I swear this forum just continues to regress, spew shit just because of partisan party allegiance...
Reagan increased spending. Bush increased spending. Obama increased spending.
The guy you are responding to wants spending cut.
BASIC SIMPLE FACTS HERE
You keep writing "to the right" or "far-right policies" or whatever else crap you continue to spew. Stop labeling stuff and just call it what it is. We know what the changes in tax levels have been. We know what the changes in spending has been. Talk about things as they are. Instead you just want to use labels "left" and "right" and anything you hate you just call "right" to avoid having to actually deal with the specifics. Call things what they are.
I want you to confirm it right now, in your view is "increased spending" equivalent to "sharp turn to the right"? Because I don't think so.
No, you're projecting your own left-right bias and ideology.
When I write things like how since Reagan, the bottom 80% of Americans have gotten zero of the economy's growth after inflation, when I talk about how the top 1% have more than double not their income, but their share of income, those are 'facts', not 'left right'. But you can't get that.
In answer to your question, no. Reducing taxes for the wealthy, deregulation, the corporations effectively running government - those are 'shifts to the right'.
If you want a turning point, it was when the political shift occurred between the founding fathers' 'You now have a democracy, celebrate' to Reagan's 'the government is the problem'. Democracy has always been inconsistent with plutocracy, and as we grow more and more towards plutocracy, the anti-democracy sentiment is fed by the wealthy.
Liberals have no problem saying we've had a big spending problem since Reagan started massive deficits. That's 'starve the beast', which is a right-wing strategy.
The issue with that is where to cut. Part of it is reduced tax rates on the wealthy. Another part is wasteful spending - too much on corporate tax breaks, defense etc.
No Democrat in history has had the peacetime deficit problems you rant about - deficits were modest before Reagan, they were eliminated by Clinton, and the only other time is the economic crisis recovery under Obama, creating a very unusual situation for deficits.
Increasing the debt to a level to force spending cuts on otherwise affordable programs benefiting the public is a *right-wing* strategy.
Don't like the label? Oh, well. That's the situation.
You are probably confused between the policies and the sales pitch. 'Right-wing' can mean the policies - make the rich richer, move towards plutocracy - and it can mean the sales pitch, all the noble 'we like freedom, we like people doing good things, we stand for liberty' type stuff that sounds good and gets people to say they're a conservative. (Though it's less positive stuff and more 'liberals suck, they want Stalin' type straw men).
Which political faction's budget balances the budget - what you say you care about - the fastest? Not Paul Ryan's extremist 'austerity 'budget that sends the bill for the money grab by the rich to the rest of the country. It's the 'People's budget' by the progressive caucus. Guess they don't love deficits all that much.
In fact, progressives, among many reasons not to like deficits, have a big one: deficits mean huge sums having interest payments go to the money loaners.
Those money loaners are often wealthy groups - banks, China, whoever - and progressives don't want to see a big percentage of our budget pay them more.
You want to take off the party labels? Then deal with the fact that the rich have had a huge class war money grab for 30 years.
Facebook
Twitter