Some questions for the dwindling bunch of US republicans

[financeguy]

Given that your party is supposedly the party of financial prudence, how is it that Bush has turned a massive surplus into a massive deficit in the space of 7 years?

Also, as your party is known for its sound financial management, why is the dollar plummetting in value?

[INDY500]

Short answer...because they started governing like Democrats.

I'm glad they lost both houses of Congress and we'll see next year if they learned anything.

[BVS]

Originally posted by INDY500
Short answer...because they started governing like Democrats.

I was about to guarantee you this lazy answer... but I thought surely someone will come up with a thought out answer.

Sometimes you should stick with your gut.

[A_Wanderer]

It seems that everybody has an interest in pork, who knew?

[melon]

Originally posted by INDY500
Short answer...because they started governing like Democrats.

So how does this explain Reagan and Daddy Bush's multi-trillion dollar contributions to our national debt? Now that Baby Bush has made his multi-trillion dollar contribution himself, it seems to me that the GOP appeal to "fiscal responsibility" was nothing but a ruse. "Tax cuts" do not automatically equate to "fiscal responsibility."

In fact, if this table is to be trusted, it looks like if you want to spend spend spend like there's no tomorrow, then elect a Republican president!

[melon]

Originally posted by financeguy
Also, as your party is known for its sound financial management, why is the dollar plummetting in value?

The dollar is plummeting for four reasons, I believe, in which only one is directly the GOP's fault:

1) Massive borrowing to pay for the war (direct fault of the GOP).
2) The surge in the global economy, meaning that foreign currencies are appreciating in value, compared to the USD. The USD and Euro, to note, have equally stayed on the conventional target of no more than 2% inflation.
3) The U.S. economy is probably near recession, due to rising resource prices (see #4) and bad subprime lending, thus spurring the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates (which were already at fairly historic lows)--and thus devaluing our currency in relation to many global currencies, whose central banks cannot responsibly lower interest rates in turn to devalue their own currencies.
4) The U.S. is a net consumer of natural resources, whereas many nations are net producers of them (like Canada). The sharp rise in value of these commodities have made the currencies of resource producing nations very attractive to investors.

Needless to say, much of this reminds me of the 1970s--the last time commodities were hot and the Canadian dollar was worth more than the USD.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by melon


So how does this explain Reagan and Daddy Bush's multi-trillion dollar contributions to our national debt? Now that Baby Bush has made his multi-trillion dollar contribution himself, it seems to me that the GOP appeal to "fiscal responsibility" was nothing but a ruse. "Tax cuts" do not automatically equate to "fiscal responsibility."

In fact, if this table is to be trusted, it looks like if you want to spend spend spend like there's no tomorrow, then elect a Republican president!

Answering those points would require the LONG answer. Let's just say that when it comes to reducing Federal spending the Republican's bark is worse than their bite. It seems whatever desire voters have to reduce spending vanishes when it comes to specific programs. Truth be told, so much of the Federal budget is now "entitlement" or "non-discretionary" spending, there's not much anyone can do without a clear mandate from the voters and bi-partisan support. Don't hold your breath on that happening anytime soon.

After all, if Republicans were serious about reducing Federal spending--if that was the number one issue on their plate--wouldn't Ron Paul be the frontrunner for the nomination heading into the primaries?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500


After all, if Republicans were serious about reducing Federal spending--if that was the number one issue on their plate--wouldn't Ron Paul be the frontrunner for the nomination heading into the primaries?

that's an interesting point -- and it begs the question as to exactly why so much of the Republican party sneers at him (just check out some of the blogs -- Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, etc.) and have wondered why he's even allowed to be part of the Republican debates.

and then he goes and does this:

[q]Paul Bags Over $4 Million in One Day
By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas raised $4.2 million in online donations yesterday for his dark horse presidential bid, his campaign announced today. That one day haul doubles his total receipts for the year, which stood at $8.3 million through September 30, according to the latest campaign finance reports. And it surpasses Mitt Romney ’s $3.1 million, raised on Jan. 8, as the highest sum raised in a single day by a GOP candidate this election cycle. [/q]

my guess is that much of the antipathy is that the R's fear a Nadar.

and Nadar never, ever raised this kind of money.