If we are guilty of not being more vocal about the force of government, so be it. It's just something we choose to not lose sleep over. We are really focussing on investments on this forum (it's not really supposed to be a political forum anyway)
And, by the way, it is possible to have a small government with deficit spending. All you have to do is give every citizen the same citizen's dividend each year and have a small government office to make sure everyone gets their checks in the mail (similar to just issuing tax refunds with a very small government). And you can use taxes to manage inflation if you wish. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Just saying that state-issued money isn't always the same thing as expanding government. A tax cut is really another form of government spending.
Also, it's incorrect to suggest that Pointedstick does not understand the problems of government expansion. He was doing an excellent job explaining those long-term issues to us long before Libertarian666 and KShartle showed up.
i think this is one area where the politics or macro politics are well interconnected with economics, well enough to warrant discussion, its not the republicans and democrats calling each other doo doo heads type politics the forum rules and good sense should lead us to avoid.
i agree - it is possible to have deficit spending or monetary expansion with out big government,
But that is not the direction we are headed in.
a few gov employes carefully spending without mis-allocation or corruption, a large and increasing amount of money, is vastly preferable
to an ever-expanding group of corrupt gov employes, demanding ever expanding quantities of money to spend, using the harm they have caused as the justification or measure of the need for more of the same...
sorry didn't mean to sweep PS up in my gross generalization "MR group"