Fiscal conservatives: the Republican party has abandoned you

[Dissipate]

Anyone who wants cuts in the size and scope of government should be concerned and frustrated with the policies of President George Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress. Government spending has increased enormously and the federal budget has plunged ever more into deficit.

Protectionism, regulation and government power are on the rise, and we are at war or in conflict with a record number of countries around the world. The Republican-controlled Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates to below 1% while it frantically tries to flood the economy with money and credit.

Even mainstream economist Jeffrey Frankel has recently noted (in the Milken Institute Review) that the "Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government, and failing-grade microeconomics."

Link

Food for thought.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Change from within.

I do believe I posted something just last night about this "subject". Maybe I'll find it and repost what I said.

Or maybe I'll find out who these people are

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics.

Now I'm not saying they aren't correct because of who they are - just pointing out where they are coming from and the angle they view things from.

CkG

 

[Harvey]

As a social liberal, I've been wondering how long it would take for real conservatives to wake up. You can spout all you want about cliches like "tax and spend liberal," but I think spending the country into a record deficit without providing the funds for such spending is anything but conservative. Spending all that money on a war that depleats our resources to fight a really necessary war on the real terrorism thread from Alquaida is nuts, and giving massive tax breaks and no bid war contracts to Bush's rich buddies is beyond sanity.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

From the another thread:

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So the repubs want to borrow 'n' spend. The dems want to tax 'n' spend. Who represents the people (like me) who want to (A) Not borrow or tax more, and (B) Spend less? Seemingly no one, that's who. No wonder I no longer feel represented by the so-called representatives.

Exactly. I don't wish to keep spending on programs that soak up more and more of our Federal tax dollars - it's about time that the FED take a big heavy sharp axe to alot of the BS they shouldn't be meddling in. Some wish to become "disenfranchised" but I look at this as a challenge. I am doing everything I feel I can at the moment to make sure those who have been elected to represent me know that I am NOT happy with the spending of our Federal gov't. NO ONE can tell me that our gov't NEEDS over 2 TRILLION per year to run this country and yet here we are spending our way well into 2Trillion. It's sickening to think that our gov't needs $7k for each person in America just to run itself for a year.

Someday people will choose to get off their fat american asses and force their gov't to spend less and it'll take people from within each party to make this happen. If you are on the left and really are "concerned" about the spending - your party leaders need to hear about it. Likewise - if you are on the right and wish to see less spending you need to tell your leaders that you are sick of the Fed's free spending attitude. It isn't going to happen by sitting here bitching - it takes real action(sort of like trying to get a job). It may feel good for a minute of so to rant and bitch about your condition but until you actively persue a course of action that may actually help CHANGE the situation - you are just whining like a little b!tc#.

Grassley got an earful from yours truly and I hope that others will follow suit on this spending issue. But it can't just stop with one little letter or email. These politicians need it pounded into their skull because the padding in their wallet seems to have made them dense.

I'm sure some here are just fine with the level of spending and think we just need to tax people more - well that's fine. You can think that way if you wish but I think you are in the minority(atleast here). If people really want to see our gov't become "responsible" with our money we need to be responsible enough to tell them how much money they can spend.

*queues "profit center timeout music*

CkG

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Change from within.

I do believe I posted something just last night about this "subject". Maybe I'll find it and repost what I said.

Or maybe I'll find out who these people are

lol, that was pretty good CAD.

I guess even you have your moments.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Change from within.

I do believe I posted something just last night about this "subject". Maybe I'll find it and repost what I said.

Or maybe I'll find out who these people are

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics.

Now I'm not saying they aren't correct because of who they are - just pointing out where they are coming from and the angle they view things from.

CkG

I never claimed this was from an objective news source(if such a thing actually exists).

 

[SuperTool]

I think I mentioned it in my sig
I think the GOP is only interested in fiscal conservatism when they have a Democrat in the white house. Otherwise it's spend spend spend time. So if you want to get your party back, elect a Democrat.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think I mentioned it in my sig
I think the GOP is only interested in fiscal conservatism when they have a Democrat in the white house. Otherwise it's spend spend spend time. So if you want to get your party back, elect a Democrat.

No thanks. I think I'll stick with the only true fiscal conservatives: Libertarians.

 

[SuperTool]

What would "small government" republicans preffer if they had to choose between the following two options?
1. Government that spends $2T and taxes $2T
2. Government that spends $2.5T and taxes $1.5T

 

[ElFenix]

anyone know the gov't spending for the last, say, 10 years, in real $?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I never claimed this was from an objective news source(if such a thing actually exists).

I didn't say you did claim such. It is important however to understand where people are coming from.

I commend the Libertarian's fight for "smaller gov't" but I'm not ready to jump ship - I'm willing to fight from within because I don't agree with some other things Libertarians seem to want.

But like I said - EVERYONE who says they are "concerned" about spending or says we are spending too much - needs to contact and bug those who represent them. Inform yourself on the individual spending things and let them know you are onto their BS. Grassely has my full support right now but if he fails to fullfill his promise(depending on what we deliver in November of course) he knows he will lose alot of support. These guys need to change their tune - BIG TIME.
I would love nothing more than to have another 1994 with a huge freshman crop of budget hawks who aren't yet tied to corporate and organizational pocket books(assuming they don't fall into the same traps others have) We need real fiscal change in our FED gov't- the GOP as it is currently has one more chance to fix things IMO. We will have the numbers in congress to do some real good provided the voters deliver in November. I truly hope we can use that opportunity to push REAL reform as has been promised and hinted at.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What would "small government" republicans preffer if they had to choose between the following two options?
1. Government that spends $2T and taxes $2T
2. Government that spends $2.5T and taxes $1.5T

3. Government that spends 1.5T and taxes 1.5T

CkG

*note: See moonie - I'm a "third way" type of guy too

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What would "small government" republicans preffer if they had to choose between the following two options?
1. Government that spends $2T and taxes $2T
2. Government that spends $2.5T and taxes $1.5T

3. Government that spends 1.5T and taxes 1.5T

CkG

*note: See moonie - I'm a "third way" type of guy too

Well, none of the major parties is offering a third way, so if you had to choose between the lesser of two evils, which one would it be?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What would "small government" republicans preffer if they had to choose between the following two options?
1. Government that spends $2T and taxes $2T
2. Government that spends $2.5T and taxes $1.5T

3. Government that spends 1.5T and taxes 1.5T

CkG

*note: See moonie - I'm a "third way" type of guy too

Well, none of the major parties is offering a third way, so if you had to choose between the lesser of two evils, which one would it be?

Ah, but I am fighting for that thirdway And won't play your black/white game - it isn't an honest choice.
Kerry/Dems aren't proposing spending cuts so 1. isn't quite right. 2. isn't quite right either since there insn't a 1 Trillion deficit.
A more honest view.
1. 2.5+ spending and 2.5+ taxes
2. 2.5+- spending and 2.0+- taxes
But that still isn't quite right either because we know kerry is proposing MORE spending and hasn't even provided an option to bridge the current deficit so it's more like 2.5+ and 2.0+ and Bush hasn't really promised more spending as he's already spent too much for most Republican's liking.

I'll stick with my 3. thank you very much

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What would "small government" republicans preffer if they had to choose between the following two options?
1. Government that spends $2T and taxes $2T
2. Government that spends $2.5T and taxes $1.5T

3. Government that spends 1.5T and taxes 1.5T

CkG

*note: See moonie - I'm a "third way" type of guy too

Well, none of the major parties is offering a third way, so if you had to choose between the lesser of two evils, which one would it be?

Ah, but I am fighting for that thirdway And won't play your black/white game - it isn't an honest choice.
Kerry/Dems aren't proposing spending cuts so 1. isn't quite right. 2. isn't quite right either since there insn't a 1 Trillion deficit.
A more honest view.
1. 2.5+ spending and 2.5+ taxes
2. 2.5+- spending and 2.0+- taxes
But that still isn't quite right either because we know kerry is proposing MORE spending and hasn't even provided an option to bridge the current deficit so it's more like 2.5+ and 2.0+ and Bush hasn't really promised more spending as he's already spent too much for most Republican's liking.

I'll stick with my 3. thank you very much

CkG

It's a hypothetical question. Just want to know if Republicans are more interested in lower taxes or lower spending.
It's more of a comparison between Bush and Clinton.
Clinton ran balanced budget, the taxes were higher than Bushs, but the spending was lower.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What would "small government" republicans preffer if they had to choose between the following two options?
1. Government that spends $2T and taxes $2T
2. Government that spends $2.5T and taxes $1.5T

3. Government that spends 1.5T and taxes 1.5T

CkG

*note: See moonie - I'm a "third way" type of guy too

Well, none of the major parties is offering a third way, so if you had to choose between the lesser of two evils, which one would it be?

Ah, but I am fighting for that thirdway And won't play your black/white game - it isn't an honest choice.
Kerry/Dems aren't proposing spending cuts so 1. isn't quite right. 2. isn't quite right either since there insn't a 1 Trillion deficit.
A more honest view.
1. 2.5+ spending and 2.5+ taxes
2. 2.5+- spending and 2.0+- taxes
But that still isn't quite right either because we know kerry is proposing MORE spending and hasn't even provided an option to bridge the current deficit so it's more like 2.5+ and 2.0+ and Bush hasn't really promised more spending as he's already spent too much for most Republican's liking.

I'll stick with my 3. thank you very much

CkG

It's a hypothetical question. Just want to know if Republicans are more interested in lower taxes or lower spending.
It's more of a comparison between Bush and Clinton.
Clinton ran balanced budget, the taxes were higher than Bushs, but the spending was lower.

Clinton isn't running for office
I'm interested in both lower taxes and LOTS lower spending so I don't fit into your loaded question.

Oh, and Clinton didn't truly have a balanced budget - nor did he have a "surplus" I while fighting for LESS FED spending am also pushing for opening and correcting the FEDS book keeping. They should have to follow the rules the rest of us have to follow.

CkG