If Republicans Hate Big Government, why such big congressional staffs? (MET)

[Fergasun]

Okay. So Republicans are apparently the party against "big government", how come they have Congressional staffers and chief's of staff? One would think they that they would intentionally set up their staffing structure to be inefficient, or have low bandwidth; hence they don't have the time to support twenty different legislative actions.

[Midnight Judges]

Big Government or small government, a congressman needs 18 staffers IMO. These people are supposed to be expert enough to write and vote on legislation that could touch on just about any subject matter-from environmental issues to macroeconomics to drug regulation.

The Republican party and conservativism do not square with small Government mentality in the least, but this isn't part of the reason why.

[Burgold]

It's a con. Pure and simple. I think almost everyone knows it. When the Republicans controlled all three branches of government, did they shrink it? No, they massively expanded it. Did they eliminate their favorite whipping boys: Dept of Education, National Endowment for the Arts, or Dept of Agriculture. No, and again, they expanded their powers esp. the Dept. of Ed.

No one who's honest or has ever looked at the Republican party objectively believes that they have ever believed in cutting spending or in a small government. I think the last elected politicians who truly believed in a limited government died in the early 1800's.

I think that the second biggest con after that is that elected Republicans are anti-abortion. Again, for six years the conservatives had majority control of all three branches of government. Were abortion laws ever addressed, weakened, anything? They love to bring it up because folks will rally against the evil lib baby killers, but when push comes to shove they have barely so much as officially addressed the issue.

[DieselPwr44]

I think the last elected politicians who truly believed in a limited government died in the early 1800's. So, in your opinion, is this statement true of the populace?

[Burgold]

Nope, I think there is a wide variance amongst the population, from the people who want the government to do all their thinking and acting for them to people who wouldn't want to give the government the power to unlock the doors of their own homes.

There are quite a few citizens who honestly believe that government power has become too expansive and needs to be contained or shrunk. If this is your core issue though, you should never vote Republican.

[ACW]

Repubs talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
:effinpolitics:

[twa]

I think the last elected politicians who truly believed in a limited government died in the early 1800's.
.

I agree but think we ought to recruit some more like them.

I blame Lincoln

[Burgold]

I agree but think we ought to recruit some more like them.

I blame Lincoln

I thought you'd blame Andrew Jackson or Tommy J.

[cedk]

Repubs talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
:effinpolitics:

Its has been proved to be true...Hard to get elected and cut spending...
This is why many Republicans are now the tea party!

[Burgold]

Its has been proved to be true...Hard to get elected and cut spending...
This is why many Republicans are now the tea party!

Which sadly, also seems to be a con game a total shill for the GOP. It is being run through a GOP PR firm anyway and it's leaders are major voices in the GOP.

I actually do think it's a shame that the TP couldn't even last 6 months before it was co-opted and taken over. Who knows though they may be able to win it back.

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

This is why many Republicans are now the tea party!

In that case, they'll never be elected.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The party of big business or the party of big government.

Those are the choices we have today

Somewhere out in "real America" there are the tea-o-cons (love that terms SS)

So, just bend over and take it in 4 years when we have double digit inflation along with tax rates hovering at 30 percent for those who makes less then 75k per year

[Burgold]

The party of big business or the party of big government.

Let's be honest though, the Republican Party is the party of big business and BIG government.

[Fergasun]

Big Government or small government, a congressman needs 18 staffers IMO. These people are supposed to be expert enough to write and vote on legislation that could touch on just about any subject matter-from environmental issues to macroeconomics to drug regulation.

The Republican party and conservativism do not square with small Government mentality in the least, but this isn't part of the reason why.Don't you want someone smart enough they don't have to rely on all those staffers? What major legislation in 2009 was so complicated that staffers had to be relied on? Health care was debated for 2 years ahead of the vote... I'm not sure that legislation was much of a surprise. Furthermore, doesn't each party have key members on the committees that can communicate? They bring in subject matter experts on nearly every subject through the committees.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Let's be honest though, the Republican Party is the party of big business and BIG government.

