Greenwald outs the GOP tea-party co-opting:

[Theben]

He said basic smarts.

He gotcha'd the GOP in the televised conference a few weeks back and now has them squirming "It's a Trap!" about the health-care summit. If he's lacking smarts then the entire GOP is a bunch of Palins.

[DinoDoc]

He gotcha'd the GOP in the televised conference a few weeks back and now has them squirming "It's a Trap!" about the health-care summit.

Smart people wouldn't have wasted a year on major policy objectives that still haven't been accomplished. While the major concern of the voters (the economy) languishes after having failed boondoggles from the government inflicted upon it.

[Guynemer]

The CBO apparently disagrees...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2311303720100223

[Theben]

The CBO and Reuters are both fronts for Moscow, Guy. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.

[Theben]

And I'm definitely not implying that Obama hasn't had his share of screw-ups in the 1st year. But he's had some successes also. Considering every president since Ford (at least) has said that no one is ever ready for the Presidency when 1st coming to power, I'm curious as to what Obama can do with a year's experience under his belt, if for nothing else the entertainment value.

[DinoDoc]

The CBO apparently disagrees...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2311303720100223

870 - 400 thousand per job doesn't really sound like a lot of bang for the buck, Guy.

[ricketyclik]

No, it only dosen't make sense in America & Canada and perhaps the wider Anglosphere in the last decade or so. Over here being economically Liberal means exactly what one suspects a word derived from Liberty would imply.

No, only America and Canada. Here in Australia our conservative party (our equivalent of your Republicans) is called the Liberal Party of Australia. (Crazy really, since it's generally used to mean "progressive").

Our use of the term liberal doesn't have the negative connotations it seems to have in America.

[Elok]

It's not negative in every part. Just Limbaughland.

[HalfLotus]

The GOP is authoritarian socially and liberal economically.

Libertarians are liberal socially and economically.

GOP economic policy is not liberal in any sense of the word. It's more like corporatist/fascist. And on a social issue like healthcare, they serve their corporate lobbyist masters on the Hill.

There is no 'liberal' or 'conservative' in Washington; there's corporate tools, crooks, and liars. And a smattering of independent-minded, honest men like Paul, Kucinich, and Sanders.

I can respect the Tea Party movement (sans the Palin faction), for the fact that they challenge the Washington establishment, and recognize the two major parties for the complete failures that they are.

I'd like for things to turn around with Obama, but so far his presidency has been the functional equivalent of Bush's third term. As the wars drag on, the fiscal problem worsens, and the economy rolls down the gutter, I'd expect to see Obama lose a big chunk of support and maybe we'll see something like a 'liberal' Tea Party.

[Ecofarm]

Liberal economic policy means people get to do what they want.

Democrats are authoritarian economically. They seek to take, by force, some of my labor/cash/free speech and use it for stuff I might be against.


It's so funny how Dems are all "we are NOT authoritarian!! grumle grumble grumble Give me your stuff!"

a 'liberal' Tea Party

The Tea Party is already liberal economically, I presume you mean socially, and they are called the Libertarians. There are even libertarians in the Tea Party who are more concerned with economic liberty than the accompanying social authoritarianism of the Palin Party (for example, Neal Boortz).

[a.kitman]

Democrats are authoritarian economically. They seek to take, by force, some of my labor/cash/free speech and use it for stuff I might be against.

is there any party in the usa, whit a chance to get atleast 1% of the votes, that wants to abolish taxes?

[HalfLotus]

The Tea Party is already liberal economically, I presume you mean socially, and they are called the Libertarians.

I use 'liberal' in the contemporary American sense, since we're talking about contemporary American politics. Your use of the words 'liberal' and 'authoritarian' are not consistent with American political usage in the year 2010, but by all means continue. I can translate it.

Your earlier post said that both the GOP and Libertarians were 'liberal' economically. GOP and libertarian economic policies are quite different, that is the point made in the OP. Specifically, Libertarians abhor central banks, while the GOP gives them sloppy wet kisses whenever feasible. Libertarians abhor big spending and deficits, while the GOP embraces both.

I'm making a distinction between rhetoric and policies. What the two majors parties say is not what they do. The only true Libertarian I know well is Ron Paul, and he does what he says.

[Ecofarm]

is there any party in the usa, whit a chance to get atleast 1% of the votes, that wants to abolish taxes?

Let's not be silly. It's a matter of degree, not existence.

I use 'liberal' in the contemporary American sense, since we're talking about contemporary American politics. Your use of the words 'liberal' and 'authoritarian' are not consistent with American political usage in the year 2010, but by all means continue. I can translate it.

Your earlier post said that both the GOP and Libertarians were 'liberal' economically. GOP and libertarian economic policies are quite different, that is the point made in the OP. Specifically, Libertarians abhor central banks, while the GOP gives them sloppy wet kisses whenever feasible. Libertarians abhor big spending and deficits, while the GOP embraces both.

I'm making a distinction between rhetoric and policies. What the two majors parties say is not what they do. The only true Libertarian I know well is Ron Paul, and he does what he says.

1. My use of the term "authoritarian" in opposition to "liberal", in my first post, should have qued you in that I'm not talking democrats. You don't need to be a genius to catch the context there.

2. GOP policy differs from Libertarian policy only as much as personal interest is permitted by constituents. Idealogically, the GOP spouts the same rhetoric as the libertarians; however, in practical application with real world policy and democrat concessions... policy develops in a debate, not in absolutes. Evenunder a libertarian absolute ideological system, there would be taxes - they are not anarchists.

3. In regard to banks, it was the Banking Queen who adored and gauranteed Fannie and Freddy - not the republicans. Those subsidized conerstones that crumbled were the responsibility of Dems. Bush's bailout baffles everyone. Obama's bailouts baffle everyone except Obamites.

4. If by "the only true libertarian I know", you mean "the only libertarian in congress and thus the only I have ever heard of".. then you are showing a depth of ignorance. Is there anyone else in congress who claims to be a libertarian? Lieberman doesn't self-identify as such.

[HalfLotus]

GOP policy differs from Libertarian policy only as much as personal interest is permitted by constituents.

Which is quite a lot considering the GOP's primary 'constituents' are the military-industrial complex and corporate lobbyists on the Hill.

And I speak of the central banking system as a whole, not merely F&F and baillouts. The entire Fed enterprise is supported by the GOP. Until recently, central banking was not even talked about by 'mainstream' politicians, much less challenged in terms of policy.

Libertarians, on the other hand, have been calling to "End the Fed" for the better part of 90 years. This constitutes an enormous difference between GOP and Libertarian economic views, which you are bending over backwards to minimize, and failing at miserably. :P

[Ecofarm]

I see. A single issue that has the least chance of any libertarian platform item to pass... is the HUGE and insurmountable difference. Ok.

It's not difficult to minimize a most-unlikely nit-pick; failing is not really possible there.

It is much more likely for libertarians to achieve:

Canibus legalization, or even beyond weed.
Civil unions for everyone, marriage becomes personal.
End wars.
Reform tax system (fair or flat tax), perhaps including a repeal of the 16th amendment.

Only the last is supported by the GOP in even a marginal sense (see, HR25/SR*), and each is WAY more likely than ending the fed. When we look at those things, and others, as more likely than ending the fed - then minimizing it is not necessary - it is of minimal concern. Stop acting like it would be in the top 10 libertarian things to ACTUALLY accomplish, even economically. You can start worrying about End the Fed when libertarians are running for a second 2-term president; until then, it is rather irrelevant.