START A PETITION37,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Group Discussions
Glenn Beck: Please Don't Call Yourself a Libertarian
4 years ago


Dear Glenn Beck, Please Don’t Call Yourself A ‘Libertarian’ Open Letter» 186 comments

On Tuesday afternoon, it was announced that Glenn Beck plans to relaunch The Blaze as a “global libertarian news network” because he now identifies himself as a libertarian like Penn Jillette and wants to appeal to liberty-lovers who are disenchanted with the GOP and particularly partisan news outlets.

In keeping with the last time I addressed Beck’s so-called “libertarianism,” below is yet another open letter to the conservative commentator.

– –

Dear Mr. Beck:

Congratulations on your slow move towards libertarianism. We are glad for your newfound support for legal marijuana, gay marriage, and your backing down from Bush-era hawkishness.


But many of us libertarians prefer to say “thanks but no thanks” to your attempt to become the “libertarian” leader of a so-called “global news network.”

As I’ve written before, you make it really hard for people who believe in limited government to be taken seriously. In the past, you’ve only given the media more reason to dismiss a largely intellectual movement as being just a bunch of tinfoil hat-wearing, overly aggressive crazy people.


You’re free to call yourself whatever you want. But that doesn’t mean we should accept you. While we agree with you on some of the big picture — government spends way too much money it doesn’t have, and is far too intrusive into our daily lives — many of us dislike your rhetoric and your chalkboard-and-puppets conspiracy version of history.


Look, we libertarians try to operate as a big tent. And I’m happy when non-libertarians like yourself aspire and draw towards it. The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg recently pondered whether he is a libertarian, and that’s a welcome step forward for the movement. But when you or (the far, far worse) Alex Jones label yourselves “libertarian,” it is most certainly not a progression for us who already feel marginalized by the political process and much of the media.

Here’s just one example of how you take any semblance of a potentially rational discussion and elevate it to cuckoo land:


In the trailer for your new “libertarian” news network, you tease newsmagazine specials on topics that supposedly matter to liberty-minded folk, like some evil United Nations plot to disarm Americans. Do libertarians believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms?

This post was modified from its original form on 12 Jan, 10:12
4 years ago

Yes. Do we generally oppose restrictive gun control? Absolutely. But do we think the federal government is in a cahoots with the U.N. to take away all of our guns? Uhhhh, no. That’s not “libertarian,” that’s fear-mongering with a naked appeal to the large portion of your viewers who already buy into the doomsday survivalist shtickavailable in your web store.


Sure, some of your more ardent fans will back you up on your self-labeled “libertarianism,” but I challenge you to walk down the halls of Reason magazine and not have them snicker at your bizarro connect-the-dots version of history; or speak before 1,200+ college students at the annual Students for Liberty conference and not be booed or laughed off the stage when you lament the downfall of Western civilization at the hands of pro-gay shows like Glee; or submit an article to the Rothbardian types at and not have them pick apart every hysterical myth contained within.


Now, of course, you may say we sound like the cool kids at the lunch table telling the weird kid that he can’t sit with us. But this isn’t the school cafeteria; this is a battle of ideas. And we are currently losing it because of people like you who have helped give limited government types a bad name. Rush Limbaugh makes conservatives look bad on a regular basis; and you assumedly want to be the libertarian version of that? No thanks.


Maybe you are, as you say, a “growing” libertarian — i.e., you’re “evolving,” coincidentally, like the president you dislike so much — but that doesn’t erase the years you’ve spent as a so-called “liberty lover” while almost never criticizing George W. Bush when he was in power. (Believe me. I know that because, in my previous career, it took days to find a single anti-GOP soundbite for a TV special on your fledgling career.)


You’ve built a reputation as yet another right-wing firebrand who absolutely detests President Obama and will link anything and everything to his kneeling nightly before a Karl Marx statuette. It’s not the kind of baggage to carry around when dealing with libertarians who pride themselves on equal-opportunity skepticism of partisans on both sides who suffer from “President From The Other Party Derangement Syndrome.”


BuzzFeed writes that your relaunch as “libertarian” is an attempt to grab the eyeballs of the young people who are disgusted by the two parties and by the “shouting heads” on cable news. If so, I’m not sure you’ll be able to court them.


“If we’re Glenn Beck’s target audience, he’s missed his mark by a mile,” Daniel Bier told me this morning. He runs a prominent blog called The Skeptical Libertarian, which has a readership largely made up of libertarian students and professionals.


During the GOP primaries, most young libertarians rolled their eyes but had their preferred candidates who at least nodded in the direction of libertarianism. That included a bit of Jon Huntsman, a whole lot of Gary Johnson, and an even greater amount of Ron Paul. But were you out there supporting any of these guys while lamenting the big-government-conservative GOP field?

This post was modified from its original form on 12 Jan, 10:15
4 years ago

 But were you out there supporting any of these guys while lamenting the big-government-conservative GOP field? No. You supportedMichelle Bachmann at first, and then… Rick Santorum, arguably the most anti-libertarian GOP candidate since Pat Buchanan.

And, indeed, young liberty types find the Republican Party and Fox’s treatment of the news to be distasteful but, given that, do you really think that they will then turn to Glenn Beck, the man who has said things like this… or this?


Hopefully someday you can drop the histrionics and the looseness with facts, and then maybe we can all sing “Kumbaya” together under a libertarian tent.

But, in the meantime, I do wish you the best of luck. And since it’s part of my job, I will be watching.


Sincerely, Andrew Kirell

4 years ago

I agree with this author Andrew Kirell, Libertarians do NOT need Glenn Beck preaching their platform.  He wants to revamp his Blaze site into the Libertarian party launch for his internet tv show. 


This will definately kill the movement because he is a far-right wing nut preaching pure hatred of Obama.  I don't think the young who flocked to Ron Paul will rally around Beck!

4 years ago


4 years ago
Beck and his like are trying to get in front of a growing number of those being attracted to libertarian ideas. It is poison. We saw what neo-cons did to the conservatives. They used Trotsky tactics of infiltration. We are on to them.

This post was modified from its original form on 12 Jan, 12:00
4 years ago


4 years ago

are just republicans in drag....

4 years ago

Yep. Republicans Lite. Just another case of putting lipstick on a pig and calling it something else.

This post was modified from its original form on 12 Jan, 17:25
4 years ago

Archie, when you can define small l libertarian is when you can successfully compa're them to anyone.  And seeing how much you hate whatever it is you think libertarian means (feel free to coherently explain to everyone what that is), does that "in drag" remark reflect your hatred of people who dress in drag?  One of the most loving, charitable people I ever knew was a drag queen named Sylvester. Maybe you heard of him back in the 70's/80's 


I think the word drag would be better used to describe your knuckles than to disparage a whole group of people.

4 years ago

Other than name calling, what is your legitimate gripe against Libertarians?


Do you have any Libertarian friends or friends of a different political leaning?


Are you insulting your friends with the name calling?


Maybe people should focus on their similarities instead of the divided we all fall approach?

Too bad he's not really libertarian
4 years ago

Glenn Beck Plans $2 Billion Libertarian City In Texas, Utopian Community Based On Ayn Rand’s “Galt’s Gulch”

4 years ago

Those that claim that libertarians are a version of "Republicans" miss the central tenet of libertarian thought which is the non aggression principle and the associated principle of non initiation of force. From those principles follows the rejection of statists. That is hardly in line with the GOP.

                        Those that see a round object as being square and truly believe it show their own lack of perception or their own self deception. Either way, they should generate pity. If they don't really believe it, they are engaging in deception......... Which might generate contempt.

4 years ago

Of course Ayn Rand was not libertarian.  There is some overlap as there is with a number of philosophies.  

4 years ago

I remember watching this a couople of years ago.


It was so funny, it brought tears to my eyes.


Jon Stewart Rips Glenn Beck
4 years ago

I do think libertarians are in the republican party; they are one faction arguing with the RINO head of the party.


Personally, I am NO longer a republican, I lasted less than a year. 


4 years ago

There is a big difference between some libertartians being in the GOP and libertarians being "republican lite".  Those that happen to be in the GOP are seeking to change that party into being non statist. 

4 years ago

Love the poster, Jim Stealing it

4 years ago

Libertarian Republican lite? Don't tell that to Former Anti War Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy who endorsed Libertarian Presidential candidate Ed Clark in 1980,American Indian Movement Leader the late Russell Means who led the uprising against the US Government at Wounded Knee,or Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel who put the Pentagon Papers in the Congressional Record

4 years ago

libertarians want to end social security and medicare too!

They also want assault weapons available on the gun scene for anyone to buy!

4 years ago

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.



This post was modified from its original form on 14 Jan, 4:38
4 years ago

SL, you say that like it's a bad thing. So what if SS and Medicare were phased out (with everyone who's already forcebly invested collecting their benefits) and rePlaced with individual responsibility and something we can control ourselves? What if Dems and Reps had stopped voting Dem and Rep (to near exclusivity) 40 years ago after the bullshyt VietNam war? What if for the past 60 years we had had a Constitutional government... What if our money was real for the past 100 years. I think anyone with a lick of sense knows America would be a much more secure society than it has today if voters stopped refusing to be informed (even as late as 2000 could have saved us a much misery). As well, SL, it's a mistake to group small l libertarian 'people' with the Libertarian 'party' and it's platform - even if it is like 99% more American than the D/R monopoly.

4 years ago

Sheila, you keep on talking about the poor...... do you realize that most of those that are poor are because of what the government and federal reserve have done to them? That the wages of Americans have declined because of and by government policy? Have you asked yourself why when productivity has increased by 270% over the last 50 years, the plight of the lower income demographics has gotten worse? Think: in 1964, the cost of a new house was $10/sq ft. Today that is $130/sq ft. Despite advances in building techniques that use less materials and less than 1/2 the labor time. That's an increase of 1,300%. The same is true of energy, food, and even worse for education and health care. 

Think about it. Rather than solving the problem, the government keeps on making it worse. The corrupt keep on getting rewarded, the upper income speculators and parasites get wealthier, the people are punished for being self reliant. The only reason the system hasn't collapsed is because innovation and improvements in technology have offset some of the decay in our society.  When that is curbed, as it is being now, the end is in sight. 

4 years ago

I will take soc. sec. and medicare, both which I paid into since I was 15 y.o.

I am sick and tired of the give them a fishing pole and teach them to fish routine.

The democrats got it right with safety nets.  Too bad employers don't take care of their retired employees ... but they are to intent on giving golden parachutes to the top.

4 years ago

"I am sick and tired of the give them a fishing pole and teach them to fish routine." - SL   

I really shouldn't be surprised at that comment, but just wow .... you would rather have someone who is ABLE to fish to just sit and wait for the state to give them a handout instead of a hand up?  That is not a safety net.  That's just free money. 

You will be happy to know, Sheila, that I know a young mother of one child who got pregnant on purpose while she was still taking classes (yes, on our dime!) to get certified as an accountant, who' s prenatal, delivery, post natal, and subsequent med. care was all taken care of by tax payers. And let's not forget the food stamps, OR the SECOND baby she will bring into the world to "support" the same exact way while she is perfectly able to work, as are both male parents. AND she has the audacity to bitch about the "paper work" required for her to get "free money."  ISN'T THAT GREAT?!?    I do not believe this 26 yr old woman is an exception. I think this goes on a lot.   Maybe you should send her your address in case she needs to ask you for extra money to pay her iPhone 4S bill.

4 years ago

Employers pay 8% into social security for their employees.  I would say in a sense they are contributing.

Libertarians are a species of conservative.
4 years ago

Mike Gravel isn't a very good example of a Libertarian - when he quit the Democrats and joined the Libertarian  party he couldn't win a primary, because most Libertarians considered him to be to LIBERAL, and it ended his political career. 

As we can see with Glenn Beck, a paid republican party propagandist, and a whole host of republican party congessmen and senators, it's easy for republicans to call themselves libertarians - because there's not a dimes worth of difference between the two philosophies. They're all about "smaller government and lower taxes," which serves to make the rich richer and the working class poorer. They both hate the New Deal and work tirelessly to undo it - they're class warriors and the class they fight for is the ultra-wealthy. The both hate the Federal Reserve because it keeps the economy stable and the ultra-rich like to profiteer from the wild fluctuations that the gold standard allowed.

The political struggle in this world is between the left and the right - Labor and Capital/ Liberal and Conservative. Libertarians pretend to be somewhere in the middle, but they very clearly serve the interests of the capitalists at the expense of those of us who work for a living.

4 years ago

You are correct, Suzanne, employers are contributing. They are forced to at gun point.

4 years ago

Archie:"there's not a dimes worth of difference between the two philosophies."....Really? Or is that true of Republicans and Democrats?

  • Libertarians are anti war, anti intervention and oppose US policy of world hegemony. Failing foreign policy and the military industrial complex : the warfare state
  • Libertarians opposed to the war on drugs and other victimless crimes: the police state.
  • Libertarians oppose assaults on civil liberties with things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA. the security/surveillance state.

Come to think of it, both the democrat and republican party's and you support all of the above. But, I guess you don't think any of that as being "not a dimes worth of difference". Which is what I have been saying: for most liberals and democrats, those things are unimportant. Thanks for confirming that Archie. 

This post was modified from its original form on 15 Jan, 11:37
The Federal Reserve
4 years ago

"both hate the Federal Reserve because it keeps the economy stable" Really Archie?

  • The three worst economic downturns in American history happened under the Federal Reserve: The Great Depression. The mass unemployment and hyperinflation from 1972-1983 (with the "economic misery index" the highest in history). And the economic collapse/great recession of 2008 - now.
  • The Federal Reserve has enriched the top .1% through leverage of their assets. That demographic is having their greatest increase in wealth in American History over the last 4 years.
  • At the same time the average American has lost ground over the last 21 years. This only happened one other time in history. The Great Depression.
  • The original mandate for the Federal Reserve was "price stability". The buying power of the US dollar has declined by 96% since 1913. Prices of food, energy and housing have risen by 1,200% in less than 50 years. Health care and higher education have risen even more. Price rises before then Fed are calculated to have been a net ZERO.
  • The supposed vast fluctuations in the economy, bank runs etc that have been used to claim the period before the Fed was chaotic were all based on a single study made in the early 1920's. It tuned out that that study was deeply flawed Since then, dozens of other studies have looked at the pre Fed period. It turns out that those periods were actually more stable than after the Fed.
  • In addition, the greatest single period of sustained economic growth in US history was both pre fed and deflationary.....So much for the fed's "targeted inflation" which has funneled wealth to the oligarchs and impoverished the lower wealth demographics by reducing their real wages forcing many into dependency. 
4 years ago

Archie, faced with the facts/information Jim posted above (and everywhere else countless times), how do you rationalize your support of the Fed?

