Originally Posted by Florian
If you are trying to bait me to debate the merits of Warren Harding's economic policies after the deficit spending of WW I, I plead ignorance. In any case, the United States was not then the mover and shaker it has since become. Harding's call for a return to "normalcy" (a word I believe he coined--- to the great dismay of purists) was in fact a call for isolationism.
I would be more receptive to contemporary conservative pleas for small government if they were accompanied by pleas for retrenchment from unnecessary and stupid wars.
I mostly mentioned it because Keynesians, who are the agenda
, never talk about 1920-1921.
What is the significance of the "mover and shaker" line?
Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. But how many billions are you claiming are being spent on these wars above what are going to be spent to maintain the military sans the wars?
Your receptivity to an idea (shrink govt in X ways) shouldn't be affected by whether it's packaged with an idea you like. Smaller govt either looks good to you or it doesn't.