Krugman: Spend Now, Save Later

[richardhutnik]

mrstickball said:

richardhutnik said:

A problem I have found, particularly with the Republican side, is that, when they get in power, they do NOTHING they are claiming they wanted to do now.  The congressmen get beholden to pork, because it is how they get elected.  They run up deficits, eventhough the times are supposed to be good.  They don't do anything, but decide to start wars.  They feel that spinning a crisis is the only way to get people to give up rights.  With Republicans, they end up saying government is bad at everything, but want more to fight the "war on terror". 

And then, that side is out of power, so they go all idealistic in their speaking, going down the rathole of thinking that you can shut off illegal immigration just like that, and that is all the problems.  They chase windmills.  I am sorry, but illegal immigration isn't the main reason for problems with the welfare system, or it isn't lazy people either.  The problems lay deeper than this.  But it is easy to rail when you have no power.  It is all about finding fault and offering no answers.  Less government isn't the answer.  Less government MAY result in the answer being found, but if people are going to be every man for themselves, don't expect less government to solve anything.

I personally got sick of all this, including the Ron Paul campaign I was involved with, and am registered an Independent now.  I think the government sucks at things, but they built themselves an infrastructure such that if you get rid of welfare, you will cause things to get worse.

That is why I'm a libertarian, and am only voting for serious politicians that care about reducing the size of government, regardless of party. I agree 100% that Republicans are no better...Look at the Bush years.

I believe Libertarianism has some merit.  However, I think they aren't realistic in what they want, and they fail MISERABLY functioning as a political party.  My experience at Libertarian meetings is that they argue about the meaning of things, and why they hate government.  No one wants to run on local level to prove themselves.  It is all of idealism based around hatred for a label (government) than it is about actually gathering to do something.  Also, people just want to live and pay their bills.  If you want there to be less government, you need to offer people solutions that will meet them without government.  And they refuse to listen to anything anyhow.  I end up in somewhat heated, but rewarding conversations, but nothing changes. 

Also, it is a bit of a paradox, the Libertarian Party.  It is working in a political realm, when they say government is not needed.  If the LIbertarian Party would position itself as a civics organization, and NGO, and actually work to provide solutions today, outside of government, then they would have a case.  But, they don't do that.

Anyhow, the fall out of libertarianism ended up being the Ron Paul campaign, which then led to the Tea Party.  The Tea Party is probably the strongest Libertarianism has been.  Whether or not it does anything is another story, however.

To sum up here, I disagree STRONGLY with the argument Libertarians have that less government is the answer to everything.  I believe, and this would come from the Huckabee side of the political realm (I read it in his book) that unless society collectively has a strong set of values, and deals with things on a local leve, you can't have smaller government.  I believe that government grows as citizens fail to manage their own problems.  At that point, government steps in.  So, as a society slides down the slope and loses control, you get more government.  Of course, the LIbertarian answer is that society doesn't exist and all that there is, is contracts between people.  So, Libertarianism is blinded by its own definitions, which not only causes it to make little inroads politically on an argument level, but also to not fuction as an organization, because it doesn't do anything collectively.