What would Eisenhower say about Repub-nomics?

Being the political nerd that I am, I've been reading old State of the Union addresses. The differences in tone and content, not to mention policy are fascinating.

Here is an example at how twisted Republican ideology has become.
These quotes are from Eisenhower's 1960 SOTU address (the end of his term). I'd say it is fair to describe Eisenhower's economic thinking as conservative and responsible. Seems even quaint. Certainly 180 degrees from today's "conservative" economic practices

"We must fight inflation as we would a fire that imperils our home. Only by so doing can we prevent it from destroying our salaries, savings, pensions and insurance, and from gnawing away the very roots of a free, healthy economy and the nation's security.

One major method by which the Federal government can counter inflation and rising prices is to insure that its expenditures are below its revenues. The debt with which we are now confronted is about 290 billion dollars. With interest charges alone now costing taxpayers about $9 1/2 billions, it is clear that this debt growth must stop.

You will be glad to know that despite the unsettling influences of the recent steel strike, we estimate that our accounts will show, on June 30, this year, a favorable balance of approximately $200 million.

I shall present to the Congress for 1961 a balanced budget.... "

And a bit later, he states:

""I repeat, this budget will be a balanced one... The amount of income over outgo, described in the budget as a Surplus, to be applied against our national debt, is 4 billion 2 hundred million. Personally, I do not feel that any amount can be properly called a "Surplus" as long as the nation is in debt. I prefer to think of such an item as "reduction on our children's inherited mortgage." Once we have established such payments as normal practice, we can profitably make improvements in our tax structure and thereby truly reduce the heavy burdens of taxation. ""

Where have you gone fiscally responsible Republicons?

He was no Saint. he was forced to be moderate/liberal in tone and policy because of the politics of the majority of the populace and the Democratic congress. Just as Clinton was forced to be moderate because of a conservative populace and congress.

He wasn't a liberal. A bit of a moderate, certainly not a hardcore partison.

Are we now calling a fiscally sane policy a moderate/liberal one? Have Dems gone from "Tax and Spend" to fiscal conservatives while Repubs have moved from the fiscally responsible to "Charge and Spend"?

I was tlaking about his speeches sounding liberal. I should have clarified. he often spoke about how evil war and bombs were, how everyone deserved a fair shake ect. You would never hear a republican speak like that now.

You do bring up a good point...There was a liberal wing to the party. When I was a kid, we had a liberal Repub here in NJ (Clifford Case). Was even against the Vietnam War.

he was pretty liberal and lost his senate seat to a moderate Democrat named Joe Lieberman way back when.

Sen. Chafee (R) RI is more liberal than some Democrats.

They are mostly libertarian types -- pro-choice, pro drug decriminalization, etc.

Afterall, you can't win an election without giving away money.

I'm going to sound cynical about this, but I really think we're to the point where people are essentially voting themselves as much money as possible, damn the rest of the country.

You know, if a representative voted themselves some lucrative contract with the government, it would obviously be called a conflict of interest.

Yet, voters do essentially the same thing all the time.

How many people selling military hardware voted for Republicans?

Republican president. His farewell speech that same year was the one that warned of the military-industrial complex under which we currently exist!