As is the Democrat party

When you have Summers, Rubin, Rahm, and Geithner running the economic side of the house, you are the party of Wall St

[Fergasun]

They both are parties of big business and big government.

[cedk]

Let's be honest though, the Republican Party is the party of big business and BIG government.

If we must be honest...Dems are even bigger Goverment...

[SkinsHokieFan]

Hell, even a Republican Congress and President responded to the accounting crisis back in 2001 by passing SOX by late 2002, which is the biggest waste of paper for companies :ols:

The Dems have done 0 in a year to respond to the financial crises besides continuing bailouts

[Burgold]

If we must be honest...Dems are even bigger Goverment...

Oh sure, but they're honest about it. Dems believe that government is there to help the little guy and claim to want a herculean government.

[Midnight Judges]

If we must be honest...Dems are even bigger Goverment...

I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion. Does big Government = increased spending? Because I'm pretty sure spending has rarely increased more than it did under the Republicans from 2001-2006.

Does big Government = big deficits and big debt? Because again, you'd have to go back a long way to find a time when we incurred more debt than under the Republicans when they had complete control from 2002-2006.

Or perhaps big Government is defined by social issues. Seeing as how Republicans want Government in your marriage, Government in your Church, Government in your vagina, and Govermment in your choice of substances, again, I don't see it.

[cedk]

Oh sure, but they're honest about it. Dems believe that government is there to help the little guy and claim to want a herculean government.

Exactly!!! and exactly what the communist wanted to do...
sounds good but just did not work

[Burgold]

Exactly!!! and exactly what the communist wanted to do...
sounds good but just did not work

Which is why people like me want the Republicans to be an honest counter-weight (which they are not). For the government to serve its people, it must protect them from the bullies whether they are terrorists, a foreign army, or abusive monopolits, rapists or murderers.

But everything needs its check. Republicans have abdicated their role as the checkers of compassion and justice. Republicans are supposed to be anti-justice, anti-freedom, anti-little guy and for the most part they still try to be, but somehow they are anti-freedom, little guy, and justice and pro-HUGE government.

It's like the worst of all possible worlds!

Try to pull the silly dem = commie card on me. I can out-hyperbolize you.

[Fergasun]

Oh sure, but they're honest about it. Dems believe that government is there to help the little guy and claim to want a herculean government.Comon dude, put on some non-partisan glasses. The Treasury is helping big business loot the taxpayers, headed up by Geithner a Democrat appointee as well as Bernanke (with a "close" reappointment).

The Democrats for the little man of old have been marginalized, and I doubt exist in the Senate. I'm not talking simply about the liberal dream of health care, but concern over things like TARP, and the home foreclosure crises. Dodd (chairman of the Senate Banking committee) is clearly not in this type of mold; I'd consider it something like "economic populism". Folks like Kaptur, Kucinich, even Maxine Waters of the House have exhibited this in some form. Please show me who in the Senate is sticking up for the little guy for the Democrats. The vote on TARP was particularly revealing in this regard. Personally I think Congress has a Senator problem.

[aREDSKIN]

Let's be honest though, the Republican Party is the party of big business and BIG government.


Lets be REALLY honest B. BOTH parties are part and parcel of big govt & big business. Any HONEST assessment would come to that conclusion.

[Midnight Judges]

The Democrats for the little man of old have been marginalized, and I doubt exist in the Senate..

Then how do you explain them raising minimum wage and passing the Lilly Ledbetter act?

[Fergasun]

... and to be clear there's no way in heck I believe the Republicans are there to help the "little man"... I'm just pointing out that I'm not sure it exists much anymore on the Democrats either, and would certainly like to see some in the House.

But furthermore, all of this expansion of government could be stopped if Congress would simply not have huge staffs and try to take on every single special interest group that funds their campaigns and asks for some favors.

[Riggo-toni]

It's a con. Pure and simple. I think almost everyone knows it. When the Republicans controlled all three branches of government, did they shrink it? No, they massively expanded it. Did they eliminate their favorite whipping boys: Dept of Education, National Endowment for the Arts, or Dept of Agriculture. No, and again, they expanded their powers esp. the Dept. of Ed.

No one who's honest or has ever looked at the Republican party objectively believes that they have ever believed in cutting spending or in a small government. I think the last elected politicians who truly believed in a limited government died in the early 1800's.


I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, BUT...
I do believe the GOP congress, or at least the House under Gingrich was true to its principles of limiting gov't. Gov't spending per capita adjusted for inflation actually shrank the 2nd half of the 90s for the first time since Eisenhower. Unfortunately, too many people bought into the demagoguery of labelling the GOPers as extremists (in much the same way as people now seem to buy into the "Dems don't know we're in a war" b.s. ), which the GOP partly fed by impeaching Clinton for lying about a tryst; and the Republicans picked party hack Hastert to save their skins. Hastert was the house's version of Bob Dole, someone who believed in using the purse of gov't to buy staying power. Between that and the selection of another big gov't Bush (why didn't anyone learn the first time?), the GOP completely sold out and became far worse than the Dems they had criticized. Their recent string of defeats have been well-deserved.

[Fergasun]

Then how do you explain them raising minimum wage and passing the Lilly Ledbetter act?The minimum wage raise that was signed by Bush and passed in 2007?
By a vote of 348 to 73, the House approved the measure as part of a deal on Iraq spending. Less than two hours later, the wage increase was approved in the Senate, where it was combined with a bill providing more money for the Iraq war. That vote was 80 to 14.That certainly looked like a bi-partisan vote for me.

[cedk]

[QUOTE=Midnight Judges;7298538]I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion. Does big Government = increased spending? Because I'm pretty sure spending has rarely increased more than it did under the Republicans from 2001-2006.

Does big Government = big deficits and big debt? Because again, you'd have to go back a long way to find a time when we incurred more debt than under the Republicans when they had complete control from 2002-2006.

Midnight..you are very dishonest to yourself and me on who is big government. 2001-2006 ok 2009--10 ..11 so on..but i Can Not defend the repubs... not me...but a war was started and against our economy...they had to spend... its after 2006.. not only cuts but many efforts to make gov efficient...by anybody
Its intellectual unsound to think the Dems do not want to spend more.. ask Palin

[Midnight Judges]

The minimum wage raise that was signed by Bush and passed in 2007?That certainly looked like a bi-partisan vote for me.

Republicans didn't want to be seen as voting against a MW increase. Their votes were superficial, but they certainly wouldn't have done it on their own, which is why they didn't do it on their own for several years before that.

The 2007 congress had Democrat majorities in both houses. It was their initiative. Republicans and their think tanks did fight it, but it was a losing battle.

[Fergasun]

... anyway. My point is the major factor affecting everyone, from top to bottom has been this economic cycle;and I don't see much evidence that the Democrats frankly cared at all; except to force the "little guy" into over-extending themselves into debt.

High housing hurts the poorest most, and it is anti-productive as housing is not very stimulating to the economy (except for the FIRE industry which benefited and is still benefiting).

[Fergasun]

Republicans didn't want to be seen as voting against a MW increase. Their votes were superficial, but they certainly wouldn't have done it on their own, which is why they didn't do it on their own for several years before that.

The 2007 congress had Democrat majorities in both houses. It was their initiative. Republicans and their think tanks did fight it, but it was a losing battle.True, I give you the point... especially since they had to compromise and link military funding to it as well. I question how many people have minimum wage jobs here however. To me the housing/financial crises of the past 10 years is the biggest issue around.

[Jumbo]

Lets be REALLY honest B. BOTH parties are part and parcel of big govt & big business. Any HONEST assessment would come to that conclusion.


A succinct and honest assessment.

