Thread: Never Mind the Bollocks...

Originally Posted by iceman

...it's the Bureaucracy that's the enemy.

Liberal v. Conservative is ten degrees of separation n a 360 degree world. Nothing. We all want the same things. Republicans are stingy, Democrats are needy, so what? Minor differences.

But any Bureaucracy has two objectives: Continue to Live. Continue to Grow. Kinda like cancer.

Originally Posted by iceman

I'm not a retarded stingy backasswards stupidass republican, if that's what you're inferring, but I do see the problem.

I don't think characterizing Republicans as stingy is an accurate representation. The main difference is policy preferences and which constituency each party thinks should be showered with government largess.

After all, the large deficits are as much, or more, the result of policies passed under Republican majorities under the Bush administration—policies that over their lifetime will vastly exceed the overall cost of the emergency spending passed under the Obama administration, so far. Examples include the actual cost of the Iraq war at around $3 trillion dollars and counting. There's also the $8 trillion unfunded dollars in today's money for Medicare Part D passed under Republican majorities. And now, Romney promises more tax cuts, big increases in defense spending and no specific big short term reductions in spending.



While there is a left in America that would like to see socialized healthcare, a nationalization of the banking system and more spending on entitlements which means still more bureaucracy, that American left as a political force exists on the fringes.

In descending statistical order--ending in obscurity--roughly 40 percent of the American electorate self-identifies as conservative, about 35 percent as moderate, 20 percent as liberal, and among the latter cluster about 1 out of 4 identifies as "very liberal." This few, this unhappy few, this 5-percent band of brothers and sisters constitutes, I think we would all agree, the modern American left. Some compensate and console themselves with the historical analogy that, well hell, during the antebellum period abolitionists represented only about 5 percent of the electorate, too. And look at what they accomplished. History might answer, however, that the Civil War wasn't launched by abolitionists, wasn't fought by abolitionists, and ultimately derailed into the prolonged Southernization of American politics.

Originally Posted by Triage

After all, the large deficits are as much, or more, the result of policies passed under Republican majorities under the Bush administration.

Don't forget Reagan.

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Don't forget Reagan.

or their democratic controlled Congress'....

Originally Posted by OSECS

or their democratic controlled Congress'....

The link at the top of page shows that America is fundamentally a conservative country apart from a vocal minority with not much electoral sway so the main difference is tax policy and the failed notion of starve the beast.

The last 30 years show that starve the beast does not work. In fact, it has the opposite effect by promising a free lunch to people who otherwise would be reluctant to vote for the tax increases necessary to pay for things like Iraq and Medicare Part D etc.

The whole premise of starve-the-beast theory has gone straight down the toilet. Yet, to my amazement, Republicans and Republican lackeys continue to talk about cutting taxes with no corresponding spending cuts as if it is the height of fiscal responsibility. When pressed, they fall back on starving the beast even though there is not one iota of evidence giving it operational meaning since at least 1996, when Ross Perot last ran for president. It has become, in fact, nothing but a license for Republican fiscal irresponsibility.

Big Business America is bureaucratic. And really successful.

Originally Posted by OSECS

or their democratic controlled Congress'....

Republicans had a majority in the Senate for the first six years of Reagan's presidency:


97th Congress (1981-1983)
Senate: 53(R); 46(D); 1(other)
House: 242(D); 189(R)

98th Congress (1983-1985)
Senate: 54(R); 46(D)
House: 268(D); 167(R)

99th Congress (1985-1987)
Senate: 53(R); 47 (D)
House: 253 (D); 182(R)

100th Congress (1987-1989)
Senate: 55(D); 45(R)
House: 258 (D); 177 (R)

As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Republicans had a majority in the Senate for the first six years of Reagan's presidency:

97th Congress (1981-1983)
Senate: 53(R); 46(D); 1(other)
House: 242(D); 189(R)

98th Congress (1983-1985)
Senate: 54(R); 46(D)

House: 268(D); 167(R)

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Senate: 53(R); 47 (D)
House: 253 (D); 182(R)

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Senate: 55(D); 45(R)
House: 258 (D); 177 (R)

As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997
billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

And no control of the house of reps during any of his terms.

