Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[kaz]

The laughable commentary of the "libertarians" continue.

When all the goobering and garbaging are distilled, the result simply is that they don't want to be subject to that states and governments in the modern age cannot conform to the small, limited government model, because civil and personal liberties will not be protected.

Sure jake, big government is "moderate." LOL. You're the leftist authoritarian extremist, you don't even know what moderate is.

 

[Dad2three]

getting rid of the minimum wage, while getting rid of welfare, and opening the borders to anyone who wants to work here is not a moderate position. We'll have middle class people living in the streets with jobs if that happens.

Getting rid of the minimum wage is certainly moderate. The ideas that someone can't make a choice of what they are willing to work for and government preventing them from working if they are not worth $7.25 an hour is beyond extreme and into loonie kazoonie land.

Eliminating all welfare programs including social security is also moderate. Look at the massive waste when it's done at the national level. And the idea that rural Arkansas = New York City is idiotic. Government charity should be the last resort, not the first, and it should be as local as possible.

I'm with you on the open borders. The libertarians who support that are idiots who are focused on their ideology and not reality.

LOL




Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.



Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities




Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.


Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg



Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala | New Republic

The way things worked before the US (LIBERALS) essentially invented the middle class by implementing the progressive tax structure and the New Deal in the wake of the Great Depression, was a series of booms & busts. These sucked for the ordinary people, but were a fantastic way for the obscenely wealthy to garner more wealth.

Here's how it worked:

Choose a market segment and start investing heavily.

Create a bunch of noise around how that segment is growing.

Create investment tools that even the little guy can buy.

Whip the public into a buying frenzy. No one wants to be left behind in a market that has no place to go but "up."

When the bubble inflates to a point of your choosing, it's time to start the next bubble, strip your profits out via a massive sell off.

This happens to crash the market, reaming the little investors - but you don't care, because you just took all the money they'd invested.

Sock a bunch of your ill-gotten gains into an inheritance trust to be passed on to your children, then start investing the rest in another market segment. Pump that bubble, pop it, move on to the next.

To these avaricious slime-balls, "the economy" is a toy, not something on which they rely for survival. We're the only ones who get hurt when they crush it.

 

[Dad2three]

NO, we are not.

Someone else made that statement.

We are true FREEDOM RADICALS - no compromises. The ONLY thing we promise is the FREEDOM TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. NO GUARANTEES>

.

That was me. We are political moderates. We believe government should be the last resort, not the first. It should not remove people's rights unless there is no other way. Government should not benefit one citizen at the expense of another. Personal freedom should come with personal responsibility.

What is not moderate about our views?

We believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

GOOD THING THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, and gave US the STRONG federal Gov't Constitutions

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.

LOL, wanting less government is being a "parasite."

Dad2three, stupidity you can't make up...

Never played monopoly huh?

 

[Dad2three]

getting rid of the minimum wage, while getting rid of welfare, and opening the borders to anyone who wants to work here is not a moderate position. We'll have middle class people living in the streets with jobs if that happens.

Getting rid of the minimum wage is certainly moderate. The ideas that someone can't make a choice of what they are willing to work for and government preventing them from working if they are not worth $7.25 an hour is beyond extreme and into loonie kazoonie land.

Eliminating all welfare programs including social security is also moderate. Look at the massive waste when it's done at the national level. And the idea that rural Arkansas = New York City is idiotic. Government charity should be the last resort, not the first, and it should be as local as possible.

I'm with you on the open borders. The libertarians who support that are idiots who are focused on their ideology and not reality.

Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide

 

[kaz]

To these avaricious slime-balls, "the economy" is a toy, not something on which they rely for survival. We're the only ones who get hurt when they crush it.

Yes, comrade, true capitalism is Marxism. Free markets are controlled markets. Only by controlling them can they be free. I had a hard time pulling anything coherent out of your technicolor yawn of a post other than your normal Marxism is good, capitalism is bad rhetoric.

 

[Dad2three]

To these avaricious slime-balls, "the economy" is a toy, not something on which they rely for survival. We're the only ones who get hurt when they crush it.

Yes, comrade, true capitalism is Marxism. Free markets are controlled markets. Only by controlling them can they be free. I had a hard time pulling anything coherent out of your technicolor yawn of a post other than your normal Marxism is good, capitalism is bad rhetoric.

Good thing the Founders wanted the Gov't's hand in the economy then....



Unfettered Capitalism is not a good thing

 

[kaz]

NO, we are not.

Someone else made that statement.

We are true FREEDOM RADICALS - no compromises. The ONLY thing we promise is the FREEDOM TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. NO GUARANTEES>

.

That was me. We are political moderates. We believe government should be the last resort, not the first. It should not remove people's rights unless there is no other way. Government should not benefit one citizen at the expense of another. Personal freedom should come with personal responsibility.

What is not moderate about our views?

We believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

GOOD THING THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, and gave US the STRONG federal Gov't Constitutions

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

LOL, you need to take a history class. Or read a book.

Thomas Jefferson: Government is best which governs least.

BTW, Jefferson didn't mean what you think he meant. He was not advocating that government solve our problems FOR us. LOL. You can twist anything to Marxist rhetoric, can't you Vladimir?

 

[kaz]

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.

LOL, wanting less government is being a "parasite."

Dad2three, stupidity you can't make up...

Never played monopoly huh?

Um...OK?

 

[kaz]

getting rid of the minimum wage, while getting rid of welfare, and opening the borders to anyone who wants to work here is not a moderate position. We'll have middle class people living in the streets with jobs if that happens.

Getting rid of the minimum wage is certainly moderate. The ideas that someone can't make a choice of what they are willing to work for and government preventing them from working if they are not worth $7.25 an hour is beyond extreme and into loonie kazoonie land.

