English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Are they not, historically, for small government?

2006-11-09 10:11:46 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

because the entire country is falling left just like every other republic that took root throughout the history of the world. heres the cycle.

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence (on governement)
8. From dependence back into bondage "

see any similarities?

2006-11-09 10:15:40 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2 0

nicely if your argument is which you disagree with the quantity of spending the Bush administration did why in workplace so that is o.k. to do it now, then you definately might as nicely say that is o.k. to circulate delay the corner shop through fact some one else did it final week. Now in case you incredibly are in touch approximately government spending here's a actuality for you, This spending bill as that is immediately plus the interest, through fact the money is going to be borrowed from some the place, is going to be larger than the economies of 168 out of the present a hundred and eighty countries of the international.

2016-11-23 13:15:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The party's have switched. Today's GOP have become yesterday's Democrats, and today's Democrats(some of them) are becoming more conservative, or at least conservative enough to appeal to moderate republican voters and independants. We'll see if they stay that way. The Republicans are no longer conservative by any means and this began within the last 4 or 5 years. Republicans flat out abandoned their base and America disposed of them for it.

2006-11-09 10:24:15 · answer #3 · answered by mike9626 3 · 2 0

I believe that started with Reagan. I know that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush (1) were not that big of spenders. In fact, Eisenhower was really a moderate in practice. Reagan began the era of big spending by dumping huge amounts of money into a military buildup, then taking pot-shots a tiny, almost defenseless countries like Libya and Grenada. (Not that Libya didn't deserve a swatting.) He broke the former Soviet Union by outspending them. Trying to match his huge military buildup without comparable resources was futile. They collapsed. It took Clinton to balance the budget with spending restraints and progressive taxes. Bush (2) acts like he wanted to be a Reagan wannabee, in my opinion. He failed.

2006-11-09 10:20:26 · answer #4 · answered by correrafan 7 · 1 0

They're not, they just didn't notice Bush and his Congress were digging us, our kids, and their kids into a deep dark hole. Fiscal responsibility bullcrap. Party of morals, bullcrap. They are and will continue to be the party of big business, and moral depravity. They say one thing and do the opposite, the whole time denouncing the democrats for taxing and spending, baby killing, gay loving, terrorist enabling, abortion supporting liberals, never realizing how much they were pissing Americans off. Good riddance I say.

2006-11-09 10:24:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

actually nixon had a hard time balancing the budget cause he had commies in his closet he had to fight -- since then talking one thing and doing another has been consistant with republicans. carter wheeled in the deficit left by nixon and ford and wrecked his chances of re-election doing it. reagan and bush were both big overspenders too. and then clinton balanced the budget. nobody is close to the trillion dollar deficit bush jr was hoping for though. captain speaks poop -- there are many rebuttals to that silliness on the internet -- you can start with snopes.com

2006-11-09 10:16:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

It started under Ronald Reagan. Like Bush he cut taxes and increased spending. Most of America's debt was created by those two.

2006-11-09 10:14:31 · answer #7 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 3 1

Good question. Cause their base isn't, I guess their power got to them and now they are definitely kicking themselves.. aren't they? they ignored their conservative principles, that is what got them elected...

don't forget the 40 years that the dems controlled both houses created the deficits we saw in the 70's and 80's.. the government grew and our pocket books shrunk..

2006-11-09 10:15:39 · answer #8 · answered by Teresa A 3 · 0 1

They arent, it is just the military spending is so necessary, and all of the other emergency funding, and the Republican's have always been in favor of increasing military spending.

2006-11-09 10:19:22 · answer #9 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 1 1

When Bush, JR took over.

2006-11-09 10:26:34 · answer #10 · answered by cynical 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers