Skip to main content

We've tried GOPers, we've tried Dems, and personal wealth still took a 40% hit. Time to try something else.

Here's why you cannot go with the status quo this year for President:

1.  Personal wealth in this country declined 40% from 2007-2010, thanks to Dems and GOPers.

2.  Dem and GOPer intransigence in Congress will lead to a $405 billion (minimum) tax increase on 150,000,000 households at the beginning of next year.

Here's the money quote from the Kansas City Star:

What the GOP wants just won’t fly. What the Democrats want in no way addresses the scale of the problem.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/10/3643011/commentary-taxmageddon-on-the.html#storylink=cpy

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

This also applies to voting as if Dem and GOPer were your only two choices.

Comments

Eric Dondero said…
Actually No. We haven't "tried GOPers."

Even when Bush was President and the Republicans held majorities in the House and Senate, they were very slender majorities at best. Not too mention, that majority in the Senate last a grand total of 6 months. Remember Jumpin' Jim Jeffords?

The problem isn't that we have "tried the GOP"; rather, problem is we have yet to have a GOP with sufficient majorities in the House and Senate to overcome statist Democrats wanting to block GOP initiatives.

Remember Bush's Cato-based Social Security privatzation proposal in 2005. The Dems made sure it was Dead on Arrival, lambasting it as "extreme" in the media.

If you want progress for Liberty, there's a simple solution: Elect very large Republican majorites in Congress, with a large libertarian contingent, (including dual party Libertarian Party/Republican Party members.)
kavips said…
Steve is right.

Gop is worthless, whiney and only interested in taking money away from the middle class and sequestering it among the wealth.

The gop is morally bankrupt. The gop is used up. The gop cannot put one thought in front of another.

Oh.. go ahead.. blame the Dems. Blah, blah, blah....

Exactly the problem. The GOP cannot sell itself because it is empty air. They have only one line... uhhh.. "we're not democrats..."


Well, I'm sick of it. I'm tired of hearing the same line with not one single positive result since it was first uttered by one of Ronald Reagan's campaign managers back in 78...(just curious, Eric D., were you alive back then?) ummm I think his name was Dick Cheney...

It does not work. It has never worked.

And Gary Johnson is interesting simply because, as a Republican, he made it work... in New Mexico..

Someone actually made something work. AND THE REPUBLICANS THREW HIM OUT OF THEIR PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!

After that, nothing any republican can EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER say, has any credibility...

Hello, Mr. Republican... any neurons still working in there?

lol.

(not meant personally, of course.) Just speaking in generalities....
Dana Garrett said…
I am not sure that a desirable alternate to the GOP or the Dems is a party whose members seriously consider abolishing minimum wage laws and one of whose intellectual inspirations actually said of a libertarian capitalist society "Above all we must recognize that we may be free yet miserable" (Hayek). Trying selling those grim potential realities to a people whose standard of living has been in steady decline for 30 plus years. Widespread pauperism is hardly the antidote to recession.
Will McVay said…
Yes, Dana, better we should continue telling the unemployed that they can't earn enough, so they're not allowed to get a job.

Also, Eric Dondero is an idiot.
Unknown said…
For all of the Dems and Reps out there, I've got some monochrome CRT's you will find useful. As in any old tired technology we feel a pang of sentimentality as we see old ideas shed into the dustbin of history. Some things cannot be upgraded they're just too old, slow and don't work anymore. The new political technology is redefining communication, collaboration, collective discussion and action. With new technology comes the responsibility to catch unintended consequences as they arise. Because the new program is fast and new and useful.
I'm sorry old-timey parties. You are quickly losing relevance in a world where your lies and corruption can be routed out in nanoseconds. You're just not up to the rebuild and the power supply is fading. It's time to break you down and salvage what we can of your base elements.
You were once the driver of our hopes and passions, but now you chug along selling the same old drivel that no longer compiles. Just too many bugs and dropped routines.
We will miss you as we fondly remember an old 8-track tape player. Nice and interesting then but a pain in the ass now. We'll just put you on the shelf so we can remember all your joys and faults. A new age is here, you just haven't recognized it yet.
You see, that is what a paradigm change is all about. You know.. At first they laugh at you, then they fight you, then -- you know the rest. You're not late to the party, you just weren't invited.
It's just a rumbling now, but more can hear it everyday. Laugh, go ahead, enjoy your swan song. It's all you have left.

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...