Gay Patriot Header Image

Our Critics Silent about Democrats’ Proposed Profligacy

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:16 am - November 25, 2008.
Filed under: Liberals,Republican-hatred

Given how some of our critics responded to my post on how Democrats see government spending as the solution to every domestic problem, it appears their business in life is to attack Republicans.  If you didn’t follow current events, you might take their tone to mean their side had lost the most recent national elections.

In their zeal to criticize us and the GOP, they neglect to acknowledge how frequently we’ve criticized Bush and Republicans for their spendthrift ways, contending the GOP lost its congressional majorities in 2006 in large part because its leaders failed to contain spending and constrain the growth of the federal government.

And now with their proposed stimulus plan, Democrats seem bent on continuing the spending record of the current Democratic Congress and the most recent Republican ones, albeit with greater rates of increase.

Note how our critics don’t bother to challenge my premise (that the Democrats, like Carroll’s Queen, have one way of addressing all (domestic) difficulties–increase spending.  So, caught up in the past are they that they’d rather attack Republicans for their failures which, even this Republican blogger contends, cost them their majorities.

As they criticize Republican for their past spendthrift ways, these critics remain silent about their party’s proposed profligacy.

As I wrote the day after the election, I feel a strange sense of liberation now that a spendthrift Republican Administration is on its way out.  Yet, our critics seem unconcerned that the leadership of the party elected to replace it appears increasingly eager to outspend him.



  1. ALL
    New to your site. Looking for Amity Schlae… But your comments are right on the money.
    Recco you and the rest take a trip to the dusty shelves of your local library. The Text “Masters of Deceit” by J. Edgar Hoover, circa 1953 is the template, almost verbatim, that the Obama Nation is using to secure thier power base. The problem is that we, the Conservative Nation, is about 65 years behind the power curve in all aspects.
    I will enjoy your post and return.

    Comment by ANON — November 25, 2008 @ 6:47 am - November 25, 2008

  2. The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/25/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

    Comment by David M — November 25, 2008 @ 11:17 am - November 25, 2008

  3. Liberals don’t question spending, even ours; they’re pointing out our hypocrisy. In doing so, aren’t they admitting they understand conservatism to in part mean small government and low expenditures? And who is to blame: The hangmen or those who gave them the rope?

    Comment by Ignatius — November 25, 2008 @ 11:43 am - November 25, 2008

  4. Change? To What? Throwing money at a problem will NOT necessarily be the solution, but instead has great potential to make it far worse.

    Comment by Bill E — November 25, 2008 @ 12:59 pm - November 25, 2008

  5. In case I wasn’t clear on the other thread:
    Isn’t the proper economic response, to a looming economic recession, and possible depression, massive economic stimulus, even if it means deficit spending? Again, isn’t this the proper response to the economic situation which Obama finds himself in, the “facts on the ground,” as it were?

    Answer yes or no to this, but at least acknowledge the gravity of the situation and explain why the current economic crisis calls for restrained spending – don’t wish it away.

    You are criticizing the proposed spending while paying no attention to the credit market, the unemployment, the housing market, and so on. You’re looking at the spending in a vacuum, divorced from all other effects and conditions. How can you ignore the actual economic situation in which the country finds itself and pretend you are running a remotely complete analysis of the situation?

    Comment by torrentprime — November 25, 2008 @ 3:56 pm - November 25, 2008

  6. That is only the correct response if during the good times the budget was in surplus and spending was kept in check. That hasn’t happened much in the past 30 or so years, so running up bigger deficits now really isn’t much help. The correct solution is to stop making the government the backstop for every failed bank and company. The Depression and the Lost Decade both prove that intervention just delays pain that is going to come no matter what, and then prolong the period before recovery starts. After the New Deal, the economy took about thirty years to get back to where it was, and the Japanese still aren’t there after almost twenty years. The trillions spent now to forestall the inevitable will be a larger and longer drag on the economy in the future.

    Comment by Hunter — November 25, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - November 25, 2008

  7. No, torrent, I’m not ignoring the credit markets, etc. I’m just making a point which you have yet to refute–that all the Democrats do when we face economic problems is to propose spending increases.

    And if spending increases work so well, how come we’re in the bind we’re in, given the out-of-control government spending these last ten years. Yes, ten years.

    I personally think the better response to such a recession is to reduce regulation. We already had a stimulus package earlier this year –and it doesn’t seem to have helped much

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 25, 2008 @ 5:41 pm - November 25, 2008

  8. Isn’t the proper economic response, to a looming economic recession, and possible depression, massive economic stimulus, even if it means deficit spending?

    Problem is, torrentprime and his fellow Democrats were screaming about how awful government spending was, how the government had no business spending money, and how budget deficits proved what a terrible manager Bush was.

    Now that Obama is jacking spending through the ceiling, torrentprime and his fellow Democrats suddenly are saying how good government spending is, how it’s the government’s business to do so, and how massive budget deficits far greater than anything Bush did prove what a good manager Obama is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 25, 2008 @ 6:56 pm - November 25, 2008

  9. But increasing federal spending in a recession is the way most economists forsee preventing further damage to the economy! Do you know something that the economists don’t?

    Also, you are ignoring Obama’s statements for cutting other areas of the budget.

    The proposals to increase spending, to have a stimulus program, come from both sides of the aisle. Right? So, you want to criticize Democrats but not Republicans?

    What did the Republican-controlled Congress do after 9/11 when the economy went into a tailspin? That’s right: the created and passed a stimulus package.

    What did Reagan do in the recession of the 1980s? He spent a billions of dollars and ran up a huge deficit.

    As for saying that Democrats didn’t object to Bush spending, that’s untrue. Democrats have opposed Bush.

    Finally, you are also ignoring the big elephant in the room: the huge deficits we have are partially the result of the ludicrous tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts that John McCain rightly opposed. The lost revenues were never replaced. Right?

    Complaining to complain about spending seems ridiculous. Giving away billions with no strings attached to Wall Street bankers is the way that Republican-led administration is acting. Why don’t you criticize Paulson? Paul Krugman has.

    Comment by blake — November 25, 2008 @ 6:57 pm - November 25, 2008

  10. Blake, you offer an interesting comment when you write, <>

    Yup, they opposed Bush, but did they opposed his domestic spending increases and offer less costly alternatives?

    Why does “complaining” about spending seem ridiculous? I mean, I’ve been faulting Bush and congressional Republicans on this issue for nearly four years now on the blog, longer before I was blogging. You’re telling me it’s ridiculous to advance an issue I’ve long espoused? If you think it’s so ridiculous, why do you spend so much time on a blog whose bloggers routinely “complain” (as you put it) about excessive government spending?

    Go check the facts about what Reagan did. He held the line on spending increases in the early 1980s, instead of letting it increase at the levels Democrats wanted.

    And I happen to disagree with “most economists” if they favor federal spending as a means to prevent further damage to the economy. Don’t you even read my posts? We’ve had increased federal spending these past 10 years and look where the economy is now. “Most economists” disagreed that Reagan’s plans would work. And they were wrong.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 25, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - November 25, 2008

  11. Answer yes or no to this, but at least acknowledge the gravity of the situation and explain why the current economic crisis calls for restrained spending – don’t wish it away.

    What the current economic crisis calls for is less money in the hands of government and more in the hands of people who earn it — which means massive across-the-board tax cuts on both individuals and companies. That would immediately put money back into peoples’ and companies’ pockets to spend as they saw fit, without having to increase a dime of wasteful government spending.

    Unfortunately, what Democrats like torrentprime are doing is using this “crisis” as a means to take money away from those who did not overextend themselves, who took on only the debt they could afford, who ran their businesses intelligently, and acted like fiscal conservatives — so those Democrats can bail out the welfare-addicted, unproductive, and irresponsible Democrat Party base.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 25, 2008 @ 7:04 pm - November 25, 2008

  12. Finally, you are also ignoring the big elephant in the room: the huge deficits we have are partially the result of the ludicrous tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts that John McCain rightly opposed. The lost revenues were never replaced. Right?

    From an economic standpoint, tax cuts are the same as government spending, only far more efficient; they pump hundreds of billions of dollars back into the economy annually without the middleman of the government having to collect and redistribute it, or the inefficiencies that arise from government central planning.

    But of course, Democrats like blake hate them because tax cuts benefit primarily those who are working, earning money, and running successful businesses, not the welfare-addicted Democrat Party base.

    Furthermore, what Obama wants to cut is defense spending — or, in other words, stop funding companies that provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to Americans so he can afford to give free housing, healthcare, and checks to welfare recipients like his illegal-immigrant auntie.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 25, 2008 @ 7:10 pm - November 25, 2008

  13. torrent – what you’re referring to is Keynesian stimulus. I think it’s a point of debate among economists whether or not it works.

    The problem here is that we’ve overdosed on stimulus – both direct government spending and government-mandated spending (see mortgage meltdown, Sarbanes-Oxley, ethanol, etc).

    The potential liabilities for the bailout so far is in $4-5 trillion range (not all of that will actually get spent but it’s a liability).

    Our long term unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, etc) are in the tens of trillions of dollars (several times our GDP) and growing rapidly – I sure don’t see anyone on the Democratic side (and darn few on the GOP side) even willing to acknowledge this fact.

    The only real job growth in this country is in the public sector. With the economy booming, government at all levels spent like crazy (both short term and long term obligations). No one left any room for a slowdown – much less a major recession. San Diego is proposing to eliminate the little “fire rings” on the beach people use to roast hot dogs. If we’re that hard up, we’re screwed.

    Cutting taxes is not (and hasn’t been) the problem. The problem is that government spending has been increasing at rates far higher than can be explained by population growth and inflation.

    I fault GWB as much as anybody for this mess. I don’t envy Obama… I don’t think anyone really knows what to do at this point. It may be that the best approach is to “do nothing”.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 25, 2008 @ 9:11 pm - November 25, 2008

  14. TP said:

    Isn’t the proper economic response, to a looming economic recession, and possible depression, massive economic stimulus, even if it means deficit spending?

    Since TP is recycling his stupid and ignorant claims from the other thread, I’ll recycle my appropriately corrective answers that TP apparently didn’t see yet:

    NO! Goverment spending is worthless. Roosevelt’s policies actually prolonged the Depression, making it a Great one.

    The appropriate response is to get government the hell out of the economy, setting producers free to produce and capitalists free to capitalize. Repeal the last 80 years of regulation. Allow massive offshore and Alaska drilling. Stop deficit spending, stop wasteful government spending, stop the bailouts, slash entitlements [added], slash taxes, let the failures fail, let the successes not only suceed, but take over. Move to a hard-money standard where government stops attacking people who save by its constant inflation of the currency. The prosperity would be unbelievable.

    As it is, we are headed down a path – the path of ever-larger deficits and ever-larger inflation of the money supply; a path of Obama *increasing* the damage Bush did – that must ultimately result in inflation and the destruction of the dollar. We’ll be lucky if we escape with another Carter-Volcker era – i.e., double-digit inflation followed by double-digit interest rates to restore the dollar’s value. In the worst case, we’ll destroy our society in a banana-republic type of hyperinflation, under Obama-Bernanke’s path.


    What I love most about TP’s comment is the clarity offered on the fact that TP is unequivocally an advocate of Giant Government. I believe a year or two ago, TP was still claiming to be a libertarian somehow.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 25, 2008 @ 10:24 pm - November 25, 2008

  15. Per the Cato Institute, Reagan was the one President in generations to reduce real, non-defense, discretionary spending year-to-year during his terms:

    Spending is not the answer. A nation CANNOT spend its way out of a crisis that decades of mass over-spending created, any more than a person can.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 25, 2008 @ 10:31 pm - November 25, 2008

  16. I don’t think anyone really knows what to do at this point.

    I do. Comment held in spamfilter, unfortunately.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 25, 2008 @ 10:32 pm - November 25, 2008

  17. The really delicious part is that torrentprime and his fellow tools have been squealing about ‘corporate welfare’ for the past eight years or so. And now, look who gets bailed out: CitiBank. The Automakers. AIG. Look who the beneficiaries of the so-called stimulus package will be: Large corporations mostly.

    What Obama’s team is proposing are the precise set of policies that stagnated the Japanese and European economies into permanent recession in 1990’s. Poorly managed companies should be allowed to fail. People who make bad economic decisions should bear the consequences of those decisions.

    Unfortunately, the Democrat party is going to do what it always does; bail out people who made bad decisions and stick the bill to people who made good decisions.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2008 @ 7:55 am - November 26, 2008

  18. BTW, anyone notice that blake and tp’s defense seems to be based on it being okay for Obama to continue Bush’s policies? So much for change, huh?

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2008 @ 7:56 am - November 26, 2008

  19. WHOA! Whoa! Whoa!

    Lets get something crystal clear right here and now.

    Yes, Democrats criticized Republican spending…but unlike what Blake and other libs intimate, they criticized them for not spending ENOUGH!

    Every single solitary appropriation was met with a counter proposal by Democrats, and every single one Democrats wanted to spend MORE!

    Prescription Drugs? Democrats wanted to spend billions MORE
    NCLB? Democrats wanted to spend billions MORE
    Creating Dept of Homeland Security? Ditto
    HS Budget? More!
    Aid to Africa (despite the fact that Bush proposed spending exponentially more than ever before) Dems wanted MORE.

    And on and on and on. This is all on record. No matter what it was, Democrats said Republicans weren’t spending enough — that is afterall how Democrats prove they care. Not by spending their own time or money, as Obama and Bidens financial records show, but by offering to spend more of OTHER peoples money than anyone else.

    “Republicans want grandma to have to choose between eating and taking her pills!”

    “Republicans arent concerned about securing the homeland because they wont spend billions at our unionized ports inspecting cargo containers that are already in the country!”

    “Republicans dont care about vets because they wont spend billions to give them incentives to leave active service!”

    Of course thats just what Democrats did regarding every major piece of legislation while under Republican control.

    Being the lying, hypocritical rat-bastards they are, they naturally then turned around and joined the chorus that Republicans were spending too much in general.

    Those are the facts. Look em up.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 26, 2008 @ 8:11 am - November 26, 2008

  20. The United States has the second-highest rate of corporate taxes in the world. That’s capitalism? That’s helping poor people get jobs? No, it isn’t. Instead of bailing out terrible companies run by incompetent, the government should cut the taxes of all corporations equally, thus unleashing the good ones that can create *new* jobs for people.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2008 @ 9:29 am - November 26, 2008

  21. And, again, cut spending to match.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2008 @ 9:30 am - November 26, 2008

  22. P.S. And here’s why it won’t: That would upset the Rockefeller heirs, the Kennedy heirs, and all those other Ivy League Obama Democrats who have trust funds and who therefore prefer economic stagnation. Because that way, they never have to pay attention to business or work at maintaining the value of their funds.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2008 @ 9:38 am - November 26, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.