Rush Limbaugh, the original American Idiot.
- Thread starter theclemsonkid
- Start date
2quills
Well-Known Member
"Accept for aboutt a year during 1835–1836, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. Public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II, but fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. Debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535320
Ron Paul was the closest chance we had to that. He didn't get too far.
Hoping his son has better luck.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535320
Ron Paul was the closest chance we had to that. He didn't get too far.
Hoping his son has better luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535320
Ron Paul was the closest chance we had to that. He didn't get too far.
Hoping his son has better luck.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535320
Ron Paul was the closest chance we had to that. He didn't get too far.
Hoping his son has better luck.
As long as we vote for the party that "stands a chance of winning" then no one who is actually worthy of winning, someone who can start to turn the steering wheel around, will ever get the chance to do so. Independent voters now occupy the largest block of voters. That was not the case 40 yrs ago.
Vote for the future, not for the lessor of two evils just because they can win. There is not much difference between democrats and republicans these days, in my humble view. Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books.
Vote for the future, not for the lessor of two evils just because they can win. There is not much difference between democrats and republicans these days, in my humble view. Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/40#post_3535301
Four years into President Reagan's economic recovery, after a deep recession that drove unemployment to nearly 11 percent, the economy was growing at nearly 5 percent and monthly job creation numbers were twice as high as they are now. If trickle down doesn't work explain why the opposite policies of raising taxes on the top 1% has not had the same effect.
Who is the last President that was able to have a Balanced Budget? Wasn't he the same one who had some of the most aggressive tax increases during his tenor?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/40#post_3535301
Four years into President Reagan's economic recovery, after a deep recession that drove unemployment to nearly 11 percent, the economy was growing at nearly 5 percent and monthly job creation numbers were twice as high as they are now. If trickle down doesn't work explain why the opposite policies of raising taxes on the top 1% has not had the same effect.
Who is the last President that was able to have a Balanced Budget? Wasn't he the same one who had some of the most aggressive tax increases during his tenor?
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535328
Hoping his son has better luck.
Rand Paul? Please. His economic philosophies are as crazy as Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
Tea Partiers continually say "Cut spending." OK, exactly where do they want to cut it? The 3 largest federal expenditures are Medicare, Social Security, and the Military. Neither side is willing to touch any of these, especially Medicare and SS since the group that relies on those programs are the Tea Party's largest voting base. No, they want to attack the programs that benefit the people who need Govt. assistance the most - Welfare, Food Stamps, Child Services, etc. The funding for those programs is less than 15% of the annual budget. That may assist with the reduction of the debt, but at what cost? Let people starve or go homeless so the people living in mini-mansions can save a few hundred dollars in income taxes each year?
"Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books."
How does "big government" intrude into your daily livilihood personally? Do you pay more taxes than you have in the last 5 years? Are there more restrictions in what you do or enjoy because of some recent federal government law implementation?
I can say for myself that my pocketbook and government intruding into my personal freedoms have been affected the most by the Republican/Tea Party leadership here in Texas. Instead of taking billions of aide from the Feds to assist with Medicare for the millions of Texans who have no insurance and can't afford it, they intrude on women's lives by limiting their access to free healthcare and abortions (if they choose that for their personal health), and improve their voting bloc by implementing some useless Voter ID requirement. They waste critical legislative time and procedures by passing ridiculous laws like the "Merry Christmas Law" that tells public schools that they can no longer deny kids from having anything that says or celebrates Christmas or Hanukkah. Texas government is more of a Theocracy than a Democracy. They push religious values down people's throats whether they agree with those edicts or not. If Rubio, Paul, or Cruz were to get the Presidency, I'll probably pack up and move to the Caribbean.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535328
Hoping his son has better luck.
Rand Paul? Please. His economic philosophies are as crazy as Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
Tea Partiers continually say "Cut spending." OK, exactly where do they want to cut it? The 3 largest federal expenditures are Medicare, Social Security, and the Military. Neither side is willing to touch any of these, especially Medicare and SS since the group that relies on those programs are the Tea Party's largest voting base. No, they want to attack the programs that benefit the people who need Govt. assistance the most - Welfare, Food Stamps, Child Services, etc. The funding for those programs is less than 15% of the annual budget. That may assist with the reduction of the debt, but at what cost? Let people starve or go homeless so the people living in mini-mansions can save a few hundred dollars in income taxes each year?
"Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books."
How does "big government" intrude into your daily livilihood personally? Do you pay more taxes than you have in the last 5 years? Are there more restrictions in what you do or enjoy because of some recent federal government law implementation?
I can say for myself that my pocketbook and government intruding into my personal freedoms have been affected the most by the Republican/Tea Party leadership here in Texas. Instead of taking billions of aide from the Feds to assist with Medicare for the millions of Texans who have no insurance and can't afford it, they intrude on women's lives by limiting their access to free healthcare and abortions (if they choose that for their personal health), and improve their voting bloc by implementing some useless Voter ID requirement. They waste critical legislative time and procedures by passing ridiculous laws like the "Merry Christmas Law" that tells public schools that they can no longer deny kids from having anything that says or celebrates Christmas or Hanukkah. Texas government is more of a Theocracy than a Democracy. They push religious values down people's throats whether they agree with those edicts or not. If Rubio, Paul, or Cruz were to get the Presidency, I'll probably pack up and move to the Caribbean.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think a free people working in a free market and being responsible for themselves and others directly is beter than a huge federal nanny state doing all that.
It is not a question about taking care of yourself and others. But rather how that is accomplished.
It is not a question about taking care of yourself and others. But rather how that is accomplished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535343
I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think a free people working in a free market and being responsible for themselves and others directly is beter than a huge federal nanny state doing all that.
It is not a question about taking care of yourself and others. But rather how that is accomplished.
Exactly true. As to SS and Medicare, obviously government has been confiscating citizens income for decades so the total and sudden elimination of same is impossible. But for those who have never been forced to contribute to it, then that would be a good starting point to begin its shut down. Yes, that means that the ponzi scheme that is the SSA collapses but I think if there was a government interested in doing something about discontinuing confiscation of citizen resources, that something viable could be worked out to take care of those who have contributed a life time until, over time, this can be slowly discontinued.
By saying long and far reaching arms of intrusion of government, I am not exclusively referring to government taxation, but also laws that are offensive and intrusive to our constitutional freedoms. Obamacare is the most recent, but the Patriot Act is way up there as well. One comes from a democrat president and the other a republican. Bottom line, as long as Americans vote in the least evil candidates because they have a chance of winning, more of the same will continue.
As far as cutting budget, foreign aide would be the first place I look and yes that would entail revamping our foreign policy. Our biggest money goes to health, pensions, and military. Welfare is 10% of the budget. We can cut 1% off that every 5 yrs until it gets down to 3%. Our freebie education system sucks and that is in the control of government. Ween that money back to state control where it could tie in educational goals that would result in a better skilled population with less need for welfare.
Why in the world do we want the federal government to take our money and control every facet of our life? Yes, we need a military that is scaled to accomplish our superiority over enemies and potential threats. Yes we need the federal government to oversea our national transportation needs. But a lot of the other stuff can be slowly weened off or scaled down off the feds responsibility in the least painful way to citizens. Will it take a generation? Yea. But it needs to be done.
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535343
I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think a free people working in a free market and being responsible for themselves and others directly is beter than a huge federal nanny state doing all that.
It is not a question about taking care of yourself and others. But rather how that is accomplished.
Exactly true. As to SS and Medicare, obviously government has been confiscating citizens income for decades so the total and sudden elimination of same is impossible. But for those who have never been forced to contribute to it, then that would be a good starting point to begin its shut down. Yes, that means that the ponzi scheme that is the SSA collapses but I think if there was a government interested in doing something about discontinuing confiscation of citizen resources, that something viable could be worked out to take care of those who have contributed a life time until, over time, this can be slowly discontinued.
By saying long and far reaching arms of intrusion of government, I am not exclusively referring to government taxation, but also laws that are offensive and intrusive to our constitutional freedoms. Obamacare is the most recent, but the Patriot Act is way up there as well. One comes from a democrat president and the other a republican. Bottom line, as long as Americans vote in the least evil candidates because they have a chance of winning, more of the same will continue.
As far as cutting budget, foreign aide would be the first place I look and yes that would entail revamping our foreign policy. Our biggest money goes to health, pensions, and military. Welfare is 10% of the budget. We can cut 1% off that every 5 yrs until it gets down to 3%. Our freebie education system sucks and that is in the control of government. Ween that money back to state control where it could tie in educational goals that would result in a better skilled population with less need for welfare.
Why in the world do we want the federal government to take our money and control every facet of our life? Yes, we need a military that is scaled to accomplish our superiority over enemies and potential threats. Yes we need the federal government to oversea our national transportation needs. But a lot of the other stuff can be slowly weened off or scaled down off the feds responsibility in the least painful way to citizens. Will it take a generation? Yea. But it needs to be done.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Who is the last President that was able to have a Balanced Budget? Wasn't he the same one who had some of the most aggressive tax increases during his tenor?
True, to a degree...But he also lowered taxes after raising them. especially capital gains taxes. After his first tax major tax increase the economy was stagnant. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.
In 1997 clinton reduced the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs. He also maintained a strong and stable dollar (not so much now).
Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000 economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
So even Clinton understood "trickle down".
True, to a degree...But he also lowered taxes after raising them. especially capital gains taxes. After his first tax major tax increase the economy was stagnant. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.
In 1997 clinton reduced the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs. He also maintained a strong and stable dollar (not so much now).
Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000 economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
So even Clinton understood "trickle down".
darthtang aw
Active Member
I read this a while back. But thought it was interesting and pertained to the discussion some.
http://wizbangblog.com/2012/08/22/charitable-giving-red-states-vs-blue-states/
http://wizbangblog.com/2012/08/22/charitable-giving-red-states-vs-blue-states/
phixer
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535328
Hoping his son has better luck.
Rand Paul? Please. His economic philosophies are as crazy as Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
Tea Partiers continually say "Cut spending." OK, exactly where do they want to cut it? The 3 largest federal expenditures are Medicare, Social Security, and the Military. Neither side is willing to touch any of these, especially Medicare and SS since the group that relies on those programs are the Tea Party's largest voting base. No, they want to attack the programs that benefit the people who need Govt. assistance the most - Welfare, Food Stamps, Child Services, etc. The funding for those programs is less than 15% of the annual budget. That may assist with the reduction of the debt, but at what cost? Let people starve or go homeless so the people living in mini-mansions can save a few hundred dollars in income taxes each year?
"Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books."
How does "big government" intrude into your daily livilihood personally? Do you pay more taxes than you have in the last 5 years? Are there more restrictions in what you do or enjoy because of some recent federal government law implementation?
I can say for myself that my pocketbook and government intruding into my personal freedoms have been affected the most by the Republican/Tea Party leadership here in Texas. Instead of taking billions of aide from the Feds to assist with Medicare for the millions of Texans who have no insurance and can't afford it, they intrude on women's lives by limiting their access to free healthcare and abortions (if they choose that for their personal health), and improve their voting bloc by implementing some useless Voter ID requirement. They waste critical legislative time and procedures by passing ridiculous laws like the "Merry Christmas Law" that tells public schools that they can no longer deny kids from having anything that says or celebrates Christmas or Hanukkah. Texas government is more of a Theocracy than a Democracy. They push religious values down people's throats whether they agree with those edicts or not. If Rubio, Paul, or Cruz were to get the Presidency, I'll probably pack up and move to the Caribbean.
Merry Christmas and dont forget your sun tan lotion. In terms of Govt, Texas is perhaps the best state in the union for all of the reasons you disagree with. There is a growing movement in this country (outside of the Tea Party) that believes in these values and the value of hard work.
The historical context of who did what or who raised taxes is irrelevant. Politicians and lawyers have created this mess because they are not of the common man. Liberal or conservative, it really doesent matter what the political affiliation is. Niether is of the common man and thats the problem. They both screwed it up and both sides should be fired. Want proof look at Detroit.
I would respectfully disagree with 100% of your opinion as my experiences have been exactly the opposite in every way. I pay more in taxes and have less freedom now than in any other point in my life,(too many examples to list here) why ...because of more laws and bigger Govt. Every restriction in society comes from Govt and the laws imposed by it, where else would they come from... morality??? Govt is a hinderance to freedom.
Nature has no govt and exists in perfect harmony. Why would anyone think that creating more laws would enhance freedom or be a good thing? I cant think of one law that has ever helped me in any way. Human beings need to be free and more laws and bigger govt only serve to enslave people and create division & chaos. Laws dont protect the weak , they enable it, make people lazy and provide a crutch for the indolent to burden society, culture and the human species in general.
Sounds like congress
Why would anyone want to enlarge a group of misfits that are so far removed from the common man and barely worthy of the same title. I thought plankton was a low form of life until I studied politics.
The mantra of govt:
"The Matrix is a system, That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, politicians, carpenters. You have to understand, most of these people (liberals) are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Govt is necessary for infratructure and defense other that, it is always the problem.
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535328
Hoping his son has better luck.
Rand Paul? Please. His economic philosophies are as crazy as Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
Tea Partiers continually say "Cut spending." OK, exactly where do they want to cut it? The 3 largest federal expenditures are Medicare, Social Security, and the Military. Neither side is willing to touch any of these, especially Medicare and SS since the group that relies on those programs are the Tea Party's largest voting base. No, they want to attack the programs that benefit the people who need Govt. assistance the most - Welfare, Food Stamps, Child Services, etc. The funding for those programs is less than 15% of the annual budget. That may assist with the reduction of the debt, but at what cost? Let people starve or go homeless so the people living in mini-mansions can save a few hundred dollars in income taxes each year?
"Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books."
How does "big government" intrude into your daily livilihood personally? Do you pay more taxes than you have in the last 5 years? Are there more restrictions in what you do or enjoy because of some recent federal government law implementation?
I can say for myself that my pocketbook and government intruding into my personal freedoms have been affected the most by the Republican/Tea Party leadership here in Texas. Instead of taking billions of aide from the Feds to assist with Medicare for the millions of Texans who have no insurance and can't afford it, they intrude on women's lives by limiting their access to free healthcare and abortions (if they choose that for their personal health), and improve their voting bloc by implementing some useless Voter ID requirement. They waste critical legislative time and procedures by passing ridiculous laws like the "Merry Christmas Law" that tells public schools that they can no longer deny kids from having anything that says or celebrates Christmas or Hanukkah. Texas government is more of a Theocracy than a Democracy. They push religious values down people's throats whether they agree with those edicts or not. If Rubio, Paul, or Cruz were to get the Presidency, I'll probably pack up and move to the Caribbean.
Merry Christmas and dont forget your sun tan lotion. In terms of Govt, Texas is perhaps the best state in the union for all of the reasons you disagree with. There is a growing movement in this country (outside of the Tea Party) that believes in these values and the value of hard work.
The historical context of who did what or who raised taxes is irrelevant. Politicians and lawyers have created this mess because they are not of the common man. Liberal or conservative, it really doesent matter what the political affiliation is. Niether is of the common man and thats the problem. They both screwed it up and both sides should be fired. Want proof look at Detroit.
I would respectfully disagree with 100% of your opinion as my experiences have been exactly the opposite in every way. I pay more in taxes and have less freedom now than in any other point in my life,(too many examples to list here) why ...because of more laws and bigger Govt. Every restriction in society comes from Govt and the laws imposed by it, where else would they come from... morality??? Govt is a hinderance to freedom.
Nature has no govt and exists in perfect harmony. Why would anyone think that creating more laws would enhance freedom or be a good thing? I cant think of one law that has ever helped me in any way. Human beings need to be free and more laws and bigger govt only serve to enslave people and create division & chaos. Laws dont protect the weak , they enable it, make people lazy and provide a crutch for the indolent to burden society, culture and the human species in general.
Sounds like congress
The mantra of govt:
"The Matrix is a system, That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, politicians, carpenters. You have to understand, most of these people (liberals) are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Govt is necessary for infratructure and defense other that, it is always the problem.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Rand Paul? Please. His economic philosophies are as crazy as Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
Tea Partiers continually say "Cut spending." OK, exactly where do they want to cut it? The 3 largest federal expenditures are Medicare, Social Security, and the Military. Neither side is willing to touch any of these, especially Medicare and SS since the group that relies on those programs are the Tea Party's largest voting base. No, they want to attack the programs that benefit the people who need Govt. assistance the most - Welfare, Food Stamps, Child Services, etc. The funding for those programs is less than 15% of the annual budget. That may assist with the reduction of the debt, but at what cost? Let people starve or go homeless so the people living in mini-mansions can save a few hundred dollars in income taxes each year?
"Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books."
How does "big government" intrude into your daily livilihood personally? Do you pay more taxes than you have in the last 5 years? Are there more restrictions in what you do or enjoy because of some recent federal government law implementation?
I can say for myself that my pocketbook and government intruding into my personal freedoms have been affected the most by the Republican/Tea Party leadership here in Texas. Instead of taking billions of aide from the Feds to assist with Medicare for the millions of Texans who have no insurance and can't afford it, they intrude on women's lives by limiting their access to free healthcare and abortions (if they choose that for their personal health), and improve their voting bloc by implementing some useless Voter ID requirement. They waste critical legislative time and procedures by passing ridiculous laws like the "Merry Christmas Law" that tells public schools that they can no longer deny kids from having anything that says or celebrates Christmas or Hanukkah. Texas government is more of a Theocracy than a Democracy. They push religious values down people's throats whether they agree with those edicts or not. If Rubio, Paul, or Cruz were to get the Presidency, I'll probably pack up and move to the Caribbean.
You're missing the bigger picture here. Texas has been ran by republicans for a long time. How is it that Texas came to be flooded with so many uninsured people to begin with?
Here you have a president who enforces immigration on white german christian families seeking asylum but won't enforce immigration laws on hispanics (who are primarily christian btw) flooding the state so that democrats can increase their own voting pool. And then wonder why tea partiers feel the need to take extreme measures to be heard.
Tea Partiers continually say "Cut spending." OK, exactly where do they want to cut it? The 3 largest federal expenditures are Medicare, Social Security, and the Military. Neither side is willing to touch any of these, especially Medicare and SS since the group that relies on those programs are the Tea Party's largest voting base. No, they want to attack the programs that benefit the people who need Govt. assistance the most - Welfare, Food Stamps, Child Services, etc. The funding for those programs is less than 15% of the annual budget. That may assist with the reduction of the debt, but at what cost? Let people starve or go homeless so the people living in mini-mansions can save a few hundred dollars in income taxes each year?
"Both love big government and support its very long and intrusive reach into our lives and pocket books."
How does "big government" intrude into your daily livilihood personally? Do you pay more taxes than you have in the last 5 years? Are there more restrictions in what you do or enjoy because of some recent federal government law implementation?
I can say for myself that my pocketbook and government intruding into my personal freedoms have been affected the most by the Republican/Tea Party leadership here in Texas. Instead of taking billions of aide from the Feds to assist with Medicare for the millions of Texans who have no insurance and can't afford it, they intrude on women's lives by limiting their access to free healthcare and abortions (if they choose that for their personal health), and improve their voting bloc by implementing some useless Voter ID requirement. They waste critical legislative time and procedures by passing ridiculous laws like the "Merry Christmas Law" that tells public schools that they can no longer deny kids from having anything that says or celebrates Christmas or Hanukkah. Texas government is more of a Theocracy than a Democracy. They push religious values down people's throats whether they agree with those edicts or not. If Rubio, Paul, or Cruz were to get the Presidency, I'll probably pack up and move to the Caribbean.
You're missing the bigger picture here. Texas has been ran by republicans for a long time. How is it that Texas came to be flooded with so many uninsured people to begin with?
Here you have a president who enforces immigration on white german christian families seeking asylum but won't enforce immigration laws on hispanics (who are primarily christian btw) flooding the state so that democrats can increase their own voting pool. And then wonder why tea partiers feel the need to take extreme measures to be heard.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Quote:Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535352
True, to a degree...But he also lowered taxes after raising them. especially capital gains taxes. After his first tax major tax increase the economy was stagnant. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.
In 1997 clinton reduced the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs. He also maintained a strong and stable dollar (not so much now).
Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000 economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
So even Clinton understood "trickle down".
All of which only happened after Newt and the conservative republicans took over the house and shut down the government a few times. Including once for 21 weeks. Then and only then did trickle down make sense as well as wellfare reform and so on. All of which rested on the robust economy of the Reagan era.
True, to a degree...But he also lowered taxes after raising them. especially capital gains taxes. After his first tax major tax increase the economy was stagnant. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.
In 1997 clinton reduced the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs. He also maintained a strong and stable dollar (not so much now).
Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000 economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
So even Clinton understood "trickle down".
All of which only happened after Newt and the conservative republicans took over the house and shut down the government a few times. Including once for 21 weeks. Then and only then did trickle down make sense as well as wellfare reform and so on. All of which rested on the robust economy of the Reagan era.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535371
Merry Christmas and dont forget your sun tan lotion. In terms of Govt, Texas is perhaps the best state in the union for all of the reasons you disagree with. There is a growing movement in this country (outside of the Tea Party) that believes in these values and the value of hard work.
The historical context of who did what or who raised taxes is irrelevant. Politicians and lawyers have created this mess because they are not of the common man. Liberal or conservative, it really doesent matter what the political affiliation is. Niether is of the common man and thats the problem. They both screwed it up and both sides should be fired. Want proof look at Detroit.
I would respectfully disagree with 100% of your opinion as my experiences have been exactly the opposite in every way. I pay more in taxes and have less freedom now than in any other point in my life,(too many examples to list here) why ...because of more laws and bigger Govt. Every restriction in society comes from Govt and the laws imposed by it, where else would they come from... morality??? Govt is a hinderance to freedom.
Nature has no govt and exists in perfect harmony. Why would anyone think that creating more laws would enhance freedom or be a good thing? I cant think of one law that has ever helped me in any way. Human beings need to be free and more laws and bigger govt only serve to enslave people and create division & chaos. Laws dont protect the weak , they enable it, make people lazy and provide a crutch for the indolent to burden society, culture and the human species in general.
Sounds like congress
Why would anyone want to enlarge a group of misfits that are so far removed from the common man and barely worthy of the same title. I thought plankton was a low form of life until I studied politics.
The mantra of govt:
"The Matrix is a system, That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, politicians, carpenters. You have to understand, most of these people (liberals) are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Govt is necessary for infratructure and defense other that, it is always the problem.
You should look at the tax and investment benefits of living in the various countries in the Caribbean and Central America regions. I make my money off of Commercial and Residential real estate, and I've been acquiring properties in locales such as the Caymans, Belize, Tulum, Cabo San Lucas and other popular vacation destination and doing quite well thank you very much.
The main reason Texas is doing as well as they are at this time economically is due to the massive fracking that's going out in the South and Southewest of the state. Republicans and Tea Partiers had nothing to do with that, unless you think they built some time warp machine to go back and tell the dinosaurs where to die.
Please do provide examples of how your freedoms have lessened in the last decade. I always here this statement from Conservatives that there's "too many to list", but when pressed for a definitive answer, they really can't think of one. And the one's they do list, are laws that are created at the state and local level. As far as taxes? We've had the Bush Tax cuts in since what, 2001? How have your Federal taxes gone up when little or no changes have been made to those laws?
People complain about how Obamacare is "going to raise my taxes and insurance sky high". Have you ever bothered to look at the major benefits that healthcare law DID create? Prior to Obamacare, if you changed jobs or lost your health insurance for any reason, it was unlikely you could obtain other insurance if you had "pre-existing conditions", and if you could, your premiums would be 150% more than they were before. If you have college-aged children, once they turned 1 they were on their own as far as getting any form of healthcare. Now they can still be covered under their parents plan until they turn 26, which gives them time to complete their education and hopefully find a job that does provide affordable healthcare options. You have over 45 million individuals that prior to ACA, their only options for insurance were these "catastrophic policies" that provided little or no wellness care, or at some ridiculous amount due to out-of-pocket maxes and personal deductions. I have a friend who recently lost his job due to a layoff. He said that when working for his previous employer, he covered his family of four for approximately $450/month for one of the better healthcare plans offered by the company. He got the letter that he would be covered under COBRA for 18 months, but if he wanted to continue his current insurance plan, his monthly rate would be $1457/month. He laughed and sais that was about $300/month more than he pays for his house mortgage. He's looked at the healthcare.gov site, and said he can get a decent plan for his family (not as good as what he had because of higher deductibles and OOP maxes), but with primarily the same services he did have, and he could keep all his current doctors. He said it'll cost between $575 - $775/month depending on the carrier and certain options. Is that better than what he paid with his previously employer? Of course not. But it's half of what he'd paid if he just went with the offered COBRA plan he received.
So in your euphoric world, we'd have a nation with limited or virtually no laws at all. Just do as you please, and let you do whatever you want uninhibited. A world like that would have a societal collapse in about a month. We have specific laws at the local, state, and federal level for a reason - to protect the overall good of ALL citizens. Sure we have certain laws enacted that protect a specific sector of our population, but they were enacted because those individuals DID have their personal freedoms inhibited by a selective majority whose philosophical views were different from theirs. You complain how laws have affected you, but look at some of the more controversial laws we've seen today? Why does the religious sect in this country have the ultimate say as to whether two same-sex individuals get married or not? How exactly does two individuals that love one another, regardless of their gender, inhibit anyone else's personal freedoms? It's no one's business what someone else does behind closed doors. I could name a few rather disgusting sexual habits that heterosexual couples perform in their bedrooms, but the anti-gay groups don't want to discuss those. Divorce rates are twice as high than those of homosexual couples. They want to keep the "sanctity of marriage", yet you hear on the news every day about infidelity, abuse, and even murder of heterosexual couples and marriages. Then of course you have the ultimate controversy of abortion. Yet again, the religious sect is determining what a woman can or can't do with their bodies. Their ideology is to "protect the fetus", yet doing so violates the entire premise behind "personal freedoms". Seems rather hypocritical to me.
Government is only responsible for "defense and infrastructure"? So when you go to the store and you buy that milk or produce that contains E Colli or Salmonella, the government shouldn't be involved to insure that's an isolated case? The government shouldn't be involved in the regulation of insuring the drugs you take for whatever ails you doesn't accidentally kill you or give you some terminal illness? When a Category 5 hurricane or E-5 tornado wipes out an entire community, we should just stand back and let the people who were affected fend for themselves? I could go on, but I think you get what I'm trying to convey. Yes, I agree we have some pretty stupid laws on the books, and we've seen multiple instances where some local or state entity overreached their bounds or took a law too literally. But overall, if we didn't have certain laws and regulations in place, you would probably see a greater corrupt system that you do see in many foreign countries today. It's called Checks and Balances. This country seems to excel in that area.
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535371
Merry Christmas and dont forget your sun tan lotion. In terms of Govt, Texas is perhaps the best state in the union for all of the reasons you disagree with. There is a growing movement in this country (outside of the Tea Party) that believes in these values and the value of hard work.
The historical context of who did what or who raised taxes is irrelevant. Politicians and lawyers have created this mess because they are not of the common man. Liberal or conservative, it really doesent matter what the political affiliation is. Niether is of the common man and thats the problem. They both screwed it up and both sides should be fired. Want proof look at Detroit.
I would respectfully disagree with 100% of your opinion as my experiences have been exactly the opposite in every way. I pay more in taxes and have less freedom now than in any other point in my life,(too many examples to list here) why ...because of more laws and bigger Govt. Every restriction in society comes from Govt and the laws imposed by it, where else would they come from... morality??? Govt is a hinderance to freedom.
Nature has no govt and exists in perfect harmony. Why would anyone think that creating more laws would enhance freedom or be a good thing? I cant think of one law that has ever helped me in any way. Human beings need to be free and more laws and bigger govt only serve to enslave people and create division & chaos. Laws dont protect the weak , they enable it, make people lazy and provide a crutch for the indolent to burden society, culture and the human species in general.
Sounds like congress
The mantra of govt:
"The Matrix is a system, That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, politicians, carpenters. You have to understand, most of these people (liberals) are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Govt is necessary for infratructure and defense other that, it is always the problem.
The main reason Texas is doing as well as they are at this time economically is due to the massive fracking that's going out in the South and Southewest of the state. Republicans and Tea Partiers had nothing to do with that, unless you think they built some time warp machine to go back and tell the dinosaurs where to die.
Please do provide examples of how your freedoms have lessened in the last decade. I always here this statement from Conservatives that there's "too many to list", but when pressed for a definitive answer, they really can't think of one. And the one's they do list, are laws that are created at the state and local level. As far as taxes? We've had the Bush Tax cuts in since what, 2001? How have your Federal taxes gone up when little or no changes have been made to those laws?
People complain about how Obamacare is "going to raise my taxes and insurance sky high". Have you ever bothered to look at the major benefits that healthcare law DID create? Prior to Obamacare, if you changed jobs or lost your health insurance for any reason, it was unlikely you could obtain other insurance if you had "pre-existing conditions", and if you could, your premiums would be 150% more than they were before. If you have college-aged children, once they turned 1 they were on their own as far as getting any form of healthcare. Now they can still be covered under their parents plan until they turn 26, which gives them time to complete their education and hopefully find a job that does provide affordable healthcare options. You have over 45 million individuals that prior to ACA, their only options for insurance were these "catastrophic policies" that provided little or no wellness care, or at some ridiculous amount due to out-of-pocket maxes and personal deductions. I have a friend who recently lost his job due to a layoff. He said that when working for his previous employer, he covered his family of four for approximately $450/month for one of the better healthcare plans offered by the company. He got the letter that he would be covered under COBRA for 18 months, but if he wanted to continue his current insurance plan, his monthly rate would be $1457/month. He laughed and sais that was about $300/month more than he pays for his house mortgage. He's looked at the healthcare.gov site, and said he can get a decent plan for his family (not as good as what he had because of higher deductibles and OOP maxes), but with primarily the same services he did have, and he could keep all his current doctors. He said it'll cost between $575 - $775/month depending on the carrier and certain options. Is that better than what he paid with his previously employer? Of course not. But it's half of what he'd paid if he just went with the offered COBRA plan he received.
