Rant: Tough on spending?? What????

[shanek]

Okay, all the Democrats and Republicans are going on and on about how Bush's new budget is an "exercise in frugality" or "tough on spending."

What I want to know is, what planet are they living on?

Bush's new budget increases Federal spending by $89 billion, an increase of over 4%! Bush's increases are bigger than Clinton's, and bigger than any President's since LBJ!

This isn't tough on spending. This isn't frugality. This is the spend, spend, spend nature of big government politicians. And since both Democrats and Republicans see the budget in the same way, it just goes to show you how they both see things. Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, the two incumbent parties are mostly peopled with big government politicians who want to spend your money and run your life. The fact that they pretend to disagree about this is nothing more than a smokescreen. It's about running your life; their only real disagreement is which of them gets to run your life and in what areas.

Anyway, check the budget out for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/

[KelvinG]

Perhaps republicans don't count the money you spend on war.

But, you do make an interesting point here.

Isn't one of the main platforms of the republican party "less spending, less government?"

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek
Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, the two incumbent parties are mostly peopled with big government politicians who want to spend your money and run your life. The fact that they pretend to disagree about this is nothing more than a smokescreen. It's about running your life; their only real disagreement is which of them gets to run your life and in what areas.

Just curious Shanek, is this "run your life" philosophy a conscious one on the part of all those politicians? I mean, is everyone who runs for office interested in dominating his or her fellow citizen? You seem to be ascribing some conscious motive to "run people's lives" where I doubt any exists.

Mike

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, all the Democrats and Republicans are going on and on about how Bush's new budget is an "exercise in frugality" or "tough on spending."



I haven't heard that. What planet are you living on?

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Just curious Shanek, is this "run your life" philosophy a conscious one on the part of all those politicians? I mean, is everyone who runs for office interested in dominating his or her fellow citizen?

I'm always cautious around the word "everyone..." And maybe there are those who tell themselves that's not really what they're doing, but as any skeptic knows, people can be self-deluded.

The actions are what counts, not the intentions. And the Democrats and Republicans again and again act to intrude into our lives, where they have no business being.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx


I haven't heard that. What planet are you living on?

The one that shows C-SPAN.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Perhaps republicans don't count the money you spend on war.

But, you do make an interesting point here.

Isn't one of the main platforms of the republican party "less spending, less government?"

Both Reagan and Bush have greatly increased spending.

Don't people know by now, the Republicans lie about everything.

I don't there there is any intentional ill will, I think that several things are going on.

#1 Taking care of the wealthy. In order to take care of the wealthy mucho tax dollars have to be spent to cater to their needs, and they have the money to get what hey want done, and they pay the most taxes, so, oh well. That's what happens when you live in a Plutocracy.

#2 It simply takes more money to run a modern country and as our society and government get's more complex the cost of running it will go up. The cost of running Coke-a-Cola, and Ford, and every other business goes up too. You have to look at cost vs GDP.

#3 All the anti-Terror/anti-liberty crap costs money. It costs a lot of money to finance Big Brother. The purpose of Big-Brother is to protect the establishment, ultimately private wealthy of the wealthy elite. The wealthy have the most to lose by any change in the system, and thus they work to keep it working for them.

#4 The world is changing. Its goign to take a lot for America to continue ot dominate the world. The price of being number one is spending more than anyone else on securing your position economically and militarily.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Both Reagan and Bush have greatly increased spending.

That's very true. Republicans say how Reagan cut the budget and engaged in fiscal responsibility, and that it was those wretched, evil Democrats that enlarged the government during his tenure...

But the truth of the matter is, every single budget Reagan submitted to Congress was larger than the one passed the previous year. I have yet to meet a Republican that has a real answer for that.

#2 It simply takes more money to run a modern country

That just isn't the case. If anything, more modern countries, with higher levels of technology and education, and with their poorest citizens much better off than people elsewhere in the world, should require less governing. In fact, it's only with less governing that you can have any real progress in those levels.

The cost of running Coke-a-Cola, and Ford, and every other business goes up too.

Again, not the case. Coca-Cola and Ford only have higher costs because they have grown as corporations, and also have higher profits as a result. But if anything, if the size and all other aspects of a business remain the same, the costs should go down due to technology increasing productivity.

You have to look at cost vs GDP.

GDP has bupkus to do with it. Not when the government takes 48% of the National Income in taxes but only comprises 20% of GDP. That money is put to much more efficient use in the private sector.

[corplinx]

What people forget is that increasing taxation is not the only way to increase government revenue. Prosperity increases government revenue much better than increasing taxes since taxation usually encumbers prosperity. When people earn more, the government gets more..

I think anything more than 10 percent income tax with the prosperity we have achieved is pure insanity.

[KelvinG]

I think it goes to show that saying something in politics is easy. Actually doing it is a lot harder.

The republicans love to talk about less government, less spending. Why is that? Because that is what people want to hear. So what if the reality behind it is a totally different thing.
At least people can remain happy deluding themselves that change is actually occurring.
I think this demonstrates an inherent dishonesty in the republican party.