Dang.
Black Friday was a total bust. I did not have a single sale on Cyber Weekend.
Rats.
I am still committed to this last ditch effort to start a conversation on free market health care reform.
My plan had been to get a small group of people together to start a business association. The business association would work on creating a ground up system for self-financed health care.
People could then use this association to claim that insurance is the problem. Rather than mandating that people buy insurance, people need a viable mechanism to opt out of insurance.
I admit. I've been completely unable to find people willing to talk to me. (I am a non-Mormon in Utah. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Mormons are a closed and intolerant people.)
In 2009 and 2010 I drove to Denver, Phoenix, Reno and Las Vegas to find people to talk with. Unfortunately, it is hard to get a project up and running from a hotel room.
So, in my last ditch effort, I will form the association as a sole proprietorship. To join the association, I will ask people to pay a "One US Dollar" (as defined by the Coinage Act of 1792.) Coinflation says a silver dollar is worth 26.30 Federal Reserve notes.
The primary goal of "the association" is to host a meeting on Free Market Health Care Reform. People who pay the membership fee would get to vote on where and when the meeting takes place. Perhaps the meeting could include a conference call.
The first several membership fees have to go to legal fees to set up the organization.
If 20 people joined the association, I would have about $500.00 which
would be enough to drive to Phoenix rent a conference room and drive
back to Utah (assuming I slept in the car).
If 30 people joined, I might have enough money to travel to Southern California.
Of course, there are so many other things I want to do. I would love to publish a book on free market health care reform. This would cost $500 to $1000. I would love to make a YouTube video. That would probably cost $500, I would also love to support others who are standing up for freedom.
I am absolutely positive that the path I am following could be used to turn back ObamaCare. ObamaCare is premised on the assumption that insurance (or Socialism) is the only way to fund health care.
I can prove mathematically that this is a false assumption.
To create the mathematical argument is based upon a multidimensional model of health care, which is easy to do in a face to face conversation with a blackboard, but extremely difficult to do in a blog post.
Think back to calculus. It is extremely easy to write a calculus proof on a chalkboard, but very difficult to write the same proof in essay form.
The plan is to create an alternative to insurance. If there was an accepted viable alternative to insurance, people could strike at the heart of ObamaCare by demanding that they be given a way to opt out of ObamaCare.
Creating a viable alternative to insurance can only be done in a face to face meeting. Trying to do it online is doomed to failure.
Can you name the last blog post you've read that contains a mathematical proof?
Most people never see such posts because they don't work well.
So, it is quite frustrating. I can see all sorts of things that could be done if a small group of people met together and spoke with each other. Yet the cost seems out of reach. I don't want to take anyone's money if I cannot produce something that makes difference.
This box shows eBay auctions for Silver Dollars. People are buying silver dollars for over $26.00. My guess is that buyers think the price will go up while sellers are thinking they would rather have cash than old coins.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Friday, November 23, 2012
Last Ditch Effort
Republicans squarely refused to talk about Free Market Health Care Reform during the long election process. The powers that be claimed that they had to get power first. They were scared that talk about substantive reform might hurt the election efforts.
The powers that be were wrong.
Because they failed to talk substantive reform, they lost in the general election.
After the election, Republicans are finally willing to talk about the Health Exchanges.
For four years, I've had the goal of getting a small group of liberty minded folks into a room to discuss real substantive free market health care reform.
I believe that the first step to restoring free market health care is for people to actually talk about the subject.
For that matter, I find it patently absurd to think that we could restore free market health care if people avoid the subject and slam the door in the face of anyone who tries to bring it up.
I've designed a wonderful presentation about Free Market Health Care. The presentation takes about two hours. In the presentation, I create a fictional entity called the Medical Savings and Loan. I then show that this entity would do a better job of funding health care than insurance or socialism.
The presentation delves into the mathematics of funding health care and cannot be adequately presented in a blog post.
The program includes a plan for defeating ObamaCare. If a group of people listened to my argument, they would be better armed to take on ObamaCare and the Health Exchanges.
I live in Utah. Utah is run by a group that includes Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Mike Leavitt, Jon Huntsman, etc., who are all committed to socializing health care via health exchanges.
Since I live in a State controlled by a group that openly suppresses discourse, I must travel.
My last ditch hope is to travel to Arizona to give my presentation on the Mathematics of funding health care. The trip will cost about $500, which I don't have.
$500 is not a lot of money.
