<feed version="0.3" xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><generator>Plime/1</generator><title>Limited Government: Are the Good Times Really Over? : ATOM 0.3</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/"/><tagline>Limited Government: Are the Good Times Really Over? : ATOM 0.3</tagline><author><name>www.plime.com</name><email>plime@plime.com</email></author><copyright>2008, www.plime.com.</copyright><modified>2008-10-12T11:46:48+01:00</modified><entry><title><![CDATA[Limited Government: Are the Good Times Really Over?]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/" /><id>55723</id><summary><![CDATA[Limited Government: Are the Good Times Really Over?]]></summary><issued>2008-03-25T23:24:31+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-25T23:24:31+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[Utterly missing in this election season is a serious focus on limited or constitutional government. The Democrats, generally speaking, want more government, not less, so their neglect of the issue is to be expected. But the Republican dereliction is more troubling. It represents a falling away from the standards of Ronald Reagan&#8217;s conservatism&#8212;a decline already reflected in the &#8220;compassionate conservatism&#8221; of George W. Bush.]]></content></entry><table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' width='100%' style='padding-top:5px;margin-bottom:0px;' class='trh'><tr valign='bottom'><td><table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr valign='bottom'><td class='minitabspc' style='font-size:7px'>&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td class='minitabs lg'  nowrap="nowrap" id='tab-comments'><a href='/politics/l/55723/1/' class='plime2 td mn'>comments (7)</a></td><td class='minitabspc' style='font-size:7px'>&nbsp;</td><td class='minitabd lg'  nowrap="nowrap" id='tab-related'><a href='/politics/l/55723-related/1/' class='plime td mn'>related</a></td><td class='minitabspc' style='font-size:7px'>&nbsp;</td><td class='minitabd lg'  nowrap="nowrap" id='tab-share'><a href='/politics/l/55723-share/1/' class='plime td mn'>share</a></td><td class='minitabspc' style='font-size:7px'>&nbsp;</td><td class='minitabd lg'  nowrap="nowrap" id='tab-history'><a href='/politics/l/55723-history/1/' class='plime td mn'>edit history (0)</a></td></tr></table></td><td class='minitabspc' style='width:100%' valign='middle'><table width='100%'><tr class='regular'><td align='right'> <a onclick='return false' class='page-dull td'>&lt;</a><span> <b><a class='page-selected td' href='/politics/l/55723/1/'>1</a></b> <a onclick='return false' class='page-dull td'>&gt;</a></span></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><entry><title><![CDATA[1thirteen3 @ 3/26/2008 8:58:04 PM]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/atom0_3.rss#q8" /><id>226419</id><summary><![CDATA[<div class='qp pad d'><a class="page-dull td" href="/politics/l/55723/1/#q7"><b>&laquo;</b></a>&nbsp;<i><b>fugazi</b> :In fact, LBJ was committed to not overspending the budget, even with the Great Society programs.  Clinton balanced the budget in the face...]]></summary><issued>2008-03-26T20:58:04+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-26T20:58:04+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[<div class='qp pad d'><a class="page-dull td" href="/politics/l/55723/1/#q7"><b>&laquo;</b></a>&nbsp;<i><b>fugazi</b> :In fact, LBJ was committed to not overspending the budget, even with the Great Society programs.  Clinton balanced the budget in the face of conservative opposition that worked to shut down the government over that issue.</i></div>I agree that Democrats and Republicans are both for big government, just in two different areas.<br/><br/>However, I just wanted to point out to you that the only reason Clinton was able to balance the budget was from him stealing from Social Security. He made the appearance of a balanced budget when it really wasn't.]]></content></entry><entry><title><![CDATA[fugazi @ 3/26/2008 3:47:48 PM]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/atom0_3.rss#q7" /><id>226313</id><summary><![CDATA[suggesting that the 2 are different in this regard is silly...Republicans have been just as happy to enlarge government and to circumvent the constitution in doing so as the Democrats have, especially since WWII...<br/><br/>In fact, LBJ was committed to no...]]></summary><issued>2008-03-26T15:47:48+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-26T15:47:48+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[suggesting that the 2 are different in this regard is silly...Republicans have been just as happy to enlarge government and to circumvent the constitution in doing so as the Democrats have, especially since WWII...<br/><br/>In fact, LBJ was committed to not overspending the budget, even with the Great Society programs.  