Politicians (almost all of them) seem to be dedicated to advancing their personal power (self-identity) in one form or another as a primary goal. And that means their greatest ally, and deadliest enemy, is big gov and big biz--once they convince (or the first three letters of "convince") the masses into giving up their vote.


The political landscape is well-populated with the current standard of professional politicians--ideology still matters to many (often in the worst way), but they are even more driven by "lower" motivations of self-centered personal gain (in a variety of manners) and thoroughly soaked in utter decpetion, partisanship (with the dems excelling in impeding each other) and hypocrisy.

Concepts of balancing the duty of serving your electorate with dedicated effort, study, and integrity, all filtered through traditional ideals of good character and decent conduct, all while honoring the vision of a free and just nation, are as generally fictitious as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

I'm not jaded enough to say it's all cluster**** and ugly, but far and away the largest piece of it all seems to be. Unfortunately, as I've posted before, I think more and more that instead of professional polticians being a particularly suspect group of people when it comes to "all things worthy", they are simply reflecting the values of the popular culture and national character more and more accurately. In short, we are all getting what we merit, and obviously what we choose. And it's highly unlikey Ron Paul would have made more people more happy than GWB did or O has so far.

If you're someone on the right who's had a thought of "how ridiculous" many of the masses come off to you at certain Obama rallies during the campaign or how "stupid" supporters of MSNBC, left-side blogs et al come off to you, or if you're on the left and go through similar reactions to all the FOXNews, right-side talking heads and their supporters, or the fervent attendees at "Pals for Palin"-type festivals, then you are seeing at least part of the picture that I view.

If you're someone who then puts them all together and views it as how there appears to be huge numbers of dumb****s :evilg: that are the most politically active (just as with 80% of internet political message-board posting--tailgate being a higher standard of course :silly:), it makes sense that what we get in the end sucks. :D

Happy Valentines Day. :pfft:


:laugh:

[Predicto]

They have legislative staffs to do the people's work.

This is a stupid argument. Kind of like when people say "If you think taxes are too low, whoy don't you just pay more taxes on your own har har."

[Riggo-toni]

Excellent post, Jumbo.
Everyone complains about politicians going negative, or only offering soundbites, but sadly those are the tools of the trade that win elections because the majority of Americans swallow them whole without any kind of research or analysis.
We have bad leaders because we're a nation of idiots.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Everyone complains about politicians going negative, or only offering soundbites, but sadly those are the tools of the trade that win elections because the majority of Americans swallow them whole without any kind of research or analysis.
We have bad leaders because we're a nation of idiots.

I think it's been like that throughout history. Not just in the U.S. I'm reading a book about the Roman Republic (pre-Caesar) and I swear, it's the same crap going on today as was going on then. A bunch of idiots trying to score cheap points, the masses eating up soundbites and people feeding it and feeding it to gain personal power. People on average are dumb. And always have been.

[Burgold]

Comon dude, put on some non-partisan glasses. The Treasury is helping big business loot the taxpayers, headed up by Geithner a Democrat appointee as well as Bernanke (with a "close" reappointment).


What you ought to know or hopefully have figured out by now that in threads with this type of title, I tend to exagerate my posts because I figure this thread is going to be a little bit about the ridiculous. Actually, if you ever read something from me that you view as over the top then chances are I'm just goofing around. This very thread I put a ninja in for that very reason (not sure if anyone caught it)


Lets be REALLY honest B. BOTH parties are part and parcel of big govt & big business. Any HONEST assessment would come to that conclusion.

True and usually to our detriment.


I think it's been like that throughout history. Not just in the U.S. I'm reading a book about the Roman Republic (pre-Caesar) and I swear, it's the same crap going on today as was going on then. A bunch of idiots trying to score cheap points, the masses eating up soundbites and people feeding it and feeding it to gain personal power. People on average are dumb. And always have been.

I think this is true too. I think people always assume that the time they live in now is both the most enlightened and best time and that we are in a period of inescapable decline because of the incompetence of their leaders and the ineptitude of the upcoming generation.