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

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

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

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

barfo

 

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

and

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

barfo

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

barfo

 

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

barfo

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get it?

 

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

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

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

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

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

barfo

 

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

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

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

 

How about the second paragraph?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

So does Libertine, for that matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

barfo

 

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

 

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

And for Barfo...

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

 

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

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

barfo

 

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

barfo

 

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

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

 

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

But your post did make you look smart!