The news media in this country are in a stupor. Either out of ignorance, or complete leftist bias and fraud to protect their socialist hero Barack Obama, the mainstream media has turned a blind eye toward the enormous disaster facing our economy. The greatest Ponzi scheme in world history is coming to an end, leaving America on the precipice of economic Armageddon. Here are the facts the mainstream media does not want you to see- hiding in plain site just like Osama bin Laden was.
Bill Gross is the world’s biggest bond trader. He runs the PIMCO bond fund with over $250 billion under management. He recently disclosed through financial filings that PIMCO has sold every single U.S. bond in its portfolio. Local, state, federal bonds- all sold off. Gross knows bonds are about to default in record numbers. And most importantly, he knows that the last resort of the Federal Reserve buying our own government’s bonds at auction is a certain sign of Armageddon. When no one is left to buy your own debt but you, you have reached the end of a Ponzi Scheme.
Then there is legendary Wall Street investor Stanley Druckenmiller. He, too, is calling the Fed’s bond purchases a fraud and a Ponzi scheme. Druckenmiller says, “There is a phony buyer of $19 billion per week of Treasury Bonds.” The phony buyer he refers to is the U.S. government. Druckenmiller knows that when a country resorts to buying its own debt, we are seeing the last days of the Roman Empire.
Another Wall Street legend, Jim Rogers, spoke out at a business conference last week. He said he plans to short sell (bet against) U.S. bonds with both hands. Rogers added, “If any of you have bonds, I would urge you to go home and sell them. If any of you are bond portfolio managers, I would get another job…if I were you, I would think about becoming a farmer.”
Finally, we have the opinion of municipal bond expert Meredith Whitney, named by Fortune magazine as “one of the 50 most powerful women in business,” and by Time magazine as “one of the 100 most influential people.” She sees America in financial ruin with 50 to 100 cities defaulting on their debt in the next year.
What do these financial legends know that the rest of us do not?
First of all, reality is catching up to America. The Ponzi scheme of printing fake money to pay real bills is coming to an end. The jig is up- there is no way to sustain America’s massive welfare state anymore. When the Stimulus runs out, states will face disaster. The federal government currently pays for 30% of the states’ bills. Without that welfare from the feds, the game is over for the states.
But that is just the start. The states pay 40% of the bills of their cities. As soon as that welfare ends, look for mounting numbers of municipalities to declare bankruptcy and default on their debts. The vicious cycle is only getting started.
On the federal level, the trustees of both Social Security and Medicare admitted just this past week that their massive Ponzi schemes are running on empty. Both funds are running out of money far sooner than projected. Social Security will now run a permanent deficit. It is also important to remember there is no money in the “lock box.” All that is in the lock box is worthless paper IOU’s. It has all been spent. The Ponzi scheme is unraveling.
The list goes on. The country’s annual deficit approaches $2 trillion. The national debt approaches a staggering $15 trillion. The debt plus unfunded liabilities approaches an unimaginable $100 trillion. The debt-to-GDP ratio approaches the 90% number- a figure that few countries have ever recovered from. One of every seven Americans is on food stamps. We are fighting three expensive wars with no purpose, and no end in sight.
Every economic recovery in modern history has been led by a residential real estate boom. Yet today, the real estate crash is accelerating. The current real estate implosion is now worse than the Great Depression.
But I have saved the worst for last. The two scourges of any economy are unemployment and inflation. That is why those two statistics make up the entire “Misery Index.” The only expert I trust to give the true figures is John Williams of ShadowStats.com. He calculates those numbers the way our own government did until 1990, when they decided to rig the system to prevent panic and unrest. Based on pre-1990 calculations, today’s CPI inflation is now over 10% and unemployment is 15%. This 25% Misery Index is, by far, the highest in modern history.
Even more foreboding, 10% inflation is a leading indicator of hyperinflation on the way. Any rise in inflation would force dramatic raises in interest rates, which would eat up the entire budget. Game over for America.
History always repeats. This vicious cycle of misery will force massive layoffs of government employees, and massive cuts in entitlements and social services. This will result in Greece-like levels of protests, government employee union strikes, unrest, and riots.
The ancient Chinese proverb says, “May you live in interesting times.” We are all watching history. This is the unraveling of a Ponzi scheme.
Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com
The best that can be said for Roots’ comments here is that his more recent statements as seen on IPR are even less believable.
125 tb: It also seems that in the Capozzi lexicon, the word “absolutism” is defined as anything that you disagree with. The word “absolutist”, which you don’t deny using as a pejorative, is defined in the Capozzi lexicon as any person whose ideas you disagree with.
me: First, there are relativist ideas that don’t work for me as well as (non-metaphysical) absolutist ideas that don’t work for me. It may look to you like I’m “opposing” absolutism, but I assure you, my meaning is that it doesn’t work for me. I’d say disagreeing with ideas is in bounds. Castigating others for their views is not peaceful, and therefore not my practice. My practice is not yet perfected.
Ideas that don’t work for me could be viewed as “pejorative,” but as you know, perception is reality. Is it possible that you have a different perception than I do? I’d say yes.
tb: If you are seeking inner peace, what are you doing here disagreeing with nearly every opinion expressed by most of the posters?
me: A fair question. First, some people I almost always agree with…Colborne, for ex. I often agree with Knapp, Paulie, Moulton, StarChild, Root, and some others. I think it’s fair to say that your opinion and Milnes’s opinion and mine almost never line up.
My motive — which I’m sure I’ve explained to you before — is to share ideas with fellow Ls. I enjoy doing so. I also learn some things, and sometimes my own philosophy is honed, sometimes tested by Ls from a different strain of L thought than mine. I’m virtually always peaceful when doing so. Political discussions are great places to test one’s inner peace, since opinions can sometimes get heated during such discourse. Finally, I happen to believe that the LM is stuck in rigid thought patterns that only go so far. If I can facilitate it getting UNstuck in some small way, I would find that satisfying.
When I’ve shared that I once bought Randian/Rothbardian absolutism, I do so to connect with those who seem to still think in that manner. It also allows those I’m sharing with to know that I can relate to their viewpoint even though it no longer works for me.
Dig?
correction
“IT certainly doesn’t suggest that you believe you have grown more ignorant.
And I don’t resist what I’ve termed absolutist thinking.
You seem to oppose what you’ve termed to be absolutism at every opportunity, Capozzi. You term opposition as resistance. So, when I say “oppose”, it means resist in the Capozzi lexicon, but if I say “resist”, it means resist in the Capozzi lexicon.
It also seems that in the Capozzi lexicon, the word “absolutism” is defined as anything that you disagree with. The word “absolutist”, which you don’t deny using as a pejorative, is defined in the Capozzi lexicon as any person whose ideas you disagree with.
Yet, you fail to see the irony in being an absolutist yourself when it comes to moderation which you see as some variety of political centrism.
Sorry, it is just awfully difficult to keep up with the Capozzi lexicon of words that change meaning from one paragraph to the next or don’t mean what they seem to mean.
So, forget about resistance being futile and your opposition to absolutism which is hiding between every line written on IPR.
If you are seeking inner peace, what are you doing here disagreeing with nearly every opinion expressed by most of the posters? That certainly doesn’t promote inner peace any more than opposing or resisting equal but opposite viewpoints.
I’m sorry…have I suggested that I am more or less evolved than anyone?
When you criticize someone’s viewpoint claiming you once had the same viewpoint but you have since found a superior viewpoint, I would say that suggests that you believe you have evolved intellectually. I certainly doesn’t suggest that you believe you have grown more ignorant.
Most people who criticize a certain view can articulate reasons why that view is wrong. Simply spewing nonsense about “I once believed that when I was an absolutist” is not an argument.
But I know how it is, Capozzi. Back when I was an idiot, I used to do the same thing.
I hope that works for you Brother Capozzi. It’s all good.
122 tb: …you seem to believe that to be anti-war brings bad karma. Then you plainly state that standing up for peace with non-violence overcomes which suggests that those of us here that are anti-war are using violence or violent/threatening rhetoric.
me: Sorry, not quite what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting that oppositional language (and action) leads away from peace of mind. It may work, and sometimes does achieve the desired result…in this case, anti-war activists sometimes can seem to create enough pressure to stop a war. Peace activists win every time, even if the war continues, for they have peace, which is IMO the only goal worth having.
tb: …if you weren’t always the first to resist ideas coming from those you have classified, labeled, and determined are not as evolved as yourself.
me: I’m sorry…have I suggested that I am more or less evolved than anyone? I certainly don’t recall ever suggesting anything even close to that. Competition for such things is not something I do as a practice. My assumption is we’re all equal in truth.
And I don’t resist what I’ve termed absolutist thinking. I suggest another approach, having tried on absolutism and found it wanting. I take ideas from others (like Ghandi) that resonate for me and leave the rest. You might give that approach a try. Highly recommended.
tb: Where is your criticism of Wayne Root who personifies the angry victimized white man in most of his rants?
me: I don’t catalog all my comments, but surely you’ve seen me critique Root, yes?
tb: …if resistance is futile, what are you doing here?
me: Sharing ideas with like-minded people. You?
tb quoting Ghandi: “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”
me: A brilliant quote if you think about it. Violence may be hurtful, but cowardice is pronouncedly hurtful. He’s not, IMO, suggesting violence there, but making a clever statement about the vice of cowardice.
Be Brave, Brother Blanton! 😉
What opinions should I take away from Ghandi? The man had many faces over periods of time and he did not always follow his own advice. He was all over the place and often backtracked, much like the deity of Rothbard. He was a lawyer that wore a loin cloth. A giant on the stage of political theater.
Lao Tzu is unknown. Some don’t believe he existed. Who knows? He left behind some writings that have been translated by various people. Interesting stuff. Very libertarian in nature. He may have been an absolutist when it came to NAP.
You should read his output, Capozzi. It is a quick read. It would be easy to read 4 or 5 versions in an afternoon.
Capozzi writes:
I’m sorry, where have I suggested “silence”?
Well Capozzi, you equate non-violent and non-threatening political opposition that is entirely verbal or written with violence. You claim to be against violence. So, the only option left would seem to be silence. That is how you suggest silence. Every other option is off limits in Capozziland.
What can one conclude from these gems of wisdom?
….from the Tao to Jung (what you resist, persists), the observation has been made that resistance is futile. Anger begets anger. Opposition can at times seem to work, but the bad karma boomerang keeps comin’ round.
Standing up for peace with non-violence overcomes.
Aside from the idea (in your mind) that what you (Capozzi) resists, persists does not seem to apply to what you (Capozzi) resist, you seem to believe that to be anti-war brings bad karma.
Then you plainly state that standing up for peace with non-violence overcomes which suggests that those of us here that are anti-war are using violence or violent/threatening rhetoric.
Where is the violence?
So, Capozzi, what is it you are suggesting? Are you merely babbling words that have no meaning for attention? Do the words you use have some meaning other than the ordinary and common meanings?
Can you point to anyone posting here that has used rhetoric that matches the belligerent war party rhetoric that invariably threatens violence? Can you identify any violent actions that anti-war libertarians have taken or attempted?
Where is all the anger that you claim is never justified?
Where is your criticism of Wayne Root who personifies the angry victimized white man in most of his rants? His anger is usually directed at Obama who Root explicitly agrees with in principle – coercive taxation to pay for government functions that he favors.
Perhaps people would be more likely to buy your argument that to resist is futile, if you weren’t always the first to resist ideas coming from those you have classified, labeled, and determined are not as evolved as yourself.
All of which begs the question – if resistance is futile, what are you doing here? When will you don the loin cloth and practice what you claim to preach?
But I will warn you about modeling yourself after Ghandi. Just as you have deified Rand and Rothbard only to have come to the point of loathing them after finding out there were mere mortals with many flaws, you might find that Ghandi also does not stand up as a deity. Perhaps not even as a pacifist.
“I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”
Ghandi
119 tb: Ghandi organized protests and pioneered civil disobedience. He used non-violent methods. He was not silent.
me: I’m sorry, where have I suggested “silence”? I advocate many things myself, one of which is non-violence in both behavior and words. I favor undoing the State down at least to Constitutional levels, probably further, possibly to near zero, and remotely possibly to anarchotopia. I favor tax and spending cuts, exiting the multiple wars, etc. Help us understand how you interpret that as “silence”?
tb: A well written opinion on why war may be a poor foreign policy option is an act of violence, according to the erudite Capozzi.
me: Beg your pardon, but this is false.
I guess the best I can offer is to say that you and I read the history lessons of Ghandi and Lao Tzu differently. Opinions — as opposed to facts — can be the damndest things!
Speaking of the Tao, it is NAP written large. How odd that one who embraces one should reject the other.
The saintly and wise Capozzi claims:
My influence here is Ghandi
I don’t buy that.
Ghandi organized protests and pioneered civil disobedience. He used non-violent methods. He was not silent. I don’t know of any in the anti-war movement that threaten to bomb the war party back to the stone age or use any of other the rhetoric commonly used by the war party.
Capozzi may not recognize the slaughter of innocents as evil, but this is the ugly truth of war – especially war conducted in heavily populated environments. While the proponents of the wars of choice may be confused, their actions result in evil.
Capozzi confuses political opposition with violence. Yet, he claims Ghandi is his guide. Judging by Capozzi’s aversion to non-violent political opposition, it would appear his role model is Winston Smith. The war party never had a better ally.
Capozzi continually conflates words and concepts in a truly futile attempt to place himself above others on his imaginary scale of wisdom and deep understanding – as demonstrated by:
Tb: My hunch is that good karma is not dependent on semantics.
Me: No, all words are dependent on semantics!
Well, of course. Except that karma is more than a word – it is a concept. Or perhaps to Capozzi it is merely just another word with no meaning. After all, in Capozzi’s world, words have endlessly shifting meanings from one sentence to another.
A well written opinion on why war may be a poor foreign policy option is an act of violence, according to the erudite Capozzi.
Those who assassinate others, poison the environment of innocents with depleted uranium, bankrupt future generations to line the pockets of their cronies, and order random people to be tortured in secret prisons are merely confused or misguided and should be tolerated – not opposed!
To oppose them makes one no better than those they oppose. Forget that anti-war activists leave nothing behind but a trail of words while the pro-war activists leave behind death, destruction, debt and misery.
Taking a stand on anything requires one to make some sort of decision on what the actual reality of a situation is – independent of our egos and the possible perceptions of unknown persons. At some point, adults decide what is right and what is wrong, what is tolerable and what is not, what is true and what is not based on their knowledge and life experience. A good indication of whether a decision is a bad decision is when the consequences of that decision causes people to die or suffer.
I would say that those confused and misguided pro-war people have made bad decisions that can be judged by the results of actions based on those decisions. If Capozzi truly loved these misguided souls, it would seem that he would be anxious to guide them in the right direction. But instead, he chooses to marginalize those who wish to end the human suffering caused by the actions of those confused people he loves so deeply.
Capozzi’s endless criticism of those who oppose leviathan renders him the same as those he criticizes, according to his own admonitions. He opposes the opposers and protests the protesters. He chooses to remain silent when confronted with injustice, yet is the first to speak when others confront injustice.
How absurd and how acutely in disregard of the Tao that he prattles on about. I’d say that if Capozzi wishes to find confusion, he should look no farther than within himself.
115mm: Those who insert themselves repeatedly in every conversation, yet avoid actually taking a firm stand of their own on anything, are behaving in a less-than-forthright manner.
Me: I’m guessing this is directed at me. Let’s see: I’m for a lot less government, ending the current wars, exiting military bases overseas, and am for civil liberties. I’m ambivalent on intellectual property and the meaning of the Civil War. I guess it’s a question of what one means by “firm.” I am so bold as to suggest that there are numerous strategies to achieve positive movement in an L direction AND that sometimes the issues are not clear cut. Is that not forthright? And is there only one path to liberty?
116 tb: So, to be anti-war, which is to oppose war, is bad karma? To resist senseless wars is futile, therefore one must acquiesce to create good karma?
Me: First, sorry if the word “karma” is offensive or somehow doesn’t work for you. It’s the same concept as reaping what you sow, which may also not work for you. Perhaps you don’t see things the way I do, but I see the law of karma (or reaping/sowing) played out over and over again.
That said, good question. Acquiesce? No. It’s my opinion that standing FOR peace is different from “opposing” war. Opposition gives energy to war. Attacking attackers creates more attack and counter-attack. It polarizes rather than joins together. What some call the War Party thrives on conflict. The Rs and Ds perpetuate the “poles” of their “ideas” by creating friction, not peace.
My influence here is Ghandi, who once said: “There is no WAY to Peace, Peace is the way.”
That may not work for you. To me, that’s about as true as it gets. “Overcoming” has a different motivation than “defeating.” Using the words of war to stop war seems counter-productive. I am a work in progress in this regard as well. My questions/critiques about materialistic absolutism may fall in that category. Know that I only want the best for all, including those who have adopted an absolutist stance on material matters, a view I once shared.
Tb: In what way does being anti-war differ in any meaningful respect from “standing up for peace?”
Me: You can view those who favor war as being “evil.” I’m suggesting they are confused, near as I can tell. Standing up for peace does not make those who advocate war are “wrong,” just “misguided.” My practice is to remember this distinction, which is not charged with sanctimony and judgmentalism, near as I can tell.
Tb: My hunch is that good karma is not dependent on semantics.
Me: No, all words are dependent on semantics! Words are inherently based on “semantics,” there’s no avoiding it. Words are just symbols of symbols.
117 mhw: Robert I know you criticize the NAP, but now I see you are suggesting standing up for peace with non-violence. Is that not NAP approved?
Me: Sorry I’ve not made myself clear. The SENTIMENT of the NAP works for me. The rigid sanctimoniousness that some NAP advocates advance does not. It may work for some, though. If it does, I have a lot of questions about how it does.
@ 113 RC writes: Standing up for peace with non-violence overcomes.
I have been to the mountain and I asked the mountain; Mountain how does one build a peaceful society by using the coercive powers of government?, and the mountain never did answer. So what do they know?
Robert I know you criticize the NAP, but now I see you are suggesting standing up for peace with non-violence. Is that not NAP approved?
BTW the mountain is in Nevada, not too far south of Wells.
Capozzi opines:
Opposition can at times seem to work, but the bad karma boomerang keeps comin’ round.
So, to be anti-war, which is to oppose war, is bad karma? To resist senseless wars is futile, therefore one must acquiesce to create good karma?
Capozzi preaches:
Standing up for peace with non-violence overcomes.
Wow, heavy. Coming from one who hurls the name “absolutist,” intending that to be a pejorative, at anyone who is against the initiation of force, it is confusing how merely being anti-war is equated with violence where there are only words. In what way does being anti-war differ in any meaningful respect from “standing up for peace?”
The powers that be must wish that all subjects of the leviathan adopt the belief that resistance is futile and in order to avoid bad karma one must remain silent in the face of tyranny, injustice and evil.
I find it strange that so many libertarians claim to be anti-war themselves, but like so many other issues, the general public must never be told this as they aren’t ready for it. Yet, a clear majority of people, according to most polls, are quite weary of America’s open-ended war on terror.
Now, with the supposed demise of Osama, the supreme evil-doer of all time, it would seem there could be no better time to call for an end to the wars, the PATROT Act, the TSA, the domestic surveillance, the government secrecy, torture, CIA secret prisons, renditions, and the suspension of habeas corpus, posse comitatus, and the 4th and 5th amendments. If not now, when?
Or would it generate bad karma to verbally oppose the state? Or is it just “uncool” to be anti-anything? Would good karma be created by being pro-peace instead of being anti-war? My hunch is that good karma is not dependent on semantics.
For those who claim to be engaged in electoral politics, taking the position that one must be flexible like the branch that sways with the gentle wind is not going to persuade many voters.
What may be futile is electoral politics outside the realm of the Democratic and Republican Parties – for reasons that have nothing to do with political philosophy.
I agree with the statements @ 98-105 by Knapp, Starchild, C’sO, and Wilson. Spot on.
Those who insert themselves repeatedly in every conversation, yet avoid actually taking a firm stand of their own on anything, are behaving in a less-than-forthright manner.
106 Andy: People who are skeptical of what the government says (ie-conspiracy theorists)…
me: Wow, that’s quite a broad def.! I’m skeptical of, well, everything, so I guess by your def. I am deeply conspiratorial!
I’ll stick with a much narrower def….
more to 103 sc, from the Tao to Jung (what you resist, persists), the observation has been made that resistance is futile. Anger begets anger. Opposition can at times seem to work, but the bad karma boomerang keeps comin’ round.
Standing up for peace with non-violence overcomes.
IMO.
Starchild @ 44: “I say this *despite* sympathizing with W.A.R.’s understandable annoyance at someone who hides behind an anonymous handle to attack him.”
Me: Oh yeah, like “Starchild” is YOUR real name! 🙂
Just kidding! I look forward to seeing you in Ventura next month.
FWIW, Wayne Root stated on KRXA radio that his plan was to receive the LP Presidential nomination in 2012, and use that campaign to broadcast both himself and the libertarian message (at least, his version of it) nationwide. Then, when he wins the LP nomination again in 2016, he will be in a position to win in the general election.
He may not be my favorite candidate (and the article posted at the top is wrong on several points re: economic policy, BTW), but he has openly stated in the past that this is his strategy.
104 mhw, sure, I support specificity in political positioning. I don’t see “anti war” or my brainstormed headlines as being more or less specific. Spinning out a narrative takes more work.
And I can’t say I agree that RP is doing any such thing. He’s building interest in L ideas. Whether Ls can opportunistically capitalize on the Paul/Johnson energy is an open question.
105 tk, nope, sorry, not my view. I do think Ls should present edgy ideas that are attractive to large numbers, in part becase they are plausible and realistic. Nothing succeeds like success.
103 sc, think of it this way: I have opinions -w sometimes strong ones. But I have no monopoly one The One Right Way. My opinions are no better or worse than yours…just different. I’d like to think mine are directionally more likely to advance ‘liberty, but for all I know, Milnes’s PLAS may be the optimal road to the Promised Land.
Make sense?
**Warning**
Your LP has been infected with: RootWare
This Trojan Horse virus masquerades as
W.A. R., White Angry Republican.
This virus also goes by the name LINO
(Libertarian In Name Only).
Reboot now or else it will destroy your
LP principles.
“George Phillies // May 19, 2011 at 8:51 am
conspiract theorists….People who believe that the Federal government is supernally effective and efficient are probably not libertarian recruits”
Actually, government is far more effective than you think. They are the ones who’ve got millions (actually billions if you go beyond the US regime) of people brainwashed into following them. They are the ones who are in control. If anyone is not effective it is the libertarians.
People who are skeptical of what the government says (ie-conspiracy theorists) are far more likely to be libertarian than people who believe everything that the government tells them to believe.
Starchild @103,
“How is it that someone who posts as much as [Capozzi does], which normally indicates a person of strong opinions, has developed such an apparent aversion to being identified as taking a clear stand on anything?”
That his stand is irrational doesn’t make it unclear.
His stand, which he takes very strongly, is that if the LP runs as hard and fast as it can around and around and around the “edge” of wherever the “center” happens to be at any given moment (without ever straying to the “fringe”), it will eventually somehow catch that “center.”
I do have to concede that his stand makes as much sense as the strawman he sets up opposite it — that someone, somewhere thinks that if Libertarians sit down on the “fringe” and stick to demanding “anarchy next week,” the center will eventually catch them.
re RC @ 100. Given the way the Paul campaign is sucking the wind out of our sails these days it is important that the LP be specific about the issues which is why I asked.
Thanks,
MW
Robert @102 – “I’m not ‘anti’ anything”
— That seems contra-indicated (to use your favorite term) by your own comments.
For instance you wrote @91, “Whether the LP should explicitly appeal to folk with these sorts of eccentric views, I generally don’t think so.”
That’s just another way of saying you’re generally against it, aka “anti”.
How is it that someone who posts as much as you do, which normally indicates a person of strong opinions, has developed such an apparent aversion to being identified as taking a clear stand on anything?
101 CO, personally I’m not “anti” anything. Near as I can tell, the LP top leaders are absolutists.
I would not suggest that losing the NAP absolutism is the only thing the LP needs to do IF we want to be a viable force to advance liberty. I would, however, suggest that it’s a severe millstone.
Capozzi: I just don’t see [antiwar] resonating as deeply with the general public, or free thinking independents.
Unlike the “anti-absolutist” message of the current national LP, which has brought in millions of new members, millions of dollars, and elected hundreds of LP candidates to high offices.
95 mhw, off the top, something like: COME HOME, AMERICA; BACK TO BASICS; A REAL CHOICE FOR REAL CHANGE; HAD ENOUGH?; DECLARE YOUR INDEPEDENCE
An “anti war” message — whatever it actually means — has some appeal, for me and many. I just don’t see it resonating as deeply with the general public, or free thinking independents.
Now, it may be that the LP and some Ls just wish to educate small numbers on the absolutist interpretation of the NAP. That’s of no interest for me and seems unlikely to be of much consequence.
@95: He already gave an answer here:
So that takes care of the labeling. #1 should, IMO, be whatever issue is grabbing the attention of the electorate at a given moment that has a corresponding plank in the LP platform. “Reduced taxes” and “reduce out of control federal spending” would be obvious front-runners that, nicely enough, would also dovetail with the LP plank to reduce defense spending and eliminate involvement in foreign military affairs.
One of these days, people will realize we can’t balance the budget by only reducing entitlement spending or by reducing defense spending. We have to do both.
Bob @ 91,
Different people have different standards of what constitutes a “conspiracy.”
In criminal court, the federal government has, many times, asserted that if Person A casually mentions some activity to Person B, and that if Person B then consults closely with Persons C and D to procure resources for that activity, even if they don’t ever know exactly what the activity is, and if Person B then attempts to carry out the activitiy, Persons A, B, C and D have all “conspired” to commit the activity.
By a standard as loose as that, yes, the “entire Republican establishment” almost certainly conspired to co-opt the Tea Party.
Sure, it’s possible that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity never sat down at a table with Sarah Palin and Sal Russo to explicitly say to each other “let’s use a Republican PAC to create a ‘Tea Party Express’ and astroturf the Tea Party into just another GOP appendage,” but there’s no doubt that all four shared a common goal and at times acted overtly in concert to achieve that goal.
Nor is there any doubt that in mid-2009, after the first semi-spontaneous Tea Party rallies had occurred, that long-time local GOP operatives suddenly and near-simultaneously popped up as self-style “Tea Party leaders” with Republican money behind them to make sure that the NEXT set of rallies were lock-step GOP events to the extent that they could be directed from the stages and podiums bought with that money.
Does a conspiracy require that every detail be agreed upon by all parties in advance? Or is it sufficient that all parties have similar goals, seek out each other on the basis of those goals, and work together to achieve those goals?
Yeah, I never could square the idea that government was ineffective and inefficient because of government’s systemic flaws with the idea that it was the source of a never-ending stream of villainous Xanatos gambits, either.
94 gp,thanks. Now, I might make an exception if our ticket was Duchovny/Anderson. We might rebrand as the X Files Party. 😉
@ 77 RC Wrote: me: Whether it should be #1, I’m not sure. I’m also not sure what “anti-war” means.
And I ask again Well Mr. Capozzi how would you label it and what do you think should be # one?
@91 Capozzi gets this one right. Becoming the party of kook conspiracy theorists would poison us with the general public.
conspiract theorists….People who believe that the Federal government is supernally effective and efficient are probably not libertarian recruits, but they are visibly recruits for each other’s crazy idea, as witness the supply of people who are birthers, truthers, anti-Rothchilders, evolution deniers, and global waqrming deniers, all at the same time.
william jennings bryan’s wikipedia citation is spelled Bryant in the URL
89 andy: The entire GOP establishment. They sent in paid operatives to co-opt the movement. They also used the TV and radio mouthpieces like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. In addition to this, establisment Republican candidates used Tea Party rhetoric to their advantage (see Scott Brown in Massachusetts for one example).
me: Do you have proof that the R establishment conspired to do this? Is there a document stating their intent or first-hand observations? Do you know of checks being written to carry this conspiracy out?
As for Brown, it looked to me like he was the Chance Gardener in the race. No one expected a R to be competitive, much less win. He looked like a placeholder who got real lucky, as Coakley was a terrible candidate…and under normal circumstances would have won handily.
a: So called “conspiracy theorist” are a natural fit (generally speaking) for the LP since they are already skeptical of government.
me: Hmm, yes, I see your point. As would NAMBLA members, Holocaust deniers, neo-Confederates, and maybe even end-of-times devotees. Whether the LP should explicitly appeal to folk with these sorts of eccentric views, I generally don’t think so. Generally, these sorts of things are toxic with the general public.
Skepticism seems healthy, so long as it doesn’t careen into counter-productive associations.
IMO.
“We are fighting three expensive wars with no purpose, and no end in sight.”
I don’t think Root would be using this type sentence in ’08. It is good he realizes it is expensive, purposeless and seemingly endless. Hopefully he will someday see the foolishness of being the world’s policemen.
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
– James Madison (it was true then and is still true today)
I made the statement in ’07 or ’08 on TPW that we as libertarians need to share books on the subjects that concern us about Root with him. His family vacations are coming up this Spring and/or Summer and he will have some time to read. Send him a book ! I don’t have one specifically on the virtues of libertarian foreign policy or I would send it to him.
As for what the LP should push on the fed level in the upcoming election, anti-war/PRO PEACE is great. As pointed out before 7 of 10 Americans oppose foreign aid. It will sale also.
The Truth is 73% of Americans Agree To END ALL FOREIGN AID: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sTAmISi6WP4
@61 “Then there are the “yes, but…” people who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea of making anything a priority and we seem to have a lot of them.”
Yes, some are Judas Goats/Agent Provocateurs and the LP must disregard these stumbling blocks and push on building the Party !! Build at the local/grassroots/precinct level and progress will be made !!!
(Can’t you spare a dollar a day for liberty!?)
LP Membership Center- https://www.lp.org/membership
On R politics – Willie Nelson endorsed former 2-term Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM) this week for POTUS. Ole Willie is durn tired of being busted for smoking weed on the bus and paying the IRS back taxes………
“87 Andy, please elaborate. Who in the R establishment was ‘afraid’ of the TP? How did they co-opt it?”
The entire GOP establishment. They sent in paid operatives to co-opt the movement. They also used the TV and radio mouthpieces like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. In addition to this, establisment Republican candidates used Tea Party rhetoric to their advantage (see Scott Brown in Massachusetts for one example).
There was a concerted effort by the Republican establishment to gain influence in the Tea Party and to lead it back to the Republican establishment. Do some research online about it.
“I’m not especially surprised that ‘conspiracy nuts’ are L friendly. Conspiracy theorists and Ls share an anxiety-ridden worldview, quite often.
And, while your work puts you in touch with a lot of folks, I do wonder whether you might be drawing a lot of conclusions based on anecdotal information and your own biased perceptions. We all do this to some extent, btw.”
I think that I’ve talked to such a huge number of people, all over the country, crossing every group of people that there is (by race, religion, economic class, political persuassion, age, etc…) that I can speak with some authority here.
I generally do not get into so called “conspiracy talk” with people unless the other person brings it up first.
If somebody comes up to me and identifies themselves as a “conspiracy theorist” it is almost always a garunteed signature on a petition (particularly for LP ballot access) unless the person in question has given up on electoral politics or is not registered to vote for some other reason.
So called “conspiracy theorist” are a natural fit (generally speaking) for the LP since they are already skeptical of government.
87 Andy, please elaborate. Who in the R establishment was “afraid” of the TP? How did they co-opt it?
I would think a lot of Rs liked the energy of the TP, and have attempted to tap into its energy. Some may have distanced themselves from it because of the extreme elements in the TP.
I’m not especially surprised that “conspiracy nuts” are L friendly. Conspiracy theorists and Ls share an anxiety-ridden worldview, quite often.
And, while your work puts you in touch with a lot of folks, I do wonder whether you might be drawing a lot of conclusions based on anecdotal information and your own biased perceptions. We all do this to some extent, btw.
“There are some wings of the tea party people we might prune off, but this does not include the racists, the conspiracy nuts, the birthers, the people who think Fox News resembles reality, the anti-immigrant hatemongers,…”
I’ve petitioned and/or done voter registration at 3 Tea Party events, and I found that the “conspiracy nuts” were the most likely to be libertarian friendly. The least likely to be libertarian friendly were those who really believed in the Republican Party (not including the Ron Paul Republicans of course).
It is true that the Tea Party movement is not as libertarian as it was when it began, but this is by design as the Republican establishment co-opted the movement because they were afraid of it. This is not a “conspiracy theory,” it is a conspiracy fact.
Wayne Root said: “This is the problem with the Internet…anonymous vicious people attacking others without a clue of what they are saying.
Easy to lob bombs when you’re hiding behind the name ‘whatever.”
Lets hear your real name. Lets hear where you went to college. Lets hear what you’ve accomplished in the business world.
Yeah. I know the response whenever you call out an anonymous coward on the Internet…
The response when you’re embarrassed at your own lack of achievements is…
‘Whatever.'”
I have to agree with Wayne’s point here. I can’t stand chickenshit weasels who attack people on internet forums while hiding behind fake names. If you want to attack somebody then at least have to balls to do it under your real name.
I’m not advocating that there be any law or website policy change to mandate this, but I do consider it to be a matter of personal honor.
I may not always agree with every little thing that Wayne Root says, but I’ve got to respect him for having enough courage in his convictions to say what he says under his real name, unlike the coward who attacked him above.
Wayne Root said: “Can the logjam be broken? We’ll find out in a little over one year.
Can a change from Obama make a difference?
Only if it’s a Tea Party candidate with Libertarian leanings.
A traditional country club Republican will make little difference.”
A fake “Tea Party” candidate with fake “libertarian” leanings (like Sarah Palin) won’t help either.
Sadly, the Tea Party movement has been co-opted by the Republican Party and has strayed pretty far from its libertarian roots.
I did not write 82 or 83.
Not that they are all that bad…
W.A.R. Millionaire Republican Against Workers, Pro-Mubarak, Libertarian Party Millionaire Republican W.A.R. of Shame; Libertarian Party Millionaire Republican Wall of Shame; Evil Evil Evil W.A.R. — BarrBarr Black Sheep – Wall of Shame, L.P Shame. You are to blame. You are too lame. Barr/Root LP for Shame. For Shame.
Stop all war, stop all W.A.R. Strike the ROOT!
As Thoreau said, stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!
Workers Are on STRIKE – Against War – Against W.A.R. – Against evil – Against ROOT!
W.A.R. Is Against Workers – W.AR. wants WAR with Workers – EVIL ROOT EVIL!
ROOT is the ROOT of ALL EVIL!
ROOT is ROTTEN! ROOT is EVIL!
War is ROTTEN! WAR is EVIL!
W.A.R. is ROTTEN! W.A.R. is EVIL!
Workers Strike Against Rotten Evil Root
Workers Strike Against Rotten Evil War
Workers Strike Against Rotten Evil W.A.R.
When the ROOT is ROTTen the Tree of Liberty WEAKENS FROM WITHIN.
Money is not the ROOT of all evil
WAR is!
Workers are not evil
W.A.R. is!
Stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!
W.A.R. = War Monger
Strike The Root
War is wrong
W.A.R. is wrong
Right the wrongs
WRIGHTS strike the ROOT fix the WRONGS in LP
Stop All Wars
Stop all W.A.R.
ROTT is ROOTed out LP Tree of Liberty Grows wRIGHTs again AMEN!
WAR is wrong – W.A.R. Is Wrong – Workers Are Right – W.A.R. is EVIL stop EVIL stop W.A.R.!
Workers are working for their rights. Striking for their rights. Liberty Tree.
Workers Strike in Middle East – W.A.R. Support Repression by Regime…
Workers Strike in Midwest – W.A.R. Supports Repression by Regime…
W.A.R. Against Workers – Workers Against W.A.R.
Tree of Liberty – Blood of Tyrants
W.A.R. Supports Tyrants
W.A.R. Supports Tyranny
W.A.R. Supports Evil
W.A.R. Supports War
Workers for Wrights – Work for Wrights – STOP ALL W.A.R.! – Work against war – work against W.A.R. – Work Against Root – Workers Against War – Workers Against W.A.R. – Workers Strike the Root!
ROTT is ROOTed out LP Tree of Liberty Grows wRIGHTs again AMEN!
Well Mr. Capozzi how would you label it and what do you think should be # one?
global military bases, all 208 of them ????????
——- how we gonna go bankrupted with out that expenditure, how we gonna be an imperial empire with out ………. ???????????
NewFed @74,
“How does one know if post #27 was legitimate?”
If by “legitimate,” you mean “an accurate reproduction of a message from Wayne Root,” I guess one doesn’t know if it’s legitimate or not.
One might reach some provisional level of certainty, thought.
The front matter claims that this was a letter “to IPR.”
That probably means to the Google Groups IPR contact list that most IPR editors belong to and that mail “to IPR” forwards to (I don’t belong to that list any more, but that’s just me).
So you might ask an IPR editor to confirm or deny that that letter came to that list, and if so to examine the headers if possible to determine whether or not it was actually mailed from Wayne’s real mailbox.
My own provisional certitude as to its authenticity is based on somewhat different criteria which I don’t care to divulge, but if you consider my opinions honest and well-informed, then I’ll tell you I’m reasonably certain that yes, it is an authentic message from Wayne.
61 mhw: we should make the anti-war issue # 1.
me: Whether it should be #1, I’m not sure. I’m also not sure what “anti-war” means. I for ex. am pro-peace. I am for exiting Iraq, Afg., and Libya and the other undeclared military actions in the ME and S.Asia. I’m also for exiting major military installations off shore.
But I don’t think “anti-war” is good branding. Too vague, IMO.
Jeremy C, Young writes; because the GP agrees with me on many more issues.
Jeremy will you please take the time to elaborate?
Thank you.
Because if it was fabricated by someone else, Wayne would say so.
How does one know if post #27 was legitimate? This entire thing could all be balderdash. (That is the same thing as bullshit to the great unwashed.)
John Jay Myers @14, you say:
the beauty is we have no competition in the anti-war party category,
I also got this line from a very articulate and friendly LP candidate in Indiana whom I nearly voted for because he impressed me so much. In Indiana it makes sense, because there are only three candidates on the ballot. But elsewhere, why do you not consider the CP or, especially, the GP to be your competitors on this issue? If there were GP candidates in Indiana I would never even consider voting for a Libertarian, because the GP agrees with me on many more issues.
I don’t like Wayne Root, but I don’t think his private correspondence should be made public by the recipients. I would support efforts by Trent to delete such comments.
As for the charges of slander, Root is a public figure, so that’s ridiculous. People have called Obama far worse, and you never hear a peep out of him. So long as the “slanders” are limited to Root’s qualifications for President, I have no problem with them at all.
When do we get to critique Wayne’s newest epistle? I received the email hours ago.
To my Libertarian Party friends and allies.
My hope is that the Ponzi Scheme that is unraveled, in my honest opinion, is the Wayne Root Ponzi scheme.
Do not let these folks do to you what the Democrat supporters in the Green Party did to it.
In the interests of the free flow of information, ideals and discussion.
@68 –
I agree with some of his policy prescriptions, but his use of the Whitney stuff is disingenuous at best…
Tk and jt, I have pointed out that literalism sometimes obscures deeper meaning. In this instance, for a very literal perspective, jt is correct…no “permanent” “campaign.” Non-legalistically, tk’s point is a good one…presidential aspirants actively position themselves to literally campaign for years before. IMO.
JT @ 53,
You write:
“Well, I just don’t agree with your conclusion then.”
Not the first time, probably not the last time.
No biggie.
I’ll go with my conclusions, you’ll go with yours, and perhaps at some point it will become clear which of us, if either, was correct.
But to continue arguing the point:
“The permanent campaign” is not a new concept. In title, it dates back to 1976, and in reality at least as far back as the late 1960s.
I doubt that transposition of some of the values of “the permanent campaign” from winners to losers is something I’ve originated.
There are good reasons for the losers, as well as the winner, to run “permanent campaigns.”
It lets them affect public policy even though they didn’t win.
It lets them remain in the public eye between a losing run and a hopefully winning run.
The main difference between a loser’s “permanent campaign” and a winner’s version of same is probably the perceived time horizon of discrete actions.
The sitting president has to be more responsive to the polls if he’s wanting to treat the presidency as a campaign in itself, but is also more constrained not to go around suddenly reversing himself.
The last election’s losers can probably buck the polls a little more. They may even wring an advantage out of doing so early on — get the outrageous stuff out of the way early, then morph into more statesmanlike behavior as the election approaches.
For example, Mitt Romney took the health care thing by the horns the other day — 18 months out from election day and more than half a year before the first GOP primaries and caucuses — and said things his base doesn’t want to hear and that probably didn’t really gain him anything with swing voters.
He went against the polls, especially the GOP’s internal polls — but now he has a good six months to pull a combination of “come to Jesus on the issue, let my party’s base feel like they took me to the woodshed and I learned my lesson” on one hand and “give independent/moderate voters plenty of time to forget about this kerfuffle before November 2012 arrives,” while still having that stuff on the record if he ever wants to flip-flop back to it.
Obama, by virtue of his position, has to be simultaneously more adroit at jumping on an issue, and more stable on that issue once he does jump on it. He has less maneuvering room than his would-be opponents.
Ayn R Key @ 64: Plus, it’s a cool name–
Starchild @43
Thank you for supporting that point. I think W.A.R. often slips and inserts lines like that, and they are important clues as to what he really thinks.
Starchild @44
Many people know who is behind the Ayn R. Key name. I’m not really that anonymous. I just like to add one very thin layer of identity protection.
BTW, in the article above Whitney says that she doesn’t mean “default” in the technical sense. Here is the quote from the article linked above:
“…states have and will continue to default on social contracts in the form of reduced spending’ on things including education and transportation.” It seems to me that her definition of default means cuttting spending as recommended by Mr. Root and many others here.
I have to wonder about the people who make these predictions. It would be nice to know what their market holdings are. How are they going to benefit? Are they going short on the market, or not?
I agree we should make the anti-war issue # 1. To do so we also have to make sure to emphasize it in our literature and especially on the website. Our presidential and other federal candidates have to make it their major issue.
Then there are the “yes, but…” people who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea of making anything a priority and we seem to have a lot of them.
FWIW, Whitney’s predictions of all these defaults in the next year was made on Sept. 28 – that means we have about 4 months left to see if she was right. Does anyone know what the total # of defaults is to date since then? Also, one of the experts cited by Mr. Root says he doesn’t buy what she’s selling – again, FWIW. Maybe a lot, maybe not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-01/whitney-municipal-bond-apocalypse-is-short-on-default-specifics.html
57 jt, to me, “focusing” on polar opposites seems an oxymoron. Focus on one, alienate the other, and vice versa.
Perhaps the focus should be on free thinking independents. In that process, perhaps some rightists or leftists might leave their respective nests, too.
Of course, this would require someb accommodation for free thinking Ls, too!
@56, I don’t know JT I don’t consider it to be left or right, both Republicans and Democrats are welfare queens, there is no doubt about it.
The reason I would focus on those three issues is because there is no negative side.
It doesn’t mean all other issues don’t exist, it doesn’t mean candidates shouldn’t talk about them. It’s more like… this is our “hook”.
If we are going to start with the premise that the Libertarian Party is Anti-war (hardcore anti-war)
Then… those issues have no downside.
And though welfare should be eliminated so we can live in a more prosperous country, even most Republicans don’t want to hear that.
And though we need to get rid of as many government regulations as possible most people just hear “you want to pollute my land” and though those are easily debunked myths, my thought is that if you can keep it positive and different from the other two, people are going to take a look.
Once they are hooked we can explain to them the horrors of big government, or they will just think we are Republican lite and never take a second look.
However the whole premise to this argument is that we come out swinging on the anti-war message and don’t let up. Again I don’t consider being anti-war as a “left issue” it should appeal to anyone with common sense.
Milnes: “JT, well how about-he’s not NOT running?”
Now he’s running. Then he was seriously considering it.
Milnes: “In Ron Paul’s case, I think he was amazed in 2008 at his contribution success. People throwing money at him hand over fist, right & left etc.”
So was everyone else. That’s why that got major news coverage.
Milnes: “No brainer to pursue that again.”
Not a “no-brainer” for a man in his 70s who has to expend a lot of time and energy into running for President, not to mention the fact that he didn’t do very well in the state primaries last time.
Milnes: “I thought throwing money at a problem was a populist, anti-government no-no.”
You need money to run for office, especially for President. Otherwise, you don’t have a real campaign. And the more money a campaign has, the more it can do. Of course, that doesn’t guarantee that those running the campaign will make good decisions about how to allocate that money.
JJM: “So if you have a person who is anti-war, then you have a accomplished a trifecta. They would love you, regardless of the side of spectrum they are on.”
People who are anti-war are mostly found on the Left, not the Right. Rightist voters mostly supported McCain and Huckabee for the Republican nomination in 2008. Though they have some differences (as perceived by most voters), both are warhawks of the highest rank.
Meanwhile, Obama won the Democratic nomination in part because he was (wrongly) perceived as an anti-war candidate.
Libertarians should still hold high the banner of anti-war, but let’s be honest: the majority of people that appeals to is mostly on one side.
JJM: “We should not shirk away from the welfare issue, but I think Ron Paul does it right whenever he is asked if he would end social security, he will say “over time, BUT if you want to do something quickly we should end these wars and bring our troops home.”
Wars are incredibly costly both in lives and money, and we need a non-interventionist foreign policy. However, I think Libertarians also need to focus a great deal on our looming economic crisis due to runaway entitlement-welfare spending. Neither Republican nor Democratic politicians are willing to seriously address it. The magnitude of this problem is also enormous, and the importance of addressing it can’t be understated.
JJM: “I am talking about this in terms of marketing, and what message I think would tranlate to the largest amount of people responding to it.”
I think that’s what Root is trying to do as well, isn’t it? But your focus seems to be on the political Left, while his is on the political Right.
I think focusing a great deal on both would translate to the largest amount of people responding positively.
Candidates learned from Perot. He lost a lot of momentum by quitting then restarting.
JT, well how about-he’s not NOT running?
In Ron Paul’s case, I think he was amazed in 2008 at his contribution success. People throwing money at him hand over fist, right & left etc. No brainer to pursue that again.
I thought throwing money at a problem was a populist, anti-government no-no.
Tom:” When someone:
1) Has sought a party’s presidential nomination before;
2) Is publicly encouraged by others (via real spontaneous “draft” sentiments or through orchestration) to run again;
3) Declines to rule out doing so in Shermanesque terms; and
4) Actively courts media coverage on policy matters set up so as to showcase a previous campaign and foreshadow a possible future campaign …
… one is in fact running, even if one is keeping the baggage as light as possible and keeping the option to drop out open.”
Well, I just don’t agree with your conclusion then. I don’t think it logically follows from those premises.
Ran for President before? Many people have run before who aren’t running this time.
Is encouraged to do it by others? Many people are encouraged to do it by others who aren’t running at the time.
Won’t explicitly rule it out? Many people won’t rule out the possibility who aren’t running at the time.
Actively courts media coverage on policy matters? Many people do that who aren’t running at the time.
Tom: “When Huckaby [sic] announced the other day that he will not run in 2012, what he was actually announcing was that he was dropping out of the ongoing run he’s been engaged in for the last 5-6 years.”
I don’t think so. He’s just a media hound, and one who happens to be popular among many millions of conservatives.
Tom: “I don’t consider it a knock on Root to note that he’s been running for president since 2007, and running for the LP’s 2012 nomination since May of 2008.”
I don’t either. I just don’t think your argument is sound even though you say it repeatedly about him and Paul.
Tom: “There may have been some genuine indecision on Paul’s part at times, perhaps based on his age and on his son’s prospects, but he certainly kept his options open and never, ever, even for a minute, stopped campaigning.”
I think there was genuine indecision and he certainly did keep his options open, but he wasn’t “campaigning” at the time. He was getting invited to talk on a lot of shows because of his unconventional views. Why would he turn those opportunities down regardless?
Also, people who rely on shadowstats have been hanging with conspiracy nuts too much.
If inflation were 10%, then long term Treasury Bills and bonds would be tanking by 600 basis points. We have a huge financial management industry, and you are claiming that despite enormous investment in economic research that this has not been figured out? That claim is totally crazy.
People interested in real economic statistics, not Republican propaganda or doomer pornographic fiction, might usefully track Carpe Diem http://mjperry.blogspot.com/ . The imminent economic disaster claim resembles the economic adviser newsletters that used to be more common, the ones that predicted *equally* accurately the next six great depressions, and that was only counting the ones that were predicted to happen next month during the last year.
By 2016, these economic claims will in my opinion make the claimers look like idiots. The more interesting political tactics question is whether they will also be obviously wrong before the 2012 election.
Legitimate money supply, as opposed to science fantasy statistics, is up very mildly.
The notion of a “Tea Partier with libertarian leanings’ makes about as much sense as a ‘libertarian fascist’, which it in fact conceptually greatly resembles. Tea Party people on the average are less like libertarians, than average Americans are like libertarians. There are some wings of the tea party people we might prune off, but this does not include the racists, the conspiracy nuts, the birthers, the people who think Fox News resembles reality, the anti-immigrant hatemongers,…
wr: The news media in this country are in a stupor. Either out of ignorance, or complete leftist bias and fraud to protect their socialist hero Barack Obama, the mainstream media has turned a blind eye toward the enormous disaster facing our economy.
me: Many of our institutions, incl. the media, could be called “ignorant,” but an alternative view would be to say they operate under very short time horizons. For ex., the S&P 500 is up about 45% over the past 24 months, most of BHO’s presidency. Markets are mostly traded by some VERY bright money managers; they may not be wise, however.
Some of that trading up might be attributable to excess liquidity in the system, but there is no requirement to go long equities that I know of, except, perhaps, by some internal fund charters. And some of that might be due to low interest rates…so markets have traded up as the best option for fund managers.
Despite many troubling indicators, the media looks at the world on a day to day basis. They see life going on, people eating, going to work, raising kids, etc. Some people are hurting, no doubt, especially well outside the Beltway, but they seem to largely buy the not-entirely-incorrect observation that BHO inherited one big mess from W.
Pimco’s Gross and Whitney and Jim Rogers are just more in a long line of doomsayers, they probably say to themselves. Most of the media don’t understand markets, anyway; but, then, who really does?! Couple that with accumulated debt and deficits that are so large that they really can’t be grasped by many, and the media’s collective aperture narrows to more immediate considerations. Throw in the wealth gap statistics, and they vaguely take the view that taxing the rich is the “solution.”
This is a worldview that is honed by the nature of the world. Having a high time preference makes sense when driven by short-term deadlines and a highly competitive marketplace. Couple this with the experience that doomsayers are so often so over the top in their Chicken Little stances, and we get what we have. (Oh, yes, have you heard the latest one…Rapture, this Saturday! Oy vey.)
This is a conundrum for Ls, who tend to pride ourselves on having LOW time preferences. Unfortunately, Keynes was right about one thing: In the long run, we ARE all dead.
In football, most teams need to have a balanced offense…a good ground game sets up the passing game, and vice versa. Hail Marys, while exciting, almost never work out.
Without comment on the propriety of publicly displaying the material @ 27:
According to Wayne, I have “publicly stated [Wayne Root is] some kind of thief and conman on multiple occasions.”
The first claim (“thief”) is false. It might even be actionable — a long shot, but maybe.
Fortunately for Wayne, I expect to get knocked around a llittle when I enter the field of public debate, and am not litigious by temperament.
Wayne: Wear a cup. America will almost certainly elect a female president some day, but I doubt it will elect a whiny little bitch of either sex.
JT@32,
When someone:
1) Has sought a party’s presidential nomination before;
2) Is publicly encouraged by others (via real spontaneous “draft” sentiments or through orchestration) to run again;
3) Declines to rule out doing so in Shermanesque terms; and
4) Actively courts media coverage on policy matters set up so as to showcase a previous campaign and foreshadow a possible future campaign …
… one is in fact running, even if one is keeping the baggage as light as possible and keeping the option to drop out open.
When Huckaby announced the other day that he will not run in 2012, what he was actually announcing was that he was dropping out of the ongoing run he’s been engaged in for the last 5-6 years.
I don’t consider it a knock on Root to note that he’s been running for president since 2007, and running for the LP’s 2012 nomination since May of 2008. I would consider it silly if he had stopped running in May of 2008 and then picked up again until late 2011. Campaigning for president is a long-term thing, even if part of that game is played coquettishly.
There may have been some genuine indecision on Paul’s part at times, perhaps based on his age and on his son’s prospects, but he certainly kept his options open and never, ever, even for a minute, stopped campaigning.
Is WAR just feigning illiteracy as a cover for his thuggery? He certainly didn’t try to defend his false claims about the content of his own email “disclaimer” on their merits!
Regardless, his rant against anonymous political speech sounds like something Obama would say, as the libertarians at Reason point out:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/who-is-publius-or-whos-afraid-of-anonymous-political-speech/
Maybe Obama and WAR’s mutual hatred of free speech stems from their elitist Ivy League roots? It certainly has noting to do with any libertarian foundation!
It’s clear that Root failed to get into law school. He doesn’t know the law.
Merely saying that an email is “private and confidential” does NOT make it so.
The LAW (statues, subject to the CONSTITUTION) determine whether it is so.
Root is a past, and prospective, candidate for national office. He is a high-ranking member of a political party. His email is ABOUT his political plans and goals.
Thus, he legally loses much of his privacy rights and copyright to that email, his cute little notice notwithstanding.
Journalists leak “private and confidential” communiques from political leaders every day.
If Root doesn’t like it, he should resign all his LP positions, and announce that he will never again run for political office.
JJM @ 42 may I suggest that we need to point out that the nation would not have the rate of poverty it does if we had open markets in such areas as transportation, housing, health care and numerous other areas.
We need to cut welfare, but we also need to get the government’s boot off of people’s neck.
No criticism intended.
Nor is that (@43) the only deal-breaker nixing acceptance of W.A.R. as a libertarian leader, as far as I’m concerned. Almost equally troubling to me is W.A.R.’s ambitious, ego-driven personality — as his comment @31 once again illustrates.
People so wrapped up in their own “success” cannot safely be entrusted with political power.
I say this *despite* sympathizing with W.A.R.’s understandable annoyance at someone who hides behind an anonymous handle to attack him.
Aside from the usual tiresome Obama is a socialist” rhetoric, I think it’s actually a pretty good column, whether or not Wayne Allyn Root wrote it himself.
But it’s obvious that W.A.R. is not committed to the Libertarian Party or libertarianism, as Ayn R. Key’s question @23 once again makes clear.
@JT, I am saying that if being Anti-war is going to be our main issue, we can add end corporatism to that list really easy. Do you know anyone from the left or the right who is for corporatism?
So that is a winner, you can also tie that easily into wasteful spending etc.
Then we have “live your life as you please”, again, who is against that?
So if you have a person who is anti-war, then you have a accomplished a trifecta. They would love you, regardless of the side of spectrum they are on.
Everyone knows we are anti-welfare, and if they ask… tell them. But the 3 issues I named are issues that most (anti-war people) believe could/should be ended now. They are also issues where we will have the easiest time differentiating ourselves from the two major parties.
We should not shirk away from the welfare issue, but I think Ron Paul does it right whenever he is asked if he would end social security, he will say “over time, BUT if you want to do something quickly we should end these wars and bring our troops home,”
I am talking about this in terms of marketing, and what message I think would tranlate to the largest amount of people responding to it.
So yes, I am getting all political up in here.
Here is an interesting chart to watch each month http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/research/data/cfnai/current_data.cfm
The U.S. financial picture looks pretty messed up, but people need to ask themselves where will investors put their money if they don’t put it in the U.S. Even people moving out of dollars and into commodities are depending on the U.S. government. Are investors going to invest in yen, or maybe pounds? It look like the gold market may be slowing down. Can’t hide a billion under the bed. So where will the big boys put it?
There are other reasons to get out of muni bonds besides impending default. They generally are fairly low interest. A rise in interest rates, almost certain to happen in response to increased government debt and a weak dollar, would cause the value of low-interest bonds to plummet.
An inflation rate of 10% is certainly not an indication of impending hyperinflation.
The dynamics at play in the economy today are complex and there are many variables. You can’t look at one small aspect of a huge global economy and make sweeping predictions that are accurate.
The best thing that could happen from my viewpoint is that the U.S. would default, insuring that it would be increasingly difficult for the government to borrow. This would force the government to raise taxes or actually create hyperinflation in order to maintain the empire. At that point, it is all downhill.
Now, from where I sit, Reagan-Libertarians and tea party clowns are socialists themselves – they just have a different set of priorities, but their love of central government regulation and control runs deep. They worship the police and the military. They prattle on endlessly about having a strong national defense as they engage in one fools errand after another abroad.
They talk the talk about freedom and liberty, but never walk the walk because they don’t trust that other people can handle too much freedom. They are Libertarian Butts.
It is always, “I am a libertarian, but…”
So, you get socialist central planning from Root like a 20 fucking percent flat tax – whoopee dooo! Statism.
Oh yeah, I forget that since the talk radio tea party rubes are already steeped in national socialism and economic fascism, that’s what “libertarians” have to sell in order to get elected. Right.
Root even has a plan to save social security and he has stolen Ryan’s medicare/medicaid block grant plan. You know, where central planners take money from the states and then redistribute it back to the states.
And Obama is a socialist.
Maybe we’d all be better off by voting for Obama and avoiding the slow death of Republican plumbline dogma by accelerating the decline and getting it over with. Why prolong the torture of socialism like Root proposes?
You knockoff libertarians like Wayne, time to fuck off. You are really making yourselves look like fools and making real libertarians look foolish too. I hope real libertarians send you back to the gop you right wing scum.
You people insulting Wayne, time to grow up. You are really making yourselves look like fools. I hope Wayne doesn’t bother wasting anymore of his time with you.
This comment may only be used in the way I intend. The reader is hereby notified that any unauthorized response to this comment is prohibited. If you have read this comment in error, please rectify your mental processes and thoroughly wash your brain immediately.
“Lets hear your real name. Lets hear where you went to college. Lets hear what you’ve accomplished in the business world. Take off your mask! Take off the mask NOW!”
“No.”
“History always repeats. This vicious cycle of misery will force massive layoffs of government employees, and massive cuts in entitlements and social services”
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME !!! Cut the leeches, ticks, and fleas off, let them find a REAL job and stop living off the Taxpayers. This includes “so-called” libertarians sucking the Taxpayers tit. GROW UP get a PRIVATE sector job you BUMS !
Anyone who thinks Obama isn’t dangerous and a socialist is nuts. With that said the odds are very high against him being defeated in ’12. The Rs have went from Ronald Reagan ’80-’84 winning 1014 EC Votes to 62 EC Votes for the Ds to now where the Ds have 242 EC Votes of the 270 needed to win LOCKED before the race begins. They (the Rs) threw away the Power of the White House with two BUFFOON Bushes and two creepy OLD Senators. They are to blame by their nominations, no one else but themselves ! The numbers never lie, the Rs must win almost ALL swing states to win while the Ds only need as few as one (FL) to win it all. An Orlando Pol writer wrote last month Obama already has FL in the bag for ’12. The influx of northern liberals has increased to the sunshine state over the past decade. You think Obama was bad for liberty in his first term, four more years of “terror” awaits.
One way to defeat B.O. is for the LP candidate to run to his left eroding enough of his base to allow the R to win the swing states. He is a lying warmonger owned by Wall St. just like Bush was. Some people are beginning to understand (I hope). The Rs won’t be smart enough to nominate the right person. If the LP nominates another R Lite it just helps to assure another B.O. win !
Kleptocracy and You, How things really work!- http://ldrlongdistancerider.com/images/Kleptocracy_and_You.jpg
#1.[CFR]:Money Out Of Nothing (1 of 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcS2J7xTxPU&NR=1
#2.[CFR]:The Unseen Guardian Angels (2 of 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogTWoQPoDVc&feature=related
Wayne,
I see you still refuse to answer any of my questions: I’ll ask gain (in case you didn’t see this the first time I asked) you wrote “I’m aiming my gameplan for 2016.”
Are you going on the record that you WILL NOT run in 2012 ?
Me: “So Paul has been running for the 2012 Republican nomination for years and Root has been running for the 2012 Libertarian nomination for years. What are you basing these conclusions on?”
Knapp: “On watching them do it.”
That’s a pretty flip response. Do you mean that because they’ve appeared on a lot on shows to talk about political issues, then that means they’ve been running for President? Plenty of people do that who aren’t running for President. If that’s not what you mean, then what do you mean?
Post 27: Wasn’t that whole thing already posted on another thread? That’s enough.
Yes “whatever” you got it right. I’m illiterate. I was Valedictorian of my high school…Regents scholarship…Deans List at Columbia University…and home-schooled my daughter to Harvard. I’m a real illiterate.
And you…with the bold name “whatever”…you are a genius I’m sure…hiding in your dark room…with anonymous name hurling vicious insults at others.
I’ll bet you’re a real Ivy Leaguer, huh?
A little jealous and sad about your own life?
Does it make u feel better to belittle others?
This is the problem with the Internet…anonymous vicious people attacking others without a clue of what they are saying.
Easy to lob bombs when you’re hiding behind the name “whatever.”
Lets hear your real name. Lets hear where you went to college. Lets hear what you’ve accomplished in the business world.
Yeah. I know the response whenever you call out an anonymous coward on the Internet…
The response when you’re embarrassed at your own lack of achievements is…
“Whatever.”
Wow, WAR has moved from conman to full-fledged scumbag thug.
@WAR, see @28 for help reading & comprehending your own disclaimer:
may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed.
i.e. as @28 says: (This person may decide to forward or post the email as part of their personal use)
— WAR in his disclaimer explicitly gives permission for the recipient to distribute the email as he sees fit, eg posting to IPR.
I guess we can add “illiterate” to WAR’s list of sterling qualities…
The Tea Party movement, which began as a non-partisan, small “l” libertarian movement, has largely been taken over by neocons, and many local affiliates do not present libertarian views. This should not come as news to most IPR readers, and it’s why I don’t participate in the local Tea Party activities. I went to a few of them and realized that there was no room for libertarians at their events.
Whether they’re doing it inadvertently or on purpose, much of the Tea Party is actively discrediting the entire movement. Here’s a good example: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/17/getting_wise_to_breitbarts_lies_missouri.
After carefully reading the “disclosure” let me try to break it down:
“This e-mail, including any attachments, may(and may not)
include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed. (This person may decide to forward or post the email as part of their personal use)
If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, (the person receiving the email may declare everyone an authorized agent)
the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you read the email & are not the addressee, you may not copy or distribute the email – though nothing “prohibits” the intended recipient from doing the same as part of their personal use)
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.”
@Wayne: you wrote “I’m aiming my gameplan for 2016.”
Are you going on the record that you WILL NOT run in 2012 ?
JT @ 13,
“So Paul has been running for the 2012 Republican nomination for years and Root has been running for the 2012 Libertarian nomination for years. What are you basing these conclusions on?”
On watching them do it.
Bob @ 20,
“if I were inside Root’s head, I’d say he thinks BHO is SO bad that he’d not want to do ANYTHING to hurt the chances of unseating him. I understand he can be mercurial, but I’m convinced that he does believe that in his bones.”
I don’t disagree with that.
On the other hand, Wayne is not stupid, and even has a reputation as a handicapper, which means that he knows that as of now there are virtually no chances of unseating Obama to hurt.
That could change, but so far it’s showing no sign of changing.
JJM: “But both the Republicans and Democrats will trying to lay out how they have changed their tunes and are tightening their belts… “This time for real!
But neither will be saying we need to bring our troops home from EVERY WHERE and end these wars now. Obama is taking a pro-war victory lap of late, and we need to capitalize on this.”
Yes, but “We need to tighten our belts” is the equivalent of saying “We need to start drawing down some of our troops soon,” which is what many Republicans and Democrats ARE saying. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are talking about cutting entitlement programs and ending other handouts to individuals, businesses, and foreign governments. THAT’S the equivalent of bringing all the troops home from everywhere.
JJM: “I don’t believe we should completely ignore the welfare issue, but it’s a dud for us this time around. Conservatives know where we stand on that issue.”
If it’s a dud for us now, when the federal government has increased welfare spending by more than 40% since 2008 to almost $1 trillion (according to Heritage Foundation research), when will it not be?
Wayne @ 6 “Only if it’s a Tea Party candidate with Libertarian leanings.”
Why not a full fledged libertarian candidate? Don’t you want to see full fledged libertarians and not mere “leaning” Demopublicans to win?
root and gang push lp NOTA for president and win in 2012.
*win no-mination, not presidency of course
if I were inside Root’s head, I’d say he thinks BHO is SO bad that he’d not want to do ANYTHING to hurt the chances of unseating him.
bingo!
And now that they have full spectrum dominance of the lp …
scenario 1
root and gang push lp NOTA for president and win in 2012. lp goes down tubes, like communists and others after they stopped running presidential candidates.
scenario 2
root takes nomination “reluctantly” so that e.g. Wrights or Duensing does not become the nominee; then closer to election time as the LP candidate he asks all his supporters to vote Republican instead.
….as the lp turns….party’s over, turn out the lites….
tk, if I were inside Root’s head, I’d say he thinks BHO is SO bad that he’d not want to do ANYTHING to hurt the chances of unseating him. I understand he can be mercurial, but I’m convinced that he does believe that in his bones.
I too would like to see BHO out, even though I was rooting for him over McCain, only because I thought McCain made Nixon look mentally stable. (Imagine McCain and Palin in the situation room!) The R field so far has no obviously deeply insane people, except perhaps Gingrich. I would likely root for, say, Romney and vote L, even if we nominate a no-name candidate in the Badnarik mold.
I can be mercurial, too. There’s a lot of wild cards out there still, so I might change my mind…if indicated!
Here’s the do nothing deficit reduction plan.
http://www.slate.com/id/2291054/
John are you holding the baby for ransom? You’re not asking enough and that is why the baby is crying.
“Battered Dollar’s Decline May Be Starting to Reverse”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/business/global/18dollar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Sorry for the type-os I am actually holding a crying baby and trying to get out of here in the next 5 minutes.
@14 I agree JT but the beauty is we have no competition in the anti-war party category, realistically I suppose the same could be said about welffare.
But both the Republicans and Democrats will trying to lay out how they have changed their tunes and are tightening their belts… “This time for real!”
But neither will be saying we need to bring our troops home from EVERY WHERE and end these wars now. Obama is taking a pro-war victory lap of late, and we need to capitalize on this.
Does that mean we have just limited the number of voters who will vote for us? Yes.
Does it mean we would see a huge increase from any of our previous years? I believe so. People from all sides of the spectrum have been able to vote Democrat when they were fed up with the wars… not any more.
Which means a huge increase in members and people who believe in us, which will result in more donations and a foundation for us to do better next time.
I don’t believe we should completely ignore the welfare issue, but it’s a dud for us this time around. Conservatives know where we stand on that issue.
I think our message should be:
End the wars, end the corporatism, and live as you see fit.
(Welfare is the given)
Oh, and I liked this piece. I’ve heard some Libertarians recently say the LP should be proudly and prominently positioning itself as the anti-war party. I agree. The LP equally should be proudly and prominently positioning itself as the anti-welfare party. Both are leading America to disaster.
Tom: “That’s setting aside the fact that he’s been actively running for the 2012 nomination ever since May of 2008.”
So Paul has been running for the 2012 Republican nomination for years and Root has been running for the 2012 Libertarian nomination for years. What are you basing these conclusions on?
NF, that was funny 🙂
“NF, how have you been? Have you considered being my campaign manager?”
Campaign manager? If I have a sex change can’t I be your running mate? 😉
Bob @ 9,
You write:
“Sounds here like Root won’t stand for nomination in 2012.”
Based on his past rhetoric, I don’t read it that way. He seems to think he needs at least one turn in the nomination saddle to position himself, get the message out, and be able to say “I told you so” the second time around.
That’s setting aside the fact that he’s been actively running for the 2012 nomination ever since May of 2008.
He does hop back and forth between the “I’m in, I’m not in” line, but that’s nothing new and seems to be a matter of personal/political/business convenience, not fact.
In the 2008 cycle, he all but declared in January of 2007, formally declared on television in May of 2007, declared that he hadn’t declared in July of 2007, declared he was thinking about declaring in September of 2007, and re-declared in November of 2007 (I think I got all of the declarations, semi-declarations, un-declarations and re-declarations in there, but I’m not sure).
@2,
Obama is mentioned only once in the article.
Yes, the obligatory “socialist” crap is thrown in, but that’s sort of like a gang sign at this point — you don’t get taken seriously on the right unless you genuflect to the pretense that Obama is something other than a center-right social democrat like every other president since Grover Cleveland.
Try reading the REST of the piece, ignoring the rhetorical flourishes. It’s worth a close reading.
Sounds here like Root won’t stand for nomination in 2012.
As for a TP, L-leaning R saving us from going off the cliff, I’m skeptical. I’m thinking a major technology breakthrough is what’s required. I’d love to see GJ or RP win, but that seems highly unlikely. Some pundits do see the Senate tipping R, which might be semi helpful in checking BHO.
Too bad, Wayne. I was looking forward to you getting the 2012 LP nom. & me winning as an Independent thus beating you.
So I’ll just have to wait till 2016 to beat you when I get re-elected.
Well I was gone for about 12 days-both laptops down. I see I didn’t miss much.
NF, how have you been? Have you considered being my campaign manager?
I only wish I could believe you are right. I believe we passed the point of no return 15 to 20 years ago. There is nothing that can be done at this point because no one will accept any sacrifice. When it is all gone the sacrifice will be shared evenly. We all get to share in nothing.
It’s not too late…it’s close to too late. We are at the cliff, but still not falling off it yet. Very few countries have ever recovered from the debt to GDP ratio we are in…but the number is not zero. It is very few.
The problem is govt and the American public is hopelessly divided 50/50, so nothing can pass that is effective.
Can the logjam be broken? We’ll find out in a little over one year.
Can a change from Obama make a difference?
Only if it’s a Tea Party candidate with Libertarian leanings.
A traditional country club Republican will make little difference.
An Obama re-election would be a disaster.
But as I’ve said all along, I predict a GOP sweep…they’ll prove pretty useless…
Then in 2016 a third party candidate can become viable.
Is America or capitalism still alive by 2016? I don’t know.
But when an addict hits bottom, only then is progress and change possible.
2016 is THE moment for LP.
And I’m aiming my gameplan for 2016.
Wayne
Thanks Wayne. You might consider linking to that in future posts. Just a thought.
I am afraid it is far too late, Wayne. There is nothing that can be done now that would be acceptable to any group except perhaps the Aimish. You said it right. Game over. Enjoy life while you can.
@1
Michael,
I’ve made it very clear what my alternative plan is:
http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/economic.php
Root: “Obama evil, blah, blah, blah, Obama socialist, blah, blah, blah, Obama bad man, blah, blah, very bad man, blah, blah, blah…”
Does Root ever have anything original to say?
Well Wayne what do Libertarians propose as an alternative?
btw readers might wish to check out Bruce Bartlett’s piece at the N.Y. T. Economix blog today. I’ll let y’all find the url. Enjoy.