3 ms·

The Republican Party position for the last two decades has been that government is incompetent to do anything except defense and transfer money to the rich. The

by dsr_ 9y ago

The Republican Party position for the last two decades has been that government is incompetent to do anything except defense and transfer money to the rich. Therefore, headcount can always be reduced without any particular balancing efficiency gain -- the government just stops doing that function. Doing things more efficiently is a threat to that worldview, so it must be stopped.

masklinn 9y ago
Two is an understatement. We're in 2018, it brings us to 1998. Reagan's "Nine Most Terrifying Words" quip (I'm from the government and I'm here to help) dates back to August 1986, so this was already a well-entrenched enough view that a sitting president could express it during a news conference[0] — and more state that he's "always felt" that way and that all attendees would know about it. And AFAIK no one batted an eye. The reality is that it's always been a strong overcurrent of american conservatism and the GOP, it went under during the New Deal period (Eisenhower was a new deal-er despite being a republican) but resurged into the 50s alongside people like Goldwater, who pined for the days of the Hoover administration (whom Goldwater considered a friend). [0] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37733 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37733
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The Republican Party position for the last two decades has been that government is incompetent to do anything except defense and transfer money to the rich. It's closer to five decades; to be honest, the Republicans have been something of a party of moneyed industrial interests since not long after the Civil War, but that didn't start transitioning into being really anti-government until they were up against Roosevelt and the New Deal Coalition, which promoted something of a realignment which made both parties more ideological and less regionally focussed. And the anti-government focus came into even more sharp relief after LBJ signed on to federal civil rights legislation, which led to the Republican Southern Strategy to reorient policy to pick up disaffected Southern Racists. To avoid overtly racist appeals, this largely focussed on anti-government appeals against federal policy. But, while it understates the case in one sense, the “two decades” comment may be right in another: while the general orientation of the party has been in that direction for closer to five decades, the realignment between the parties was still a gradual thing, and it wasn't until the mid-1990s that the realignment had reached the point where that was hthr clear and consistent orientation of the party to which there was no significant dissent from major office holders, where it had passed from the usual stance of the party to the unquestionable dogma of the party.
- masonic 9y ago
  "...after LBJ signed on to federal civil rights legislation, which led to the Republican Southern Strategy..." Actually, Republicans voted for the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts at a higher propensity than Democrats did. Neither would have gone anywhere without substantial Republican support, including for cloture.
dsr_ 9y ago
I encourage the people downvoting this to put their objections into words. If I'm wrong, I'd prefer to know it.
gowld 9y ago
Republicans don't "transfer money to the rich". They advocate for letting the rich keep money they've obtained. You might object to how the rich obtain their money, but that's different.
- dsr_ 9y ago
  Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism such as taxation, charity, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation, divorce or tort law. The term typically refers to redistribution on an economy-wide basis rather than between selected individuals. Thanks, Wikipedia. Now, the Republican policies take less than has previously been taken from the rich, and take more than has previously been taken from the middle-class and poor, but not just yet, so it actually increases the deficit by a trillion dollars in order to make it more palatable. So, yes, the Republican policy as exemplified in what they actually pass is to transfer money to the rich and borrow money to do so.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  You are quite obviously unfamiliar with how the military-industrial complex works. Republicans do transfer money to the rich. And they do it hand-in-hand with the Democrats. They will even do it right in front of your face, as they are claiming to be transferring money to the poor. Where, pray tell, do you think all that annual budget actually goes? Most of it isn't ending up in the pockets of the people actually doing the work that the money is ostensibly buying. Military spending is not going into soldier's paychecks. Medicare and Medicaid spending is not going to physicians and nurses. There is an entire ecosystem of middlemen that do little more than subtract the politics and volatility out of the government money and turn it into a reliable cash flow. For this, they keep a fraction. It is every bit as legit as the finance wizards on Wall Street that can turn market chaos into investment-grade securities by mathematically separating risks from returns, and the people doing it with gummint dosh can get just as rich. It is entirely due to the semi-privatization of government services. Rich people grow richer by operating a privately-owned business that serves only one customer, who frequently asks them to name their own price, and then doesn't bother to haggle or shop around. For every young genius that strikes the jackpot with a unicorn startup, there are hundreds of banal and unremarkable suit-fillers reaping mere millions just from knowing a guy that knows a guy with an inside line on appropriations, and from having enough money to credibly submit a contract proposal.

