Rachel Dolezal Is Nearly Homeless, On Food Stamps And Still White

Smitty

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
2233boys said:
I have seen you post that before and I get your desire to be a libertarian and how you feel it fits into what the founders wanted. Do you think it is a viable form of government (strict Libertarian) Would it work?
Click to expand...
I think there is a blurry line for a lot of people between "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" when people hear the two terms. But Libertarian does not mean there that there is no legitimate government functions, just that it's relatively minimal on a federal level. The states could also pick up the slack, as they should, in a lot of these areas.

I'll say this much.... we could have a completely balanced budget, even a surplus, with existing tax rates, if we would cut back spending to the levels we had in 1990.

Now you may say that's "crazy" but I will counter that I just said 1990, not 1890. In 1990 pretty much all the standards of living we have become accustomed to, minus the internet and smartphones, were all in existence.

So would libertarianism work? Uh, yeah, there is a way it can be accomplished without depriving society of basic (constitutionally approved) functions and infrastructure. It's just that the propagandists on the left (or right) try to pretend that you are a caveman for insinuating that slashing spending could ever work. Hell, half of the cost of every dollar spent these days is a direct result of the inflation that has come about as a result of our deficit spending and printing that weakens the dollar's value, anyway. So rolling back the costs to 1990 would be a lot easier in that sense as well, if we killed off inflation.

As far as social issues, I think you would argue not only would it work, but that it's preferable to have a libertarian ideology.
 
2233boys

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
mschmidt64 said:
I think there is a blurry line for a lot of people between "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" when people hear the two terms. But Libertarian does not mean there that there is no legitimate government functions, just that it's relatively minimal on a federal level. The states could also pick up the slack, as they should, in a lot of these areas.

I'll say this much.... we could have a completely balanced budget, even a surplus, with existing tax rates, if we would cut back spending to the levels we had in 1990.

Now you may say that's "crazy" but I will counter that I just said 1990, not 1890. In 1990 pretty much all the standards of living we have become accustomed to, minus the internet and smartphones, were all in existence.

So would libertarianism work? Uh, yeah, there is a way it can be accomplished without depriving society of basic (constitutionally approved) functions and infrastructure. It's just that the propagandists on the left (or right) try to pretend that you are a caveman for insinuating that slashing spending could ever work. Hell, half of the cost of every dollar spent these days is a direct result of the inflation that has come about as a result of our deficit spending and printing that weakens the dollar's value, anyway. So rolling back the costs to 1990 would be a lot easier in that sense as well, if we killed off inflation.

As far as social issues, I think you would argue not only would it work, but that it's preferable to have a libertarian ideology.
Click to expand...
I get that, and maybe I was one of those who acquitted libertarianism to anarchists. Thanks for the info.

In my view if I pay taxes I want it to go to the betterment of our society. I am fine with paying taxes, if everyone is held to the same standards (a severe adjustment to the tax code and the elimination of loopholes is due.) I am ok with Social programs. I don't want it going to foreign countries, military industrial complex, or war.

Quick question our defense spending in 1990 was almost as high as it is today. What would we do with that money? Would that be reduction in taxes or used in different areas (from your perspective).
 
Smitty

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
2233boys said:
I get that, and maybe I was one of those who acquitted libertarianism to anarchists. Thanks for the info.

In my view if I pay taxes I want it to go to the betterment of our society. I am fine with paying taxes, if everyone is held to the same standards (a severe adjustment to the tax code and the elimination of loopholes is due.) I am ok with Social programs. I don't want it going to foreign countries, military industrial complex, or war.

Quick question our defense spending in 1990 was almost as high as it is today. What would we do with that money? Would that be reduction in taxes or used in different areas (from your perspective).
Click to expand...
We pay too much in taxes now, but ending deficit spending is also of the utmost importance. So I can't start cutting taxes until we have drastically cut spending.

Eventually, the citizens would be allowed to keep their money from lower tax rates overall. If social programs could be kept in check, which so far they've proven they can't be, and if they could be administered effectively without demanding such incredibly high rates of our income, they would be fine.

But when entitlement obligations suck up levels approaching 50% of the wealth and productivity of the country that is just waaaay out of line. Free trade, which the government does not contribute to, is what drives growth and wealth. Growth and wealth are the biggest drivers of prosperity. Making sure everyone is equal, in terms of wealth, is of little concern to me, because if our citizens are thriving, I don't care if some are thriving more than others. A rising tide raises all boats, etc.

And since wealth generation is not a zero sum game, I don't worry as much about certain individuals "hoarding" it. As long as growth continues unabated, everyone will thrive. However do not confuse this with corporate welfare either, which is often doled out to support certain corporations over others, and is generally antithetical to the free market and thus antithetical to growth and wealth creation.
 
skidadl

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
2233boys said:
I have been on boards with you since the early 2000's. I have never seen you post anything that is far left. Not even once.

I am curious about your feelings on your examples above and what is included in the etc.


For that matter, I would consider you the most ardent, uncompromising conservative here.

I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
That's just ridiculous.
 
skidadl

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Kbrown said:
Since we are parsing out our views, which can be a fun exercise, I will define myself thusly:

Paleocon (Minimize foreign intervention, both diplomatically and militarily. De-centralize government domestically.)

Western Chauvinist (Immigrants should be free to practice their culture, but there should be an expectation of assimilation to a particular degree. Western culture fostered by the Church has been good. Period.)

Localist (Look to communities, not federal law, for social standards and charity.)
Click to expand...
 
L.T. Fan

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,698
So now everyone is Centrist or Liberterian. Maybe you are trans Democrats. :art
 
skidadl

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
L.T. Fan said:
Whatever happened to the independent label?
Click to expand...
I think some people are hard to label. I honestly don't know what you'd call me. An Independent probably would say he looks at each candidate and and votes both sides. I don't like many of them at all, so where does that put me? I think you had a mix of conservative Democrats at one time but that seems rare now.
 
2233boys

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
skidadl said:
I think some people are hard to label. I honestly don't know what you'd call me. An Independent probably would say he looks at each candidate and and votes both sides. I don't like many of them at all, so where does that put me? I think you had a mix of conservative Democrats at one time but that seems rare now.
Click to expand...
I call them republicans. My state representative is one but the horror show Christian Evangelical horror show that ran against earned him my vote :hattip
 
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
skidadl said:
I think some people are hard to label. I honestly don't know what you'd call me. An Independent probably would say he looks at each candidate and and votes both sides. I don't like many of them at all, so where does that put me? I think you had a mix of conservative Democrats at one time but that seems rare now.
Click to expand...
Bill and Hillary were conservative democrats.
 
L.T. Fan

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,698
townsend said:
Bill and Hillary were conservative democrats.
Click to expand...
Were is the proper tense. Bill Clinton was a good President as far as fiscal matters goes. I am not sure what Hillary may have evolved to. She had little to say about fiscal matters in her last campaign. I am not sure she had a budget philosophy in her recent run.
 
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
L.T. Fan said:
Were is the proper tense. Bill Clinton was a good President as far as fiscal matters goes. I am not sure what Hillary may have evolved to. She had little to say about fiscal matters in her last campaign. I am not sure she had a budget philosophy in her run.
Click to expand...
There was a lot of hedge towards some liberal policies towards minimum wage and college debt to court the berniecrats. Third way democrats were all about compromise, unfortunately the 3rd way doesn't work with a career democrat politician as well as it did for a dark horse red state governor. Hillary had no chance of generating support from the blue collar voters that put Bill in the whitehouse.

Also didn't help that her VP pick was a jar of mayonnaise.
 
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
skidadl said:
Bill would be considered a right winger in 2017. Lol
Click to expand...
He wouldn't have a party. If you sit anywhere in between on the political spectrum, everybody hates you.

I'm pretty sure anyone in the Republican party who isn't for outlawing gay marriage and abortion will be literally crucified.

And anyone who isn't Bernie Sanders is considered a sell out to liberals.
 
Last edited:
L.T. Fan

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,698
Don't want to start another thread with this (at least not for now) but Trey Gowdy just set off a bombshell by having Vince Fosters body exhumed over evidence that a reporter who left a note that if anything happened to him to contact authorities. It had to do with the way Foster died and possibly wasn't sucicide. There were somethings that the report indicated might include Hillary Clinton in all of it. Initial reports are pretty murky but doubtless more will follow.

Update. Also understand this may be a hoax so just wait until it all sifts out.
 
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
L.T. Fan said:
Don't want to start another thread with this (at least not for now) but Trey Gowdy just set off a bombshell by having Vince Fosters body exhumed over evidence that a reporter who left a note that if anything happened to him to contact authorities. It had to do with the way Foster died and possibly wasn't sucicide. There were somethings that the report indicated might include Hillary Clinton in all of it. Initial reports are pretty murky but doubtless more will follow.

Update. Also understand this may be a hoax so just wait until it all sifts out.
Click to expand...
I will bet you my life savings this is a hoax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom