Eh, nitpicky but neoliberalism is just a smear term. There are no actual neo-liberals out there, it serves primarily as a straw-man.

I don't think this is accurate. People didn't call themselves neo-liberals, so its not a term that people applied to themselves. Similarly, many neoconservatives / war hawks don't refer to themselves using those words. But there was a dominant consensus that is broadly described as neoliberalism which has been 'the water in which we've been swimming' in terms of economic theory and culture for the last 30+ years.

Also, to say that "neoliberalism" was the predominant theory in economic thought over the last 50 years is inaccurate, "free marketeer" economists have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful on this front if it were the case, considering that the size of government has ballooned over this time and the amount of regulations over the private sector have acted likewise.

The size of governments have increased, therefore neoliberalism wasn't the dominant economic ideology of the latter half of the 20th century?

Both these things are true: the size of governments have increased, and neoliberalism was the dominant ideology of the latter half of the 20th century. Since Reagan/Thatcher we've been in a long arc of deregulation and "trickle up" economics. I'll give you two examples of deregulation that have played an enormous role in the state of things as they are: the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which opened up the banking industry to pioneer new feats of financial engineering and hence speculative multiplication of money for the wealthy, and the GATT trade agreements in 1993/1994, which are credited with opening the floodgates for the overseas movement and internationalization of American corporations and industry.

In one, the historically liberal tendency to regulate banking and finance ("let us restrain the banking sector to serve the interests of the public") was cast aside, with a hat tip to the infallibility of free market economics. In the second case, the historically liberal tendency to regulate corporations and companies ("let us restrain corporations and companies in the name of the common good") was cast aside, again with a hat tip to the infallibility of markets and the good that arises from the invisible hand, etc. etc. [our cultural dogma]. Both of these policies had tremendous destructive impact, in the view of many. But whatever one thinks about the impact of these policies, they do indicate the way the wind was blowing over the last several decades: towards increasing deregulation of the rich, the aristocracy, and "capital".

Since government survives on taxing surpluses, doesn't it make sense that public money follows private-sector money? The booms in the private sector are also boons for the public.

The government doesn't survive on taxing surpluses. They mint money. They are the currency creator.

Taxes are, paradoxically, completely unnecessary. Most of our thinking still dates from gold-standard days, when the supply of money was fixed. That hasn't been true for 45 years now.

Thus the government can never go broke, because they have a monopoly on the creation of currency. It's a challenging idea, or was for me at least.

They have a dollar menu, and you can get food from it. Their restaurants serve as community meeting-points for millions, and they serve as an entry-point for unskilled laborers striking out on their own. McDonalds is a wonderful company.

I know you mean well, but conversations with libertarians and austrians always tend to end-up with justifications for sweatshop labor and other degrading labor practices. This is 2016 and we can, and should, and dare I say must, demand for ourselves a modern existence with dignity commensurate with what we can currently provide. Shitty, poorly staffed, unimaginative, non-local, unhealthy chain restaurants are a relic of the 20th century and are simply unacceptable. Sweatshop labor is also unacceptable. If this was 1985 and we were having the argument, then fine. But as it stands today, you are basically standing with me in 1925 and telling me that horse-drawn carriages are fine, family farming is fine, and a generally agrarian existence is fine, and listing the virtues of this lifestyle. All these things belong in the past. I refuse to accept that Father Market's careless, invisible hand should not be slapped and corrected for providing nothing better than the shitty, accursed Golden Arches. This is exactly why we need investment, because without it, stalwart apologia for established practices keep us mired in the past forever.