Skip to main content

Republicans are just as much about "big government" as Democrats, if not more so...

I'm getting a little tired of hearing the GOP's talking point about Democrats being about big government. They're the "tax and spend" liberals!

I'm not saying this claim is necessarily inaccurate. Democrats do tend to like to spend, but guess what? So do Republicans. The Republicans of the past 30+ years are no longer those truly conservative, small-government Republicans. Spending increased by leaps and bounds under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Spending increased under Bill Clinton as well, but not nearly as much as the three before-mentioned Republican presidents.

The two parties just differ on how to prioritize the spending. Democrats tend to spend more time worrying about how to distribute money to social causes, like to health care, education, etc. Republicans tend to be more focused on defense-spending and cutting taxes for the wealthy. Both parties spend an extraordinary amount of money, but if anything in recent decades, the GOP have been bigger spenders than the Democrats.

I've also heard the argument that big government isn't just about spending money, but about protecting our freedoms and/or stripping us of freedoms. Okay. Democrats tend to be more about corporate regulation and Republicans tend to be more about individual regulation. Again, both believe in regulation of some kind, but differ on where to go about that.

A lot of times, it's all about what one feels is important and they see this as the exception rather than the trend. For Republicans, they may not see excessive defense-spending as big spending, but essential. They may not see health care reform in the same light, so they claim that to be big spending as opposed to essential. The direct opposite may be true for Democrats.

The two parties are more alike than we'd like to admit when it comes to the very base of issues. However, when we go into details, that's when they go vastly different directions. For the time being, though, the fact of the matter is that both parties are big spenders. They're both about big government and if anything, the GOP has outdone the Democratic Party on those fronts in recent decades.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"