Vincent Vega Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1326667479' post='2369676'] The Founding Fathers and the authors of the Constitution, who were fighting for limited government would be horrified by today's bloated and insatiably expanding federal government, which taxes, spends, and involves itself in every aspect of the life of its citizens far beyond the wildest dreams of His Majesty George III. The entire Bill of Rights places [i]limits[/i] on the power of the federal government, rather than granting it expanded powers. Much less would they support the monstrous expansion of government power and spending advocated by Keynesians like Krugman. Alexander Hamilton, arguably the most "statist" of the founding fathers, adamantly believed that every penny of the national debt should be paid off. Experience and common sense proves the state very ineffective at ordering economies. [/quote] I gave this props because I agree, but it must be conceded that if the founding fathers were setting down limits to the power of the State, they must acknowledge the existence of a State. Doesn't this follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326492324' post='2368507'] I think this is a pretty ridiculous statement. There are plenty of intelligent people who like what he says and agree with him. Just because you don't agree with him, and them, doesn't make them idiots. But it does make you look pretty foolish to say that. And yes, his assumption that the Arizona shootings were right wing was wrong, and fairly unfair. But deplorable human being? I think that might be a little far. Before you respond assuming I'm a Krugman fan, I'm not. I just don't like it when people assume people who disagrees with them are fools. Because that is foolish. [/quote] Plenty of allegedly intelligent people have bought wholeheartedly into Marxism as well, which, like Keynesianism, is an extremely foolish - not to mention disastrous - utopian statist fantasy. Here's some sanity to read which more than refutes the Keynesian nonsense, including the persistent myth that FDR's massive spending and expansion of government "saved" us from the Great Depression: [url="http://Meltdown:%20A%20Free-Market%20Look%20at%20Why%20the%20Stock%20Market%20Collapsed,%20the%20Economy%20Tanked,%20and%20Government%20Bailouts%20Will%20Make%20Things%20Worse"][i]Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse,[/i] by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 It is not couthed to speak illy of the dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1326667787' post='2369680'] I gave this props because I agree, but it must be conceded that if the founding fathers were setting down limits to the power of the State, they must acknowledge the existence of a State. Doesn't this follow? [/quote] I don't think anyone was arguing here against the very existence of a state. It's been a while since Sternhauser posted on here. A "statist" in the sense used here refers to someone who wants massive and expanded state powers. Like many other such expressions (such as "liberal" and "conservative"), it's a somewhat inexact term. Edited January 15, 2012 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1326668263' post='2369689'] I don't think anyone was arguing here against the very existence of a state. It's been a while since Sternhauser posted on here. A "statist" in the sense used here refers to someone who wants massive and expanded state powers. Like many other such expressions (such as "liberal" and "conservative"), it's a somewhat inexact term. [/quote] My mistake then. I was thinking that we had a couple of those anarchisty types around here. If we are taking statist and large-statist to be the same thing, then yes, I would agree with your statements. Edited January 15, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StMichael Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Krugman's comments on the Arizona shootings to attacking Mayor Giuliani, President Bush and others on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Not sure what more you require to see what evil this person communicates. [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1326665483' post='2369660'] What's this "deplorable human being" thing? Does he kick dogs, hit babies, not break for squirrels, or something? [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now