9/3     Serious question for motd conservatives, except for that Freeper

        guy, who I seriously think is nuts:
        Has the Republican Party become the "big government" party these
        days? Bush listed a dozen Great Society programs last night
        that he intends to implement. Now that the Republicans are in
        power, have they discovered that they like government after all?
        \_ Big government is not a part of the republican 'story,' but of
           course they implement certain big government programs.  Sometimes
           it's to get votes (medical stuff), sometimes it's to appear they are
           doing something to respond to a threat, or perhaps for will-to-power
           reasons (homeland security), sometimes it's collusion between
           business and government (subsidies, etc).  Republican big government
           policies are the corrupting delta (the difference between what they
           say and what they do) given our form of government.
           The problem is, democrats will do all these things, but they also
           believe in big government as some sort of principle, so they will
           also do many MORE things.  Fixing things here does not involve
                   \_ What a bunch of rank bullshit.
                   \_ "World would be even more blowed up if Kerry was Prez"
                      \_ Yeah, he would have done something like let Osama get
                         away, fail to secure the ports, or invade a Muslim
                         country and then fail to send enough troops or give
                         them body armor. -knows you were being sarcastic
           voting for someone else, I think, as the flaws are structural in
           the way we run things.  I am beginning to think our problems are
           mostly cultural.  I can't imagine the swiss implementing something
           like homeland security, because they have a long and deep tradition
           of decentralized solutions. -- ilyas (not a fan of big government)
           \_ The Republican camp is responding to both bases of social and
              financial conservatives. For FiCons, they got the lower taxes.
              Then the SoCons get their "Big Government" style agenda items
              passed. These big ticket items (plus the increase in defense
              spending) drop the money available in the general pool. So the
                \_ not in the general economy but in the federal budget which
                   is just fine with me, since its already bloated with crap.
                   the less money the feds have for crap spending, the better.
                   i object to your mixing and hazing out the difference beween
                   the general economy and the gederal budget.  they are not
                   at all the same.
                   \_ I WAS talking about fed budget... Crap is in eye of the
                      beholder. Reps fund their pork same as Dems. However,
                      they aim at removing gov regs to pay for SoCon BG items.
              FiCons cut government funds that regulate business. Plus those
              "BG" items are not always properly funded by the Feds. They
              become unfunded mandates and the states/locals pick up the tab,
              which raises taxes, which brings out new FiCons, who vote in
              more Republicans. The rule has always been unspent money is a
              politician's curse.
              \_ So if the feds pay for it, taxes dont go up but if the states
                 do then taxes have to go up to pay for it?  you have a very
                 fundamentally flawed understanding of where federal money
                 comes from.  ill give you this one: it comes from taxes.
                 \_ No, the Feds DON'T pay for it. But they REQUIRE it. Take
                    "No Child Left Behind." Costs $29B to fund, but feds put
                    little money behind it. States must follow Fed regs so
                    the cost comes from state pockets. State has no money, so
                    it takes it from Counties, who have to raise taxes.
           \_ Hm, usually I think your posts are well-reasoned ilyas but this
              is just a long slimy string of crap.
              \_ I ll be sure to post a short, 2-line string of crap next time,
                 like your good example shows! -- ilyas
           \_ Lemme get this straight... what you are saying is
              that Republicans increase the size of government, though
              they don't belive in doing that, whereas Democrats
              also increase the size of government, but they do believe
              in it. And somehow the former is better? Ok. And how
              exactly does one differentiate between an action that
              one repeatedly does, though does not believe in, with
              an action that one repeatedly does and does believe
              in? Oh, and BTW, the size of government increased
              during the Reagan and Bush II (so far) administrations
              but decreased during the Clinton administration.
              http://csua.org/u/8x1 but don't let the
              facts get in the way of your belief in platitudes.
              \_ Republicans are unprincipled.  Democrats are unprincipled
                 and wrong.  Nader 04, etc.  -- ilyas
                 \_ A democrat would say just the opposite.
        \_ Actually, Bush's big idea is the "ownership society".  Fewer
           handouts, more opportunity.  If you do nothing, there will be less
           of a safety net for you, other than people's and state/local
           governments' (not the federal government's) own charity. -liberal
           \_ Did you even listen to the speech last night? He promised
              more money for K-12, more money for community colleges,
              more money for pell grants and other higher education funding,
              more money to help seniors pay for drug benefits, more money
              for the military, more money for ....
              \_ and more tax cuts!
              \_ Everything you mentioned is consistent with a smaller safety
                 net and increased opportunity.
                 \_ Except the drug benefits, right?
                    \_ Well, since the drug benefits were structured so that
                       the government pays whatever price the drug cos. say,
                       it's really just a giant piece of corporate welfare.
                    \_ Wrong.  It is impossible for most people today to save
                       enough money during their normal life times to pay for
                       their medical expenses post-retirement.  You can thank
                       trial lawyers like John Edwards for a big part of that.
                       \_ Oh. Bull. Shit.  Try HMO and drug company profits.
                       \_ You are trolling, right? You know the numbers
                          show you to be completely uninformed about this
                          issue, yes? Asswipe. --aaron
           \_ The flaw in the meritocratic model that the Repubs tout is that
              the playing field is not even, and not everyone begins with the
              same tools.  If this were the case, then yes, effort and hard
              work would out; the Republican model of believing that anyone
              who works hard can succeed to the highest levels would be true.
              In reality, however, there are already x number of people at the
              top who exert a disproportional effect on who gets to advance
              and who is passed over.  As long as we have old boy networks and
              corrupt politicians, the Republican meritocratic dream will
              remain a fantasy.