Eliminating all welfare programs including social security is also moderate. Look at the massive waste when it's done at the national level. And the idea that rural Arkansas = New York City is idiotic. Government charity should be the last resort, not the first, and it should be as local as possible.

I'm with you on the open borders. The libertarians who support that are idiots who are focused on their ideology and not reality.

Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide

That's just stupid. How is preventing people not worth $7.25 from working going to reduce their dependence on government?

 

[kaz]

To these avaricious slime-balls, "the economy" is a toy, not something on which they rely for survival. We're the only ones who get hurt when they crush it.

Yes, comrade, true capitalism is Marxism. Free markets are controlled markets. Only by controlling them can they be free. I had a hard time pulling anything coherent out of your technicolor yawn of a post other than your normal Marxism is good, capitalism is bad rhetoric.

Good thing the Founders wanted the Gov't's hand in the economy then....



Unfettered Capitalism is not a good thing

The next post will not be you backing that up because you are full of crap and you made it up. Seriously, before you embarrass yourself further, you need to learn something about history.

Here's a test for you. What do the 9th and 10th amendments say and what do they mean?

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.

The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .

So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.

.

 

[Contumacious]

NO, we are not.

Someone else made that statement.

We are true FREEDOM RADICALS - no compromises. The ONLY thing we promise is the FREEDOM TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. NO GUARANTEES>

.

That was me. We are political moderates. We believe government should be the last resort, not the first. It should not remove people's rights unless there is no other way. Government should not benefit one citizen at the expense of another. Personal freedom should come with personal responsibility.

What is not moderate about our views?

We believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

GOOD THING THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, and gave US the STRONG federal Gov't Constitutions

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

Karl Marx was not a founder.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

getting rid of the minimum wage, while getting rid of welfare, and opening the borders to anyone who wants to work here is not a moderate position. We'll have middle class people living in the streets with jobs if that happens.

Getting rid of the minimum wage is certainly moderate. The ideas that someone can't make a choice of what they are willing to work for and government preventing them from working if they are not worth $7.25 an hour is beyond extreme and into loonie kazoonie land.

Eliminating all welfare programs including social security is also moderate. Look at the massive waste when it's done at the national level. And the idea that rural Arkansas = New York City is idiotic. Government charity should be the last resort, not the first, and it should be as local as possible.

I'm with you on the open borders. The libertarians who support that are idiots who are focused on their ideology and not reality.

Ending programs that have been highly successful, have saved the lives of millions of Americans and have been strongly supported for 80 years is NOT moderate in any way shape of form. THAT is an extreme position that is not based on logic, it is not based on reason, it is not based on fair evaluation and it certainly is not based on human decency; it is based on a very immature, dogmatic and reckless ideology. And it is the epitome of social Darwinism, the ideology of Stalin, Hitler and Pol pot.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well kaz, the premise of your thread has been easily debunked. Not by any comments from liberals, but by the very comments of your 'libertarian' buddies. Moderate people speak in moderate terms. These ideas forwarded by you ilk are not moderate. They are extreme, dogmatic and based on an ideology that society should not be civilized, or based on the rule of law, it should be based on the law of the jungle...survival of the fittest, or richest.

There is nothing remotely 'moderate' about their extremism.

Dwight D. Eisenhower is the epitome of moderate.

Document #1147; November 8, 1954
To Edgar Newton Eisenhower

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

 

[thanatos144]

Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.

The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .

So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.

.

Manifest destiny. He was one of the worst presidents ever

Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

The laughable commentary of the "libertarians" continue.

When all the goobering and garbaging are distilled, the result simply is that they don't want to be subject to that states and governments in the modern age cannot conform to the small, limited government model, because civil and personal liberties will not be protected.

Sure jake, big government is "moderate." LOL. You're the leftist authoritarian extremist, you don't even know what moderate is.

Only in your delusional mind, kaz.

You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, much less a decent party framework, much less a workable governmental philosophy.

 

[eagle1462010]

The laughable commentary of the "libertarians" continue.

When all the goobering and garbaging are distilled, the result simply is that they don't want to be subject to that states and governments in the modern age cannot conform to the small, limited government model, because civil and personal liberties will not be protected.

Sure jake, big government is "moderate." LOL. You're the leftist authoritarian extremist, you don't even know what moderate is.

Only in your delusional mind, kaz.

You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, much less a decent party framework, much less a workable governmental philosophy.

When people like you stop using the Constitution for a Floor Mat, perhaps we'll understand each other Fakey...................

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.

The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .

So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.

.

Manifest destiny. He was one of the worst presidents ever

Tapatalk

Really?

Well. hope you enjoyed Bush, hope you are enjoying Obama, hope you will enjoy Liz.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sure jake, big government is "moderate." LOL. You're the leftist authoritarian extremist, you don't even know what moderate is.

Only in your delusional mind, kaz.

You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, much less a decent party framework, much less a workable governmental philosophy.

When people like you stop using the Constitution for a Floor Mat, perhaps we'll understand each other Fakey...................

No one is using the Constitution for a Floor Mat...

Did your read what President Eisenhower said?

"But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Don't like Ike? How about John Adams?

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776

Or how about James Madison?

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President; Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788

Or Ben Franklin?

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, comrade, true capitalism is Marxism. Free markets are controlled markets. Only by controlling them can they be free. I had a hard time pulling anything coherent out of your technicolor yawn of a post other than your normal Marxism is good, capitalism is bad rhetoric.

Good thing the Founders wanted the Gov't's hand in the economy then....



Unfettered Capitalism is not a good thing

The next post will not be you backing that up because you are full of crap and you made it up. Seriously, before you embarrass yourself further, you need to learn something about history.

Here's a test for you. What do the 9th and 10th amendments say and what do they mean?

What's the 9th and 10th have to do with it?


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.



American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia