The Obama Administration thread

[sandman]

Over priced?  Yes, but nobody remebers the cost of lumber, fuel, concrete, etc when those homes were built. 

Yes, overpriced, grossly overpriced.

It doesn't matter what they cost when the home was built. Just like it doesn't matter what the corner store paid the gasoline broker for their fueling stations. That's the part of running a business. If the market changes, and it becomes difficult to place a value on a particular item, then you run the risk of losing your ass(ets). What matters now is what the public is willing to pay for the item. That's it.

A buyers market is a BAD thing for everyone, unless you DON'T have a house. 

this comment made me scratch my head. a more accurate statement is...

a buyers market is a GOOD thing for everyone, except for 1) sellers looking to sell properties they don't live in full-time (i.e. investment properties, vacation homes, etc.); and 2) people living in a house looking to downgrade (i.e. move into a less expensive house).

but if you are buying your first home, or looking to move to a more expensive house, or buy a vacation home, or buy an investment property, a buyer's market is a good thing. 

[SLCPUNK]

 It is not him saying that the "Dem way" means we are automatically going to get attacked...

Of course it is, he has packaged it this way for years, both directly and indirectly.

[SLCPUNK]

But I agree that bills like the Community Reinvestment Act are part of the problem.  It's a case of trying to do something good and having it play it's part in something bad.  Granted, you don't need it if banks aren't acting in a de facto racist manner in the first place, so perhaps that's the real root of all evil, here.  Either way, it demonstrates that we have a system that serves some people better than others (i.e. people who are either middle class or better and people who are white).

Part of the requirement to belong to the CRA was to adhere to the strict lending qualifications. This program dates back to Jimmy Carter, and has little, if nothing, to do with this debacle imo. The majority of loans that defaulted were subprime, but were not associated with the CRA, as they did not fit the criteria in the first place. The irony, is that while everybody is blaming poor people and minorities (which in my opinion is like keeping your head in the sand about it all) the next wave of loans, Alt A, are defaulting. Not only are they defaulting, but they are defaulting before they even reset. These are solid credit worthy individuals walking away from single family homes/condos and are going to leave another path of destruction behind them. In other words, this thing is far from over.

My republican cousin bitches and moans about all the "poor people" who were given loans they should not have. At the same time he is currently losing eight properties. EIGHT. But in his eyes its the CRA that is to blame for this all.

Personally I don't see that big of a problem with mortgage notes being sold as securities. What I do have a problem with is the rating system which allowed these dog shit notes to rated as AAA securities. That's the big problem that everybody is overlooking imo.

[SLCPUNK]

On the Edge
PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 5, 2009
New York Times


A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clich?s about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

It?s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened ? yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there?s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what?s at stake ? of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

It?s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we?re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving ? a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren?t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy?s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions ? the Federal Reserve?s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates ? has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

It?s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we?re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that ?absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation?s output relative to potential levels will be the largest ? in duration and depth ? since the Depression of the 1930s.?

Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ?30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

We?re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.

As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.

And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a ?lost decade? of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s ? and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation?s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won?t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that?s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective ? to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts ? are so destructive.

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It?s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation?s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

[D]

If I were the Republicans and had a damaged reputation like they do, I'd ok anything Obama wanted to do.

It can only help their party by doing so.  If they throw their hands up and say "OK" democrats, we are gonna do this YOUR WAY, they can't lose.

1. they will look better in the American people's eyes as being willing to fix the mess they helped create

2. If it does fail, all the blame is on Obama and the dems which may shift things back to your side.


Right now, once again, the Republicans look like the ones hurting the country. the average person don't know much about the stimulus, what they do know is that its a tool to help fix the country. By voting against everything, the Right looks like they are trying to keep the economy bad.

[SLCPUNK]

GOP Opposes Pay Limits On Bailed-Out Bankers


(AP) Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.

President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position that puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as armed burglars and subprime mortgage brokers.

Senate Minority Leader Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allowed Obama to call for a cap.

"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side," but "as I was listening to him make those statements [about executive pay], I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"

Democrats argue that banks that take government money must accept any rules the government decides to send with it. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) are both working on legislation that would complement Obama's attempt to get a handle on executive compensation.

It's not a novel concept, and it's one that the GOP supports -- at least when applied to welfare recipients. "We demand that welfare recipients do an honest day's work for their checks. And now, since President Obama laid down the law Wednesday, we demand that the guys who ran our banking system into the ground abide by our pay scales in return for our bailing them out," writes Harold Meyerson in a column Friday.

