Comments on: The Presidential Planner

By: Cara

Cara — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:21:05 +0000

I think it’s a good loophole because it allows multi-national companies the opportunity to invest in other countries and improve their standard of living.
—-
They’re still “allowed”. Period. Closing the tax loophole means American taxpayers aren’t footing the bill when investment is needed in our own country is needed as well.

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:58:26 +0000

“Progressive in terms of issues such as food safety, education, health, and the environment. And Libertarian in the truest sense of the constitution. You know – not having foreign entanglement, The Federal Reserve… and the issue of printing money.”” – Gerald Celente
________________
Thoughts?
Posted by: MM | Aug 11, 2010 10:49:56 PM
I’m not all that familiar with Celente but he predicts trends, right? And he tends toward one-sided or more conservative/right-leaning American brand libertarianism meaning he’s only concerned with governmental coercive power and bristles at government intervention when it comes to capitalism, never minding the coercive power other groups may have– such as unregulated business (beyond simply food safety), yeah? Doesn’t he carry on about fascism?
Maybe not– as I said I don’t know much about him. I think I’ve read a quote or two that turned me off. But I’ve also read a quote or two that I liked.
I’m distrustful of where you all want to go with your questions as I think for the most part many of you are more interested in gotcha than dialogue, but I’ll toss that aside and just respond with this note: My problem with rightwing American brand libertarians (who sometimes quote Ayn Rand and such) is that they typically express the desire to weaken the government and state without simultaneously weakening other institutions that have grown fat on the state or have the capacity to coerce, mythologizing the power of demand and the consumer. They also tend to favor the redress in the future for future violations of liberty, but they disregard redress in the present for todays and yesterday’s violations of liberty , if you know what I mean.
So, anyway, I first read the term progressive libertarian at Daily Kos more than a few years back– not all that long after Bush was elected the second time, and it stuck, meaning standing for self-determination under conditions that are as free as possible from coercion and leftovers of coercion from hierarchical powers, including both big business and big government and big whatever (religion, for example) with the understanding that while the free market is an a good thing, a good economic system, it is imperative that such a system be well-regulated by the government to protect us all from things like oil disasters, bailouts, insurance recision, public health issues- and we shouldn’t cling to the past and avoid innovation should the opportunity arise. And then also standing for strict separation of church and state, transparency, civil liberties and personal privacy as a constitutional right, and gun ownership as a constitutional right. And of course, as a progressive standing for progress and innovation and equal rights/opportunity. Respecting the constitution but bearing in mind the Jefferson quote I mentioned on another thread (“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times…. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”– TJ)
Having said all that, there is room for a third party comprised of a libertarians and progressives who stand for civil liberties and value science and innovation and value cooperation and a safety-net a bottomless pit of despair for those who hit hard times. And I do think a sort of progressive libertarianism is most in keeping with what the founding fathers had in mind. There are pragmatic issues to consider along the way, and I do have a strong streak of realism.
One more thought on it, since you asked and I’m being rather rambly anyway, is that as a small business owner married to a small business owner,I see the value in a certain type of third party that captures the small business owner type spirit– innovative, pioneering, independent, less corporatist than the status quo and center. Getting away from unholy alliances between special interests and government. BUT, I think its going to be difficult for just a third party to win as traditionally they pull from one established party more than the other– and then you have a situation where the lesser of two evils comes into play.
I also don’t think the Tea Party is the answer. Its GOP-owned, even if there were/are some who started out thinking it was something new and a true revolution. At this point, its not. And it attracted too many fringe elements including a heckuva lot of racists. Not all tea partiers are racist, of course, but progressives and social liberals aren’t going to be cool standing next to a guy with a moronic sign that speaks to our baser instincts.
Was your point/question specifically in relation to foreign policy? Non-aggression (but strong defense) and anti-imperialist– those are my thoughts on it off the top of my head. In regards to foreign entanglements, I doubt that is in reference to commerce and trade.
That’s way too much information but there it is.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:29:03 +0000

Posted by: Quo Warranto? | Aug 11, 2010 10:50:09 PM
Paranoid much?

By: Quo Warranto?

Quo Warranto? — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:50:09 +0000

Certain things must be dealt with early…
Fundamental things…
Things like eligibility to occupy the office…
These questions must be put away, answered definitely, early…
Ridiculing those with a perfectly valid concern can only suffice for a short period…
Failure to answer completely, with full documentation, will only lead to a gradual erosion of credibility…
Finally, there will be a general distrust which cannot be overcome…
A total loss of public confidence…
Where the heck is the Birth Certificate…?

By: MM

MM — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:49:56 +0000

An independent progressive left-leaning libertarian
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 11, 2010 7:16:15 PM
“That is what this second American revolution is about. It is bigger than libertarianism as we see it, we are forecasting a new third party by 2012. We are calling it – for a lack of a better name – Progressive Libertarian.” – Gerald Celente
__________________
What do you think about foreign aid, where the U.S. taxpayer subsidizes governments in other countries?
Posted by: MM | Aug 11, 2010 8:28:18 PM
There’s a role for it. Depends on the details.
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 11, 2010 8:37:25 PM
“Progressive in terms of issues such as food safety, education, health, and the environment. And Libertarian in the truest sense of the constitution. You know – not having foreign entanglement, The Federal Reserve… and the issue of printing money.”” – Gerald Celente
________________
Thoughts?

By: gk

gk — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:53:17 +0000

progressive mama wrote:”Though, like Bernie Sanders, I’d caucus with the Dems rather than the Republicans if I were in the Senate.”
.
Like Bernie Sanders, it would only be because there is no politically viable Communist Party to caucus with.

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:03:05 +0000

Unanswered questions piling up…”
”
Awwww, MM… its so cute that you want to interrogate me and think I owe you answers.
I don’t but I’ll give you this one, in addition to those I’ve already addressed.
Do you support Ron Paul?
As a congressman or something more??? If something more, then no, too socially conservative and a little bit wack. States rights are great and all, and I understand his position, but they can also impinge on indvidual liberty (see. Jim Crow and think about Civil Rights legislation, etc.) However, I have voted for him. I was so disgusted by the presidential election in 1988, the first one I was eligible to vote in, that though I would have preferred voting for Russell Means to honor my distant heritage on my father’s side, I voted for the guy who beat him. I come from an independent libertarian type town. And my husband voted for both Perot back in ’92 and Ron Paul in the primary.
As a congressman, I think he serves an important role. He’s more of a thought-provoker than true leader. He actually squandered his following in regards to the ’08 election, imho.

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:47:09 +0000

Posted by: MM | Aug 11, 2010 7:26:48 PM
Here’s what I see at Pelosi’s website”
“To fully fund this job creation, the bill closes tax loopholes and enforces corporate accountability by:
* preventing corporations from shipping jobs overseas & sticking American taxpayers with the bill
* making Wall Street investment fund billionaires pay a fair tax on their income
* making the oil industry pay to ensure sufficient funds to clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill
I don’t see your quote. But I do like that she manages to throw a jab to the Republicans whenever possible, so shrug. And its not like she’s inaccurate if she states, as you say, “”Republicans have fought to keep, and even expand, these kinds of loopholes for years.”
They were more concerned over the closing of the tax loophole than the acceleration of drawn downs for food assistance (though right wingers on here tried to play up the eventual cuts to food assistance to pre-stimulus levels for partisan reasons– deficit peacocks are a crackup.)

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:38:53 +0000

Today the billionaire Koch brothers have morphed from John Birchers to something Libertarian-esque.
—
I disagree with this. They’re Birchers.

By: progressive mama

progressive mama — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:37:25 +0000

What do you think about foreign aid, where the U.S. taxpayer subsidizes governments in other countries?
Posted by: MM | Aug 11, 2010 8:28:18 PM
There’s a role for it. Depends on the details. Name some specific examples and we can go through them after SYTYCD.
Were you upset when Obama’s stimulus money went to other countries?
Posted by: MM | Aug 11, 2010 8:28:18 PM
Name specific examples and we’ll go through them.
2) Are you satisfied with the overall quality of public education in this country? Do you think this is the same as the loophole that was just closed?
Posted by: MM | Aug 11, 2010 8:28:18 PM
On the latter, how so? On the former, in some ways, yes, and in others, no– and again location, grade level, teacher is important. What specifically are you trying to get to with this question? Perhaps, that will move the conversation along.