Good point.  Bush ran into this problem in a big way.

He rejected democratic spending measures, and then decided to pass them in a smaller way.  I.e., these were democrat measures using tax dollars to pay for various programs (special interest or otherwise).  This got him into trouble with Republicans, but also with Democrats who said he didn't go far enough.

Then, when the democrats took Congress and Obama took the White House, they pointed at Bush as the problem, and some republicans agreed.  The real hypocrisy, though, was that the democrats in congress wanted Bush to spend much more, and if he had, it would have hurt the economy that much more.

So the political genius behind the democrat strategy was that they made it look like it was Bush's fault for the economy, people believed them, and then they passed something that was Bush x10 (such as the Stimulus Package).  By claiming something was "change" or different, when it was simply a mass augmentation of something that went bad (Bush's spending), they got something that future generations will pay for.  The further genius of it, though, is that the delay in the costs will allow them to blame whomever is in power when things go bad, even though the cause of it is happening today.  (This is essentially a buy on credit scam--interest will come due.)

I would have to completel;y disagree with that analysis. To begin with the last 3 Republican presidents have raised spending, not just Bush. Reagen paid for it with debt rather than taxes, but he still grew teh government.
Secondly both of the last 2 Republican presidents have driven teh economy into teh ditch. Clinton managed to rescue teh economy but he also did it with expanded government. Bush Jr. increased spending but also cut taxes massively, expecting the increased revenue from the growing economy to meet his demand for money and it didn't happen, so instead we wound up with inflation as he had more money printed.
Republicans like to portray themselves as being for small governemnt, but really they are about different programs- spying on teh US people instead of helping them, big borther over Uncle Sam.
I personally hope we can get to a point where the main choices are Libertarian versus Democrat, then I think we will have both wheels on the right axle, but the tea Party is something else entirely. Bush ran for president making promises to Conservative Christians to help motivat them in voting, then appointed Ashcroft in return. When scandals hit his administration the first time he threw Ashcroft under the bus, which easrned him the animosity of the Christian identity movement, which then started their 'tea parties' in protest, banding together with (and taking over) anti-tax groups, similar to what they had done previously with the taxpayer party.

Indeed, from my understanding, there has not been a 'true' Republican president in my lifetime. Reagan at least had the excuse that he was basically weaponizing the budget.

I am hesitant to attach the economy too closely to any president (for a couple of reasons). However, my understanding is that the economy boomed (short-term, anyway) under Reagan compared to Carter, did okay under Bush Sr., and really only crashed in the last few months of Bush Jr., for reasons I would not attach to him. However, none of the three were any good for our debt.

I'd also be hesitant to say what 'Republicans' are for. It's the big tent - some Republicans are for small government, others aggressively pro-Christian, some for greater government power, a few warhawks. There's not a lot that binds them together. Thanks to Reagan, it's a real stewpot.

I could definitely do with the Neocons losing power though to more Libertarian sentiments. Right now I generally find myself disagreeing with ALL the mainstream political candidates.

The ones who really get me are the ones who claim Obama is the antichrist (to actually make this thread about religion for once) Have these people read the job desription? World conquest, and a thousand years of 'false' peace and prosperity for all but the select few who refuse to wear the mark of the beast?
All of that guarunteed by a divine entity, now *that's* what i call a campaign platform. Sure tehre is hell to pay in teh end, but if people are okay with putting problems off for our grandchildren to deal with imagine how easilly they'll accept leaving it to their great^31 grand children.

Hmm...so, Democrats tricked everyone into thinking that Bush's spending was actually Bush's fault?  Color me skeptical.

Also, why is it that spending is always "paid for by our grandkids" but tax cuts never are?  Bush's tax cuts cost the country somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars, but republicans never seem to view that as being "paid for by our grandkids."

If you ask me, what is "paid for by our grandkids" is budget deficits, whether caused by too much spending, or by too little revenue.  Deficits don't care which the sources is, it leads to debt either way.  And throughout my life time, Republicans have run up bigger long-run deficits than democrats (and, as an aside the only president to run a balanced budget in my lifetime was a democrat).

I'd hardly every claim that the dems are perfect; there's certainly plenty to complain about, even if you share most of their views.  But I do get rather frustrated with the rather common conservative position that absolutely everything and everything is the fault of the dems (even the stuff the republicans did!).

I've said this before, but I think the main problem with american politics is not that one group of politicians or another are evil, but that we american voters demand dishonest and absurd claims, election cycle after election cycle.  Want to know why politicians lie so much?  Because we punish them for doing anything else.  Want to know why we have such huge budget deficits?  Because any politician that stands up and says "I can't lower your taxes without cutting services you actually use" or "I can't give you more services without raising taxes" gets booed of the stage.  Instead we continue to vote, year after year, for people who promise to fix all our problems without costing us a penny.  Year after year we vote for people who tell us the other side is evil, rather than actually telling us we have to make a sacrifice to fix things (or, if they say that, they never tell us what sacrifices need to be made, so that everyone thinks someone else will have to do it).

This is why I'm not particularly impressed with the tea party movement.  It's not something new, it's just more of the old, but louder and angrier.  It's all the same hate-the-other-guys stuff that we've seen before.  They talk a good game about the budget, but ask them what they're willing to give up to get a balanced budget, and they're like any other politicians, promising that only the other guys will have to suffer.

Back to katisara's point, the parties are getting somewhat undifferentiated, which is what is causing things like the Tea Party to be successful.  I don't think your portrayal of Reagan is exactly accurate either.  What Reagan did was lower taxes, which resulted in an increased debt to fund the already overlarge government (thanks in part to Carter and a democrat congress).  However, because people's taxes were lowered, they were able to prosper and create capital.

For reference, the four pillars of Reaganomics were:
1.Reduce government spending,
2.Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3.Reduce government regulation
4.Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

This is a pillar of republican belief and does not increase the government, but rather decreases its regulation.  So I think your facts are somewhat wrong.


Actually, this is inaccurate.  Clinton managed to ride on the successful end of the Cold War, which dramatically decreased government defense spending.  He got elected just in time to wait for those things (thanks to Reagan and Bush), and then took credit.  Meanwhile, he passed things that killed the economy a few years later.  If you compare his spending to Reagan and Bush, you will see that Clinton spent more and increase government regulation if you simply take out Cold War spending.  He also passed things like fair housing acts that required lenders to grant loans to those who are not necessarily able to pay for the loans (or manage their money).  Well, fast forward six or seven years and you see what that did to the housing market once the program became fully realized and they started all defaulting on loans.

So I stick by my analysis.  You are tossing blame at presidents without backing it up with support.  Look at the true cause of the problems and you will find that the last two recessions are caused primarily by Carter and Clinton, once their deferred policies became fully realized.  (And I don't think anyone stands up for Carter's extreme tax rates.)  W. Bush had a part to play in this latest one, but that was only when he started spending and regulating like a democrat (as I mentioned earlier), and which supports katisara's point.

So look at what's happening now.  Obama passes a huge stimulus that will inject the economy like credit card spending.  Years from now we will feel the impact of that (just like with Clinton and Carter), and then, as I said, the democrats will blame the republicans for what Obama really got us into.


Back this up with support.
The truth is that Republicans tend to believe that the federal government should stick to its primary role of providing for the national defense, international relations, and governing interstate commerce.  So yes, you are right to the extent they focus on these issues, but the problem is that your assumption is inaccurate.

Republicans are not necessarily for "small" government.  They are for a government with limited powers.  In other words, don't have the government take people's money and give it to other people.  Don't expand government powers.  Rather, keep the federal government's role focused.  This is consistent with my previous post.

That's not what I said.  What I said was Bush rejected Democrat spending and submitted a less expensive package.  Then democrats hypocritically accused him of creating an economic crisis when what they demanded would have been that much worse.  But they don't bring that point up...

Tax cuts are different.

If you pay a stimulus package (Obama's package), then there are two results.  Either you tax more (and thus limit capital to invest in the private economy) or you print money (and thus inflation rises and the stimulus is diluted).  These are both losing propositions.

If you give a tax cut, the money stays with the private sector to improve the economy.  Therefore, a tax cut is an investment in the economy and therefore does not have the same impact on kids and grandkids.  We also don't borrow at the same rate for tax cuts, whereas a stimulus is causing us to borrow from China and others and making the dollar worth less overall.

Think of it like this:  a stimulus package is a credit card and some day you have to pay the interest; a tax cut is an investment, and if the government handles it correctly, it will pay off and result in a net gain.


And if you read your history book, you will see that he (Clinton) has Reagan and Bush to thank for that, as I mentioned in my previous post.  They cleared the way for a balanced budget, then he said, "Yahoo! I got a surplus" and he went out and increased spending, which Bush then had to deal with.

You may not recall this, but we were in a recession before Bush was able to enact his first budget--yet he was still blamed for it.

W. Bush is also a unique situation due to the terrorist attacks and funding for the wars.  Clinton didn't have anything like that.  His worst problem was trying not to get caught with the intern. ;)

Here's a link to Reaganomics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Right, and thats where they get the defense of marrige act and warrentless wiretapping from- limited powers in government.
Has anyone even looked at the fact that the 'natural' cycles of stock market crashes occur ebcause teh feedback mechanism has too high of a gain (universal cause of control system instability) which can be offset by *raising* capital gains taxes from stock purchases while lowering income taxes on dividends?
No, of course not, because that would break ideology.
Also why is it that if it is always Democrats causing teh recessions it happens after 6 years of Republican rule, but the 'Republican created' recovery hapens in about 3 years of Democratic rule. This even happened after carter, who was only in office for 4 years following a Republican...

Defense of Marriage = Passed under Clinton in 1996 (and all it really says anyway is that, for federal laws, they won't recognize marriage except as between a man and woman.  There wasn't any expansion of power per se.)

Warrantless wiretapping = For national security, not an expansion of governmental powers.


What I am talking about in expanding government powers is where the federal government tries to assert powers over an AREA that it does not normally assert.

For example, historically, family and educational issues have been localized.  However, the federal government has become more involved.  This usually happens by invoking the interstate commerce clause.  Similarly is health care.  This is one of the key challenges to Obamacare--the fact that it is not one of the enumerated powers of federal government.  Even if he eventually slides it by the courts, that is a perfect example of the federal government expanding its AREA of power.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:11, Mon 04 Oct 2010.

Passed under Clinton by a Republican house and Congress durring an election year where they clearly intendd to make an issue out of it if he vetoed it.

Or of course tehre are local politics, like the Arizona law violating the constitutional rights of Americans in it's effort to get at illegal aliens....

BUt hey, I guess it's still keeping to the 'area' of crime if we just criminalize all the behavior we don't like, don't worry about the constitution or any mamby pamby rights...

That's interesting, because I would tend to include under 'increasing government powers' the increase in the scope or reduction in the controls against the use of government power. So warrantless wiretapping is indeed an 'expansion of government power'. I don't see Bush as a classic Republican.

I don't see any of the current Republicans as a classis Republican (looks like we're stuck with New Coke). From where I sit teh last of those disapeared when McCain sold out durring his presidencial bid to the hyper-conservative 'base' he had run against to win the nomination.
Defining moment of that campaign was McCain getting bood off stage by the Republicans at his own rally for saying that Obama was not a muslim or a foreigner but a patriotic American with a difference of opinion.
Now we just have the new Republicans who feel that Obama is the great enemy and people who actually launched attacks against our country are a mere nuisance in comparison (and yes, I have heard Republicans actually say this)

I've heard Democrats say the same thing about Bush (and I've heard Larouche Youth members say it about the both of them)

Indeed. Right now at least, politics seems dominated by the extremes. If only someone started rallying to level-headed moderates.

You mean John Stewarts Rally to Restore Sanity on Oct 30 in Washington on the Wahington Mall?

(Although I prefer Colbert's rally myself.)

Actually, if anyone is going that way, I could do with a ride :( It bothers me to no end that I'm close enough to take the train, but I won't have the car and I will have two kids in tow, and it being the weekend when the commuter trains don't run, I'm having trouble making it.

It's a bit out of the way for me- I live in Kansas. Wish I could go though.
I had a concept for a sign that would work for both rallies- a picture of Glen Beck with the words "Fear the Insanity"
This message was last edited by the player at 13:38, Tue 05 Oct 2010.

I was going to print out a Longcat sign. That sort of sums up my political leanings as of late.

I'm tired of the arguement the Health Care Reform is an expansion of the government into health care. The government can: regulate medicare, interstate insurance, drug companies, employers taxes and medicaid. The free market is being used as it was for decades.

The only issue is can they tax a person for not having insurance since there are no other penalties, and I note many lower to lower middle income people will get subsidized premiums and out of pocket costs. Now that part might get struck down. But that will not affect much of the law going into effect. But the Courts decide such things in the end if they decide the individual mandate is fine its a new precedent.

I'm considering suing if the law defunds the Medicaid expansion to sue the state to get on it based on the superior Federal income requirement in the law if the funding is gone, the income qualification as the higher level standard is still the law. I intend to fight them on that if the law is not touched in that area. If they get stuck using the current formulae to consider funding then fine, they will have to dig up the money.

Where was this?  That's a ballsy statement.  One I agree with besides "mere nuisance"  I'd say radical terrorist are a real threat, but Obama (not just him but his advisors) are the biggest threat to our country.

@AmericanNightmare

It's probably not because they're Republicans so much that they're into some NWO conspiracy theory or another.

In reply to Heath (msg #44):

Heath, I think your partisan glasses are a bit too dark.  You call tax cuts an investment because it puts money in the private sector but dont do the same for stimulus spending; even though it also puts money in theprivate sector.  you look only at the ggod parts of tax breaks; and only at the adparts of stimulus spending.  Not surre if intnetion "framing" of thedebate, pr if you are really so stuck in partisan thinking that you cant look at both fairly.  BOTH are bought on credit, BOTH lead to deficits, BOTH transfew money from govt to private sector.  The main difference is the govt gets something with stimulus spending, sa roads or parks etc.

The main problem, I think, is that of your four pillars, only the fum parts ever get done. its all well and good to cut taxes if it comes with lower spending, but reps only seem to cut taxes, but not do the hard partof reducing spending.  Its all cakes, no veg.  Dems can be bad at this too, spending but not coming up with ways to pay for it.  But Id sa theyre a bit better at paying for there progrmas than reps.  Hence "tax and spend liberals."

The important thing is thattax cuts arent freee (at least npt these dyas.  drops from seventy percent may be).  Cutting taxe without cutting spending is just as much «buying on credit» as is stimulus spending.  Th only wy to think otherwise is not being objective wen looking at the two.

In reply to Heath (msg #44):

Heath, I think your partisan glasses are a bit too dark.  You call tax cuts an investment because it puts money in the private sector but dont do the same for stimulus spending; even though it also puts money in theprivate sector.  you look only at the ggod parts of tax breaks; and only at the adparts of stimulus spending.  Not surre if intnetion "framing" of thedebate, pr if you are really so stuck in partisan thinking that you cant look at both fairly.  BOTH are bought on credit, BOTH lead to deficits, BOTH transfew money from govt to private sector.  The main difference is the govt gets something with stimulus spending, sa roads or parks etc.

The main problem, I think, is that of your four pillars, only the fum parts ever get done. its all well and good to cut taxes if it comes with lower spending, but reps only seem to cut taxes, but not do the hard partof reducing spending.  Its all cakes, no veg.  Dems can be bad at this too, spending but not coming up with ways to pay for it.  But Id sa theyre a bit better at paying for there progrmas than reps.  Hence "tax and spend liberals."

The important thing is thattax cuts arent freee (at least npt these dyas.  drops from seventy percent may be).  Cutting taxe without cutting spending is just as much «buying on credit» as is stimulus spending.  Th only wy to think otherwise is not being objective wen looking at the two.

It was in an off line conversation I had- what they claimed was that they were a nuisance *compared* to Obama, not that they were not a real threat, but apparently in their opinion taking down a couple of buildings full of people paled in comparison to establishing government programs to help them as a threat to our freedom and safety.