PostHeaderIcon Is THIS What You Really Want?

My spouse recently received a campaign mailing from the Robamaney campaign. Among other stupid statements was this jewel at the top of page 3:

My approach to spending will be simple. I will approach every spending decision by asking two questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?”

Lest any of you think this is a joke, I can mail Dave a jpeg of the entire document for posting on this site.

So, I ask you , are these the questions that would be asked by someone who was serious about “fixing” Washington DC, about reining in spending, or, most important, about returning us to Constitutional government?

Hardly.

These are the words of a business-as-usual member of the establishment.

Allow me to offer my own questions, prior to approving new or additional spending:

Question 1: Is it Constitutional?

Question 2: Can we do without it?

Question 3: Might it be better left to the States?

Two things jump off the page in reference to Robamaney’s thinking:

First is that most any federal spending is fine and dandy if we can get the money to pay for it, and,

Second, that continuing to explode our national debt is also fine and dandy so long a it is for something we really want.

This nonsense alone should be enough to turn any patriot against Mitt Robamaney.

Please allow me to make a few suggestions to you before you respond “anybody but Obama, ergo Robamaney is the only alternative”.

Suggestion 1: Despite what the current polls seem to indicate, Obama is overwhelmingly most likely to win the election. The current polls do not take into consideration the power of an incumbent president to manipulate world affairs, orchestrating events that will make him look indispensable.

Suggestion 2: Were Robamaney to actually win, the only significant change would be in the specific “fat cats” that benefit from the flow of YOUR money out of the public treasury. There would be no shrinking of government, no transfer of power back to the States and Localities, no scraping of useless government departments and agencies, no restraint on the alphabet soup of police state instruments, no lessening of the various “wars” on your liberty.

Suggestion 3: The really important races this cycle are those for Senate seats. Getting Harry Reid and his band of progressive raiders out of that chamber will have far more influence than the choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum for president.

Suggestion 4: There is a presidential choice that can make a difference despite the fact that he has no real chance of being elected (this time). That is to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president. A significant vote for Johnson would be the most effective way for the People to let Washington DC know that we are fed up and near that point where we will not take it anymore – by use of force if nothing else will get their attention.

Whether or not you agree with all of the Libertarian agenda, you must realize that making that party stronger is the only way to loosen the grip the duopoly parties now have on our political process. And, at present, The Libertarian Party is the third party best positioned to do just that. As an aside, when quizzed on the specifics of their positions regarding politics, most people who answer truthfully turn out to be pretty much libertarian anyway. They just don’t realize it until it is brought to their attention by subtle means. So long as the duopoly parties maintain their power, you will NEVER be offered a true choice.

Plus, far too many of your have drunk the major media Kool Aid and bought the story that we Libertarians are just a bunch of pothead anarchists. A bit of research on your part can easily correct that.

There is actually nothing to be lost by voting for Gary Johnson and, potentially, much to be gained.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

16 Responses to “Is THIS What You Really Want?”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Very well said, Troy.

    Plus, far too many of your have drunk the major media Kool Aid and bought the story that we Libertarians are just a bunch of pothead anarchists. A bit of research on your part can easily correct that.

    May I recommend Libertarianism for Dummies, as an excellent starting point for such research. ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    Troy this quote comes out of Romney’s CPAC speech. http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/02/mitt-romney-delivers-remarks-cpac

    “Today we borrow almost forty cents of every dollar we spend. That is unconscionable. It’s unsustainable. It’s reckless. It’s immoral. And, if I am President, it will end.

    I will approach every spending decision by asking a few important questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?

    As President, I will not just slow the growth of government, I will cut it. I will not just freeze government’s share of the total economy, I will reduce it. And, without raising taxes or sacrificing America’s military superiority, I will finally balance the budget.”

    I think that he is speaking against borrowing money from China here. His connotation appears to me to be that borrowing money from China is not a desirable option.

    • Troy says:

      Dae, I was most alarmed by the fact that “is it Constitutional” was not the first question as well as the fact that he obviously does leave the door open for more borrowing.

      As President, I will not just slow the growth of government, I will cut it. I will not just freeze government’s share of the total economy, I will reduce it. And, without raising taxes or sacrificing America’s military superiority, I will finally balance the budget.

      Is it too much to ask that he offer us some clue HOW he plans to accomplish this miracle? I have already been eligible to vote in 12 presidential elections and I don’t remember a single one where essentially the same promises were not made. At least Dr. Paul was able to name the departments he would end and clearly identify other cuts he would make.

      That said, the most telling thing about Robabaney is his silence concerning the FED. So long as that elephant remains in the room, there is no possibility of getting our fiscal house in order.

      I make no attempt to mask the fact that I don’t care for the man and that I think his “leadership” in Massachusetts says more about him than any hollow promises that lack the substance of implementation details.

      His connotation appears to me to be that borrowing money from China is not a desirable option.

      His connotation seems to ME to leave the door open for each listener to hear what he wants to hear. What I hear lacks the ring of sincerity.

      Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        While I take his point, considering all that he might have commented on that has been said hereabouts since his last visit, for him to choose to only respond to this in defense of Mitt, causes me some concern for our old friend. It appears that not only is he uncharacteristically embracing pragmatism, he has been quaffing some Kool Aid. An intervention may be in order. 😉 ◄Dave►

        • Daedalus says:

          OK Dave, I have no love for Romney, He is just another “middle of the road progressive.” The idiot gracing our executive office presently has already done incalculable damage to the country both before and after taking office.
          I think another four years of marxist leadership will be the death knell for the Republic. That is my personal opinion. I am not going to put a feather on O’Bamas side of the scales if I can help it. That includes voting for someone else or not voting at all, too much is at stake. Our dear president is trying to put the final nail in the coffin of the Republic.
          Now the previous burst of emotional rhetoric here is just that, but I can if needed back up the rhetoric with fact. 🙂

          • ◄Dave► says:

            I do hope you noticed my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, John. 😉

            The only emoticon we have hereabouts involving a tongue, has it sticking out. 😛

            As I have said before, if I didn’t live in CA, where it matters not who I vote for, Obama will get our electoral votes anyway, I would probably have to bite said tongue, and vote for your guy. 😐 ◄Dave►

        • Daedalus says:

          Dave, I know it must be frustrating, but place your “feathers” carefully. I know you chide me gently. 😉

  • Troy,
    I just discovered this site while researching graphics of the political spectrum. I’m intrigued by the sites content and primarily thoughtful dialog and will likely be a repeat visitor. There are many good “liberty minded” high visitor volume sites I visit and enjoy, but the article comments sections are infested with serial spammers intent on only inciting dissonance.

    On this article… I agree with your assessment that the better determination for spending should be the three questions you listed. My only concern with #1 is that what is defined as “Constitutional” today is perversely twisted well beyond the recognition of “original intent”. This is only the second article I’ve read here, but I suspect the Constitution has been the subject of articles and many comments on this site that I look forward to reading.

    My contrary position to your assessment is the political strategy of trying to promote the ascension of a third party to restore liberty. I support the strategy of prevailing from within the Republican Party by deposing the “establishment”. My reasoning for this may be over simplistic or flawed, however, I look upon the precedent that no third party movement has succeeded in the U.S., but the “collectivists” (or your preferred description… Liberals, Statists, Progressives, etc.) have demonstrated that an “established” party (i.e. Democrat) can be transformed. Does this evidence imply a third party can never succeed? Of course not, but I think it is the more difficult path. Liberty minded folks have a foothold in the Republican Party and are beginning to wrestle control from the “establishment”, I count myself among them.

    I do know one thing, if defenders of individual liberty do not quickly settle differences and unify on a political strategy, as Franklin said, “… we will surely hang separately”.

    The Lieutenant Colonel (Brian)

    • ◄Dave► says:

      You have found the right place for troll free adult discourse, Brian. May I personally welcome and implore you to return often to participate in our discussions, because of the caliber of your reply here. I’ll let Troy take the first shot at your remarks; but yes, we discuss the Constitution almost constantly here lately. Troy and I are both Constitutionalists and Liber=T-Party type Patriots, located top-dead-center of the chart you came here to view. 🙂

      Poke around; you might appreciate some of my essays, e.g. my John Hancock Moment. On the subject of Parties, check out Incumbrepublocrats. ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      LtCol,
      Welcome to our humble blog. I do hope you will be not only a frequent visitor but a frequent commenter.

      As to your suggestion that reforming the GOP is a better course than promoting a 3rd party, there is much merit in that and the doctors Paul have demonstrated the possibility quite well.

      The main concern I have with that tactic is that the “establishment” is so embedded that rooting them out could take more time that our Republic has left. But then, so could building up the Libertarian party into a competitive alternative.

      If you look through my writings, you will find that I actually do not hold out much hope for reform. I am more inclined to want the poop to hit the propeller sooner rather than later, while there are still people alive who remember a truly free America from personal experience. The generations soon to replace us (including my own children) simply do not have the same sense of loss as the older generations because they have less idea what is being lost.

      I look forward to hearing more from you.

      Troy

    • Greg says:

      And as for me, I’m the normal “evidence please?” Left-leaning independent around here. I was originally wary of blogs, until I came here. It is great to have a site where you can engage in discourse freely, and not have to worry about censoring your thoughts. See my recent post on “YES!”

      Seriously though, for one of an intellectual mind, this is the place to be 🙂

    • Daedalus says:

      Brian, pleased to see a new voice. Please don’t take my emotional outburst as typical (Daedalus: July 18, 2012 at 10:28 pm, this thread) but I am becoming increasingly frustrated at the present course of events. Pertinent to this discussion, even if both the House and the Senate became Republican this President, through his bureaucracy, has end run attempts to increase domestic oil production. I fear we are in for a lot more of the same if he is re-elected. I don’t think Romney would follow that same path.

  • Tried to post this yesterday but submit comment will not take???

    I thank you all for the warm welcome and encouraging feedback.

    Dave… I’ve read the first two essays so far and I’m impressed with the depth of content presented with reasoned passion. I look forward to reading the others.

    Troy & Others… I concur with the growing frustration and have the same sense that the window of opportunity to reverse “the road to serfdom” is rapidly closing, or already passed. The President/Administration’s acceleration of debt spending and increasing the rolls of entitlement dependents IAW the Cloward–Piven strategy may be the final blow taking us over the tipping point. IF there is political change in November, some major and rapid reversal is required… if a “band-aid” bi-partisan compromise to appease the “sheeple” is passed akin to prior Republican fixes then it will only delay the inevitable economic collapse. But this time, the proximity to the cliff is much closer than any time in the past. But alas, the threats to the Republic and individual liberty are not just economic.

    So, to your point of let the “poop hit the propeller” 🙂 so we can get on with confronting the inevitable challenge… I guess a similar outlook ultimately led to the Founder’s drafting the Declaration of Independence. As Dave suggests in his “Salad Bowl” essay, maybe it is possible to salvage a place to restore the Constitutional Republic of old. However, even trying to imagining a disbanding U.S. upsets me and makes my gut churn. It MUST be a last resort.

    I share all the justifiable pessimism expressed, yet I still haven’t given up; there is an awakening not just among us older folks. My homeschooled son completed his Masters last year and following a summer internship is employed on the staff of FreedomWorks. He too has frustration with many in his generation, but through FreedomWorks and the broader Tea Party movement he is witnessing a growing cadre of liberty minded patriots. They are making a political fight of it with the establishment Republicans and are making inroads, but admittedly some entrenched enemies too (i.e. Orin Hatch). Too little, too late… maybe. But, through him and his associations, and by encountering folks like you, I “recharge the battery” and confront the leftist assault.

    The Lieutenant Colonel (Brian)

    • Troy says:

      Col. Brian,
      I too think we should keep trying — that is one reason I contribute to this blog, that is why I am very active in the TEA Party, trying everything I can think of to get people to think and then act.

      Yet, at the same time, we should all be preparing for the worst.

      Thank you for your service to our country -and- for bringing up your son to be a solid citizen. If more people did nothing more than that (your son), things would be so very different.

      Troy

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links