• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

"Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility"

daedong

New member
It is interesting how so many people cling to a political party that actually does not represent their view.

Given the dreadful economic position the USA is in I would strongly recommend you vote for the democrats.:thumb:






The Awful Truth about Republicans


Daily Article | Posted on 3/25/2004 by Robert B. Ekelund
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]
GOP-pin.gif
Anyone who wants cuts in the size and scope of government should be concerned and frustrated with the policies of President George Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress. Government spending has increased enormously and the federal budget has plunged ever more into deficit.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Protectionism, regulation and government power are on the rise, and we are at war or in conflict with a record number of countries around the world. The Republican-controlled Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates to below 1% while it frantically tries to flood the economy with money and credit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Even mainstream economist Jeffrey Frankel has recently noted (in the Milken Institute Review) that the "Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government, and failing-grade microeconomics."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]However, there has not been a sudden sea change in party platforms and the rampant fiscal irresponsibility of the Republicans is not a mystery; they are merely returning to their historical roots. The Republican Party was established as a party of big government and economic intervention. Their reputation as a party of limited government is of more recent vintage and stands on a flimsy foundation.[/FONT]
Chart1476.gif
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The Republican Party that emerged in the 1850s was an amalgamation of historical influences, third parties, and interest groups. One group that entered the Republican Party was the Free Soil Party, whose primary platform was free land and subsidies for farmers. In contrast, most Democrats favored selling off the public lands to finance government expenditures, keep tariff rates low, and prevent deficit spending.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Also joining the Republican Party in the 1850s were supporters of the Know Nothing Party. The Know Nothings were most concerned about immigrants coming into the country, competing against labor, and suppressing wages. They favored restrictive immigration and protective tariffs to keep wages high, while Democrats supported both immigration and free trade.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The Whig Party formed the core of the Republican Party with its economic platform consisting of protectionism for industry, a national bank and currency, a large national debt, and a larger federal government engaged in extensive public works.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Also joining the Republican ranks were the Prohibitionists and the Abolitionists. Members of the Republican Party generally shared an opposition to slavery and advocated policies of containment and colonization.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The ambitious economic agenda of the Republican Party had its roots in the economic platforms of Federalist icon Alexander Hamilton and Whig leader Henry Clay. They advocated protective tariffs for industry, a national bank, and plenty of public works and patronage. The flurry of new laws, regulations, and bureaucracies created by Lincoln and the Republican Party during the early 1860s foreshadowed Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" for the volume, scope and questionable constitutionality of its legislative output.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]In fact, the term "New Deal" was actually coined in March of 1865 by a newspaper editor in Raleigh, North Carolina, to characterize Lincoln and the Republican Party platform.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Lincoln[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]’s massive expansion of the federal government into the economy led Daniel Elazar to claim, " . . . one could easily call[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Lincoln[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]'s presidency the ‘New Deal’ of the 1860s."[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica][1][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica] Republicans established a much larger, more powerful, and more destructive federal government in the 1860s, just as Bush and the Republican Congress are doing today.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]In fact, modern Republicans are almost a mirror image of the original party. Protectionism was a high priority of the early Republican Party. They quickly enacted the Morrill Tariff, which raised tariff rates to extremely high levels, and their extreme protectionism continued throughout the era of Republican dominance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]There is really little debate that these Republicans were the primary proponents of protectionism, particularly in the areas of steel and textiles. Modern Republicans, from Reagan to Bush II, have given us protectionism for a variety of favored industries, including steel, as well as the "managed trade" of NAFTA and the WTO.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]In the area of deficit spending and the national debt, the early Republicans, like their present-day counterparts, produced large deficits and national debt. Pre-Civil war Democrats had worked effectively to eliminate the National Debt and to close the national banks.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Modern Republicans have built an unprecedented pile of debt. The growth in the national debt really started to take off when Reagan was elected in 1980 and continued to skyrocket through his second term and that of George Bush, Sr. When Clinton was elected in 1992 the growth rate in the national debt began to decline and almost stopped growing when George Bush, Jr. was elected in 2000. Since then the national debt has skyrocketed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]In recent years Republicans have been awful in the area of monetary policy, but that is also a long tradition in the Republican Party. In their early years they nationalized money and banking, a policy that helped big-city banks at the expense of the common citizen, particularly in the South and West.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]As Robert Sharkey noted:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]As the National Banking System took shape after the War, it was apparent that human ingenuity would have had difficulty contriving a more perfect engine for class and sectional exploitation: Creditors finally obtaining the upper hand as opposed to debtors, and the developed East holding the whip over the undeveloped West and South. This tipping of the class and sectional balance of power was, in my opinion, the momentous change over the twenty-three-year period, 1850-1873.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica][2][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Looking at the consequences of this legislation, leading monetary economists concluded:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The provision of the Acts of 1863 and 1865 that established the national banking system were designed to remedy two perceived defects of the antebellum state banking system. One was the circulation of a wide variety of state bank notes, often at a discount, which made for an inefficient payments system. The second defect was instability of the note issue; marked by over issue, bank runs and failures, and periodic suspensions of convertibility into specie. To remedy the first defect, national bank issues of [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]U.S.[/FONT] bond-secured currency replaced state bank notes. To remedy the second defect, stringent reserve and capital requirements, oversight, and regulation by the Comptroller of the Currency were conditions for national bank charters. Unfortunately, the remedies did not work as intended by the architects of the national banking system. Instead, the system was characterized by monetary and cyclical instability, four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances."[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica][3][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Favoritism for big business has always been a hallmark of the Republican Party. As a consequence they tend to favor subsidies, public works projects, and regulations that are favorable to incumbent businesses. The biggest public works project in the nation’s history was the building the intercontinental railroads, a policy that truly galvanized the membership of the Republican Party.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Republicans also sponsored the Sherman (Anti-Trust) Act of 1890 and the Act to Regulate Commerce of 1887, which had the stated purpose of protecting the general public but the effect of protecting big business, particularly railroads, from competition. Modern Republicans seem even more in love with public works projects, even in far-away[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Iraq[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica], and for that matter the moon and Mars.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]In the area of regulation, Bush and the Republicans have regulated the Internet in the name of Spam and telephone calls to put telemarketing out of business. Were those temporary annoyances so terrible that they required sweeping and permanent federal regulations? Their malevolent Patriot Act and the nationalization of airport security are policies of power and repression, not security and safety. And of course the Republicans still support states’ rights as long as all fifty voluntarily obey.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The reality is that the Republicans started out as a party that pursued a mercantilist policy agenda, or what today would be called rent-seeking, where interest groups lobby government for special privileges such as monopolies, protectionism from international trade, and government contracts.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica][4][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica] The massive amount of corruption that occurred after the Civil War supports the contention that the Republicans are the mercantilist or rent-seeking party. The same can be said of the modern Republicans, who are dominant in campaign fundraising. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]How did the Republican Party gain the reputation as a free-market, limited-government party? Part of the reason is simply that the Democratic Party adopted even bigger government policies, particularly with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and the subsequent New Deal.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Another reason is that the Republicans of the 19th century were labeled the party of "laissez faire" by historians for their policies that supported big business and led to the emergence of the so-called Robber Barons, but these were hardly the types of policies that would be advocated today as laissez faire by free-market economists or libertarians.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Another murky area of American history in the 19th century was the Greenback and Free Silver movements, which saw an influx of populism into the Democratic Party. Populists like William Jennings Bryan were protesting the severe scarcity of money and credit and the power of big city banks, but these problems were caused by federal control of money and banking, which made currency extremely scarce and loans difficult to procure. The Democrats were protesting against the effects of the federal regulation of money and banking that had been passed by the Republicans.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica][5][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Again history has been blurred into conformity with modern images. However, from the perspective of historical fact, the Republicans have not mysteriously switched positions with modern Democrats, but are simply switching fully back to their historical roots.

http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1476
[/FONT]
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Much of this is sadly true. The GOP has become too liberal and shifted away from principled politics to populist give away programs.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Much of this is sadly true. The GOP has become too liberal and shifted away from principled politics to populist give away programs.

Yup, all we're left with is the hope that they are truly the lesser of two evils. As far as I can tell the GOP will cause the least damage. :glare:
 

RedRocker

Active member
Dubya does spend like a democRat, but if you think the dems are the answer then you don't understand the question.
 

RoadKing

Silver Member
Site Supporter
The voice of the cynical working stiff says, GW is taking my money and giving it to Exxon, while the dems want to take my money and give it to people who don't work. How do i win?:bonk: :bonk: :bonk:
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Much of this is sadly true. The GOP has become too liberal and shifted away from principled politics to populist give away programs.
Isn't this democracy in action?
Unfortunately the following is democracy in action, illustrating how congress arrives at military procurement decisions today:

Lobbyist Lott takes advantage of old Senate campaign cash


By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Trent Lott had nearly $1.3 million in political donations left over when he quit the Senate to become a lobbyist. Now the former majority leader is doling it out to lawmakers who hold sway over his clients.

... his giving is drawing attention thanks to the magnitude of his campaign account and the high-profile matters he has been hired to promote, including the proposed Delta-Northwest airline merger and Northrop Grumman's contested $35 billion Air Force tanker contract.

"The purpose of it really is to benefit Trent Lott's personal lobbying business at this point. There is no other benefit at all," said Craig Holman, who lobbies for tighter campaign finance rules for Public Citizen.

Holman and others who closely follow Washington lobbying, such as the Center for Responsive Politics, say Lott's stockpile is the largest they can remember, and they say his ability to use it the way he does represents a loophole in campaign finance law that should be closed.

Congress passed legislation last year prohibiting former senators from personally lobbying members of Congress for two years after they leave office. Lott retired just days before the new rule went into effect and is subject to a previous one-year ban.

Until that expires late this year, he is free to do behind-the-scenes work, while others at the firm handle direct contacts with members.

Along with well-stocked Rolodexes and favors to call in from former colleagues, the money is just another advantage that ex-lawmakers have in influencing public policy for private interests, critics say.

Early this year, Lott wrote $5,000 checks to several influential Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

More recently, in March, he gave $4,000 each to GOP Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Lott's replacement. Like McCain, both are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight on the Air Force tanker deal.

Lott also has donated $2,000 to Duncan D. Hunter of California, who is running to succeed his father, retiring Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

But Lott still had about $1.1 million remaining as of March 31, and he makes no secret of his plans to continue giving much of it away to lawmakers he's likely to be lobbying.

Lott's work on the tanker contract already was raising eyebrows because in the Senate he was among Northrop Grumman's chief patrons, particularly for its giant shipyard in his hometown of Pascagoula, where his father once worked. Lott helped the company win billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts over the years.

The company then became one of his first big clients just three months after he left office.

In February, the company also named Lott's former national security adviser as its head of acquisition policy.
 
Last edited:

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Unfortunately this is democracy in action as it really works today: . . .
I don't see what Lott is doing as a big deal.

I have a lobbyist who still is on my payroll and he is a Democrat, in fact he's a former Congressman. He doles out all sorts of money as campaign funds to the politicians he is lobbying. The difference between what Senator Lott is doing and what my lobbyist is doing is that Lott is using left over campaign funds that people gave him and my lobbyist is using money that people just gave him for specific issues. Not a huge difference because Lott is basically pushing issues that are reasonably consistent with his political beliefs. On the other hand my lobbyist is probably more of a whore because he often works on issues that are opposed to the party platform! Still lobbying is a dirty business and both sides do it.
 

daedong

New member
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Favoritism for big business has always been a hallmark of the Republican Party. As a consequence they tend to favor subsidies, public works projects, and regulations that are favorable to incumbent businesses. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

Before you all jump on me, just read it carefully and think about it please.

Now I know this happens on both sides of politics (well at least here it does)
This is wrong. Business amasses the best brains (high IQ) from the community to oversee best practice. Now if they can't get it right they have no excuse for assistance in my view. On the other hand individuals vary greatly in abilities including IQ. These variables often led to the inability to manage their affairs, yet they are often thrown on the scrap heap by society while big business get handouts. Now if I was an intellectual alien looking down upon the human race I would have to scratch my head. What about you?
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Before you all jump on me, just read it carefully and think about it please.

Now I know this happens on both sides of politics (well at least here it does)
This is wrong. Business amasses the best brains (high IQ) from the community to oversee best practice. Now if they can't get it right they have no excuse for assistance in my view. On the other hand individuals vary greatly in abilities including IQ. These variables often led to the inability to manage their affairs, yet they are often thrown on the scrap heap by society while big business get handouts. Now if I was an intellectual alien looking down upon the human race I would have to scratch my head. What about you?

Isn't that what Darwinism is all about?
 
Top