What is a small government libertarian?

[Dad2three]

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·

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?

No, but does a BOOMING GDP the US saw happen from 1945-2014 mean the US is spending 'a fraction' of what we did? lol

 

[kaz]

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

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

You still don't understand the chart. I wish liberals could understand your ignorance, it would scare the shit out of them that they are supporting this. Unfortunately they can't because of their own.

I can tell you that right now you look really, really not very bright to people who actually understand the discussion. Some of them are probably wondering why I continue to debate someone who has no idea what the chart means or what you are talking about. All I can say is that it's fun.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

Still blaming Bush, I see.

 

[kaz]

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!

Still blaming Bush, I see.

He couldn't figure out how to bring that we're racists into the military discussion so he went with option B, blaming W.

 

[kaz]

LOL, Dad didn't think that one through...

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



your factor is 16.7 or very close to it

have an expensive day.

Or just the actual growth of the GDP in the past 80 years

Dude, the chart adjusts spending for the growth in GDP. Why do you keep asking about it? Read the vertical axis of the chart, it's spending as a "percentage of GDP." You wanted to do it by inflation would have made military spending far smaller than it is in the chart.

 

[Siete]

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!

Still blaming Bush, I see.

He couldn't figure out how to bring that we're racists into the military discussion so he went with option B, blaming W.

AND there's the race card !!

Idiots Inc., always first !

your spin is totally irrelevant ... like you.

 

[Dad2three]

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?

LOL, you don't know what "Federal" means.

What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

Federal:

of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation.
"the federal agency that provides legal services to the poor"


of, relating to, or denoting the central government of the US.

9th and 10th? Oh those things you guys keep hanging your hats on and keep losing in court over?

 

[kaz]

Still blaming Bush, I see.

He couldn't figure out how to bring that we're racists into the military discussion so he went with option B, blaming W.

AND there's the race card !!

Idiots Inc., always first !

your spin is totally irrelevant ... like you.

Saying you guys love to play the race card is playing the race card?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Oh OPINION of what they wanted? Weird the STRONG FEDERAL GOV;T GUYS won over the strong states rights guys. EVERY US Prez expanded federal power from the time Washington took on those anti tax 'patriots' in the whiskey rebellion!

 

[kaz]

Federal:

of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation.
"the federal agency that provides legal services to the poor"

of, relating to, or denoting the central government of the US.

You parsed out only the parts that you like. You know you're losing, but not as badly as your next reply.

9th and 10th? Oh those things you guys keep hanging your hats on and keep losing in court over?

You realize that is 20% of the Bill of Rights, and you dismiss it? What does it mean? You keep going back to the founders created, what did 1/5 of the Bill of Rights say?

Side note: I wonder what 20% of the bill of rights is when it's adjusted for inflation?

 

[Siete]

He couldn't figure out how to bring that we're racists into the military discussion so he went with option B, blaming W.

AND there's the race card !!

Idiots Inc., always first !

your spin is totally irrelevant ... like you.

Saying you guys love to play the race card is playing the race card?

do I need to explain that to you too ?

 

[kaz]

AND there's the race card !!

Idiots Inc., always first !

your spin is totally irrelevant ... like you.

Saying you guys love to play the race card is playing the race card?

do I need to explain that to you too ?

No, you need to learn what playing the race card means

 

[Dad2three]

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.

US GDP HAS BOOMED, LIKE THE US MILITARY BUDGET

Right, military spending taking $1+ trillion a year, is a 'fraction' of what the US has historically spent. Good libertarian there Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

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

Humor. Try it

Humor. Recognize it

Weird, you brought up Obama 'being a birther' 3 different times, I finally respond and you call me out? lol

 

[Siete]

Saying you guys love to play the race card is playing the race card?

do I need to explain that to you too ?

No, you need to learn what playing the race card means

you were first to call out others for using race in a military debate, so what does that mean ?

 

[Dad2three]

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!

Oh right, I forgot, in right wing world Obama was responsible since BEFORE he even won the election

January 08, 2009

The federal budget deficit will nearly triple to an unprecedented $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to grim new Congressional Budget Office figures.

Dubya, like ALL Prez have a F/Y budget starting Oct 1. His last F/Y budget was Oct 1, 2008 FORWARD

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Yeah, you prefer to be dependent on the 'job creators' and Corps, by giving them welfare and subsidies

 

[dblack]

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.

Oh OPINION of what they wanted? Weird the STRONG FEDERAL GOV;T GUYS won over the strong states rights guys. EVERY US Prez expanded federal power from the time Washington took on those anti tax 'patriots' in the whiskey rebellion!

Yep. No denying that. That's what libertarians are trying to push back against.

You seem to feel the need to point out that we're in the minority and that we have an uphill battle, but it's really not news to any of us, so I'm not sure why you bother. We know the assholes are winning, but it doesn't make us want to give up. Far from it. If anything, your gloating inspires us more.

Hmm.... are you secretly a libertarian on here to fan the flames!?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Certain land grants required construction or they would be cancelled. Hill's energy and resourcefulness brought about favorable action by the legislature of Minnesota, the courts and the receiver and even the competing bankrupt Northern Pacific Railway.

John P. Farley, who had been the receiver, later brought suit against Hill and his associates claiming a secret agreement with Hill by which he, the receiver, was to have one-fifth interest in the newly organized railroad which took over the bankrupt St. Paul and Pacific.



...In 1895, Hill gained control of the bankrupt Northern Pacific with the Great Northern, guaranteeing payment of $100 million of Northern Pacific bonds. Hill was to receive one half of the Northern Pacific common stock. A suit was brought by Thomas W. Pearson, a Great Northern stockholder, citing a Minnesota law prohibiting the unification of parallel and competing lines. He secured an injunction and the United States Supreme Court sustained the law. Hill and his associates individually bought into the Northern Pacific and in 1896 were in control of it. Hill at the age of 58 controlled and dominated the two great systems. He was a driving, powerful man with an unlimited dominating character. Both roads prospered and they practically ceased to be competitors.


HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Oh OPINION of what they wanted? Weird the STRONG FEDERAL GOV;T GUYS won over the strong states rights guys. EVERY US Prez expanded federal power from the time Washington took on those anti tax 'patriots' in the whiskey rebellion!

Yep. No denying that. That's what libertarians are trying to push back against.

You seem to feel the need to point out that we're in the minority and that we have an uphill battle, but it's really not news to any of us, so I'm not sure why you bother. We know the assholes are winning, but it doesn't make us want to give up. Far from it. If anything, your gloating inspires us more.

Hmm.... are you secretly a libertarian on here to fan the flames!?

I get it, You and your type will cling to myths and fairy tales... Weird