4 years ago

Archie-I worked with Mike Gravel in college,I attended a meeting with him at the time the Libertarian Party was being formed nationally back in the 1970's..He nearly joined then!

4 years ago

I always liked "give 'em hell Mike Gravel".  The media marginalized him in the 2008 POTUS debates because he told the truth.   They just hate that don't they?  

Jim's a sucker....
4 years ago

Those ain't the facts, Ma'am - they're propaganda points. Basing money on gold and silver is stupid and leads to economic disaster. It's been proven in every country. American History 101, folks. Read it and understand it so you won't be mislead by pompous propagandidts...

I know, David,
4 years ago

I liked Gravel, myself. My point is that when he joined the Libertarian Party and ran for president as a Libertarian, he was defeated in the primary by registered Libertarian voters. Libertarian voters didn't accept him as a true Libertarian.

At the end of the day, this is all a sideshow....
4 years ago

The battle is between Labor and Capital. The capitalists seek to rule every country for their profit. They can never win in a fair election unless they can deceive people into voting against their own interests. The Republican Party has been completely bought out and the Democrats are about halway bought out. Libertarians are standing on the sidelines arguing about shiit that doesn't even matter. There is only two sides - the rich vs. the workers, and if you look at it objectively, libertarianism favors the rich.

4 years ago

Gee Archie.  I must have missed that in American History 101 when I taught it.  You talk a lot about propaganda, but I notice you do not have any facts, studies or such. 


BTW.  Your use of: "Argumentum ad populum" or "everyone knows that......" Also "appeal to authority" and of course the ever popular various "ad honinen" attacks. is rather amusing. 

Well, Jim,
4 years ago

I'm not here to do yer homework for ya. I assume that since you have the ability to comb the internet for propaganda points then you also have the ability to search for real answers if you choose to. It's not that hard, dude, and in fact it's probably a whole lot easier.....

4 years ago

Careful Archie. Jim has switched from bullet points to Latin.

4 years ago

Just curious Archie..... Since you seem to be trying to use Marx's exploitation theory, which derives out of the labor theory of value from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, have you read anything they actually wrote? ......Or Marx or Engels for that matter? Since you claim "I'm a sucker"....enlighten me as to how you derived such wisdom that is not based on so called "propaganda"..


Were you divinely inspired by the State perhaps? 

4 years ago

Go ahead Christian  last question to you.  Enlighten us. 

4 years ago

LOL.  Can't answer can you Archie?    BTW.   I have read those authors.  Along with Keynes, Galbraith and many authors from  all sides.  So, not "propaganda".  Real opinion from real "homework". 

History 101:
4 years ago

The Gold Standard never worked, caused a whole series of depressions, and was a contributing factor in causing the Great Depression and preventing the Federal Reserve Board from dealing with the crash of the national financial system. Getting off the Gold Standard and strengthening the Federal Reserve Board was key to recovery from the Great Depression and led to the longest period of growrth and prosperity we've ever had.

In fact, every other country had to get off the Gold Standard in order to recover from the Great Depression.

We have just watched the Federal Reserve save us from another great depression. And we would be coming out of this a whole lot faster if the Republican Party was not united in protecting tax cuts for the rich and blocking the Federal stimulous spending that has been sorely needed.

Well, I did some of your homework for ya, but you're going to have to do the rest for yourself.

Yer welcome.

4 years ago

How is a $16+ TRILLION debt not a depression? How is any entity that has a debt many times it's annual revenue and a shrinking tax base not a depression? How is 26% unemployed and many more underemployed not a depression? How was tens of millions of families losing their homes because bailing out uber-wealthy Banksters was far more important not a "depression"'?

How is inflation thrown on top of the afore mentioned not a depression?   

 [ di présh'n ]   
  1. sadness: a state of unhappiness and hopelessness
  2. psychiatric disorder: a psychiatric disorder showing symptoms such as persistent feelings of hopelessness, dejection, poor concentration, lack of energy, inability to sleep, and, sometimes, suicidal tendencies
  3. economic slump: a period in which an economy is greatly affected by unemployment, low output, and povetry.

Hmm... all of the above apply.

4 years ago
"Everyone knows" AGAIN Archie?  You do know how to reference your claims right? Of course if I was using such easily disproved references, I might omit them also. 
  • BTW Eichengreen claims on gold being the reason for the GD are not accepted even by the Federal Reserve. Although they do claim that the Fed needed to intervene more aggressively. Go figure. The people who work at the Fed tell us we need...... the Fed. LOL I'll follow with details.
  • The gold standard didn't cause "a series of depressions". If you are talking about the 1800's, it was the banking system and expansion of credit that caused the economic downturns in the 19th Century. Credit not backed by gold at all. In addition, the 20th Century economic debacles under the Fed were far worse.
Myths exposed 1: Gold constraints and the Great Depression
4 years ago

Just so there are no excuses on this, I'll use the Federal Reserve own reports, data  and papers on this subject.  These are in PDF format and referenced either by the page(s) of the report and/or by the PDF page which differ.


  •  The Fed was not constrained from circulating more money in 1930 or 1931 either. Or making more loans either. See page 466 of the Federal Reserve Bulletin ( ) Note that at the 40% reserve level, the Fed could have expanded the currency by 600%,
  • Although going into the last quater of 1931, gold reserves had dropped, there were still enough gold reserves to expand the currency by well over 400%.
    Note that the Fed was also allowed to suspend that requirement see page 19 (17 in the PDF) (
  • Apparently the text by the author of this claim originally had written the FED "was constrained" in expanding the currency to "felt constrained" when the true facts were revealed.  Obviously the 400-600% figure above belies the contention. Friedman and Schwartz concured with this in Monetary History of the   United States.(p399-406)
  • Note also that a provision of Glass Steagall Act removed any restrictions based on gold and the Fed did that starting in March of 1932. with a massive purchase of government securities. This was less than 6 months after the gold reserves begain to decline more than in a normal fassion.  The effort to offset solvency with liquidity failed as there was little demand for the added liquidity. This disproved the efficacy of Federal Reserve monetary injections into the economy via the banks.
  • The Central Banks, including the Fed later used this crisis to remove gold from circulation. "Never let a crisis go to waste" increase your power.  Once again, the wealthy, alerted to the governments intentions, were able to offshore gold Swiss banks.  Some of this was later redeemed for a windfall profit when FDR devalued the US currency by setting a peg at $35/oz.  This represented a devaluation of the dollar by 43%. 

This post was modified from its original form on 16 Jan, 6:05
4 years ago

I work hard for my money, I don't even know if you work at all Katii.

I am not getting a handout.

I paid into social security and medicare and I am getting what I payed into all my life.

That is not a handout.

You people are the same kooks that want to go back 100 years in time and ignore the fact that this country is so huge and diverse now and you cannot compare the landscape back in the 1800s to 21st century liviing.

I would like to go back and look like my high school picture and stay that way too in the world of magical thinking. 

4 years ago

Archie got this line right

There is only two sides - the rich vs. the workers, and if you look at it objectively, libertarianism favors the rich.


too bad you people fool yourself all the time with your magical hyped up thinking.

I am neither party; but I recognize the libertarian movement as directly inside the GOP.

I also am convinced the republican party is a party favoring the rich, certainly not the middle class or poor. 

4 years ago

SL, who here has said you shouldn't get your money back (SS)  from the feds?  Nobody!  In fact we have all acknowledged that SS is not a "hand out," so what's up with the defensive act? Damn straight we should all get every penny we paid into SS - we are "entitled" to it via the promise ("contract") the feds made to each worker it extracted money from. 

4 years ago

One thing to all those people, like myself, who believe SS is untouchable... If it is really that important to you, like it is to me and millions of other Americans, you should have supported and voted for the ONLY candidate who agrees with us and would have (easily) made SS solvent:  RON PAUL. But noooo, his eyebrow was JUST too quirky.

4 years ago

I think the over-the-top spending by democrats and esp. Obama is a disgrace.

I would not vote for him this time around.  I live in MA and had Romney as a governor and trusted him more.  Obviously, many in the GOP did not and he lost their votes by substantial margins.  Republicans and conservatives I know here in MA would NOT vote for Romney and I did not know this til after the elections.


They (MA republicans voted for Ron Paul).  I now understand why Romney campaign was so eager to have me vote for him in primary as a delegate.  I did not register as a delegate but Ron Paul had the MA delegation wrapped up and that was a gigantic embarrassment for Mitt in his home state.


Ron Paul and libertarian party does not like soc. security and that is why I put up link for their platform.  If there is a better alternative, I do not know of one.  EMployers today are disgusting, they don't care about employees.  I work in a private hospital and they are not hiring full time nurses, all these young people who are hired are per diems.  So, they do not have to pay benefits at all.  They are hired as psych. technicians and not nurses.  Cheaper salaries and they are pushing me out the door as I make too much for them.


Problems galore as they have no experience and cannot handle volatile situations well.

I am tired of it all.

I see the system as broken and I see paul ryan as way too austere in his approach.

