Rob's House Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 As a small L libertarian I'm very happy with our government at the moment. The Republicans controlling the Congress will hold the purse strings tight and avoid passing any sweeping social programs so long as a Democrat is in the White House. But what happens if a Republican president with campaign promises and a legacy to worry about starts pushing for poll inspired legislation? If the Bush years taught me anything it was to be careful what I wished for. With Republicans in both houses of congress & the WH I expected a Reaganesque movement toward laissez faire economics. Instead we got some bastardized blend of watered down Great Society legislation with some marginal tax rate cuts sprinkled in to give it a hint of conservative flavoring. Had a Democrat been in office we may not have gotten those tax cuts, but we probably don't get NCLB or the Medicare expansion either, and however Iraq played out, it almost certainly wouldn't have resulted in the shameful politicization of US foreign policy that we saw. In short, are we better off with gridlock or with self-interested politicians "getting things done?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 NCLB was bipartisan leftslation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 My preference is a conservative executive and a liberal legislature. Sadly, I get Republicans and Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 As a small L libertarian I'm very happy with our government at the moment. The Republicans controlling the Congress will hold the purse strings tight and avoid passing any sweeping social programs so long as a Democrat is in the White House. But what happens if a Republican president with campaign promises and a legacy to worry about starts pushing for poll inspired legislation? If the Bush years taught me anything it was to be careful what I wished for. With Republicans in both houses of congress & the WH I expected a Reaganesque movement toward laissez faire economics. Instead we got some bastardized blend of watered down Great Society legislation with some marginal tax rate cuts sprinkled in to give it a hint of conservative flavoring. Had a Democrat been in office we may not have gotten those tax cuts, but we probably don't get NCLB or the Medicare expansion either, and however Iraq played out, it almost certainly wouldn't have resulted in the shameful politicization of US foreign policy that we saw. In short, are we better off with gridlock or with self-interested politicians "getting things done?" Depends. Given recent precedent, do I prefer a Unitary Executive, both empowered and compelled to enact policy via fiat; or do I prefer to see the Executive enforcing the laws passed by the Legislative, as the Constitution dictates? My preference is a conservative executive and a liberal legislature. Sadly, I get Republicans and Democrats. I'd go so far as to say a liberal House, a libertarian Senate, and a conservative Executive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Well, first off take anyone who wants to represent someone and ask if they are capable of representing populations interests. If they say yes, disqualify them. If they say no, ask if theyare lying. Then ask if they want to change anything and if they do, disqualify them. Then, of all things, ask if they will work a full time job while serving. If yes, then put them on a ballot. These phony labels attached to politicians are a waste. Its simply back and forth arguments where its either one or the other wrong. Sometimes they are both wrong and no one is the wiser.. Republican, Democrat, it doesnt matter what their title is as long as they truly represent who they were chosen by and placed by. The President,all kf them, for years has just been an election of which is the lesser of two evils. Save for Obama 08, which was just a dog and pony show of utter hilarity - "herp, derp, Uhmerika aint no racist no more, we dun fot ourselves a black in the office.". Him beating Romney was like Bush beating Kerry they were just better then the other guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I'm still wishing for a libertarian revolution. The kind that makes Progressives and Neo-Cons alike tremble with fear because they cannot possibly comprehend our unfathomable strategery for the rest of the world If we ever took over, we plan on leaving you alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) If we ever took over, we plan on leaving you alone as much as I would love to see that happen, it never will so long as people will vote for candidates that promise to give them things. I'd go so far as to say a liberal House, a libertarian Senate, and a conservative Executive. I could go for that as well. Edited November 12, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kabnt2005 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Left=Right, so it really won't matter what the combination is until there are sweeping changes made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Left=Right, so it really won't matter what the combination is until there are sweeping changes made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 no, we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 no, we don't. Did you notice that the others gave their opinion as to why. What's yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Did you notice that the others gave their opinion as to why. What's yours? Did you notice that the others gave their opinion as to why. What's yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 No. we want Hillary to be the next president. Let's take one for the team for the next eight years and put a nail in the progressive coffin once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Did you notice that the others gave their opinion as to why. What's yours? ya see, i happen to think there's a big difference between right and left. some of the higher priority initiatives that i feel would be jeopardized by a right wing prez include healthcare, taxes (from which we could expect the top .1% to pay even less), safety net programs for the poor (can't have those "takers" stealing our tax money) and education (further weakening the public education system - see n.c.). but i'm not at all certain why most of you care seeing as you believe there's no difference between the factions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Did you notice that the others gave their opinion as to why. What's yours? Just in case you didn't notice (*^*&%^$^#I've not chimed in on the question asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 ya see, i happen to think there's a big difference between right and left. some of the higher priority initiatives that i feel would be jeopardized by a right wing prez include healthcare, taxes (from which we could expect the top .1% to pay even less), safety net programs for the poor (can't have those "takers" stealing our tax money) and education (further weakening the public education system - see n.c.). but i'm not at all certain why most of you care seeing as you believe there's no difference between the factions. No, it's just that most here are smart enough to understand that the top 1 or .1% or whatever already shoulder a grossly disproportionate share of the country's tax burden, that we already have more "safety net" programs than can be effectively managed, with more people on them that need to be, and that we already spend more $ on public education than anywhere else in the world meaning that 'funding' is not the problem with our schools. But you keep you head right there in a sand and keep repeating the same nonsense rather than even attempting to come up with intelligent solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I'd love to see actual representatives of the people, not lobbyists/corporations. That'd be a neat start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I'd love to see actual representatives of the people, not lobbyists/corporations. That'd be a neat start. fully agree. that's another good reason to not want a right wing prez - to make sure the next appointed justice supports repealling citizens united. guess how the right/ left rulings of the justices went on that one the first time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I'd love to see actual representatives of the people, not lobbyists/corporations. That'd be a neat start. Only chance of that happening is to enact single-term limits for everyone. Prez: 1 term, six years Senate: 1 term, six years House: 1 term, four years. No re-elections. No career politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 No, it's just that most here are smart enough to understand that the top 1 or .1% or whatever already shoulder a grossly disproportionate share of the country's tax burden, Not as a percentage of their wealth. A middle class person pays a higher percentage of what they make and own to taxes than the top 1 percent do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts