GOP’s Secret Weapon for Winning in 2016

Comments (5)

  1. Martin Hughes says:

    Hi Martin,

    Just read your article above. Commented on your recent article floating the idea of getting an outsider to stand for president.
    As a Brit living in France, the American system never ceases to amaze in its total cost and effort and potential for corruption, moral or actual.
    I replied to one of your commentators who was a Republican activist working on the Beltway, ex intelligence, he said.
    He was not very complimentary about your article and effectively told you to stick to financial matters.
    Unfortunately he misinterpreted your article out of ignorance or otherwise [probably the latter-old habits die hard].
    He didn’t seem to realise that an outsider probably has a much better and measured view than a died in the wool politico.
    He and his ilk are the problem. Perhaps they need another 1776
    When was the US a proper democracy by the way?
    Good luck.


    Thomas Ledford Reply:

    The correct expression is “dyed in the wool,” not “died in the wool.”


  2. KenU says:

    I think that what the author is looking for is smaller government. The fact of the matter is, Republican Presidents have only paid lip service to having a smaller government.

    Presidents have little control over the budget that they inherit the first year. Clinton, with a Republican Congress, balanced the budget for the seven years that he had influence over. In GW Bush’s first year he disregarded the Clinton Budget and overspent into the red. Bush went on to outspend every previous President in our nation’s history combined including adjustments for inflation.

    Reagan, after famously cutting taxes to disastrous consequences, then made the largest peace-time tax increase in our nations history. He also outspent every previous President in our nation’s history combined including adjustments for inflation. When he entered office there was a $1 Trillion deficit. When he left office it was $3 Trillion.

    In fact, the last Republican President to balance the budget was Eisenhower in 1957!

    At the end of the day, Presidents are hardly Democrat or Republican. They are politicians. And they do what is in their best interests, meaning paying back whomever put them in office and will put them there again. ‘Whomever put them there’ does not refer to the common man, but corporate interests and the ultra rich who stand to make even more by supporting them.

    If smaller government is what you want then you definitely don’t want to elect a Republican to the White House with our current, Republican, Congress. To reduce deficit spending, elect a Democrat to the White House with this Republican Congress. This is the ONLY formula that history has proven effective at reigning in spending!


  3. KenU says:

    Haha I see that I forgot to include a paragraph on Obama. Clearly Republicans in Congress have been attempting to shrink government under Obama. Since Reps took control of both the House and Senate, deficit spending has dropped by more than 50% (or even more, if you believe liberal accounts).

    I will defer to this web page that factually and accurately describes deficit spending under Obama. Hint: It is not actually the Right’s estimate of $7.7 Trillion OR the Left’s estimate of $983 Million.


  4. Floridahank says:

    Forget about budget reduction — will never happen under any President. Today’s economics, finances, and the meaning of a dollar is in an unrealistic world. Nobody cares about overspending, underemployment, free benefits, corrupt incomes for businesses, wasteful projects — it means nothing to anybody anymore. I don’t know how much longer it can go on before reality sets in and there is total collapse of everything worldwide, but commonsense economics says it has to happen eventually.


Add Comment