Sarah Palin, Once Upon a Time

Sarah Palin is described as being a politician, commentator, and author. Can you be all three at the same time? It’s a little tricky but it can be done, and has been done, and is being done. The truth about Sarah Palin, however, is that nowadays she’s a very successful entrepreneur who does a little commentary to support her business as an author, and who once upon a time was a politician. Who can forget the SNL appearances? They may have been helpful for SNL ratings and Palin’s career as a commentator/author/media personality, but did not help the GOP at the ballot box. Progressive, as in left-wing, media critics like Princeton’s Dr. Robert Kubey lambasted her appearances for being wrong contextually despite her affability and poise. But Kubey is the academic who wants UNESCO sponsored media skepticism taught from grade school up so that American children turn to alternative news sources, perhaps like Al Jazeera, to glean the whole truth. Kubey, in his Huffington Post piece back in 2008, naturally praised the media savvy displayed by the Obama campaign.


In other words, it's helpful to keep in mind who in the media - Kubey may be at the extreme end but he is indicative of where they come from - keep criticizing Palin's lack of judgement. These criticisms almost certainly don't sway Palin's core of supporters as an anonymous conservative blogger mentioned in the Washington Examiner. Of course the fact the blogger chose to remain anonymous while gently praising Palin shows the lack of enthusiasm among many conservatives, to put it politely. The problem is how committed is Sarah to taking a serious run at the White House? The 2012 tease left some former supporters disgruntled to say the least and the perception is that she's more interested in her media business than in actually running for president. And for that she would need to build a focused platform of clear policy ideas. Is she even interested in doing so? Is she capable of it? Some in the GOP clearly doubt she is, and we may never know. Palin clearly resonated with an important part of the public in 2008 and still does to an extent. But as a candidate in the age of Tea Party stalwarts like Ted Cruz, her wake is not what it was. And it's fairly safe to say that the senator from Texas will not be doing any SNL appearances between now and November 2016.

Posted by Keeley at January 27, 2015 1:15 PM
Comments
Comment #387670

Sarah Palin will do just fine as she continues to be a thorn in the backside of the progressives. Their past, present, and future personal attacks on her will continue to galvanize the conservative base. I personally don’t think she will ever run, and she would be no more successful than another Bush run at the WH. The Republican Party will never win the WH until they stop treating the conservative wing of their own party worse than the liberal left. Hillary has made two appearances in the past six weeks, and has once again come out to say she would appear before a Senate hearing on Benghazi. She would love to put that one to rest, but the deaths of Americans at Benghazi, and her comment “who cares” will haunt her to the primary; at which time the Democratic Party will once again throw her under the bus in favor of someone/anyone else.

Posted by: Sam Jones at January 28, 2015 3:00 PM
Comment #387676

Palin and Trump and the latest Benghazi committee all exist for the same purpose:

Fleecing the rubes.

As W.C. Fields once said, “Never give a sucker an even break.” Even Bill O’Reilly pointed out that Palin and Trump made the Republican primaries look like a “reality show.” And that is not a compliment, by the way. Trump and Palin are in it to promote themselves and separate the yokels from their money. In 2012 we had a clown car with such priceless nut jobs and Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. Herman Cain ran either the best or the worst book tour in history. Earlier this year, poor Michele openly questioned why no one was asking her if she would run for president again. Sigh. But have no fear! This year, it will be even better.

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! The clown bus has come to town!

Look kids! The first clown out of the bus has a brother with a name everyone loves to hate! And hey! Isn’t that Mitt Romney! Wow! This time around, Mitt is running on behalf of the 47%, rather than against them. Yeah… riiiight. Rick Perry is having a little difficulty with the steps due to that ball and chain around his ankle. A Republican judge refused to dismiss the charges. The trial is going to happen on “abuse of power” charges, so Perry is in big trouble. Bigger than Christie or Walker, at least for the time being.

And who can that adorable little idiot at the back of the clown line be? Why, it’s Ben Carson! He seems so nice until he opens his mouth, and then everyone realizes he is delusional.

My prediction: Cruz will be the most unscrupulous and I think he will win. The Koch Brothers are doubling their campaign financing to $889 billion, which is a staggering number. Carson will be the funniest- not intentionally- though professional hucksters Palin and Trump will give Carson a run for his money.

When Trump & Palin are around you better check your wallet, Ben!

Posted by: phx8 at January 28, 2015 4:45 PM
Comment #387679

Well grifters gotta grift(sarah and donald of course have attained expert level grifting status). The rest of the menagerie of presumable candidates should provide plenty of material for late night talk show hosts and comedians. Oh and BENGHAZIIII!!!!!

Posted by: Speak4all at January 28, 2015 4:57 PM
Comment #387681

You know, the only thing that really kept Democrats in the White House has been very weak and unlikable Republican candidates… Which is why it is hilarious when Democrats keep taking so many shots at them. You’d think they would be telling the Republicans to “keep up the good work, you’ll get ‘em next time!”

But yeah, while it would be hard for Hillary to win the election, the notion that she will be the candidate is far from assured, she would still do better than most of the names trotted out by Republicans lately. Most likely the progressive wing of the Democrats will demand that the nomination go to Elizabeth Warren. No male candidate will have a chance, to progressives it is time for a women, regardless of qualifications, likability, positions or electability. Seems a silly way to choose a presidential candidate, but hey that’s their choice I guess. (Joe Biden is expected to take a shot, but really, I mean… it will be funny but yeah…)

Unfortunately on the Republican side it is a clear mess. Why they continue to trot out stiffs that no one likes and can’t make persuasive arguments to their views is beyond me. It’s 2015 now and until the Republicans get over their anti-gay views and realize that that time has passed, get a little more libertarian in their views and paint the Democrats as just as warmongering as they are (which is true) then it doesn’t really matter…

I have yet to see either party offer up a candidate that is going to be anything but awful at the job, meaning just more of the same we’ve seen for some time… Even more reason to be pulling more power away from the Presidential office rather than consolidating power to that position.

Any good candidate is going to be torn to shreds by the hatred and lying propaganda machines that both parties use to attack their opponents rather than highlight the qualities of their own candidates, because there really are none, (just look at this article and the comments so far) all the while spending millions of dollars keeping any other candidate off the ballots or out of the public debates since it would go against their strategy of ‘we suck but we suck less than they do’ type of campaigns that we see now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2015 5:25 PM
Comment #387683

Hillary will win, Rhinehold. It will not be close. Warren will not run, nor should she. I like her views, but she does not have the temperament or experience, and she can be more effective where she is right now. Warren has made it abundantly clear she will not run. Oh well. Biden is a good man and more competent than people give him credit for. Remember the 2012 VP debate, when conservatives were so sure Paul Ryan would easily trounce Biden because Biden was so ineffectual and slow compared to Ryan? Biden cleaned his clock. So much for Paul Ryan. Bernie Sanders will run, but other than trying to push Hillary to the left by promoting positions- something like Paul in 2012- it is hard to see that campaign ever taking off.

Rand Paul could be interesting. I just don’t think this will be his year. He is too inexperienced at the national level. 2016 might be more of a prep run for 2020 for Paul. But the foreign policy platform of the GOP is a disaster, still mired in Neocon warmongering. Republican voters might be a lot sicker of that crap than the party realizes, and Paul could tap into it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 28, 2015 5:57 PM
Comment #387684

The interesting thing about a Paul run would be the fact that it would position him to the left of the Democratic Party on warmongering. There’s really little difference between the left and right in that area right now, quibbles about using troops or not is about it.

As for Hillary being a lock, I’m sorry but I remember hearing the same thing in 2007… I think that most Americans, are just going to be tired of her… BTW, remember let’s not look at the polls out now, I mean, we haven’t learned our lessons on polling this far out of anything by now?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2015 6:17 PM
Comment #387685

Hillary will be thrown under the bus…again. Too much baggage, too old and wrinkled, can’t make up her mind how far left she will tread, and too old and wrinkled…Oh, did I mention that one.

But it is strange that some on the left would even bring up the comment about the experience of Republicans, considering Obama has zero experience; unless you can count fleecing companies as a community organizer?

Posted by: Sam Jones at January 28, 2015 7:39 PM
Comment #387686

“The Koch Brothers are doubling their campaign financing to $889 billion, which is a staggering number.”

Analysis from someone who can’t count? The author must think the national debt is $19 Brazilian.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 28, 2015 7:54 PM
Comment #387687

As for Hillary and her democratically “correct” genitalia, I agree with el Presidente…we need a candidate with that “new car smell”, not three-day old fish mixed with ode de toilette.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 28, 2015 8:01 PM
Comment #387688

“The political network led by industrialists Charles and David Koch plans to spend $889 million for the 2016 elections. In modern politics, it’s more than just a ton of money.

It’s about as much as the entire national Republican Party spent in the last presidential election cycle, four years ago… double what the Koch brothers and their network spent in 2012.

Krumholz summed it up: “It is staggering.”

But not just staggering — it’s also mostly secret. The Republican and Democratic political parties have to disclose their donors. The Koch network consists almost entirely of groups that don’t register under the campaign finance laws and so don’t publicly identify their donors.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/01/27/381954047/koch-brothers-put-price-tag-on-2016-889-million

So yes, that should be $889 million with an ‘m’.

Double what the entire Republican Party spent in 2012. That’s the Koch Brothers.

Posted by: phx8 at January 28, 2015 9:45 PM
Comment #387689

Rhinehold it may be the time for the Libertarian Party to field a libertarian candidate that can challenge those mentioned in this thread. It seems you guys have lined up some die hard ideologues to run for president this time around.

Mark Feldman-
“Generally conservative in fiscal matters, Feldman calls for a balanced budget and speaks out against big spending and the oversized government to which it leads. He supports limiting the power of government to seize land via eminent domain, and the power of the police to issue speeding tickets merely by visual assessment of a driver’s speed.”

http://2016.libertarian-party.org/Feldman/

Darryl Perry-
“Judging by the entire career of Darryl W. Perry, including his 2016 run for the Office, he is a die-hard libertarian. Perry advocates giving more power to the individual, while reducing the power of the Government as much as possible. “Men do not need leaders, we are all capable of leading ourselves. Governments only get in the way of allowing this to happen””

http://2016.libertarian-party.org/DPerry/

Gotta hand it to these guys, stopping the police from issuing tickets without radar is tops on my lists of problems. I can see Perry dismantling the federal government including Congress cause we don’t need leaders.

So I guess after looking at these two perhaps Palin with her popularity amongst the tea party types could jump ship and run on the Libertarian ticket and…and….well you never know….

Why is it you guys cannot field a realistic candidate at the national level?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 28, 2015 10:08 PM
Comment #387690

Ah, more of the hate from the progressives for the Koch brothers…

1) *they* aren’t spending 889 million. The groups they run or are part of are. The donors they are getting are giving to them instead of the Republican Party because those groups don’t share all of the views of the Republican Party, at least not all of the candidates that the party supports.

2) The idea that this is something new in politics is mindbogglingly silly. I don’t think people remember the time that the US government had to borrow money from an individual just to cover its bills…

3) Democrats would have no problem with a Democrat doing the same thing. Zero. If they could they would. How much did

4) The Koch brothers also direct donations to Democrats. I know you don’t hear that much but hey, the facts are the facts… People like Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor and Chuck Schumer.

5) Heaven forbid that people get together and pool their money to these organizations to be used to further their political goals. The horror of such things.

6) One of the reasons that the Koch brothers are working to raise more money to spend on the presidential campaign? Obama raised nearly twice as much as Romney in the last election. Again, it’s ok for Democrats, bad for Republicans…

I know, this is great headline fodder for the Democrats to gin up donations, the announcement that someone WANTS to raise money… Maybe they should have said 1 billion! That would have made a better headline. The reality of actually raising that much money is a different story, but hey why deal with facts! Just because they want to do something is enough to label them as evil…

It’s like the left, after spending years fighting the irrelevant attacks on George Soros just gave up and started doing the very things they were defending a few years earlier.

This all of course ignores the fact that they actually give more money to charities than they do to political organizations… But hey, you need your bogey men to get the sheep motivated. How else can you explain the outrage over a non-sourced unverified report that someone WANTS to raise a certain amount of money?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2015 10:29 PM
Comment #387691
Why is it you guys cannot field a realistic candidate at the national level?

Lol, interesting that you pick on those two, neither one will likely be the candidate. You do realize that Ben Affleck is considered a possible presidential candidate for the Democrats right?

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Affleck/

Gary Johnson was a better candidate than either of the other parties ran last year. Former governor of New Mexico and was the most successful result for a third party presidential candidacy since 2000.

