welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)

[MaC]

an example of each to clarify

option 1.Someone who doesn't have a job and gets money from the state to live on.
option 2.A business that gets a subsidy from the government from taxes
option 3.As written into the BCRA: the $75 million that Democrats and Republicans get from taxes to run Presidential campaigns

Personally I'm against all in principle, but option 3 is by far the worst.

[John Dibble]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

[GOP = Terrorists]

When I was in highschool Clinton was doing his welfare reform and I strongly supported it and thought it didn't go far enough.  I thought "unemployment works and can provide transition between jobs and that is all that is ever needed."

Till my sister brought home "Sarah."  Sarah had been her friend for a long time but a "school" friend not a "home" friend and I never got to know her being a couple years older.  Sarah was raped and impregnated.  Sarah dropped out of highschool and had the baby.  Her parents had already disowned her and she was living with her grandmother who died before the baby was born.  Sarah ended up on welfare for several years while getting her GED.  In the years since she has become an upstanding young woman she went to college and is now a Nurse.

She is the first to admit that she would have had to give the baby up for adoption and probably have ended up homeless after her grandmother died.  While I'm okay with limiting welfare I clearly can not advocate eliminating personal welfare after seeing how it can work first hand.

[MaC]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

But John, by eliminating political welfare we could elect more third parties that would do away with corporate welfare.

[nclib]

Corporate welfare is worse than political welfare. (I am not opposed to individual welfare in 90% of the cases.)

[John Dibble]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

But John, by eliminating political welfare we could elect more third parties that would do away with corporate welfare.

Not necessarily. Remember that the LP doesn't actually use the political welfare even when offered - the welfare itself in that case doesn't hinder us so much as help those who are willing to take it. Not saying we should take it, but that's the truth. Also, it's not like eliminating it would magically get us elected. People have to agree with our ideas and vote for us. Not to mention that the major parties still beat the crap out of us in terms of funding. There's also the simple stone cold fact that political welfare isn't even close to the top factor that keeps third parties down - hell, doesn't even make the top five. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that one step is all it's gonna take, ok.

[MaC]

True-it wouldn't mean automatic offices for LP members, but it would definitely increase the likelihood by a great deal.

[Gabu]

I'll go with corporate welfare.  The thing about the giving public money to the campaigns is that it at least has a fairly noble goal behind it, that goal being making it so that a presidential election is more about the candidates and less about who can raise a billion dollars and massively outspend the other guy into oblivion.  Although I like the Canadian thing more, where each candidate is simply required to spend less than a certain amount on his or her campaign, but then again, this is fascism that is blocking free speech, so we can't have that...

[John Dibble]

True-it wouldn't mean automatic offices for LP members, but it would definitely increase the likelihood by a great deal.

I really doubt it - like I said it doesn't even come close to the top five factors that keep us out. Ballot access laws, the plurality voting system('wasted vote syndrome' resulting from this), extremisim of the party, ect. are far bigger. All it would result in is a little less funding for certain Dems and Reps, but all in all it wouldn't increase our coffers any.

[NewFederalist]

When I was in highschool Clinton was doing his welfare reform and I strongly supported it and thought it didn't go far enough.  I thought "unemployment works and can provide transition between jobs and that is all that is ever needed."

Till my sister brought home "Sarah."  Sarah had been her friend for a long time but a "school" friend not a "home" friend and I never got to know her being a couple years older.  Sarah was raped and impregnated.  Sarah dropped out of highschool and had the baby.  Her parents had already disowned her and she was living with her grandmother who died before the baby was born.  Sarah ended up on welfare for several years while getting her GED.  In the years since she has become an upstanding young woman she went to college and is now a Nurse.

She is the first to admit that she would have had to give the baby up for adoption and probably have ended up homeless after her grandmother died.  While I'm okay with limiting welfare I clearly can not advocate eliminating personal welfare after seeing how it can work first hand.

Nice post.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

Ding Ding - we have a winner.

[David S]

Depends on what you mean by welfare. Is Medicare/Medicaid included under that label? If so that would make individual welfare by far the biggest financially.

[Colin]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

As usual, John, you are absolutely right. I completely agree with your thoughts on this issue.

[nclib]

Depends on what you mean by welfare. Is Medicare/Medicaid included under that label? If so that would make individual welfare by far the biggest financially.

In some cases, one has to have worked a certain amount to qualify for Medicare, so in those cases it wouldn't really be welfare.

[MaC]

Depends on what you mean by welfare. Is Medicare/Medicaid included under that label? If so that would make individual welfare by far the biggest financially.

Medicare is not a direct allowance for the unemployed, so no.

[MaC]

True-it wouldn't mean automatic offices for LP members, but it would definitely increase the likelihood by a great deal.

I really doubt it - like I said it doesn't even come close to the top five factors that keep us out. Ballot access laws, the plurality voting system('wasted vote syndrome' resulting from this), extremisim of the party, ect. are far bigger. All it would result in is a little less funding for certain Dems and Reps, but all in all it wouldn't increase our coffers any.

While I'll agree that the first two you mentioned are other important issues, I disagree-the LP recently revised it's platform to make things more palatable for the spineless moderates-so getting them to vote for us shouldn't be an issue anymore.  Political welfare I would call a crime though-nobody should have to coercibly pay for politicians they don't support.  George W Bush only had 30% of America voting for him in 2004, but 100% of the taxpayers had to support him.  I disagree with the same applying to business, although I'd say businesses can do more to help the population than politicians can.

[John Dibble]

While I'll agree that the first two you mentioned are other important issues, I disagree-the LP recently revised it's platform to make things more palatable for the spineless moderates-so getting them to vote for us shouldn't be an issue anymore.

First off thank you for bringing up another issue with your 'spineless moderates' comment - there's more than one kind of extremism in the LP. The purist mentality. The purist wants a pure LP, one that doesn't cater to most people. For some god forsaken reason they still think they'll get things done. And those purists still have the attitude that anyone who isn't a gung-ho libertarian attitude is a damn socialist and that they aren't welcome in our party. Do you honestly think we're going to get people to vote for us with that kind of exclusionist attitude?

Have you ever considered for a moment that maybe those 'spineless' moderates have legitimate reasons for being moderates? That they thought out their positions? I'm guessing the answer is no based on your prejudiced comments. If you can't get over that holier-than-thou attitude, then perhaps you should at least not insult prospective voters. Nobody likes dealing with jerks.

As far as the platform goes, the reforms are a step in the right direction, but the party is still not pragmatic enough to start winning. The platform was gutted - it doesn't take stances on many of today's issues. It needs to offer solutions. Not bats**t crazy solutions either - practical ones that more than just hardcore libertarians can agree with. Again, if you think only a single step is going to solve our problems you are delusional.

[MaC]

While I'll agree that the first two you mentioned are other important issues, I disagree-the LP recently revised it's platform to make things more palatable for the spineless moderates-so getting them to vote for us shouldn't be an issue anymore.

First off thank you for bringing up another issue with your 'spineless moderates' comment - there's more than one kind of extremism in the LP. The purist mentality. The purist wants a pure LP, one that doesn't cater to most people. For some god forsaken reason they still think they'll get things done. And those purists still have the attitude that anyone who isn't a gung-ho libertarian attitude is a damn socialist and that they aren't welcome in our party. Do you honestly think we're going to get people to vote for us with that kind of exclusionist attitude?

Have you ever considered for a moment that maybe those 'spineless' moderates have legitimate reasons for being moderates? That they thought out their positions? I'm guessing the answer is no based on your prejudiced comments. If you can't get over that holier-than-thou attitude, then perhaps you should at least not insult prospective voters. Nobody likes dealing with jerks.

As far as the platform goes, the reforms are a step in the right direction, but the party is still not pragmatic enough to start winning. The platform was gutted - it doesn't take stances on many of today's issues. It needs to offer solutions. Not bats**t crazy solutions either - practical ones that more than just hardcore libertarians can agree with. Again, if you think only a single step is going to solve our problems you are delusional.

kinda did that to annoy you and see if you'd fly off the handle-so I was right in that theory

Either way, can you agree that this shouldn't be a problem getting people to sign-up with the LP now that we've moderated?

Better yet-now this is a great opportunity to prove your theory right-if LP membership actually has a significant increase then and moderate libertarians start getting elected as a result, I'll apologize for everything I've said about moderate libertarians.

[David S]

Whoa there. Two Libertarians beating each other up. That's not good.

Being the voice of moderation that I am please allow me to moderate.

Lighten up guys we have far more in common than not. If we allow ourselves to be divided then our party's 1% of the vote becomes two parties each with 1/2% of the vote. We can have differences of opinion and still be friends.

[MaC]

Us ivory towers were part of the party first

[John Dibble]

kinda did that to annoy you and see if you'd fly off the handle-so I was right in that theory

I didn't 'fly off the handle' - I was merely pointing out that the attitude is prejudiced and 'holier than thou'. It's the stone cold truth. I've heard a number of people complain about it when they investigated joining the LP - it pushed them away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because I still don't think we're at the right place yet. I told you that one step isn't going to do it, didn't I? As I said, the platform may have had some of the more extreme parts gutted, but it also lacks viable solutions to replace what was taken out. I'm hoping this will be done at the next convention. The moderates will still be looking for said solutions - if we don't they'll likely assume we haven't changed all that much. We also need to start running moderate libertarian candidates, especially in our high profile races(if we can get someone who doesn't seem like a moonbat in some way, shape or form to run for president in 2008 that would do wonders). The candidates we run are part of our image, after all. There's other issues to work through as well, no doubt. The work on moderating the party to something politically palatable is going to take time.

Whoa there. Two Libertarians beating each other up. That's not good.

Being the voice of moderation that I am please allow me to moderate.

Lighten up guys we have far more in common than not. If we allow ourselves to be divided then our party's 1% of the vote becomes two parties each with 1/2% of the vote. We can have differences of opinion and still be friends.

Don't worry about that David - we're not splitting up the party(though there certainly were some purists grumbling about it when the platform was gutted). I'm thinking you guys are picking up on hostilities that aren't there.

Oh, and *I* am the voice of moderation ya damn purist!

[Gabu]

I have certainly noticed that it seems to be the case that everyone likes John Dibble except the libertarians...

[bullmoose88]

What ever the LP does policywise won't change until it changes its public image.

[Gabu]

What ever the LP does policywise won't change until it changes its public image.

Well, I think the two are at least slightly correlated.  The Libertarian Party's public image is likely to improve if it stops talking about wanting to implement policies that 99% of voters think are insane.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What ever the LP does policywise won't change until it changes its public image.

Well, I think the two are at least slightly correlated.  The Libertarian Party's public image is likely to improve if it stops talking about wanting to implement policies that 99% of voters think are insane.

Clearly it is the voters that must change, not the LP!!!!!!!1111