25th July 2010, 6:00 AM
If Republicans are such fans of small government, why did the government grow to its largest size ever under the Bush II administration?
Well Mr. Smartass, something called 9-11 happened and it entailed emergency ad hoc spending to face the new threat. New departments and agencies had to be created on the spot to cope with this. Furthermore, what you say is misleading. You say it grew to it's largest size ever under him. Which, erroneously, suggests that it exploded and mushroomed under him. Indeed, if he inherited a government of any size, and added one federal employee more than there was before him, then he technically made it grow to it's largest size ever. If President A spends a trillion and hires a hundred thousand new bureaucrats, then leaves office, and then President B comes in, and hires a new secretary, the gov. is the biggest it's ever been under him. That doesn't make him responsible for the vast waste that has been accrued over decades by his predecessors. Bad logic and bad argument.
which of course Bush was not, and nor is most of his party -- would not have done it even so...
Another erroneous assumption of yours that I support or care about Bush. Attacking him doesn't bruise my ego. And you are nobody to make declarations of what the GoP WOULD have done in alternative circumstances. You do not know, and your theories are speculation. Let's keep this within the realm of the empirical.
Essentially, spending increases that are going towards health care... etc. is all unacceptable, and must be countered by other cuts to "fund" it.
I'm glad we agree on this.
However, revenue decreases on giant tax cuts very heavily weighted towards benefiting the rich many times more than anyone else? Those don't need to be funded with anything! Both Reagan and Bush II pushed the federal debt to record levels, thanks to their tax cuts.
I'm amazed that with all of the federal spending from 1982-1992, you were, miraculously, able to localize that the federal debt increased solely because of this legislation. The sheer number of manhours you must have spent going through tomes immemorial of numbers and figures... the numbercrunching you must have done to have been able to conclude, "of all gov. spending 1982-1992, it was tax cuts that increased the deficit, a deficit which otherwise would have (what, fallen? you tell me).
The same goes for military spending -- No military spending increase needs to be paid for.
Your arguments seem to boil down to angry accusations and generalizations. "No military spending increase needs to be paid for." That is not an argument, and it cannot stand. If you're going to slap me with commie rhetoric, do your research and link me something tangible, where a GOP congressman proclaims that, or, alternatively, link me five (5) instances where a GOP majority has passed military spending bills, unfunded. If you cannot, then your argument is not attainable.
Oh just borrow it all from China. Oh, the Republicans will try to cut a few social programs to fund a tiny percent of it, rail about earmarks perhaps which are a minuscule percent of the federal budget, etc, but that only pays for a tiny fraction of their spending.
Miniscule social programs? Welfare (which I assume is what you're referring to) is slated in 2010 to cost 762.3 billion (with a B) dollars. That makes it the biggest over-all price-item after Defense, Education, Health Care and Pensions. You don't help your argument by minimizing something as big as 3/4ths of a trillion dollars. And earmarks are wrong no matter who does them. I feel more and more like I'm arguing with a sarcstic little teenager than anything else, because so many of your arguments are poised in a pseudo-Republican form, as if coming from then lips of an arch-Republican. Sarcasm doesn't help your argument.
Welfare and Gov't Spending
Look at a chart of the federal deficit in the past few decades. It goes way up under Reagan and Bush I, begins to decline under Clinton until he actually starts posting some surpluses, and then jumps back to giant record-setting levels under Bush II as he spends those surpluses on huge tax cuts for the rich and more military spending.
Ostensibly that does seem to be the way the graph looked, but neither you nor I understand what was spent on what, and like it or not, 9/11 happened and threw the budget into chaos. Just because you don't like me using that as a reason doesn't make it invalid.
You cannot increase spending and decease taxes without there being huge consequences down the road! This has been proven over and over and over, and yet the Republican party keeps doing it, ruining the economy every time. First it was the recession that defeated Bush I, then the recession we're in now... both were caused or made much worse by Republican economic policies.
That's damn strange, you must be talking about a different recession, because the one that my country is in now was caused by a cocktail of Barney Frank-backed legislation for low mortgages, and Wall Street irresponsibility. What magical fairy land recession are you talking about?
Well Mr. Smartass, something called 9-11 happened and it entailed emergency ad hoc spending to face the new threat. New departments and agencies had to be created on the spot to cope with this. Furthermore, what you say is misleading. You say it grew to it's largest size ever under him. Which, erroneously, suggests that it exploded and mushroomed under him. Indeed, if he inherited a government of any size, and added one federal employee more than there was before him, then he technically made it grow to it's largest size ever. If President A spends a trillion and hires a hundred thousand new bureaucrats, then leaves office, and then President B comes in, and hires a new secretary, the gov. is the biggest it's ever been under him. That doesn't make him responsible for the vast waste that has been accrued over decades by his predecessors. Bad logic and bad argument.
which of course Bush was not, and nor is most of his party -- would not have done it even so...
Another erroneous assumption of yours that I support or care about Bush. Attacking him doesn't bruise my ego. And you are nobody to make declarations of what the GoP WOULD have done in alternative circumstances. You do not know, and your theories are speculation. Let's keep this within the realm of the empirical.
Essentially, spending increases that are going towards health care... etc. is all unacceptable, and must be countered by other cuts to "fund" it.
I'm glad we agree on this.
However, revenue decreases on giant tax cuts very heavily weighted towards benefiting the rich many times more than anyone else? Those don't need to be funded with anything! Both Reagan and Bush II pushed the federal debt to record levels, thanks to their tax cuts.
I'm amazed that with all of the federal spending from 1982-1992, you were, miraculously, able to localize that the federal debt increased solely because of this legislation. The sheer number of manhours you must have spent going through tomes immemorial of numbers and figures... the numbercrunching you must have done to have been able to conclude, "of all gov. spending 1982-1992, it was tax cuts that increased the deficit, a deficit which otherwise would have (what, fallen? you tell me).
The same goes for military spending -- No military spending increase needs to be paid for.
Your arguments seem to boil down to angry accusations and generalizations. "No military spending increase needs to be paid for." That is not an argument, and it cannot stand. If you're going to slap me with commie rhetoric, do your research and link me something tangible, where a GOP congressman proclaims that, or, alternatively, link me five (5) instances where a GOP majority has passed military spending bills, unfunded. If you cannot, then your argument is not attainable.
Oh just borrow it all from China. Oh, the Republicans will try to cut a few social programs to fund a tiny percent of it, rail about earmarks perhaps which are a minuscule percent of the federal budget, etc, but that only pays for a tiny fraction of their spending.
Miniscule social programs? Welfare (which I assume is what you're referring to) is slated in 2010 to cost 762.3 billion (with a B) dollars. That makes it the biggest over-all price-item after Defense, Education, Health Care and Pensions. You don't help your argument by minimizing something as big as 3/4ths of a trillion dollars. And earmarks are wrong no matter who does them. I feel more and more like I'm arguing with a sarcstic little teenager than anything else, because so many of your arguments are poised in a pseudo-Republican form, as if coming from then lips of an arch-Republican. Sarcasm doesn't help your argument.
Welfare and Gov't Spending
Look at a chart of the federal deficit in the past few decades. It goes way up under Reagan and Bush I, begins to decline under Clinton until he actually starts posting some surpluses, and then jumps back to giant record-setting levels under Bush II as he spends those surpluses on huge tax cuts for the rich and more military spending.
Ostensibly that does seem to be the way the graph looked, but neither you nor I understand what was spent on what, and like it or not, 9/11 happened and threw the budget into chaos. Just because you don't like me using that as a reason doesn't make it invalid.
You cannot increase spending and decease taxes without there being huge consequences down the road! This has been proven over and over and over, and yet the Republican party keeps doing it, ruining the economy every time. First it was the recession that defeated Bush I, then the recession we're in now... both were caused or made much worse by Republican economic policies.
That's damn strange, you must be talking about a different recession, because the one that my country is in now was caused by a cocktail of Barney Frank-backed legislation for low mortgages, and Wall Street irresponsibility. What magical fairy land recession are you talking about?
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST