>In your case, it's clear that the amount depends on whether it's "good" or "bad" deficit spending.
Well, that's one of many factors. It also depends on GDP, where interest rates are, how the economies of other countries are doing, what unemployment is, how large the population is, whether the economy is in boom or bust mode, and many other things.
>>Do you even know what "arbitrary" means? >There you go again, trying to avoid having to defend your own statements.
No, you misused a word. I'm happy to defend my own statement.
>
Government doesn't keep people alive. I don't care how you slice and dice that statement because the tone of it suggests that you are a statist.
Medicare doesn't keep people alive? Social Security doesn't keep people alive? Medicaid? Workplace regulations? Pollution regulations? Whether it SHOULD be keeping people alive is fine to argue from a values perspective. If, like many conservatives, you think that government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people because that infringes on other people's freedom or because certain people haven't worked hard enough to be kept alive, I'd say I think that's asinine. But I couldn't really argue with you because that's a feeling; and my feelings on the subject are, in fact, arbitrary. But to say that government doesn't save lives at all? That's not arbitrary. That's factually incorrect.
Call me a statist, whatever. It means nothing to me.
-Z |
