonable health plan, rather than the couple hundred dollars back to buy, what was it, lots of new furniture...? And often, when this link is made for tax payers, they choose the former.

Two things:

1. I think you are reading into the comment too much. The point was that the federal deficit is not only there because of Bush's tax cuts.

2. Not a supporter of supply side economics, are we?

I do agree that tax cuts for the middle class are warranted, but I'm the type of guy who sees any tax cut as a victory. It's just pissing me off that Bush seems to be more interested in creating new government programs rather than cutting them...

God bless the Cato Institute. What would we do without them?

[/sarcasm]

Right, we need to move fast on 1.) Destroying the social security program entirely, 2.) Privatize the U.S. Postal service, a reliable and highly functional institution, and make them UNreliable like many of the privatized shipping companies, and 3.) Selling off federal land that may presumably be preserved, but hey, more land polluting factories and highways ae better than a deficit. :/

1. Destroying SS is the ultimate goal, but as an interum it would be replaced by a market-based system. One would have control over where that money goes so that if it fails it won't be gubbermints fault (of course, most would probably put money into relatively steady businesses).

2. I don't think that is what one could call a top priority, but I would challenge your comment that privatized shipping companies are unreliable.

3. Quite the unfair comment. What would be the point of preserving land that we don't need? Think: this is a libertarian article. Keeping land "just in case" is like having a surplus - it's just means more tempation to expand government. No libertarian wants to see that, so obviously a balanced budget is better from the writer's PoV.

I actually really like this idea. I would fear it in practice, however. This would undoubtedly be either an executive office, or a Congessional committee. Either way, it'd be chaired by a hand picked ideologue, who would preserve or axe legislation spending based upon their own ideology and criteria. Essentially, one jackass could cut the spending on a potentially good program, one that btw was voted on by the democratic body in Congress. This seems undemocratic to me.

Even if it is undemocratic, I'd at least like to see it tried in some shape or form. It could be done democratically, but I don't think it would happen for a while...

There was no money to tax....?

There are always wealthy people to tax.

I think cutting payroll taxes on middle-income, hard working Americans, as well as lower-income HARD WORKING Americans, would be a great idea. I think it's also about time we shifted the tax burden back where it belongs, much like FDR did. The corporations carried almost 50% of the tax burden in the 1950s, double that of which FDR put in place. There was no great depression, there was no economic melt down until Vietnam, and the 50s were generally considered are best decade for broad economic stability on all class levels.

I, personally, prefer the pre-1913 economy. Taxes were low for everyone, and the economy prospered. Government involvement was relatively little.

What exactly do you mean by economic stability? That the earning gap between classes was smaller? That's hardly a way to gauge the economy.

It's time we cut government spending enough that tax's could be relatively low for everyone.

On the Constitutional Amendment: I would like to forward this by saying that just because the article isn't complete drivel doesn't mean that it can't have some bad points.

I think that this amendment is not even worth debating over, since it will never happen. At least, it would not happen in our lifetime. However, I will throw out my opinion on the matter.

In my ideal libertarian budget, I do think that some unspecified money for futher allocations would exist, just in it's own catagory. This could be applied anywhere it would needed. Futhermore, emergency money would exist which could only be tapped into when certain situations arose e.x. war, etc. (NOT economic crisis, btw).

These two parts of the budget would be put at set amounts so as to eliminate corruption: for example, the emergency fund might have it's own 0.5% tax.

Since this budget is inherently flexible, a balanced-budget amendment that forced all off-budget items to be on the budget and did not permit taxes to be raised for the purpose of balancing the budget could work. At least, I think it could.

Yeah, kind of like how our top 1% wage earners have found cute ways to evade our tax policies, thus depriving the government, thus adding to the need to push the burden upon the middle-class. They're pretty good at cheating too, but I'll bet the Cato Institute would applaud their creativity. :/

Point being...?

OH! WE WERE SO CLOSE TO AGREEMENT! What "goodies" are being handed out? The tiny scraps in ss that have forced many of our elderly Americans to return to the p/t job market...? Maybe you mean the national health care system we don't have...? Please, SHOW ME THE GOODIES!

You just stated a reason why a libertarian would be pissed about these goodies. SS, a program that costs the middle american 6.2% of their income, merely gives out scraps.

And GOD FORBID politicians be eager to please their voters.

The term Death by Democracy immediately comes to mind.

And when their children reach that age, they'll want the same cheap blood-pressure medication, and ya know what? GOOD! I'm tired of this bullshit Randist argument that we are beholden only to ourselves. LET my tax dollars go to help the elderly. Believe me, it doesn't do much! (this is coming from someone raised in a family of elerly healthcare providers).

The problem is that it's being payed for with deficit spending. Can't you see? It's only going to get more and more expensive over time! The deficit will get bigger and bigger as each generation has to pay more and more interest!

All this, for something that you admitted doesn't even do much good.

And what would my boy Tommy's solution be?? Didn't he envision a small, decentralized, DIY, agrarian-based society...? Now who's the loopy Anarchist, OAO...?

His solution would be to cut government programs. I don't think he would even recognize America today.

The interst payments concern is a valid point (the only one). The government shouldn't be shifting the interest costs of a meager s.s. system onto hard working Americans. They should however recover the tax burden to where it belongs, to those who have the money.

Why should SS even exist? Is it really the responsibility of the people - even the rich people - to pay for the mistakes of others? I say no, and I say that doing so will only hurt the public in the long run. There are reasons charities exist; they are more efficient than government (something you cannot dispute), and they do not force everyone into helping others. Individualism and equal freedom are what libertarians stand for; apparently you do not. There is nothing else to be discussed here.

Yeah, and as we discussed last time, most of those positions are patronage spots and appointments, not to mention the untold amount of non-partisan races in local communities. Take away those numbers, and then lets see their standing....

Look up the facts if you want to. Even on independant polls, libertarians are consistently outnumbering other third party members - including the greens. On some recent polls, they are even scoring in the double-digits.

It's just that the LP has never had a strong presidential campaign.