On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:30:34 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > >However the > >Republicans are the majority party and would not be playing to an > >audience by voting no. They would in fact be stopping business as > >usual in Washington, which I would think anyone calling themselves a > >libertarian would be happy about. > > I'd be happy temporarily, but unhappy after the next election when they > turned out all those in favor of fiscal restraint, because they'd > over-reached by trying to shut the whole thing down.
All those in favor of fiscal restraint would be everybody. Or are you saying that the democrats would have voted in favor of the increase if the Republicans voted against? Or are you saying that they democrats vote would be ignored and republicans would be critizied even though they voted for the same thing? > A majority of voters > elected them to (in part) spend less than the minority of voters would, but > given a choice between spending a little more and having all the checks > bounce from the federal gov't, the people would take spending a little > more. Checks would not bounce IF THEY SPENT LESS. If they do not send less, then they deserve to lose in the next election. What you are suggesting is that there is a group of people out there that want the government to spend less and voted in republicans to do that. Then when the republicans spend more and the checks bounce the people would rather than find a person who REALLY wants to reduce spending, would instead vote for the opposite of what they want and elect a democrat who is promising to spend more. I know people can be irrational some times, but they are not as irrational as you are suggesting and certainly not on a wide enough scale to change the outcome of an election. > Didn't the experience of the GOP-led fedgov shutdowns in the 1980s & 1990s > teach you a lesson? Do not remember the 80's, to busy growing up. :) The 90's one taught me that Republicans have no backbone, cut no programs, and never reduce spending. > It doesn't work, and only makes our side appear > irresponsible. Republicans are irresponsible. They spend money they do not have (debt) and expect tax payers to pay in interest later all the while pretending they are for smaller government byu slightly lowering our income tax. Since they never reduce spending, they are VERY irresponsible and if events happened in the 80's and 90's that showcased that, then that is great. But please do not use the word, 'our' and 'we' to include you and I together. I am for limited government, you are for larger government that grows at a slightly slower rate than what some other people want. We are not on the same side. > Radical and moderate libertarians alike would have better > bargaining position if the mass media were on our side, but the mass media > are overwhelmingly against us. Yep. But media is not a branch of government. The legislature and executive branch are. They can reduce the spending of the federal government, and they do not. Do not try to blame that on the media. It is completly in the hands of the people in control of those two branches of government. It is the REPUBLICANS fault. > >You seemed to have not only accepted that they > >will bring us bigger government, but you are now trying to claim that > >they have no choice but to do it. Pathetic. > > Pathetic? Experience proved it! Weren't you around when the shutdown > incidents occurred? And didn't you see the results? Experience proved that they cave under pressure. Now they do not even put up the smallest fight. Experience has not shown that a political party in power in both the leg. and executive branch that wants to limit government can not limit it. > > >> No. In the 1980s & 1990s there were indeed some votes and vetos that > had > >> the purported effect of shutting down fedgov. What kept fedgov in > business > >> were emergency bills that shut down everything deemed unnecessary, > >> including stopping payment to personnel. When Reagan did it by veto, > the > >> major media reported it as shutting down fedgov, and the Republicans > were > >> vilified, deluged with opprobrium by mail, etc. Eventually the spigots > >> were turned on with the result that the reputation of the GOP was > massively > >> tarnished while they got hardly any result in reduction of the ultimate > >> spending. When the GOP did it by vote when prez Clinton wanted more > >> spending, AGAIN the GOP was vilified by the media and ultimately acceded > >> with nothing good to show for it. > > >And people that do not reduce spending and try to pass themselves off > >as limited government people SHOULD be villified. > > Read the above again. These were people doing exactly what you say they > should do -- shut fedgov down by voting down a broad authoriz'n bill. In > those cases it wasn't about borrowing, but about spending. They (in one > case POTUS, in the other Congress) tried to bargain for reduced spending by > saying, if you don't like our smaller spending package, we'll hold the > entire fedgov hostage. And the reaction was, accede to the spending > increase, just don't stop the checks from flowing, don't shut down the > Washington Monument, etc. I look at the budgets in those decades and I never saw a smaller spending. Every year in fact it got larger. So obviously they caved and voted (or signed) for more spending. What I am talking about is people that truly are for smaller government AND have a backbone about it. Your examples obviously are not what I am speaking about. > >I am not sure if you noticed, but the strategy > > The "strategy" consisting of ordinary legislative process, rather than > grandstanding with shutdowns. > > > you claim the > >republicans are using to decrease spending has resulted in the largest > >spending increases in decades. > > I HAVE noticed. Didn't you read where I wrote it was HARD? If you noticed and still support them, then it is not unreasonable to assume you are for larger government. Is that what you want? > > When the GOP 'shut down the > >government' during the clinton years, in what you view as a failure > >the spending was increasing much slower. > > But the GOP wanted actual CUTS in expenditures. Now unfortunately the > climate is such that they don't seem able to even get near that. They are the party in power, if that is what they TRULY want, there is nothing stopping them from doing that. > >> OTOH, the party out of power can always vote symbolically against raiing > >> the debt limit, as long as they're secure in the knowledge that "yes" > will > >> carry. > > >However if the republicans all voted yes, they would be voting along > >side democrats. How would the blame be placed just on the > >republicans? > > It would not. But if they voted "no", the Republicans would get the blame, > as they did in the 1980s & 1990s. Oops. I meant to say no above. Anyways why do you think they would get the blame when they voted the same as teh D's, where as in the past they got the blame because they were voting against the D's? > > In Your Sly Tribe, > Robert in the Bronx > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw > _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
