New Liberty Candidate.

[Elm]

He is a local candidate near me (alas not in my district) I know he was heavily involved in the campaign starting in early 2007. The seat is currently open as Jim Gerlach isn't running for re-election. Looks like he just got the donation page working, I've been trying to donate for a while now. This just came in:

Dear Fellow Liberty Lover,
A patriot has stepped up to run in the 2010 elections for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District. His name is Patrick Henry Sellers. That is his real name and he lives up to it.
Pat interviewed the other candidates for the office. He realized that they would speak for limited government but either did not understand it or would not really support it. This lack of concern for the livelihood and liberties of the people and respect for the Constitution convinced Pat to run.
Pat can win this seat with your support. There is no incumbent and Pat’s main opponent isa carpetbagger who doesn’t even live in the district. Unlike his competition, Pat stands for limited, Constitutional government that allows a free market to create jobs and keeps the government from meddling in everyone's lives.
JOIN US TODAY at www.PatSellers.org. Help as he joins the ranks of Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and Adam Kokesh in the struggle to retake our government!

Donate to Pat's fight against expansive and destructive legislation. Give the Gift of Liberty by donating https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/contributeFederal.asp?guidRegistration=575D5D5C $5, $10, $50 or any amount you feel freedom is worth. Tell everyone you know that Patrick Henry Sellers is in the fight!

Thank you so very much for your time and support.

[Morgan Brykein]

What party?

[Elm]

He's running on the republican ticket.

[TCE]

I wouldn't discount someone living outside of the district. Doug Hoffman lives outside NY23.

[TheState]

Do you know much about the district? I just looked it up on wikipedia real quick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania's_6th_congressional_district).

[Elm]

I used to live in the district. It encompassesa lot of influential areas outside of Philadelphia.

[Morgan Brykein]

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. The federal government, however, has no Constitutional authority to pass laws regarding marriage.

I gained a little faith in humanity just now. Real conservatives do exist.

Though, I'm not so sure if he'll get the Republican nomination. They'll probably want to nominate some neo-con hack. I read somewhere that they make you sign an agreement to not run on an alternative ticket if you loose the nomination, when you enter a primary. Is that true in all cases?

[mtj458]

I actually live in the 6th district and had not heard about him. Thanks for the heads up!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What a name; Patrick Henry :p

He has some pretty good stances. Only thing I didn't like with a quick overlook was this:

For long-term goals we should start with getting our entitlements under control. A long-term plan needs to be developed, allowing those just entering the work force to opt out of social security and medicare while fulfilling commitments to those who were taxed all their lives and are now dependent on these programs.

Why would anyone opt-out if you still had to pay in? It makes no sense. Just abolish these programs. Either we abolish them, or they will abolish themselves one day when the US implodes. What situation would you rather have?

[TheState]

Why would anyone opt-out if you still had to pay in? It makes no sense. Just abolish these programs. Either we abolish them, or they will abolish themselves one day when the US implodes. What situation would you rather have?

That would be a hard sell in an election though.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That would be a hard sell in an election though.

Yes, in short-sitedness it would be difficult. So was abolition of slavery in the 1820s and 1830s. Yet, there were many who were calling for out-right instant abolition. Their loud and tireless voices eventually led to it, albeit, in a way that was arguably worse (At the expense of 600,000 lives; Reconstruction, Occupation, Massive State growth, etc.). This is why Democracy (or at least tenets -- voting), is abhorrent. It always is a tyranny of the majority, and always the worst malcontents rise to the top. Over-time any part of the State or otherwise are always twisted into tyranny, even with the vaunted Constitution. So, yes, we have to be loud, we have to be tireless, we have to have convictions in our morality, and we have to condemn all tyrannies, no matter if a majority calls for it.


What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty -- Hans Hermann Hoppe

This is why I don't like politicking (Though I support politics). Some will justify bending or lying about your principles to get elected, but that in itself is the first stop at throwing out your principles. For what are principles if they are not stringently held to? Yes, I won't ever find that perfect candidate (Though I have seen some An-Caps run before), unless I run, but it doesn't mean I won't yell from the stands when they abandon their principles and morality.

[Elm]

What a name; Patrick Henry :p

He has some pretty good stances. Only thing I didn't like with a quick overlook was this:

For long-term goals we should start with getting our entitlements under control. A long-term plan needs to be developed, allowing those just entering the work force to opt out of social security and medicare while fulfilling commitments to those who were taxed all their lives and are now dependent on these programs.

Why would anyone opt-out if you still had to pay in? It makes no sense. Just abolish these programs. Either we abolish them, or they will abolish themselves one day when the US implodes. What situation would you rather have?

When I talked to him in person at the gun show he seemed to want a cut in federal spending and then offer the savings as a lottery to those interested in opting out.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When I talked to him in person at the gun show he seemed to want a cut in federal spending and then offer the savings as a lottery to those interested in opting out.

That doesn't solve anything. Thats actually counter intuitive. What we need to be doing is abolishing it and cutting federal spending so we can start paying down our debt.

This has two positives right off the bat. We cut down massively on liabilities which contribute to the debt, and we cut down on the interest payments little by little. Without cutting entitlements we will never even pay down the principle by 1$. Entitlements by far dwarf all other expenditure and its the reason why pretty much all entitlements are off-budget.

This is why I HATE HATE HATE fucking Democracy and Party-systems. Oh, but you'll never get elected if you speak the truth. Well fuck that, I'll keep speaking the truth regardless. This is why I'm leaning towards having all liberty-candidates run as Independants.

[Elm]

That doesn't solve anything. Thats actually counter intuitive. What we need to be doing is abolishing it and cutting federal spending so we can start paying down our debt.

This has two positives right off the bat. We cut down massively on liabilities which contribute to the debt, and we cut down on the interest payments little by little. Without cutting entitlements we will never even pay down the principle by 1$. Entitlements by far dwarf all other expenditure and its the reason why pretty much all entitlements are off-budget.

This is why I HATE HATE HATE fucking Democracy and Party-systems. Oh, but you'll never get elected if you speak the truth. Well fuck that, I'll keep speaking the truth regardless. This is why I'm leaning towards having all liberty-candidates run as Independants.

Yes hate as much as you want but it is the reality we must live with and the reality we MUST take into account if we wish to win.

Our opponents use incrementalism to their advantage and it is through smart utilization of that strategy that we now arrive where we are. The only non-violent way to recoup what generations have lost is the long slow march to sanity. We must always work towards the goal of more liberty for more people introducing people to freedom and thought and teaching them to respect and love what they have obtained instead of seeing it as "more work".

The point of the fight is to achieve rather than to constantly praise our goal, yes? In that light we need to examine the reality of the situation instead of merely the academics of it. Libertarians have pointed out why people are logically wrong for what they are currently doing for decades now. It doesn't seem to be a working system does it? It would be folly to continue to pursue that goal.

Incrementalism my friend, baby steps towards the light - but always TOWARDS the light.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes hate as much as you want but it is the reality we must live with and the reality we MUST take into account if we wish to win.

Our opponents use incrementalism to their advantage and it is through smart utilization of that strategy that we now arrive where we are. The only non-violent way to recoup what generations have lost is the long slow march to sanity. We must always work towards the goal of more liberty for more people introducing people to freedom and thought and teaching them to respect and love what they have obtained instead of seeing it as "more work".

The point of the fight is to achieve rather than to constantly praise our goal, yes? In that light we need to examine the reality of the situation instead of merely the academics of it. Libertarians have pointed out why people are logically wrong for what they are currently doing for decades now. It doesn't seem to be a working system does it? It would be folly to continue to pursue that goal.

Incrementalism my friend, baby steps towards the light - but always TOWARDS the light.

What he advocates isn't towards the light, in fact, it's going in the opposite direction. We must always be abolitionists. Gradual as the process may be, you must not conflate the two. We can be abolitionists and gradualists at the same time. Of course we aren't going to go from where we are now to where we want to be in a short-time, but we can also be abolitionists at the same time.

It seems some of my libertarian friends would rather try to streamline the Government instead of abolishing it's liberty-destroying ways. Let me ask you, how is that working out?

[Elm]

What he advocates isn't towards the light, in fact, it's going in the opposite direction. We must always be abolitionists. Gradual as the process may be, you must not conflate the two. We can be abolitionists and gradualists at the same time. Of course we aren't going to go from where we are now to where we want to be in a short-time, but we can also be abolitionists at the same time.

It seems some of my libertarian friends would rather try to streamline the Government instead of abolishing it's liberty-destroying ways. Let me ask you, how is that working out?

I think you confuse the point.

We have few libertarian friends in positions to make ANY changes because those who speak about tearing down cherished systems generate an emotional response which prevents them from being elected. You and I are of the very few percentage of individuals who prefer to think rationally rather than emotionally. Elections are based on popularity not positions. Positions will win the ten percent and thats great if you want to always be defeated and never get to enact your positions.

The political reality of winning elections in the US is gradualism. We can look at the results of the libertarian party throughout its history to affect real political changes while arguing for abolition: Zero. We now compare than to the results of the left-leaning parties throughout the same time period: More than I can count.

You seem an intelligent person so again I ask you, given the above, which course seems the most rational to consider?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think you confuse the point.

We have few libertarian friends in positions to make ANY changes because those who speak about tearing down cherished systems generate an emotional response which prevents them from being elected. You and I are of the very few percentage of individuals who prefer to think rationally rather than emotionally. Elections are based on popularity not positions. Positions will win the ten percent and thats great if you want to always be defeated and never get to enact your positions.

The political reality of winning elections in the US is gradualism. We can look at the results of the libertarian party throughout its history to affect real political changes while arguing for abolition: Zero. We now compare than to the results of the left-leaning parties throughout the same time period: More than I can count.

You seem an intelligent person so again I ask you, given the above, which course seems the most rational to consider?

Free State Project and secession. :D

The most rational would be to not advertise those positions unless asked. I hate politicking anyways. If you can't run a principled campaign then you won't be a principled representative. So whats the point.
Where has gradualism gotten us with the GOP in the past 50 years?

Either run a principled campaign or don't run at all.

[Elm]

Free State Project and secession. :D

The most rational would be to not advertise those positions unless asked. I hate politicking anyways. If you can't run a principled campaign then you won't be a principled representative. So whats the point.
Where has gradualism gotten us with the GOP in the past 50 years?

Either run a principled campaign or don't run at all.


Neither one has resulted in anything more but people changing residence and a few state legislators grandstanding - that is not political change.

You seem to see this as an issue in which there exists a dilemma, I don't. One can run a principled campaign (or unprincipled) get elected, and still retain one's principles. It is called spin. You say things that you agree with in a way that others will agree with. (Psychologically once a person states an agreement even in their mind, they are more likely to defend and agree with future related statements.) I want to greatly reduce the tax burden on the average American (I do, by eventually destroying the IRS - note I did not lie and voters will like the message).

I don't believe the GOP has intended to for the past 50 years to reduce government so I can't argue as I disagree with the premise presented.

I can tell you hate politiking however it is required if we want to win.

Perhaps one of my premises in this discussion was flawed. You do desire to win don't you?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Neither one has resulted in anything more but people changing residence and a few state legislators grandstanding - that is not political change.

You seem to see this as an issue in which there exists a dilemma, I don't. One can run a principled campaign (or unprincipled) get elected, and still retain one's principles. It is called spin. You say things that you agree with in a way that others will agree with. (Psychologically once a person states an agreement even in their mind, they are more likely to defend and agree with future related statements.) I want to greatly reduce the tax burden on the average American (I do, by eventually destroying the IRS - note I did not lie and voters will like the message).

I don't believe the GOP has intended to for the past 50 years to reduce government so I can't argue as I disagree with the premise presented.

I can tell you hate politiking however it is required if we want to win.

Perhaps one of my premises in this discussion was flawed. You do desire to win don't you?

Yes, but not by abandoning principles to get elected. Once we do that, we are on the same page morally as Obama. Sorry, I'll pass. I'm not a means justify the ends kind of guy.

[Elm]

Yes, but not by abandoning principles to get elected. Once we do that, we are on the same page morally as Obama. Sorry, I'll pass. I'm not a means justify the ends kind of guy.


I agree - if we sacrifice principles then what are we fighting for.

However you seem to have either ignored or dismissed some of my discussion; you continue to offer a false dilemma (that the choice is stick to principles and lose or compromise principles and win - it is possible to stick to principles and win Ron Paul is proof).

Thus why don't we examine together the possibility of sticking to principles and winning? It seems this is the prime example of when collaberation would be the best outcome.

I don't mean to insult you but it seems as if you're going down the road of "Compromise is anathema, we must compromise to win, thus we cannot fight" which is self-defeatist and ultimately the cry of the person who wants to dismiss an effort so they do not have to expend energy for that effort. I certainly hope I am wrong here.

I've seen this attitude with many liberty-oriented individuals since the 2008 election. It is quite disheartening because with a little bit of understanding how most other human beings think we can both stick to principles and win.

I've given you all the information that should be necessary for you to consider your opinion. It has been a pleasent diversion discussing this with you.

[mtj458]

This guy isn't a sellout. He announced his candidacy at an End the Fed rally, how bad could he possible be? Running as an anarchist is never going to win us elections. If we get somebody who will veto any expansion of government and introduce a few bills to shrink it, we have to consider that a win.

I donated $20 to him, hopefully a few of you can match me

[Elm]

This guy isn't a sellout. He announced his candidacy at an End the Fed rally, how bad could he possible be? Running as an anarchist is never going to win us elections. If we get somebody who will veto any expansion of government and introduce a few bills to shrink it, we have to consider that a win.

I donated $20 to him, hopefully a few of you can match me

Way to go. Since I know him from the 2007-2008 run I donated as well. My parents still live in that district.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This guy isn't a sellout. He announced his candidacy at an End the Fed rally, how bad could he possible be? Running as an anarchist is never going to win us elections. If we get somebody who will veto any expansion of government and introduce a few bills to shrink it, we have to consider that a win.

I donated $20 to him, hopefully a few of you can match me

Did I say he's a sell-out? No. Did I say you have to run as an Anarchist? No.

If you believe in liberty and minarchism, then at least run as a Jeffersonian!

[Elm]

Did I say he's a sell-out? No. Did I say you have to run as an Anarchist? No.

If you believe in liberty and minarchism, then at least run as a Jeffersonian!

From how much I know of Pat I believe you, I, and he would see eye to eye on 98% of the issues. I assure you if you were alive when Jefferson doubled the size of the nation unconstitutionally funded by the taxpayer you wouldn't have liked that right? So if your ideal is a Jeffersonian - understand that leeway is built in.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

From how much I know of Pat I believe you, I, and he would see eye to eye on 98% of the issues. I assure you if you were alive when Jefferson doubled the size of the nation unconstitutionally funded by the taxpayer you wouldn't have liked that right? So if your ideal is a Jeffersonian - understand that leeway is built in.

Yes, I would have been staunchly against the Lousiania Purchase (to wit; he funded it by duties/tariffs, which I am also vehemently against, but it isn't as bad as say, domestic taxation). I probably agree with that sentiment, though I don't think I'd peg it at 98%, but I'm very happy with 90% :D

However, Jefferson was against all domestic taxation, national banks/central banks, just about every invasion of liberty, etc. If he was alive I'd reckon he would call for the outright abolition of 99% of the Government.

