Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

by SFCraig Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 am

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/06/MN3T11JI0P.DTL&tsp=1

"Do you think Obama will increase spending by $1 trillion, because that's what Republicans did over the past two presidential terms. So really, how much worse can he be?' And there are certainly libertarians who think Obama will be better on the war and on foreign policy, on executive power and on surveillance than McCain."

by Aaron Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:13 am

Yes, I believe Obama will spend as much as, if not more, then GWB. Not only will he keep troops in Iraq, he will increase troops in Afghanistan do defense spending won't go down. In addition, if he has his way and mandatory health care passes, he will increase entitlement spending by billions.

by **SheikBen** Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:19 pm

SFCraig,

I love ya but only in San Fran could that argument get anywhere. Obama is the opposite of less government, and all signs point to his continuing not only US intervention in Iraq but throughout the world.

by SFCraig Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:52 pm

That was a quote from prominent Obamacons. Not my own thought, but it shows how much damage has been done to the (once-thought-permanent majority) Republican brand.

George Will even halfway endorsed Obama, due to his association with University of Chicago Economists.

Maybe the traditional stereotypes should be done away with? If GWB can be the creator of the largest entitlement in history, certainly a Dem can be fiscally responsible, n'est-ce pas?

by **Stephanie** Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:17 pm

I want to know what they're lacing that stuff you've been smoking out there in San Fran, Craig.

by **SheikBen** Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:37 am

He could at least have the decency to share.

by **SheikBen** Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:45 am

"Libertarians are tired of Christian evangelicals, who they believe captured the GOP under President Bush."--SFGate

I'll be sure to tell that to my cousins who are coming over Wednesday. They are Libertarian Party activists in Illinois and Christian evangelicals. I'll be sure to let them know that they are tired of themselves.

I have no doubt that there are "Obamacans" like Andrew Sullivan (whose tripe is unfit for the wrapping of fish) throughout California and New England, but the same people voted for Kerry. I hardly think "California conservatives" voting Democrat is a new phenomenon.

Obama is the likely winner right now; however, it's not going to be Libertarian voters electing him. It might be Libertarian voters rejecting McCain, but that should not be construed (and neither should the Cato Institute quote) as supporting Obama. The man is not for sound money, the abolition of the income tax, an end to US involvement in the United Nations and in foreign affairs, and has not taken a clear stance on the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Real libertarians vote for Obama? Is that anything like saying that real women drink Schlitz?

by **SheikBen** Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:47 am

BTW, Craig, I will concede that GWB has not been fiscally responsible. That is no longer a Republican issue, and it will not help in November.

by shermangeneral Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:27 am

Well Mike I hate to bust your bubble but it did not start with W.

Do you know who had the biggest deficit in history before W?

Do you know who had the second highest?

Do you know who was the only one in recent history to actually have a balanced budget?

by **SheikBen** Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:55 pm

Sherman,

Yes I know that Clinton administration had budget surpluses and that this was a rarity, but a balanced budget amendment was actually part of the Republican Contract with America.

by Aaron Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:40 pm

Not to mention record revenus created by the dot.com era which some economist say today's economy is a correction of, especially in the housing market.

by shermangeneral Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:43 pm

SheikBen wrote:Sherman,

Yes I know that Clinton administration had budget surpluses and that this was a rarity, but a balanced budget amendment was actually part of the Republican Contract with America.

Yeah they did say that didnt they.

(but there was no balanced budget amendment forthcoming. You do realize that right?)

Also term limits and some other stuff that didnt happen.

And when your guys got in total control you see what happened.

I hate to open myself up to the charges of partisan hackmanship from Steph but that's the truth.

Now Bill Clinton is not even my brand of Democrat, but facts are facts.

by Aaron Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:25 pm

You do realize Sherm that it is Congress that has final say over ALL spending and that the projected budget surplus (there was never an actual surplus) was accomplished under a non-veto proof partisan Republican Congress and a partisan democratic President thus in reality neither democrats nor Republicans were fully responsible for said projected budget surplus of the 90‘s. It was a freak lining up of the stars more then anything else.

It's also something you won't get with a Republican president as we have right now and a useless democratic controlled congress, as we have right not, because said democrats will sell their sole for $2.00 an hour and a 13 week unemployment extension.

As you said, facts are facts.

by shermangeneral Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:24 pm

You just cant bring yourself to admit it can you aaron?

I know it hurts but we will be here for you.

I don't do like you righties and try to rub it in when you are wrong so go ahead just let it out your guys blew it.

You will feel better you will see.... Very Happy

by Aaron Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:41 pm

What am I wrong about Sherm? That there was partisan politics among the parties which resulted in 2 government shutdowns.

Or perhaps it's the Dot-com bubble that resulted in unexpected revenue for the federal government.

If you want to remain ignorant to the truth of why there was a projected budget surplus in 2000 Sherm, remain ignorant to the truth. All I can do is post the links, I can't force you to read and I certainly can't teach when you're so unwilling to learn.

by Aaron Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:52 pm

Or perhaps I'm wrong in how a bill becomes a law.

How a Bill Becomes a Law

1. A member of Congress introduces a bill.
When a senator or representative introduces a bill, it is sent to the clerk of the Senate or House, who gives it a number and title. Next, the bill goes to the appropriate committee.

2. Committees review and vote on the bill.
Committees specialize in different areas, such as foreign relations or agriculture, and are made up of small groups of senators or representatives.

The committee may reject the bill and “table” it, meaning it is never discussed again. Or it may hold hearings to listen to facts and opinions, make changes in the bill and cast votes. If most committee members vote in favor of the bill, it is sent back to the Senate and the House for debate.

3. The Senate and the House debate and vote on the bill.
Separately, the Senate and the House debate the bill, offer amendments and cast votes. If the bill is defeated in either the Senate or the House, the bill dies.

Sometimes, the House and the Senate pass the same bill, but with different amendments. In these cases, the bill goes to a conference committee made up of members of Congress. The conference committee works out differences between the two versions of the bill.

Then the bill goes before all of Congress for a vote. If a majority of both the Senate and the House votes for the bill, it goes to the President for approval.

4. The President signs the bill—or not.
If the President approves the bill and signs it, the bill becomes a law. However, if the President disapproves, he can veto the bill by refusing to sign it.

Congress can try to overrule a veto. If both the Senate and the House pass the bill by a two-thirds majority, the President's veto is overruled and the bill becomes a law.

by shermangeneral Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:17 pm

Thank you Aaron I do like to learn. And I have learned some stuff from you.

But Maybe you can learn too.

There is no need to call me names that makes it harder to teach me. Very Happy

by Aaron Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:13 am

The only name I called you was Sherm. Isn't that your handle on here?

by SFCraig Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:50 pm

Aaron wrote:Not to mention record revenus created by the dot.com era which some economist say today's economy is a correction of, especially in the housing market.

I've never heard anyone say there was cause and effect of dot-com to housing, unless you count unscrupulous investors trying to cash in. They are similar in their nature, but I can't see how the two could be related at all.

by SFCraig Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Stephanie wrote:I want to know what they're lacing that stuff you've been smoking out there in San Fran, Craig.

Ha...well, everything has been on fire so it is possible that I got a contact buzz....

That being said, many people other than California Republicans are supporting Obama, particularly on Economic Issues. There really have been no fiscally conservative Republican presidents in our lifetimes, so I think the myth is finally in death throes.

Obama worked at Business International Corp, and although not a financial expert there, was involved in economics. He also, as I said, hung with the University of Chicago Economists that are considered libertarian.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142638

"Barack Obama is a "choice architect" aiming to implement "libertarian paternalism." He might not know that he is; he might embrace the practice without understanding the theory. It is adumbrated in the new book "Nudge" by two occasional and informal advisers to Obama, both of whom are former colleagues of his at the University of Chicago, Richard H. Thaler of the Graduate School of Business, and Cass R. Sunstein of the Law School."

by **SheikBen** Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:07 pm

You'll have to help me, here, Craig. Refering to the government implementing ANY form of "paternalism" strikes me as by definition antithetical to "libertarian." Please, expound.

As for Obama "hanging out with libertarian economists," I might need to remind you that I have very liberal friends and that this does not mean that I agree with them whatsoever.

by SFCraig Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:33 pm

Ha..read the article. Will's point is that you can do what is best for the citizenry, not necessarily by enacting laws and regulations, etc (old liberal Paternalism). Allow the good choices to be the default choices, then idiots can choose to opt-out (which they won't, as they're idiots).

The Economists mentioned are advisers to Obama.

by shermangeneral Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:41 pm

Well SF Craig ru for Obama?

Are you recommending him to us?

Because I respect your opinion.

by SFCraig Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:54 pm

shermangeneral wrote:Well SF Craig ru for Obama?

Are you recommending him to us?

Because I respect your opinion.

Thanks Sherm.

Yes I am. I gave him money early on (even though I thought there was no way he could win the primary), because I didn't want the media and others to say "well, the American public doesn't seem to care about the war".

I also gave to Edwards to promote poverty as an issue, for the same reason. Having family in Appalachia, I appreciate when those issues are spotlighted.

The presidency is, in my opinion, a lot about "tone". The tone he/she sets changes the mood of the country, the world, the markets. I believe that most of the world wants to feel good again, ala FDR post-Hoover. The rest are details, and the details are god if they are non-Neocon, non trickle-down, non-war-mongering.

by Aaron Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:22 am

SFCraig wrote:
Aaron wrote:Not to mention record revenus created by the dot.com era which some economist say today's economy is a correction of, especially in the housing market.

I've never heard anyone say there was cause and effect of dot-com to housing, unless you count unscrupulous investors trying to cash in. They are similar in their nature, but I can't see how the two could be related at all.

They are related in that there was unsubstantiated growth of both in the late 90's and the early part of this century and both required correction.

by Sponsored content

Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

Re: Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)