Why are Republicans never serious about "fiscal discipline"?

[pecksniff]

Federal spending as percentage of GDP has remained at the same level -- around 30% -- since the 1980s. Republicans, when in power, sometimes do keep their promises to cut taxes -- which only grows the deficit, since they don't cut spending significantly. But it has been a core principle of movement-conservative ideology since the 1960s that the federal government (Defense Department excepted) is just too big. So why don't they ever do something about it?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Excellent question, though I dispute your numbers. The GOP talks a good game, but is utterly powerless to implement its agenda.

 

[pecksniff]

Excellent question, though I dispute your numbers. The GOP talks a good game, but is utterly powerless to implement its agenda.

Even in periods when they control both the WH and Congress? Why is that?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Even in periods when they control both the WH and Congress? Why is that?

Many run as Republicans simply because it's Republicans that elected in that district or state. I know we have that very issue in my state.

 

[pecksniff]

Many run as Republicans simply because it's Republicans that elected in that district or state. I know we have that very issue in my state.

So, the problem is a lack of sincere Republicans in office?

 

[Cubantripod]

Revenues as a percentage of GDP has been just under 20% since at least WWII. You still have a spending problem.

 

[pecksniff]

Revenues as a percentage of GDP has been just under 20% since at least WWII. You still have a spending problem.

The question is, why doesn't that change when Republicans are in power?

 

[Cubantripod]

The question is, why doesn't that change when Republicans are in power?

Because deficits only matter when they other party is in power. That goes for both parties.

 

[ll74]

Because deficits only matter when they other party is in power. That goes for both parties.

Deficit hawks are morons
They want the govt to balance some sort of checkbook instead.or balancng the budget.

 

[pecksniff]

Because deficits only matter when they other party is in power. That goes for both parties.

The issue here is not deficits, but spending as such, and the size of the government.

 

[pecksniff]

I think you're all dancing around the real answer: The people like biggummint. Eliminating any program or agency would step on somebody's toes, and the price would be paid at the next election.

 

[YDB95]

I think you're all dancing around the real answer: The people like biggummint. Eliminating any program or agency would step on somebody's toes, and the price would be paid at the next election.

So we are reminded every time the Republicans have a big win in Congress (1994, 2010, etc.). In no time at all it emerges that people DO want all those services Republicans love to hate. They just don't want to pay for them.

 

[pecksniff]

Ross Perot offered what seemed like a plain-common-sense solution to the deficit: Raise taxes and cut spending.

He didn't get very far.

And that probably would have caused a recession if it had been tried.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Federal spending as percentage of GDP has remained at the same level -- around 30% -- since the 1980s. Republicans, when in power, sometimes do keep their promises to cut taxes -- which only grows the deficit, since they don't cut spending significantly. But it has been a core principle of movement-conservative ideology since the 1960s that the federal government (Defense Department excepted) is just too big. So why don't they ever do something about it?

Because they are insincere at best and pathological liars at worst, as we have seen for the last 5 years in innumerable ways and circumstances.

 

[Cubantripod]

The issue here is not deficits, but spending as such, and the size of the government.

Big government means big spending which means deficits.

 

[Cubantripod]

I think you're all dancing around the real answer: The people like biggummint. Eliminating any program or agency would step on somebody's toes, and the price would be paid at the next election.

Some people like biggummint. Most people that deal with biggummint then realize why the framers were right. There's a reason you're seeing an exodus from California and to Texas. Many of those people half jokingly refer to themselves as political refugees.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Fiscal irresponsibility is a bipartisan phenomenon. Has been for decades. The Barry Goldwaters of the GOP are long gone.

 

[Rightguide]

Even in periods when they control both the WH and Congress? Why is that?

Because the administrative state though it's bureaucratic controls and union donations have more influence on the direction of the government than either political party, or the American people. That's how it continues to grow in good times and bad, and how it becomes stronger, more intrenched, and more truculent with each passing year.

 

[pecksniff]

Because the administrative state . . .

Isn't every state administrative?

. . . though it's bureaucratic controls and union donations . . .

How much can those matter any more? The American workforce is thoroughly de-unionized.

And the executive branch has no "bureaucratic controls" over Congress, which does have both the authority and the power to abolish any agency or program.

 

[Rightguide]

Isn't every state administrative?



How much can those matter any more? The American workforce is thoroughly de-unionized.

And the executive branch has no "bureaucratic controls" over Congress, which does have both the authority and the power to abolish any agency or program.

The government workforce is thoroughly unionized and over 90% of it political donations go to Democrats and some to Rinos. The bureaucracy has all kinds of controls over what happens in any congressional district. They can put a congressman looking for reelection on his heels in a minute with a variety of policy changes that effect their districts. The Intel Community has all kinds of psychological controls over errant congressman, just ask Chuck Schumer.

 

[Adre]

The government workforce is thoroughly unionized and over 90% of it political donations go to Democrats and some to Rinos. The bureaucracy has all kinds of controls over what happens in any congressional district. They can put a congressman looking for reelection on his heels in a minute with a variety of policy changes that effect their districts. The Intel Community has all kinds of psychological controls over errant congressman, just ask Chuck Schumer.

Opinions parading as facts. And so it goes.

 

[Rightguide]

Opinions parading as facts. And so it goes.

Like what? The donations are on the public record, the authority of the bureaus are without question. Was Schumer wrong when he said what he said about the Intel Community?

 

[adrina]

Because they don't know how to govern.