I made a little affiliate site called A Fountain of Bargains. I've listed some 200 Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales and coupons on this site. I also run a small collection of directories for towns in the Mountain West called Community Color. The links marked (++) are affiliate links.
Any commissions I make from these sites would go to the trip.
It is possible to turn back ObamaCare. The process involves something that most people seem reluctant to do:
Thinking.
My plan is to get a group of people to discuss the mathematics of free market health care reform. The meeting would end with making a list of actions that the group could take to restore free market health care.
I will give more information on this last ditch effort next week.
The powers that be were wrong.
Because they failed to talk substantive reform, they lost in the general election.
After the election, Republicans are finally willing to talk about the Health Exchanges.
For four years, I've had the goal of getting a small group of liberty minded folks into a room to discuss real substantive free market health care reform.
I believe that the first step to restoring free market health care is for people to actually talk about the subject.
For that matter, I find it patently absurd to think that we could restore free market health care if people avoid the subject and slam the door in the face of anyone who tries to bring it up.
I've designed a wonderful presentation about Free Market Health Care. The presentation takes about two hours. In the presentation, I create a fictional entity called the Medical Savings and Loan. I then show that this entity would do a better job of funding health care than insurance or socialism.
The presentation delves into the mathematics of funding health care and cannot be adequately presented in a blog post.
The program includes a plan for defeating ObamaCare. If a group of people listened to my argument, they would be better armed to take on ObamaCare and the Health Exchanges.
I live in Utah. Utah is run by a group that includes Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Mike Leavitt, Jon Huntsman, etc., who are all committed to socializing health care via health exchanges.
Since I live in a State controlled by a group that openly suppresses discourse, I must travel.
My last ditch hope is to travel to Arizona to give my presentation on the Mathematics of funding health care. The trip will cost about $500, which I don't have.
$500 is not a lot of money.
I made a little affiliate site called A Fountain of Bargains. I've listed some 200 Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales and coupons on this site. I also run a small collection of directories for towns in the Mountain West called Community Color. The links marked (++) are affiliate links.
Any commissions I make from these sites would go to the trip.
It is possible to turn back ObamaCare. The process involves something that most people seem reluctant to do:
Thinking.
My plan is to get a group of people to discuss the mathematics of free market health care reform. The meeting would end with making a list of actions that the group could take to restore free market health care.
I will give more information on this last ditch effort next week.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Faith in the Party
Machiavelli taught the Prince that he needed to appear religious without actually being religious.
Transcribed into modern politics, Machiavelli's dictum is that a politician should appear to be for liberty while expanding government and centralizing power.
Our political parties are lined with politicians who seek to gain wealth and power by having a disdain for wealth and power.
In hindsight, one finds that the greatest enemy to freedom is not the open enemy seeking to take freedom, but the corrupt leader who declares himself for liberty, while letting the rogues take control of society.
In modern partisan politics, pundits have a keen eye for the faults of their opponents. Republicans can see clearly the faults of the Democrats and Democrats can see clearly the faults of the Republicans.
The Democratic Party is filled with wonderful people who believe strongly in social justice. They campaign actively and support strong-armned leaders who claim that they will impose social justice when they get in power. These wonderful people fail to realize that their strong-armed leaders are often a primary source of social injustice.
Socialism is a paradox. The concept is if one concentrates political power and wealth in a central political structure that there will be equality. Such a system leaves the people disenfranchised under the yoke of a corrupt ruling class.
In the previous post I examined faults of the Conservative Movement, which tends to mirror the paradoxes of the Left. The conservative movement has a history of shoving everyone else aside with the claims that they are the soul defenders of liberty in this and the adjacent two galaxies. After stomping everyone down, they sell liberty to the highest bidder.
Both parties have the same Machiavellian form in which they leaders appear to be for a cause they are eager to sell out.
So, this is where the trick comes in.
If we are ever to see a restoration of liberty, it will not come from the parties, but from the people.
The people matter more than the party.
A case in point is the Tea Party. The Tea Party was composed of people upset with the corruption of both the Bush and Obama administrations. It was right leaning but disorganized.
Conservatives infiltrated and captured the Tea Party. Conservative activists applied Alinsky techniques to transform the Tea Party into a branch of the Republican Party. This activation diminished the influence of the Tea Party.
People who were sympathetic with the Tea Party in 2010 now actively disassociate themselves from the movement.
When the Tea Party openly discussed ideas, it was hugely influential. As it moved from an independent group discussing ideas to a purely partisan protest group, its influence waned. Sadly, the movement accomplished relatively little.
Partisanship destroys. The only way to see a true restoration of liberty is for an independent group to form that aggressively defends its independence.
The primary concern of partisan politics is to consolidate wealth and power in the party. Faith in the party is misplaced. Faith should be placed in the people not the party.
Transcribed into modern politics, Machiavelli's dictum is that a politician should appear to be for liberty while expanding government and centralizing power.
Our political parties are lined with politicians who seek to gain wealth and power by having a disdain for wealth and power.
In hindsight, one finds that the greatest enemy to freedom is not the open enemy seeking to take freedom, but the corrupt leader who declares himself for liberty, while letting the rogues take control of society.
In modern partisan politics, pundits have a keen eye for the faults of their opponents. Republicans can see clearly the faults of the Democrats and Democrats can see clearly the faults of the Republicans.
The Democratic Party is filled with wonderful people who believe strongly in social justice. They campaign actively and support strong-armned leaders who claim that they will impose social justice when they get in power. These wonderful people fail to realize that their strong-armed leaders are often a primary source of social injustice.
Socialism is a paradox. The concept is if one concentrates political power and wealth in a central political structure that there will be equality. Such a system leaves the people disenfranchised under the yoke of a corrupt ruling class.
In the previous post I examined faults of the Conservative Movement, which tends to mirror the paradoxes of the Left. The conservative movement has a history of shoving everyone else aside with the claims that they are the soul defenders of liberty in this and the adjacent two galaxies. After stomping everyone down, they sell liberty to the highest bidder.
Both parties have the same Machiavellian form in which they leaders appear to be for a cause they are eager to sell out.
So, this is where the trick comes in.
If we are ever to see a restoration of liberty, it will not come from the parties, but from the people.
The people matter more than the party.
A case in point is the Tea Party. The Tea Party was composed of people upset with the corruption of both the Bush and Obama administrations. It was right leaning but disorganized.
Conservatives infiltrated and captured the Tea Party. Conservative activists applied Alinsky techniques to transform the Tea Party into a branch of the Republican Party. This activation diminished the influence of the Tea Party.
People who were sympathetic with the Tea Party in 2010 now actively disassociate themselves from the movement.
When the Tea Party openly discussed ideas, it was hugely influential. As it moved from an independent group discussing ideas to a purely partisan protest group, its influence waned. Sadly, the movement accomplished relatively little.
Partisanship destroys. The only way to see a true restoration of liberty is for an independent group to form that aggressively defends its independence.
The primary concern of partisan politics is to consolidate wealth and power in the party. Faith in the party is misplaced. Faith should be placed in the people not the party.
Monday, November 19, 2012
On Undermining Liberty
After the election, I wrote a slew of posts on the topic of how partisan conservatives are undermining the cause of freedom.
For the last 50 years, partisan conservatives have stood up and claimed that THEY (and they alone) are the true defenders of freedom. Through this half century, Conservatives have had varying degrees of control of the government.
During this last 50 years, there has been a systematic erosion of liberty coupled with a growing gap between rich and poor.
Obama has been a terrible president both domestically and abroad. The 2012 election should have been a blow out election for the cause of liberty.
This fifty year failure to defend freedom leads directly to the question of why Conservatives have failed in their claim of defending liberty: Either Conservatives are incompetent or they are disingenuous in their claim to defend freedom.
During the election, I reluctantly came to realize that the latter is true.
The true goal of the Conservative is to preserve a top-down social order, with their group at the top.
In this last election, we saw Conservatives attacking ObamaCare because Obama was at the top. They sought to replace ObamaCare with RomneyCare.
ObamaCare is a state run health exchange based on the model of RomneyCare. RomneyCare is a state run health exchange. The only substantive difference between the programs is which band of rogues is on top.
During the election, Conservatives actively suppressed criticism of the Health Exchanges. I know, because I wanted to criticize the health exchanges and met a solid wall of suppression from the Conservatives in my state (Utah). In four years, I've not been able to find a single conservative in this state willing to discuss alternatives to the health exchanges. Not one Conservative in this oppressive state has been willing to even talk to me.
(My idea is that the best way to defeat ObamaCare is to promote self-funded health care as an alternative to insurance. It may be a bad idea, but how can anyone know if no-one takes the afternoon required to hear the argument?)
It was embarrassing. The people at Occupy Wall Street were more open to listening to free market ideas than Conservatives. OWS rejected the idea because it promotes property rights. OWS is opposed to property rights on a fundamental level, but they listened to the idea, when Conservatives simply won't.
I care about freedom. I do not care a lick about either of the two parties.
The doors are slamming shut on the American experiment in self-rule. I do not care about the parties but I do care about the cause of liberty.
Since conservatives are undermining the cause of liberty, those who love liberty must look beyond conservative rhetoric and address the reasons why conservatives undermine the cause.
Politics is tricky. A political movement formed around a cause loses its reason to be if the cause goes away. For a political movement to sustain itself, it has to reduce large groups of people to dependency around its cause.
Politics can get pathetic. In many cases we find political movements manufacturing crisis to maintain the political movement. The political class creates crisis and division so that it can use the crisis or division to sustain the political group.
Both Conservatives and Liberals use a technique called projection. The goal of this technique is to project faults onto one's opponents (while associating all that is right and good with one's own party).
Conservatives project a negative image onto their hated foe the Liberals. In turn the left spends its day projecting a negative image on "Conservatives."
If you are a Conservative, you've likely noticed that the Left projects racism onto Conservatism. If you are a Liberal, you will notice that Conservatives systematically project the image of Communism on the term Liberalism.
The racism charge is ironic, because the Left was using entrenched racism before the Civil Rights movement to advance its cause of big government. The charge that Liberals are communists is strange. Historically, Communism began as a right-wing reaction to the Classical Liberals who supported the free market.
The Conservatives of 1776 were royalists. They believed that the king had an ancient covenant with God stretching back to the patriarchs of ancient Israel. They saw the founders (classical liberals) as an unprincipled rabble sinning against God in their quest for liberty.
My posts on Hegel point out that the foundations of Communism evolved on the Right. The Kings of England were from Hanover Germany. The Kings of England funded the German Universities including Gottingen. German scholars were dedicated to reframing the ideals of feudalism. Hegel was a royalist-conservative who adored Napoleon. Karl Marx and Fueurbach were Young Hegelians who successfully reframed Hegel's arguments as revolution.
Modern liberalism actually evolved from a right-wing reaction to classical liberalism.
Hegel describes the process of terms turning into its opposite as sublation.
Sigmund Freud popularized the term "projection." Lakov popularized the term "framing."
Both concepts trace back to Hegel's study in projection.
From the revolution onward, Conservatives have played the game of projecting negative images onto the term "Liberal." By projecting negative images onto "liberalism" the term "liberal" came to mean its opposite.
Historically, the cause of liberty was a liberal cause.
Today, we find the conservative cause is dependent on the images they project onto Liberals. Case in point, there was no substance to the Romney campaign beyond the images that conservatives projected on Obama.
This race would have been a blow out if there was substance.
Conservatives love to pretend that they are the Founding Fathers. If Conservatives were the founding fathers, then why were the Conservatives of 1776 (the Tories) siding with the British?
The left/right split did not exist in 1776. This split came from the French Revolution. The left wanted social change the the right wanted to preserve the social order of the ancient regime.
The modern conservatism came after the Revolution. The ideals of Modern Conservatism seem to come from Hegel, not from the US Founders.
The underlying structure of Hegelian is called dialectics. In Marxism the process is called Material Dialectics.
This dialectics is a systematic process of creating division. This modern dialectics is at the core of both Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism.
The conservatism movement fails in its stated cause of supporting liberty because Conservatism has embraced the modern Hegelian dialectics.
The modern conservative is dependent on the images it has projected on liberals over the years. I know this for certain because, during the 2012 campaign, conservatives spent more energy defining Obama than they spent on defining themselves.
The fact that Conservatives are dependent on the images they project on others shows that the movement is inherently dishonest and inherently flawed.
It is not simple incompetence. The conservative movement fundamentally undermines the ideals for freedom.
Lets jump back to the Conservatives of 1776. The conservatives of 1776 believed the King had an ancient covenant with God stretching back to ancient Israel, and that the Founders were a rabble or rogues who should be hung.
They lost and a great realignment of political bedfellows ensued and partisanship set it.
The primary concern of Conservatism is the preservation of the social order. Conservatives want the people who are on top to stay on top, and they want the masses to stay subdued.
The best way to achieve this objective is to capture the term liberty.
People love liberty, and do not want to give up their freedom. The best way to take liberty from a people is to capture the term liberty and twist it toward your advantage. Both left and right played the game of pushing definitions of liberty that suit their advantage.
In conclusion, I want to talk about the biggest problem I see with American politics.
The easiest way for a group to destroy liberty is for the group to set itself up as the defender of liberty.
Once the group has convinced the gullible that it is the defender of freedom, the group can play the role of gatekeeper, kicking legitimate voices of freedom aside while compromising liberty with the forces of tyranny and centralization.
For fifty years Conservatives have claimed to be the voice of liberty. During this period, Conservatives systematically project false images on others. They kick people aside. They suppress debate and always the first to compromise with the powers seeking centralization and control.
At what point will American patriots finally stand up and start questioning these conservative overlords?
For the last 50 years, partisan conservatives have stood up and claimed that THEY (and they alone) are the true defenders of freedom. Through this half century, Conservatives have had varying degrees of control of the government.
During this last 50 years, there has been a systematic erosion of liberty coupled with a growing gap between rich and poor.
Obama has been a terrible president both domestically and abroad. The 2012 election should have been a blow out election for the cause of liberty.
This fifty year failure to defend freedom leads directly to the question of why Conservatives have failed in their claim of defending liberty: Either Conservatives are incompetent or they are disingenuous in their claim to defend freedom.
During the election, I reluctantly came to realize that the latter is true.
The true goal of the Conservative is to preserve a top-down social order, with their group at the top.
In this last election, we saw Conservatives attacking ObamaCare because Obama was at the top. They sought to replace ObamaCare with RomneyCare.
ObamaCare is a state run health exchange based on the model of RomneyCare. RomneyCare is a state run health exchange. The only substantive difference between the programs is which band of rogues is on top.
During the election, Conservatives actively suppressed criticism of the Health Exchanges. I know, because I wanted to criticize the health exchanges and met a solid wall of suppression from the Conservatives in my state (Utah). In four years, I've not been able to find a single conservative in this state willing to discuss alternatives to the health exchanges. Not one Conservative in this oppressive state has been willing to even talk to me.
(My idea is that the best way to defeat ObamaCare is to promote self-funded health care as an alternative to insurance. It may be a bad idea, but how can anyone know if no-one takes the afternoon required to hear the argument?)
It was embarrassing. The people at Occupy Wall Street were more open to listening to free market ideas than Conservatives. OWS rejected the idea because it promotes property rights. OWS is opposed to property rights on a fundamental level, but they listened to the idea, when Conservatives simply won't.
I care about freedom. I do not care a lick about either of the two parties.
The doors are slamming shut on the American experiment in self-rule. I do not care about the parties but I do care about the cause of liberty.
Since conservatives are undermining the cause of liberty, those who love liberty must look beyond conservative rhetoric and address the reasons why conservatives undermine the cause.
Politics is tricky. A political movement formed around a cause loses its reason to be if the cause goes away. For a political movement to sustain itself, it has to reduce large groups of people to dependency around its cause.
Politics can get pathetic. In many cases we find political movements manufacturing crisis to maintain the political movement. The political class creates crisis and division so that it can use the crisis or division to sustain the political group.
Both Conservatives and Liberals use a technique called projection. The goal of this technique is to project faults onto one's opponents (while associating all that is right and good with one's own party).
Conservatives project a negative image onto their hated foe the Liberals. In turn the left spends its day projecting a negative image on "Conservatives."
If you are a Conservative, you've likely noticed that the Left projects racism onto Conservatism. If you are a Liberal, you will notice that Conservatives systematically project the image of Communism on the term Liberalism.
The racism charge is ironic, because the Left was using entrenched racism before the Civil Rights movement to advance its cause of big government. The charge that Liberals are communists is strange. Historically, Communism began as a right-wing reaction to the Classical Liberals who supported the free market.
The Conservatives of 1776 were royalists. They believed that the king had an ancient covenant with God stretching back to the patriarchs of ancient Israel. They saw the founders (classical liberals) as an unprincipled rabble sinning against God in their quest for liberty.
My posts on Hegel point out that the foundations of Communism evolved on the Right. The Kings of England were from Hanover Germany. The Kings of England funded the German Universities including Gottingen. German scholars were dedicated to reframing the ideals of feudalism. Hegel was a royalist-conservative who adored Napoleon. Karl Marx and Fueurbach were Young Hegelians who successfully reframed Hegel's arguments as revolution.
Modern liberalism actually evolved from a right-wing reaction to classical liberalism.
Hegel describes the process of terms turning into its opposite as sublation.
Sigmund Freud popularized the term "projection." Lakov popularized the term "framing."
Both concepts trace back to Hegel's study in projection.
From the revolution onward, Conservatives have played the game of projecting negative images onto the term "Liberal." By projecting negative images onto "liberalism" the term "liberal" came to mean its opposite.
Historically, the cause of liberty was a liberal cause.
Today, we find the conservative cause is dependent on the images they project onto Liberals. Case in point, there was no substance to the Romney campaign beyond the images that conservatives projected on Obama.
This race would have been a blow out if there was substance.
Conservatives love to pretend that they are the Founding Fathers. If Conservatives were the founding fathers, then why were the Conservatives of 1776 (the Tories) siding with the British?
The left/right split did not exist in 1776. This split came from the French Revolution. The left wanted social change the the right wanted to preserve the social order of the ancient regime.
The modern conservatism came after the Revolution. The ideals of Modern Conservatism seem to come from Hegel, not from the US Founders.
The underlying structure of Hegelian is called dialectics. In Marxism the process is called Material Dialectics.
This dialectics is a systematic process of creating division. This modern dialectics is at the core of both Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism.
The conservatism movement fails in its stated cause of supporting liberty because Conservatism has embraced the modern Hegelian dialectics.
The modern conservative is dependent on the images it has projected on liberals over the years. I know this for certain because, during the 2012 campaign, conservatives spent more energy defining Obama than they spent on defining themselves.
The fact that Conservatives are dependent on the images they project on others shows that the movement is inherently dishonest and inherently flawed.
It is not simple incompetence. The conservative movement fundamentally undermines the ideals for freedom.
Lets jump back to the Conservatives of 1776. The conservatives of 1776 believed the King had an ancient covenant with God stretching back to ancient Israel, and that the Founders were a rabble or rogues who should be hung.
They lost and a great realignment of political bedfellows ensued and partisanship set it.
The primary concern of Conservatism is the preservation of the social order. Conservatives want the people who are on top to stay on top, and they want the masses to stay subdued.
The best way to achieve this objective is to capture the term liberty.
People love liberty, and do not want to give up their freedom. The best way to take liberty from a people is to capture the term liberty and twist it toward your advantage. Both left and right played the game of pushing definitions of liberty that suit their advantage.
In conclusion, I want to talk about the biggest problem I see with American politics.
The easiest way for a group to destroy liberty is for the group to set itself up as the defender of liberty.
Once the group has convinced the gullible that it is the defender of freedom, the group can play the role of gatekeeper, kicking legitimate voices of freedom aside while compromising liberty with the forces of tyranny and centralization.
For fifty years Conservatives have claimed to be the voice of liberty. During this period, Conservatives systematically project false images on others. They kick people aside. They suppress debate and always the first to compromise with the powers seeking centralization and control.
At what point will American patriots finally stand up and start questioning these conservative overlords?
Friday, November 02, 2012
Budget in a Mixed Congress
Senators run every four years. The 2012 election is likely to undo the Democratic sweep of the Senate that took place in 2006. During this sweep, many traditionally Republican states went Democratic.
In 2012, 21 Democratic seats are up for election, along with 10 safe Republican seats. It is likely that Republicans will take the Senate.
The Congress controls the budget.
The last time we had a balanced budget happened during the Clinton Adminstration when we had a Democratic President and Republican Congress.
If Republicans take the Senate then we will have a lame duck president standing against a Conservative Congress wishing to earn its free market credentials by cutting government spending.
In contrast, if Romney wins, we will have a Progressive Republican president seeking to court favor with the people by expanding government spending. We saw this combination under George W. Bush who increased government spending through a dramatic rise in deficit spending.
If the driving issue for your vote is deficit spending, I believe the best option for the 2012 election is to vote for a Republican Senator and for a Third Party.
If there is a Split Vote and Obama wins a lame duck term without winning 50% of the vote, then the split vote will force Obama to move to the center.
In 2012, 21 Democratic seats are up for election, along with 10 safe Republican seats. It is likely that Republicans will take the Senate.
The Congress controls the budget.
The last time we had a balanced budget happened during the Clinton Adminstration when we had a Democratic President and Republican Congress.
If Republicans take the Senate then we will have a lame duck president standing against a Conservative Congress wishing to earn its free market credentials by cutting government spending.
In contrast, if Romney wins, we will have a Progressive Republican president seeking to court favor with the people by expanding government spending. We saw this combination under George W. Bush who increased government spending through a dramatic rise in deficit spending.
If the driving issue for your vote is deficit spending, I believe the best option for the 2012 election is to vote for a Republican Senator and for a Third Party.
If there is a Split Vote and Obama wins a lame duck term without winning 50% of the vote, then the split vote will force Obama to move to the center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)