Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With Palin out, the R field is realistically down to Romney, Perry, Cain, and there's some talk of a possible resurgence of Gingrich. Take these one by one:
Romney: I don't think there is any question that he is a 'big-government' conservative in the mold of Nixon-Dole-Bush-McCain. As Mass. Gov. he supported every liberal cause to come down the pike from 'assault weapons' bans to green jobs.
Perry: He talks a good conservative game, but there has been a gap between talk & record. Chris Edwards of Cato looked at Perry's spending as Texas Gov. and found him to be precisely average among the 50 state governors. Rick Perry’s Spending Record | Cato @ Liberty
And that was during an era when states generally were on a spending binge. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner also notes that Perry was a big 'green jobs' backer and practioner of corporate-government partnership generally.
The cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue | Timothy P. Carney | Politics | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/cowboy-corporatist-rides-rescue - broken link)
So while he talks a good game, his record is. like Romey's, one of 'big government' conservatism.
Gingrich: was more responsible than anyone for the derailing of the 1994 Republican revolution. Instead of joining forces with the limited gov't advocates such as Kasich and Largent at the time, Gingrich threw in with the old bulls like Bob Livingston, who thought of 1994 as their turn to play the pork game that the Dems had been playing for 40 years.
Cain: this leaves Herman Cain, to me the only one who is a real ideological conservative. But for all his progress he remains a long shot.
It is likely that R's will keep the US House and gain the Senate after 2012. If R's also gain the Presidency, they will again control all three, just as in 2000. But recall what happened after 2000? The GOP took us on a spending binge such as we had not seen since LBJ.
Economist William Niskanen has looked at the effects of 'divided' vs. 'united' government, and found that the experience of 2000-2006 was typical. When one party controls all three segments of DC, we get the biggest increases in spending. Economist Steve Slivinski gives a summary of this in his excellent book Buck Wild (page 197).
United vs. divided gov't (1965-2006)
(avg annual change in real per capita expenditures)
United gov't (avg)......................3.4%
Dem Pres. and Dem Congress......3.3%
GOP Pres. and GOP Congress.......3.6%
Divided gov't (avg)......................1.5%
Dem Pres. and GOP Congress.......0.4%
GOP Pres, D House, R Senate......1.5%
GOP Pres, Dem Congress.............1.6%
GOP Pres, R House, D Senate.......4.3%
Of course the sample sizes are small but the overall trend is clear. Having one-party control more than doubles the increase in spending.
My worry is that if we elect a Romney or Perry in 2012 we would get a repeat perfomance of the 2000-2006 spending binge. And further, that this would be the final nail in the coffin of the Reagan revolution. Better to wait until 2016, when a bunch of young emerging GOP talent, such as Marco Rubio and Allen West, might be ready to run.
All of the foregoing is somewhat in the vein of "devil's advocate." Even as I say it, I don't really want to see another four years of Obama. So now, your turn to talk me out of it....
With Palin out, the R field is realistically down to Romney, Perry, Cain, and there's some talk of a possible resurgence of Gingrich. Take these one by one:
Romney: I don't think there is any question that he is a 'big-government' conservative in the mold of Nixon-Dole-Bush-McCain. As Mass. Gov. he supported every liberal cause to come down the pike from 'assault weapons' bans to green jobs.
Perry: He talks a good conservative game, but there has been a gap between talk & record. Chris Edwards of Cato looked at Perry's spending as Texas Gov. and found him to be precisely average among the 50 state governors. Rick Perry’s Spending Record | Cato @ Liberty
And that was during an era when states generally were on a spending binge. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner also notes that Perry was a big 'green jobs' backer and practioner of corporate-government partnership generally.
The cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue | Timothy P. Carney | Politics | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/cowboy-corporatist-rides-rescue - broken link)
So while he talks a good game, his record is. like Romey's, one of 'big government' conservatism.
Gingrich: was more responsible than anyone for the derailing of the 1994 Republican revolution. Instead of joining forces with the limited gov't advocates such as Kasich and Largent at the time, Gingrich threw in with the old bulls like Bob Livingston, who thought of 1994 as their turn to play the pork game that the Dems had been playing for 40 years.
Cain: this leaves Herman Cain, to me the only one who is a real ideological conservative. But for all his progress he remains a long shot.
It is likely that R's will keep the US House and gain the Senate after 2012. If R's also gain the Presidency, they will again control all three, just as in 2000. But recall what happened after 2000? The GOP took us on a spending binge such as we had not seen since LBJ.
Economist William Niskanen has looked at the effects of 'divided' vs. 'united' government, and found that the experience of 2000-2006 was typical. When one party controls all three segments of DC, we get the biggest increases in spending. Economist Steve Slivinski gives a summary of this in his excellent book Buck Wild (page 197).
United vs. divided gov't (1965-2006)
(avg annual change in real per capita expenditures)
United gov't (avg)......................3.4%
Dem Pres. and Dem Congress......3.3%
GOP Pres. and GOP Congress.......3.6%
Divided gov't (avg)......................1.5%
Dem Pres. and GOP Congress.......0.4%
GOP Pres, D House, R Senate......1.5%
GOP Pres, Dem Congress.............1.6%
GOP Pres, R House, D Senate.......4.3%
Of course the sample sizes are small but the overall trend is clear. Having one-party control more than doubles the increase in spending.
My worry is that if we elect a Romney or Perry in 2012 we would get a repeat perfomance of the 2000-2006 spending binge. And further, that this would be the final nail in the coffin of the Reagan revolution. Better to wait until 2016, when a bunch of young emerging GOP talent, such as Marco Rubio and Allen West, might be ready to run.
All of the foregoing is somewhat in the vein of "devil's advocate." Even as I say it, I don't really want to see another four years of Obama. So now, your turn to talk me out of it....
It is likely that R's will keep the US House and gain the Senate after 2012. If R's also gain the Presidency, they will again control all three, just as in 2000. But recall what happened after 2000? The GOP took us on a spending binge such as we had not seen since LBJ.
My worry is that if we elect a Romney or Perry in 2012 we would get a repeat perfomance of the 2000-2006 spending binge. And further, that this would be the final nail in the coffin of the Reagan revolution. Better to wait until 2016, when a bunch of young emerging GOP talent, such as Marco Rubio and Allen West, might be ready to run.
Every single GOP candidate besides Ron Paul are huge spending, big government corporate puppets. We've already seen what happens when they got into power in 2010 when they held the country hostage to force through 900 billion in new, unpaid for spending for the tax cuts to the rich extension. If there was an atrocity of the GOP ever holding both houses and the presidency again, the massive spending and america destroying policies like we saw under Bush would be kid stuff compared to how bad they would destroy liberty and the nation.
Rubio and West are part of the neo-fascist tea party who want to lead the nation into complete corporatism which Ron Paul and many on the left see coming. The "real" conservatives are long gone and are likely never coming back.
Every single GOP candidate besides Ron Paul are huge spending, big government corporate puppets. We've already seen what happens when they got into power in 2010 when they held the country hostage to force through 900 billion in new, unpaid for spending for the tax cuts to the rich extension. If there was an atrocity of the GOP ever holding both houses and the presidency again, the massive spending and america destroying policies like we saw under Bush would be kid stuff compared to how bad they would destroy liberty and the nation.
Rubio and West are part of the neo-fascist tea party who want to lead the nation into complete corporatism which Ron Paul and many on the left see coming. The "real" conservatives are long gone and are likely never coming back.
so somehow adding $4trillion to the debt in eight years is bad, but adding $4 trillion to the debt in less than three years is somehow good? you complain about huge republican spending during the bush years, but you wont complain about double the government spending during the obama years. and the reality is that the republicans have only 1/3 of government, and its reid and obama that are blocking the spending cuts the republicans are trying to push through.
so far I'm going with response #1. The others are rants with, as usual, zero evidence to back up rather outlandish assertions. I'm generally willing to listen to over-the-top stuff, but only if some evidence is supplied to back it up.
With Palin out, the R field is realistically down to Romney, Perry, Cain, and there's some talk of a possible resurgence of Gingrich. Take these one by one:
Romney: I don't think there is any question that he is a 'big-government' conservative in the mold of Nixon-Dole-Bush-McCain. As Mass. Gov. he supported every liberal cause to come down the pike from 'assault weapons' bans to green jobs.
Perry: He talks a good conservative game, but there has been a gap between talk & record. Chris Edwards of Cato looked at Perry's spending as Texas Gov. and found him to be precisely average among the 50 state governors. Rick Perry’s Spending Record | Cato @ Liberty
And that was during an era when states generally were on a spending binge. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner also notes that Perry was a big 'green jobs' backer and practioner of corporate-government partnership generally.
The cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue | Timothy P. Carney | Politics | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/cowboy-corporatist-rides-rescue - broken link)
So while he talks a good game, his record is. like Romey's, one of 'big government' conservatism.
Gingrich: was more responsible than anyone for the derailing of the 1994 Republican revolution. Instead of joining forces with the limited gov't advocates such as Kasich and Largent at the time, Gingrich threw in with the old bulls like Bob Livingston, who thought of 1994 as their turn to play the pork game that the Dems had been playing for 40 years.
Cain: this leaves Herman Cain, to me the only one who is a real ideological conservative. But for all his progress he remains a long shot.
It is likely that R's will keep the US House and gain the Senate after 2012. If R's also gain the Presidency, they will again control all three, just as in 2000. But recall what happened after 2000? The GOP took us on a spending binge such as we had not seen since LBJ.
Economist William Niskanen has looked at the effects of 'divided' vs. 'united' government, and found that the experience of 2000-2006 was typical. When one party controls all three segments of DC, we get the biggest increases in spending. Economist Steve Slivinski gives a summary of this in his excellent book Buck Wild (page 197).
United vs. divided gov't (1965-2006)
(avg annual change in real per capita expenditures)
United gov't (avg)......................3.4%
Dem Pres. and Dem Congress......3.3%
GOP Pres. and GOP Congress.......3.6%
Divided gov't (avg)......................1.5%
Dem Pres. and GOP Congress.......0.4%
GOP Pres, D House, R Senate......1.5%
GOP Pres, Dem Congress.............1.6%
GOP Pres, R House, D Senate.......4.3%
Of course the sample sizes are small but the overall trend is clear. Having one-party control more than doubles the increase in spending.
My worry is that if we elect a Romney or Perry in 2012 we would get a repeat perfomance of the 2000-2006 spending binge. And further, that this would be the final nail in the coffin of the Reagan revolution. Better to wait until 2016, when a bunch of young emerging GOP talent, such as Marco Rubio and Allen West, might be ready to run.
All of the foregoing is somewhat in the vein of "devil's advocate." Even as I say it, I don't really want to see another four years of Obama. So now, your turn to talk me out of it....
This is a very nice analysis. It supports the notion that Republicans steal from us, Democrats steal from us, but when we put both parties in charge they spend more time fighting each other and have less time to steal from us.
We have gotten a lot of great things done with divided government in the past. The tragedy of the current day is that the opportunity to address our major problems in an effective fashion, as envisioned by Simpson Bowles or the Gang of Six outline, got trampled by Obama. The great things cannot be done without leadership from the president.
If Obama is re-elected and the Senate goes Republican (which I believe is the most likely outcome) then we had better hope that Republican legislators and Democratic legislators turn into statesmen and force the necessary medicine (pro-growth tax reform, entitlement reform, spending restraint) down Obama's throat.
With Palin out, the R field is realistically down to Romney, Perry, Cain, and there's some talk of a possible resurgence of Gingrich. Take these one by one:
Romney: I don't think there is any question that he is a 'big-government' conservative in the mold of Nixon-Dole-Bush-McCain. As Mass. Gov. he supported every liberal cause to come down the pike from 'assault weapons' bans to green jobs.
No disagreement from me. I think your assessment of Romney is spot on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Perry: He talks a good conservative game, but there has been a gap between talk & record. Chris Edwards of Cato looked at Perry's spending as Texas Gov. and found him to be precisely average among the 50 state governors.
In all fairness, it is the State legislature that spends, not Governors.
And that was during an era when states generally were on a spending binge. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner also notes that Perry was a big 'green jobs' backer and practioner of corporate-government partnership generally.
The cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue | Timothy P. Carney | Politics | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/cowboy-corporatist-rides-rescue - broken link)
So while he talks a good game, his record is. like Romey's, one of 'big government' conservatism.
My biggest problem with Perry is that he truly is a Republican-In-Name-Only. For the majority of his life Perry was a staunch card-carrying Democrat, who only recently suddenly decided to pretend he is a Republican.
Perry is an opportunist. While Democrats were in the majority, Perry was a Democrat. When the GOP took control of the majority, Perry became a Republican.
I do not hold Governors accountable for the spending of the legislature, but I do judge politicians on their character, and Perry has none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Gingrich: was more responsible than anyone for the derailing of the 1994 Republican revolution. Instead of joining forces with the limited gov't advocates such as Kasich and Largent at the time, Gingrich threw in with the old bulls like Bob Livingston, who thought of 1994 as their turn to play the pork game that the Dems had been playing for 40 years.
This is where you and I disagree. It was Gingrich who started the Republican Revolution of 1994 with his Contract with America that listed ten legislative items that would be accomplished within the first 100 days of the legislative session. It was also Gingrich that appointed Rep. John Kasich Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Because of that appointment, the budget was balanced within three years instead of the twelve years Clinton was demanding.
It was also Gingrich that organized the House to override the majority of Clinton's vetoes, even though the Republicans did not have a two-thirds majority. Gingrich's fiscal conservative record is indisputable. Gingrich's two biggest flaws are: 1) His lack of executive experience; and 2) His mouth has a tendency to runneth over (he has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Cain: this leaves Herman Cain, to me the only one who is a real ideological conservative. But for all his progress he remains a long shot.
Herman Cain does appears to be ideologically conservative from every source I have found, and he does have the advantage of not being a politician in addition to the executive experience that both Romney and Perry also possess. As much as I would like to see Cain do better among Republicans, I tend to agree that he has a very difficult road ahead of him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
It is likely that R's will keep the US House and gain the Senate after 2012. If R's also gain the Presidency, they will again control all three, just as in 2000. But recall what happened after 2000? The GOP took us on a spending binge such as we had not seen since LBJ.
Very true, and that is why the GOP lost big in the 2006 and 2008 elections. The question still remains, has the GOP learned from their fiscally irresponsibility? If Boehner remains Speaker of the House after 2012, which is likely, then the answer has to be a resounding "NO!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Economist William Niskanen has looked at the effects of 'divided' vs. 'united' government, and found that the experience of 2000-2006 was typical. When one party controls all three segments of DC, we get the biggest increases in spending. Economist Steve Slivinski gives a summary of this in his excellent book Buck Wild (page 197).
United vs. divided gov't (1965-2006)
(avg annual change in real per capita expenditures)
United gov't (avg)......................3.4%
Dem Pres. and Dem Congress......3.3%
GOP Pres. and GOP Congress.......3.6%
Divided gov't (avg)......................1.5%
Dem Pres. and GOP Congress.......0.4%
GOP Pres, D House, R Senate......1.5%
GOP Pres, Dem Congress.............1.6%
GOP Pres, R House, D Senate.......4.3%
Of course the sample sizes are small but the overall trend is clear. Having one-party control more than doubles the increase in spending.
My worry is that if we elect a Romney or Perry in 2012 we would get a repeat perfomance of the 2000-2006 spending binge. And further, that this would be the final nail in the coffin of the Reagan revolution. Better to wait until 2016, when a bunch of young emerging GOP talent, such as Marco Rubio and Allen West, might be ready to run.
All of the foregoing is somewhat in the vein of "devil's advocate." Even as I say it, I don't really want to see another four years of Obama. So now, your turn to talk me out of it....
As with Governors, it is not Presidents who spend, but rather Congress. As your statistics clearly show, when the GOP controlled Congress and a Democrat occupied the White House, the amount of spending was at its lowest level. The only time this condition was true in the time frame specified was between 1995 and 2001, when the GOP controlled Congress was fiscally responsible. As you noted, that changed after Bush was elected President. The GOP, after 2000, began spending like they were Democrats from the 1960s.
There is a continuation of that spending spree occurring in the GOP controlled House as we speak. Speaker Boehner promised "no compromise" on the extension of the 2001 tax cuts after the 2010 election, then promptly compromised with Democrats for their support by adding $120 billion in new spending. Then during the Debt Ceiling fiasco this past August, Speaker Boehner could not manage to cut more than $7 billion from the estimated $1.65 trillion deficit.
You should also note that the GOP controlled House was unable to pass a budget under Speaker Boehner. Making it the fifth consecutive year that Congress has failed to enact a budget.
Thus far, I see no difference between Speaker Boehner and Speaker Pelosi. Both are as fiscally irresponsible as they come. Neither have been able to uphold the constitutional responsibility of the House to pass a budget.
Therefore, as long as Boehner remains Speaker after 2012 we will not have a fiscally responsible House, no matter who gets elected President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
