The Republican spending orgy

Boston Globe ^ | 7/20/2003 | Jeff Jacoby

[RJCogburn]

AT THEIR national convention three years ago, Republicans pointed with pride to the GOP's record of fiscal rectitude.

''In the four decades from 1954 to 1994,'' the Republican platform declared, ''government spending increased at an average annual rate of 7.9 percent, and the public's debt increased from $224 billion to $3.4 trillion.'' Those were the profligate years, when Democrats usually controlled both houses of Congress.

[Dane]

I just read your last post again, and this is what it reminds me of:

Please MDC, I didn't think you were so vain, to show a self-portrait of yourself in reply #173 .

I guess wonders will never cease.

[dfrussell]

Did the dog's coat need cleaning, too???

Given the choice between buddy and Hillary, what would you guess? :-)

[ninenot]

Are you sure you've read all of his posts?

Likely I have not. Please don't MAKE me...

[Dane]

Kitchen's a bit warm for you??

Seems to me that you are warming the Kitchen for a Clinton/demo successor.

Just say that I am not surprised.

[ModernDayCato]

Oh, come on, you're embarassing yourself. Can't you come up with something that requires A LITTLE more creativity? Originality?

If you can't, could you at least refute some of the facts that have been whizzing past your head at high speed?

[profmike23]

He accused you of being a subsidized farmer.

[Dane]

Oh, come on, you're embarassing yourself. Can't you come up with something that requires A LITTLE more creativity? Originality?

If you can't, could you at least refute some of the facts that have been whizzing past your head at high speed?

Sorry I don't follow the MO of someone who thinks that the demos are "conservative" because of 4 demo favorable ratings by the ACU, while ignoring the other 200 demo ratings which are abysmal by the ACU.

But what the hey, I am not the one hanging himself on a conservative forum.

Keep on posting MDC.

[WOSG]

Methinks you're quite irrational... President Bush has pushed more crap and winked at more pork than President Clinton ever did. The people defending President Bush's record on spending do so only because they hated Clinton so much... get over it.

Let's understand the dynamic shall we? In 1993 Clinton *tried* the old Democrap tactic of pork-barrel politics, his 'stimulus' package, but Sen Bob Dole and the Republicans - a minority but a feisty one - stopped it dead in its tracks with a filibuster and sarcasm at the absurd pork barrelling in it ("fish atlases" et al).

The Republicans forced fiscal discipline on Clinton.

In 2001 and since, Bush has 'triangulated' between conservatives and the left on issues; here is why Bush is not a Reagan - Reagan didnt mind being the man pulling the whole rest of the debate rightward. Bush has this more political sense of having someone ELSE on the right flank. BUT WHO IS ON THE RIGHT FLANK ON BUDGET MATTERS? NOBODY! ... For President Bush, they same group [GOP Congress] has dropped trou over and over. This is why Reagan got even more stuff done with a Democrat Congress than Bush is getting now with a Republican Congress.

The fact is, Congress is by its nature not a fiscally responsible body. each of the 535 members wants to get its disctricts stuff first rather than worrying about the big picture. So, we have to conclude what is really missing is: PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP TO CUT SPENDING AND KEEP CAPS ON SPENDING LOWER.

Here we are, with the first "trifecta" of Republican Senate, House and President in 50 years, and we conservatives are not even getting crumbs of policy advances, except on the (already played out) arena of tax cuts ... TIME FOR US TO WAKE UP AND MAKE SOME NOISE.

[ModernDayCato]

Okay. I guess I can't expect you to give a coherent answer if you can't even repeat the question coherently. Anyone else want to take over for Mr. Dane?

Preferably someone who makes more sense?

[ModernDayCato]

Bet YOU didn't get invited to the big fundraiser in New York though (yeah, now I'm just busting chops because it's fun):

[Dane]

Preferably someone who makes more sense?

IOW, IMO, MDC has given up and is looking for an e-mailed surrogate to give him praise, such as,

To ModernDayCato:

Cato you are so right, Bush is much worse than any demo. You the man.

ModernDayCato Monica(signed up on 7/20/03)

[ModernDayCato]

What? e-mailed surrogate? WTF does that mean? Do you think I need praise from Monica (whoever the hell that is)?

Jeez...you need to increase your dosage. And fast.

[WOSG]

"To give this some balance, on the Joe Scarborough show the other night, one of the freshmen GOP congressmen pointed out that Democrat amendments that would add billions of dollars to spending bills have been defeated recently. When the ant-Bushbutts screw things up again and empower the Liberals again, all that spending, and a lot more, will be put back into new spending bills."

That only proves that the Democrats are lunatics who will take whatever the Republicans want to do and add to it. We saw that stupidity even in 1995, when the GOP wanted 3% for school lunches, and the Democrats demgogued that as destruction of kids, when the Democrats were out there asking for 3.5% increase.

That doesnt mean the fallout from Bush declines in popularity would help or hurt this issue. For whatever reason, Bush thinks it 'helps' his political situation to throw away $15B on African AIDS, hundreds of billions on prescription drug benefit, huge pork farm bill, and across-the-board spending increases. This is irresponsible spending, and it further hurts us because the tax cuts will be blamed and likely undone by this wild spending behavior.

IF WE MAKE NOISE ON THIS, BUSH WILL REALIZE EXCESSIVE LIBERAL SPENDING BEHAVIOR WOULD COST HIM CORE BASE SUPPORT. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN HOW HIS ADMIN APPROACHES THIS.

It's all about whether the Bush admin will have their OMB show frugality or let the hogs run wild. ... and about whether the Republican *chairmen* of the Budget and Appropriations will should *real restraint* from the get-go.

The fact remains: We are spending too much, we are adding to welfare state when we should cut it. Government wastes too much and spends too much, and nobody in Washington DC seems to be paying attention to that simple fact.

[GatekeeperBookman]

Indeed sir, thank you-I say however, the ideal ( become mandate ) of universal education is the root of the problem & it must be removed, root & branch. Freedom also means the option to remain out the government's reach.

[Dane]

In 2001 and since, Bush has 'triangulated' between conservatives and the left on issues; here is why Bush is not a Reagan - Reagan didnt mind being the man pulling the whole rest of the debate rightward. Bush has this more political sense of having someone ELSE on the right flank

Huh, then why did Reagan sign a tax increase in 82.

[ModernDayCato]

I only post on 1 out of 5 of these Bushbot-type threads, mostly because I hold out hope that someone is going to make a great argument that will make me doubt my POV.

Dane can't even put a coherent sentence together, so I guess it's not coming from this thread.

Sigh.

[Dane]

Jeez...you need to increase your dosage. And fast.

Sorry MDC, I will not go "up" to your level.

[ModernDayCato]

Touche! How clever.

[rintense]

No, the right to vote was not endowed by you Creator. The right to vote was guaranteed by the millions who gave their lives defending liberty so that you CAN vote.

Not only do you dishonor your country by not voting, but you dishonor the men and women who gave their lives so you can vote.

But your Creator gave you free will. Only you can decide whether it is right for you to bitch and complain when things aren't hunky dory from 04-08. I already know it is wrong. But when you don't exercise your *right* to vote, then you have nothing to complain about except your own failure to be a catalyst for change.

[rintense]

If Cheney sat out an election, then yes, my respect for him just went down. Apathy is one of the most dangerous behaviors to freedom.