Just remember, I'm a pretty radical guy even in these parts, especially when it comes to politicking.

[mtj458]

I don't think it's a good idea to outright end Social Security, so I agree with his stance. I'd rather phase it out because it's not fair to people who have worked their whole life paying into the system to not receive anything. I'd support something where the oldest certain percentage of the population receive benefits and we bring that percentage down to zero over the course of a number of years.

[Elm]

Yes, I would have been staunchly against the Lousiania Purchase (to wit; he funded it by duties/tariffs, which I am also vehemently against, but it isn't as bad as say, domestic taxation). I probably agree with that sentiment, though I don't think I'd peg it at 98%, but I'm very happy with 90% :D

However, Jefferson was against all domestic taxation, national banks/central banks, just about every invasion of liberty, etc. If he was alive I'd reckon he would call for the outright abolition of 99% of the Government.

Just remember, I'm a pretty radical guy even in these parts, especially when it comes to politicking.

I know I haven't posted much but from your statements I surmise we are much much more likely to agree on issues of governance than to disagree.

I trusted Pat with 100 bucks during Christmas time (and boy do I have a lot of relatives) so my money is where my faith is. He worked like a racehorse in Chester Country for Ron. I think the district he was in charge reported at 28% for Ron in the primary and thats pretty good.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't think it's a good idea to outright end Social Security, so I agree with his stance. I'd rather phase it out because it's not fair to people who have worked their whole life paying into the system to not receive anything. I'd support something where the oldest certain percentage of the population receive benefits and we bring that percentage down to zero over the course of a number of years.

How is it fair to the people paying now who won't get anything? We have to face it. Either solution isn't fair for both parties, so why would you advise continuing a defunct system, when your using an approach of fairness? Why is it fair to continue it and make me pay for it?

I didn't create this fucking morass, don't punish me.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I know I haven't posted much but from your statements I surmise we are much much more likely to agree on issues of governance than to disagree.

I trusted Pat with 100 bucks during Christmas time (and boy do I have a lot of relatives) so my money is where my faith is. He worked like a racehorse in Chester Country for Ron. I think the district he was in charge reported at 28% for Ron in the primary and thats pretty good.

How's his chances of winning? Not that I would care either way for donation sake, but just curious. I give to anyone who is as close to my political ideology whether they can win or not.

[Elm]

How is it fair to the people paying now who won't get anything? We have to face it. Either solution isn't fair for both parties, so why would you advise continuing a defunct system, when your using an approach of fairness? Why is it fair to continue it and make me pay for it?

I didn't create this fucking morass, don't punish me.

Ahh but allowing people to opt out as costs are reduced is the most fair solution.

Those who have been robbed are repaid (horribly due to planned inflation but we do what we can).

Those who are paying in have a chance to opt out (and an incentive to lobby and push for more spending cuts to increase their chance to opt-out). It is one of the best leverage techniques to get the youth vote away from socialists.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ahh but allowing people to opt out as costs are reduced is the most fair solution.

Those who have been robbed are repaid (horribly due to planned inflation but we do what we can).

Those who are paying in have a chance to opt out (and an incentive to lobby and push for more spending cuts to increase their chance to opt-out). It is one of the best leverage techniques to get the youth vote away from socialists.

To be honest, if it was voluntary I'd still be against it, but you have to realize the amount of people who are voluntarily going to enlist in this won't even come close to matching the funds needed to pay for those on SS! We can't even afford it now, with everyone paying. This just means more printing and more inflation, which is more harmful than what we have now. I still contend the best solution is abolition, for both parties.

[Elm]

How's his chances of winning? Not that I would care either way for donation sake, but just curious. I give to anyone who is as close to my political ideology whether they can win or not.


The incumbent is running for Gov so he cannot run - the seat is open and its a crowded race.

Pat has decent name recongnition. The party is currently infighting between their groomed candidate and an outsidte who came in who is independetly wealthy (who himself is a bit better than the average GOP but needs about 5 years more introspection).

Pat is a longshot but its not nearly impossible. He is the thrid strongest candidate out of 5 where 1&2 are at each other's throats.

Pat has the luck of having a good established liberty network already existing in the area, and is known locally for defending a local farm from being seized by ED and turned into a golf course. (It took years to win.) So he has great support among the locals and is known to liberty groups even outside the local area.

His name also doesn't hurt at all :) All in all I would say the race is 40/40/20 atm since Pat entered late but that is only because Pat entered late.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The incumbent is running for Gov so he cannot run - the seat is open and its a crowded race.

Pat has decent name recongnition. The party is currently infighting between their groomed candidate and an outsidte who came in who is independetly wealthy (who himself is a bit better than the average GOP but needs about 5 years more introspection).

Pat is a longshot but its not nearly impossible. He is the thrid strongest candidate out of 5 where 1&2 are at each other's throats.

Pat has the luck of having a good established liberty network already existing in the area, and is known locally for defending a local farm from being seized by ED and turned into a golf course. (It took years to win.) So he has great support among the locals and is known to liberty groups even outside the local area.

His name also doesn't hurt at all :) All in all I would say the race is 40/40/20 atm since Pat entered late but that is only because Pat entered late.

Sounds good. Will have to put him on my short list of candidates I'm donating to.

[Elm]

To be honest, if it was voluntary I'd still be against it, but you have to realize the amount of people who are voluntarily going to enlist in this won't even come close to matching the funds needed to pay for those on SS! We can't even afford it now, with everyone paying. This just means more printing and more inflation, which is more harmful than what we have now. I still contend the best solution is abolition, for both parties.

Oh I know, thats why it was made mandatory (it started out voluntary). However if we allow people to opt out and cease future enrollment the system will end itself. If we can do that without deny individuals who've already been robbed - it will be hard for them to build political opposition (they will still fear-monger though). Luckily the AARP has been losing members and support since its position on the recent health care bills.

Once enough of them show that private investments are outperforming SS (and they have legal control over who inherits them) more people will opt out and eventually they will demand it be ended and the theft ends.

This is a long term strategy however and we have to plan long term in order to win - because our enemies are. We tend to form to fight against an encroachment and then goback to our own life because we want to leave other people alone and expect the same back. Our opposition doesn't, they attack attack attack our liberties and playing the defensive position only we are bound to lose some fights, over time we lose much of our liberty.

We need to be, we must be proactive. That means time, energy, and money. The founder's comitted their good names and fortunes and so must we. Not just in this one CD fight but everywhere. We cannot rest because the would-be planners of your life never rest planning whats best for you, for me, and all of our children.

(sorry for the rant there)

[mtj458]

How is it fair to the people paying now who won't get anything? We have to face it. Either solution isn't fair for both parties, so why would you advise continuing a defunct system, when your using an approach of fairness? Why is it fair to continue it and make me pay for it?

I didn't create this fucking morass, don't punish me.

There is no way to do it that is fair to everyone. Obviously it would be best if we never implemented social security in the first place. Given that it does exist though, I'd rather share the burden over the course of thirty years by gradually diminishing it than to screw over every retired and soon to be retired person for the next thirty years because they spent their retirement savings on social security taxes while they worked or altered there expectations of how much they should've saved, because they assumed they'd have social security payments upon retirement.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There is no way to do it that is fair to everyone. Obviously it would be best if we never implemented social security in the first place. Given that it does exist though, I'd rather share the burden over the course of thirty years by gradually diminishing it than to screw over every retired and soon to be retired person for the next thirty years because they spent their retirement savings on social security taxes while they worked or altered there expectations of how much they should've saved, because they assumed they'd have social security payments upon retirement.

So how is this fair to me at all? So now, I get taxed to pay for retirees who paid less than I did, but receive more. On top of that I have to pay for thirty damn years and then not receive anything? At least those on SS have recieved SOMETHING. Fucking tyranny of the old and decrepit. I'll gladly give charity to organizations that help them, but fuck if I have to involuntarily give my money to the State.

[Flash]

When is the primary?

[mtj458]

So how is this fair to me at all? So now, I get taxed to pay for retirees who paid less than I did, but receive more. On top of that I have to pay for thirty damn years and then not receive anything? At least those on SS have recieved SOMETHING. Fucking tyranny of the old and decrepit. I'll gladly give charity to organizations that help them, but fuck if I have to involuntarily give my money to the State.

So my method isn't fair because you'd pay and receive nothing, but ending it instantly is fair even though about hundred million people (the number is just a guess) would then be in your unfair situation of having paid their whole lives and not receiving anything? The whole point is that there is no fair way to do it. The people who made out on top were the ones who first received benefits, and they're already dead. The difference is that if you know its going to be phased out by the time you retire, you can plan for it. If you end it instantly then nobody would have planned for it and millions would suffer as a result. There's more to life than being economically efficient.


Also the primary is May 17th I think

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So my method isn't fair because you'd pay and receive nothing, but ending it instantly is fair even though about hundred million people (the number is just a guess) would then be in your unfair situation of having paid their whole lives and not receiving anything? The whole point is that there is no fair way to do it. The people who made out on top were the ones who first received benefits, and they're already dead. The difference is that if you know its going to be phased out by the time you retire, you can plan for it. If you end it instantly then nobody would have planned for it and millions would suffer as a result. There's more to life than being economically efficient.


Also the primary is May 17th I think

I have faith that many charities would care for those who need, and the billions saved would help immensely. Secondly, SS was never meant to live on and at least those currently on it, have received SOMETHING. I think it's worse to steal from people for 30 years and tell them tough shit. Yes, there are going to be some people from 45-55 years old that will get screwed the worst, but they still have time to plan for retirement especially with people living to 80 now. And with an extra 300+ a month that would help out, which would help a lot more than the pittance which is SS. Besides I have a feeling if you don't end it immediately it'll never be ended.

[Elm]

I believe Pa primary day is May 18th.

Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas.

[mtj458]

Any idea how the campaign is going? He doesn't seem to have any media coverage aside from a couple of articles announcing his candidacy.

[Elm]

Any idea how the campaign is going? He doesn't seem to have any media coverage aside from a couple of articles announcing his candidacy.

I know he issued a new challenge to other's in the 6th regarding a healthcare resolution. No idea how much traction its getting. I think we need a letters to the editor campaign to generate some buzz.

http://www.patsellers.org/content/get-well-america-resolution-petition


There it is. The goal is to get a lot of candidates everywhere to sign on to it so it starts generating some interest.

[Bman]

then at least run as a Jeffersonian!

Sorry this is just not a good idea. Jefferson had some good quotes and thoughts, but as a person he was horrible person who did many horrible things from slavery to making Michael Vick look like a choir boy. I'd personally stay away from using any reference to Jefferson I possibly could if I was seeking office.

[Bman]

Sounds good. Will have to put him on my short list of candidates I'm donating to.

Pat is formost one of the strongest advocates for property rights I've personally met. I live in CD6 and he has a good deal of liberal enemies in the area for having saved a horse farmers land from eminent doamin when they wanted to steal the land to build a friggin golf course.

Pat has a good chance of winning, but there is a good amount of section 8 housing in the district. He can't just campaign on the fuck you ticket. However, he's very open to discussion. If you think you have a good idea that promotes personal freedom and liberty, he'd be one of the first people to give a listen to your ideas. The other candidates in CD6 would be terrible for the country. Pat is worthy of support, and I hope some people here can see that and will help us here in CD6 to get him were he needs to be.

[Elm]

Pat is now in the top ten canidates listed on LibertySlate

http://libertyslate.com/candidates/candidates-by-rank/