The Daily Kos finally banned me so...if there have to be cuts...

[progressiveforpaul]

As I have said before, with all the unemployment that remains a huge drag on our economy, we need increased government spending, not cuts in spending, as the congress is obsessed with doing. Every 1% of unemployment adds about $90 billion of government debt annually. Getting unemployment down to 4% would reduce the annual deficit by half a trillion dollars. This would still leave us with about a 700 billion dollar deficit and so we will need eventually to cut spending and raise taxes.
All this considered the political environment is all about cuts and while taxes are scheduled to increase, the GOP will pull out every trick in the bag to make sure that millionaires don't have to pay a dime more. If substantial cuts in spending are inevitable and modest tax increases are doubtful, progressives have got to find a way to make sure that the cuts come out of 1.2 trillion we are spending on war, defense and security.
Ideally, electing more peaceful green progressives would get us moving rapidly forward toward the goal of a peaceful green economy. Can we find districts and states which are willing to elect progressive rather than blue dog Democrats? Realistically, I don't see many substantial gains coming our way. I wish we could get 60 progressive green and peace loving Democratic Senators. We came within 6 or 7 in 2008, arguably the best year for the Democratic party since 1964. I wish someone could show me a realistic plan to get those 60 progressive Senators we need, but until then I am going on the assumption that we have to supplement our strategy with some unconventional tactics.
If we cannot get the shift in spending from empire building and maintenance to building the peaceful green economy, then we have to find a way to at least save vital domestic programs and make sure that the cuts come from bombs rather than butter. To do this we progressives, who live in districts and states where there will be no competitive primary race between a blue dog and a progressive, must temporarily change our party registration and vote in the 2012 GOP primaries and caucuses. Our votes could be caste in one of two ways. First, if there is a viable extremist who can be nominated but can never win in the general election against the Democrat, vote for the extremist. Second, if there is a viable libertarian Republican candidate who wants to make deep cuts in defense and security spending, vote for that candidate.
After the primaries are settled, we have to size up the general election candidates. If a the GOP nominee is a lunatic, obviously vote for the Democrat. If the Democrat is a true peace loving progressive, again vote for the Democrat no matter who the Republican is. If the Democrat is a blue dog and the Republican is a true peace loving libertarian, vote for the Republican. This strategy aims at making sure that the largest majority possible will be in favor of huge reduction in the empire building and maintenance budgets. It does not guarantee that the bulk of the money saved from such a reduction will go to building the peaceful green economy but it moves the debate forward.
Next, we move on to the progressive and libertarian negotiations in the 2012 congress. Here is the worse case scenario: We get tremendous reductions in empire building and maintenance, maybe over the next 4 years, 600 billion annually; however the libertarians are able to freeze domestic spending. The result will be about a 2.4 trillion dollar reduction in federal debt over 4 years. This might even mean that interest rates can remain low and the private sector can borrow and spend a bit more. Let's say that gets us a reduction in unemployment to 7.5%. By 2016 7.5% unemployment will feel just as bad as 9% does today. In the mean time, classrooms and jails get crowded, oil prices remain high or increase, bridges fall down, Medicaid and Medicare lurches closer to bankruptcy, insurance companies have to charge more because doctors and hospitals are charging more to make up for what Medicaid and Medicare will not pay, millions of former defense workers are still unemployed and the planet is .25 degrees F. higher than it is now. The neo-cons are aching for a comeback and wanting to fight unemployment by starting another war in the middle east and the libertarians are determined not to lose what they have gained. Progressives suddenly have the advantage with a split on the right. We then advocate investing 2 trillion over the next four years (2016-2020) toward building the peaceful green economy. In doing so we point out that we are still saving nearly half a trillion dollars during the same 4 years while libertarians are content to allow 2.4 trillion more to be spent on buying Chinese junk while investing in the same or similar economies. We would also point out that the neo-cons are content to spend 2 trillion on another war while giving a trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. We might even have a tax plan of our own by then that is more progressive, more simple, less burdensome on middle and lower income families and less avoidable by well connected rich and powerful.
The best case scenario with a libertarian/progressive coalition is that 1.2 trillion is spent on building the peaceful green economy while the same amount is used to pay down federal debt. Under such a scenario the unemployment rate may go down close to 6%. The good news is that neo-cons are confined to to their bitter corner where they pull at their ears while shrinking but still shrieking cultural conservatives play their ceaseless, nostalgic cacophony. The bad news is we have to compete with a libertarian plurality who probably can convince the crowd more easily than we, that they deserve the credit for a renewed economy. Might have to wait 2 more years for them to run the unemployment rate back above 7% before we can get a majority in 2018 and a super one in 2020.
If however, we choose to go with the rhetoric of progress through 2016, unemployment will probably hover around 8% and the green economy will gain whatever snail's paced ground it can. More likely President Obama, wanting a legacy of 6 percent (yes we can let our expectations vanish!) unemployment, might just decide to outflank the neo-cons and start two more wars while keeping domestic discretionary spending frozen. Do we really want to grow the grayish green economy with peace no where in sight? If we do, keep towing the party line. If we don't, then kill the conventional wisdom by sabotaging the duopoly establishment.

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Petar]

As I have said before, with all the unemployment that remains a huge drag on our economy, we need increased government spending, not cuts in spending, as the congress is obsessed with doing. Every 1% of unemployment adds about $90 billion of government debt annually. Getting unemployment down to 4% would reduce the annual deficit by half a trillion dollars. This would still leave us with about a 700 billion dollar deficit and so we will need eventually to cut spending and raise taxes.
All this considered the political environment is all about cuts and while taxes are scheduled to increase, the GOP will pull out every trick in the bag to make sure that millionaires don't have to pay a dime more. If substantial cuts in spending are inevitable and modest tax increases are doubtful, progressives have got to find a way to make sure that the cuts come out of 1.2 trillion we are spending on war, defense and security.
Ideally, electing more peaceful green progressives would get us moving rapidly forward toward the goal of a peaceful green economy. Can we find districts and states which are willing to elect progressive rather than blue dog Democrats? Realistically, I don't see many substantial gains coming our way. I wish we could get 60 progressive green and peace loving Democratic Senators. We came within 6 or 7 in 2008, arguably the best year for the Democratic party since 1964. I wish someone could show me a realistic plan to get those 60 progressive Senators we need, but until then I am going on the assumption that we have to supplement our strategy with some unconventional tactics.
If we cannot get the shift in spending from empire building and maintenance to building the peaceful green economy, then we have to find a way to at least save vital domestic programs and make sure that the cuts come from bombs rather than butter. To do this we progressives, who live in districts and states where there will be no competitive primary race between a blue dog and a progressive, must temporarily change our party registration and vote in the 2012 GOP primaries and caucuses. Our votes could be caste in one of two ways. First, if there is a viable extremist who can be nominated but can never win in the general election against the Democrat, vote for the extremist. Second, if there is a viable libertarian Republican candidate who wants to make deep cuts in defense and security spending, vote for that candidate.
After the primaries are settled, we have to size up the general election candidates. If a the GOP nominee is a lunatic, obviously vote for the Democrat. If the Democrat is a true peace loving progressive, again vote for the Democrat no matter who the Republican is. If the Democrat is a blue dog and the Republican is a true peace loving libertarian, vote for the Republican. This strategy aims at making sure that the largest majority possible will be in favor of huge reduction in the empire building and maintenance budgets. It does not guarantee that the bulk of the money saved from such a reduction will go to building the peaceful green economy but it moves the debate forward.
Next, we move on to the progressive and libertarian negotiations in the 2012 congress. Here is the worse case scenario: We get tremendous reductions in empire building and maintenance, maybe over the next 4 years, 600 billion annually; however the libertarians are able to freeze domestic spending. The result will be about a 2.4 trillion dollar reduction in federal debt over 4 years. This might even mean that interest rates can remain low and the private sector can borrow and spend a bit more. Let's say that gets us a reduction in unemployment to 7.5%. By 2016 7.5% unemployment will feel just as bad as 9% does today. In the mean time, classrooms and jails get crowded, oil prices remain high or increase, bridges fall down, Medicaid and Medicare lurches closer to bankruptcy, insurance companies have to charge more because doctors and hospitals are charging more to make up for what Medicaid and Medicare will not pay, millions of former defense workers are still unemployed and the planet is .25 degrees F. higher than it is now. The neo-cons are aching for a comeback and wanting to fight unemployment by starting another war in the middle east and the libertarians are determined not to lose what they have gained. Progressives suddenly have the advantage with a split on the right. We then advocate investing 2 trillion over the next four years (2016-2020) toward building the peaceful green economy. In doing so we point out that we are still saving nearly half a trillion dollars during the same 4 years while libertarians are content to allow 2.4 trillion more to be spent on buying Chinese junk while investing in the same or similar economies. We would also point out that the neo-cons are content to spend 2 trillion on another war while giving a trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. We might even have a tax plan of our own by then that is more progressive, more simple, less burdensome on middle and lower income families and less avoidable by well connected rich and powerful.
The best case scenario with a libertarian/progressive coalition is that 1.2 trillion is spent on building the peaceful green economy while the same amount is used to pay down federal debt. Under such a scenario the unemployment rate may go down close to 6%. The good news is that neo-cons are confined to to their bitter corner where they pull at their ears while shrinking but still shrieking cultural conservatives play their ceaseless, nostalgic cacophony. The bad news is we have to compete with a libertarian plurality who probably can convince the crowd more easily than we, that they deserve the credit for a renewed economy. Might have to wait 2 more years for them to run the unemployment rate back above 7% before we can get a majority in 2018 and a super one in 2020.
If however, we choose to go with the rhetoric of progress through 2016, unemployment will probably hover around 8% and the green economy will gain whatever snail's paced ground it can. More likely President Obama, wanting a legacy of 6 percent (yes we can let our expectations vanish!) unemployment, might just decide to outflank the neo-cons and start two more wars while keeping domestic discretionary spending frozen. Do we really want to grow the grayish green economy with peace no where in sight? If we do, keep towing the party line. If we don't, then kill the conventional wisdom by sabotaging the duopoly establishment.

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

Separate your paragraphs.

Also, don't be Communist mmmk?

[angelatc]

As I have said before, with all the unemployment that remains a huge drag on our economy, we need increased government spending, not cuts in spending, as the congress is obsessed with doing.

Bullshit. You want to see unemployment drop? Lower (or abolish) the minimum wage and stop unemployment benefits at 6 weeks.

[Xenophage]

Coalitions can work. I wish there were more progressives like you.

[angelatc]

Coalitions can work. I wish there were more progressives like you. A coalition has to be based on something substantial.

[pcosmar]

As I have said before, with all the unemployment that remains a huge drag on our economy, we need increased government spending, not cuts in spending, as the congress is obsessed with doing.

Stopped right there.

Please educate yourself. There is a LOT of good information on this site and others.
Please read it, rather than post drivel like this.

Thanks.

[sailingaway]

Government spending is centrally planned 'employment' not need driven employment so it tends to be temporary either in nature or in unsustainability unless it is administration itself which is nonproductive and a drain on (paid for by) the remainder of the economy which gets ever smaller as the administration cost increases. That is a big reason (beyond labor cost) why companies go elsewhere.

We need investment but if done through the private sector it is responsive to a need. Honestly, this is a very basic point of economics and while things like 'go after corporatism before health care for the poor' are things I think Ron might / does agree with, he knows economics and you and we don't benefit unless we work WITH economic drivers rather than against them. They are like volcanoes, or the tide, in the end you can't stop them, you should harness them to your ends.

[oyarde]

Stopped right there.

Please educate yourself. There is a LOT of good information on this site and others.
Please read it, rather than post drivel like this.

Thanks.

That is exactly where I stopped as well. Cannot be serious ???

[trey4sports]

STOP giving this dude a hard time. We know hes not a libertarian, who cares!?

Think about this.... who is his target audience going to believe, a PROGRESSIVE or a LIBERTARIAN!? He knows how to best reach the progressives and honestly, i couldn't care one bit what their ideological beliefs are.... AS LONG AS THEY VOTE FOR RON PAUL!

votes>education

[bkreigh]

Stopped right there.

Please educate yourself. There is a LOT of good information on this site and others.
Please read it, rather than post drivel like this.

Thanks.

As did I.

[sailingaway]

Stopped right there.

Please educate yourself. There is a LOT of good information on this site and others.
Please read it, rather than post drivel like this.

Thanks.

You know, progressivesforronpaul has some very good ideas and has put the effort into creating a website specifically designed to appeal to progressives and pull them towards voting for Ron. Maybe offering a link to some economic information that is succinct and clear on this point would be more useful than beating up on other forum members.

Just saying....

meanwhile progressivesforronpaul if you were to read up on this point briefly, whether you agree with it or not, you will see where WE are coming from and would be better able to frame arguments to this crowd. Our economic theory is inherent in our politics.

Does anyone have a SHORT and compelling article to suggest for this purpose?

[specsaregood]

We can disagree with the OP, but be nice about it. I welcome his input and attempts to bring new voters over to our side where they can be educated.

As for DailyKos....their stated goal is to elect democrats, pretty much disregarding any ideology. Hence, their fundraising for Conway against Rand, despite Conway being pro-war, pro-drug warrior, pro-patriot act, etc. Rands election and subsequent actions must be a bitter pill to swallow for many of their base. If anything, Rand's recent patriot actions make those liberals ripe for the picking for Ron.

[trey4sports]

We can disagree with the OP, but be nice about it. I welcome his input and attempts to bring new voters over to our side where they can be educated.

yes, THIS is what should be going on!

[progressiveforpaul]

You both missed some stuff you would have liked if you did. This is a strategy message meant for you to pass along to your progressive friends if you have any.
As did I.

[progressiveforpaul]

Need to find a big progressive site to post on which is not so party strung. Got any suggestions? Thanks for you, Trey and others being reasonable, patient and gracious with me and my annoying ideology.
We can disagree with the OP, but be nice about it. I welcome his input and attempts to bring new voters over to our side where they can be educated.

As for DailyKos....their stated goal is to elect democrats, pretty much disregarding any ideology. Hence, their fundraising for Conway against Rand, despite Conway being pro-war, pro-drug warrior, pro-patriot act, etc. Rands election and subsequent actions must be a bitter pill to swallow for many of their base. If anything, Rand's recent patriot actions make those liberals ripe for the picking for Ron.

[specsaregood]

Need to find a big progressive site to post on which is not so party strung. Got any suggestions? Thanks for you, Trey and others being reasonable, patient and gracious with me and my annoying ideology.

The firedoglake people seem more ideology based vs. party based. But that is just an opinion formed from cursory examination.

[progressiveforpaul]

Thanks...I was hoping this might be good info for you and others to share with progressive friends and I am sure you have several. I have been and will continue to read more on libertarian economics. Maybe one day I will see the light but until then we have a fight to fight together.

You know, progressivesforronpaul has some very good ideas and has put the effort into creating a website specifically designed to appeal to progressives and pull them towards voting for Ron. Maybe offering a link to some economic information that is succinct and clear on this point would be more useful than beating up on other forum members.

Just saying....

meanwhile progressivesforronpaul if you were to read up on this point briefly, whether you agree with it or not, you will see where WE are coming from and would be better able to frame arguments to this crowd. Our economic theory is inherent in our politics.

Does anyone have a SHORT and compelling article to suggest for this purpose?

[sailingaway]

Need to find a big progressive site to post on which is not so party strung. Got any suggestions? Thanks for you, Trey and others being reasonable, patient and gracious with me and my annoying ideology.

How about Firedoglake? There are some jerks there but there are some real, honest to God progressives who care about the Patriot Act and wars above party. I have an account there. We kinda worked together against the bailouts and for the fed, loosely. A bunch of them still pillory us, but they had nice things to say about Rand on the Patriot Act.

[bkreigh]

We can disagree with the OP, but be nice about it. I welcome his input and attempts to bring new voters over to our side where they can be educated.As for DailyKos....their stated goal is to elect democrats, pretty much disregarding any ideology. Hence, their fundraising for Conway against Rand, despite Conway being pro-war, pro-drug warrior, pro-patriot act, etc. Rands election and subsequent actions must be a bitter pill to swallow for many of their base. If anything, Rand's recent patriot actions make those liberals ripe for the picking for Ron.

I agree but P4P has been posting stuff like this for a while now. All his posts are how RP can cater to the progressive movement. I honestly dont know what P4Ps motive is. At first i was happy he came aboard but now i question it. I am getting the feeling that he is trying to get he progressives to ride the coat tails of this movement because they are not as organized or have as big of a following right now. I seriously dont know because the majority of his posts have the same message which is "How can RP and his fan base cater to progressives?"

Sorry but when you are trying to make a point in this forum and you start off by saying "We need more government spending" when our deficit is where it is then you are asking to be called out.

Furthermore, people get called out on this forum all the time. I got called out inregards to an abortion debate. Im not pissed about it, its just the way it is and because he has "progressive" in his name and is new here doesnt mean he is off limits to this either. Its simple, call "bull shit" when you see bull shit.

[jmdrake]

LOL. Bless DailyKos for banning you. If you hang out there less and spend more time (not money) learning economics you can become a true force for good. Your basic mistake is that you think more spending reduces unemployment. Hello? NONE of the "stimulus spending" from Bush to Obama have cut unemployment. The only way to cut unemployment is to leave more money in the hands of the people who create jobs!

You don't believe me? Why don't you read this article from the progressive San Fransisco Chronicle.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-02-03/opinion/20870511_1_fannie-and-freddie-fannie-mae-freddie-mac
Stimulus Plan A Scam To Benefit The Rich

Higher loan limits will lead to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout
February 03, 2008|By Sean Olender

Congress is about to sell us the biggest fraud in American history.

It's been highly touted as an economic stimulus bill that will help millions of Americans - and has the backing of both President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the coming year, individuals would receive rebates of up to $600 and families up to $1,200. There are other goodies, too, including tax write-offs for small businesses and an expansion of the child tax credit.

But, as the old adage goes, nothing comes for free. As part of the bill, Congress is set to rush through an increase in the mortgage loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and Federal Housing Administration insurance, too) - from $417,000 to $729,750 - the first step toward a massive financial disaster in which taxpayers will end up paying through the nose.

Here's how we got to this point. Domestic and international investors hold hundreds of billions of dollars in bad debt, because U.S. investment houses sold them junk securities based on often fraudulent mortgages. Many of these mortgages were sold to unqualified buyers under terms that made widespread foreclosures a certainty once the housing market began to fall.

Investment banks and bond rating agencies sat down and tried to figure out how to describe Americans with insufficient incomes and little for a down payment as great credit risks on loans too big for their incomes. The new rules focused on credit scores, because it was a good excuse to avoid looking at income and down payment, factors that would have restricted this moneymaking fiasco.

Now, thanks to Congress, junk bond investors will be able to pawn off their bad debt to Fannie and Freddie, instead of suing the big investment houses for ripping them off. This shift will certainly doom Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so don't be surprised if we, the taxpayers, have to bail out poor Fannie and Freddie - to the tune of
more than $1 trillion.

Are you getting it yet? I sure hope so. The 2008 Bush/Pelosi stimulus package helped fuel the housing bubble which popped into a housing crisis and created the "need" for the bailout in the first place! I put "need" in quotes, because there was no need for TARP. Instead Fannie, Freddie, Goldman Sachs and other criminals should have been allowed to fail!

The government simply is NOT the sector that should be creating jobs. It's just like Obama "stimulus jobs" which included $100,000 to monitor handwashing! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?220274-100-000-in-stimulus-to-monitor-handwashing).

I talked to an Obama supporting teacher who was complaining about how the stimulus money was wasted in her school district. She complained that they hired people, but no lasting changes were made. They just hired more people who had to be laid off once the money ran out. I tried to explain to her that the plan was doomed to fail by design. Schools simply are not self sustaining investments. If a store owner gets and extra $100,000 he may spend it on expanding the product line and on advertising and permanently have more money at the end of the day. Schools simply don't work that way. Even if a public school spends the money "wisely" and test scores temporarily improve (which didn't happen) that still doesn't mean the public school has more paying customers at the end of the day. I tried to explain this to her, but she just went off on a "it helps society as a whole" tangent, not understanding that her argument had nothing to do with whether or not a self sustaining investment had been created.

[progressiveforpaul]

Let's keep wishing and praying and hoping. Coalitons take a bit of out of the box thinking. I unfortunately have rarely been able to think inside the box.Thanks for the praise though.
Coalitions can work. I wish there were more progressives like you.

[bkreigh]

You both missed some stuff you would have liked if you did. This is a strategy message meant for you to pass along to your progressive friends if you have any.

I went back to gloss over it. It was the same stuff I read the other day. You want us to cater to the progressive movement when it comes to economic issues which i think is dangerous and can not agree with you on. Nothing personal i just dont agree with you on this issue.

[specsaregood]

I agree but P4P has been posting stuff like this for a while now. All his posts are how RP can cater to the progressive movement. I honestly dont know what P4Ps motive is. At first i was happy he came aboard but now i question it. I am getting the feeling that he is trying to get he progressives to ride the coat tails of this movement because they are not as organized or have as big of a following right now. I seriously dont know because the majority of his posts have the same message which is "How can RP and his fan base cater to progressives?"

Sorry but when you are trying to make a point in this forum and you start off by saying "We need more government spending" when our deficit is where it is then you are asking to be called out.

Furthermore, people get called out on this forum all the time. I got called out inregards to an abortion debate. Im not pissed about it, its just the way it is and because he has "progressive" in his name and is new here doesnt mean he is off limits to this either. Its simple, call "bull shit" when you see bull shit.

I'm not telling you that you can't call out "bullshit" -- hell I don't have any power here anyways -- just saying to be nice about it. :) put a rose in that pile of bullshit and hope it grows.

[progressiveforpaul]

I think I have signed up but have not yet posted. Thanks.
How about Firedoglake? There are some jerks there but there are some real, honest to God progressives who care about the Patriot Act and wars above party. I have an account there. We kinda worked together against the bailouts and for the fed, loosely. A bunch of them still pillory us, but they had nice things to say about Rand on the Patriot Act.

[sailingaway]

I agree but P4P has been posting stuff like this for a while now. All his posts are how RP can cater to the progressive movement. I honestly dont know what P4Ps motive is. At first i was happy he came aboard but now i question it. I am getting the feeling that he is trying to get he progressives to ride the coat tails of this movement because they are not as organized or have as big of a following right now. I seriously dont know because the majority of his posts have the same message which is "How can RP and his fan base cater to progressives?"

Sorry but when you are trying to make a point in this forum and you start off by saying "We need more government spending" when our deficit is where it is then you are asking to be called out.

Furthermore, people get called out on this forum all the time. I got called out inregards to an abortion debate. Im not pissed about it, its just the way it is and because he has "progressive" in his name and is new here doesnt mean he is off limits to this either. Its simple, call "bull shit" when you see bull shit.

I think P4P (and thank you for the abreviation) definitely wants the progressive utopia as we want our own view. However, we are so far from either, he sees that we need to grab control back from the neoconservative corporatists as a first step, and it trying to find a palatable way (to his mind) to do that. He wants as much towards the progressive side of the spectrum as he can get, but we are going to be able to have coalitions on some things and not on others. I get the impression he is throwing a bunch of stuff up to see what can stick, and some will.

[specsaregood]

I think P4P (and thank you for the abreviation) definitely wants the progressive utopia as we want our own view.

As soon as he figures out that power corrupts, he'll question why he has been arguing for giving the govt more power and he'll see the light. AT least that is how it often works.

[pcosmar]

Coalitions can work. I wish there were more progressives like you.

I don't.
There seem to be many here that neither understand the concept of Liberty or Ron Paul"s Message or Principles.
for example.

urging Dr. Paul to make deals with us progressives but here is a suggestion in the other direction. Tell Sarah Palin that she can have Interior Secretary if she stays out and endorses Dr. Paul Tell Herman Cain he can have Commerce if he gets out and endorses the same. Give Huckabee something too. Do this and get enough of us to jump on board and you can tell Romney or some other neo-con clones to eat the dust that's stinging their face. Might even tell Huntsman he can have UN Ambassador. Of course The neo-cons will throw every weapon they have to stop Dr. Paul should he get a good lead early on. And if he survives that assault, he's got the Democratic corporatists who will do the same and more if need be. That's why after the nomination is won he has to offer Labor to Kucinich and Treasury to Sanders. He comes at Obama with a real coalition he might just win. Plays to the purists and their lust for instant gratification, he loses, and the purists, with him.


No friggin' Concept.

[bkreigh]

I'm not telling you that you can't call out "bullshit" -- hell I don't have any power here anyways -- just saying to be nice about it. :) put a rose in that pile of bullshit and hope it grows.

Those turn into shrooms which are illegal :eek:

[NewRightLibertarian]

STOP giving this dude a hard time. We know hes not a libertarian, who cares!?

Think about this.... who is his target audience going to believe, a PROGRESSIVE or a LIBERTARIAN!? He knows how to best reach the progressives and honestly, i couldn't care one bit what their ideological beliefs are.... AS LONG AS THEY VOTE FOR RON PAUL!

votes>education

I don't think we should be hostile toward him, but there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with him when he says he wants more government spending

[jmdrake]

A coalition has to be based on something substantial.

You mean like this?

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-10/paul-baldwin-mccinney-nader-we-agree/
The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

Really, the only issue I have with "progressiveforpaul" is that he doesn't recognize that the areas that Paul has in common with people like Nader and McKinney should be enough. We should be able to agree on the need for a smarter foreign policy, lower national debt, transparent (or better yet no) federal reserve, and restoration of civil liberties without having to "cater" to his position on maintaining a "progressive" tax structure. I mean really. The "I don't want to be in a FEMA camp, but if I am there I want to make sure the sales tax at the camp store is progressive" mentality floors me.

[specsaregood]

I don't think we should be hostile toward him, but there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with him when he says he wants more government spending

At the same time, Dr. Paul has said that given the only 2 choices of: spending money overseas blowing up people and bridges then paying to rebuild them OR spending it here in the US on our own people that he would prefer the latter.

[bkreigh]

I think P4P (and thank you for the abreviation) definitely wants the progressive utopia as we want our own view. However, we are so far from either, he sees that we need to grab control back from the neoconservative corporatists as a first step, and it trying to find a palatable way (to his mind) to do that. He wants as much towards the progressive side of the spectrum as he can get, but we are going to be able to have coalitions on some things and not on others. I get the impression he is throwing a bunch of stuff up to see what can stick, and some will.

I understand all of that i just think it is dangerous having coalitions (or whatever we want to call it). Lets face it, we already agree with each other on some major points like the 2 wars going on, the ones overseas and the one on drugs. Heck we even agree with a lot of social issues as well. The big thing we dont agree on is in regards to our fiscal policies. Now if we compromise on this why the hell dont we just call ourselves progressives now?

I smell something fishy is all.

edit: see jmdrakes post for things we agree on. He typed that while i was typing mine. My point stands though, if we compromise on our fiscal spending views then we might as well be called progressives.

[jmdrake]

Edit: Rethinking the OP. I went to his blog and found this....

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-you-want-obama-to-win-here-are-10.html

Actually that's a good blog post. I've been using the "Since Obama will run unopposed in the general election, you might as well vote for Ron Paul in the primary" argument with some moderate success. (I've pitched this to about 10 Obama supporters and most have either liked the idea or at least said they'd consider it.) That said, there are other progressives who hate the idea because in their gut they know Ron Paul has the best chance of winning. Ron Paul should not change his message to get a win and neither should we. But I don't mind a vote from any "I really want Obama to win but I hope Ron Paul wins the GOP primary" person.

[specsaregood]

Edit: Rethinking the OP. I went to his blog and found this....

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-you-want-obama-to-win-here-are-10.html

Actually that's a good blog post. I've been using the "Since Obama will run unopposed in the general election, you might as well vote for Ron Paul in the primary" argument with some moderate success. (I've pitched this to about 10 Obama supporters and most have either liked the idea or at least said they'd consider it.) That said, there are other progressives who hate the idea because in their gut they know Ron Paul has the best chance of winning. Ron Paul should not change his message to get a win and neither should we. But I don't mind a vote from any "I really want Obama to win but I hope Ron Paul wins the GOP primary" person.

I use a similar argument and tell them at the very least it will force Obama's hand on the war and civil liberties issues.

[jmdrake]

At the same time, Dr. Paul has said that given the only 2 choices of: spending money overseas blowing up people and bridges then paying to rebuild them OR spending it here in the US on our own people that he would prefer the latter.

That's not the same as saying he (Dr. Paul) wants more government spending. Further Dr. Paul is not for replacing the income tax with a progressive sales tax as P4P is. In fact if that were the option (income tax versus progressive sales tax), I'm sorry but I'd stick with the income tax. I don't want the store running my income every time I make a purchase just to decide what my tax rate should be.

[sailingaway]

I understand all of that i just think it is dangerous having coalitions (or whatever we want to call it). Lets face it, we already agree with each other on some major points like the 2 wars going on, the ones overseas and the one on drugs. Heck we even agree with a lot of social issues as well. The big thing we dont agree on is in regards to our fiscal policies. Now if we compromise on this why the hell dont we just call ourselves progressives now?

I smell something fishy is all.

edit: see jmdrakes post for things we agree on. He typed that while i was typing mine. My point stands though, if we compromise on our fiscal spending views then we might as well be called progressives.

There is a difference between coalitions and compromise. I agree our economic principles are very different but sometimes things can be addressed more than one way.

[amy31416]

1. I don't think anyone is asking anyone to compromise on their fiscal philosophy.
2. Our government is murdering people. Every single day. Americans and Arabs. Christians, Muslims, atheists. Male, female, children, adults, progressive, conservative, moderates--it doesn't matter.

If fact #2 doesn't make you stop and consider working with people who have a different fiscal philosophy than you, then this bullshit will never end. I'm confident in what I believe, working with a progressive will not "infect" me with cooties of some sort that damages my fiscal conservative "street cred."

If we can end the wars, the soldier, child, father and mother whose life is saved, whose family is not destroyed will not look down on you for associating with a "progressive."

[bkreigh]

1. I don't think anyone is asking anyone to compromise on their fiscal philosophy.
2. Our government is murdering people. Every single day. Americans and Arabs. Christians, Muslims, atheists. Male, female, children, adults, progressive, conservative, moderates--it doesn't matter.

If fact #2 doesn't make you stop and consider working with people who have a different fiscal philosophy than you, then this bullshit will never end. I'm confident in what I believe, working with a progressive will not "infect" me with cooties of some sort that damages my fiscal conservative "street cred."

If we can end the wars, the soldier, child, father and mother whose life is saved, whose family is not destroyed will not look down on you for associating with a "progressive."

First off, Who said anything about cooties?

If you read my prior posts i already mentioned that we agree regarding foreign policy. As far as working with the other side just look at the repubs and dems and tell me how that is working out for us. I say it is time folks start telling the other sides to fuck off so they stick to their core principles.

Im tired of playing by their rules. If they want to support whoever then thats great. But to come over and say that candidate has to change is utter bullshit. If candidates actually stood up for what they believe then we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now.

[jmdrake]

1. I don't think anyone is asking anyone to compromise on their fiscal philosophy.
2. Our government is murdering people. Every single day. Americans and Arabs. Christians, Muslims, atheists. Male, female, children, adults, progressive, conservative, moderates--it doesn't matter.

If fact #2 doesn't make you stop and consider working with people who have a different fiscal philosophy than you, then this bullshit will never end. I'm confident in what I believe, working with a progressive will not "infect" me with cooties of some sort that damages my fiscal conservative "street cred."

If we can end the wars, the soldier, child, father and mother whose life is saved, whose family is not destroyed will not look down on you for associating with a "progressive."

Hello Amy. Speaking only for myself, by initial reaction was from other threads that P4P has posted where he specifically asked the Ron Paul movement to compromise its economic principles to become more appealing to progressives (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?289827-An-open-letter-10-ways-for-Ron-Paul-to-get-many-more-progressives-on-board). I don't mind working with progressives. I'm married to an Obama supporter.[1] But I'm not willing to entertain ideas like a progressive sales tax.

That said, after re-reading the OP and looking at his blog I now realize (I think) that this particular post was really targeted progressives to get them to see the logic of supporting Ron Paul at least in the primary as opposed to the RP movement to try to get Dr. Paul to compromise to attract progressives. The first idea is helpful. The second would be movement suicide.


[1] Hopefully her support for him is waning, but I think she'll probably still vote for him in 2012. I am hopeful for a vote for Dr. Paul in the primary though.

[amy31416]

First off, Who said anything about cooties?

If you read my prior posts i already mentioned that we agree regarding foreign policy. As far as working with the other side just look at the repubs and dems and tell me how that is working out for us. I say it is time folks start telling the other sides to fuck off so they stick to their core principles.

Im tired of playing by their rules. If they want to support whoever then thats great. But to come over and say that candidate has to change is utter bullshit. If candidates actually stood up for what they believe then we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now.

What are you even talking about? I never brought up any candidate, nor did I imply anyone has to change...hell, I didn't even direct this at you. We can't even get to a discussion about how we'd go about forming an alliance in order to change our foreign policy because it seems that people automatically jump to your conclusion. When a bill to continue funding wars comes up, we could have a HUGE coalition writing, calling, emailing, writing letters to the editor, interviewing politicians and holding them accountable for every damn vote they make that further promotes the wars. When a bill to fund Obamacare comes up, obviously we wouldn't lose our shit and suddenly start calling politicians to make sure they fund it. That's ridiculous.

What are you so afraid of, if not cooties?

[amy31416]

Hello Amy. Speaking only for myself, by initial reaction was from other threads that P4P has posted where he specifically asked the Ron Paul movement to compromise its economic principles to become more appealing to progressives (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?289827-An-open-letter-10-ways-for-Ron-Paul-to-get-many-more-progressives-on-board). I don't mind working with progressives. I'm married to an Obama supporter.[1] But I'm not willing to entertain ideas like a progressive sales tax.

That said, after re-reading the OP and looking at his blog I now realize (I think) that this particular post was really targeted progressives to get them to see the logic of supporting Ron Paul at least in the primary as opposed to the RP movement to try to get Dr. Paul to compromise to attract progressives. The first idea is helpful. The second would be movement suicide.


[1] Hopefully her support for him is waning, but I think she'll probably still vote for him in 2012. I am hopeful for a vote for Dr. Paul in the primary though.

Ahh thanks. It's funny that some people get upset about being asked to compromise their principles--I mean, obviously, the answer is no. Especially on economic issues. Compromising to attract progressives (or any other particular group) is so much against what RP has been his whole life--so yeah, that'd be movement suicide.

I'm really surprised that you haven't been able to "turn" your wife yet...I'll keep my fingers crossed for ya. :)

[progressiveforpaul]

This article was originally written for the daily kos. I do not want you to compromise your economic principles. I want you to realize that you get a step closer to implementing them in full if you allow progressives, working in the context of a significant net cut in the overall budget, to use some of the money on what we expected Obama to do. That still leaves you with a smaller government and that's better than what you are going to get with obama or with romney or some other neo-con clone. You do agree that leaving 1.2 trillion dollars in the private sector is better than leaving it with the government, don't you? The stipulation of reduce government spending gives you libertarians a chance to show your way works. Of course when it does work we will be taking credit for it as well but who the heck cares since we both believe it will work and the things is it gets a chance to work if libertarians can swallow, not there principles, but their pride.
I went back to gloss over it. It was the same stuff I read the other day. You want us to cater to the progressive movement when it comes to economic issues which i think is dangerous and can not agree with you on. Nothing personal i just dont agree with you on this issue.

[progressiveforpaul]

Good summary of what i am attempting to do but also i do want you to pass it along to your progressive friends.
I think P4P (and thank you for the abreviation) definitely wants the progressive utopia as we want our own view. However, we are so far from either, he sees that we need to grab control back from the neoconservative corporatists as a first step, and it trying to find a palatable way (to his mind) to do that. He wants as much towards the progressive side of the spectrum as he can get, but we are going to be able to have coalitions on some things and not on others. I get the impression he is throwing a bunch of stuff up to see what can stick, and some will.

[progressiveforpaul]

Actually Sgt, I am arguing for less government spending at the same time that i am arguing for a shift in how less money is spent. And to go a bit further, I actually believe this as a matter of principle, rather than just expediency. if you spend on the right things, you will need to spend less presently and even less again in the future.
I don't think we should be hostile toward him, but there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with him when he says he wants more government spending

[progressiveforpaul]

And Dr. Paul is not compromising his principles by saying he would accept such a compromise. I am saying to progressives we need to shake hands with him and say yes we can do this deal.
At the same time, Dr. Paul has said that given the only 2 choices of: spending money overseas blowing up people and bridges then paying to rebuild them OR spending it here in the US on our own people that he would prefer the latter.

[bkreigh]

This article was originally written for the daily kos. I do not want you to compromise your economic principles. I want you to realize that you get a step closer to implementing them in full if you allow progressives, working in the context of a significant net cut in the overall budget, to use some of the money on what we expected Obama to do. That still leaves you with a smaller government and that's better than what you are going to get with obama or with romney or some other neo-con clone. You do agree that leaving 1.2 trillion dollars in the private sector is better than leaving it with the government, don't you? The stipulation of reduce government spending gives you libertarians a chance to show your way works. Of course when it does work we will be taking credit for it as well but who the heck cares since we both believe it will work and the things is it gets a chance to work if libertarians can swallow, not there principles, but their pride.

Understood.

I hate answer a question with another question but i need to do so in this case. Where is that 1.2 trillion dollars coming from?

[progressiveforpaul]

Again the compromise is instead we reduce the size of government to save 1.2 trillion dollars? Is that against your principles? I would personally be willing to make it 2.4 trillion but i think the ante has to be sweetened a bit to get more progressives on board.
I understand all of that i just think it is dangerous having coalitions (or whatever we want to call it). Lets face it, we already agree with each other on some major points like the 2 wars going on, the ones overseas and the one on drugs. Heck we even agree with a lot of social issues as well. The big thing we dont agree on is in regards to our fiscal policies. Now if we compromise on this why the hell dont we just call ourselves progressives now?

I smell something fishy is all.

edit: see jmdrakes post for things we agree on. He typed that while i was typing mine. My point stands though, if we compromise on our fiscal spending views then we might as well be called progressives.

[progressiveforpaul]

Exactly Drake...I am not saying I want RP to spend more. I am just saying i want him to spend less but spend it building bridges rather than bombs. And btw, that is not the way a progressive sales tax works. Two ways to do it: prebates based progressively on earned income or by reporting totals on yearly savings and income to show how much you spent and tax only what you spent but at progressive rates. The government would know less about your finances either way and the cashier would know nothing more than how much money you spent on that particular purchase.

That's not the same as saying he (Dr. Paul) wants more government spending. Further Dr. Paul is not for replacing the income tax with a progressive sales tax as P4P is. In fact if that were the option (income tax versus progressive sales tax), I'm sorry but I'd stick with the income tax. I don't want the store running my income every time I make a purchase just to decide what my tax rate should be.

[CUnknown]

This article was originally written for the daily kos. I do not want you to compromise your economic principles. I want you to realize that you get a step closer to implementing them in full if you allow progressives, working in the context of a significant net cut in the overall budget, to use some of the money on what we expected Obama to do. That still leaves you with a smaller government and that's better than what you are going to get with obama or with romney or some other neo-con clone. You do agree that leaving 1.2 trillion dollars in the private sector is better than leaving it with the government, don't you? The stipulation of reduce government spending gives you libertarians a chance to show your way works. Of course when it does work we will be taking credit for it as well but who the heck cares since we both believe it will work and the things is it gets a chance to work if libertarians can swallow, not there principles, but their pride.

Totally. From someone who also leans left, I'd like to encourage you to keep hanging out here (no matter what anyone says!) and keep the discussion going. Honest discussion is very healthy, I think.

I remember one (or two or three) threads on here about global warming, I was called tons of names and I almost left for good. But I'm glad I didn't. I've always leaned libertarian, but the longer I stay here, the more libertarian I feel like I'm becoming. Of course -- it's not just this site -- in this time, we've also gotten strip searches at airports, Patriot Act extensions from the Democrats, TARP bailouts, assassinations, blatant violation of the War Powers Act, etc.. etc..

So, I'm not sure if it's the conversations here, or if it's really that Obama is proving libertarians right all the time, that's feeding my continued conversion.

As far as the OP goes, I think most people here would agree with most of what you said. But use paragraphs -- because especially if you start with "we need increased spending", no one is going to keep reading, they'll write you off.

I have a question for you, P4P: what is your stand on monetary policy? Do you agree with getting rid of the Federal Reserve? It's an extremely important question. The problem with your statement that "we will need eventually to cut spending and raise taxes" is that this would be deflationary, in my understanding.

I've been convinced that we shouldn't raise taxes on anyone, including the rich. Instead, I would rather see the "wealth get spread around" by lowering taxes on the poor and middle class and keeping them where they're at for the rich.

[progressiveforpaul]

Mostly from reduction in military spending. I based it on RP's transition plan of reducing defense, security, and overseas spending by half which would be about 6000 buillion annually and over 4 years 2.4 billion, half of which would be used for shoring up domestic needs, which would be 1.2 trillion over 4 years.
Understood.

I hate answer a question with another question but i need to do so in this case. Where is that 1.2 trillion dollars coming from?

[bkreigh]

Mostly from reduction in military spending. I based it on RP's transition plan of reducing defense, security, and overseas spending by half which would be about 6000 buillion annually and over 4 years 2.4 billion, half of which would be used for shoring up domestic needs, which would be 1.2 trillion over 4 years.

I like where the reductions are coming from but if thats the case then i would rather not spend after we reduced. When i pay down my credit card bill i dont go out using it again. Just because we have been spending X amount doesnt mean we need to continue spending X amount. Its not like its rainy day fund money or anything.

Thats just me though.

[eproxy100]

The problem with compromising, either to the left or to the right, is that you end up playing their game! That would defeat the purpose of this party.

One thing I wanna comment about middle class liberals is that I think they're more reachable. They only like the social welfare stuff cuz they think it's better for society. If they see how it's actually not better they can easily become libertarians.

[progressiveforpaul]

thanks and to answer your question about the fed, I am not sure if I want it gone...it might be a good thing. i do think we need a common currency but i am not opposed to competing and complementary currency floating throughout our economy. I would also like for there to be real and strict and enforced usury laws and truly democratic accountability and transparency for any national bank or federal reserve. And yes cutting spending and raising taxes would be deflationary and so i would not want to overdo it. Just enough to trim any excess inflation that a reinvigorated economy could not. I like the idea of of cutting taxes from the bottom up. I think that some of the rich are taxed enough, and some are taxed too little and some are taxed not at all. We can keep those taxed enough paying at the same rate they are now and at the same time making those paying to little or not a all pay a comparable amount by switching to a progressive consumption tax.

Totally. From someone who also leans left, I'd like to encourage you to keep hanging out here (no matter what anyone says!) and keep the discussion going. Honest discussion is very healthy, I think.

I remember one (or two or three) threads on here about global warming, I was called tons of names and I almost left for good. But I'm glad I didn't. I've always leaned libertarian, but the longer I stay here, the more libertarian I feel like I'm becoming. Of course -- it's not just this site -- in this time, we've also gotten strip searches at airports, Patriot Act extensions from the Democrats, TARP bailouts, assassinations, blatant violation of the War Powers Act, etc.. etc..

So, I'm not sure if it's the conversations here, or if it's really that Obama is proving libertarians right all the time, that's feeding my continued conversion.

As far as the OP goes, I think most people here would agree with most of what you said. But use paragraphs -- because especially if you start with "we need increased spending", no one is going to keep reading, they'll write you off.

I have a question for you, P4P: what is your stand on monetary policy? Do you agree with getting rid of the Federal Reserve? It's an extremely important question. The problem with your statement that "we will need eventually to cut spending and raise taxes" is that this would be deflationary, in my understanding.

I've been convinced that we shouldn't raise taxes on anyone, including the rich. Instead, I would rather see the "wealth get spread around" by lowering taxes on the poor and middle class and keeping them where they're at for the rich.

[bkreigh]

The problem with compromising, either to the left or to the right, is that you end up playing their game! That would defeat the purpose of this party.

One thing I wanna comment about middle class liberals is that I think they're more reachable. They only like the social welfare stuff cuz they think it's better for society. If they see how it's actually not better they can easily become libertarians.

Thats what i was trying to go for. You just said it nicer than me.

What can i say? Im a fucking asshole.

[Thrashertm]

If substantial cuts in spending are inevitable and modest tax increases are doubtful, progressives have got to find a way to make sure that the cuts come out of 1.2 trillion we are spending on war, defense and security.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

Focus on this point. The bottom line is, a President Ron Paul could unilaterally end the wars and order our troops home, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars. He could unilaterally end the Drug War, pardoning all non-violent drug offenders. Pretty much everything else that liberals are afraid of, including the major wedge issues, would require Congressional approval and thus the will of the people.

[progressiveforpaul]

Let me say this another way so as to make sure i am being clear. Let's not spend X which is the current amount we are spending but let's spend Y which is significantly less than what we are spending currently. I am not saying shift all of what is saved from military, etc. to domestic spending but only half of it. i say this for two reasons... it will produce a better economic outcome than putting all the savings into paying down debt (a position i know you disagree with) and because it get's more progressives interested when you say that you are going to spend more on the domestic side than Obama is planning on doing which is essentially what Dr. Paul is offering to do in exchange for a significant net cut in overall spending.
I like where the reductions are coming from but if thats the case then i would rather not spend after we reduced. When i pay down my credit card bill i dont go out using it again. Just because we have been spending X amount doesnt mean we need to continue spending X amount. Its not like its rainy day fund money or anything.

Thats just me though.

[progressiveforpaul]

Have you ever made a compromise that did not sacrifice your principles? I am saying that that never settling for 1.2 trillion reduction in spending just because your want 2.4 trillion cut is going to get you zero cut and probably, actually increases overall. Why would you want to make the perfect the enemy of the good and in doing so get worse?


The problem with compromising, either to the left or to the right, is that you end up playing their game! That would defeat the purpose of this party.

One thing I wanna comment about middle class liberals is that I think they're more reachable. They only like the social welfare stuff cuz they think it's better for society. If they see how it's actually not better they can easily become libertarians.

[CUnknown]

thanks and to answer your question about the fed, I am not sure if I want it gone...it might be a good thing. i do think we need a common currency but i am not opposed to competing and complementary currency floating throughout our economy. I would also like for there to be real and strict and enforced usury laws and truly democratic accountability transparency for any national bank or federal reserve. And yes cutting spending and raising taxes would be deflationary and so i woulsd not want to overdo it. Just enough to trim any excess inflation that a reinvigorated economy could not. I like the idea of of cutting taxes from the bottom up. I think that some of the rich are taxed enough, and some are taxed too little and some are taxed not at all. We can keep those taxed enough paying at the the same rate they are nopw and at the same time making those paying to little or not a all pay a comparable amount by switching to a progressive consumption tax.now

Cool, so basically you're saying that you're not opposed to Dr. Paul's first steps against the Fed, being competing currencies and transparency. You might not pass a libertarian purity test, but basically you are on board with the direction we want to go. I think definitely we shouldn't push people away for stupid reasons such as purity tests.

Are you familiar with the video "Money as Debt" and the book Web of Debt? Both of these are excellent resources, they have sort of a libertarian-leaning left-wing stance and lots of good information about monetary issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
http://www.webofdebt.com/

I think many if not most people here would agree with a flat tax or simplified tax structure, which would eliminate tax loopholes, just by the way.

[bkreigh]

Let me say this another way so as to make sure i am being clear. Let's not spend X which is the current amount we are spending but let's spend Y which is significantly less than what we are spending currently. I am not saying shift all of what is saved from military, etc. to domestic spending but only half of it. i say this for two reasons... it will produce a better economic outcome than putting all the savings into paying down debt (a position i know you disagree with) and because it get's more progressives interested when you say that you are going to spend more on the domestic side than Obama is planning on doing which is essentially what Dr. Paul is offering to do in exchange for a significant net cut in overall spending.

You are sweetening the pot each time. But i still cant support it. You cut half out which is great! You just need to go another 50% then we would be shaking hands and having a cold one!

Nice idea and it sure is a hell of a lot better than what is going on now.

[progressiveforpaul]

if sweetening the pot like i am proposing gets RP in the White House and not sweetening the pot gets him nothing, would you shake and have a cold one (i would even buy) on sweetening the pot? Just speaking theoretically now.
You are sweetening the pot each time. But i still cant support it. You cut half out which is great! You just need to go another 50% then we would be shaking hands and having a cold one!

Nice idea and it sure is a hell of a lot better than what is going on now.

[bkreigh]

if sweetening the pot like i am proposing gets RP in the White House and not sweetening the pot gets him nothing, would you shake and have a cold one (i would even buy) on sweetening the pot? Just speaking theoretically now.

You play some hard ball P4P.

I am assuming the 50% we use for domestic spending would last forever? I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

If so i would shake your hand and buy the second round if this happened in RPs first year and the rest 50% used in domestic spending is whipped away in 2 years. Giving RP at least 1 year to cut it 100% and also to possibly eliminate other presidents from continuing the spending.

Thats about as far as i would go and i dont even want to do that :D But like i said its better than what we have now. We seriously need to get our spending in check!

[progressiveforpaul]

let's make it 50% in the first 2 years, 25% in the third and 0% in the fourth. That will get a progressive elected finally in 2016 for sure.
You play some hard ball P4P.

I am assuming the 50% we use for domestic spending would last forever? I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

If so i would shake your hand and buy the second round if this happened in RPs first year and the rest 50% used in domestic spending is whipped away in 2 years. Giving RP at least 1 year to cut it 100% and also to possibly eliminate other presidents from continuing the spending.

Thats about as far as i would go and i dont even want to do that :D But like i said its better than what we have now. We seriously need to get our spending in check!

[bkreigh]

let's make 50% in the first 2 years, 25% in the third and 0% in the fourth. That will get a progressive elected finally in 2016 for sure.

Deal off then :D

[cindy25]

Bullshit. You want to see unemployment drop? Lower (or abolish) the minimum wage and stop unemployment benefits at 6 weeks.

in theory I agree, but it would be a race to the bottom and then a long slow climb up. that is what Singapore did in the 60s, and wages were very low for several years.

[progressiveforpaul]

At some point wages get so low that being a slave is more profitable since u get to eat.
in theory I agree, but it would be a race to the bottom and then a long slow climb up. that is what Singapore did in the 60s, and wages were very low for several years.

[eproxy100]

Have you ever made a compromise that did not sacrifice your principles? I am saying that that never settling for 1.2 trillion reduction in spending just because your want 2.4 trillion cut is going to get you zero cut and probably, actually increases overall. Why would you want to make the perfect the enemy of the good and in doing so get worse?

Lemme put it this way: if a righty came and said "hey, let's team up and get rid of social security; we'll just put half of the money into 'defense spending'", what do you think my response will be? Yeah the total expenditure will be less but it's still wrong.

I know what you're trying to get at though. Thing is, it's a long-term game. In the short term, yes, employing your strategy would probably work better. In long run though it'll be detrimental to the cause.

We appreciate you trying to help, but perhaps you can look at other methods of convincing liberals. You don't seem convinced about the free market. Would you mind giving it a good look through and learn why we support it?

[Cutlerzzz]

At some point wages get so low that being a slave is more profitable since u get to eat.

Can you cite an example of this?

[progressiveforpaul]

Not sure that your analogy holds true: you and I do want the big cuts in MIC I would be fine. The correct analogy would be something like this. Dennis Kucinich is running for the Democratic nomination and you want o to be rid of President Romney. We know we cannot beat the Democratic establishment candidates so you offer to come on board. We agree that we can cut MIC spending by 2.4 trillion but you want half of the savings from those cuts to go to tax cuts while we want to use half of the cuts to go to building the PGE. We say yes to that and y'all get very happy and decide to jump ship. If Kucinich said, no all of that 2.4 trillion is going to building the PGE and we will not raise your taxes. I think you would take the former deal and be unenthusiastic about the latter. That is the more precise analogy.
I have looked into your so called free market and found that it exists nowhere.

Lemme put it this way: if a righty came and said "hey, let's team up and get rid of social security; we'll just put half of the money into 'defense spending'", what do you think my response will be? Yeah the total expenditure will be less but it's still wrong.

I know what you're trying to get at though. Thing is, it's a long-term game. In the short term, yes, employing your strategy would probably work better. In long run though it'll be detrimental to the cause.

We appreciate you trying to help, but perhaps you can look at other methods of convincing liberals. You don't seem convinced about the free market. Would you mind giving it a good look through and learn why we support it?

[progressiveforpaul]

Can you cite an example of this?

http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=54

[progressiveforpaul]

Deal off then :D

Piggybacking on my response to eproxy, what if we did it this way: 800 billion in tax cuts, 800 billion in debt reduction and 800 billion in building the peaceful green economy? You guys would get 2/3s of what you want out of the deal which is a hell of a lot better than what you can expect from Obama or Romney clone. And of course the best thing of all is it's a better deal than we are going to get from Obama and that gives us the incentive to be the margin of victory for Ron Paul.

[ChaosControl]

My issue is, you say you want more "progressive green democrats". And you say 2008 was a good year for Democrats.
How many of these supposedly "peaceful progressive democrats" voted in favor of the Patriot Act renewal? How many support the Libya invasion, continued presence in the Middle East? And how many would support a balanced budget?

It seems to me, a lot of the "progressives" will have pro-peace/pro-privacy rhetoric, but then they vote with the neocons on the important issues.
I'm perfectly willing to do a coalition. To me the most important things are privacy rights, a balanced budget, and ending the wars. So let us end the wars, abolish the TSA and DHS. Let us abolish all the anti-privacy crap the government does. Then fine, I don't care, raise taxes on corporations and the people who make 1million plus, but balance the budget when doing so instead of spending more. Before you worry about getting more invested in the "green economy", which I am not necessarily opposed to, we need to make sure the budget is producing a surplus to pay down existing debt. Just be careful though, when you support these so called "progressives", make sure they actually really support peace and privacy and that they aren't just another establishment democrat who will sell out on every little thing.

Take Kucinich who is supposedly one of the most "progressive", he ended up voting in favor of Obama's corporatist health policy. I detest establishment democrats as much as I do neocons since they are both owned by corporations in the end, even if the democrats want to deny it.

[fisharmor]

Let me say this another way so as to make sure i am being clear. Let's not spend X which is the current amount we are spending but let's spend Y which is significantly less than what we are spending currently. I am not saying shift all of what is saved from military, etc. to domestic spending but only half of it.

How is this shift happening?
In your scenario, is it as I suspect: that it is being doled out through federal channels?
It must be, because if it wasn't, there would be no discussion. If it all happened on the state level, then none of us here (within the context of the discussion) would have a problem with it. Socialism is not necessarily ILLEGAL on the state level.

However, it is patently ILLEGAL on the federal level. Should we agree to this in order to fix a horrible situation? Some agree. I do not. I am not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good: I am letting the bad be the enemy of the terrible.

When you openly call for blatantly illegal actions by the federal government, you're going to turn off some of us. (Not as many as I would have hoped.) Moreover, when discussing illegal wars, illegal searches and seizures, and illegal detentions and tortures, any argument you would have had against it vaporizes in a puff of illogic. If you're not willing to face the illegality of federal spending on social programs, then you have no frame of reference to appeal to the illegality of the things you claim to agree with us on.

You are essentially agreeing with the notion that the rule of law is insufficient and needs to be supplanted with the rule of men. The rule of men is what got us into this mess in the first place. I fail to see how it will get us out.


i say this for two reasons... it will produce a better economic outcome than putting all the savings into paying down debt (a position i know you disagree with) and because it get's more progressives interested when you say that you are going to spend more on the domestic side than Obama is planning on doing which is essentially what Dr. Paul is offering to do in exchange for a significant net cut in overall spending.Some of us have no interest whatsoever in paying off the debt. I would love nothing more than to witness a total default and the utter destruction of the US Government's credit rating, and the resulting destruction of the trust the rest of the world has misplaced in us.

But back on topic: beyond the argument that what you espouse is illegal, there is also the simple argument that it doesn't fucking work. We're aware of why progressives aim for federal spending. It's because state socialist spending puts the state in question in the poor house post haste, and the natural inclination when you've completely mismanaged your funds is to look for a wealthier entity to milk. It's the exact same line of reasoning you use on taxation: hey, he has money, let's take it and try to fix some stuff we fucked up with our own money.
All this does is move the problem from microcosm to macrocosm. It doesn't solve anything. It can't.

I'm speaking from experience here when I say this: There is no way to learn to manage money as long as you have money.
The trick to thrift and efficiency isn't having resources, it's NOT having resources. Claiming that the right people are going to somehow come to an epiphany on the subject and spend wisely with an unlimited budget is fatuous on the surface.
That is why we spit venom at you when you talk about spending more. You're advocating a shell game, where we move the problem from one sector to another.

[ChaosControl]

You mean like this?

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-10/paul-baldwin-mccinney-nader-we-agree/
The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

Really, the only issue I have with "progressiveforpaul" is that he doesn't recognize that the areas that Paul has in common with people like Nader and McKinney should be enough. We should be able to agree on the need for a smarter foreign policy, lower national debt, transparent (or better yet no) federal reserve, and restoration of civil liberties without having to "cater" to his position on maintaining a "progressive" tax structure. I mean really. The "I don't want to be in a FEMA camp, but if I am there I want to make sure the sales tax at the camp store is progressive" mentality floors me.

I liked that coalition, because in the end I think those four issues are the most important there are. I wouldn't have much trouble supporting a "progressive" who agrees on those four points. They may not be my ideal, but I'd be okay with them. Unlike the establish Ds or Rs, whom I detest. Get those areas we agree on fixed, then we can worry about whether we fund a "green economy" with central planning or not later.

[Cutlerzzz]

http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=54
That is not an example of a first world country becoming a third world country after repealing wage controls. But let's see what Paul Krugman has to say about Child Labor now that you have brought it up:

http://www.slate.com/id/1918/

[progressiveforpaul]

Can't argue with much of what u say here. I only said that the Democratic party did well in the 08 election. Progressives did not do so well or we would have gotten a much better deal on health care. I think Kucinich made a political calculation when he changed his mind about abortion,... I think he made a very difficult choice between getting a few good things done on health care verses nothing at all done. On the larger point, even progressivism has shifted noticeably rightward I think out of desperation and manipulation. We have made a tragic mistake of confusing liberal corporatism with progressivism. We want to believe in Obama so bad that we cannot see his policies for what they are. And even among those who recognize he has failed to do what he promised make inane comments like; "I wish i had voted for Hillary." I just wish the libertarians here could get used to the idea that they cannot get everything they want. I fear that the Obama fetish and the libertarian purity tests are going to prohibit Ron Paul from doing what he needs to do to get elected and we will continue our drift toward third world fascism.
My issue is, you say you want more "progressive green democrats". And you say 2008 was a good year for Democrats.
How many of these supposedly "peaceful progressive democrats" voted in favor of the Patriot Act renewal? How many support the Libya invasion, continued presence in the Middle East? And how many would support a balanced budget?

It seems to me, a lot of the "progressives" will have pro-peace/pro-privacy rhetoric, but then they vote with the neocons on the important issues.
I'm perfectly willing to do a coalition. To me the most important things are privacy rights, a balanced budget, and ending the wars. So let us end the wars, abolish the TSA and DHS. Let us abolish all the anti-privacy crap the government does. Then fine, I don't care, raise taxes on corporations and the people who make 1million plus, but balance the budget when doing so instead of spending more. Before you worry about getting more invested in the "green economy", which I am not necessarily opposed to, we need to make sure the budget is producing a surplus to pay down existing debt. Just be careful though, when you support these so called "progressives", make sure they actually really support peace and privacy and that they aren't just another establishment democrat who will sell out on every little thing.

Take Kucinich who is supposedly one of the most "progressive", he ended up voting in favor of Obama's corporatist health policy. I detest establishment democrats as much as I do neocons since they are both owned by corporations in the end, even if the democrats want to deny it.

[progressiveforpaul]

That is not an example of a first world country becoming a third world country after repealing wage controls. But let's see what Paul Krugman has to say about Child Labor now that you have brought it up:

http://www.slate.com/id/1918/

Thankfully, no first world nation has gotten rid of wage laws altogether. I do think that the third world benefits from global trade and we need to do more of it. i think however we ought to have tariff policies in place that encourage American businesses to find the cheaper labor in emerging democracies like Indonesia rather than in China. i also think we could through thoughtful tariff policy encourage a gradual rise in the standard of living of third world workers. Right now it's all about the rush to the bottom as a means of hold down domestic labor costs and maximizing investor profits.