NationStates Jolt Archive

I really have to admit the republican party's problem

It's a big problem, and we've all been hinting at it, and I'll just have to throw it out there to be objective.

Republicans have a lot of great ideals. One of them happens to be "less government spending."

Sounds great.

Here's an example of the problem.

Clinton: *raises taxes* "Look, we have a surplus!" *leaves office*
Bush: "Hey, look, we have a surplus!" *cuts taxes, refunds money*

Then 9/11 happens, we declare war on terrorism, and all a sudden, we're spending a crapload more money that we budgeted for.

There are to ways to view the deficit we have now.

You can either say "Bush should have kept that tax surplus for when he needed it."

or

"It's near impossible to budget for the unexpected, especially in the range of the cost of this war."

Just had to let that out that even us Republicans no that our ideals can backfire.

Your not Raysia. Your a 18 yr old dude who's got nothing better to do!

Your not Raysia. Your a 18 yr old dude who's got nothing better to do!...

*is raysia*

Raysian Military Tech
Minister
Founded: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 400

that's an average 100 posts a day :shock:

some people are obsessed. even more obsessed than me. Good point, repub;ican ideas backfire as often as democrat ones do. I would be a democrat (very far left) be I don't really like either party.

Raysian Military Tech
Minister
Founded: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 400

that's an average 100 posts a day :shock:Definately Raysia... the guy who went from 5000 posts to 9000 posts in 3 months :P

Congress passed those budgets every single one.
When will they ever learn, When will they ever learn.

Where have all the Vetoes gone?
Bush won't stomp one bill not even one.
When will he ever learn, ...

That's enough doggerel. The Congress is spending money in a fashion sufficiently spendthrift to awe even drunken sailors. First it was the education bill written with the democrats to stuff even more money into a broken educational system. Then there was the Farm Bill. The Medicare (let's see how fast we can break the system) Prescription Drug Bill. And now the Highway Bill. There's far more deficit there than in the tax cuts (which are a good thing in a recession -- not that the US economy has been in recession since the Mar-Nov 2001 period) or spending on the War on Terror.

That the government is currently Republican controlled isn't encouraging. Because for all the current Administration and Congress's spendthrift ways, all the Democrats can say is that if elected they'll spend more and increase taxes even more than that. [Except on the War on Terror, which is just frightening.] The ideal of smaller government seems to have been lost amongst our elected officials. The fundamental concerns of government are (or at least should be) the military, the law and the courts. The rest is taxing Peter to bribe Paul or at least get his vote. It's easy to be charitable with other people's money, especially if you're an elected official out to buy votes by pork barrel spending. This is not to say that a social safety net to prevent the worst abuses is bad, but social safety hammocks and bread and circuses being voted out of the public treasury will destroy the US faster and better than foreign enemies could ever hope to.

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"
Vicar General
Crusade for Capitalism
Church of the Almighty Dollar

You can either say "Bush should have kept that tax surplus for when he needed it."

or

"It's near impossible to budget for the unexpected, especially in the range of the cost of this war."One could argue that 9/11 was completely expected by the government. In fact, I could argue that the Pentagon portion of it was at least, as well as some fishy business that happened with World Trade Tower #7 (not one of the twin towers), but I won't because I'd be written off as a conspiracy nut.

However, I still have to side with the first opinion, because it shows a lack of foresight in the party's mind. You see, war for us is inevitable. Someone will have something we want, or vise versa, and there will be war. When that happens, we need a lot of money to bail us out, and Clinton had that money all wrapped up and set aside in a rainy day jar. Bush, though, saw that they had all this money and spent it all on a cheap PR stunt that basically gave the rich even more money, which seems to be a reoccuring theme with the man. However, when we went to war, he didn't have the money he needed so he began to steal it back from us in the most careful blend of tax raises and funding cuts imaginable. The man gave us our money back, and then stole it from us again. That's a cardinal sin Mr. Bush violated. Two, if you count money as false-idol worship, but I'll be lenient and give him one.

So Clinton had it all set, and then Bush blew it all. Face it Raysia, you got served. :P

One could argue that 9/11 was completely expected by the government. In fact, I could argue that the Pentagon portion of it was at least, as well as some fishy business that happened with World Trade Tower #7 (not one of the twin towers), but I won't because I'd be written off as a conspiracy nut.


Never fear speaking the truth! You have touched on a plethera of important information here -- people need to shake off their conditioned responses and learn to ask the tough questions and find the ugly truth. It is a sad day when the common person is taught to blindly follow authority -- it is a sadder day still when the people willingly remain ignorant! I remember when talking about black-helicopters was ridiculed... I remember when suggesting that Gulf of Tonken affair was a fraud would result in eye rolling... a few weeks ago I layed out the evidence proving that there were black-ops mercenaries in Iraq and on the Homeland Security Dept. and a mod and several posters called me a "spamming kook" -- now they are eating their words as 13 Senators sent a letter to Rumsfeld saying basically the same thing!

I really have to admit the republican party's problem

Ron Paul said it best: "the Republican party was neo-conned"

The neo-cons want an omnipresent government, an imperialist military, no Constitution or Bill of Rights, a third-world economy in America (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), and a surrender to the Military-Industrial complex on a scale beyond that of the Cold War...

Conservates want a small government, an isolationist military, a Constitutional restraint (It's not a living document, it's the Highest Law of the Land), a solid economy (based on a large middle class), and a return to the true heart of America -- liberty at any cost!

I really have to admit the republican party's problem

Ron Paul said it best: "the Republican party was neo-conned"

The neo-cons want an omnipresent government, an imperialist military, no Constitution or Bill of Rights, a third-world economy in America (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), and a surrender to the Military-Industrial complex on a scale beyond that of the Cold War...

Conservates want a small government, an isolationist military, a Constitutional restraint (It's not a living document, it's the Highest Law of the Land), a solid economy (based on a large middle class), and a return to the true heart of America -- liberty at any cost!

Indeed, a lot of people are unaware of this fact. There is a huge difference between a conservative and a neo-con. This new breed of conservatism we are seeing now (neo-con) is down right scary. I have no real issues with conservatives, I may disagree with them politically, but it's a road I can walk down with them. Neo-cons.. that's a different story. I believe it's a shift to complete fascism.. but I don't think too many people are aware that this new breed is there. I think though people are starting to become more aware of it. Thankfully.

One thing though, Bush is still advocating tax cuts, as well as making those currently temporary to be permanent (So sorry; no link, just look around the news sites though).

He tolds the US during his election that with the surplus, "if America could ever afford the tax cuts, now is the time" (That's not a direct quote again; hunt around a little). Now the US is told that the US needs a tax cut to kick-start the deficit-burdened economy.

We have more than enough money, no wars=Tax Cut
We have less than no money, and a war= More Tax Cuts

When would this administration NOT want a tax cut? Is there no bad time for a tax cut in their opinion?

Here is an idea for you to kick around.

How about cutting our all the unneccessary government programs, eliminating all the subsidies, get rid of the useless government spending on programs that only help people too lazy to help themselves. We can do all this and still keep a strong military along with a strong economy. Strong enough for even further tax cuts and we wouldn't have to resort to the idiotic practice of closing military bases that would be later needed. We can go to a smaller government and keep our country safe at the same time, all while allowing Americans to keep more of the money they earn.

When would this administration NOT want a tax cut? Is there no bad time for a tax cut in their opinion?

Cutting taxes would not be a problem if Congress would cut the spending back to a reasonable level... the real problem is that the Administration didn't really cut any of our taxes (unless any of you are billionairs)... earned income is taxed higher than unearned income and the US dollar is rapidly dropping in value... I know people that are living paycheck to paycheck that paid over 15% on the income-tax this year (God, only asks for 10%)

The Pentagon has a bloated budget because the war-profiteers are running the Administration-- cutting the taxes on their billion dollar empires, and crushing the middle-class with the burden of paying for their Imperialist Wars for Oil and Drugs!

we wouldn't have to resort to the idiotic practice of closing military bases that would be later needed.

Ah... one of the BIG LIES...

Don't you wonder why military bases keep closing even as the Pentagon budget keeps increasing! The Military-Industrial complex wants Satallite-Based Nukes, Predator Drones shooting Hellfire Missiles, Deep-Earth Penetration Bombs, Biological and Chemical Stockpiles -- but do they care about the grunt on the field?

No! They get a budget increase and the soldier on the front has takes a pay-cut, and then he has to buy his own body armor!!

Then, they deny Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome and spit on any dying soldier seeking medical treatment... VA hospitals all over America are shutting down even as a record number of Vets are entering their retirement age and a new batch are returning home with serious wounds...

So, what do they do with all of these VA hospitals and closed Military Bases? We'll FEMA turns them into concentration camps -- look at the WTO protesters in Seattle... they were rounded up and shipped off to the FEMA farm. That was just a practice for them... they are preparing to release diseases on the populace so they can herd them into little death camps -- this is what the New World Order is all about!

I really have to admit the republican party's problem

Ron Paul said it best: "the Republican party was neo-conned"

The neo-cons want an omnipresent government, an imperialist military, no Constitution or Bill of Rights, a third-world economy in America (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), and a surrender to the Military-Industrial complex on a scale beyond that of the Cold War...

Conservates want a small government, an isolationist military, a Constitutional restraint (It's not a living document, it's the Highest Law of the Land), a solid economy (based on a large middle class), and a return to the true heart of America -- liberty at any cost!

Indeed, a lot of people are unaware of this fact. There is a huge difference between a conservative and a neo-con. This new breed of conservatism we are seeing now (neo-con) is down right scary. I have no real issues with conservatives, I may disagree with them politically, but it's a road I can walk down with them. Neo-cons.. that's a different story. I believe it's a shift to complete fascism.. but I don't think too many people are aware that this new breed is there. I think though people are starting to become more aware of it. Thankfully.

I don't feel there is a true conservative party any more, not in this sense. It used to be that teh Small Business Administration was a big priority for Republicans, since it supported middle-class aspirations. Not any more; they only want the big bucks on the one hand and the niche-group social haters (anti-minorities) on the other.

Never fear speaking the truth! You have touched on a plethera of important information here -- people need to shake off their conditioned responses and learn to ask the tough questions and find the ugly truth. It is a sad day when the common person is taught to blindly follow authority -- it is a sadder day still when the people willingly remain ignorant! I remember when talking about black-helicopters was ridiculed... I remember when suggesting that Gulf of Tonken affair was a fraud would result in eye rolling... a few weeks ago I layed out the evidence proving that there were black-ops mercenaries in Iraq and on the Homeland Security Dept. and a mod and several posters called me a "spamming kook" -- now they are eating their words as 13 Senators sent a letter to Rumsfeld saying basically the same thing!I'm not afraid of saying what I want to say, I just know that it'd add less leverage to my argument. It's something called a superdefinition, people think of it when they think of you no matter what you've done. I'd be "that conspiricy nut" Resi instead of Resi "who proved Raysia wrong". The same statement holds true for gays, when you think about that (i.e., the politicion "who turned the economy around" simply becomes "that gay" politician).

The way Neo-Con seems to send liberals into spasms wants a part of me to more and more declare myself a hardcore neo-con.

The way Neo-Con seems to send liberals into spasms wants a part of me to more and more declare myself a hardcore neo-con.Now whos being partisan?

I am with that post... I don't see how that applies to anything.

The way Neo-Con seems to send liberals into spasms wants a part of me to more and more declare myself a hardcore neo-con.

and this is what happens when people belive winning is more important than the game...

I agree with the original poster, but: When the tax policy has already been set, and we had the 9-11 attacks (through which 1 million jobs were lost in 3 months), Bush knew 2 things: 1.) Massive funding had to be shifted, and 2.) a recession was going to hit. The tax cuts softened the recession, but emptied the suplus. So we've got we deficit. Bush says he'll nulify it in 5 years. Kerry says he'll nullify it in 4. Bush's plan will entail less drastic short-term cuts. That's about the only difference.

I really have to admit the republican party's problem

It's a big problem, and we've all been hinting at it, and I'll just have to throw it out there to be objective.

Republicans have a lot of great ideals. One of them happens to be "less government spending."

Here's the real problem--the Republicans say that they stand for less government spending, but the numbers prove otherwise.

Under Clinton, government not only was more responsible with the money it took in, it shrunk in size. Gore spent a lot of time in the first Clinton administration working on streamlining government, and it was partially responsible for those budgets coming into balance far sooner than was expected. Not mostly-partly.

But since Bush has gotten into office, not only have we slashed the amount of money we're taking in--we've seriously increased the size of government. Now it turns out that in at least one case--the department of Homeland Security--we probably needed the expansion. Problem is, we've got to pay for it--unless your name is George W. Bush, in which case you put it on the national charge card and let your buddies--the top one tenth of one percent of wage earners--off with the bigggest giveaway in history.

And I just want to make this point--that Bush has been so inept with the nation's money should be no surprise. He ran on the idea that he would run the country like a CEO, but nobody in the mainstream media (unless you call Molly Ivins mainstream--she's close) bothered to really investigate what that meant. The man bankrupted everything he touched, except the Texas Rangers (a team that started out as the Washington Senators and then got worse)--and he was bailed out of that deal by Tom Hicks. We should have seen this coming from miles away--he's done exactly what he has always done, taken a company (country) that was doing fine and has shot it to hell.

OY!
Can we just let this thread die? The Forum has WAY more then enough heated debates right now! I mean theres about 10 Religious shouting matches alone going on!

Ca't we all just Get Along?

the military has received a pay increase under bush, virtually unheard of under the former administration. have you ever worn a kevlar vest in a desert? they are available to every serving member overseas, many choose not to wear them. the media forgets to mention little things like this, and spins it to make it look worse than it is. veterans received 3% instead of the 4% increase in benefits, the media reported it as a cut. as for the budget part..... How many wars have been fought with a balanced budget? i cant think of any off the top of my head.

the military has received a pay increase under bush, virtually unheard of under the former administration. have you ever worn a kevlar vest in a desert? they are available to every serving member overseas, many choose not to wear them. the media forgets to mention little things like this, and spins it to make it look worse than it is. veterans received 3% instead of the 4% increase in benefits, the media reported it as a cut. as for the budget part..... How many wars have been fought with a balanced budget? i cant think of any off the top of my head.

nevermind the man behind the courtin...

LIES LIES LIES LIES

Bush cut the Soldiers pay and the military won't provide the troops with their much needed vests... they have to buy there own!

I know, military spending was *yet again* cut


Ya, the problem politicians seem to have is balancing party ideals with real-life situations and their functions.

conservatism represents the dark side of human nature

You mean like personal resposnibility, smaller government and encouraging self reliance?

Is that the dark side you are refering to?

And just remember, your conservative lifestyle( ya, you live one) bought that Windows PC you have.

You premise, that those who call them selves modern conservatives (and who are, in fact, much more fitted to the term Industrial-statist reactionaries) are after less governemnt spending is fundamentaly flawed. What their after is something altogether different- namely, less centralized government, not less. And the point is fairly obvious. The governemnt is, at least somewhat, responsive to popular pressures (whereas corporations are totalitarian institutions totaly outside of all but minimal public control). Therefore, it has to be weakend and softend up. Not destroyed however, mind you, because corporations are dependant on the governemnt for subsidy, so much so that without it, the current system of private capitalism would totaly collapse without it (to illustrate, stuides in the mid-1990s showed that of the 100 most profitable companies in the US, 80 recieved public funds in one form or another, and 20 of thsoe were saved from total collapse by those funds).

