What is a small government libertarian?

[Dad2three]

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!

So if we needed those programs then things were not all that great in the time you cited as a a good time.

Who said Carter was a success?

You did. You cherry picked a statistic to contrast a Democrat success then blamed Republicans for failures on his watch. You do the same now. You give Obama credit for all the good and blame Republicans for all the bad.

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...

Both parties terribly corrupted a system that was working fine until the early 1900s. The entire point of Keynesian economics was supposed to prevent massive collapses and all these measures have done is stifle innovation and creation of wealth while making sure the insiders get the jump on the public.

We can compare and contrast Democrats and Republicans all day long but both parties are equally wrong. You're trying to sell a partisan ideology and in the absence of a success story you're trying to blame the other side for the failure of your group's ability to deliver the results they predicted and promised.

More right wing garbage. I'm shocked


"So if we needed those programs then things were not all that great in the time you cited as a a good time."

REALLY? Things are that black and white and not relative? lol.. Wingnuts.. That period the gains the US made were shared BROADLY, since Reaganomics, over 90% oof the gains have went to the top 10%

Not honest huh. I'm really shocked you're a conservative/libertarian


" You did. You cherry picked a statistic to contrast a Democrat success then blamed Republicans for failures on his watch. You do the same now. You give Obama credit for all the good and blame Republicans for all the bad."


POINTING OUT CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED IN 4 YEARS TO RONNIE'S 14 MILLION IN 8 YEARS WAS JUST TO SHOW, AS ANYONE WITH A BRAIN KNOWS, TAX CUTS FOR 'JOB CREATORS', DOESN'T GROW AN ECONOMY OR CREATE MORE JOBS. If it's done like Ronnie did it, it triples the debt!

And both parties were in charge of regulators under Reagan's S&L crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis, ignoring regulator warnings, lol

YOU believe in myths and fairy tales. The US economy has done the best (shared prosperity) without getting into the boom and bust cycle characterized by the period 1800-1913...

Where'd you get your link?


CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

 

[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!

I will always give credit to President Obama for getting Bin Laden. Unequivocally.

What did he do different than Bush though? Did he continue to previous plan or did he make some significant changes? I'd like to read the documents that form your opinion. It's not like our President has some special training in SpecOps, so he didn't bring something unique to the table when he green-lighted a Seal mission.

So what did Obama do differently that makes this such a big deal to you?

Such a big deal? You mean the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill is better?


I WISH he were more like LBJ, kicking the GOP's ass!


McCain, Romney And Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden In Pakistan




McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.

Senator Barack Obama explained he would pursue Osama Bin Laden and his top lieutenants across the Afghan border, John McCain said no.


"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

In response, John McCain (the same John McCain who throughout 2003 and 2004 proclaimed "Nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America" and "Afghanistan, we don't read about anymore, because it's succeeded") mocked Obama.

For the rest of the campaign, Senator McCain insisted that unlike Senator Obama, he would not "take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights," as this exchange with CNN's Larry King revealed:

KING: If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?

MCCAIN: Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I think the Pakistanis would want bin Laden out of their hair and out of their country and it's causing great difficulties in Pakistan itself.

McCain, Romney And Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden In Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

 

[deltex1]

Rand Paul is a small government libertarian. He is only 5' 8"

 

[dblack]

Rand Paul is a small government libertarian. He is only 5' 8"

5' 8" is "medium", thank-you-very-much!

 

[Dad2three]

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

Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.

Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text

Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.

Weird, so NOW Dubya, like EVERY other US Prez isn't responsible for his F/Y budget? lol

If McCaion won TARP wouldn't had been needed?
TARP, which Dubya asked for, and EVERY credible economists (sorry AEI, CATO, Heritage, etc) knows SAVED US from a second GOP great depression,

Yeah, the spending by the Dems just happened starting in March, NOTHING else predated their spending spree right? lol


"Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. ""

Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?

SO THE US WOULDN'T STOPPED DEAD IN HER TRACKS SINCE DUBYA DIDN'T WANT TO PUT HIS NAME ON A BUDGET LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ? lol

 

[Dad2three]

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

Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.

Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text

Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.

TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed

Just to help you fight back the morons on other threads also:

"Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. So the one-time bump in spending amounted to about 4 percent of fiscal 2009 spending."

Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?

 

[dblack]

I'm an anarchist because I believe the phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "limited government."

I'm not an anarchist (yet) because I think it requires a critical mass of society committed to the idea that the initiation of violence is beneath human dignity. Unfortunately, we're not even close. Ironically, we need government for the same reason we have government, because people believe it's ok to bully others' for their convenience.

*edit: this is probably better reserved for another thread. It's not my intent to divert this one.

 

[Dad2three]

It looks like we've regressed back to that condition, only the debt is much higher and the economy is only a little more improved.

That's not what was promised in 2008.

You don't know what debt is if you think we compare to Revolutionary War era America

We are the wealthiest nation on earth and have the worlds largest economy. They were an agrarian economy and had borrowed to the teeth to try to get through a war

They didn't borrow anywhere near the GDP of the country, which is what Obama has done.

Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers

Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit and that have lasting effects.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.

Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text

Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.

TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed

At whose expense? Whose earnings were looted to pay for such?

Pales in comparison to Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars or even his costs for his UNFUNDED Medicare expansion

IT WAS PAID BACK BTW...

 

[Dad2three]

It looks like we've regressed back to that condition, only the debt is much higher and the economy is only a little more improved.

That's not what was promised in 2008.

You don't know what debt is if you think we compare to Revolutionary War era America

We are the wealthiest nation on earth and have the worlds largest economy. They were an agrarian economy and had borrowed to the teeth to try to get through a war

The potential for expansion was much higher then, which is why the debt was sustainable. It's not now.

MORE opinions. Weird bet conservatives said the same thing after WW1 and WW2...lol

 

[Dad2three]

Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.

Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text

Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.

TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed

You can't have it both ways, blaming Bush for the last deficit but then saying it was necessary since your guy supported it.

Needed it BECAUSE of Dubya's policies leading up to the fall of 20098, AMNESIA HUH?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

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

Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.

Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text

Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.

Obama signed the second TARP and spent hundreds of billions of useless government waste that is being counted against W.

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. So the one-time bump in spending amounted to about 4 percent of fiscal 2009 spending.

PAID BACK, BTW

Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?

NEEDED BECAUSE OF DUBYA'S POLICIES

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.

Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text

Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.

TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed

Basleess talking point, TARP was throwing gasoline on the fire. We needed less government oppression over our economy, not more.

Yeah, it was Gov't NOT private Banksters that created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2007, aided by Dubya's regulator failure in the US


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

Rand Paul is a small government libertarian. He is only 5' 8"

Paul is one of the biggest pork-barrel earmarkers on Capitol Hill

Ron Paul, big-government libertarian - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

 

[kaz]

TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed

Basleess talking point, TARP was throwing gasoline on the fire. We needed less government oppression over our economy, not more.

Yeah, it was Gov't NOT private Banksters that created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2007, aided by Dubya's regulator failure in the US


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Yes, it was government that did that.

Clinton threatened CEOs to lower lending standards and said he'd hound and haul them into hearings if they didn't. Then the Fed pumped them with virtually zero interest money.

W said wow, that's not a good idea. Then he kept doing it. Typical useless Republican.

People armed with government money bid up the price of housing. Hence the "bubble."

When the economy burped, massive people who shouldn't have been made loans failed to pay them, the bubble burst.

No, Virginia, the entire financial sector didn't independently make the same stupid decision at the same time to implode. It was government carrot and the stick, threats if they didn't do it, free $$$ if they did. It was on you homey. You did this.

 

[deltex1]

Rand Paul is a small government libertarian. He is only 5' 8"

Paul is one of the biggest pork-barrel earmarkers on Capitol Hill

Ron Paul, big-government libertarian - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

I was going to insert a comma after "small" but I wanted to test (your) sense of humor.

 

[Dad2three]

Basleess talking point, TARP was throwing gasoline on the fire. We needed less government oppression over our economy, not more.

Yeah, it was Gov't NOT private Banksters that created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2007, aided by Dubya's regulator failure in the US


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Yes, it was government that did that.