Yes, Reagan was powerless to stop the spending that he included in his budgets. Nancy's astrologer kept adding zeros to the numbers he was writing down.

......................

Originally Posted by Triage

The link at the top of page shows that America is fundamentally a conservative country apart from a vocal minority with not much electoral sway so the main difference is tax policy and the failed notion of starve the beast.

The last 30 years show that starve the beast does not work. In fact, it has the opposite effect by promising a free lunch to people who otherwise would be reluctant to vote for the tax increases necessary to pay for things like Iraq and Medicare Part D etc. The whole premise of starve-the-beast theory has gone straight down the toilet. Yet, to my amazement, Republicans and Republican lackeys continue to talk about cutting taxes with no corresponding spending cuts as if it is the height of fiscal responsibility. When pressed, they fall back on starving the beast even though there is not one iota of evidence giving it operational meaning since at least 1996, when Ross Perot last ran for president. It has become, in fact, nothing but a license for Republican fiscal irresponsibility.

I call Dog Bollocks on the bold part. How are you going to starve the bitch if you keep feeding it?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

......................

So now he's an illegal?

Originally Posted by jimmy

I call Dog Bollocks on the bold part. How are you going to starve the bitch if you keep feeding it?

Huh? I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say other than the, "starve-the-beast theory has gone straight down the toilet."

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

So now he's an illegal?

We're all illegals...that is if you think Obama is...at some point all of us, including Native Americans, immigrated here...I think that's what this gentleman is getting at with his signage...and what DBT evidently agrees with. Mittens is going to establish Spanish as the US national language since he's a Nazi Mexican.

Originally Posted by Triage

Huh? I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say other than the, "starve-the-beast theory has gone straight down the toilet."

No i think you said that. I said that it's never been tried, oh I guess they tried it in Wisconsin but it probably didn't work?

Originally Posted by jimmy

No i think you said that. I said that it's never been tried, oh I guess they tried it in Wisconsin but it probably didn't work?

Yes, it has been tried and the idea continues to be defended to this day. Your argument essentially amounts to the starve the beast argument that has been around for decades, "How are you going to starve the bitch if you keep feeding it?" Whereas my response is that the evidence shows the, "starve-the-beast theory has gone straight down the toilet."

The confusion is, perhaps, due to the definition of starve the beast and the notion that it hasn't been tried before?

The idea is that cutting taxes starves the beast of revenues forcing cuts that wouldn't otherwise be possible but my argument is that this has the opposite effect by convincing voters that they can have more government services and still pay lower taxes and so the government grows rather than shrinks. For evidence see the poll results on the first page of this thread.

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Republicans had a majority in the Senate for the first six years of Reagan's presidency:


97th Congress (1981-1983)
Senate: 53(R); 46(D); 1(other)
House: 242(D); 189(R)

98th Congress (1983-1985)
Senate: 54(R); 46(D)
House: 268(D); 167(R)

99th Congress (1985-1987)
Senate: 53(R); 47 (D)
House: 253 (D); 182(R)

100th Congress (1987-1989)
Senate: 55(D); 45(R)
House: 258 (D); 177 (R)

As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

In all terms, the House was Democratically controlled and the Senate was missing the magic number of 60 to be filibuster proof so yes, Democratically controlled Congress.

Originally Posted by GoldMember

In all terms, the House was Democratically controlled and the Senate was missing the magic number of 60 to be filibuster proof so yes, Democratically controlled Congress.

The commonplace use of the filibuster in the Senate, where rather than a simple majority a supermajority of 60 votes is necessary to pass legislation, is a fairly recent phenomenon.

During the Carter and Reagan presidencies the filibuster was used about twenty times per year which at the time was thought to be a lot. Now, the filibuster has become a daily tool of legislation.

The filibuster gets used more regularly now probably due to the harsher political environment and polarization that's occurred between parties. Reagan and Tip O'Neill did much more in the way of negotiating prior to legislation than occurs today. Hence, more use of the filibuster as there is little to no pre-legislation negotiation. That again points to the fact that Reagan and O'Neill negotiated because Reagan realized he had to with the D's holding the majority in the House. He really had little choice other than falling back onto the filibuster and risking gridlock on his programs. Ah, I miss the old days....

Originally Posted by GoldMember

The filibuster gets used more regularly now probably due to the harsher political environment and polarization that's occurred between parties. Reagan and Tip O'Neill did much more in the way of negotiating prior to legislation than occurs today. Hence, more use of the filibuster as there is little to no pre-legislation negotiation. That again points to the fact that Reagan and O'Neill negotiated because Reagan realized he had to with the D's holding the majority in the House. He really had little choice other than falling back onto the filibuster and risking gridlock on his programs. Ah, I miss the old days....

Reagan is largely respoinsible for the political polarization...or should I say the image of Reagan created by the GOP (i.e. tax cuting, small government, anti-fed government, anti-environmentalist, etc.) is largely responsible for the polarization.

Adolf - I would only modify your statement a bit by stating it's the Tea Party, not the traditional GOP that's created that message with Reagan's face attached. Reagan wasn't nearly as polarizing as the current political climate. Sure, he had detractors but as many Democrats have noted, he probably wouldn't even be welcomed into the Republican party at this point; not with the TP influence. Like I said, I miss the old days....

Originally Posted by GoldMember

he probably wouldn't even be welcomed into the Republican party at this point; not with the TP influence...

That's a moronic talking point that makes no sense.

The mistake GOP'ers always make is compromising with lefties. If you look back at everything lefties throw up to use against Reagan today, it's all the things the lefties pushed for and got at the time.

Tea Party = The end of being stupid and doing the wrong thing in the name of compromise with the psychotic sociopaths know as liberals.

Originally Posted by GoldMember

Adolf - I would only modify your statement a bit by stating it's the Tea Party, not the traditional GOP that's created that message with Reagan's face attached. Reagan wasn't nearly as polarizing as the current political climate. Sure, he had detractors but as many Democrats have noted, he probably wouldn't even be welcomed into the Republican party at this point; not with the TP influence. Like I said, I miss the old days....

That's what I'm getting at...he was more of a centrist than just about anyone in the GOP today...

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

That's what I'm getting at...he was more of a centrist than just about anyone in the GOP today...

Times have changed adolf. No more room for compromise like there was when Reagan was POTUS.

Originally Posted by Triage

The confusion is, perhaps, due to the definition of starve the beast and the notion that it hasn't been tried before?

The idea is that cutting taxes starves the beast of revenues forcing cuts that wouldn't otherwise be possible but my argument is that this has the opposite effect by convincing voters that they can have more government services and still pay lower taxes and so the government grows rather than shrinks. For evidence see the poll results on the first page of this thread.

I see what you're saying. Cutting taxes has no mechanism that would directly force cuts to the bureaucracy; have to wait until the government in question can't pay it's bills and someone steps up to make some cuts, sort of like the Baltimore FD closing fire stations.

The Ohio Senate passed a bill in 2010 overhauling the existing collective bargaining law for public employees, similar to Wisconsin's. Unlike WI opponents in Ohio petitioned to recall the Bill, not the Governor. The bill was defeated in the next election, along with the majority of excess levies to support local government and school funding. Starving the beast?

"Never mind the Bollocks, it's the Bureaucracy that's the enemy"

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Reagan is largely respoinsible for the political polarization...or should I say the image of Reagan created by the GOP (i.e. tax cuting, small government, anti-fed government, anti-environmentalist, etc.) is largely responsible for the polarization.

That Bastard !! How dare he talk about a smaller more efficient gov't, how polarizing of him. He should have just STFU and increased gov't even more than he's credited with. Based on your theory Reagan should be a hero to you. He increased spending AND the size of gov't. hallmarks of your particular brand of porn sickness.