Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 20, 2019, 05:31:27 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: NYGurl, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
| | |-+  Retrospective approval rating
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Poll
Question: All things considered do you approve or disapprove how these Presidents performed in office?
Truman-Approve   -38 (6.3%)
Truman-Disapprove   -17 (2.8%)
Eisenhower-Approve   -47 (7.8%)
Eisenhower-Disapprove   -9 (1.5%)
Kennedy-Approve   -46 (7.7%)
Kennedy-Disapprove   -10 (1.7%)
Johnson-Approve   -24 (4%)
Johnson-Disapprove   -32 (5.3%)
Nixon-Approve   -11 (1.8%)
Nixon-Disapprove   -45 (7.5%)
Ford-Approve   -26 (4.3%)
Ford-Disapprove   -27 (4.5%)
Carter-Approve   -25 (4.2%)
Carter-Disapprove   -27 (4.5%)
Reagan Approve   -17 (2.8%)
Reagan-Disapprove   -39 (6.5%)
Bush 41-Approve   -22 (3.7%)
Bush 41-Disapprove   -30 (5%)
Clinton-Approve   -38 (6.3%)
Clinton-Disapprove   -13 (2.2%)
Bush 43-Approve   -3 (0.5%)
Bush 43-Disapprove   -53 (8.8%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: Retrospective approval rating  (Read 5960 times)
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2009, 01:27:10 am »

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.

Quote
But even putting all of that aside, how in the world can you claim to be libertarian then give Johnson the thumbs up after Urban Renewal,' the Great Society, and his horrendous foreign policy?

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.

Quote
Almost all the criticisms you could apply to Nixon extend to Johnson, and vice versa. And likewise, despite his own prejudices and coded racism Nixon did in fact press for affirmative action and accept continued desegregation while president too. To me it just seems like you're giving him the go-ahead because he has a D near his name.

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.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,089


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2009, 04:56:37 am »

Disapprove of all except for LBJ; Vietnam should rule even him out, but I don't want to look too cynical. Tongue

Well done and correct, but though I agree with you I voted approve for Democrats and Disapprove for Republicans.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,495
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2009, 05:16:11 am »

Truman: ✓
Eisenhower: ✓
Kennedy: ✓
Johnson: ✓
Nixon: X
Ford: X
Carter: ✓
Reagan: X
Bush: ✓
Clinton: ✓
Bush: X

My list precisely, aside from the first Bush.
You guys actually approved of Clinton?

I'm on the fence with Clinton, leaning to a slight approve. I'm not thrilled with him, especially his legacy, but he did a fair bit of reasonable things, and, despite being a spineless poll watcher, kept the Republicans from going completely nuts with their agenda.
Logged

Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,087
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2009, 10:17:34 am »


Truman: approve
Eisenhower: approve
Kennedy: approve
Johnson: disapprove
Nixon: disapprove
Ford: disapprove
Carter: disapprove
Reagan: disapprove
Bush I: approve
Clinton: approve
Bush II: disapprove
Logged

pogo stick
JewishConservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,436
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2009, 10:21:50 am »

Truman- Approve
Eisenhower- Approve
Kennedy- Approve
Johnson-Disapprove
Nixon- Approve
Ford-Approve
Carter-Disapprove
Reagan- Approve
Bush 41- Approve
Clinton- Lean Disapprove. Mixed. Feel sorry for him about the Monica Scandal
Bush 42- Approve
Logged

Economic score: -6.80
Social score: -0.97
I'm a crazy Liberal  Troll. LAWL

ndvc ,b., b


CRAZY GAY TROLL LIBRAL FROM ALABAMAS
Alabama is dum redecks!


Gays and minorites are sexeh
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2009, 11:35:07 am »

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.

So mass murdering civilians (domestic and foreign) is excusable because he balanced the budget? You sound like those neoconservatives that you always foam at the mouth at.

Quote
Quote
But even putting all of that aside, how in the world can you claim to be libertarian then give Johnson the thumbs up after Urban Renewal,' the Great Society, and his horrendous foreign policy?

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.

Again, killing millions of Indochinese and tens of thousands of Americans, socializing education, health care, and many other sectors, and using the draft is excusable because he let some black people pretend they have a voice in this system?

Quote
Quote
Almost all the criticisms you could apply to Nixon extend to Johnson, and vice versa. And likewise, despite his own prejudices and coded racism Nixon did in fact press for affirmative action and accept continued desegregation while president too. To me it just seems like you're giving him the go-ahead because he has a D near his name.

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.

You didn't respond to the statement, you just made an ad hominem attack.
Logged

hcallega
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2009, 02:51:26 pm »

Oh libertarians, them and there crazy words and such.

Anyway, approve of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton
Disaprove Johnson, Ford, Carter, Bush, Bush
Logged


"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."-President William Jefferson Clinton
"There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America."-Senator Barack Obama
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,567
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2009, 06:35:02 pm »

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.

And even if I did agree with you on the budget issue how do you justify his policies on guns, drugs, various nations, etc. alongside some of his more infamous statements while condemning the Republicans for those same things? You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

Quote
Quote
But even putting all of that aside, how in the world can you claim to be libertarian then give Johnson the thumbs up after Urban Renewal,' the Great Society, and his horrendous foreign policy?

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.

Nice ad hominems.

Anyway, I agree with almost everything SPC said in response to this nonsense so I feel no need to really elaborate.

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?

I already criticized Reagan and Nixon on this thread. Get a clue.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,864
Cuba


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2009, 07:35:30 pm »

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy

Johnson
Nixon

Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush I

Clinton
Bush II
Logged



"Hay reiteradas denuncias de que las grabaciones las hizo la agencia Británica MI 6 amigos de Juán Manuel Santos. Autoridades extranjeras en una treta en mi contra"
-Álvaro Uribe, 25 July 2018
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2009, 04:28:54 am »

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?

Quote
And even if I did agree with you on the budget issue how do you justify his policies on guns, drugs, various nations, etc. alongside some of his more infamous statements while condemning the Republicans for those same things? You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

... 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.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,567
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2009, 04:59:49 am »

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.

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. Not only that but again, a lot of the budget 'surplus' was actually financed by taking money from social security. Congress has been doing that trick for decades.

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.

Again, where did I say anything positive about Reagan on this thread? I said I approved of some of his policies then gave him low marks for the deficits, financial meltdown and other scandals which happened during his term. I've made it clear multiple times I have no love for the man, I just view him as better than the proven failure of Carter/Mondale. And if you're allowed to vote on someone being 'not as bad' on social issues (really pretty much just abortion, if you look at Clinton's record) what invalidates my decision to vote on other issues be they economic or otherwise? You're just as guilty if not more so than I am.

Bottom line: The last 45+ years pretty much just produced mediocre-to-horrible presidents as far as I'm concerned.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 05:05:32 am by Mint »Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2009, 05:05:35 am »

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.

Quote
And if you're allowed to vote on someone being 'not as bad' on social issues (really pretty much just abortion, if you look at Clinton's record) what invalidates my decision to vote on other issues be they economic or otherwise? You're just as guilty if not more so than I am.

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

*snip run-of-the-mill fusionism*
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 05:08:45 am by Einzige »Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,567
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2009, 05:07:25 am »

BTW: LOL @ you thinking I'm partisan Republican. I've voted for and donated to Democratic candidates several times. In fact when Cicilline declined to run for Governor I was very disappointed because he was far more effective than most of the clowns in this state. I consider party 'loyalty' of any kind to be absolutely retarded in case the avatar didn't tip you off.
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,567
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2009, 05:19:13 am »

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.

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.

Quote
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.

But he didn't HAVE to have the sort of tax rates he implemented. I already explained to you that in the mid-90s the Republicans were proposing steep cuts to Medicare and similar programs. After much initial compromising he put his foot down. That helped his approvals recover and he painted them as heartless extremists. That's a good political maneuver for a career politician like Clinton, but it should be anathema to anyone actually serious about reducing the size, scope and cost of government. You're the one being a hack here.

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

Right, because Obama had a great record on FISA and the Patriot Act. Oh wait...

Look, I'm not totally happy with my vote. McCain did a lot to piss me off between the bail outs and amnesty and a lot of the other establishment crap he supported. But after looking at Obama's economic agenda, foreign policy, past associations and the reality that he also supported almost all the parts of McCain's platform I didn't care for the lesser of the two evils was obvious.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 05:23:41 am by Mint »Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2009, 05:29:19 am »

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.

Quote
But he didn't HAVE to have the sort of tax rates he implemented. I already explained to you that in the mid-90s the Republicans were proposing steep cuts to Medicare and similar programs. After much initial compromising he put his foot down. That helped his approvals recover and he painted them as heartless extremists. That's a good political maneuver for a career politician like Clinton, but it should be anathema to anyone actually serious about reducing the size, scope and cost of government. You're the one being a hack here.

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.

Quote
Right, because Obama had a great record on FISA and the Patriot Act. Oh wait...

Better than the opposition.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 05:34:42 am by Einzige »Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Secret Cavern Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,971
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 04, 2009, 05:38:39 am »

Truman=Approve
Eisenhower=Approve 
Kennedy=Approve   
Johnson=Approve

Nixon=Disapprove 
Ford=Neutral
Carter=Neutral

Reagan=Disapprove
G.W.H. Bush=Neutral
Clinton=Neutral

G. W. Bush=Disapprove
Logged


"In the end, the world we live in is in darkness."
"That's why... we seek the light."

Noir, episode 26
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 04, 2009, 12:21:34 pm »

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.

Quote
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.

Returning to the gold standard wouldn't spark a massive tax spike, it would force the government not to spend so much money. And, even without the gold standard, the government still taxes us for that, they just do it indirectly via inflation rather than sending you a bill.

Quote
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.

Who cares? The bugdet isn't my problem, it's the government's problem. If a thief has trouble paying his bills, is it justified for him to steal the money from me? Of course not!

Quote
Quote
But he didn't HAVE to have the sort of tax rates he implemented. I already explained to you that in the mid-90s the Republicans were proposing steep cuts to Medicare and similar programs. After much initial compromising he put his foot down. That helped his approvals recover and he painted them as heartless extremists. That's a good political maneuver for a career politician like Clinton, but it should be anathema to anyone actually serious about reducing the size, scope and cost of government. You're the one being a hack here.

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.

Obviously Reagan's plan was bad because those deficits would mean future tax hikes or inflation. The proper plan would be to lower taxes and lower spending.

Quote
Quote
Right, because Obama had a great record on FISA and the Patriot Act. Oh wait...

Better than the opposition.

How could it be better than the opposition if IT'S THE SAME POSITION?!
Logged

Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 04, 2009, 02:33:00 pm »

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.

Quote
Returning to the gold standard wouldn't spark a massive tax spike,

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?

Quote
it would force the government not to spend so much money.

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*

Quote
Who cares? The bugdet isn't my problem, it's the government's problem.

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]
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 04, 2009, 05:00:51 pm »

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.

Oh really, now?

Quote
We should support all moves to reduce and repeal taxes because taxes are obtained immorally, by force. The income tax is particularly evil, since it penalizes productivity and forces all of us to expose our private affairs to government snoopers.

We had no income tax before 1914 and America prospered. Replacing the income tax with voluntary methods for financing services should be our goal, and we should begin right now.
http://www.theadvocates.org/library/issues-taxes.html

Quote
The Libertarian Party is working every day to cut your taxes.
http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

Quote
I cannot, in conscience, sanction government by the payment of taxes.
http://voluntaryist.com/taxation/hessmytaxes.php

Quote
The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/lysander_spooner_quote_b8f9

Quote
Some libertarians believe that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian principles like the non-aggression principle oppose all coercive taxation and support tax resistance.[12]. They would fund all services through contributions and user fees. Some proponents of limited government support low taxes, arguing that a society with no taxation would have difficulty providing public goods such as crime prevention. Geolibertarians support a land value tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_within_libertarianism (Notice that the controversy is whether we should lower taxes or abolish taxes, not whether or not we should lower taxes)

Quote
Quote
Returning to the gold standard wouldn't spark a massive tax spike,

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.

They have plenty of gold at Fort Knox. Plus, I never said that I supported a government-sanctioned gold standard. I think they shouldn't regulate money at all.

Quote
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?

Again, the government doesn't have to be the one exchanging the gold. All they would have to do is get rid of the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws, and private banks could take care of the rest.

Quote
Quote
it would force the government not to spend so much money.

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*

Even if the government was the one who exchanged gold, who said that we would have to go back to the same exchange rate that we were on when we left the gold standard?

Quote
Quote
Who cares? The bugdet isn't my problem, it's the government's problem.

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]

Complete non-sequitor.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 12:06:02 am by SPC »Logged

Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,495
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 04, 2009, 05:03:11 pm »

Quote
We had no income tax before 1914 and America prospered. Replacing the income tax with voluntary methods for financing services should be our goal, and we should begin right now.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.
Logged

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2009, 05:15:21 pm »

Quote
We had no income tax before 1914 and America prospered. Replacing the income tax with voluntary methods for financing services should be our goal, and we should begin right now.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?
Logged

Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,034
United States
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 04, 2009, 05:23:27 pm »

Quote
We had no income tax before 1914 and America prospered. Replacing the income tax with voluntary methods for financing services should be our goal, and we should begin right now.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government. Tongue
Logged
Julian Assange is a Snowflake
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,000
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2009, 05:24:30 pm »

SPC has openly called for privatizing all those services. He also supports allowing "competing currencies".
Logged

Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,034
United States
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 04, 2009, 05:25:26 pm »

SPC has openly called for privatizing all those services. He also supports allowing "competing currencies".

How cute. You know what, I want a pet libertarian this Christmas.

Braces for the inevitable SPC rant
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 04, 2009, 05:26:35 pm »

Quote
We had no income tax before 1914 and America prospered. Replacing the income tax with voluntary methods for financing services should be our goal, and we should begin right now.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government. Tongue

And if I were not forced to pay taxes, I could pay for roads, education, and fire protection on the market for a cheaper and higher quality service.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines