The Republican Spending EXPLOSION~!

[MrRant 0]

Here's an opinion piece from the New York Post, discussing the Cato Institute's new study on government spending during the Bush administration.

 

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/43632.htm

 

Here's a link to the study itself.

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

 

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ. Even if you discount military and homeland security spending. And, that doesn't even include the new Medicare entitlement that hasn't really started costing any money until fiscal 2006.

 

The Post column says that Republicans are going to suffer for the spending explosion in the next few elections.

[Guest Brian]

Rant makes non-joke posts?

[bobobrazil1984 0]

well its a post about politics, so i'd say it is a joke post.

[Guest Vitamin X]

[MikeSC]Well, look at his source, it's OBVIOUSLY a joke.[/MikeSC]

 

As Rove told a conference of conservative activists in February, he believes the GOP has in the past been too "reactionary." Republicans have to be for things, not against them. They have to have "visionary goals."

 

This, Rove said, means "reforming" the tax code, health care, pension plans, the legal system, public education and worker training; "building" an Ownership Society of homes and businesses; "preparing" Americans for meeting "the challenges of a free society; "building" a culture of life; "supporting" religious charities, and "fostering" a culture of "service and citizenship."

 

If this isn't activist government — that thing conservatives used to be against — it's hard to say what would be.

 

I think that part of the article sums up my feelings on the matter quite well. Reactionary??

[SuperJerk 0]

"Reactionary" meaning that for too long the Republicans were the "weren't things sure swell back in the 1920s and 1950s, can we please turn back the clock ASAP" party.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You all mean that because the Republicans control the Government, they're spending more money?

 

Unthinkable!

[Guest Vitamin X]

"Reactionary" meaning that for too long the Republicans were the "weren't things sure swell back in the 1920s and 1950s, can we please turn back the clock ASAP" party.

Like they still aren't?

[SuperJerk 0]

"Reactionary" meaning that for too long the Republicans were the "weren't things sure swell back in the 1920s and 1950s, can we please turn back the clock ASAP" party.

Like they still aren't?

Bush does seem to be taking them away from their small government fixation.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I actually don't mind true conservatives who want minimal government intrusion and fiscal responsibility.

[SuperJerk 0]

You mean libertarians?

[Guest Vitamin X]

He said conservatives.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

He meant libertarians.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

In simple terms:

 

Libertarian=socially liberal, economically conservative. The minimal governmental intrusion on personal life is considered a liberal view because it would allow for gay marriage, etc.

 

--Ryan

...ummmm...yeah.

[SuperJerk 0]

True conservatives are people who want things to stay the same. I'd argue that most Republicans aren't conservatives, but reactionaries.

 

Libertarians think individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. Although I'm not clear on the philosophical justification, libertarians are generally against the government accumulating huge debts.

 

That's pretty close to what Kotz was advocating.

 

Its a pretty attractive philosophy, but my general disagreement with it is that it allows too much economic injustice to occur.

 

Liberalism (in the current sense of the word) is a philospohy much more fitting with my personal values, although it gets a bad rep because too many liberal leaders think you can solve problems by throwing money at them.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Liberalism (in the current sense of the word) is a philospohy much more fitting with my personal values, although it gets a bad rep because too many liberal leaders think you can solve problems by throwing money at them.

Right, and what political leader doesn't do that?

[SuperJerk 0]

Liberalism (in the current sense of the word) is a philospohy much more fitting with my personal values, although it gets a bad rep because too many liberal leaders think you can solve problems by throwing money at them.

Right, and what political leader doesn't do that?

Yes, runaway spending is a bipartisan problem. Sometimes increasing government spending IS needed, but its gotten out of hand since "We're going to increase the budget for it" became the automatic answer to every question asked (as in any presidential debate since 1984).