Clinton balanced the budget in the face of conservative opposition that worked to shut down the government over that issue.<br/><br/>It just depends on how you look at it and whether or not you are going to believe people that repeat mantras like &quot;Democrats love big government, Republicans like small government.&quot;  As for me, I stopped watching Sesame Street a long time ago, and understand that such simple statements are nowhere near true.]]></content></entry><entry><title><![CDATA[drumingspz @ 3/26/2008 1:06:55 PM]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/atom0_3.rss#q6" /><id>226217</id><summary><![CDATA[I have to say, that was one of the most concise break downs of how modern progressives/liberals have slowly eroded the idea of what government is.  I found myself saying 'Yes! Yes! Yes!' as I was reading the article.  Excellent pick.]]></summary><issued>2008-03-26T13:06:55+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-26T13:06:55+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[I have to say, that was one of the most concise break downs of how modern progressives/liberals have slowly eroded the idea of what government is.  I found myself saying 'Yes! Yes! Yes!' as I was reading the article.  Excellent pick.]]></content></entry><entry><title><![CDATA[Matoogs @ 3/26/2008 3:19:50 AM]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/atom0_3.rss#q5" /><id>226077</id><summary><![CDATA[This election we have two choices: let the water pour in, or shoot more holes in the hull.<br/><br/>Limited government and controlling domestic spending is pretty much my number one issue. This country has suffered the past 20 years from fiscal liberalism....]]></summary><issued>2008-03-26T03:19:50+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-26T03:19:50+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[This election we have two choices: let the water pour in, or shoot more holes in the hull.<br/><br/>Limited government and controlling domestic spending is pretty much my number one issue. This country has suffered the past 20 years from fiscal liberalism. <br/><br/>And don't blame the politicians, the blame lies with our gimme gimme gimme society. We vote for whoever bakes us the most cookies.<br/><br/>What we need is a less extreme Ron Paul-type whom people would actually vote for. I was never a Paul-head, but I would vote for him in a second over the current selection. Even a Fred Thomson would be a step in the right direction.<br/><br/>I'm voting this November, but you can't make me enjoy it.]]></content></entry><entry><title><![CDATA[1thirteen3 @ 3/26/2008 12:47:48 AM]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/atom0_3.rss#q4" /><id>226058</id><summary><![CDATA[Lew Rockwell had an interesting essay on his website a few days ago about how we always vote for limited government (in the democrats: social in the republicans: fiscal) but end up with the two evils of larger social and larger fiscal government, defeating...]]></summary><issued>2008-03-26T00:47:48+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-26T00:47:48+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[Lew Rockwell had an interesting essay on his website a few days ago about how we always vote for limited government (in the democrats: social in the republicans: fiscal) but end up with the two evils of larger social and larger fiscal government, defeating the purpose of what we all vote for.<br/><br/>Needless to say, this election we're screwed]]></content></entry><entry><title><![CDATA[monolithdigital @ 3/25/2008 11:52:12 PM]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/atom0_3.rss#q3" /><id>226039</id><summary><![CDATA[Reagonomics eh? Wouldn't be such a bad thing if they faded into history IMO.]]></summary><issued>2008-03-25T23:52:12+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-25T23:52:12+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[Reagonomics eh? Wouldn't be such a bad thing if they faded into history IMO.]]></content></entry><entry><title><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 3/25/2008 11:25:11 PM]]></title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.plime.com/politics/l/55723/1/atom0_3.rss#q2" /><id>226022</id><summary><![CDATA[Link will change when the next article gets posted. A permanent link is <a class="plime" href="/redir.p?http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisMarch08.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It is a pdf file.]]></summary><issued>2008-03-25T23:25:11+01:00</issued><modified>2008-03-25T23:25:11+01:00</modified><content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[Link will change when the next article gets posted. A permanent link is <a class="plime" href="/redir.p?http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisMarch08.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It is a pdf file.]]></content></entry></feed>