A Sea Of Red

Thoughts???

NewsAdvance.com wrote:Falwell Jr. endorses McDonnell's ABC privatization plan

By RAY REED
Published: September 21, 2010

Jerry Falwell Jr., chancellor of Liberty University, announced Tuesday that he supports a proposal to sell the state’s liquor business to private retailers.

“I support Gov. Bob McDonnell’s proposal to privatize Virginia’s ABC stores, primarily because I believe that our founders intended a much more limited role for government than what we have today,” Falwell said in a statement issued by his office Tuesday morning.

“In my view, Virginia’s private sector, its families, churches and businesses will be better served and protected by eliminating government-sanctioned monopolies.”

Click Here for Full Story

I will drink to that.

really not sure why he endorsed it anyway. what was the point? would love a response from JLFJR

Competition is definitely better for the consumer. Not sure why he'd come out and say it, but I am 100% for privatization.

Yeah I'm just not sure why this topic needs an endorsement... that being said it is a little different when I go back home and walk by a row of liquor at Wal-Mart

Looking at the numbers that have been bantied about, I am against privatization for a few reasons:
1. Reduced revenues to the state. The initial plan called for a $500 million windfall through the sale of liquor license, and to preserve revenues through a complex series of taxes. Since the new taxes were unpalletable to Republicans in the House of Delegates, some were dropped. Also the new estimates for the sale of the liquor stores is down to $450 million after another complex proposal for former ABC employees to be re-hired by liquor retailers.
2. Private liquor stores tend to be eyesores (both inside and out).
3. Enforcement of underage drinking laws will become more difficult than it already is for local and state police.

I don't have time to look up all the links, but later tonight after I'm home (if I don't forget) I'll post them.

Why is Jr endorsing anything?

LUconn wrote:Why is Jr endorsing anything?

...and why is it news?

TDDance234 wrote:

LUconn wrote:Why is Jr endorsing anything?

...and why is it news?

You've been to Lynchburg right?

does that mean when if i buy alcohol it will be cheaper? Im all for prices being cheaper....but, why is Jerry even mentioned? Who cares?

jmdickens wrote:does that mean when if i buy alcohol it will be cheaper? Im all for prices being cheaper....but, why is Jerry even mentioned? Who cares?

Under the current privitization plan, it will be more expensive:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010 ... ar-518123/

I am all for privatizing what can be privatized, provided the benefit is greater than it remaining public.

ATrain wrote:Under the current privitization plan, it will be more expensive:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010 ... ar-518123/

I am all for privatizing what can be privatized, provided the benefit is greater than it remaining public.

That's a pretty unprincipled stance you're taking there.

The key, for me, is who the plan is more expensive for. Just saying "it will be more expensive" doesn't really make a difference to me. Will it be more expensive for taxpayers or for those who purchase the product in question? If it's the former, then I'd say the plan needs to be revised. If it's the latter, well then I'm a-okay with that.

And, as it turns out, it is the latter. I would much rather liquor to become more expensive than for its price to be subsidized by taxpayer money.

As for your other three points...

ATrain wrote:1. Reduced revenues to the state. The initial plan called for a $500 million windfall through the sale of liquor license, and to preserve revenues through a complex series of taxes. Since the new taxes were unpalletable to Republicans in the House of Delegates, some were dropped. Also the new estimates for the sale of the liquor stores is down to $450 million after another complex proposal for former ABC employees to be re-hired by liquor retailers.

Then the state needs to cut spending. The fact that they're making a profit on it in no way justifies state control of an entire segment of business.

ATrain wrote:2. Private liquor stores tend to be eyesores (both inside and out).

That's a matter of taste and opinion, neither of which justify government involvement. Some people feel the same way about certain types of signs, homes, landscaping, etc. That doesn't justify the government controlling it. Aesthetics are not a government function.

ATrain wrote:3. Enforcement of underage drinking laws will become more difficult than it already is for local and state police.

Why? I'd need to see evidence for this before I could offer opinion on it.

El Scorcho wrote:

ATrain wrote:Under the current privitization plan, it will be more expensive:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010 ... ar-518123/

I am all for privatizing what can be privatized, provided the benefit is greater than it remaining public.

And, as it turns out, it is the latter. I would much rather liquor to become more expensive than for its price to be subsidized by taxpayer money.

I don't have time to respond to everything, but for starters the price of liquor is NOT subsidized by taxpayers. VA ABC pays for itself and adds money to the general fund, and the price of liquor here in the Commonwealth is more expensive than in privatized areas like DC and Tennessee.

I had no idea the state of virginia controlled liquor sales..that seems to step way out of their bounds of power. I applaud Jr for sticking up for this. It isn't hypocritical like many evangelical conservatives are when it comes to politics and free market

thepostman wrote:I had no idea the state of virginia controlled liquor sales..that seems to step way out of their bounds of power. I applaud Jr for sticking up for this. It isn't hypocritical like many evangelical conservatives are when it comes to politics and free market

The question that begins to arise in my mind when statements like this come out... is it right to view Christianity and conservative (Republican) as synonyms? Because as far as I can tell this is just a conservative statement on a secular issue. And also important for us Liberty grads is LU foremost a Christian school with conservative tendencies? Or a Conservative school with Christian tendencies?

Christian University that lines up more with conservatives than liberals, but is neither Republican or Democrat

thepostman wrote:I had no idea the state of virginia controlled liquor sales..that seems to step way out of their bounds of power. I applaud Jr for sticking up for this. It isn't hypocritical like many evangelical conservatives are when it comes to politics and free market

Actually, it would be stepping way out of their bounds of power except for that it was the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia who gave the state government that power in the first place:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virg ... ar-510028/

I will concede that the Democrat quoted saying it began with the people did not cite a bill or referendum from when Prohibition ended, but if that comment was in error someone would've pointed that out to the media by now.

And no Scorchy, I haven't forgotten you (yet). Sometime this weekend, when I'm not doing anything and if I remember

Hey guys. Don't tell anyone but I have a deal with the governor. I am supporting the privatization of ABC stores and, in return, he has agreed to privatize higher education in Virginia. No public colleges should be a real benefit to LU. It will eliminate a lot of competition but I don't think it will happen before tomorrow's game at JMU. Coach Rocco will have to win on his own!

Seriously, I believe our founders' desire for limited government was rooted in their Christian beliefs and principles. They believed that, if Americans lived by Christian principles, then limited government and all the freedoms that go with it would be possible. Remember, where the spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. Supporting liberty and freedom in America is not a "secular" position.

I love a chancellor with a sense of humor.

I understand the viewpoint, but I guess I just don't understand the purpose of the endorsement.

...Cricket Cricket...

Soooo I'm all for privatization. Don't see much of a problem with an endorsement from the Chancellor.

...Cricket Cricket...

Hey were did everyone go? Wait up guys!

Jerry was on 105.9 this morning and this topic was briefly mentioned. Basically he said that we need to reduce the size of government and have to start somewhere, and this is a good start.