On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
I'll be honest, I don't think the Tea Party is libertarian anymore. It started out that way, but social conservatives hijacked it a while ago. How that happened is BEYOND me, but it did.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
Take a look at the big backers for the Tea Party, they include mostly groups like Americans for Prosperity who, as their name suggests, are pretty focused on a single set of issues. I've actually been to several Tea Party rallies, including one where Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker along with Andrew Breitbart. The focus was entirely on taxes, government spending, and the size of government. Pro-life issues, gay rights issues, religion issues--none of these were ever mentioned by anyone. Social conservatives have not hijacked the movement. While politicians like Michele Bachman have tried to associate themselves with the Tea Party, the movement is still very much grass roots-driven and the focus is just as specific as ever.
This whole "Republicans are about small government!" garbage is just a talking point.
"According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.
Let’s start with President Carter.
On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.
Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.
On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.
By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000
Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.
On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000 by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.
President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.
The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.
In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.
Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000
The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000 TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000
We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago."
Take the net reduction of government employees, and the Democrats have cut the size of government more than republicans, and it isnt even one of their parties platform talking points. xDaunt, you are just factually wrong.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
I'll be honest, I don't think the Tea Party is libertarian anymore. It started out that way, but social conservatives hijacked it a while ago. How that happened is BEYOND me, but it did.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
Take a look at the big backers for the Tea Party, they include mostly groups like Americans for Prosperity who, as their name suggests, are pretty focused on a single set of issues. I've actually been to several Tea Party rallies, including one where Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker along with Andrew Breitbart. The focus was entirely on taxes, government spending, and the size of government. Pro-life issues, gay rights issues, religion issues--none of these were ever mentioned by anyone. Social conservatives have not hijacked the movement. While politicians like Michele Bachman have tried to associate themselves with the Tea Party, the movement is still very much grass roots-driven and the focus is just as specific as ever.
Empirical? No. But just when talking to "Tea Party" people, it seems they get dumber and dumber and now start spouting Rush Limbaugh talking points. Not to mention the idea that people claiming to be libertarian would even consider accepting someone like Bachman associating with them.
On May 11 2012 04:48 Focuspants wrote: This whole "Republicans are about small government!" garbage is just a talking point.
"According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.
Let’s start with President Carter.
On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.
Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.
On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.
By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000
Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.
On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000 by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.
President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.
The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.
In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.
Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000
The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000 TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000
We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago."
Take the net reduction of government employees, and the Democrats have cut the size of government more than republicans, and it isnt even one of their parties platform talking points. xDaunt, you are just factually wrong.
Only an idiot would measure the size of government strictly by "number of employees." That number is basically inconsequential. If you want to use just one metric, then use government expenditures.
Edit: Correction -- the better metric would be government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Actually, government expenditures would even be worse. Inflation will cause government expenditures to rise throughout the years no matter what you do. It'd be better to use REAL government expenditures (you know, CPI or GDP deflator). It'd be even smarter to use government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
On May 11 2012 05:12 ghrur wrote: Actually, government expenditures would even be worse. Inflation will cause government expenditures to rise throughout the years no matter what you do. It'd be better to use REAL government expenditures (you know, CPI or GDP deflator). It'd be even smarter to use government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
On May 11 2012 04:48 Focuspants wrote: This whole "Republicans are about small government!" garbage is just a talking point. + Show Spoiler +
"According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.
Let’s start with President Carter.
On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.
Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.
On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.
By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000
Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.
On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000 by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.
President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.
The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.
In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.
Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000
The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000 TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000
We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago."
Take the net reduction of government employees, and the Democrats have cut the size of government more than republicans, and it isnt even one of their parties platform talking points. xDaunt, you are just factually wrong.
Couple things. First of all, I think you missed my point. Most Republicans do understand that elected Republicans over the past decade or so have done a terrible job at keeping their promises as far as small government goes. My point was it was that understanding, and the frusteration at the fact that the Republican party no longer represents them that gave birth to the Tea Party. Conservative Republicans are quite tired of being liked to by Republican candidates who promise small government then go to Washington and increase it. That's the reason quite a few Republicans have lost their jobs, like Spectre, Bennet, and now Lugar. It's the reason that many Republicans like John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right to avoid losing their jobs. Trust me, conservative voters get it, that's why we have the Tea Party.
Further, Reagan did more for reducing government than you might think. Granted he did drastically increase US military spending, but he also scrapped hundreds of Federal regulations, and decimated a number of Federal Government agencies like the EPA and SEC. Overall rate of growth in Federal Spending also fell dramatically under Reagan.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
I'll be honest, I don't think the Tea Party is libertarian anymore. It started out that way, but social conservatives hijacked it a while ago. How that happened is BEYOND me, but it did.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
Take a look at the big backers for the Tea Party, they include mostly groups like Americans for Prosperity who, as their name suggests, are pretty focused on a single set of issues. I've actually been to several Tea Party rallies, including one where Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker along with Andrew Breitbart. The focus was entirely on taxes, government spending, and the size of government. Pro-life issues, gay rights issues, religion issues--none of these were ever mentioned by anyone. Social conservatives have not hijacked the movement. While politicians like Michele Bachman have tried to associate themselves with the Tea Party, the movement is still very much grass roots-driven and the focus is just as specific as ever.
Empirical? No. But just when talking to "Tea Party" people, it seems they get dumber and dumber and now start spouting Rush Limbaugh talking points.
Well I can just say you're stupid; but it doesn't actually make it true. Anyone can just say things, but for the purposes of having an enlightened discussion you really need to back this point up somehow.
On May 11 2012 04:48 Focuspants wrote: This whole "Republicans are about small government!" garbage is just a talking point. + Show Spoiler +
"According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.
Let’s start with President Carter.
On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.
Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.
On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.
By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000
Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.
On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000 by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.
President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.
The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.
In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.
Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000
The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000 TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000
We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago."
Take the net reduction of government employees, and the Democrats have cut the size of government more than republicans, and it isnt even one of their parties platform talking points. xDaunt, you are just factually wrong.
Couple things. First of all, I think you missed my point. Most Republicans do understand that elected Republicans over the past decade or so have done a terrible job at keeping their promises as far as small government goes. My point was it was that understanding, and the frusteration at the fact that the Republican party no longer represents them that gave birth to the Tea Party. Conservative Republicans are quite tired of being liked to by Republican candidates who promise small government then go to Washington and increase it. That's the reason quite a few Republicans have lost their jobs, like Spectre, Bennet, and now Lugar. It's the reason that many Republicans like John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right to avoid losing their jobs. Trust me, conservative voters get it, that's why we have the Tea Party.
Further, Reagan did more for reducing government than you might think. Granted he did drastically increase US military spending, but he also scrapped hundreds of Federal regulations, and decimated a number of Federal Government agencies like the EPA and SEC. Overall rate of growth in Federal Spending also fell dramatically under Reagan.
I'll be honest, I don't think the Tea Party is libertarian anymore. It started out that way, but social conservatives hijacked it a while ago. How that happened is BEYOND me, but it did.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
Take a look at the big backers for the Tea Party, they include mostly groups like Americans for Prosperity who, as their name suggests, are pretty focused on a single set of issues. I've actually been to several Tea Party rallies, including one where Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker along with Andrew Breitbart. The focus was entirely on taxes, government spending, and the size of government. Pro-life issues, gay rights issues, religion issues--none of these were ever mentioned by anyone. Social conservatives have not hijacked the movement. While politicians like Michele Bachman have tried to associate themselves with the Tea Party, the movement is still very much grass roots-driven and the focus is just as specific as ever.
Empirical? No. But just when talking to "Tea Party" people, it seems they get dumber and dumber and now start spouting Rush Limbaugh talking points.
Well I can just say you're stupid; but it doesn't actually make it true. Anyone can just say things, but for the purposes of having an enlightened discussion you really need to back this point up somehow.
Well, first off, I said "I think". It's not a statement of fact, but an opinion. I don't have some mystical obligation to back it up.
I work on a major campaign in the GOP. I deal with (potential) voters quite often. It is my opinion that Tea Party'ers are mostly social conservatives that listen to Rush. I'm more of the libertarian type of Rep., I have a fond dislike for the politics of most people who associate themselves with the Tea Party.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
Republicans have been saying one thing and doing another since Reagan, though the Tea Party apparently loves that man. And yet... the first Tea Party rallies weren't held until 2009. How do you explain the timing?
Regardless of how the base of the party felt (and with few exceptions that's all the Tea Party really is) this was never going to happen with a Reagan or a Bush in the Oval Office. I posit that the Tea Party was simply the base of the Republican Party finally feeling, with its party being out of power, like it had the opportunity to speak out; it didn't have to keep quiet and defend the awful policies of the politicians that it helped to elect in the fear that speaking out would lead to something worse. The same phenomenon is afflicting the Democratic Party right now. With a Democrat in office, many of them just don't feel like they can speak out against policies they would otherwise claim are abhorrent.
As for the Tea Party being libertarian... lol. Sure, most of their rallies have focused on economic issues, but polling has repeatedly shown that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly more social conservative than the electorate as a whole. And, again, there is their baffling love for Reagan. If the Tea Party were a libertarian movement, its' members' position on Reagan would be much closer to Murray Rothbard's than the hagiography that it actually is. But, no, the Tea Party is still snookered by Reagan's rhetoric.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
Republicans have been saying one thing and doing another since Reagan, though the Tea Party apparently loves that man. And yet... the first Tea Party rallies weren't held until 2009. How do you explain the timing?
Regardless of how the base of the party felt (and with few exceptions that's all the Tea Party really is) this was never going to happen with a Reagan or a Bush in the Oval Office. I posit that the Tea Party was simply the base of the Republican Party finally feeling, with its party being out of power, like it had the opportunity to speak out; it didn't have to keep quiet and defend the awful policies of the politicians that it helped to elect in the fear that speaking out would lead to something worse. The same phenomenon is afflicting the Democratic Party right now. With a Democrat in office, many of them just don't feel like they can speak out against policies they would otherwise claim are abhorrent.
As for the Tea Party being libertarian... lol. Sure, most of their rallies have focused on economic issues, but polling has repeatedly shown that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly more social conservative than the electorate as a whole. And, again, there is their baffling love for Reagan. If the Tea Party were a libertarian movement, its' members' position on Reagan would be much closer to Murray Rothbard's than the hagiography that it actually is. But, no, the Tea Party is still snookered by Reagan's rhetoric.
Tea Party was around in 2008, but it was a libertarian movement at the time. It was basically a bunch of Ron Paul supporters before candidacy.
Mitt Romney clashed with a state commission tasked with helping LGBT youth at risk for bullying and suicide throughout his term as Massachusetts governor over funding and its participation in a pride parade. He eventually abolished the group altogether.
“We remember well what Romney tried to do as governor of Massachusetts and we now we have more info on some of his own attitudes that may have led to his policy actions,” Eliza Byard, executive director of LGBT anti-bullying organization GLSEN, told TPM, drawing a connection with reports that Romney cornered a youth in high school and cut his hair. “If he’s willing to dismiss that incident as ‘hijinks,’ I could understand that he wouldn’t understand at all why this program was so critical.”
The Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, created by Republican Gov. William Weld in 1992 in response to newly released statistics showing alarmingly high suicide rates among gay and lesbian teens, was designed to combat harassment in schools. It served at the pleasure of the state’s chief executive. The commission funded Gay Straight Alliances in high schools and provided training and information for teachers.
Romney continued its existence upon taking office, but a rift began in 2005, when he vetoed a $100,000 increase in its budget, prompting the state legislature to overturn his move and restore funding. Conservative anti-gay activists, who had mobilized in the wake of the state’s gay marriage fight, publicly opposed the commission’s budget request.
Romney’s office reiterated at the time that the governor’s initial objection was over funding levels, and not the group’s goal of helping gay youth, which he supported.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
Republicans have been saying one thing and doing another since Reagan, though the Tea Party apparently loves that man. And yet... the first Tea Party rallies weren't held until 2009. How do you explain the timing?
Regardless of how the base of the party felt (and with few exceptions that's all the Tea Party really is) this was never going to happen with a Reagan or a Bush in the Oval Office. I posit that the Tea Party was simply the base of the Republican Party finally feeling, with its party being out of power, like it had the opportunity to speak out; it didn't have to keep quiet and defend the awful policies of the politicians that it helped to elect in the fear that speaking out would lead to something worse. The same phenomenon is afflicting the Democratic Party right now. With a Democrat in office, many of them just don't feel like they can speak out against policies they would otherwise claim are abhorrent.
As for the Tea Party being libertarian... lol. Sure, most of their rallies have focused on economic issues, but polling has repeatedly shown that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly more social conservative than the electorate as a whole. And, again, there is their baffling love for Reagan. If the Tea Party were a libertarian movement, its' members' position on Reagan would be much closer to Murray Rothbard's than the hagiography that it actually is. But, no, the Tea Party is still snookered by Reagan's rhetoric.
I think that may be part of it, but it's not all of it. The factor that really worked as a catalyst for the formation of the Tea Party was the Stimulus bill. Conservative Republicans finally woke up and realized that they had to actually be involved in the political process beyond just voting if they actually wanted to be represented. There were a number of people in 2009 who were out at rallies who had never done so before in their lifetime. The backlash against "moderate" or "establishment" Republicans has in some ways been a natural reaction to Obama's politics. As conservative Republicans became more politically active, it was inevitable that they would try to steer the direction of the Republican party away from the political center.
And of course Tea Party republicans have more conservative social values than other Republicans. It is after all made up of conservative Republicans. But that doens't mean that's the focus of the movement. Many environmentalists are also supporters or legalizing marijuana, but that doesn't mean the focus of Green Peace is marijuana legalization.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
Republicans have been saying one thing and doing another since Reagan, though the Tea Party apparently loves that man. And yet... the first Tea Party rallies weren't held until 2009. How do you explain the timing?
Regardless of how the base of the party felt (and with few exceptions that's all the Tea Party really is) this was never going to happen with a Reagan or a Bush in the Oval Office. I posit that the Tea Party was simply the base of the Republican Party finally feeling, with its party being out of power, like it had the opportunity to speak out; it didn't have to keep quiet and defend the awful policies of the politicians that it helped to elect in the fear that speaking out would lead to something worse. The same phenomenon is afflicting the Democratic Party right now. With a Democrat in office, many of them just don't feel like they can speak out against policies they would otherwise claim are abhorrent.
As for the Tea Party being libertarian... lol. Sure, most of their rallies have focused on economic issues, but polling has repeatedly shown that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly more social conservative than the electorate as a whole. And, again, there is their baffling love for Reagan. If the Tea Party were a libertarian movement, its' members' position on Reagan would be much closer to Murray Rothbard's than the hagiography that it actually is. But, no, the Tea Party is still snookered by Reagan's rhetoric.
Tea Party was around in 2008, but it was a libertarian movement at the time. It was basically a bunch of Ron Paul supporters before candidacy.
There was no movement known as the "Tea Party" in 2008. The first rally was held on January 24th, 2009. Of course those people didn't pop into existence in 2009, but they weren't the Tea Party before then. They were, as I said, simply the base of the Republican Party.
And let's not call Ron Paul a libertarian either; he isn't. He has absolutely no problem with oppression and authoritarianism as long as it's carried out by state and local governments.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
Republicans have been saying one thing and doing another since Reagan, though the Tea Party apparently loves that man. And yet... the first Tea Party rallies weren't held until 2009. How do you explain the timing?
Regardless of how the base of the party felt (and with few exceptions that's all the Tea Party really is) this was never going to happen with a Reagan or a Bush in the Oval Office. I posit that the Tea Party was simply the base of the Republican Party finally feeling, with its party being out of power, like it had the opportunity to speak out; it didn't have to keep quiet and defend the awful policies of the politicians that it helped to elect in the fear that speaking out would lead to something worse. The same phenomenon is afflicting the Democratic Party right now. With a Democrat in office, many of them just don't feel like they can speak out against policies they would otherwise claim are abhorrent.
As for the Tea Party being libertarian... lol. Sure, most of their rallies have focused on economic issues, but polling has repeatedly shown that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly more social conservative than the electorate as a whole. And, again, there is their baffling love for Reagan. If the Tea Party were a libertarian movement, its' members' position on Reagan would be much closer to Murray Rothbard's than the hagiography that it actually is. But, no, the Tea Party is still snookered by Reagan's rhetoric.
Tea Party was around in 2008, but it was a libertarian movement at the time. It was basically a bunch of Ron Paul supporters before candidacy.
There was no movement known as the "Tea Party" in 2008. The first rally was held on January 24th, 2009. Of course those people didn't pop into existence in 2009, but they weren't the Tea Party before then. They were, as I said, simply the base of the Republican Party.
And let's not call Ron Paul a libertarian either; he isn't. He has absolutely no problem with oppression and authoritarianism as long as it's carried out by state and local governments.
With all due, respect, I distinctly remember considering to go home for a rally during my last year of college. I graduated in 2008, so it was before 2009. The movement was around for quite some time before it was covered by any media whatsoever. And yes, it was mostly Paul supporters at the time (is that really a shocker when you look at his government message?). It wasn't formally the "Tea Party" back then, but it was assigned that name by media because of their message which was similar to the idea of throwing the tea back into the harbor, the symbolic message of taking your government back.
Slightly off topic but on MSNBC the first topic is Gay Marriage and Tony Perkins and Barney Frank are debating, it took all but a minute for Tony Perkins to be owned by Frank and Chris Matthews. Romney should go to the middle on this.
On May 11 2012 04:48 Focuspants wrote: This whole "Republicans are about small government!" garbage is just a talking point.
"According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.
Let’s start with President Carter.
On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.
Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.
On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.
By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000
Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.
On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000 by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.
President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.
The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.
In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.
Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000
The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000 TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000
We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago."
Take the net reduction of government employees, and the Democrats have cut the size of government more than republicans, and it isnt even one of their parties platform talking points. xDaunt, you are just factually wrong.
Only an idiot would measure the size of government strictly by "number of employees." That number is basically inconsequential. If you want to use just one metric, then use government expenditures.
Edit: Correction -- the better metric would be government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
But, at the same time, you also have to look at the number of people who need government assistance. As employment and wages have failed to keep up with population, the government has had to step in more and more. Food stamps and Medicaid now take up a huge portion of our budget, not because people are lazy, but because the private sector can't or won't pay or hire people enough. In fact, it's not even federal spending that has expanded in the past decade, but state spending, in which health and welfare (which are largely determined by poverty level) are almost 50% of expenditures.
Also, if you want to know why the "rich" pay such a large portion of our income tax, it's not because we tax them so much, but because the middle (and bottom) has dropped out of our tax code. The only substantial amount of revenue left in the system is concentrated in the extremes.
Romney's boy gets busted. The Maine fake-slate gentleman is identified, and surprise, he's on Romney's payroll.
Democrats might enjoy this, but GOP party unity people will not. Well, unless you like some drama. Gotta love Charlie's little grin! Must be those Romney checks.
On May 11 2012 09:54 BioNova wrote: Romney's boy gets busted. The Maine fake-slate gentleman is identified, and surprise, he's on Romney's payroll.
Democrats might enjoy this, but GOP party unity people will not. Well, unless you like some drama. Gotta love Charlie's little grin! Must be those Romney checks.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there was some shady stuff going on in Maine but seriously why does this matter? Why would Romney even try this, he doesn't need Maine. Ron Paul has no chance of catching him nor does Ron Paul have any chance of even denying him the outright nomination. Romney now has enough or is very close to enough hard delegates--delegates who are legally bound to vote for him in the first round--that this literally does not matter at all. This isn't even drama relating to the national republican party; this video is about the Maine state republican convention to nominate candidates for the national convention. So in effect, it matters even less.
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote: While certainly some do care about the candidate's religion, according to a couple ofGallup polls from a few weeks ago, the top issues on the minds of US voters are the economy/jobs, healthcare, and federal spending.
The top issues on the minds of US voters right now doesn't include religion, but that doesn't imply religion doesn't matter.
There's a reason why identifying as an atheist is generally political suicide here, with Gallup polls consistently showing that ~50% of people will flat out refuse to vote for you (they're actually more likely to vote for you if you're gay, Muslim, or a convicted felon).
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart2p21.png)
