Republicans were bound to fall out of favor anyway because, when push comes to shove, the voters really don't accept the conservative, small-gov't philosophy. Oh, sure, people will talk that talk, but everytime they hit a bumpy stretch, they want someone to bail them out. Didn't plan well for retirement? Save Social Security! Medical bills getting too high? Get me universal health care! Bought too much house and facing foreclosure? Cue the gov't bail-out! Of course, no one really wants to pay for all this gov't, so we as a nation have reached the 'happy' medium of perpetual deficits. Mark these words - the Democrats aren't going to balance the budget either.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
quick question about neocons, conservatives and republicans
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Republicans were bound to fall out of favor anyway because, when push comes to shove, the voters really don't accept the conservative, small-gov't philosophy. Oh, sure, people will talk that talk, but everytime they hit a bumpy stretch, they want someone to bail them out. Didn't plan well for retirement? Save Social Security! Medical bills getting too high? Get me universal health care! Bought too much house and facing foreclosure? Cue the gov't bail-out! Of course, no one really wants to pay for all this gov't, so we as a nation have reached the 'happy' medium of perpetual deficits. Mark these words - the Democrats aren't going to balance the budget either.
JSt0rm
Lifer
I agree with your first statement. I really enjoy reading the reasons people voted for bush in the first place. However the second part is a little off considering the dems just got done beating the crap out of each other over who was going to be the candidate. I also don't know of any socialist or communist people on this forum although I'm sure some exist.
I know everybody wants to call my a troll for starting this post but I think some good information has come of it.
You mean the Democrat-controlled Congress with the lowest approval rating in our nation?s history, the ones with "Epic Fail" stamped on their foreheads? The one with all the bad politicians the Liberals keep voting in over and over and are about to elect one of them as president?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Well, at least whoever becomes President can't be half as bad as the one in office now. I feel sorry for Obama or McCain, because the country is so screwed by the current administration that I can't see much improvement happening over the next 4 years. Bush managed to steer Iran into it's present condition masterfully, as well as creating so much uncertainty and instability that oil prices shot through the roof. Now the President who didn't know that gas was predicted to pass $4 back in March (when almost everyone else did) now blames the Democrats for the price of gas, as if he had a clue.
Yes, his 'compassionate conservative' rhetoric, his commitments to the environment and education, all changed with 9/11.
For that matter, his basic claim to approach foreign policy with 'humility', obviously that was only changed by 9/11. Against nation building, well Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
You need to read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine".
The Contract with America was a gimmick, and a tool for trying to get his agenda enacted, not why the Republicans won.
Polls in 1994 showed fewer than a third of voters had even heard of it when they voted, and only 39% of eligible voters voted.
And it's not as if the Republicans had not been mis-governing with big spending, big debt, criminal and evil foreign policy since Reagan in 1981. It wasn't like they changed in 1995.
Hardly. Not that much got passed. A lot was not passed, or vetoed, or heavily modified.
As far as spending reductions, a quote from Wikipedia:
Now, I'm a fan of most of that contract not getting passed.
Criticizing Bush - right on schedule, at the end of his presidency after he got two terms.
There's more to just criticizing, there's criticizing when it's justified.
If it'll make you feel better:
That darned Obama, I'm opposed to all his policies to greatly increase secrecy in government, to sell out to the corporate interests, to neglect the environment, to put cronies in power, to support the torture and indefinite detention of people, to support the corrupt politicization of Washington, to erode the barrier between Church and State. Darn him!
Hm, doesn't sound right somehow.
Not this nonsense again - the President, in practice, has the biggest influence on the budget.
The last balanced budget was under Clinton, with a Republican congress, after his 8 years of continuous deficit reduction following the 12 years of big Reagan/Bush debt.
The last balanced budget before that was LBJ, in 1969, with a Democratic Congress, at the height of the Great Society *and* the Vienam war.
Kinda pokes a hold in the myth of who the fiscally irresponsible part is, and who the suckers are who fall for their 'small government' rhetoric, doesn't it?
You might ask why people fall for the myth - that has to do with the media influence of the right in spreading it - the same one that hides its right-wing bias with the 'liberal media' myth.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
That is true to an extent. We've gotten so used to the gov't doing things for us that we are more and more dependent on them and expect them to do everything for us. Fortunately I see the pendulum swinging back in the relatively near future(15-30 years) but the sad part is it'll likely get worse before it gets better. That is why us Conservatives need to stay strong and hold tight to the ideals that make us Conservative. We need to stop allowing the big gov't crowd control the premise of the debate.
Actually, I think conservatives should just give up at this point and help the Dems drive the country over the cliff. Don't fix SS, expand Medicare/Medicaid, bring on universal healthcare, and just put everyone on the dole until the gov't is utterly bankrupt. Only then can the system be fixed at the foundation. The population is far too dependant at this point to ever willingly give up big gov't. Most addicts have to hit rock bottom before they realize the depth of their addiction.
Nonsense? It's the Constitution. And 'influence' isn't a vote a Congress. It's looking like the Dems will get back the White House, so I guess we'll see just how fiscally responsible they are very shortly. But I hope no one is holding their breath on a balanced budget in the next 20 years. Better start getting your excuses ready, Craig.
Oh boy, so a Democratic Congress balanced the budget nearly 40 years ago (despite holding the House until '94, and the Senate for a lot of those years)! The party of fiscal responsibility indeed! :roll:
dphantom
Diamond Member
Well, actually you are completely wrong as usual. I and otehr true conservatives have been very critical of Bush for a long time. Me personally sionce the post-war Iraq fiasco in 2004. Along with the massive expansion in social programs and spending, refusal to do anything about the borders and on and on.
No, us conservatives do not blindly follow our nominated messiah, err Obama. We actually think through the consequences of actions on the nation and hold our leaders accountable.
Why do you think the Repubs lost control of Congress and will lose the presidency this year? It's because we conservatives value integrity above all else.
Zebo
Elite Member
100% true. Everyone talks the talk but can't walk the walk. How about farmers, as red as you can get but swimming in welfare? Republicans IMO don't have a paleoconservative in senate and only about 5-10 in the house - they are all liberals compared to 50 yr old democrats let alone republcans of 50 years ago.
quest55720
Golden Member
I will admit bush fooled me in 2000. I thought he was a fiscal conservative. It tuned out he is a war mongering social conservative who believes in big government.
You need to learn just a little clue what you're talking about befor eyou go spouting nonsense. I lack the patience currently to hold your hand when you can't bother.
"Oh, look, teacher, it says right here on paper". Yes, hey, it says right there too that the Attorney General is a check on the president, too. Alberto Gonzales certainly was that right?
I will say it once more for you and leave it up to you to get informed. If I decide to post the data for you, it won't be complimentary to you.
The president has the dominant influence on the budget. He submits the budget; Congress then tweaks it. President sets the big direction, Congress makes the small adjustments.
Generally speaking. There's a reason why 12 years of Reagan/Bush were huge deficits, Clinton was 8 years of consistent declines in deficit, and Bush shot it way back up.
It was the president that changed. Congress stayed the same during many of those big changes in direction and were not the factor that correlates to the budget direction.
You asked a question and got an answer. You're welcome.
Yes, the dems are the party of fiscal responsibility, since Reagan. Check the facts, looking at democratic and Republican presidents, but you won't, will you?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
