Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Republicans? Democrats? Tell me again how they’re different?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, August 01, 2006

John Kerry has repeated the call for universal health coverage he made in his '04 run for the presidency.
Sen. John Kerry on Monday proposed requiring all Americans to have health insurance by 2012, "with the federal government guaranteeing that they have the means to afford it."
Of course it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a nuclear brain surgeon to understand what "guaranteeing that they have the means to afford it", means.

On principle, any conservative or libertarian worth his salt would say it's an overt expansion of government and, as such, something which goes against the principles each espouse for smaller and less intrusive government.

And Kerry's plan to pay for it?
Kerry proposes to pay for the program by repealing tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that benefit those earning over $200,000 annually.
The predictable "tax the rich" ploy which plays very well with certain constituencies even though, in reality, it would end up taxing far more than the rich.

OK. Same old, same old, no?

How does the RNC respond to this golden opportunity to point out the difference between them and the Democrats? How does it avail itself of the chance to ensure everyone knows that the Democrats are the party of more government and more spending and the Republicans aren't?

By saying that Republicans, in fact, have actually increased government spending on health care a lot.

No. Really:
The Republican National Committee, which typically responds to political criticism of the president, said Kerry's critique ignored the prescription drug program enacted by the Bush administration.

"It's unfortunate that John Kerry's bitterness over losing the election clouds his ability to recognize the president's prescription drug plan is providing millions of seniors with more affordable medicine," said RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.
Tell me again why it is so important to support Republican Congressional candidates this fall, because I have to admit, I still don't get it. And while I'm at it, let me make another point. Saying I have difficulty supporting the Republicans doesn't mean I plan on voting for or supporting Democrats. My problem is, at this moment I don't see much of a difference.

Nope. I'm back to my short-term solution of a divided Congress which would most likely be so tied up in partisan bickering and fighting that it would have little time to sit down in a bi-partisan way and conspire to take more of my money or intrude more deeply in my life. It might also provide a cold slap of reality to the party which claims to be for limited and less intrusive government but seems to be going out of its way, these days, to prove otherwise.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"I’m back to may short-term solution of a divided Congress which would most likely be so tied up in partisan bickering"


I am still fuzzy on why you believe that this time a divided Congress would stunt the growth of spending, when in the past it never has.

 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://redstate.com
I don’t understand Kerry’s solution. Repealing the Bush tax cuts don’t even get us back to a balanced budget without adding a huge new entitlement.
 
Written By: Sebastian Holsclaw
URL: http://
I am still fuzzy on why you believe that this time a divided Congress would stunt the growth of spending, when in the past it never has.
Mostly because it is so much more polarized now than it has been in the past. And I can’t help but believe that a Speaker Pelosi, et al would be the cherry on the sundae as far as ensuring the House and Senate got together on few if any bills during the two years prior to ’08.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I don’t understand Kerry’s solution. Repealing the Bush tax cuts don’t even get us back to a balanced budget without adding a huge new entitlement.
It’s not a solution. It’s an excuse.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Tell me again why it is so important to support Republican Congressional candidates this fall, because I have to admit, I still don’t get it.
In a recent fundraising email, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman warned that Democrats “will censure and impeach the President if they win back Congress.”
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
It’s not a solution. It’s an excuse.
Exactly. The Bush tax cuts have actually increased revenue. The problem is that we’re spending it too fast on things like the war. So raising taxes without gutting government spending would actually make us worse off.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
In a recent fundraising email, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman warned that Democrats “will censure and impeach the President if they win back Congress.”
And your point?

That’s exactly the point I made to Gerry ... as long as they’re wrapped up in that nonsense, they’re not conspiring to take more of my money or intrude more in my life.

Works for me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Mk -
You using Republican talking points now?

Buy a clue - just because we don’t support John Kerry & Nancy P doesn’t mean we’re all in love with everything the current Republican controlled Congress and White House have done.

If you’d stop having a cow because as a rule this place is more "conservative" on more issues then you’d like you’d see that.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m back to my short-term solution of a divided Congress which would most likely be so tied up in partisan bickering and fighting that it would have little time to sit down in a bi-partisan way and conspire to take more of my money or intrude more deeply in my life.
The short-term solution reminds me that one should be careful what one wishes for because it might just happen. What is the longer-term solution?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
What is the longer-term solution?
Republicans rediscovering their conservative roots which would enable libertarians to work with them toward the liberty promoting idea of downsizing government and making it less intrusive. I think losing the House might help them in that direction.

Right now, there’s no difference between the two parties that I can see (even the rhetoric is merging as I’ve pointed out) which leaves me wanting a way, a means, of slowing this all down and hopefully seeing some sanity return to the system. Until and unless the conservative ideals become prominent again, I want the place so gridlocked it can’t do much of anything.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The longer-term solution is, liberty-loving people become a flexible interest group that offers or withholds support from individual candidates, regardless of party, who make specific promises and follow through on them, and refuses to hold their nose and vote for those who don’t. It’s the only way not to be taken for granted.

I know of one Republican who will get my enthusiastic vote this November, and he’s not in Congress. He’s running for Lt. Governor of California. As for the rest, I’ll only vote for those who still seem to favor limited government and fiscal responsibility, and I’ll send a letter to every major-party candidate I don’t support telling them that they didn’t get my vote and should really make it clear again what makes them the lesser of two evils to someone who loves liberty like me. Postage is cheap and email is cheaper.

That way they know I’m out there, but I don’t throw my vote away on someone I don’t believe in. I don’t have to show approval of a Democrat (or blow it on a doctrinaire Libertarian) to show my disapproval of the Republican candidate.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
I am still fuzzy on why you believe that this time a divided Congress would stunt the growth of spending, when in the past it never has. - Gerry
Well Gerry, you are simply wrong. The historical fact is that divided govnerment always restrains growth in spending compared to single party control of both the executive and legislative branches. This was documented by former Reagan economic advisor Wiliam Niskanen.

Since the Niskanen article was published, this administration has validated his point, by proceeding to become the biggest spending, biggest deficit, biggest of big government administrations of all time, even exceeding the previous gold standard - LBJ’s Great Society/Vietnam administration.


"Facts are stubborn things" - Ronald Reagan
 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
The longer term solution involves the citizenry becoming more active in demanding restraint in growth. Period. It will not happen by itself.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
The Right/Left paradigm is false. At the top, they operate in unison.
 
Written By: PDM
URL: http://
"Right now, there’s no difference between the two parties that I can see which leaves me wanting a way, a means, of slowing this all down and hopefully seeing some sanity return to the system." - McQ

"The longer-term solution is, liberty-loving people become a flexible interest group" - ornery
I got your flexible interest group right here. Permit me to quote my favorite blogger on the subject - me (excerpt from my post - Hand wringing Libertarians):
"Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians and limited government advocates represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block for Divided Government, they immediately become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block. Specifically because they are not fused to one party or the other.

It means, libertarians must ignore what the politicians say and look at what they actually do (Niskanen again). It means ignoring spurious invitations to fuse with a big tent party that no longer stands for anything meaningful. It means voting straight Democratic in 2006, and (if successful in establishing Divided Government) voting Republican for President in 2008. It means the difference between libertarians being a completely impotent political force, and libertarians having the biggest swinging political "hammer" in town.

And it can be done from the hot tub.

And it can be done this year.

Just Vote Divided."
 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
About the only difference, not in rhetoric, but in actions, is their support or strength as far as National Security, or the War in Iraq goes...

But for that, it depends on which particular Democrat or Republican we’re talking about.

I’m happy with the credentials of someone like Mike Pence. Not perfect, but above average.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
It means voting straight Democratic in 2006, and (if successful in establishing Divided Government) voting Republican for President in 2008.
I fear that this kind of schoolyard Machiavellianism is ripe for the picking by the political pros. You might think you are outfoxing the partisans but I doubt it; I suspect it will be you who is used. Hey, if you want your government to be something, why not work directly towards it? Why fiddle around with clever antics?

And, um, by the way: Don’t the candidates matter?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Exactly. The Bush tax cuts have actually increased revenue.
Amazing how old canards refuse to die. This is simply not true. The tax cuts have NOT, repeat NOT, led to increased revenue. The treasury department report issued just last week made this abundantly clear. And no reputable economist believes this to be true. Tax cuts may, in some instances, lead to increased growth, but the revenue generated by that growth is never enough to make up for the lost revenue occasioned by the cut. Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. This is just a GOP canard.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Hey, if you want your government to be something, why not work directly towards it? Why fiddle around with clever antics? - ds
I am working directly for an objective. The objective is limited government. The first baby step toward accomplishing that objective is limiting the growth of spending. Voting for Democratic control does accomplish that objective. Voting for Republican control does not accomplish that objective. Throwing my vote away on politically impotent 3rd parties does not accomplish that objective. Divided government does accomplish that objective, and it can be accomplished by convincing a relatively small number of swing voters in a polarized electorate.
"And, um, by the way: Don’t the candidates matter?" - ds
Based on the empirical (Niskanen) evidence, and based on my 30+ years of "schoolyard" voting experience - No. At least not in comparison to the benefits to be derived from divided government. There are exceptions, Flake, Hagel, maybe a few others.
 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
Hey, if you want your government to be something, why not work directly towards it? Why fiddle around with clever antics? - ds

I am working directly for an objective. The objective is limited government. The first baby step toward accomplishing that objective is limiting the growth of spending. Voting for Democratic control does accomplish that objective. Voting for Republican control does not accomplish that objective. Throwing my vote away on politically impotent 3rd parties does not accomplish that objective. Divided government does accomplish that objective, and it can be accomplished by convincing a relatively small number of swing voters in a polarized electorate.

"And, um, by the way: Don’t the candidates matter?" - ds

Based on the empirical (Niskanen) evidence, and based on my 30+ years of "schoolyard" voting experience - No. At least not in comparison to the benefits to be derived from divided government. There are exceptions, Flake, Hagel, maybe a few others.
I repeat my practical objections: Just how many Democrats should be elected in 2006? Enough to win the House but not the Senate? Or to control both the House and the Senate? By wahtg marrgins? And how will you pick which ones to support? Or will you simply support all Democrats and oppose all Republicans? Are no incumbent Republicans worthy of re-election? Then, I suppose, in 2008 it’s on to a Republican president, right? Perhaps that’s one way to approach matters and it has the benefit or entirely removing thought from the process: Vote only for Democrats for Congress and only vote for Republicans for president.

I don’t think cynicism so deep is healthy in a democracy, whatever your view of the proper function of government. Moreover, as I said, I have little doubt that you will be cannon fodder for the partisan pros. My recommendation is to mobilize and organize the people who share your views and vote as a bloc. Since you want limited government support candidate who support limited government. Why get cute? I honestly don’t get it.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
McQ

I am a bit surprised that you can’t tell one party from the other. Have your usually keen analytical skills abandoned you? It’s quite simple, really. My party stands for truth, justice, and the American way, while your party is beholden to special interests and motivated by impure thoughts and corrupted morally, financially, and idealogically.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
...by repealing tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that benefit those earning over $200,000 annually.
At some point in time, some administration initially enacted, then raised the taxation on those earning over $200k. Thus what Bush in fact did was repeal a tax increase. For the sake of intellectually honest, Kerry would have to repeal Bush’s repeal of legislation that increased taxes.

To restate, Kerry would have to repeal Bush’s repeal of legislation that increased taxes.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Republicans rediscovering their conservative roots which would enable libertarians to work with them toward the liberty promoting idea of downsizing government and making it less intrusive. I think losing the House might help them in that direction.
It might, if the Repubs lost the House in a way that clearly sent that message. If Democrats won competitive seats and even picked up a few in "safe" Republican districts by a plurality, with the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party or some similar splinter group holding the balance of power, then that might send a message to the Republican Party to rediscover its conservative roots. But if they lose the House any other way, the pundits will interpret the defeat to mean that voters want the Republican Party to be even more like the Democrats than they are now.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"Republicans rediscovering their conservative roots which would enable libertarians to work with them toward the liberty promoting idea of downsizing government and making it less intrusive."

Bloody delusion.

You’re wrong, Bruce. I’m right.

By the end of your life, you will understand this.

The tragedy is that it’s going to take you that long.

 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"The first baby step toward accomplishing that objective is limiting the growth of spending."

"Baby steps" are for babies.

What’s wrong with you people? Why can’t you see the confession in this advocacy of yours?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
The treasury department report issued just last week made this abundantly clear.
Not really no. Are you referring to this one? If you look at last year’s total vs. this year’s total, yes last year saw more revenue. But that is only because last year is for 12 months and this year’s data only includes 9 months. If you look at receipts for the first nine months of last year and the first nine months of this year, the government has recorded something like $200 billion more revenue. Even adjusting for our high inflation, that is real revenue growth. And it is very similar to the $200 billion revenue growth seen between the same period of 2004 and 2005.

Unfortunately most of that growth has been balanced by higher spending (to the tune of $160 billion between now and the same time last year). Which is bad.

Also unfortunately, any money you make has to be weighed by the short term deficits that are incurred and the fact that today’s money is worth more than tomorrows. In the case of the Bush cuts, that revenue drop was even larger because of the recession and 9/11. Revenues didn’t start to come back up until the economy started to improve in 2003. But yes you are right that our unadjusted revenue is just surpassing FY2000 levels. But we lack a control between now and then because of the recession, 9/11, and the war.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Hmmmm. OK. Let’s say I am being paid by the Democrats to come up with hot new ideas for getting independent voters to vote for Democrats. Well, let’s see, I need something new and different; something that will capture the attention of those who hired me and, who knows, might even generate some votes for Democrats.
I’ve got it!
I’ll email some pundits who post on blogs heavily read by independents. I’ll make a good case for voting for Democrats in 2006. Why only 2006? Too tough to go for a long term conversion to Democrat. Besides, all that stuff has been done to death. I’ll go for the lowest hurdle: "Hey, guys, hold your nose just this once." All I need is one off-the-wall concept that will get Democrat votes right now.
First, a little research. What idea like this has worked in the past? Well, there was "Send Them A Message!" Good in its day, but folks are too smart for that one now. There was "Contract With America." Very good. However, once you demonstrate that the contract can be broken.....
I’ve got it!
"Nevermind the facts. Nevermind platforms. Nevermind special interest group domination. Ignore all that. Ignore all your past thinking. 2006 requires something more than common sense. Where has common sense gotten you in the past?"
Hey! That’s a good slogan! "Where has common sense gotten you in the past!"
Ugh, no, I guess not. But the concept behind it is good. How about "Where has what you have done in the past gotten you?" That’ll work. Provided I follow up quickly with my solution for 2006.
I’ve got it!
Gridlock! The only way to get gridlock [which can be argued is better than what we have] in 2006 is to elect Democrats! Gridlock has such a nice reverse-spin to it - gridlock has always been bad. Well, [ta-da!] in 2006 it’s good! I love it! [Playing in the background: "Everything Old Is New Again]
Let’s see, I’ll need some clincher stuff... well, there was that old article by that Reagan guy. Nobody has ever bothered to rebut it, so it is still [colorably; and baby, that’s all I need] valid. Better yet, nobody has heard of him [Common Sense: Why is that?] Nevermind. If it’s "Reagan", it’s gold.
Some of the independent pundits will buy it. Hey, what else they got?
[Big Bonus, here you come!]
Lets, see. Independent blogs....
qando...
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Amazing how old canards refuse to die. This is simply not true. The tax cuts have NOT, repeat NOT, led to increased revenue. The treasury department report issued just last week made this abundantly clear. And no reputable economist believes this to be true. Tax cuts may, in some instances, lead to increased growth, but the revenue generated by that growth is never enough to make up for the lost revenue occasioned by the cut. Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. This is just a GOP canard.
Well it must be one super duper hell of an illusion, since it works every damn time. BTW, the reverse works every time also, High marginal rates always depress the economy and therefore never obtain the revenues projected.
But go ahead and listen to your lefty commentators and ignore reality, its ok, the rest of us will just go forward without you.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
If Dems were in control since 2000...

Most likely:

The Taliban would still be in power.
Hussein would DEFINITELY be in power.
No tax cuts.
No partial repeal of the estate tax.
What about a discussion for privatizing SS? You’re kidding, right?
Tehran’s Nuke Program would be given a thumbs up. I mean, after all, even Islamofascists need energy, too.
The Minutemen would most likely be in jail.
How about them SCOTUS picks?
What would John Bolton be doing right now?
I could go on, but you get the idea.

Come on, please. Sure, the R’s suck, but to say there’s no difference, well, that’s just silly and counterproductive.

The goal of politics is to win elections and then advance your ideas. A voter should vote for the candidate, who has a chance to win, that most closely resembles your political values. Stop being children and stop thinking: Oh, Gosh, I’m gonna send the R’s a ’message’ by not voting for them. In short: HOW DOES ELECTING THE PARTY OF MORE SOCIALISM (the Dems) help advance Libertarian ideas? It doesn’t.
 
Written By: Come on, please
URL: http://
Lets, see. Independent blogs....
qando...
Very droll Robert. Too bad its falling on mostly deaf ears. I have been personally spit upon by the republican party far too often to give a crap. Let them go back to the outhouse for a while. Hell I don;t want divide government I want a bunch of pure old school lefties in power again! Yee Haw, You see the American people are sometimes quite dense, they need to be reminded again what that is really like.

Clinton didn’t do it because he wasn’t a true lefty. In foriegn policy he was fairly bad, but in economic policy he was certainly to the right of Bush.

I want a real democrat back, just for one term. The American People deserve it!
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
HOW DOES ELECTING THE PARTY OF MORE SOCIALISM (the Dems) help advance Libertarian ideas? It doesn’t.
It most certainly does. We got Reagan only after Carter. We got the contract with America only after Hillary tried to steal the medical industry. Right now, we are only confusing the electorate into thinking the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Yeah, sure, Kyle. I can see how FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society really helped usher in the Libertarian paradise in which we all live.

We should be getting rid of all the Big Govt. R’s, of which Bush is surely one of ’em. As is McCain. As is Rudy G.

Ahhh, at least the R’s support the military and "get" the war on Terror.
 
Written By: Come on, please
URL: http://
After the New Deal we got Eisenhower who was somewhat conservative and fiscally responsible.

After the Great Society we got Nixon because he was a liar, and a hustler who ran to the right then ran to the left after being elected. So, Yeah, we ought to not believe liars and get rid of bad people in the republican Party.

But I still say the electorate is pretty stupid and somewhat venal. They want to believe lies like Minimum wage and they want something for nothing. That is why every now and again they need to get a real taste of it, because they forget.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
"I repeat my practical objections: Just how many Democrats should be elected in 2006? ... " - ds
Ok. Lets talk about practical reality. First, the dice are heavily loaded for incumbents. We are talking about voters on the margin, libertarians and fiscal conservatives potentially making a difference in a highly polarized, evenly split electorate. So the extreme examples you cite are meaningless. The divided government objective is met if either or both houses have a simple Democrat majority. My guess is that the incumbent advantage is so great, one house is all that can be realistically expected. To answer your question directly - that means 6 Senators and/or 15 Representatives change seats. Can I say which? No - obviously not. BTW, I am going to assume your questions are sincere and not rhetorical or sarcastic and will answer in kind. I’d approach the problem by looking at all the races,looking at the polls, look for the contested seats where the Dems have the greatest likelihood of pulling off an upset, and throwing support behind them. Sounds like a good topic for a blog post. Stay tuned.
"Are no incumbent Republicans worthy of re-election? - ds
Certainly. I’d start my personal list by looking at any Republicans that voted against the Medicare prescription bill. Which, BTW, could never have passed if a Dem congress had put the same bill in front of a Republican President. Another good topic for a blog post.
"Then, I suppose, in 2008 it’s on to a Republican president, right?" - ds
That is indeed, exactly what I said in the comment and on my blog. But lets get more granular. This is a tactical voting strategy to secure the historically documented benefits of a divided government. It is an attempt to organize the un-organizeable - to herd cats. As such, as an organizing principle, it is only useful if it is intuitive, obvious, and simple to understand how to vote. So, my take for ’08, is you assume that incumbents will be re-elected - and - If the Republicans maintain a majority in both houses in ’06 - the "divided government vote" is for a Democrat for President in ’08. If the Democrats take both houses in ’06, the "divided government vote" is for a Republican President. If the Democrats take one house, there is no "divided government vote" in ’08. Vote your party, your conscience, your candidate. Simple. Easy.
"I don’t think cynicism so deep is healthy in a democracy..." - ds
Interesting. I don’t consider this strategy cynical. I consider it highly idealistic, almost naively so. This strategy requires a belief that a relatively small group of enlightened voters, will act in concert, voting rationally, putting country before party, based on the strength of an idea supported by historical fact, and actually have a real impact on the direction of our government and country. And have that impact now - in 2006.
"I have little doubt that you will be cannon fodder for the partisan pros..." - ds
I am not even sure what this means. Does it mean that in 2006 there is a marriage of convenience with the "partisan pros" on the left? Yes. Does it mean, if successful, that in 2008 there is a marriage of convenience with the "partisan pros" on the right? Yes. Does it mean that, if successful, the "partisan pros" will attempt to shape partisan policies to co-opt the limited government/ divided government vote? Well - that is not a problem. That is a goal.
 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
"Hmmmm. OK. Let’s say I am being paid by the Democrats to come up with hot new ideas for getting independent voters to vote for Democrats...Lets, see. Independent blogs.... qando..." - bob"


You got me Bob. Gosh you are brilliant. I’ve been outed. I guess my downfall was that I thought I had cleverly hidden the fact that I am a registered Democrat by only explicity stating that on my profile and several posts in my blog. Who knew that a smart guy like you would find out? Damn. Sigh. Yes I guess I will throw in the towel and admit that I am a highly paid clandestine Democrat operative, and I am just too stupid to hide my identity, or pretend to be Republican, or in fact say anything except exactly who I am and what I believe and how I have voted.

You are so right. Common sense should prevail here. You convinced me. We have three months to apply that common sense. What to do? What to do? I know!

Let’s re-elect this same big spending, big defict, big government Republican congress to serve these next two years under this same big spending, big deficit, big government, Republican President - because common sense tells us that this will lead to a dramatic rollback of the state. Common sense prevails.

Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting different results.

BTW - Great job on dismissing William Niskanen out of hand. Just brilliant! Honestly I never saw that coming - how you just ignored the content of the article - just ignored the historical facts - by simply stating "I never heard of him." Common sense prevails again and we can ignore everything he said because you never heard of him. Brilliant! I really never had a chance against your insightful argument.

For anyone who is interested in learning who William Niskanen is, his bio is here. If you don’t already know him, please don’t bother looking though, as common sense dictates that nothing he says is worthwhile.

 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
What the heck is rattling around in your tiny little skull? You make zero points as to why Democrats and Republicans are the same, you simply point out that Kerry advocates one thing, and Bush’s people rebutt it. So friggin’ what? You have as much quote material as your own in this entry, could you possibly have written less?

Was the bar closing early and you had to hurry up and publush something so you could hit it before it closed? Or was this what you wrote after you got stoned?

Idiot. People like you are why I almost feel like advocating that voting should be limited to people with a certain level of intellegence. Such as at least 0.
 
Written By: B-Con
URL: http://b-con.us
B-Con ... thanks for stopping by. Next time conserve words when you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. You know ... like don’t comment.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Mostly because it is so much more polarized now than it has been in the past."


Hmm. I am not sure that I believe this; I would be interested if it is something you have data to support it, or if this is just from your own perceptions.


But let me stipulate, for a minute, that things are more polarized now than in the past. Would that be something that would be helped, or hurt, by divided government? Probably, the polarization would increase.


And what has polarization garnered us now? Anything positive? I do not think so, but maybe you do. To my eyes, it has poisoned our foreign affairs, weakened our defense, and caused to a general feeling of unease among people. It certainly has not slowed spending.


In fact, it seems logical to me that, in today’s polarized environment, the only things likely to get passed will, in fact, be more spending— especially if the parties split power. Democrats will want to do A, Republicans will want to do B, and each will try to get their way by bribing some centrists with what they want.

 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://redstate.com
Well it must be one super duper hell of an illusion, since it works every damn time.
Anonymous Liberal is right. The fact that revenue has (eventually) grown does not mean that the tax cuts were responsible. Revenues always increase during a recovery. Tax cuts somewhat stimulated the recovery, but it would have happened with or without tax cuts.

Even Greg Mankiw — President of Bush’s CEA — has pointed out that the tax cuts did not ’pay for themselves’. Mankiw’s own research indicates that a tax cut on income may "pay for" about 17% of the static lost revenue, while a tax cut on capital may pay for about 50% of static lost revenue.

Yeah, revenue increased. But it pretty much always does. Don’t confuse correlation for causation.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
"Democrats will want to do A, Republicans will want to do B, and each will try to get their way by bribing some centrists with what they want." -Gerry
Gerry is on to something here. If you replace the word "centrist" in this quote with the words "libertarian" or "limited government advocates" - we are on exactly the same page.

Extending this thought, we can get to this happy state of affairs with the divided government voting strategy.

 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
lets get goverment away from republocrats. see www.hoodsale.com
I don’t have money for ballots or for littersigns on land in my dist.
 
Written By: paul- mad as hell
URL: http://www.hoodsale.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider