Retrospective approval rating

[Scam of God]

Truman: Disapprove (Korea)
Eisenhower: Disapprove (highway system, Military Keneysianism)
Kennedy: Narrow approve (tax cuts and space program; points off for Bay of Pigs)
Johnson: Narrow approve (for Voting Rights Act; massive points off for Vietnam and domestic suppression)
Nixon: Massive disapprove (self-explanatory)
Ford: Neutral
Carter: Approve (we tend to forget that he led the way in deregulation)
Reagan: Massive disapprove
Bush I: Neutral-to-narrow-disapprove
Clinton: Narrow approve (for his economic policies and promotion of the Internet; points off for Iraq and Kosovo)
Bush II: Massive disapprove

[Scam of God]

I would say, looking at the Reagan result, that this is all the proof one needs that this forum doesn't even come close to matching the general population.

Why? Reagan sold the libertarian movement down the river; only the idiot fusionists still believe that a tremendous expansion of the military, of the prison-industrial complex, and of the War on Drugs has anything remotely to do with freedom.

[Scam of God]

Truman: Disapprove (Korea)
Eisenhower: Disapprove (highway system, Military Keneysianism)
Kennedy: Narrow approve (tax cuts and space program; points off for Bay of Pigs)
Johnson: Narrow approve (for Voting Rights Act; massive points off for Vietnam and domestic suppression)
Nixon: Massive disapprove (self-explanatory)
Ford: Neutral
Carter: Approve (we tend to forget that he led the way in deregulation)
Reagan: Massive disapprove
Bush I: Neutral-to-narrow-disapprove
Clinton: Narrow approve (for his economic policies and promotion of the Internet; points off for Iraq and Kosovo)
Bush II: Massive disapprove

And you accused me of ideological gymnastics? ROFL

Uh, yeah. Clinton's welfare reform led directly to the massive bull market of the late 90s, and no individual ought to be subject to a poll tax - or are your stupid-blinders strapped that tightly to your hollow little skull?

[Scam of God]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yes, because the Voting Rights' Act single-handedly negates all of that. Of course you support a "States' right" to a poll tax, so I shouldn't be surprised. It would be asking too much of you not to be a massive hypocrite in any area that might make your theofascist masters uncomfortable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sort of the way you worship at the altar of St. Ronnie of Raygun despite his massive escalation of the War on Drugs, his ruthless support of death squads (and interventionism generally), and his tax hikes? Or how you seem to slather over Tricky "Price Controls" Dick?

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor and move that social score into the positive percentages. Stop lying to us and doing us the discourtesy of your false pretensions.

[Scam of God]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

The point is how he did it, which largely amounts to a lot of tax raises and slight of hand like borrowing from social security. Balancing a budget doesn't really mean much if in order to do so you raise taxes on the 'rich,' capital gains, social security and then some.

So? Taxes are secondary to balancing the budget, dumbass; "low taxes" is a supply side mantra, not a libertarian one. If taxes must be raised to keep the nation out of debt, then raise them as much as necessary. It's preferable, but by no means necessary, to keep taxes low - but hardly at the expense of the deficit.

Do you even think before you fart out your ideas?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... Because he wasn't as bad as Reagan or Nixon on the social issues? Jesus Christ, you're the biggest hypocrite on this forum. I'm supposed to be overawed by Reagan's phony law-and-order populism, yet reject Clinton for a lighter version of the same? Again: you ought to get your pockets sewn together, as I'm pretty sure they fell out on the road of mindless partisanship.

Hey, that's a-okay. Keep up the fake-ass fusionist alliance as far as you can f**k its corpse. Let's see where it gets you.

[Scam of God]

Low taxes and low spending are a libertarian concept, at least in the commonly accepted meaning of the term. Clinton had ample opportunity to actually cut entitlement spending when the GOP congress was talking about cutting medicare and similar programs. He didn't because a) it was unpopular and b) he had no interest in doing so as a typical Democrat.

WOW.

Holy Christ. I understood that some libertarians had no idea as to what the ideology entails, and choose to call themselves one because it's "teh kewl"... but this takes the cake.

No, dumbass, low taxes is not the core theme of libertarian economics. Hard money and a balanced budget, on the other hand, are. Without solid backing for the dollar it will go into freefall; and without a balanced budget we'll undergo hyperinflation. Friedmanite monetary policy is aimed at both stemming off either a devaluation or inflation - low taxes are entirely secondary to the goal of a stable fiscal policy. Libertarians emphasize stability (and sustainability), not growth. You are confusing supply-side with Friedmanite economics.

Low taxes are desirable, but in an instance where a previous administration has racked up massive deficits, then hiking taxes to pay off the balance is fine. The main point is avoiding deficits and preventing a currency collapse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's pretty much clear that your concern for liberty only runs as far as your pocketbook?

*snip run-of-the-mill fusionism*

[Scam of God]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes. Keeping taxes low is only seen as the most surefire way to achieve a balanced budget, by keeping the government from borrowing money to fund social programs - but if the budget can be balanced by a high rate of taxation, then I am all for that as well. That's why a vocal minority of libertarians want to return to the gold standard, despite the massive tax spike it would inevitably bring.

Until you can bring the dollar to a stable value and balance the budget, there's no reason to cut taxes. In fact, cutting taxes during a deficit is a surefire way to not ever pay it off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As soon as you show me that the Republican plan would have worked, I'll concede. But - and here's the thing - I don't think it would have. It's clear to me that the insane Reagan deficits had to be taxed out of existence; and the dollar had to be saved from Alan "Cut The Margins!!!!" Greenspan's insane fiscal policies. Stability is the watchword of economic libertarianism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better than the opposition.

[Scam of God]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes.

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. All libertarians I've heard want to at minimum lower taxes.

Those aren't libertarians, dipsh**t. Those are supply-siders. I understand that you, in your propaganda-induced addle-brained mindset, might be ignorant enough to confuse the two. I am not so unfortunate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, boy genius, I've got a question for you: how is the government supposed to pay for the gold bullion to re-align the dollar with if we go back on the gold standard?

I'll give you a hint: it's a three letter word.

Of course going back on the gold standard would cause a massive overnight tax spike, you blithering idiot! The gold has to be bought first - and gold is expensive as hell relative to paper. Jesus Christ, did you ever take even an introductory economics class? Or are you just a drooling Paulbot that can't distinguish sound monetarist policy from voodoo economics?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would force the government to spend many times more than what it already does, to buy the massive amounts of bullion to peg each dollar to. Or are you too stupid to realize that there are literally hundreds of times as many dollars in circulation today as there was when we went off the gold standard?

*snip*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ROFFLE-f'ing-LOFFLE. Yeah man, when you start paying twenty-five hundred dollars for your imported video game consoles, don't cry to me about it, moron.

[snip non-thinking Paulbot asininity]

[Scam of God]

I'm surprised that Kennedy has such high approvals. If he was president today I think most liberals would be appalled.

Presidents ought to be contextualized when they are evaluated. For the period he lived in, Kennedy was quite liberal. For that matter I would have been an adamant supporter of Lincoln during his Presidency, even if in retrospect I virulently disagree with, for example, the interning of political opponents or the suspension of habeas corpus - it's the broader, long-term influence of the President, measured against his immediate backdrop, that matters most.

Do I think Kennedy's excessive bellicosity towards the Soviet Union (he was a much more strident anti-Communist than his predecessor Eisenhower) was unnecessary and dangerous? Yes; but then, I disagree with the Cold Warriors anyway. Still, he could have been much worse - he could have been Nixon.

[Scam of God]

CJK, you really need to re-define your terms. I am a Leftist, and a liberal; I find the Vietnam War, started under the false pretense of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, abhorrent; I oppose all U.S. military intervention around the world, and I support gay rights and the right of self-ownership for women -- and I'm also (significantly) further to your right on economics, I oppose bans on guns and other weaponry, I oppose school uniforms and public smoking bans, and I detest Affirmative Action.

Until you can stop pigeon-holing your opponents, you will inevitably lose.

[Scam of God]

CJK, you really need to re-define your terms. I am a Leftist, and a liberal; I find the Vietnam War, started under the false pretense of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, abhorrent; I oppose all U.S. military intervention around the world, and I support gay rights and the right of self-ownership for women -- and I'm also (significantly) further to your right on economics, I oppose bans on guns and other weaponry, I oppose school uniforms and public smoking bans, and I detest Affirmative Action.

Until you can stop pigeon-holing your opponents, you will inevitably lose.

I said "most" liberals think high taxes are great.

No, I'm not entirely sure that they do. Most liberals see governmental programmes, funded through progressive taxation, as a solution to our problems; I see the free-market, co-operating with the government in a few key instances (such as distributing the means of production on a decentralized, individual level), is the solution. All liberals agree, however, that a more egalitarian order is needed - we simply disagree on how to achieve it.