Republicans: Big government politicians

[shanek]

http://alanchapman.org/libertyvault/gwb.html

Every single claim is sourced.

[subgenius]

Democrats: Tax and Spend
Republicans: Spend and Borrow.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
Democrats: Tax and Spend
Republicans: Spend and Borrow.

Democrats: Tax, Spend, Borrow
Republicans: Spend, Borrow, Get Bad Haircuts

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by corplinx


Democrats: Tax, Spend, Borrow
Republicans: Spend, Borrow, Get Bad Haircuts
Late last week I watched the interview that Tom Brokaw had with GWB. All the time I kept being side tracked in listening by GWB's bad haircut. It wasn't neat. His hair was sort of like a compromise between trying to look hip [longish] but conservative [sort of short but frayed].
If this administration could do one thing right GWB would visit an Italian barber. If GWB had a haircut like those mob guys on the Soprano's he'd get much more respect.

[Gregor]

I think GWB has fallen into that trap of "we want to preach smaller government, but we want to keep the electorate hooked like heroine addicts, so let's have a multi-billion dollar farm bill, and spend, spend, spend."

At least Gephardt is up front about his economic plans - though I still couldn't vote for him.

[Smalso]

You just don't get it, do you? MY kind of big government is good. YOURS is baaad.:D

[RandFan]

There is no argument that the Republicans are guilty of "big government" and I can't really defend them except to say that those who feed from the government teat are adept at keeping the status quo. Whether it is a defence contractor, beneficiary of corporate welfare/protection (sugar, mining) or those who profit from social programs. When any effort is made to reduce government a defense mechanism kicks in and a camping is waged accusing those who seek to reduce government of any number of vile claims including accusations of starving people and killing children.

The Metamorphosis (http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/020621_Metamorphosis.htm)
I fell into a restful sleep by counting the number of child abuse prevention clinics that were closed last year by fiscal conservatives bravely waging the war against government waste. How does one counter such demagoguery to reduce the size of government? If I demand of Podvin proof that any child abuse prevention clinics were closed he will counter that his piece is satire and not meant to be literal but the message is the same. The truth does not matter only the results. The ends justify the means. It's tempting to get angry at Republicans for failing to reduce the size of government and lord knows they do deserve a lot of criticism considering that they are adept themselves at adding pork to bills. But is it truly possible to have fiscal responsibility in light of such entrenched survival instincts on the part of those who benefit from governmental waste?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Gregor
I think GWB has fallen into that trap of "we want to preach smaller government, but we want to keep the electorate hooked like heroine addicts, so let's have a multi-billion dollar farm bill, and spend, spend, spend."

At least Gephardt is up front about his economic plans - though I still couldn't vote for him.

I think Bush has some advisor who is the incarnation of cunning. The fact of the matter is, congress will spend no matter what. What Bush has done is pushed the direction of that spending instead of merely opposing it. Perhaps Karl Rove came up with this strategy, but I have to tell you its pretty slick. Without a line item veto, this is about all the CIC can do.

[Dancing David]

Republiucans: first trillion dollar deficit.

Since social spending has been squeezed I would like to see 'Military Welfare Reform", the DoD could sustain some cuts in spending, make them have the same rate of increase that we give social security!

Peace
dancing David

[Smalso]

Originally posted by RandFan


It's tempting to get angry at Republicans for failing to reduce the size of government and lord knows they do deserve a lot of criticism considering that they are adept themselves at adding pork to bills. But is it truly possible to have fiscal responsibility in light of such entrenched survival instincts on the part of those who benefit from governmental waste?

I give up. Is it?

A congressman has to represent his district; and it helps if he can go home during recess and say on the Clyde and Jamie Morning Show that he was successful in getting approval for building the huge VA hospital in his district. He won't mention--nor will he probably be asked--what projects he had to agree to with other congressmen for projects in their districts. Should the subject come up, he will call these deals "compromises." They "compromise" on these (obscure) amendments to major legislation. What they really mean is, "You vote for my pork and I'll vote for yours." I don't mean to seem cynical, but, like it or not, that's the way things are done on the Hill.

