Up to 2 Million March on D.C. to Protest Big Spending

[hasoos]

Way to announce your a Glen Beck fan. Glen Beck is a total tard by the way.

It just so happens that the crowd size that was given by the Washington DC Police department said around 75k, not 2 million. 2 Million was the figure given by Glenn Beck which was amazingly enough, "Estimated by the University of I can't remember". Those were his exact words.

Also please note, that Fox, used pictures from a past event to show crowd size to make it look bigger. I saw several post which showed how they took pictures from past events which were larger and used them as fodder for this event, but they got caught.

How long are the Republicans going to keep this lying game up? All they are trying to do is take advantage of stupid people, which is no better than a snake oil salesman IMO.

 

[MrJayremmie]

LOL, Glenn Beck. He went from getting 1.06mil in ad dollars to like just over 400k recently as companies are pulling their ad dollars off his show. Finally people are realizing he has lost it. I used to kinda like him when he was on CNNHL.

Also please note, that Fox, used pictures from a past event to show crowd size to make it look bigger.

This is what I heard, too. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt right now, but if its true then that is simply sad. Very, very sad.

 

[barfo]

For the record, much of the "stimulus" funding will become permanent. For example, the Office of Head Start is making the argument that they have been underfunded for over a decade and the $2B they received this year just brings their budget where it should be. They're not putting these monies into new programs, but trying to beef up old ones. That way, this year's stimulus becomes next year's budget line item.

This same phenomenon is occuring all over the government with "stimulus" money.

"making the argument" that they should get continued higher funding is not the same as actually getting continued funding. As far as I know, none of the stimulus money is actually in the budget as a continuing item.

barfo

 

[barfo]

What Brian and I are both looking at is $3.6T budgets with $2.1T in receipts. That's not accounting for the stimulus package, which was off budget. That's why it was an EMERGENCY spending bill.

But in fact, you are incorrect about that. Yes, it was an emergency spending bill, but it is accounted for in the $3.6T number. Here's a document from the CBO that includes $3.6T in outlays and $2.1T in revenue, and makes it clear that includes the stimulus package.

linky

My man, Ron Paul, explains it like this:

I read something the other day that made the case that there is a very high overlap between Ron Paul fans and teabaggers. Do you agree?

They go up by $50B this year. Another $50B next year. Another $50B next year. In year 3 it's $150B ($50B+$50B+$50B). In year 10, it's $500B. The $500B is what crowds out other spending. And the total interest payments will be at ~$1T.

Except that the deficits, according to the CBO, start going down substantially after 2010. So the new interest doesn't keep growing at the same rate (although it does keep growing).

barfo

 

[maxiep]

"making the argument" that they should get continued higher funding is not the same as actually getting continued funding. As far as I know, none of the stimulus money is actually in the budget as a continuing item.

barfo

We'll see next year. Right now, everyone is "making the argument", as the 2010-11 budgets are being formalized, which is why I put in that qualifier.

 

[Denny Crane]

But in fact, you are incorrect about that. Yes, it was an emergency spending bill, but it is accounted for in the $3.6T number. Here's a document from the CBO that includes $3.6T in outlays and $2.1T in revenue, and makes it clear that includes the stimulus package.

linky

Whoops! I read your linky and found nothing at all to suggest it is all accounted for in the $3.6T number. You don't book expenses until you actually spend the money, and not much is being spent this year. Remember? What would add to the deficit from this Bill this year is that miniscule tax cut (I got $25 more every two weeks!), because that affects the Revenue side of the P&L equation.

I read something the other day that made the case that there is a very high overlap between Ron Paul fans and teabaggers. Do you agree?

I've not read or seen anything about Ron Paul being involved with the tea party movement.

Except that the deficits, according to the CBO, start going down substantially after 2010. So the new interest doesn't keep growing at the same rate (although it does keep growing).

barfo

Last year's debt was about $9T, with $500B in interest payments in the budget. Add $9T of Obama's projected deficits added to the debt and the payments would be $500B more. $500B/10 = $50B/year.

It's still going to be $500B more, assuming that the Chinese keep buying our T-Bills at low interest rates.

 

[Shapecity]

You don't book expenses until you actually spend the money, and not much is being spent this year.

That's not true. You can carry accrued expenses on your books.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not true. You can carry accrued expenses on your books.

Only if they're current.

EDIT: or past due.

 

[barfo]

Whoops! I read your linky and found nothing at all to suggest it is all accounted for in the $3.6T number.

You didn't read it very carefully then. I'll quote you the relevant passages.

Outlays will rise by about $700 billion this year, in
CBO’s estimation. Much of that increase results from legislation
enacted in calendar year 2008 in response to turmoil
in the housing and financial markets—in particular,
$133 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
(TARP) and $291 billion for the estimated costs of placing
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.
CBO expects that total spending in 2009 from funding
provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA, Public Law 111-5) will reach about
$115 billion.

Outlays are projected to inch down each year from 2010
to 2012 as spending under ARRA concludes and as the
anticipated economic recovery allows payments for
unemployment compensation and other benefit programs
to return to more typical levels.

Now, how could outlays go down due to ARRA if ARRA wasn't included in outlays?

You don't book expenses until you actually spend the money, and not much is being spent this year. Remember?

Yes, I remember. The document has something to say about that, see the end of the first quote above.

I've not read or seen anything about Ron Paul being involved with the tea party movement.

That's nice to know, but is not an answer to the question I asked. The question was not about Ron Paul himself, but his fans.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You didn't read it very carefully then. I'll quote you the relevant passages.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the stimulus bill. So you agree with me that the document says that not ALL of the spending from that bill adds to the $3.6T.

Now, how could outlays go down due to ARRA if ARRA wasn't included in outlays?

Read your own link, sheesh.

"the anticipated economic recovery allows payments for
unemployment compensation and other benefit programs
to return to more typical levels. "

That's nice to know, but is not an answer to the question I asked. The question was not about Ron Paul himself, but his fans.

barfo

I'm sympathetic to the cause of responsible levels of spending and not mortgaging the future for a bunch of big government programs. I don't agree with much of the agenda of those who marched on D.C. other than these things. But sometimes even the worst of people come to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.

I am a fan of Ron Paul. Good answer?

 

[barfo]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the stimulus bill. So you agree with me that the document says that not ALL of the spending from that bill adds to the $3.6T.

I never said it was ALL included in this years budget. You added the "all".
Your original claim was that it was not included at all, because it was emergency spending.
I was showing that that claim wasn't true.

Read your own link, sheesh.

"the anticipated economic recovery allows payments for
unemployment compensation and other benefit programs
to return to more typical levels.

That's very interesting, the way you cut off the first half of the sentence where it refers to ARRA. Why did you do that?

I'm sympathetic to the cause of responsible levels of spending and not mortgaging the future for a bunch of big government programs. I don't agree with much of the agenda of those who marched on D.C. other than these things. But sometimes even the worst of people come to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.

I am a fan of Ron Paul. Good answer?

Sure. I wasn't really asking whether you were a teabagger (I know you aren't), but whether you've observed your fellow Ron Paul fans (I assume all twelve of you know each other) getting involved in teabaggery. I'll dig up the article about it.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Last year's debt was about $9T, with $500B in interest payments in the budget. Add $9T of Obama's projected deficits added to the debt and the payments would be $500B more. $500B/10 = $50B/year.

The CBO disagrees with your numbers by quite a large margin:

In contrast to spending increases in other
areas of the budget, outlays for net interest will be lower
in 2009 than they were in 2008. Although the federal
government is expected to issue an additional $1.8 trillion
of debt this year, its net interest costs are anticipated
to drop from $253 billion in 2008 to $177 billion in
2009. Much of that drop results from sharply lower
short-term interest rates (the 3-month Treasury rate is
expected to average 0.2 percent this year, down from
2.1 percent last year) and lower inflation adjustments
for indexed securities. Although debt owed to the public
is high by historical standards, the very low interest rates
result in net interest costs that are the smallest, as a percentage
of GDP, in more than 40 years.

and

Under the assumptions governing the baseline, net interest
costs are projected to climb by more than 13 percent
each year, on average, increasing from $196 billion in
2010 to $722 billion in 2019 (see Table 1-6).

Which is not to say the debt isn't a problem - it is. But not quite as bad as you'd have us believe.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Under the assumptions governing the baseline, net interest
costs are projected to climb by more than 13 percent
each year, on average, increasing from $196 billion in
2010 to $722 billion in 2019 (see Table 1-6).

It's worse than I was making it out to be. $722B - $196B is $528B.

Not as little as the $500B increase I've been posting about. I was also suggesting the debt payments would double, not quadruple.

As to what the interest was, at $500B, I was going by Brian's figures:

Quick math shows that if the outlays for national debt interest are 450B now (line item 901 in the above link), they'll be up another 50B or so after 1 year of the proposed budget. 500B in treasury debt interest could just about pay for the department of defense.

$722B pays for the entire Iraq occupation, since year 1.

 

[barfo]

It's worse than I was making it out to be. $722B - $196B is $528B.

C'mon, you know I'm not going to let you get away with that. You were comparing to last years supposed interest ($500B, actually $253B); now you are comparing to next years smaller interest payment instead ($196B). 722-253 =469 < 500.

Besides, $722B is less than $1T.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Here's the teabagger/Ron Paul article. It's kind of long and in the end doesn't really amount to very much, but I found it an interesting read nonetheless. Kind of like this thread.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

C'mon, you know I'm not going to let you get away with that. You were comparing to last years supposed interest ($500B, actually $253B); now you are comparing to next years smaller interest payment instead ($196B). 722-253 =469 < 500.

Besides, $722B is less than $1T.

barfo

Does $469B INCREASE make you feel better? Does $722B in interest payments instead of SS benefits make you feel better?

At least it's not $1T, so let's spend willy nilly on the govt. credit cards!

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's the teabagger/Ron Paul article. It's kind of long and in the end doesn't really amount to very much, but I found it an interesting read nonetheless. Kind of like this thread.

barfo

Read the article. It only further leads me to conclude that FiveThirtyEight is both incredibly biased and demonstrating fear that the so-called grass roots movement that swept Obama and Democrats into power will be met and beaten by a real grass roots movement that realizes that both parties are a bad deal for the USA.

There is real reason for "liberals" and neocons to fear Paul. He can't be bought, and he wants no part of the things that corrupt government. If he had his way, those in power would be in power over much less - and that is scary to those in power. Naturally.

Government is huge, and it is largely divergent from the constitution and what the founders envisioned. It's a house of cards, each card some big bureacracy created to prevent some catastrophy once that catastrophy has passed. Like closing the barn door after the horse has run away. The government does not prevent new catastrophes from occuring, so those programs are a waste of time and more importantly, our money. Not satisfied to overly interfere in the life of its citizens, our government involves itself in the lives of people of other nations.

Government and those who work for it are bought and paid for by big business. Not that I have anything against big business, but they don't need the government's help or our tax dollars funneled their way (except in rare emergencies). Those who thought Obama was a different breed just don't get it - he's raised in the Chicago school of politics where corruption is the norm and he's bought and paid for by the recipients of $300B+ of taxpayer money (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats, see Obama ranked #3).

All that throwing out the old bums and putting in new ones proves is the old culture of corruption is simply replaced with a new one. If you liked GW Bush's growth of government and deficit spending, wait and see how the "new" guys fall all over themselves to out do him. And watch people who complained about Bush fall all over themselves defending their guy's outrageous spending and infringements on our lives (and vice versa).

What scares the sychophants of both parties (like 538) is that Ron Paul raised ridiculous amounts of money for what those sycophants used all the forces at their disposal to paint as a fringe candidate. Those moneys he raised were lots of tiny contributions from lots of people out there who are fed up with both parties. That's the threat, in a nutshell. Real grass roots.

No candidate is perfect and sees things 100% the way I do. Paul is Pro Life, I am not. (Abortion is hotly debated, even among Libertarians for the same moral and ethical reasons it is elsewhere). I agree with him about non-intervention, but differ in that we have some serious wrongs to right before making that our complete policy. And so on.

When I look up Ron Paul on OpenSecrets, he has $1,000 in donations from individual doctors, $1,000 in donations from a medical PAC, $500 in donations from retirees, $1,000 in donations from a real estate PAC and $2.7M on hand raised from individuals. I don't think he's a bought politician.

Ron Paul isn't the only guy out there, and he's on the old side (70+). Every four years the Libertarians nominate someone who is like Paul in these things I've mentioned (not bought, etc.).

People ask me why I "throw away my vote" while they admit they are voting for one guy over another so the other won't win. WTF is that all about? I take my vote seriously and vote FOR the guy I want to win, and I'll take my lumps if he doesn't (along with everyone else who voted for either guy).

I have no beef that Obama is elected now, or that Bush was elected then. My beef is what they were elected to run. A government way too big, bought by big business and lobbyists for other influential organizations, and ignorant of the constitution.

Get it?

 

[deception]

ron fucking paul? give me a break!!! he believes in an isolationist foreign policy- american doesnt stand idly by, it leads!!! as for special interest not showering him with money- they know a winner when they see one and paul could never do anything substantive on the national stage. he has zero charisma!!!

 

[Stepping Razor]

Read the article. It only further leads me to conclude that FiveThirtyEight is both incredibly biased and demonstrating fear that the so-called grass roots movement that swept Obama and Democrats into power will be met and beaten by a real grass roots movement that realizes that both parties are a bad deal for the USA.

There is real reason for "liberals" and neocons to fear Paul. He can't be bought, and he wants no part of the things that corrupt government. If he had his way, those in power would be in power over much less - and that is scary to those in power. Naturally.

Government is huge, and it is largely divergent from the constitution and what the founders envisioned. It's a house of cards, each card some big bureacracy created to prevent some catastrophy once that catastrophy has passed. Like closing the barn door after the horse has run away. The government does not prevent new catastrophes from occuring, so those programs are a waste of time and more importantly, our money. Not satisfied to overly interfere in the life of its citizens, our government involves itself in the lives of people of other nations.

Government and those who work for it are bought and paid for by big business. Not that I have anything against big business, but they don't need the government's help or our tax dollars funneled their way (except in rare emergencies). Those who thought Obama was a different breed just don't get it - he's raised in the Chicago school of politics where corruption is the norm and he's bought and paid for by the recipients of $300B+ of taxpayer money (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats, see Obama ranked #3).

All that throwing out the old bums and putting in new ones proves is the old culture of corruption is simply replaced with a new one. If you liked GW Bush's growth of government and deficit spending, wait and see how the "new" guys fall all over themselves to out do him. And watch people who complained about Bush fall all over themselves defending their guy's outrageous spending and infringements on our lives (and vice versa).

What scares the sychophants of both parties (like 538) is that Ron Paul raised ridiculous amounts of money for what those sycophants used all the forces at their disposal to paint as a fringe candidate. Those moneys he raised were lots of tiny contributions from lots of people out there who are fed up with both parties. That's the threat, in a nutshell. Real grass roots.

No candidate is perfect and sees things 100% the way I do. Paul is Pro Life, I am not. (Abortion is hotly debated, even among Libertarians for the same moral and ethical reasons it is elsewhere). I agree with him about non-intervention, but differ in that we have some serious wrongs to right before making that our complete policy. And so on.

When I look up Ron Paul on OpenSecrets, he has $1,000 in donations from individual doctors, $1,000 in donations from a medical PAC, $500 in donations from retirees, $1,000 in donations from a real estate PAC and $2.7M on hand raised from individuals. I don't think he's a bought politician.

Ron Paul isn't the only guy out there, and he's on the old side (70+). Every four years the Libertarians nominate someone who is like Paul in these things I've mentioned (not bought, etc.).

People ask me why I "throw away my vote" while they admit they are voting for one guy over another so the other won't win. WTF is that all about? I take my vote seriously and vote FOR the guy I want to win, and I'll take my lumps if he doesn't (along with everyone else who voted for either guy).

I have no beef that Obama is elected now, or that Bush was elected then. My beef is what they were elected to run. A government way too big, bought by big business and lobbyists for other influential organizations, and ignorant of the constitution.

Get it?

Despite disagreeing with him on most issues, I actually do like Ron Paul and respect his voters. (But then I'm an unrepentant Nader 2000 voter, so I surely have a soft spot for both principled critics of a corrupt two-party system and, sad to say, hopeless lost causes.)

But Ron Paul (like Ralph Nader) will never, ever win any kind of national office, and I think some of his supporters (like Nader's) risk spinning off the rails into LaRouche territory if they're not careful. I don't think Ron Paul actually had anything very tangible to do with last week's embarrassing "tea party" protests, but his movement seems to be being taken over by fringe wacko nutjobs.

Kinda sad because I think our country would benefit by having a non-discredited libertarian voice in the discourse.

SR

 

[barfo]

Read the article. It only further leads me to conclude that FiveThirtyEight is both incredibly biased and demonstrating fear that the so-called grass roots movement that swept Obama and Democrats into power will be met and beaten by a real grass roots movement that realizes that both parties are a bad deal for the USA.

That's an interesting reaction. You'll have to point out to me what makes you see the article as evidence of an "incredible bias", because (perhaps because of my own bias) it seems pretty neutral to me.

There is real reason for "liberals" and neocons to fear Paul. He can't be bought, and he wants no part of the things that corrupt government. If he had his way, those in power would be in power over much less - and that is scary to those in power. Naturally.

Ok. I'm not in power, but I am a "liberal". (Why is "liberals" in quotes?) I was unaware that I feared Ron Paul.

What scares the sychophants of both parties (like 538) is that Ron Paul raised ridiculous amounts of money for what those sycophants used all the forces at their disposal to paint as a fringe candidate. Those moneys he raised were lots of tiny contributions from lots of people out there who are fed up with both parties. That's the threat, in a nutshell. Real grass roots.

Paul's fundraising from individuals was impressive. But Obama's was substantially more impressive...

I'm not convinced anyone is afraid of Ron Paul. And like you say, he's old. Who replaces him? The Libertarian bench is devoid of anyone with any stature whatsoever.

I'd be fine if the (or a) Libertarian Party became an equal of the other two parties. I just don't see it happening. In fact I think Paul blew a huge chance to make a difference for the party by not running as a libertarian in 2008. Now I can't see either Paul or the party making any sort of a difference in 2012. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think they're Perot-esque potential for a third-party candidate. Maybe in 2012, maybe not. I don't think that 1992 was the one perfect storm we'll see in our lifetimes.

I will say that until campaign reform happens, it'll be tough for a third party to jump into the fray until they're super-rich and able to finance it themselves. It's a bit discouraging to me. I don't see eye-to-eye with Republicans on a lot of things, though I'm pretty conservative morally and financially and militarily. Personally, I think I care and do more about the widows and needy in the community than most politicians, period, D or R. But if I say that I'm not excited about abortion being legal, or believe in a strong, advanced military, I have GOP stamped on my forehead. If I say that we're not doing enough to help out those in the community (or in the world, for that matter) who have basic unmet needs, or have alternative energy plans that don't involve oil and coal, or respect those with alternative sexual lifestyles, I'm a tree-hugging liberal who won't ever be trusted by the GOP. If I disagree with a democratic policy, most assume I'm a racist redneck. If I disagree with a republican one, most assume that I'm blinded by a CNN talking point.

Rant over, sorry. All that to say, 3rd parties are necessary, in my book. And they're not viable until an independently wealthy independent comes along with cash to burn on a campaign, or every candidate is given the same invitations to debates, same amount of airtime, same amount of billboard space. IMHO

 

[MrJayremmie]

I'm actually a huge fan of Ron Paul. Not the biggest fan of his domestic policy, but I do love most of his foreign policy. He is absolutely not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. Big difference.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's an interesting reaction. You'll have to point out to me what makes you see the article as evidence of an "incredible bias", because (perhaps because of my own bias) it seems pretty neutral to me.

How about the second paragraph?

My suspicion is there would be an unusually high number of people replying, "Ron Paul."

Seems like a preconceived notion of what Ron Paul supporters are about.

Not to mention the link and partial quotation of some "liberal" blogger who's clearly very afraid.

Ok. I'm not in power, but I am a "liberal". (Why is "liberals" in quotes?) I was unaware that I feared Ron Paul.

"Liberals" claim the label, but aren't actually Liberal. Libertarians are the true Liberals.

The bolded bits are because the words share the same root and meaning.

If you like the Democrats, you aren't a Liberal. There's not much Liberal about them. From the utter disdain and stomping on Economic Liberty to some twisted desire to reach out and touch someone from across the country using regulation and silly laws, I don't see the Liberty in any of it.

Most people who call themselves "Liberals" are actually Progressives. Hell, every other word out of their mouth is "progress."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

Statists.

Paul's fundraising from individuals was impressive. But Obama's was substantially more impressive...

As was Obama's from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and numerous other huge donors.

Given even a little equal air time, Paul had the biggest one day of fund raising ever. Beat Obama, even.

I'm not convinced anyone is afraid of Ron Paul. And like you say, he's old. Who replaces him? The Libertarian bench is devoid of anyone with any stature whatsoever.

Nonsense. The Libertarian bench is We the People. Everyone but those career politicians.

Paul ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate. There were equally impressive individuals who won the nomination in successive years, and there's more where they come from.

I'd be fine if the (or a) Libertarian Party became an equal of the other two parties. I just don't see it happening. In fact I think Paul blew a huge chance to make a difference for the party by not running as a libertarian in 2008. Now I can't see either Paul or the party making any sort of a difference in 2012. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

barfo

It won't happen if people hold their nose and vote for Kerry vs. Bush or Bush vs. Kerry. Lesser of two evils, but neither marginally better than the other (or Obama, for that matter).

Paul did get people to notice. They liked his ideas, first and foremost. The guy is anything but charismatic. The Libertarian candidate in 2012 will be bringing the same message to the voters. The Libertarians also are the only 3rd party that's consistently on the presidential ballot in at least 48 states every election.

But when I talk to fellow Libertarians, the discussion from my side is that the party should spend its money on one race, like Gov. of California, or a Senate seat, so our ideas will be heard between election cycles.

 

[barfo]

How about the second paragraph?

My suspicion is there would be an unusually high number of people replying, "Ron Paul."

Seems like a preconceived notion of what Ron Paul supporters are about.

I guess it sounds like that, and it might be that, but rhetorically I believe he was trying to introduce the subject of his article.

Not to mention the link and partial quotation of some "liberal" blogger who's clearly very afraid.

I'm not sure why you think anyone is afraid of Ron Paul. As the "liberal" blogger said,

What the revolution didn’t deliver was votes—Paul’s best primary showing was in Idaho, where he earned 25 percent of the vote.

"Liberals" claim the label, but aren't actually Liberal. Libertarians are the true Liberals.

The bolded bits are because the words share the same root and meaning.

So does Libertine, for that matter.

If you like the Democrats, you aren't a Liberal. There's not much Liberal about them. From the utter disdain and stomping on Economic Liberty to some twisted desire to reach out and touch someone from across the country using regulation and silly laws, I don't see the Liberty in any of it.

Most people who call themselves "Liberals" are actually Progressives. Hell, every other word out of their mouth is "progress."

That's fine. It's just a fairly meaningless label anyway. I'm happy with progressive.

Given even a little equal air time, Paul had the biggest one day of fund raising ever. Beat Obama, even.

At the time, yes. Obama had a $7.8 million day in the general election.

Nonsense. The Libertarian bench is We the People. Everyone but those career politicians.

That's a good slogan, but it doesn't work electorally. Individuals get elected president.

Paul ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate. There were equally impressive individuals who won the nomination in successive years, and there's more where they come from.

Then why was Bob Barr running last year? I mean, that's an embarrassingly bad candidate. The ones that came before, I can't even remember any of their names, and I'm more of a political junkie than most Americans.

Paul did get people to notice. They liked his ideas, first and foremost. The guy is anything but charismatic. The Libertarian candidate in 2012 will be bringing the same message to the voters. The Libertarians also are the only 3rd party that's consistently on the presidential ballot in at least 48 states every election.

They are good at getting on the ballot. They seem not so good at getting votes.

But when I talk to fellow Libertarians, the discussion from my side is that the party should spend its money on one race, like Gov. of California, or a Senate seat, so our ideas will be heard between election cycles.

Maybe that makes sense. I think what you need most is a candidate. Someone with at least an average amount of charisma for a politician. The easiest path to the presidency is via a governorship - I'd aim to get someone elected governor. Even in a backwater state.

barfo

 

[julius]

You know, Liberty has the same first 3 letters as liberal does.

 

[Denny Crane]

You know, Liberty has the same first 3 letters as liberal does.

Exactly. That's why statists falsely wear the label.

And for Barfo...

25% in a primary is the best the Libertarians ever have done. Progress! (in the good sense of the word)

 

[barfo]

I think they're Perot-esque potential for a third-party candidate. Maybe in 2012, maybe not. I don't think that 1992 was the one perfect storm we'll see in our lifetimes.

I will say that until campaign reform happens, it'll be tough for a third party to jump into the fray until they're super-rich and able to finance it themselves. It's a bit discouraging to me. I don't see eye-to-eye with Republicans on a lot of things, though I'm pretty conservative morally and financially and militarily. Personally, I think I care and do more about the widows and needy in the community than most politicians, period, D or R. But if I say that I'm not excited about abortion being legal, or believe in a strong, advanced military, I have GOP stamped on my forehead. If I say that we're not doing enough to help out those in the community (or in the world, for that matter) who have basic unmet needs, or have alternative energy plans that don't involve oil and coal, or respect those with alternative sexual lifestyles, I'm a tree-hugging liberal who won't ever be trusted by the GOP. If I disagree with a democratic policy, most assume I'm a racist redneck. If I disagree with a republican one, most assume that I'm blinded by a CNN talking point.

Rant over, sorry. All that to say, 3rd parties are necessary, in my book. And they're not viable until an independently wealthy independent comes along with cash to burn on a campaign, or every candidate is given the same invitations to debates, same amount of airtime, same amount of billboard space. IMHO

It's true - there are very large barriers that a third party has to overcome. There have to be some barriers, or you have a 50-way debate that includes the Nazi Party of America and other complete nutjobs. But I think we could afford to lower the barriers and give some of the smaller parties a hand up.

The other (rather delightful IMO) possibility is that the Republican party implodes and some significant chunk goes off and joins the Libertarian party or forms a new party. I don't think it is going to happen but it would be interesting if it did.

barfo

 

[barfo]

And for Barfo...

25% in a primary is the best the Libertarians ever have done. Progress! (in the good sense of the word)

Well, in that case it is good news for your team - but not exactly fear-inspiring for the rest of us.

barfo

 

[julius]

Exactly. That's why statists falsely wear the label.

And for Barfo...

25% in a primary is the best the Libertarians ever have done. Progress! (in the good sense of the word)

wait..I was totally being a smart ass since I just skimmed through the last few posts and saw the bold letters and wanted to make a funny..

how was I proving anyones point? I'm being serious, because once I find out I'm going to delete this thread and post something that makes me sound smart.

 

[Denny Crane]

wait..I was totally being a smart ass since I just skimmed through the last few posts and saw the bold letters and wanted to make a funny..

how was I proving anyones point? I'm being serious, because once I find out I'm going to delete this thread and post something that makes me sound smart.

That Libertarian and Liberal share the same roots as the word Liberty.

But your post did make you look smart!