Friar Bijou wrote:
This would be a good place to link the comprehensive GOP plan.
Um... Was the existence of one in doubt? I don't recall anyone being confused about what the GOP plan is, so maybe just read farther up the thread?
Quote:
Eisenhower said it's bad, gbaji says it's good.
I didn't say it was good. I said that the same problem exists for any industry that the government gets too tightly involved in.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Painting spending on military as "bad" in this context, and while ignoring that the same problems can exist with any spending is foolish IMO.
What's astonishing is that you read me saying the same thing, twice, and still failed to understand it.
Has it occurred to you that the same warning about the military industrial complex, and the same potential problem with it, is just as equally a problem with the healthcare industry, and the housing industry (gee, it's not like we just saw fallout from that), and the education industry, and well, anything else the government gets involved in and thus creates a profit motive for the industry to build to the governments desires, while lobbying in order to create those desires so as to build their own industry.
The same dangers exists in all industries. But it seems as though some want to assume that the military is the only one that's a problem, or that this somehow makes that a special case we should keep an eye on, while strapping blinders on our heads when it comes to the excessive waste in other areas that exists.
Quote:
Of course we understand that. Hence all the people pointing out that the "conservatives" will happily spend a kadrillion dollars on things they want and try to suppress or eliminate spending on things they don't want. Hence the repeated point of fact that they are social conservatives.
Clearly you don't understand it. Because despite me explaining this several times, you're still ignoring that the defining point is not based on a social agenda, but on the starting point of "small government". Our willingness to spend money at the federal level to maintain a military and to engage in foreign policy is not based on a social agenda, but that this is the proper role of the federal government. Our desire to trim or eliminate federal spending on things like housing assistance, education, food stamps, welfare of all kinds, etc, etc, is also not driven by a social agenda, but by the same "small government" rule.
The Left pursues a spending regime at the federal level in pursuit of their social agenda, but it's incorrect to assume that the Right opposes that regime for their own, counter, social agenda. As I've pointed out many times on this forum, we literally speak a different language, and are pursuing ideologies that are on different axis. A liberal will support federal spending to help the poor because he believes in the social agenda of helping the poor. When he see a conservative oppose that spending, he assumes it's because the conservative is pursuing a social agenda in opposition to helping the poor. But the conservative opposes it because he believes that the federal level is the wrong level to engage in that sort of social activity. His reasons for opposing it are completely different than the liberals reason for supporting it. The sooner you accept that this is the truth, the easier it'll be for you to actually understand the political landscape of the US.
Quote:
You're free to think that. You're deluding yourself (shocker!), but fell free to keep thinking that, Pollyanna.
And yet, when the GOP had control of the white house and both houses of congress, did they embark on a national campaign to force people to pray in school? Or to require all public schools teach creationism in science class? Or, frankly, any sort of social agenda at all? You (and others) can keep claiming this, but the reality is that the GOP does not spend money pursuing a federal social agenda. They may attempt to decrease spending on existing liberally placed social spending at the federal level, but that's not the same thing. And sometimes, out of necessity the GOP may make attempts to modify existing spending in ways that we think may be more efficient, but that's also not the same thing.
Spending increases almost always are in the realms that fit into our small government model. But hey. If you can provide specific examples of the GOP doing otherwise, I'd be glad to hear them and to engage in discussion about them.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If you actually allowed the GOP to remain in power for more than a few years at a time, and in more than just one branch here or one part of a branch there, you'd see a massive difference in total spending. It just hasn't happened (certainly not since the adoption of fiscal conservatism by the GOP).
Um... That's a heck of a sidestep there. So you'll happily blame the GOP for spending, despite the fact that said spending is being driven by the Democrats, but any attempt to even speculate about what the GOP would do if they weren't saddled with the Dem policies already in place is ignored on the grounds that "A one party system is never a good idea"? You've basically just argued that we can't judge the GOP on it's own merits at all, ever, for any reason. Which just seems kinda pointless as a counter. You certainly have no problem blaming the GOP for failing to act on its own ideology, so it seems silly to insist that we should never allow it to actually do that, right? You're creating the conditions you're complaining about.
Edited, Apr 29th 2016 3:34pm by gbaji