Steve G.

Archive for June 8th, 2007|Daily archive page

Libertarians for Kucinich?

In Libertarian on June 8, 2007 at 11:12 pm

I found this open letter to Libertarians. The author, Paul Donovan, was wondering why libertarians are so obsessed with Ron Paul and not supporting Dennis Kucinich? One person in the comment section asked these questions below:

With all the political jargon of theories aside. If Ron Paul whom the Libertarians claim and he seems to claim them is elected, what would happen to the following programs in our society.

1. The Graduated Income Tax of Roosevelt over against a flat rate tax which the super wealthy demands.

2. Social Security.

3. Medicare and Medicaid if a single pay national health insurance policy is not enacted. Where do the Libertarians stand? They have historically opposed them on grounds of being a Federal programs interfering with individual rights.

4. Public Education through high school if not college over against the Libertarian program of vouchers which the super wealthy love. Where do the Liberatarians stand?

5. The Anti-monopoly laws and Anti-trust laws enacted by Theodore Roosevelt to keep a few wealthy from owning everything. They have become meaningless in the US. Where do the Libertairins stand in regards to these two sets of laws with real teeth in them?

6. Libertarians in the United States have historically stood against Labor Unions. Where do they and and Ron Paul claim to stand today? Right to work is the right to starve and prohibits Labor Unions.

7. Where does the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul stand on a single pay insurance program for every American citizen?

8. As regards to a universal draft of every individual as Israel has, what is the position of the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul?

9. As to states rights being predominant over federal rights, where do Libertarians stand? I would hate to think were civil rights would be if Mississipi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina were able to decide for themselves.

10. As to abortion and anti-abortion; the right of a woman against the right of a fetus; right to choose and right to life; where does the Libertarian Party Stand and where does Ron Paul stand?

The answer for 9 and 10 can vary. Someone did respond to these questions?

1. Ron Paul said he’ll sign any bill that comes to him to get rid of the IRS. The wealthy would probably prefer a flat tax over the Fair Tax proposal, but remember they currently try to sneak as much income as they can through our incredibly complex tax codes.

2. He says he wants to let the young “opt out” of it, since he thinks it could be hopelessly bankrupt. Of course, he’d like to cut spending and actually pay off its obligations, but I don’t know if thats really realistic at this point. He’s stated is not his goal to get rid of welfare or social security.

3. Ron Paul mostly takes the position I mentioned in my comment, on how government regulation is resposible for the costs of healthcare, and this “mixed” system we have (which in some ways could be the worst of both worlds).

4. Vouchers, all the way. Libertarians believe parents should have the choice on where and how to education their children.

5. I don’t know. The commerce clause seems to authorize them when they cross state boundaries, so I suppose they’d stay. It looks like Friedman thought antitrust laws were usually used to do more harm than good, though. Of course, the constitution is hardly a pure libertarian document.

6. Well, they are against giving special privileges to labor unions, just like they are against giving special privileges to corporations. Naturally we’ll always have unions, they are an importat part of how the market works.

7. He’s likely against it. 3rd-party payment leads to the waste that drove our insurance costs so high, after all.

8. Libertarians and Ron Paul are absolutely opposed to the draft.

9. They would follow the constitution, which rather planely spells out what the federal government can do. Thankfully, we have the 14th amendment with guarantees everyone equal treatment under the law.

10. Most all libertarians agree the federal government is not granted the authority to rule on abortion by the constitution, and that Roe v. Wade was highly contrived. So it goes to the states. But most also believe a fetus is not a human life, and so support abortion. Ron Paul believes it IS a human life, and is against abortion, but does not want to rule on it at the federal level.

Do you agree? Disagree?

Imperato and Chapman: Wacky LP Candidates Separated At Birth?

In Crazy Claims, Daniel Imperato, Politics on June 8, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Okay, let’s start with their physical appearance. No, I have not altered these photos in any way, with the exception of scaling down the Chapman photo to fit the space:
Daniel Imperato Gene Chapman

Hmmm …… well, they sure do look alike.

Both also seem to have a proclivity for shameless self-promotion (almost everything you’ll find on either of them was written by them – Chapman on blogs, and Imperato in self-published “press releases”). Both also seem to exaggerate their accomplishments tremendously, starting with claims about advising Fortune 500 companies.

It gets better (or worse, depending on how you view it). Chapman claims to have been tutored in economics by none other than billionaire investor Warren Buffett who, he claims, he can out-do in the stock market (yet he can’t seem to rise above driving trucks or changing oil for a living; and Buffett says he doesn’t know Chapman but he’d definitely remember if he knew somebody who could out-do him in the stock market …. you do the math). Imperato claims to actually be a multi-millionaire, though there is no evidence that it’s true except his claims in the endless self-published (literally, he owns the website which puts them out) press releases. However, according to the SEC filings for his corporation, Imperiali, Inc., the company had an accumulated deficit of $11,172,386.28 on November 30, 2006, operated on deficit for the quarter (and it appears most of that money went to him), and almost all of the company’s worth appears to be in unsold stock. [Click here to see the SEC documents.]

Imperato, in a self-published press release, boggles the mind with his claim (or is it a claim?) to own (or not to own?) a $5 billion undersea telecommunications cable, and another claim that he somehow suffered (or did he suffer?) a $3 trillion loss when Osama bin Laden caused 9/11, not as a purely terrorist act against America, but so he could short the stock market to his own financial advantage.

Wow. Just, wow. I’ve never heard that 9/11 conspiracy theory before. But, speaking of stocks, I need to buy stock in Goody’s Headache Powders if I’m going to keep following the lunatic fringe candidates.

Chapman states he never got even one donation, and gives that as his reason for dropping out of the presidential race (and while that is a legitimate reason, it appears it wasn’t the real reason given that some very serious anonymous accusations were leveled against him on several blogs less than 24 hours before he dropped out). Imperato doesn’t appear to have received any donations either, although he loans money to his own campaign (which looks more than a little like funds on paper only; for example, according to the FEC, he spent $125,000 in January – money his campaign didn’t have – then loaned his campaign $250,000 in March). Click here to see the FEC documents. Read the rest of this entry »

Latest Gallup Poll Says Nearly Half of Americans Are Blathering Idiots

In Uncategorized on June 8, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Found on Stupid Evil Bastard:

The results from the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll on Evolution continue the trend of idiocy in this country on the topic of Evolution.

  • “Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life” is probably or definitely false”: 44%
  • “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” is probably or definitely true”: 66%
  • 15% said that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate that did not believe in evolution.

That last line is the only bright spot to be found in the poll as the majority don’t think a candidate’s acceptance, or lack thereof, of evolution is relevant on how qualified a person is to be President. Though, in its own way, that’s sort of depressing as well.

Sometimes it’s amazing to me that half our population manages to avoid having their heads implode from the vacuum within.