Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 9:53 am » wrote: Agreed on Johnson - but so-called "free market supporters" - whatever you think that means - vote for and empower the type of people who triple our national debt, fight wars of choice off budget, give the world's most powerful communist nation unfettered access to the world's largest consumer market, those sorts of things.

WTF? The topic is Economics, but you start bleating about foreign policy.

China is not Communist. If it were, it wouldn't have a powerful, strongly growing economy.

That is a literal impossibility.

And we don't "give" them anything.

Reagan didn't triple the national debt. No one tripled the national debt, because factoring inflation, it increased far less than you claim.

And not that you'll acknowledge the accepted facts, Reagan was on the side of spending restraint, putting aside his vital military buildup.

He even allowed the government to be shut down at least once to fight Dems' overspending.

I don't know what you think you mean when you say "free market." I go to the market regularly, and if I want so much as a packet of ketchup, I have to pay. It's not free.

Oh, that's so clever!

Are you coerced by federal law to buy it? To buy a particular brand? Does the government control the ketchup maker?

No? Then the product is produced by relatively free market forces.

If you are talking about capitalism, and trying to float the idea that capitalism should or even CAN exist unregulated, then let me educate you: The stock market attracts TRILLIONS of anonymous dollars, looking for improvement. The trust investors show is predicated on the fact that Wall Street exchanges are regulated by the government. Just imagine if it were NOT regulated by government. All that money, and no one watching...

Did regulators catch Bernie Madoff?

Did regulators prevent abusive lending by Fannie Mae, perhaps the most regulated body in the US? No, it was perhaps the only institution not covered by Dodd-Frank.

Did regulators prevent Enron?

No, because they're incapable of doing so generally, but they do heap abuse on innocent parties and put huge costs on most everyone else.
On balance, they do more damage than good.

The meaning of socialism is - well, it depends on the thread, and often it changes several times even in a single conversation with you. You've gone with everything from declaring it has no precise meaning, to posting a definition which defined regulating the market as socialism. You're all over the board.

That's a complete and utter lie. I use two definitions of Socialism. You refuse to accept one, in typical dishonest troll fashion.

Why must you dissemble, and what do you hope to gain by it?

Can anyone spell "I-R-O-N-Y?"

And Reaan was onthe side of spending

You're a psychotic liar.

Even liberal historians have written otherwise.