Thursday, April 16, 2009

Yesterday, amid a whole lot of filthy, tacky jokes by the bright lights of the main stream media, thousands of conservatives came together in a nationwide protest of tax and spend policies. The Republican party thinks that yesterday's protests are a sign that they're going to be able to take control of the government back from the Democrats.

Um...guys? Y'all have done just as much of the tax and spend "compassionate conservative," bigger nanny government bullshit as the Democrats. Yes, many (if not most) of the tea party protesters vote Republican. However. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll continue to vote GOP if a third-party Reagan appears.

Joe Lieberman identifies as an independent, now, even though he still votes with the Democrats on social and fiscal issues--his position on the war on Islamofacism led the Democrats to kick him out. Reagan himself was a Democrat before, as he said, the party left him.

Now, the majority of Americans feel that both parties have left them. After all, unlike both parties, the majority of we the people still believe in individual rights, and in individual, local, and national soverignty. If we can come together into a new party, one that reasserts the rule of law as written in the Constitution (and not re-interpreted by activist judges), the current two parties who have left us will find out what a mistake that was.


  1. HH: "Y'all [Republicans] have done just as much of the tax and spend "compassionate conservative," bigger nanny government bullshit as the Democrats."

    Actually, they've done a bit more. See below.

    The poor Old Jarhead can't take any more dissent it seems so he censors all of my posts. And I've had some pretty good ones. I examined 15 points in his "What I think" but he censored it and censored even a link to it:

    I have long looked for a conservative who will stand up and defend some conservative positions without just freaking out, trying to censor or running away.

    Anyway, I wrote the following letter in the fall and it makes the case that spending under republican presidents has been somewhat worse. Along with a few other categories.

    Careful your head doesn't explode.

    Like many citizens, I am interested in supporting the party with the best track record on the economy, job creation, small government and fiscal responsibility. Setting aside all of the political chatter and what each side claims about their record I thought I would look into this. Here is what I found.

    Which party is better for the stock market? Slate magazine checked the numbers (in 2002) and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500 compared with an 8% return from the Republicans. Stock Trader's Almanac examined Dow appreciation and found similar numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent). [1]

    Just weeks ago the New York Times examined how an investment of $10,000 would have grown under each party during this time. They found that a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. 500 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only. If we exclude Herbert Hoover's disastrous depression numbers the growth rises to $51,211. The same investment made during Democratic presidents only, would have grown to $300,671.[2]

    Does having a Republican Congress help the market? No, the record shows that a Democratic controlled Senate provided a higher return and a Democratic controlled House also enjoyed a higher return. [3]

    How about growth of GDP? American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. Since 1930, the annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent. [4]

    Which party has had the largest annual deficits? Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion. [5]

    How about job creation? James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…” [6]

    How about poverty? With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell. [7]

    Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush. [8]

    There are many more categories to consider, inflation, unemployment, income gain. I found they all trend in favor of the Democrats and like the above it’s usually not even close. And the trend holds up even if lag factors are figured in.

    It’s curious how effective false advertising has been for the Republican party. Contrary to the story they have sold nearly half the country, America has done very well under Democratic presidents, and in fact far better than under Republican presidents.

    [1] Slate magazine,
    [2] Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants,
    [3] Slate magazine,
    [4] George Mason’s University, History News Network,
    [5] ibid
    [6] “We're Right, They're Wrong,” (1996) James Carville, pg. 13
    [7] Census poverty data, see:
    [8] Michael Kinsley, Washington post:

  2. Nicely done on citing your sources, Darrel. As an English Composition teacher, that always impresses me.

    As for your any top-down bureaucracy, the effects of individual policies and actions take a looong time to really show what they're going to accomplish. We almost never know what one president's and congress's actions will result in within their terms. Sometimes, like with the expansion of welfare during Johnson's war on poverty, the effects will not truly be felt for generations.

    Really, my biggest complaint--with BOTH parties--is that the federal government is usurping power best left to the states and to the individual citizens. I don't know if you read my Determination post above, but I've felt the effects of too much government interference personally. While I did not go into all of my experiences (which would be book length, at least), I can tell you, first hand, that, as Ford said to Congress in 1974, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Including, and especially, your self-reliance, your motivation, and indeed your very self.

    I'm not really an anarchist, either. It's more that I think the founding fathers had the right idea when they tried to limit the power of the federal government. Unfortunately, they didn't limit it enough. But then again, they never envisioned the entitlement mentality so prevalent today.

  3. DAR
    Thanks for the reasoned response Holly. I don't disagree with much. A couple points.

    HOLLY: "We almost never know what one president's and congress's actions will result in within their terms."

    Really? I've never known any Republicans who didn't think Reagan's actions resulted in many things, specific things, happening within his term. Likewise, I don't expect to find any Demo's who will resist pointing to some of the specific things Clinton did that seemed to have an impact, and certainly during his term.

    Of course huge generational shifts like welfare and medicare would have huge generational effects. But those are big, and rather rare.

    HOLLY: "Really, my biggest complaint--... federal government is usurping power best left to the states and to the individual citizens."

    I can be talked into that at times, when people are consistent. So when the citizens of Oregon want to have euthanasia, that's cool right? And when the citizens of California want to have stricter mileage or environment controls, that's cool too right? Etc.

    HOLLY: "I don't know if you read my Determination post above,..."

    I did. I haven't really felt any problem with government intrusion. None at all. No complaints.

    I'll think about it and see if there is something I can find to get worked up about.

    HOLLY: "It's more that I think the founding fathers had the right idea when they tried to limit the power of the federal government."

    Well, that was a long time ago. The world is much smaller and much more flat now.

    HOLLY: "But then again, they never envisioned the entitlement mentality so prevalent today."

    I don't hang around with those types too much. Most of my friends are liberals.


  4. Well, both parties are full of shit where claiming good effects and blaming bad effects on their predecessors are concerned. I may vote Republican most of the time, but that doesn't mean I am one.

    As for states' rights, and Oregon and California...I don't give a damn what they want to do with their social policy. I just don't want their citizens that voted whatever in to decide that maybe they don't like it after all, leave for somewhere else, then try to enact the same legislation again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

    And about the entitlement mentality...I never accused either party of having a monopoly on having it. Rather, it's typically the spoiled children of the extremities of the self-esteem movement (i.e., anything you do is okay, sweetheart, and you're a special snowflake), and welfare kids that have it, not necessarily one party or the other. I just resent my hard-earned income going to pay for programs to give them what they want when I bootstrapped myself out of poverty through hard work.

    Don't get me wrong: I don't mind making charitable contributions to good organizations, but I don't like to be forced into it by governmental policy.