Clinton threatened CEOs to lower lending standards and said he'd hound and haul them into hearings if they didn't. Then the Fed pumped them with virtually zero interest money.

W said wow, that's not a good idea. Then he kept doing it. Typical useless Republican.

People armed with government money bid up the price of housing. Hence the "bubble."

When the economy burped, massive people who shouldn't have been made loans failed to pay them, the bubble burst.

No, Virginia, the entire financial sector didn't independently make the same stupid decision at the same time to implode. It was government carrot and the stick, threats if they didn't do it, free $$$ if they did. It was on you homey. You did this.

CLINTON?


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

" No, Virginia, the entire financial sector didn't independently make the same stupid decision at the same time to implode. It was government carrot and the stick, threats if they didn't do it, free $$$ if they did. It was on you homey. You did this. "



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative



•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture





It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


ANY OTHER FALSE NARRATIVES YOU WANT DEMOLISHED BUBBA?

 

[asterism]

I didn't take it as picking a fight, we're good. Everything you say is reasonable. And certainly since you've been there there you have a great experience I do not have. You can tell me, but maybe we're talking about different meanings of anarchy. Anarchy can mean chaos, and anarchy can be a political structure with no recognized government.

I am referring to the latter. When I refer to anarchists, I am referring to people who want no recognized government. People are social, and most of them are followers. I have no doubt that if we eliminated a commonly recognized government, that Somalia is the inevitable destination. People will not live on farms with their family in their community in governmentless harmony as anarchists envision, they will join a fief or be destroyed.

In anarchy, we have government, but we do not have any consistency. If you've read the thread, you know I keep saying I don't want to live my entire life within 10 miles of where my great grandfather is born. And while the fiefs may have education, criminal justice and so forth, they are limited.

You can tell me if I misunderstood, but I took your post to mean I think anarchy is chaos. That isn't what I meant.

I'm an anarchist because I believe the phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "limited government."

People have lived under government for so long that no one can comprehend how anarchy cold work or be stable, but the fact is that prior to the creation of the state farming communities existed for thousands of years without any kind of formal government. They established property rights and resolved crimes without the usual apparatus of oppression. If you want to read how it could work in a modern context then read some Hans Herman Hoppe and what he calls "the private law society."

But that really didn't work out very well. Genghis Khan is a good example, as is Alexander the Great. Without some sort of common defense, the hippie "private law society" communes get overrun.

 

[asterism]

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!

I will always give credit to President Obama for getting Bin Laden. Unequivocally.

What did he do different than Bush though? Did he continue to previous plan or did he make some significant changes? I'd like to read the documents that form your opinion. It's not like our President has some special training in SpecOps, so he didn't bring something unique to the table when he green-lighted a Seal mission.

So what did Obama do differently that makes this such a big deal to you?

Such a big deal? You mean the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill is better?


I WISH he were more like LBJ, kicking the GOP's ass!


McCain, Romney And Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden In Pakistan




McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.

Senator Barack Obama explained he would pursue Osama Bin Laden and his top lieutenants across the Afghan border, John McCain said no.


"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

In response, John McCain (the same John McCain who throughout 2003 and 2004 proclaimed "Nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America" and "Afghanistan, we don't read about anymore, because it's succeeded") mocked Obama.

For the rest of the campaign, Senator McCain insisted that unlike Senator Obama, he would not "take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights," as this exchange with CNN's Larry King revealed:

KING: If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?

MCCAIN: Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I think the Pakistanis would want bin Laden out of their hair and out of their country and it's causing great difficulties in Pakistan itself.

McCain, Romney And Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden In Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

So nothing, that's what you have.

Obama succeeded in getting Bin Laden because his military strategy was exactly opposite of what he said he'd do during the campaign. He largely continued the Bush policies, to his credit.

But go ahead and think some lawyer community activist is a genius in special operations if that fuels your ego.

 

[kaz]

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

Sounds reasonable. The Clinton bubble started in the nineties when buyers were using subsidized government money to purchase houses they couldn't afford backed by the government threats against lenders.

So you pile the W bubble on the Clinton bubble and it was a bad situation.