Comments on: Ramsussen Reports Libertarians Back Obama over McCain

By: Libertarian for Obama

Libertarian for Obama — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:06:20 +0000

I am a white, suburban, middle aged, middle class mother of 3, one with special needs, gun owner and environmentalist who is a Lutheran Buddhist and also a registered Libertarian. I chose to be a Libertarian because they are the party that most closely matches my political views, not on everything (like drugs), but on the majority of issues. I am voting for Obama because I like his ideas on how to improve the economy, health care, oil independence, the war, the budget deficit, freedom of choice, no national religion or loyalty oaths like McCain wants. I like his defense of the Constitution, and had it not been that the Constitution Party was so intrinsically wrapped up in one single Religion, I probably would be a Constitutionalist. I heard a lot of John Locke in Obamas speech and I liked that. I think at this point in the history of our nation we need a leader who will defend this country by upholding the laws of this nation, upholding the Constitution even when emotion would lead others to shred it in the name of vengeance and there by protect the people from corruption within. I feel Obama is genuinely interested in the needs of the people, not just his personal needs and the needs of the few.

By: Libertarian Support for Barack Obama - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:01:40 +0000

[...] in views among libertarians, with some libertarians even supporting Barack Obama. I’ve recently pointed out that a Rasmussen poll showed that libertarians preferred Obama over McCain by a margin of 53% to [...]

By: Funkool

Funkool — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:04:41 +0000

You’ve got a good point about Bush’s increased spending. However, 9/11 has been a big factor, and he wasn’t alone in the increases–Congress has been spending like drunks. Yeah, that’s a big insult..to drunks. Rs can be blamed too; Ted Stevens has been pretty porky.

I recently heard (on NPR) the CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve relating a story about a question for a gov economist, “Any difference in the spending of Ds &Rs? _ Yes, Ds enjoy it more.”
Regardless of Bush III, what will McCain spend. What would have Ron Paul spent? Way down. GDP way up.

By: Why Some Conservatives and Libertarians are Backing Obama - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:30:38 +0000

[...] Over the weekend I had a post on a poll which showed that more libertarians support Obama than McCain. Support from libertarians and conservatives for Obama has also been receiving quite a bit of attention from the news media. The latest example comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. Following is a portion of their article from this morning (which got delayed in posting due to intermittent internet access while traveling): “I do know libertarians who think Obama is the Antichrist, that he’s farther left than John Kerry, much farther left than Bill Clinton, and you’d clearly have to be insane to vote for this guy,” said David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “But there are libertarians who say, ‘Oh yeah? Do you think Obama will increase spending by $1 trillion, because that’s what Republicans did over the past two presidential terms. So really, how much worse can he be?’ And there are certainly libertarians who think Obama will be better on the war and on foreign policy, on executive power and on surveillance than McCain.” [...]

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:50:24 +0000

You really have fallen for all the propaganda put out by the right. Check some of the posts here on the economics tag. There is good reason why us business owners and professionals making over $200,000 are supporting the Democrats over the Republicans in recent years. Only those making over $600,000+ really do better economically under the Republicans. Therefore they need to drag in the votes of those who buy their other propaganda.

There is nothing socialistic, authoritarian, or anti-property rights about the Democrats (and certainly not the Chicgo school economics who are advising Obama).

This poll basically separates out the libertarians who are paying attention, and those who just believe all the right wing talking points.

By: Funkool

Funkool — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:17:51 +0000

Redistribution to the top 0.1% ? Where do you get that idea? It’s completely false, and completely ridiculous. Please research some facts before making outlandish claims.
Using figures directly from the CBO for 2004, the top 1%, the income minimum is $867,800 with an average income tax paid of $391,000. The total tax paid by the top 1% is 36.7% of all income tax revenue. For the top 0.1%, that factor would be well over 100. The average income tax paid per person was $6,381. Also, the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 3% of all income tax revenue. The 25-75% percentile pay 12%. Those figures have not varied considerably for decades. Those figures can easily be accessed online; also from the IRS & the Census Bureau.
I don’t think there really is such a thing as corporate welfare. Take any business & there will be a net positive flow of money to the government. It is true that some businesses get tax breaks to encourage development, undoubtedly some of them unnecessary & unfair. Tax reductions for businesses & individuals are built-in, perhaps some too much, and without any, gov revenue would probably be 50% more. Of course without them, the economy would be severely affected.
You did make some good points about Obama having an economic team; I happened to notice that too on his web site. I didn’t know they were from the Chicago School of Thought; that’s a good sign. I could never vote for a Dem though; there ideology is just too socialistic, authoritarian & anti-property rights. They have a big hang-up on equity. Equity is bad. “Each according to ability; each to need.” Very unworkable. Without pay differentials & the motivation to earn higher incomes, how can the economy have doctors, entrepreneurs & other such skillful-value-producing people?

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:12:26 +0000

Funkook,

Redistribution? To some extent anyone who supports taxation and government spending is practicing redistribution so I cannot deny that Obama support redistribution, but that hardly suggests socialism as it is true of everyone in politics of each party.

With regards to redistribution, McCain is far worse than Obama. The difference is that McCain's policies are designed to redistribute the wealth to the top one tenth of one percent. While neither is a supporter of laizzez-faire capitalism, Obama is much less a supporter of government redistribution of wealth than the Republicans. Between their redistribution of wealth to the ultra-wealthy and their support for corporate welfare, the Republicans are far weaker supporters of a free market economy than Obama is. This is why so many libertarians, such as David Friedman, back Obama over McCain.

It really comes down to whether people are paying attention to their actual policies or are listening to typical conservative rhetoric.

By: Funkool

Funkool — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:02:12 +0000

How is redistribution not socialistic?
And how about protectionism to prevent consumers from buying cheaper imports so that labor unions can sell their more expensive products?

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:09:06 +0000

Obama is hardly socialistic. Note that he receives much of his economc advice from the Univesity of Chicago, which is certainly no hotbed of socialism.

See some of these posts:

The Libertarianism of Barack Obama

Barack Obama’s Libertarian Support

David Friedman on Barack Obama

Libertarians and Conservatives for Obama

The Differences Between Obama and Clinton

By: Funkool

Funkool — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:19:09 +0000

Hard to believe that a libertarian would support a socialistic guy. Also, what kind of listening skills does he have when it took over 20 years to figure out what Wright was saying.
Economic issues are more important than social. The limitations on social freedom are not too bad. The enormous drains on the economy and restrictions on property rights are terrible. The redistribution is already immense, and Obum wants to increase it. He is just propagating the idea of making the people who have developed skills to earn more money should be responsible for them.
What is the monetary value of unused open space, bears or caribou? There is a big opportunity cost in lost value & inflation for other things.