What's new
By:
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.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

5mn_Major said:
If Bush was absolutely a social conservative and a foriegn policy conservative...then you pretty much have a conservative.
Click to expand...
Reagan's foreign policy was vastly different. If you're going to call Bush's foreign policy "conservative", then you have to say Reagan's wasn't. I don't agree with that.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

blockski said:
You didn't compare Bush to Reagan, I did. Because I think your definition of 'conservative' has no meaning in our political system.
Click to expand...

How sad it must be to assume that a government that spends within it's means and doesn't add unnecessary bureaucracy has no meaning.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScoobyDoo said:
Reagan grew the debt too.
Click to expand...

But how did he grow the debt? By cutting taxes. This spurred economic growth allowing it to be paid off down the road. To be fiscally conservative doesn't mean that you have to be a complete deficit hawk.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

5mn_Major said:
Think what you may of a shift away from social and foriegn policy by the right...but you couldn't be more wrong about Bush being a liberal. Record breaking level of history revision there.

This is as much about who 'conservatives' are as it is about who Bush was in office.
Click to expand...
Well then it's just semantics, and mostly irrelevant. If social progress (more abortion, etc) is most important to you, Bush was indeed conservative (except for education, etc). If you care more about fiscal policy, he was a liberal.
What we need is someone who spends less money and creates less laws attempting to control our behavior than either Bush or Obama. No one will argue they are both anti-libertarian.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

When I want "conservative" defined, I turn to a mouth-breathing liberal.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bush II was a conservative in every practical sense of the word over the last 30 years with the exception of the bank bailout which occured in the last few months of his term.

Its hilarious to see so-called conservatives out here claim Bush wasn't one of them, and that Reagan is the gold standard. Both of them were big spenders, with a focus on military spending, who financed that expansion with borrowed money. Neither launched any attempt to balance the budget. Both would also prefer to borrow money for upper income tax cuts. Both also moved left occasionally (Reagan shoring up Social Security, Bush with NCLB).

As has been stated, "fiscal conservatives" on the national level don't exist. That's why when asked both The Boner and McConnell would not commit to paying for extending Bush tax cuts set to expire for the top bracket. Nor would they say, one way or the other, if they thought said tax breaks paid for themselves. These are the people you're counting on to balance the budget? Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

MinnFan said:
But how did he grow the debt? By cutting taxes. This spurred economic growth allowing it to be paid off down the road. To be fiscally conservative doesn't mean that you have to be a complete deficit hawk.
Click to expand...

{sigh}

Paid off down the road when? It didn't even come close to being paid off until Clinton's second term and that was because of a completely unique technological bubble that likely will never occur again.

Yes, tax cuts on paper spur economic growth but there is NO EVIDENCE that exists today that says it will pay down the debt.

To me fiscal conservative means you don't spend more than you take in. Tax cuts immediately create a larger deficit situation and it takes longer than a President's term to pay it back. Thus, until someone comes in and starts actually eliminating (and I do mean eliminate) programs I'm not buying that they're a fiscal conservative. Tim Pawlenty is trying to run under that mantle for 2012. Do not be fooled. He didn't cut a single program. He cut the growth of existing programs. Think about that for a minute. He cut the growth. What does that mean? That means that everything grew under his watch, just not as much. Does that sound conservative to you?

But, I'm a flaming liberal so what do I know?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The false dichotomies here are breathtaking. The line of argument being offered by the conservatives posits that a "conservative" is an across-the-board fiscal conservative, and everybody else is a "liberal." Not only is that bad logic, but it also means we haven't had a "conservative" president, or indeed, significant politician of any type, since about 1890.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rover said:
Bush II was a conservative in every practical sense of the word over the last 30 years .... Both of them were big spenders
Click to expand...
do you see the contradiction? They were both fiscally liberal.
Rover said:
"fiscal conservatives" on the national level don't exist.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the point. They just don't exist. Throw the bums out and hire some conservatives.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Kepler said:
The false dichotomies here are breathtaking. The line of argument being offered by the conservatives posits that a "conservative" is an across-the-board fiscal conservative, and everybody else is a "liberal." Not only is that bad logic, but it also means we haven't had a "conservative" president, or indeed, significant politician of any type, since about 1890.
Click to expand...

There probably hasn't been a fiscal conservative since then. Conservatives decided a long time ago that issues like abortion, the Supreme Court, gays, guns, etc. were more important issues than fiscal sanity.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScoobyDoo said:
There probably hasn't been a fiscal conservative since then. Conservatives decided a long time ago that issues like abortion, the Supreme Court, gays, guns, etc. were more important issues than fiscal sanity.
Click to expand...

According to the GOP "deficit hawks" (DOB: 2008) that's not going to be the case this election cycle. I'll believe it when I see it -- the GOP has invested 30 years of hardcore rhetoric in those wedge issues. You may not see them in the civilized states, but in Dixie they're going to be as venomous as ever.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
Reagan's foreign policy was vastly different. If you're going to call Bush's foreign policy "conservative", then you have to say Reagan's wasn't. I don't agree with that.
Click to expand...

A couple replied on this. Both Reagan and Bush were both aggressively interventionist in their policies. Sometimes they needed to use troops...Grenada, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan...sometimes not...Iran-Iraq war, Nicaragua. They also aggressively increased spending on the military, a primary foriegn policy tool.

Non-interventionist policies haven't been a conservative plank in our lifetimes.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

this is just wonderful..the hits keep comin.

nothing new for the O justice department to want to confer our rights to terrorists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2010082700364


and to the points about one side vs. another. I think it's completely spineless to want to compromise your ideals. Right now, and for reasons I've made clear in debates with handyman (re: my heritage and how it relates to the socialism argument with obama), I have 0 in common with the ideas of president obama.

in fact he's got the needle buried in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. I'm not for government run health care, not for government run car companies or banks, why would I want to compromise with someone who feels the opposite way?

those issues are too vital for that.

So I do very much feel that partisanship can be a good thing (I mean when you vote for or against an issue you feel passionately about, and not for or against a letter R or D). otherwise you've got McCain and Bush I - the biggest waffles this side of wafflehouse;)
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScoobyDoo said:
{sigh}

Paid off down the road when? It didn't even come close to being paid off until Clinton's second term and that was because of a completely unique technological bubble that likely will never occur again.

Yes, tax cuts on paper spur economic growth but there is NO EVIDENCE that exists today that says it will pay down the debt.
Click to expand...

You have to keep spending from increasing at a greater rate then GDP growth. This was happening at the end of Reagan's term. It would have been great if Reagan could have cut spending more, but with a Dem congress it had to be tough to do.

I'm sure we all have our own definitions of fiscal conservatism so we are unlikely to completely agree. To me it boils down to putting forth policies that create the most freedom for individuals.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

MinnFan said:
But how did he grow the debt? By cutting taxes. This spurred economic growth allowing it to be paid off down the road. To be fiscally conservative doesn't mean that you have to be a complete deficit hawk.
Click to expand...

He grew the debt by ending the Cold War.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top