GOP Senator Admits to Spending Hypocrisy

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
It's rare that you get such a blatant admission of hypocrisy, but here it is. When asked why so many members of the GOP who had willingly supported George W. Bush's Medicare Part D expansion -- which was a deficit-busting unfunded mandate of approximately $700 billion over 10 years -- yet are staunchly against Obama's health care reform which is projected to be deficit-neutral, Orrin Hatch made the following statement:

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question."​

And yet this is the party that we're told will return fiscal restraint to Washington DC?
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
I have always been told that the Republican party is vehemently against expanding government and fiscal irresponsibility, unless they have the Presidency.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
So what those senators are saying is that when the Americans are complacent and happy, they have no problem spending like crazy with no way to get money to pay for it. But, when the Americans are now aware of the spending like crazy, then they will become fiscal conservatives and be outraged by the outrageous spending. Got it.

Got to love politics. Say what Americans want to hear at the time, but don't actually practice it( can be said about both parties). :rolleyes:
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
yet are staunchly against Obama's health care reform which is projected to be deficit-neutral
In order for the bill to be deficit-neutral, Obama and the Democrats have had to include unpopular provisions: slashing reimbursement rates, increasing taxes on small businesses and the wealthy, mandating that employers provide coverage or pay not to, and including a public option. As long as my taxes don't go up I'm pretty much okay with it.

FTA said:
The 2010 deficit is expected to reach $1.5 trillion, and the accumulated federal debt now exceeds $12 trillion. When the Republican-led Congress passed the Medicare expansion in 2003, the deficit was $374 billion, and was projected to hit $525 billion the following year, in part because of the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.
And yes republicans are hypocrites.

LOL btw, this thread may not generate too many sparks right now because most of the users who would defend this are in TO. :cool:
 

thegoldenmackid

macrumors 604
Dec 29, 2006
7,777
5
dallas, texas
LOL btw, this thread may not generate too many sparks right now because most of the users who would defend this are in TO. :cool:
It's unfortunate that it has to be that way, but that's what happens...

There are very few that seem to say Obama is perfect, there seem to be plenty willing to say he can never be right.
 

freeny

macrumors 68020
Sep 27, 2005
2,065
5
Location: Location:
Yep, every last one of us, so it seems. :rolleyes:

Can you imagine how terrible we would be if we made sweeping generalizations about people as well?
What would really drive your point home is posting a list of just a few of the many non hypocritical Republican representatives....
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
Yep, every last one of us, so it seems. :rolleyes:

Can you imagine how terrible we would be if we made sweeping generalizations about people as well?
Even if a current republican senator called himself "fiscally responsible" and he was telling the truth on a personal level I think there are strong currents in Washington that would cause lawmakers to do what Orrin Hatch described. Also the idea that deficits are good entered the psyche of the republican party during the Reagan years. Why would anyone go against the grain?

I remember attending Boys State in high school and go figure I was a Nationalist. But I remember voting in a delegation and the trend was so strong just to vote your party line (nationalist/federalist) it was difficult to deviate until a group of students intervened and convinced everyone to vote according to individual. This is just a microcosm of government. The real currents in Washington must be much stronger. Obama even promised to change Washington if you remember, but I don't see that happening.
 

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,116
1,246
Always a day away
What would really drive your point home is posting a list of just a few of the many non hypocritical Republican representatives....
I'm not the one trying to make a point. I was accused of being hypocrite by virtue of the fact that I'm a registered Republican. I countered with my own opposition to the poster's generalized statement.

Talk about representatives all you want; the accusation was levied against all Republicans. Such a statement could be driven home by pointing out what each and every Republican has done to be labeled as such.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
Even if a current republican senator called himself "fiscally responsible" and he was telling the truth on a personal level I think there are strong currents in Washington that would cause lawmakers to do what Orrin Hatch described. Also the idea that deficits are good entered the psyche of the republican party during the Reagan years. Why would anyone go against the grain?
As I recall the Reagan era, their stated theory was that lowering taxes would increase the receipts because more money would flow into the economy, which the IRS could then draw from. In truth, though the top tax rate was very high (more than 60%), the richest people were taking so many deductions and sheltering so much that their real rate was in single digits. The theory went on to say that eliminating deductions would make the system fairer because the top end would be paying a lower rate on a much higher net income. The deductions, of course, were never actually eliminated, so the country got screwed.

Which, in fact, was another of Reagan's original stated goals. He figured he could help the country by destroying it, and the business community supported him because they were having a field day. "Deficits are good" is more like the mantra of Grover Norquist, who thinks we should downsize the government to the point that we can drown it in the bathtub. After all, when has anyone ever benefited from anything the government has done?

Obama even promised to change Washington if you remember, but I don't see that happening.
Well, I think McCain was talking about change as well, at the time. It seems like every politician promises change at various times in their campaign, though usually not as part of an actual slogan.

Obama has this need to be loved by as many people as possible. If he cannot lose that component his borderline-personality-disorder, ultimately it will destroy him. Bush was destroyed by being bull-headed and stupid, Obama may fall for the opposite reason. He just cannot seem to be resolute.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
In order for the bill to be deficit-neutral, Obama and the Democrats have had to include unpopular provisions: slashing reimbursement rates, increasing taxes on small businesses and the wealthy, mandating that employers provide coverage or pay not to, and including a public option. As long as my taxes don't go up I'm pretty much okay with it.
Removing the public option is what is swelling the cost of the bill and causing so many of these unpopular provisions to be necessary to re-lower the cost. And, of course, the public option was stripped due to opposition from conservative-leaning folks.

And yes republicans are hypocrites.
That's not what I said. I said that Orrin Hatch and the others who voted for Bush's Medicare Part D despite cost concerns, yet now stand against Obama's health care plan on cost concern grounds are hypocrites.

LOL btw, this thread may not generate too many sparks right now because most of the users who would defend this are in TO. :cool:
This kind of thing is defensible?

Yep, every last one of us, so it seems. :rolleyes:
Yes, because that's exactly what I said in the OP. :rolleyes:

Can you imagine how terrible we would be if we made sweeping generalizations about people as well?
Happens all the time. "Dims"? "Democrat party"? "You libs"?

Obama even promised to change Washington if you remember, but I don't see that happening.
So did Ron Paul. You think he'd have produced any more change than Obama? Hell, even Ahnold was promising to "blow up the boxes" 7 years ago. Last I checked, them boxes were all still in place. Lot's of "girly man" insults thrown around though. But no change.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
Here is some food for though. On these boards the same people who were complaining on how much money was being spent under Bush and how it was under funded are the same people saying this massive debt we are going paying for under Obama is fine.

The difference is because their party of choice is in power the massive unfunded spending is OK.

I have been among the group that bitching about Washington spending unfunded money no matter who is in charged.

Personaly I read this as standard politics in the US. When ever it is the other side spending to much money it is not ok and the defense from the side spending money is LOOK LOOK they screwed you over 2.

Now I am going to give you a choice. I am going to either beat you with a metal bat or a wooden bat. I would recommend the wooden bat because it does not hurt as much. Both choice suck don't they. You are still going to get beaten.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Here is some food for though. On these boards the same people who were complaining on how much money was being spent under Bush and how it was under funded are the same people saying this massive debt we are going paying for under Obama is fine.

The difference is because their party of choice is in power the massive unfunded spending is OK.

I have been among the group that bitching about Washington spending unfunded money no matter who is in charged.

Personaly I read this as standard politics in the US. When ever it is the other side spending to much money it is not ok and the defense from the side spending money is LOOK LOOK they screwed you over 2.

Now I am going to give you a choice. I am going to either beat you with a metal bat or a wooden bat. I would recommend the wooden bat because it does not hurt as much. Both choice suck don't they. You are still going to get beaten.
Really? Please link to sources and identify these people. I'm getitng damn sick and tired of this claim. It's simply not true. I can't think of anyone here who's given Obama a pass. I certainly haven't.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
Really? Please link to sources and identify these people. I'm getitng damn sick and tired of this claim. It's simply not true. I can't think of anyone here who's given Obama a pass. I certainly haven't.
See my problem is I see people going after anyone who goes agaist Obama (even some of your post) saying why didn't you say complain when Bush was in office. Why are you complaining now.
You are not one of the bad one but I have to go digging threw a lot of post to find them because it is the feeling of the boards. During Bush it was complain about how much it is costing. Under Obama (health care for example) the question of cost is brought up and it seems to be attack by saying "what about Bush". No one addresses.

I personally am sick of the government no matter who is in office spending money we do not have.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
See my problem is I see people going after anyone who goes agaist Obama (even some of your post) saying why didn't you say complain when Bush was in office. Why are you complaining now.
You are not one of the bad one but I have to go digging threw a lot of post to find them because it is the feeling of the boards. During Bush it was complain about how much it is costing. Under Obama (health care for example) the question of cost is brought up and it seems to be attack by saying "what about Bush". No one addresses.

I personally am sick of the government no matter who is in office spending money we do not have.
Have you not seen my posts calling for the Senate health care bill to be killed? I'm sorry- liberals here have been highly critical of Obama. Much more so than any conservatives in this forum were of Bush. You cannot deny that. It's all over this forum.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
Have you not seen my posts calling for the Senate health care bill to be killed? I'm sorry- liberals here have been highly critical of Obama. Much more so than any conservatives in this forum were of Bush. You cannot deny that. It's all over this forum.
Oh I am not going to argue that fact. I just hate the agrument that have been thrown out by liberals that state "You did not complain about it under Bush".

I do not accept that argument and I will attack it every time I saw it because it just to me means who is screwing us over less. I feel american politics has degraded to that point. I am tired of being screwed over by Washington.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Oh I am not going to argue that fact. I just hate the agrument that have been thrown out by liberals that state "You did not complain about it under Bush".

I do not accept that argument and I will attack it every time I saw it because it just to me means who is screwing us over less. I feel american politics has degraded to that point. I am tired of being screwed over by Washington.
I'm sorry- that's a valid criticism of conservatives. I damn well want to know why they weren't complaining about spending under Bush. I want to know.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
I'm sorry- that's a valid criticism of conservatives. I damn well want to know why they weren't complaining about spending under Bush. I want to know.
I agree. It's not an attack to excuse the spending of the Democrats, but is to point out their hypocrisy. If these were new Republicans in Congress, then that wouldn't be a valid criticism. But, the fact of the matter is these GOP members in Congress are the same damn ones that went spending happy under Bush.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Here is some food for though. On these boards the same people who were complaining on how much money was being spent under Bush and how it was under funded are the same people saying this massive debt we are going paying for under Obama is fine.

The difference is because their party of choice is in power the massive unfunded spending is OK.

I have been among the group that bitching about Washington spending unfunded money no matter who is in charged.

Personaly I read this as standard politics in the US. When ever it is the other side spending to much money it is not ok and the defense from the side spending money is LOOK LOOK they screwed you over 2.

Now I am going to give you a choice. I am going to either beat you with a metal bat or a wooden bat. I would recommend the wooden bat because it does not hurt as much. Both choice suck don't they. You are still going to get beaten.
Here's the problem I have with that line of through: My position has always been that when economic times are good, you pay down the national credit card, and when economic times are poor, you charge it up. Thus there is no inconsistency or political motivation behind my attacks on Bush for his deficit spending, and encouraging Obama to do the same. It wouldn't have mattered if Bush had been a D and Obama was an R, my response would be the same.

When the economy was growing under George W. Bush, Republicans had an obligation to be working to reduce the deficit and to get our fiscal house in shape -- much as Clinton did during the latter part of the '90s during the boom times. But not only did Republicans -- and their conservative enablers -- shirk those duties entirely while putting drunken sailors on shore leave to shame with their spending habits (which disproportionately transfered our wealth to the upper 10%), but now they want to get on Obama's case for deficit spending that's actually necessary. IOW, they've got it all backwards, and this sudden display of fiscal "responsibility" is purely to gain political advantage.

How else do you explain the sudden change of heart about deficits? We've gone from "deficits don't matter" to "deficits are the most important thing in the entire universe". And for some reason, that change in heart occurred in Republicans right about mid-January 2009.

And of course, you'll say "but Obama's spending is so much worse than Bush's", and charts will be produced that show how much money is being spent under Obama. But the bulk of that spending was made necessary by Republicans, who handed an incoming president the worst economy since the Great Depression, and then said "it's all your fault". Bull****.

And that's why I'll continue to remind conservative deficit scolds of their behavior under Bush. And I will continue to do so, no matter how big of a stick you threaten me with.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
Here's the problem I have with that line of through: My position has always been that when economic times are good, you pay down the national credit card, and when economic times are poor, you charge it up. W..... "LOOK LOOK argument"
And you proved my point of the problem with american politics. Your counter argument is Bush screwed us over more to deflect the argument Obama is still screwing us over. I hate how that is what our politics has degraded into.

When Republicans are in power that is there counter to the Dems saying "LOOK LOOK, they did it to". Now the Dems counter to the GOP bring up those same points is "LOOK LOOK they did it to"

Please tell me how that is EVER an acceptable argument. It just means we are getting beaten to death with a wooden bat over a metal one.