The Conservative Threat to Liberty

Roadtoad

Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
15,468
Location
Citrus Heights, CA
Read this article this morning, while waiting for a load. Your thoughts?

I thought this part was illuminating...

Here are some hard facts. Government spending has increased faster under George Bush and his Republican Congress than it did under Bill Clinton, and more people work for the federal government today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. During Bush’s first term, total government spending skyrocketed from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, an increase of 33 percent (almost $23,000 per household, the highest level since World War II). The federal budget grew by $616.4 billion during Bush’s first term in office. If post 9/11 defense spending is taken off the table, domestic spending has ballooned by 23 percent since Bush took office. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, federal spending equaled 18.5 percent of the gross domestic product, but by the end of the first Bush administration, government outlays had increased to 20.3 percent of the GDP. The annualized growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland-security outlays has more than doubled from 2.1 percent under Clinton to 4.8 percent under Bush.6

Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite President Bush’s much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton’s last year in office. The 2006 annual report from Americans for Tax Reform, titled “Cost of Government Day,” sums up rather nicely the intrusive role played by Republican government in the lives of ordinary Americans. The report says that Americans had to work 86.5 days just to pay their federal taxes, as compared to 78.5 days in 2000 under Bill Clinton. In other words, the average American has worked 10.2 percent more for the federal government under George Bush than under Bill Clinton. When state and local taxes (controlled in the majority of places by Republicans) are added to federal taxes, Americans worked for the government eight hours a day, five days a week, from January 1 until July 12, meaning they worked full-time for the government for more than half the year. As Tom Feeney, a congressional Republican put it: “I remember growing up and reading in some school textbooks that if more than half your paycheck went to the government, then you were living in a socialist society.”7 Just so, Mr. Feeney.

Two generations ago, conservatives denounced the growth of government and called for a revolution to roll back the Leviathan State created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. In 1994, conservatives, with their Republican Revolution, rode into power on just such a platform of limited government. Yet today, the conservative intellectual movement and the Bush administration are engaged in a very different kind of revolution—a revolution for big-government conservatism.

Interesting facts, and an equally interesting view.

I accepted years ago a General Discharge from the Army, mainly because I subscribed to the notion that my ill considered and selfish actions warranted consequences. It's been tough, but when I see my sons accepting the responsibility for their actions, I think it's been worth it.

When I see George Bush or Bill Clinton trying t negate that basic element of morality, I get angry. Now, I have a greater understanding why.
 
I recently bought Financial Report of the United States which, though I've only begun reading it, seems to bear out much of what you excerpted.

The foreward by Representative Jim Cooper is a bit histrionic, but seems to warrant consideration. While I've had some economics and accounting classes, I am neither an economist nor an accountant, yet the idea of a cash-accounting system as opposed to an accrual system shocked me.

Anyone else read this and/or have informed opinions on it?
 
Read this article this morning, while waiting for a load. Your thoughts?

I thought this part was illuminating...



Interesting facts, and an equally interesting view.

I accepted years ago a General Discharge from the Army, mainly because I subscribed to the notion that my ill considered and selfish actions warranted consequences. It's been tough, but when I see my sons accepting the responsibility for their actions, I think it's been worth it.

When I see George Bush or Bill Clinton trying t negate that basic element of morality, I get angry. Now, I have a greater understanding why.
Within the "conservative movement" there has been considerable hate and discontent regarding the current administration's betrayal of conservatism:
DHS creation
Patriot Act
Deficit increase
Border issues
The perscription drug policy path

And more.

You'd be more accurate, I think, to desccribe the malaise as "neoconservativism", which seems (all name calling aside) a hybrid of conservatism and selected big government initiatives aimed at buying votes. ;)

This short descriptive is consistent with the idea, from Kristol, that a neoconservative is a "liberal, mugged by reality" who decided that the liberal base of the Democratic party had moved too far left of center. So, the hybrid. For taxpayers, it's a lose-lose. The Contract with America has either expired, or been renegged upon, and has been followed by this so called neoconservatism resurrecting the Wilsonian mantra of exporting the blessings of liberty beyond our borders.

DR
 
Last edited:
Within the "conservative movement" there has been considerable hate and discontent regarding the current administration's betrayal of conservatism:
DHS creation
Patriot Act
Deficit increase
Border issues
The perscription drug policy path

And more.

Like Congress sticking their noses into the Terri Schiavo affair.

Federalism.
What-a-lism?
Federalism.
Fed-a-what?
Federalism.
What-a-what?
 
Border issues
I've always thought that "issues" like immigrants are, historically, reoccurring indicators of complacent organizational self-dissatisfaction. If that's true, I'm sure immigration is only one of many.

By that, I mean that when an organization (in this case the Republicans) have little to unite against within a given area (say, domestic issues) the snake begins to eat its own tail, so to speak, by uniting against other factions within the organization.

As was pointed out in another thread, before the hispanic problem, we had the black problem, the Catholic problem, the Chinese problem and the Irish problem. It's a reoccuring theme of being "invaded by outsiders" and how no one is doing anything about it which causes a great deal of fuss at the time with cries of woe and doom but just indicates the natural growth of the country.

That we've seen this pop up again indicates that the GOP has grown complacent within itself.

[/tangent]
 
Last edited:
I've always thought that "issues" like immigrants are, historically, reoccurring indicators of complacent organizational self-dissatisfaction. If that's true, I'm sure immigration is only one of many.
It has been suggested (IIRC in China, Inc) that part of the current "border issue" and the immigration impetus, is that Mexico lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to China. What that does is expose NAFTA as a very short sighted policy iniative, since Clinton et al (though Bush Senior was a fan of it, as is Bush Junior) were busy selling out to the Chinese.

I find more than a grain of truth in your overall observation, however, since I seem to recall a Reagan amnesty in about 1986.

A political football, certainly.

DR
 
Is this the doing of the evil neo-cons or is it a continuation of a trend that started with the "New Deal?"
 
Why aren't YOU GUYS running your country instead of the idjits there now? You seem to know and understand more about it than they do...
 
Why aren't YOU GUYS running your country instead of the idjits there now? You seem to know and understand more about it than they do...

I'd be happy to run for national office, once I receive forty or fifty million dollars in campaign contributions so I'd have even a slim chance of success.
 
It has been suggested (IIRC in China, Inc) that part of the current "border issue" and the immigration impetus, is that Mexico lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to China. What that does is expose NAFTA as a very short sighted policy iniative, since Clinton et al (though Bush Senior was a fan of it, as is Bush Junior) were busy selling out to the Chinese.
So you're against NAFTA? Could you provide examples of protectionist policies resulting in a booming economy?
 
So you're against NAFTA? Could you provide examples of protectionist policies resulting in a booming economy?
I was against it then, and it is a moot point now. Which came first, NAFTA, or the $47 billion bailout of Mexico's currency?

Work with me here: how was the tech boom of the 1990's a product of NAFTA? :confused:

ETA: changed 50 to 47.

From the link said:
Unfortunately, no mention has been made of lifting the draconian wage and price controls imposed on Mexican workers and businesses, nor of reversing recent Mexican tax hikes. Without such changes, a bailout (however organized) will simply constitute an encouragement to future folly by the Mexican government. But changes are unlikely - unless the international bureaucrats who initially created these ruinous policy conditions, namely, Lawrence Summers of the Treasury, Stanley Fischer of the IMF, and Ted Truman of the Fed - have suddenly converted to free markets and stable money.

A skeptic might suggest that the Clinton Administration is merely using taxpayers' dollars to achieve unilaterally what it could not get through Congress. Of course, miracles can happen, and Alan Greenspan could be canonized as a saint, but for the moment color us agnostic.
What, Greenspan wasn't canonized? :D

For more on the shell game, see how in 1996 Mexico repayed us 7 billion from money secured from Clinton in 1995. Voodoo economics, perhaps?

DR
 
Last edited:
Wage and price controls fail again and again and again -- so resoundingly so that politicians who suggest them should, and I mean this, be jailed for fraud.

But they sound sooooo gooooooood to the masses. First Level IQ 80 Problem Solving: Grab the problem and force it into reverse.

Gunney: I don't know, though I've been told
All: I don't know, though I've been told
Gunney: Wage and price controls are election gold
All: Wage and price controls are election gold
Gunney: Mmmm...good
All: Mmmm...good
Gunney: Tastes good
All: Tastes good
Gunney: Mighty good
All: Mighty good
Gunney: Is good
All: Is good
Gunney: Real good
All: Real good
 

Back
Top Bottom