Pages: [1] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Perfect libertarian-republican strategy for 2004 and beyond! (Read 1937 times)
|
|
adam3
|
Imagine this scenario. 2003 democratic convention, the democrats beg hillary on bent knee to run, she won't run against bush who cleaned mccain's clock again in the primaries. They choose Gephart, the current democratic favorite to oppose bush, but bush isn't chosen. Instead in a move that shocks all, the republican convention chooses ron paul, a man of principle, for 2004. This would allow bush to run in 2008, bumping hillary till 2012, since she would be to scared to run against him. Imagine that the economy improves later in 2003 and 2004, guaranteeing the republicans a win. Ron Paul, with Walter williams as vice president wins, and extends the republican-libertarian hand to the black community. Bush then capitalizes off continued economic prosperity from the Ron Paul years fo 2005-2008, and win in 2008. Then in 2012 Ron Paul, the man of principle that americans remember for continuing prosperity runs in 2012, wins, and pushes back hillary till 2016. By then Hillary has lost all the power that comes with her name and Walter williams, Vice president under Ron Paul, George W Bush for his second term, (Chaney died), and Ron Paul in his second administration, is elected in 2016, with Jeb bush, who has been governor of florida for 16 years now, as running mate. He wins and in 2020 Jeb runs to keep the libertarian-republican alliance going. His victory is followed by Walter's in 2024, ( I know he would be old, but so was Regan), in 2028 Jeb wins for his second term and then in 2032, Jason Sorens who has just polished off his second term as govenor of the free state of New Hampshire,(my personal choice), under the new 2 term limits for office. He serves for 8 consecutive years until 2040. During this time, the Republican-Libertarian alliance continues to cut taxes, which eventually forces the Republicans to cut the budget. Meanwhile America learns that Libertarians are not utopian pipe dreamers, while the popularity of libertarians forces Republicans to cut the budget while they return to their conservatice roots. This may sound far fetched, but with some effort, stratagizing, and a bit of luck a republican-libertarian alliance could slowly but surley roll back government and return this country to the ideals with wich it was created.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"To change and to change for the better are two different things."
-German proverb
|
|
|
|
craft_6
|
During this time, the Republican-Libertarian alliance continues to cut taxes, which eventually forces the Republicans to cut the budget. Meanwhile America learns that Libertarians are not utopian pipe dreamers, while the popularity of libertarians forces Republicans to cut the budget while they return to their conservatice roots. This may sound far fetched....
One small problem with your Republican/Libertarian alliance scenario: The Republican Party, as currently dominated by the Bush neocons, is anti-libertarian. They have shown absolutely no interest in cutting spending, or reducing the power of the federal government, or respecting the Bill of Rights. The insignificant Bush tax cuts are a scam to fool fiscal conservatives into continuing to support him, leaving the growing budget deficit and national debt for a future President to have to deal with. If forced to choose right now between Republicans and Democrats, I might have to pick the Democrats. They spend about as much, but at least they are not actively undermining the due process protections in the Bill of Rights that at least historically have had some part in preventing government tyranny here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BobW
|
Hi Adam3,
I hope you're right that an expanding economy could yield tax cuts and then a smaller budget.
The Republican Party has changed so much I don't know if the current or future membership can return to conservative roots.
Of course the social security program is closing down and health care will be rationed but still; an expanding economy must still pay off staggering debt.
Wait 'till the tax exempt bonds come due. I'm talking about housing authorities, thruway authorities, bridge and tunnel authorities, health and hospital corp authorities, water districts, school districts. There's probably more. This debt must be added to the federal debt.
I'm a little negative here because I do not trust my political party 100%.
BobW
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RhythmStar
|
>>tax cuts a scam to get fiscal conservative vote If this was the plan, the planner was drunker than three skunks in a moonshine vat! FISCAL Conservatives should value a balanced budget over tax cuts any day of the week. Reduced spending ought to come first of all, but only a fool thinks we can increase spending and decrease revenue in a time of rising deficits and not suffer financial disaster later on! What happens then the interest on the national debt becomes the largest lineitem in the Federal Budget? How to you cut taxes then? The best path to SUSTAINABLE tax relief under the current system of obligations is to eliminate the national debt. Even if you eliminate Defense and Entitlements, neither of which is going to happen in my lifetime, the national debt is still there. Of the three biggest expenses, it is the ONLY one that can be eliminated without goring anyone's Sacred Cow. And without further borrowing, it will stay gone. Based on Clinton's record of deficit reduction and Bush's record of deficit spending, I'm going to vote DEMOCRAT for President in 2004, precisely because I'm a Fiscal Conservative. You can't be FOR deficit spending and FOR Fiscal Conservatism at the same time. At least not in my book. And I'll vote LP for everywhere else.  RS |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
|
|
|
|
BobW
|
Hi Rhythm Star,
A balanced budget is an impossibility unless living standards are reduced. (I do expect this.) There are too many demands for services to realistically consider a balanced budget. In blunt terms, it will not happen.
Now I am both a fiscal conservative and a fool. I think the GOP plan is to buy votes (Who ISN'T getting prescription medicine for "free"?) and in 2 Januarys from now, all Hades wil break lose.
Financial disaster will be avoided by reducing the standard of living. Before I'm asked, it will not be across the board.
Tax cuts are both economic tools and political tools. Remember the game is to win elections. Plus, the tax cuts weren't the big chunk things.
Here's where I disagree on a specific; re the debt as the "ONLY one that can be eliminated without fgoring anyone's sacred cow". There are preexisting programs requiring debt obligations unless they are scaled back. This whole thing is a closed loop.
Deficit reduction wasn't going on during the Clinton years - although I don't want readers to believe it was going on before his administration. These programs are bipartisan. You've mentioned some of the big ticket items. Look at the few others and a picture emerges.
I am prepared to say if and when the capital gains tax goes away, the US could very well have labor shortages.
BobW
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RhythmStar
|
Then my political message is that deficit spending costs votes, at least mine. And yes, I also realize that a completely balanced budget is too much too ask -- you can't just stop when you hit bottom. However, you could get your momentum going in the other direction and run surpluses.  FWIW, I'd like to see government run a modest profit on paper and pay dividends when the amount goes over an agreed-to amount -- perhaps tied to GDP. There are two reasons to borrow -- to pay expenses, or to expand. Historically, the government has done much borrowing to expand. I'd like to eliminate that for a very long time -- like FOREVER. BTW, I also want to note that my other beef with the Republican party has been my longstanding impression that they were more interested in acquiring POWER than in serving United States CITIZENS. Your comments about deficit spending being all about votes, essentially bribing voters with their children's money, pretty much sums it up for me. I think if more people realized that this was what was happening, neither major party would have a pot to P in, and rightly so! RS |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 15, 2003, 09:07:58 am by RhythmStar »
|
Logged
|
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
|
|
|
|
BobW
|
Hi Rhythm Star,
Exactly. That's why my last rose of summer plan is to assist FSP in building a strong foundation where this stuff can be taught to people and yield results at the ballot box.
Nothing will be accomplished in Virginia or the other "Old Guard" states.
As you surely know, what we write about here is unknown to most -and I understand what "most" means- Americans.
We've got to do like the Asians who created the Tiger economies. We must get a free or cheap barn or tent and have classes all week long forever.
Most do not know what we are talking about. The typical American is not bad; they just do not know what is going on.
To ripple out from this; the situation is seen in the GOP and also the Demos. A small governing class runs both parties.
Thats why I believe FSP has a chance of working. The other ideas have been tried in vain.
It is a lot of work but to neglect the work yields a Great Britain.
BobW
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mickey
|
I am prepared to say if and when the capital gains tax goes away, the US could very well have labor shortages.
Labor shortages?! That's the first time I've heard someone worry about that. I mean, isn't that what immigrants are for? Oh yeah, I forgot. In today's world, any one who wasn't born in the USA is most likely a terrorist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ubi libertas ibi patria
Where there is Liberty, there is my homeland.
|
|
|
|
BobW
|
Hi Mickey,
Re # 7;
No, the current immigrants (predominently Mexican and Chinese) are not encouraged to enter the US because of labor shortages.
The purpose is to put downward pressure on the wage scales and to augment a too small national population lacking the needed size to support retirement programs such as the new definied contribution plan.
If and when the US capital gains tax goes away, with some required tangents (currently in the mill right now), capital socked away in the pseudo-investments, will support an industry/commerce rehab. There will ge labor shortages.
BobW
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mickey
|
I still don't get it. If ever the economy is in need of more people, surely there will be people glad to move in and begin working. If not, the problem would not be the lack of a capital gains tax, but the lack of an open immegration policy. The free market trumps all, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ubi libertas ibi patria
Where there is Liberty, there is my homeland.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
