What is a small government libertarian?

Are you honestly saying things were just swell from 1945-1980?

Why did we need the "War on Poverty" and the "Great Society" then? Why did we need to start Medicare? Why did Kennedy advocate for a massive income tax cut?

Were the Carter years good in your opinion?

Weird, you don't think an economy where ALL are improving is better than the past 33 years of Renominates where the VAST majority of benefits go to the 1%ers?

War on poverty and great society were GOOD PROGRAMS to assist the most needy, the opposite of Reaganomics!

All those things you list? BENEFITED a LARGE proportion of US society. Reaganomics? Not so much

LBJ had a demand side tax cut. Carter had 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to Reagan's 14 million in 8 and yes, Nixon/Fords wage and price controls harmed him, as did OPEC...

ALL you have are false premises, distortions and lies. I'm shocked

If things were so great we would not have needed those massive government programs. That things are worse today means those government programs haven't worked, unless you define success of a government program by the number of people on it.

But since you think Carter was a success and blame Nixon and Ford just shows your partisan bias.

No, actually we NEEDED those things BECAUSE it's called PROGRESS. The exact opposite of what Reaganomics brought US!

Who said Carter was a success? That's like saying Reagan was a success., Yes under Carter there were 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to 14 million Reagan had under him in 8. My logic says Reagan cutting taxes for the rich did ZERO for jobs. But boy have the 'job creators' benefited from 30+ years of Reaganomics. The middle class? Not so much...
 
You just don't get it. What does it mean when the figure is stated as a percentage of GDP? Does inflation affect that percentage?

It's just so funny that he doesn't know what it means.

As you accurately pointed out, adjusting spending for inflation instead of GDP would make current spending even lower. I realized that also, I just thought it was so funny he wanted do adjust spending adjusted for GDP again for inflation. I was a math major undergrad and a I have an MBA in finance and I don't even know how to do that calculation or what it even means.

Even more than that, if you look at the chart since he thinks it's in nominal dollars (and doesn't know what nominal dollars are), that would make current spending microscopic.
 
Small government is what the US started with when the constitution was drafted and ratified.

You mean when they got rid of that 'states rights' Articles of Confederation for the STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?

Exactly. They agreed that we needed a strong federal government, but wrote a Constitution to explicitly enumerate its powers. Again, the history on this is illuminating. They were fucking paranoid about strong central government, and conceded to having one only with assurances that it would be kept on a short leash. You're kidding yourself, or maybe just bullshitting everyone else, if you claim otherwise.
 

WUT?


How much of the 5.5 million investment was a subsidy from

a) the State of Minnesota, __________________________%

b) from the federal government _____________________%


.

Got it, YOU can''t be honest

If Minnesota sold the rail road at the market price, then J.J. Hill didn't benefit from government subsidies. He paid cash for the value of any subsidies. If Minnesota sold for less than the market price, then no one is to blame other than the state of Minnesota. How does the fact that the government of Minnesota was stupid mean that Hill received a subsidy? People sell stuff at less than it's worth in the market all the time.

Market price? lol

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives have in their tool boxes today

Nah Hill and his gang didn't get ANY Gov't help by buying off state legislators, capturing the regulators with bribes or buying on the cheap BK SUBSIDIZED rail systems!
 
The military budget is a fraction of what it used to be.

A Century of Defense Spending
usgs_chart2p31.png

You graph shows that the defence budget is the smallest it has ever been since WW II.

I guess we have a difference on what your 'The military budget is a fraction of what it used to be' means?
 
Which became OK to you when the R after the Presidents name turned to a D and he did the same thing

Yeah, that's why the REAL critics of his admin are left leaning, instead of made up crap like birth certs, Ben-Gazzzzi, E/O's, IRS, etc... lol

You're right about the birthers. Why did Obama accuse himself of being born in Kenya? Wow, what a whack job.

Humor. Try it
 
OMG, that's funny. So you're going to take a measurement of a percent of GDP and extrapolate those and adjust it for inflation? First, that isn't what "extrapolation" means, second, how do you take a number adjusted for GDP and adjust it again for inflation? What does that even mean?



in 1940 a Coke cost .05... $20 then was worth a little over 1$

quit laughing and do the math... I even gave you the inflation factor.


to form an opinion or to make an estimate about something from known facts. ex·trap·o·lat·

Swish, completely over your head.

Do you know what spending as a percentage of GDP means?


I n 1940 the GDP was slightly over 1 Trillion $$ ... spending a smaller amount then = a larger % subtracted from total GDP

your spin still has nothing to do with the value of the dollar in todays market.

go buy me an F18 for $5,000.00
 
A Century of Defense Spending
usgs_chart2p31.png

You graph shows that the defence budget is the smallest it has ever been since WW II.

I guess we have a difference on what your 'The military budget is a fraction of what it used to be' means?

