Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind. 2018...

[ATOMonkey]

This SS issue is really a sticking point for me. Politicians like to refer to it as an entitlement these days, it is not. Working people and their employers have been paying an equivalent to 13 % of wages into this system since it was created.
I don't recall anyone asking my permission to confiscate that money and the expectation is that some of that is coming back to me and my spouse after we retire.
I began paying in at 12 or 13 and if I stop working at 65 I will not live long enough to put a dent in the amount that I have personally paid in.
So is the libertarian plan to cut me a check for every dime I've personally paid in plus 6%? What about the portion that my employers paid on my behalf? Do I get that as well?
If this is the plan I could likely get behind it ,I just don't see it happening.
Make no mistake I view this money as mine, if it wasn't confiscated from me I would have invested it and it would be worth far more than what I'll eventually draw in SS benefits.

When SS was originally passed by congress, it was challenged (and rightly so) in the Supreme Court. The original bill was rejected as unconstitutional, because the Federal Government does not have the authority to operate an insurance plan. Which is why Obama care could never be called insurance and why the Federal Government couldn't offer their own plan in any of the exchanges. It's settled law. Also, why Obamacare was always a stepping stone to single payer.

Anyway, in order for SS to be constitutional it has to be a tax for the general treasury. All payouts must come from the general treasury, through a bill which originates in congress. So, yes, it is entitlement spending through and through. It was all designed by nefarious parties in order to trick people into taxing them more.

People were never intended to live long enough to actually draw from their social security. At the time the bill was passed, the age where you could collect was HIGHER than the average age you could expect to live.

Hurray for FDR....

 

[2A_Tom]

Did we lose our Libertarian friend?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think the problem that people have with most libertarian philosophy, is that it requires trusting the market to self regulate, and that there will be growing pains as the market finds equilibrium.

It's human nature to want to be in control, but most of the time, putting your thumb on the scale causes more problems than in solves. Especially when there is someone else on the opposite side trying to balance things out as well.

There is also the mistaken philosophy that creating laws can change human behavior.

 

[Expat]

I am a capitalist, so I am okay with most libertarianism. They lose me on the open borders, forcing people to provide labor against their will, roads...

 

[ATOMonkey]

That's the funny thing about libertarianism, is that you'll never get them to all agree on a party platform.

I consider myself to be an L, but I'm for enforcing borders (so long as welfare exists), and paying people for their labor. I also believe that you can pick and choose who you provide labor to. If you're a bigot or a racist, then the market will sort that out.

If people want roads, they can pay for those as well.

 

[Cameramonkey]

That's the funny thing about libertarianism, is that you'll never get them to all agree on a party platform.

I consider myself to be an L, but I'm for enforcing borders (so long as welfare exists), and paying people for their labor. I also believe that you can pick and choose who you provide labor to. If you're a bigot or a racist, then the market will sort that out.

If people want roads, they can pay for those as well.

This. Open borders are ridiculous so long as there are .gov benefits derived from taxes. Open borders today makes as much sense as not paying up front at the restaurant, but instead the restaurant collecting their costs from the back end (taxes). When that happens, you end up with what we have today; folks from McDonaldistand sneaking into Fogoland. They dont like cheeseburgers so they sneak across the border to go to eat steak. Meanwhile those of us that DO live in Fogoland see our taxes skyrocketing to cover all that extra steak that is being consumed.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

Did we lose our Libertarian friend?

Don't fret, I am still around. I have just been enjoying spending time with my wife and daughters. I know you lost sleep over my absence though

I am a capitalist, so I am okay with most libertarianism. They lose me on the open borders, forcing people to provide labor against their will, roads...

What Libertarian philosophy calls for forcing people to provide labor against their will?

That's the funny thing about libertarianism, is that you'll never get them to all agree on a party platform.

I consider myself to be an L, but I'm for enforcing borders (so long as welfare exists), and paying people for their labor. I also believe that you can pick and choose who you provide labor to. If you're a bigot or a racist, then the market will sort that out.

If people want roads, they can pay for those as well.

I fully believe in enforcing the border but building the wall is idiotic and a waste of resources. You could utilize technology to be much more effective. The wall itself is nothing more than a jobs program and propaganda.

This. Open borders are ridiculous so long as there are .gov benefits derived from taxes. Open borders today makes as much sense as not paying up front at the restaurant, but instead the restaurant collecting their costs from the back end (taxes). When that happens, you end up with what we have today; folks from McDonaldistand sneaking into Fogoland. They dont like cheeseburgers so they sneak across the border to go to eat steak. Meanwhile those of us that DO live in Fogoland see our taxes skyrocketing to cover all that extra steak that is being consumed.

If you want to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants then simply make it a felony for business owners with a mandatory prison sentence. Until the business owners have personal skin in the game they will keep hiring illegals for cash under the table.

 

[printcraft]

If you want to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants then simply make it a felony for business owners with a mandatory prison sentence. Until the business owners have personal skin in the game they will keep hiring illegals for cash under the table.

Cameramonkeys post was about welfare handouts, not jobs. Both need to be terminated for those illegally in this country.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

Cameramonkeys post was about welfare handouts, not jobs. Both need to be terminated for those illegally in this country.

Let's just take it one step farther and eliminate all forms of welfare.

 

[Trigger Time]

Don't fret, I am still around. I have just been enjoying spending time with my wife and daughters. I know you lost sleep over my absence though



What Libertarian philosophy calls for forcing people to provide labor against their will?



I fully believe in enforcing the border but building the wall is idiotic and a waste of resources. You could utilize technology to be much more effective. The wall itself is nothing more than a jobs program and propaganda.



If you want to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants then simply make it a felony for business owners with a mandatory prison sentence. Until the business owners have personal skin in the game they will keep hiring illegals for cash under the table.

No a wall does make sense in many ways. We have went over them before on ingo but this new wall system isnt like the previous wall. It works in parallel to technology and actual agents on the ground.
.
I completely agree with prosecuting business owners and employees who hire illegals. Fine them hard, jail them, close their companies. I've said this before
This is the only way we will end this.

 

[jamil]

I think the problem that people have with most libertarian philosophy, is that it requires trusting the market to self regulate, and that there will be growing pains as the market finds equilibrium.

It's human nature to want to be in control, but most of the time, putting your thumb on the scale causes more problems than in solves. Especially when there is someone else on the opposite side trying to balance things out as well.

There is also the mistaken philosophy that creating laws can change human behavior.

The purpose of law isn’t to change human behavior. It is to regulate behavior. And it’s not to refulate everyone’s behavior, because mostly people can regulate their own behaviors. But not everyone can. We cede our right to seek justice, retribution, and revenge to the government so that it can apply justice more evenly. Of course that’s not perfect either but this system has enabled humans to coexist in unprecedented peace.

I think a government based more on libertarian principles is better than otherwise. But libertarians can’t seem to figure out the loint at which good ideas become dogma. There are real practical limitations to Libertopia. If libertarian ls could figure that out it could become a viable Party, and they could get much of it implemented. First step, excommunicate all the purists. Until that happens the Libertarian Party will always be that group of kinda weird people.m to everyone else.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

No a wall does make sense in many ways. We have went over them before on ingo but this new wall system isnt like the previous wall. It works in parallel to technology and actual agents on the ground.
.
I completely agree with prosecuting business owners and employees who hire illegals. Fine them hard, jail them, close their companies. I've said this before
This is the only way we will end this.

I would much rather see thermal imaging utilized by drone surveillance as well as ground sensors. Anything questionable could be checked out by Border Patrol.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

Did we lose our Libertarian friend?

I am a capitalist, so I am okay with most libertarianism. They lose me on the open borders, forcing people to provide labor against their will, roads...

That's the funny thing about libertarianism, is that you'll never get them to all agree on a party platform.

I consider myself to be an L, but I'm for enforcing borders (so long as welfare exists), and paying people for their labor. I also believe that you can pick and choose who you provide labor to. If you're a bigot or a racist, then the market will sort that out.

If people want roads, they can pay for those as well.

The purpose of law isn’t to change human behavior. It is to regulate behavior. And it’s not to refulate everyone’s behavior, because mostly people can regulate their own behaviors. But not everyone can. We cede our right to seek justice, retribution, and revenge to the government so that it can apply justice more evenly. Of course that’s not perfect either but this system has enabled humans to coexist in unprecedented peace.

I think a government based more on libertarian principles is better than otherwise. But libertarians can’t seem to figure out the loint at which good ideas become dogma. There are real practical limitations to Libertopia. If libertarian ls could figure that out it could become a viable Party, and they could get much of it implemented. First step, excommunicate all the purists. Until that happens the Libertarian Party will always be that group of kinda weird people.m to everyone else.

I will agree with you to a point. The issue is how quickly the Libertarian Party could return to the practices of the modern Republican Party.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

Okay a point of annoyance. Why do I keep getting old quotes when I reply to a quote? I have to keep going back and editing them out.

 

[jamil]

Don't fret, I am still around. I have just been enjoying spending time with my wife and daughters. I know you lost sleep over my absence though



What Libertarian philosophy calls for forcing people to provide labor against their will?

So you’re not feelin’ Gary’s Johnson?

 

[spencer rifle]

Here's the letter Donnely sent me after I asked him to vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Typical political dodge:

Dear Friend,


Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. As your Senator, I recognize that the constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominees is one of my fundamental duties.


As you know, on June 27, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. On July 10, 2018, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to fill the vacancy created by Justice Kennedy’s retirement.


I have long said that the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice should not be taken lightly and deserves careful consideration and open debate. I believe that part of my job as a Senator is to thoroughly consider judicial nominations, and I took the same approach with Judge Kavanaugh as I have previously in reviewing other nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy.


On August 15, 2018, I was able to meet with Judge Kavanaugh to discuss his record, his experience working in the George W. Bush Administration and serving on the federal bench, and his views on the role of the Supreme Court. I also closely watched his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. On October 6, 2018, the Senate, without my support, confirmed Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by a vote of 50 to 48.


The nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is often a challenging one. That was true when President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, whom I supported. It was also true this year with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, which included significant partisanship and anger. Now that the Senate has confirmed Judge Kavanaugh, I am hopeful he will join the other Supreme Court justices in making decisions based on the Constitution, our laws, and their collective wisdom. I believe our country needs that today more than ever.


It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page, follow me on Twitter, or visit my website. Please note when contacting my Senate office that I am only able to respond to questions or concerns related to official Senate business. As such, this letter addresses the issues you raised, which relate to my work in the United States Senate.

 

[jamil]

Okay a point of annoyance. Why do I keep getting old quotes when I reply to a quote? I have to keep going back and editing them out.

It’s retarded. It used to work, so my guess is that TexKev has been messing with the settings again.

 

[printcraft]

So you’re not feelin’ Gary’s Johnson?

Isn’t that the guy that campaigned for hitlary clinton in 2016?

 

[jamil]

Isn’t that the guy that campaigned for hitlary clinton in 2016?

Yep. That’s him. Make the baker conform to society Johnson. “Seriously, don’t vote for me” Johnson.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

Isn’t that the guy that campaigned for hitlary clinton in 2016?

IDK if Gary ever did but his running mate Bill Weld definitely did support Hillary.

Austin Petersen would have been much more qualified to be the LP nominee. He is young, embraces and understands social media, aggressively defends his views and eloquently attacks others. His only real knock is that when he speaks he tends to sound like he took a bunch of bumper sticker slogans and threw the ones that make sense together. What he is saying makes sense but the delivery is off which makes him appear like a fraud.