"But if we cut military jobs, there will be huge unemployment..."

"But if we cut military jobs, there will be huge unemployment." So reads one of the comments on another board. I think this is a very good point. Libertarians will have to prove you wrong. I am good with them being inspired to prove that the private sector can do alone more than what the government and the private sector does now. I think that we would get some bounce in the private sector simply by bringing national debt down and by getting our forces out of oil rich countries. I think the problem hits when armament factories shut down. This is where progressives step in and offer a peaceful green jobs plan. I think we win the argument in this situation but we don't get to have that argument if the neo-cons and corporatists put their permanent war economy in place. In fact they already have it in place; they just need to expand the wars we are in now. Here is where Obama is vulnerable to neo-cons. He thinks that the previous stimulus was enough or all that he can get now. The latter is probably true. The problem is he will not get a great deal of jobs growth by cutting domestic discretionary spending while maintaining current defense spending. The political environment is all about cutting spending. Progressives have to make sure that the cuts are from the MIC,not Medicare, Medicaid and social security. Ron Paul seems to be willing to make that deal as long as we get a net cut in overall spending. When all is said and done, Obama gets us at best 7% unemployment rate at the end of his second term. People will not stand for this, and the unending war Keynesians will fill the void (while using their predictable free market rhetoric). Progressives need to bite the bullet (so to speak) and make this deal with a lesser devil in 2012 in order to get what we really want in 2016. We progressives, like it or not, have only one way to be relevant and that is to get a Ron Paul nominated and elected. I wish it could be different. Had the president been less compromising and insisted on including a universally available public option, immediately going all out in building the green economy and completely getting  out of the current wars, we would not even have to consider this alternative tact. Now that he has failed our agenda we must pick ourselves up and make a new plan. Unfortunately the plan has to take a longer view or else, short and long term, we all lose to the permanent police state war economy.

Absurd but...

To me any thought of cutting spending or raising taxes when 25 million Americans are needing and wanting full time work is absurd. However, if all that is going to be done over the next 10 years is to cut spending then Ron Paul's determination to roll back wildly excessive military spending by ending the wars and all other empire building and maintenance is a much better alternative than what the President or the Republicans are offering. The fact that he is willing to do this while paying for Medicare and social security is maybe the best we can expect. Progressives need to face the reality that the president folded on taxes once and he will fold again because the he will not have the votes. All talk now is about cuts. We have to choose who is going to cut in the right places rather who will raise taxes or invest in what we need. My outlook is not optimistic but it is realistic. The sooner progressives get on board with Ron Paul's transitional fix the sooner we will be able to get a real progressive to the top of the 2016 ballot. Continue to deny that the president is anything other than a corporatist, and we get a Romney clone versus Obama and a stalemated congress for another 4 years.

Very good article

http://hpronline.org/united-states/the-libertarian-perspective/in-defense-of-a-man-and-a-movement/

Want to support this effort

http://www.facebook.com/Dems4RonPaul?v=info#info_edit_sections

Conflict to compromise to synthesis: Tax Policy

In the coming days I want to make some proposals about bridging the gap between the two ideologies of progressivism and libertarianism. Of course we already have much in common and i don't want to go over those agreements here. Instead what I would like to focus on are the issues where we don't seem to find common ground. Mostly this will be about economic policy but from time to time we might explore some cultural, defense and foreign policy issues.
Today, I want to offer up an idea on tax policy and solicit your responses. I do this not to be argumentative but to develop ideas which will strengthen an emerging coalition which Ron Paul has already begun.
Ls think we Ps love taxes, as if we derive some kind of masochistic pleasure from filing our taxes. The truth is we long for simpification as much as you do. And believe it or not we would rather our taxes be lower. Of course, we do differ in other respects. Ls tend to prefer flat consumption taxes while Ps tend to prefer progressive income taxes. What if Ps could let go of their desire to tax income and Ls their desire not to tax bigger somes of money at higher rates. The result is a progressive consumption tax, a tax advocated by liberal economist, Robert Frank and approved by conservative economists:  http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/inequality_and_executive_pay

The Bottom Line

Ron Paul can win both the Republican nomination and the general election if he can persuade his followers that economic policy compromise is necessary if the libertarian cause is to be advanced at all, and if his followers, in turn, can persuade enough progressives that Ron Paul will really make necessary economic policy compromises once he is elected president.  If either of these conditions are not met, his campaign will be a flop and the libertarian agenda a dead relic forever.

One could dream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSBdRVH3AUI