The Hypocrisy of the Modern Republican Party

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for mfacek
mfacek

3000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#1 mfacek
Member since 2006 • 3000 Posts

Can modern day Republicans truly call themselves conservatives?

Well, in order to answer the question we must ask ourselves what is the fundamental element to the conservative philosophy. In our modern age, this is certainly fiscal conservatism. It is the supposed hallmark of the Republican party. The Democrats lack of fiscal restraint is the basis of nearly every Republican criticism of the Democratic Party. It is the single biggest reason Republicans block a nationalization of the United State's health care system. Now this is certainly a legitimate concern, the costs of a government run health care system is estimated to cost $1 trillion. $1 trillion that the US doesn't have, and can't afford in the near future.

Prominent Republicans constantly parrot the cost as being too great, too much strain on the American taxpayer. However, the question I want to ask, is why were these concerns not being brought up as America prepared for war in the middle east? Why is it that so many republicans who refuse to vote for health care reform due to its cost so easily and whole-heartedly voted for a war which has cost us far more then health care reform will, and continues to cost us billions daily? Throughout history, republicans have been elected to get us OUT of wars. Not into them. This war-hawkish Republican trend is a relatively modern one, and an EXTREMELY expensive one.

For a party that consistantly rails against Obama's big spending, and claims to strive for a balanced budget, they've certainly done a VERY poor job of it.

Reagan national debt: $255 million as he left office.

George H.W. Bush national debt: $399 million as he left office.

George W. Bush national debt: $500+ million as he left office.

Each of these so called conservative candidates set a new record for national debt in their respective terms. You also may notice a gap in the presidents, Clinton. Surely that "tax n' spend" Democrat raked up FAR more then the Republicans could have ever hoped to spend while in office right? He left office with a balanced budget, and in fact a slight surplus.

Well, you might say that neo-conservatism is not just about fiscal conservative policies, but a general pro-business approach. Reagan masterfully put neo-conservative policies into place, and the US achieved a level of prosperity never thought to be achievable. The US, while it sustained a minor recession in the early nineties, continued this prosperity up until the turn of the century. Then, under "conservative" Bush, our economy nearly collapsed, along with the banking system.

Again you say, well at least the Republicans strive for a smaller government! Wrong again. Under Bush, the US government grew to the largest it has ever been in history. I won't even go into the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping scandal, or Guantanamo Bay and how early conservative thinkers would absolutely roll over in their graves if they could see them today.

This is hypocrisy. The modern day Republican Party is not conservative, certainly not. The modern day Republican Party is but the Democratic Party with a different paint job and socially conservative stances (gay-marriage, gun rights, etc.).

So I put this to you, self proclaimed conservatives, how is it that you can call yourself a Republican?

Avatar image for Trinners
Trinners

2537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Trinners
Member since 2009 • 2537 Posts

Well it's a given that hypocrisy and politics go hand-in-hand.

Avatar image for ViewtifulScott
ViewtifulScott

878

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 ViewtifulScott
Member since 2005 • 878 Posts
I've always said politics are like our System Wars forum, and our fanboys like politicians. They yell and scream at each other all day, but they all have one thing in common. Hypocrisy.
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#4 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
That is party politics for ya. Both parties.
Avatar image for Commander-Gree
Commander-Gree

4929

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Commander-Gree
Member since 2009 • 4929 Posts
Ideals change. Which is why being a moderate is a good choice. I don't consider myself a true conservative anymore.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

yeah I'm not gonna read all of that, but I just saw a video of a republican holdingup a baby saying how the baby didn't want government run health care and the baby wants to keep the health care plan she is on so I'm not going to disagree with you.

Avatar image for Mark_the_Lie
Mark_the_Lie

482

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Mark_the_Lie
Member since 2009 • 482 Posts

I'm not sure how you can single out the Republican party like this when you can plainly see what's happening in the White House and Congress right now. If you think Democrats are any better, you're dreaming.

Avatar image for mfacek
mfacek

3000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#8 mfacek
Member since 2006 • 3000 Posts

I'm not sure how you can single out the Republican party like this when you can plainly see what's happening in the White House and Congress right now. If you think Democrats are any better, you're dreaming.

Mark_the_Lie
Are the democrats incompetent? That's plainly obvious. Are they disingenuous about the political philosophy their party adheres to, was founded on, and trumpets at any possible chance? No. If I saw the Democrats railing against the massive debt left behind by previous Republican presidents and blocking reform measures because it's "too expensive" I would be calling them hypocrites as well. I single out the Republicans because they claim to be a bastion of conservatism, and they certainly are not. If you can show examples of Democrats being disingenuous about Liberalism feel free to point them out.
Avatar image for nimatoad2000
nimatoad2000

7505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#9 nimatoad2000
Member since 2004 • 7505 Posts
democrats now are what republicans used to be. and republicans now are the party of the crazy people
Avatar image for Pyro767
Pyro767

2305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#10 Pyro767
Member since 2009 • 2305 Posts
Hey, look at that, someone's finally catching on. As Lavernius Tucker would say from "Red vs Blue," "STOP FIGHTING! Red and blue are the same!"
Avatar image for mfacek
mfacek

3000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#12 mfacek
Member since 2006 • 3000 Posts
democrats now are what republicans used to be. and republicans now are the party of the crazy peoplenimatoad2000
I think it's more that the Republican party has just become the Democratic party with a shiny red paint job and has a whole lot of supporters who don't realize it.
Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#13 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts

What about the hypocracy of the Democrats? They engage in unjust wars (Afganistan), and are against just wars (Iraq).

Avatar image for Mark_the_Lie
Mark_the_Lie

482

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Mark_the_Lie
Member since 2009 • 482 Posts

[QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

I'm not sure how you can single out the Republican party like this when you can plainly see what's happening in the White House and Congress right now. If you think Democrats are any better, you're dreaming.

mfacek

Are the democrats incompetent? That's plainly obvious. Are they disingenuous about the political philosophy their party adheres to, was founded on, and trumpets at any possible chance? No. If I saw the Democrats railing against the massive debt left behind by previous Republican presidents and blocking reform measures because it's "too expensive" I would be calling them hypocrites as well. I single out the Republicans because they claim to be a bastion of conservatism, and they certainly are not. If you can show examples of Democrats being disingenuous about Liberalism feel free to point them out.

The Democrats raved about Republican spending for the entire 8 years Bush was in office. They all campaigned in '06 and '08 on lower taxes for the middle class. They publically claim to want to create government-stemmed competition in the private sector, when it reality they sanction the stifling of competition in the private sector in favor of public programs that benefit solely low income demographics. They campaign on the value of "keeping jobs in America," and then they go and levy a 39.6% tax on businesses...that is the HIGHEST business tax rate of any country on planet Earth; that's right, higher than any European country, Canada, Australia, Venezuela, Cuba, you name it. A high corporate tax rate sends jobs overseas, period. What was that I heard about no tax dollars going to fund abortions?...yea, that promise was broken with the passage of the House bill this past Saturday. Lobbyists still own Washington; that promise is broken.....grants from lobbyists are public information, so we know for a fact that the White House is taking hundreds of thousands from General Electric just to name one, and Congress is taking as much from an array of other corporations (that was Obama's big thing during the campaign, in addition to transparency). Oh yes, transparency...why did the Democrats and the White House compose the house bill in a private chamber while shutting out Republicans, moderate Democrats, and the media? Why did Obama decide not to make the House put the readable bill online 72 hours before it went up for a vote, like he said he would? Why are we still rigorously engaged in 2 wars? It's been over a year since the election. I mean, come on. Both parties are disingenuous.

Avatar image for _BlueDuck_
_BlueDuck_

11986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 _BlueDuck_
Member since 2003 • 11986 Posts

Considering "individual freedoms", "freedom of choice" and "free market" are all ideas of liberalism, I'd say you're on to something.

Avatar image for _BlueDuck_
_BlueDuck_

11986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 _BlueDuck_
Member since 2003 • 11986 Posts

What about the hypocracy of the Democrats? They engage in unjust wars (Afganistan), and are against just wars (Iraq).

narlymech

Ouu I'm excited to hear the ideas behind this statement.

Avatar image for Jd1680a
Jd1680a

5960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#17 Jd1680a
Member since 2005 • 5960 Posts

Democrats and Republicans are responible for the national debt. How about we elect someone from an independent party?

Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#18 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts

There are many things definitely backwards. Democrats claim to be the charitous types, yet Republicans give much more in charity. Democrats claim to be the party of minorities, yet were the party of slavery, jim crow etc. Democrats claim to be more civil, yet some guy from Sportcenter is thier mascot.

Avatar image for Pyro767
Pyro767

2305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#19 Pyro767
Member since 2009 • 2305 Posts
Democrats and Republicans are responible for the national debt. How about we elect someone from an independant part?Jd1680a
That's actually not a bad idea.
Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#20 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts
[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

[QUOTE="narlymech"]

What about the hypocracy of the Democrats? They engage in unjust wars (Afganistan), and are against just wars (Iraq).

Ouu I'm excited to hear the ideas behind this statement.

It's obvious. No need to explain.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts
[QUOTE="narlymech"][QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

[QUOTE="narlymech"]

What about the hypocracy of the Democrats? They engage in unjust wars (Afganistan), and are against just wars (Iraq).

Ouu I'm excited to hear the ideas behind this statement.

It's obvious. No need to explain.

uh they are not clear at all actually unless you got the two wars mixed up by accident. even then democrats have been railing against at least the one in Iraq since the beggining.
Avatar image for Mark_the_Lie
Mark_the_Lie

482

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Mark_the_Lie
Member since 2009 • 482 Posts

[QUOTE="narlymech"][QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Ouu I'm excited to hear the ideas behind this statement.

Serraph105

It's obvious. No need to explain.

uh they are not clear at all actually unless you got the two wars mixed up by accident. even then democrats have been railing against at least the one in Iraq since the beggining.

Despite first voting for it.

Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#23 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts

[QUOTE="narlymech"][QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Ouu I'm excited to hear the ideas behind this statement.

Serraph105

It's obvious. No need to explain.

uh they are not clear at all actually unless you got the two wars mixed up by accident. even then democrats have been railing against at least the one in Iraq since the beggining.

No I said the clear truth. Iraq was justified, Afganistan was not.

Avatar image for Jfisch93
Jfisch93

3557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#24 Jfisch93
Member since 2008 • 3557 Posts

Both parties are wrong. They don't care about you, they don't care about the country, they only care for themselves. It's terrible how america changed. EVERYTHING is about money.

One of the 7th deadly sins: GREED.

America is doomed because the people in D.C. have fallen to this deadly sin.

Avatar image for flazzle
flazzle

6507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 flazzle
Member since 2007 • 6507 Posts

Not all Republicans are conservative...

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="narlymech"] It's obvious. No need to explain.Mark_the_Lie

uh they are not clear at all actually unless you got the two wars mixed up by accident. even then democrats have been railing against at least the one in Iraq since the beggining.

Despite first voting for it.

ok you are right they did vote for it for it first however I am still perplexed by narlymech thinking Iraq was just and Afganistan was not.
Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#27 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts
[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

uh they are not clear at all actually unless you got the two wars mixed up by accident. even then democrats have been railing against at least the one in Iraq since the beggining.Serraph105

Despite first voting for it.

ok you are right they did vote for it for it first however I am still perplexed by narlymech thinking Iraq was just and Afganistan was not.

The only problem with Iraq is maybe we should have done it sooner. Afganistan however, I'm still perplexed why we went there. Oh yeah....huntin rabbits.
Avatar image for Pyro767
Pyro767

2305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#28 Pyro767
Member since 2009 • 2305 Posts

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

Despite first voting for it.

narlymech

ok you are right they did vote for it for it first however I am still perplexed by narlymech thinking Iraq was just and Afganistan was not.

The only problem with Iraq is maybe we should have done it sooner. Afganistan however, I'm still perplexed why we went there. Oh yeah....huntin rabbits.

Really? I thought they went to Afganistan because it is the current location of Al Queda.

Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#29 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts

[QUOTE="narlymech"][QUOTE="Serraph105"] ok you are right they did vote for it for it first however I am still perplexed by narlymech thinking Iraq was just and Afganistan was not.Pyro767

The only problem with Iraq is maybe we should have done it sooner. Afganistan however, I'm still perplexed why we went there. Oh yeah....huntin rabbits.

Really? I thought they went to Afganistan because it is the current location of Al Queda.

Nah, that's in Pakistan now. Oooo boy rabbit season again....
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

[QUOTE="narlymech"][QUOTE="Serraph105"] ok you are right they did vote for it for it first however I am still perplexed by narlymech thinking Iraq was just and Afganistan was not.Pyro767

The only problem with Iraq is maybe we should have done it sooner. Afganistan however, I'm still perplexed why we went there. Oh yeah....huntin rabbits.

Really? I thought they went to Afganistan because it is the current location of Al Queda.

that and the whole 9/11 thing. I seriously think narlymech is getting the two places confused.
Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

49605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

#31 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 49605 Posts

You also may notice a gap in the presidents, Clinton. Surely that "tax n' spend" Democrat raked up FAR more then the Republicans could have ever hoped to spend while in office right? He left office with a balanced budget, and in fact a slight surplus.

mfacek

Call me crazy, but didn't Republicans have control of the Congress during the Clinton years?

Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#32 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts

[QUOTE="Pyro767"]

[QUOTE="narlymech"] The only problem with Iraq is maybe we should have done it sooner. Afganistan however, I'm still perplexed why we went there. Oh yeah....huntin rabbits.Serraph105

Really? I thought they went to Afganistan because it is the current location of Al Queda.

that and the whole 9/11 thing. I seriously think narlymech is getting the two places confused.

Man, you guys are bloodthirsty. I think wev'e got our "revenge" a while back by now. Probably should have left it at a few tactical strikes in the first place.

It's really quite simple when you think it though. Removing mass murdering dictatorial regimes is justified. Randomly blowing up poeple in a country for years for revenge is not.

Avatar image for Pyro767
Pyro767

2305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#33 Pyro767
Member since 2009 • 2305 Posts

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Pyro767"]Really? I thought they went to Afganistan because it is the current location of Al Queda.

narlymech

that and the whole 9/11 thing. I seriously think narlymech is getting the two places confused.

Man, you guys are bloodthirsty. I think wev'e got our "revenge" a while back by now. Probably should have left it at a few tactical strikes in the first place.

It's really quite simple when you think it though. Removing mass murdering dictatorial regimes is justified. Randomly blowing up poeple in a country for years for revenge is not.

I wonder if you realize that Al Queda is planning another 9/11-esque attack, and that if we leave now we are dooming ourselves.
Avatar image for _BlueDuck_
_BlueDuck_

11986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 _BlueDuck_
Member since 2003 • 11986 Posts

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Pyro767"]Really? I thought they went to Afganistan because it is the current location of Al Queda.

narlymech

that and the whole 9/11 thing. I seriously think narlymech is getting the two places confused.

Man, you guys are bloodthirsty. I think wev'e got our "revenge" a while back by now. Probably should have left it at a few tactical strikes in the first place.

It's really quite simple when you think it though. Removing mass murdering dictatorial regimes is justified. Randomly blowing up poeple in a country for years for revenge is not.

The justificationsfor going to war and the conduct once in war are two different things though. I don't beleive the war in Afghanistan is being carried out in a just way either. But the reasons for going there are justified, or at least just as much as Iraq.

Simply put, the Afghanistan ruling regime supported and protected a terrorist group which directly attacked the United States. Which makes the Afghanistan government responsible. Taking out that government is not revenge, it's retaliation and self-defense. Also, the Taliban regime was one of the worst dictatorial regimes in the middle east.

Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#35 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts
[QUOTE="Pyro767"][QUOTE="narlymech"]

that and the whole 9/11 thing. I seriously think narlymech is getting the two places confused. Serraph105
Man, you guys are bloodthirsty. I think wev'e got our "revenge" a while back by now. Probably should have left it at a few tactical strikes in the first place.

It's really quite simple when you think it though. Removing mass murdering dictatorial regimes is justified. Randomly blowing up poeple in a country for years for revenge is not.

I wonder if you realize that Al Queda is planning another 9/11-esque attack, and that if we leave now we are dooming ourselves.

Don't know. I guess we should blow up more people.
Avatar image for narlymech
narlymech

2132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#36 narlymech
Member since 2009 • 2132 Posts
[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

[QUOTE="narlymech"]

that and the whole 9/11 thing. I seriously think narlymech is getting the two places confused. Serraph105
Man, you guys are bloodthirsty. I think wev'e got our "revenge" a while back by now. Probably should have left it at a few tactical strikes in the first place.

It's really quite simple when you think it though. Removing mass murdering dictatorial regimes is justified. Randomly blowing up poeple in a country for years for revenge is not.

The justificationsfor going to war and the conduct once in war are two different things though. I don't beleive the war in Afghanistan is being carried out in a just way either. But the reasons for going there are justified, or at least just as much as Iraq.

Simply put, the Afghanistan ruling regime supported and protected a terrorist group which directly attacked the United States. Which makes the Afghanistan government responsible. Taking out that government is not revenge, it's retaliation and self-defense. Also, the Taliban regime was one of the worst dictatorial regimes in the middle east.

Oh so conduct is most important in wars. I guess Obama gets a satisfactory rating in suave.
Avatar image for Mark_the_Lie
Mark_the_Lie

482

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 Mark_the_Lie
Member since 2009 • 482 Posts

[QUOTE="mfacek"]

You also may notice a gap in the presidents, Clinton. Surely that "tax n' spend" Democrat raked up FAR more then the Republicans could have ever hoped to spend while in office right? He left office with a balanced budget, and in fact a slight surplus.

Stevo_the_gamer

Call me crazy, but didn't Republicans have control of the Congress during the Clinton years?

Yes they did, specifically in the latter years when the surplus was attained.

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#38 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts

The national debt doesn't really show much in the way of hypocrisy. The debt has traditionally increased under Republican Administrations because of tax cuts, not increased spending. Of course George W. Bush is an exception to that rule also, but the war made the spending necessary.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#39 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

The national debt doesn't really show much in the way of hypocrisy. The debt has traditionally increased under Republican Administrations because of tax cuts, not increased spending. Of course George W. Bush is an exception to that rule also, but the war made the spending necessary.

fidosim

Don't forget Ronald Reagan... and, well, an unnecessary war makes that argument pretty damn silly...

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#40 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"]

The national debt doesn't really show much in the way of hypocrisy. The debt has traditionally increased under Republican Administrations because of tax cuts, not increased spending. Of course George W. Bush is an exception to that rule also, but the war made the spending necessary.

Don't forget Ronald Reagan... and, well, an unnecessary war makes that argument pretty damn silly...

Yeah, he spent a lot on the military too. I'm surprised how much Reagan's economics are criticized by the left. It's a form of Keynesianism. As for the argument that the wars were unnecessary, i'm afraid that doesn't hold up. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, supported by the Taliban government of Afghanistan, with safe havens all over the "Muslim World". The silly thing to do would have been to return to the policy of the Clinton era, by treating attacks more like criminal cases than a body of evil, determined people waging war against us.
Avatar image for ViewtifulScott
ViewtifulScott

878

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 ViewtifulScott
Member since 2005 • 878 Posts

The national debt doesn't really show much in the way of hypocrisy. The debt has traditionally increased under Republican Administrations because of tax cuts, not increased spending. Of course George W. Bush is an exception to that rule also, but the war made the spending necessary.

fidosim
Though it should be noted that one of those wars was illegal and not necessary.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#42 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"]

The national debt doesn't really show much in the way of hypocrisy. The debt has traditionally increased under Republican Administrations because of tax cuts, not increased spending. Of course George W. Bush is an exception to that rule also, but the war made the spending necessary.

fidosim

Don't forget Ronald Reagan... and, well, an unnecessary war makes that argument pretty damn silly...

Yeah, he spent a lot on the military too. I'm surprised how much Reagan's economics are criticized by the left. It's a form of Keynesianism. As for the argument that the wars were unnecessary, i'm afraid that doesn't hold up. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, supported by the Taliban government of Afghanistan, with safe havens all over the "Muslim World". The silly thing to do would have been to return to the policy of the Clinton era, by treating attacks more like criminal cases than a body of evil, determined people waging war against us.

Well, there's a difference between Reaganomics (which is what I am referring to) and what Reagan actually did. Also, I was referring to Iraq, not Afghanistan. I thought that much was obvious. :|