Those darn "borrow-and-spend Republicans"

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Let's say that again... "borrow-and-spend Republicans".



Just keep repeating the phrase, until it sinks into the national consciousness as an intrisically joined, organically linked, inseparable set of words. May the word "Republican" forever stick in your mouth until it is eased out by the necessary prelude "borrow-and-spend".



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



Is this fair? At least as fair as "tax-and-spend Democrats." I'll admit that Democrats have indeed favored one or another type or increase in tax. I'll admit that Democrats have indeed favored spending money on one thing or another.



So, have Republicans ever supported increasing the national debt? Yes. Have they ever wanted to spend any of this borrowed money on anything? Most certainly. So, there you go...



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



Now, I could try to explore details of predilictions or degrees of spending, taxing, and borrowing. Why sometimes it might be good to cut taxes, good to raise taxes, good to borrow or not borrow. But that really is all besides the point, isn't it?



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



It's about emotions. It's about rallying the troops. It's about simplifying issues to the point of mind-numbing stupidity... sadly, it would seem, the most effective way to appeal to (or is that manipulate?) the electorate.



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



Yes, indeedy. I like the sound of that. And it is rather fitting for the current Republican administration and Congress, since with essentially complete control of the national agenda they're borrowing and spending at record-setting levels.



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



Don't bother us with reasons or excuses for all this borrowing and spending -- war, recession, very questionable claims of stimulating the economy -- this is all about rhetoric here, and any counter-argument only shows you're on the defensive, on the run.



Borrow-and-spend Republicans. Buy-now-pay-later Republicans. Pass-the-bills-to-your-children Republicans. Hope-the-mess-doesn't-come-home-to-roost-while-you're-still-in-office Republicans.



Would I prefer that the political debate took place at a higher level than this? Of course. I'd also prefer it if documentaries on the history of modern medicine or pictures from Mars probes got higher ratings on TV than Survivor. I'm not holding my breath.



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



Now, admittedly, "tax-and-spend Democrats" has a little more bite to it. Why? I'd hazard a guess that it's because when you're appealing to simple minds, taxing sounds worse than borrowing, because borrowing means you're going to get what you want now without having to pay for it now -- and to the simple mind, later is... well, later.



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



Still, I like it. It should work with voters who have at least three neurons, rather than just two, to devote to political issues, and that could be enough to swing a few elections here and there.



Borrow-and-spend Republicans.



No, this isn't an original phrase of mine. I've heard a Democrat or two use the phrase from time to time. But they're missing the point of a phrase like this -- it's not very useful when used only as an occasional quip. It needs to be a mantra. De rigeur when mentioning their opponents. Hypnotically repeated until it buries itself into the public mind.



Borrow-and-spend Republicans... Borrow-and-spend Republicans... Borrow-and-spend Republicans... Ooohhhmmm... Ooohhhmmm... Ooohhhmmm...
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 70
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Interestingly, one of the op-ed guys for the NY Times the other day had a piece where he argues that Democrats should replace the phrase "tax cuts" with "service cuts."
  • Reply 2 of 70
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Shiteline are you COMPLETELY STARK RAVING MAD?





    None (pick a party) of the bastards can stop---when they do, someone promises to spend more, and gets elected.
  • Reply 3 of 70
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    touche
  • Reply 4 of 70
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    touche



  • Reply 5 of 70
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Never thought I'd see the day..

    Republicans were always thought of as being fiscally "tight" and always bringing in balanced budgets.

    Democrats on the other hand were branded as big spenders.

    But Clinton turned the whole world on its head by bringing in Big surpluses.

    As if that wasn't enough, Bush decides to spend his way out of reccession..

    Is Bush a closet Democrat ? trying to destroy the republicans reputation for balanced fiscality....?

    \
  • Reply 6 of 70
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    I've been saying it over and over again: Clinton was NOT A DEMOCRAT. I even asked somewhere (I think here) whether or not anyone was ever gong to notice that Bush isn't a Republican.



    We're through the looking glass.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 7 of 70
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    I've been saying it over and over again: Clinton was NOT A DEMOCRAT. I even asked somewhere (I think here) whether or not anyone was ever gong to notice that Bush isn't a Republican.





    The end of democracy?
  • Reply 8 of 70
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Clinton didn't bring in shit. The economy did that for him.
  • Reply 9 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,447member
    I've complained around here several times that Bush is not especially conservative. People here commented like I had claimed the moon was made of cheese.



    Nick
  • Reply 10 of 70
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Actually, the economy and Clinton brought in champagne. Bush brought in the shit.





    ...that is nonsense---you could have thrown rocks at the 90s economy and it would have done backbend walkovers for you. Computers growing 500% faster? The oversea markets? (oh that's right, Rubin and Greenspan control those as well ) The stock market? Enron? WorldCom? IPOs? DayTraders? I was in Seattle for the whole show, median housing prices going up $30,000 a year? The microsoft shareholders driving out the doctors and lawyers in Queen Anne?



    OHHHHH PLLLLEEEAAASSSEEE!!!

  • Reply 11 of 70
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    ...that is nonsense---you could have thrown rocks at the 90s economy and it would have done backbend walkovers for you. Computers growing 500% faster? The oversea markets? (oh that's right, Rubin and Greenspan control those as well ) The stock market? Enron? WorldCom? IPOs? DayTraders? I was in Seattle for the whole show, median housing prices going up $30,000 a year? The microsoft shareholders driving out the doctors and lawyers in Queen Anne?



    OHHHHH PLLLLEEEAAASSSEEE!!!







    And of course the longest bull market in history. It was all because of that? Please.
  • Reply 12 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    ... Bush is certainly not liberal in anything other than spending. And what you fail to see is that even in spending, Bush spends entirely on Republican supported issues. Virtually none of his spending (relative to any Democrat) is going toward education or the environment or social issues...



    Federal spending on education is up 117% since Bush took office. If Congress sends him a prescription drug bill (and they will) he'll sign it. You don't know what you're talking about.

    Quote:

    ... It is all going toward defense and big-business...



    Defense spending is up but what spending is going towards big business?
  • Reply 13 of 70
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    tonton's a mind reader.
  • Reply 14 of 70
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Now now, boys and girls. This isn't a thread for discussing policy issues, who did what when, and if it was good, bad, or irrelevant. It's all about slinging around meaningless labels and catch phrases.



    Borrow-and-spend republicans. Borrow-and-spend republicans. Wheeeeeee!!!
  • Reply 15 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,447member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    I'm confused. Bush is no less conservative than Reagan was. Are you saying that Reagan wasn't a conservative, either?



    Bush is certainly not liberal in anything other than spending. And what you fail to see is that even in spending, Bush spends entirely on Republican supported issues. Virtually none of his spending (relative to any Democrat) is going toward education or the environment or social issues. It is all going toward defense and big-business. While it is indeed spending, and by traditional definition is not "conservative", there is absolutely no way it's not Republican.




    Bush is for giving the tax credit to poor working folks who were excluded this last time. Even though they pay no taxes they get the credit back. (Means they get $1000 for paying nothing) That is not conservative.



    He pushed through the No Child Left Behind bill which was a bill essentually started by and helped along by Ted Kennedy. Conservative Republicans had been discussing dismantling the Department of Education, not growing it.



    Bush created an entirely new department in the federal government. Sure part of it was just shuffling older departments around but still it is adding without subtracting anything.



    Bush's dad gave us both Clarence Thomas and David Souter as Supreme Court justices. People are just as worried about Bush Jr.'s selections because he isn't a true conservative. Remember Bush Sr. raised taxes and David Souter votes about as liberal as is possible on the court.



    Bush is hardly a true conservative. His tax cuts likely rolled back Clinton's tax increases, but I don't think he has rolled back his Dad's increases yet.



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 70
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    Republicans are more American. They like to run up the credit card debt.
  • Reply 17 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,447member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    That's the argument. Of course we'll never be able to test it, which means you'll always be able to claim it.



    The thing about the 90's boom was that it benefited everyone, from the CEOs to the entrepreneurs to the waitresses at Denny's. People were happy. The pizza delivery boy didn't feel as though his life sucked. He didn't think it was unfair that the CEO was making billions. Because he was doing much better himself (even could afford to buy himself a new Jetta, which in turn benefitted the car dealers and so on and so on). And why did this all happen? Because spending was liberal! All the rich people were spending money. Spending haphazardly, sure. But they were spending. More spending means a more balanced economy and people are happy.



    Now what we have are the CEOs making billions (even when they are criminals, like Enron and WorldCom) while there are 10% as many pizza delivery boys because the middle managers are keeping their money under their mattresses, because they are afraid of what Bush is doing to the economy. That's not going to spark any kind of economy except a shit one. And that's exactly what's brought in with the Bush administration.



    What Bush needs to do is to encourage spending. He needs to make people beieve it is safe to spend money. That they're not going to lose their jobs. That even if theyh did they could find another one. Creating record deficits by giving away money doesn't make people feel any safer. It just puts more money under people's pillows.




    Really ever article I ever read about the 90's swore that the rich were still getting rich must faster than the poor. That the income gap was growing at a record rate, especially with regard to CEO pay.



    You have to remember the whole first half of the 90's was either in recession or recovering from a recession. The prices for real estate in California for example were still just barely reaching their 1989 levels in 1997.



    BTW a nice example of this is how people use personal bankruptcies to measure how the economy is doing. They were still going up in record numbers in the 90's. It is because the law is flawed, but because of the economy.



    Bush has the housing sector going for him. That pizza boy isn't buying a Jetta, he is buying a house and a Jetta. The Jetta comes with 60 month 0% down financing and the house has a mortgage with 5.5% financing.



    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 70
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Clinton did some stimulation, but it had a lot more to do with his penis and Lewinsky's mouth than it did the economy.



    The internet and technology boom had nothing to do with it, really, it was all Bubba Magic!
  • Reply 19 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,447member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trick fall

    Republicans are more American. They like to run up the credit card debt.



    Hey have you seen interest rates lately? They are at record lows.



    Nick
  • Reply 20 of 70
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    The oversea markets?



    how soon ena forgets that the overseas markets were in terrible shape several times during the 1990s esp during the asian crash of 1997...
Sign In or Register to comment.