Pretty sure he'd just remove the federal level CERS, though as a more low priority objective. And even then, states would do a better job.

You hit the nail on the head.

The problem is, the congressmen do these things without thinking of where the money will come from, so taxes will need to be raised in some form or another in the future.

Basically, politicians aren't accountable because they're spending other people's money. So they can afford to be wasteful.

I've been using one with ddwrt for a while, it was pretty simple to get setup and AFAIK it is fully supported.

Wish I had mod points.

Remove government regulation public schools, make them have to compete, and we'd see the end of teachers unions that force high pay and automatic raises, tenure, etc.

May as well say that as a college freshman, RIT is pretty sweet, and can help you get a job wherever you want considering how many companies kiss up for interns and such.

Sounds like government is at fault here for guaranteeing the loans.

Not sure about the randian part, but as a regular old libertarian (or anarcho capitalist, anyway) IP is stupid.

Votes being bought is a problem with our voting system and with government - any concentration of power like that is liable to be bribed or bought like that.

As for everything being able to be bought and sold, why is that a problem? If I need food and could sell my vote to keep my children fed for another month, isn't that worth it?

And I challenge you to name one monopoly that came into being without government interference - maintaining a monopoly is damn hard when you're not being legislated for.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, the problem is that government exists and is easy to corrupt. If people kept a closer eye on the fed and made sure they were doing a very few specific things, everyone would be much better off. Do you really think 400 families could have accumulated that wealth without bribing some officials in D.C. at some point or another?

"I'm fine with keeping the federal government within the bounds of the Constitution, but only if we change the Constitution to cover almost all of what the federal government does."

Reread what you wrote and think about it for a while.

Note that I don't feel strongly one way or another on the protests - from what I've heard the people are justly angry but are focusing it on the wrong people and are asking for the wrong change. It's likely that if they get legislation passed then they will be making the government clamp down on the businesses - which is just as bad, but in the other direction.

The problem isn't wealth distribution, it's the fact that the government can regulate the industry and just print money and give it to the corporations. With a central point of failure (the federal government) it's easy for business to become corrupt.

Treat the source, not the symptom. Get the federal government back to doing the (very) few things that it is mandated to by the constitution.

As for Obama, he didn't really remember much of his campaign platform after he was elected last time, I don't see why it'd be different this time.

Not when voting favors big winners over third parties.

Once we get range voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting) then I'd agree with you.

Taxes are theft as well, doesn't mean that's okay.