Is it just me or is it ironic that a "supposedly" conservative Republican has the first proposed $3 trillion dollar budget!!

Is it just me or is it ironic that a "supposedly" conservative Republican has the first proposed $3 trillion dollar budget!!

 

 

I don't think you'll find anyone who considers themselves a conservative or Republican saying that Bush is a fiscal conservative.

Is it just me or is it ironic that a "supposedly" conservative Republican has the first proposed $3 trillion dollar budget!!

:laugh: Calling Bush a conservative!

Bush's biggest lie was not the Iraq war.

 

It was that he was a fiscal conservative.

 

I have been upset with his spending for about 6 years now.

 

And his lack of spending may be the # reason that Reps don't go to the polls this November and the Republicans lose the WH.

 

And then of course we have a Democrat Congress and WH and we see our taxes soar through the roof and spending stays high.

 

We do need a balance between the two.

Shouldn't you have that type of money before you spend it?

Shouldn't you have that type of money before you spend it?

 

Not in this country. I think it was 2006 that this country's consumers spent 1.something percent more than our income.

 

Our government does it.

We do it as consumers.

Look at all the failed mortgages going on because they bought above their means.

This country is in a very scary economic position.

Bush's biggest lie was not the Iraq war.

 

It was that he was a fiscal conservative.

 

I have been upset with his spending for about 6 years now.

 

And his lack of spending may be the # reason that Reps don't go to the polls this November and the Republicans lose the WH.

 

And then of course we have a Democrat Congress and WH and we see our taxes soar through the roof and spending stays high.

We do need a balance between the two.

 

 

Who controlled the Congress during the time of the debt build up?:sssh:

 

The Republican Party is not the party of fiscal conservative it is now the party of financial planning for certain lobby interests!:thumb:

 

Has Bush ever, just once, veto a Congressional spending bill prior to the Democratic take over? Answer - Not Once!:lol:

 

How can the Democratic leadership do worse? I personally do not trust them, but how could they have done worse?

Every homeowner that borrows money to buy a house and every business that borrows money to operate its business is doing the exact same thing as the govt is doing: borrowing money to operate on.

 

The issue is whether the debt incurred is for a necessary thing.

 

If you think the Iraq War is a necessary thing, you should have no problem with the deficit. If you think that social entitlement spending is a necessary thing, you should have no problem with the deficit.

 

We have the deficit that we do because, in my opinion, Bush knew that if he tried to dramatically cut social programs so that he could keep a balanced budget while funding the Iraq War, the Democrats would never let it happen. In other words, to put it more succinctly, Bush bought the support of politicians opposed to the War; "give me what I want and I'll give you what you want". That may be a sell out to fiscal conservatives but I think it was the reality that Bush was facing. I assume he felt the negatives of a growing deficit were offset by the benefits of a free Iraq. We'll see in about 30 years.

Who controlled the Congress during the time of the debt build up?:sssh:

 

The Republican Party is not the party of fiscal conservative it is now the party of financial planning for certain lobby interests!:thumb:

 

Has Bush ever, just once, veto a Congressional spending bill prior to the Democratic take over? Answer - Not Once!:lol:

 

How can the Democratic leadership do worse? I personally do not trust them, but how could they have done worse?

 

I think I said that the reason they lost in 2006 was their lack of financial constraint. You were in such a hurry to take the shot against the Republicans that you missed the point where I said they lost the election because of it.

 

I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't work best when one party has control of one, the other party has control of the other and they balance each other. The Clinton years and the Reagan years are examples.

Bush cut US programs by $18 billion while increasing spending in Africa for AIDS by $15 billion!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I said that the reason they lost in 2006 was their lack of financial constraint. You were in such a hurry to take the shot against the Republicans that you missed the point where I said they lost the election because of it.

 

I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't work best when one party has control of one, the other party has control of the other and they balance each other. The Clinton years and the Reagan years are examples.

 

The shot is only provided because they claimed the title of fiscal conservative. Do you not feel people should be held accountable for their actions and statements? Like a youth league coach who takes kids off a team without telling them... should the coach be held accountable for his actions?

 

And while LN makes a point, it fails to acknowledge the debt was seriously growing BEFORE the conflict began and before 911.

 

As for war engagement, why is there not an automatic tax to supplement the war effort? The greatest generation provided us with many examples - one of which was cleaning the store up before giving it to their children. What are we doing? Passing it on to our kids and still failing to address things like social security.

 

Please.......

