courseofhistory
Rookie
- Aug 7, 2012
- 1,230
- 179
- 0
- Banned
- #1
Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?
I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.
Just a thought.
LINK
I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.
Just a thought.
...
...The reality is that there was a far larger expansion of the welfare state under the previous administration (Medicare Part D), many of the people now posing as the great defenders of limited government, including Paul Ryan and three of the remaining presidential candidates, supported that expansion, and there is no reason to trust that a new Republican administration would not make similar mistakes. There is no reason to believe that the Congressional Republicans that passed Medicare Part D for Bush wouldnt pass some equally atrocious piece of legislation for Romney. Put another way, the Barack Obama and Paul Ryan approaches to government are disturbingly similar once we remember how Ryan approached the expansion of government under a Republican President. Republican victories in presidential elections have not led to the rollback of government in the past, and theres no reason to expect that Romney will be the first to change that.
The likely nominee cant be trusted to follow through on anything he says regarding health care legislation repeal because he is thoroughly untrustworthy, and everything about his record suggests that he is not the type to undertake major political fights. If Romney won, there wouldnt be any rollback. George Wills call to focus on Congress and to give up on the presidential election stemmed from his belief that Romney cannot win, but there is an even better argument that a Romney victory wont yield most of the things that partisans desire. Republicans arguing that winning in 2012 with Romney are wasting their victory have a point, but their problem is that the other alternatives (except for Paul) are no more credible. If there were a unified Republican government starting in 2013, there is not much reason to think that they wouldnt make mistakes similar to those of the Bush era. The record of unified governments over the last decade has not been very good, and Republicans have given the public few reasons to believe that they would not become reliable team players once one of their own was in the White House.
...
LINK