Comments (22)

• David Bratton

  Yes and Andropov liked Jazz didn't he?

  Published: March 26, 2008 4:38 PM

• Francisco Torres

  Jeff, it's North POLE, not North Poll.

  Published: March 26, 2008 5:11 PM

• jeffrey

  Good point. fixed

  Published: March 26, 2008 5:15 PM

• wuzacon

  You are right. It is funny. McCain as a supporter of lasseiz-faire policies - LOL.

  Talk about a word changed to mean the exact opposite of its actual meaning.

  Published: March 26, 2008 6:03 PM

• Fephisto

  As I've re-iterated elsewhere: I'm still amazed that the two most popular candidates are a pro-warfare Fascist, or a pro-welfare Socialist.

  Published: March 26, 2008 6:19 PM

• David C

  Fephisto said:
  As I've re-iterated elsewhere: I'm still amazed that the two most popular candidates are a pro-warfare Fascist, or a pro-welfare Socialist.

  Amazed? wasn't it ever thus? Last time? and the time before that? .......

  Published: March 27, 2008 6:54 AM

• TylerFromNE

  Obama a socialist? That's just silly. Clinton, now she's a die-hard collectivist; I get the feeling that she loves the idea of socialism and wishes it had a prayer of working. She's one of these people that privately says idiotic things like "well communism is great in theory, but humanity isn't good enough for it to work." McCain, on the other hand, is too busy not seeing the contradiction between his philosophy of eternal war on the one hand, and his dubious small-government rhetoric on the other.

  Obama's not perfect, but he's the only one in the race that doesn't see individuals as slaves to either the welfare- (Clinton) warfare-state (McCain... and Clinton, come to think of it). From everything I've read about Obama, he at least has a (albeit lacking) minimalist philosophy when it comes to his policies.

  Published: March 27, 2008 8:19 AM

• Nat

  Obama is an out-and-out hatemonger.

  What is the difference between Obama and David Duke (besides their particular targets of hate)?

  Published: March 27, 2008 8:58 AM

• David Bratton

  "Obama's not perfect, but he's the only one in the race that doesn't see individuals as slaves to either the welfare- (Clinton) warfare-state (McCain... and Clinton, come to think of it). From everything I've read about Obama, he at least has a (albeit lacking) minimalist philosophy when it comes to his policies."

  I am mystified by those remarks. Obama is clearly the most left-wing candidate left in the race. Just look at his supporters.

  Published: March 27, 2008 9:47 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Obama is a fraud. He is just as far left as Clinton, who is very far left herself.

  Published: March 27, 2008 10:47 AM

• mikey

  How to get elected- promise a lavish cradle to grave welfare state. When in office implement Austrian policies.When confronted blame aluminium cookware.

  Published: March 27, 2008 11:11 AM

• David H

  I vaguely remember glancing over a bar chart that summed up the total spending plans for a number of Republican/Democratic candidates. Obama's spending increases were considerably larger than Clinton's. Clinton is essentially a centrist mirror of opinion polls. Obama has generally headed further towards center on specific policies (such as the second amendment, which he explicitly cited as being an individual right; he used to favor an assault weapons ban not too long ago).

  Its hard to say which would be slightly more Austrian, although mostly because nobody really knows where they stand on anything.

  Published: March 27, 2008 2:34 PM

• Lode Cossaer

  I wish to remind my fellow (American) Libertarians that Clinton and Obama, by Belgium-standards, are considered 'nearly' Libertarian.

  I don't really think you people can complain as if they were 'on the far left', I suppose. :p

  Published: March 27, 2008 3:29 PM

• Matt Shannon

  Obama's economic foibles -- Another economic plan that is full of half truths and outright lies.

  As he slogged through another windbag of a speech, Obama said Thursday more regulation of the economy is needed to get a grip on the economy before it gets even worse. And I'm sure by urging more "regulation" he means to put a stranglehold on the economy, not get out of the way and actually cut spending.

  According to one site his purposed spending would increase the size of the national budget by $287 billion per year.

  Let's get right into the heart of the matter. In the great wisdom that resides in the 10 mile square there is never really any cut in the size of government they is only a cut in the rate of growth, but there is never a "cut-cut."

  Obama proposed relief for homeowners and an additional $30 billion stimulus package to address the nation's economic woes. From where does he suggest the money come from to "relieve" the problem? He attempts to offer advice and relief from the problem as if it a bad rash and he's got just the right ointment.

  As Bob Higgs points out, "It's like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end, and expecting the water level to rise"

  He goes on to say, "We do American business…no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks." And just what are the leverages and risks? What does he propose to do? Stop funding the war he claims to oppose? The "war" that was never declared and cost 12 billions dollars per month?

  The senator from Illinois went on to say, "If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling." As if all of the financial institutions on Wall Street were not already profiting enough from our monetary system.

  The Senator also bemoaned the nation's economic woes and dissed John McCain's approach as pure Laissez Faire when it comes to the economy. If being for tax increases, being for unlimited military spending and deployments, voting for unconstitutional wars, regulating the internet and a host of pro-regulation measures is being "Laissez Faire" now at least I know why people think Herbert Hoover was a free market capitalist…it's because they, like the Obama, have no idea what they are talking about.

  The Senator from Illinois thinks, like most politicians, that the government has unlimited resources.

  On Tuesday, McCain derided government intervention to save and reward banks or small borrowers who behave irresponsibly though he offered few immediate alternatives for fixing the country's growing housing crisis. Obama said McCain's plan "amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen."

  Mr. Obama said the next Fuehrer and chief should:
  Expand oversight to any institution that borrows from the government.

  Toughen capital requirements for complex financial instruments like mortgage securities.
  Streamline regulatory agencies to end overlap and competition among regulators.

  As a result offering more of what caused the problem, more government regulation, "oversight" and intervention into the economy making the situation worse, ipso facto. He discussed a half-dozen principles for closer scrutiny of the financial markets and offered no specifics.

  Even before Obama finished his speech, McCain said in a statement said, "there is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."

  And what does Mr. McCain propose other than more warfare to the tune of more than a trillion dollars per year, thus increased taxes, regulation and restriction of civil liberties?
  Nothing much save more rhetoric.

  Over the last century and a half a substantive shift has taken place in American politics. This shift is one that most have witnessed happening but has been so incremental nature it has tricked most into believing it hasn't happened. This shift is that today's politicians have little, to absolutely no, understanding of foreign policy, economics and history.

  Today's political fights are power hungry blowhards bloviating against another and there is no real discussion of the problems this country faces.

  As Sophocles has Neoptolemus say in his play Philoctetes, "In war, alas- so fate ordains it ever- The coward 'scapes, the brave and virtuous fall. Illustrating early on the they knew war is dysgenic.

  It reminds me of another great line from Mencken once said, "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats."

  Published: March 27, 2008 7:41 PM

• Mike

  Tyler,

  I haven't heard anything from Obama to suggest he considers us anything other than slaves. Did you perhaps miss his speeches due to fainting?

  Published: March 28, 2008 9:10 AM

• fundamentalist

  The media fuss over Obama's pastor completely missed the most important point: he subscribes to liberation theology, which was the Latin American marriage of Catholicism and Marxism. If the media weren't so stupid about econ, they would ask Obama where he stood on liberation theology. I suspect that Obama also subscribes to it.

  Published: March 28, 2008 10:53 AM

• Obama Economics is Nixon/Carter Economics

  {Play theme of Welcome Back Kotter}

  Obama is going to impose "Windfall Profits Taxes" and create 5 million jobs. What better examples of this disaster of economic theory than the regulation of petroleum or petroleum profits? So we will not only have escallating energy prices but long lines at pumps, high air line prices we will have escallating government as well.

  Published: March 29, 2008 9:32 PM

• Alex Peak

  Of the three candidates, Clinton is the least libertarian and McCain is the second least libertarian. None of the three candidates are libertarian, and none of the three candidates have earned my vote; but if I were to have to say which of the three is the least un-libertarian, I would have to go with Obama.

  The only Democrat I running that I could have voted for was Gravel. To clarify, I would have held my nose and voted Democratic had Gravel gotten the nomination. Gravel has now switched his affiliation to Libertarian, and although I welcome him into the party, I do not want him to run for president as a libertarian, not unless he reforms his views on such things as healthcare, social security, and minimum wage.

  Ron Paul proved himself to be the only Republican worth voting for. Had Paul gotten the Republican nomination, I would have voted Republican for president for the first, and maybe the last, time in my life.

  (Had Paul and Gravel both gotten their respective nominations, I would have voted for Paul.)

  But, we're stuck now with Obama, McCain, and Clinton: three pro-war, pro-Big Government candidates.

  Thank God Dr. Mary Ruwart is in the race for the Libertarian Party. Go, Mary!

  Published: March 30, 2008 10:25 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  The Obama quote that made it clear to me went something like this: " Minimum wage should be raised every year, not just every once in a while."

  Is this political pandering to the economic illiterate public or is it someone who is economically illiterate speaking to the economically illiterate public?

  The alternatives, other than the noble and brilliant classical liberal named Ron Paul, are imbecilic and cancerously corrupt.

  Those who vote for the lesser of two (or three) evils may choose Obama but anyone who wants 'change' will vote for Ron Paul even if it means writing in his name.

  Published: March 31, 2008 9:03 PM

• nikhil raheja

  Obama is the much much much worse than McCain.

  The US economy would be in greater, deeper trouble irrespective of who becomes the president in 2009. Taking a look at the economic policies proposed by John McCain and Barack Obama, we realize neither has much idea (Obama, more so) about how economies become successful.

  Obama`s genius

  Mr. Obama wants to increase government spending to spur the economy and help the alternate fuel economy become developed. Historically, increased government spending has contributed to just one result, increased DEBT. Leaders such as Milton Friedman, Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau have all used the argument that, “GOVERNMENT IS BEST THAT GOVERNS LEAST”. Government has never and may never be as efficient at using a people`s money than the people themselves. The US government is neck deep in debt and a further increase would lead to higher interest rates and worse recessions than the one we are in.

  Mr. Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax. It has been shown with the help of a chart how simply the tax revenue declines as the taxes are raised and how the total revenues increase as taxes are lowered.

  
  I do not know what his adviser Bob Rubin is thinking about, but it would not work.

  He also wants to increase taxes on wealthier Americans, yes, we are talking about you guys. He wants to lower the tax burden on the Middle Class and increase the tax burden on the wealthier.
  The top 1% of income earners in the country pay “one third” of the total taxes received. So what do you believe these top 1% people, which probably includes you, should do to avoid these higher taxes? I have an idea, why not leave the US and renounce your US citizenship and leave Obama`s beloved middle income tax payers cover the deficit caused due to the emigration. Sounds good? Consider this, more than 300,000 wealthy Americans are leaving the US permanently every year. They must leave it permanently and renounce their US citizenship because our IRS taxes a US citizen`s income irrespective of where it was generated. Such a policy is probably not in place in any other country in the world except in the USA. So, what happens when the rich leave? We go further into debt and soon we realize the Chinese and the Indians own everything there is in the country. Remember, the ascent of any country to Prosperity is coupled with lower taxes, and the descent is always accompanied with higher taxes. This applies to all great economies that ever existed, including the Roman and the British Empire. So we now know where we are headed.

  McCain`s policies

  Mr. McCain plans to keep Capital gains tax rate the same and wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. His policies are not wholesome, but are definitely in the right direction.

  Conclusion

  Irrespective of what either of these politicians does, they still have NO idea what can bring the country back on its feet. What they should be proposing is free markets, emphasis on exports, much lower flat taxes, a more transparent and accountable Federal Reserve failing abolishing it in the first place, and most importantly lowering the personal consumption.

  Let us all realize that the foreign policy, Iraq war, terrorism and so on are secondary. These would remain important only if our economy did well, if the economy collapsed, THE US MAY NOT NEED A FOREIGN POLICY. As Bill Clinton famously said, “Its the economy, Stupid”.

  Do not expect anything from the two leaders as regards anything. Consider their`s a milder version of another Bush term. And DO NOT EXPECT THE STOCK MARKET TO DO WELL.

  Published: June 21, 2008 10:04 PM

• Cindy Mulvey

  Follow your heart, third Party It BE !
  We need to get back to the TRUTH our Constitution.
  http://www.artshealingsecrets.com/The_Liberty_Lounge.php

  cin3@mac.com
  http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm

  
  Who says you need to be a supportive of Ron Paul it is Liberty we need
  We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or obeying the rule of law. Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never would have been fought. If we did not create credit out of thin air as the Constitution prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war directly from their pockets. How long this financial charade can go on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes it will not go unnoticed by any American.

  
  Become a member!
  Campaign for Liberty Announcement

  Published: June 30, 2008 12:07 AM

• Cindy Mulvey

  Follow your heart, third Party It BE !
  We need to get back to the TRUTH our Constitution.
  http://www.artshealingsecrets.com/The_Liberty_Lounge.php

  cin3@mac.com
  http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm

  
  Who says you need to be a supportive of Ron Paul it is Liberty we need
  We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or obeying the rule of law. Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never would have been fought. If we did not create credit out of thin air as the Constitution prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war directly from their pockets. How long this financial charade can go on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes it will not go unnoticed by any American.

  
  Become a member!
  Campaign for Liberty Announcement

  Published: June 30, 2008 12:07 AM