Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

SockMarket (35.27)

Since When did Republicans (Excluding Ron Paul) Start Caring About the National Debt?

Recs

27

March 26, 2010 – Comments (26)

It seems to be the new line: "we don't wanna do it, it costs too much". Great, now explain why, only a decade earlier the party voted to cut taxes massively for rich individuals who really didn't need the money. Now Warren Buffett pays the same tax rate as a manual laborer. This is also the party that started our national debt ballooning out in the Reagan era. Most of these people are the same people that were in there in the Bush era and most were in office when they signed the first bailout into law.

So where did all this fiscal conservatism come from? My impression is that it is merely a political tool to gain an argument against the Democrats and that neither party really gives a flying duck  :-)  as to what happens to the national debt as long as the nasty effects don't hit while they are in office.

As I see it the Democrats are the party of tax-'n-spend while the Republicans are the party of borrow-'n-spend (while chopping taxes).

If there was someone in office, other than Paul, who gave a darn about actually having a small government I might feel differently but when all these fiscal conservatives start popping out of the woodwork after a decade or two on capitol hill I really can't think they actually belive the rhetoric they are spouting. 

That's my rant for the day. 

26 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I think the RNC got the message with the sudden appearance of the TEA Partiers.

Report this comment
#2) On March 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Agreed. They are frauds.  What's worse?   Many of them are traitors

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On March 26, 2010 at 4:28 PM, starbucks4ever (97.75) wrote:

All of the debt increases before 11/04/2008 received full support from Republicans. Then their position miraculously changed overnight and they became fiscal conservatives. How sad that just on the same day when they got religion and became ready to vote against debt increases they found themselves in a minority so that debt ceiling could be raised by Congress even with Republicans voting against it. What an irony! 

Report this comment
#4) On March 26, 2010 at 4:41 PM, RonChapmanJr (32.99) wrote:

Or maybe they just thought it had finally hit a tipping point. 

Report this comment
#5) On March 26, 2010 at 4:43 PM, SockMarket (35.27) wrote:

zloj,

what happened on Nov. 4 08? Was that election day? I would not be surprised of the democrats pull the same card when they shift back to the minority. It seems to be the favorite complaint of the underdog (I suppose it has replaced the war complaint).

 

cato,

maybe, I certainly hope so! I'm afraid they didn't really understand the message though. 

 

david,

I don't think those in government are inherently evil, just incompetent morons. 

Report this comment
#6) On March 26, 2010 at 4:44 PM, SockMarket (35.27) wrote:

ron,

why now? the only tipping point we passed was a political one, unless you are referring to about 50% debt:gdp which they pushed us past!

Report this comment
#7) On March 26, 2010 at 4:54 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

danielthebear,

I understand and I am not trying to make that argument here.

In this comment (and the book I linked to above) I am merely reminding those who may be drawn back into the Republican ranks that there are elements of the Republican Party that are traitors and murderers and should be in jail. 

And so now, as I do, I will get on my soapbox (sorry to hijack the thread but my hatred of Neocons runs too deep.)

Being a moron is no excuse for selling your citizens down the river on a mountain of lies.  The Neoconservaties may have been moronic in their analysis of the implications of weilding tremendous military power around the globe, but there is no doubt that they intentionally orchestrated a lie (WMD) to justify policy (removing Saddam) that was formulated years in advance of 9/11.

Lying to the American people in order to send their sons and daughters to an overseas grave is very evil.  Let us also consider the destruction of Iraqi society and that evil as well.  Let us also consider what comes as no surprise to those that embrace a Constitutionally-correct humble foreign policy, that the results in Iraq have not come about as the Neocons intended.

They were wrong.  They lied.  The first is incompetence.  The second is evil.

Please, Republicans, do not put those pieces of sh*t back in charge.

Off my soapbox.

Thanks,
David in Qatar

Report this comment
#8) On March 26, 2010 at 5:02 PM, SockMarket (35.27) wrote:

david,

agree completely. There is no excuse. All im saying is they probably don't really understand what they did. As horrible as it was & is. 

Report this comment
#9) On March 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

danielthebear,

Thanks for understanding.  My biggest fear right now is that the Tea Party backlash will open the door for the neocons to reassert themselves. They have no morals or ethics.  They will say anything to get Republican votes.  Then, if they can gain a supermajority in 2012 (not entirely out of the realm of possibility), we are all in for the horror of our lifeitmes. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On March 26, 2010 at 6:00 PM, starbucks4ever (97.75) wrote:

#5,

I will be surprised if they DO NOT pull the same card when they shift back to minority. 

 

Report this comment
#11) On March 26, 2010 at 6:05 PM, gman444 (28.99) wrote:

Danielthebear:  Great post--I am glad to see someone out there that gets it.  Without the Bush tax cuts and other, unprecendented supports for corporate America (domestic policies) combined with the Iraq war (foreign policy) there would be no debate about being able to afford health care and any number of other social reforms.   I realize I am dating myself, but I recall a similar conflict occurring with the Reagan tax cuts--I once heard George Will say (in person) that Reagan's genius was that the new, skyrocketing deficits would prevent the social spending that contributes to "the welfare state."  The Dems short-circuited that one, that time, by funding social programs anyway, and therein lies the beginning of our modern runaway deficit train.

David in Qatar,

I have to admit that I don't usually find much to agree with in your posts--but the book link you gave is truly outstanding, one of the best I've seen.  It provides such clarity about the neocon agenda and influence, and explains so much about the Bush (W) presidency.   It is easily seen from the book excerpt that the neocons went wrong right from the beginning (where most tragic philosophical arguments go wrong).  Theirs is an ideology driven by arrogance, which is repeatedly reflected and magnified in their arguments. 

About the only things I would take issue with you on are the distinctions you make between incompetence and evil--the neocons are overarchingly idealogical--I think you know enough about ideology to know that to the hyper-idealists, the end justifies the means.  So to do evil in the ultimate cause of good is justified.  Ironically, this is very much like the mentality adopted by Communism.  Is this in itself evil?  Maybe, but I can't see it as a simple answer.

The other point is the responsibility that the people of this country have--even after two administrations of neocon rule, you think it is possible for the neocons to gain power so soon?  If this is so, the people that vote are at best, blind and gullible, or at worst, actually agree with neocon policies.  Neither possibility speaks well of us. 

Report this comment
#12) On March 26, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Option1307 (30.16) wrote:

This is why poltics are crap, as you said, both parties are essentially giving us the same thing. I consider myself to ahve conservative values, at least when it comes to fiscal responsibility. And in no way do I feel Republicans represent my beliefs in this area. you are correct, they are merely playing this card for PR purposes.

Report this comment
#13) On March 26, 2010 at 7:23 PM, ocsurf (< 20) wrote:

It's this type of name-calling and finger pointing that keeps this country divided. Our government is corrupt and not looking out for the the good of the citizens. It's not a Democrat or Republican problem. We need to come together as citizens and fight this political crap going on in Washington soon.

Report this comment
#14) On March 26, 2010 at 8:09 PM, SockMarket (35.27) wrote:

thanks all,

Im surprised at how many people agree with me. This has been my opinion for quite some time. I haden't posted it before because I expected that a whole bunch of die hards from both sides to jump on me, but hey maybe I should post more of my political thoughts. 

Report this comment
#15) On March 26, 2010 at 8:28 PM, RainierMan (72.98) wrote:

We'll exactly. It's mindless that the Republicans get on this soapbox. Ditto the "sanctity of life" thing, but they are ok with seeing 30M people not have healthcare.

But I think what is pretty clear is that politics is not about putting facts out there for the public, it's about rhetoric. And frankly, if you say something enough, many Americans will buying into it. Don't forget, half this country thought Iraq was behind 9/11, and the Bushies just kept repeating 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence.

 

Report this comment
#16) On March 26, 2010 at 8:59 PM, SnapDave (64.41) wrote:

New government social programs and escalating existing ones at the same time fighting a large war.  No I'm not talking about Obama, I had LBJ in mind.  Then we had those clueless fiscal disasters named Nixon and Carter.  Not to defend Reagan in any way but the groundwork for trillion dollar debts was laid long before 1981.  Reagan simply added his spending agenda to existing problems while pretending to make other substantial cuts.  People forget that when he came in the debt had already reached the $1 trillion milestone. 

Compared to what we've had since, LBJ came in with fairly sound government and a good economy with real depth to it before he laid this ground work for destroying things.  Now try to think of LBJ put into the context of now where we begin with the most bloated government ever, wars, a hollow 'service' economy and a depression/recession.  That's exactly what we have now with Obama seeing himself in the role of LBJ (or FDR).  That worked so well the first time, lets try it again. 

BTW if you want to see Ron Paul gain more traction, he needs to leave the tin foil hat at home.  Personally I don't think he can do it.  I have more hope for Schiff.  See recent video of Paul asking Helo Ben about the Fed funding watergate.  Another thing: if you think we can't afford a war that's fine.  But to run for Republican nomination for president while blaming America for terrorists...don't be so surprised when you lose. 

ocsurf

What name calling?  Maybe you're missing the nuance here, but this is a group of mostly conservative posters calling out  Republican politicians.  It is NOT Democrats bashing Republicans. 

Report this comment
#17) On March 26, 2010 at 9:10 PM, SUPERMANSTOCKS (58.91) wrote:

 

I know that all we have so far is the Tea Party and Ron Paul. When the next Presidential Election comes around. I think about voting for (Brewsters Million's) for None of the Above!  The people need to come together and present one of their own. Not some smuck that will take Goldman's Money or Citi's Money. We need someone that will work for the people. Not someone who will work for the banks!!

Report this comment
#18) On March 26, 2010 at 9:23 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

SnapDave,

It's a common shot at Ron Paul that he blames "America" for terrorists.  Do you see no difference between "America" and "American Foreign Policy" or "American Government." 

I do. I've never felt that American Foreign Policy ever represented my beliefs, and yet, I am an American that served in the American military.

So I have no problem with Ron Paul saying that American Foreign Policy is the primary motivation for terrorist attacks on Americans.  And I clearly see the difference between that statement and the concept that "Americans" caused 9/11.

One of the great neocon lies was that a humble foreign policy is similar to Neville Chamberlain's passiveness in the face of Hitler.  Well, for those of us that have read more than one history book, another analogy comes to mind.

The Neocon Republican party suspiciously reminds me of the Clausewitzian model of war as diplomacy by other means and the overarching philosohpy of the First and Second Reich.  Their reliance on the Military Industrial Complex reminds me of the Reich's relationship with the Krupp family. 

If anything, their ideas bring a dystopian nightmare closer to America's shores by setting the stage for the disintegration of America as the Bismarck/Cluasewitz warfare/welfare state ensured the destruction of Germany.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#19) On March 26, 2010 at 10:01 PM, SockMarket (35.27) wrote:

snapdave,

Not to defend Reagan in any way but the groundwork for trillion dollar debts was laid long before 1981.  Reagan simply added his spending agenda to existing problems while pretending to make other substantial cuts.  People forget that when he came in the debt had already reached the $1 trillion milestone. 

Reagan dirasticly altered the economic landscape with his policies, policies which Carter and Nixon had nothing to do with. (ex: supply side economics). This expanded the debt a couple hundred percent during his 8 years in office. The man was an actor, not an economist. Shifting the blame to his predecessors is totally inaccurate in this case.

 

LBJ did little to help the economy but claiming that his social programs were the drag, or even a major one, is missing the point. Sure there are programs I don't agree with, welfare for instance, but all these plans cost a billion or two compared to Vietnam which cost about $600B.

As for Ron Paul he may be a bit loopy and too into conspiracy movements (I doubt the fed ever funded Watergate) but he is the only politician I have seen who actually sticks to his guns. As far as I am concerned he is partly right about America creating the terroists. If we had left well enough alone overseas and not tried to protect the whole bloody world or get its oil (Afghanistan and Iraq) there would be little support base for a movement who's enemy was secluded in a distant land and had nothing to do with the problems at home (written, of course, from the pov of a middle easterner). 

 

but this is a group of mostly conservative posters calling out  Republican politicians.  It is NOT Democrats bashing Republicans.

For the record I am independant. I tended to lean left lately because they have been the better of the two groups, although I am very quickly hating both groups. When I can finally vote I will probably wind up writing in some obsucre candidate (just for kicks I might do one from the national anarchists' party)

 

ocsurf,

true, but finger pointing is fun :). Seriously though the problem isn't strictly one of partisinship, although that does hurt, the problem is that the system is broken.  

Report this comment
#20) On March 26, 2010 at 11:22 PM, ralphmachio (28.43) wrote:

It really doesn't matter which big fish the little fish votes for, the results are the same. That any of the age old knowledge about PNAC is new to people is the reason we are in this predicament, but the movie "The Corporation", has to be 7 years old, and clearly shows the PNAC for the psychopath-robots with no concern for those they murder that they truly are. 

That progression from realism to our current foreign policy is really an attempt by a murderous bully to cover his tracks, and try to maintain the status of being 'above conviction, or retribution'. Our current elevated levels of police and fear on TV are designed to redirect the blame, and protect the guilty from ever being pointed out in a public forum. 

You don't think there is a connection between the CIA, Afghanistan and the herion  that gets to our high school kids? Ever seen the "Cremation of Care" ritual from Bohemian Grove, on Youtube? To think of these men as incompetent, and not evil, you almost have to subconsciously protect yourself from doing any investigation about them by chalking it all up as a big 'conspiracy theory', when in fact it is just a conspiracy. No big deal, or weird music, or Jesse Ventura, just a bunch of people planning the future of politics and industry and warfare IN SECRET. (I know, how absurd...)

 

Report this comment
#21) On March 26, 2010 at 11:51 PM, SockMarket (35.27) wrote:

You don't think there is a connection between the CIA, Afghanistan and the herion  that gets to our high school kids?

being a HS student right now I can say that almost no one uses heroin (I have never met anyone who did). The CIA would have done much better to invade some central american country and plant coca. I think that Bush wanted to get close to Iran, having talked to a former OSS agent about this he said it would make an excellent base for an attack and with our firepower and Iraq under our control it would have made for a vastly easier war. I would say that when Iraq and Afg. didn't pan out the idea of expanding our middle east "empire" didn't pan out, so the idea went down in smoke. 

As for calling them evil I see no reason for them to be evil. I think the chance of getting a bunch of sadistic people all elected is very small that I can't believe this. 

Report this comment
#22) On March 27, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Turfscape (42.78) wrote:

ralphmachio wrote:
"It really doesn't matter which big fish the little fish votes for, the results are the same."

 I agree. Sadly, it is incredibly effective to run on the platform of "Sure, I'm bad...but their side is WAY worse. You have to vote for one of us, so don't vote for 'him'!"

 Honestly, The Simpsons portrayed it best with the Tree House of Horror episode in which Kang and Kodos assumed the bodies of Clinton and Dole leading up to the election of 1996. As Homer said: "Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos." 

Report this comment
#23) On March 27, 2010 at 1:17 AM, SnapDave (64.41) wrote:

whereaminow

Excellent defense of your position. Nobody's missing the difference you mentioned. I don't really care to argue the point right now. My point remains, you can't posibly have expected him to win with that talk. But what is more important right now is economics. While I'm sure there are many practical problems with Austrian economics, its ideas are essential to putting the discipline on the path to truth instead of the path to fail. And that's realistically the best we can hope for, to get politicians, gov't, the Fed pointed in the right direction. America thinks Bernanke knows what he's doing just like they used to about Greenspan. These men aren't evil, they are simply wrong. It may be too late but there is nothing more important than the economy. Whether Ron Paul was right, wrong or misunderstood it dosn't matter. He sabotaged his campaign and these sideshows are sabotoging the process of making people aware of Austrian ideas.

danielthebear

Like I said, I don't let Reagan off the hook at all. But heaping it all on him is just incorrect. LBJ does matter. Try adding up the costs of his social programs over many years before comparing them to Vietnam - and please don't label me a Vietnam war supporter.

I would add Sen. Coburn as a good guy. He's been at odds with Republican spending - long before it became popular again.

but this is a group of mostly conservative posters calling out Republican politicians. It is NOT Democrats bashing Republicans.

My point here was this person seemed to assume this was another Dem vs. Republican pissing match, which totally missed the mark. The other guy 'MichaelinWA' probably didn't even read the page before running his mouth.

Report this comment
#24) On March 27, 2010 at 4:24 AM, SUPERMANSTOCKS (58.91) wrote:

i HAVE A GREAT IDEA! DR ALAN KEYS FOR PRESIDENT!

Watch this...... Click here!

Report this comment
#25) On March 27, 2010 at 4:27 AM, SUPERMANSTOCKS (58.91) wrote:

http://loyaltoliberty.com/

Report this comment
#26) On March 27, 2010 at 5:03 AM, SUPERMANSTOCKS (58.91) wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug66-nXt4nE&feature=player_embedded

Watch this! Dr Alan Keyes is correct! I say he should be our next President!

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement