|
The point still stands however that when 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal taxes but yet expects not only money back but more money than they paid in, that is a broken system.
Why?
What makes that automatically 'broken'?
I could say that it seems to be a redistributive system but I'm not sure why the system must be broken.
What if, for example, you were describing a country in which wealth had been massively accumulated by the people at the top, and this was a wealthy country which, in theory, had enough money to go around - maybe even the richest country in the world.
Maybe this country might even be one in which the Richest 20% of people hold 85% of the nation's wealth?
|
Wow. That baiting actually worked.
And now I have a dot in this crapfest.
Defocus, take me away!
It's amazing, what could have been, and started to be a fun and funny thread, was derailed into a semi- serious b~!*% fest. Yet if a person would now choose to try to take it back off topic, then they would be the ones labeled a troll.
No man is an island entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as a manor of thy friends or of thine own were;
any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.
|
|
Great idea until you really think about it.
. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place."a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."So I can hire anyone I want from anywhere and bring them here to do whatever labor I can get them to do, and have no worries that someone is going to try and stop me.
Which means I'm free to -- as my exercise in entrepreneurial spirit -- take a group of low paid people from poor countries move to his island and start a 'pirating business' where I attack other people's ships take their goods and then sell them for whatever I care too.
While I'm at it I think I'll kidnap this guy and hold him for ransom since it can't be against the law since it's my business model.
Some people have already identified such a state and implemented your business model.
I agree that the numbers look very slim but the reality in my opinion is that the federal government is still too large. I respect your facts and figures but numbers can be manipulated just like any other data.
Well you show me a corporation that manages to run on such slim numbers and I might agree with you.
As it stands we have .01% of the population working for the department of agriculture, interior's close to the same and so on.
I don't see how anyone can be anything less that amazed at what these people are managing to do on an average of less than half the pay that their private industry equivalent are making, when so over worked too.
You do realize that the judicial branch has only 30,000 employees? That's one person per 1,000 citizens... and we wonder why they aer over worked and make bad decisions.
If you really want to cut the dead weight look at state governments -- they are much more wasteful and eat up much more of our federal dollars than people realize.
Take Indiana for instance -- it's constantly having it's unemployment fund and medicare being paid in full by the federal government because it had the poor foresight to cut unemployment taxes right before the recession.
The point still stands however that when 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal taxes but yet expects not only money back but more money than they paid in, that is a broken system.
Why?
What makes that automatically 'broken'?
I could say that it seems to be a redistributive system but I'm not sure why the system must be broken.
What if, for example, you were describing a country in which wealth had been massively accumulated by the people at the top, and this was a wealthy country which, in theory, had enough money to go around - maybe even the richest country in the world.
Maybe this country might even be one in which the Richest 20% of people hold 85% of the nation's wealth?
The main reason I say that it is broken is because it's unfair to everybody. When 50% of the population pays no federal taxes and yet they are the same ones that will need the benefits that just doesn't seem right. Even if you only make 12K a year you should pay your fair share into the system for the roads,military,schools etc that you have received the benefit of.
Taxing folks at a higher rate simply because they have more and thus can afford to pay more is unfair to them as well. I guess I simply oppose wealth redistribution because if you earned it then your entitled to it, not someone that didn't work for it.
I heard a Canadian farmer on CBC yesterday talking about how well-prepared Canada was to grow hemp and how we kick American butts in the hemp market if the gloves came off.
Let's get it on!
If only we could. Hemp is an amazing plant that has a multitude of uses clothes,rope,paper,being the top three. I think that as a cash crop it could really help American agriculture.
|
|
You're the one not reading it properly.
But then its not Libertarian is it? Libertarian does not equal no laws, no ethics, and no morals. That would be Anarchy. And anarchy is just silly. If this guy wants to set up an Anarchic society, watch it fail, then proclaim that libertarianism fails, then that would be very disingenious.Actually it does -- go back and actually listen and read exactly what they keep asking for -- this is exactly it.
Like I said before I love libertarians -- they remind me exactly of communist.
The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place.
Free from others means you create your own, not that you have none. In other words they get to start from scratch creating their own laws and morals, not that they lack them entirely, your argument assumes anarchy as he said, not libertarianism. Could they create what you're arguing if they so chose, possibly, are they going to after investing that much money into it, not likely. So lets leave the straw man Mad Max arguments behind please.
I agree that the numbers look very slim but the reality in my opinion is that the federal government is still too large. I respect your facts and figures but numbers can be manipulated just like any other data.Well you show me a corporation that manages to run on such slim numbers and I might agree with you.
As it stands we have .01% of the population working for the department of agriculture, interior's close to the same and so on.
I don't see how anyone can be anything less that amazed at what these people are managing to do on an average of less than half the pay that their private industry equivalent are making, when so over worked too.
You do realize that the judicial branch has only 30,000 employees? That's one person per 1,000 citizens... and we wonder why they aer over worked and make bad decisions.
If you really want to cut the dead weight look at state governments -- they are much more wasteful and eat up much more of our federal dollars than people realize.
Take Indiana for instance -- it's constantly having it's unemployment fund and medicare being paid in full by the federal government because it had the poor foresight to cut unemployment taxes right before the recession.
Sounds good to me. The feds shouldn't bail out states to begin with. If a state is broke then it's broke. The federal governments role was originally a minor one mostly dealing with foreign powers and disagreements between the states not some king the dukes could run to.
One thing I would like to ask about the numbers that you quote and I mean this in as nice a manner as possible and in no way being snarky.
When you say citizens do that include illegals or not. The reason I ask is because some states like California grant illegals the rights citizens and include then in their data when they shouldn't be there.
If you have non-citizens being counted as citizens that going to skew any data regarding numbers. Just a question.
One thing I would like to ask about the numbers that you quote and I mean this in as nice a manner as possible and in no way being snarky.
When you say citizens do that include illegals or not. The reason I ask is because some states like California grant illegals the rights citizens and include then in their data when they shouldn't be there.
If you have non-citizens being counted as citizens that going to skew any data regarding...
That's one question I had too -- all I can tell you is that is the Census data -- so it's accurate, and I think it simply reflects the people living in the USA.
But here's a point against your 'shrink government':
The departments in charge of preventing illegal imigration have less than 200,000 employees -- that's less than 1 per thousand square miles of USA soil. It's also less than 1% of the illegal population (estimated at 16 million people last time I heard someone throwing out numbers).
Which is where the problem is -- we have less than .6(bar) percent of the population trying to do all the regulation, watchdogging, and defense of over 99.3(bar) percent of the population.
There's a reason that management theory states you should have 1 manager for every 5~20 employees -- and that's because you need that much to function -- if the government is disfunctional I would suggest it's because it's too small to do its job right.
Also there is a general talent drain as well since the technical positions that the government fills generally pay half or less of what the private industry pays for the same services.
Finally even if we are to assume the wildly large guesstimate (which was made by those with an axe to grind against illegal immigrants by the way -- people that would never fear monger by over stating the numbers of course) of 16 million is correct that still leaves us with 290 million people and still under 1% of total population working in government.
|
Frankly, I'm very happy to hear about this.
I certainly hope that American libertarians and capitalist anarchists achieve their goal of establishing a non-state in which they can call home. With any luck, the Tea Party will also embrace this notion and migrate out of the country.
It seems clear that there are major ideological differences between the American left / moderate Republicans and the far right that has come to wield considerable power over the last couple decades. Instead of trying to negotiate with an implacable opponent, Democrats and moderate Republicans can work to restore the Keynesian economic policies that created decades of American prosperity between the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations.
As a libertarian at heart, when I secede from the Union I am taking New England with me. ;) Hope you are okay with that.
With all seriousness I find the divide between the extreme left and right very discouraging. When the fringe groups start talking for the main groups it is very disheartening.
I think both moderate democrats and moderate Republicans do need to work together once again. I know you focused on saying fringe right groups and I agree with what you said, only I think you left out moderate democrats, because there are extreme left groups out there who concern me as well. Those extreme groups go so far to their prospective left or right they seem to come around to form a circle and in many ways I see them ending up being closer then they think they are which frightens me.
Those extreme groups go so far to their prospective left or right they seem to come around to form a circle and in many ways I see them ending up being closer then they think they are which frightens me.
This I think many times the only reason they don't realize this is because they are 'label blinded'.
As a libertarian at heart, when I secede from the Union I am taking New England with me. ;) Hope you are okay with that.With all seriousness I find the divide between the extreme left and right very discouraging. When the fringe groups start talking for the main groups it is very disheartening.
I think both moderate democrats and moderate Republicans do need to work together once again. I know you focused on saying fringe right groups and I agree with what you said, only I think you left out moderate democrats, because there are extreme left groups out there who concern me as well. Those extreme groups go so far to their prospective left or right they seem to come around to form a circle and in many ways I see them ending up being closer then they think they are which frightens me.
I agree. However, it is not terribly difficult to see which of the two major U.S. parties is currently most under the sway of extremists. :(
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a libertarian at heart, when I secede from the Union I am taking New England with me. ;) Hope you are okay with that.
I'm sorry, but since the highest concentrations of Democrats are found in the most prosperous parts of the country (New England and the Pacific coast), we're holding on to what's ours. You're welcome to Wyoming, though! ;)
With all seriousness I find the divide between the extreme left and right very discouraging. When the fringe groups start talking for the main groups it is very disheartening.
I think both moderate democrats and moderate Republicans do need to work together once again. I know you focused on saying fringe right groups and I agree with what you said, only I think you left out moderate democrats, because there are extreme left groups out there who concern me as well. Those extreme groups go so far to their prospective left or right they seem to come around to form a circle and in many ways I see them ending up being closer then they think they are which frightens me.
Gruumash, I appreciate the sentiment towards reconciliation, I really do. However, when I hear statements that the extreme left hold any meaningful sway in the political dialogue today, I am flabbergasted. I can only attribute this viewpoint as a distortion by the American media, as it does not correlate with the facts.
I know several people on the far left in America today. They are almost universally Anarcho-Syndicalists. If that term is unfamiliar, don't worry, it's because these ideas are not being disseminated into the mediasphere except by a handful of academics like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. They have no political representation as they comprise a very tiny segment of the population.
Moving in the center-left, we do have democratic socialist groups like SPUSA. SPUSA currently has 1,000 members and is struggling to meet their Spring funding goal of $500. They hold no political offices anywhere in the country. Hedging closer to the center of the political spectrum is the Green Party, which has 300,000 members (slightly less than one percent of the population) and holds no offices higher than mayor.
Compare this to the rest of the first world. The Labour Party in the UK holds 258 seats in the House of Commons (out of 650). In Canada, the New Democratic Party holds 103 seats in the House (out of 308). Finally, in France the Socialist Party holds 186 seats in the National Assembly (out of 577) and 111 seats in the Senate (out of 343). All of these are center-left parties, falling somewhere between SPUSA and the Green Party.
The Democratic Party in the United States today is, at its most radical, a centrist party as far as the rest of the world's concerned. So please, do not tell me that leftist extremists are corrupting the political dialogue in our country today. That is simply impossible, because there is no American left worth speaking about.
The Democratic Party in the United States today is, at its most radical, a centrist party as far as the rest of the world's concerned. So please, do not tell me that leftist extremists are corrupting the political dialogue in our country today. That is simply impossible, because there is no American left worth speaking about.
That mirrors my feelings as a non American listening to the political discourse coming from the states. The political landscape there seem so incredibly narrow, and focused at the right side of the spectrum. Actually leftists views being akin to hearsay in the contemporary political arena.
The Democratic Party in the United States today is, at its most radical, a centrist party as far as the rest of the world's concerned. So please, do not tell me that leftist extremists are corrupting the political dialogue in our country today. That is simply impossible, because there is no American left worth speaking about.That mirrors my feelings as a non American listening to the political discourse coming from the states. The political landscape there seem so incredibly narrow, and focused at the right side of the spectrum. Actually leftists views being akin to hearsay in the contemporary political arena.
What's really funny is to hear the 'conservatives' here tell it they are under vicious attack from those liberal leftist extremists that want to 'kill america!'
Wake up people -- There isn't a leftist party in the USA... there is hardly a handful of actual leftist -- and when it comes to social philosophy many conservatives are actually about as leftist as it gets.
I was a radical leftist after it had ceased being cool.
"I was a teenage anarchist -- ready to set the world on fire!"
Interesting...of course, what's to stop someone from waltzing in with an army and taking over?
My bet, the cost of running the place to modern standards.
Though that does bring up some good points actually. OK so I set up this place not to far off the US coast. Its laws are very lax - mainly mind your own business...which I very much plan to do since bugging my neighbours is not really something I have a lot of time for while I'm trying to manage my multi-billion dollar smuggling operation into and out of the U.S.
Unless there are rules, laws and enforcers of those laws what keeps me from using this as a trafficking point for immigrants, guns and drugs? AT which point we really are back to...what happens when some government - probably the U.S. since they are being most effected - moves in to put a stop to this?
This whole idea sounds like the back story from Bio-Shock.
Yet if a person would now choose to try to take it back off topic, then they would be the ones labeled a troll.
No man is an island entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as a manor of thy friends or of thine own were;
any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.
John Donne sucks!
I heard a Canadian farmer on CBC yesterday talking about how well-prepared Canada was to grow hemp and how we kick American butts in the hemp market if the gloves came off.
Let's get it on!
Yes, please do!
[bubble bubble bubble]
The Republican viewpoint has changed radically from the Eisenhower/Nixon years. Nixon actually created the Environmental Protection Agency and was also a primary backer of the Clean Air Act and OSHA, while he vetoed the the Clean Water Act, it was not over the principles of the act which he supported, but the budget Congress drew up for it, which he considered excessive. In contrast the Reagan era essentially seems to have focused on entitlement for the wealthy and has begun a tradition of doing away with long term advanced planning and deregulation mainly for the heck of it. Reagan's notion of reducing Washington to "irrelevancy" has become the central theme of the Republican Party both to its and our nation's detriment.
Under the Nixon administration, the death penalty was briefly abandoned and the right to abortion was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Until there's real, sustained class struggle on the street, Washington will do whatever it wants--and that apparently means bombing Arabs and enriching Wall Street.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a libertarian at heart, when I secede from the Union I am taking New England with me. ;) Hope you are okay with that.
No.
I was a radical leftist after it had ceased being cool.
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation
Arise, ye wretched of the earthFor justice thunders condemnation
A better world's in birth
No more tradition's chains shall bind us
Arise ye slaves, no more in thrall
The earth shall rise on new foundations
We have been naught, we shall be all
'Tis the final conflict
Let each stand where he may
The International soviet shall be the human race
So comrades, come rally
And the final fight we'll face
The International soviet shall be the human race
Being a radical leftist has always been cool.
Interesting...of course, what's to stop someone from waltzing in with an army and taking over?
The same thing that stops an army from marching into ANY small country. International pressure. Think about it, Monaco is roughly the size of New York's Central Park, and Vatacan City is even smaller and completly surrounded by Rome, yet both are sovergn nations that have operated for years. There are actually 17 nations in the world that are smaller than 200 square miles.
I also think this is a cool idea, but also one Tsunami away from a complete disaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fewest rules and laws necessary" is great as an ideal. But we all know in practice it is impractical and downright dangerous.
We all love freedom. One of the craziest things you could possibly hear on the evening news, are these nutso proclamations from certain groups, claiming others hate freedom and are trying to deny them and are trying to interfere with their lives. Trust me, people are too self-involved to think your daily trivialities are that important.
Unfortunately, we all can see for ourselves, also on the evening news, that even with laws and rules in place, there are plenty of people willing to do whatever awful things they think they can get away with (and even some they must know they will one day be caught at) to make a buck, or just plain get what they want.
I could use a single example: water. We drink water. It must be clean for us to do so. Corporations will dump toxins into our water, making us sick. They will even dump toxins into the watersheds on the lands of the people who work for them, so long as it is expedient for them and saves them money. When told that this is bad, they do not stop. Laws must be passed to stop them, and even then they will try to get away with it, maybe in the same place, maybe somewhere else. Of course, the corporations don't like the laws, so they lobby lawmakers to get them repealed, or to pass further legislation that will reduce the ability of the government to enforce them. This happens all the time.
If you can see how far some people will go to do the wrong thing, blatantly and in front of everybody when there is a law regarding it, how could you possibly believe that they will do any less when left on their own, to make their own decisions?
I love people. I think people are great. I think freedom is great. But it only takes one greedy SOB to foul things up and kill your kids. Libertarianism is great on paper. Like capitalism, we all love it when we're the ones reaping the benefits from it. But also like capitalism, it is a ticking bomb at the explosive end of which you will one day be. At that time, you will be screaming and ranting about how "there ought to be a law."
I'm not a Christian. I don't really deserve to claim to be and I probably never will. I'm okay with that -- I've read the Bible and have found some parts of it that stuck with me.
One of those parts is the story of Saddam and Gomorrah. In it God says he would spare the cities if 10 people could be found in them that were righteous. In the end only one was found and God still spared that man and tried to spare his family as well.
God was willing to do something for the sake of one person -- this is why I support welfare and "entitlement" programs: Because they aren't -- they are "reach out and help people" programs, and if they prevent one -- just one instance of something like this happening -- where a complete stranger has to take care of someone else out of pocket I'll gladly put my money, my time and my effort behind them.
Because helping one person is worth it -- no matter how many 'undeserving' people are helped along the way.
After all Jesus said, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
So while it is not my faith I find truth in the words -- we must help the needy because they are the ones that need it -- deserving or no.
Sounds good to me. The feds shouldn't bail out states to begin with. If a state is broke then it's broke. The federal governments role was originally a minor one mostly dealing with foreign powers and disagreements between the states not some king the dukes could run to.
Then we had a civil war, and the role of the federal government changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds good to me. The feds shouldn't bail out states to begin with. If a state is broke then it's broke. The federal governments role was originally a minor one mostly dealing with foreign powers and disagreements between the states not some king the dukes could run to.Then we had a civil war, and the role of the federal government changed.
I find it fascinating that an evil Lincoln is telling us this.
I find it fascinating that an evil Lincoln is telling us this.Sounds good to me. The feds shouldn't bail out states to begin with. If a state is broke then it's broke. The federal governments role was originally a minor one mostly dealing with foreign powers and disagreements between the states not some king the dukes could run to.Then we had a civil war, and the role of the federal government changed.
I find it fascinating that I should have to remind anyone at all. It was a pretty memorable turning point in the US, as turning points go.
|
|
I know several people on the far left in America today. They are almost universally Anarcho-Syndicalists. If that term is unfamiliar, don't worry, it's because these ideas are not being disseminated into the mediasphere except by a handful of academics like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. They have no political representation as they comprise a very tiny segment of the population.
Yet you say a handful of academics like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn both who are very well known and I would say are very widely read and influencial in todays democratic party today. Howard Zinn is very well read in Hollywood and has influenced many minds there. And continuing along that thought process Hollywood influences a great many people. Now please don't take this as the horrible argument that Hollywood is comepletely left and is rotting the brains of our children and we need to do something about it. I don't subscribe to those arugment either.
You are right in that there is no monolithic party like the Tea Party and the so-called Liberatartian Party (I don't agree with them) those fringe groups that is so prominiant on the far right fringe groups.
I think (my opinion) is that is the case because the democratic party has been very smart and has been able to bring together their party as a united front. Something the Republican party has been unable to do since the Regan era.
I would not say though there are not fringe groups and ideas floating around in the Democratic Party that are not hurtful. I for one don't like the idea and don't trust the idea of giving up any rights to the goverenment, I think grid lock is a wonderful idea and concept and prefered when the parties needed to work with one another to accomplish things and were required to put aside their social differences to accomplsih thigns for the greater good of our country. I am pro choice for the same reason I am pro guns, for the same reason I am pro gay marriage. I don't like and don't trust a goverenment to make all the choices for us. Certianly some goverenment regulations are needed but I like to keep my goverenment to a minumim as much as possible. I certianly believe in the old saying Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You can of course object and say that is not correct and have every right to say so. But I would disagree and I don't think you'd be able to come up with an arguement to change my mind.
So I would with a hand shake and a friendly like to agree to disagree on the matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think (my opinion) is that is the case because the democratic party has been very smart and has been able to bring together their party as a united front. Something the Republican party has been unable to do since the Regan era.
I think you have something confused there.
|
|
I think (my opinion) is that is the case because the democratic party has been very smart and has been able to bring together their party as a united front. Something the Republican party has been unable to do since the Regan era.I think you have something confused there.
I was explaining why it is people think there are no apparent fringe groups in the Democrat party. I would argue the fringe influence is still there just hidden well. Much like the fringe groups of the Repulican Party were hidden when Regan was in power. I still think some of those ifluences are there and we need to be careful of them.
I think (my opinion) is that is the case because the democratic party has been very smart and has been able to bring together their party as a united front. Something the Republican party has been unable to do since the Regan era.I think you have something confused there.I was explaining why it is people think there are no apparent fringe groups in the Democrat party. I would argue the fringe influence is still there just hidden well. Much like the fringe groups of the Repulican Party were hidden when Regan was in power. I still think some of those ifluences are there and we need to be careful of them.
Except that specific statement I quoted is wrong. Moral Majority remember them? Or perhaps the Tea party?
The democrats are being roundly criticized for not being able to present a solid front like the republicans have been doing.
So again I say I think you have something confused in that statement.
|
|
I think (my opinion) is that is the case because the democratic party has been very smart and has been able to bring together their party as a united front. Something the Republican party has been unable to do since the Regan era.I think you have something confused there.I was explaining why it is people think there are no apparent fringe groups in the Democrat party. I would argue the fringe influence is still there just hidden well. Much like the fringe groups of the Repulican Party were hidden when Regan was in power. I still think some of those ifluences are there and we need to be careful of them.
Except that specific statement I quoted is wrong. Moral Majority remember them? Or perhaps the Tea party?
The democrats are being roundly criticized for not being able to present a solid front like the republicans have been doing.
So again I say I think you have something confused in that statement.
No I don't think I am confused perhaps you are confused in thinking I support the Tea Party or fringe groups in general... because I don't. I do think the democratic party has been smart and provided a a unified frount and been able to keep their fringe groups in line publically. But I still believe they are there just the concerted front has kept them quite by applying some of their desires.
As I have stated from the beginning I am not a fan of either fringe groups. Both parties have them and they do have influence. There are plenty of lines of thinking which have not come from middle of the road people. For one gun legislation I would not consider middle of the road I would certianly consider that a fringe group. But I am not a fan of that legistlation and the gorups who have been pushing that I feel are misguided as pro-lifers and those for banning pot and the like.
No I don't think I am confused perhaps you are confused in thinking I support the Tea Party or fringe groups in general... because I don't.
No that's not what I think...
I do think the democratic party has been smart and provided a a unified frount and been able to keep their fringe groups in line publically. But I still believe they are there just the concerted front has kept them quite by applying some of their desires.
This is what I'm not agreeing with. I haven't seen the democrats able to provide anything nearing a 'unified' front -- and I have seen the republicans doing it.
As I have stated from the beginning I am not a fan of either fringe groups. Both parties have them and they do have influence. There are plenty of lines of thinking which have not come from middle of the road people. For one gun legislation I would not consider middle of the road I would certianly consider that a fringe group. But I am not a fan of that legistlation and the gorups who have been pushing that I feel are misguided as pro-lifers and those for banning pot and the like.This isn't relevant to what I'm questioning -- but I don't mind such opinions at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've got the free-market absolutists in the national discourse. Where are the radical socialists?
Goddamnit, Jeff, I'm right here!
Again, I don't see how you can say the Democrats have provide a 'united front' and the Republicans haven't in the past 20 years.