Do you not look at the chart and see it's about as small as it's been as a percent of GDP since WWII?

Just so you know, GDP refers to the size of our economy. Measuring our military as a percentage of GDP refers to the percentage of our entire economy we spend on the military.

Since the GDP on average grows higher than inflation, if we'd used your method of adjusting military spending for inflation, bripat is correct it would be even lower than the chart shows.

You don't take numbers already adjusted for GDP and adjust them again for inflation though, that doesn't even make sense.
 
Which became OK to you when the R after the Presidents name turned to a D and he did the same thing

Yeah, that's why the REAL critics of his admin are left leaning, instead of made up crap like birth certs, Ben-Gazzzzi, E/O's, IRS, etc... lol

So a "real critic" is someone who believes he wasn't left-wing enough?

Actually, since Obama has cut the deficit Dubya left him by 60%+, stopped the jobs losses he inherited that was losing 700,000+ jobs a month, got US out of Iraq (combat forces), GOT BIN LADEN, Gave millions more access to H/C via Obamacares, Yeah, I'd say MOST right wing criticism of him and his admin is BULLSHIT!
 
unless you define success of a government program by the number of people on it

That's exactly what they do. They have been crowing since Obama took over how he's dramatically increased food stamp rolls. They brag about the number of people getting government subsidies on Obamacare. Social security, medicare, medicaid, it's their goal. The more dependent on government checks, the more successful we are!


You mean helping people out where the conservatives/libertarians say GO FUK YOURSELF instead? Horrible those Dems
 
Yeah, that's why the REAL critics of his admin are left leaning, instead of made up crap like birth certs, Ben-Gazzzzi, E/O's, IRS, etc... lol

So a "real critic" is someone who believes he wasn't left-wing enough?

Actually, since Obama has cut the deficit Dubya left him by 60%+, stopped the jobs losses he inherited that was losing 700,000+ jobs a month, got US out of Iraq (combat forces), GOT BIN LADEN, Gave millions more access to H/C via Obamacares, Yeah, I'd say MOST right wing criticism of him and his admin is BULLSHIT!

W's last deficit was $458 Billion. Last year was $564, how is that a cut in deficit? What you can say is it's the smallest deficit Obama has ever run, it's almost as small as W's largest!
 
unless you define success of a government program by the number of people on it

That's exactly what they do. They have been crowing since Obama took over how he's dramatically increased food stamp rolls. They brag about the number of people getting government subsidies on Obamacare. Social security, medicare, medicaid, it's their goal. The more dependent on government checks, the more successful we are!


You mean helping people out where the conservatives/libertarians say GO FUK YOURSELF instead? Horrible those Dems

No, I mean getting them a government check then having them by the balls when elections come by saying those evil Republicans are going to take it away. But I don't love dependency like you do.
 
LOL, Dad didn't think that one through...


you think it through and extrapolate the current figures adjusted for inflation ...

:eusa_whistle:

OMG, that's funny. So you're going to take a measurement of a percent of GDP and extrapolate those and adjust it for inflation? First, that isn't what "extrapolation" means, second, how do you take a number adjusted for GDP and adjust it again for inflation? What does that even mean?

How much has GDP grown the past 80- years? lol

Fraction? lol
 
in 1940 a Coke cost .05... $20 then was worth a little over 1$

quit laughing and do the math... I even gave you the inflation factor.


to form an opinion or to make an estimate about something from known facts. ex·trap·o·lat·

Swish, completely over your head.

Do you know what spending as a percentage of GDP means?


I n 1940 the GDP was slightly over 1 Trillion $$ ... spending a smaller amount then = a larger % subtracted from total GDP

your spin still has nothing to do with the value of the dollar in todays market.

go buy me an F18 for $5,000.00

Another liberal who doesn't grasp what spending as a percentage of GDP is.
]
When you are over your head like this, do you not at some point start to question your government school education?
 
Got it, YOU can''t be honest

If Minnesota sold the rail road at the market price, then J.J. Hill didn't benefit from government subsidies. He paid cash for the value of any subsidies. If Minnesota sold for less than the market price, then no one is to blame other than the state of Minnesota. How does the fact that the government of Minnesota was stupid mean that Hill received a subsidy? People sell stuff at less than it's worth in the market all the time.

Market price? lol

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives have in their tool boxes today

Nah Hill and his gang didn't get ANY Gov't help by buying off state legislators, capturing the regulators with bribes or buying on the cheap BK SUBSIDIZED rail systems!

No, Hill did not engage in bribing politicians or regulators. He bought a railroad the state government put on the block to be sold. All you're saying is that you thought the price was too low. If the state didn't like the terms of the deal, it didn't have to go through with the deal. A bankrupt railroad isn't worth much. Even the land grants it owns aren't worth much if the railroad is defunct. Hill made them worth money by getting the railroad up and running.
 

Forum List

Back
Top