We have seen and heard many debates over the last couple of years here on U4prez regarding various fiscal policies. Tax and spend philosophies, government socialist philosophies and conservative philosophies. In each of these debates the term Fiscal Responsibility has been brought up on all sides as the driving force behind each individual philosophy.
2 of these philosophies are vastly different from the others and therefore easy to define and follow. Fiscal responsibility in regards to the liberal tax and spend philosophy is to tax the wealthier citizens to pay for social programs for the less fortunate. Fiscal responsibility in regards to the socialist philosophy is to distribute the wealth to ensure equality amongst all. Fiscal responsibility in regards to the conservative philosophy has basic fundamentals as well, but with different means of getting the final product.
Modern fiscal conservatives remain wary of government spending. They believe strongly in free trade and are committed to lowering the federal budget, paying off national debt, and acquiring a balanced budget. Where fiscal conservatism gets more diverse in ideals is what steps should be taken to balance the budget. Deficit hawks are more willing to increase taxes in addition to cutting spending to balance the budget than libertarians, who believe in cutting taxes for the purpose of decreasing tax revenue which they hope will cause the government to spend less, and supply-siders, who believe the best way to gain tax revenue is through deep across-the-board tax cuts that they believe will end up completely paying for themselves through the economic growth they cause.
Although fiscal conservatives of today remain pro-business, they are hesitant to increase spending as a way to spur the economy. They believe the best way to promote a healthy economy is to cut taxes, reduce government waste and curtail frivilous federal programs. They believe social services should be funded with money from philanthropists and advocate tax breaks for those who contribute to worthy charitable organizations.
Of all of the fiscal philosophies, Fiscal conservatism has the largest definition and many different views on the ways to reach the desired goal. I fall under this umbrella, or so I thought. Now that we know what fiscal conservatives believe lets see how they practice thier beliefs in real world situations.
I think most of us can agree that when a tax and spend liberal gets in office, they do just that. Tax and spend. Simple. I think we can all agree that throughout the world when socialists have gained power, they put thier philosophy into practice. But what has happened when fiscal conservatives have gotten into power? Have they truly stuck to thier fiscal and economic philosophy? A case can be made that the last 2 'conservative' administrations have not as well as the conservative members of the previous and current congress.
Here is a quote I believe in from the Republican and former Democrat mayor of NYC:
“ To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets - not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns - and by all indications, we've got one coming.
”
--Michael Bloomberg
I believe this quote not only defines what I used to believe fiscal conservatism meant but defines what it means to be fiscally responsible as well. Which brings us to the question I posed earlier in the week. What is your definition of fiscal responsibility? And when I say YOUR I mean the self prescribed fiscal conservatives. Is it the policies defined in the quote above, or is it the true track that the elected officials in the modern day GOP have taken of deficits and debt outlined in thier alternative budget plan? And if you believe as well in the above quote then please tell me what you are doing to help get the party back to that philosophy? It is the reason I left and the reason many more will follow.
The nation's economic future and fiscal responsibility are directly linked. There is a tie between budget deficits today and what society can enjoy tomorrow. Eliminating the deficit is an important first step. The larger challenge, however, is to reform our age-related entitlement programs, which are projected to grow at an unsustainable rate as the population ages. Facing up to both the short and long-term fiscal challenges will help put the nation on a path to lasting prosperity and a rising standard of living. If, on the other hand, we fail to quickly address the growing imbalance between federal commitments and available revenues, we will squander the only opportunity to get our finances in order before the aging of America makes our fiscal situation far more difficult. Doing so would be to ignore every principle of public finance, generational equity, and long-term economic stewardship.
Deficits matter.
Federal Reserve Board Governor Edward M. Gramlich explained the connection between deficits and the future economy at a Concord Coalition policy forum in June 2004:
"Fiscal policy can have important long-run effects on the health of the economy, particularly through its impact on national saving and the growth of productivity. National savings can be generated privately, by households and business, or publicly, by government. Although fiscal policy can, in theory, help boost private saving, this has proven difficult, in practice. Instead, the most important effect of fiscal policy on national saving has been through the direct government budget. When the government runs deficits, it siphons off private savings (reducing national saving), leaving less available for capital investment. With less capital investment, less new equipment is provided to workers, and, all else being equal, future productivity growth rates and levels are lower."
Massive federal budget deficits threaten our economy in other ways as well. They increase the likelihood of re-igniting inflation by putting pressure on the government simply to print more money to pay off its debt. The more dollars are printed, the less each dollar in your wallet is worth.
As foreign ownership of our resources has grown, so has our dependence on the actions of foreign investors and governments. These entities have come to own more and more of our productive capacity. In addition, foreign investors have bought up over 40 percent of our government's debt held by the public. As foreign holding of U.S. debt grows, so will U.S. interest payments to foreign nationals.
Huge, continual deficits strangle the ability of even a nation as rich as ours to respond when emergencies arise or when new opportunities or problems emerge, including recession. With our government deep in debt and continuing to run huge deficits, we may find it impossible to shoulder new responsibilities.
Ultimately, the choice rests with us. We can demand that our leaders undertake the kinds of reforms, including long-term entitlement reforms, that are needed to put the budget on a sustainable trajectory -- and face up to the required sacrifice. Or we can continue to pretend that our choices have no consequences -- and let our children pay the price in lost opportunities, lower living standards, and a less safe and secure place in the world.
Fiscal conservatives need to practice what they preach and truly see that fiscal consevatism and fiscal responsibility, today, are not the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
I hear ya Smashey, and I do not mean to connect the term fiscal conservative to any of those pseudo conservatives in the political class. I understand they have a unreal political meaning I am simply stating what I believe fiscal conservatism to truly mean, which is fiscal responsibility. But as I stated, fiscal responsibility will not be achieved by any single party. It can only be achieved by people like you, with your mentality to get the nominations of their parties and govern not to win reelection, but by saying no to people and saying no to more government and more government control and government hand-out programs. I may be a Republican but that does not mean I can take blame for the unfettered spending that many elected Republicans have allowed. The fact is that I have only served on the legislative staffs of legislators who I believe in. Legislators who did say know how to say ‘no” and who stood on their principles even though such stands eventually cost some of them their elections .
I hop they do wake up erock. My fiscal differences with the current GOp is what led me to leave. I can stay there with the social differences, but the fiscal ones are a problem. They do more damage in shorter amount of time. Hopefully they will wake up.
Well I am glad to see people starting to wake up that the GOP needs to change course. I really wonder though about the front runners in 2012.
I agree Hawk. 100%
GOP Should Run Against the Power of the Center
A Commentary By Michael Barone
Monday, June 01, 2009 Move to the center. That's the advice Republicans are getting from quarters friendly and otherwise. It seems to make a certain amount of sense. If opinion is arrayed along a single-dimension, left-to-right spectrum and clustered in the middle in a bell-curve pattern, then a party on the right needs only to move a few steps toward the center or just beyond to convert itself from minority to majority status.
But the world is a lot more complicated than that. Opinion is not arrayed on a single dimension, but flies all over the place in two or three or even four dimensions (which is to say it changes over time). New issues crop up, and old issues appear in a different light. Success in politics often comes not from readjusting one's stand to conform with current opinion, but in redefining what is at stake and reframing issues so that you have majorities on your side.
So I think Republicans today should be less interested in moving toward the center and more interested in running against the center. Here I mean a different "center" -- not a midpoint on an opinion spectrum, but rather the centralized government institutions being created and strengthened every day. This is a center that is taking over functions fulfilled in a decentralized way by private individuals, firms and markets.
This center includes the Treasury, with its $700 billion of TARP funds voted last fall to purchase toxic assets from financial institutions and used instead to quasi-nationalize banks and preserve union benefits for employees and retirees of bankrupt auto companies. It includes the Federal Reserve, which has been vastly increasing the money supply. It includes a federal government whose $787 billion economic stimulus has so far failed to lower the unemployment rate from where the government projected it would be without the stimulus package.
To govern is to choose, as John F. Kennedy said, and those in charge of these new centralized institutions are making choices that inevitably favor some and hurt others. Unsurprisingly, the politically well connected tend to get the favors. Banks forced to take government money are now blocked from paying it back and in the meantime must direct funds where the government wants them to go.
Chrysler and General Motors bondholders have their property redistributed to the United Auto Worker retiree health-care fund (how the retirees help the companies make cars profitably is left unclear). Stimulus funds go to state governments with lavish contracts with public employee unions. And out of every dollar that goes to a union, a certain number of cents make their way to the Democratic Party.
Defenders of these decisions might reply that if Republicans were running this system (as they were, at least in part, until Jan. 20) there would still be political favoritism, just with different favorites.
But that's the point. When government gets this intertwined with the private sector, when it makes decisions not based on neutral economic criteria but by what is at best guesswork about the allocation and valuation of vast amounts of capital, bailout favoritism and crony capitalism are inevitable.
Some will argue that it's irresponsible to run against this new political center. Extraordinary steps were needed, they say, to deal with an extraordinary financial crisis, and anyway they were supported by a Republican administration. But it tells us something that the original TARP package was passed largely with the votes of those in both parties with safe seats and not in political peril, and that everyone is assuming that Congress won't vote any more TARP money anytime soon. It tells us that the voting public doesn't like this stuff.
It's arguably good policy as well as good politics to run against this over-powerful center. Bailout favoritism and crony capitalism not only misallocate economic resources, they also sap faith in the fairness of our institutions. After World War II, Democrats wanted to retain wartime high taxes, pro-union labor laws, and wage and price controls -- all manipulatable for political benefit by political insiders. Republicans ran in 1946 on the theme of "Had enough?" and won big enough majorities to lower taxes, revise labor laws and abolish controls.
The 1946 Republicans didn't move to the center. They ran against the power of the center and permanently redefined where the center of the political spectrum was. That's a path today's Republicans might want to consider.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Smashey the question is though why is it taking the GOP rank and file so long to sort it out. I can even admit it that made a mistake continuing my support Bush in 04. And many GOP on u4prez supported McCain who I can say did not even come close to Kemps idea.
I agree with most of your thought here Kempite except for the statement that fiscal conservatism is simply fiscal responsibility. It used to be, but unfortunatley the fiscal conservatives no longer follow your definition. Many in Congress who label themselves as fiscal conservatives have re-defined that label through thier own actions to mean 'not as irresponsible as some others'. Hopefully they will adopt the definition you as well as I have laid out. Until then fiscal conservatism, which they define in thier actions, will continue to mean "less irresponsible" instead of just plain responsible.
Fiscal conservatism is not a policy that can be based upon anything that we have seen over the past two decades. It is also not a political ideology, nor should it be. Fiscal conservatism is simply fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, in a quest for votes and to stay in power, our nation's political leaders have failed to act fiscally responsible because they have feared that by eliminating much of the costs of government and its spending, they would also be eliminating the support they get come election time. The much touted fiscal responsibility that we seek now goes well beyond our spending budgets. For too long, too many have come to rely upon government and government programs. As such, we must go beyond the budget and start weening society off of the government paid mentality that they have. That and leaders who are not afraid to turn off a few voting blocs will help get out of the fiscal irresponsibility mindset that government lives in.
Thank you for your response RD. I am also an advocate of a flat tax above the current system. The entire point behind what I have done the last couple of weeks was to open the eyes up of the "we're not as bad as Obama" crowd that currently has a hold of the GOP. Erocks current blog does a great job of pointing out the failure to be fiscally conservative from the so-called 'fiscally conservative'. I posted a blog posing a question of what everyone thought fiscal responsibility meant. Many answered and many laid out the definition of what they thought to be fiscal conservative points. With those answers in mind I authored this blog. My point has been that if we base fiscal conservatism on what the party has done nationally the last 9 years then the definition of fiscal conservatism has changed and it is no where near being fiscally responsible. Republicans need to decide if they want to be the fiscal conservatives of the past 8 years (and currently as erock pointed out in his blog about the GOP budget) or if they want to be fiscally responsible. They keep talking as if tey are one in the same but when you look at the actions they have taken, they most certainley are not.
do you think with government funding that these services are free market? These initiatives are opening the door for governemt intrustion of religious institutions.
I'm not following your logic, RD. How are faith-based initiatives government services? Other than giveing money to such sources, the government isn't really involved. And, I also wasn't aware that taxes are laid upon them.
But now they are government services. We tax most if not all of those services. I would ease all those burdens with the Fair Tax and allow them to do what ever they wanted without today's government regulation that they are now subject to
I support federal funding of faith-based initiatives. In some cases, they're a better alternative to government services.
not federal funding- I believe the government needs to release the reins to let those initiatives to succeed without government regulation that govern them now.
do you support funding of faith based initiatives?
sorry smashey---been camping. I believe we can argue what tax policy is conservative enough. I support the Fair Tax which is about as anti government as possible. I support heavily downsizing federal spending on entitlement programs such as MCD and Food stamps for the able and I support a free market solution to both MCA and social security because the government cannot run it. I do not support federal spending on stimulus and believe the federal government should only spend 30% of the GDP and give the rest to the states. I believe in making a consumer based insurance policy than business based to save companies billions a year across the USA. I think the Fair tax is the most pro business tax policy we can have. I know this is all thrown together but it is dinner time.
It is a sad state of affairs in the GOP on u4prez when not one it's members, who tout themselves as fiscal conservatives, has the balls to make one rational post on this blog. MDuminiak was the only candidate who would consider himself a fiscal conservative that had the cajones to make a comment. Either they don't understand that the definition of fiscal conservative and what the party actually stands for do not resemble one another, or they are to big a bunch of pussies to admit it. Either way, it shows why the party is bleeding members and why it will continue to until someone stands up and says enough.
Later Smashey.
I'll probably hit the free weights and heavy bags LC. They don't have elliptical machines at the gym I go to and if they did they definetley would not play nice with the people on them. LOL. Later all.
Err BD kids are in baseball not pro baseball.
I didn't even know that was going on yet - that's how long it's been since I was in the local sports bar, ugh.
later BD and Smashey.
Toodles Smashey. Play nicey nicey with the other kids on the eliptical machines :)
time for Baseball,,,, damn make up games... what really pisses me off is the playoff positions are already set.
later all.
Hardy har har :D
Peace out my oppressed brothers and sistas. Time to go to the gym. Play nice now. lol.
BD are you fawning over Obama? lol
who, James Carvelle? lol
My fight against McCain is what this blog is about. McCain's failed policies are the same as the failed policies of Bush.
BD, that didn't even apply, but good try. I did enjoy your previous comment about Reagan starting what Bush finished though, but I mean with his advisors. What was that jackasses' name, the one who decided to turn campaigns dirty and polarizing issue related? I'd Google it but wouldn't want to inflate his ego with name hits, lol.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-27-con
tracts_N.htm Nope it is states like Michigan and Oregon who are not getting the money.
really they are the ones who are fawning over failed GOP policies. Calling it conservative does not make it so. and LC, yo don't look a gift horse in the mouth because that is how you tell the age of a horse. meaning it may not be the gift you think it is.
BD, come on, you know you don't hate everything about Obama, especially since he doesn't spell his last name M-c-C-a-i-n.
I haven't seen a "stimulus map" yet, but as history always goes, its the bitchy hard red states that get the most, and pay signifigantly least. True again this time around? I always laugh at these retards that pay the least to the feds, and take in more than they send out, while calling us idiots in the states that pay the most and get less - because we are paying for them. I suppose they never heard the old adage "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" because she has a backick like a mule, you ingrates :D
they suck, there I said it.
Yes BD I saw that MD went after me as well saying I was fawning over Obama. And yet I think I can point to about 5 or more blogs where I am critial of the growing national debt under Obama LMFAO! They just dont like faks!
Very true and to erocks point, they all say 'we are not as bad as Obama' but not as bad is still bad none the less.
Erock yo are an Obama Lover.... MM said so in that compelling post below. The evidence he presented was astounding.
I agree but to many on the GOP Side do not want to admit any of this. It is o well we are not as bad as x y z.
Sadly, I have stated this for over a year and have onl been met with the insanly stupid rhetoric that i was liberal. all the while the "conservatives" have been embracing the liberal deficet spending tactics that FDR and LBJ promoted.
I agree totally BD and that, in not so many words, was the premise behind the blog. Conservatism, especially on a fiscal level, has been re-defined.
While i didsagree with the Obamanator's tactics, the sad fact is this. Reagan started what "W" Finished. With reagans being influenced by neo-conservative numbnuts and expanding spending to "improve economic stability" he unknowingly started this country down the path of economic destruction. W destroye any of the last vestages to our conservative roots.
If you read the blog in the manner it was written you would see that I am not calling names. I am calling out my side to get off thier ass and stop calling names and do what they SAY they believe in. If you read down you will see MD was trying the same old sorry tactic, blaming Obama and I called him out for it. If you don't see the forrest for the trees here then move along to another point because you have missed mine completley.
Smashey, don't you think that the situation the nation is in right now is a bit too serious to be calling names like "liberal" and "socialist"? I mean, fuck, we are in some serious straits here. NOBODY has been responsible, and THAT is the problem - labels and division creating don't help. We are ALL Americans and stuck in the same crappy situation TOGETHER. One would think that in times like this we could unite, and quit the petty propaganda name calling tactics that the party leaders love.
Oh, and btw, NY is one of the hardest hit states, and we are totally used to giving to the feds and not getting nearly as much back. Kentucky I belive gives the least in terms of how much they get - go harass them.
Erock, to be blunt, we cannot afford NOT to. No, I don't like all of Obama's stimulus package, not whatsoever, but shit, at least someone has a plan. Do you realize how potentially seriously fucked we are going to be every which way from Tuesday if something drastic is not done? With deep financial failure at this point, we are at high risk of soverign failure. We are just a 200 year old kid in the grand sceme of things, let us not forget. I'm not too cool with the package, but I'm going to withold -overall- judgement until at least some dust has settled. The pork will always piss me off. Nothing new there all around. I just hope that this time it moves things.
If you look at Iraq you can not say that the war was run in a fiscally responsable manner at all. the Pentagon did lots of reports on the over charges by Haliburton and other companies. And then the GOP grew the Dept of Education the list sorta goes on. But I think the point is.
I don't feel any of them have been responsible but by thier own definition of what responsible is the liberals are being responsible and the socialists throughout the world are also. It is only the fiscal conservatives who have not and are not following thier definition of responsible.
And yet LC as I posted yesterday if the idea behind Obama's stimuls package was supposed to go to the people it needed to help why is so little going to the hardest hit states? But this blog as Smashey points out is that the GOP has not been fiscally responsable at all. Also LC with a national debt going up can we afford all that?
I agree LC, the path we are on leads to either total collapse or high taxes from now until eternity. No way around it. The point of the blog however is to call out the so called 'fiscal conservatives' who are still championing the spending of thier own party while screaming how the others are not 'fiscally responsible'. I just pointed out that by definition of what different parties feel is responsible the only ones not following thier definition are those that claim fiscal conservatism. The ones with the loudest dissenting voice right now.
Collapes of many major businesses > massive unemployment > massive boost in unemplyoment payouts > massive boost in medicaid, forclosures (leading to real estate, mortgage, and financial sector job loss, and all local retail)> loss of taxpayer base > loss of funding for aid for unemployed and retired... etc WE ALL PAY HEAVILY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. Choose your poison. I prefer the scenario where people eventually have a place to go back to work.
This proves my point exactly. Of all the candidates on here that put up the claim of fiscal conservatism and fiscal responsibility in the same sentence erock and fng seem to be the only ones who get it out of the ones that responded. The others either won't respond or didn't see the blog so I will continue to bump it all weekend so thier opportunity is there. MD - yes I said that liberals are tax and spend and historically they are. You are correct that so far Obama is not tax and spend but borrow and spend. However when he speaks of 'fiscal responsibility' the liberal definition is what he is following. He believes the responsible thing is to let the wealthy pay for the programs for the less fortunate which is what I posted above. In trying to point out a non-existant fallacy in the blog you made my point in that instead of realizing that they are not practicing what they preach when those who claim fiscal conservatism also advocate fiscal responsibility, they merely attack the plans of the other side for political gain instead of actually leting thier policy be the polittical gain. I mean that in the aspect of the GOP alternative budget. An opportunity was there to lay forth a budget that cut spending and was deficit free. Instead, the party who says they stand for fiscal conservatism marched lock step with the previous administration and instead put forth a budget whose deficit was merely "not as bad". Much like MD's "we are not as bad as Obama" argument he made below.
Fact. Personally, as I don't belive in crying over spilled milk, am waiting to see how it turns our. The FACTS are that the US economy overall, and over time, was looking at a depression unbeknown, even beyond the "Great Depression", if drastic actions were not taken. Why is blame not being passed at well overpaid unions and corporations? The problem is simple - the cat got too fat. It was destined to die of diabetes, heart failure, etc. One way or another, we were all going to pay the heavy price for this bloat, and only time will tell which would have been the cheaper way - a bullet or first aid.
MM LMFAO! You are a joke. This blog is about the lack of responsablity on the part of the GOP and yet you need to attack Obama. The fact is Bush did the first bailout and under 8 years of his Presidency he and the GOP Congress increased the national debt and Congress did very little oversight while the GOP had control.
MM, the joke. Remember this is economics, something you know nothing about. I would sugget that you just sit there and try not to make a complete fool of yourself. This is adult speak now, leave the childish banter for your excessivly wordy blogs.
youve been on u4prez for how long and you still say BS like that your a joke
Erock.............. the obama fan
Great blog, Smashey! I am the type of fiscal conservative that would cut uneccessary spending, but would NOT cut taxes until the budget is balanced. Here are a few ways to cut spending:
1) Freeze federal employee wages for two years and eliminate "locality pay."......
2) Close at least half of the US military bases in Europe and Japan....
3) Restructure government - eliminate mid-level bureacracy (I have a simple, simple plan).....
4) Scrap Medicare, medicaid, the VA Health system and institute a National Health Insurance that would cover every inhabitant of our country for basic and catastrophic health care, and pay for it fully through a 4% National Sales Tax, a 3% payroll tax, and a 4% corporate and business EBIDTA tax.....
5) Fix Social Security (simple, but politicians are tool scared for some reason to do it, fuck that, I'd do it)....
6) Establish two simple rules regarding public assistance - If you must go on public assistance, you must name the father(s) of your children, and you will NOT receive any additional assistance for any additional children you have while on assistance. Tough shit for you, just like regular people who have to make ends meet when they have more children...
.. I'm sure there are many other ways to reduce spending. But let's get serious about reducing spending BEFORE we start talking about tax cuts. Let's EARN our tax cuts by making the tough decisions as a nation, and setting a few priorities.
This "fiscal responsibility" nonsense just means to cut social programs,bleed everybody at the bottom dry,while at the same time helping billionaire corporate crooks consolidate their dictatorial control over this country and raising the pentagon budget through the roof. Bush has done it Obama is doing it and so are all other corporatists.
I just love how conservatives today blabber about fiscal conservatism but when you ask them about the Iraq war, the biggest budget item of the Bush admin, they sputter and spit their way through a weak defense.
Yes but they still want to raise taxes they talk about it all the time. And yes they are a problem as well but this blog talks directly about the GOP and what it has done vs what it should be doing. That is that is the topic.
They couldn't raise taxes to the level needed to pay for this deficit spending. The money just isn't there. The dems are now borrow and spenders too.
I do not fawn over Obama LMFAO! Dems are tax and spenders. Smashey is on point they will raise taxes. And yes the mistakes now are a problem. But this blog is also about what the GOP claims to be and what is currently doing.
This isn't about the past, but about what to do now. Smashey made the statement that the Democrats believe in tax and spend rather than racking up deficits, but that is not true in this case. The democrats are racking up deficits of historic and almost unimaginable proportions. You can fawn over Obama all you want and blame Bush all you want, but if we want to really determine what to do next and where we should go - we need to face the fact that for all the fiscal mistakes made in the history of our country, the fiscal mistakes being made right now are the worst ever and it will take something drastically different to get us even back to the old bad path let alone onto the right path.
Yes but this is not about Obama! So BS yourself. It is about the GOP and what it claims to be doing and what it did do. Bush went from about 4 trillion to about 10 trillion in 8 years. After saying he was a fiscal conservative it is clear he was not and current GOP when they offered their altnernative Budget to Obama's it was not much smaller for the next fiscal year! Geezes you bitch about Obama but then you do not realize this blog is about the GOP and what it claims to be and what it is.
Oh bullshit erock. You can take all eight years of Bush and the Presidents before him together and not match the growth in deficit spending of not even the first half-year of Obama. They do pale in comparison. I said Bush was wrong, but crying "Bush was wrong! Bush was wrong!" doesn't negate the fact that Obama is doing far worse and THAT is what we should be focused on as THAT is what we can change.
They do not pale they where just as bad but spread out over a long period of time. And Bush started the whole bailout gig anyways!
I agree that Bush was no fiscal conservative and had bad fiscal policy, but his mistakes and deficit spending pale in comparison to the run-away spending and deficits run up by the current administration. Obama is not being a tax and spend democrat - he is being a borrow and spend democrat at a record pace. A drunken sailor has a more fiscally responsible spending plan than this administration.
The GOP though promised to be fiscally conservative. But under Bush actually 98 onwards the budgets grew, oversight was lacking both on projects here at home and for money being spent in oversea's operations.
The liberals are not delivering on their definition. Their deficit spending is many times worse than under Bush and no more likely to be covered by potential economic expansion than his was.
Later everyone. Time to go to work. Have a great weekend.
That is the point behind the blog. The liberals deliver on thier definition of responsibility and so do the socialists. It is the fiscal conservatives that do not. Yet they still claim to champion fiscal responsibility. Advocation and action are not adding up.
the GOP talked a good game and in fact from about 94-98 they did a good job of lowering pork spending, balancing the budget, but then things changed after 98 and the GOP passed the largest increase in not just defense spending, but education, medicare, the list goes on and on. And then cut taxes but did not decrease spending.
The so-called fiscal conservatives of the last administration tried to play a shell game whereby projected economic expansion would cover generated debt. This administration is continuing that failed policy at an accelerated rate - betting that deficit spending will be offset by economic growth.
Let me start off by saying in no way is this an attack on fical conservatism. I consider myself to be in this group. I have however, seen the party which prides itself on being 'fiscally conservative' be anything but recently. I posed a question as a blog earlier in the week and got a few responses from those that consider themselves fiscal conservatives. They answered in step to the definition, but continue to support a party which is not following that definition. That is why the party is losing members in droves and I believe that is what will help bring it back. Responsibility economically, not fiscal conservatism is the answer. Fiscal conservatism has lost it's definition.
|
<< Home