Bush is a fiscal liberal

[FAS284]

I'd like to voice an opinion -

For those of you who support the war in Iraq to "ward off" Al-Qaeda from becoming a threat to the US, do you believe terrorism is the biggest threat to Americans? We are spending $1 billion a week. I emphasize this last statement because we have already had two big unforeseen threats - the hurricanes - and now we are facing a possible future influenza pandemic which may cost $181 billion if not more (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_...NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--). Does this not represent a massively greater threat than terrorism? Just where are we planning to get the money to finance all this? Or are we bent on having our rather liberal president use up all the resources for the never-ending mess in Iraq that we may not have enough to keep our own population safe from other threats, including a downfall in the economy?

I emphasize liberal above because, along the partisan definitions of conservative versus liberal, Bush is really a fiscal liberal (perhaps the definition of a neocon). We need a fiscally conservative president who needs to stop pursuing his own [pnac] agenda with nothing but lies to defend it.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Yeah we knew this for a while. I'm a libertarian so I highly value fiscal conservatism, though this current Republican administration does not offer a single thing that I agree with.

 

[Pabster]

How do you put a price on freedom?

You want to argue about Congress' lack of fiscal discipline, coupled with Bush's failure to veto, I'll agree 100%.

 

[Todd33]

Please don't use liberal for that use, it has nothing to do with it. He is a corporate lacky that cashes out America's future for short term gain.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Please don't use liberal for that use, it has nothing to do with it. He is a corporate lacky that cashes out America's future for short term gain.

If you take a look at consumer debt information, that's a very popular trend. Why wouldn't we want the government to do the same?

 

[getbush]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Todd33
Please don't use liberal for that use, it has nothing to do with it. He is a corporate lacky that cashes out America's future for short term gain.

If you take a look at consumer debt information, that's a very popular trend. Why wouldn't we want the government to do the same?

So your argument is, the masses are asses, why not our president too?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Pabster
How do you put a price on freedom?

You want to argue about Congress' lack of fiscal discipline, coupled with Bush's failure to veto, I'll agree 100%.

And George Bush has secured the freedom of whom . . . capital gains?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Todd33
Please don't use liberal for that use, it has nothing to do with it. He is a corporate lacky that cashes out America's future for short term gain.

If you take a look at consumer debt information, that's a very popular trend. Why wouldn't we want the government to do the same?

So your argument is, the masses are asses, why not our president too?

Well, I was thinking along the lines of "We voted ourselves the gov't we deserve", but close enough.

 

[getbush]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Todd33
Please don't use liberal for that use, it has nothing to do with it. He is a corporate lacky that cashes out America's future for short term gain.

If you take a look at consumer debt information, that's a very popular trend. Why wouldn't we want the government to do the same?

So your argument is, the masses are asses, why not our president too?

Well, I was thinking along the lines of "We voted ourselves the gov't we deserve", but close enough.

Well here's to hoping we do better as a whole next time around.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Todd33
Please don't use liberal for that use, it has nothing to do with it. He is a corporate lacky that cashes out America's future for short term gain.

If you take a look at consumer debt information, that's a very popular trend. Why wouldn't we want the government to do the same?

So your argument is, the masses are asses, why not our president too?

Well, I was thinking along the lines of "We voted ourselves the gov't we deserve", but close enough.

Well here's to hoping we do better as a whole next time around.

And here's to hoping I win the lottery, even if I rarely play it. But I'll bet the odds are about the same as what you're hoping.

 

[CaptnKirk]

A drunken Sailor spends more responsibly than a crackhead frat boy with a rich daddy.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Pabster
How do you put a price on freedom?

It's easy, cost of freedom = (direct threat to freedom + speculated threat to freedom)/lives lost to protect said freedoms

And Pabster you really give republicans a bad name. This administration has done nothing to protect our freedoms.

 

[Train]

Sometimes I wonder if the real republican strategey in 2000 was to "sabotage" future social spending by the dems, by cutting taxes without cutting spending. Had they been fiscally responsible, and made thier first goal decreasing the deficit, they might have been successful for a couple of years, but the next time a Democrat was in charge all the fiscal conservatism would have accomplished was to make it easier for that Dem to justify social spending.

If the dems take back control in 2008, they wont have enough power (or popularity) to raise taxes, so thier only option is to cut spending, by a lot. Sort of like doing the Reps job for them.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: azazyel
It's easy, cost of freedom = (direct threat to freedom + speculated threat to freedom)/lives lost to protect said freedoms

Sadly Freedom can't be relegated to a mathematical equation.

And Pabster you really give republicans a bad name. This administration has done nothing to protect our freedoms.

This thread isn't about freedoms...it's about spending.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Pabster
How do you put a price on freedom?

You want to argue about Congress' lack of fiscal discipline, coupled with Bush's failure to veto, I'll agree 100%.

For democracy any man would give his only begotten son....

/Johnny got his Gun

I hope your kids are out doing their part.

To the OP, yeah we've known this for a while. You're right, just late.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: azazyel
It's easy, cost of freedom = (direct threat to freedom + speculated threat to freedom)/lives lost to protect said freedoms

Sadly Freedom can't be relegated to a mathematical equation.

And Pabster you really give republicans a bad name. This administration has done nothing to protect our freedoms.

This thread isn't about freedoms...it's about spending.

The math thing was joke and you're the one who brought up freedoms.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Pabster
You want to argue about Congress' lack of fiscal discipline, coupled with Bush's failure to veto, I'll agree 100%.

YES! The entire republican leadership in control of our country RIGHT NOW has a complete lack of fiscal discipline! I agree 100%!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Train
If the dems take back control in 2008, they wont have enough power (or popularity) to raise taxes, so thier only option is to cut spending, by a lot. Sort of like doing the Reps job for them.

I agree they likely won't raise taxes, as it's political suicide (unless they've forgotten the lessons of '94), but that's the same reason they won't cut spending (when GOP control of Congress was still fresh, look how thier popularity plummeted as soon as actual spending cuts were proposed). I expect more of the same from a Democratically-controlled Congress as I do from today's bunch - deficits, deficits, deficits.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Train
Sometimes I wonder if the real republican strategey in 2000 was to "sabotage" future social spending by the dems, by cutting taxes without cutting spending. Had they been fiscally responsible, and made thier first goal decreasing the deficit, they might have been successful for a couple of years, but the next time a Democrat was in charge all the fiscal conservatism would have accomplished was to make it easier for that Dem to justify social spending.

If the dems take back control in 2008, they wont have enough power (or popularity) to raise taxes, so thier only option is to cut spending, by a lot. Sort of like doing the Reps job for them.

Your idea might have some merit except for the fact that republicans haven't shown themselves to be fiscal conservatives for several decades.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Pabster
How do you put a price on freedom?

You want to argue about Congress' lack of fiscal discipline, coupled with Bush's failure to veto, I'll agree 100%.

Are you suggesting that our 200 billion spent on Iraq is helping protect us from the unrelated terrorists of 9/11?

If you are, it's done nothing for us but take away freedom. It's going to either raise our taxes or weaken the American dollar. It took the lives of 2000 men and thousands of Iraqis. I'm not suggesting that Hussein was an awesome leader, but the discussion here is fiscal actions of the Bush administration. It is understood that when someone says "Bush is *blah*" that it means the administration.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: FAS284
I emphasize liberal above because, along the partisan definitions of conservative versus liberal, Bush is really a fiscal liberal (perhaps the definition of a neocon). We need a fiscally conservative president who needs to stop pursuing his own [pnac] agenda with nothing but lies to defend it.

He is fiscally a republican. They have been big spenders for half a century. Acting like a republican isn't being a "liberal". Liberals want to spend money on some social programs, limit spending elsewhere, and to finance it all adequately. Bush doesn't want to spend money on those social programs (although he does), instead he wants to spend money everywhere else, and not finance the spending adequately. That is about as far from "liberal" as possible.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dullard
Liberals want to spend money on some social programs, limit spending elsewhere, and to finance it all adequately.

The Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress (the House), and usually both between when the gov't first began to run habitual deficits (~1969) and when they were shown the door in 1994, and they happily engaged in deficit spending, as the GOP is doing now. Neither party has a recent history of fiscal responsibility.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: dullard
Liberals want to spend money on some social programs, limit spending elsewhere, and to finance it all adequately.

The Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress (the House), and usually both between when the gov't first began to run habitual deficits (~1969) and when they were shown the door in 1994, and they happily engaged in deficit spending, as the GOP is doing now. Neither party has a recent history of fiscal responsibility.

Uhhh, I thought clinton left us with like 300+ POSITIVE in the bank?

 

[dahunan]

Please change title to say

Bush is a fiscal criminal

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: dullard
Liberals want to spend money on some social programs, limit spending elsewhere, and to finance it all adequately.

The Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress (the House), and usually both between when the gov't first began to run habitual deficits (~1969) and when they were shown the door in 1994, and they happily engaged in deficit spending, as the GOP is doing now. Neither party has a recent history of fiscal responsibility.

Uhhh, I thought clinton left us with like 300+ POSITIVE in the bank?

no, the Tech Boom left us with 300+ in the bank. Clinton didn't have time to spend it before he left office.