Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brett636" data-source="post: 891749" data-attributes="member: 249">This article's headline should read "Foolishly, Libertarians Reach out to Occupy Wall Street" or "In a sign of desperation, Libertarians Reach out to Occupy Wall Street".  While their specific demands are vague their overall intention is clear and that is they desire more government.  In fact they want a lot more government and they think that they can have it because the money needed to finance it is all in Wall Street banker's pockets.  I guess when a true grass roots movement like the Tea Party over shadows and outgrows the libertarian base they will get a bit desperate for supporters.And this accomplishes what?  Are you deaf, dumb, or blind or maybe all three?  We have a publicly financed electoral system as last I checked the government is the one picking up the tab for the voting sites, machines, polling people etc.  If you mean a public campaign system there is some of that already as whoever is running for President can get some public money for their campaigns.You do realize if we had this system in 1992 Clinton would have never been President right?  Third parties have always been a crap shoot in this country and that would not change under this sort of proposed system.  All the third parties combined get less than 5% of the vote in this country, and their ideas are so vastly different that they would not agree on anything even if they were able to form one party to compete against the two major parties.  In my state during the governor's election they allow the libertarians to put their candidate in the debates with the republican and the democrat candidates.  It still has not changed the fact that the libertarian candidate gets a very small percentage of the vote, thus a two party system still rules here.  Governments made up of multiple parties are usually less stable and even less efficient as a coalition government is usually formed when nobody gets a majority, and none of the parties are very happy with the outcome.You mean the medicare system that has fewer and fewer doctors each year that accept medicare covered patients?  Your typical physician loses money on each medicare patient they see and a lot are beginning to limit the number of medicare patients they see or refusing to see them at all because they cannot stay in business if they do.  To claim healthcare as a right is to say you have a right to a part of someone else's life.  Doctors and nurses spend years studying for their future occupations, and all that education isn't cheap.  It costs money to make all the medical supplies(tongue depressors, needles, gloves, medication), heat and cool the buildings, not to mention the general costs of the building itself(rent, upkeep, etc), insurance, and I could go on and on and on with this.  To say you have a "right" to any of this is ridiculous because someone has to spend time out of their life to bring the people and materials to market so you can see a doctor when you are sick.  Public colleges are already heavily subsidized, and to make them free would be an even larger burden on an already bankrupt government.  Its a nice idea, just not practical.9-9-9Would you want the political parties to be able to send people to your home and "convince" you to sign a card to vote a particular party into power?  I thought not, so why should this be the case for union elections?  A secret ballot is the only way to ensure the will of the workers is represented fairly so nobody feels compelled to support something that deep down inside they do not.  A 3 foot by 3 foot square solar panel would have to be in the sun 24 hours a day for 40 days to produce the same amount of energy in one gallon of gasoline.  Those technologies are just not efficient enough to become a major part of the energy market, and until they do its best they remain an alternative and not forced into the mainstream.  To what end?  Who gets the money and what is it supposed to be used for?  Perhaps you just want another unnecessary burden on business so that you can feel like you made a difference.  Because the community reinvestment act was so instrumental in moving this economy along.  All it did was push this economy over a cliff and you want more of it? Oh now we have the evil CEO's and their salary as a target.  I believe Ben and Jerry's tried something like this and failed miserably to get a CEO worth his salt to run their company.  This is a supply and demand issue, and if the demand is forced to pay these CEO's less than they are worth they supply will dwindle accordingly along with the quality of the candidates involved.Your manifesto sucks.</blockquote>

Verification