[Mulderator]

As most of you know, I support the Republican party because my personal viewpoint is that the single most important issue today is the reduction of government and the advancement of the free enterprise system. However, my personal view line up much more closely with the Libertarian Party:

http://www.lp.org/

I suspect many here such as Gbrumb, Lan, and other Conservatives view align much closer with Libertarians. Unfortunately, the party has no power--that is voting for a Libertarian for me means voting for a Democrat, which in my view is the worst possible choice--that choice means certain economic disaster the likes of which you need only come to California to see how the state's economy has been destroyed by Democrats beholden to organized labor--the latter (especially government unions) having become the single greatest obstable to continued economic prosperity and freedom for the average American.

I have voted for Libertarians in local elections where they had a real shot at winning but never in a national or state election because they had zero chance of winning. And as noted, voting for a Libertarian for me means voting for a Democrat (because a Republican loses the vote).

What do you think? Any chance of the Libertarian Party ever gaining a strong foothold in national and state politics?

[Mulderator]

This from the Libertarian Party web site:

What Happened to Your Family Budget?

Do you remember when the standard of living in America was the best in the world?
Today it is doubtful if our children will be better off than we are. Today, buying a decent home is no more than a dream for many hard-working American families.

Something has caused your family's budget to be cut. Something is going to destroy your family's future unless you act to stop it.

That something is the Federal government and its policy of taxation and inflation. Let's take a look at a median income family of four in the 1950s. At that time, the Federal income tax amounted to only 2 percent of the family budget. Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world.

By contrast, in the 1990s, the Federal income tax takes 25 percent of income for the same family of four. Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take about 50 percent of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes.

It now requires two paychecks to keep many families from going bankrupt. Typically, a working mother brings home 32 percent of a family's income.

So, whether she chooses to work -- or must work to make ends meet -- taxes have stolen her contribution to the family budget. In other words, one spouse now works all year just to pay taxes.

Now let me ask you something? Do you REALLY think there is any chance that a Democratic controlled majority will reduce taxes and reduce government? For all the bad things the Bush Administration did in terms of increasing the size of government, it REDUCED TAXES. What we need it BOTH a reduction in government and a reduction in taxes. A Republican Administration at least has a chance at accomplishing that goal--if nothing else it is far more likely not to grow the government. A Democratic Administration as is evident now with Obama is a guaranteed to increase taxes and the deficit--in his short term in office he has already QUADRUPLED THE DEFICIT:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

■President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
■President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
■President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
■President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
■President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
■President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

■President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

So for those of you who vote for Democrats--what in the world is it that you think they are doing for you? If you are not in a union or not a government worker or you are not a lawyer (those groups are a small percentage of the population_), what are Democrats doing FOR YOU???

[wacor]

I can only hope the libertarian party gains a foothold. You are dreaming if you think the republicans are gonna control government growth. They are better than the democrats but that aint saying much. Some of the biggest programs were done under Republican Presidents.

EPA - Nixon
OSHA - Nixon
No Child Left Behind - Bush
Medicare or Medicaid Prescriptions under Bush


There are more but these come to mind first.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

I suspect many here such as Gbrumb, Lan, and other Conservatives view align much closer with Libertarians.

i suspect you're right

What do you think? Any chance of the Libertarian Party ever gaining a strong foothold in national and state politics?

so long as it's more important to vote against one ideology than it is to vote for another one, nothing will change.....this is the bane of all third parties in america

we love our polarization more than we care to admit: it has come to define us.

and giving the libertarian party some clout involves risk....many conservatives who see libertarian domestic policy as a step in the right direction are not willing to forfeit the strong presence of american foreign policy, imo, particularly since 911.

[valis]

Originally Posted by iltos

i suspect you're right



so long as it's more important to vote against one ideology than it is to vote for another one, nothing will change.....this is the bane of all third parties in america

we love our polarization more than we care to admit: it has come to define us.

and giving the libertarian party some clout involves risk....many conservatives who see libertarian domestic policy as a step in the right direction are not willing to forfeit the strong presence of american foreign policy, imo, particularly since 911.

bingo...........although I think you are incorrect about the conservatives issue. I think they just like big government and the safety net it provides. I don't think they have a clue about foreign policy.

but that's just me, and we all know how I feel about politics.

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

I have voted for Libertarians in local elections where they had a real shot at winning but never in a national or state election because they had zero chance of winning. And as noted, voting for a Libertarian for me means voting for a Democrat (because a Republican loses the vote).

And there is the major flaw of our one vote system. It insures a two party system. Our voting system has the best chance of the least favorite candidate being elected out of any voting system possible, but the only people who can change it (dems, reps) benefit from this two party system. If they don't get elected this time, they know they will next.

I think most people fall under libertarian views, but it's constantly being reported as throwing away your vote, or as an anarchist group. It's really sad.

[LANMaster]

Hi y'all. I would LOVE for the Libertarian party to gain a strong foothold. Unfortunately, I feel that party would split the Conservative vote as it has so often in the past.
(Ross Perot springs to mind)

I believe that in order for the Libertarians to gain a true foothold, they will need FIRST to gain strength on the local levels and in Congress.

A Libertarian will never draw enough voters from either or both parties to bcome a viable Presidential Candidate for President until they have a significant voice in Congress.
And chances are that a Liberrtarian candidate will most likely draw votes from the right rather than the left, thereby giving the left more voting power by proxy.
Did I mention Ross Perot.

Heck .... the lunatic Green party draws more votes than the Libertarians do, right?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

bingo...........although I think you are incorrect about the conservatives issue. I think they just like big government and the safety net it provides. I don't think they have a clue about foreign policy.

It sure has seemed that way. But I think most Conservatives would agree with your basic foreign policy ideals. The last Administration wasn't Conservative by definition.

One key component, I feel, to Conservatism when it comes to foreign policy is that you N E V E R - E V E R engage in a war unless you have the will to win it quickly, and the full support of the American people. And there had better be a darn good reason to wage it in the first place.
Afghanistan was a just war, but we did not allot the resources required for overwhelming victory. HUGE mistake.
We either need to commit the forces NOW to get the job done or we need to get out of there NOW alltogether.
Iraq was an unjust war. The intelligence was bogus, trumped up to make Hussein look like a lion, when in fact he was a baby mouse who could have been dealt with short of a US invasion. Time was the answer in that case. The rush to war there was a great big mistake ... this IN ADDITION to the fact that we did not expend the resources to make it a quick and decisive victory, and opened up 2 war fronts at the same time. Major duh.
I admit that I was wrong to support the Iraq war. I bought what the Bush Administration was selling. But I truly believe that they believed in what they were selling.

but that's just me, and we all know how I feel about politics.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

It sure has seemed that way. But I think most Conservatives would agree with your basic foreign policy ideals. The last Administration wasn't Conservative by definition.

One key component, I feel, to Conservatism when it comes to foreign policy is that you N E V E R - E V E R engage in a war unless you have the will to win it quickly, and the full support of the American people. And there had better be a darn good reason to wage it in the first place.
Afghanistan was a just war, but we did not allot the resources required for overwhelming victory. HUGE mistake.
We either need to commit the forces NOW to get the job done or we need to get out of there NOW alltogether.
Iraq was an unjust war. The intelligence was bogus, trumped up to make Hussein look like a lion, when in fact he was a baby mouse who could have been dealt with short of a US invasion. Time was the answer in that case. The rush to war there was a great big mistake ... this IN ADDITION to the fact that we did not expend the resources to make it a quick and decisive victory, and opened up 2 war fronts at the same time. Major duh.
I admit that I was wrong to support the Iraq war. I bought what the Bush Administration was selling. But I truly believe that they believed in what they were selling.

[qoute]but that's just me, and we all know how I feel about politics.

It means a lot to me to see you post those thoughts.........

[thingamajig]

I generally find that the views of the Libertarian are in opposition to the factors that make an American political party successful. To start with, how do you shrink government by joining it? Can a party succeed without catering to the lobbyist and special interests? If not, will the current parties ever bring the reform required?

[Paquadez]

What will change the face of American politics, and the size and cost of Government, is the reality that Asian nation states are not prepared to fund your deficits and currency for very much longer!

It is only their willingness to constantly buy US government paper and maintain huge external US $ Balances in reserve accounts and Sovereign Risk Funds, which has allowed the US Government year-on-year to merrily continue on its profligate way, wasting and abusing trillions of dollars on pointless and unnecessary "Initiatives".

However, once the venal chicanery of US banks and financial wheeler dealers and speculators almost caused the ultimate global domino effect, these Asian investors now actively seek much greater currency stability, outside the archaic post World War Two IMF/World Bank, US dominated system.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

It means a lot to me to see you post those thoughts.........

Thanks, Jack.
Obama really needs to play out this Iran thing carefully.

If Israel bombs the 2 nuke sites in Iran, they're likely to retaliate against Israel.

If that happens, the US will have to respond some way. That is a frightening likelihood.

[foremanjr]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Thanks, Jack.
Obama really needs to play out this Iran thing carefully.

If Israel bombs the 2 nuke sites in Iran, they're likely to retaliate against Israel.

If that happens, the US will have to respond some way. That is a frightening likelihood.

It could get very interesting very quick. Isreal is worried about its very survival. A nuclear Iran with long range missile capabilities could mean certain destruction for Isreal. I hope that this can all be defused peacefully though.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Thanks, Jack.
Obama really needs to play out this Iran thing carefully.

If Israel bombs the 2 nuke sites in Iran, they're likely to retaliate against Israel.

If that happens, the US will have to respond some way. That is a frightening likelihood.

The US doesn't have to do anything. Why should we bail out Israel again?

The Iranians don't have the capability to mount any type of offensive other than lobbing missiles through the airspace of other Arab states - like Saddam. Ballistic missile defenses and/or air bombings of Iranian launch sides are likely all that Israel will get from the US. We don't have the resources or funds to do much more.

Also, I think it important that we don't over-react. Iran is a long way - decades - from putting a Nuke on a missile.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

What will change the face of American politics, and the size and cost of Government, is the reality that Asian nation states are not prepared to fund your deficits and currency for very much longer!

You appear completely convinced that the US system will experience catastrophic failure. Don't bet on it. The UK is system is no better.