Tax and spend Republicans

David Traver · Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 05:53 pm Post subject: Tax and spend Republicans

As you know, the Republicans spend like drunken sailors while advertising that they are fiscally "conservative." Of course, history shows the Republican self-proclaimed thriftiness is utter nonsense. One need look only a the Reagan and Bush I and II administrations to see utter lack of restraint in the expansion of the size of federal spending combined with policies that required increased State and local spending as well (such as Reagan's disability cessations and Bush II's No Child Left Behind fiasco.) See the nice chart from the Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org (you might notice that the flattest portion of the curve occurred under the Clinton Administration, not those "conservative" Republican Administrations. Take a look at what happened under a Republican Administration with a Republican Congress (Bush II)).

What is less obvious (to conservatives) is that the "cutting taxes" portion of the Republican dogma also happens to be false. How can this be? Republican fiscal policy drives down the value of the dollar, which results in less purchasing power for you and me. Oil is a good example. Not only does gas "cost" about $3.90 cents a gallon these days, but your $3.90 is worth significantly less everywhere else you shop too. As a result clothes from China (are there any other kind?) vegetables from South America, lumber from Canada, etc., all cost much more. You feel burdened and taxed because you are burdened and taxed - by the Republican monetary policy which reduces the value of your dollar during Republican administrations. This is especially true for the disabled (and civil service employees) who get a minor cost adjustments for "inflation" but no cost adjustment for the de facto and massive devaluation of the dollar that happens when Republican presidents are in power.

Source http://alphaville.ftdata.co.uk/lib/inc/getfile/439.jpg

Happily, there is hope. The ueber-conservative (and owned by R. Murdoch) Wall Street Journal, has explicitly endorsed the Obama strong-dollar policy. This is a good thing from an unexpected source.

deltajudge · Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Posts: 434

All of congress has been tax and spend, and earmarks. Now all of them are trying to get religion including the congresswoman, who likes to be called congressman, Marsha Blackburn who also has had some problems with campaign money trickling down to family members. And let's not forget Mr. Murtha, the champ of earmarks. Republican and democrat respectively. Be careful whom you paint with the tarbrush. 8)

David Traver · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 01:15 am Post subject:

Your posting was nonresponsive.

Objection!

So what about those Republican Administrations. Was I right? If so, why would we not call them tax and spend Republicans? Republican adminstrations are worse than Democratic administrations when it comes to "taxing and spending." It's not a tar brush, it's just a fact.

If it is a tar brush, why do you condone the Republicans using it on the Democrats, especially when it happens that the Republican administrations are worse?

If it is a tar brush, why did you just use it?

Katall · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 92

David,

The title of this thread is misleading. Republicans have NOT been the TAX and spend party. They have been the BORROW and spend party. The Republicans of our day are certainly not conservatives. And the Democrats of today are less "tax-happy" than those of the 60's. This country has not had a conservative president, arguably, since Herbert Hoover. IMHO Reagan has come closest in the last 70 years, but even he was a Republican first and a conservative second.

I would put forth that today's Democrats are yesterday's conservative movement, fiscally, anyhow. Conservatives are not against progress. For example, during the civil rights movement, William Buckley was not against integration. He was against Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act because he thought the country was going too fast and the speed would result in civil strife. He thought that changes would come and hoped they would, but thought it would be better if the changes happened over a century, not a decade. Of course, he recanted later in life and admitted that he had been wrong.

There are portions of the federal government conservatives could do without, as they hang on the proposition that the federal government's purpose is minimal, to provide a national face to the world, to provide a standing army, and to facilitate commerce. Obstensibly, on a smaller scale, conservatives would not be against the government providing services, such as roads, but they think the private sector can do it better. Also, I do not believe that a conservative president would have invaded Iraq, at least without ensuring that we had enough troops (a draft) and ensuring a national consensus (bipartisanship).

What describes conservatives, does not describe the Republican party of today and certainly does not describe George Bush (John McCain is a little closer to it). I would like to see conservatives stand by their convictions. But they appear to be more hypocritcal than steadfast, at least when they get political power.

David Traver · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 02:37 pm Post subject:

That's nice analysis. Thanks.

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

Maybe just a minor point but is it not true that an administration does not tax or spend - it is the congress. The administration can propose but congress must dispose. Functionally that may or may not change anything but bills must originate in congress.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp

David Traver · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 04:05 pm Post subject:

However, the President submits a proposed budget and he has veto power, eh?

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

Yep - checks and balances - Political Science 101.

Budget goes to several congressional committees where it can be (as they say) DOA and the veto can be over ridden by a 2/3 vote and if upheld the government can bed ground to a halt.

It can be shared blame or shared exhalation depending on your district or state?

David Traver · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject:

Hmmm.

So, how does that explain the expanded budge, decreased value of the dollar, and budget deficits under Republican administrations since Eisenhower? Why would the Democratic Party be the Tax and Spend party when the Republican Administrations are in power when things go away from the direction of goodness fiscally?

Is it that the blame is "shared" when the data point at the Republicans but the blame is assigned to the Democrats when the finger points there?

deltajudge · Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Posts: 434

Who's in charge of the congress? 8)

Katall · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 92

Of course, Congress, but only for the past two years. Hardly enough time to set everything straight.

The bottom line is that we have had a Republican president for 7 of the last 7 years and a Republican Congress 4 of the last 7 years. The Republicans had a chance to show they could run the country and they failed miserably. Perhaps they needed a little more time. More likely, they should have stuck to conservative principles and they would have been fine.

deltajudge · Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Posts: 434

You can't put it all on the republicans, they were hand in hand with the democrats. 8)

Insider (Ret) · Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 01:00 pm Post subject:

Of course. But the point of David's initial post here was that Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, used to be the party of balanced budgets and fiscal prudence. Did you see that last month--last month, I repeat--the Federal deficit increased by over 100 billion dollars. In the month of July alone. 102.7 billion. In one month. We used to talk about forcing our grandchildren to pay off our debts....it's now looking like it will be our great-great grandchildren....if the planet survives global warming, that is.