OK, I'm afraid I don't see how you answered my point at all.  In fact it seems to me like you totally ignored it, being fixated on the allocation of funds which is another argument entirely.  (For the record the deficits were bad even without the wars; and unnecessary wars are just an example of particularly wasteful spending, so wouldn't let anyone off the hook anyway.) 

Let's do another comparison.  Let's say that the high spending is like having extra cork in baseballs.  It gives the people using it a competitive advantage (or, at least, I seem to remember something like that -- I'm no baseball expert so if I'm worng please pretend for the sake of the example).  Other people who weren't doing this feel obligated to follow suit to keep up.  (I'd take issue with the characterization of real-life events this implies, but let's run with it.) 

So Democrats corked the baseballs.  Does that mean it's somehow their fault that Republicans also went on steroids?

I don't get what you consider steroids.

Also yes it would be the fault of the democrats for forcing out the honest players allowing cheaters to be the only ones to get it.

Yeah.... this happened in the 1980s.

So no worries there.  That's when the switch happened.  During the Carter administartion.

Tax cuts and tax raises are not good or bad individually. 

Wasteful spending is always bad.

I see what Kasz is postulating and it does have some truth to it. If you want to continue to win elections, you must continually bring home the bacon, so to speak, or else you will be defeated. What irritates me most is the Republicans actually had the chance to change this. They could have irreversibly changed government as we know it; however, the Republican leadership in the mid-90s, Dole and Gingrich, was not willing to accept the challenge. The GOP subsequently became a party of pork, reckless spending, and then...interventionist wars; it is why I am still disgruntled with them.

THE FUCKING HUGE DEFICITS SPENDING!  Have you not read the post I bolded at all?  The Democrats were at fault for the baseballs all getting corked, but had NOTHING to do with the steroids.  In fact, they FOUGHT the use of steroids when they regained control!  When it reverted to split government, the Republicans kept going along with it, but as soon as they were in charge again it went back to this: 

[edit:  and for the record, what I was (mis)remembering was actually not extra cork in the baseballs but tighter winding of their contents.  For this discussion I am assuming that the introduction of the new balls was not unified.  For simplicity I'm going to keep saying cork.]

Assuming all this is true (which is quite an assumption), then why does the Republican Party still claim to be the party of small government? Is everyone fine with them just outright lying?

Not fine with it at all.  It is the case though.  Some members still do believe in small government.... but mostly they are just like democrats in they think Government is the best answer for problems.  They just have different definitions on what those problems are.

That's why i've yet to actually vote for a republican in an election to date.

To follow the baseball analogy.

Say you are the manager of the Red Sox. You do everything honestly... refuse dirty players etc.

Now you have the yankees as a team all corking their bats. As such they have huge advantages and are pretty much kicking your ass a lot of the time.

Perhaps the honest manager tired of the cheating and losing decides to let a few people who take steroids in to even things up.

Not a lot... just a few to make things competitive while he keeps honest players where he can. However lots of players see what the steroids do, and now the floodgate is off.

It's easy.

Is this thread about baseball of the candidate running against Obama in 2012. To all spammers: GET OFF MY THREAD!

Hey Jason Varitek would have a better shot then the guys you mentioned.

Or Derek Jeter.