I would describe myself as a moderate and a pragmatist. I'm not sure exactly what a centralist is.
The tea party isnât just losing; itâs losing badly
- Thread starter Covertibility
- Start date
I would describe myself as a moderate and a pragmatist. I'm not sure exactly what a centralist is.
Most here would describe you as an idiot and a moron. Do you know what those are?
That seems like a realistic appraisal of the GOP situation. I would think that the party would do best by coalescing behind one of the younger more moderate Libertarians, and let the chips fall where they may with the other factions. If they can articulate practical means of carrying out their platform I think they will be rewarded by many Democrats crossing over who are also disillusioned by too much government in their lives. After all "Libertarian" , "Liberal" and "Liberty"all share the same Latin root, libertas. There is a sizable fraction of the democrats that are liberal on social issues. The libertarians can attract these democrats if they propose practical alternatives; shy away from implying that all our problems would vanish if everyone would just be reasonable and nice, and therefore there really is no need for government.<sup>*</sup> They will have to avoid overly simplistic solutions, such as just doing away with government, leaving as it were, millions to hang there twisting slowly in the wind and creating utter chaos.
The Libertarian message can be extremely appealing. Almost everyone, except the true socialists, are at heart libertarians. But there is irony at the core of the Libertarian philosophy -- laissez faire business practice leads to crony capitalism and the end of competition. This is nowhere better articulated than in this recent article from Davies at the London School of Economics, see http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/41937 .
To the capitalist, the term laissez faire is synonymous with "free enterprise". To them, these terms mean freedom from government regulation and control, i.e., freedom to form monopolies and shut off competition; to the naive public, on the other hand, laissez faire and "free enterprise" means freedom to enter the market place and compete. Consequently, if the Libertarians are to garner wide enough appeal to prevail nationally, they must, in view of Libertarian support for laissez faire business practice, articulate how, without government regulation, crony capitalism, which is unpopular, will be throttled down. Or alternatively, what kind of regulation and implementation do they propose to prevent this. (To be fair, the average Libertarian probably means "laissez faire" and "free enterprise" in the naive sense, but does not appreciate the capitalist implications.)
I have said a number of times in these forums that the proper role of Government is to protect "free enterprise" from the capitalists. The above paragraph explains my meaning, and the Davies article articulates this dilemma better than I ever could.
These are issues that need not bother the Libertarian politician when delivering a populist message. But they are issues critical to gaining support from the intellectuals in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Are we yet to the point that the educated no longer matter in national elections. I doubt it.
_____________________
<sup>*</sup>This isn't what Libertarians are saying, it's how their message is being interpreted.
1. I have pushed for the elimination of bribing congress with campaign money.
eliminating the IRS will improve that situation... you are correct.
2. When you deficit spend in the trillions and have 100 trillion in liability... the tax code really is a very cynical way to control the productive in our society. It sucks all the competing capital out of a family in 2 generations. It is designed to protect the cronies and prevents others from buying politicians.
3. Confiscation of a mans earnings... has all the hallmarks of slavery.
It should be considered a civil rights issue.
I am going to make it one.
eliminating the IRS will improve that situation... you are correct.
2. When you deficit spend in the trillions and have 100 trillion in liability... the tax code really is a very cynical way to control the productive in our society. It sucks all the competing capital out of a family in 2 generations. It is designed to protect the cronies and prevents others from buying politicians.
3. Confiscation of a mans earnings... has all the hallmarks of slavery.
It should be considered a civil rights issue.
I am going to make it one.
The latter! I'm neutral toward the IRS itself of course. Who couldn't be? Anyone who blames the IRS for tax complexity, absurdity, and failure to efficiently administer the tax code, or even for abuses, doesn't understand that the IRS is a creature of Congress. Congress makes tax law, not the IRS. The IRS is charged with administering the law and trying to understand it. In this virtually impossible process, they have generated 72,000 pages of tax code. The upper level employees serve at the pleasure of Congress and the Executive branch. It surely is one of the worst jobs conceivable.
Any blame for our ridiculous tax code rests squarely with Congress. The IRS is a demon of Congresses own design; yet Congress knows that the average person hates and blames the IRS for stealing their hard earned money. So they make a big show of going after the IRS functionaries. And god help them -- the functionaries that is, not Congress! They've been given an impossible charge, and an inadequate budget and personnel. If their budget was truly adequate, it would bankrupt us. What a god damn mess!
I was chuckling when I read Jem's remark because of its naivety. Tax code is one of the chief means by which Congress can reward their campaign contributors. What are the chances Congress will do away with the IRS? And what would they replace it with? Besides, it is an extremely useful whipping boy whenever Congress wants to grandstand just before an election by appearing as though they are on our side!
Furthermore, no one in politics who proposes to do away with the IRS can be taken seriously unless they propose a practical replacement at the same time.
1. I have pushed for the elimination of bribing congress with campaign money.
eliminating the IRS will improve that situation... you are correct.
2. When you deficit spend in the trillions and have 100 trillion in liability... the tax code really is a very cynical way to control the productive in our society. It sucks all the competing capital out of a family in 2 generations. It is designed to protect the cronies and prevents others from buying politicians.
3. Confiscation of a mans earnings... has all the hallmarks of slavery.
It should be considered a civil rights issue.
I am going to make it one.
4. Finally, it has a massive liberty issue as we have seen the re weaponization of the IRS. Our politicians can not be trusted with such a weapon.
In short there is no reason for an IRS.
but if you really want tax revenue... a flat tax of 7 percent would be an acceptable compromise.... as long as it phases out over time.
eliminating the IRS will improve that situation... you are correct.
2. When you deficit spend in the trillions and have 100 trillion in liability... the tax code really is a very cynical way to control the productive in our society. It sucks all the competing capital out of a family in 2 generations. It is designed to protect the cronies and prevents others from buying politicians.
3. Confiscation of a mans earnings... has all the hallmarks of slavery.
It should be considered a civil rights issue.
I am going to make it one.
4. Finally, it has a massive liberty issue as we have seen the re weaponization of the IRS. Our politicians can not be trusted with such a weapon.
In short there is no reason for an IRS.
but if you really want tax revenue... a flat tax of 7 percent would be an acceptable compromise.... as long as it phases out over time.
The latter! I'm neutral toward the IRS itself of course. Who couldn't be? Anyone who blames the IRS for tax complexity, absurdity, and failure to efficiently administer the tax code, or even for abuses, doesn't understand that the IRS is a creature of Congress. Congress makes tax law, not the IRS. The IRS is charged with administering the law and trying to understand it. In this virtually impossible process, they have generated 72,000 pages of tax code. The upper level employees serve at the pleasure of Congress and the Executive branch. It surely is one of the worst jobs conceivable.
Any blame for our ridiculous tax code rests squarely with Congress. The IRS is a demon of Congresses own design; yet Congress knows that the average person hates and blames the IRS for stealing their hard earned money. So they make a big show of going after the IRS functionaries. And god help them -- the functionaries that is, not Congress! They've been given an impossible charge, and an inadequate budget and personnel. If their budget was truly adequate, it would bankrupt us. What a god damn mess!
I was chuckling when I read Jem's remark because of its naivety. Tax code is one of the chief means by which Congress can reward their campaign contributors. What are the chances Congress will do away with the IRS? And what would they replace it with? Besides, it is an extremely useful whipping boy whenever Congress wants to grandstand just before an election by appearing as though they are on our side!
Furthermore, no one in politics who proposes to do away with the IRS can be taken seriously unless they propose a practical replacement at the same time.
I can agree that you are a moderate liberal.
That's probably about right.
Ok, just so you understand, that doesn't make you a centrist or an independent. It puts you solidly on the left. Not overly so, like FC or Covertibility (those two are pegged to the left/progressive side).
In today's climate with the extreme right moving to the republican party far right it does make me a moderate, again I'm not sure what you mean politically by centrist. And you are wrong sir, I am an independent and my voting reflects that.