The Republicans as responsible federal executives pretty much lost any remaining appeal for me once I looked at the post-WWII national debt as a share of GDP. Carter and Clinton both reduced the debt, while Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes all grew the debt.
Prior to that, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, and Nixon all chipped away at the huge debt that came out of the war. All of the post-war Democrats were working towards lowering the debt, while the Republicans haven't bothered since Nixon.
In my mind, they've lost any credibility as mature economic stewards.
I've seen that before, and I think you have to be careful with that sort of study. Spending is much more determined by Congress than by the president. *However*, your point that Republicans are not careful with the national deficit (and therefore national debt) stands.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to actually reduce government spending overall (which is a real shame,) but at least Democrats are willing to point out that the spending needs to be paid for with taxation. The ideal situation is to spend less, but failing that, our general attitude towards debt and deficit is abominably carefree.
Spending is much more determined by Congress than by the president.
It's true, although there's always the veto pen. One does note that when you get executive and legislative branches in opposition you tend to get more fiscal prudence, simply because the exec is more willing to veto the other party's spending.
But, really, for me it's more a sense that over the last few decades the fiscally conservative Republicans have slowly been pushed out of their party by the big government Republicans who have more interest in controlling your private life than they do in running a government efficiently. The last 8 years it seems that efficient government is long gone in the rear view mirror and we've been doing out best to stamp out simple competency.
No argument whatsoever with this. I have little but disappointment and disgust left for the Republican party. At least the Democrats don't *pretend* to be fiscally conservative.
Economic stuff (about which I know nothing). I watched both the video you pointed me at, and the This American Life on the economy from two weeks ago. They said pretty different things about the causes of the current `crisis'. Which is right and why? ... In general, I don't really understand what a truly free market is. AFAICT the consequences of not regulating and not overseeing what happens is anti-competitive practices, e.g. price fixing. Again, from my POV, it's because many important markets have a super-high barrier to entry. See gasoline and Internet.
I interpret the second amendment as the right to bear arms. I support it fervently not because of the right of people to defend their homes from robbers or anything like that. I support it because (as I think T.J. put it,) it is a last line of defense against tyranny in government. The most terrifying thing imaginable to me is an unchallengeable authority. Whether this be the authority of a bureaucrat, or the authority of mob opinion. I cannot tell you how relieved I was when the amendment was upheld in D.C. a few months ago
( ... )
The base of the second problem is fixed interest rates. This is, essentially, government interference into the free market in order to try and artificially prop up the U.S. currency. It's the kind of thing that can help the economy in the short term by boosting confidence, but really hurt it in the long term
( ... )
Clarification on the 2nd amendment issue. Because I view the importance of the 2nd amendment as a "last resort" issue, I have no real problem with laws preventing the carrying about of guns in public. I would not press for such laws, but I would not oppose them either. What is important to be is that citizens have the right to *own* a gun, and keep it in their home. The purpose of this right, to me, is that it is not needed until the government attempts to remove it.
Comments 14
Prior to that, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, and Nixon all chipped away at the huge debt that came out of the war. All of the post-war Democrats were working towards lowering the debt, while the Republicans haven't bothered since Nixon.
In my mind, they've lost any credibility as mature economic stewards.
Reply
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to actually reduce government spending overall (which is a real shame,) but at least Democrats are willing to point out that the spending needs to be paid for with taxation. The ideal situation is to spend less, but failing that, our general attitude towards debt and deficit is abominably carefree.
Reply
It's true, although there's always the veto pen. One does note that when you get executive and legislative branches in opposition you tend to get more fiscal prudence, simply because the exec is more willing to veto the other party's spending.
But, really, for me it's more a sense that over the last few decades the fiscally conservative Republicans have slowly been pushed out of their party by the big government Republicans who have more interest in controlling your private life than they do in running a government efficiently. The last 8 years it seems that efficient government is long gone in the rear view mirror and we've been doing out best to stamp out simple competency.
Reply
Reply
How do you interpret the second amendment?
What do you mean by anti-American?
Economic stuff (about which I know nothing). I watched both the video you pointed me at, and the This American Life on the economy from two weeks ago. They said pretty different things about the causes of the current `crisis'. Which is right and why? ... In general, I don't really understand what a truly free market is. AFAICT the consequences of not regulating and not overseeing what happens is anti-competitive practices, e.g. price fixing. Again, from my POV, it's because many important markets have a super-high barrier to entry. See gasoline and Internet.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment