Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to eitherSpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.
In fairness I think he means small in terms of scope as well as physical size, although we could still probably find example of tiny governments that shouldn't be used as models for modern day.Grifman wrote:That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to eitherSpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.
Medieval govts weren't small in scope? Other than supporting an army (when at war) and the king's lifestyle, what else did it do? It didn't provide welfare or health care, it didn't regulate apothecary formulas, it didn't regulate professions, etc. Seems pretty limited in scope to me.GreenGoo wrote:In fairness I think he means small in terms of scope as well as physical size, although we could still probably find example of tiny governments that shouldn't be used as models for modern day.Grifman wrote:That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to eitherSpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.
Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree. It also taxed everyone which is more what I was driving at. But roads, trade, class separation (serfdom), military (as you said), justice system and lots of other stuff in all likelihood. But really, I was referring to the government having its tendrils into everything via tax collectors.Grifman wrote:Medieval govts weren't small in scope? Other than supporting an army (when at war) and the king's lifestyle, what else did it do? It didn't provide welfare or health care, it didn't regulate apothecary formulas, it didn't regulate professions, etc. Seems pretty limited in scope to me.GreenGoo wrote:In fairness I think he means small in terms of scope as well as physical size, although we could still probably find example of tiny governments that shouldn't be used as models for modern day.Grifman wrote:That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to eitherSpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.
I'm pretty sure only land owners were taxed, except in rare exceptions, and some experiments late in the period.GreenGoo wrote: Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree. It also taxed everyone which is more what I was driving at. But roads, trade, class separation (serfdom), military (as you said), justice system and lots of other stuff in all likelihood. But really, I was referring to the government having its tendrils into everything via tax collectors.
Ok.noxiousdog wrote:I'm pretty sure only land owners were taxed, except in rare exceptions, and some experiments late in the period.GreenGoo wrote: Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree. It also taxed everyone which is more what I was driving at. But roads, trade, class separation (serfdom), military (as you said), justice system and lots of other stuff in all likelihood. But really, I was referring to the government having its tendrils into everything via tax collectors.
Right. I'm sure if they did, it would have been taxed. It just wasn't worth the manpower.silverjon wrote:It's not like the serfs had anything to tax.
Bullshit. Their time and labor went to working in their Lord's fields. They did not own their property, it belonged to the Lord, held in fief from the King.silverjon wrote:It's not like the serfs had anything to tax.
In the grand scheme of things that's not so different from today, yet the King still gets his share too.Pyperkub wrote:Bullshit. Their time and labor went to working in their Lord's fields. They did not own their property, it belonged to the Lord, held in fief from the King.silverjon wrote:It's not like the serfs had anything to tax.
Epic 4g/Tapatalk
And your evidence is - other than your assertion it was so?GreenGoo wrote:[Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree.
You may be right, I just don't see any evidence provided. I wasn't really speaking about laws/regulations. Govt's have always passed laws/regulations. I was speaking more about social welfare programs which seem to be relatively new (other than the bread/circuses of RomeHolman wrote:Medieval gubmints were anything but laissez-faire. The laws, boundaries, regulations, inquiries, suits, penalties, taxes, fees, etc etc etc that we associate with intrusive government were already present in full force (and even more if you count the Church as a partner in rule). They lacked efficiency, but they had the ambition.
).
And how well did that work out for the Rome in the long run?Grifman wrote:I wasn't really speaking about laws/regulations. Govt's have always passed laws/regulations. I was speaking more about social welfare programs which seem to be relatively new (other than the bread/circuses of RomeHolman wrote:Medieval gubmints were anything but laissez-faire. The laws, boundaries, regulations, inquiries, suits, penalties, taxes, fees, etc etc etc that we associate with intrusive government were already present in full force (and even more if you count the Church as a partner in rule). They lacked efficiency, but they had the ambition.
Not in Iowa, anyway. Didn't Romney effectively cede the state early on?Exodor wrote:In actual 2012 election news...
A new Iowa poll puts Gingrich first and RON PAUL second.
Man, Republicans really don't like the Mittster much, do they?
That's fine, but that's moving the target, as the original comment was about libertarian government, which is certainly not restricted to social welfare.Grifman wrote:I wasn't really speaking about laws/regulations. Govt's have always passed laws/regulations. I was speaking more about social welfare programs which seem to be relatively new (other than the bread/circuses of Rome
He's banking on the fact that every other boy in town has Herpes.Freezer-TPF- wrote:Romney is like the guy who keeps asking the same girl out week after week (and year after year), hoping she'll eventually wear down and say yes.
Mittens, they're just not that into you.
Nope, but he has money and knows the parents are backing him and may be facing bankruptcy without him.Freezer-TPF- wrote:Romney is like the guy who keeps asking the same girl out week after week (and year after year), hoping she'll eventually wear down and say yes.
Mittens, they're just not that into you.
“If you don’t have to have insurance until you’re sick,” Santorum explained, “why buy insurance?… How much would insurance be if only people who needed insurance bought it? The whole point of insurance is: healthy people buy it, sick people buy it, and those who are healthy support those who are sick…. But if insurance is only sick people buy it, well guess what’s going to be the cost of insurance. That’s why there’s a preexisting-condition clause.”
I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida
There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.
Obama vs. Romney is about the economy.Rip wrote:I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida
There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.
Being a little hard on the president there, and Newt isn't that boring.Holman wrote:Obama vs. Romney is about the economy.Rip wrote:I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida
There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.
Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.
"Or until absolutely anyone other than my wife is willing to have sex with me"Victoria Raverna wrote:Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich pledged on Monday to remain faithful to his third wife.
With fine print: As long as she remain young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President and doesn't have cancer.
Which is which?Holman wrote:Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.
Hey, neither is Bachmann.Grundbegriff wrote:Which is which?Holman wrote:Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.
Continue to tank? Please explain. Most indicators have been trending up for a few quarters now. Consumer spending is recovering, GDP is up, several other important factors at least stable if not slowly getting better. Slow recovery, yes, but certainly not tanking.Rip wrote:I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida
There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.
We are giving free money to banks who are turning around buying TBills with it. This is keeping wallstreet investments neutral at best while making our impending economic landing more painful. We're going to start feeling the costs of Obamacoverage this coming year which is going to hurt consumer confidence pretty badly.Carpet_pissr wrote:Continue to tank? Please explain. Most indicators have been trending up for a few quarters now. Consumer spending is recovering, GDP is up, several other important factors at least stable if not slowly getting better. Slow recovery, yes, but certainly not tanking.
I personally believe any standing president is relatively insignificant when it comes to the larger economy picture. My comment was not political in nature at all, just challenging the " the economy is tanking" comment.LordMortis wrote:We are giving free money to banks who are turning around buying TBills with it. This is keeping wallstreet investments neutral at best while making our impending economic landing more painful. We're going to start feeling the costs of Obamacoverage this coming year which is going to hurt consumer confidence pretty badly.Carpet_pissr wrote:Continue to tank? Please explain. Most indicators have been trending up for a few quarters now. Consumer spending is recovering, GDP is up, several other important factors at least stable if not slowly getting better. Slow recovery, yes, but certainly not tanking.
Is what he's (and the Fed) doing the right move irrespective of the pain we're going to feel? I don't have an answer. I don't think it is but I could be far off base. I'd rather feel the pain up front and this crash over with but own short sightedness could not be seeing how the crash could be total. No matter what happens, I think/believe/feel the figurehead at front of the ship has done too way too much wrong economically and way too much of it at my expense while doling free money out to the irresponsible. (be that irresponsibility of: banks, the oil cos, homeowners, gas guzzling car purchasers, students, Big Auto, the insurance cos, or Big Pharm or whomever else you seem to be able to find) In my book his economic policy (among other things) is done.
Gotcha. I got sidetracked with my own venom but the first part of the post still stands in my mind the sitting president (and the Fed whom he put in place) are putting off the continuation of the tanking economy the way a college student takes out cash advances on their credit card is making the tanking of the economy more stealthy and I think that is from decisions made 1st by the President, 2nd by the Fed, and 3rd by Congress.Carpet_pissr wrote:I personally believe any standing president is relatively insignificant when it comes to the larger economy picture. My comment was not political in nature at all, just challenging the " the economy is tanking" comment.
Rip beat you to it.Grundbegriff wrote:Which is which?Holman wrote:Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.
Rip wrote:Being a little hard on the president there, and Newt isn't that boring.
