California had such a problem with Democratic gerrymandering (no state seats are essentially Republican regardless of the large swaths of the public that vote Republican) that they had to create a state district commission to try and fix it.

If you understand libertarianism you'd understand that consumer protection and federal education programs are contrary to the libertarian platform. Allowing governments to experiment with those issues at state and local levels is harder for governments, politicians, unions, and corporations to influence than 60 senators. Libertarians are the true populists.

No I never did notice that. I post with my screen name. But I've also watched my karma go down because progressives use down votes to silence dissent. Maybe the pro Republican commenters are tired of being punished for their opinion?

How exactly does taxing someone empower them. You don't even need taxes for social programs, just look at our deficit.

That's not even arguing that small business owners are most hurt by artificially inflated wages.

My bachelor's of science in economics from a reputable university qualifies me to say I know of which I speak.

Germany was suffering from the global recession just like every country but the socialist government chose Keynesian stimulus to try to save the economy. Social upheaval was already fomenting from the loss of jobs but hyperinflation contributed to the social upheaval. Hyperinflation is caused by loss of investor confidence. We use fiat currency based on the trust in value. Overspending decreases trust in a currency. Just look at Greece's woes based on overspending and lack of revenue. Greece's social upheaval was also partly due to a recession and overspending. In both these cases the roots are just the opposite order chain of events then you mentioned.

Anyway. I take the time to refute closed-system people saying things like stupid right wingers, not for your benefit, but for others reading it. If you're reduced to ad hominem attacks against 51% of the country then you're mind is made up, which is fine. Some kids, learning in public schools, have no idea about the bias in public. They might have no idea some people want the government to stop "helping." But since no one benefits from reading this you can have the last word. I won't argue anymore.

No idea where you got your facts. Your numbers are completely wrong. https://static.nationalpriorit...

Those are OMB numbers. The military budget is part of discretionary spending. Most the social programs are mandatory spending. We spend way more of our budget on social programs combined than the military.

https://static.nationalpriorit...

I'm not interested in arguing whether the balance is correct. Hopefully seeing the real numbers gives you a better insight that your idea of the budget is orders of magnitude wrong.

Russia has one aircraft carrier and China has at least one being refurbished from Russia. http://rt.com/news/china-super...

Since the 2014 election the only congressional representatives that are Democrats are Progressives. Greens, liberals, progressives, government unions all vote Democratic. The reason Congressional Democrat's voting record might look center right is because the absolute majority of America is center right. The modestly watered down progressive goal of government run Healthcare caused a huge repudiation of the Democrat's fortunes. America does not want progressive policies that's why Democrats in Congress can't push the ideas.

Ask the Weimar republic how spending out of a recession helps. Or better yet, we just had a huge stimulus. Did that get us out of a recession?

I'm just glad I didn't fall for a troll. I'd expect a smart conservative to plant a subtle joke like that.

Your argument about external costs in welfare is hard to agree with when no one pays the full budget deficit anyway. If both progressives and conservatives agreed to a balanced budget and we agreed to a compromise on the size of the safety net and size of the military and then raised revenues to match expenditures then I'd agree this is a problem. I think inherently, progressives are worried that if Americans knew the total cost of these expanded welfare programs they wouldn't want them.

But progressives want it both ways. They want to complain that current minimum wage laws are putting people on welfare and then they want to raise welfare poverty level requirements to add more people. That seems like the bigger issue than poor people affording vegetables at Walmart.

Us stupid right wingers didn't ask Jonathan Gruber to draft an unsustainable health care bill. Nor did we ask the Federal government to raise food stamp access to multiple times above the poverty level. Maybe you're trolling but I think you meant "getting more expensive goods DESPITE the goods having a lower sticker price. You could possibly be right if there wasn't a deficit.

What if your labor is robots? Capital doesn't need labor as much as labor needs capital. Just a fact.

I agree with you. Capitalism is constantly recycling. But even if the government functioned under the profit motive and distributed it's profits to it's shareholders (the taxpayers) we'ed be in a way better situation. Canada is almost working under this concept. They plan to distribute the surplus to the middle and lower class.

If the government was actually a corporation it wouldn't be losing money and it would function well at what it set out to do.

You mean like North Dakota, Texas, and California?

You do understand the difference between a subsidy and a credit right? The fossil fuel industry is not receiving $40 dollars of every paycheck from the government. They are not having to pay part of the money they earned to the government because of credits that offset the cost of oil exploratory drilling. On the other hand, Fisker, which went bankrupt, received millions in Federal and State low interest loans. This money was never paid back and the taxpayers are on the hook.

The poor pay a larger percentage of their income to fuel costs. Fracking lowers the cost of fuel. Therefore, I am for fracking because I am not in favor if a caste system. Environmentalists sounds like French pre-revolutionary land owners. They hate when the poor sully their lands with hunting for food.

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

No, I'm pretty sure I knew what I was talking about.

No one denies climate change, not even the deniers. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. Bill Nye is fighting a straw man. What the deniers dispute is humans having a majoritive effect on climate change. The science on that is not settled, especially when new papers are being published trying to explain a hiatus in the warming trend and the significance of the oceans in the atmospheric temperature. If the science on that was settled there would be no use for continued research.