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.

[Consort]

Yes, I am more and more thinking about sitting out 04.

Spoken like a true anti-Bushbutt.

[HostileTerritory]

If (heaven forbid) Carol Moseley-Braun were President, the Republican Congress would have killed her prescription drug bill, NEA, NEH, and other librul spending programs. We'd have real conservative budgets and she'd have to put up or shut up.

With President Bush, we have good conservatives racing to cosponsor his big government spending plans because he's the party leader.

So, yes, in terms of cutting down big government instead of injecting it with steroids, I'd rather have a real conservative or a helpless Democrat than Dubya. Clinton was the best thing that could ever have happened to our party.

Or do you think that Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist want to do Howard Dean ANY favors?

[HostileTerritory]

There is a chart circulating on this site that shows how Reagan cut federal spending in several categories in his first three years where Dubya has pushed for DOUBLE-DIGIT increases. Do an author search on AntiGuv. It will come up.

It shocked the hell out of me. Reagan stood up for principle. Dubya is standing up for... um...

[RJCogburn]

Pointing out the truth will get you savaged by BushBots

Thanks....I'm up to it. See my #40 on this thread.

[Lazamataz]

I've been here. But I have something mean to say to you. If I say mean things are we still friends afterwards?

[RJCogburn]

Ronald Reagan signed spending bills, too. The deficit increased during his tenure, and those were relatively good economic times.

True. See my #40 for that subject.

[HostileTerritory]

Where is the evidence that Bush cares about shrinking government?

[Owen]

Folks,

Do not look forward with glee to Howard Dean. He is preferred by the Clintons. He will crash and burn as a left-wing extremist and then Hillary, if she survives Guilliani in 2006, will be poised to present herself to the DNC as a "DLC style centrist" and someone "who can win" and the nomination will be hers with no particular difficulty, and hers without her having to kowtow to the left in the primaries. She will appear to the independents and the moderates as . . . moderate.

Much better for us would be Gephardt, who can himself crash and burn, and leave Hillary in 2008 forced to present herself as more of a left winger because the extremist Dem base will take over entirely in the wake of a DLC centrist defeat.

[dfrussell]

No yours is the silly comment. I guess since GHWBush was not the "perfect conservative" in your eyes you packed up your toys and went home.

LOL

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.

Yes, Clinton was a horrible president by any standard... with the glaring exception of fiscal policy because he had Republican House and Senate forcing one upon him. For President Bush, they same group has dropped trou over and over.

A LOT of people supported President Bush with money etc. because they thought it would get the spending problem in D.C. under control.

Not only has that not happened, but it's gotten substantially worse and for blackholes like the DOE.

Fiscal conservatives have no reason to turn out and support President Bush... and social conservatives have little more than lip service.

Given the record of the first term, the best President Bush can hope for from a lot of his previous supporters is that they vote 3rd party rather than for a democrat.

And spare me your screeds about DU and closet democrat, as I've pointed out previously, my voter registration and donation are public records.

If you have a problem, take it up with the RNC and President Bush.

[Thermalseeker]

911 puts the cabosh on all of it! (period!)

Um, according to the Heritage Foundation, spending on 9/11 only ammounts to 25% of what has been spent since GWB took office. The Heritage Foundation also says that, when comparing the last time the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse versus the same for the Republicans, the 'Pubbies have outspent the Dims by a TWO TO ONE MARGIN!

Conservative it ain't.....

[Consort]

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.

[dr_who_2]

Don't sit it out. Vote Libertarian or Constitution party. Just don't give the Republican pollsters any cause to claim that you don't exist.

[HostileTerritory]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't want a Marxist like Dean anywhere near the WH. I don't think backlash on its own is good enough to run a country.

[RJCogburn]

Don't sit it out. Vote Libertarian or Constitution party

Oh, I'll vote for the local offices. If I sit out, it'll be President and I'll just blank it.

[Owen]

The imperative to grow the economy trumps a desire to reduce government spending. There is no choice in this matter. Bush must, and has, cut taxes and increase spending. To do otherwise courts economic collapse. Economic collapse a Democrat in the WH and with the conservative Supreme Court justices the oldest and first to retire, replaces them with explicitly pro choice and left wing judges, who then serve as such for life. The operative word there is explicitly.

Bush is doing a very good job in extraordinary circumstances.

[HostileTerritory]

Those amendments were defeated because of Republicans control the House. We will control the House for at least the rest of the decade. It has nothing to do with who the President is. At this point, I think the only thing that could cost us the House would be if Dubya wins re-election *and* doesn't mend his big-spending ways before the '06 midterms.

I don't want Howard Dean nominating judges! I don't want to count on a Democrat to keep spending in check. How perverse is that?

[Iscool]

A sad state of affairs...I voted for Bush...I will not again...I won't vote for a Democrat either...Hopefully someone will come along that promises to represent middle America...

Bush is taking the U.S. down the NWO turnpike faster than my wife can change her mind...And that's fast...

As far as wasting my vote, that's what I did the last time...Hopefully, enough people will wise up and vote for the one that they refuse to debate...

[Consort]

Where is the evidence that Bush cares about shrinking government?

Who do you want in charge of running the big government: Liberals or Conservatives? No, they are not the same.

[dfrussell]

When the economy is weak you have no choice but to stimulate. Tax cuts and spending increases. To do otherwise is economically depressive. If military spending had been cut instead of increased, that industry would have collapsed, at a very bad time.

This sounds nice on paper, but, as often the case, the devil is in the details.

No-one here is complaining about the military budget.... although I think a bit of the money there could be spent better.

TEMPORARY spending would help the economy, but that's not what we're complaining about. These are PERMANENT, SUBSTANTIAL increases being poured down ratholes, and just like that done by President Clinton, you will pay for it.

[Moonman62]

This congress is spending OUR money just like liberal democrats, and Bush is doing NOTHING to slow it down.

It's worse than that. He's the one who's pushing for spending increases. Instead of twisting the arms of Democrats like Reagan did, the only arm twisting he's doing is of Republican's who want to slow down his government growth agenda.