NationStates Jolt Archive

Yet he and his supporters continue to tout him as a "fiscal conservative." (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html) In what universe are they living? Since when did the term "fiscal conservative" come to mean spending like a drunken sailor?

When they started pronouncing 'fiscal' like 'fishcal', with a drunken slur.

When they started pronouncing 'fiscal' like 'fishcal', with a drunken slur.

LOL!

I was once friends with a man named Mr. Jack Schit. And he told me there isn't a conservative in the world who knows who he is.

They're all so fucking stupid. They complain that welfare and healthcare and taxing some of the huge amounts of money rich people have will ruin the nation. Yet when Bush has his period and decides to start a war because he isn't satisfied with his life, and our equally idiotic Congress approves it and lots of equally idiotic nations join us, no one complains about the billions wasted there.

I was once friends with a man named Mr. Jack Schit. And he told me there isn't a conservative in the world who knows who he is.

They're all so fucking stupid. They complain that welfare and healthcare and taxing some of the huge amounts of money rich people have will ruin the nation. Yet when Bush has his period and decides to start a war because he isn't satisfied with his life, and our equally idiotic Congress approves it and lots of equally idiotic nations join us, no one complains about the billions wasted there.

First of all, your post could be construed as flaming.

Second, you do make a point. Republicans don't mind spending a fortune, provided it's on things other than what the Democrats would spend it on.

I was once friends with a man named Mr. Jack Schit. And he told me there isn't a conservative in the world who knows who he is.

They're all so fucking stupid. They complain that welfare and healthcare and taxing some of the huge amounts of money rich people have will ruin the nation. Yet when Bush has his period and decides to start a war because he isn't satisfied with his life, and our equally idiotic Congress approves it and lots of equally idiotic nations join us, no one complains about the billions wasted there.

Riiight...

Well a drunken sailor is too common. He wants to spend like a drunken Admiral.

Well a drunken sailor is too common. He wants to spend like a drunken Admiral.

You win the thread.

Do keep in mind that a lot of these unnecessary expenditures did not come from the war, but rather, from a large amount of social measures that were passed far too easily as a result of a Republican controlled Congress and presidency, not on his fault alone. If you look at all the passes that the Democratic party would want to have passed, it would look more or less the same way.

Another issue is to keep in mind is that if you try to tax the rich more, they just find a way to evade their taxes. Thus, it is far more acceptable an economic policy to tax the rich less on the idea that this money will be invested back into the US economy through consumption and investment. This isn't as much the case as it used to be, but we can still see the effects in large contributions from the rich, generally to local public works.

Sorry Temple Sword, "trickle-down" doesn't work, in fact it is incredibly naive.
Laws should be tightened so that they can't "evade". No more exemptions for the rich.

Sorry Temple Sword, "trickle-down" doesn't work, in fact it is incredibly naive.
Laws should be tightened so that they can't "evade". No more exemptions for the rich.

If you look at actual policy in action, while trickle-down is not the most successful method in existence, it is far more successful than trying to tighten down laws on the rich. It has been repeatedly shown that if you try making the laws tighter on the rich, they'll simply use the funds to evade it. A key example, for example, is dirty money in Swiss banks. We know it is there, we know laws were broken to make the money, however, it is out of the jurisdiction of the countries that would be against this. If money is to be gained by spending it to evade the laws as opposed to paying the tax, they will choose to evade the laws every time.

Two of the country's worst presidents also have the highest government spending...I guess the American people aren't as easily fooled by pork projects and tax cut propaganda as I feared.

First of all, your post could be construed as flaming.Because of the observation of how stupid conservatives appear to be?
I wouldn't call that flaming.


Second, you do make a point. Republicans don't mind spending a fortune, provided it's on things other than what the Democrats would spend it on.
Yup. *nods emphatically*

Because of the observation of how stupid conservatives appear to be?
I wouldn't call that flaming.

There are plenty of stupid conservatives, to be sure, but then again, every group has its idiots; no one holds a monopoly in that regard. But saying "They're all so fucking stupid" is most assuredly a flame, and a fallacy. There are plenty of smart conservatives out there, just as there are smart and stupid people of every ideology.

for what is being spent on wars that are doing more harm then good, (and the puppet masters are doing their damdest to come up with more excuses to arbitrarily start another one), every homeless person on the street could be GIVEN three hots and a cot AND A COLLEGE EDUCATION!

or america could have universal single payer health care.

or real energy, transportation and birthrate alternatives sufficient to completely end contributing to global warming (without sacraficing tecnology, infrastructure, or comfort zone).

i suspect there is something else to it besides stupidity, but not that even not everyone in the uppermost income brackets, let alone anyone else, is intended to bennifit from whatever it really might be.

=^^=
.../\...

I assume by 'fiscal conservative' they meaning spending 'conservatively' rather than right-wing politics generally, by that I mean the GOP stopped being the party of small government long ago, that itself was highlighted by the massive state-corporate behemoth spawned by Reagan - which the US people are still paying for.

impeach him already!!! god, what is the problem with that

Impeaching is not enough -- he needs to be convicted too (as impeaching is merely the government equivalent of being put on trial).

Bush tried to have it both ways -- low taxes (a republican thing) and high spending (a democratic thing). We can do math, however, so we realize that he's cursing uss with a huge deficit.

Since when did the term "fiscal conservative" come to mean spending like a drunken sailor?
excuse me but by comparing Bush's spending habits as akin to a drunken sailor's, you are insulting drunken sailors everywhere.
Please apologise to them forewith, thank you.

I note that his Iraq war is about to hit the Trillion$ mark within a year, making it more expensive than the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, even when adjusting their costs into today's dollarinos.

it always makes me laugh when the republican candidates for all national offices rant against the democrats as out-of-control spenders. its as if they didnt notice that they ran up the biggest deficits in history pretty much all by themselves.

it always makes me laugh when the republican candidates for all national offices rant against the democrats as out-of-control spenders. its as if they didnt notice that they ran up the biggest deficits in history pretty much all by themselves.

And withing 45 seconds of a democrat getting into the white house he'll be criticised for not dealing with the huge deficit.

And withing 45 seconds of a democrat getting into the white house he'll be criticised for not dealing with the huge deficit.

and those huge deficits and the huge national debt will be bill clinton's fault, not george bush's.

and those huge deficits and the huge national debt will be bill clinton's fault, not george bush's.

Well I'm sure she's cleaned up after him before... :p j/k

First of all, your post could be construed as flaming.

Second, you do make a point. Republicans don't mind spending a fortune, provided it's on things other than what the Democrats would spend it on.
You're missing the point on Bush entirely. His problem is trying to outspend the Democrats and take the issues away from them. He should be digging in his heels and actually offering a conservative alternative -- but he doesn't.

The prescription drug fiasco is is probably the best example of his feckless spending to try and buy votes away from the Democrats.

And withing 45 seconds of a democrat getting into the white house he'll be criticised for not dealing with the huge deficit.
The Congressional Democrats haven't been able to pay for the government, yet. They still need to pass an appropriations bill. I'm amazed that they can hold a majority and still not be able to fund our government.

The prescription drug fiasco is is probably the best example of his feckless spending to try and buy votes away from the Democrats.

I think his War on Error is probably a better example...

The Congressional Democrats haven't been able to pay for the government, yet. They still need to pass an appropriations bill. I'm amazed that they can hold a majority and still not be able to fund our government.

I'm sure you're just posturing.

If you finished school, one assumes you know that it takes more than 'a majority' when vetoes can be invoked.

I think his War on Error is probably a better example...

No, the war began as a bipartisan effort. Only when the Democrats realized that there was hay to be made in opposition, did it become a partisan war.

The prescription drug plan was always a Republican plan to take away an issue from the Democrats. It's a large part of the reason Republicans weren't welcomed back to Congress -- there's very little difference between the parties on spending issues. Both parties treat them as vote buying opportunities.

I think people need to get out of this habit of assuming that George Bush is some great evil and look at things from a broader, more complete perspective. Let me start with the costs of the 'War on Terror' which is so heavily complained about. First, most of the increase to the national debt, if you look at the numbers, actually comes from the new social programs within the country that passed as a result of a Republican held legislative and executive branch. The War on Terror is actually a fraction of that cost, although still obscenely high. Second, the national deficit as a whole is generally balanced out by the fact that US dollars are used as a reserve currency, and as such, there is always a high demand for that. While this may change as a result of the Euro, the fact that the Euro is dependent on the economies of all member nations makes this unlikely in the near future, considering the fact that France and Italy are both poised on economic collapse. Third, recall that Iraq is SEPERATE from the War on Terror, at least as far as Al Qaeda goes. Yes, Republic senators and reps were linking the two. They were morons. However, we did have proof at a time that Saddam did have chemical weapons (counted under WMDs) and utilized them against the Kurds for racial genocide. This is more likely a war under old US policy to end despotism and spread democracy, a la the late Cold War, as opposed to a war on terror. The fact that Saddam regularly funded terrorist groups, however, is always a benefit. In fact, if you look at the terrorist groups currently acting within Iraq, they're using Iranian funded weaponry.

Now, let me point out that the fact that our data was faulty as to the current existence of WMDs in Iraq can be blamed on two major things. First - the UN repeatedly sent weapon inspections in, let those inspections be blocked off, and continually failed to push them through. This gave Saddam plenty of time to move his weapons out of the country - we have transaction records that seem to imply a move of the weapons into Syria or Pakistan - both countries we are unwilling to go to war with at the current time. However, on a more immediate note, we have to question why our information wasn't up to date. Well that, my friends, we can blame on Clinton during his radical downsizing of the Central Intelligence Agency while he was in office. The amount of CIA agents within the middle east dropped dramatically to the point that we were lucky to have one agent per country, and really lucky if he could speak Arabic. This is why our data was so faulty going into combat.

On a final note, as to the continued war and the cost therein. Yes, it's going to cost a lot. However, I again point us over to the United States occupation of both Japan and Germany at the end of World War II. There was around the same amount of resistance in post-war Western Germany as there is in Iraq, in terms of terrorist and loyalist groups acting out against the occupying force. However, in Germany, these terrorists were lined up and shot. If you want the war to go faster, you can't withdraw the forces from Iraq - it'll end in civil war. You have to instead increase the brutality of the war.

In the words of William T. Sherman: "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

I'm sure you're just posturing.

If you finished school, one assumes you know that it takes more than 'a majority' when vetoes can be invoked.

Maybe a little, but the Democratic party certainly hasn't impressed anyone with the quantity or quality of legislation since the 2006 elections. Maybe that's why they keep setting new record lows for confidence...

Maybe a little, but the Democratic party certainly hasn't impressed anyone with the quantity or quality of legislation since the 2006 elections. Maybe that's why they keep setting new record lows for confidence...

The best thing that could have happened to the Democrats would have been to gain no seats in the interim. As it is, they've had their hands consistently tied by what basically counts as a hung parliament, and doubly blocked by a president who practically insists on vetoing anything that comes across his desk with the appearance of Democratic legislation.

If they are lucky, the voting public are savvy enough to realise that the Dems have basically been lame ducks. If they are lucky, the voters won't have forgotten anything more than two newspapers old.

Judging by the last few elections, they aren't likely to be lucky.

No, the war began as a bipartisan effort. Only when the Democrats realized that there was hay to be made in opposition, did it become a partisan war.


Come on, you know that's not true.

You know that people on both sides bought into the lie, and that both sides started turning on the current regime as the extent of the lie became apparent.

The only difference was, Republicans held 'the party line'.


The sick thing, is the way the same people that were saying 'timelines were needed' or 'you can support the troops without supporting the president' in 99, have been 'flip-flopping' on those very issues this time around.

(That was Bush, and DeLay, as I'm sure you knew).

(1) Hand Bush a knife.
(2) Point out that people have done hara-kiri for much less than what Dubya's did.

George Bush has taxed us, but not directly. Instead of just using a tool like the income tax to take our money, he has instead inflated the money supply (money supply has increased by more than 50% since he took office, taking away our purchasing power) and has borrowed (made promises for future tax revenue, which means more taxes.) He has merely expropriated us more under a different structure, not lessened Uncle Sam's burden. Not to mention that a great deal of spending is not military but welfare-state spending, making him the ultimate welfare-warfare statist.

Or, we could just keep that money that everyone somehow believes that a man named George W. Bush somehow has the authority to spend.

Or, we could just keep that money that everyone somehow believes that a man named George W. Bush somehow has the authority to spend.

Sounds good to me.

Whether or not there is a Democratic majority doesn't matter. Outside of politics, Democrats and Republicans are fairly divided, among other things. However, inside politics, all politicians are vote-buying scumbags. There is no getting around this.

(Also, when calling ideologies stupid, keep in mind that the most vocal of supporters tend to fit your definition of 'stupid' but that doesn't mean that all supporters are.)

Whether or not there is a Democratic majority doesn't matter. Outside of politics, Democrats and Republicans are fairly divided, among other things. However, inside politics, all politicians are vote-buying scumbags. There is no getting around this.

(Also, when calling ideologies stupid, keep in mind that the most vocal of supporters tend to fit your definition of 'stupid' but that doesn't mean that all supporters are.)

It's also important to keep in mind that politicians are more interested in shoring up incumbency than getting others of their party in the various chambers of government. Hence why the gerrymandering of Texas was so unusual in its anti-incumbent bent.

You're missing the point on Bush entirely. His problem is trying to outspend the Democrats and take the issues away from them. He should be digging in his heels and actually offering a conservative alternative -- but he doesn't.

The prescription drug fiasco is is probably the best example of his feckless spending to try and buy votes away from the Democrats.

Agreed.

Or, we could just keep that money that everyone somehow believes that a man named George W. Bush somehow has the authority to spend.

Considering he doesn't spend it himself anyway, you're still off in dreamland.

Outside of politics, Democrats and Republicans are fairly divided, among other things.

Only judging by US politics. They look like the same party with different colour ties, to most of Europe.

(1) Hand Bush a rusty carrot peeler.
(2) Point out that people have done hara-kiri for much less than what Dubya's did.

Fixed.

I was once friends with a man named Mr. Jack Schit. And he told me there isn't a conservative in the world who knows who he is.

They're all so fucking stupid. They complain that welfare and healthcare and taxing some of the huge amounts of money rich people have will ruin the nation. Yet when Bush has his period and decides to start a war because he isn't satisfied with his life, and our equally idiotic Congress approves it and lots of equally idiotic nations join us, no one complains about the billions wasted there.

That's because conservatives don't oppose spending money. Even wasting money. What they oppose is people being free, children having healthcare, working men and women being able to support themselves on the fruits of their labor, and concentrated democratic populations existing. If that means that they don't have to spend money so that they won't help it happen, that's great (for them). If it's easier to let that happen than it is to keep it from happening, then they will spend money on everything and anything that does nothing to make people's lives better up to and including toilet clogging initiatives involving the flushing of hundred dollar bills. Of course the guy who flushes the hundred dollar bills will be paid minimum wage, and because handfuls of hundred dollar bills that are only being flushed down the toilet is a terrible temptation for a man making minimum wage, he will be kept under guard by Blackwater employees who make over 100k per year to make sure that the guy on minimum wage doesn't pocket a few c's every now and then.

and those huge deficits and the huge national debt will be bill clinton's fault, not george bush's.

Yes. If Bill Clinton had simply refused to allow another election and remained in office we wouldn't be in this mess. Sure we'd be a military dictatorship, but at least we'd be aware of it and our head of state wouldn't have his head up his ass.

I think people need to get out of this habit of assuming that George Bush is some great evil and look at things from a broader, more complete perspective.

I actually had an epiphany a few days ago.

I think he really doesn't give a shit about most people or even the job.

He wants the title but doesn't want the responsibility.

He wants the title but doesn't want the responsibility.

Just like his attitude towards The Carlyle Group.
And his public statements about his own dictatorship.
And being "The Decider".

I don't hate many people or wish them ill but I wish Bush had Terminal Boneitis

I don't hate many people or wish them ill but I wish Bush had Terminal Boneitis
*brandishes carrot peeler*
That's a funny name for a horrible disease.