So in your euphoric world, we'd have a nation with limited or virtually no laws at all. Just do as you please, and let you do whatever you want uninhibited. A world like that would have a societal collapse in about a month. We have specific laws at the local, state, and federal level for a reason - to protect the overall good of ALL citizens. Sure we have certain laws enacted that protect a specific sector of our population, but they were enacted because those individuals DID have their personal freedoms inhibited by a selective majority whose philosophical views were different from theirs. You complain how laws have affected you, but look at some of the more controversial laws we've seen today? Why does the religious sect in this country have the ultimate say as to whether two same-sex individuals get married or not? How exactly does two individuals that love one another, regardless of their gender, inhibit anyone else's personal freedoms? It's no one's business what someone else does behind closed doors. I could name a few rather disgusting sexual habits that heterosexual couples perform in their bedrooms, but the anti-gay groups don't want to discuss those. Divorce rates are twice as high than those of homosexual couples. They want to keep the "sanctity of marriage", yet you hear on the news every day about infidelity, abuse, and even murder of heterosexual couples and marriages. Then of course you have the ultimate controversy of abortion. Yet again, the religious sect is determining what a woman can or can't do with their bodies. Their ideology is to "protect the fetus", yet doing so violates the entire premise behind "personal freedoms". Seems rather hypocritical to me.
Government is only responsible for "defense and infrastructure"? So when you go to the store and you buy that milk or produce that contains E Colli or Salmonella, the government shouldn't be involved to insure that's an isolated case? The government shouldn't be involved in the regulation of insuring the drugs you take for whatever ails you doesn't accidentally kill you or give you some terminal illness? When a Category 5 hurricane or E-5 tornado wipes out an entire community, we should just stand back and let the people who were affected fend for themselves? I could go on, but I think you get what I'm trying to convey. Yes, I agree we have some pretty stupid laws on the books, and we've seen multiple instances where some local or state entity overreached their bounds or took a law too literally. But overall, if we didn't have certain laws and regulations in place, you would probably see a greater corrupt system that you do see in many foreign countries today. It's called Checks and Balances. This country seems to excel in that area.
darthtang aw
Active Member
:laughing: You should look at the tax and investment benefits of living in the various countries in the Caribbean and Central America regions. I make my money off of Commercial and Residential real estate, and I've been acquiring properties in locales such as the Caymans, Belize, Tulum, Cabo San Lucas and other popular vacation destination and doing quite well thank you very much.
Avoiding that pesky capital gains tax I see.....hmmmmm...interesting
The main reason Texas is doing as well as they are at this time economically is due to the massive fracking that's going out in the South and Southewest of the state. Republicans and Tea Partiers had nothing to do with that, unless you think they built some time warp machine to go back and tell the dinosaurs where to die.
No, but due to loosened regulation they are able to extract that fracking oil. Thus creating more jobs. It isn't that the conservatives knew where the dinosaurs were going to die, it is that they understand the need for jobs and job creation. This allowing fracking to go on in their state....California just now started allowing fracking....that is the difference. Texas was ahead of the curve....and everyone else is slowly following.But see it just isn't fracking. It is their low tax rate on businesses. Ebay, At&T, Time warner, electronic arts, and Accenture have all set up shop in Texas recently...due to their lowered taxes. Geico which was started in Texas is expanding their local offices. Cognizant is moving its headquarters to Texas. Facebook and Apple are doing major expansions in texas. From 1990 to 2010 1.4 businesses a week left california for Texas. Itisn't Just fracking causing the boom.
Please do provide examples of how your freedoms have lessened in the last decade. I always here this statement from Conservatives that there's "too many to list", but when pressed for a definitive answer, they really can't think of one. And the one's they do list, are laws that are created at the state and local level. As far as taxes? We've had the Bush Tax cuts in since what, 2001? How have your Federal taxes gone up when little or no changes have been made to those laws?
The fourth amendment.
The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email, text message, internet searches, social media communications, health information, employment history, travel and student records, and virtually all other information of every American. The American government is collecting some 100 billion 1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications of all types per year. The government has collected all of the communications of congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the last 10 years.
The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the place. This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair. (And they’re probably bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re thinking … from 164 feet away.)
And Verizon has applied for a patent that would allow your television to track what you are doing, who you are with, what objects you’re holding, and what type of mood you’re in. Given Verizon and other major carriers responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011, such information would not be kept private.
So the fourth amendment should be a good starting point for the discussion.
So in your euphoric world, we'd have a nation with limited or virtually no laws at all. Just do as you please, and let you do whatever you want uninhibited. A world like that would have a societal collapse in about a month. We have specific laws at the local, state, and federal level for a reason - to protect the overall good of ALL citizens. Sure we have certain laws enacted that protect a specific sector of our population, but they were enacted because those individuals DID have their personal freedoms inhibited by a selective majority whose philosophical views were different from theirs. You complain how laws have affected you, but look at some of the more controversial laws we've seen today? Why does the religious sect in this country have the ultimate say as to whether two same-sex individuals get married or not? How exactly does two individuals that love one another, regardless of their gender, inhibit anyone else's personal freedoms? It's no one's business what someone else does behind closed doors. I could name a few rather disgusting sexual habits that heterosexual couples perform in their bedrooms, but the anti-gay groups don't want to discuss those. Divorce rates are twice as high than those of homosexual couples. They want to keep the "sanctity of marriage", yet you hear on the news every day about infidelity, abuse, and even murder of heterosexual couples and marriages. Then of course you have the ultimate controversy of abortion. Yet again, the religious sect is determining what a woman can or can't do with their bodies. Their ideology is to "protect the fetus", yet doing so violates the entire premise behind "personal freedoms". Seems rather hypocritical to me.
Touching on your fetus comment. You clearly do not see a fetus as a baby. So therefore this discussion can not be debated since we do not agree on the premise of when life begins. Therefore the discussion of "personal freedom" can not be had since we hold two different views of what makes up a human being and when their natural rights begin as a human. Touching on homosexuality...No one has ever stated a man should not love another man or a woman should not love another woman. I love my father and and my brother. Just because someone loves someone does not mean they should be allowed to marry. If I love my sister, should I be able to marry her? Live with her sure. Marry her...no. When it comes to "love" is there a moral line that needs to be maintained?
Avoiding that pesky capital gains tax I see.....hmmmmm...interesting
The main reason Texas is doing as well as they are at this time economically is due to the massive fracking that's going out in the South and Southewest of the state. Republicans and Tea Partiers had nothing to do with that, unless you think they built some time warp machine to go back and tell the dinosaurs where to die.
No, but due to loosened regulation they are able to extract that fracking oil. Thus creating more jobs. It isn't that the conservatives knew where the dinosaurs were going to die, it is that they understand the need for jobs and job creation. This allowing fracking to go on in their state....California just now started allowing fracking....that is the difference. Texas was ahead of the curve....and everyone else is slowly following.But see it just isn't fracking. It is their low tax rate on businesses. Ebay, At&T, Time warner, electronic arts, and Accenture have all set up shop in Texas recently...due to their lowered taxes. Geico which was started in Texas is expanding their local offices. Cognizant is moving its headquarters to Texas. Facebook and Apple are doing major expansions in texas. From 1990 to 2010 1.4 businesses a week left california for Texas. Itisn't Just fracking causing the boom.
Please do provide examples of how your freedoms have lessened in the last decade. I always here this statement from Conservatives that there's "too many to list", but when pressed for a definitive answer, they really can't think of one. And the one's they do list, are laws that are created at the state and local level. As far as taxes? We've had the Bush Tax cuts in since what, 2001? How have your Federal taxes gone up when little or no changes have been made to those laws?
The fourth amendment.
The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email, text message, internet searches, social media communications, health information, employment history, travel and student records, and virtually all other information of every American. The American government is collecting some 100 billion 1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications of all types per year. The government has collected all of the communications of congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the last 10 years.
The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the place. This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair. (And they’re probably bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re thinking … from 164 feet away.)
And Verizon has applied for a patent that would allow your television to track what you are doing, who you are with, what objects you’re holding, and what type of mood you’re in. Given Verizon and other major carriers responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011, such information would not be kept private.
So the fourth amendment should be a good starting point for the discussion.
That was a nice anectodatal story. I could give you several of the opposite perspective, including my own (yes I have a preexisting condition due to three partial pneumothorax). However you are highlighting a couple good things in the what is generally a poorly written and horrible law on a grand scale. This is akin to saying Osama Bin Laden was good person because he once kissed a few babies, and hugged his many wives three times a day.
So in your euphoric world, we'd have a nation with limited or virtually no laws at all. Just do as you please, and let you do whatever you want uninhibited. A world like that would have a societal collapse in about a month. We have specific laws at the local, state, and federal level for a reason - to protect the overall good of ALL citizens. Sure we have certain laws enacted that protect a specific sector of our population, but they were enacted because those individuals DID have their personal freedoms inhibited by a selective majority whose philosophical views were different from theirs. You complain how laws have affected you, but look at some of the more controversial laws we've seen today? Why does the religious sect in this country have the ultimate say as to whether two same-sex individuals get married or not? How exactly does two individuals that love one another, regardless of their gender, inhibit anyone else's personal freedoms? It's no one's business what someone else does behind closed doors. I could name a few rather disgusting sexual habits that heterosexual couples perform in their bedrooms, but the anti-gay groups don't want to discuss those. Divorce rates are twice as high than those of homosexual couples. They want to keep the "sanctity of marriage", yet you hear on the news every day about infidelity, abuse, and even murder of heterosexual couples and marriages. Then of course you have the ultimate controversy of abortion. Yet again, the religious sect is determining what a woman can or can't do with their bodies. Their ideology is to "protect the fetus", yet doing so violates the entire premise behind "personal freedoms". Seems rather hypocritical to me.
Touching on your fetus comment. You clearly do not see a fetus as a baby. So therefore this discussion can not be debated since we do not agree on the premise of when life begins. Therefore the discussion of "personal freedom" can not be had since we hold two different views of what makes up a human being and when their natural rights begin as a human. Touching on homosexuality...No one has ever stated a man should not love another man or a woman should not love another woman. I love my father and and my brother. Just because someone loves someone does not mean they should be allowed to marry. If I love my sister, should I be able to marry her? Live with her sure. Marry her...no. When it comes to "love" is there a moral line that needs to be maintained?
If you mean writing checks and not caring about balances...You and I seem to agree.
reefraff
Active Member
What I see in the Paul boys as the maturing of the Libertarian party. One thing most of their candidates have never seemed to be able to grasp is the cold hard realities of politics. You can't sell the radical changes they want in 30 second sound bites and you couldn't make such radical changes many of them support in one step anyway. I would have NEVER voted for Ron Paul for an executive office. I could at least consider voting for Rand. I like the basic premise that the Libertarians believe smaller government pertains to social issues too.