Well, the point of less centralized government should be fairly clear. Now, it's pretty hard, as a corporation, to play national governments agaisnt eachother- you have to be able to do large-scale rapid capital-reloaction to pull it off sucessfully, and so only the big boys are able to do it. But state or local governements? That's easy. It takes relatively little to threaten state governments with such pressures in order to get them to subsidize you. In this way, it should be ovious that these governement decentrilization programs are, if anything, going to increase actualy overall spending (to be financed, one can only assume, through the total destruction of the already-anemic social services in this country, towards creating a regressive tax structure). In other words, the goal is to completely eliminate the public from any role in the management of society, which as it stands is the of spectator to the process (and theirin lies the fundamental distinction between Republicans and Democrats).

And, the financial disaster Bush has brought about- that's no mistake in my opinion. What they (the current admninistration) is trying to do is to, as some economists have called it, drive the country into a "financial train wreck," by driving up extreemly high deficits. The point, once again, is class warfare. Now, everyone knows full well that you aren't going to get elected or maintain public support on a platform of eliminating social programs, espically ones like Medicare/Medicade (which I believe are the main targets, in this case). So, you do it another way. You drive up gigantic deficits, and in the process shift the tax burden downward (as the Bush tax cuts have suceeded in doing quite well), and then use the ensuing finanical chaos to support the removal of such programs. Thus, you see the same scam that was repeated in the Regan-Bush-Clintion years. Regan and bush drove up gigantic deficits (at the time, the largest since World War 2, though by his second term, even Regan had to slow down this process), and then Clintion comes along wtih panic about the "balanced budget" in order to excuse cutting out of various social programs (notice, in fact, that Howard Dean was advocating doing virtually the same thing, and stated so openly; further, I would be suprised if Kerry did not attempt the same).

Well, first, one might ask waht the importance of keeping a balanced budget is. There's no particular reason, really, that they should be. This is espically true during times of economic decline; modern economics, which was virtually defined by the theories of Keynes ( which were proven by the economic miricale of WW2, for the US) in fact states that during times of depression/recession, governemnt spending is very much needed in order to stimulate the economy (not, of course, in the way Bush would, aka, giveaways to sectors of the economy that neither need nor will spend the money in a stimulating way, but along the lines of the human and social development, or via the M-I complex, as has traditionaly been done, for reasons I won't go into now). Further, its nessecary to, as they say, spend money to make money. Running short-term deficits to foster long-term growth is, as they say in some places, a good idea. But the point is clear: to drive down the poor and working class further.

Hmm. At this pont I'm thinking I had something more to say, but I've apparantly forgotten what that was. So I'll just leave you with that for now.

I really have to admit the republican party's problem

It's a big problem, and we've all been hinting at it, and I'll just have to throw it out there to be objective.

Republicans have a lot of great ideals. One of them happens to be "less government spending."

Sounds great.

Here's an example of the problem.

Clinton: *raises taxes* "Look, we have a surplus!" *leaves office*
Bush: "Hey, look, we have a surplus!" *cuts taxes, refunds money*

Then 9/11 happens, we declare war on terrorism, and all a sudden, we're spending a crapload more money that we budgeted for.

There are to ways to view the deficit we have now.

You can either say "Bush should have kept that tax surplus for when he needed it."

or

"It's near impossible to budget for the unexpected, especially in the range of the cost of this war."

Just had to let that out that even us Republicans no that our ideals can backfire.
That doesn't, however, explain the dramatic increase in government jobs. Republicans are supposed to believe in not only decreased government spending, but decreased government. Period. (three periods in a row- that makes it an ellipsis!!)
And what about Bush senior...did the same thing happen then, I'm not old enough to remember and I'm not as informed in history and such as I should be. So was he forced into war or what?