"After all, what's the moral distinction between welfare recipients and the wizards of Wall Street, other than that the welfare recipients aren't the ones responsible for tanking the global economy?"

Welfare reform that passed in the 1990s created the program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The government intervenes intimately into the lives of TANF recipients, requiring drug testing, time spent doing government approved activities and near-constant documentation of continuing compliance. The intervention is justified by reference to the payments being made.

One House Democratic aide quipped that bankers should be required to jump through some of the same hoops that welfare recipients are, beyond a simple salary cap. He suggested making bankers fulfill a strict work requirement and submit a time sheet, signed by a supervisor -- perhaps the Board of Directors -- in 15-minute intervals, proving that they worked 40 hours each week. Only certain activities would count, as is the case with TANF recipients.

"That three hour jet ride to get to the meeting in Chicago doesn't count. Reading the Wall Street Journal is also not a countable activity. If they fail to do this once, you cut them off of TARP funds. If they fudge the time sheet, you charge them with TARP fraud and make them pay back any government money they've received," the aide joked. "I'm sensing a legislative opportunity."

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), though, said the underlying reasoning has merit. What applies to welfare recipients ought to also apply to corporate welfare recipients, he said.

"I think it does apply to that," he said. "People are livid about these big bonuses and if the groups want to take government money it seems they should be able to have some limits on these bonuses."

"If they don't need it, don't want it, fine. Don't take it," the Kansas Republican added.

Other Republicans disagreed. "It's still government running business," Inhofe said.

"It's a leap, because the executive at the bank is a free agent who can leave the bank and go to work someplace else," argued Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) of the welfare comparison. "You run the risk of having a brain drain at the bank of their top talent."

Bennett said, "Some of the things some of these bank executives have been doing demonstrates they have a tin ear. At the same time, I'm generally troubled by wage and price control, no matter how logical it may appear."

The objection to the government intervention in salaries is rooted in the Republican belief that government is inherently ineffective. "If Congress can run a financial institution, it belies everything I've seen in this body. Government does not do a good job running private institutions," said Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO).

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) agreed: "If we do such a good job of running the federal government, what business do we have telling them how to run the banks?"

The GOP is also concerned that compensation limits could put the country on the road to serfdom. "This is just a symptom of what happens when the government intervenes and we start controlling all aspects of the economy. This is just the first piece," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). "If you accept the fact that the government should be setting pay scales in America, then it's hard not to go after these exorbitant salaries. But I think it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they are."

"What are we going to do next?" wondered Martinez. "Tell a company if they get TARP money where there offices should be? They should be renting maybe from an abandoned federal building?"

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) may have had the savviest responses to the tricky political question. McConnell didn't acknowledge that he'd been asked the query; he walked on to the Senate floor instead of answering. McCain declined to comment.

Opposition isn't uniform. Beyond Brownback, other Republican senators spoken to for this article, including Sens. Coburn, Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), expressed some support for a government effort to control the salaries of executives of banks that take bailout money.

At least one Republican has thought about the plan and come around to it. "In theory, I don't like it. I just don't like the government telling private industry how to run their businesses," said Sen. John Thune (R-SD) when first asked about it.

About fifteen minutes later, Thune had changed his mind. "You know what? I think I'm for that," he said of Obama's plan. "I don't disagree with what he's doing."

[freedom78]

If I were the Republicans and had a damaged reputation like they do, I'd ok anything Obama wanted to do.

It can only help their party by doing so.  If they throw their hands up and say "OK" democrats, we are gonna do this YOUR WAY, they can't lose.

1. they will look better in the American people's eyes as being willing to fix the mess they helped create

2. If it does fail, all the blame is on Obama and the dems which may shift things back to your side.


Right now, once again, the Republicans look like the ones hurting the country. the average person don't know much about the stimulus, what they do know is that its a tool to help fix the country. By voting against everything, the Right looks like they are trying to keep the economy bad.

That's not how it works.  If the GOP wins, they shut out compromise and dominate things.  If they lose they demand compromise or lay down on the railroad tracks (i.e. telecom immunity in the FISA bill last year).

If Dems lose, they get dominated.  If they win, they puss out and find themselves on defense (right now).  This is more a criticism of Congressional Dems than of Obama...if they had leadership like Obama in Congress, instead of the uninspiring Reid and grating Pelosi, they'd be better served. 

But in truth, I don't think much of the GOP obstructionism right now is really about the stimulus.  Sure they don't like aspects, but they know they're beaten.  This is more about dragging things out, making the administration look ineffective, and forcing it to spend its political capital.  That way, down the line, when they try to push something like universal healthcare through, Obama won't be so approved of.

To be perfectly honest, I just think Republicans are better at politics (and, no, that doesn't mean their ideas are better). 

[SLCPUNK]

To be perfectly honest, I just think Republicans are better at politics (and, no, that doesn't mean their ideas are better). 

Yup. ^

The Dems have always been total wusses when it comes to this part of the process. They need more assholes like me to push things along and tell the GOP to STFU.

[freedom78]

To be perfectly honest, I just think Republicans are better at politics (and, no, that doesn't mean their ideas are better). 

Yup. ^

The Dems have always been total wusses when it comes to this part of the process. They need more assholes like me to push things along and tell the GOP to STFU.

RUN, SLC, RUN!

Maybe Obama can appoint you to the Department of STFU.

[SLCPUNK]

haha, I wouldn't last a day.

[freedom78]

haha, I wouldn't last a day.

...but what a day!

BREAKING: Florida Congressman SLC Punk requests 30 seconds to "fuck some shit up"; Promises green jobs and red, red blood 

[Axl4Prez2004]

Wasn't it just days ago people were bitching about Pelosi's mis-statement where she said the nation would see "500 million jobs lost every month" (which she quickly corrected and said 500,000 jobs lost per month)

...and now, the latest January numbers I saw over at Yahoo had January's jobs lost at 598,000!  Are these bitching pricks still talking shit, or have they gone the route of President Obama, and admitted they made a mistake?   


by the way, even if it was borderline copyright infringement...SLC should change the old RUN DMC logo to RUN SLC...it would help him carry old school rap fans in the election.  He could show up to rallies in his hoopty complete with hot tub and bitches in biker shorts.   

[maxxoccupancy]

Automotive engineering is well understood, and has led to some great advances in the most recent cars and trucks.  Aerospace engineering is well understood, and we've seen some amazing new airliners and fighter jets unveiled--some with thrust vectoring and VTOL capabilities.  Semiconductor technology has advanced to the point where my laptop offers more computational power than a CRAY 1 supercomputer available when the first Star Wars film came out.

However, the study of economics has become murky and opinionated to most.  50 Wall Street firms accurately predict the coming year's economic growth rate with astonishing accuracy.  Many economists and financial concerns have economic study down to a science.  There is no mystery for those who have studied it as one might study engineering, mathematics, or literature.

Incredibly, the interest groups getting our tax money continue, after all of these years, beating the drums of increased spending, as though this is some magical elixir to cure all that ails.  Federal spending increased dramatically under LBJ, Nixon (the later, recession prone years), Carter, and both Bush's.  Those years were the worst for our economy.  Rapid increases in spending force increased public borrowing, meaning that investors sell shares to buy bonds.  Investment is taken out of the private sector, and the economy shrinks.  Every recession (since WWII) has been preceded or accompanied by a rapid run up in federal spending and/or energy prices.  Every time Congress has cut or slowed the growth in federal spending, the economy has grown tremendously.

Propose reducing spending at any level (federal, state, or local), and it's the special interest groups getting your tax money that holler loudest.

[Smoking Guns]

Dave Ramsey had a great outlook today.  He said give a $20,000 tax credit for every new employee you hired and a $20,000 tax credit for buying a home weather you sold your current home or not.  He esitmated his idea at 60 billion and said it would be much more helpful to the economy than the current bill, but won't happen because it makes sense and everyone has promises to keep. 

Imagine a company getting the tax break and hiring a new employee, its a win win... I think these two ideas alone would be very stimulating. 

I thought Obama's speech last night was too dramatic.  I hate it when he changes is voice like he is giving a sermon now that he is in office.  During campaign, great, but doesn't seem too presidential.  I like his energy, I just think the bill sux.  The whole "the deficit was wrapped in a bow" for me line was lame.  As if he didn't know we were in bad shape.  Also Dave's idea to give an incentive for new employees creates another person that will put money into the system.  I want to form a new politcal party, who is on board.  We need a party that bridges the gap between these two shitty parties. 

[polluxlm]

I don't object to the money as tyranny argument, but the original limiting of American government wasn't to prevent government from becoming corrupt via money but to protect those with money (property) from those without (well...at least in part).  It was both a most egalitarian notion for its time, given that it did not proclaim a limit on property to a noble class, and a completely stratified one for many years later, in that it was a beginning of this fraudulent notion that hard work equals rewards, the mythology of the "American Dream". 

The only real conflict I have with your interpretation is that I can see no other means for collective action beyond government.  If we abolished government and acted collectively, that then would become government.  And, given that, there is no way for those who are unequal in so many ways to work toward bettering their futures than by influencing government or abolishing one for the establishment of another.  Even Marx, who didn't believe in the state at a good things, still had his dictatorship of the proletariat...a pure democracy and, as a means of decision making, a government.  Also, while I don't disagree that money has a disproportionate influence, I don't believe it has all influence.  Though the past decade has been a bad one with regard to economic stratification, the overall level of economic inequality in the US has diminished since the founding, largely because of government and gradually increasing support for workers' rights, a social safety net, etc. (and the mass exploitation of the third world...it's rather a zero sum game, I fear).   

There are no means for collective action beyond government, at least not in our historical and present state of consciousness. Submission is a price to pay for civilization.

That however goes a long way in defending the ruling system of the present. People seem to have forgotten that humanity thrives on freedom, and that inequality is a natural and healthy part of society. It's not realistic to expect everybody to make it out alright. All you can do is give everyone as fair a chance as you can.

Once you start stealing from others to comfort perceived guilt you are on the path of socialism. The problem with that mindset is that once somebody has been paid without effort there will be other groups expecting the same. After some time you're invariably left with a populace expecting everything for nothing, much like we have in the west today.   

[freedom78]

I don't object to the money as tyranny argument, but the original limiting of American government wasn't to prevent government from becoming corrupt via money but to protect those with money (property) from those without (well...at least in part).  It was both a most egalitarian notion for its time, given that it did not proclaim a limit on property to a noble class, and a completely stratified one for many years later, in that it was a beginning of this fraudulent notion that hard work equals rewards, the mythology of the "American Dream". 

The only real conflict I have with your interpretation is that I can see no other means for collective action beyond government.  If we abolished government and acted collectively, that then would become government.  And, given that, there is no way for those who are unequal in so many ways to work toward bettering their futures than by influencing government or abolishing one for the establishment of another.  Even Marx, who didn't believe in the state at a good things, still had his dictatorship of the proletariat...a pure democracy and, as a means of decision making, a government.  Also, while I don't disagree that money has a disproportionate influence, I don't believe it has all influence.  Though the past decade has been a bad one with regard to economic stratification, the overall level of economic inequality in the US has diminished since the founding, largely because of government and gradually increasing support for workers' rights, a social safety net, etc. (and the mass exploitation of the third world...it's rather a zero sum game, I fear).   

There are no means for collective action beyond government, at least not in our historical and present state of consciousness. Submission is a price to pay for civilization.

Yes, yes...social contract and all that.

That however goes a long way in defending the ruling system of the present. People seem to have forgotten that humanity thrives on freedom, and that inequality is a natural and healthy part of society. It's not realistic to expect everybody to make it out alright. All you can do is give everyone as fair a chance as you can.

Most inequality is an illusion.  We pay a CEO more than a line worker, and we say they're unequal.  But put that CEO on that line and there's a good chance that he's not as good at it as the worker.  Just because we say one job is "better" doesn't mean the CEO is a superior person.  He's just better at one job while the worker is better at another.  And, if they both do something useful that contributes to society, who am I to say they're not equally important?  I don't understand why we must do that.  We devalue so many people.  Funny thing is, I think the world could live without CEO's but not without workers.   

And, if I might ask, are you under the impression that people are all getting "as fair a chance" as they can?  I'll agree with you there...arguments about capitalism would be MUCH more persuasive if everyone had equal treatment (i.e. good schools, not growing up in poverty, etc.).  But that isn't the case.  Not even close.  Our world says that a "capable" person (by the measures of our society) born into poverty is likely to live out his/her life in that same poverty.  S/he'll never receive good schooling, likely has less parental care because of their economic situation, has no access to quality healthcare...but some would argue that s/he should pull up by the bootstraps.  Well, it does happen.  But it's not common.  Our society would rather reward people like Paris Hilton, who'll benefit greatly if the GOP can ever finally beat down the "death tax", than we would smart kids born in the inner city.  And that's fucked up.

Once you start stealing from others to comfort perceived guilt you are on the path of socialism. The problem with that mindset is that once somebody has been paid without effort there will be other groups expecting the same. After some time you're invariably left with a populace expecting everything for nothing, much like we have in the west today.   

"Stealing"?  If taxes are truly theft then we're doomed to either a criminal society or anarchy.  No, I'm afraid the only real theft here is the greedy world we've created.  Tell me...where did the concept of ownership come from?  Who decides that certain land belongs to a certain individual?  No one had the right to sell the land, so no one had the right to buy it.  "Stealing" is what been done to create such a stratified world in the first place.  Whether it's stealing people from Africa (now there's a way to combat the minumum wage!), resources from anywhere in the third world, setting up puppet governments with friendly policies...the history of this world is one of exploitation...one person stealing from another, one country stealing from another...and then we look at it and say "see how well the powerful have done; why don't the poor do the same?".  Capitalism is as much theater for the masses as it is an economic philosophy.     

I want to form a new politcal party, who is on board.  We need a party that bridges the gap between these two shitty parties. 

We already have that.  We have greens, libertarians, socialists...they just don't get anywhere because of majoritarianism and the way the two parties have rigged the system against them.

[Smoking Guns]

I want to form a new politcal party, who is on board.  We need a party that bridges the gap between these two shitty parties. 

We already have that.  We have greens, libertarians, socialists...they just don't get anywhere because of majoritarianism and the way the two parties have rigged the system against them.

Freedom, of those other parties, the libertarians have the best message but worst delivery.  Lets take from their talking points, add some more substance on the social issues and lets go with it.  I don't give a shit about credit, I just want to represent the average joe.  That way the Dems can be for the poor and oppressed, the Reps for the Old and Rich and we can be the middle people that aren't rich and can be poor at any moment.  Of course we will use our sound judgement for the old rich and the poor and every other American but the 80% of the current House and Senate fucking suck. 

[freedom78]

I want to form a new politcal party, who is on board.  We need a party that bridges the gap between these two shitty parties. 

We already have that.  We have greens, libertarians, socialists...they just don't get anywhere because of majoritarianism and the way the two parties have rigged the system against them.

Freedom, of those other parties, the libertarians have the best message but worst delivery.  Lets take from their talking points, add some more substance on the social issues and lets go with it.  I don't give a shit about credit, I just want to represent the average joe.  That way the Dems can be for the poor and oppressed, the Reps for the Old and Rich and we can be the middle people that aren't rich and can be poor at any moment.  Of course we will use our sound judgement for the old rich and the poor and every other American but the 80% of the current House and Senate fucking suck. 

Perhaps instituting a vow of poverty for members of Congress would be appropriate. 

Yeah, the libertarian delivery is troublesome.  And whenever they manage to get into debates, the media conspires to make them look silly by asking about drugs, to which some principled but socially inept libertarian replies "WELL, WE NEED TO LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS!" (said in the loud and frustrated-at-your-stupidity voice of Ron Paul).  But they never get a chance to actually explain their stance...they just give their answer and look foolish.  Not to mention that they are a party of extremes.  Both the GOP and Dems are incremental in their approaches.  The GOP doesn't like social security, but you never (or rarely) hear them saying "let's abolish it".  Libertarians?  They'll suddenly spout of a principled stance in favor of abolishing six cabinet level departments, and look like absolute loonies in doing so.  The best way for a libertarian to win office in Congress is this: (1) be rich or famous (2) don't talk libertarianese...phrase things in terms of GOP economic policies and Dem social policies (3) run as an independent.  #1 makes the candidate higher profile and allows them to more easily get around the two party blockade of power island.  #2 puts things in less radical terms...saying you're for tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, and small government sounds a lot better than "LET'S GET RID OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION!"  #3 serves to not limit the candidate.  Libertarians are perceived as nutty...independents are perceived as individuals not bound to a party but to their own conscience and the good of their constituents. 

[Smoking Guns]

I want to form a new politcal party, who is on board.  We need a party that bridges the gap between these two shitty parties. 

We already have that.  We have greens, libertarians, socialists...they just don't get anywhere because of majoritarianism and the way the two parties have rigged the system against them.

Freedom, of those other parties, the libertarians have the best message but worst delivery.  Lets take from their talking points, add some more substance on the social issues and lets go with it.  I don't give a shit about credit, I just want to represent the average joe.  That way the Dems can be for the poor and oppressed, the Reps for the Old and Rich and we can be the middle people that aren't rich and can be poor at any moment.  Of course we will use our sound judgement for the old rich and the poor and every other American but the 80% of the current House and Senate fucking suck. 

Perhaps instituting a vow of poverty for members of Congress would be appropriate. 

Yeah, the libertarian delivery is troublesome.  And whenever they manage to get into debates, the media conspires to make them look silly by asking about drugs, to which some principled but socially inept libertarian replies "WELL, WE NEED TO LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS!" (said in the loud and frustrated-at-your-stupidity voice of Ron Paul).  But they never get a chance to actually explain their stance...they just give their answer and look foolish.  Not to mention that they are a party of extremes.  Both the GOP and Dems are incremental in their approaches.  The GOP doesn't like social security, but you never (or rarely) hear them saying "let's abolish it".  Libertarians?  They'll suddenly spout of a principled stance in favor of abolishing six cabinet level departments, and look like absolute loonies in doing so.  The best way for a libertarian to win office in Congress is this: (1) be rich or famous (2) don't talk libertarianese...phrase things in terms of GOP economic policies and Dem social policies (3) run as an independent.  #1 makes the candidate higher profile and allows them to more easily get around the two party blockade of power island.  #2 puts things in less radical terms...saying you're for tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, and small government sounds a lot better than "LET'S GET RID OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION!"  #3 serves to not limit the candidate.  Libertarians are perceived as nutty...independents are perceived as individuals not bound to a party but to their own conscience and the good of their constituents. 

Sounds great Freedom, we can call it the Freedom Guns party, or Guns for Freedom... Ha.  Clint Eastwood is a famous libertarian, he needs to be the face of that party and get rid of the dweebs, and take baby steps.... I like your analysis... I also liked what that Alan Keyes guys said, he has some good libertarian views on the economy and such... We can take some of his ideas too.

[freedom78]

I want to form a new politcal party, who is on board.  We need a party that bridges the gap between these two shitty parties. 

We already have that.  We have greens, libertarians, socialists...they just don't get anywhere because of majoritarianism and the way the two parties have rigged the system against them.

Freedom, of those other parties, the libertarians have the best message but worst delivery.  Lets take from their talking points, add some more substance on the social issues and lets go with it.  I don't give a shit about credit, I just want to represent the average joe.  That way the Dems can be for the poor and oppressed, the Reps for the Old and Rich and we can be the middle people that aren't rich and can be poor at any moment.  Of course we will use our sound judgement for the old rich and the poor and every other American but the 80% of the current House and Senate fucking suck. 

Perhaps instituting a vow of poverty for members of Congress would be appropriate. 

Yeah, the libertarian delivery is troublesome.  And whenever they manage to get into debates, the media conspires to make them look silly by asking about drugs, to which some principled but socially inept libertarian replies "WELL, WE NEED TO LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS!" (said in the loud and frustrated-at-your-stupidity voice of Ron Paul).  But they never get a chance to actually explain their stance...they just give their answer and look foolish.  Not to mention that they are a party of extremes.  Both the GOP and Dems are incremental in their approaches.  The GOP doesn't like social security, but you never (or rarely) hear them saying "let's abolish it".  Libertarians?  They'll suddenly spout of a principled stance in favor of abolishing six cabinet level departments, and look like absolute loonies in doing so.  The best way for a libertarian to win office in Congress is this: (1) be rich or famous (2) don't talk libertarianese...phrase things in terms of GOP economic policies and Dem social policies (3) run as an independent.  #1 makes the candidate higher profile and allows them to more easily get around the two party blockade of power island.  #2 puts things in less radical terms...saying you're for tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, and small government sounds a lot better than "LET'S GET RID OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION!"  #3 serves to not limit the candidate.  Libertarians are perceived as nutty...independents are perceived as individuals not bound to a party but to their own conscience and the good of their constituents. 

Sounds great Freedom, we can call it the Freedom Guns party, or Guns for Freedom... Ha.  Clint Eastwood is a famous libertarian, he needs to be the face of that party and get rid of the dweebs, and take baby steps.... I like your analysis... I also liked what that Alan Keyes guys said, he has some good libertarian views on the economy and such... We can take some of his ideas too.

I'll pass on the Alan Keyes.  In the movement toward Obama's victory, he's akin to a warmup game against the blind school. 

I like some libertarian ideas.  I'd like to see a good deal of government devolve to the states (albeit with grants).  I feel like we're not taking advantage of our federalism when everything is centralized. 

BTW...have you seen the vid where Ron Paul explains his anti-gov views by telling some guy he's fat, but that we shouldn't legislate that?  Hilarious. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1nxu-Sy-w