hasten :
hasten :
This reads like a Fox News propa-report. Unfortunately it was the "small gubnerment" right wing's lord and savior, Ronald Reagan, who began the deregulation that led to the so-called "broke times" we are experiencing now. BUT, a lot of very rich (true right) men got exponentially richer over that period of time! So there's that.
I see you haven't gotten past the Left-Right paradigm.First, Fox News is simply the neoconservative big government alternative to the main stream media. They beat the government is your protector and savior drum all day long. Deer kill more people than terrorists, but we have made countless new three letter agencies and have spent over $2 trillion on foreign wars, all to supposedly save us from this enemy who is less dangerous than deer. This is clearly the exact opposite of what I was suggesting.As far as your idiotic Reagan comment goes, Reagan was hardly for small government. He increased the size and scope of government more than every president before him combined. Accounting for inflation, Reagen increased the Federal budget more than even Obama has. I would like to point out that less than 10% of Reagan's increase to the federal budget went to defense spending. Reagan even passed more damaging gun control legislation than any Democrat president ever did with the Firearm Owners Protection Act, AKA the machine gun ban. Small government? That is the last word I would use to describe Reagan. Still, the economic troubles we are having now have little to do with Reagan's policies. If you want to blame a Republican, blame Richard Nixon. He did more damage to the US economy than any other recent president with his creation of the EPA. Go try to fart without the EPA getting involved. You need to move past this Left-Right paradigm. You are being played for the fool that you are. Have you noticed Obama has been a near perfect carbon copy of Bush? From war to socialized medicine, it's like they are on one big team. The meaningless social issues that get you so angry are designed to do so. So while you are busy hating the other side, you fail to see that the other side and your side are working on something bigger.
When did I say that Reagan was a "small government" politician? I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the libertarian/neoconservative/poor southern republican after reading what seemed to be a comment stripped directly from a FNC press release. Your Nixon analogy is exaggerated. Only if you are a wanna be libertarian (which is no longer even comprehensible in current society) could you say that Nixon did more harm than Reagan. That is asinine. Environmental protectionism is a fly on the windshield of deregulation. I am independent, it just so happens that every Republican run government of my lifetime, other than Bush Sr., has been much more detrimental than the other side.
I really am sympathetic to your problem. Even I have a vestigial impulse to defend "My Side" thanks to growing up in an environment designed to perpetuate the Left-Right paradigm. For instance, I have this useless urge to point out to you that it was Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy, which FORCED banks to loosen lending requirements to low income and other high risk individuals that was undoubtedly the largest contributing presidential policy to the subprime mortgage crisis, end of discussion. Of course the root of the problem is the business cycle, which has nothing to do with government policy or legislation, but is caused intentionally by the privately owned central banks.
BUT..... I am talking about something a lot different when I say Nixon's EPA did more damage to the U.S. economy. I am talking about the mass migration/extinction of the U.S. manufacturing industry. Before the EPA, there were companies here like U.S. Steel, which dominated the industry. Steel comes from China today. It is just too expensive to make something in the United States. This in large part is a result of the EPA. Fly on the windshield? You sir are an idiot. Strike that. You are not an idiot. You just have a confirmation bias.
You might need to explain how libertarianism is "no longer even comprehensible in current society". Besides your poor choice of wording, you seem to ignore the fact that libertarianism is far and away, the fastest growing political movement today. Some might argue our country depends upon its success.
Perhaps you really just don't understand libertarianism, which really wouldn't surprise me. Investigate it a little bit. You will probably find yourself agreeing with them on the majority of social issues. It is hard not to. Let's take gay marriage for instance. Some people support it, some people are vehemently against it. The Libertarian solution is simple: The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, they should only enforce contracts. Even if we kept the current tax structure, such a government stance on marriage would be easy to accommodate, just look at common wealth states.
Economically, I have a feeling you might have a harder time getting on board. Many of the arguments the Right makes, but never intends to implement, are the same arguments Libertarians want to implement. You might cringe at the phrase "small government", but ironically you have never seen it. Your hatred stems from this Left-Right paradigm. Once you can accept the obvious fact that you have been manipulated your entire life by one large singular political entity, only then can you start making a rational assessment of free market economic policies.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram