Warning: Here Come the Republicans

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PoliticalChic, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. PoliticalChic

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Oct 6, 2008
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Brooklyn, NY
    1. The 2012 elections are almost a foregone conclusion. Obama could be beaten by Casey Anthony running on the “I Hate Children” ticket.

    2. Liberal policies have proven to be just what the Right said they would be: dismal failures. The odds greatly favor the Republicans taking the Senate, as 23 of the seats up for votes are Democrat…and holding the House.

    3. Imagine: Republican White House, Senate and House. Good? Remember the result of a Democrat White House, Senate and House.

    4. Here is some wisdom to consider: "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."Coulter, 11-27-03

    5. Will Republicans immediately cut the size of government? Repeal ObamaCare? Balance the budget? Eliminate the Department of Education, and roll back other unconstitutional functions and departments? Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."

    6. : What are the chances of those things happening? Let me paraphrase Shakespeare “O! none, unless this miracle have might,
    That in Congress, the Tea Party may still shine bright.”

    If spending is the main consideration, here is something more to consider:

    1. The best aspect of the Clinton administration with a Republican Congress is that it prevented either party from enacting expensive new programs.

    a. Of course, there were some positives: capital gains tax cuts, the 1996 welfare reforms ending AFDC entitlement, the 1995 elimination of most farm subsidies (reinstated by BushII)

    2. The two periods of fiscal responsibility in six decades were the Eisenhower and the Clinton administrations, periods during which the presidency and Congress were controlled by different parties. William A. Niskanen, “A Case For Divided Government,” A Case for Divided Government | William A. Niskanen | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

    3. The worst spending periods were those with one party in charge.

    a. a. 1967 and 1968, LBJ and the Democrats, spending increased 11.6% a year. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

    4. The largest average decrease came in 1955 and 1956, with spending decreasing an average 4.2% a year. Eisenhower was President, with Democrats in charge in Congress. Ibid.

    5. If you don’t want to see expansion of government, gridlock is good. How does that make the Progressives, who opposed checks and balances, look?

Share This Page