Who was in 2000? Well, that would have been the late Harry Browne, again much better candidate than the two who ran for the other parties.

But, you wouldn’t know much about them because the 6 unnamed people who run the new debate organization refuse to allow any 3rd party candidates into the debates.

“In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity labeled the CPD a “secretive tax-exempt organization.” CPI analyzed the 2004 financials of the CPD, and found that 93 percent of the contributions to the non-profit CPD came from just six donors, the names of all of which were blacked out on the donor list provided to the CPI.”

If you want to look for oligarchy and shadow governments, that’s where you should be looking…

“Criticism by Open Debates of CPD for the 2012 election include the secret contract between CPD and the Obama and Romney campaigns (a complaint joined by 17 other organizations including Judicial Watch) and CPD informing the candidates of the debate topics in advance.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2015 10:45 PM
Comment #387692

BTW, it’s most likely that Gary Johnson will be running again…

The former construction company owner, mountaineer and competitive triathlete, governed New Mexico for two terms as a Republican. One of the few unqualified gubernatorial success stories for the Republican Party over the last couple of decades, his entry into politics was a low-key affair, driven mainly by a core of loyal backers. The then politically-inexperienced Johnson was hardly given a chance in the run up to the New Mexico gubernatorial race of 1994, especially after being rebuffed by state Republican leaders who ‘suggested’ that he should instead seek a seat in the State Legislature first.

However, his convictions and doggedness saw him scrapping past his Republican challenger in the primary, Richard P. Cheney, by a mere 1%, securing 34% of the ballots. The win was all the more impressive considering his campaign was funded almost entirely from his own $500,000 contribution. In the general election, with the Republican Party machinery firmly behind him, Johnson soundly, although very surprisingly, defeated the incumbent Governor, Democrat Bruce King, by an impressive 10 points. He repeated the feat four years later by beating Democrat Albert Chavez by another comprehensive ten-point margin to win reelection – impressive feats in a state with an over 40% Latino population.

His time in office was typified by aggressive cost cutting measures aimed at eliminating the state’s budget deficit and spending growth. Johnson, armed with the lessons learned building his construction firm, was known to be a decisive, yet collaborative operator who is most often remembered as the Governor who never increased taxes during his tenure.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2015 10:50 PM
Comment #387693
Double what the entire Republican Party spent in 2012. That’s the Koch Brothers.

And just a little bit more than Obama spent…

“We hate them because they can out fundraise us”!

QQ

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2015 10:54 PM
Comment #387694

You know, a lot of Libertarians wish the Koch brothers hadn’t left the LP in their misguided attempt to change the Republican party from within… It never works, they just take the money they raise and continue to be ftards…

But the funny part is that they are trying to do what the Democrats have said what the Republican party should do all this time in order to be successful. Get god out of the platform, support civil liberties, quit warmongering…

But hey, the left lies about the Libertarian Party too, so it’s no surprise that their actions and words don’t match up in any way. It’s like how they feel that women should be empowered and not all women should have to think alike. When then shit all over any woman who doesn’t pass their litmus tests and treat them like 2nd class citizens…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2015 10:58 PM
Comment #387695

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/big-donor-secrecy-campaigns-fundraising-democrats-106186.html

Not sure that the Democrats understand what the word hypocrisy means…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2015 4:19 AM
Comment #387696
The DSCC even asked the Kochs to donate in 2011 — inviting them to a private donor retreat on South Carolina’s Kiawah Island in exchange for a five-figure contribution. The Kochs released audio of DSCC’s then-Chairwoman Patty Murray soliciting funds from them.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/koch-brothers-democrats-104787.html#ixzz3QCUhrZGr

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2015 4:22 AM
Comment #387698

Rhinehold, I didn’t pick those two, they are the only two declared candidates according to the Libertarian Party website.

Speaking of actors it seems some libertarian have their sites set on Drew Carey-
“Instead, Mr. Carey is a libertarian evangelist, and at one time, even helmed “The Drew Carey Project” on Reason.tv, under the banner of the libertarian think tank, Reason Foundation, where he spoke about social issues, marijuana decriminalization and privatization of public roads.”

And of course the Repubs have Sarah Palin.

But hey, the left lies about the Libertarian Party too, so it’s no surprise that their actions and words don’t match up in any way.

Rhinehold, everything I said came from the Libertarian Party website so any lies are their own. In fact everything I have said in this comment is also from their website.

http://2016.libertarian-party.org/

But, you wouldn’t know much about them because the 6 unnamed people who run the new debate organization refuse to allow any 3rd party candidates into the debates.

Rhinehold even with a former governor, Gary Johnson, running for the office of president;

” So, perhaps his not quite 1% share of the total popular vote could be viewed as a disappointment.”

the Libertarians garnered less than 1% of the vote but want a seat at the table. Hell Rhinehold, if they let everyone who declared as an independent or from a third party in the debates, along with the repubs and dems we would need an auditorium just for the candidates.

Perhaps it is time for the Libertarian’s, the self declared largest of the third parties, to bring all the independents and third party candidates to their own debates and ignore the repubs and dems.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 29, 2015 9:05 AM
Comment #387728

The problem the Libertarian Party is it’s made up of, well, libertarians. Although many people hold libertarian beliefs getting them to participate in our current political process is counter intuitive to much of what they believe in. By contrast getting someone with progressive beliefs to participate is quite natural.

Posted by: George in SC at January 29, 2015 12:36 PM
Comment #387729

The left is so comical here. Hilary is Hilarious for the lock. She has so much baggage all you have to do is watch her approach to the podium and you see those huge hips sway. She is truly a heavy weight and not politically. She is such a joke, a liar, a disgrace to the electorate, and a pathetic note on her honesty, a lack of integrity and that is only a start on her. Now phx8 has spoken many times about reference to labels on the left. Well your reference on those that you oppose is so right down the sick alley you so loudly cry about. Is that what they do in Oregon?

Posted by: tom humes at January 29, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #387730

Tom perhaps it would behoove us to repeal the 22nd amendment and consider Obama for another term. It seems you guys don’t like Hilary yet the repubs seem incapable of fielding a serious candidate for president. In fact it appears you have described the entire field of republican hopefuls with your analysis of Hilary.

Third party candidates just seem to be unaware of the real issues facing the country at the federal level and without any support in Congress would just foul things up worse than the Tea Party caucus.

Seems to me it would solve Royal’s issue with a women being elected to the office of president, war mongers can be appeased according to Rhinehold, You can be proud that Obama isn’t overweight and a women.

Obama, now that he has grown some cajones, with his proven track record and his vision for the future of this country may be the answer.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html

Posted by: j2t2 at January 29, 2015 7:52 PM
Comment #387731

j2t2
Have you checked his cajones lately? Just wondering what your source is and what authority you rely on.

Posted by: tom humes at January 29, 2015 10:39 PM
Comment #387732
Rhinehold, I didn’t pick those two, they are the only two declared candidates according to the Libertarian Party website.

Could you link that information from the libertarian party website at www.lp.org then? I’ve looked there and have found nothing concerning any potential candidates for 2016… It’s not the way the Libertarian Party works as an example, candidates are selected at convention not elected during a primary system…

Speaking of actors it seems some libertarian have their sites set on Drew Carey

Yep, a man who has actually been involved in politics for decades…

Rhinehold, everything I said came from the Libertarian Party website

Um… I think I see a problem here… libertarian-party.org is not the Libertarian Party website… has no affiliation with the libertarian party and is in fact a domain owned by politicks.org… It’s as much the libertarian party website as democratic-party.org (owned by the same group) is affiliated with the democrat party…

Who owns the site?

Our network of sites are all privately owned, with no affiliations to any political parties or special-interest groups.

I often wonder what passes for ‘research’ by people these days…

the Libertarians garnered less than 1% of the vote but want a seat at the table.

The Libertarian Party has elected officials in nearly every state in the union and gets their presidential candidate on the ballot on 48-50 states of the union, in spite of the immense challenges by the ‘established’ parties who make it their job to try and keep them off by any means necessary.

The fact is that the Debates, and not being allowed at those debates, is why that number is so low. The two major parties understand this and it is why they work so hard and have created this cabal to ensure that they can continue blocking alternative ideas from being debated along side of their own.

You can see the effects of how a candidate’s poll numbers rise and fall a great deal because of debates. In primary debates for both the Democrat and Republican parties, candidates coming in can have less than 10% of the polls and leave the debate in the lead. This is why they are such big deals during elections.

To deny candidates who have a mathematical chance of winning the election of President out of those debates, especially considering what has to go in to reaching even that goal, is a blatant effort to silence opposition.

Let’s take for example Obama’s poll numbers going into the debates with Hillary Clinton in 2007 and 2008…

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton holds a 17-point edge over Sen. Barack Obama among Democratic voters in a match-up of the two candidates seen as likely frontrunners in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to a CBS News poll.

Faced with the prospect of choosing between them, 45 percent of Democratic primary voters said they favored Clinton, while 28 percent preferred Obama.

Yet after that first debate, in which audiences polled say that Obama won, that changed. He was relatively unknown but the debates gave him a chance to compare his views and opinions UNFILTERED against the forerunner, or legitimate, candidate and we all know what happened next.

When people are told by their news media that x candidates are the only ones running, how are they even to know another candidate exists and what their views are? Couple that with the incessant lies that the left and right say about the Libertarian party (they are anarchists, dangerous foreign policy, etc) then there is literally no way other than through the debates to change that.

As a prime example of just how much the two parties want to keep other candidates out of the debate, when Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik protested their exclusion from a 2004 Debate, both men were arrested…

Hell Rhinehold, if they let everyone who declared as an independent or from a third party in the debates, along with the repubs and dems we would need an auditorium just for the candidates

Your statement is beyond asinine…

Currently the Democrat and Republican controlled Commission on Debates, who have as their founding stated goal to keep anyone other than Republicans and Democrats candidates out of the debates:

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission’s creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

have put in place the rule that to be included you have to have 15% in the polls. You see how nearly impossible this is, if the Democrat has 45% and the Republican has 38%, neither one a majority of course, that leaves 17% that another candidate has to get nearly all other voters just to be INCLUDED to be heard?

Again, remember why the League of Women Voters stopped hosting these Debates and why the commission was created…

The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.”

Instead, the commission was put in place to continue, and further, that fraud.

The accepted standard that most people agree with in inclusion into the debates, because of how important they are in a) letting people know that these candidates are viable candidates and b) letting them present their ideas and views UNFILTERED by the two party controlled media and monied interests (something you keep saying you are for) is a simple one…

“all constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more.”

In 2012 that would have left 4 candidates on the stage… Hardly a need for a ‘full auditorium’ of candidates on the stages being viewed as legitimate candidates for the presidency…

But the two parties won’t allow that because it will prevent them from engaging in the ‘you suck worse that I do’ political climate that has existed since the 80s… I mean, it works so well for us, doesn’t it?

I agree with Jesse Jackson Jr here on this one:

Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. said that the 15 percent threshold “excludes non-major party candidates on the basis of polls from a public who has not yet had an opportunity to hear from those candidates.”

And from a change.org petition:

Excluded third-party candidates can’t break the bipartisan conspiracy of silence on issues where the major parties are at odds with most of the American people.

The criterion ignores the vast array of structural barriers that confront third party candidates. Non-major party candidates face the most discriminatory ballot access laws of any democracy in the world, a winner-take-all system, significant financial contributions to the major parties, and scant media coverage.

The CPD’s first and foremost line of defense is, according to Executive Director Janet Brown, that “over 200 candidates run for president every four years. We can’t let all of them on stage.” While this statement is fairly accurate, nobody has been petitioning to have every registered candidate included in the presidential debates. We should have a criteria that limits the debates to only those who have a reasonable chance of winning.

This is why I am proposing the criteria to be included into the presidential debates be changed from an absurd requirement of 15 percent polling to have qualifying ballot access in at least 45 states. This is by far a reasonable offer by not only having the candidate meet the requirement of being able to win the 270 electoral votes, but also not have to win each state that they are qualified in.

The real hypocrisy here is that you rail against the money being spent in elections but then go on to work to prevent alternative views from campaigns that are not as well funded from ever being presented to the American people UNFILTERED from those other monied interests… You hypocritically display no real desire to change money in elections, just want to find a way to get the most so you can win…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2015 12:08 AM
Comment #387733
The problem the Libertarian Party is it’s made up of, well, libertarians. Although many people hold libertarian beliefs getting them to participate in our current political process is counter intuitive to much of what they believe in. By contrast getting someone with progressive beliefs to participate is quite natural.

How is in any way counterintuitive? Please, explain this one to me…

What then is so special about the hundreds of elected libertarian officials all throughout the US? The fact that candidates from the libertarian party appear on nearly every ballot even though the US has some of the most anti-democratic ballot access laws?

I’m not sure your point is made very well here, you seem to hold some knowledge about the mindset of libertarianism that escapes me, a libertarian for many decades…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2015 12:11 AM
Comment #387734

Ah, the myth of Middle Class economis championed by President Obama…

It’s easy to claim credit for things that happen even though none of the things you did had anything to do with those things.

The reason the economy is rebounding is, again, despite governments programs… Fracking, which this administration is opposed to, an increased shadow economy, which the administration is opposed to and increasing bubbles that the adminstration is failing to address and allowing to build for the next administration to deal with…

Please, phx8, do us all a favor and list the top 3 things that this adminsitration did that resulted in our finally starting to recover from the recession (which we should have been recovering from years earlier) and how they are more responsible than those things I listed…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2015 12:17 AM
Comment #387735

From OpenDebates.org

Six weeks before the 1998 gubernatorial election in Minnesota, The Star Tribune pegged Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura at 10 percent in the polls. Three debates later, on October 20, he was at 21 percent. Remarkably, Ventura’s cash-strapped campaign had not yet aired a single television advertisement. On Election Day, Ventura captured 37 percent of the vote and became the governor of Minnesota. Governor Ventura explained his astounding victory, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2015 12:57 AM
Comment #387736

http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/15percent.html

In response to any suggestion that the threshold for inclusion be lowered, the CPD’s first and foremost line of defense is, according to Executive Director Janet Brown, that “over 200 candidates run for president every four years. We can’t let all of them on stage.”

Yet, talking about 200 candidates is entirely misleading. Granted, roughly 200 people file presidential candidacy forms with the Federal Election Commission every election, including candidates like Billy Joe Clegg of the Clegg Won’t Pull Your Leg Party. But of the roughly 200 third-party candidates that run every four years, how many were on enough state ballots to mathematically have a chance of winning the presidential election? In 1988 only two third-party candidates, in 1992 only three third-party candidates, in 1996 only four third-party candidates, in 2000 only five third-party candidates, in 2004 only four third-party candidates, in 2008 only four third-party candidates, and in 2012 only two third-party candidates.

Further:

The problems with the 15 percent criterion are many:
    The criterion disregards the allocation of taxpayer funds and the intent of Congress.
    The criterion directly contravenes the wishes of the majority of American voters.
    The criterion irrationally requires candidates to prove their viability before the general public knows much about them.
    The criterion ignores the vast array of structural barriers that confront third party candidates.
    The criterion marginalizes the contributions of losing third-party candidates.
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2015 1:02 AM
Comment #387737

BTW, the real reason that people like phx8 don’t want 3rd party candidates included in the debates and be considered as ‘legitimate’ candidates:

In Libertarianism: A Primer, Cato Institute executive vice president David Boaz defines it as “the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.”

About one in ten Americans self-identifies as libertarian, and even fewer consider themselves “movement” libertarians. Most of them don’t subscribe to Reason or attend conferences at the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank funded in part by the infamous brothers Charles and David Koch. But many are libertarians without knowing it. That is, they identify as economically conservative and socially liberal. That number may be growing. In a 2009 Gallup poll, 23 percent of Americans responded to questions about the role of government in a way that categorizes them as libertarian—up from 18 percent in 2000. A survey conducted by Zogby for the Cato Institute has put the libertarian vote at around 15 percent. Loosen the wording, and the pool expands. When the Zogby survey asked voters if they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian,” the number rose to 44 percent. When it simply asked if they were “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” a full 59 percent responded yes. Not bad for a bunch of trench-coat-wearing dungeon masters.

Libertarianism gets caricatured as the weird, Magic-card-collecting, twelve-sided-die-wielding outcast of American political philosophy. Yet there’s no idea more fundamental to our country’s history. Every political group claims the Founders as its own, but libertarians have more purchase than most. The American Revolution was a libertarian movement, rejecting overweening government power. The Constitution was a libertarian document that limited the role of the state to society’s most basic needs, like a legislature to pass laws, a court system to interpret them, and a military to protect them. (Though some Founders, like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, wanted to centralize power.) All the government-run trappings that came after—the Fed, highways, public schools, a $1.5 trillion-a-year entitlement system— were arguably departures from our country’s hard libertarian core.

Libertarianism gets marginalized in American politics because it doesn’t fit into the two-party paradigm. Libertarians want less state intrusion into the market, which aligns them with Republicans, but also less interference in social choices, which aligns them with Democrats. As Massachusetts governor William Weld put it in 1992, “I want the government out of your pocketbook and your bedroom.” To the partisan brain, this doesn’t compute. “In 1976, people didn’t have the vaguest idea of what I was talking about,” says Ron Paul. “Why was I voting with the left sometimes and with the right other times?”

Yet libertarianism is more internally consistent than the Democratic or Republican platforms. There’s no inherent reason that free-marketers and social conservatives should be allied under the Republican umbrella, except that it makes for a powerful coalition.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/index1.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2015 1:19 AM
Comment #387738

Rhinehold,
“… list the top 3 things that this adminsitration did that resulted in our finally starting to recover from the recession…”

TARP, the stimulus, saving AIG, saving GM, cars for clunkers, and putting the right people in place in the Treasury and the Fed. Putting the right people in the right places might be the most important factor of all, but one that will never occur to most people.

Obama has been a big proponent of spending on infrastructure, extending unemployment and SNAP benefits, and raising the minimum wage. The Obama administration cannot write legislation, but they can sign it, and they can influence the passage of legislation on the state level.

There is a good reason the US economy is better than the rest of the industrialized world, which made the mistake of adopting austerity measures, and addressing debt before insuring growth. The US is virtually the only one in good shape right now, and it is for that reason.

Posted by: phx8 at January 30, 2015 1:35 AM
Comment #387739
TARP, the stimulus, saving AIG, saving GM, cars for clunkers, and putting the right people in place in the Treasury and the Fed. Putting the right people in the right places might be the most important factor of all, but one that will never occur to most people.

You are serious here, aren’t you?

You realize that TARP, as passed, was never implemented, right? The only thing that actually saved banking was the Fed’s bailout which was 10 times larger than TARP and the relaxing of mark-to-market accounting rules, which the administration was against.

The ‘stimulus’ had almost no measurable effect, despite the administration’s attempt to create a new form of mathematics…

Saving AIG has just created moral hazard and told the investment banks to keep doing what they were doing before…

The same with GM. Instead of a new business coming up to take over for GM’s failures, like Tesla for example, they are instead allowed to continue operating a bad business…

Cars for Clunkers was a definite failure in every sense of the word, except a lot of people took advantage of free money from the government…

And the people he put in place at the FED and Treasury are the same ones that admit that the repeal of glass steagall had nothing to do with our economic woes of 2008… Interesting that you think they are the ‘right people for the job’. Funny, BTW, that you mention the FED since he appointed only Yellen who just did take over. Bush appointed Bernanke…

There is a good reason the US economy is better than the rest of the industrialized world, which made the mistake of adopting austerity measures, and addressing debt before insuring growth. The US is virtually the only one in good shape right now, and it is for that reason.

Name one other country that actually ‘adopted austerity measures’.

I know Krugman likes to point to England, but there is a small problem… They didn’t adopt any austerity measures, in fact they did pretty much the same thing the US has done.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-british-austerity/

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2015 1:48 AM
Comment #387750
Have you checked his cajones lately? Just wondering what your source is and what authority you rely on. Posted by: tom humes at January 29, 2015 10:39 PM

Tom, it is his actions that speak for him. I mean did you really check out Hilary before you made the foolish comment regarding her physique?

Could you link that information from the libertarian party website at www.lp.org then?

Um… I think I see a problem here… libertarian-party.org is not the Libertarian Party website…

Yep my bad, Rhinehold. Thanks for enlightening me on the correct website. I did wonder why the website had info on so many other parties.

The real hypocrisy here is that you rail against the money being spent in elections but then go on to work to prevent alternative views from campaigns that are not as well funded from ever being presented to the American people UNFILTERED from those other monied interests… You hypocritically display no real desire to change money in elections, just want to find a way to get the most so you can win…

Well Rhinehold I do rail against so much money being spent by those who refuse to be accountable for the use of their money. But I agree with your rant here, for the most part, on the lack of other political parties being involved in the debates. Just because I point out how many of the smaller political parties seem to be one issue parties or out of touch doesn’t mean I am against them. I do criticize their fielding a candidate for president yet few or none for any other elected offices on the Federal level.

In fact as I posted in a previous post in the red column I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either the dem or repub for the Senate race this past election and actually voted for an independent candidate who received just a couple of thousand votes.

I also believe that it is time for the libertarians and the many other smaller parties to perhaps get with say.. the league of women voters and arrange their own debates.

As far as the auditorium comment well just look at the list of declared candidates and it isn’t far off.

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2015 1:07 PM
Comment #387757

Rhinehold,

Sorry if my point wasn’t made well but time is getting rare these days.

Are you saying that the Libertarian Party has been successful?

You look at politics from a moral, ideological view but do you actively participate in the political process by running for office or being active in campaigns? Most libertarian thinking people by nature do not. Our political process is group think. It’s win-lose, black-white, it’s our Last Battlefield (Star Trek). As such it’s something that’s not very attractive to a libertarian despite the desire to change things.

It’s not politics it’s the political process that I’m talking about. It’s not a fun place if your a libertarian and that’s why their participation is low. They can and do win local elections where there’s something to run “against” but as a political movement it’s doomed by its own and by what a political movement means. Better to be in Cato than in Congress.

Posted by: George in SC at January 31, 2015 8:45 AM
Comment #387758
Are you saying that the Libertarian Party has been successful?

The Libertarian Party has been very successful. It is the largest and most active 3rd party, has won an electoral vote and, most importantly, has been able to pull both parties away form their partisan norms. It was the libertarian party that has pushed for acceptance of homosexual marriage, gay rights and marijuana legalization, among other changes.

In any election, there are 30-35% hardcore partisans on both the Republican and Democrat side. For any candidate to win, they have to appeal to the remaining, a very large percentage of them are libertarians. Either one of the candidates has to start adopting some of the libertarian party concerns or they will face losing votes to the libertarian candidate. Look at the most recent Virginia Governor’s race as an example.

Just winning isn’t the only measure of success for a party…

You look at politics from a moral, ideological view but do you actively participate in the political process by running for office or being active in campaigns?

I’ve run for office several times. I pulled 8% of the vote in my most recent election in a very Republican heavy district.

It’s not a fun place if your a libertarian

No, it isn’t. But it isn’t much of a fun place for anyone right now with the politics of personal destruction being the norm… But the fact that so many libertarians are running election belies your assertation. Nearly every election in the US right now has a libertarian candidate on the ballot in them. From the county assessor to the president of the United States, you’ll see a libertarian option. And not winning or getting a lot of votes doesn’t mean that the participation doesn’t change the nature of the election, as I pointed out before. It is vital and essential to keeping things from getting too out of hand.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 31, 2015 9:52 AM
Comment #387772
The Libertarian Party has been very successful. It is the largest and most active 3rd party, has won an electoral vote and, most importantly, has been able to pull both parties away form their partisan norms.

Rhinehold, lets make one thing perfectly clear, you and most other libertarians I have seen are as partisan as anybody else, in fact libertarians are perhaps more partisan than most.

But it isn’t much of a fun place for anyone right now with the politics of personal destruction being the norm…

Agreed, it isn’t fun for any body… well except Rush and Sean and Glenn and those getting paid for the politics of personal destruction.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 1, 2015 12:44 AM
Comment #387774
except Rush and Sean and Glenn and those getting paid for the politics of personal destruction.

And Larry and Ed and Keith and Chris…

You see what I mean about partisan?

Having a political philosophy is not partisanship, rejecting facts and inventing rational that is neither logical nor rational is.

Think of it like the difference between religion and science. A scientist is not religious because of his use of logic and reason and the application of the scientific method. A religious person, on the other hand, has to keep coming up with all kinds of rationalizations to bolster their beliefs because they are not founded on reason and logic, they are emotional.

Progressives have an emotional partisan streak that fuels their politics, even when that results in hypocrisy and illogic. Raise the minimum wage because… free healthcare because… free community college because… None of it based on logic or reason, pure emotion.

Conservatives similarly have an emotional partisan streak that fuels their politics. Secure the borders because… Anyone who isn’t with us is against us… Terrorists are going to eat our children… etc. Again, their arguments aren’t based in logic or reason, just pure emotion.

While libertarians may be emotional from time to time discussing their politics, the application of the political view is a reasoned logical one. People should be treated equally and fairly. There is no such thing as ‘free’, someone is paying for it. We shouldn’t be punishing people for being more successful, etc. Those are motional views, but logically makes sense. If you punish people for being successful, fewer will become ‘that’ successful, if people think that something is free they will be blindsided when the check comes to them, etc. In fact, most libertarians are accused of being either ‘cold and calculating’ and therefore not feeling or not having empathy, that right there tells you the difference…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2015 7:05 AM
Comment #387775
Having a political philosophy is not partisanship, rejecting facts and inventing rational that is neither logical nor rational is.

Seriously Rhinehold, isn’t that what we all have a political philosophy? Reminds me of the saying “it isn’t fascism when we do it”. To think that libertarians don’t reject facts and invent their own illogical rationales to justify their “philosophy” is as partisan as it comes.


While libertarians may be emotional from time to time discussing their politics, the application of the political view is a reasoned logical one.

Whats logical about Neo-feudalism? Just because you name your propaganda outlet Reason doesn’t mean it is reasoning or reasonable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-feudalism

In fact lets use just one of your example of logic and reason Rhinehold.

“We shouldn’t be punishing people for being more successful, etc. “

What is logical about this bumper sticker logic? It is mere sophistry masquerading as logic and reason. This example is used to suggest that those that achieve “monetary success” should not have to pay their fair share of taxes, so the “monetary unsuccessful” should pay! It also suggests that we have many people who choose to be monetarily unsuccessful to avoid paying their fair share to the government!

Posted by: j2t2 at February 1, 2015 11:58 AM
Comment #387779
Seriously Rhinehold, isn’t that what we all have a political philosophy?

You tell me, I’ve asked for years what the basic essence of progressive ‘philosophy’ is and I never get an answer. The same with conservatism, just some platitudes that they end up violating almost immediately when it suits their power grab needs.

To think that libertarians don’t reject facts and invent their own illogical rationales to justify their “philosophy” is as partisan as it comes.

Example?

Whats logical about Neo-feudalism?

Why are you bringing ‘neo-feudalism’ into the discussion exactly? You realize anarco-capitalism is not libertarianism right? Or are you one of those that think that objectivism and libertarianism are the same thing, despite the fact that they are in opposition with each other… Like how Slate writes an anti-libertarian post every week, with a picture of Ayn Rand on it, that does nothing but show it has no actual clue what libertarianism is… It’s called a ‘straw man’ fallacy.

What is logical about this bumper sticker logic?

It’s not ‘bumper sticker’ logic… and you do here is highlight your own partisan views.. ‘pay their fair share’? What’s a fair share? By any non-emotive definition of the word, the ‘rich’ are paying more than their fair share.

If fair share is everyone paying equally for the governmental services they use, the fact that only half of the people in the country pay anything and that the rich pay a much higher percentage is not fair

If fair share is everyone paying the same ‘percentage’ of their income, the rich are still paying more than their fair share with the progressives tax code

How do you define ‘fair share’ and how are you applying it so that the rich aren’t paying their fair share?

There’s the problem, you can’t take your emotions out of it. You have a hatred for people who make more than you, that is clear, and want to ‘punish’ them. It shouldn’t be about punishment, it should be about people paying for the government that they use. When half of the people who use governmental services don’t have to pay for those services, how is that ‘fair’? It might make you feel better, but it doesn’t help the economy or the country in any way…

Originally, when the income tax was put in place only the top 1% actually paid any taxes. I personally wouldn’t mind going back to that, but the reality is that even if you took the total income from everyone making over 250,000 a year, you wouldn’t be able to pay for our government the way it currently is. In a desire to ‘get the rich’ to pay their fair share, you just end up harming the middle class…

Run the numbers, use your logic side of your brain, how does ‘making the rich pay their fair share’ count as logic?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2015 9:04 PM
Comment #387787
You tell me, I’ve asked for years what the basic essence of progressive ‘philosophy’ is and I never get an answer.

“The contemporary political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and a need for measures to address these problems.[7]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Example?

From you-
“It’s not ‘bumper sticker’ logic… and you do here is highlight your own partisan views..”

To assume your thinking we can have a civilized society without taxes to run things is an example of libertarian “logic” IMHO Rhinehold.

If fair share is everyone paying equally for the governmental services they use, the fact that only half of the people in the country pay anything and that the rich pay a much higher percentage is not fair

Yet another example of “logic” from the partisan libertarian mind Rhinehold. Should we be housing soldiers if we can’t afford to build them a barracks? The rich can pay for the barracks and the poor can bring’em home and feed’em!
From Ben Franklin-
All Property indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of publick Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents & all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity & the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual & the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property of the Publick, who by their Laws have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire & live among Savages. — He can have no right to the Benefits of Society who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Letter to Robert Morris (25 December 1783)


There’s the problem, you can’t take your emotions out of it. You have a hatred for people who make more than you, that is clear, and want to ‘punish’ them.

Sound like it is you Rhinehold who is emotional on the issue and unable to think rationally. I hate not, simply because I believe a progressive income tax is the best way to fund the government, yet you get all emotional about it whilst bragging about your “logical” rationalizations!

In a desire to ‘get the rich’ to pay their fair share, you just end up harming the middle class…

What harmed the middle class is the libertarian “logic” of the poor and middle class footing the bill for the wealthy. THe constant pushing of the tax rate down to the middle class, the fees, and consumption taxes that we all forget the poor and middle class pay. The medicare and SS taxes that have a ceiling while the rich use the government to make laws that protect them from paying their fair share whilst benefiting from the constant wars.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 2, 2015 1:14 PM
Comment #387789
To assume your thinking we can have a civilized society without taxes to run things is an example of libertarian “logic” IMHO Rhinehold.

No, it is just another progressive lie. Explain to me where, anywhere, libertarianism says there should be NO TAXES. In fact, I quite clearly stated an example of a libertarian supported tax in my comments.

Your purposeful attempt to argue your straw men instead of reality is just another example of your inability to actually address libertarianism and instead you want to denigrate an invented view instead.

BTW, you once again avoid the two questions.

What is a ‘fair share’. What is a ‘progressive view’. All you have done is explain why progressive views became popular by some on the left, but still cannot explain what the progressive political view is…

Try answering those questions and learn what libertarianism is if your actually want to keep debating. Making shit up doesn’t really help your cause IMO.

Sound like it is you Rhinehold who is emotional on the issue and unable to think rationally.

Hmmm, I’m not the one writing lies about your views, in fact I am genuinely asking for them and you can’t or don’t want to provide them. However, you make up positions and attribute them to others in order to try to silence those you disagree with. No, the only emotional one here is you. Any emotions you see on here have been your own projecting outwards…

What harmed the middle class is the libertarian “logic” of the poor and middle class footing the bill for the wealthy.

First of all, apparently you missed the part where I stated that I would like to go back to the 1% being the only one paying income taxes, like it used to be. So how you go from that one position to the exact opposite is a laughable use of the term logic…

Secondly, however, you claim the poor and middle class are ‘footing the bill for the wealthy’. Please explain how that in any way is backed up by facts. It is EMOTIVE RHETORIC when over half of the people in the US don’t pay any income taxes… The fact that the top 10% of wage earners pay for 68% of the taxes, the top 1% pay 40%…

In what twisted logic is actually getting money from the government (negative effective income tax rate) is ‘footing the bill for the wealthy’?

Again, what do you consider fair? How much of the tax burden SHOULD the rich pay? Put you actual views down in print like I have j2t2 instead of hiding behind emotive bumper sticker rhetoric and man up.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2015 9:42 PM
Comment #387849
No, it is just another progressive lie. Explain to me where, anywhere, libertarianism says there should be NO TAXES. In fact, I quite clearly stated an example of a libertarian supported tax in my comments.

So Rhinehold libertarians support the taking of their property by force! Isn’t that what they say taxes are? Or is it just some taxes, which of course makes it an emotional issue, they refer to as taking of property by force?

Your purposeful attempt to argue your straw men instead of reality is just another example of your inability to actually address libertarianism and instead you want to denigrate an invented view instead.

Again with the emotion instead of logic Rhinehold. Because I don’t point to something in the Libertarian Party platform but instead use what libertarian say doesn’t make this a strawman my friend.

BTW, you once again avoid the two questions.
see comment 387787
Try answering those questions and learn what libertarianism is if your actually want to keep debating. Making shit up doesn’t really help your cause IMO.

Rhinehold, once again emotional response instead of logic. You are accusing me of making shit up because I use the opinions of libertarians, yours included. I know you believe Libertarianism is the pie in the sky , the non partisan answer to the problems of the country but I disagree. I mean haven’t we argued the use of force to collect taxes more than once on these threads?

Once again, just because you use income taxes as the only measurement for your rationalizations doesn’t make it logical because the fact is their are consumption and use taxes that we all pay. So the 49% argument is only part of the story, evidently the libertarian part. Also lets remember the income taxes are for wages not unearned income such as capital gins which is the bulk of the income fopr the wealthy. It is taxed at lower rates.


Posted by: j2t2 at February 5, 2015 11:45 AM
Comment #387854
So Rhinehold libertarians support the taking of their property by force! Isn’t that what they say taxes are? Or is it just some taxes, which of course makes it an emotional issue, they refer to as taking of property by force?

Government is force, but we have to have a government. There is no such thing as anarchy, it cannot exist.

Yes, libertarians support taxation. But taxation that is voluntary when possible. I know, you don’t seem to get that difference…

A gas tax is a voluntary tax in that it is paid for by someone exercising a decision. A tax on someone for just existing is IMO immoral. A tax on someone just because they did something (worked for it) is also wrong IMO.

The problem is that progressives don’t understand that taxation is taking property by force. If they did, they would want to limit it, not keep expanding it. Not seeing it as taking money away from government if it isn’t assigned. Just look at the President’s attack on retirement funds in his recently announced budget proposal…

Because I don’t point to something in the Libertarian Party platform but instead use what libertarian say doesn’t make this a strawman my friend.

What libertarian said what? Are you talking about libertarians or anarcho-capitalsts or objectivists? Do you understand the difference?

I don’t assign socialist agendas to progressives because I spend the time to understand the difference and appreciate it, even though they are both members of the Democratic party. But you want to do the same to me? I wonder if I should bother anymore then…

see comment 387787

I read comment 387787 and it doesn’t answer the questions I asked.

I mean haven’t we argued the use of force to collect taxes more than once on these threads?

Yes, we have. And that you still don’t get it, or even tried to understand the reality presented is telling.

fact is their are consumption and use taxes that we all pay.

Of course there is, given that I directly mention one in my comments…

But tell me, do you think the poor pay more or less in consumption taxes than the rich?

Also lets remember the income taxes are for wages not unearned income such as capital gins which is the bulk of the income fopr the wealthy. It is taxed at lower rates.

Yes, because they already paid the income tax on it the first time around. When they make the money they pay the income tax on it. Then what is left they invest and earn some money on that, which we tax at a smaller rate because to hit people twice on their money is pretty ridiculous IMO. Apparently you don’t think so?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 5:45 PM
Comment #387855

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/president-obamas-2016-budget-targets-retirement-accounts/ar-AA90CwO

Net unrealized appreciation, or NUA, one of the biggest tax breaks in the entire tax code for some retirement account owners, would be eliminated if this proposal were to become law. To be eligible to use the provision, which allows you to pay tax on some of your retirement savings at long-term capital gains rates, you must have appreciated stock of your employer (or former employer) inside your employer’s (or former employer’s) sponsored retirement plan and follow certain rules.

To further “simplify” the RMD rules, the administration seeks to impose required minimum distributions for Roth IRAs in the same way they are imposed for other retirement accounts. In other words, this proposal would require you to take distributions from your Roth IRA once you turn 70 ½ in the same way you would for your traditional IRA and other retirement accounts.

The maximum tax benefit (deduction or exclusion) you could receive for making a contribution to a retirement plan, like an IRA or 401(k), would be limited to 28%. Thus, if you are in the 28% ordinary income tax bracket or lower, you would be unaffected by this provision. However, if you are in a higher tax bracket, such as the 33%, 35%, or top 39.6% ordinary income tax bracket, you wouldn’t receive a full tax deduction (exclusion) for amounts contributed or deferred into a retirement plan.

Just of the few proposed changes that the administration wants to make.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 5:52 PM
Comment #390734

20150320wengdongdong
coach outlet store online


Posted by: dongdong at March 20, 2015 10:21 PM
Post a comment