If Bush is considered 'What is Republican'...

[Imran Siddiqui]

From that article:

• Disagreement between congressional Republicans and Bush over the size of the highway bill reflects mutual recriminations over runaway federal spending in general. While the president's aides are angered by the lawmakers' addiction to concrete, conservative lawmakers are furious that Bush's budget has preserved and actually increased federal funding for the arts.

• Bush's call to make his tax cuts permanent and to repeal the estate tax for all time leaves Republicans in Congress perplexed about how they will be able to write a budget without a massive increase in the huge deficit that never will command a majority vote.

• House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and his allies are bitter that they received no backing from the president and administration in their efforts to keep the independent 9-11 investigation from extending into the campaign season.

• The president came out for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage without consulting congressional Republican leaders, which helps explain the unenthusiastic reception from his own party on Capitol Hill.

• Congressional Republicans still have not recovered from the shock of the President's Economic Report extolling the outsourcing of industrial jobs -- good economics perhaps, bad politics definitely.

The disaffection is such that over the last two weeks, normally loyal Republicans -- actually including more than a few members of Congress -- are privately talking about political merits in the election of Sen. Kerry.

Their reasoning goes like this: There is no way Democrats can win the House or Senate even if Bush loses. If Bush is re-elected, Democrats are likely to win both the House and Senate in a 2006 midterm rebound. If Kerry wins, Republicans will be able to bounce back with congressional gains in 2006.

To voice such heretical thoughts suggests that Republicans on Capitol Hill are more interested in maintaining the fruits of majority status first won in 1994 rather than in governing the country.

Wow!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You guys didn't really call Rutgers the "Berkeley of the East", did you?

Yeah, we did.

--

And el freako is correct. We are postponing the reckoning by this constant borrowing. Ned, Eisenhower is considered one of the best Presidents of the 20th Century as well. And what recession? One that was similar to the small '91 recession?

[GePap]

The Bush administration is just that, the Bush [first and foremost] republican [when convinient] admin.

[Ned]

Well, GePap, he is certainly behaving like a drunk with a credit card at times. But, why switch to a Democrat where the only question is the drug of choice in order to get high.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I won't presume to answer for GePap, but there is some kind of twisted logic that says deadlock between legislative and executive offices will ensure fiscal responsibility.

Of course there is still that whole issue of his (Kerry's) fitness as a leader and whether he stands for anything.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but there is some kind of twisted logic that says deadlock between legislative and executive offices will ensure fiscal responsibility.

Of course there is still that whole issue of his (Kerry's) fitness as a leader and whether he stands for anything.

He could be like Clinton that way .

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He could be like Clinton that way .

Well his hero is JFK, so one could expect a few mmore intern hummers, couldn't we?

[Imran Siddiqui]

At least make them HOT interns... follow in JFK's footsteps in that respect instead of Clinton's .

[GePap]

My point Ned is that this admin. does not really act as the steward of a national party-they act more like a group that aims to keep power as long as possible willing to use the party for their own ends, but ready at the second to stab their fellow republicans, run them down, and do whatever to them to make sure the President gains the greatest possible political benefit from any action.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
ready at the second to stab their fellow republicans, run them down, and do whatever to them to make sure the President gains the greatest possible political benefit from any action.

Sounds like the Clinton White House and the Democrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well the Bush WH learned a lot from previous administrations. I mean the Clinton WH had some GREAT political minds working in it.

[Arrian]

Just saw this thread. Good for you, Imran.

Though I'm not a registered Republican, I come from a Republican-voting family, and am of the "fiscal conservative" mold. I've been appalled at the direction the Repubs have been going in, basically ever since Bush I. The pandering to the Religious Right sickens me, as does the crazy deficit spending, while cutting taxes. Add in Bush's horrific mishandling of diplomacy, and I'm at the point you're at: I'll vote for damn near anyone before Bush.

If the Repubs would dump the RR and get back to the idea of spending within our means, I'd be a Republican. But I doubt that's gonna happen. Put together that alternate party, Imran, and you've got my vote.

Agathon: one can, in fact, be a mixture of fiscal conservative and social liberal. Obviously, those are subjective terms, so their definitions will vary from person to person (say, you to me). There has to be give and take between those two at times, since liberal social policy usually means $$$. But being socially liberal can also mean *not* doing things (legislation of morality). And being fiscally conservative doesn't always mean "cut taxes and screw the poor!" It can simply mean avoiding spending more than we can afford.

I'm not one of those fiscal conservatives that only cares about lowering my taxes. I'll pay the goddamned taxes, I just want the government to at least TRY to spend my money wisely. To me, this means avoiding huge deficits (limited deficit spending during recession is ok by me, *IF* once times are good again we pay off the debt we racked up. But we don't do that, do we?). The Repubs have been worse than the Dems, the party typically associated with big spending. Hell, at least the Dems "tax and spend" instead of borrowing the money instead.

-Arrian

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, GePap, he is certainly behaving like a drunk with a credit card at times. But, why switch to a Democrat where the only question is the drug of choice in order to get high.

Because a tax and spend liberal is better than a borrow and spend conservative, perhaps?

All of this borrowing is essentially paying the tax and paying interest on it. Better to take the hit now and save the money.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Well, GePap, he is certainly behaving like a drunk with a credit card at times. But, why switch to a Democrat where the only question is the drug of choice in order to get high.

weed has got sooo the better high.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Agathon: one can, in fact, be a mixture of fiscal conservative and social liberal.

It depends on what you understand them to mean.

Obviously, those are subjective terms, so their definitions will vary from person to person (say, you to me).

[philosopher ****]I wouldn't say that. I'd say they are cluster terms which enclose many different positions.[/philosopher ****]

There has to be give and take between those two at times, since liberal social policy usually means $$$.

Sure, but not spending on such policies leads to other costs, particuarly to the environment, to the victims of crime and to future generations who have to deal with the lack of educated citizens due to underfunding of schools and the subsequent erosion of democracy (which needs a reasonable standard of public education to avoid descending into mindless populism). People are too dumb to see that tax cuts will usually cost them more in things they then have to pay for than the amount they got in the cut.

But being socially liberal can also mean *not* doing things (legislation of morality).

My concern is when being economically rightist leads to control of the polity by a few, who will then seek to enforce morality on others to aid their own exploitative practices. Think of Fordism.

And being fiscally conservative doesn't always mean "cut taxes and screw the poor!" It can simply mean avoiding spending more than we can afford.

That's simply fiscal prudence in my view. But often the former masks itself as the latter.

I'm not one of those fiscal conservatives that only cares about lowering my taxes. I'll pay the goddamned taxes, I just want the government to at least TRY to spend my money wisely.

By and large it does. There is always some degree of corruption and mistakes, but these are unavoidable. Part of the problem is that we are so used to the goods that come from government that we don't realize they exist. A good example of this is water quality. In most developed countries people just expect to be able to drink water from the tap. Obviously, they can do this because the government either runs water distribution or regulates it.

What happened here in Ontario is that the tories cut the regulators and people started to get sick and in some cases died. This opened people's eyes to the reality of the situation. Hopefully they'll stay open for a couple of years.

To me, this means avoiding huge deficits (limited deficit spending during recession is ok by me, *IF* once times are good again we pay off the debt we racked up. But we don't do that, do we?).

Partly it's the voters' fault. They know in the back of their minds that debt will go up or social services will be cut to pay for the tax cut, but they hope that others will be taxed more to pay for it and that they will get a free ride. It's a classic collective action problem.

The Repubs have been worse than the Dems, the party typically associated with big spending. Hell, at least the Dems "tax and spend" instead of borrowing the money instead.

Which makes it all the more amazing that people think they are prudent.