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.

[HostileTerritory]

"Bush must, and has, cut taxes and increase spending. To do otherwise courts economic collapse."

Running up enormous deficits and giving goodies to people who don't need them is a much bigger contributor to economic collapse. Building our government foundation on the basis of giving away free stuff to everyone with other people's taxes threatens economic collapse. What kind of conservative are you?

May I ask... how old are you? My generation is the one that will have to foot the bill for Dubya's drunken-sailor spending spree.

[HostileTerritory]

The only real conservatives in office today are in the House of Representatives. They exert more power with a weak Democrat or conservative Republican as President than a big-spending popular guy like Dubya.

My answer: conservatives.

[dr_who_2]

Actually, I'd say the "compassionate conservative" line is more like "read my lips". The mood of the country is such that they could probably care less what compassionate things Bush does in Africa, Afganistan, Iraq, etc, and Bush's social programs at home haven't bought him anything either (big surprise there). The Democrats may come off as total idiots, but on domestic issues, Bush has made his father's mistake and surrendered the microphone over to them. The only people who will be using the term "compassionate conservatism" will be the Democrats (mockingly). So we're stuck with a more conservative, combative Bush in 2004 if everyone crosses their fingers ...or an American Hugo Chavez. Ramesh Ponnuru was right on.

[Consort]

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.

In the eyes of most voters, it's the GOP.

[HostileTerritory]

I don't understand your reply.

[dfrussell]

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

Quite correct: liberal Presidents seem to spend less.... and as for the supreme court, if the republicans had a pair of balls between them, that wouldn't be an issue.

President Bush et al need to remember who elected them.

[Owen]

Deficits and, indeed, the national debt have always been more a rhetorical concern than a real one. One can eliminate the debt by doing nothing more than eliminating the deficit (which only occurs with economic growth) and thereby stop adding to the debt. Inflation then serves to inexorably erode the value of the debt. At 3%/year inflation, the debt is cut in half in about 23 years, without allocating a penny to reduce it. It happens by itself.

But one can't do that without growth. Growth may not derive from tax cuts and spending increases, but an absence of growth can be amplified by cutting spending and raising taxes.

The imperative to stimulate economic growth trumps the desire to shrink government, again, to prevent a Democrat from stacking the Supreme Court.

[savedbygrace]

Someone challenged you with: "Please name a (1) spending bill Bush has vetoed!"

You replied:

Please name another time in history where we had THREE commercial jetliners be taken over by terrorist, killing more than 3,000 people and destroying a center of commerce, and part of the pentagon?

Please explain the relationship between these two statements. As it stands, your reply is non-responsive to the question. (And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt to categorize it so kindly.)

[Consort]

The only real conservatives in office today are in the House of Representatives.

Good point. The Conservatives just don't have the numbers or horsepower to to have a significant effect or to make demands on any party. Yet when they don't get their way, they lash out at everybody and alienate friend and foe. They have to grow up.

[Consort]

Quite correct: liberal Presidents seem to spend less....

You took the bait.

[Hamilton2]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? which liberal Presidents spent less? Lyndon JOhnson spent a boat load of money on Vietnam/ the Great Society Program - or are you referring to that economic whiz of a president JIMMY, I AM A REALLY GOOD GUY BUT DON"T KNOW A THING ABOUT ANYTHINGT, CARTER?

I can't believe this thread is even here.

This is an issue about CONGRESSES more than it is about Presidents.

[Cultural Jihad]

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

Conservatives don't need or want the votes of those flakey ideologues who think public schools should be looted and burned to the ground anyway.

[HostileTerritory]

Bush is... was... an unbelievably popular president for his successes overseas.

He had an opportunity to use his political capital to make needed changes to our system of government.

Instead, he increased spending on everything. I can't exaggerate the magnitude of what he has done. He didn't just fail to give me everything I asked for. :) He has done his best to run in the opposite direction!

How is this not a personal failing? If I'm to accept that Bush isn't a conservative, then why even get involved? Why are you here? Why am I here?

I don't care that much about stem cells. Sorry. I guess that's supposed to make up for his very real assault on our government finances.

[FITZ]

So do you think throwing money to Africa for AIDS benefits Americans in any way? Billions of dollars just thrown out. Plus all the social programs for indigent immigrants moving in at very high numbers ---how does that benefit Americans?

[HostileTerritory]

Read the thread. Klintoon. Hell, read the original column at the top for statistics!

A Republican Congress kept spending under control by refusing to give Clinton any of the goodies he asked for. But when Bush tells them to jump, they say "how high?"

[Ed_in_NJ]

"There is little choice in the matter..."

Therein lies the plight of the citizenry -- those that refuse to vote for the Democrat Organized Criminal Enterprise (DOCE) either endorse whatever the pubbies do, or stay home (or "waste" their vote on a third party).

[HostileTerritory]

"they lash out at everybody and alienate friend and foe."

Careful... perhaps you noticed that I live in Massachusetts and can safely be insulted and brushed off as a crank, but we have real conservatives in states that matter on this thread. Their objections won't be dismissed as easily by the Bushbot Bridgade.

[GatekeeperBookman]

Having just admonished the editors of The New American for gratuitous Bush Bashing, I also now heave a stone. My blind-fold in place, I am ready for the Administrator's firing squad. I am sure the fans of our good & decent President will pick up the stone & place it over my grave.

Mr.Bush ( the very mistaken but good, the decent, the defender of us & the NWO ) is so off track from supposed conservative principles of smaller, less intrusive & cheaper government- as to deserve whatever vile reaction we deliver.

The 'Farm Bill' set new records of government largesse-put every prior government farm stipend & the Roman Corn Laws to shame.

The 15 Billions ( for 'aids' help ) thrown down the sewer of Caribbean & African dictatorships is amazing-beyond any comprehension, save as purchase of favor from the tyrants to counter Chinese influence in these regions.

The vast, new not-so free drug plan for anyone surviving to a certain age is bigger than any LBJ Great Society plan-& Mr. Bush the good demands we do this!

The relatively small, but very stupid, plan to pay government counselors to admonish freshly minted unmarried parents to be wed caused such as Dr. James Dobson ( Focus on the Family ) to loose all sense over the public airwaves. In a flash, sadly, it became, "Focus on the Money". A lesson the Catholic Church learned long ago.

The vast, incalculable fortunes now poured out through our hospitals & schools boggles the mind ( what palaces we construct where the foreigner's child may be 'baby sat', stay ignorant of English & the very principles of our society ). One is hard pressed to get one's mind around what our border states & now the interior, spend to feed, clothe, medicate & miss-educate the criminal alien's child.

Save for the Hitlary running against him, Mr. Bush-the good, the decent, the compassionate, the stalwart defender ( of us & the NWO ) is through. Funny, IMHO, that only SHE might save him! Wow! The Ol' Gunny Sergeant calls out, "AHTENSHUN! CUNSPRACY AFOOT! Covers-Tin Foil Hats-IUNPLACE!"

He has wadded deep into the socialist quicksand-helpless, we are dragged along to drown with him, knowing what he has done.

[FITZ]

When the economy is weak you have no choice but to stimulate. Tax cuts and spending increases.

What about jobs for Americans? That should be pretty important when trying to stimulate an economy but Bush doesn't believe Americans need jobs, only the Chinese do. Throwing money at the problem isn't going to help ---- if you give away loads of money for people to buy foreign products, you only help the trade deficits grow ---right now isn't a good time for people to be purchasing things.

[Consort]

I can't exaggerate the magnitude of what he has done.

That's exactly how many felt about his father's Read-my-lips tax increase — until the Clintons showed us what a real tax increase looked like. You are in the process of repeating the mistakes of '92. Some people never learn. Some people put ideology over country and party. The country comes first; the parties have the power of elected office. Angry Liberals or angry Conservatives are just.....angry....and angry people don't always do the right thing.