(Alistar Cooke once wrote that there were three reasons the U.S. got a constitution, and that those are the same three reasons that it still works. Compromise, compromise and compromise.)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Republiucans: first trillion dollar deficit.


I guess whoever had the first million or billion dollar deficit is also important? The first trillion dollar deficit but at a time when its a lesser part of the GDP than it was at other times when the raw dollar amount was lower.

Please adjust for inflation and growth next time.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx

I think Bush has some advisor who is the incarnation of cunning. The fact of the matter is, congress will spend no matter what. What Bush has done is pushed the direction of that spending instead of merely opposing it. Perhaps Karl Rove came up with this strategy, but I have to tell you its pretty slick. Without a line item veto, this is about all the CIC can do.

I'll have to find sources to back this up, but I was always under the impression that, during the Reagan years, the Congress approved less spending than was asked for in the budget.

...and somehow Congress got saddled with the "big spenders" label. If there's one thing Republicans do well, it;s PR.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
There is no argument that the Republicans are guilty of "big government" and I can't really defend them except to say that those who feed from the government teat are adept at keeping the status quo. Whether it is a defence contractor, beneficiary of corporate welfare/protection (sugar, mining) or those who profit from social programs. When any effort is made to reduce government a defense mechanism kicks in and a camping is waged accusing those who seek to reduce government of any number of vile claims including accusations of starving people and killing children.

How does one counter such demagoguery to reduce the size of government? If I demand of Podvin proof that any child abuse prevention clinics were closed he will counter that his piece is satire and not meant to be literal but the message is the same. The truth does not matter only the results. The ends justify the means. It's tempting to get angry at Republicans for failing to reduce the size of government and lord knows they do deserve a lot of criticism considering that they are adept themselves at adding pork to bills. But is it truly possible to have fiscal responsibility in light of such entrenched survival instincts on the part of those who benefit from governmental waste?

That's exactly why you can't cut government one program at a time. You need to get them all in one fell swoop, so no one will be singled out, and at the same time repeal all Income Taxes so people will immediately see the benefits of the arrangement. That, I'm convinced, is the only way it can realistically happen.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I'll have to find sources to back this up, but I was always under the impression that, during the Reagan years, the Congress approved less spending than was asked for in the budget.

...and somehow Congress got saddled with the "big spenders" label. If there's one thing Republicans do well, it;s PR.

That was only for one year, 1984. The rest of the time Congress outspent Reagan.

http://reagan.webteamone.com/reagan_budgets.html

However, note that, every single year, the budget that Reagan proposed was greater than the one that Congress had passed the year before! So Reagan can hardly be considered a paragon of fiscal responsibility, either.

[Smalso]

shanek:However, note that, every single year, the budget that Reagan proposed was greater than the one that Congress had passed the year before! So Reagan can hardly be considered a paragon of fiscal responsibility, either.

Despite campaigning on a platform of a balanced budget by 1983 and his speeches after his election bemoaning deficits, he never submitted a balanced budget proposal to congress. George Will once asked, "If Ronald Reagan wants a balanced budget, why doesn't he submit one to congress?"

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Smalso
shanek:

Despite campaigning on a platform of a balanced budget by 1983 and his speeches after his election bemoaning deficits, he never submitted a balanced budget proposal to congress. George Will once asked, "If Ronald Reagan wants a balanced budget, why doesn't he submit one to congress?"

Ever read Reagan's autobiography? He talks about the frustration of the budget. He didnt really see it as his job to define the letter of the budget, that is after all the job of the house. I think that was probably one of the top 3 things that left him unsatisfied about his tenure as president.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx

Ever read Reagan's autobiography? He talks about the frustration of the budget. He didnt really see it as his job to define the letter of the budget, that is after all the job of the house. I think that was probably one of the top 3 things that left him unsatisfied about his tenure as president.

Then why did he submit one? Why not let the House write the spending bill without his budgetary guidance?

(p.s. Thanks shanek, saved me the trouble of looking it up.)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Shanek:

However, note that, every single year, the budget that Reagan proposed was greater than the one that Congress had passed the year before! So Reagan can hardly be considered a paragon of fiscal responsibility, either.



Just wondering, but how do these figures translate into government spending as a percentage of GNP?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Just wondering, but how do these figures translate into government spending as a percentage of GNP?

I don't know, but that's completely irrelevant. This GNP business is the Republicans' latest excuse for increased spending. First of all, there's no conceptual reason whatsoever why GNP should be any measure of government spending, especially since 20% of GNP is represented by government spending in the first place. When you consider that government takes 48% of the National Income in taxes, yet only provides 20% of GNP, it becomes very easy to see that increases in taxation ultimately make GNP lower than what it otherwise would be.

The second reason is that GNP is a rough estimation. There's simply no way to accurately measure it. It's meant to be an overall indication when looking at long-term trends; there is absolutely no justification for using it to justify short-term items like annual budgets.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Shanek:

I don't know, but that's completely irrelevant. This GNP business is the Republicans' latest excuse for increased spending. First of all, there's no conceptual reason whatsoever why GNP should be any measure of government spending, especially since 20% of GNP is represented by government spending in the first place

This is kind of what I was getting at. For every dollar the country earns, how much is eventually spent by the government?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


That's exactly why you can't cut government one program at a time. You need to get them all in one fell swoop, so no one will be singled out, and at the same time repeal all Income Taxes so people will immediately see the benefits of the arrangement. That, I'm convinced, is the only way it can realistically happen.

Great, shanek...

I'm a conservative/narrow constructionist/libertarian voter and you're a campaigning politician. You state the above as the main plank of your platform.

How are you going to do it??

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
This is kind of what I was getting at. For every dollar the country earns, how much is eventually spent by the government?

Then you'll want to look at taxes as a portion of the National Income (which is how much the country earns), which according to the US Census Bureau is at 48% as of the 2000 Census.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Great, shanek...

I'm a conservative/narrow constructionist/libertarian voter and you're a campaigning politician. You state the above as the main plank of your platform.

How are you going to do it??

I fully acknowledge that this will be impossible to achieve without Libertarians in the white house and both houses. But you wouldn't necessarily need a majority of Libertarians in both houses if there's a Libertarian President supporting them.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


I fully acknowledge that this will be impossible to achieve without Libertarians in the white house and both houses. But you wouldn't necessarily need a majority of Libertarians in both houses if there's a Libertarian President supporting them.

Well, until that time, I guess I'll keep voting for the big spenders in the GOP who at the very least, are less likely to raise my taxes than are the Democrats...

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by subgenius
Democrats: Tax and Spend
Republicans: Spend and Borrow.

Amen sg!

I am glad to see that people are finally seeing that the operative word with both parties is:

Spend

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Well, until that time, I guess I'll keep voting for the big spenders in the GOP who at the very least, are less likely to raise my taxes than are the Democrats...

First of all, as I have shown, they aren't less likely to raise your taxes. They just do so in sneakier ways. Second, why would you not vote for Libertarians since they are infinitely more likely than any Republicans to cut your taxes at all? Look at the thread I created, "What do Libertarians do when elected?" for actual, real-world examples of Libertarians cutting taxes in ways that Republicans have never done.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


First of all, as I have shown, they aren't less likely to raise your taxes. They just do so in sneakier ways. Second, why would you not vote for Libertarians since they are infinitely more likely than any Republicans to cut your taxes at all? Look at the thread I created, "What do Libertarians do when elected?" for actual, real-world examples of Libertarians cutting taxes in ways that Republicans have never done.

Reagan cut taxes. Michigan governor Engler cut taxes. Bush has cut taxes and has refunded excess tax revenue.

I haven't as yet voted for a libertarian, because they haven't as yet had a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Reagan cut taxes.

Not really; not when you examine the amount of revenues coming in. He just reshuffled things.

Michigan governor Engler cut taxes.

Don't know; can't comment.

Bush has cut taxes and has refunded excess tax revenue.

Bush's "refund" was nothing of the kind. If you got $600, then you either got $600 less from your tax return or had to pay $600 more, depending on how much was withheld. And his budget is nothing more than a deferment of the taxes to later years. We just aren't paying for it now. We'll be paying for it later, with interest.

I haven't as yet voted for a libertarian, because they haven't as yet had a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected.

Then explain the other thread, where ELECTED LIBERTARIANS were cutting taxes. I haven't heard of any snowfights in Hell lately...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
Then explain the other thread, where ELECTED LIBERTARIANS were cutting taxes. I haven't heard of any snowfights in Hell lately...

Sorry, should have qualified my statement by adding "in Michigan/Metro Detroit, or nationally". Obviously, I can't vote outside my voting district/precinct.

Thus: I haven't as yet voted for a libertarian, because they haven't as yet had a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected in Michigan/Metro Detroit, or nationally.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
Not really; not when you examine the amount of revenues coming in. He just reshuffled things.


The Reagan tax rate record (http://www.presidentreagan.info/tax_cuts.cfm)



http://www.presidentreagan.info/effective_rates.cfm

[Doubt]

Originally posted by corplinx


Democrats: Tax, Spend, Borrow
Republicans: Spend, Borrow, Get Bad Haircuts

LOL!

Fairness is required on the Haircut issue.

Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, Comb over victim.

We could start a new thread in banter for this. Worst Hair in the federal government.
:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Sorry, should have qualified my statement by adding "in Michigan/Metro Detroit, or nationally".

Okay; I don't know the situation the LP is in in Michigan. Even so, though, don't you think it's a defeatist attitude? If Libertarians can get elected to local office elsewhere, even in places with openly rigged elections like NC, why can't they get elected in Michigan?

Actually, I just looked—there are 26 Libertarians currently holding public office in MI, although apparently none above the level of City Council.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The Reagan tax rate record (http://www.presidentreagan.info/tax_cuts.cfm)

And notice, as the site says:

In addition, income tax revenues increased during this period

IOW, government still got bigger. It just wasn't taking a bigger piece of the pie because the pie was bigger, too. It still got more pie.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
IOW, government still got bigger. It just wasn't taking a bigger piece of the pie because the pie was bigger, too. It still got more pie.

I'm always in favor of the government not taking a bigger piece of the pie...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I'm always in favor of the government not taking a bigger piece of the pie...

...but apparently have no problem with it taking more pie...

[CFLarsen]

What's wrong with Big Government? :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
...but apparently have no problem with it taking more pie...

Imagine that! Revenues increased while rates decreased! Amazing...

Again, I'm spoiled for choice in this regard. Both the Democrats and Republicans take more pie than they need, but of the two parties capable of actually being elected, I'll go with the one not taking a bigger percentage slice...

Give me a libertarian mayoral, governorship, congressional, or presidential candidate with a viable chance of winning, and he or she will get my vote...


...the line item veto wouldn't hurt either...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What's wrong with Big Government? :)

troll... ;)




:D

[Dancing David]

Corplinx: I don't buy the GNP figure, how is GNP generated, are the standards the same or do they change, could not the president modify GNP to suit thier own tastes.

The current GB made all these great tax cuts: whoopee! Did you know that some of them, like the inheritance tax thing were set to expire in ten years so that he could project a balanced budget?

What about my Social Security? Why do they take the $60 Billion and count it as general revenue, should it be taken off the revenue side of the equation and therefore the deficit is higher by that amount.

Then they whine about the military not getting enough money , when we have senior and children who are not getting enough to eat.

Belly up pigs at the trough, modern tecnology and the media will eventually find you out!

Peace
dancing David

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Then they whine about the military not getting enough money , when we have senior and children who are not getting enough to eat.

Exactly which seniors and children are not getting enough to eat because someone is whining about our underpaid servicemen?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Imagine that! Revenues increased while rates decreased!

And government got bigger. So it's just like I said: Republicans are every bit as much for getting more of your money as the Democrats; they're just sneakier about how they do it. They campaign like Libertarians but rule like Democrats.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What's wrong with Big Government? :)

The bigger the government, the lesser the freedom.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Corplinx: I don't buy the GNP figure, how is GNP generated, are the standards the same or do they change, could not the president modify GNP to suit thier own tastes.

GNP is very tenuous. It can be very difficult to compare GNP over years because there are new products on the market, new technologies, more efficient ways of doing business, etc.

There are also things that GNP can never, ever measure. Let's say you hire someone to mow your lawn. You have to work at a job and produce a certain amount of worth equal to what it's worth for him to mow your lawn, in order to get the money to pay him. So if you pay him $50, and you make $25/hr, you need to work for two hours to pay him. All of this shows up in GNP under consumer spending.

But, if you cut your own lawn, it doesn't. You're still doing an amount of work of equivalent value, and getting the same value in return, but it doesn't show up because there's no actual money changing hands. So, there's an amount of productivity in the economy that isn't being measured by GNP.

The current GB made all these great tax cuts: whoopee! Did you know that some of them, like the inheritance tax thing were set to expire in ten years so that he could project a balanced budget?

Yeah, and most of those "tax cuts" won't even take effect at least until after the next election. Convenient, huh?

What about my Social Security? Why do they take the $60 Billion and count it as general revenue, should it be taken off the revenue side of the equation and therefore the deficit is higher by that amount.

That was how they got this phantom "surplus." They also moved some normal budgetary items off-budget. They did the exact same things they got WorldCom for, even to a greater degree.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Exactly which seniors and children are not getting enough to eat because someone is whining about our underpaid servicemen?

I believe that service men are underapaid, but what is so cool about the miltary establishment always whining for new weapons? Why did I have to listen to the Reagan/Bush spin doctors complain about how the miltary budget shrank?

Kodiak: if service men and women are underpaid then the DOD needs to stop spending so much money making the contractors rich. Eisenhower said 'beware the rise of the miltary industrial complex' for a very good reason. They siphon too much in profits, they don't employ enough people and then they lobby the crap out of the government.

There are many elders who are underfed, and children too. It has nothing to do with the pay of servicemen.
But what about GE, N-Gruman,Boeing, etc., they line up at the trough, line thier pockets and then don't even have the decency to pay thier taxes.
Really is it sensible to have such expensive weapons, I mean yeah, the cold war was real, but who is going to have a cooler jet than us now? Some space alien?
I think we need more troops and more education for service people. An itelligent trained soldier is always more dangerous than any self guided weapon. More soldiers , less profit for arms manufacturers!(Leftists can be war heads too!)

Peace
dancing david

[Smalso]

I know of no politician who ran for office on the promise to cut Social Security benefits; but that's exactly what Congress did. Say, for instance, that I could retire with reduced benefit of $1200 per month at age 62, and at age 65 at $1600 per month. (Not my actual benefit.) Under recently passed legislation--"reform" I think they called it--my retirement ages were extended by ten months. I am now eligible for early retirement at age 62 years and ten months, cutting my total benefit that I can draw by $12,000; or, if I wait until I am 65 years and 10 months, my total benefit would be cut $16,000. That's a bunch of bucks. I've paid into the fund since I was 12 years old, and so have my employers. I was looking forward to retiring when I am 62, but now I have to wait out until I am almost 63. With my luck, I'll probably punt the pail at 62 years, 9 months, and twenty-nine days.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
troll... ;)

I knew you couldn't answer that one! :D

Originally posted by shanek
The bigger the government, the lesser the freedom.

Really? You need to get out more, like another country.

They do exist, you know.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Really? You need to get out more, like another country.

They do exist, you know.

Once again, I am astounded by your convincingly rational argument... :rolleyes: