Free market economics vs. Keynesian economics

You know the funny thing here is that you are so willing to blame Clinton for reduction in the size and costs of the US military...it was all Clinton's fault per your numerous previous posts. And it was those very reductions that allowed the US to go from budget deficits to budget surpluses.

So now you are claiming Congress should get the praise for reducing federal spending under the Clinton administration but Clinton should get the blame for those spending cuts - reducing the defense budget. Not to mention the fact that you have been blaming President Obama for the budget/federal spending and spending problems despite being in office for only a year and a half and inheriting a monumental mess. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth...as we say here in the states.

If you are not able to see the contradiction in your positions, you have been into too much of the koolaid. You are not making any sense mr. buffalo roam. You are a shill for the Republican Party and their talk show media masters (e.g. limbaugh, levin, beck, et al). That is the only way one can make any sense out of your rantings. You will say anything and do anything in order to support the Republican Party.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again joe you make the assumption that I am a Republican, and the only contradiction is what you wish to try and claim, Hell you didn't even read my citation or post, you just trolled away.

joe, from the Federal Treasury's own web site,

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

The numbers don't lie, the National Debt when Clinton came into Office, was;

01/21/1993 ---- $4,174,218,594,232.91

When Clinton left office;

01/19/2001 --- $9,646,682,321,007,20.

So where did Clinton pay down the debt?

Where was any surplus?

But Bill did pass on something to the new Bush administration, a recession caused by collapse of the Dot Com Bubble, you do remember that now don't you?

Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index, peaked at 5048.62 (intra-day peak 5132.52), ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now joe provide any post where I defend Bush for the Bail Outs.

I have defended Bush over the wars, I have defended Bush over the Handling of Hurricaine Katrina, but I have never defended Bush over His and the RINO's "Democrat Lite" social spending.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In his last years. He inherited the first year budget, with large deficit that GHWB gave him for the first year.

You have a very biased and selective accounting system. Clinton's first year deficit is credited to Clinton, as it happened on Clinton's watch, but when it comes the first of GWB's two recessions, the one that began in his first year as POTUS that is also Clinton's fault even though it started in GWB's watch.

You can not have first year effects be treated two different ways. The dot com bust started when GWB was POTUS as did the first of GWB's two recession.

How can you blame Clinton for them and yet not blame blame GHWB for Clinton's large first year deficit? Despite your obvious bias, you should at least try to be consistent in assigning blame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billy T, if you had cared to go to the Governments own Web Site, and entered some dates of your own, guess what?

Lets see what Clintons Last Budget to Bush looked like on Sep 30 2001, that is when the fiscal year ended;

09/28/2001 --- $5,807,463,412,200.06 This is the National Debt Clinton passed on.

Now lets look at the National Debt as passed on By Bush 1 on Oct, 1, 1993 the end of Bush I's last Budget;

10/01/1993 --- $4,406,339,573,433.47

Again, I may be just a poor farm boy but the numbers from the U.S. Treasury when subtracted show that-----Clinton added $1,401,123,838,766.59 dollars to the National Debt, and again if you care to go to the site, you will see that in no year of Clintons Presidency did the Debt of that year not exceed the debt from the previous year, it was always increasing, just the same as under George I, and George II, the same as since the election of JFK.

So again where did Clinton in any year pay down the Debt? show me from the official http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway, U.S. Treasury site, where in any year that the Debt was smaller then the previous year, and what don't you get, I even showed that George did the same thing, or did you and joe miss that part?

I showed the $5+ Trillion Dollars that George ll passed on to Obama, and like joe I challenge you to show where I supported George on the Bail Outs.

 

A couple of things just off the cuff. I don't care what you call yourself. You consistently support the Republican position on every issue.

Not suprisingly your are committing multiple fallacies of logic here including the error of composition. When Clinton ended his term, he had a budget surplus which was used to reduce the national debt.

Your error in logic is adding all of the preceeding deficits and comparing them to the initial debt when Clinton assumed office. The claim was and the evidence shows that President Clinton did have a surplus of more than 230 billion dollars in his final year in office.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/12/cbo.surplus/index.html

More that 230 billion of it.

Oh yes you do defend george II for his roll in the bailouts. You shift the blame from george II to President Obama. You blame President Obama for the baiouts and you call him a socialist...despite the fact he was not president when the george II signed them into law. And you make unsupported claims that he is trying to socialize everything...and tell businesses what to do.

And on top of that you accept the parties excuse and come up with a new term, RINO's to explain away the transgressions of the Republican Party. That is a defense mr. buffalo roam...it is avoidance and blame shifting...more errors in logic and reasoning.

 

I think we ought to have laissez-faire simply because it is the most moral system, regardless of the outcome. It's about moral principle, and it isn't moral for the government to tell you how to live your life.

 

its not the most moral and it has nothing to do with morality please quit it with this nonsense.

 

How is it not?

Do you believe in coercion, or do you believe in each man making his own decisions and free from obligations put onto him by others? Live and let live is the most moral principle out there, and it's embodied in the laissez-faire mentality. Just because there are some crooks out there that are willing to cheat others to get ahead doesn't mean that it isn't so.

 

because it consolidates power.

I believe in each person being able to make his choices but we cannot just ignore are oblgations they are a part of society. because I believe people should be free is why I am against laissez-faire. when we were at that people we not free.

it isn't moral and that is not what is embodied in laissez-faire.

it incentives such behavior. You need to take some basic history and econ courses.

 

So live and let live isn't moral? Then I cannot argue with you, because you have just indirectly confirmed that you are in favor of coercion, if you say that live and let live is not moral.

 

So you think I should be allowed to drive 120mph the wrong way on a one way street thru residential neighborhood, or sell my toxic snake oil cancer cure, etc.

Before posting more such ignorant nonsense please read some hundreds of years old papers on the social contract. Here is a starting point for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

 

You mean the social contract that I never signed, and in fact nobody has; and that is entirely based on an illegitimate, monopolistic claim to a vast territory by a central government that can back it up with nothing but force? No thanks. The "social contract" is a rubbish idea. It is the silliest "contract" I've ever heard of, and it is simply an sly attempt by politicians to justify their power over you.

And you can sell whatever you want; doesn't mean I have to buy it.

 

Your continuing to live in the land, enjoying the police protections, fire depatrments, safe drugs, etc. instead of leaving is your agreement.

 

Most of those things are local and many of them, such as fire departments, are already volunteer-based. Furthermore, I am "enjoying" something I never asked for; but since it is here, I am willing to pay, but only for these things and only for local government. Federal government is a parasite, as I said.

 

I don't think you can make that seperation as cleanly as you would have it. Local governments are deeply dependent on federal government. It is the federal government that establishes the framework upon which all other government functions are added.

So if you eliminate the federal government it would be akin to destroying your foundation. And we all knows what happens to a building that lacks a solid foundation.

 

Federal government has a few, and very few, legitimate functions; this "framework" is just a bureaucracy and not a service in and of itself.

Local governments should handle the day-to-day affairs of governance. States then can handle the larger things, and the federal government should only handle defense, diplomacy, and currency.

 

You said:

So I asked two things, one about local government and the other about Federal government's restrictions:
"So you think I should be allowed to drive 120mph the wrong way on a one way street thru residential neighborhood, or sell my toxic snake oil cancer cure."

Am I to take it from your recent reply that local government interference with my life by laws is OK, but Federal government doing so is not? For example, in addition to FDA restricting my claims and sale of drugs I make, I should be able to fly my plane when ever and where ever I like (the FAA is also immoral etc.) Or I can sell stocks without any interference from the SEC, etc. Set up my own radio station without getting FCC license, etc. etc.

 

I think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you do not infringe upon the safety or rights of others.

I do care about whether or not an individual is harming others by his actions, and thus I find those actions not permissible. That should be the only role of government, then: to make sure people do not rob, murder, or fraud one another, or in any other way harm one another.

Otherwise you should be free to make your own decisions, and that's what "laissez-faire" is all about: the individual interacting with others as he wishes, but barred from murdering, robbing, or in any other way harming another. The government still exists, but only to protect rights, rather than to regulate the citizenry.

 

then we agree, but this is entirely different from your original post stating the government restricting any of your actions was "immoral."

Justice Marchall (i think it was) many years ago stated your Italics thus:

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins." - That is the essences of the Social Contract,which was well discussed >300 years ago by some of the world's greatest minds. BTW you do not sign the social contract. - You are bound to it by not leaving the land where a version of it exist.

I suspect you still want to abolish some aspects of the Federal governments restrictions on your free actions. If so can you give some examples of how the US's social contract should be modified (by Congress in the US system)?

 

Technically, I do not believe that any government is ever legitimate so long as it is based on a monopoly of land and an illegitimate claim to land.

However, this support for anarchy is in theory only; I do not see anarchy as a realistic goal. It's purely a speculative goal, and of course, if men were angels, anarchy would be possible.


Since it isn't, I'm a libertarian, instead. And I believe that people ought to have laissez-faire; and the government can step in only when there is the initiation of aggression against innocent parties. Thus the government must protect rights, but it should not directly interfere with the lives of the citizenry, either in their bedrooms or their wallets.