Who are you voting for?
- Thread starter Zsaleem
- Start date
Personally, I don't think it is any less libertarian than joining the government subsidised Republican party and collecting a government paycheck for being a member of Congress, e.g. Ron Paul.
Unlike with other subsidies, the federal campaign fund pie doesn't grow if more parties become eligible. The Libertarian party getting 5% doesn't cause one additional penny to be spent, it just takes away from what already goes to the Dem/Repubs.
"...ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by a very conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time covered leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis."
Rewriting The Causes Of The Credit Crisis | The Big Picture
That's worth a read for those interested. Ritholtz is neither democrat or republican and criticizes both.
For those of you who advocate for a free market, and go to great lengths to convince others of its benefits, consider this...
At this point, it's much better if Obama wins a second term. Here's why:
The economy is still rotten to the core. There's no real recovery on the horizon, at least not in the near term. Savings have dried up (thanks Bernanke!), there's little capital for investment, and the country is suffering from a net-consumption attitude. That attitude is not going away anytime soon, and it's tough to build wealth when you consume more than you produce. That means there's a good chance things are going to get a lot worse in the coming years.
Suppose the economic cataclysm is yet to come. It's going to be easy to pin the blame on the socialistic policies of the Obama administration. That's especially true if Obama opens the floodgates during his second term and completely destroys the currency. After all, he doesn't have to spread his legs for votes.
But if Romney wins, the free market is going to get the blame once again. Not because Romney has anything to do with the free market, but because the intellectually bankrupt believe he does, and will point their fingers accordingly.
If you care which liar sits in the White House until 2016, ignore the above. If you actively advocate economic freedom, realize that a Romney win is going to make your job tougher.
At this point, it's much better if Obama wins a second term. Here's why:
The economy is still rotten to the core. There's no real recovery on the horizon, at least not in the near term. Savings have dried up (thanks Bernanke!), there's little capital for investment, and the country is suffering from a net-consumption attitude. That attitude is not going away anytime soon, and it's tough to build wealth when you consume more than you produce. That means there's a good chance things are going to get a lot worse in the coming years.
Suppose the economic cataclysm is yet to come. It's going to be easy to pin the blame on the socialistic policies of the Obama administration. That's especially true if Obama opens the floodgates during his second term and completely destroys the currency. After all, he doesn't have to spread his legs for votes.
But if Romney wins, the free market is going to get the blame once again. Not because Romney has anything to do with the free market, but because the intellectually bankrupt believe he does, and will point their fingers accordingly.
If you care which liar sits in the White House until 2016, ignore the above. If you actively advocate economic freedom, realize that a Romney win is going to make your job tougher.
I agree. Both are completely unlibertarian.
See, that's my problem. It's not a "pie".
It's stolen goods.
Which ultimately doesn't matter because the problem isn't who is in charge, but that there is someone in charge at all.
Libertarian, Green, and Prohibition party members are not immune to having things stolen from them. In theory, a 5% Libertarian Party vote means that they are the source of 5% of those goods, stolen or otherwise. But actually in the case of US federal election funds, it is funded by a voluntary check box on tax forms.
