Rob's House Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 Then try a thread on Bush. There are some pretty bad things (just like any politician). But in reading his book, I find it amazing how he revamped national security. Also, it is ridiculous that people say he isn't conservative, just because he spent a lot- each successive president spends more than the last. Its all a political game, which hopefully will come to a stop soon. If by conservative you mean anti-abortion, pro-Christianity, family values?, anti-federally sanctioned monogamous butt piracy, and things of that nature, then yes, he is traditionally conservative. However fiscally, which to many of us is far more important, it's a different story. Sure he lowered taxes, but he allowed a congress that he essentially had control over to pass all matter of discretionary spending bills, subsidized several industries (farm, steel, etc.), expanded federal involvment in education ("No Child Left Behind" written by Ted Kennedy), And pushed for and signed the largest expansion of medicare since LBJ. If I took the time to look back over it I could probably come up with a few more examples. Short of his tax cuts, fiscally he's a big government lib. And as Milton Friedman said, a tax cut is only a tax cut in the long run if it is accompanied by a corresponding cut in spending.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 If by conservative you mean anti-abortion, pro-Christianity, family values?, anti-federally sanctioned monogamous butt piracy, and things of that nature, then yes, he is traditionally conservative. However fiscally, which to many of us is far more important, it's a different story. Sure he lowered taxes, but he allowed a congress that he essentially had control over to pass all matter of discretionary spending bills, subsidized several industries (farm, steel, etc.), expanded federal involvment in education ("No Child Left Behind" written by Ted Kennedy), And pushed for and signed the largest expansion of medicare since LBJ. If I took the time to look back over it I could probably come up with a few more examples. Short of his tax cuts, fiscally he's a big government lib. And as Milton Friedman said, a tax cut is only a tax cut in the long run if it is accompanied by a corresponding cut in spending. With that point many left leaning folks have no idea that George W was unpopular with conservative voters on his liberal spending and weak stances on border security. They assume that Bush was poster boy of conservatism but he was far from it.
Adam Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 With that point many left leaning folks have no idea that George W was unpopular with conservative voters on his liberal spending and weak stances on border security. They assume that Bush was poster boy of conservatism but he was far from it. Wow, this is one of the first times that I have actually defended President George W. Bush. He had two wars and a huge deficit to deal with- you can't fix everything, which included border security. The guy identified problems in national defense and reorganized it. He did some bad things during his eight years, but he did accomplish more than a lot give him credit for. Is President George HW Bush a liberal, because he went back on his promise and raised taxes?
Rob's House Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Wow, this is one of the first times that I have actually defended President George W. Bush. He had two wars and a huge deficit to deal with- you can't fix everything, which included border security. The guy identified problems in national defense and reorganized it. He did some bad things during his eight years, but he did accomplish more than a lot give him credit for. Is President George HW Bush a liberal, because he went back on his promise and raised taxes? I don't draw the equivalence. No offense, but this seems to be obtuse rhetoric. I reeled off half a dozen significant issues on which W went left, in some cases hard left, and you're now asking if one act makes GHWB a lib? I find it hard to believe you ask that as an honest question. To answer though, his presidency as a whole made him a Nixonian centrist (and I don't mean that to be complimentary). Whereas people who pay more attention to party afiliation than issues and actions we had 12 yrs of Reagan/Bush followed by 8 years of Clinton, as far as I can see you could just as easily view it as 8 years of Reagan followed by 12 years of Bush/Clinton, or even 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush. They may differ philisophically, but as far as actions go, there was not a tremendous difference between the last three.
Adam Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 I don't draw the equivalence. No offense, but this seems to be obtuse rhetoric. I reeled off half a dozen significant issues on which W went left, in some cases hard left, and you're now asking if one act makes GHWB a lib? I find it hard to believe you ask that as an honest question. To answer though, his presidency as a whole made him a Nixonian centrist (and I don't mean that to be complimentary). Whereas people who pay more attention to party afiliation than issues and actions we had 12 yrs of Reagan/Bush followed by 8 years of Clinton, as far as I can see you could just as easily view it as 8 years of Reagan followed by 12 years of Bush/Clinton, or even 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush. They may differ philisophically, but as far as actions go, there was not a tremendous difference between the last three. I am just trying to point out that as President, sometimes situations call for decisions to be made outside of your typical philosophy- based on what the problem is, or what solution could get through Congress and the judiciary.
Rob's House Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 I am just trying to point out that as President, sometimes situations call for decisions to be made outside of your typical philosophy- based on what the problem is, or what solution could get through Congress and the judiciary. And TARP may be one such instance, which is why I gave him a pass on that. But all the things I mentioned show a consistent pattern that all falls in line with a big government liberal philosophy. What is absent is all this so-called fiscal conservatism to balance it out.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 And TARP may be one such instance, which is why I gave him a pass on that. But all the things I mentioned show a consistent pattern that all falls in line with a big government liberal philosophy. What is absent is all this so-called fiscal conservatism to balance it out. and securing our borders (in particular the southern one) against an illegal invasion
Adam Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 And TARP may be one such instance, which is why I gave him a pass on that. But all the things I mentioned show a consistent pattern that all falls in line with a big government liberal philosophy. What is absent is all this so-called fiscal conservatism to balance it out. Fiscal conservatism is great to run on, but in practice, it won't get you re-elected. And we all, know, that is what's important.
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2011 Author Posted April 4, 2011 Fiscal conservatism is great to run on, but in practice, it won't get you re-elected. And we all, know, that is what's important. In you opinion was Ronald Reagan a fiscal conservative?
Adam Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 In you opinion was Ronald Reagan a fiscal conservative? Yes, but I consider him the exception. He could sell bottles of salt water on a hot day
Rob's House Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) Fiscal conservatism is great to run on, but in practice, it won't get you re-elected. And we all, know, that is what's important. Who has put fiscal conservatism into practice and not gotten re-elected? Edited April 4, 2011 by Rob's House
Adam Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Who has put fiscal conservatism into practice and not gotten re-elected. I don't know. It's bee a long time since somebody has done it at all. 2012 is going to be interesting. I have a feeling that either Romney or Rand Paul will be the republican nominee. I have heard some of Donald trump's speeches and he is looking for publicity. I cringe at the thought of Michelle Bauchmann, after hearing her talk. I think Romney would draw the most independent votes and some votes from the left. General Petreus could be intriguing, but I don't know of his political background.
Adam Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 And TARP may be one such instance, which is why I gave him a pass on that. But all the things I mentioned show a consistent pattern that all falls in line with a big government liberal philosophy. What is absent is all this so-called fiscal conservatism to balance it out. Didn't he push for privatizing social security, despite the fact that it had no chance to get off the ground?
Recommended Posts