Big Government Republican Presidents

[Oneuli]

In a thread, below, Sear makes the following point:

"One of the claims Republicans pretend to, that they have not earned and do not deserve is preferring smaller, more efficient, less intrusive, less authoritarian government."

I think that can be shown, especially, with regard to Republican presidents. Between the near-insurmountable power of the veto, and ability to set the terms of the national debate with the bully pulpit, presidents are the single most powerful people in America when it comes to being able to favor smaller, more efficient, less intrusive, less authoritarian government. Yet when the White House is in the hands of the Republicans, the tendency is towards heavy-handed government: vast bloating of our already-huge military, an expansion of the prison-industrial complex, boondoggles like Star Wars or the Trump wall, government interference in people's reproductive choices, invasive police-state measures, etc.

A simple illustration can be done by comparing the growth rate of federal outlays over the last half century, comparing budget years with Democratic presidents to those of Republican ones. Here are the annualized growth rates for each:


Ford 14.958%
Carter 13.464%
Younger Bush 8.270%
Nixon 7.962%
Reagan 6.750%
Elder Bush 5.360%
Trump 5.204%
Clinton 3.548%
Obama 1.560%

Not what you'd picture from the Republican rhetoric, is it?

 

[Cypress]

In my opinion, it has never been about government spending, per se.

Republicans will spend three trillion dollars invading countries that don't threaten us without batting an eye.

They simply cannot spend money fast enough on the military industrial complex and the Pentagon.

It has always been about spending money on the "wrong people".

So to the extent you can ever pin Wingnuts down on what they really mean about government spending, they might toss out words like "social spending", "welfare", "entitlements".

All of which are codes words for money that generally does to undeserving groups in the eyes of Republicans: poor people, people of color, the lower working class, old people, sick people.

 

[Oneuli]

In my opinion, it has never been about government spending, per se.

Republicans will spend three trillion dollars invading countries that don't threaten us without batting an eye.

They simply cannot spend money fast enough on the military industrial complex and the Pentagon.

It has always been about spending money on the "wrong people".

So to the extent you can ever pin Wingnuts down on what they really mean about government spending, they might toss out words like "social spending", "welfare", "entitlements".

All of which are codes words for money that generally does to undeserving groups in the eyes of Republicans: poor people, people of color, the lower working class, old people, sick people.

Very well said.

 

[Carmine]

It's also important to understand the demographic that we're discussing.

The corporate oligarchs who own Republican politicians actually benefit from Republican policy.
In terms of numbers, they couldn't by themselves elect school committee members.

The tens of millions of inbred, toothless, illiterate, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, theocratic, racist, misogynist, parasitic, mentally and physically diseased troglodytes that make up the Trumpanzee species do not benefit in any way from Republican policies and vote straight red every time.

The oligarchs get what they want because the cracker crowd swallows for them religiously.

 

[Truth Detector]

In a thread, below, Sear makes the following point:

"One of the claims Republicans pretend to, that they have not earned and do not deserve is preferring smaller, more efficient, less intrusive, less authoritarian government."

I think that can be shown, especially, with regard to Republican presidents. Between the near-insurmountable power of the veto, and ability to set the terms of the national debate with the bully pulpit, presidents are the single most powerful people in American when it comes to being able to favor smaller, more efficient, less intrusive, less authoritarian government. Yet when the White House is in the hands of the Republicans, the tendency is towards heavy-handed government: vast bloating of our already-huge military, an expansion of the prison-industrial complex, boondoggles like Star Wars or the Trump wall, government interference in people's reproductive choices, invasive police-state measures, etc.

A simple illustration can be done by comparing the growth rate of federal outlays over the last half century, comparing budget years with Democratic president to those of Republican ones. Here are the annualized growth rates for each:


Ford 14.958%
Carter 13.464%
Younger Bush 8.270%
Nixon 7.962%
Reagan 6.750%
Elder Bush 5.360%
Trump 5.204%
Clinton 3.548%
Obama 1.560%

Not what you'd picture from the Republican rhetoric, is it?

You're right; your analysis is simplistic and childish. Presidents do not have the power to spend. That is reserved for the Legislature. Who was in controlling the legislature during these Presidencies?

Ford; Democrats
Carter; Democrats
Reagan; House dominated by Democrats; Senate mixed with BOTH.
Bush Senior; Democrats
Clinton; First two years Democrats; last six years Republicans
GWB; Senate a TIE first two years, then Republicans , then back to TIE. House Republicans ; last two years Democrats
Obamunism; Senate Democrats until last two years Republicans ; House Democrats until last six years reverting back to Republicans

Throwing Trump into the mix with less than two years is just pathetic and stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

In my opinion, it has never been about government spending, per se.

Republicans will spend three trillion dollars invading countries that don't threaten us without batting an eye. [/quote]

That is a lie.

They simply cannot spend money fast enough on the military industrial complex and the Pentagon.

That is a lie.

It has always been about spending money on the "wrong people".

Wrong people??? WTF does this even mean snowflake? Who are the "right" people?

So to the extent you can ever pin Wingnuts down on what they really mean about government spending, they might toss out words like "social spending", "welfare", "entitlements".

Where are "entitlements", "social spending" abd "welfare" spelled out as Federal obligations in the Constitution snowflake?

All of which are codes words for money that generally does to undeserving groups in the eyes of Republicans: poor people, people of color, the lower working class, old people, sick people.

So in the eyes of a leftist; without benevolent Government politicians buying the votes of low information voters, those voters will suffer and die? What a moronic argument.

Turning constituents into dependent wards of the state is not just BAD policy, it is detrimental to all that we stand for and what makes us great.

 

[Truth Detector]

In my opinion, it has never been about government spending, per se.

Republicans will spend three trillion dollars invading countries that don't threaten us without batting an eye.

They simply cannot spend money fast enough on the military industrial complex and the Pentagon.

It has always been about spending money on the "wrong people".

So to the extent you can ever pin Wingnuts down on what they really mean about government spending, they might toss out words like "social spending", "welfare", "entitlements".

All of which are codes words for money that generally does to undeserving groups in the eyes of Republicans: poor people, people of color, the lower working class, old people, sick people.

Very well said.

You do realize he crapped all over your child like analysis right?

 

[Truth Detector]

It's also important to understand the demographic that we're discussing.

The corporate oligarchs who own Republican politicians actually benefit from Republican policy.
In terms of numbers, they couldn't by themselves elect school committee members.

The tens of millions of inbred, toothless, illiterate, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, theocratic, racist, misogynist, parasitic, mentally and physically diseased troglodytes that make up the Trumpanzee species do not benefit in any way from Republican policies and vote straight red every time.

The oligarchs get what they want because the cracker crowd swallows for them religiously.

Triggered leftist bloviating bullshit.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Not what you'd picture from the Republican rhetoric, is it?

I grew up hearing that same meme my entire life.... Democrats are tax-and-spend, Republicans are frugal and hands-off-the-citizens-because-freedom. Turns out that the opposite is the truth. So let's file this in the same drawer that holds lies like "Columbus discovered America," "the Pilgrims/Hugenots/etc. desired religious freedom for all," "America was founded on Christianity," and other fairy tales.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It's also important to understand the demographic that we're discussing.

The corporate oligarchs who own Republican politicians actually benefit from Republican policy.
In terms of numbers, they couldn't by themselves elect school committee members.

The tens of millions of inbred, toothless, illiterate, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, theocratic, racist, misogynist, parasitic, mentally and physically diseased troglodytes that make up the Trumpanzee species do not benefit in any way from Republican policies and vote straight red every time.

The oligarchs get what they want because the cracker crowd swallows for them religiously.

 

[Oneuli]

You're right; your analysis is simplistic and childish. Presidents do not have the power to spend.

They have the power to prevent spending, by way of the veto. And they have the power to set the tone by way of the bully pulpit.

For example, compare the Reagan and Clinton years. If control of the Congress were more important, what would we expect to see, in terms of policies? Well, since the Reagan years mostly had Democrats in control of Congress we'd expect to see some of the following: more gun control, eroding defense budgets, higher taxes on the rich, rising minimum wages, increased regulation. Which of those things actually characterizes the Reagan years?

Meanwhile, since the Republicans mostly controlled Congress during the Clinton years, we'd expect to see some of the following, if Congress were more important: less gun control, exploding defense budgets, big upper-class tax cuts, eroding minimum wages, lots of deregulation. Which of those things actually characterizes the Clinton years?

Regardless of how the powers are divided on paper, in reality we have an almost imperial presidency in this country. The country tends to move in the direction the president is pushing. And in the Republican years, that meant huge bloating of government, mostly by way of military pork, the "security state," the war on drug users, etc.

Throwing Trump into the mix with less than two years is just pathetic and stupid.

Why?

 

[Oneuli]

You do realize he crapped all over your child like analysis right?

You misunderstood. Try rereading.

 

[Truth Detector]

They have the power to prevent spending, by way of the veto. And they have the power to set the tone by way of the bully pulpit.

For example, compare the Reagan and Clinton years. If control of the Congress were more important, what would we expect to see, in terms of policies? Well, since the Reagan years mostly had Democrats in control of Congress we'd expect to see some of the following: more gun control, eroding defense budgets, higher taxes on the rich, rising minimum wages, increased regulation. Which of those things actually characterizes the Reagan years?

Meanwhile, since the Republicans mostly controlled Congress during the Clinton years, we'd expect to see some of the following, if Congress were more important: less gun control, exploding defense budgets, big upper-class tax cuts, eroding minimum wages, lots of deregulation. Which of those things actually characterizes the Clinton years?

Regardless of how the powers are divided on paper, in reality we have an almost imperial presidency in this country. The country tends to move in the direction the president is pushing. And in the Republican years, that meant huge bloating of government, mostly by way of military pork, the "security state," the war on drug users, etc.

They have little power to prevent Congressional spending. History and the facts don't support your child like assertions.

Why?

What part of "less than two years in office" are you having difficulty comprehending? Dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

You misunderstood. Try rereading.

I understood perfectly; try reading.

 

[Oneuli]

They have little power to prevent Congressional spending

Sure they do. Without a 2/3 majority in both houses, Congress can't get anything passed if the president stands in the way.

What part of "less than two years in office" are you having difficulty comprehending?

That part was easy. The part I had trouble with is the part where you thought that was not worth considering. Ford had two and a half years and you didn't seem to object to counting his numbers. Is that where you draw the line -- somewhere between 21 months and 30?

 

[Oneuli]

I understood perfectly....

Here's a reality check for you: you say Cypress crapped all over my analysis, yet Cypress was, in fact, one of two readers who thanked me for the analysis.

Do you see how your reading comprehension problems lead you to embarrass yourself? Not to worry -- like any skill, it can be improved with practice. Just keep pushing yourself to read and eventually you'll get good at it. Good luck!

 

[TTQ64]

In my opinion, it has never been about government spending, per se.

Republicans will spend three trillion dollars invading countries that don't threaten us without batting an eye.

They simply cannot spend money fast enough on the military industrial complex and the Pentagon.

It has always been about spending money on the "wrong people".

So to the extent you can ever pin Wingnuts down on what they really mean about government spending, they might toss out words like "social spending", "welfare", "entitlements".

All of which are codes words for money that generally does to undeserving groups in the eyes of Republicans: poor people, people of color, the lower working class, old people, sick people.

STANDING OVATION!


You win the internet today!

 

[Truth Detector]

Sure they do. Without a 2/3 majority in both houses, Congress can't get anything passed if the president stands in the way.

Once again; Presidents have little power to prevent Congressional spending as history has shown the reason why. You can continue stomping your little feet and demanding we deconstruct your strawmen all you want.

Tip O'Neil announced Reagan's budget DOA every year.

That part was easy. The part I had trouble with is the part where you thought that was not worth considering. Ford had two and a half years and you didn't seem to object to counting his numbers.

Nothing is easy for an idiot like you; how can it be when you have such a low IQ and are incapable of comprehending a fact or the obvious?

Is that where you draw the line -- somewhere between 21 months and 30?

How about the brilliant idea of waiting until the end of a Presidents term before we try to infer some conclusions? What a novel concept? Now STFU you shrill buffoon.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Here's a reality check for you: you say Cypress crapped all over my analysis, yet Cypress was, in fact, one of two readers who thanked me for the analysis.

Do you see how your reading comprehension problems lead you to embarrass yourself? Not to worry -- like any skill, it can be improved with practice. Just keep pushing yourself to read and eventually you'll get good at it. Good luck!

My guess is you can expect that fuckwit to push himslef to plumb further depths of dishonesty and denial, all while snowflaking out.

 

[Truth Detector]

Here's a reality check for you: you say Cypress crapped all over my analysis, yet Cypress was, in fact, one of two readers who thanked me for the analysis.

OMG; he thanked you!! STFU, seriously.

Do you see how your reading comprehension problems lead you to embarrass yourself? Not to worry -- like any skill, it can be improved with practice. Just keep pushing yourself to read and eventually you'll get good at it. Good luck!

It is obvious you're too stupid to comprehend your embarrassment every damn day snowflake.

I accept your capitulation on the point however; a sure sign you lost the debate is when you start to troll your own thread. You would have to have an IQ to comprehend that much.