Obama was among the best presidents in US history

They don't. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That's about how much my health insurance costs per week

"why do conservatives care about the size of the government?" The bigger govt gets the smaller the people become and the more tyrannical govt gets.  I give you the year 2021 as an example.

The smaller the government gets, the more free that corporations and organised crime are to have their ruthless way with the populace.

Too big is bad due to beaureacracy and delays, too small is bad due to not enough being done to stop sophisticated and ruthless money movers.

Your first paragraph is a lie and shows pure wilful ignorance. There are plenty of less developed nations which display what unfettered capitalism mutates into when the rich and organised criminals are free thanks to a small, easily corrupted government with very little oversight. Nigeria is an extremely good example of this but there's plenty more.

The rest, following the first paragraph, is nonsense rhetoric that isn't worth addressing.

No fair property rights = no free market capitalism, only crony capitalism.

Investment is insanely risky right now in Nigeria due to government corruption (cough career criminals)

Like this criminal?

You've moved.

I really find it hilarious that you would choose Nigeria...one of the world's leaders in crony capitalism...as an example of why free-market capitalism is bad...lol!

When you talk about the size of government, it translates to the amount of power a government has, which is usually measured in the amounts of assets it seizes and spends. And Nigeria's government is extremely fucking powerful. Look at all those billionaire politicians in complete control over who can own what. Why in the hell would you think for  a moment that Nigeria has a "small government????"

Crony Capitalism is literally what all free markets become. Name one exception. Greedy, sociopathic CEOs don't suddenly operate morally when given more freedom to fuck people of their nation over for their own gain.

Unless you have a constitution that prevents a government from growing large enough and powerful enough to redistribute and control private property (capitalism) on a grand scale. USA had those protections until wicker v Filburn destroyed the constitutional safeguards against crony capitalism.

There have always been those in government who since the founding of the nation have wanted more control over business and commerce. It started with Alexander Hamilton who persuaded George Washington over the objections of Thomas Jefferson to support the idea of a central bank. But other than the idea of a central bank those who desired a system of central planners were kept at bay until the aftermath of the Civil War when reconstruction was imposed on the South using expanded federal powers. The founders knew there was a natural tendency, a sort of entropy of power to expand federal control. This is why the Commerce Clause is only that, one short clause of the Constitution and does not appear as a basic tenet in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were deemed superior to all other rights, hence all Ten Amendments are positive rights to and for the people and limitations to the federal government. The original intent of the Commerce Clause dealt with the power of the federal government to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign governments. It also was meant to deal with commerce and relations with the Indian nations. The Constitution was intended to put up a wall between the federal government and the states and the people so that most regulatory power would be reserved by the states and the people. These rights and the federal government’s limits were consummated with the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment thus precluded any federal regulatory powers over commerce beyond the limitations of the Commerce Clause. Over time that wall has been gradually worn down until 1942 when it was completely obliterated with the Supreme Court case of Wickard V. Filburn. A farmer by the name of Roscoe Filburn had been ordered by the federal government to destroy his wheat and pay a fine for exceeding a government imposed allotment based on the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, a part of FDR’s New Deal. Filburn was planning to use the excess wheat for his own use to feed his own chickens. Filburn’s actions was not interstate commerce. It was not even commerce. It was widely thought that the court would rule against the government thereby making the 1938 act unconstitutional, but for years the court had been under attack by President Roosevelt who had been threatening to take control of the Supreme Court by adding several of his hand-picked justices to ensure a loyal majority. The case was purposely chosen for its flimsiness to showcase the newfound power of the Federal government. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn and the wall was finally crumbled. That ruling is considered by many as the seminal moment in our history that has led to the unending expansion of federal power, that being if the courts can regulate the feeding of one’s own chickens they can regulate anything. With this expansion, capitalism itself has increasingly come under attack, for the only way to grow government ever larger is to take a larger share of capital for the federal government.

There is no bigger monopoly of services right now than the Federal government which is orders of magnitude larger than even Elon Musk. The ultimate robber baron.

You cannot safeguard against 'crony capitalism' without government-enforced protections of workers, small businesses and consumers.

I find the idea of private industry lobbying for business to be totally distasteful. Lobbying ought to take only the form of official submissions of quotes for private industry participation in public works, i.e., infrastructure. Let PI's quotations and past experience demonstrate their competitive capabilities and not some paid stooge in DC. lobbying on the latter's system. That is fraught with fraud.

And Bush had to pick up from Clinton's shit era. That's not much of an excuse. Then again, this all depends on the standard one uses to inform "best." By my standards, he's not even close--Obama, that is. I suppose this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that all presidents are shit presidents. But some have shown glimmers of "polish."

P.S. that's polish (as in smooth surface) not Polish as in the Slavic Lechitic ethnic group.

These "protections" you talk about only benefit the workers that can lobby the best. That invariably means ONLY the most self-serving labor cartels are able to purchase legislation to destroy labor competition. If that's your idea of "protection" I can see where your moral compass is at. When is the last time small business won out in the war of lobbies? How about small labor competing against entrenched crony labor industries? (ESPECIALLY GOVERNMENT LABOR UNIONS) I'll wait.

Government should go back to its original job of 3 things.

1) Protect private property, secure the nation, and allow free contracting.

2) Allow a Fair system for offended parties to address grievances through fair laws and a court system including class action lawsuits against large monopolies.

3)  Manage services and finances only as a last resort when it's too cumbersome for the free-market to provide those services (including, but still outsource private industry in a competitive fashion wherever possible to provide those services as competently as possible as well as providing a safety net for the 10% who cannot mentally or physically compete in a free-market with some form of NIT or UBI)

The entire western europe, canada, aus+nz, south korea, japan and a few other places approaching social democracy prove your theory wrong. It's not as simple as rich ruling regardless. Instead, in social democracy the rich thrive but don't completely control.

I say we should impeach Obama. Hold him accountable for what he did in office

Such as?

Since when do we need legitimate reasons to impeach someone? 

You down to impeach Obama?

Trump is a filthy, immoral bastard in many different ways. Stop acting like for a single second he deserves any kind of 'aww poor thing', he brought it on himself and is getting away with the blood of a cop on his hands in recent times, as well as four of his own supporters thanks to a riot he inspired 100% intentionally.

He has committed so many crimes before and during his presidency, he is the equivalent of Al Capone and should go down just like Capone did.

Lol, who cares. Impeachment means nothing.

Except migration patterns prove you are dead wrong. Most Americans aren't leaving to go to those countries even when Orangemanbad gets elected. There's more coming from those places than toward.

Maybe you should explain that to all the Europeans sinking migrant boats in the Mediterranean about how hard it is for the poor to migrate.

Regardless, Americans aren't leaving in droves to go to Norway because they are poor, they aren't leaving because it's a land of mediocrity and high taxes with no room for exceptional ambitious people.

Most Americans absolutely abhor the cultural Law of Jante. There isn't any State in America that embraces that social custom, except perhaps Hawaaii.

Impeachment Party woohoo

lol sure...

no, the government size doesn't matter, the size has NEVER mattered, its about the people, the good and righteous people of the USa

Yo come join our impeachment party. We gonna impeach Kamala for aiding rioters