How come the Republicans are spending like Democrats?
 

Who the hell is left to vote for when Republicans are spending like Democrats? How can "We The People" take back government from the politicians who will spend our money on any likely voter. I am so tired of giving away the house to any special interest group that puts out it's hand. There is no end in sight.
{sigh}

The irony being that the spending here has never been balanced whereas before they were.

Anyways, what did you expect? Two wars in a row + buildups = $$$$$$

Re: How come the Republicans are spending like Democrats?
 

Hasn't been like that for some time. Perhaps it's time to reconsider your views........

2Wolves

For better or for worse, spending is the American Way. It is virtually impossible to get any meaningful cuts in Washington. Your decision on who to vote for is really on who is going to spend on the issues you believe need to be addressed.

Not true. It's a disinformation to say that the Democrats are bad with money and spendthrift.

It was Republicans who created our national debt. Reagan, Bush, Bush II.

Clinton started us on the path to paying it down. Our non-defense descretionary spending increase under Clinton was about 3.5%
Under Bush II it is about 20%. And it was somewhere in between for the two previous Pub presidents.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the systems implimented by Reaganomics and Bush pave the way for Clinton's prosperity? Clinton had barely been in office when the economy started to soar, sure he deserves credit for extending the good economy, but not necesarily all the credit for starting it.

Well, a US taxpayer might expect that, as in past wars, taxes might be raised to cover the costs of international security. Perhaps preference in awarding contracts might be given to companies that don't run tax-dodging Bernudan shells.

Instead, motions to tie defense pork to being a US corportate taxpayer were deep-sixed, and taxes on the wealthy were slashed.

The economic boom in the 90s had to do mostly with improvements in technology - and the economy began to speed up in the later months of Bush Srs presidency... Clinton and economy was being in the right place at the right time.

Kinda an oversimplification but essentially I think its correct...

Ehh, I dunno. It's a little of both.

I'll agree the bubble bursting is the main cause for the plummeting economy, but you can't say that Bush's tax-cuts and constant warring don't have anything to do with the state of it all, no more could you say that Clinton was the mastermind behind the rip-roar economy of the mid 90's.

I think that in the long run, you will see periods of deficit spending, then you'll see periods in which the government pays it off. It's happened before, no reason to think history won't repeat itself.

Under FDR, we spent ourselves out of the depression, creating a huge deficit that would later be paid off when the economy recovered. Bush II seems to be doing something similar, creating a huge deficit by spending billions on the military and cutting taxes for the ultra-rich. The next logical part of the cycle is for the next president (or maybe the next one after the next president) will be the one to pay off the bill.

The only amazing part about this story is that in less than four years we have gone from a period in which there was a record surplus projected to a period where we have the biggest deficit this nation has ever known, along with one of the highest spending "burn rates" of all time. Blame it on the war or 9-11, but the truth is that the Bush administration totally wrecked our economy, and has no coherent plan for resuscitating it.

lol, the President won't be the "one to pay off the bill."

While past administrations have increased spending and the deficit in the past they haven't simultaneously reduced taxes.

You can't solely blame the Bush Admin for the economy.
1) The computer industry that Clinton's economy exploded on, peaked and died down right before/right after bush took office
2) The Market crashed, you could blame Bush for that. But hey if you know anything you know that the market can't be insanely good for ever, it has up's and downs. It was only a matter of time til it happened, its the nature of the beast.

Uhh, didn't we just address that?

Bush isn't the only one to blame, congress is too.

Overall though some republicans are moving closer to the center, which can lead to a lot of half-assed shit which accomplishes nothing. Same applies to democrats that move closer to center.

The economy is cyclical, that is a fact.

But you don't have to make it worse.

You can blame 911 all you want, but that simply isn't the case. I think the entire American military budget is around 332 billion dollars, and the American deficit is scraping 500 billion, so there is no way 911 is to blame. I seem to think that the american military budget was pretty big before 911 and you didn't have record deficits under Clinton.

Me thinks it is more like giving a tax cut so the average schmuck can go out and buy a big mac combo for him and his wife that he couldn't have afforded before each weak (assuming a big mac combo runs you around 5 bucks x 2 = 10 bucks a week, = $520 a year.)

Now your rich dude, who has more money than he knows what to do with will save hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, who knows. Now he can go out and buy another little island paradise somewhere down in the Caymen Islands.

The crash of the stock market is partly due to the tech bubble bursting yes, which would have happened sooner or later i agree BUT, at least half of it (the crash) is due to the the perception that you can no longer trust accountants and corporations. Guys like Enron, Global Crossing, World Com, Fannie Mae, and even Ford have all deceived investors through out and out lying and the big accounting offices have been there right with them.

Simply put, the investor has lost confidence in the market.

And this you CAN blame W bush for since he and his administration have done NOTHING to discourage this sort of behavior.

If Bush wanted to do something, he would have thrown all those Enron thieves (and they are thieves) in jail for a hundred years each. Then see how many CEO's out there would be in favour of cooking the books.

But he didn't. And he won't.

Bush may not be entirely to blame for the economy, I would say he and his administration are 85% to blame for it and they are only making it worse with Iraq.

Oh, by the way, the cost for the Iraq war is not reflected in that budget deficit of 500 billion for some reason. And the price of a barrel of oil pre war was $21.00, now it is somewhere around $33.00.

You enjoy that big mac combo, you earned it.

Five words: Billionares for Bush (or Gore).

I find it funny that politicians, most oftentimes in state or local governemnts, claim to cut spending, but really only reduce the rate of spending.

"We cut spending by 10 % this year!" In reality spending will go 5%, instead of 15%.

Spin is great isn't it? Try it when you go to Weight Watchers.

Weight Watchers Bob: So Sam, you've been really gaining weight by leaps and bounds. How are you doing this week?
Fat Sam: Oh, its great! I lost 10 pounds!
Weight Watchers Bob: But the scale says you weigh 379 pounds. you gained 5 pounds.
Fat Sam: But the last time I came, I had gained 20 pounds. ITS LIKE I'M LOSING WEIGHT!

I belive the quote from American Beauty is "Never underestimate the power of denial."

So what can be done. I stopped supporting politicians that don't support my country. I started supporting the Libertarian Party.

I wouldn't keep going back to a mechanic that kept going over budget and did things that I didn't like, so why should I vote for the same old politicians that give me the same old problems?

Re: How come the Republicans are spending like Democrats?
 

Vote Libertarian?

You'll be "throwing your vote away", but at least you won't be contributing to the growth of Republicrats.

Re: Re: How come the Republicans are spending like Democrats?
 

Bingo.
And their whole party's main perspective is "stop the spending".

But, as more people vote for them, the more influence they'll have.
They are the most likely party to actually become a third leg.

It would be nice, not to have to flip a coin between two evils.