by dsr_ 9y ago

masklinn 9y ago

Two is an understatement. We're in 2018, it brings us to 1998. Reagan's "Nine Most Terrifying Words" quip (I'm from the government and I'm here to help) dates back to August 1986, so this was already a well-entrenched enough view that a sitting president could express it during a news conference[0] — and more state that he's "always felt" that way and that all attendees would know about it. And AFAIK no one batted an eye. The reality is that it's always been a strong overcurrent of american conservatism and the GOP, it went under during the New Deal period (Eisenhower was a new deal-er despite being a republican) but resurged into the 50s alongside people like Goldwater, who pined for the days of the Hoover administration (whom Goldwater considered a friend). [0] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37733 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37733

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The Republican Party position for the last two decades has been that government is incompetent to do anything except defense and transfer money to the rich. It's closer to five decades; to be honest, the Republicans have been something of a party of moneyed industrial interests since not long after the Civil War, but that didn't start transitioning into being really anti-government until they were up against Roosevelt and the New Deal Coalition, which promoted something of a realignment which made both parties more ideological and less regionally focussed. And the anti-government focus came into even more sharp relief after LBJ signed on to federal civil rights legislation, which led to the Republican Southern Strategy to reorient policy to pick up disaffected Southern Racists. To avoid overtly racist appeals, this largely focussed on anti-government appeals against federal policy. But, while it understates the case in one sense, the “two decades” comment may be right in another: while the general orientation of the party has been in that direction for closer to five decades, the realignment between the parties was still a gradual thing, and it wasn't until the mid-1990s that the realignment had reached the point where that was hthr clear and consistent orientation of the party to which there was no significant dissent from major office holders, where it had passed from the usual stance of the party to the unquestionable dogma of the party.

masonic 9y ago
"...after LBJ signed on to federal civil rights legislation, which led to the Republican Southern Strategy..." Actually, Republicans voted for the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts at a higher propensity than Democrats did. Neither would have gone anywhere without substantial Republican support, including for cloture.

dsr_ 9y ago

I encourage the people downvoting this to put their objections into words. If I'm wrong, I'd prefer to know it.

gowld 9y ago

Republicans don't "transfer money to the rich". They advocate for letting the rich keep money they've obtained. You might object to how the rich obtain their money, but that's different.

dsr_ 9y ago
Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism such as taxation, charity, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation, divorce or tort law. The term typically refers to redistribution on an economy-wide basis rather than between selected individuals. Thanks, Wikipedia. Now, the Republican policies take less than has previously been taken from the rich, and take more than has previously been taken from the middle-class and poor, but not just yet, so it actually increases the deficit by a trillion dollars in order to make it more palatable. So, yes, the Republican policy as exemplified in what they actually pass is to transfer money to the rich and borrow money to do so.
logfromblammo 9y ago
You are quite obviously unfamiliar with how the military-industrial complex works. Republicans do transfer money to the rich. And they do it hand-in-hand with the Democrats. They will even do it right in front of your face, as they are claiming to be transferring money to the poor. Where, pray tell, do you think all that annual budget actually goes? Most of it isn't ending up in the pockets of the people actually doing the work that the money is ostensibly buying. Military spending is not going into soldier's paychecks. Medicare and Medicaid spending is not going to physicians and nurses. There is an entire ecosystem of middlemen that do little more than subtract the politics and volatility out of the government money and turn it into a reliable cash flow. For this, they keep a fraction. It is every bit as legit as the finance wizards on Wall Street that can turn market chaos into investment-grade securities by mathematically separating risks from returns, and the people doing it with gummint dosh can get just as rich. It is entirely due to the semi-privatization of government services. Rich people grow richer by operating a privately-owned business that serves only one customer, who frequently asks them to name their own price, and then doesn't bother to haggle or shop around. For every young genius that strikes the jackpot with a unicorn startup, there are hundreds of banal and unremarkable suit-fillers reaping mere millions just from knowing a guy that knows a guy with an inside line on appropriations, and from having enough money to credibly submit a contract proposal.