Many think that is why mitt lost.

Maybe, no one trusts the republicans, esp. the out of work, middle class people who are now in a bad situation.

If I thought the democrats were great, I would have stayed.  They are problematic as well.


I do not see any party as representative of me at all now.

They are both beholden to Wall street and big banks.

People trust democrats more and that is obvious from this past election.

I am tired of bashing Obama, he is in office for another 4 more years, like it or get sick about it and I am not allowing hatred in my life.


Ron Paul and Libertarians are very austere.  Saw movie about Marg. THatcher Iron Lady and that conservative movement in England backfired in the end.  Too much cuts and austerity in hard times, close to depression era living is dangerous.

4 years ago

Even though I own a house, I am taxed to death and I could never afford paying for private insurance here.  I rely on medicare and I need my soc. security check.  I will collect social security in a few years.  I am on Social Security Disability for several years and I know that system is corrupted with phoney people claiming disability.  Way too many are collecting and either work under the table or push drugs.    I see it first-hand and I am not happy but all these systems are problematic.  Why doesn't the government do a massive clean up of medicare, social security disability and medicaid cases?

Billions of dollars could be saved if they investigated the fraud within the system.

There will always be crooks and fraudsters in anything, not just govt. programs.

4 years ago

Actually Ron Paul offered the only plan to pay Social Security without harming the future of the young.  You have a problem with that Sheila?

4 years ago

And yes Sheila; Libertarians don't like Social Security.  We think it was a mistake.  It does not mean we don't think the government has an obligation to pay it. 

4 years ago

I have a problem with this:


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

4 years ago

Sorry, I am sick and tired of Faux news saying their genorsity thru charity will save people, bull shyte!

4 years ago

The fact is that Social Security was raided for government programs that benefited some Americans more than others.  Any surplus money from the program was diverted into the general revenues and used just like any other federal tax.  We thought this was wrong to do.  Both the political party's did it because it allowed more spending for their crony's.

4 years ago

I am well aware that both parties, dems and gop raided the program and bill clinton used monies from ss to balance his phoney budget.  They are all criminals as far as I am concerned and they never put one dime back into social security; it was a piggy bank which was robbed for years and years. 

4 years ago

And why are your taxes so high Sheila?  Has it occurred to you it's because of those that are feeding off the system?  Do you understand the the primary beneficiaries of government are the powerful, especially the wealthy?  Do you know that government domestic spending (state, federal and local) in the 1950's was 16% of the GDP?  Now it is almost 40% of the GDP?  Are the kids getting a better education?   Are our streets safer?  Does it take more or less working  hours to purchase a home?  To heat that home?  Are the children with their parents more or less than in the 50's or 60's.  Are their futures going to be better than ours.....or worse. 


Is our quality of life better?   If not why?.............  The average American family works more hours,  Commutes longer.  And is more productive.  Where has all of that gone?  Who got it and why were they able to. 

4 years ago

I live in a very liberal state and my property taxes are very high along with the state tax which the governor wants to raise again.  Home values are not decreased here though; that is one good thing.  I do NOT like the progressive liberal agenda that has gone too far here; but I would not want to live in many other states which do not give a rats arse about people.


Yes, I pay more but the state is not void of giving help when you need it.

There are many pros and cons but I lived in FL yrs. ago and I would not go back there unless I was independently wealthy because MA is far better to their citizens.

4 years ago

Do you understand the concept of "diminishing marginal returns" Sheila?  Basically it means that beyond a point any thing returns less for the effort/investment/expense that is put into it.  In the case of government we are way past that point.  Eventually this becomes "negative marginal returns".  That means that beyond a point, the more that is put into something, it actually returns less  than you are putting into it.  Again, we are past that point on government. 


As we continue to put more and more into this system, things are going to get worse for our society. 

4 years ago

Young people here voted for DEMOCRATS because they mistrust the republican party and they are highly educated and I am not buying they are all indoctrinated because they have better jobs than myself.


They are tired of constant criticism of dems and obama with no real plans offered up to improve their lives.  I talk to them and I get these answers.  They also make far more $$$ than I do and I reminded them of Obama's plan to tax them more but they would rather support him than the unknown which the republicans serve up as they do not trust that party at all.....

4 years ago

MA might be better for some of it's citizens.  Others, not so much.  The North East is money friendly.  Much of the West and North West is people friendly.......and much lower in taxes  I live in NY which is even higher in taxes the MA.  Everything here that government offers is an additional cost to boot.  Roads, bridges parks and more are additional costs.  The nearest state park to me has a high fee, offers no potable water,  and poor bathrooms, Our high taxes pay for......a govenment that offers much less than most other states .A classic example of "negative marginal returns". 

4 years ago

Unemployment for Americans young (20-24) that are looking for a job is 13.7%.  Over 25% when you exclude those that are part time workers.  Things are not so good for them either.  . 

4 years ago

SL, I have never lived in MA or FL....  How does MA treat their people better than FL does?  Does FL have an excessive number of homeless and starving?  Excessive numbers of people suffering or dying due to "no health care"?  Higher infant mortality rates?  How are they different?

4 years ago

SL, because you or I don't know a ' better' system to provide a safety net for those truly in need (they have exhausted all that charity, friends and family have to offer, either there is NO one willing or able to help), does not mean there isn't a better, safer, more secure system. 

And, voting Democrat does not equal smart - for the young or otherwise. The proof that it doesn't is in that those who voted for more (but worse) of the same just voted for more (but worse) of the same.  How does banging one's head against a brick wall make someone anything but aware that banging head against bricks hurts like a mofo.

4 years ago

I heard the most hateful radio commentator this morning, Jeff Kunar and he is from Boston, unfortuately.   He is now totally crazy and he like Glenn Beck are embracing libertarian party and want to impeach Obama like yesterday.


Crazies are attaching themselves to the gop and the libertarian party which is all the same but the libs are far more conservative than their RINO counterparts.  They want all the RINOS kicked to the curb. 


I never want to see these crazies in power.

I will work as an INdependent and make sure that I know who is running and people that are insane like this nutcase Jeff kunar and many tea party whack jobs are not getting into power and that goes for the radical left wingers as well.

4 years ago

I see a HUGE difference in MA and FL and I will stay in my home state, thank you.

I feel sorry for those seniors who live in FL with no big $$$$$.

4 years ago

That governor Dredd Scott of FL hates poor people, he is the biggest loser, bigot and I am shocked that he ever got as far as he did --- gov. of FL.  But, the people in FL aren't smart like MA voters are for sure.

4 years ago

What are the differences?

4 years ago

What crazies are attaching themselves to the Libertarian Party, SL?  Are Beck and Kumar members of the Lib Party or the GOP?

4 years ago

"I have a problem with this


b2.10 Retirement and Income Security Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm." - SL .  


What exactly do you disagree with, and why, Sheila?  On what do you base your negative feelings about believing society fairs better without government intervention? Or that individual persons are less able or less apt to assist the needy than is the state?  Do you have any historical evidence that this libertarian belief is wrong, or would have some tragic outcome if come to pass?  Except perhaps during the GD, which was grossly prolonged by federal intervention policies, when, in America, has the lack of charity been a significant problem for anyone who needed it and asked for it?   I haven't researched that don't myself, so I don't know.  But, since you''ve made up your mind I presume you have and can provide a reasonable argument against that belief. Please share.

4 years ago

"There is only two sides - the rich vs. the workers, and if you look at it objectively, libertarianism favors the rich." - SL . 


How so, Sheila? In what way, and how - by what means - does the libertarian platform "favor the rich" ?  AND, isn't that EXACTLY what the DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN Parties have been doing to the middle class for DECADES? (Are you reading and digesting the factual info and stats Jim takes the time to find and post for us???)  How are their platforms so alike that the duopoly does exactly what you can only imagine or "accuse" the Lib Party of doing - if it had the chance of course, which it hasn't since America was a successful and thriving Republic with real money.  


How exactly does the Lib Party platform favor the rich?  By which mechanism/s are the rich favored that everyone else isn't favored as well?

4 years ago

The Federal Reserve makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.



The Federal Reserve is a privately owned banking corporation run on greed by the elites.




Quantitative Easing doesn't work.

How Quantitative Easing Helps the Rich and Soaks the Rest of Us And why the Occupy movement should be up in arms.



How the Fed made the rich richer

The 'QE2' project was supposed to ease borrowing and get consumers to spend again. Instead, it has benefited only a few while raising most people's cost of living.

4 years ago

I am all for the Federal Reserve being audited and I always agreed with Ron Paul on that one.

Something is very wrong with the financial system embedded in this country.

If Rand paul can intelligently reach people without scaring many off with austerity; he might make it as president.


Severe austerity and severe cuts are very detrimental to a fragile society like ours.

Just look at our English cousins when they embarked upon this mission of going from one extreme to the next.


We are in the midst of the most liberal progressive presidency now and to revert to a complete reversal would be a shock to the entire system which is not good.


4 years ago

The Libertarian platform has many excellent points; what disturbs me is the axing of most govt. departments.  Much needs to go, I will freely admit this and I believe they have valid point.

Right now, people are in fear of extremists going after a fragile economy.

I do not want Obama to have free reign to spend us into oblivion either.


I listen to conservative talk radio and yesterday Jeff Kunar said to get rid of all Romney, McCain and Scott Browns, dump them.  He likes Rand Paul which could be the kiss of death for Rand paul from these clowns who want each state to succeed from the Union.

There are far too many irrational people who are crazy and normal citizens like myself are afraid of these people getting control.


A lot of those gun controls that Obama wants as Executive Order are rationale.

Why would we be selling ammo that penetrates body armour our police officers wear for protection?


I find a lot of people on the right wing to be fringe lunatics.

I also find a lot of people from the far left to be way too globalists in their thinking; they do not respect the Constitution as it was written by our founding fathers.

They want a living Constitution which they will write at whim and God help us if that ever happens because that is the end of our freedom and liberty.

This post was modified from its original form on 17 Jan, 6:58
4 years ago

And to answer your question about individual citizens helping the needy over the state.

I don't trust that concept at all.  I find people today self-absorbed, selfish and interested only in their own.  I would rather have the State, individual states set up their own programs to help the needy, disabled, etc.


NO way would I trust fellow citizens who don't care.  Times have changed; the ME Generation has taken over the past 2 or 3 decades and they care only for themselves first and foremost.

Charity begins at their doorsteps and ends there with today's psyche.

Churches are broke, they can't care for the needy, disabled and poor.

I do believe in a national government overseeing states and I believe in the safety net.

I hope that answers your question because I could not be any more clear than this statement.

4 years ago

Sheila: "They want a living Constitution which they will write at whim and God help us if that ever happens because that is the end of our freedom and liberty." ....... Indeed they do. I'm going to agree 100% on that comment.


As far as people not taking care of each other and "NO way would I trust fellow citizens who don't care. Times have changed; the ME Generation has taken over the past 2 or 3 decades and they care only for themselves first and foremost."...... That started back in the 70's, so I'll agree on 4 decades. And THAT is not a coincidence. That's is when the government was expanded via the "Great Society" programs. We outsourced our responsibility for our fellows to the State. Those programs have been a huge failure, both is costs and results. Dependency grows worse each year, and our society is crumbling.


So what is the answer and a good compromise? More is both unsustainable economically and not working socially. How about coming up with a plan that GRADUALLY reduces government involvement and see if can't solve the problems as individuals and communities?  Do we really need a apparatchik class to enrich themselves in this process? 


I choose to believe we are good enough to start the process.    If we are not good enough then we are a lost people.

This post was modified from its original form on 17 Jan, 8:38
4 years ago

Not on tonite after all.


I am willing to give Libertarians a chance but I do not want extreme cuts done all at once which will hurt a lot of people.  Look at England when the conservative party took control and were austere in their approach.  It does not work to go to extremes.


I do not like Obama's spending and his open contract to allow Unions to run slipshod because he won the election and they want payback now.  I also don't like his croney capitalism with green energy either.  This wreckless spending is weakening this country substantially and there is a lot of fraud and waste which has been prevalent for years, not just under Obama.  There needs to be serious cuts to waste.


I always liked Rand Paul; I had a good feeling about him but I am not blindly supporting anyone anymore til I really know them thoroughly.  I like Rand paul and Gov. martinez, I have listened to them everytime they are on and they have sound conservative principles.


I am still a conservative person, but I do not belong to the democrat or republican parties.

I dislike both of them as they are not representative of my personal beliefs.  I find some good points in both but there is far too much I don't like for me to be part of their parties.


I believe these radical right wingers like Jeff Kunar, Glenn beck who all of a sudden are endorsing Libertarians and want this a 3rd party will give Rand Paul the kiss of death as they are not well liked by the majority of Americans.


I do believe Hillary Clinton is running in 2016 and she is a globalist.

I prefer sovereignty of individual states with Federal Government as an overseer.

I certainly think globalism is more confusion and infringes upon peoples' liberties.

No one could be that dumb not to realize that globalism is a push for socialism.

That is not the basic foundation of America.


you are right, people need to compromise and gradually reduce government involvement in our lives.  Too many people are dependent upon government and that is a problem.

There are a lot of disabled veterans, seniors who need govt. assistance.

There are also too many on disability who should not be on that program.

It takes away the incentive to work and I see this in people who are dependent.



4 years ago

Well Sheila that was the plan.    Gradual reductions,   Over a period of years, if not a decade. 

4 years ago

Happened to catch Rev. Al Sharpton show yest. and he said people who want sovereignty of states is code for racism.


How did he get there?  I am more and more amazed every single day with many of these people.

4 years ago

What it's really code for is "The ' Master' and his ' Overseers' can stay the hell out of my face"

What I find amazing is the millions of "Americans" with a slave mentality. 

4 years ago

Sheila, again, HOW does the Lib Party "favor the rich" ???

4 years ago

For Sharpton everything is about "racism". 

4 years ago

A lot of Americans are racist.

4 years ago

A lot of Canadians are racist. Racists are everywhere, the Dem/Progressive community is crawling with the most dangerous kind of racism, the kind disguised as "charity," and feel good laws like minimum wage mandates.

4 years ago

There is overt racism and a more subtle form.  Many that claim racism of others are often racists themselves. 

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.

New to Care2? Start Here.