Thread: What's behind the GOP's calls to drastically cut government spending?

Originally Posted by Devil505

Just wondering what we all thinks here.

Has to be cheap election year politics.

Bush spent more money than God, and none of the Republicans seemed to care, so why should we believe they suddenly care now?

Nah man, it's amazing this stuff still works with "the base" or whatever - some of these people must be awful damn stupid (or just ignorant - or a little of both probably).

Originally Posted by Devil505

Just wondering what we all think here.

Edit: (I keep forgetting to select the button to show how we each voted.....could a mod change that if it's possible to do so?)

I think it is none of those options and has a little something to do with $75 trillion in promised Medicare and Social Security benefits while being in debt up to 100% of GDP and still having trillion dollar a year deficits.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Has to be cheap election year politics.

Bush spent more money than God, and none of the Republicans seemed to care, so why should we believe they suddenly care now?

Nah man, it's amazing this stuff still works with "the base" or whatever - some of these people must be awful damn stupid (or just ignorant - or a little of both probably).

Plenty of Republicans care. When Republicans leadership does not follow through on budget issues, the supports starts falling away or even causes third party splits.

George H.W. Bush agreed to raise taxes during a recession. Newt Gingrich helped lead the Republican Contract with America Revolution. At the same time Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan attacked Bush on both on matters of populism and fiscal restraint. Ross Perot and his pie charts represent the segment of Republicans that want our fiscal house in order. In 1996 Perot and Buchanan showed up again but didn't have as much steam because Congressional Republicans had actually gone to great lengths to win concessions toward balancing the budget. Bush was elected in a prolonged and damaging manner involving the courts and multiple selective recounts. At the same time the tech bubble popped and the country fell back into recession. Add to that the fact that one Republican, Jeffords, switched in the Senate and gave Democrats control of that branch. Bush passed a limited tax cut. We also had 9/11 happen and it caused an estimated trillion dollars worth of fiscal damage just in one day.

Given all of that, the recession and wars, the financial picture did reverse and start going back into deficit. It hit over $400 billion and Republicans were scrambling to fix the problem. Meanwhile Democrats were running on fiscal responsibility declaring they would stop the spending. They ran on PAYGO, ran against earmarks, ran on stopping wars and spending the peace dividend on savings and domestic programs. That message won over the Perot/Tea Party/Fiscal Republicans who gave them the House and Senate in 2006. They had one year of spending shrinkage and afterwards the spending started shooting up well beyond even previous, terribly irresponsible Republican levels. Obama claimed he would fix and bring together both sides, (someone should go back and find his inaugural speech) and instead he immediately began spending a trillion plus a year in excess of what was gathered via taxes. The same Perot/Tea Party/Fiscal Republicans left Hope, Change and History behind in 2010 and gave the House back to Republicans. Now here it is 2012 and it looks like no one will really be able to stop the open faucet that is federal spending. It has now reached 40% of GDP and anyone who can prove they will stop it with a sound plan and conviction they will pursue it can probably win the presidency. Sadly it doesn't appear that exists out there.