Why was Powell even part of the Republican party?

[Perd Hapley]

The connection is quite clearly explained above. Here's a summary:  the Republican party wasn't all that out of touch with Powell's positions when Powell joined the government, as evidenced by the intended legacy and past works of its chief.  See, the fact that George Bush was the most senior Republican in the country does in fact make the Bush history and legacy relevant to what policies and positions define the Republican party. 

So your position is that Powell was a Republican in the Reagan era, because he liked the policies of some governor-ship that hadn't happened yet?  Or did you think our perspective was limited to the Bush 43 presidency?  Either way, if that was the point you were trying to make, you didn't even come close.  You could have just said that Powell joined Bush's cabinet, because he liked Bush's record in Texas. 

Yeah, they also knew that central management from a single Federal leader would result in disaster, which is why they didn't organize the government of the U.S. that way.  You can't gift freedoms and functioning government to yourself or others via an authority figure similar to a monarch; that's why there was no "transitional monarchy" or "emergency dictatorship" called to transition the country from colonial to self-government.

The political theory works in other places too-you don't solve the problem of a despotic society by making one person 10,000 miles removed the final authority on that country's civic institutions.  This idea, of course, is entirely consistent with Washington's warnings against entangling alliances, and Jefferson's enthusiastic support for the race to extinguish monarchy of all kinds across the globe.

Imposing government from above virtually guarantees a government that is unresponsive and ignorant of the local concerns.  And you can see that in Iraq today: when they get a vote, they vote for the parties that are the most ideologically and fundamentally opposed to the United States that they can...the contest is now between the agents of Iran and Muqtada al Sadr.  Some "success" in making the place safer for the world that is, but then again, that's the sort of thing that happens when you try to govern by remote executives rather than by the principles of federalism.

Blah, blah, blah.  That's so full of straw men, I won't bother to go into it.  Please don't put absurdities in my mouth. 

[MicroBalrog]

Let's see.

When Bush entered office, the FedGov expenditures were 2 trillion dollars per year.

When he  will leave, they will be 3 trillion dollars per year.

He has overseen the greatest growth of non-defense discretionary spending of any President since FDR, including LBJ.

Questions?

[Ron]

Let's see.

When Bush entered office, the FedGov expenditures were 2 trillion dollars per year.

When he  will leave, they will be 3 trillion dollars per year.

He has overseen the greatest growth of non-defense discretionary spending of any President since FDR, including LBJ.

Questions?

After the 9/11 attack the massive increase in government spending coupled with lowered tax rates were seen as necessary to stabilize the economy. It was actually a successful mix of Kenyes and supply side economic theories. Bush's policies didn't come about in a vacuum.

Another round of tax cuts, preferably on businesses is what we need right now. I would like to see the 35% business tax rate lowered to 25%.

Once the economy rebounds the president should announce a budget freeze (maybe just an increase = to inflation) across the board. The Fed can start slowly raising rates then also.

Raising taxes on anyone is not what this economy needs.

Questions? 

As far as Powell is concerned, I was never comfortable with him, especially after learning more about his positions on the issues.