Administration and GOP's record on spending

[quade 4]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031127-112025-7591r.htm

Headline and lead graf:

Quote

Spending escalates under GOP watch

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Nondefense spending has skyrocketed under Republican control of Congress and the White House, and critics say the outlays will hit the stratosphere with the passage this week of a drug entitlement for seniors.

As I've pointed out before, this is not the kind of thing that Mr. Limbaugh always goes off about on the "tax and spend" Democrats. No, this is "give a tax cut to the wealthy and spend like crazy anyway". A foolish policy that means your children will not live better off than you do right now. Actually, even Mr. Limbaugh is beginning to wonder about this record.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

> No, this is "give a tax cut to the wealthy and spend like crazy anyway".

Keep in mind that political parties change with time. Used to be that republicans were the party of tolerance and democrats were the party of slaveowners. Now the democrats push gay-marriage rights and the republicans try their darndest to keep those rights away from them.

Up until recently the republicans were the party of small government and low taxes. Then 9/11 happened. Fear is a powerful political tool, and the republicans were flexible enough to change course to take advantage of that fear - they became the party of big brother government, always looking out for you and protecting you from the evil terrorists. Which is exactly what the post-9/11 US wanted. They've taken on a lot of the pro-spending habits they were once critical of, from medicare support to huge government bureacracies to deficit spending.

(And anyone who thinks you can increase spending massively and still cut taxes in the long run - I got a great investment plan for you.)

Which leaves the democrats without much of a platform on spending. They can't really cut spending; they'd alienate a lot of the support they get from labor etc that benefits from that spending. And it would be very tough to increase spending faster than this administration is.

None of this really comes as a suprise to me. Any successful political party takes the 'best' (i.e. popular) parts of the other party and tries to integrate those parts into itself, as long as it can do so without losing its identity. It's rare for a new party to come along because the old ones are so adept at absorbing new ideas.

It will be interesting to see what happens. The last time this happened was 1950-1960, when McCarthy and company used the fear of terrorism (oops, communism) to push a political agenda. It worked really well for a while, then there was a backlash as people began to get weary of the constant fearmongering. Will we see a backlash in this case? Eventually I think we will. The war on terror will drag on, Saddam and Bin Laden will remain at large, terrorism won't stop, and eventually people will just get tired of US troops dying, buildings being blown up and "orange threat level" warnings. They'll want a change, and the party that has a "fresh new approach" will win all the elections. It might be the democrats at that point, might even be the republicans if they re-invent themselves again. Time will tell.

[kallend 2,148]

What a choice:

Democrats - tax and spend

Republicans - borrow, and spend even more.

It's a pity the Libertarians can't get their act together.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[meltdown 0]

You got that right. It makes me sick to see the out of control vote grab going on in the Republican congress. The GOP has squandered a golden opportunity to show that they are the party of fiscal discipline; in fact they have demonstrated that they are every bit that which they claim to detest. Anyone for starting a new conservative party?

[TheAnvil 0]

'Tis this big spending increase that has all true conservatives pissed off at the Republican House and Senate - and the President as well. It WILL be interesting to see what happens in the long run. I agree with Kallend that we Libertarians should get our act together. Now is the perfect time.

I DISAGREE Bill, that fear is the primary tool used by Republicans to motivate the populace to support their causes these days. Yes, I'm pissed about several provisions of the Patriot Act, but that was passed with both lefties and right wingers voting in favor of it if memory serves. I'm also really pissed off about this medical bill, the structure of the Energy bill, and am still quite ticked off at the second tax cut. I don't think fear was used as an political tool in either of those, however.

Meltdown - no need for a new party. Become a hypocritical libertarian like me.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[captainpooby 0]

Those that will trade liberty for security deserve neither.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Those that will trade liberty for security deserve neither.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety", Ben Franklin

I cannot begin to imagine what Franklin would think of the "Patriot Act".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[meltdown 0]

Liberty or security. Hmmm. Well, the feds take withholding out of my paycheck to fund social experiments before I am ever allowed to see it - is this liberty? I am required to comform to laws which I don't agree with - is this liberty? Let's face it - there is no such thing as absolute liberty in a civilized society. The question is how much liberty you're willing to give up for the sake of security, and how secure the trade-off really makes us. These are tough questions to answer. And how can we be secure with "leaders" of all political persuasions unwilling to protect our borders from foreign infiltrators? I wish Ben Franklin could shed his wisdom on our current state of affairs, with nuclear and other destructive weapons available on the black market, and an enemy whose stated goal is to destroy the West.

[PhillyKev 0]

You're using definition 1 of liberty. Let's take a look at the one from dictionary.com that actually references its application to the constitution:
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.


Now read the patriot act, and let me know how you feel about the amount of liberty you're giving up. Then take a look at the Dept. of Homeland Security and their successes, and let me know how much safer you feel.

[billvon 3,116]

>The question is how much liberty you're willing to give up for the
>sake of security, and how secure the trade-off really makes us.
> These are tough questions to answer.

I think they're relatively easy. We've got a document called the constitution that calls out those liberties, and a great many pages of interpretation of that document by our courts. It's withstood 200 years of terrorism, nuclear weapons usage, foreign invasions, civil wars and communism. It's a pretty strong document.