maybe I am naive but...Follow

bah the move here cost me my post count if any of you do remember it would be as Hamiltion.

Hamiltion, Xaas, Grolsh, Shylyne, etc

Well, the quick and dirty answer is that "big government" doesn't necessarily have anything directly to do with the size of the budget.

When Reps talk about big government, they are talking about government programs that end up being everlasting, and continually growing.

For example. Bush could put in an appropriation for 100B for a war with Iraq. Um.. Once the war ends, that money stops being spent.

Clinton could put in action a health care bill. However, it's not defined in terms of dollars, or a single action (like military or contract spending), but instead has a vague goal like "Make health better for everyone in the US" (ok. I'm being a bit tounge in cheek here, I'll admit). The point is that as the cost to provide that health coverage raises, the cost of the program automatically does as well. Also, there's no termination point for that cost.


There are just certain types of government spending, that once you start spending on them, you really can't stop. Mainly because the public backlash would be too great. Wellfare programs are great examples. Heck. Any program where you are providing a service directly from the government to the people. What happens is that the service becomes the "norm". Everyone now assumes that it's going to be there. If you try to remove it, even if people somehow managed to survive without it beforehand, it will be considered a hit to their persons. It's become their "property" or their "right" in their minds, even though it's still public money.

Um... and the most insidious part of it all is that the "people" are right. Government programs like that aren't free. The money comes from somewhere. Typically, the answer is to take the money from the wealthy (nice Dem answer for everything). The theory is that even though there's less money floating around in the economy, you wont need as much for yourself because the government is providing a service that you didn't have before. The problem is that if you are making less money, or are more likely to be unemployed because of the money that was taken out of private industry to pay for the government service, you are now reliant on that government service. To us "evil" Republicans, that's seen as a form of slavery of the people. In the guise of giving you "free" stuff, the Dems are taking away your opportunities to be able to provide for yourself. If at some future time, that service is ever taken away, you are doubly screwed.


So. That's what Republicans mean when they talk about big government. It's really a difference in what kind of spending you are doing, not so much how much you are doing. I would much rather my government put money in the part of the economy that's going to make more jobs and more opportunities tomorrow at the expense of a bit of comfort today, then take away from our opportunities of tomorrow to give a bit of extra "stuff" today.


The Rep approach is very much like investing in your future. You scrimp a bit today, but assume that the result will be a larger pool of "money" to work with later. The Dems seem to have a hard time seeing farther then how to slice up this year's pie, so they simply slice it up in a way that gives people nice big pieces, but very little left over to build next years pie.


But that's just my opinion. I'm clearly biased. Ask around. I'm sure other folks will have other opinions on it...

clinton cut back funds for the military.. how much do think these planes cost that out boys are flying?? they dont come cheap.

Eh? Where did I say that? I'm saying he's spending more, but he's spending it in a way that he expects to get more back from it.

Take an example: You could spend 100 dollars a month on icecream, movie tickets, music CDs and DVDs, or you could put 200 dollars a month into a mutual fund.

If you look just at your expenses, you are spending twice as much money with the second option, right? And I guess technically, you'd "get less" in the short term with option 2 as well.

However, which one do you think is going to be better for you in the long term? Think really hard about this. The answer simply isn't that hard.





See my statement above. It's about how you spend it. It would be very nice if the Dems were just about "paying the bills", but that's not really true. You also have to remember that when the different parties make their economic assessments it's based on the kind of spendint *they* do. Reps spend money on things that they expect to build the economy down the line. Thus, when they calculate the overall economic effect, they assume that they'll have more money down the line to offset the initial cost. If you know that by spending 100B, you'll stimulate business and make back 1T over the next 5 years, you'll take that into account when calculating the cost.

The Dems look at the expenditures of the Reps, yet assume the total lack of return that their own expeditures generally reap (and in fact generally increased costs over time rather then increased funds). Thus, they always manage to project bleak outcomes when guessing what the economy will do down the line with a Rep at the helm.


What I still don't understand is why the Dems are suddenly bringing up the economy. Things have taken a very nice upturn in the last year. For the most part, the promises of economic recovery that Bush made in 2001 are coming true. For some reason, the Dems seem to desperately keep trying to insist that this isn't happening, even as every economic indicator shows us in completely recovery and working into a very healthy economic state.

I guess it's easier to blame the economic downturn of 2000 on Bush (even though his policies had about zero to do with it), and just ignore the upswing going on right now. After all, it's not about telling the truth, it's about convincing the people of the lie.

Wages are up. Stocks are up in every single market. Job rates are up (last I checked, although it's hard to get accurate current figures on this). Home purchases are up. Interest rates are still relatively low (but will probably rise in the near future). Um... What the heck is wrong with the economy right now again? I just don't see it...

30 million for a tanker and 125 mil I think for a F-16

So fighting wars is more economic than keeping our own people healthy?

That's true, America has had the advantage of geographic isolation when it comes to wars.

Actually, Air Force aircraft aren't THAT expensive. The two types you mentioned break down like this: F-16A/B , $14.6 million ; F-16C/D,$18.8 million; KC-135 Stratotankers, $39.6 million.

If you want more information on Air Force aircraft you can check out the Air Force fact sheets here. Organizations are at the bottom of the page, aircraft are along the right side.

You pathetic, blithering dolt.

Running the economy into the ground and losing the most jobs of any President in the history of the country for three years and then gaining a miniscule statistical number of new jobs by throwing money at the problem at the expense of tax payers...

IS NOT

An economic recovery.

You don't even comprehend what economic indicators mean, so just accept that you can't credibly post about ANYTHING to with any econmics of any kind beyond how much you paid for lunch.

Lack of jobs will cost this Administration the election. People who lost their jobs don't take much comfort in the fact that the GFP is up off of the RECORD lows it was driven to by this Administration.

I hate to point this out but I still don't get it. a) show me what Bush is spending the extra cash on and how this is benifiting us long term. (Can't be veterans benifits he cut those by like 2 billion, 350,000 less who actually served and not went AWOL that arent covered) b) if he is anti large government how is he spending more to accomplish less? c) if I was long sighted instead of short sighted wouldnt I care about running up a deficit for my grandchildren to pay off, and spending money I dont have coming in to invest in my future. Collary if I do have some remarkable return in borrowing more I have to remember that before I can reap the fruits of my investments I must pay off those who lent me all the money.

So if the national debt is say 100 million and Clinton spent 10 million to get more government and Bush is spending 50-100million to get less I still have to pay off the 100 million that my dad and his dad left me to break even. Or are we going back to the ***** it lets declare bankruptcy method of paying off the money lent to us?

So lets see now for my long sighted investments to reap rewards I need to get like 300 million to 500 million to pay off these loans of course provided my investments are a) actually going to make me money. b) providing less government, I mean that is my goal and not my opponents c) show me the proof that Clinton spent less on the military then Bush ( it is out there but if you actually look at it, its in the difference of one jet not 500 as Bush would have you believe).

My two favorite quotes, when asked about Clinton's anti terrorist record. Robert Oakley, who served as the ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Dept. " Overall, I give them high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obession with Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post) Paul Bremer who took over when Oakley left said in response to the Oakley, "I too give him high marks and I think that the Clinton administration correctly focused on Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post)

3 years and a couple of months into the Bush administration and we still have people like Condolezza Rice going on TV and blaming Clinton. How long into a term is it the acting presidents responsibility? When Clinton took office the World Trade Center was bombed. How often did he blame Bush Sr. ? None. How many times has Clinton been blamed for 9/11 I cant count that high. How long was Bush on vacation the 9 months preceding 9/11? Half of it.

Lets bring that back to the present if Clinton can be blamed for the economy then cant his "striped military" be blamed for beating the snot out of people. I mean if Bush is such a genius and can turn around the military in 1 year for Afghanistan and 2 years for Iraq. What the heck is his problem with the economy? Is he not smart enough to do it? Or do we really have President Clinton's military to thank for Iraq and Afgahnistan. It really is one way or the other Clinton can't suck with the economy and have left Bush with a problem he cant fix and have sucked with the military and left him with a problem he can fix.

Gbaji, I can understand your viewpoint from past post I remember you saying that you were a millionare in assets. You are just the person most helped by Bush and should support the guy who gives you the best deal. You might have to quit caring about the rest of us but I can understand that.

The IRS last year submitted numbers that 5% of all Americans pay 53% of the taxes. Wow, I know I was shocked but it is true. But, the sad part of that is that the top 5% of Americans are people who make 75,000+ a year. What does that say about our country that 95% of the population make less then 75k a year? Makes me sad. I know my company has exported at least 10,000 jobs to India. Rather then pay more for American workers the current administration gives tax cuts to large companies like mine that they use to move elsewhere. Sad to think that in the glorified 50's most of the jobs were held by Americans making goods for Americans.

Changed my party affilation tonight by the way, the only people in my party who still talked like I felt were, John McCain (R-Ariz), who was accused of being mentally unfit because of his time as a PoW by Bush, and Colin Powell. Sad 15 years as a Republican and I am left with two people I agree with in office.

I thought it was a movie and it only seemed like it lasted 100 years.

There are two that I know of historically - one in Tennessee, which had to do with the suffrage movement and one in England, which was between two counties. I think you are referring to the later, Katie. The two counties vying for the throne each had a rose(Yorkshire=white and Lancashire=red) as their county symbol. Thus, the War of the Roses. It was in the 15th century and lasted only 30 years.

I think you lost her already, Moe.