The shot is only provided because they claimed the title of fiscal conservative. Do you not feel people should be held accountable for their actions and statements? Like a youth league coach who takes kids off a team without telling them... should the coach be held accountable for his actions?

 

And while LN makes a point, it fails to acknowledge the debt was seriously growing BEFORE the conflict began and before 911.

 

As for war engagement, why is there not an automatic tax to supplement the war effort? The greatest generation provided us with many examples - one of which was cleaning the store up before giving it to their children. What are we doing? Passing it on to our kids and still failing to address things like social security.

 

Please.......

 

I'm surmising that there was not an increased tax implemented to supplement the war effort because Bush tried to minimize the adverse impact on Americans of being at war in order to prevent opposition to the war from developing. I think in many ways he tried to create the impression that while we are at war, business as usual will go on. Plus there is a pretty big school of thought that believes that increased taxes hurt the economy. And I'm not into the sky is falling mentality that thinks our kids are going to be irreparably harmed by the deficit. I know its a convenient pull on the emotional heart strings, but I'm just not buying it.

I'm surmising that there was not an increased tax implemented to supplement the war effort because Bush tried to minimize the adverse impact on Americans of being at war in order to prevent opposition to the war from developing. I think in many ways he tried to create the impression that while we are at war, business as usual will go on. Plus there is a pretty big school of thought that believes that increased taxes hurt the economy. And I'm not into the sky is falling mentality that thinks our kids are going to be irreparably harmed by the deficit. I know its a convenient pull on the emotional heart strings, but I'm just not buying it.

 

But, the majority of the American public is and therein sits the poor approval ratings and the mental pull back right now by the consuming public.

 

I do not share your economic forecasting of no real consequences going forward. Particular to our current dollar value to the world currency. Our macro economy wealth is being traded abroad and our society is about at the point where we cannot play the game.

 

Yet, as we now know business as usual is not going on.

 

As for emotions, I prefer to stict to facts.

 

Unfortunately, he will be cast with the leftovers of his remaining time. As the Speaker of the House said today, he will not be president a year from now, we don't have to worry what he says. Now, will the Republican Party get its backbone back and pound this speaker or will they play strategy for position and hold out because McCain is not exactly what they want or McCain is not on board with a specific agenda point???? Paybacks are heck and the agenda driven strategy of late, not our spending is what will lose the white house.

The shot is only provided because they claimed the title of fiscal conservative. Do you not feel people should be held accountable for their actions and statements? Like a youth league coach who takes kids off a team without telling them... should the coach be held accountable for his actions?

 

And while LN makes a point, it fails to acknowledge the debt was seriously growing BEFORE the conflict began and before 911.

 

As for war engagement, why is there not an automatic tax to supplement the war effort? The greatest generation provided us with many examples - one of which was cleaning the store up before giving it to their children. What are we doing? Passing it on to our kids and still failing to address things like social security.

 

Please.......

 

ON the bolded, I said it was the reason why the Republicans lost and did not have the support they had in previous years. They did not turn out to be the fiscal conservatives that they claimed. Those that supported them voted them out of office in 2006. How much more holding them accountable can you be?

 

I am agreeing with your point. Somehow that does not seem to be enough.

But, the majority of the American public is and therein sits the poor approval ratings and the mental pull back right now by the consuming public.

 

I do not share your economic forecasting of no real consequences going forward. Particular to our current dollar value to the world currency. Our macro economy wealth is being traded abroad and our society is about at the point where we cannot play the game.

 

Yet, as we now know business as usual is not going on.

 

As for emotions, I prefer to stict to facts.

 

Unfortunately, he will be cast with the leftovers of his remaining time. As the Speaker of the House said today, he will not be president a year from now, we don't have to worry what he says. Now, will the Republican Party get its backbone back and pound this speaker or will they play strategy for position and hold out because McCain is not exactly what they want or McCain is not on board with a specific agenda point???? Paybacks are heck and the agenda driven strategy of late, not our spending is what will lose the white house.

 

I didn't say there wouldn't be consequences. I said the sky won't fall and our children won't be irreparably harmed. They'll pay down the deficit through business expansion and economic growth. Sure we'll need to make sure we have pro-growth political leaders, but that will happen.

 

R's predicted our country would go down the tubes when Clinton got elected. We survived. D's thought the end of the world would come when Bush got elected. It looks like that prediction will turn out wrong.

 

Perhaps in your mind I'm trivializing the deficit issue. I don't mean to. I'm not in favor of loose spending at all. However, I am willing to accept short term deficit spending when its necessary to accomplish a mission vital to our country's national interest and security. I think that's the case here.