A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points.

Does the 2010 number include or exclude the Obama Porkulus plan, which is about 6% of GDP?

Of course, if nearly half the GDP in the Euro zone is government spending, it’s no wonder most of them vote socialist–they vote for the hand that feeds them.

One other thing, TARP was not a nationalization plan but loans to troubled financial institutions to get them through some tough times. Many of those execs are now trying to get those loans paid back ASAP to avoid the draconian oversight of Obama. It helps to have your facts straight before you make a fool of yourself.

goat on February 8, 2009 at 9:15 PM

You are a dope, a big government dope.

So when does Hitler show up?

(you know someone had to say it, right?)

mjk on February 7, 2009 at 10:56 PM

I don’t think you’re far off the mark. I think there is going to be a tremendous backlash, and when it comes we will end up with something like Hitler, but he will be a fascist in a conservative suit, at first.

Of the recent presidential candidates I would say Duncan Hunter probably was the most conservative as I have seen it defined and how far did he get? Reagan governed not on social conservative values but on good limited government plus remember he signed the initial amnesty bill that kept getting extended and expanded. Reagan also as Ca. gov. signed the most liberal abortion bill in the nation at the time. I want the government to stay out of my life as much as possible and Reagan was correct that government is the problem. I am a Romney supporter because he knows how to handle fiscal issues and understands who our enemies are and I could care less if he was late to the social conservative field as was Reagan. Most voters want effective, fiscally responsible government and don’t really care about abortion or gay marriage when it comes to their pocket book, I am against both but understand reality. They are concerned about the economy, security and health care above all else in every poll I have seen. Democrats have learned how to talk about those issues in pleasing terms while their policies undermine them, Republicans need to relearn how to not only talk about them but deliver on them.

I find it interesting that people like you want to define conservatism but I doubt you actually know what it is.

goat on February 8, 2009 at 9:10 PM

..and you do, OK, so who is it? Reagan is dead (ooops, another social conservative)..though Zombie-Reagan lives!

progressoverpeace on February 7, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Spot-on.

But Bush is a social conservative, I thought that was the epitome of conservatism. I disagreed with his no child left behind and other excessive spending but thank him for protecting us and slashing taxes that lead to 50+ months of economic expansion.

As to Mittcare, he had a choice to come up with a plan to have Ma. citizens be covered by private insurance or have his uber-liberal legislature install a government run system.

So just who is your super perfect conservative? Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo, give me a break. I can pick apart anybody you name given enough time. At least Mitt would not be panicking over the economy but would be offering solid conservative ideas to stabilize it. He is not a big spender of taxpayer dollars and knows that we have enemies in the world that need to be defeated.

I find it interesting that people like you want to define conservatism but I doubt you actually know what it is.

I have to wonder how those that smeared Mitt Romney for his Mormonism or fairly recent movement to the right on social issues feel now.

goat on February 8, 2009 at 12:45 AM

You mean Mitt Romney-care, the mandated health care guy, that Mitt Romney? Please. Just a more articulate version of Bush. Not a conservative bone in his body.

When’s the tea party?

Thanks but I think it applies to candidates for any office. I think it turns off more voters than it convinces to harp on endlessly about social issues. Most voters are far more concerned about pocket book issues and law and order than whether someone is a staunch life long pro-lifer. Democrats have learned to talk about those issues whether or not their actual policies will help or hurt.

goat on February 8, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Well-said. Also, other than judicial appointments, the President has no power to do anything about “social” issues like abortion or gay marriage. Judicial appointments matter a lot, but there’s not going to be a whit of difference between who, say, a Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee would appoint. Everyone of them would choose conservative/strict constructionist jurists.

Therefore it doesn’t make sense to exclude candidates solely because of disagreements over these issues.

Nobody is talking about watering down beliefs or abandoning principles, its about which ones to place emphasis on. Sarah Palin governs effectively because she doesn’t place emphasis on her personal social beliefs but instead on good governance. I know solid social conservatives that are idiots when it comes to economic, security and foreign policy which are the realms that government should be focused. I don’t want candidates for any office that talks endlessly about abortion or gays but are clueless about what government is actually for. Mike Huckabee for example totally turned me off with his constant snarking about how he was the most prolife, I wanted to know how well he governed not how well he prayed. Sarah Palin does none of that, she focuses on how well she governs and what she has accomplished in that area without forcing her social beliefs on anyone. I think that is where Mitt Romney got into trouble was by placing to much emphasis on social issues which backfired on him.

Singapore is an interesting example, and one we ought to consider emulating since we seem to be in the market for “change.” Completely free economically, less than completely free politically. The Asian model, in other words. If the place wasn’t the size of my thumb, surrounded by hostile Muslims, I’d be taking several looks at it. Given our multicultural, hyphenated population, our unlimited franchise system doesn’t seem to be working.

JiangxiDad on February 8, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Having been in Singapore, having loved it, no way. Here’s why, one never knows when the term “benevolent” goes to heck out of “benevolent rule”. Anyone can die, or be replaced and, if they’re not “benevolent” we end up with a dictatorship.

The Great American Dream.. pop! Wake up – it’s over! The Greeks are in the city, and there are no Trojans left.

OldEnglish on February 8, 2009 at 3:01 AM

Sad as today is, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, not by far.

splink, Our integrity will mean little, at the end of the day. It doesn’t win elections and neither does dogmatism.

IlikedAUH2O on February 8, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I respect your viewpoint, I truly do. But again, it goes back to one’s view of God and what He plans for the future of all the world. If one limits one’s focus to the worldly system and what it can do for/to us (and I do not ignore it by any means) then yes, you’re point is correct.

However, there are alternative viewpoints, is all I’ll say.

splink on February 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I don’t respect your point of view. The words that spring to mind are sellout, and coward. So integrity means nothing H2Oboy? Reminds me of a movie I just saw, called Defiance. I guess you would agree with the pragmatic Russians who turned in the Jews to the Nazis, since the jews had no hope of winning, what with the whole Nazi presence being about rounding them up. You’d take the pragmatic view that they were all going to die anyway, so you might as well speed things along.
Without solid principles, you stand for nothing. You won’t win elections that way, either. That’s why McCain lost. Nobody really knew what he stood for, and a lot of people didn’t trust him because of his past, so he rallied no one. Whereas Palin drove people to a frenzy, despite her gaffes, because so many could identify with what she believed in. Watering down your beliefs is not going to energize a movement. Solid principles may not win elections every time, but they have won them in the past. And I’d rather lose with the beliefs I have, than pretend to be something and lose anyway. Integrity means everything at the end the day. Did you earn your money because you worked hard, or because you were thief? Did you just walk in from a hard days work to greet your family, or did you just leave your mistress’ aparment? If you lose everything else, your integrity is all you have left. No, H2O boy, I don’t respect your point of view at all.

So yes we do have to compromise in the MACRO but keep our solid values in the micro.

katy on February 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM

So your point is to be faithful in little things, but no so much in bigger things.

First, I dare not speak for Christ apart from what He has already said in His Word, wherein it says we’re to be faithful to Him in things both great and small. If one won’t be faithful in the one, one won’t be faithful in the other.

Second, compromise in negotiable matters is one thing. Life’s full of that, no argument.

But choosing to go against something he/she believes is one of God’s revealed “non-negotiables” – and to do so for the sake of temporal relations [i.e., politics] – is another matter entirely.

United States of Argentina