Big Government Republican Presidents

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.

There is is, right there. Let's not forget, the Pentagon cannot account for $21T worth of spending between 1998 and 2015. That's why the US cannot join the 21st century in healthcare and education to remain globally competitive. But then again, capital has no national ties. That shit is for the unsubstantial people.
 
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?

Forget the social issues that never allowed citizens to vote on.
The purpose of the federal government is provide a strong military, protect the lives of citizens and keep our roads in good shape.
That's it.
 
Once again; Presidents have little power to prevent Congressional spending as history has shown the reason why.

What makes you think that? Be specific, please.

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

Reagan got his giant upper-class tax cut and his obscene increases in military spending, his ghastly war on drug users, his Star Wars boondoggle, etc.

How about the brilliant idea of waiting until the end of a Presidents term before we try to infer some conclusions?

Can I expect you to chime in with that sentiment the next time a conservative here applauds the Trump-era economic growth? hehehaahahaaa! Just kidding. We know you aren't going to do that. This principle of waiting until the end of a term before inferring some conclusions is a principle-of-convenience, to be tossed aside as needed, right?
 
Forget the social issues that never allowed citizens to vote on.
The purpose of the federal government is provide a strong military, protect the lives of citizens and keep our roads in good shape.
That's it.

As a patriot, I'd disagree. I think there are a number of purposes, including establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and promoting the general welfare.
 
OMG; he thanked you!!

Yep..... and your tacit admission of your error is noted. Next time, rather than assuming you understand what someone is saying, given your low IQ and shockingly poor reading comprehension, maybe just ask, and it can be summed up in simpler words for you.
 
What makes you think that? Be specific, please.

What makes you think they do? Buy a history book snowflake.

Reagan got his giant upper-class tax cut and his obscene increases in military spending, his ghastly war on drug users, his Star Wars boondoggle, etc.

Wow; nothing but a bunch of buffoonish strawmen; you are quite dull of buffoon aren't you snowflake?

Can I expect you to chime in with that sentiment the next time a conservative here applauds the Trump-era economic growth? hehehaahahaaa! Just kidding.

Why? He shouldn't get credit for things that are happening on his watch? But you want to bloviate about government spending like a dunce before he has had a full term?

We know you aren't going to do that. This principle of waiting until the end of a term before inferring some conclusions is a principle-of-convenience, to be tossed aside as needed, right?

I thought we were talking about reigning in government spending? By the way, you know who got us to the massive Government welfare state we are under now? Starts with an R, ends with a T.
 
As a patriot, I'd disagree.

How are you a patriot? What does being a patriot have to do with the Constitutional limitations on the Federal Government Democrats ignore?

I think there are a number of purposes, including establishing justice,

How does the Federal Government "establish" justice? What kind of "justice" are you bloviating about?

insuring domestic tranquility,

You won't find that one in the Constitution snowflake. Dumb.

and promoting the general welfare.

That clause doesn't mean welfare state and turning citizens into dependent wards of the State snowflake.
 
Yep..... and your tacit admission of your error is noted. Next time, rather than assuming you understand what someone is saying, given your low IQ and shockingly poor reading comprehension, maybe just ask, and it can be summed up in simpler words for you.

Ironic; a low IQ leftist moron thinking that others are having the problems with comprehension. Yet, here you are trolling your own dumb thread over your dumb premise. Ironic isn't it snowflake?
 
As a patriot, I'd disagree. I think there are a number of purposes, including establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and promoting the general welfare.

Good for you. I was breaking it down to common sense actual duties.
 
No, I didn't.
Put down the crack pipe.

Yes you did; the willful idiot was trying to falsely paint the GOP as BIG Government spenders and you stated BIG Government spending is exactly what liberals want. I do wish you had a brain too snowflake. :laugh:
 
Good for you. I was breaking it down to common sense actual duties.

That's what I was doing. The reason we formed this government in the first place is to do the things I laid out. A strong military, by comparison, isn't so much one of the government's purposes, but rather just one means to achieve a purpose (the purpose is the common defense, which can also be achieved through strong treaties and alliances, and using soft power to defuse threats before they even become a matter for the military).
 
That's what I was doing. The reason we formed this government in the first place is to do the things I laid out. A strong military, by comparison, isn't so much one of the government's purposes, but rather just one means to achieve a purpose (the purpose is the common defense, which can also be achieved through strong treaties and alliances, and using soft power to defuse threats before they even become a matter for the military).
ridiculous.
See how far that goes in the South China Sea with a belligerent China that doesn't respect international boundaries.

We have security agreements with the littoral states, but the reason China hasn't just glomed up all their so called
"9 dash line" is because we push back on their territorial claims, and run ships close to dredge islands

Soft power is fine for what it is -influence -but if it's not backed up by hard power it collapses
 
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?

Many of us have complained that both parties favor big government and excessive spending and don't understand why Democrats whine about spending cuts.

A more realistic chart would show only discretionary spending since about 70% of the budget is mandatory beyond the president's control. It probably wouldn't change the results much.
 
:laugh: You do realize he crapped all over your child like analysis right?

giphy.gif

duelling-banjo_fyd.gif
 
Back
Top