Small is Beautiful

[Vic]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news...is_beautiful_if_i.html

To GOP, small is beautiful -- if it's never tried
by David Sarasohn, The Oregonian
Tuesday September 09, 2008, 5:06 PM

Last week in Minnesota, the orators of the Republican convention admired nothing more than the ideal of small government.

"All you ever asked of government is to stand on your side, not in your way," declared presidential nominee John McCain, before complaining angrily about "big spenders who waste your money on things you neither need nor want."

Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, runner-up for the nomination, called on the party to "throw out the big government liberals" and to fight "the spread of government dependency .¤.¤. like the poison it is."

Nobody here but us small government believers.

Two days after the convention ended, the Republicans in charge of the U.S. government considerably expanded the U.S. government, taking over the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac real estate mortgage giants. The feds considerably expanded the government presence in the real estate world, putting the taxpayers on the hook for $25 billion, maybe $100 billion, maybe as many zeroes as you've got available.

And from the tenacious small government advocates of Minnesota, not a peep.

Not a suggestion that if the government just got out of the way, the market would sort this all out.

"The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is another outrageous, but sadly necessary, step for these two institutions," McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin wrote in The Wall Street Journal. "Given the long-term mismanagement and flawed structure of these two companies, this was the only short-term alternative for ensuring that hard-working Americans have access to affordable mortgages during this difficult economic period."

So when privately-held companies -- which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are -- come apart through bad management, government needs to step in.

There may be something to this argument, but if it's a small government philosophy, then Baskin-Robbins is diet cuisine.

The White House was willing, although it tried to dust off its fingerprints.

"This is not action that we wanted to take;" presidential press secretary Dana Perino told her press conference, "it was action that (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson and others, working with the president, determined that we needed to take."

Talking to The New York Times, Vincent R. Reinhart of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was understanding.

"I think the economy is taking Bush and Paulson to a place they wouldn't go on their own," explained Reinhart. "In a crisis, you start bending principles, and Paulson bent principles."

People who see things differently might think that principles are what you stick to in a crisis, but maybe that's only if you really hold them in the first place.

And after the convention speeches are over, nobody thinks that the party of Halliburton and the K Street lobbyists actually wants a smaller, less expensive federal government. Too many people are making a bundle out of it at the size that it is.

Nobody really thinks that the hardy, rugged Republican frontiersmen of Alaska want to change a system that brings them almost three times as much in federal spending as they pay in income taxes, a system that causes the federal government to build sports centers in small suburbs of Anchorage.

Or that the fed-hating states-righters of Mississippi want to cut back locally-based U.S. Navy programs that the Pentagon doesn't particularly want but that the rigidly conservative (just ask them) Magnolia State senators have defended like Vicksburg.

There's a reason why Republican administrations, even ones like the Bush administration that for four years controlled both houses of Congress, actually end up making the federal government bigger. On Medicare, the Bush commitment to small government didn't mean not adding a huge new prescription benefit; it just meant not paying for it.

So for the feds to take over two mortgage giants while last week's small government speeches still hung in the air was really no problem at all. Bedrock GOP principles might not even slow down the feds' stepping into the airline and car businesses.

In fact, they might help marketing.

Coming soon: the new Ford Mitt.

This article touched my primary nerve for this election. Despite all their phony rhetoric, the Republicans are the big government party. Their agenda is an redistribution of wealth from urban areas and blue states to rural areas and red states in order to bribe that constituency to keep them in power regardless of whatever else they do.

But the numbers don't lie. In the last 40 years, Republican administrations have grown the size and cost of govt at more than twice the rate of Democratic administrations. The Republican administrations were also almost single-handedly responsible for the more than tenfold increase in the federal debt during that time. The Bush administration wrote and got passed the largest and most expensive socialized medicine bill in the history of this country. The Bush administration has just overseen the largest nationalization of private industry (including the wiping out of shareholder value) in the history of this country.

And so on. And yet the Pubs still pretend they are the small govt party. Why?

 

[NeoV]

um.......

hmm...

"leave Palin alone, she's a good woman"

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
Despite all their phony rhetoric, the Republicans are the big government party.

I totally agree with your assessment that the Republicans are nothing short of being totally dishonest in regards to their beliefs of big government. But surely you aren't saying the Democrats are small government in their beliefs? They are at least more honest about it, I'll give you that.

Americans do not understand the dangers of big government. At a time when this country is suffering economically, and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel either, we desperately need some fiscal responsibility and some drastic cuts in government spending and programs.

But with these two parties and their presidential candidates' platforms, we are getting none of this, in fact we are getting the direct opposite.

No matter who wins, Obama or McCain, things are going to get worse before they get better, you can bet on that. How anyone could be happy with one of those two is beyond me.

 

[winnar111]

Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: NeoV
um.......

hmm...

"leave Palin alone, she's a good woman"

No No No No ....

Keep the focus on Palin
Keep the focus on Palin
Keep the focus on Palin
Keep the focus on Palin
Keep the focus on Palin
Keep the focus on Palin


(And you will not see the hypocrites and pandering flop-flipping McSame for the lame-nuts they are)

 

[quest55720]

I agree with what you say that is why split government and gridlock work the best. Both sides want to spend faster than they can collect.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: quest55720
I agree with what you say that is why split government and gridlock work the best. Both sides want to spend faster than they can collect.

But only one side lies to you each and every single day about their spending habits, and wins office predominately on the basis of those lies.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know, but they don't control Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already promised quick action, and Obama has backed it as well.

Oh right, I forgot you think he shits golden bricks.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know

Bingo.

McCain also supports the Fannie/Freddie takeover.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know, but they don't control Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already promised quick action, and Obama has backed it as well.

Oh right, I forgot you think he shits golden bricks.

Have the mods looked into the fact yet that you and quest55720 are clearly the same poster?

You miss the point entirely. You didn't see Obama stand up in front of the DNC and tell millions that he opposes big govt, did you?

There comes a point where you have to stop rewarding liars. Or perhaps you think we should and that's why you spin your devoted apologism for these liars into me thinking Obama shits golden bricks? Yeah, that would explain it, wouldn't it?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: quest55720
I agree with what you say that is why split government and gridlock work the best. Both sides want to spend faster than they can collect.

But only one side lies to you each and every single day about their spending habits, and wins office predominately on the basis of those lies.

I?d lie too if I had communist intentions. Fact of the matter is there are still Americans who would like to see the liberties of the constitution upheld and Republicans play on that making us think they?ll uphold them.

That doesn?t validate the other party, it just proves that neither of them are fit for the offices they hold and at 9% approval the people agree. The people want this changed and the ideals of Karl Marx aren?t the answer no matter how much Obama preaches them.

Until a valid alternative is presented the risk of civil unrest continues to rise, and for good reason.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know, but they don't control Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already promised quick action, and Obama has backed it as well.

Oh right, I forgot you think he shits golden bricks.

Have the mods looked into the fact yet that you and quest55720 are clearly the same poster?

You miss the point entirely. You didn't see Obama stand up in front of the DNC and tell millions that he opposes big govt, did you?

There comes a point where you have to stop rewarding liars. Or perhaps you think we should and that's why you spin your devoted apologism for these liars into me thinking Obama shits golden bricks? Yeah, that would explain it, wouldn't it?

No, we definitely aren't.

There's no spin involved. You're the guy who falsely claims he's interested in small government rather than just sliming the Republican party for supporting the same or similar policies to what your heroes do.

At least they don't support HillaryObamacare, hundreds of billions of dollars of entitlements a year to go on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars of 'great society' programs enacted by your party. Oh, right, you'd rather harp on Medicare D and ignore all the rest, never mind that Al Gore wanted to pass a Medicare D program.

I'd prefer people who might be liars to people who are guaranteed to be thieves.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: quest55720
I agree with what you say that is why split government and gridlock work the best. Both sides want to spend faster than they can collect.

But only one side lies to you each and every single day about their spending habits, and wins office predominately on the basis of those lies.

I?d lie too if I had communist intentions. Fact of the matter is there are still Americans who would like to see the liberties of the constitution upheld and Republicans play on that making us think they?ll uphold them.

That doesn?t validate the other party, it just proves that neither of them are fit for the offices they hold and at 9% approval the people agree. The people want this changed and the ideals of Karl Marx aren?t the answer no matter how much Obama preaches them.

Until a valid alternative is presented the risk of civil unrest continues to rise, and for good reason.

psst... the Cold War is over and communism failed. No one is trying to bring it back (well, except maybe Hugo Chavez).

For the record, I am as staunchly anti-communist as it is possible for a human being to be, and I'm no fan whatsoever of Marx, but I think it might help you to actually read some of what Marx wrote, besides just this McCarthyism nonsense you habitually spout. And I say this because anyone who thinks that Obama preaches Marxism obviously doesn't know what Marxism is. Believe it or not, the ideal that people should be treated equally by govt predates Marx, and was a favorite of people like Jefferson (have you read the Declaration of Independence lately?).

I also hold the liberties in the Constitution to be sacred above all other things, which is one of the reasons I made this thread. It is not possible to have a govt of and by the people when the govt exists solely through lies and is otherwise opaque.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know, but they don't control Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already promised quick action, and Obama has backed it as well.

Oh right, I forgot you think he shits golden bricks.

Have the mods looked into the fact yet that you and quest55720 are clearly the same poster?

You miss the point entirely. You didn't see Obama stand up in front of the DNC and tell millions that he opposes big govt, did you?

There comes a point where you have to stop rewarding liars. Or perhaps you think we should and that's why you spin your devoted apologism for these liars into me thinking Obama shits golden bricks? Yeah, that would explain it, wouldn't it?

No, we definitely aren't.

There's no spin involved. You're the guy who falsely claims he's interested in small government rather than just sliming the Republican party for supporting the same or similar policies to what your heroes do.

At least they don't support HillaryObamacare, hundreds of billions of dollars of entitlements a year to go on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars of 'great society' programs enacted by your party. Oh, right, you'd rather harp on Medicare D and ignore all the rest, never mind that Al Gore wanted to pass a Medicare D program.

I'd prefer people who might be liars to people who are guaranteed to be thieves.

Clearly with the Republican party you get both

And your ad hom spin is lame

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know, but they don't control Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already promised quick action, and Obama has backed it as well.

Oh right, I forgot you think he shits golden bricks.

Have the mods looked into the fact yet that you and quest55720 are clearly the same poster?

You miss the point entirely. You didn't see Obama stand up in front of the DNC and tell millions that he opposes big govt, did you?

There comes a point where you have to stop rewarding liars. Or perhaps you think we should and that's why you spin your devoted apologism for these liars into me thinking Obama shits golden bricks? Yeah, that would explain it, wouldn't it?

No, we definitely aren't.

There's no spin involved. You're the guy who falsely claims he's interested in small government rather than just sliming the Republican party for supporting the same or similar policies to what your heroes do.

At least they don't support HillaryObamacare, hundreds of billions of dollars of entitlements a year to go on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars of 'great society' programs enacted by your party. Oh, right, you'd rather harp on Medicare D and ignore all the rest, never mind that Al Gore wanted to pass a Medicare D program.

I'd prefer people who might be liars to people who are guaranteed to be thieves.

Wow... just wow. You're an idiot.

 

[Genx87]

There is little doubt the republican revolution of 94 died when they had firm control of power. It may have started in the late 1990's but definately solidified under Bush.

I dont buy the GOP is going back to small govt ideals anytime soon because I think the people as whole are rejecting it. But it was nice to at least have the current presidential candidate acknowlege the failures of his own party. Whether or not he fixes them is another story. There are republicans who have acknlowedged the issues and are trying to lead a fight against the big govt conservatives. i wish them luck. I feel we are entering an age of the nanny state. The only thing we will be fighting over is which side of the spectrum do you wish to have your big govt from. Right or left.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: winnar111
At least they don't support HillaryObamacare,

No, but they are just fine with the status quo, which is absolutely nothing resembling "free market."

They have no plans nor ideas to help solve the problems with health care.

hundreds of billions of dollars of entitlements a year to go on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars of 'great society' programs enacted by your party.

Oh? And who passed and signed that Medicare prescription drug bill? The one that added another $8 trillion on top of already $15 trillion in Medicare entitlements? The one that David Walker says "was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s?"

I'd prefer people who might be liars to people who are guaranteed to be thieves.

As heyheybooboo said, with the Republicans, you're getting both.

 

[Lemon law]

Man does not live by image alone. Sooner or later people realize that the emperor wears no clothes. Will the people wise up in 2008 or not? The big government Republicans ask that question by telling you they are the party of small government.

All we need do is take a reality check? And note that the biggest expansions of the Federal Government occurred under Reagan and GWB.

 

[Xavier434]

I must say that it is refreshing to read an article that brings us out of all the red herring dirt digging nonsense that as saturated the news lately. It does a good job at helping refocus what should be focused on.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know, but they don't control Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already promised quick action, and Obama has backed it as well.

Oh right, I forgot you think he shits golden bricks.

I didn't realize the (D)'s had a veto proof majority. Oh wait, they don't.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Which is why Bush and McCain have endorsed the bailout, right?

It would be inaccurate, however, to say that anyone besides the Big 3 and the UAW actually want the bailouts.

I don't know, but they don't control Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already promised quick action, and Obama has backed it as well.

Oh right, I forgot you think he shits golden bricks.

I didn't realize the (D)'s had a veto proof majority. Oh wait, they don't.

What do they need a veto proof majority for when they endorse the same policy as the President?

Of course, this isn't the first time the Democrats have bailed out big auto: Jimmy Carter and the Democrats bailed out Chrysler in 1979, probably with the full backing of what is now Obama's cheer squad.

 

[StageLeft]

Over the past 2-3 decades republicans have grown government FASTER than democrats and yet they still hold themselves as small gov and, worse, the idiotic rabble believe them for it, holding the mythical perception that democrats are bigger for government than republicans, then we have complete ass clowns like romney saying what he did. It is infuriating.

Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Great job, I'm proud of you for finding one tiny, comparitively miniscule issue of spending in an effort to refute a much grander argument with much grander supporting evidence.

You're subsequently vomiting out arguments about hillary and healthcare, blah fvcking blah. Can somebody please get a graph, because as I mentioned if you look at federal spending over the past few decades you see that each time a republican gets in power he jacks the fvck out of the budget. In some kind of idiot-placating move (and it works) he may even cut taxes, the end result being a terrible spend and borrow. Surely you realize that. You can find minutiae arguments all day, but in the grand scheme republicans have an indisputable track record of increasing government spending/size faster than democrats in the past few decades. I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me who the first president to sign a $1T budget was and who the first president to sign a $2T and $3T budget was. Hint, he doesn't have a (D) after his name.

Sooner or later people realize that the emperor wears no clothes. Will the people wise up in 2008 or not?

How many more centuries can we wait? The people who vote are uneducated, and interested in the vitriol over substance.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic: But the numbers don't lie.

You mean to tell me, Vic that "In the last 40 years, Republican administrations have grown the size and cost of govt at more than twice the rate of Democratic administrations. The Republican administrations were also almost single-handedly responsible for the more than tenfold increase in the federal debt during that time. The Bush administration wrote and got passed the largest and most expensive socialized medicine bill in the history of this country. The Bush administration has just overseen the largest nationalization of private industry (including the wiping out of shareholder value) in the history of this country."

Do you realize that if what you are saying is true that anybody who favors small government is either and imbecile or fool, or completely brainwashed, or worse still a lying hypocrite, if they vote or support Republicans. This is most fascinating news.

If this true and the numbers really say it, small government Republicans will have to vote Democratic.

I predict, however, that before that happens they will fall in love with big government.

 

[Vic]

US national debt and the Presidents responsible for it (1st google hit)

Graph of national debt as % of GDP (2nd google hit)

The debt clock (pushing $9.7 trillion and rising at the rate of about $25,000 per second).

Wiki's data

I suck at graphs, but I calculate that since Carter, Republican presidents have increased federal spending per term by about 15% on average, while Democratic presidents have increased spending by about 8% on average.