What happened to the Republicans of 1994?

[KC9JIQ]

Anyone else here find it striking how different the batch of Republicans we have today are far from the ones we had in 1994, in 1994 the Republicans were for smaller government(they were one vote away from shutting down NASA, serious Government smackdown)

But the Republicans today are expanding Government like crazy, military contracts, new government agencies, spending like crazy.

So What happened, why did the party Change from a "Pat Buchanan" to a more of the "old time big buisness" party? Explain. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[ka5piu]

Hello.

GW was all but against education in Texas, or so the teachers said.
But, at the same time, he was always hot and heavy on jails and prisons, and highway construction.
The police, and others, was also on the agenda.
So, it was never do not spend money, it was spend money on corporate America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
So, in the end, yes, the Republican party wants to cut spending.
Texas did away, totally, with its welfare program, and all of that class moved to California, sounds funny but it is true.
There is very little in the way of public housing in Texas, and what little there is has a waiting list of years.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 26 2007,05:17)]So, it was never do not spend money, it was spend money on corporate America.
It was always that way, including the Reagan years. The call for smaller government was bogus, but fooled a lot of people. A more truthful motto would have been "getting the government off backs and into bedrooms".

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 25 2007,22:17)]So, it was never do not spend money, it was spend money on corporate America.
Remember, those in government are where they are because they couldn't compete in 'Corporate America'. Second tier executives; same goals, same methods, just not as bright or competent.

Our last president, for example, entered office with a net worth somewhere less than $1 millon has amassed a fortune in the neighborhood of $200 million since then.

He made his money speaking upon all the failures he has had; the dot com bust, Monica, how he missed bin laden two or three times, the Camp David Peace Accords, high altiude bombing of the Serbs and the Chinese embassy.

The man is loved for his incompetancy around the world; he single handedly proved that America is a joke whose best intentions are for sale at a modest price.

We're about to elect his wife, the rag to riches woman of the commodity markets, the architect of a health care plan so bad even her supporters couldn't stand the thought of its implementation.

Thank goodness for TV; it's imbued us with such short memories and such active imaginations that we'll put her office anyway.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Aug. 26 2007,02:05)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 25 2007,22:17)]So, it was never do not spend money, it was spend money on corporate America.
Remember, those in government are where they are because they couldn't compete in 'Corporate America'. Second tier executives; same goals, same methods, just not as bright or competent.

Our last president, for example, entered office with a net worth somewhere less than $1 millon has amassed a fortune in the neighborhood of $200 million since then.

He made his money speaking upon all the failures he has had; the dot com bust, Monica, how he missed bin laden two or three times, the Camp David Peace Accords, high altiude bombing of the Serbs and the Chinese embassy.

The man is loved for his incompetancy around the world; he single handedly proved that America is a joke whose best intentions are for sale at a modest price.

We're about to elect his wife, the rag to riches woman of the commodity markets, the architect of a health care plan so bad even her supporters couldn't stand the thought of its implementation.

Thank goodness for TV; it's imbued us with such short memories and such active imaginations that we'll put her office anyway.
If Willie and his failures netted him $200,000,000, then one could reasonably expect Bush to flirt with the two trillion mark, with his unending list of failures available for books, speeches, and the like.

EDIT: He should net $500,000,000,000 on Iraq alone.

[kc0ukk]

Bush isn't as well liked so his reward would probably be less. I've also noted that kids of rich, aristocratic parents are less likely to seek wealth then those who come from hard scrabble backgrounds.

You're basic observation is correct, though, politions do seek power (primarily) and wealth (secondarily). I've toyed with the idea that those who already have power and wealth would be better politicians than those are striving for power and wealth. The former has less need to sell influence than the latter.

[WA3WDR]

Um, I think the Clintons left office with a few million of debt, and took several years to pay that back. #$200 million? #References, please.

Not that I am a lover of the Clintons. #They had Hillary representing powerful clients in front of panels of Clinton appointees back when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. #Why this issue never comes up is beyond me - unless Republicans have been equally corrupt... hmmmmm.

Oh, and what ever happened to THIS Republican? #Gee, you'd think he was a different person today. #

Richard B. Cheney, April 15, 1994:
Quote[/b] ]There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? ... It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. ... And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? ... Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I)

You can say that 9/11 changed Cheney's opinion of whether we SHOULD go into Iraq at the cost of so many American lives. #But you can't explain why Cheney didn't protest when people were saying that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and throw roses at our feet. #Nor can you explain why bulldozer Cheney allowed General Shinseki to be sacked for telling him what he already knew only too well: that there needed to be a lot more troops to keep Iraq under control after the invasion. #Nor can you explain why bulldozer Cheney didn't demand MUCH better protection for the troops! #Cheney certainly didn't support the troops. #But the neo-cons are in such denial that they will simply smirk and make some bogus remark, instead of facing the FACTS.

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Aug. 25 2007,20:38)]Anyone else here find it striking how different the batch of Republicans we have today are far from the ones we had in 1994, in 1994 the Republicans were for smaller government(they were one vote away from shutting down NASA, serious Government smackdown)

But the Republicans today are expanding Government like crazy, military contracts, new government agencies, spending like crazy.

So What happened, why did the party Change from a "Pat Buchanan" to a more of the "old time big buisness" party? #Explain. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Troll'n Troll'n Troll'n...
Keep those posts a roll'n...

No self-respecting Republican ever liked Pat Buchanan. He's now an Independent. Republicans are thankful he left.

And you want to talk about "change." What happened to the party of FDR, Truman and Kennedy? It seems that the Democrats have become a party of haters. Examples include Tom Rall, Al Franken, Michael Moore(on), Ariana Huffington, Keith Olbermann, Cindy Sheehan, George Soros, Rosie O'Donnell, etc., etc.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -John F. Kennedy, last great Democrat.

To bad modern day Dems can't follow President Kennedy's advice because they aren't doing nothing except hating. Good luck with that. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[WA3WDR]

As I say, Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty, and all they do is play a game of partisan finger-pointing. And our troops are dying and our nation is collapsing because of it. #No big deal.

[n9yb]

Quote[/b] ]Clinton reported her assets at $10 million to $50 million, a figure which includes the wealth of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

CNN Article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html)

[n9yb]

Al Gore is doing better

Fast Company (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html)

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Aug. 25 2007,20:38)]But the Republicans today are expanding Government like crazy, military contracts, new government agencies, spending like crazy.

So What happened, why did the party Change from a "Pat Buchanan" to a more of the "old time big buisness" party? Explain. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Except for Ron Paul who is running for President. Do some research on US Rep Dr. Ron Paul. By the way, Pat Buchanan endorses him.. see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHAgZwnnT0w

[KC9JIQ]

Hey Ron looks promising, Pat Buchanan is right again. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif