AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I believe that you probably go though life with your mind reeling.

Wow! McGentrix can use a computer! The mind reels!

Whew! Quite a zinger you got there joefromchicago. Did you find the copy and paste commands by yourself or did you have to call cycloptichorn first?

You are precious.

keep up the good work, and christian values...

If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority.

i don't care about it.

it is not material to my argument.

(and i don't read red)

The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority. By “dependent”, I don’t mean merely welfare, although that’s a good illustration of the general principle. In political terms, a welfare check is a twofer: you’re assuring the votes both of the welfare recipient and of the vast bureaucracy required to process his welfare. But extend that principle further, to the point where government intrudes into everything: a vast population is receiving more from government (in the form of health care or education subventions) than it thinks it contributes, while another vast population is managing the ever expanding regulatory regime (a federal energy-efficiency code, a government health bureaucracy) and another vast population remains, nominally, in the private sector but, de facto, dependent on government patronage of one form or another " say, the privately owned franchisee of a government automobile company, or the designated “community assistance” organization for helping poor families understand what programs they’re eligible for. Either way, what you get from government " whether in the form of a government paycheck, a government benefit or a government contract " is a central fact of your life.

Foxfyre, quoting Mark Steyn in red, so you know it must be important, wrote:

If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority.

This is a major point, and so it's a good thing that Steyn provided several historical examples of permanent electoral majorities being formed in this manner. Well, he provided at least one example. Oh wait ... never mind.

I don't think you are about appreciation.

just my opinion.

The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority. By “dependent”, I don’t mean merely welfare, although that’s a good illustration of the general principle. In political terms, a welfare check is a twofer: you’re assuring the votes both of the welfare recipient and of the vast bureaucracy required to process his welfare. But extend that principle further, to the point where government intrudes into everything: a vast population is receiving more from government (in the form of health care or education subventions) than it thinks it contributes, while another vast population is managing the ever expanding regulatory regime (a federal energy-efficiency code, a government health bureaucracy) and another vast population remains, nominally, in the private sector but, de facto, dependent on government patronage of one form or another " say, the privately owned franchisee of a government automobile company, or the designated “community assistance” organization for helping poor families understand what programs they’re eligible for. Either way, what you get from government " whether in the form of a government paycheck, a government benefit or a government contract " is a central fact of your life.

Actually I believe he did provide some actual examples that of course are a result of the their various histories.

Do you disagree with the statement? Please elaborate on why if you do.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre, quoting Mark Steyn in red, so you know it must be important, wrote:

If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority.

This is a major point, and so it's a good thing that Steyn provided several historical examples of permanent electoral majorities being formed in this manner. Well, he provided at least one example. Oh wait ... never mind.

Actually I believe he did provide some actual examples that of course are a result of their various histories.

Do you disagree with the statement? Please elaborate on why if you do.

Quote:

The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority..

Under the current president, federal job growth has averaged 0.73 percent per year, but employment rolls at state and local governments have grown even more rapidly, at rates of 0.88 percent for state governments and 1.21 percent for local governments.

Source: The 2008 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Census Bureau

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

By any measure, there has been an explosion in government spending in both the defense and non-defense categories. Not surprisingly with the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, defense spending has risen during the Bush Administration by 61 percent in constant dollars.

But “big government” domestic expenditures also have gotten a lot bigger during the presidency of George W. Bush. Welfare state spending has increased by 32 percent in constant dollars from what it was at the end of the Clinton Administration.

Medical Care expenditures by the federal government (which includes Medicare, Medicaid, hospital and medical care for veterans, substance abuse and mental health services) has gone up by 54 percent in constant dollars under the current Republican administration.

Not far behind, Food and Nutrition Assistance (which includes food stamps, child nutrition, and special milk programs, supplemental food programs) has increased 43 percent since 2000.

Social Security and related payments have risen by 19 percent. Public Assistance (which includes family support payments to states, low income home energy assistance, earned income tax credits, legal services, payments to states for daycare assistance, payments to states for foster care/adoption assistance, and other related services) have gone up 17 percent. Housing assistance has increased by 12 percent. Federal student loans and related programs have increased by 129 percent.

The incoming Obama administration will have to work very hard if it wants to exceed the Bush administration in growing the welfare state during its term in office.

how am I the model for "leftist"?

I would appreciate a vote from the MACs

Foxfyre wrote:

Actually I believe he did provide some actual examples that of course are a result of the their various histories.

No, he didn't provide any examples of permanent electoral majorities being formed as the result of the expansion of the "dependent" and bureaucratic classes.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you disagree with the statement? Please elaborate on why if you do.

Of course not. It's absurd. Steyn didn't provide any examples of such permanent electoral majorities because none have ever been created -- not even in Canada, where the notion of a permanent Liberal electoral majority would certainly come as a surprise to Prime Minister Harper.