What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

First, most do understand the difference...but there's absolutely a connection here - voting.

The big point here is that Republicans were voted in in huge numbers in 2004. It wasn't liberals who voted for them, it wasn't independents even so much...it was both so called fiscal and social conservatives and in large numbers. 'Fiscal conservatives' showed in the only way tangible that they really are good with spending if its done by people they like...and often on their stuff. Even coming up on 2006, Bush still had approval of near 40%...again, there aren't enough strictly social conservatives to make up that number.

So...no politics is not the same as a fiscal viewpoint...but the most meaningful action that these 'fiscal conservatives' took in the last decade was to put their support in huge numbers behind big spenders using politics.
There haven't been any non-big spenders to vote for in the last few elections, or much further back. If you think so, it's wishful thinking. So one of your fundamental premises is faulty. If you actually talked to someone who is a true fiscal conservative, they'd tell you how incredibly frustrating it is to have few if any choices on a given ballot where the candidate can be counted on to deliver the goods.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

First, most do understand the difference...but there's absolutely a connection here - voting.

The big point here is that Republicans were voted in in huge numbers in 2004. It wasn't liberals who voted for them, it wasn't independents even so much...it was both so called fiscal and social conservatives and in large numbers. 'Fiscal conservatives' showed in the only way tangible that they really are good with spending if its done by people they like...and often on their stuff. Even coming up on 2006, Bush still had approval of near 40%...again, there aren't enough strictly social conservatives to make up that number.

I guess I would say in regard to the 2004 election that it was a lesser of two evils type of thing. Fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily go hand in with social conservatism, but I'm sure many fiscal conservatives don't mind the socials. So there was a choice between one candidate who was fiscally liberal and socially conservative, and the other who was both fiscally (though I'm sure that's debatable) and socially liberal. Why not go for the lesser of those particular evils?

Pretty solid point about the '06 approval ratings though I think.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Lets put aside parties and talk conservatives vs liberals. What it sounds like is that we shouldn't bother using past history to judge future actions, even though the conservative political leadership is the same, AND we shouldn't expect a plan from them because they haven't offered anything collectively that they would enact if conservatives become the majority movement in government again. :confused: No offense, but that sounds like a disaster.

I believe there's a sizable chunk of the broad conservative movement that cares very little about fiscal conservancy. That's why someone like Flake doesn't get more traction. For a conservative whose primary interest is foreign policy or social policy, Flake's focus on fiscal conservancy is a nuisance.

Was Flake in Congress when there were in the majority? Because if he was why didn't he really people behind his ideas when they had the power to make changes? Are we to reward slogans instead of action? As someone who's worked in the real world, you have to know that just coming up with an idea vs actually implementing it are two far, far different things. Flake and anyone else of his inkling, and his supporters, should have been building a movement for years. What has he done to at least get his like minded officeholders on board so that we can expect deficit reduction is the party he currently resides in becomes the majority? Do you seriously think conservatives, upon election, will actually pass legislation (even if Obama vetos it) to bring down the deficit? Or do you think we'd see more tax cuts paid for by borrowing?

I don't doubt your personal sincerity on this issue. However, overall conservatives as fiscal stewards is a laughingstock. Tell me what the plan is, overall, once conservatives are in power. Because if you say Flake = what a new right majority will do, that leaves you open for Angle = new conservative majority or Paul = new conservative majority. Its not about what one person thinks. Its about who can build a coalition to enact change. IMHO, I've seen no evidence, nor any concrete plans by conservatives, most likely working through the Republican party, that have any desire to pursue the priorities you find important. In fact, the only fiscal issue they have all rallied around is extending the Bush tax cuts, a deficit increasing action.

Again, your mixing up your politics in a number of ways. Just because someone says they are conservative doesn't mean they are fiscally conservative. It's possible they are both, but fiscally conservative has a much more specific and pointed meaning than someone calling themselves a conservative in general. A person could be socially conservative, but want to spend money like a drunken sailor and in no way be fiscally conservative. You throw these terms around far too interchangeably. Doing so throws your whole discussion off.

Flake has made a lot of efforts over the years. IIRC, he would have gotten a seat on one or more committees if he hadn't been a thorn in the flesh for the Republicans, but stuck to his guns and the desirable seat went elsewhere. He's got a long record on this topic, if you want to take the time to read about it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I guess I would say in regard to the 2004 election that it was a lesser of two evils type of thing. Fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily go hand in with social conservatism, but I'm sure many fiscal conservatives don't mind the socials. So there was a choice between one candidate who was fiscally liberal and socially conservative, and the other who was both fiscally (though I'm sure that's debatable) and socially liberal. Why not go for the lesser of those particular evils?

Pretty solid point about the '06 approval ratings though I think.

The question is whether you vote for Bush who had a horrible track record...essentially decimating a balanced budget...or someone with no track record. For someone who is a true fiscal conservative...there is no choice here, you make the change. But again, both approval and the corresponding execution of that approval in voting showed that supposed 'fiscal conservatives' could not have valued reduced spending too greatly.
 
Last edited:
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

The question is whether you vote for Bush who had a horrible track record...essentially decimating a balanced budget...or someone with no track record. For someone who is a true fiscal conservative...there is no choice here, you make the change. But again, both approval and the corresponding execution of that approval in voting showed that supposed 'fiscal conservatives' could not have valued reduced spending to a large extent.

I don't think you can say that Kerry had no track record. There were years of votes in Congress to look at. If you took a look at Kerry's record and determined he would be no better than Bush, why make a change?
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

The question is whether you vote for Bush who had a horrible track record...essentially decimating a balanced budget...or someone with no track record. For someone who is a true fiscal conservative...there is no choice here, you make the change. But again, both approval and the corresponding execution of that approval in voting showed that supposed 'fiscal conservatives' could not have valued reduced spending too greatly.
John Kerry had no track record in 2004? :eek: :confused:
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I don't think you can say that Kerry had no track record. There were years of votes in Congress to look at. If you took a look at Kerry's record and determined he would be no better than Bush, why make a change?
Exactly. I don't recall Kerry focus much if at all on fiscal conservancy in 2004. My recollection is that both candidates made the usual occasional noise about it, but I don't think many voters bought it from either of them.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

1. X is good intrinsically.
2. Well, X is better than the straw man alternative S.
3. Whenever X fails, that wasn't really X.

X can be any ideology: fiscal conservatism, communism, Islam or the West Coast Offense. Defend the sacred by making it unfalsifiable.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

1. X is good intrinsically.
2. Well, X is better than the straw man alternative S.
3. Whenever X fails, that wasn't really X.

X can be any ideology: fiscal conservatism, communism, Islam or the West Coast Offense. Defend the sacred by making it unfalsifiable.

Care to explain what this relates to?

Let me try plugging in fiscal conservatism.
1. Fiscal conservatism is good intrinsically.
2. Well, fiscal conservatism is better than the straw man of spending wildly out of control.
3. Whenever fiscal conservatism fails, that wasn't really fiscal conservatism.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. :confused:
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I don't think you can say that Kerry had no track record. There were years of votes in Congress to look at. If you took a look at Kerry's record and determined he would be no better than Bush, why make a change?

Alright...sure he had a track record. But it was still an open question as to what would happen with spending at the federal level...esp after the last Dem pres/Gop congress produced a balanced budget.

In the end, it didn't come down to Kerry. Approvals show the so called fiscal conservatives liked Bush until 2006...by then most of the rest of the US had already soured on him.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Alright...sure he had a track record. But it was still an open question as to what would happen with spending...esp after the last Dem pres/Gop congress produced a balanced budget.

In the end, it didn't come down to Kerry. Approvals show the so called fiscal conservatives liked Bush until 2006...by then most of the rest of the US had already soured on him.
I certainly wasn't under any illusion that spending would be controlled in a meaningful fashion after the election in 2004, regardless of whether Kerry or Bush won. Maybe you were?

Again, I think you're confusing the term conservative as used in a broad context, with the specificity of being a fiscal conservative. Often very different things, though I can understand on a very surface level they could be confused. Even then I'd be interested in anything you can point to (like your referenced approvals) that show fiscal conservatives liked Bush on that issue. It really wouldn't make sense, as Bush had already demonstrated that fiscal conservancy wasn't very important to him.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

1. X is good intrinsically.
2. Well, X is better than the straw man alternative S.
3. Whenever X fails, that wasn't really X.

X can be any ideology: fiscal conservatism, communism, Islam or the West Coast Offense. Defend the sacred by making it unfalsifiable.

You can't be suggesting that Bush was a fiscal conservative?
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I certainly wasn't under any illusion that spending would be controlled in a meaningful fashion after the election in 2004, regardless of whether Kerry or Bush won. Maybe you were?

Again, I think you're confusing the term conservative as used in a broad context, with the specificity of being a fiscal conservative. Often very different things, though I can understand on a very surface level they could be confused. Even then I'd be interested in anything you can point to (like your referenced approvals) that show fiscal conservatives liked Bush on that issue. It really wouldn't make sense, as Bush had already demonstrated that fiscal conservancy wasn't very important to him.

Can't pull data got a plane to catch. And no I'm not confusing fiscals and socials...the numbers for Bush were high enough where it must include both. Liberals didn't support him and independents left very quickly...those numbers are available.

In the end, if you don't vote for change...you vote for the same. Period.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Care to explain what this relates to?

Let me try plugging in fiscal conservatism.
1. Fiscal conservatism is good intrinsically.
2. Well, fiscal conservatism is better than the straw man of spending wildly out of control.
3. Whenever fiscal conservatism fails, that wasn't really fiscal conservatism.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. :confused:

Makes perfect sense (I like the "just down home common sense" touch, BTW -- nicely played rhetoric).

1. Ideological assertion.
2. Attempt to tie it down to the real world to defend a partisan choice between options.
3. Evasion that although there are real world examples that don't work, which should invalidate premise 1, they are to be excluded from the premise because they're not "real."

1. Communism is good intrinsically. -- Marx, 1850
2. Well, it's better than the exploitation of capitalism, anyway. -- Lenin, 1920
3. The bad communism of the Soviet Union isn't really communism. -- Any university professor, 1970.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Can't pull data got a plane to catch. And no I'm not confusing fiscals and socials...the numbers for Bush were high enough where it must include both. Liberals didn't support him and independents left very quickly...those numbers are available.

In the end, if you don't vote for change...you vote for the same. Period.

So fiscals should have voted for the Taxpayers Party or something, and let a liberal into the White House?

Isn't that like me saying all the anti-war liberals should vote for Palin in 2012, because Obama's kept us involved in a couple of wars?
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

So fiscals should have voted for the Taxpayers Party or something, and let a liberal into the White House?

Isn't that like me saying all the anti-war liberals should vote for Palin in 2012, because Obama's kept us involved in a couple of wars?

Errrr..........no.

Liberals have already tried that approach by putting Bush in the White House because they had a hard on for Nader.

Fiscals can feel free at this time to make the same mistake.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

So fiscals should have voted for the Taxpayers Party or something, and let a liberal into the White House?

Isn't that like me saying all the anti-war liberals should vote for Palin in 2012, because Obama's kept us involved in a couple of wars?

It's like saying the people on the left fringe should have voted for Nader in 2000 and let George Bush into the White House. That would be absurd.
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

It's like saying the people on the left fringe should have voted for Nader in 2000 and let George Bush into the White House. That would be absurd.

I never said that something like that couldn't happen. I'm just saying that to expect fiscal conservatives to do something analogous to that is ridiculous. You don't think any of those Nader voters had a few regrets come 2003 or so?
 
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Even then I'd be interested in anything you can point to (like your referenced approvals) that show fiscal conservatives liked Bush on that issue. It really wouldn't make sense, as Bush had already demonstrated that fiscal conservancy wasn't very important to him.

I agree with this. I think by 2004 most people concerned about spending had given Bush the heave-ho. That he still narrowly beat Kerry is really a testament to (1) The Epic Fail That Is John Kerry, and (2) a tendency for the default fiscal conservative vote to still be Republican, despite their brutal fiscal mismanagement* whenever they've had power during the last 30 years.

The Dems had their moment to be perceived as the fiscally responsible party after the GOP meltdown, but, in part because of that meltdown (and in part because of ideologically predisposition) they blew it. They could make a beginning even now if they had the yarbles to end the trillion dollar waste of the wars. I think they might be afraid to, not just because the arms industry will pour massive money into GOP coffers, and not just because they have been shell-shocked for decades because of the 70's peace movement, but because ending a war can lead to high unemployment and a contracting economy. If nothing else, it's a good jobs program.

(* mismanagement is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. If you're middle class they sucked. If you were in the top 0.5%, they were the bee's knees.)
 
Last edited:
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Can't pull data got a plane to catch. And no I'm not confusing fiscals and socials...the numbers for Bush were high enough where it must include both. Liberals didn't support him and independents left very quickly...those numbers are available.

In the end, if you don't vote for change...you vote for the same. Period.

Kerry wasn't change in regard to fiscal conservatism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top