The Party of Big Government

**zedhex** · 12-09-2008, 12:23 PM

I heard McCain saying that if the Dems get in, then the result of more 'Big Government'. I thought I would see if this checked out in reality.

Check this link:

How Big Is Bush's Big Government? - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute

"The United States, lives under the rule of the largest civil government, measured in budgetary terms, in history. Federal spending alone in fiscal year 2006 is expected to be over $2.7 trillion, which means the federal government spends $7.4 billion a day or $5.1 million in every minute of the year. This is 815 times the level of federal spending in 1930.

Things have been getting worse recently. In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%. For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%, and under Bush I federal spending increased 23% in four years. In the 2000 election, Bush II promised to shovel money into all sorts of programs — and he's kept that promise."

The neocons currently in power have basically betrayed the Republican parties 'limited government' roots:

The big question is: Would McCain and Palin be able to reverse this if elected? Given estimated budget deficits of over 1 trillion dollars over the next term http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/...ficit-by-2017/

and McCain and Palin's support for the various neocon wars around the world, it looks plainly impossible.

**barbaro** · 12-09-2008, 12:33 PM

Yes, the GOP of today is nothing like that of 1994.

GWB is a huge big government guy.

The Repubs believe in big government, and the Demos believe in big government.

Which party believes in bigger government.

We are not sure anymore.

McCain will not be able to do much to stop the growth, expansion, and encroachment of the US federal government.

It's too complicated.

**sabang** · 12-09-2008, 12:38 PM

Old, tired cliche'. It really surprises me how many GOP faithful raise this nonsense that the Dem's are the party of big government, big taxes and fiscal irresponsibility when the actual track record of the last 16 years tells you quite the opposite- and now the US faces a financial hole thanks to the Bush admin, that we are meant to believe only another Republican admin can fix. Yeh, right.

There is no mainstream political party that remotely stands for small government. Even under Reagan, there was no real paring back of the government.

**zedhex** · 12-09-2008, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Which party believes in bigger government.

That is exactly the issue I'd like to see debated - far more important than hot air about who-called-who a pig.

**sabang** · 12-09-2008, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by zedhex

The neocons currently in power have basically betrayed the Republican parties 'limited government' roots:

Noam Chomsky is a pretty adept political commentator- he describes the neo-con Republican party version as 'radical Statists'.

**Bugs** · 12-09-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

Noam Chomsky is a pretty adept political commentator- he describes the neo-con Republican party version as 'radical Statists'.

I don't think I would refer to Chomsky as an "adept political commentator". I'll give him creidt for intelligence and being knowledgeable in regard to world affairs, but to me and "adept commentator" implies some degree of neutrality - whcih Chomsky certainly is not.

As for big government, this for me is the biggest disappointment over the past eight years of Bush, and the republican controlled congress not so many years back. I blame some of this on them (the republicans) getting greedy when they finally got control of congress back in the '90's. It seemed almost as if they went on a feeding frenzy and starting throwing pork every which way. The neo-cons are certainly also to blame because small government is anything but what is necessary to get done much of what they feel needs to be done.

My hope is that should McCain get elected he will be able to change things. I would be quite content if who ever gets elected they would make reducing the size of the government or at least the budget number one on the to-do list. Even to the point of keeping things in gridlock based solely on getting a reasonable budget. Vetoing ANY bill that had ANY earmarks or ANY pork.

**panama hat** · 12-09-2008, 07:18 PM

Increasing spending while cutting taxes . . . how fiscally responsible

**plorf** · 12-09-2008, 08:57 PM

To my limited knowledge the Republicans have effectively been the far bigger spenders than the Democrats, and have done so without fail since WWII, at least according to the neat statistics that are in my mind.
I can't really be bothered searching for it, but I am sure some more knowledgeable person might know where to find it..
It just strikes me that people think McCain could be able to reduce government spending while maintaining or even enlarging the military budget in Iraq and Afghanistan AND spend more on education and the environment and education, which JWB hasn't.
But then I'm a european Obama-"supporter" which makes me a communist hippie unqualified to discuss this topic !

**panama hat** · 12-09-2008, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by plorf

But then I'm a european Obama-"supporter" which makes me a communist hippie unqualified to discuss this topic !

You are also Satan's spawn and a habitual liar who couldn't t see the path of the righteous if it smacks you on your kitten-killing head.

(Have a green, son)

**Boon Mee** · 12-09-2008, 09:54 PM

Well, if the Democrats get in, we know Big Government will get even bigger. Think Socialized Medicine. Slavery Reparations, increased taxes...quite simply, a nightmare scenario...

**benbaaa** · 12-09-2008, 10:33 PM

It always puzzled me that conservatives in the UK and US would always bang on about the evils of spending on healthcare, education and social services but would always squeal if anyone ever mentioned cutting back on military budgets. They'd rather have a shed full of missiles that they could never use than a population that was well-educated, healthy and cared for in old age.

**panama hat** · 13-09-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by benbaaa

It always puzzled me that conservatives in the UK and US would always bang on about the evils of spending on healthcare, education and social services but would always squeal if anyone ever mentioned cutting back on military budgets.

That's because military spending help the average person on the street, as well as the military-industrial complex in which so many pollies have an interest.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Well, if the Democrats get in, we know Big Government will get even bigger. Think Socialized Medicine. Slavery Reparations, increased taxes...quite simply, a nightmare scenario...

I wonder how you can say that when the evidence is simply not there - on the contrary, Republicans have made 'Big Government' a reality . . . please,please look at the figures of the last 20-odd years instead of just goose-stepping and paroting the tired an old clichees that are not so correct anymore.

**Norton** · 13-09-2008, 01:22 PM

Historicallyy, both parties seem quite happy to increase spending and some Presidential Administrations from both parties have decreased spending as a % of GDP. State government spending is also at all time record highs. It's a team effort.

The total amount spent is not really a good measure but needs to be measured as a percentage of GDP.

"Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.

The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt"

"Budgeting is about making choices, and this period is one that shows a complete absence of that"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...spending_x.htm

Link a bit dated but probably even worse in 2008.

**GregCV** · 14-09-2008, 07:55 AM

In the U.S., spending is controlled by Congress, not by the President. Congress sets the budgets and authorize funds. The spending by Congress is approved or disapproved by the President, unless congressional override is made achieved with a 2/3 vote in Congress (then the President is unable to have any effect on the spending). The President can suggest what to spend government dollars on, but cannot actually introduce a bill Congress can vote on to authorize spending --- only a member of Congress can do that. Funds for the Iraq War were approved by Congress, along with corporate bailouts and special interest funding. Without them introducing spending bills and approving them, all U.S. programs would halt.
For the last four years, and in most of the last 40 years, the Congress has been controlled by Democrats, and they seem to spend U.S. money with no responsibility at all. That's really why the U.S. is in a huge mess with government spending.
Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and even Reagan have had little effect in controlling the wild spending in Congress, and they have all tried to do so.
The U.S. voter needs to boot out the scoundrels that control Congress, and that is pretty much Democrats. It's hard to do, though, since these congress people help to fund projects in the voter's neighborhood.
Generally, Republican congressional people are much better in reducing U.S. government spending than their Democrat counterpart, but the free-spending Democrats manage to get re-elected over and over.

**zedhex** · 14-09-2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Well, if the Democrats get in, we know Big Government will get even bigger. Think Socialized Medicine. Slavery Reparations, increased taxes...quite simply, a nightmare scenario...

Hey it must be tough when the facts show you up like that.

I'll make it very, very simple for you. Both parties are big spending, financially irresponsible opportunists who only look after their own vested interests. But the GOP has been more irresponsible than the DEMs over the last 15 years.

**zedhex** · 14-09-2008, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by GregCV

The U.S. voter needs to boot out the scoundrels that control Congress, and that is pretty much Democrats.

eh??? the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994, and only lost it in 2006. Thats 12 years of republican control, in which spending went thru the roof! I think I'll correct that for you:

Originally Posted by GregCV

The U.S. voter needed to boot out the scoundrels that control Congress, and that was pretty much Republicans.

**barbaro** · 14-09-2008, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by zedhex

Originally Posted by GregCV

The U.S. voter needs to boot out the scoundrels that control Congress, and that is pretty much Democrats.

eh??? the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994, and only lost it in 2006. Thats 12 years of republican control, in which spending went thru the roof! I think I'll correct that for you:

Originally Posted by GregCV

The U.S. voter needed to boot out the scoundrels that control Congress, and that was pretty much Republicans.

The GOP of today is radically, radically, different from the GOP of 1994.

This is why I stopped voting Republican for the 1996 election.

By 1996, the GOP had strayed.

**mad_dog** · 15-09-2008, 04:46 AM

The libertarian element of the Rebulican Party has certainly deminished. The religious right uses the government to advance its beliefs and big business from the arms industry to the farmers have increased the amount of money that American people have taken from their pockets in the name of their protection.

Thread: The Party of Big Government

Thread Tools

Display

The Party of Big Government

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions