Big Government Lovers on Both Sides

[Marenco]

A lot of people believe that when it comes to the size and scope of government, republicans are "better" or just "less bad" than their democrat counterparts. They talk the talk, about limiting government, and even the Constitution. But the evidence keeps coming in showing that at best, this is just about rhetoric. This time, 30 years of results in the states.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mc-2rWyIzk

[r3volution 3.0]

They talk the talk...

They don't even do that so much these days.

[Zippyjuan]

They don't even do that so much these days.

That pretty much seemed to end when "No New Taxes" lost his re-election bid. HW Bush was worried about growing deficits so agreed to raise taxes to reduce it (the S&L crisis was a big factor). In exchange, he got the Democratic congress to agree to spending cuts twice the size of the tax increases. He lost. (A recession didn't help much either but the message which went through was do not cooperate with the other party and don't worry about deficits).

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/george-hw-bush-defied-gop-by-raising-taxes-paid-steep-political-price.html


So Bush announced he wouldn’t keep his promise. That enraged conservatives but produced a bipartisan deal. The president accepted several tax increases, most notably an increase in the top personal tax rate to 31 percent from Reagan’s 28 percent. Democrats accepted spending cuts twice as large in dollar value.

Their deal, followed by another one three years later during Bill Clinton’s presidency, paid long-term dividends. The 1990s ended with the economy booming and the federal budget in surplus.

But Bush reaped no political reward. Even after victory in the first Iraq War caused his popularity to soar, the recession then dragged it back down.

Bush suffered a conservative rebellion in 1992 GOP primaries, then lost in a three-way general election campaign against Clinton and independent business executive Ross Perot. While the economy had resumed growing by then, voters still felt beleaguered.

The fallout reshaped the Republican Party. No national GOP leader since has accepted that preserving the government services Americans want requires higher taxes.

Instead, the party has treated the levers of government power as a one-way ratchet down for tax rates. The next two Republican presidents – Bush’s son and now Donald Trump – cut taxes though neither circumstances nor public sentiment have supported corresponding cuts in spending.

The visceral appeal of tax cuts to voters makes that politically attractive in the short-term. The 41st president chose a harder path.

“We have a deficit to bring down,” Bush had said in his 1989 inaugural address. “We must ensure that America stands before the world united, strong, at peace and fiscally sound. But of course things will be difficult.

[r3volution 3.0]

That pretty much seemed to end when "No New Taxes" lost his re-election bid. HW Bush was worried about growing deficits so agreed to raise taxes to reduce it (the S&L crisis was a big factor). In exchange, he got the Democratic congress to agree to spending cuts twice the size of the tax increases. He lost. (A recession didn't help much either but the message which went through was do not cooperate with the other party and don't worry about deficits).

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/george-hw-bush-defied-gop-by-raising-taxes-paid-steep-political-price.html

Hard to put a date on it...

It's seemed to me like a gradual decline for a long time, but with a steeper drop since c. 2016.

It's not so much that Trump's openly repudiated the market (though he has), but that he's focused on other issues.

...mostly 'foreigners r bad,' in various flavors.

[Grandmastersexsay]

Hard to put a date on it...

It's seemed to me like a gradual decline for a long time, but with a steeper drop since c. 2016.

It's not so much that Trump's openly repudiated the market (though he has), but that he's focused on other issues.

...mostly 'foreigners r bad,' in various flavors.

Please ignore him. The only reason he keeps posting is because people keep responding to him. Stop feeding the troll.

[r3volution 3.0]

Please ignore him. The only reason he keeps posting is because people keep responding to him. Stop feeding the troll.

Zippy was on RPF when you were still Deputyundersecretarysexay.

He has forever a jester's privilege (and he's also not infrequently right, as he is in this case).

[Anti Globalist]

That's why I don't care whenever these Republicans politicians preach about small government. They didn't believe it in the last time they were in power and they certainly don't believe in it now.

[Brian4Liberty]

Big Government Lovers on Both Sides

We have Rand. We have Massie, many of the House Freedom Caucus are legit.

Who is running for office? Who can we support? Where can the activism occur?

Rand has supported Cynthia Lummis. Are there any other candidates worth supporting?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?539664-Campaign-Evaluation-(2020)-Cynthia-Lummis-(U-S-Senate-R-WY)

[Swordsmyth]

We have Rand. We have Massie, many of the House Freedom Caucus are legit.

Who is running for office? Who can we support? Where can the activism occur?

Rand has supported Cynthia Lummis. Are there any other candidates worth supporting?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?539664-Campaign-Evaluation-(2020)-Cynthia-Lummis-(U-S-Senate-R-WY)

These are the only ones worth considering, all others are only a lesser of two evils:


Dist.5: Mo Brooks (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001274) - 74%
Dist.4: Paul Gosar (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000565) - 80%
Dist.5: Andy Biggs (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001302) - 90%
Dist.6: David Schweikert (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001183) - 77%
Dist.8: Debbie Lesko (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000589) - 74%
Dist.4: Tom McClintock (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001177) - 86%
Dist.4: Ken Buck (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001297) - 75%
Dist.5: Doug Lamborn (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000564) - 74%
Dist.11: Mark Meadows (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001187) - 72%
Dist.13: Ted Budd (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001305) - 73%
Dist.4: Jim Jordan (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=J000289) - 81%
Dist.4: Jim Jordan (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=J000289) - 81%
Dist.8: Warren Davidson (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000626) - 70%
Dist.8: Bill Posey (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000599) - 82%
Sen. James Inhofe (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=I000024) - 70%
Dist.10: Scott Perry (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000605) - 74%
Sen. James Risch (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000584) - 77%
Dist.3: Jeff Duncan (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000615) - 80%
Dist.4: Scott DesJarlais (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000616) - 75%
Sen. Ted Cruz (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001098) - 75%
Dist.1: Louie Gohmert (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000552) - 78%
Sen. Rand Paul (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000603) - 94%
Dist.4: Thomas Massie (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001184) - 99%
Sen. Mike Lee (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000577) - 92%
Dist.1: Andy Harris (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001052) - 76%
Dist.9: H. Griffith (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000568) - 76%
Dist.3: Justin Amash (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=A000367) - 94%
Dist.2: Alex Mooney (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001195) - 73%
Dist.5: F. Sensenbrenner (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000244) - 77%
Sen. John Barrasso (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001261) - 71%

There are quite a few without enough of a record yet right now but most of them probably won't work out.

Source: https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

[Brian4Liberty]

These are the only ones worth considering, all others are only a lesser of two evils:

Do we have any new candidates not already in office?

(Supporting the good ones already in office is a given. Do it!)

[Swordsmyth]

Do we have any new candidates not already in office?

(Supporting the good ones already in office is a given. Do it!)
I'm not aware of any specifically but some have been suggested on this site from time to time, I'll let you know if I hear of any.

[r3volution 3.0]

These are the only ones worth considering

...except the one tied with Rand for 2nd place, right?

...he's an enemy of the people for criticizing the leftist scum President?

[Swordsmyth]

...except the one tied with Rand for 2nd place, right?

...he's an enemy of the people for criticizing the leftist scum President?
All it takes is one act of treason to spoil an otherwise admirable record, and it's not only treason but an endorsement of the destruction of the rule of law which is the basis of liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

All it takes is one act of treason to spoil an otherwise admirable record, and it's not only treason but an endorsement of the destruction of the rule of law which is the basis of liberty.

Go ahead and tell me about the "treason" of Amash, and about how he's undermining the rule of law.

On a totally unrelated note, is it treasonous, or violative of the rule of law, to consistently violate the Constitution (which, IIRC, is the law...)?

[CCTelander]

So, even at thevstate level there's no significant difference? I'm not the least bit surprised. I've been saying so for decades in spite of the contrary claims by some.

[Swordsmyth]

Go ahead and tell me about the "treason" of Amash, and about how he's undermining the rule of law.
He is participating in an illegal coup that includes foreign enemies, the grounds for impeachment he has endorsed are laughable and a complete mockery of the rule of law.
Not only did Trump do nothing wrong but he was attempting to bring criminals to justice and it is that which is being called an impeachable offense, if Amash and the other traitors succeed then politicians will be immune from investigation even when they confess to their crimes in public.


On a totally unrelated note, is it treasonous, or violative of the rule of law, to consistently violate the Constitution (which, IIRC, is the law...)?
Let's ask the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

[Swordsmyth]

So, even at thevstate level there's no significant difference? I'm not the least bit surprised. I've been saying so for decades in spite of the contrary claims by some.
That's bunk and the difference between blue and red states proves it.

[CCTelander]

That's bunk and the difference between blue and red states proves it.


Reality disagrees with your partisan propaganda.

[Swordsmyth]

Reality disagrees with your partisan propaganda.
Reality proves you to be delusional.

Ask California how things worked out when Republicans went from being competitive to being an endangered species.


It turned into a hellhole.

[r3volution 3.0]

He is participating in an illegal coup

What specific illegal acts has he taken?


the grounds for impeachment he has endorsed are laughable and a complete mockery of the rule of law

Suppose Bob in fact murdered Jim.

Would it be unjust to (falsely) convict Bob of murdering Steve?


Not only did Trump do nothing wrong but he was attempting to bring criminals to justice and it is that which is being called an impeachable offense, if Amash and the other traitors succeed then politicians will be immune from investigation even when they confess to their crimes in public.

Amash confessed to which crimes?


Let's ask the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

...which you interpret to mean "opposing politicians I like."

[Swordsmyth]

What specific illegal acts has he taken?

Giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies engaged in a coup.




Suppose Bob in fact murdered Jim.

Would it be unjust to (falsely) convict Bob of murdering Steve?
Yes, especially if it created precedents that would let murderers like the one that actually murdered Steve go and convict other innocent people for their murders.




Amash confessed to which crimes?
Biden.




...which you interpret to mean "opposing politicians I like."
Wrong, but that's the best spin you can put on it I suppose.
America is in the midst of an attempted coup by enemies both foreign and domestic and Amash is giving them aid and comfort.

[r3volution 3.0]

Giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies engaged in a coup.

And the coup consists of...

...saying that a President whose committed impeachable offenses should be impeached?


Yes, especially if it created precedents that would let murderers like the one that actually murdered Steve go and convict other innocent people for their murders.

That's obviously not relevant to this situation.

I'm talking about Trump committing impeachable offenses, and you've agreed that he has.

If the Democrats impeach him for having an ugly face (rather than for the crimes he's actually committed), so what?

If they'd convicted Manson for being too short, rather for the crimes he actually committed, justice would still have been done.

And, that aside, the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is "whatever Congress says it is."

Here are the options:
--Congress decides what it means
--SCOTUS decides what it means
--POTUS decides what it means

The drafters of the Constitution obviously didn't intend for either of the latter options to be the rule.

So, Congress decides.


Biden.

I'm not familiar with this crime called "Biden."

You'll have to be more specific.


America is in the midst of an attempted coup by enemies both foreign and domestic and Amash is giving them aid and comfort.

America's in the midst of typical tribal bickering between blue and red leftists, which will go nowhere, and is about nothing.

Amash is only noteworthy in the melodrama for breaking the rules and acknowledging that his former leader is also a repugnant jackass.

[Swordsmyth]

And the coup consists of...

...saying that a President whose committed impeachable offenses should be impeached?
No, of saying a President should be impeached for actions that are not only not impeachable but pursuing his Constitutional duty.




That's obviously not relevant to this situation.
Oh yes it is.


I'm talking about Trump committing impeachable offenses, and you've agreed that he has.

If the Democrats impeach him for having an ugly face (rather than for the crimes he's actually committed), so what?

If they'd convicted Manson for being too short, rather for the crimes he actually committed, justice would still have been done.
That is absolutely wrong, it's not justice and it sets up future injustices.

And you are ignoring the fact that people who want to commit even more and much worse offenses will be empowered.



And, that aside, the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is "whatever Congress says it is."
That is completely untrue and it certainly can't mean pursuing his Constitutional mandate to see that the laws are enforced against criminals.



Here are the options:
--Congress decides what it means
--SCOTUS decides what it means
--POTUS decides what it means

The drafters of the Constitution obviously didn't intend for either of the latter options to be the rule.

So, Congress decides.
Wrong, it has a definite common law definition and as I said it can't be something which is not only legal but part of the President's job.




I'm not familiar with this crime called "Biden."

You'll have to be more specific.
Don't play stupid, I was referring to Biden as the one who confessed to a crime publicly not Amash.




America's in the midst of typical tribal bickering between blue and red leftists, which will go nowhere, and is about nothing.

Amash is only noteworthy in the melodrama for breaking the rules and acknowledging that his former leader is also a repugnant jackass.

America is in the midst of an attempted coup by enemies both foreign and domestic and Amash is giving them aid and comfort.

Amash is undermining the rule of law and empowering the worst elements of our politicians to destroy what is left of our rights and liberties and start many more wars.

[r3volution 3.0]

oy