Boston Tea Party denounces the Bail-out

There's this about political parties: you don't have to agree with all the details of everything yours does to be proud of it.

From a very personal perspective the Boston Tea Party condemnation of the $850 billion-dollar bail-out goes a little farther than i would, calling for an immediate liquidation of the Federal Reserve and repeal of legal tender laws. It's not that I don't want to go there eventually, but I'm more of an incrementalist, I think.

But that's not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that the BTP has put down in writing what the two wings of the Demopublicans haven't had the courage to say: the bail-out was simply wrong.

Here are some of my favorite snippets:

Whereas, the bailout will tack on an additional $112 billion to the current deficit over a period of five years because the legislation contains no provision to dramatically cut spending and tax levels, and...

Whereas, the United States Senate voted in favor of the $850 billion bailout package by a vote of 74-26 in the interests of its lobbyists and special interest groups and against the wishes of the American people....

Be it resolved that the Boston Tea National Committee denounces, opposes, and condemns the $850 billion bailout package, as it deepens the financial crisis on Wall Street and Main Street and fleeces the American taxpayers of their hard-earned money to bailout companies, a practice that can be easily called economic fascism (or corporate socialism)...

Reinforces the need for federal and state accountability on the corrupt, fraudulent, and rotten actions of the regulators, bureaucrats, and corporatists aligned with the banking, financial, and mortgage sectors...

All my non-Libertarian friends should re-read that last segment....

The Boston Tea Party really could be the future of the Libertarian movement.

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog