Why is the American government so inefficient?

[.Shane.]

I'm pretty sure Republicans policy is to shrink the federal government, and democrats policy is to increase it. I may be wrong...

You are wrong. The last 3 Republican presidents have all grown the federal govt. expenditures and deficits. To be fair they did so in partnership, for the most part, w/ Democratic Congresses and it was a Repub Congress that worked w/ Clinton for 6 years are deficits shrunk.

The point is that the Republican rhetorical device of saying they are the party for smaller govt. and responsible spending is utter bullcrap that is not supported by the last 30 years of history. (and this is w/out analyzing spending, etc... under Nixon, so it may go back farther)

 

[Crbarber22695]

You are wrong. The last 3 Republican presidents have all grown the federal govt. expenditures and deficits. To be fair they did so in partnership, for the most part, w/ Democratic Congresses and it was a Repub Congress that worked w/ Clinton for 6 years are deficits shrunk.

The point is that the Republican rhetorical device of saying they are the party for smaller govt. and responsible spending is utter bullcrap that is not supported by the last 30 years of history. (and this is w/out analyzing spending, etc... under Nixon, so it may go back farther)

must have, i wasnt alive w/ nixon, reagan, bush senior, and i didnt pay attention to government when clinton and bush jr were in office so sorry for my incorrect statement.

(until bush jr's later second term)

 

[Trajan12]

Because America is the only country in the world where an entire party runs on a platform of lessening it's own responsibilities once it gets into office. One whose governing philosophy is "Let the chips fall where they may."

 

[choxorn]

You are wrong. The last 3 Republican presidents have all grown the federal govt. expenditures and deficits. To be fair they did so in partnership, for the most part, w/ Democratic Congresses and it was a Repub Congress that worked w/ Clinton for 6 years are deficits shrunk.

The Republicans held a majority in the Senate for all but the last 2 years of Reagan's presidency, and a majority in the House for all but the last two years of Bush's presidency, and the Senate was almost tied between the two parties for all of Bush's presidency.

 

[AngryZealot]

The republicans are many things, but fiscally conservative is not one of them.

 

[Cutlass]

maybe, but its not what they're known for. I'm pretty sure Republicans policy is to shrink the federal government, and democrats policy is to increase it. I may be wrong, but this is what I've heard. And I just want to say, that the Democrats policy rarely fails, or maybe we're just so lucky that we get into office everytime the nation begins to dawn from its problems. (like now, Obama is in office, and the recession is finally begining to clear. However, if I think more into it, it was just begining to clear right when Bush left and Obama entered. So maybe its just strictly luck, or how the world turns. Or the way the Democratic system runs. We might never know...)

You see, the bolded part is the key. You've hear it. Who was saying it? Republicans. It is part of their self image and election strategy. You aren't going to find independent analysts claiming that Republicans shrink government. Because it's unlikely that you will find any analysts old enough to remember the last time Republicans did that.

The truth, trying to be fair, is that Democrats can always think of plans to help people that would, if enacted, result in increased government. Many of those plans are opposed by Republicans. Existing programs designed to help people, Republicans occasionally put an effort into repealing.

However, government increased more under Bush than under Clinton. Why? Because there are always spending not related to welfare that Republicans want to spend money on.

So you can't really say that Republicans are fiscally conservative or for small government. They'll tell you they are. But it's been decades since they followed through on that. Reagan demonstrated to the Republicans just how easy it is to be for big government and fiscal recklessness.

 

[MobBoss]

Its simple. Its inefficient because its too big.

 

[AngryZealot]

How do you define "big"? What is your measure of size?

 

[Verbose]

The republicans are many things, but fiscally conservative is not one of them.

But it makes perfect sense:

If a Democrat Prez would spend like a drunken sailor, the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder, so whatever spending spree they might have envisaged gets reined in to allow them to argue that they are in fact fiscally responsible.

Since Republicans talk all the time about downsizing government, they CAN spend like drunken sailors.

It works the same in Soc. Dem. dominated societies. The Soc. Dems. can make hefty and painful cuts in social security systems etc., but should a Lib. or Cons. govt. try it, the screams of bloody murder will be unceasing, so they give it a rest to show how reasonable they are.

 

[JerichoHill]

maybe, but its not what they're known for. I'm pretty sure Republicans policy is to shrink the federal government, and democrats policy is to increase it. I may be wrong, but this is what I've heard. And I just want to say, that the Democrats policy rarely fails, or maybe we're just so lucky that we get into office everytime the nation begins to dawn from its problems. (like now, Obama is in office, and the recession is finally begining to clear. However, if I think more into it, it was just begining to clear right when Bush left and Obama entered. So maybe its just strictly luck, or how the world turns. Or the way the Democratic system runs. We might never know...)

Umm, where were you the last 8 years? El Busho came into office with a SURPLUS, and left after adding trillions in debt, at least 1 war we can't even pay for, and no solving of the long-term debt crisis.

Oh, and the recession had nowhere cleared when Obama took office. We're right now in the ending of the down cycle, but face a jobless recovery.

 

[Crbarber22695]

Umm, where were you the last 8 years? El Busho came into office with a SURPLUS, and left after adding trillions in debt, at least 1 war we can't even pay for, and no solving of the long-term debt crisis.

Oh, and the recession had nowhere cleared when Obama took office. We're right now in the ending of the down cycle, but face a jobless recovery.

yeah idk if you dont know how to read or something, but i was hinting that the republicans always screw us over and then the democrats come into office and fix things. and i didnt say the recession has cleared, i said its begun to. and bush came in with a surplus because of a DEMOCRAT, whom im supporting, because i am DEMOCRAT.

 

[MobBoss]

You are wrong. The last 3 Republican presidents have all grown the federal govt. expenditures and deficits. To be fair they did so in partnership, for the most part, w/ Democratic Congresses and it was a Repub Congress that worked w/ Clinton for 6 years are deficits shrunk.

The point is that the Republican rhetorical device of saying they are the party for smaller govt. and responsible spending is utter bullcrap that is not supported by the last 30 years of history. (and this is w/out analyzing spending, etc... under Nixon, so it may go back farther)

I agree with you that it is insufficent to label it along presidential lines. Congressional republicans did help shrink the fed gov under Clinton, as you say. Newt Gingrich and the republican congress from the Clinton era deserve a lot of the credit for creating that surplus as well....but to hear most people talk about it, the only person in the fed gov who accomplished this was Clinton. Thats simply not true.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually is mostly is true. Clinton did more than Congress did. And there weren't any Republicans in Congress during the Reagan, GHW Bush, or GW Bush, years trying to balance the budget.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually is mostly is true. Clinton did more than Congress did.

How so? Surely your not trying to suggest it was a solo effort?

And there weren't any Republicans in Congress during the Reagan, GHW Bush, or GW Bush, years trying to balance the budget.

Precisely. Think about that for a minute.

Its congress that comes up and writes the budget. The President either signs it....or not. I find it very funny how the democratic 'big growth' congress under those republican presidents never get hardly a mention in explaining the growth of government during those periods.

I am not saying the presidents dont deserve blame. They absolutely do for signing what they did. But to lay sole blame or praise singly at the feet of the president is just myopia of an epic sort.

 

[civ_king]

Umm, where were you the last 8 years? El Busho came into office with a SURPLUS, and left after adding trillions in debt, at least 1 war we can't even pay for, and no solving of the long-term debt crisis.

Oh, and the recession had nowhere cleared when Obama took office. We're right now in the ending of the down cycle, but face a jobless recovery.

please estimate how dumb it is for a person to have large tax cuts, start a war, start another war and then do BIGGER tax cuts, does that seem really stupid to an economist

 

[amadeus]

Precisely. Think about that for a minute.

But it's just easier to pin it on the president, rather than hold individual members of Congress responsible for their votes and having the apparently naive expectation that the federal government should be small and delegate power to the states.

please estimate how dumb it is for a person to have large tax cuts, start a war, start another war and then do BIGGER tax cuts, does that seem really stupid to an economist

I notice you didn't mention NCLB or the Mediscare expansion... your bias is showing!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Republican increases tend to be mostly military. Pacifistic conservatives shrink government and debt the most. Another Coolidge doesn't seem likely in the near future though.

 

[.Shane.]

You cant simply define it along the lines of presidents. Congressional republicans did shrink the fed gov under Clinton.

I didn't. You completely failed to acknowledge my second sentence which essentially anticipated what you just said. Are you this obtuse on purpose?

 

[choxorn]

Precisely. Think about that for a minute.

Its congress that comes up and writes the budget. The President either signs it....or not. I find it very funny how the democratic 'big growth' congress under those republican presidents never get hardly a mention in explaining the growth of government during those periods.

For most of Bush, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. The Republicans wrote the budget.

 

[MobBoss]

For most of Bush, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. The Republicans wrote the budget.

Absolutely. However, that period also had some significant issues that impacted our government spending to a huge degree that other administrations didnt have to deal with. And while thats is indeed a mitigating factor, too much money was spent, and gov was indeed increased too much.